HomeMy WebLinkAboutBiological Resources ReportBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT
for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
City of Chula Vista, California
Prepared for:
Silvergate Development
4980 North Harbor Drive Suite 203
San Diego, California 92106
Contact: Thomas L.. Edmunds Jr.
619.625.1260
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Callie Amoaku
760.420.3336
JULY 2018
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
i May 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... V
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description and Location ............................................................................ 1
1.2 Site Description ....................................................................................................... 1
2 METHODS .........................................................................................................................5
2.1 Literature Review.................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Field Reconnaissance .............................................................................................. 5
2.2.1 Plants ........................................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 6
2.2.3 Special-Status Biological Resources........................................................... 6
2.2.4 Jurisdictional Delineation ........................................................................... 7
3 RESULTS OF SURVEY ...................................................................................................9
3.1 Botany – Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ................................... 9
3.1.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types on the
Project Site .................................................................................................. 9
3.1.2 Floral Diversity ........................................................................................... 9
3.2 Zoology – Wildlife Diversity ................................................................................ 10
3.3 Special-Status Biological Resources..................................................................... 10
3.3.1 Special-Status Plant Species ..................................................................... 10
3.3.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species ................................................................ 13
3.3.3 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages .................................................. 14
3.3.4 Jurisdictional Resources............................................................................ 14
3.4 Regional Resource Planning Context ................................................................... 17
3.4.1 Habitat Loss Incidental Take Ordinance ................................................... 18
3.4.2 Wetlands Protection .................................................................................. 18
4 ANTICIPATED PROJECT IMPACTS ........................................................................19
4.1 Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................... 19
4.1.1 Vegetation Communities .......................................................................... 19
4.1.2 Special-Status Plants ................................................................................. 19
4.1.3 Special-Status Wildlife ............................................................................. 20
4.1.4 Jurisdictional Resources............................................................................ 20
4.2 Indirect Impacts .................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1 Vegetation Communities .......................................................................... 20
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page No.
10271
ii May 2018
4.2.2 Special-Status Plant Species ..................................................................... 21
4.2.3 Special-Status Wildlife ............................................................................. 21
4.2.4 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States/State ....................................... 21
4.3 Consistency with Regional Resource Planning .................................................... 22
4.3.1 Habitat Loss Incidental Take Ordinance ................................................... 22
4.3.2 Wetlands Protection .................................................................................. 22
5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................................................23
5.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance............................................................... 23
5.2 Vegetation Communities ...................................................................................... 23
5.3 Special-Status Plants ............................................................................................. 24
5.4 Special-Status Wildlife ......................................................................................... 24
5.5 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States/State ................................................... 24
6 MITIGATION ..................................................................................................................25
7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................29
8 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................31
APPENDICES
A Plant Compendium
B Wildlife Compendium
C Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur on the Project Site
D Special-Status Wildlife Detected or Potentially Occurring on the Project Site
E Wetlands Delineation Reports
F Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance Findings
FIGURES
1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................3
2 Biological Resources and Impacts .....................................................................................11
TABLES
1 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers .........................................................................9
2 Special-Status Wildlife Potentially Occurring On Site ......................................................13
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page No.
10271
iii May 2018
3 Jurisdictional Areas ............................................................................................................16
4 Data Station Summary .......................................................................................................17
5 Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Vegetation Communities........................................25
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
iv May 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
v May 2018
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BMP best management practice
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
HLIT Habitat Loss and Incidental Take
MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program
OHWM ordinary high water mark
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
vi May 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
1 May 2018
1 INTRODUCTION
This report provides an analysis of the existing site conditions, on -site biological resources,
and potential project impacts associated with development on the subject property
(Assessor’s Parcel Number s 570-131-1100, 570-140-4000, 570-140-4800, 570-140-5100,
and 570 -140 -5400 ) located in the City of Chula Vista (City), California. Dudek conducted
biological surveys of the property on April 22, 2016 , and April 21, 2017 ; the methods,
details, and results of the surveys are provided herein.
1.1 Project Description and Location
The proposed project consists of construction of a 170-unit residential complex on the
approximately 5-acre site. The project site is located approximately 300 feet west of California
Interstate 805 and 160 feet south of E Street/Bonita Road. The site is bounded by Bonita Glen
Drive to the south and west and Vista Drive to the east (Figure 1). The site is on the U.S.
Geological Survey 7.5-minute National City quadrangle in Section 35 in Township 17 South,
Range 2 West; 32°38ʹ48.04ʺ north latitude and 117°03ʹ45.37ʺ west longitude.
The site is within an urban portion of the City and is mostly surrounded by existing
development and paved City street s.
1.2 Site Description
Existing conditions observed on site suggest that the property has been previously graded and is
substantially disturbed. There is a concrete brow ditch in the northern portion of the property that
appears to be associated with the parking lot of the La Quinta Inn located immediately north of the site.
Trash and litter was observed throughout the site, along with several large pieces/piles of broken
concrete debris in the western portion of the site. No structures exist on the property other than
two corrugated-steel-pipe culverts associated with an ephemeral drainage.
Topography
The site is relatively flat, but topography across the site slopes gently to the north -northwest.
Elevations range from approximately 40 feet above mean sea level in the northern portion up to
approximately 80 feet above mean sea level along the eastern boundary of the site.
Soils
According to Bowman (1973), the project site supports three soil types: Huerhuero–Urban land
complex, 2%–9% slopes, Huerhuero–Urban land complex, 9%–30% slopes, and Olivenhain–
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
2 May 2018
Urban land complex, 9%–30% slopes. The Huerhuero series consists of moderately well-drained
soils. Olivenhain soils are well drained with very slow permeability. They are generally found on
dissected marine terraces (USDA 2017). The substrate on site seems to be a composite of natural
native soil and infill of non-native soil.
Hydrology
The project site is located in the Sweetwater watershed within the Sweetwater Hydrologic Unit
(HU 9.0). More specifically, it is located within the Lower Sweetwater–La Nacion Subarea
(HSA 9.12) of the watershed. The project site is approximately 0.2 miles south of the Sweetwater
River, which eventually flows into the San Diego Bay.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
3 May 2018
Figure 1 Project Location
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
4 May 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
5 May 2018
2 METHODS
Data regarding biological resources present on the project site were obtained through a review of
pertinent literature and through field reconnaissance; both are described in detail in this chapter.
2.1 Literature Review
Sensitive biological resources present or potentially present on the project site were identified
through a literature search using the following sources: the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2017a), the California Native
Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2017), and the City of Chula
Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) (2003).
2.2 Field Reconnaissance
On April 22, 2016, the biological reconnaissance survey was conducted by former Dudek biologist
Thomas Liddicoat. The entire site was traversed on foot by walking meandering transects to provide
100% visual coverage of the site. An aerial digital orthographic map (Google Earth 2016) with an
overlay of the property boundary was used to record the existing vegetation and land covers present
on site. Additionally, any potentially sensitive biological resources were also identified and mapped
directly in the field. Please note that the survey area discussed herein incorporates the approximately
5.3-acre subject property only; no off-site areas adjacent to the property were surveyed. All plant and
animal species encountered during the survey were identified and recorded directly into a field
notebook. The vegetation mapping classifications identified on site follow Holland (1986) and
Oberbauer et al. (2008). In addition to species actually detected during the surveys, expected wildlife
use of the site was evaluated based on known habitat preferences of local species and knowledge of
their relative distributions in the area.
Thomas Liddicoat visited the project site a second time on April 21, 2017, to perform a formal
delineation of jurisdictional wetlands or waters of the United States. The jurisdictional
delineation was performed to identify potential biological resources that may be subject to
regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE); Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) as administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB); and Sections 1600–1603 of the California Fish and Game Code as administered by
the CDFW, as well as to identify biological resources described under the Subarea Plan (City of
Chula Vista 2003) and other potential special-status biological resources.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
6 May 2018
2.2.1 Plants
All plant species encountered during the field survey were identified and recorded and are
included in Appendix A.
Latin and common names for plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (formerly CNPS
List) follow the CNPS On-Line Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of
California (CNPS 2017). For plant species without a California Rare Plant Rank, Latin names
follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized
Plants of California (Jepson Flora Project 2016) and common names follow the List of
Vegetation Alliances and Associations (CDFG 2010) or the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database (USDA 2016).
2.2.2 Wildlife
Wildlife species detected during the field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs were
recorded and are included in Appendix B. Binoculars (10 × 50 magnification) were used to aid in
the identification of wildlife. In addition to species actually detected during the surveys, expected
wildlife use of the site was determined based on known habitat preferences of local species and
knowledge of their relative distributions in the area.
Latin and common names of animals follow Crother (2012) for reptiles and amphibians, American
Ornithologists’ Union (2016) for birds, Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals, and North
American Butterfly Association (2016) or San Diego Natural History Museum (2002) for butterflies.
2.2.3 Special-Status Biological Resources
Special-status biological resources are those defined as follows: (1) species that have been given
special recognition by federal, state, or local conservation agencies and organizations due to
limited, declining, or threatened population sizes; (2) species and habitat types recognized by
local and regional resource agencies as sensitive; (3) habitat areas or vegetation communities that
are unique, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife; (4) wildlife
corridors and habitat linkages; and (5) biological resources which may or may not be considered
sensitive, but are regulated under local, state, and/or federal laws.
Searches through the CNPS 2017 online inventory database and CNDDB online inventory were
conducted to assist in the determination of special-status species potentially present on site
(CDFW 2017a). Specifically, a “nine-quad” search was conducted, in which records from the
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
7 May 2018
National City quadrangle (quad) and the surrounding seven quads were evaluated.1 In addition to
these state database searches, each of the 86 species covered under the City’s Subarea Plan,
including Narrow Endemic Species, were individually evaluated in relation to the project site to
assist in determining the level of potential for these species to occur on site.
No focused surveys for special-status plants or special-status animals were conducted, nor are
they included in this report.
2.2.4 Jurisdictional Delineation
A formal delineation of jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, under the
regulation of the ACOE, CDFW, and RWQCB was conducted for the project site. The
delineation was performed in accordance with the methods prescribed in the 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual, Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (ACOE 1987), the 2008 Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (ACOE
2008a), the July 2011 Ordinary High Flows and the Stage-Discharge Relationship in the Arid
West Region (ACOE 2011), the Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (ACOE 2008b), and the
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA 2010).
Pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, ACOE- and RWQCB-non-wetland waters jurisdictional
areas, include those with an ordinary high water mark (OHWM), are defined in federal regulations at as
“the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such
as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction
of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris” (33 CFR, Part 328.3). The CDFW
recognizes OHWM, defined bed and bank, and associated riparian corridor in identifying the lateral
limits of non-wetland waters subject to their jurisdiction. Wetland areas (a subset of waters) subject to
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act are identified by ACOE as areas supporting all three wetlands
criteria described in the ACOE manual: hydric soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland
areas regulated by the RWQCB are generally coincident with the ACOE-jurisdictional wetlands, but
can also include isolated features that have evidence of surface water inundation pursuant to the state
Porter-Cologne Act. These areas generally support at least one of the three ACOE wetlands indicators
but are considered isolated through the lack of surface water hydrology/connectivity downstream. The
extent of CDFW-regulated areas typically include areas supporting a predominance of hydrophytic
vegetation (i.e., 50% cover or greater) where associated with a stream channel.
1 Due to the project site’s proximity to the ocean, only 8 quadrangles were available for the literature revi ew.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
8 May 2018
To assist in the determination of jurisdictional areas on site, there was careful observation across
the entire property and data collection at seven sampling points in accordance with federal and
state regulations, case law, and clarifying guidance. The sampling data was collected on
approved ACOE forms and representative photographs were captured during the field
investigation. The project study area was evaluated for indicators of non-wetland waters, such as
OHWM, bed and banks, and associated riparian areas, and for positive indicators of wetlands,
such as hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The extent of any identified
jurisdictional areas was determined by mapping the areas with similar aquatic resource indicators
to the sampled locations. Potential jurisdictional features were determined and recorded directly
in the field using a GPS unit. Subsequent to the field work, this GPS data was transferred to
topographic base, and a GIS coverage was created.
Due to the difficulty in demarcating the extent of the waters of the state feature on site, an
on-site meeting with RWQCB took place to confirm the jurisdictional limits (i.e., feature
centerline and width) (Dudek 2017).
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
9 May 2018
3 RESULTS OF SURVEY
The documentation of biological resources described herein pertains to the project site only. No
off-site areas are anticipated or included in the proposed project.
3.1 Botany – Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
3.1.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types on the Project Site
Based on species composition and general physiognomy, only one vegetation community was
identified within the project site: non-native grassland. According to Oberbauer et al. (2008),
non-native grassland is a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses with flowering culms up to 1.0
meters (3 feet) high. In San Diego County, oats (Avena sp.), brome grasses (Bromus spp.), filaree
(Erodium spp.), and mustards (Brassica spp.) are common indicator species. 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. The City’s Subarea Plan identifies non -
native grassland as Tier III “common uplands” (City of Chula Vista 2003). As such, non-native
grassland is considered a sensitive vegetation community and impacts to this community require
mitigation. Additionally, two land covers were identified on site: ornamental and developed.
These land covers are not included in Table 5-3 of the Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003),
and impacts to these land covers do not require mitigation.
Non-native grassland covers nearly the entire project site (Table 1) and is dominated by wild oat
(Avena fatua), slender oat (Avena barbata), cheeseweed mallow (Malva parviflora), and ripgut
brome (Bromus diandrus). There is a small strip of ornamental plantings consisting mostly of
eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.). The developed area is a paved road along the north side of the
project site. Figure 2 shows these features.
Table 1
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Vegetation Community or Land Cover Type Existing Acreage
Non-native grassland 4.9
Ornamental 0.1
Developed 0.3
Total 5.3
3.1.2 Floral Diversity
A total of 23 species of vascular plants, 21 of which are non-native (91%) and only 2 of which are
native (9%), were recorded during the surveys. Although the plant species list may not be complete
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
10 May 2018
given the lack of spring surveys and focused surveys, the diversity of plant species on site appears
to be relatively low due to the existing disturbance and the urban setting of the site. The complete
list of plant species identified on site during the surveys is provided as Appendix A.
3.2 Zoology – Wildlife Diversity
A total of six wildlife species were detected during the surveys, including five bird species and
one butterfly species. The majority of animal species observed are common disturbance -
adapted species typically found in urban and suburban settings , such as mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura ) and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos).
Overall, the site p rovides limited habitat value to wildlife and supports low wildlife diversity
due to the lack of plant species and structural diversity, the small site size, the surrounding
development and urban setting, the previously disturbed terrain, and the isolation of the project
site from any open space habitat areas. A cumulative list of all wildlife species observed or
detected within the project site during the survey is presented in Appendix B.
3.3 Special-Status Biological Resources
The following resources are discussed in this section: (1) plant and animal species present in the
project vicinity that are given special recognition by federal or state conservation agencies and
organizations owing to declining, limited, or threatened populations, which are the result, in most
cases, of habitat reduction, and (2) species adopted by the City Council as Narrow Endemic
Species that are listed in the City’s Subarea Plan. Sources used for determination of special-status
biological resources are as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017; CDFW 2017b,
2017c, 2017d, and 2017e; and the City’s Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003).
3.3.1 Special-Status Plant Species
No special-status plant species were observed on site during the 2016 reconnaissance survey. A
records search of CNPS (2017) and the CNDDB (CDFW 2017a) was used to develop a list of
special-status plant species that may have potential to occur on site due to the presence of
suitable habitat (taking into consideration vegetation communities, soils, elevation, and
geographic range). These special-status species (i.e., federally, state, or locally listed species),
their favorable habitat conditions (life form/blooming period/etc.), and their potential to occur on
site based on the findings of the field investigations are compiled into a “potential to occur”
matrix for individual analysis. Species considered special status under the Subarea Plan,
including Narrow Endemic Species, are also included in this analysis.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
11 May 2018
Figure 2 Biological Resources and Impacts
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
12 May 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
13 July 2018
There are no special-status plant species that have a moderate to high potential to occur on site
given the disturbance observed, surrounding development, and lack of suitable vegetation and
soils. Therefore, all special-status plant species analyzed were determined to have low potential
for occurrence or are not expected on site. The full matrix showing the potential for special-
status plant species to occur on site is provided in Appendix C.
3.3.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species
No special-status wildlife species were detected during the reconnaissance survey in 2016. A
CNDDB records search was performed to develop a list of special-status wildlife species that
may have potential to occur on site based on the presence of suitable habitat, elevation, and
geographic range. A list of special-status species (i.e., federally, state, or locally listed species),
their favorable habitat conditions, and their potential to occur on site based on the findings of the
field investigations were compiled into a “potential to occur” matrix for individual analysis.
Species considered special status under the City’s Subarea Plan, including Narrow Endemic
Species, are also included in this analysis.
Due to the predominance of non-native vegetation and site disturbance characteristics, the site
has limited potential to provide habitat to support special-status wildlife species. As presented in
Table 2, one special-status wildlife species is determined to have a moderate potential to occur
on site: California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia).
Table 2
Special-Status Wildlife Potentially Occurring On Site
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status:
Federal/State/
Subarea Plan Primary Habitat Associations
Status on Site or Potential
to Occur
Birds
Eremophila
alpestris actia
California
horned lark
None/WL/None Nests and forages in grasslands,
disturbed lands, agriculture, and
beaches; nests in alpine fell
fields of the Sierra Nevada
Moderate potential to occur.
Suitable non-native
grassland present and
species is tolerant of
disturbed conditions.
However, the project site is
surrounded by urban
development.
Source: CDFW 2017a; City of Chula Vista 2003.
Status
Federal:
BCC: USFWS bird of conservation concern
State:
SSC: California species of special concern
WL: CDFW watch list
Subarea Plan:
Subarea Plan: City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan covered species (City of Chula Vista 2003, Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3)
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
14 July 2018
All other special-status wildlife species analyzed were determined to have low potential for
occurrence or are not expected on site. The full matrix showing the potential for special-status
wildlife species to occur on site is provided in Appendix D.
3.3.3 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide
avenues for the immigration and emigration of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute to
population viability in several ways: (1) they allow the continual exchange of genes between
populations, which helps maintain genetic diversity; (2) they provide access to adjacent habitat
areas, representing additional territory for foraging and mating; (3) they allow for a greater
carrying capacity of wildlife populations by including “live-in” habitat; and (4) they provide
routes for recolonization of habitat lands following local population extinctions or habitat
recovery from ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires).
Habitat linkages are patches of native habitat that function to join two substantially larger
patches of habitat. They serve as connections between distinct habitat patches and help reduce
the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation. Although individual animals may not move through
a habitat linkage, the linkage does represent a potential route for gene flow and long-term
dispersal. Habitat linkages may serve both as habitat and as avenues of gene flow for small
animals, such as reptiles and amphibians. Habitat linkages may be represented by continuous
patches of habitat or by nearby habitat “islands” that function as “steppingstones” for dispersal.
The project site is disturbed, lacks connectivity to any natural undeveloped areas, and is isolated by
the surrounding existing development. There are no native habitats on site and the non-native
grassland is heavily disturbed in character. The entire site is non-native grassland, which can
provide suitable habitat for some reptile and small mammal species; however, given the spatial
context of the site and the characteristics mentioned previously, the project site does not serve as a
wildlife corridor or habitat linkage.
3.3.4 Jurisdictional Resources
During the site investigation, seven test pits were dug at different locations across the property to
evaluate potential jurisdictional resources. Wetland indictors across the site were evaluated and
are discussed below by indicator. Data station forms are included in Appendix E.
Vegetation
One vegetation community was identified within the project study area: non-native grassland
vegetation, which is considered “common uplands.” Dominant vegetation observed on site has a
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
15 July 2018
67% to >99% probability of occurring in uplands (depending on the specific species). The
vegetation on site is not considered hydrophytic.
Soils
Soils observed at all seven test pits closely resemble Huerhuero–Urban land complex soil. No
indicators of hydric soils were observed on the property.
Hydrology
The property displays evidence of mass grading and appears to have been designed to drain
toward a storm sewer drop inlet structure located at the northwest corner of the property. The
review of historical aerial imagery indicated that the property was used for agriculture row-crop
purposes until approximately 1970. Around 1980, Bonita Glen Drive was constructed, along
with the grading of surrounding properties; as such, a broad swale was likely created to
efficiently enable drainage from a storm sewer outfall (culvert) located at Bonita Glen Drive,
near the southwest portion of the property, to the drop inlet located at the northwest corner of the
property. Imagery captured in 1994 shows a channel-like feature in the northwest portion of the
property (HistoricAerials.com 2017).
During the field investigation in 2017, no indicators of wetlands or non-wetland waters
hydrology were observed in the topographical swale feature that extends north across the
property until it passes a brow ditch located in the northern portion of the property. The
V-shaped concrete brow ditch, constructed in uplands and draining uplands, discharges water
originating off site from the La Quinta Inn ornamental landscape irrigation and the paved cul-de-
sac on Vista Drive located north and east of the project site. Water discharged from the brow
ditch into a drainage continuing northwest through the site forms a narrow (approximately 1 foot
wide), channelized flow pattern with evidence of bed and banks (Figure 2). Also in this segment
of swale, physical markings of a natural flow line impressed on the banks was observed. This
line indicates an OHWM, the lateral extent of non-wetland waters (“stream”) jurisdiction for the
ACOE and RWQCB. This line was consistent with the bank width and was used to delineate the
CDFW jurisdiction as well. This narrow stream feature flows northwest off the site into the
storm sewer drop inlet structure located at the northwest corner of the property.
Additionally, no vernal pools or vernal pool indicators, such as plant species, ponded water, or
topography indicative of vernal pools, were observed on site during the 2016 and 2017 surveys.
Due to the previously disturbed nature of the site, its agricultural use, and the lack of observations
of ponds, pools, or ruts during site visits, vernal pools are not expected to occur on site.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
16 July 2018
Jurisdiction
Results of the delineation conducted in April 2017 and conclusions based on the site meeting
conducted with RWQCB in June 2017 (Dudek 2017) indicate that there is a jurisdictional feature
on site where a portion is considered a water of the United States, state, and City under joint
regulation by ACOE, RWQCB, CDFW, and the City. Additionally, a portion is considered a
water of the state regulated by RWQCB only, under the Porter-Cologne Act (Figure 2). The
waters of the state portion is an ephemeral swale that is not clearly defined and lacks OHWM
indicators or streambed. The culvert located along Bonita Glen Drive in the southern portion of
the site indicates that water is directed into the swale. The site topography map depicts a low
point consistent with the presumed location of the waters of the state feature. Although the
waters of the state feature is nearly entirely dominated by hairy crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis)
and no hydrophytic plant species are present, there is evidence of water flow along the swale
feature due to the strip of green vegetation (i.e., hairy crabgrass). Therefore, this portion of the
feature, located south of the V-ditch on site and north of the culvert beneath Bonita Glen Drive,
is considered a water of the state. The feature is mapped as 1.5 feet wide throughout its length,
based on guidance from RWQCB during the site visit.
No areas within the property were found to support all three parameters that would define wetland
features (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology).
Jurisdictional boundaries are spatially presented on Figure 2 and the corresponding acreages are
provided in Table 3. The results from the seven data stations are presented in Table 4.
Table 3
Jurisdictional Areas
Jurisdictional
Resource
Potential Resource
Agency Jurisdiction
Vegetation Community/
Land Cover Type Length/Width Area (Acres)
Waters of the
United States
ACOE/RWQCB/CDFW/
City
Non-native grassland Length: 210 feet; width: 1 foot 0.005
Waters of the
state
RWQCB only Non-native grassland Length: 39 feet; width: 1 foot;
length: 289 feet; width: 1.5
feet
0.01
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
17 July 2018
Table 4
Data Station Summary
Data
Station
Wetland Determination Field Indicators
Determination Jurisdiction Vegetation Hydric Soils Hydrology
1A None None Yes Non-wetlands waters of the
United States
ACOE, RWQCB,
CDFW/City
1B None None None uplands None
2A None None Yes Non-wetlands waters of the state RWQCB*
2B None None None Uplands None
3A None None Yes Non-wetlands waters of the state RWQCB*
3B None None None Uplands None
3C None None None Uplands None
* Determination made following on-site meeting with RWQCB (Dudek 2017; Appendix E).
3.4 Regional Resource Planning Context
The municipalities of southwestern San Diego County collaborated in producing the MSCP
Subregional Plan (City of San Diego 1998). The MSCP Subregional Plan is implemented
through individual Subarea Plans adopted by each jurisdiction in order to receive “take
authorization” for impacts to covered species and habitats. The MSCP serves as a Habitat
Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of
1973, as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan under the Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act of 2001. The MSCP, as implemented through the Subarea Plans,
allows the participating jurisdictions to authorize take of plant and wildlife species identified
within the plan area. The USFWS and CDFW have authority to regulate the take of threatened,
endangered, and rare species. Under the MSCP, the USFWS and CDFW have granted take
authorization to the local jurisdictions, including the City, for otherwise lawful actions, such as
public and private development, that may incidentally take or harm individual species or their
habitat outside of the designated Preserve areas, in exchange for the assembly and management
of a coordinated MSCP Preserve. The City of Chula Vista is a participant in the San Diego
MSCP through the Chula Vista Subarea Plan.
The MSCP is implemented in Chula Vista through the City’s approved MSCP Subarea Plan
(2003). Within the City’s Subarea Plan, the project site is designated as “Development Area
Outside Covered Projects” (i.e., not designated a preserve or conservation area). As defined by
the Subarea Plan, projects within the Development Area Outside Covered Projects planning area
shall adhere to the City’s Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) Ordinance. Consistency with
regional resource planning is discussed further in Section 4.3.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
18 July 2018
3.4.1 Habitat Loss Incidental Take Ordinance
In compliance with the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Subarea Plan, the City established
development standards in the HLIT Ordinance, as a condition of issuance of take authorization by
the USFWS and CDFW. The HLIT is consistent with the conservation and mitigation goals of the
1998 MSCP Subregional Plan and the City’s Subarea Plan. Furthermore, the HLIT provides
standards for development, identifies specific impact thresholds, and defines the mitigation
requirements for impacts to native and some non-native communities (e.g., non-native grassland).
The HLIT provides protection of Narrow Endemic Species and wetland impact avoidance/
minimization. Project sites within Development Areas Outside Covered Projects shall avoid
impacts to Narrow Endemic Species to the maximum extent practicable, and where impacts are
unavoidable, they shall be limited to 20% of the species population as approved by the City,
USFWS, and CDFW. If greater than 20% population impacts to Narrow Endemic Species are
anticipated as a result of the project, equivalency findings per shall be prepared and approved
prior to project approval.
3.4.2 Wetlands Protection
In accordance with the Subarea Plan and HLIT, development projects that contain wetlands are
required to demonstrate that impacts to wetlands have been avoided to the greatest extent
practicable and, where impacts are nonetheless proposed, that such impacts have been
minimized. For unavoidable impacts to wetlands, the mitigation ratio will be in accordance with
the wetlands mitigation ratios identified in the Subarea Plan. The wetlands mitigation ratios
provide a standard for each habitat type, but may be adjusted depending on both the functions
and values of the impacted wetlands and the wetlands mitigation proposed by the project.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
19 July 2018
4 ANTICIPATED PROJECT IMPACTS
This section addresses direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to biological resources that would
result from implementation of the proposed project.
Direct impacts refer to the permanent loss of on-site vegetation communities, habitat, and the
plant and wildlife species that they contain. Direct impacts were quantified by overlaying the
anticipated limits of grading on the biological resources map and quantifying impacts. All
biological resources within the direct permanent impact area are considered 100% impacted.
Indirect impacts result primarily from adverse edge effects, and may be short term in nature, related
to construction, or long term in nature, associated with development in proximity to biological
resources within natural open space. During construction of the project, short-term indirect impacts
may include dust and noise, which could disrupt habitat and species vitality temporarily, and
construction-related soil erosion and runoff. Long-term indirect impacts to biological resources are
not expected, due to the existing urban development surrounding the project site.
Cumulative impacts refer to incremental individual environmental effects of two or more
projects when considered together. These impacts taken individually may be minor, but become
collectively significant as they occur over time. Because the impact areas of the proposed project
are surrounded by existing development and outside of any designated Preserve or critical habitat
areas, the project is not expected to significantly contribute to any cumulative impacts on
environmental conditions in the area and thus is not discussed further herein.
4.1 Direct Impacts
4.1.1 Vegetation Communities
The proposed project will result in direct permanent impacts to approximately 4.35 acres of non-
native grassland (Figure 2). Non-native grassland is a Tier III vegetation community per the
City’s Subarea Plan and therefore is considered special status.
4.1.2 Special-Status Plants
No special-status plants were detected during the reconnaissance survey. In addition, no special-
status plants were identified as having a moderate or high potential to occur on site (Appendix C).
Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to impact special-status plants.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
20 July 2018
4.1.3 Special-Status Wildlife
No special-status wildlife species were observed during the reconnaissance survey or during the
jurisdictional delineation. One special-status species has potential to occur within the non-native
grassland in the project area (see Section 3.3.2). Adult individual California horned lark (state-
listed watch list species, MSCP not covered) is very mobile and would not likely be directly
impacted by construction crews. However, because there is some potential for this species to nest
in the non-native grassland on site, impacts to nesting birds and their young could occur.
If construction occurs during the general bird breeding season (February 15 through August 31),
direct impacts to nesting birds could occur.
4.1.4 Jurisdictional Resources
The proposed project was designed to avoid all direct impacts to both non-wetland waters of the
United States regulated by ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW and non-wetland waters of the state
regulated by RWQCB only on site (Figure 2).
4.2 Indirect Impacts
4.2.1 Vegetation Communities
Only slivers of the single vegetation community, non-native grassland, are adjacent to the project
footprint and may be subject to short-term indirect impacts. Indirect impacts to this vegetation
community would primarily result from adverse edge effects, as stated earlier. During
construction of the project, edge effects may include dust, which could disrupt plant vitality in
the short term, as well as construction-related soil erosion and runoff.
However, in accordance with the City’s Subarea Plan and the City’s BMP Design Manual (City of
Chula Vista 2017), projects are required to implement site design, source control, and treatment
control best management practices (BMPs). As part of the project development, projects will be
required to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations with the RWQCB,
incorporate BMPs during construction, and install permanent BMPs as defined by the BMP Design
Manual. With implementation of construction discharge water quality BMPs and other standard
construction BMPs, short-term indirect impacts are not expected. In addition, given the small amount
of non-native grassland remaining following project implementation, the effects of long-term indirect
impacts would be negligible. Thus, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to result
in a substantial indirect impact to non-native grassland.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
21 July 2018
4.2.2 Special-Status Plant Species
The indirect impacts to non-native grassland noted previously can also affect special-status
plants. However, no special-status plants were observed or have a moderate to high potential to
occur on the project site. Therefore, no indirect impacts to special-status plants are expected with
project implementation.
4.2.3 Special-Status Wildlife
Most of the indirect impacts to vegetation communities noted previously can also affect special-
status wildlife. In addition, wildlife may be indirectly affected in the short term and long term by
noise and lighting, which can disrupt normal activities and subject wildlife to higher predation
risks. Breeding birds can be affected by short-term construction-related noise, which can result in
the disruption of foraging, nesting, and reproductive activities.
The non-native grassland on site and ornamental vegetation surrounding the project site have the
potential to support nesting birds. Indirect impacts from construction-related noise may occur on
nesting birds if construction occurs during the breeding season (i.e., February 15 through August
31 for most bird species, and January 15 through August 31 for raptors).
4.2.4 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States/State
The jurisdictional waters on the project site will be completely avoided and a minimum 5-
foot buffer established on either side of the drainage/swale during grading, which is outside
of a 10-year storm event . The potential short -term indirect impacts to vegetation
communities described previously also apply to on-site jurisdictional waters. As described in
Section 4.2.1, p otential edge effects to the jurisdictional waters of the United States and state
identified in the study area are not anticipated because BMPs will be incorporated into the
proposed project work area to eliminate any indire ct impacts (e.g., dust, erosion, runoff) to
jurisdictional waters. The proposed project is designed to avoid long -term indirect impacts.
Specifically, post-construction runoff will be collected on site via area drain systems with
catch basins within the la ndscaping, and via curb inlets for all surface runoff within the
parking and street areas. The site will be graded to allow for a combination of ribbon gutters,
curb and gutter, swales , and a network of high points and low points that direct the surface
runoff toward the inlets and catch basins; thus avoiding indirect impacts to the jurisdictional
waters . The site design locates the development and infrastructure above the existing grade
of the drainage swale in order to avoid 100 -year flood events. While there is a minimum of a
5-foot buffer established for the drainage/swale, the final design build out results in a wider
buffer, ranging from at least 9.5 feet to 11.5 feet in worst-case scenarios (see Figure 3).
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
22 July 2018
There will be no landscaping within the 5 -foot buffer on either side of the drainage/swale;
however, the areas will be landscaped between the outer edge of the buffer and the buildings
and sidewalks. The plant palette within these landscaped areas include non -invasive plants.
4.3 Consistency with Regional Resource Planning
The proposed project design is consistent with the City’s Subarea Plan through specific
adherence to mitigation requirements for Development Projects Outside of Covered Projects, as
defined in the Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). The proposed project site is located
within the Development Area of the City Planning Component, as identified in the Subarea Plan,
and as such has not been identified as a strategic preserve area within the City, nor is it located
within a designated conservation area. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact the
goals and objectives of the City’s Subarea Plan.
4.3.1 Habitat Loss Incidental Take Ordinance
The project will impact non-native grassland (Tier III); as such, the proposed project is subject to
conformance with the City’s HLIT Ordinance. The HLIT Findings are included as Appendix F.
4.3.2 Wetlands Protection
Wetlands protection must be provided throughout the subarea and an evaluation of wetlands
avoidance and minimization is required. If impacts are unavoidable, no net loss of wetlands must
be achieved through compensatory mitigation as prescribed by the Subarea Plan, Table 5-6. The
project will not impact City wetlands.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
23 July 2018
5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
5.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance
Impacts to sensitive habitats, special-status plants, and special-status wildlife species must be
quantified and analyzed to determine whether such impacts are significant under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) states that an ironclad
definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with
the setting. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, however, does provide “examples of consequences
which may be deemed to be a significant effect on the environment” (14 CCR 15064(e)). These
effects include substantial effects on rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of
the species. Section 15065(a) is also helpful in defining whether a project may have “a significant
effect on the environment” (14 CCR 15065(a)). Under that section, a proposed project may have a
significant effect on the environment if the project has the potential to: (1) substantially degrade the
quality of the environment; (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (3) cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community; (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal; or (6) eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory.
The evaluation of whether or not an impact to a particular biological resource is significant must
consider both the resource itself and the role of that resource in a regional context. Substantial
impacts are those that contribute to, or result in, permanent loss of an important resource, such as a
population of a rare plant or animal. Impacts may be important locally because they result in an
adverse alteration of existing site conditions, but considered not significant because they do not
contribute substantially to the permanent loss of that resource regionally. The severity of an impact is
the primary determinant of whether or not that impact can be mitigated to a level below significant.
The following significance determinations were made based on the impacts from the proposed project.
5.2 Vegetation Communities
Impacts to non-native grassland are considered significant under the Subarea Plan and, in accordance
with the HLIT Ordinance, require mitigation (City of Chula Vista 2003, Tables 5-3 and 5-6).
Vegetation communities considered sensitive under the City’s Subarea Plan are those listed as Tier I
through Tier III—rare to common uplands, respectively, as well as wetlands. Therefore, project
impacts to non-native grassland (Tier III) are considered significant and require mitigation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) 1 will reduce these impacts to a level below significant.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
24 July 2018
Indirect impacts (accidental encroachment) into vegetation communities listed as Tier I through
Tier III beyond the proposed work areas is considered significant. Implementation of MM-2 will
reduce these impacts to a level below significant. Mitigation measures are provided in Chapter 6.
5.3 Special-Status Plants
The project is not expected to directly or indirectly impact special-status plant species, because
none were observed and none have a moderate or high potential to occur.
5.4 Special-Status Wildlife
To determine a significant impact on special-status wildlife, the significance threshold applied is
whether the project would have a substantial adverse effect on the special-status species.
Direct impacts to nesting birds, including California horned lark, are considered a significant
impact without mitigation. If project construction occurs during the general bird nesting season
(i.e., February 15 through August 31 for most bird species), such activities could potentially result
in direct take of individuals and/or eggs in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
1918 (16 U.S.C. 703–712) and California Fish and Game Code, Section 3505. Implementation of
MM-3 will reduce impacts to nesting birds to below significant.
5.5 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States/State
Direct impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States/state/City are not expected with
implementation of the proposed project. Indirect impacts to adjacent jurisdictional waters of the
United States/state/City are considered significant. Implementation of MM-2 will reduce these
impacts to a level below significant.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
25 July 2018
6 MITIGATION
This section describes the mitigation measures required to offset significant direct and indirect
impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, nesting birds, and jurisdictional resources. These
mitigation measures will reduce identified and potential significant impacts to a level that is less
than significant pursuant to CEQA.
Table 5 lists the significant impacts to vegetation communities and the required mitigation per the
City’s Subarea Plan and HLIT Ordinance (City of Chula Vista 2003, Table 5-3).
Table 5
Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Vegetation Community
MSCP Subarea
Plan Tier Mitigation Ratio* Impact Acreage
Mitigation Acreage
Required
Uplands
Non-native grassland Tier III 0.5:1 4.35 acres 2.18 acres
* This assumes the mitigation is located within the Preserve; if mitigation occurs outside of the Preserve, the mitigation ratio increases to 1:1.
MM-1 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing,
grading and construction permits, the project applicant shall mitigate direct
impacts to 4.35 acres of non-native grassland pursuant to the City of Chula Vista
City) Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (Subarea
Plan). The applicant shall secure mitigation credits within a City-approved
Conservation Bank or other approved location offering mitigation credits
consistent with the ratios specified in Table 5-3 of the Subarea Plan. The applicant
is required to provide the City with verification of mitigation credit purchase prior
to issuance of any land development permits.
If mitigation credits are not purchased, the applicant must prepare a habitat
mitigation and monitoring plan to the satisfaction of the City. The plan shall
include, at a minimum, an implementation plan to provide the required mitigation
acreages of non-native grassland, a maintenance and monitoring program, an
estimated completion time, performance standards, and any relevant contingency
measures. The project applicant shall also be required to implement the habitat
mitigation and monitoring plan subject to the oversight of the City.
MM-2 To avoid any unexpected impacts (i.e., encroachment) into vegetation and/or
jurisdictional waters, the project contractors will delineate (in coordination with
the project biologist) all approved access paths and construction work areas. The
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
26 July 2018
limits of work, including the designated footpath access, will be delineated with
flagging or fencing as appropriate and will be installed prior to work activities. A
pre-construction meeting shall be held between all contractors and the qualified
project biologist and during this meeting, the biologist will educate the contractors
on sensitive biological resources (including non-wetland waters of the United
States/state) and project avoidance measures. All project site personnel shall
provide written acknowledgment of having received avoidance training. This
training shall include information on the location of the approved access paths and
work areas, the necessity of preventing damage and impacts to sensitive
biological resources, and discussion of work practices that will accomplish such.
Lastly, the project biologist will conduct weekly monitoring to ensure that the
appropriate avoidance measures are implemented.
If unauthorized impacts occur outside of the approved project boundary, the
contractor shall notify the City Resident Engineer and project biologist immediately.
The project biologist shall evaluate the additional impacts to determine the size of the
impact and the vegetation communities, land covers, and/or jurisdictional resources
impacted. The footprint of the impact shall be recorded with a GPS and the project
biologist will report the impact(s) to City staff as well as to the appropriate permitting
agencies (where appropriate) for approval of the impact record and to establish any
necessary follow-up mitigation measures. These measures may include additional
mitigation credits purchased within a City-approved Conservation Bank or other
approved location offering mitigation credits consistent with the ratios specified in
Table 5-3 of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan.
Any unauthorized impacts to jurisdictional waters/wetlands would require reporting
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City as well as development of a
Waters/Wetlands Restoration Plan to restore pre-impact conditions as directed by the
agencies. The Revegetation Plan and/or Waters/Wetlands Restoration Plan shall
include a description of the suitability of the restoration area, planting and irrigation
plan, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and performance standards that
ensures that the intended restoration is achieved. The plan(s) and associated
monitoring reports shall be submitted to City staff.
MM-3 To avoid any direct impacts to nesting birds, construction activities should occur
outside of the breeding season (February 15 to August 31). If construction activity
is scheduled during the general bird nesting season, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
27 July 2018
bird species within the proposed work areas. The pre-construction survey shall be
conducted within four (4) calendar days prior to the start of construction
activities. The applicant shall submit the results of the pre-construction survey to
City staff for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If
nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan in conformance with
the City’s biology guidelines and applicable state and federal law (e.g.,
appropriate follow-up surveys, monitoring schedules, construction and noise
barriers/buffers) shall be prepared and shall include proposed measures to be
implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs or disturbance of breeding
activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City
for review and approval and shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City.
The City Resident Engineer and/or project biologist shall verify and approve that
all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or
during construction. If nesting birds are not detected during the pre -construction
survey, no further mitigation is required.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
28 July 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
29 July 2018
7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by Dudek biologist Katie Dayton. Callie Amoaku provided review.
Graphics were provided by Curtis Battle, Laurel Porter provided technical editing, and Devin
Brookhart provided word processing.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
30 July 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
31 July 2018
8 LITERATURE CITED
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
16 U.S.C. 703–712. 1918. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended.
ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual (TR Y-87-1) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Vicksburg, Mississippi:
ACOE. September 1987.
ACOE. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-28.
Vicksburg, Mississippi: ACOE, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
September 2008. Accessed July 2016. http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/
Pages/reg_supp.aspx.
ACOE. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in
the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual.
ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Prepared by R.W. Lichvar and S.M. McColley. Hanover, New
Hampshire: ACOE, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. August 2008.
ACOE. 2011. Ordinary High Flows and the Stage–Discharge Relationship in the Arid West
Region. ERDC/CRREL TR-11-12. Prepared by K.E. Curtis, R.W. Lichvar, and L.E.
Dixon. Hanover, New Hampshire: ACOE, Engineer Research and Development Center,
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. July 2011.
American Ornithologists’ Union. 2016. Check-List of North American Birds: List of the 2,078
Bird Species Known from the AOU Check-List Area. Accessed July 2016.
http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/full.php.
Bowman, R.H. 1973. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, Part 1. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. December 1973. Accessed
July 2016. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/
CA638/0/part1.pdf.
California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503 and 3503.5. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=fgc&group=03001-04000&file=3500-3516.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
32 July 2018
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and
Associations. Sacramento, California: CDFG. September 2010. Accessed October 2016.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/List.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017a. California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB). RareFind, Version 5.1.1 (Commercial Subscription). Sacramento,
California: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/
cnddb/mapsanddata.asp.
CDFW. 2017b. “Special Animals List.” California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW,
Biogeographic Data Branch. January 2017. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/
Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
CDFW. 2017c. “State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California.”
California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. January
2017. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
CDFW. 2017d. “Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List.” California Natural Diversity
Database. January 2017. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
CDFW. 2017e. “State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of
California.” California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch.
January 2017. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
City of Chula Vista. 2003. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February 2003. Accessed
September 28, 2017. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106.
City of Chula Vista. 2017. City of Chula Vista BMP Design Manual: For Permanent Site
Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management. December 2015;
updated May 2017. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=11881.
City of San Diego. 1998. City of San Diego MSCP Subregional Plan. August 1998.
http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/mscp/docs/SCMSCP/FinalMSCPProgramPlan.pdf.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online
edition, v8-02). Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. Accessed March
2017. www.rareplants.cnps.org.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
33 July 2018
Crother, B.I. 2012. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North
America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding.
7th ed. Herpetological Circular No. 39. Edited by J.J. Moriarty. Shoreview, Minnesota:
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.
Dudek. 2017. Memorandum from T.S. Liddicoat Jr. (Dudek) to L. Honma (RWQCB, San Diego
Region). “Jurisdictional Waters of the State Confirmation for the Bonita Glen Project
Site.” June 21, 2017.
Google Earth. 2016. Aerial digital orthographic map. April 22, 2016.
HistoricAerials.com. 2017. “Historic Aerials.” Accessed October 2017.
http://www.historicaerials.com/. Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC.
Holland, R.F. 1986. “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California.” California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame-Heritage Program.
Jepson Flora Project. 2016. Jepson eFlora. Berkeley, California: University of California.
Accessed October 18, 2016. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_name_data.pl.
North American Butterfly Association. 2016. “Checklist of North American Butterflies Occurring
North of Mexico.” Adapted from North American Butterfly Association (NABA) Checklist and
English Names of North American Butterflies, eds. B. Cassie, J. Glassberg, A. Swengel, and G.
Tudor. 2nd ed. Morristown, New Jersey: NABA. Accessed July 2016. http://www.naba.org/.
Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego
County. March 2008.
San Diego Natural History Museum. 2002. “Butterflies of San Diego County. Revised
September 2002.” Accessed July 2016. http://www.sdnhm.org/science/
entomology/projects/checklist-of-butterflies-of-san-diego-county/.
Unitt, P. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego, California: San Diego Natural
History Museum.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United
States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2010. Edited
by L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046970.pdf.
USDA. 2016. “California.” State PLANTS Checklist. Accessed October 19, 2016.
http://plants.usda.gov/dl_state.html.
Biological Resources Report for the
Bonita Glen Drive Project
10271
34 July 2018
USDA. 2017. Official Soil Series Descriptions. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Soil Survey Staff. Accessed March 15, 2017. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/soils/survey/geo/?cid=nrcs142p2_053587.
USFWS. 2017. “Critical Habitat and Occurrence Data” [map]. Accessed March and September
2017. http://www.fws.gov/data.
Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and
Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
APPENDIX A
Plant Compendium
APPENDIX A
Plant Compendium
10271
A-1 April 2018
VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES
GYMNOSPERMS AND GNETOPHYTES
PINACEAE—PINE FAMILY
* Pinus sp.—pine
MONOCOTS
ARECACEAE—PALM FAMILY
* Washingtonia robusta—Washington fan palm
POACEAE—GRASS FAMILY
* Avena barbata—slender oat
* Avena fatua—wild oat
* Bromus diandrus—ripgut brome
* Cynodon dactylon—Bermudagrass
* Digitaria sanguinalis—hairy crabgrass
* Hordeum murinum—mouse barley
* Polypogon monspeliensis—annual rabbitsfoot grass
* Festuca perennis—perennial rye grass
Distichlis spicata—salt grass
EUDICOTS
ANACARDIACEAE—SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY
* Schinus molle—Peruvian peppertree
* Schinus terebinthifolius—Brazilian peppertree
ASTERACEAE—SUNFLOWER FAMILY
* Sonchus oleraceus—common sowthistle
* Lactuca serriola—prickly lettuce
BORAGINACEAE—BORAGE FAMILY
Phacelia cicutaria—caterpillar phacelia
BRASSICACEAE—MUSTARD FAMILY
* Raphanus sativus—cultivated radish
CACTACEAE—CACTUS FAMILY
* Opuntia ficus-indica—Barbary fig
APPENDIX A (Continued)
10271
A-2 April 2018
FABACEAE—LEGUME FAMILY
* Medicago lupulina—black medick
* Acacia sp.—wattle
MALVACEAE—MALLOW FAMILY
* Malva parviflora—cheeseweed mallow
MYRTACEAE—MYRTLE FAMILY
* Eucalyptus sp.—eucalyptus
POLYGONACEAE—BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
* Rumex crispus—curly dock
* signifies introduced (non-native) species
APPENDIX B
Wildlife Compendium
APPENDIX B
Wildlife Compendium
10271
B-1 April 2018
BIRD
HAWKS
ACCIPITRIDAE—HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES, AND ALLIES
Buteo lineatus—red-shouldered hawk
HUMMINGBIRDS
TROCHILIDAE—HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte anna—Anna’s hummingbird
JAYS, MAGPIES, AND CROWS
CORVIDAE—CROWS AND JAYS
Corvus brachyrhynchos—American crow
PIGEONS AND DOVES
COLUMBIDAE—PIGEONS AND DOVES
Zenaida macroura—mourning dove
STARLINGS AND ALLIES
STURNIDAE—STARLINGS
* Sturnus vulgaris—European starling
INVERTEBRATE
BUTTERFLIES
PIERIDAE—WHITES AND SULFURS
Pontia protodice—checkered white
* signifies introduced (non-native) species
APPENDIX B (Continued)
10271
B-2 April 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APPENDIX C
Special-Status Plant Species
Potential to Occur on the Project Site
APPENDIX C
Special-Status Plant Potential to Occur on the Project Site
10271
C-1 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Abronia maritima red sand-
verbena
None/None/
4.2
None Coastal dunes/perennial herb/Feb–Nov/0–330 Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Acanthomintha
ilicifolia
San Diego
thorn-mint
FT/SE/1B.1 Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools; clay, openings/annual herb/Apr–June/30–3,150
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
Acmispon
prostratus
Nuttall’s
acmispon
None/None/
1B.1
Covered Coastal dunes, coastal scrub (sandy)/annual herb/Mar–
June(July)/0–35
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Adolphia
californica
California
adolphia
None/None/
2B.1
None Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland;
clay/perennial deciduous shrub/Dec–May/30–2,430
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site. Conspicuous shrub would
have been observed during reconnaissance
surveys if present. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
Agave shawii
var. shawii
Shaw’s agave None/None/
2B.1
Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub; maritime succulent
scrub/perennial leaf succulent/Sep–May/5–395
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Ambrosia
chenopodiifolia
San Diego
bur-sage
None/None/
2B.1
None Coastal scrub/perennial shrub/Apr–June/180–510 Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Ambrosia
monogyra
singlewhorl
burrobrush
None/None/
2B.2
None Chaparral, Sonoran desert scrub; sandy/perennial
shrub/Aug–Nov/30–1,640
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Ambrosia pumila San Diego
ambrosia
FE/None/1B.1 Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools; sandy loam or clay, often in disturbed areas,
sometimes alkaline/perennial rhizomatous herb/Apr–
Oct/65–1,360
Low potential to occur. No sandy loam or
clay soils mapped on site. Additionally, the
site was previously graded resulting in
disturbance of the top soil. Given the
surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-2 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Aphanisma
blitoides
aphanisma None/None/
1B.2
Covered Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub; sandy or
gravelly/annual herb/Feb–June/0–1,000
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Arctostaphylos
glandulosa ssp.
crassifolia
Del Mar
manzanita
FE/None/
1B.1
Covered Chaparral (maritime, sandy)/perennial evergreen
shrub/Dec–June/0–1,200
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Arctostaphylos
otayensis
Otay
manzanita
None/None/
1B.2
Covered Chaparral, cismontane woodland; metavolcanic/perennial
evergreen shrub/Jan–Apr/900–5,575
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Artemisia
palmeri
San Diego
sagewort
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian forest, riparian scrub,
riparian woodland; sandy, mesic/perennial deciduous
shrub/(Feb)May–Sep/45–3,000
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Asplenium
vespertinum
western
spleenwort
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub;
rocky/perennial rhizomatous herb/Feb–June/590–3,280
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Astragalus
deanei
Dean’s milk-
vetch
None/None/
1B.1
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian
forest/perennial herb/Feb–May/245–2,280
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Astragalus tener
var. titi
coastal dunes
milk-vetch
FE/SE/1B.1 Covered Coastal bluff scrub (sandy), coastal dunes, coastal prairie
(mesic); often vernally mesic areas/annual herb/Mar–
May/0–165
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Atriplex coulteri Coulter’s
saltbush
None/None/
1B.2
None Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland; alkaline or clay/perennial herb/Mar–
Oct/5–1,510
Low potential to occur. No alkaline or clay
soils mapped on site. Additionally, the site
was previously graded resulting in
disturbance of the top soil. Given the
surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
Atriplex pacifica South Coast
saltscale
None/None/
1B.2
None Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub,
playas/annual herb/Mar–Oct/0–460
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Bergerocactus
emoryi
golden-spined
cereus
None/None/
2B.2
None Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub;
sandy/perennial stem succulent/May–June/5–1,295
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-3 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Bloomeria
clevelandii
San Diego
goldenstar
None/None/
1B.1
Covered Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools; clay/perennial bulbiferous herb/Apr–May/160–1,525
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site and no vernal pools on site.
Additionally, the site was previously graded
resulting in disturbance of the top soil. Given
the surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt’s
brodiaea
None/None/
1B.1
Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools; mesic, clay/perennial bulbiferous
herb/May–July/95–5,550
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
Calandrinia
breweri
Brewer’s
calandrinia
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, coastal scrub; sandy or loamy, disturbed sites
and burns/annual herb/(Jan)Mar–June/30–4,005
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
California
macrophylla
round-leaved
filaree
None/None/
1B.2
None Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland;
clay/annual herb/Mar–May/45–3,935
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
Calochortus
dunnii
Dunn’s
mariposa lily
None/SR/
1B.2
Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, valley and foothill
grassland; gabbroic or metavolcanic, rocky/perennial
bulbiferous herb/(Feb)Apr–June/605–6,005
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range.
Camissoniopsis
lewisii
Lewis’
evening-
primrose
None/None/3 None Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; sandy or
clay/annual herb/Mar–May(June)/0–985
Low potential to occur. No sandy or clay
soils mapped on site. Additionally, the site
was previously graded resulting in
disturbance of the top soil. Given the
surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
Castilleja
plagiotoma
Mojave
paintbrush
None/None/
4.3
None Great Basin scrub (alluvial), Joshua tree woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest, pinyon and juniper woodland/
perennial herb (hemiparasitic)/Apr–June/980–8,200
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-4 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Ceanothus
cyaneus
Lakeside
ceanothus
None/None/
1B.2
Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral/perennial
evergreen shrub/Apr–June/770–2,475
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Ceanothus
otayensis
Otay
Mountain
ceanothus
None/None/
1B.2
None Chaparral (metavolcanic or gabbroic)/perennial evergreen
shrub/Jan–Apr/1,965–3,610
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Ceanothus
verrucosus
wart-stemmed
ceanothus
None/None/
2B.2
Covered Chaparral/perennial evergreen shrub/Dec–May/0–1,245 Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Centromadia
pungens ssp.
laevis
smooth
tarplant
None/None/
1B.1
None Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, riparian
woodland, valley and foothill grassland; alkaline/annual
herb/Apr–Sep/0–2,100
Low potential to occur. No alkaline soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
Chaenactis
glabriuscula var.
orcuttiana
Orcutt’s
pincushion
None/None/
1B.1
None Coastal bluff scrub (sandy), coastal dunes/annual
herb/Jan–Aug/0–330
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Chamaebatia
australis
southern
mountain
misery
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral (gabbroic or metavolcanic)/perennial evergreen
shrub/Nov–May/980–3,345
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh
bird's-beak
FE/SE/1B.2 Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Coastal dunes, marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/annual
herb (hemiparasitic)/May–Oct(Nov)/0–100
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Chorizanthe
orcuttiana
Orcutt’s
spineflower
FE/SE/1B.1 None Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral (maritime), coastal
scrub; sandy openings/annual herb/Mar–May/5–410
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Chorizanthe
polygonoides
var. longispina
long-spined
spineflower
None/None/
1B.2
None Chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools; often clay/annual herb/Apr–
July/95–5,020
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-5 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Cistanthe
maritima
seaside
cistanthe
None/None/
4.2
None Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland; sandy/annual herb/(Feb)Mar–June(Aug)/15–985
Not expected to occur. No sandy soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
Clarkia delicata delicate
clarkia
None/None/
1B.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland; often gabbroic/annual
herb/Apr–June/770–3,280
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Clinopodium
chandleri
San Miguel
savory
None/None/
1B.2
Covered Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian
woodland, valley and foothill grassland; rocky, gabbroic or
metavolcanic/perennial shrub/Mar–July/390–3,525
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range.
Comarostaphylis
diversifolia ssp.
diversifolia
summer holly None/None/
1B.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland/perennial evergreen
shrub/Apr–June/95–2,590
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Convolvulus
simulans
small-
flowered
morning-glory
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral (openings), coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland; clay, serpentinite seeps/annual herb/Mar–
July/95–2,430
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
Corethrogyne
filaginifolia var.
incana
San Diego
sand aster
None/None/
1B.1
None Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial
herb/June–Sep/5–375
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Corethrogyne
filaginifolia var.
linifolia
Del Mar Mesa
sand aster
None/None/
1B.1
Covered Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral (maritime, openings), coastal
scrub; sandy/perennial herb/May, July, Aug, Sep/45–490
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Cylindropuntia
californica var.
californica
snake cholla None/None/
1B.1
Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial stem succulent/Apr–
May/95–490
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-6 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Deinandra
conjugens
Otay tarplant FT/SE/1B.1 Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; clay/annual
herb/(Apr)May–June/80–985
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
Deinandra
paniculata
paniculate
tarplant
None/None/
4.2
None Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools;
usually vernally mesic, sometimes sandy/annual
herb/(Mar)Apr–Nov/80–3,085
Low potential to occur. No vernally mesic
areas on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
Dichondra
occidentalis
western
dichondra
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland/perennial rhizomatous herb/(Jan)Mar–
July/160–1,640
Low potential to occur. Additionally, the site
was previously graded resulting in
disturbance of the top soil. Given the
surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
Dicranostegia
orcuttiana
Orcutt’s
bird's-beak
None/None/
2B.1
Covered Coastal scrub/annual herb (hemiparasitic)/(Mar)Apr–
July(Sep)/30–1,150
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Diplacus aridus low bush
monkeyflower
None/None/
4.3
None Chaparral (rocky), Sonoran desert scrub/perennial
evergreen shrub/Apr–July/2,460–3,935
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Dudleya
attenuata ssp.
attenuata
Orcutt’s
dudleya
None/None/
2B.1
None Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal scrub; rocky or
gravelly/perennial herb/May–July/5–165
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Dudleya
blochmaniae
ssp.
blochmaniae
Blochman’s
dudleya
None/None/
1B.1
None Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland; rocky, often clay or serpentinite/perennial
herb/Apr–June/15–1,475
Not expected to occur. This species occurs
more coastally (SDNHM 2017). No clay or
serpentinite soils mapped on site.
Additionally, the site was previously graded
resulting in disturbance of the top soil. Given
the surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-7 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Dudleya
brevifolia
short-leaved
dudleya
None/SE/1B.1 Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Chaparral (maritime, openings), coastal scrub; Torrey
sandstone/perennial herb/Apr–May/95–820
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Dudleya
variegata
variegated
dudleya
None/None/
1B.2
Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools; clay/perennial herb/Apr–
June/5–1,905
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site and no vernal pools on site.
Additionally, the site was previously graded
resulting in disturbance of the top soil. Given
the surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
Dudleya viscida sticky dudleya None/None/
1B.2
Covered Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub; rocky/perennial herb/May–June/30–1,805
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Ericameria
palmeri var.
palmeri
Palmer’s
goldenbush
None/None/
1B.1
Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Chaparral, coastal scrub; mesic/perennial evergreen
shrub/(July)Sep–Nov/95–1,970
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Eryngium
aristulatum var.
parishii
San Diego
button-celery
FE/SE/1B.1 Covered Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools;
mesic/annual/perennial herb/Apr–June/65–2,035
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site and no vernal pools on site.
Additionally, the site was previously graded
resulting in disturbance of the top soil. Given
the surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
Euphorbia
misera
cliff spurge None/None/
2B.2
None Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, Mojavean desert scrub;
rocky/perennial shrub/Dec–Aug(Oct)/30–1,640
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Ferocactus
viridescens
San Diego
barrel cactus
None/None/
2B.1
Covered Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools/perennial stem succulent/May–June/5–1,475
Not expected to occur. Conspicuous stem
succulent would have been observed during
reconnaissance surveys if present.
Frankenia
palmeri
Palmer’s
frankenia
None/None/
2B.1
None Coastal dunes, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt),
Playas/perennial herb/May–July/0–35
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Fremontodendron
mexicanum
Mexican
flannelbush
FE/SR/1B.1 None Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane
woodland; gabbroic, metavolcanic, or serpentinite/perennial
evergreen shrub/Mar–June/30–2,350
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-8 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Galium
proliferum
desert
bedstraw
None/None/
2B.2
None Joshua tree woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, pinyon and
juniper woodland; rocky, carbonate (limestone)/annual
herb/Mar–June/3,900–5,350
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Geothallus
tuberosus
Campbell’s
liverwort
None/None/
1B.1
None Coastal scrub (mesic), vernal pools; soil/ephemeral
liverwort/30–1,970
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Githopsis diffusa
ssp. filicaulis
Mission
Canyon
bluecup
None/None/
3.1
None Chaparral (mesic, disturbed areas)/annual herb/Apr–
June/1,475–2,295
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Grindelia hallii San Diego
gumplant
None/None/
1B.2
None Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill grassland/perennial herb/May–
Oct/605–5,725
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range.
Harpagonella
palmeri
Palmer’s
grapplinghook
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; clay;
open grassy areas within shrubland/annual herb/Mar–
May/65–3,135
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
Hesperocyparis
forbesii
Tecate
cypress
None/None/
1B.1
Covered Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral; clay, gabbroic or
metavolcanic/perennial evergreen tree/260–4,920
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Heterotheca
sessiliflora ssp.
sessiliflora
beach
goldenaster
None/None/
1B.1
None Chaparral (coastal), coastal dunes, coastal scrub/perennial
herb/Mar–Dec/0–4,020
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Holocarpha
virgata ssp.
elongata
graceful
tarplant
None/None
/4.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland/annual herb/May–Nov/195–3,610
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range.
Hordeum
intercedens
vernal barley None/None/
3.2
None Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland
(saline flats and depressions), vernal pools/annual
herb/Mar–June/15–3,280
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site and no vernal pools on site.
Additionally, the site was previously graded
resulting in disturbance of the top soil. Given
the surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-9 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Horkelia truncata Ramona
horkelia
None/None/
1B.3
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland; clay, gabbroic/perennial
herb/May–June/1,310–4,265
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Hosackia
crassifolia var.
otayensis
Otay
Mountain
lotus
None/None/
1B.1
None Chaparral (metavolcanic, often in disturbed areas)/perennial
herb/May–Aug/1,245–3,295
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Isocoma
menziesii var.
decumbens
decumbent
goldenbush
None/None/
1B.2
None Chaparral, coastal scrub (sandy, often in disturbed
areas)/perennial shrub/Apr–Nov/30–445
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Iva hayesiana San Diego
marsh-elder
None/None/
2B.2
None Marshes and swamps, playas/perennial herb/Apr–Oct/30–
1,640
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Juncus acutus
ssp. leopoldii
southwestern
spiny rush
None/None/
4.2
None Coastal dunes (mesic), meadows and seeps (alkaline
seeps), marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/perennial
rhizomatous herb/(Mar)May–June/5–2,955
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Lasthenia
glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter’s
goldfields
None/None/
1B.1
None Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), playas, vernal
pools/annual herb/Feb–June/0–4,005
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Lepechinia
cardiophylla
heart-leaved
pitcher sage
None/None/
1B.2
Covered Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane
woodland/perennial shrub/Apr–July/1,705–4,495
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Lepechinia
ganderi
Gander’s
pitcher sage
None/None/
1B.3
Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill grassland; gabbroic or
metavolcanic/perennial shrub/June–July/1,000–3,295
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range.
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson’s
pepper-grass
None/None/
4.3
None Chaparral, coastal scrub/annual herb/Jan–July/0–2,905 Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Leptosyne
maritima
sea dahlia None/None/
2B.2
None Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub/perennial herb/Mar–
May/15–490
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Lilium humboldtii
ssp. ocellatum
ocellated
Humboldt lily
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest, riparian woodland;
openings/perennial bulbiferous herb/Mar–July(Aug)/95–
5,905
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-10 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Lycium
californicum
California
box-thorn
None/None/
4.2
None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub/perennial
shrub/(Dec)Mar, June, July, Aug/15–490
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Microseris
douglasii ssp.
platycarpha
small-
flowered
microseris
None/None/
4.2
None Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools; clay/annual herb/Mar–May/45–3,510
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site and no vernal pools on site.
Additionally, the site was previously graded
resulting in disturbance of the top soil. Given
the surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
Mobergia
calculiformis
light gray
lichen
3 None Coastal scrub (?); on rocks/crustose lichen (saxicolous)/30–
35
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Monardella
hypoleuca ssp.
lanata
felt-leaved
monardella
None/None/
1B.2
Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Chaparral, cismontane woodland/perennial rhizomatous
herb/June–Aug/980–5,165
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Monardella
stoneana
Jennifer’s
monardella
None/None/
1B.2
None Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub,
riparian scrub; usually rocky intermittent
streambeds/perennial herb/June–Sep/30–2,590
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Monardella
viminea
willowy
monardella
FE/SE/1B.1 Covered,
Narrow
Endemic
Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian forest, riparian scrub,
riparian woodland; alluvial ephemeral washes/perennial
herb/June–Aug/160–740
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Mucronea
californica
California
spineflower
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill grassland; sandy/annual
herb/Mar–July(Aug)/0–4,595
Low potential to occur. No sandy soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
Myosurus
minimus ssp.
apus
little mousetail None/None/
3.1
None Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools (alkaline)/annual
herb/Mar–June/65–2,100
Low potential to occur. No alkaline soils
mapped on site and no vernal pools on site.
Additionally, the site was previously graded
resulting in disturbance of the top soil. Given
the surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-11 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Nama
stenocarpa
mud nama None/None/
2B.2
None Marshes and swamps (lake margins, riverbanks)/annual /
perennial herb/Jan–July/15–1,640
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Navarretia
fossalis
spreading
navarretia
FT/None/1B.1 Covered Chenopod scrub, marshes and swamps (assorted shallow
freshwater), playas, vernal pools/annual herb/Apr–June/95–
2,150
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate
vernal pool
navarretia
None/None/
1B.1
None Coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland (alkaline), vernal pools; mesic/annual herb/Apr–
July/5–3,970
Low potential to occur. No alkaline soils
mapped on site and no vernal pools on site.
Additionally, the site was previously graded
resulting in disturbance of the top soil. Given
the surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
Nemacaulis
denudata var.
denudata
coast woolly-
heads
None/None/
1B.2
None Coastal dunes/annual herb/Apr–Sep/0–330 Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Nemacaulis
denudata var.
gracilis
slender
cottonheads
None/None/
2B.2
None Coastal dunes, desert dunes, Sonoran desert scrub/annual
herb/(Mar)Apr–May/-160–1,310
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Ophioglossum
californicum
California
adder’s-
tongue
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools
(margins); mesic/perennial rhizomatous herb/(Dec)Jan–
June/195–1,720
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range.
Orcuttia
californica
California
Orcutt grass
FE/SE/1B.1 Covered Vernal pools/annual herb/Apr–Aug/45–2,165 Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Ornithostaphylos
oppositifolia
Baja
California
birdbush
None/SE/2B.1 None Chaparral/perennial evergreen shrub/Jan–Apr/180–2,625 Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Orobanche
parishii ssp.
brachyloba
short-lobed
broomrape
None/None/
4.2
None Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub;
sandy/perennial herb (parasitic)/Apr–Oct/5–1,000
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Pentachaeta
aurea ssp. aurea
golden-rayed
pentachaeta
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest, riparian woodland, valley and
foothill grassland/annual herb/Mar–July/260–6,070
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-12 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Phacelia stellaris Brand’s star
phacelia
None/None/
1B.1
None Coastal dunes, coastal scrub/annual herb/Mar–June/0–
1,310
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Pickeringia
montana var.
tomentosa
woolly
chaparral-pea
None/None/
4.3
None Chaparral; gabbroic, granitic, clay/evergreen shrub/May–
Aug/0–5,575
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Pinus torreyana
ssp. torreyana
Torrey pine None/None/
1B.2
Covered Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral;
sandstone/perennial evergreen tree/95–525
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Piperia cooperi chaparral rein
orchid
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill
grassland/perennial herb/Mar–June/45–5,200
Low potential to occur. Additionally, the site
was previously graded resulting in
disturbance of the top soil. Given the
surrounding development, there is low
potential for this species to establish on site.
Pogogyne
abramsii
San Diego
mesa mint
FE/SE/1B.1 Covered Vernal pools/annual herb/Mar–July/295–655 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Pogogyne
nudiuscula
Otay Mesa
mint
FE/SE/1B.1 Covered Vernal pools/annual herb/May–July/295–820 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbit-
tobacco
None/None/
2B.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian
woodland; sandy, gravelly/perennial herb/(July)Aug–
Nov(Dec)/0–6,890
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Quercus
dumosa
Nuttall’s scrub
oak
None/None/
1B.1
None Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub;
sandy, clay loam/perennial evergreen shrub/Feb–Apr(May–
Aug)/45–1,310
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Quercus
engelmannii
Engelmann
oak
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, valley
and foothill grassland/perennial deciduous tree/Mar–
June/160–4,265
Not expected to occur. This conspicuous
tree would have been observed during
reconnaissance surveys if present.
Ribes
viburnifolium
Santa
Catalina
Island currant
None/None/
1B.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland/perennial evergreen
shrub/Feb–Apr/95–1,150
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Romneya
coulteri
Coulter’s
matilija poppy
None/None/
4.2
None Chaparral, coastal scrub; often in burns/perennial
rhizomatous herb/Mar–July/65–3935
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-13 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Rosa minutifolia small-leaved
rose
None/SE/2B.1 Covered Chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial deciduous shrub/Jan–
June/490–525
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Salvia munzii Munz’s sage None/None/
2B.2
None Chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial evergreen shrub/Feb–
Apr/375–3,495
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Selaginella
cinerascens
ashy spike-
moss
None/None/
4.1
None Chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial rhizomatous herb/65–
2,100
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Senecio
aphanactis
chaparral
ragwort
None/None/
2B.2
None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub; sometimes
alkaline/annual herb/Jan–Apr(May)/45–2,625
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom
None/None/
2B.2
None Chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest,
Mojavean desert scrub, playas; alkaline, mesic/perennial
herb/Mar–June/45–5,020
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Sphaerocarpos
drewei
bottle
liverwort
None/None/1
B.1
None Chaparral, coastal scrub; openings, soil/ephemeral
liverwort/295–1,970
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Stemodia
durantifolia
purple
stemodia
None/None/2
B.1
None Sonoran desert scrub (often mesic, sandy)/perennial
herb/(Jan)Apr, June, Aug, Sep, Oct, Dec/590–985
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Stipa diegoensis San Diego
County
needle grass
None/None/4.
2
None Chaparral, coastal scrub; rocky, often mesic/perennial
herb/Feb–June/30–2,625
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Streptanthus
bernardinus
Laguna
Mountains
jewelflower
None/None/4.
3
None Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest/perennial
herb/May–Aug/2,195–8,200
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Stylocline
citroleum
oil neststraw None/None/1
B.1
None Chenopod scrub, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland; clay/annual herb/Mar–Apr/160–1,310
Low potential to occur. No clay soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
10271
C-14 May 2018
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/
State/CRPR)1
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming
Period/Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur
Suaeda esteroa estuary
seablite
None/None/1
B.2
None Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/perennial
herb/(May)July–Oct(Jan)/0–15
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Suaeda taxifolia woolly
seablite
None/None/4.
2
None Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, marshes and swamps
(margins of coastal salt)/perennial evergreen shrub/Jan–
Dec/0–165
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.
Tetracoccus
dioicus
Parry’s
tetracoccus
None/None/1
B.2
Covered Chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial deciduous shrub/Apr–
May/540–3,280
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Texosporium
sancti-jacobi
woven-spored
lichen
None/None/3 None Chaparral (openings); on soil, small mammal pellets, dead
twigs, and on Selaginella spp./crustose lichen
(terricolous)/195–2,165
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of
the species’ known elevation range and
there is no suitable vegetation present.
Tortula
californica
California
screw-moss
None/None/1
B.2
None Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland; sandy,
soil/moss/30–4,790
Low potential to occur. No sandy soils
mapped on site. Additionally, the site was
previously graded resulting in disturbance of
the top soil. Given the surrounding
development, there is low potential for this
species to establish on site.
References:
SDNHM (San Diego Natural History Museum). 2017. “Map San Diego Plant Species in the SDNHM Herbarium Collection.” Accessed September 26, 2017.
http://www.sdplantatlas.org/GMap/GMapSpeciesMap.htm.
1 Status Legend:
FE: Federally listed as endangered
FT: Federally listed as threatened
SE: State listed as endangered
ST: State listed as threatened
SR: State rare
CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere
CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere
CRPR 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere
CRPR 3: Plants about which more information is needed – a review list
CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3 Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
APPENDIX D
Special-Status Wildlife Detected or
Potentially Occurring on the Project Site
APPENDIX D
Special-Status Wildlife Not Expected or Low Potential to Occur on the Project Site
10271
D-1 July 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Amphibians
Anaxyrus
californicus
arroyo toad FE/SSC Covered Semi-arid areas near washes, sandy riverbanks, riparian areas,
palm oasis, Joshua tree, mixed chaparral and sagebrush; stream
channels for breeding (typically third order); adjacent stream
terraces and uplands for foraging and wintering
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known
geographic range and there is no
suitable water or vegetation present.
Rana draytonii California red-
legged frog
FT/SSC Covered Lowland streams, wetlands, riparian woodlands, livestock ponds;
dense, shrubby or emergent vegetation associated with deep,
still or slow-moving water; uses adjacent uplands
Not expected to occur. No suitable
still or slow-moving water on site.
Spea hammondii western spadefoot None/
SSC
None Primarily grassland and vernal pools, but also in ephemeral
wetlands that persist at least 3 weeks in chaparral, coastal scrub,
valley–foothill woodlands, pastures, and other agriculture
Not expected to occur. No suitable
persistent wet areas on site.
Reptiles
Actinemys
marmorata
western pond turtle None/
SSC
Covered Slow-moving permanent or intermittent streams, ponds, small
lakes, and reservoirs with emergent basking sites; adjacent
uplands used for nesting and during winter
Not expected to occur. No suitable
streams, ponds or other water present
on site or adjacent to the site.
Anniella stebbinsi southern California
legless lizard
None/
SSC
None Coastal dunes, stabilized dunes, beaches, dry washes, valley–foothill,
chaparral, and scrubs; pine, oak, and riparian woodlands; associated
with sparse vegetation and moist sandy or loose, loamy soils
Not expected to occur. No suitable
sparse vegetation with moist sandy
or loose, loamy soils.
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy
snake
None/
SSC
None Commonly occurs in desert regions throughout southern
California; prefers open sandy areas with scattered brush; also
found in rocky areas
Not expected potential to occur. No
suitable open sandy areas with
scattered brush and no suitable
rocky areas.
Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
orange-throated
whiptail
None/WL Covered Low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley–foothill hardwood Not expected to occur. No suitable
scrub or woodland habitat present.
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
San Diegan tiger
whiptail
None/
SSC
None Hot and dry areas with sparse foliage, including chaparral,
woodland, and riparian areas
Not expected to occur. No
suitable scrub, woodland, or
riparian habitat present.
Chelonia mydas green sea turtle FT/None None Shallow waters of lagoons, bays, estuaries, mangroves,
eelgrass, and seaweed beds
Not expected to occur. The project
site is not located in an area that
could support green sea turtle.
APPENDIX D (Continued)
10271
D-2 July 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Coluber
fuliginosus
Baja California
coachwhip
None/
SSC
None In California restricted to southern San Diego County, where it is
known from grassland and coastal sage scrub; open areas in
grassland and coastal sage scrub
Low potential to occur. The grassland
is thick and there is thatch; therefore,
there is no suitable open areas in
grassland on site. Additionally, the
project site is disturbed and
surrounded by urban development.
Crotalus ruber red diamondback
rattlesnake
None/
SSC
None Coastal scrub, chaparral, oak and pine woodlands, rocky
grasslands, cultivated areas, and desert flats
Low potential to occur. No suitable
rocky areas in grassland on site.
Additionally, the project site is disturbed
and surrounded by urban development.
Diadophis
punctatus similis
San Diego ringneck
snake
None/
None
None Moist habitats including wet meadows, rocky hillsides, gardens,
farmland grassland, chaparral, mixed-conifer forest, and
woodland habitats
Low potential to occur. No suitable
moist microhabitat conditions. The
grassy swale is dry and does not
appear to support surface water.
Additionally, the project site is disturbed
and surrounded by urban development.
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Blainville’s horned
lizard
None/
SSC
Covered Open areas of sandy soil in valleys, foothills, and semi-arid
mountains including coastal scrub, chaparral, valley–foothill
hardwood, conifer, riparian, pine–cypress, juniper, and annual
grassland habitats
Low potential to occur. No suitable open
areas of sandy soil. Additionally, the
project site is disturbed and surrounded
by urban development.
Plestiodon
skiltonianus
interparietalis
Coronado skink None/WL None Woodlands, grasslands, pine forests, and chaparral; rocky areas
near water
Low potential to occur. No suitable
rocky areas near water. Additionally,
the project site is disturbed and
surrounded by urban development.
Salvadora
hexalepis virgultea
coast patch-nosed
snake
None/
SSC
None Brushy or shrubby vegetation; requires small mammal burrows
for refuge and overwintering sites
Not expected potential to occur. No
suitable brushy or shrubby
vegetation. The site is dominated by
thick non-native grasses.
Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake
None/
SSC
None Streams, creeks, pools, streams with rocky beds, ponds, lakes,
vernal pools
Not expected to occur. This species
requires perennial to intermittent
water, which does not occur on site.
APPENDIX D (Continued)
10271
D-3 July 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Birds
Accipiter cooperii
(nesting)
Cooper’s hawk None/WL Covered Nests and forages in dense stands of live oak, riparian
woodlands, or other woodland habitats often near water
Low potential to nest on site.
Although there are a few individual
trees on site, this species prefers
denser woodland vegetation. There
is potential for this species to nest in
the group of trees location northeast
and/or east of the project site. High
potential to forage on site.
Agelaius tricolor
(nesting colony)
tricolored blackbird BCC/
PSE,
SSC
Covered Nests near freshwater, emergent wetland with cattails or tules,
but also in Himalayan blackberrry (Rubus armeniacus); forages
in grasslands, woodland, and agriculture
Not expected to occur. No wetland
or riparian vegetation present.
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
Southern California
rufous-crowned
sparrow
None/WL Covered Nests and forages in open coastal scrub and chaparral with low
cover of scattered scrub interspersed with rocky and grassy patches
Not expected to occur. No scrub
vegetation present.
Ammodramus
savannarum
(nesting)
grasshopper
sparrow
None/
SSC
None Nests and forages in moderately open grassland with tall forbs or
scattered shrubs used for perches
Low potential to occur. No suitable
scattered shrubs for perching.
Additionally, the project site is disturbed
and surrounded by urban development.
Aquila chrysaetos
(nesting &
wintering)
golden eagle BCC/FP,
WL
Covered Nests and winters in hilly, open/semi-open areas, including
shrublands, grasslands, pastures, riparian areas, mountainous
canyon land, open desert rimrock terrain; nests in large trees and
on cliffs in open areas and forages in open habitats
Not expected to occur. Project site is
not large enough to support nesting
or foraging and is disturbed and
surrounded by urban development.
Artemisiospiza
belli belli
Bell’s sage sparrow BCC/WL None Nests and forages in coastal scrub and dry chaparral; typically in
large, unfragmented patches dominated by chamise; nests in
more dense patches but uses more open habitat in winter
Not expected to occur. No scrub
vegetation present.
APPENDIX D (Continued)
10271
D-4 July 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Athene cunicularia
(burrow sites &
some wintering
sites)
burrowing owl BCC/
SSC
Covered Nests and forages in grassland, open scrub, and agriculture,
particularly with ground squirrel burrows
Low potential to occur. Suitable non-
native grassland habitat is present and
this species is known to occur in
disturbed habitats. Nearby records of
this species, however, are historical or
with an unknown date (CDFW 2017).
The site has been heavily disturbed
over the years and no ground squirrels
were observed during the surveys;
therefore, the potential for burrowing
owl to occur on site is low. Overall, the
site is surrounded by development and
lacks areas for sheltering (rock piles,
etc.). In addition, at 5 acres in size, the
site is isolated from other potential
suitable habitat and the property is not
large enough to support burrowing
owl, which have been documented to
require 8.6 acres at a minimum (Klute,
et al. 20031).
Branta canadensis Canada goose None/
None
Covered Lakes, rivers, ponds, and other bodies of water; yards, park
lawns, and agricultural fields
Not expected potential to occur. No
suitable bodies of water present.
Buteo regalis
(wintering)
ferruginous hawk BCC/WL Covered Winters and forages in open, dry country, grasslands, open
fields, agriculture
Low potential to occur. Project site is
not large enough to support
wintering or foraging for this species
and is disturbed and surrounded by
urban development.
1 Klute, D. S., L. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L. Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield, and T. S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and
Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical
Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington, D.C.
APPENDIX D (Continued)
10271
D-5 July 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Buteo swainsoni
(nesting)
Swainson’s hawk BCC/ST Covered Nests in open woodland and savanna, riparian, and in isolated
large trees; forages in nearby grasslands and agricultural areas
such as wheat and alfalfa fields and pasture
Low potential to occur. Project site is
not large enough to support
wintering or foraging for this species
and is disturbed and surrounded by
urban development.
Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis (San
Diego & Orange
Counties only)
coastal cactus wren BCC/
SSC
Covered Southern cactus scrub patches Not expected to occur. No southern
cactus scrub on site.
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus (nesting)
western snowy
plover
FT, BCC/
SSC
Covered On coasts nests on sandy marine and estuarine shores; in the
interior nests on sandy, barren or sparsely vegetated flats near
saline or alkaline lakes, reservoirs, and ponds
Not expected to occur. No coastal
habitat present.
Charadrius
montanus
(wintering)
mountain plover BCC/
SSC
Covered Winters in shortgrass prairies, plowed fields, open sagebrush,
and sandy deserts
Low potential to occur. The project site
is disturbed and surrounded by urban
development, making it unlikely this
species would occur on site.
Circus hudsonius
(nesting)
northern harrier None/
SSC
Covered Nests in open wetlands (marshy meadows, wet lightly-grazed
pastures, old fields, freshwater and brackish marshes); also in
drier habitats (grassland and grain fields); forages in grassland,
scrubs, rangelands, emergent wetlands, and other open habitats
Not expected to nest on site. Nesting
in San Diego County is scattered.
Based on the project site’s location
with surrounding commercial and
urban uses, disturbances from noise
and human presence, it is unlikely
this species would nest here.
Additionally, most of the site lacks
the density of marsh or grassland
vegetation where harriers can
conceal their nests. This species
may forage on site.
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
(nesting)
western yellow-
billed cuckoo
FT,
BCC/SE
None Nests in dense, wide riparian woodlands and forest with well-
developed understories
Not expected to occur. No riparian
woodland vegetation present.
APPENDIX D (Continued)
10271
D-6 July 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Egretta rufescens reddish egret None/
None
Covered Freshwater marsh with emergent vegetation; in the Central Valley
primarily nests and forages in rice fields and other flooded
agricultural fields with weeds and other residual aquatic vegetation
Not expected to occur. No freshwater
marsh vegetation present.
Empidonax traillii
extimus (nesting)
southwestern
willow flycatcher
FE/SE Covered Nests in dense riparian habitats along streams, reservoirs, or
wetlands; uses variety of riparian and shrubland habitats
during migration
Not expected to occur. No riparian
vegetation present.
Falco mexicanus
(nesting)
prairie falcon BCC/WL None Forages in grassland, savanna, rangeland, agriculture, desert
scrub, alpine meadows; nest on cliffs or bluffs
Low potential to occur. Project site is
not large enough to support foraging
and is disturbed and surrounded by
urban development. No suitable
cliffs or bluffs on site for nesting.
Falco peregrinus
anatum (nesting)
American peregrine
falcon
FDL,
BCC/
SDL, FP
Covered Nests on cliffs, buildings, and bridges; forages in wetlands, riparian,
meadows, croplands, especially where waterfowl are present
Not expected to occur. No nesting
habitat on site, and the site does
not support this species’ prey
base for foraging.
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
(nesting &
wintering)
bald eagle FDL,
BCC/SE,
FP
Covered Nests in forested areas adjacent to large bodies of water,
including seacoasts, rivers, swamps, large lakes; winters near
large bodies of water in lowlands and mountains
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat present for nesting,
wintering, or foraging.
Icteria virens
(nesting)
yellow-breasted
chat
None/
SSC
None Nests and forages in dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands
and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush
Not expected to occur. No riparian
vegetation present.
Ixobrychus exilis
(nesting)
least bittern BCC/
SSC
None Nests in freshwater and brackish marshes with dense, tall growth
of aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation
Not expected to occur. No marsh
vegetation present.
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black rail BCC/ST,
FP
None Tidal marshes, shallow freshwater margins, wet meadows, and
flooded grassy vegetation; suitable habitats are often supplied by
canal leakage in Sierra Nevada foothill populations
Not expected to occur. No marsh
vegetation present.
Numenius
americanus
(nesting)
long-billed curlew BCC/WL Covered Nests in grazed, mixed grass, and short-grass prairies; localized
nesting along the California coast; winters and forages in coastal
estuaries, mudflats, open grassland, and cropland
Not expected to occur. No marsh
vegetation present.
Pandion haliaetus
(nesting)
osprey None/WL None Large waters (lakes, reservoirs, rivers) supporting fish; usually
near forest habitats, but widely observed along the coast
Not expected to occur. No habitat
present that supports fish for
foraging or nesting habitat.
APPENDIX D (Continued)
10271
D-7 July 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Passerculus
sandwichensis
beldingi
Belding’s savannah
sparrow
None/SE Covered Nests and forages in coastal saltmarsh dominated by pickleweed
(Salicornia spp.)
Not expected to occur. No saltmarsh
vegetation present.
Passerculus
sandwichensis
rostratus
(wintering)
large-billed
savannah sparrow
None/
SSC
Covered Nests and forages in open, low saltmarsh vegetation, including
low halophytic scrub
Not expected to occur. No saltmarsh
vegetation present.
Pelecanus
occidentalis
californicus (nesting
colonies &
communal roosts)
California brown
pelican
FDL/
SDL, FP
Covered Forages in warm coastal marine and estuarine environments; in
California, nests on dry, rocky offshore islands
Not expected to occur. No marine or
estuarine habitat for foraging or
nesting habitat present.
Phalacrocorax
auritus (nesting
colony)
double-crested
cormorant
None/WL None Nests in riparian trees near ponds, lakes, artificial impoundments,
slow-moving rivers, lagoons, estuaries, and open coastlines; winter
habitat includes lakes, rivers, and coastal areas
Not expected to occur. No riparian
vegetation suitable for nesting, or
waters suitable for foraging present.
Plegadis chihi
(nesting colony)
white-faced ibis None/WL Covered Nests in shallow marshes with areas of emergent vegetation;
winter foraging in shallow lacustrine waters, flooded agricultural
fields, muddy ground of wet meadows, marshes, ponds, lakes,
rivers, flooded fields, and estuaries
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known
geographic range and there is no
marsh habitat present.
Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal California
gnatcatcher
FT/SSC Covered Nests and forages in various sage scrub communities, often
dominated by California sagebrush and buckwheat; generally
avoids nesting in areas with a slope of greater than 40%;
majority of nesting at less than 1,000 feet amsl
Not expected to occur. No coastal
sage scrub present.
Rallus obsoletus
levipes
Ridgway’s rail FE/SE,
FP
Covered Coastal wetlands, brackish areas, coastal saline emergent wetlands Not expected to occur. No marsh
vegetation present.
Setophaga
petechia (nesting)
yellow warbler BCC/
SSC
None Nests and forages in riparian and oak woodlands, montane
chaparral, open ponderosa pine, and mixed-conifer habitats
Not expected to occur. No riparian
woodland or scrub vegetation present.
Sialia mexicana western bluebird None/
None
Covered Nests in old-growth red fir, mixed-conifer, and lodegpole pine
habitats near wet meadows used for foraging
Not expected to occur. No woodland
vegetation present.
Sternula antillarum
browni (nesting
colony)
California least tern FE/SE,
FP
Covered Forages in shallow estuaries and lagoons; nests on sandy
beaches or exposed tidal flats
Not expected to occur. No estuarine
or lagoon habitat present.
APPENDIX D (Continued)
10271
D-8 July 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Thalasseus
elegans (nesting
colony)
elegant tern None/WL Covered Inshore coastal waters, bays, estuaries, and harbors; forages
over open water
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat present.
Vireo bellii pusillus
(nesting)
least Bell’s vireo FE/SE Covered Nests and forages in low, dense riparian thickets along water or
along dry parts of intermittent streams; forages in riparian and
adjacent shrubland late in nesting season
Not expected to occur. No riparian
scrub or woodland vegetation present.
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None/
SSC
None Grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, forests; most common in
open, dry habitats with rocky outcrops for roosting, but also
roosts in man-made structures and trees
Low potential to occur. Although
there are trees for roosting, the
project site is disturbed and
surrounded by urban development.
May forage on site.
Chaetodipus
californicus
femoralis
Dulzura pocket
mouse
None/
SSC
None Open habitat, coastal scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, chamise
chaparral, mixed-conifer habitats; disturbance specialist; 0 to
3,000 feet amsl
Low potential to occur. Along the
coast in San Diego County, this
species occurs from Del Mar north;
and south of Del Mar it has been
documented further inland (Tremor
et al. 20172). Additionally, this
species is often found within
chaparral, coastal sage scrub or at
the edge of grassland. The project
site does not support suitable habitat
for this species.
Chaetodipus fallax
fallax
northwestern San
Diego pocket
mouse
None/
SSC
None Coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, sagebrush, desert wash, desert
scrub, desert succulent shrub, pinyon–juniper, and annual
grassland
Low potential to occur. Although there
is non-native (i.e., annual) grassland
on site, the project site is disturbed and
surrounded by urban development.
2 Tremor, S., D. Stokes, W. Spencer, J. Diffendorfer, H. Thomas, S. Chivers, and P. Unitt. 2017. San Diego County Mammal Atlas. San Diego, California: San Diego
Natural History Museum.
APPENDIX D (Continued)
10271
D-9 July 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Choeronycteris
mexicana
Mexican long-
tongued bat
None/
SSC
None Desert and montane riparian, desert succulent scrub, desert scrub,
and pinyon–juniper woodland; roosts in caves, mines, and buildings
Not expected to occur. This species
is typically found in desert habitats.
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend’s big-
eared bat
None/
SSC
None Mesic habitats characterized by coniferous and deciduous forests
and riparian habitat, but also xeric areas; roosts in limestone caves
and lava tubes, man-made structures, and tunnels
Not expected to occur. This
species is typically found in less
urbanized environments.
Euderma
maculatum
spotted bat None/
SSC
None Foothills, mountains, desert regions of southern California, including
arid deserts, grasslands, and mixed-conifer forests; roosts in rock
crevices and cliffs; feeds over water and along washes
Not expected to occur. No suitable rock
crevices or cliffs for nesting and no
water or washes on site for foraging.
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff bat None/
SSC
None Chaparral, coastal and desert scrub, coniferous and deciduous forest
and woodland; roosts in crevices in rocky canyons and cliffs where the
canyon or cliff is vertical or nearly vertical, trees, and tunnels
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present; this species is
typically found in less urbanized
environments.
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
silver-haired bat None/
None
None Old-growth forest, maternity roosts in trees, large snags 50 feet
aboveground; hibernates in hollow trees, rock crevices, buildings,
mines, caves, and under sloughing bark; forages in or near coniferous
or mixed deciduous forest, stream or river drainages
Not expected to occur. No suitable
roosting habitat present and the site
lacks forest and stream/river habitat
for foraging.
Lasiurus
blossevillii
western red bat None/
SSC
None Forest, woodland, riparian, mesquite bosque, and orchards,
including fig, apricot, peach, pear, almond, walnut, and orange;
roosts in tree canopy
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat present.
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat None/
None
None Forest, woodland riparian, and wetland habitats; also juniper
scrub, riparian forest, and desert scrub in arid areas; roosts in
tree foliage and sometimes cavities, such as woodpecker holes
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat present.
Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat None/
SSC
None Valley–foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis
habitats; below 2,000 feet amsl; roosts in riparian and palms
Not expected to occur. No suitable
riparian or desert habitat present.
Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego black-
tailed jackrabbit
None/
SSC
None Arid habitats with open ground; grasslands, coastal scrub,
agriculture, disturbed areas, and rangelands
Low potential to occur. Suitable non-
native grassland is present and
species is tolerant of disturbed
conditions. However, the project site
is surrounded by urban development
precluding use by this species.
Myotis ciliolabrum western small-
footed myotis
None/
None
None Arid woodlands and shrublands, but near water; roosts in caves,
crevices, mines, abandoned buildings
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat present.
APPENDIX D (Continued)
10271
D-10 July 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Myotis evotis long-eared myotis None/
None
None Brush, woodland, and forest habitats from sea level to 9,000 feet
amsl; prefers coniferous habitats; forages along habitat edges, in
open habitats, and over water; roosts in buildings, crevices,
under bark, and snags; uses caves as night roosts
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat present.
Myotis
yumanensis
Yuma myotis None/
None
None Riparian, arid scrublands and deserts, and forests associated
with water (streams, rivers, tinajas); roosts in bridges, buildings,
cliff crevices, caves, mines, and trees
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat present.
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego desert
woodrat
None/
SSC
None Coastal scrub, desert scrub, chaparral, cacti, rocky areas Not expected to occur. No scrub or
rocky habitats present.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed
bat
None/
SSC
None Pinyon–juniper woodlands, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub,
desert riparian, desert wash, alkali desert scrub, Joshua tree,
and palm oases; roosts in high cliffs or rock outcrops with drop-
offs, caverns, and buildings
Not expected to occur. No suitable
desert habitats present.
Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed bat None/
SSC
None Rocky areas; roosts in caves, holes in trees, buildings, and
crevices on cliffs and rocky outcrops; forages over water
Not expected to occur. No suitable
roosting or foraging habitats present.
Odocoileus
hemionus
mule deer None/
None
Covered Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, riparian, woodlands, and forest;
often browses in open area adjacent to cover throughout
California, except deserts and intensely farmed areas
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat present and proximity to
urban development precludes use
by this species.
Perognathus
longimembris
pacificus
Pacific pocket
mouse
FE/SSC None fine-grained sandy substrates in open coastal strand, coastal
dunes, and river alluvium
Not expected to occur. No coastal
dune or sandy habitats present.
Puma concolor cougar None/
None
Covered Scrubs, chaparral, riparian, woodland, and forest; rests in rocky
areas and on cliffs and ledges that provide cover; most abundant
in riparian areas and brushy stages of most habitats throughout
California, except deserts
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat present and the site is too
urbanized for this species.
Taxidea taxus American badger None/
SSC
Covered Dry, open, treeless areas; grasslands, coastal scrub, agriculture,
and pastures, especially with friable soils
Low potential to occur. Project site is
disturbed and surrounded by urban
development.
Invertebrates
Branchinecta
sandiegonensis
San Diego fairy
shrimp
FE/None Covered Vernal pools, non-vegetated ephemeral pools Not expected to occur. No vernal
pools present.
APPENDIX D (Continued)
10271
D-11 July 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
City of
Chula Vista
Subarea
Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Callophrys thornei Thorne’s hairstreak None/
None
Covered Interior cypress woodland dominated by host plant
Hesperocyparis forbesii (Tecate cypress)
Not expected potential to occur. No
Tecate cypress on site.
Euphydryas editha
quino
Quino checkerspot
butterfly
FE/None Covered Annual forblands, grassland, open coastal scrub and chaparral;
often soils with cryptogamic crusts and fine-textured clay; host
plants include Plantago erecta, Antirrhinum coulterianum, and
Plantago patagonica (Silverado Occurrence Complex)
Low potential to occur. Project
site is disturbed and surrounded
by urban development. No host
plants were identified on site
during general surveys .
Lycaena hermes Hermes copper FC/None None Mixed woodlands, chaparral, and coastal scrub Not expected to occur. No coastal
habitat present.
Panoquina errans wandering skipper None/
None
Covered Saltmarsh Not expected to occur. No saltmarsh
vegetation present.
Streptocephalus
woottoni
Riverside fairy
shrimp
FE/None Covered Vernal pools, non-vegetated ephemeral pools Not expected to occur. No vernal
pools on site.
APPENDIX D (Continued)
10271
D-12 July 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APPENDIX E
Wetlands Delineation Reports
ATTACHMENT E-1
ACOE Determination
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
5900 LA PLACE COURT, SUITE 100
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
July 7, 2017
Tommy Edmunds Jr.
Silvergate Development LLC
4980 North Harbor Drive, Ste 203
San Diego, California 92106
SUBJECT: Approved Jurisdictional Determination regarding geographic jurisdiction
Dear Mr. Edmunds Jr.:
I am responding to your request (File No. SPL-2017-00349-BLR) dated May 23, 2017, for an
approved Department of the Army jurisdictional determination (AJD) request for Bonita Glen
Drive located within the city of Chula Vista, San Diego, California at approximately
32.646828°N latitude, -117.063161°W longitude.
The Corps' evaluation process for determining whether or not a Department of the Army
permit is needed involves two criteria. If both criteria are met, a permit would likely be required.
The first criteria determines whether or not the proposed project is located within the Corps'
geographic jurisdiction (i.e., it is within a water of the United States). The second determines
whether or not the proposed project is a regulated activity under Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This letter pertains only to geographic
jurisdiction.
Based on available information, I have determined there are waters of the United States on
the project site in the locations depicted on the enclosed drawing (an approximately 240-foot
ephemeral tributary to Sweetwater River). The basis for our determination can be found in the
enclosed Approved Jurisdictional Determination (JD) form(s).
This letter includes an approved jurisdictional determination for the AJD request for Bonita
Glen Drive project site. If you wish to submit new information regarding this jurisdictional
determination, please do so within 60 days. We will consider any new information so submitted
and respond within 60 days by either revising the prior determination, if appropriate, or reissuing
the prior determination. If you object to this or any revised or reissued jurisdictional
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part
331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for
Appeal (RFA) form. If you wish to appeal this decision, you must submit a completed RFA
form within 60 days of the date on the NAP to the Corps South Pacific Division Office at the
following address:
Tom Cavanaugh
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
South Pacific Division, CESPD-PDS-O, 2042B
1455 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94103-1399
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is
complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5 (see below), and that it
has been received by the Division Office by September 5, 2017.
This determination has been conducted to identify the extent of the Corps' Clean Water Act
jurisdiction on the particular project site identified in your request, and is valid for five years
from the date of this letter, unless new information warrants revision of the determination before
the expiration date. This determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions
of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or
anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination
from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service prior to starting work.
Thank you for participating in the regulatory program. If you have any questions, please
contact Bonnie Rogers at (213) 452-3372 or via e-mail at Bonnie.L.Rogers@usace.army.mil.
Please help me to evaluate and improve the regulatory experience for others by completing the
customer survey form at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey.
Sincerely,
Michelle R. Lynch
Chief, South Coast Branch
Regulatory Division
Enclosure(s)
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Silvergate Development LLC, Attn: Mr. Tommy
Edmunds Jr. File No.: SPL-2017-00349-BLR Date: July 7, 2017
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
x APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/cecw/pages/reg_materials.aspx or Corps regulations at 33
CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signa ture
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to app eal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engine er.
Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to
appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify
the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the p ermit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signa ture
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
APPEAL: If you choose to decline the p roffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of thi s
form and sending the form to the division engineer (address on reverse). This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer (address on reverse). This form must be received
by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer (address on
reverse). This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not ne ed to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary
JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contactin g
the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to
reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to
an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your
reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal process you
may contact:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Phone: (213) 452-3372, FAX 916-557-7803
Email: Bonnie.L.Rogers@usace.army.mil
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
may also contact:
Thomas J. Cavanaugh
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
South Pacific Division
1455 Market Street, 2052B
San Francisco, California 94103-1399
Phone: 415-503-6574, FAX 415-503-6646)
Email: Thomas.J.Cavanaugh@usace.army.mil
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
__________________________________________
Signature of appellant or agent.
Date: Telephone
number:
SPD version revised December 17, 2010
§ 331.5 Criteria.
(a) Criteria for appeal —(1) Submission of RFA. The appellant must submit a completed RFA (as defined
at §331.2) to the appropriate division office in order to appeal an approved JD, a permit denial, or a
declined permit. An individual permit that has been signed by the applicant, and subsequently unilaterally
modified by the district engineer pursuant to 33 CFR 325.7, may be appealed under this process, provided
that the applicant has not started work in waters of the United States authorized by the permit. The RFA
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
(2) Reasons for appeal. The reason(s) for requesting an appeal of an approved JD, a permit denial, or a
declined permit must be specifically stated in the RFA and must be more than a simple request for appeal
because the affected party did not like the approved JD, permit decision, or the permit conditions.
Examples of reasons for appeals include, but are not limited to, the following: A procedural error; an
incorrect application of law, regulation or officially promulgated policy; omission of material fact;
incorrect application of the current regulatory criteria and associated guidance for identifying and
delineating wetlands; incorrect application of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (see 40 CFR Part 230); or
use of incorrect data. The reasons for appealing a permit denial or a declined permit may include
jurisdiction issues, whether or not a previous approved JD was appealed.
(b) Actions not appealable. An action or decision is not subject to an administrative appeal under this part
if it falls into one or more of the following categories:
(1) An individual permit decision (including a letter of permission or a standard permit with special
conditions), where the permit has been accepted and signed by the permittee. By signing the permit, the
applicant waives all rights to appeal the terms and conditions of the permit, unless the authorized work
has not started in waters of the United States and that issued permit is subsequently modified by the
district engineer pursuant to 33 CFR 325.7;
(2) Any site-specific matter that has been the subject of a final decision of the Federal courts;
(3) A final Corps decision that has resulted from additional analysis and evaluation, as directed by a final
appeal decision;
(4) A permit denial without prejudice or a declined permit, where the controlling factor cannot be
changed by the Corps decision maker (e.g., the requirements of a binding statute, regulation, state Section
401 water quality certification, state coastal zone management disapproval, etc. (See 33 CFR 320.4(j));
(5) A permit denial case where the applicant has subsequently modified the proposed project, because this
would constitute an amended application that would require a new public interest review, rather than an
appeal of the existing record and decision;
(6) Any request for the appeal of an approved JD, a denied permit, or a declined permit where the RFA
has not been received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of the NAP;
(7) A previously approved JD that has been superceded by another approved JD based on new
information or data submitted by the applicant. The new approved JD is an appealable action;
(8) An approved JD associated with an individual permit where the permit has been accepted and signed
by the permittee;
(9) A preliminary JD; or
(10) A JD associated with unauthorized activities except as provided in §331.11.
ATTACHMENT E-2
Results of a Jurisdictional Delineation for the
Bonita Glen Development Project
May 15, 2017 10271
Mr. Tommy Edmunds Jr.
Silvergate Development, LLC
4980 North Harbor Drive, Suite 203
San Diego, California 92106
Subject: Results of a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for the Bonita Glen
Development Project, City of Chula Vista, California
Dear Mr. Edmunds,
This report presents the findings of a jurisdictional wetland delineation conducted by Dudek for the
proposed Bonita Glen Development Project (project), which includes Assessor Parcel Numbers
(APNs) 570-131-1100, 570-140-4000, 570-140-4800, 570-140-5100, and 570-140-5400 located
in San Diego County, within the City of Chula Vista, California. The biological investigation
conducted focused on identifying resources within the proposed project boundary that may be
subject to regulations under the following: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); Section 401 of the CWA and/or the
Porter Cologne Act as administered by Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB);
Sections 1600–1603 of the Fish and Game Code as administered by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
This jurisdictional delineation report includes a description of the study area, the methods of
delineation survey performed, the results of the survey, and the conclusion.
PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project study area is located within the City of Chula Vista (City), San Diego County,
California (Figure 1). The approximate 5.08-acre project study area is located on Bonita Glen
Drive; approximately 300 feet west of California Interstate 805 (CA-805) and 160 feet south of E
Street/Bonita Road. The site lies within an urban portion of the City and is mostly surrounded by
existing development and paved City streets. Specifically, the project site is bounded by Bonita
Glen Drive in the south and west boundaries and Vista Drive along the eastern property
boundary. The approximate center of the property is 32°38'48.04'' north latitude and
117°03'45.37'' west longitude; on U.S. Geological Service (USGS) 7.5 minute series topographic
National City quadrangle map (Figure 2). According to the Water Quality Control Plan for the
San Diego Basin, the site is located in the San Diego Bay Watershed Management Area, within
Mr. Tommy Edmunds Jr.
Subject: Results of a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for the Bonita Glen Development
Project, City of Chula Vista, California
10271
2 May 2017
the Sweetwater Hydrologic Unit (9.00), within the La Nacion Hydrologic Subarea (9.12)
(RWQCB 2016)(Figure 3).
The soil type within the study area, according to the San Diego County Soil Survey (Bowman
1973), is Huerhuero-Urban Land, 2–9% slopes. This soil complex occurs on marine terraces
from sea level to 400 feet and within an urban landscape altered/leveled for development. Soil
textures typically consist of unconsolidated sandy marine material or a mixture of loam and clay
loam and sandy marine sediments.
The site is urban in-fill, vacant, relatively flat, and slopes generally towards the northwest
direction. Existing conditions observed on site suggest the property has been previously mass
graded and a concrete brow v-ditch was constructed in the northeast portion of the property.
Water developed off site from Bonita Glen Drive and adjacent properties discharge onto the
subject project site near the southwest portion of the property via a storm sewer outfall structure
(i.e., metal corrugated pipe). The topography within and immediately surrounding the property
seems to have been engineered to drain storm water, via a swale, to a single storm sewer inlet
structure located in the northwest corner of the property.
METHODS
Field Reconnaissance
A biological survey was performed for the study area by Dudek biologist Thomas Liddicoat (TL)
on April 21, 2017. The survey included mapping of existing vegetation communities and a
detailed investigation and evaluation of potential jurisdictional wetlands, including waters. Table
1 summarizes the survey information.
Table 1
Survey Conditions
Date Time Personnel Survey Conditions
4/21/17 0920–1600 TL 95-100% cloud cover, 1-5 miles per hour wind, 64° Fahrenheit
Resource Mapping
The survey was conducted on-foot and all portions of the study area were thoroughly investigated to
visually cover 100% of the project study area. A 100-scale (i.e., 100 feet = 1 inch) field map (Bing
Maps 2016) with layers of aerial imagery was utilized to map vegetation communities, land cover
types, and record any potentially jurisdictional areas directly in the field.
Mr. Tommy Edmunds Jr.
Subject: Results of a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for the Bonita Glen Development
Project, City of Chula Vista, California
10271
3 May 2017
The vegetation community and land cover mapping follows the Preliminary Descriptions of
the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). In some cases, Oberbauer
(2008) is also utilized as a reference, especially with regards to land cover types. Vegetation
community and land cover mapping was conducted throughout the study area. Following
completion of the field mapping, Dudek Geographic Information System (GIS) Specialist,
Curtis Battle, digitized the mapped findings using ArcGIS and calculated coverage acreages
using ArcCAD.
Plant species encountered during the survey were identified and recorded directly into a field
notebook. Those species that could not be identified immediately were brought into the
laboratory for further investigation. Latin and common names for plant species follow the Jepson
Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized Plants of California
(Jepson Flora Project 2016).
Wetlands and Non-Wetland Waters Delineation
A formal delineation of jurisdictional “waters of the United States,” including wetlands, under the
regulation of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was conducted for the
project site. The delineation was performed in accordance with the methods prescribed in the 1987
Wetland Delineation Manual, Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the 2008 Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version
2.0) (ACOE 2008), the July 2011 Ordinary High Flows and the Stage-Discharge Relationship in
the Arid West Region (ACOE 2011), the Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (ACOE 2008), and the
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA NRCS 2010).
Pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), ACOE- and RWQCB-non-wetland waters
jurisdictional areas, include those with an ordinary high water mark (OHWM), are defined in
federal regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 328.3, as “the line on the shore established by fluctuations
of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the
bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the
presence of litter and debris.” The CDFW recognizes OHWM, defined bed and bank, and
associated riparian corridor in identifying the lateral limits of non-wetland waters subject to their
jurisdiction. Wetland areas (a subset of waters) subject to jurisdiction under the CWA are
identified by ACOE as areas supporting all three wetlands criteria described in the ACOE
manual: hydric soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland areas regulated by the
RWQCB are generally coincident with the ACOE, but can also include isolated features that
Mr. Tommy Edmunds Jr.
Subject: Results of a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for the Bonita Glen Development
Project, City of Chula Vista, California
10271
4 May 2017
have evidence of surface water inundation pursuant to the state Porter Cologne Act. These areas
generally support at least one of the three ACOE wetlands indicators but are considered isolated
through the lack of surface water hydrology/connectivity downstream. The extent of CDFG
regulated areas typically include areas supporting a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation
(i.e., 50% cover or greater) where associated with a stream channel.
To assist in the determination of jurisdictional areas on site, there was careful observation across
the entire property and data collection at seven sampling points in accordance with federal and
state regulations, case law, and clarifying guidance. The sampling data was collected on
approved ACOE forms and representative photographs were captured during the field
investigation (Appendices A and B, respectively). The project study area was evaluated for
indicators of non-wetland waters such as OHWM, bed and banks, associated riparian areas, and
for positive indicators of wetlands such as hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland
hydrology. The extent of any identified jurisdictional areas was determined by mapping the areas
with similar aquatic resource indicators to the sampled locations. Potential jurisdictional features
were determined and recorded directly in the field using a GPS unit. Subsequent to the field
work, this GPS data was transferred to topographic base, and a GIS coverage was created.
RESULTS
Vegetation
One vegetation community was identified within the project study area: non-native grassland
vegetation, which is considered “common uplands.” Dominant vegetation observed on site has a
67% to >99% probability of occurring in uplands (depending on the specific species). The
vegetation on site is not considered hydrophytic.
Soils
The soil type identified within the project study area, according to the San Diego County Soil
Survey (Bowman 1973), is Huerhuero-Urban Land series, with 2–9% slopes. This soil occurs on
marine terraces from sea level to 400 feet. Within an urban landscape on property altered/leveled
for development, the San Diego County Survey states that soil textures should be confirmed on
site, but typically consist of unconsolidated sandy marine material or a mixture of loam and clay
loam and sandy marine sediments. The Huerhuero-Urban Land soil series is identified as
moderately well drained and has a very high drainage rating. During the site investigation seven
test pits were dug at different locations across the property, with respect to potential
jurisdictional resources, and observed soils that closely resemble Huerhuero-Urban land complex
soil. No indicators of hydric soils were observed on the property.
Mr. Tommy Edmunds Jr.
Subject: Results of a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for the Bonita Glen Development
Project, City of Chula Vista, California
10271
5 May 2017
Hydrology
As previously mentioned, the property displays evidence of mass grading and seems to have
been designed to drain towards a storm sewer drop inlet structure located at the northwest corner
of the property. In review of historic aerial imagery, the property was used for agriculture row-
crop purposes up until approximately 1970. Around 1980 Bonita Glen Drive was constructed
along with the grading of surrounding properties and as such, a broad swale was likely created to
efficiently enable positive drainage from a storm sewer outfall (culvert) located at Bonita Glen
Drive, near the southwest portion of the property, to the drop inlet located at the northwest corner
of the property. Imagery captured in 1994 shows a channel-like feature in the northwest portion
of the property (Historical Aerials 2016).
During the field investigation discussed herein, there were no indicators of wetlands or non-
wetland waters hydrology observed in the topographical swale feature as it extends north across
the property until it passes a brow ditch located in the northeast portion of the property. The v-
shaped concrete brow ditch, constructed absolutely in uplands and draining uplands, discharges
water developed off-site from the La Quinta Inn ornamental landscape irrigation and the paved
cul-de-sac (Vista Dr,) located east of the project site. Water discharged from the brow ditch into
the swale forms a narrow (approximately 1-foot wide) channelized flow pattern organized with
bed and banks which are stream indicator. Also in this segment of swale, physical markings of a
natural line impressed on the banks was observed. This line indicates an OHWM, the lateral
extent of non-wetland waters (“stream”) jurisdiction for the ACOE and RWQCB. This narrow
stream feature on site flows northwest off the site into the storm sewer drop inlet structure at
located at the northwest corner of the property.
Jurisdictional Delineation
Results of the delineation indicate there is a narrow non-wetlands waters of the U.S. feature
(ephemeral stream) that occurs in the northwest portion of the property. The stream is considered a
waters of the U.S. and subject to ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. During the site
investigation, there were no water flows present, however a clearly defined bed and bank was
visible within the channel. This channel is approximately 1-foot in width and extends
approximately 240 linear feet from the terminus of brow ditch to the drop inlet structure at the
northwest corner of the property.
Mr. Tommy Edmunds Jr.
Subject: Results of a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for the Bonita Glen Development
Project, City of Chula Vista, California
10271
6 May 2017
No areas within the property were found to support all three parameters that would define wetland
features (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology).
All of the potential jurisdictional boundaries mapped during the investigation are spatially
presented on Figure 4 and the corresponding acreages are provided below in Table 2. The results
of the seven data stations are presented in Table 3.
Table 2
Jurisdictional Areas
Jurisdictional
Resource
Vegetation Community/Land
Cover Type
Potential Resource Agency Jurisdiction
ACOE/RWQCB/CDFW Area (acres)
Waters of the U.S. Non-native grassland Length: 240-feet, Width: 1-foot 0.005
Table 3
Data Station Summary
Data
Station
Wetland Determination Field Indicators
Determination Jurisdiction Vegetation Hydric Soils Hydrology
1A none None yes Non-wetlands waters of the U.S.
(stream)
ACOE, RWQCB,
CDFW
1B none None none uplands None
2A none None none uplands None
2B none None none uplands None
3A none None none uplands None
3B none none none uplands None
3C none none none uplands None
CONCLUSION
The on-site investigation has determined that the stream area identified is likely jurisdictional by
all three applicable resource agencies (i.e., ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW)(Figure 4). Thus,
proposed project discharge of dredged or fill material or work within the area mapped as non-
wetland waters (stream) resulting from the implementation of the proposed project could be
subject to the regulations and requirements of the ACOE, RWQCB and CDFW.
No other areas across the property were found to support indicators of jurisdictional resources.
Mr. Tommy Edmunds Jr.
Subject: Results of a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for the Bonita Glen Development
Project, City of Chula Vista, California
10271
7 May 2017
If you have any questions or comments regarding the content of this letter, please do not hesitate
to email me at tliddicoat@dudek.com or call me at 760.479.4286.
Sincerely,
______________________
Thomas S. Liddicoat Jr.
Biologist
Att.: Figures 1–4
Appendix A, Wetland Determination Field Data Forms
Appendix B, Data Station Photographs
REFERENCES CITED
ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Online ed. Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-
87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
January 1987.
ACOE. 2008. Interim regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation
manual: Arid West Region. ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL
TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
(http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel08-13.pdf).
ACOE 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in
the Arid West Region of the Western United States. ed. R.W. Lichvar and S.M. McColley.
ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Hanover, NH: Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. August 2008.
ACOE 2011. Ordinary High Flows and the Stage-Discharge Relationship in the Arid West
Region. ed. K.E. Curtis, R.W. Lichvar, and L.E. Dixon. ERDC/CRREL TR-11-12.
Hanover, NH: Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center. July 2011.
Bing Maps. 2016. Accessed April 2017: Bing.com/maps.
Bowman, R.H. 1973. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, Part 1. United States Department
of the Agriculture. 104 pp. +appendices.
Mr. Tommy Edmunds Jr.
Subject: Results of a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for the Bonita Glen Development
Project, City of Chula Vista, California
10271
8 May 2017
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Jepson Flora Project. 2016. Jepson Flora. Berkeley, California: University of California.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.
Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. 156 pp.
Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego
County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California”, Robert F. Holland, Ph.D. October 1986.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA
NRCS). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States; A Guide for
Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils. Version 7.0.
Imperial
Beach
Chula
Vista
National
City Bonita
Coronado
Lemon
Grove
Poway
Encinitas
San Diego
Carlsbad
San
Marcos Escondido
Vista
Valley
Center
Camp Pendleton
South Hidden
MeadowsOceanside
Bonsall
Camp
Pendleton
North
Fallbrook
Rainbow
Jamul
Rancho San
Diego
Spring
Valley
AlpineHarbison
Canyon
Lakeside
El Cajon
Santee
Ramona San Diego
Country
Estates
San
Clemente
San Juan
apistrano
Highlands
Temecula
Santa Ysabel
San Diego
County
San Diego County
Riverside County
Pacific
Ocean
MEXICOMEXICO
905
274
209
74
163
56
371
75
52
67
94
79
76
78
8805
5
15
Copyright:' 2014 Esri
FIGURE 1
Regional Map
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Bonita Glen Drive Project
0105
Miles
Project Site
54
805
Vicinity Map
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Bonita Glen Drive Project
SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series National City Quadrangle
Da
t
e
:
5
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
7
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
c
b
a
t
t
l
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
2
7
1
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
.
m
x
d
02,0001,000 Feet Study Area
FIGURE 2
Hydrologic Setting
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Bonita Glen Drive Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2017; USGS, 2017
Da
t
e
:
5
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
7
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
c
b
a
t
t
l
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
2
7
1
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
.
m
x
d
01,000500Feet
Project Boundary
JurisdictionalWaters
Hydrologic Unit - Area - Subarea
FIGURE 3
Biological and Jurisdictional Resources Map
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Bonita Glen Drive Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2016
Da
t
e
:
5
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
7
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
c
b
a
t
t
l
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
2
7
1
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
J
D
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
4
B
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
on
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
0 10050Feet
Data Stations
Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Vegetation
ProjectBoundary
FIGURE 4
APPENDIX A
Wetland Determination Field Data Forms
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover:
Herb Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Total Cover:
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Dominance Test is >50%
%%Total Cover:
%
%
%
%%
Bonita Glen Chula Vista / San Diego 4/21/2017
Silvergate Development, LLC. 1A
Thomas Liddicoat Sec35, T17S, R2W
channel concave 3:1
CA
C - Mediterranean California 32°38'48.04'' 117°03'45.37''
Huerhuero-Urban Land none
0
1
0.0
85
10
5
Data pit within vegetated channel; approx 2-foot wide bank to bank and approx. 1-foot wide OHWM.
Data pit within non-native grassland vegetation; approx 4-5 feet tall.
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
10
10
10
8
50
Hordeum murinum
Festuca perennis
Phacelia cicutaria
Raphanus sativus
Avena barbata
2
5
5
Sonchus oleraceus
Medicago lupulina
Bromus diandrus
100
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
FACU
Not Listed
FAC
UPL
0
Non-native weedy vegetation, approx 4-5 feet tall.
100 480
425
40
15
0
0
4.80
Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9)4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Yes No
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand.3
3
1A
0-14 7.5 YR 3/2 100 5 YR 3/4 2 C M
Clay Loam
Defined channel bed and banks. 1-foot wide OHWM.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover:
Herb Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Total Cover:
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Dominance Test is >50%
%%Total Cover:
%
%
%
%%
Bonita Glen Chula Vista / San Diego 4/21/2017
Silvergate Development, LLC. 1B
Thomas Liddicoat Sec35, T17S, R2W
hillslope convex/none 25:1
CA
C - Mediterranean California 32°38'48.04'' 117°03'45.37''
Huerhuero-Urban Land none
0
2
0.0
92
10
Data pit within non-native grassland vegetation; approx 12 feet from DS1A.
Yes
No
No
No
Yes20
10
10
2
60
Malva parviflora
Bromus diandrus
Hordeum murinum
Raphanus sativus
Avena barbata
102
Not Listed
Not Listed
FACU
Not Listed
Not Listed
0
Non-native weedy vegetation, approx 4-5 feet tall.
102 500
460
40
0
0
0
4.90
Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9)4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Yes No
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand.3
3
1B
0-11 7.5 YR 3/2 100
Clay Loam unable to dig further; very hard!
Non-native grassland thatch approx 1.5 inches thick; roots present 6 inches down.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover:
Herb Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Total Cover:
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Dominance Test is >50%
%%Total Cover:
%
%
%
%%
Bonita Glen Chula Vista / San Diego 4/21/2017
Silvergate Development, LLC. 2A
Thomas Liddicoat Sec35, T17S, R2W
hillslope/swale concave 20:1
CA
C - Mediterranean California 32°38'48.04'' 117°03'45.37''
Huerhuero-Urban Land none
0
1
0.0
5
95
Data pit within approximate centerline of swale-like feature; no bed/banks; no OHWM.
Data pit within non-native grassland vegetation.
No
No
Yes
No1
95
2
2
Bromus diandrus
Digitaria sanguinalis
Raphanus sativus
Avena barbata
100
Not Listed
Not Listed
FACU
Not Listed
0
Non-native weedy vegetation; thick mat of digitaria.
100 405
25
380
0
0
0
4.05
Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9)4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Yes No
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand.3
3
2A
0-17 7.5 YR 3/2 100 5 YR 3/4 1 C M
Clay Loam digitaria roots 8 inches down
roots present 8 inches down.
No field indicators detected.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover:
Herb Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Total Cover:
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Dominance Test is >50%
%%Total Cover:
%
%
%
%%
Bonita Glen Chula Vista / San Diego 4/21/2017
Silvergate Development, LLC. 2B
Thomas Liddicoat Sec35, T17S, R2W
hillslope convex 20:1
CA
C - Mediterranean California 32°38'48.04'' 117°03'45.37''
Huerhuero-Urban Land none
0
0
0
87
13
Data pit within non-native grassland vegetation; approx 6 feet from DS2A.
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
10
10
3
5
70
Hordeum murinum
Bromus diandrus
Digitaria sanguinalis
Raphanus sativus
Avena barbata
1
1
Malva parviflora
Phacelia cicutaria
100
Not Listed
Not Listed
FACU
Not Listed
FACU
Not Listed
Not Listed
0
Non-native weedy vegetation; 4-6 feet tall.
100 487
435
52
0
0
0
4.87
Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9)4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Yes No
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand.3
3
2B
0-6 7.5 YR 3/3 100
Clay Loam extremely tough to dig; hard!!
No field indicators detected.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover:
Herb Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Total Cover:
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Dominance Test is >50%
%%Total Cover:
%
%
%
%%
Bonita Glen Chula Vista / San Diego 4/21/2017
Silvergate Development, LLC. 3A
Thomas Liddicoat Sec35, T17S, R2W
swale concave/none 25:1
CA
C - Mediterranean California 32°38'48.04'' 117°03'45.37''
Huerhuero-Urban Land none
0
1
0.0
99
Data pit beneath brazillian pepper tree canopy, within approximate centerline of swale-like feature; no bed/banks; no
OHWM.
Data pit approximately 10 feet down from metal storm drain culvert beneath Bonita Glen Drive.
1 YesDigitaria sanguinalis
99
FACU
99
99 396
0
396
0
0
0
4.00
Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9)4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Yes No
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand.3
3
3A
0-4 7.5 YR 3/1 100
Sand
roots presentClay Loam1007.5 YR 2.5/14-12
roots presentClay Loam1007.5 YR 3/212-16
No field indicators observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover:
Herb Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Total Cover:
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Dominance Test is >50%
%%Total Cover:
%
%
%
%%
Bonita Glen Chula Vista / San Diego 4/21/2017
Silvergate Development, LLC. 3B
Thomas Liddicoat Sec35, T17S, R2W
swale concave/none 25:1
CA
C - Mediterranean California 32°38'48.04'' 117°03'45.37''
Huerhuero-Urban Land none
0
0
0
13
90
2
Data pit within non-native grassland vegetation and within swale-like feature (approx 30' wide); pit located approx 20 feet
from DS3A.
No
No
Yes
No2
90
10
3
Rumex crispus
Digitaria sanguinalis
Raphanus sativus
Avena barbata
105
Not Listed
Not Listed
FACU
FAC
0
Non-native weedy vegetation.
105 431
65
360
6
0
0
4.10
Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9)4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Yes No
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand.3
3
3B
0-14 7.5 YR 3/2 100
Clay Loam
No field indicators detected.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover:
Herb Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Total Cover:
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Total Cover:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Dominance Test is >50%
%%Total Cover:
%
%
%
%%
Bonita Glen Chula Vista / San Diego 4/21/2017
Silvergate Development, LLC. 3C
Thomas Liddicoat Sec35, T17S, R2W
hillslope/swale convex 20:1
CA
C - Mediterranean California 32°38'48.04'' 117°03'45.37''
Huerhuero-Urban Land none
0
1
0.0
100
Data pit within non-native grassland vegetation approx 25 feet from DS3B.
Yes
No
No
No15
5
5
75
Malva parviflora
Bromus diandrus
Raphanus sativus
Avena barbata
100
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
0
Non-native weedy vegetation.
100 500
500
0
0
0
0
5.00
Arid West - Version 11-1-2006
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9)4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Yes No
Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand.3
3
3C
0-12 7.5 YR 3/3 50
Clay Loam
Clay Loam507.5 YR 3/20-12
No field indicators detected.
APPENDIX B
Data Station Photographs
APPENDIX B
Data Station Photographs
10271
B-1 May 2017
The photograph represents Data Station 1A.
Photo is facing northwest.
The photograph represents Data Station 1B.
Photo is facing northwest.
The photograph represents Data Station 2A.
Photo is facing south.
The photograph represents Data Station 2B.
Photo is facing north.
APPENDIX B (Continued)
10271
B-2 May 2017
The photograph represents Data Station 2B.
Photo is facing northeast.
The photograph represents Data Station 3A.
Photo is facing south.
The photograph represents Data Station 3A.
Photo is facing northwest.
The photograph represents Data Station 3B.
Photo is facing north.
APPENDIX B (Continued)
10271
B-3 May 2017
The photograph represents Data Station 3B.
Photo is facing west.
The photograph represents Data Station 3C.
Photo is facing north.
The photograph represents the culvert at the
southern boundary of the property.
Photo is facing south, south of Bonita
Glen Drive.
The photograph represents the culvert at the
southern boundary of the property.
Photo is facing west, north of Bonita Glen
Drive.
APPENDIX B (Continued)
10271
B-4 May 2017
The photograph represents the culvert at the
southern boundary of the property.
Photo is facing northwest, east of Bonita
Glen Drive.
ATTACHMENT E-3
Concurrence from RWQCB (Email)
1
Callie Ford
From:Honma, Lisa@Waterboards <Lisa.Honma@waterboards.ca.gov>
Sent:Wednesday, June 28, 2017 3:25 PM
To:Thomas Liddicoat
Cc:Thomas L. Edmunds Jr
Subject:RE: Approved JD Meeting - Bonita Glen Drive Residential, Chula Vista
Attachments:Memo.Fig 1_markup.pdf
Thomas, Thank you for providing the memo summarizing our discussion during the site visit to the project site on June
15th. I would clarify that the focus of the meeting was on identifying jurisdictional waters of the state resources within
the property boundary. I concur with the conclusion described in the memo that as long as the developer avoids the on-
site jurisdictional features the project would not be subject to regulation by the San Diego Water Board under the Clean
Water Act and/or the Porter Cologne Act. With respect to Figure 1 referenced in the memo and based on my
recollection, I would make one slight revision to the illustration by having the orange line join the blue line, rather than
showing it terminating in the v-ditch, see attached. Lastly, avoidance of the on-site jurisdictional features should include
providing an adequate amount of buffer on either side of it that is sufficient to ensure that the project does not impact
the on-site waters.
Restoration Opportunity! Your client may want to consider restoring the waters (e.g., removal of invasive species and
planting of native species) in order to make the resource a more valuable asset to the residential development
project. Doing so may qualify as alternative compliance under the MS4 Storm Water Permit, which may help to reduce
the project’s obligation under the County’s storm water requirements (not sure of the progress that the co-permittee's
have made towards developing this concept – but worth looking into). Also, I believe a restoration project could be
performed in a way (i.e., using hand tools) that would not require a 401 permit or would be eligible for enrollment in the
Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Dredged or Fill Discharges to Waters Deemed by the U.S. Army
Corps Of Engineers to be outside of Federal Jurisdiction, Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (projects with impacts less than 0.2
acre and less than 400 linear feet of waters of the state) if done in a way that includes grading/earth
movement/mechanized machinery. This permit currently has a $200 flat fee application fee.
Good luck with your project.
Kind regards, Lisa
Lisa Honma
Environmental Scientist
Watershed & Riparian Protection Unit
San Diego Water Board
(619) 521-3367
ATTACHMENT E-4
Jurisdictional Waters of the State Confirmation for
the Bonita Glen Project Site Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa Honma, Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region
From: Thomas S. Liddicoat Jr., Dudek
Subject: Jurisdictional Waters of the State Confirmation for the Bonita Glen Project
Site
Date: June 21, 2017
cc: Tommy Edmunds, Silvergate Development
Attachment(s): Figure 1 – Project Site
Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report for the Bonita Glen Site
Development Project
This memorandum was prepared to document the site meeting between Dudek, Silvergate
Development (Silvergate), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The meeting
focused on biological resources within the property that are subject to regulation under the
jurisdiction of the RWQCB under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and or the Porter Cologne Act.
As discussed during the meeting, Silvergate is planning to develop the approximate 5-acre property
into a multi-unit residential housing complex.
The primary purpose of this memorandum is to obtain documentation from the RWQCB
confirming the jurisdictional determination and confirming that a Water Quality Certification from
the San Diego Water Board is not required if the onsite jurisdictional features are avoided.
Background
As part of the development scheme and creation of the project site plan Silvergate intends to avoid
all jurisdictional areas on the property. As such, Dudek performed a detailed and formal
jurisdictional delineation across the property in April 2017 and subsequently prepared an
associated technical report, which is attached to this memorandum. Results of the delineation
concluded there is a jurisdictional feature on site which is subject to regulation by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE), RWQCB, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Furthermore, a portion of this feature is considered a non-relatively permanent non-wetland Waters
of the U.S. (Non-RPW WOUS) and another portion is considered Waters of the State.
Memorandum
Subject: Jurisdictional Waters of the State Confirmation for the Bonita Glen Project Site
10271
2 June 2017
Dudek has been discussing the project with ACOE staff (Ms. Bonnie Rogers) and Ms. Rogers has
confirmed accuracy of the jurisdictional delineation technical report findings. Currently, Ms.
Rogers is processing an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) for the site; ACOE file No.
SPL-2017-0349.
Site Meeting
On June 15, 2017 Dudek (Mr. Liddicoat), RWQCB (Ms. Honma), and Silvergate (Mr. Edmunds)
met on site to discuss the property, the jurisdictional resources, and the proposed project.
Specifically, due to the difficulty in demarcating the extent of the Waters of the State (“Waters”)
feature on site, Dudek and Silvergate requested confirmation from the RWQCB of the
jurisdictional limits (i.e., feature centerline and width). The jurisdictional delineation report, a map
of the feature centerline, and a map of the site topography were carried during the meeting to assist
in the onsite discussions. The site was analyzed by walking along and within the “Waters” feature
to evaluate the conditions and identify field indicators that would define the extent of RWQCB
jurisdiction. It should be noted that prior to the onsite meeting, Mr. Liddicoat placed wooden
survey stakes with blue flagging along the approximate centerline of this “Waters” feature to assist
with the site review meeting.
Conclusion
There is a jurisdictional feature on site where a portion is considered WOUS under joint regulation
by ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW under CWA and a portion is considered Waters of the State
regulated by RWQCB only, under the Porter Cologne Act. The Waters of the State (Waters)
portion is an ephemeral feature and is not clearly defined on site; however, it was determined that
indicators are present to demarcate the boundaries. Ms. Honma stated that the upstream and
downstream culverts are clear indicators of water transport/flow and the current site topography
map depicts a low point consistent with the presumed location of this “Waters” feature.
Additionally, Ms. Honma stated that although the “Waters” feature is nearly entirely dominated
by crab-grass (Digitaria sanguinalis) and no hydrophytic plant species are present, there is
evidence of water presence along the course of this drainage feature due to the strip of green
vegetation (i.e., crab-grass). Therefore, Ms. Honma confirmed this portion of the feature, which is
located south of the v-ditch on site and north of the culvert beneath Bonita Glen Drive is considered
a Waters of the State.
In review of the feature centerline staking, site topography and inlet culvert, the feature width was
also discussed. Ms. Homna confirmed the centerline was accurately represented by the site staking
and stated that the feature is 1.5 feet wide throughout the length of the feature on site.
Memorandum
Subject: Jurisdictional Waters of the State Confirmation for the Bonita Glen Project Site
10271
3 June 2017
Subsequent to the meeting Mr. Liddicoat prepared a Figure of the site to present the results of the
site meeting and document the jurisdictional features on site. Please see Figure 1 attached to this
memorandum.
As discussed on site and to reiterate what was mentioned earlier, Silvergate’s intent for property
development is to create a site plan that avoids impacts to the jurisdictional WOUS and “Waters”
features on site. Silvergate understands that should this intent change, and impacts to these features
are proposed, the appropriate permits would be pursued. Lastly, please provide written
concurrence with the information provided in this memorandum.
Project Site
Bonita Glen Drive Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2017; Latitude 33 2017
Da
t
e
:
6
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
7
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
c
b
a
t
t
l
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
2
7
1
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
\
B
o
n
i
t
a
G
l
e
n
_
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
a
p
_
2
0
1
7
0
6
1
3
.
m
x
d
0 10050Feetn
ProjectBoundary
Jurisdiction
Waters of the U.S. -
ACOE/RWQCB/CDFW
Waters of the State - RWQCB
FIGURE 1
Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report for the
Bonita Glen Site Development Project
(see Appendix E-2)
APPENDIX F
Habitat Loss and Incidental Take
Ordinance Findings
APPENDIX F
Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance Findings
10271
F-1 July 2018
The purpose of the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) regulations is to protect and conserve
native habitat within the City of Chula Vista and the viability of the species supported by those
habitats. HLIT regulations are intended to implement the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (City 2003) and ensure that development occurs in a
manner that protects the overall quality of the habitat resources, encourages a sensitive form of
development, and retains biodiversity and interconnected habitats. HLIT regulations also intend to
protect public health, safety, and welfare (Chula Vista Municipal Code [CVMC] 17.35 et seq.).
Projects within the City of Chula Vista’s jurisdiction are required to comply with the City of
Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan. This includes obtaining a HLIT permit pursuant to the HLIT
Ordinance. The Bonita Glen Drive Project is subject to this ordinance because, as stated in
Section 5.2.2 Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance (City 2003), the Subarea Plan requires
issuance of an HLIT permit for “all development within the City’s jurisdiction which is not
located within the Development Areas of Covered Projects prior to issuance of any land
development permit”. The HLIT regulations apply to the earliest decision on any entitlement
related to a Project Area located within the following mapped areas identified in the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan (unless exempt as noted): (1) 100% Conservation Areas, (2) 75-100%
Conservation Areas, and (3) Development Areas outside of Covered Projects.
The following are exempt from the requirements of the HLIT Ordinance:
1. Development of a Project Area that is one acre or less in size and located entirely in a
mapped Development Area outside of Covered Projects.
2. Development of a Project Area which is located entirely within the mapped Development
Area outside Covered Projects, and where it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning and Building, or his/her designee, that no Sensitive Biological
Resources exist on the Project Area.
3. Development that is limited to interior modifications or repairs and any exterior repairs,
alterations or maintenance that does not increase the footprint of an existing building or
accessory structure, which will not encroach into identified Sensitive Biological
Resources during or after construction.
4. Any project within the Development Area of a Covered Project.
5. Any project that has an effective incidental take permit from the Wildlife Agencies.
6. Continuance of Agricultural Operations.
APPENDIX F (Continued)
10271
F-2 July 2018
Proposed Project Areas
The Proposed Project is within the City’s jurisdiction (outside the Preserve) and is not
categorized as a “covered project”. In addition, exemption status for the Proposed Project does
not apply. The Proposed Project is not located within lands designated as the Minor or Major
Amendment Areas. As such, a Subarea Plan Amendment is not required.
The HLIT Ordinance requires biological evaluation of all resources on site for project’s within
Development Areas outside of covered projects that contain sensitive biological resources.
Pursuant to the City’s HLIT Ordinance, Section 17.35.080 – Required Findings for Issuance of
an HLIT Permit, written findings need to be prepared and submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing and grubbing or
grading permits. Table F-1 and Table F-2 summarize the project’s conformity to the Required
Findings and General MSCP Development Regulations for the HLIT Ordinance.
Table F-1
Required Findings for Issuance of an HLIT Permit
(Chula Vista Municipal Code 17.35.080)
Required Findings for
Issuance of an HLIT Permit
(Section 17.35.080): Analysis Consistency
A (1). The proposed
development in the Project
Area and associated mitigation
are consistent with the Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan as
adopted on May 13, 2003, and
as may be amended from time
to time, the MSCP
Implementation Guidelines, and
the development standards set
forth in Section 17.35.100 of
the Municipal Code.
Section 5.2.2 HLIT Ordinance of the Subarea Plan (City 2003) requires
issuance of an HLIT permit for “all development within the City’s
jurisdiction which is not located within the Development Areas of Covered
Projects prior to issuance of any land development permit.” As such, the
entire Project Area would require issuance of an HLIT permit.
The Project would not impact the City wetlands. However, there are
impacts to non-native grassland vegetation. Mitigation for these impacts
has been established in accordance with the ratios in the Subarea Plan.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
compensate for direct and indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation
communities (i.e., non-native grassland). Mitigation for impacts to these
habitat types are described in Mitigation Measure MM-1 and MM-2. Other
Mitigation Measures that apply include migratory and nesting bird
measures (MM-3).
Mitigation for these impacts will be in accordance with the City of Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (HLIT). Prior to issuance of any land
development permits, the applicant shall mitigate for direct impacts
pursuant to Section 5.2.2 of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan (City 2003). In
compliance with the City’s Subarea Plan, the applicant shall secure
mitigation credits within a City/Wildlife Agency-approved Conservation
Bank or other approved location offering such credits consistent with the
ratios specified in Table 5 which are in accordance with the ratios set forth
Consistent
APPENDIX F (Continued)
10271
F-3 July 2018
Table F-1
Required Findings for Issuance of an HLIT Permit
(Chula Vista Municipal Code 17.35.080)
Required Findings for
Issuance of an HLIT Permit
(Section 17.35.080): Analysis Consistency
in the Subarea Plan. Additional measures will be included in the event that
a project applicant is unable to secure mitigation through an established
mitigation bank approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies (MM-1).
A (2). The project area is
physically suitable for the design
and siting of the proposed
development and the
development results in minimum
disturbance to sensitive biological
resources, except impacts to
natural vegetation in mapped
development areas.
The project site is located in non-native grassland area surrounded by
urban development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed
development. Through avoidance of City wetlands, the proposed project
results in avoidance of sensitive biological resources. Additionally, prior to
issuance of any land development permits, the applicant shall mitigate for
direct impacts pursuant to Section 5.2.2 of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan
(City 2003). In compliance with the City’s Subarea Plan, the applicant shall
secure mitigation credits within a City/Wildlife Agency-approved
Conservation Bank or other approved location offering such credits
consistent with the ratios specified in Table 5 which are in accordance with
the ratios set forth in the Subarea Plan. Additional measures will be
included in the event
Consistent
A (3). The nature and extent of
mitigation required as a condition
of the permit is reasonably
related to and calculated to
alleviate negative impacts
created in the Project Area.
Appropriate mitigation measures, consistent with the MSCP, have been
proposed and will be implemented for this project and are provided within
the Biological Resources Report.
Consistent
B (1-2). Narrow Endemic
Findings
No narrow endemic species have been documented within the on-site and
off-site impact area following focused surveys.
Consistent
C. Wetland Findings There are no impacts to wetlands. Consistent
C (1). Prior to the issuance of a
Land Development Permit or
Clearing and Grubbing Permit,
the project proponent will be
required to obtain any
applicable state and federal
permits, with copies provided to
the Director of Planning and
Building or his/her designee.
The Proposed Project Areas will not impact wetlands or non-wetland waters. Consistent
C (2)(a). Impacts to wetlands
have been avoided and/or
minimized to the maximum
extent practicable, consistent
with the City of Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan Section
5.2.4.
The Proposed Project Areas will not impact wetlands or non-wetland waters. Consistent
C (2)(b). Unavoidable impacts
to wetlands have been
mitigated pursuant to Section
17.35.110.
The Proposed Project Areas will not impact wetlands or non-wetland waters. Consistent
APPENDIX F (Continued)
10271
F-4 July 2018
Table F-2
General MSCP Development Regulations (CVMC 17.35.090)
General MSCP Development
Requirements (Section 17.35.090) Analysis Consistency
Overall development within the
Project Area including public facilities
and circulation shall be located to
minimize impacts to Sensitive
Biological Resources in accordance
with this chapter of the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan and the MSCP
Implementation Guidelines.
As described in Section 5.1.9.3 HLIT Ordinance, compliance with several
standard measures will be required to address habitat loss. Impacts to
non-native grassland (Tier III) vegetation community is considered
significant under the City’s HLIT Ordinance and require mitigation
(Subarea Plan Tables 5-3 and 5-6; City 2003). Mitigation will be in
accordance with the HLIT Ordinance as described in Table 5.
No narrow endemics for Chula Vista Subarea (Table 5-11) have been
documented to occur within the on-site and off-site Project Area.
Prior to issuance of any land development permits, the applicant shall
mitigate for direct impacts pursuant to Section 5.2.2 of the City’s
MSCP Subarea Plan. In compliance with the City’s Subarea Plan, the
applicant shall secure mitigation credits within a City/Wildlife Agency-
approved Conservation Bank or other approved location offering such
credits consistent with the upland and wetland ratios specified in
Table 8 (City 2003).
Consistent
Pursuant to Chapter
15.04 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, no Land Development or
Clearing and Grubbing Permit that
allows clearing, grubbing, or grading
of Natural Vegetation shall be issued
on any portion of a Project Area
where impacts are proposed to
Wetlands or Listed Non-covered
Species until all applicable federal
and state permits have been issued.
The Proposed Project Areas will not impact wetlands or non -
wetland waters.
Consistent
Impacts to Wetlands shall be avoided
to the maximum extent practicable.
Where impacts to Wetlands are not
avoided, impacts shall be minimized
and mitigated pursuant to Section
17.35.110 of the Municipal Code.
The Proposed Project Areas will not impact wetlands or non -
wetland waters.
Consistent
No temporary disturbance or storage
of material or equipment is permitted
in Sensitive Biological Resources
unless the disturbance or storage
occurs within an area approved by
the City for development or unless it
can be demonstrated that the
disturbance or storage will not cause
permanent habitat loss and the land
will be revegetated and restored in
accordance with the MSCP
Implementation Guidelines.
The project does not propose any temporary disturbance or storage
of material or equipment in Sensitive Biological Resource Areas.
Consistent
APPENDIX F (Continued)
10271
F-5 July 2018
Table F-2
General MSCP Development Regulations (CVMC 17.35.090)
General MSCP Development
Requirements (Section 17.35.090) Analysis Consistency
Grading during wildlife breeding
seasons shall be avoided or modified
consistent with the requirements of
the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
and in accordance with the MSCP
Implementation Guidelines.
To avoid any direct impacts associated with construction activities,
Mitigation Measure MM-3 is proposed to encourage construction
outside of the breeding season (February 15 through August 31). If
construction does occur during the breeding season, specific actions
would be taken to avoid impacts consistent with the requirements of
the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and in accordance with the
MSCP Implementation Guidelines (see Mitigation Measure MM-3).
Consistent
All fuel modification brush
management zones required as a
result of new development and as
required by the City Fire Marshal shall
be located outside the Preserve.
All fuel modification shall be incorporated into development plans and
shall not include any areas within the Preserve.
Consistent
MITIGATION
The mitigation measures included in Table F-1 and Table F-2 are from the Biological Resources
Report for the Bonita Glen Drive Project and address the proposed project’s significant effects
on special-status species and vegetation. These mitigation measures are provided below for
reference. With implementation of the proposed mitigation, the identified impacts will be
reduced to less than significant and maintain the project’s conformity to the Required Findings
and General MSCP Development Regulations for the HLIT Ordinance.
Table 5 lists the significant impacts to vegetation communities and the required mitigation per the
City’s Subarea Plan and HLIT Ordinance (City of Chula Vista 2003, Table 5-3).
Table 5
Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Vegetation Community
MSCP Subarea
Plan Tier Mitigation Ratio* Impact Acreage
Mitigation Acreage
Required
Uplands
Non-native grassland Tier III 0.5:1 4.35 acres 2.18 acres
* This assumes the mitigation is located within the Preserve; if mitigation occurs outside of the Preserve, the mitigation ratio increases to 1:1.
MM-1 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing,
grading and construction permits, the project applicant shall mitigate direct
impacts to 4.35 acres of non-native grassland pursuant to the City of Chula Vista
City) Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (Subarea
Plan). The applicant shall secure mitigation credits within a City-approved
APPENDIX F (Continued)
10271
F-6 July 2018
Conservation Bank or other approved location offering mitigation credits
consistent with the ratios specified in Table 5-3 of the Subarea Plan. The applicant
is required to provide the City with verification of mitigation credit purchase prior
to issuance of any land development permits.
If mitigation credits are not purchased, the applicant must prepare a habitat
mitigation and monitoring plan to the satisfaction of the City. The plan shall
include, at a minimum, an implementation plan to provide the required mitigation
acreages of non-native grassland, a maintenance and monitoring program, an
estimated completion time, performance standards, and any relevant contingency
measures. The project applicant shall also be required to implement the habitat
mitigation and monitoring plan subject to the oversight of the City.
MM-2 To avoid any unexpected impacts (i.e., encroachment) into vegetation and/or
jurisdictional waters, the project contractors will delineate (in coordination with
the project biologist) all approved access paths and construction work areas. The
limits of work, including the designated footpath access, will be delineated with
flagging or fencing as appropriate and will be installed prior to work activities. A
pre-construction meeting shall be held between all contractors and the qualified
project biologist and during this meeting, the biologist will educate the contractors
on sensitive biological resources (including non-wetland waters of the United
States/state) and project avoidance measures. All project site personnel shall
provide written acknowledgment of having received avoidance training. This
training shall include information on the location of the approved access paths and
work areas, the necessity of preventing damage and impacts to sensitive
biological resources, and discussion of work practices that will accomplish such.
Lastly, the project biologist will conduct weekly monitoring to ensure that the
appropriate avoidance measures are implemented.
If unauthorized impacts occur outside of the approved project boundary, the
contractor shall notify the City Resident Engineer and project biologist immediately.
The project biologist shall evaluate the additional impacts to determine the size of the
impact and the vegetation communities, land covers, and/or jurisdictional resources
impacted. The footprint of the impact shall be recorded with a GPS and the project
biologist will report the impact(s) to City staff as well as to the appropriate permitting
agencies (where appropriate) for approval of the impact record and to establish any
necessary follow-up mitigation measures. These measures may include additional
mitigation credits purchased within a City-approved Conservation Bank or other
approved location offering mitigation credits consistent with the ratios specified in
Table 5-3 of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan.
APPENDIX F (Continued)
10271
F-7 July 2018
Any unauthorized impacts to jurisdictional waters/wetlands would require reporting
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City as well as development of a
Waters/Wetlands Restoration Plan to restore pre-impact conditions as directed by the
agencies. The Revegetation Plan and/or Waters/Wetlands Restoration Plan shall
include a description of the suitability of the restoration area, planting and irrigation
plan, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and performance standards that
ensures that the intended restoration is achieved. The plan(s) and associated
monitoring reports shall be submitted to City staff.
MM-3 To avoid any direct impacts to nesting birds, construction activities should occur
outside of the breeding season (February 15 to August 31). If construction activity
is scheduled during the general bird nesting season, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting
bird species within the proposed work areas. The pre-construction survey shall be
conducted within four (4) calendar days prior to the start of construction
activities. The applicant shall submit the results of the pre-construction survey to
City staff for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If
nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan in conformance with
the City’s biology guidelines and applicable state and federal law (e.g.,
appropriate follow-up surveys, monitoring schedules, construction and noise
barriers/buffers) shall be prepared and shall include proposed measures to be
implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs or disturbance of breeding
activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City
for review and approval and shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City.
The City Resident Engineer and/or project biologist shall verify and approve that
all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or
during construction. If nesting birds are not detected during the pre -construction
survey, no further mitigation is required.
APPENDIX F (Continued)
10271
F-8 July 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK