HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 4a - D1 Biological Impact Analysis Report PART 1M&A #94‐021‐33
SUNBOW II PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT
May 2021
Prepared for:
Lennar‐ San Diego Division
16465 Via Esprillo, Suite 150
San Diego, CA 92127
Contact: David Shepherd
Phone: 858‐618‐4942
E‐mail: David.Shepherd@lennar.com
Prepared by:
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
5434 Ruffin Road
San Diego, California 92123
Contact: Kyle Ince
Phone: (858) 560‐5465
Fax: (858) 560‐7779
E‐mail: kince@merkelinc.com
Kyle L. Ince, Senior Biologist/Project Manager
Keith W. Merkel, Principal Consultant
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1
LOCATION.....................................................................................................................................................1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................................................3
City of Chula Vista MSCP........................................................................................................................4
METHODS............................................................................................................................................7
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................................................7
SURVEY DATES, TIMES, AND CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................................7
GENERAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY .........................................................................................................................9
PROTOCOL QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY SURVEYS ......................................................................................10
PROTOCOL CALIFORNIA COASTAL GNATCATCHER SURVEYS .................................................................................10
RARE PLANT SURVEYS...................................................................................................................................11
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELINEATION .........................................................................................................11
Wetland Parameters............................................................................................................................12
Hydrophytic Vegetation...................................................................................................................12
Hydric Soils.......................................................................................................................................13
Wetland Hydrology..........................................................................................................................13
Jurisdiction of Wetlands and Waterways............................................................................................13
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ..........................................................................................................13
California State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board..............14
California Department of Fish and Wildlife......................................................................................14
City of Chula Vista............................................................................................................................15
Wetland Functions and Values ............................................................................................................15
GENERAL SURVEY LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................15
RESULTS.............................................................................................................................................17
REGIONAL CONTEXT AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................17
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................17
Habitat/Vegetation Community Types................................................................................................19
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub...............................................................................................................19
Native Grassland..............................................................................................................................20
Non‐native Grassland.......................................................................................................................20
Non‐native Vegetation.....................................................................................................................20
Southern Willow Scrub.....................................................................................................................21
Mule fat Scrub..................................................................................................................................21
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh..............................................................................................21
Zoological Resources............................................................................................................................21
Butterflies.........................................................................................................................................21
Amphibians ......................................................................................................................................22
Reptiles.............................................................................................................................................22
Birds .................................................................................................................................................22
Mammals .........................................................................................................................................23
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND NON‐WETLANDS RESOURCES ...........................................................................24
Southern Willow Scrub.........................................................................................................................2 4
Mule Fat Scrub.....................................................................................................................................26
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 ii
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh.................................................................................................26
NWW/Streambeds...............................................................................................................................26
Functions and Values of Jurisdictional Resources............................................................................26
RARE, THREATENED, ENDANGERED, ENDEMIC AND/OR SENSITIVE OR MSCP‐COVERED SPECIES ..............................27
Sensitive Flora......................................................................................................................................27
Other Potentially Occurring Sensitive Flora.....................................................................................28
Sensitive Fauna....................................................................................................................................28
Least Bell’s Vireo..............................................................................................................................29
Coastal California Gnatcatcher ........................................................................................................29
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly ...........................................................................................................30
Other Potentially Occurring Sensitive Fauna...................................................................................30
Nesting Sensitive Raptor Species.....................................................................................................30
Wildlife Corridors and Connectivity.................................................................................................31
CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP.........................................................................................................................31
PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................32
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................................................................................................32
DIRECT IMPACTS ..........................................................................................................................................32
Vegetation Community Direct Impacts................................................................................................32
Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waterways Direct Impacts.....................................................................35
Sensitive Species Direct Impacts ..........................................................................................................35
Sensitive Plant Species.....................................................................................................................35
Otay Tarplant................................................................................................................................36
Orcutt’s Bird’s‐Beak......................................................................................................................37
Decumbent Goldenbush...............................................................................................................37
San Diego Viguiera........................................................................................................................37
San Diego County Needlegrass.....................................................................................................37
Ashy Spike‐moss...........................................................................................................................38
Small‐flowered Bindweed, Coast Barrel Cactus, San Diego bursage, Southwestern Spiny Rush,
San Diego Marsh Elder, Palmer’s Sagewort & Palmer’s Grappling‐hook.....................................38
Sensitive Wildlife Species.................................................................................................................38
Coastal California Gnatcatcher.....................................................................................................38
Least Bell’s Vireo ..........................................................................................................................39
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly........................................................................................................39
Yellow Warbler, Yellow‐breasted Chat, & Nuttall’s Woodpecker................................................39
Sensitive Raptors..............................................................................................................................39
Orange‐throated Whiptail & Two‐striped Garter Snake..................................................................41
Wildlife Corridor Direct Impacts ..........................................................................................................41
INDIRECT IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................................42
CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP CONSISTENCY .....................................................................................................42
100% Preserve Compatible and Conditionally Compatible Uses.........................................................43
Facilities Siting Criteria ........................................................................................................................43
Narrow Endemic Policy and Wetland Protection Program Narrow Endemic Policy .......................43
Wetlands Protection Program .........................................................................................................44
MSCP Conditions of Coverage..........................................................................................................44
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Condition of Coverage.......................................................................44
Least Bell’s Vireo Condition of Coverage .............................................................................................44
Orange‐throated Whiptail Condition of Coverage...............................................................................45
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 iii
Cooper’s Hawk Condition of Coverage ................................................................................................45
Northern Harrier Condition of Coverage..............................................................................................45
Otay Tarplant Condition of Coverage..................................................................................................45
Orcutt’s Bird’s‐Beak Condition of Coverage.........................................................................................45
Coast Barrel Cactus Condition of Coverage.........................................................................................46
Adjacency Management Guidelines....................................................................................................46
MSCP Minor Amendment Area............................................................................................................48
HLIT Draft Findings ..............................................................................................................................49
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................................49
MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................................50
LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................................60
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Survey Dates, Times, Conditions, and Staff...............................................................7
Table 2. Habitats/Vegetation Communities within Project Site................................................................19
Table 3. Summary of Jurisdictional Resources Present Within the Project Site........................................24
Table 4. Sensitive Flora Located Onsite Inside and Outside Preserve Boundaries....................................28
Table 5. Sensitive Fauna Located Onsite Inside and Outside Preserve Boundaries..................................29
Table 6. Quantitative Summary of Vegetation Community Impacts from the Proposed Project.............33
Table 7. Proposed Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species...............................................................................35
Table 8. Narrow Endemic Policy‐ Estimated Otay Tarplant Impact Assessment.......................................44
Table 9. Project Habitat Mitigation Ratios and Acreages ..........................................................................57
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map......................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Environmental Setting/MSCP Map ...............................................................................................5
Figure 3. Vegetation Communities/Biological Resources Map..................................................................18
Figure 4. Jurisdictional Resources Map......................................................................................................25
Figure 5. Project Impacts Map...................................................................................................................34
Figure 6. Proposed Project Onsite Open Space and Mitigation.................................................................59
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Sunbow II USFWS 1995 Biological Opinion
Appendix 2. Flora Species Observed within the Study Area
Appendix 3. Fauna Species Observed or Detected within the Study Area
Appendix 4. Occurrence or Potential of Special Status Species on the Project Site
Appendix 5. Wetland Delineation Data Forms
Appendix 6. Wetland Delineation Photo Points
Appendix 7. Coastal California Gnatcatcher USFWS 45‐day Report
Appendix 8. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly USFWS45‐day Report
Appendix 9. City of Chula Vista Habitat Loss Incidental Take Draft Findings
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 1
SUNBOW II PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT
Merkel and Associates, Inc.
Revised February 2021
December 2020
June 2020
INTRODUCTION
Merkel & Associates, Inc. (M&A) has prepared this biological impact analysis report for the
proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment Project (project). The
purpose of this report is to document the existing biological resources and jurisdictional resources
identified on the project site; identify potential biological resource project impacts based on the
project development plans prepared by Hunsaker & Associates and dated June 12, 2020 that could
result from proposed project implementation; and recommend measures to avoid, minimize,
and/or mitigate significant impacts consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, and Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance (HLIT).
LOCATION
The project property (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 644‐011‐06‐00 and 644‐020‐11‐00) is located
south of Olympic Parkway (previously East Orange Avenue) and east of Brandywine in the City of
Chula Vista within San Diego County. Further, the project site is situated within Sections 17 and 18,
Township 18 South, Range 1 West of the U.S. Geological Survey Imperial Beach, California
Quadrangle (Figure 1).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Sunbow project parcel (135.7 acres) includes a 67.5‐acre development area
comprised of 44.2 acres of residential, a 0.9‐acre Community Purpose Facility site, 5.9 acres of
public streets, and 16.5acres of manufactured slopes/basins. Approximately 4.3 acres of proposed
Poggi Canyon Easement area, a 0.3‐acre wetland avoidance area, and 63.6 acres of adjacent
proposed MSCP Preserve area are also within the Sunbow parcel. The proposed project’s
residential land use includes four unique multi‐family attached residential product types with 15
unique floor plans, ranging in square footage from approximately 1,100 to 2,050 square feet in two‐
and three‐story units. Each home includes a two‐car garage and two to four bedrooms. In addition,
the project proposes offsite construction access and grading within 2.13 acres on the Otay Ranch
Village 2 property directly to the east and 0.57 acre on the City of Chula Vista property to the south.
The proposed permanent project impacts would consist of vegetation clearing, grading, and
residential development including homes, associated fuel modification activities, detention basins,
and roadways. Temporary impacts consist of vegetation clearing, construction vehicular access and
activities, grading in some areas (i.e., offsite buttress work on City of Chula Vista property), and
subsequent revegetation efforts to ensure erosion control and/or native habitat restoration
activities to ensure long‐term biological functions and values.
µ
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
M&A #94-021-36
Project Vicinity MapSunbow II Phase 3 SPA Amendment Figure 1
Source: USGS 7.5' Imperial Beach, CA Quadrangle1:24000
Project Site
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 3
The proposed project includes a Chula Vista General Plan Amendment, Sunbow General
Development Plan Amendment, Sunbow II SPA Plan Amendment, a rezone, and a Tentative Map. In
addition, the proposed project also includes a Chula Vista MSCP Preserve Boundary Line
Adjustment (BLA) that would implement adjustments to the existing MSCP Preserve areas onsite
and propose new areas of MSCP Preserve onsite that meet the MSCP BLA functional equivalency
criteria and would result in a 0.09‐acre increase to MSCP Preserve Area.
In addition, the project proponent is working with the City of Chula Vista as the property owner to
request a MSCP Minor Amendment on the City parcel to the south within a Minor Amendment
Area. The project proposes to encroach 25 feet onto the City’s property for offsite temporary
project impacts including construction vehicular access and a buttress that would address slope
stability. This request for a Minor Amendment would also require wildlife agency concurrence.
As a note, two existing conservation easements occur along Poggi Creek within the project property
(i.e., May 31, 2000 recorded conservation easement for Sunbow mitigation; and not yet recorded
conservation easement for Olympic Parkway mitigation). Portions of the recorded conservation
easement were included in the assembly of the City’s 100% Preserve in 2003; while the remainder
of this recorded easement is included in the proposed project as a mapping correction to fill in gaps
of areas that are considered conserved but were not included in the City’s Preserve. None of the
conservation easement areas are proposed as habitat compensatory mitigation or proposed as part
of the Give area to the Preserve in the proposed BLA (See Functional Equivalency Analysis for a
MSCP BLA Report, Figure 6).
BACKGROUND
The proposed Sunbow II Phase 3 Development Project is part of the larger Sunbow Development
(710 acres) that consists of the 108‐acre Sunbow I residential development approved in a 1987 EIR
(ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co.) and the 602‐acre Sunbow II development consisting of
Phases 1 and 2 (residential, commercial, open space) and a portion of Phase 3 (business park, open
space) that was approved in a 1989 EIR/ 1990 Addendum to EIR (ERC Environmental and Energy
Services Co). The full Sunbow II development project was issued local, state, and federal approvals
and development was completed within Phase 1 and 2 sites (located north of Olympic Parkway),
but only access crossing improvements, permitted wetland impacts, and 7 acres of wetland
mitigation within Poggi Canyon were completed on the Phase 3 site located south of Olympic
Parkway.
The original Sunbow Phase 3 development consisting of a business park and open space approved
under the 1989/1990 EIR and 1995 USFWS Biological Opinion [BO, #1‐6‐95‐F‐17 (February 13,
1995), Appendix 1] addressed significant impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and wetlands only.
There were no other identified significant impacts at that time. Associated Diegan coastal sage
scrub and wetland habitat mitigation was addressed in the project EIR and regulatory wetland
permits such as the project ACOE Section 404 permit. In addition, the 1995 BO for Sunbow II
included Terms and Conditions relevant to habitat in Sunbow II, Phase 3, as follows:
• #2 No clearing of sage scrub habitat shall occur during the gnatcatcher nesting season
(15 February through 31 July) unless it is first demonstrated to be un‐occupied by California
gnatcatchers or other nesting avian species.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 4
• #5 To mitigate for direct impacts to gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub a combination
of on‐site and off‐site measures shall be employed in accordance with Table 1. Sunbow
Projects Impacts and Mitigation Phasing Program. The on‐site restoration mitigation shall
be conducted concurrent or preceding the phase for which mitigation is required. Off‐site
mitigation must be acquired and under long‐term management prior to initiation of impacts
for the project phase for which mitigation is required.
• #9 Off‐site mitigation shall be conducted at the O’Neill Canyon mitigation area in
southern San Diego County. An alternative site may be proposed and utilized at the
discretion of the Service in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game. Any
alternative site proposed shall have a demonstrable value to the California gnatcatcher and
long‐term strategic planning value for multi‐species and habitat protection in San Diego.
The BO further included one Conservation Recommendation relevant to Sunbow II, Phase 3:
• #1 The open space habitats proposed for Sunbow site are considered to be important
for numerous species which are candidate or future candidates for federal listing. Many of
these species currently carry state listing status and are a focus of multi‐species planning
efforts intended to reduce the need for future listings. Among the most important resources
within the open space are coastal cactus wrens and Otay tarplant. Potential exists for the
compatible enhancement of these resources along with the restoration of on‐site sage scrub
habitats. In addition, there is a good potential for restoration of San Diego thornmint to
some of the open space clay lenses. The Service would look favorably on such multi‐species
enhancement efforts should the Corps or applicant incorporate consideration of these
species into the on‐site restoration and maintenance program.
The original Sunbow II Phase 3 business park development has not yet been constructed; however,
within the proposed project site the installation of Poggi Canyon wetland mitigation was completed
during Phase 1 in 1998 (followed by 5 years of maintenance and monitoring) and two sensitive
plant species, Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak and coast barrel cactus, were salvaged from the project area and
replanted in 1998 within the created upland slopes of the Poggi Canyon wetland site to fulfill
conditions of the project Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP).
City of Chula Vista MSCP
The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subregional Plan dated August 1998 under the
NCCP Act of 1991 was prepared for 12 local San Diego jurisdictions including the City of Chula Vista
that would be implemented through MSCP Subarea Plans. Subarea Plans approved under the NCCP
would allow, “take” of various sensitive species through specific conditions of coverage pursuant to
Section 4(d) of the FESA. The City has an adopted MSCP Subarea Plan (2003) and the Habitat Loss
and Incidental Take (HLIT) Ordinance (2005, updated 2019) regulates the implementation of the
Subarea Plan.
The western half of the project site and much of the northern edges along Poggi Creek are located
within the City’s MSCP 100% Preserve while generally the eastern half of the site is located within a
Chula Vista MSCP Development Area (Figure 2).
The City’s MSCP Subarea Plan discusses the original Sunbow II project (Phases 1 and 2 and a portion
of Phase 3 [i.e., business park, open space]), not the currently proposed project in several sections
Diablo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes Linne clay loam,9 to 30 percent slopes
Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes
Salinas clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Linne clay loam,9 to 30 percent slopes
Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopesBRANDYWINE AVEOLYMPIC PKWY
µ
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
M&A #94-021-36
Figure 2Local Environmental Setting Map
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Amendment
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
Aerial Source: ESRI 2020 Created on January 19, 2021
Soils
Poggi Creek
FEMA 100 Year Floodplain
FEMA 500 Year Floodplain
Otay Tarplant Final Critical Habitat
MSCP City of Chula Vista 100% Preserve
MSCP Minor Amendment Area
MSCP County of San Diego Take Authorized Area
Project Site
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 6
including MSCP Section 7.5.6.1 (Management Requirements and/or Conditions for Coverage) where
it states that Sunbow “completed a Section 7 Consultation which was approved by the USFWS in
1995. The Sunbow II parcel has been fully mapped and conservation areas established through the
City environmental review and land‐use approval process as well as environmental requirements
established under the ESA, U.S. Clean Water Act, and California Fish and Game Code. These
conservation areas are incorporated into the Preserve. Notwithstanding any provision to the
contrary within this Subarea Plan, the Section 7 Consultation Agreement, incorporated herein by
reference, shall govern development of the Sunbow II project.” Therefore, the project 1995 BO
terms and conditions as well as conservation recommendations as outlined previously would be
applied to the currently proposed project where applicable (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub), but the
MSCP Subarea Plan and HLIT requirements would be applied to the remainder of the project
elements.
As provided in the City Subarea Plan in Section 5.1 and Figures 1‐2 & 5‐1, the Sunbow II project is
not a MSCP Covered Project; however, a MSCP 100% Preserve is overlaid within the western half
and the northern edge of the property. In general, the eastern half of the property is mapped as a
Development Area in the MSCP. There is a conflict between the currently proposed development
boundaries and the mapped 100% Preserve onsite. In the Subarea Plan on page 5‐2, it states that
“these 100% Conservation Areas are either already in public ownership or will be dedicated into
Preserve as part of the development approval process for Covered Projects”. However, the
placement of a 100% Preserve overlay rather than a 75‐100% Preserve was premature on the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 site based on the fact that the project was not identified as a Covered Project
and design had not developed to the extent necessary to fully establish limits of preserve and
development. The conflict between the proposed project and mapped Preserve requiring an MSCP
Preserve (BLA) today would not have existed if the preservation were 75‐100%. To rectify these
issues between MSCP planned conservation and the proposed development, a MSCP Preserve
boundary correction or a BLA would be required. A boundary correction is characterized as a
corrective action to address an inadvertent error in the initial mapping of the preserve areas within
the City. As such, it is reasonably argued that a correction is appropriate in that the final
development configuration and entitlements for Sunbow II, Phase 3 has not yet been issued and
thus hard lining as 100% conservation around this area was premature. Further, as noted in the
Subarea Plan, this designation applies to Covered Projects and public lands, neither of which apply
to the original Sunbow II, notwithstanding the fact that the scale of conservation was known and
general massing of development in the less sensitive eastern portion of the site was defined at the
time of Subarea Plan adoption as derived from the BO. Alternatively, the Subarea Plan adoption
has generally subsumed the prior Sunbow II project approvals and provides a good overall
framework for a path forward and thus a viable alternative to the Preserve boundary correction
would be a BLA. Under this approach, it would be required to demonstrate that the modification of
the preserve boundary would result in a Preserve configuration that has a Biological Functional
Equivalency with that of the present preserve configuration.
The current project proposes an MSCP Preserve BLA as discussed further in the project Functional
Equivalency Analysis for the MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment and Facilities Siting Criteria report
dated February 2021, prepared by M&A.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 7
METHODS
LITERATURE REVIEW
Historical and currently available biological literature and data pertaining to the study area were
reviewed prior to initiation of current 2019‐2020 field investigation. This review included
examination of:
1) Environmental Impact Report, Sunbow General Development Plan Pre‐Zone dated 1989;
2) Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 88‐1 Sunbow II Draft Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan dated January 1990;
3) Biological Opinion on Impacts to the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica) to Result From Construction of the Sunbow Planned Community #1‐6‐95‐F‐172;
4) Analysis of ultra‐low altitude high resolution ortho‐rectified aerial photography of the site
acquired by Merkel & Associates on January 3, 2020;
5) Regional vegetation data for the project vicinity (City of Chula Vista 2019);
6) County Geographical Information System (GIS) data (SanGIS 2012);
7) Google Earth Pro™ [Website Image Server]. 2019 and 2020;
8) Geological substrates and soil types mapped on the project site (Geocon geology data,
USDA SCS 2002, respectively), and;
9) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) special status species records, and
designated critical habitat for the project vicinity (CDFW 2020, USFWS 2019a and 2019b,
respectively).
SURVEY DATES, TIMES, AND CONDITIONS
M&A biologists conducted several general biological field surveys within the project study area
(Table 1) that consisted of the Sunbow project parcel and two areas directly offsite consisting of a
portion of the Otay Village 2 property to the east and a portion of City of Chula Vista property to the
south. Further, a 50‐foot habitat mapping buffer is included in some of the report figures for
context only and is not a part of the proposed project or project study area.
Table 1. Summary of Survey Dates, Times, Conditions, and Staff
Date Time Weather Conditions 1 Biologist Survey
November 8, 2019 0800‐
1130
Weather:0%‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐1 BS
Temperature: 70‐71F
Kyle Ince General Biological
Survey
November 14, 2019 1115‐
1630
Weather: 0%‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐2 BS
Temperature: 65‐67F
Kyle Ince
Gina Krantz
General Biological
Survey
November 18, 2019 1045‐
1600
Weather:80%‐90% cc
Wind: 0‐1 BS
Temperature: 80‐76F
Kyle Ince
Gina Krantz
General Biological
Survey
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 8
Date Time Weather Conditions 1 Biologist Survey
November 22, 2019 0730‐
0845
Weather:0‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐1 BS
Temperature: 55‐57F
Kyle Ince General Biological
Survey
December 20, 2019 0830‐
1130
Weather:0‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐1 BS
Temperature: 60‐66F
Kyle Ince
Gina Krantz
Jurisdictional Wetland
Delineation
January 3, 2020 1130‐
1530
Weather:0‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐1 BS
Temperature: 61‐68F
Jordan Volker Low Altitude Aerial
Survey
January 10, 2020 0815‐
1300
Weather:0‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐1 BS
Temperature: 50‐63F
Kyle Ince General Biological
Survey
March 6, 2020 1020‐
1340
Weather: 0%‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐5 mph
Temperature: 63‐64 F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #1
March 11, 2020 1245‐
1545
Weather: 30%‐50% cc
Wind: 1‐5 mph
Temperature: 62‐69 F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #2
March 17, 2020 1300‐
1645
Weather: 40%‐10% cc
Wind: 0‐3 mph
Temperature: 60‐62 F
Gina Krantz
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #3
March 21, 2020 1115‐
1515
Weather: 50%‐5% cc
Wind: 0‐3 mph
Temperature: 66‐68 F
Kyle Ince
Adam Behle
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #4
March 24, 2020 1200‐
1600
Weather: 40%‐10% cc
Wind: 5‐3 mph
Temperature: 61‐62 F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #5
March 27, 2020 1045‐
1415
Weather: 40%‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐5 mph
Temperature: 60‐62 F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #6
April 3, 2020 1100‐
1500
Weather: 20%‐30% cc
Wind: 0‐4 mph
Temperature: 61‐74 F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #7
April 14, 2020 1100‐
1420
Weather: 5%‐5% cc
Wind: 1‐7 mph
Temperature: 64‐66 F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #8
April 15, 2020 0830‐
1200
Weather: 0%‐0%cc
Wind: BS 0‐1
Temp.: 63F ‐75F
Gina Krantz
Kyle Ince
Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Protocol
Survey #1
April 16, 2020 1000‐
1505
Weather: 0%‐0% cc
Wind: 3‐7 mph
Temperature: 65‐72 F
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #9
April 22, 2020 0835‐
1200
Weather: 0%‐0%cc
Wind: BS 0‐1
Temp.: 62F‐72F
Gina Krantz
Kyle Ince
(Adam Behle/
Brandon Stidum)2
Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Protocol
Survey #2
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 9
Date Time Weather Conditions 1 Biologist Survey
April 23, 2020 0900‐
1235
Weather: 0%‐0% cc
Wind: 1‐5 mph
Temperature: 64‐78 F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #10
April 28, 2020 1000‐
1500
Weather: 0%‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐5 mph
Temperature: 70‐72 F
Amanda Gonzales
Kyle Ince
Jurisdictional Wetland
Delineation
April 29, 2020 0840‐
1145
Weather: 100%‐100%cc
Wind: BS 0‐1
Temp.: 63F‐67F
Gina Krantz
Kyle Ince
(Adam Behle/
Brandon Stidum)2
Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Protocol
Survey #3
April 30, 2020 1100‐
1430
Weather: 100%‐50% cc
Wind: 1‐3 mph
Temperature: 70‐73 F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #11
May 7, 2020 0845‐
1215
Weather: 0%‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐4mph
Temperature: 64‐74 F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #12
May 7, 2020 1215‐
1330
Weather: 0%‐5% cc
Wind: 0‐3 mph
Temperature: 74‐75 F
Kyle Ince Rare Plant Survey
May 28, 2020 1545‐
1630
Weather: 100%‐100% cc
Wind: 0‐5 mph
Temperature: 70‐70 F
Kyle Ince Rare Plant Survey
June 8, 2020 1115‐
1445
Weather: 0%‐5% cc
Wind: 3‐5 mph
Temperature: 75‐81 F
Kyle Ince
General Biological
Survey and
Rare Plant Survey
July 9, 2020 0840‐
1420
Weather: 40%‐5% cc
Wind: 0‐2 mph
Temperature: 64‐74 F
Kyle Ince
Gina Krantz Rare Plant Survey
July 15, 2020
0830‐
1430
Weather: 15%‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐5 mph
Temperature: 69‐74 F
Kyle Ince
Gina Krantz Rare Plant Survey
January 13, 2021 0900‐
1215
Weather: 50%‐0% cc
Wind: 0‐5 mph
Temperature: 61‐72 F
Kyle Ince
General Biological
Survey for Proposed
Slope and Berm on
Otay Village 2
Property
1 cc = cloud cover; BS = Beaufort Scale; mph = miles per hour; F = Fahrenheit
2 M&A biologists in training supervised by permitted biologists
GENERAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
Existing vegetation types were delineated onto a 1” = 100’ scale, December 2019 color aerial
photograph of the site. Vegetation types were classified according to the Holland (1986) code
classification system as modified by Oberbauer (2008). A list of detectable flora and fauna species
were recorded in a field notebook. Plant identifications were either resolved in the field or later
determined through verification of voucher specimens, and wildlife species were determined
through direct observation (aided by binoculars), identification of songs, call notes and alarm calls,
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 10
or by detection of sign (e.g., burrows, tracks, scat, etc.). In addition, directed searches for sensitive
species with a potential to occur onsite were conducted within the study area, and any other
potential occurrences were assessed in the field based on the existing biological conditions.
Photographs of the project study area were taken to record the biological resources present, and
data collected from the survey were digitized into current Geographical Information System (GIS)
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) software platforms. The scientific and common
names utilized for the floral and faunal resources were noted according to the following scientific
nomenclature: flora, Rebman and Simpson (2014); butterflies, Klein/San Diego Natural History
Museum (2002); amphibians and reptiles, Crother et al. (2017); birds, Chesser et al. (2019); and
mammals, San Diego Natural History Museum (undated), which uses Wilson and Reeder (2005) for
species names and Hall (1981) for subspecies.
PROTOCOL QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY SURVEYS
Permitted M&A biologists conducted protocol surveys for the quino checkerspot butterfly as
authorized under M&A’s federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit #797999‐
9. The surveys were conducted in accordance with the current USFWS Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2014) as well as in coordination with the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
staff biologists (USFWS pers. comm. 2020), allowing protocol surveys to start the first week of
March 2020 rather than the third week of February 2020 and were conducted less than a week
apart when survey conditions were met to catch up to the protocol survey schedule. Survey acres
covered per survey area and survey date were consistent with the current Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Survey Guidelines. Specific quino survey dates varied within the timeframe provided in the
protocol according to weather conditions and scheduling needs. Biologists slowly walked a variable,
winding course that generally followed 30‐foot transects within suitable habitat in the pre‐
determined butterfly survey areas, carefully followed the movements of butterflies, and periodically
stopped within areas that appeared most suitable. A list of detected nectar resources and butterfly
species was recorded on datasheets or a field notebook, and the locations of potential quino larval
host plants were recorded/mapped using a mobile mapping application and noted in field notes.
Data collected from the surveys were digitized in ESRI GIS software, using ArcGIS for Desktop.
PROTOCOL CALIFORNIA COASTAL GNATCATCHER SURVEYS
Permitted M&A biologists conducted three protocol surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher,
as authorized under M&A’s federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit
#797999‐9 and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU). The surveys were conducted in accordance with the current USFWS Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey Protocol (USFWS 1997). Based on the Protocol, three
protocol surveys were conducted at least one week apart within the gnatcatcher survey area that
consisted of potentially suitable gnatcatcher habitat (e.g., Diegan coastal sage scrub) and any
immediately adjacent habitat within the project site. All on‐site vegetation communities were
mapped, and survey routes were slowly walked in potentially suitable gnatcatcher habitat. Taped
recordings of gnatcatcher vocalizations, as well as “pishing’, were used to elicit initial vocal
responses, and an appropriate time interval was allowed for a response, particularly from
advantageous viewpoints. The gnatcatcher tape was not played when any potential gnatcatcher
predator was detected in the vicinity. A list of all detected avian species was recorded in a field
notebook. Data collected from the surveys were digitized into current GIS ESRI software platforms.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 11
RARE PLANT SURVEYS
Rare plants were detected and mapped throughout the late winter, spring, and early summer
months. All areas of the property were surveyed for rare plants although surveys were intensified
in areas of clay soils which are suitable for a variety of endemic sensitive species known from the
area. Surveys were conducted on foot with the aid of binoculars for mapping larger stands of
perennial shrubs. Plants were either individually counted or numbers were estimated based on
mapped area size and noted density.
Surveys were conducted during the flowering period for all potentially occurring sensitive species.
Perennial shrubs such as San Diego viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata), decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma
menziesii var. decumbens), and coast barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) were identifiable
throughout the entire survey period. Flowers present during the spring of the perennial San Diego
County needlegrass were required to identify it from the more abundant native stipa species
occurring on the property. Annual species including Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) and
Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak (Dicranostegia orcuttiana) were identifiable from remnant dead growth
observed during the winter surveys and their populations were further studied during the spring
and summer months following their re‐emergence from seed. The 2020 surveys for Otay tarplant
were conducted near the end of this species’ blooming period (April‐July) when it appeared that
most plants were in flower following several reconnaissance site visits to previously mapped high
density areas. It should be noted that the survey of the proposed 1.66‐acre off‐site slope and berm
on the Otay Ranch Village 2 property was conducted during the winter (January) of 2021. Both Otay
tarplant and Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak were detectable from remnant dead growth on the Sunbow
property during this survey. No Otay tarplant, Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak, or anyother sensitive species
were observed on the proposed off‐site slope and berm during this winter survey.
The population size of annual species fluctuates depending on climatic factors such as temperature
and rainfall and therefore their population size is expected to fluctuate yearly. For the purpose of
this report, the greatest number of plants for each recorded population was used to assess project
impacts/preservation. Some annual species such as small‐flower bindweed (Convolvulus simulans)
were only detectable during the spring months.
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELINEATION
Merkel & Associates, Inc. conducted a jurisdictional wetland delineation on December 20, 2019 and
on April 28, 2020. The wetland delineation surveys were conducted using the routine onsite
determination methods noted in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACOE) Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (ACOE 2008a). In addition, the delineation was
expanded to identify non‐wetland federally regulated waters as well as waters of the state.
Evidence supporting jurisdictional determinations was recorded on field data forms and depicted in
photographs of the data points, as provided in Appendices. Wetland habitats and jurisdictional
waterways were recorded using a Trimble® geoexplorer Global Positioning System (GPS) unit with
submeter accuracy and plotted onto a 1” = 200’ scale, color aerial map (Google Earth, 2020) (with
topographic overlay) of the project site, with waterway widths noted to provide true jurisdictional
dimensions. Data collected from the delineation were digitized into current Geographical
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 12
Information System (GIS) Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) software platforms.
Information on the overall delineation process and regulatory jurisdictions may be found in the
ACOE Wetland Delineation Manual and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, as well as federal, state, and local enacting legislation, or
through guidance provided by judicial interpretation, solicitors opinions, and regulatory guidance
issued to jurisdictional agencies.
Prior to conducting the delineation, the project site was evaluated to identify potential jurisdictional
wetlands and/or waterways on the project site, and their connection to off‐site hydrological
resources. In addition, the overall landforms, slopes, soils, and climatic/hydrological conditions
present on the project site were assessed. Data points were then taken in areas that were visually
determined to best represent the characteristics of each potential wetland community type and/or
jurisdictional resource identified on the project site, as well as in areas where the presence of a
wetland and/or jurisdictional resource was uncertain. In regards to Poggi Creek channel, data
points were taken in areas surrounding existing road crossings, where storm drain development is
expected to tie into existing culvert infrastructure. The ACOE routine on‐site determination
methods require the presence of three parameters to define an area as a wetland (e.g., hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology). At each data point location, the area was first
assessed to determine if normal environmental conditions were present. Some wetland indicators
of one or more of the parameters can be periodically lacking due to normal seasonal or annual
variations in environmental conditions (i.e., problem areas) or effects of recent human activities or
natural events (i.e., atypical situations). Each data point was then evaluated for indicators of each
of the wetland parameters.
Wetland Parameters
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as “the community of macrophytes that occurs in areas where
inundation and soil saturation is either permanent, or of sufficient frequency and duration to exert
a controlling influence on the plant species present” (ACOE 2008, Section 2). For the purposes of
this delineation, five levels of wetland indicator status were used to assess the presence of
hydrophytic vegetation, based on the most current National Wetland Plant List for the Arid West
(USACOE 2018): species classified as 1) obligate wetland plants (OBL) [plants that occur almost
always (estimated probability >99%) in wetlands under natural conditions, but which may also
occur rarely (estimated probability <1%) in non‐wetlands]; 2) facultative wetland plants (FACW)
[plants that occur usually (estimated probability >67% to 99%) in wetlands, but also occur
(estimated probability 1% to 33%) in non‐wetlands]; 3) facultative plants (FAC) [plants with a similar
likelihood (estimated probability 33% to 67%) of occurring in both wetlands and non‐wetlands]; 4)
facultative upland plants (FACU) [plants that occur sometimes (estimated probability 1% to <33%) in
wetlands, but occur more often (estimated probability >67% to 99%) in non‐wetlands]; and 5)
obligate upland plants [plants that occur rarely (estimated probability <1%) in wetlands, but occur
almost always (estimated probability >99%) in non‐wetlands under natural conditions]
(Environmental Laboratory 1987, Table 1). Hydrophytic vegetation was determined to be present if
any one of the following three indicator tests were satisfied: 1) the Dominance Test (Indicator 1),
where “more than 50% of the dominant plant species across all strata were rated OBL, FACW, or
FAC”; 2) the Prevalence Test (Indicator 2), where there were indicators of hydric soils and wetland
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 13
hydrology, and the prevalence index was 3.0 or less, which is a weighted‐average wetland indicator
status of all plant species by abundance (percent cover); and/or 3) the Plant Morphological
Adaptations Test (Indicator 3), where there were indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology
present, and either the Dominance Test (Indicator 1) or Prevalence Test (Indicator 2) were satisfied
after reconsideration of the indicator status of certain plant species that exhibited morphological
adaptations for life in wetlands.
Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are defined as “a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (ACOE
2008, Section 3). For the purposes of this delineation, the hydric soil indicators described in the
USACOE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West
Region (USACOE 2008a) and National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) Field Indicators
of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA NRCS 2016) were used to assess the presence of hydric
soils. Soil test pits were dug to the depth needed to document the soil chroma index using the
Munsell® Soil Color Charts (Munsell® Color 2000), as well as additional hydric soil indicators. The
soil was determined to be hydric if one or more hydric soil indicators were present.
Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology is indicated by the presence of surficial or sub‐surficial hydrologic characteristics
long enough during the growing season to show that the presence of water has an overriding
influence on the characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions,
respectively; thus, for an area to be defined as a wetland, periodic inundation or saturation of soils
during the growing season must be determined to be present (ACOE 2008, Section 4). Indicators
described in the ACOE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Arid West Region (USACOE 2008a) were used to assess the presence of wetland hydrology.
Wetland hydrology was determined to be present if one or more primary indicators or two or more
secondary indicators were observed.
Jurisdiction of Wetlands and Waterways
The extent of jurisdictional boundaries was determined according to the ACOE, RWQCB, CDFW, and
City of Chula Vista definitions of wetlands, navigable waters, and non‐wetland waters of the
U.S./streambed (NWW). The following text describes each agency’s jurisdiction.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has regulatory authority to issue permits for 1) the
discharge of dredged or fill material in “waters of the U.S.” under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344), and 2) work and placement of structures in “navigable waters of the
U.S.” under sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 U.S.C 401).
The term “navigable waters of the U.S.” is defined in 33 CFR Part 328.4 as “those waters that are
subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or
may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.” The term “waters of the
U.S.” is defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3(a).
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 14
“Wetlands” are defined in 33 CFR 328.3(c)(4) as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions.” Thus, all three parameters (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland
hydrology) must be present for an area to be a jurisdictional wetland under normal circumstances.
The limits of CWA jurisdiction in tidal Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) [33 CFR 328.4(b)] extend to the
high tide line or to the limits of adjacent non‐tidal WOTUS as described in the following sentence.
The limits of jurisdiction in non‐tidal waters of the U.S. [33 CFR 328.4(c)] extend to the limits of the
wetlands or adjacent wetlands. Non‐tidal waters of the U.S. that lack one or two of the wetland
parameters may still be jurisdictional under the USACOE as non‐wetland waters of the U.S. (NWW).
In the absence of wetlands or adjacent wetlands, the limits of jurisdiction in non‐tidal waters of the
U.S. extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is defined in 33 CFR 328.3(e) as, “that
line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics
such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil,
destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means
that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The method for identification of lateral
limits for potential NWWs are detailed in the USACOE A Delineation Manual, A Field Guide to the
Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western
United States (USACOE 2008c, Revised 2010).
The regulatory purview of the USACOE under Section 404 of the CWA has been restricted by rulings
of the U.S. Supreme Court. These have included principal rulings under Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al. (2001) and the 2006 ruling in
Rapanos v. U.S. and Carabell v. U.S. (hereafter referred to as Rapanos).
California State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board
The RWQCB (under the State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB]) regulates wastewater
discharges to “waters of the State”, which is defined in section 13050(e) of the California Water
Code as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the
State.” For waters of the State that are federally regulated under the CWA, the RWQCB must
provide state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA for activities that may
result in discharge of pollutants into WOTUS.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Under section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW has regulatory authority over
any proposed activity that may substantially modify a river, stream, or lake. The CDFW regulates
alterations of lakes or streambeds through the development of a Streambed Alteration Agreement
(Agreement) under the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program (LSA). Unlike the ACOE process,
the Agreement is not a discretionary permit, but rather an Agreement developed between an
applicant and the CDFW. This Agreement may include conditions of mitigation, impact reduction,
or avoidance measures. These measures are subject to acceptance by the applicant or may be
countered with alternative measures. If an Agreement cannot be reached between the CDFW and
applicant, an arbitration process exists.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 15
The breath of jurisdiction under the CDFW differs from the ACOE in that a “streambed” is not
limited to the OHWM, but rather encompasses the entire width of the streambed, from bank to
bank, regardless of the water level. CDFW regulatory authority under section 1602 of the Fish and
Game Code extends not only to the bed and bank of streams or lakes, but also to adjacent riparian
habitats that are supported by a river, stream, or lake, regardless of the riparian area’s federal
wetland status. These areas are considered “adjacent riparian habitat”. For practical purposes of
defining adjacent riparian habitats, these habitats include the extent of the canopy for stream
associated vegetation that is rooted within, and dependent on the jurisdictional streambeds, as well
as all adjacent hydrophytic vegetation. In some instances, small disjunctions between the stream
course and adjacent riparian stands may occur where prior disturbance has occurred to fragment
the riparian corridor. Adjacent riparian habitat does not include isolated trees or groves, or other
wetland vegetation types in absence of proximate streambeds or lakes. Section 1602 does not
extend to isolated wetlands and waters such as small ponds not located on a drainage, wet
meadows, vernal pools, or tenajas. CDFW jurisdiction does not extend to tidal waters that lack the
geometry and riparian characteristics of a stream.
City of Chula Vista
The City of Chula Vista defines wetlands under the City of Chula Vista MSCP as any of the following:
1. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency or duration
sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions;
2. Lands which contain naturally occurring wetland communities listed on Table 5‐6 of the Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and further described in Appendix B (see below); and
3. Areas lacking wetland communities due to non‐permitted filling of previously existing
wetlands.
Furthermore, Appendix B of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan lists and defines the following
vegetation communities as being a wetland: saltpan, vernal pools, southern coastal salt marsh,
freshwater/alkali marsh, riparian forest, oak riparian forest, riparian woodland, riparian scrub, open
water/freshwater, natural flood channel, and disturbed wetlands.
Wetland Functions and Values
Based on the wetland delineation, wetland functions and values were assessed for any wetlands
identified onsite. Wetland functions can be defined as the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of a wetland. The physical and chemical functions and values of a wetland are
determined based on the wetland width, slope, substrate, hydrology characteristics, and habitat
type/floral constituents. These functions and values typically include groundwater recharge,
floodflow alteration, streambed stabilization, sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient transformation,
and production export. The biological functions and values of a wetland typically include wildlife
habitat (i.e., breeding, foraging) and cover.
GENERAL SURVEY LIMITATIONS
Biological inventories are generally subject to various survey limitations. Depending on the season
and time of day during which field surveys are conducted, some species may not be detected due to
temporal species variability. The biological surveys conducted for this project were performed
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 16
during daylight hours and included late fall, winter, spring, and the early summer months; thus,
some nocturnal animal species that were not detected by sign (e.g., tracks, scat) during day surveys
may not have been detected. Further, based on the literature review performed, as well as
knowledge of species‐specific habitat requirements, it is anticipated that any additional species
potentially present on the project site can be fairly accurately predicted, and that the surveys
conducted were sufficient in obtaining a thorough review of the biological resources present on the
project site.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 17
RESULTS
REGIONAL CONTEXT AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed project site is located on private vacant land east of Brandywine and south of
Olympic Parkway. It is abutted by the currently undeveloped but future Otay Ranch Village II
development parcel to the east, the Otay Landfill to the southeast, and the parcel directly to the
south owned by the City of Chula Vista is within a MSCP Minor Amendment Area (Figure 2). The
project parcel has a MSCP City of Chula Vista 100% Preserve overlay over most of the western half
of the project property as well the northern portions of the eastern half of the property (Figure 2).
The majority of the site is designated as quino checkerspot butterfly habitat Category C in the City’s
MSCP Subarea Plan Section 4.4 and exhibited in Figure 4.1 of the Subarea Plan. Habitat Category
designations A‐C represent suitable quino habitat ranked in order of decreasing potential to support
quino in the City of Chula Vista. Category A represents the highest potential to support quino and
Category C represents the lowest potential to support quino. Further, Category C is described in the
Subarea Plan as low quality and isolated habitat. Otay tarplant USFWS designated critical habitat is
mapped within the western half and a smaller area in the north‐central portion of the project
property that overlaps with the majority (but not entirely) of the existing 100% Preserve
configuration onsite (USFWS 2019b) (Figure 2). No other designated critical habitat for any listed
species is present onsite.
Poggi Creek runs east‐west within the project site along the northern boundary and directly
adjacent to Olympic Parkway (Figure 2). The elevations within the project study area range from
approximately 212 feet mean sea level (MSL) at the Poggi Creek channel storm drain outlet near the
northwest corner of the site to a high elevation of 470 MSL located near the southeast corner of the
site. The soils within the project study area are derived from Alluvium, Otay Formation, San Diego
Formation, Sweetwater Formation and previously placed fill (Geocon‐Geologic Map). Soils are
mapped as Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, Diablo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes, Linne clay
loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes, Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes, Salinas clay loam, 2 to
9 percent slopes, Olivenhain cobbly loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes on the mesa top, and terrace
escarpments on the surrounding slopes (USDA 2002) (Figure 2). The regional climate is
characterized by warm, dry summers and mild winters with most of the annual precipitation falling
between December and March. Annual rainfall is approximately 9–13 inches (USDA‐NRCS 2002).
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES
Several vegetation types were identified within the project study area during the biological field
surveys (Figure 3; Table 2). These identified vegetation types consist of upland habitats including
Diegan coastal sage scrub, native grassland, non‐native grassland, and non‐native vegetation as well
as wetland habitats including southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub and coastal and valley
freshwater marsh. Acreages of these vegetation types are summarized in Table 2, and each is
discussed in more detail following the table. A list of floral species observed or detected onsite is
included as Appendix 2.
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
2'
0.5
'
3'0.5'1
2
'
2'1'6'3'1'
/
3
'
6
'3'µ
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA AmendmentBiological Resources Map Figure 3
Aerial Source: Merkel & Associates Jan. 2020 Created on: January 19, 2021
0 300 600150
Feet
OLYMPIC PKWY
M&A #94-021-36
Special Status Species (Numbers Provided IndicateTotal Observed On-site for Each Species)
Special Status Flora
!(Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens)- 5,449
!(Decumbent Goldenbush (Isocoma menziessii var. decumbens)- 803
!(Orcutt's Bird's-beak (Dicranostegia orcuttianus)- 911
!(Ashy Spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens)- 2
!(Coast Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens)- 2
!(Palmer's Sagwort (Artemisia palmeri)- 44
!(San Diego County Needlegrass (Stipa diegoense)- 10
!(
!(San Diego Bursage (Ambrosia chenopodifolia)- 24
!(San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayesiana)- 816
!(Small-flowered Bindweed (Convolvulus simulans)- 91
!(Southwestern Spiny Rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii)- 750
San Diego County Viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata)- 7,647
Special Status Fauna
Flyover Only
#0 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)- 2
#0 Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo belli pusillus)- 1
#0 Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii)- 1
#0 Yellow Breasted Chat (Icteria virens)- 3
#0 Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia)- 5
#0 Orange-throated Whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra)- 1
#0 Two-striped Garter Snake (Thamnophis hammondii)- 1
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus)
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus),
,
,
,
,
Vegetation Communities
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Native Grassland
Non-native Grassland
Non-native Vegetation
Urban/Developed
Waters of the State (RWQCB)/Streambed (CDFW)
Other
MSCP City of Chula Vista 100% Preserve
Offsite Mapping Buffer
Project Site
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 19
Table 2. Habitats/Vegetation Communities within Project Site
Vegetation Type
MSCP Tier
Habitat
Type
Holland/
Oberbauer
Code
Total
Area
(acres)
Inside
Preserve
(acres)
Outside
Preserve
(acres)
Southern Willow Scrub
(including seep) Wetland 63320 2.06 1.14 0.92
(0.01 seep)
Mule fat Scrub Wetland 63310 0.03 0.03 0.00
Coastal and Valley
Freshwater Marsh Wetland 63300 7.66 6.31 1.35
Native Grassland I 42100 24.09 19.38 4.71
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub II 32500 37.08 24.46 12.62
Non‐native Grassland III 42200 64.19 10.31 53.88
Non‐native Vegetation IV 11000 0.53 0.44 0.09
Urban/Developed n/a n/a 0.06 0.00 0.06
Total 135.70 62.07 73.63
Habitat/Vegetation Community Types
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Diegan coastal sage scrub vegetation is primarily found in the western half of the property. It is also
found in the eastern half of the property to a lesser extent where it is predominantly associated
with the planted slopes of Poggi Creek channel that serve as a buffer to the wetland habitats that
were created with the Sunbow II, Phase I development. In the western half of the property, Diegan
coastal sage scrub is characterized by large stands of lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia) as well as
areas that support a mix of lower‐growing shrubs such as coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica),
flat‐top buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum), California encelia (Encelia
californica), and bladderpod (Peritoma arborea). A patch of habitat occurring near the western
portion of the proposed development area is characterized by San Diego viguiera (Bahiopsis
laciniata) mixed with purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra). The San Diego viguiera is a sensitive
species. One San Diego Needlegrass (Stipa diegoensis), a sensitive species, was also found on this
slope. Restoration areas along the slopes of Poggi Creek channel include a diverse mix of planted
sage scrub shrubs and cacti including coastal sagebrush, flat‐top buckwheat, white sage (Salvia
apiana), coast cholla (Cylidropuntia prolifera), and coast prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis). Giant wild
rye (Leymus condesatus) is common in some areas. Several sensitive species including San Diego
bursage (Ambrosia chenopodifolia), Palmer’s sagewort (Artemisia palmeri), coast barrel cactus
(Ferocactus viridescens), and Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak (Dicranostegia orcuttiana) were also planted and
are present on these slopes.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 20
Native Grassland
Native grassland is found throughout most of the western half of the property in mostly open areas
adjacent to Diegan coastal sage scrub vegetation. It is also found in patches along the bottom of
the north‐facing slope in the eastern half of the property where it gives way to non‐native grassland
to the south in more disturbed soils conditions. Native grassland is also found to the east on the
adjacent Otay Ranch Village 2 property near the northeast corner of the study area. It should be
noted that M&A’s current mapping of this area exhibits a decline of approximately 0.31 acres of
native grassland from Dudek’s 2006 mapping effort (Dudek 2006). This decline may be a result of
the several drought years experienced in the local area during the past fifteen years.
Clay soils accommodate fields of purple needlegrass as well as numerous geophytes including
common goldenstar (Bloomeria crocea), blue dicks (Dichelotemma capitatum ssp. capitatum), and
sharp‐toothed sanicle (Sanicula arguta). The taller rayless gumplant (Grindelia camporum) and
locally endemic Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) are also associated with these grasslands. Two
populations of the sensitive small‐flower bindweed (Convolvulus simulans) were also detected in
this habitat.
Non‐native Eurasian grasses including ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus) and soft chess (Bromus
hordeaceus) are common, but typically comprise less than 60 percent of the overall cover. In some
areas, clumps of the non‐native sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) are also found.
Non‐native Grassland
Much of the eastern half of the property is comprised of non‐native grassland. A dense cover of
non‐native, annual grass species including ripgut grass, purple‐falsebrome (Brachypodium
distachyon), soft chess, wild oat (Avena barbata), and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens)
dominate these areas. The perennial darnel (Festuca tementulentum) grass is also common in some
areas of mesic soils. Numerous perennial and annual non‐native forbs including short‐pod mustard
(Hirschfeldia incana), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Crete
hedypnois (Hedypnois cretica), smooth cat’s ears (Hypochaeris glabra), sweet fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare), crown daisy (Glebionis coronaria), and wild radish (Raphanus sativus) are found
throughout this habitat amongst the grasses. Some native annual forbs including silver puffs
(Uropappus lindleyi), California cottonrose (Logfia filaginoides), everlasting bedstraw (Stylocline
gnaphalioides) and tread lightly (Cardionema ramosissima) occur occasionally in this habitat.
Although Otay tarplant is more common in native grassland, it is also found in the non‐native
grassland onsite. Individual and small groupings of lemonadeberry surrounded by thatched non‐
native grasses are found in some locations of the non‐native grassland onsite; however, the
lemonadeberry shrubs within the non‐native grassland consist of no more than 5 percent absolute
cover (AECOM et al 2011).
Non‐native Vegetation
Non‐native vegetation is mapped for areas supporting individual or clusters of non‐native tree and
shrub species such as tamarisk (Tamarix parviflora), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), and cyclops acacia
(Acacia cyclops). Typical ornamental landscape plants which are less invasive such as pine (Pinus
spp.) and mission olive (Olea eropea) are also included in this category and can be found near the
southwest border of the site immediately adjacent to urban development.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 21
Southern Willow Scrub
Southern willow scrub vegetation was planted within the created Poggi Creek channel as part of the
Sunbow II, Phase I development project. Mature arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and black willow
(Salix gooddingii) occur in patches along the channel and shade an understory of mostly freshwater
marsh vegetation. In drier areas, tall, hydrophytic shrubs such as mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) and
narrow‐leaved willow (Salix exigua) occur in the understory. In saturated soils, low growing
herbaceous species including watercress (Nasturtium officinale), yerba mansa (Anemopsis
californica), and salt marsh fleabane (Pluchea odorata) were noted.
In addition, a presumed seep from the hillside on the City property to the south extends on to the
project site along the southern boundary. On‐site, saturated soils support a small patch of southern
willow scrub consisting of one black willow tree, a few tamarisk shrubs and lower‐growing forbs
such as willow herb (Epilobium ciliatum) and bristly ox‐tongue (Helminthotheca echioides).
Mule fat Scrub
A small stand of mule fat occurs at the base of a drainage that feeds into Poggi Creek channel, in the
western half of the property.
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Perennial water flow along Poggi Creek channel results in permanently saturated soils that support
freshwater marsh vegetation. This habitat is dominated by dense stands of southern cat‐tail (Typha
domingensis) with smaller groupings of southern bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus). Moist soils
along the periphery of this habitat accommodate relatively large groupings of two sensitive species,
San Diego marsh‐elder (Iva hayesiana) and southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii).
Zoological Resources
Butterflies
Eighteen butterfly species were observed onsite during spring protocol surveys conducted for the
federally endangered quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). Painted Lady
(Vanessa cardui) was the most commonly encountered butterfly throughout upland vegetation
types. Other frequently observed species included funereal dusky wing (Eurynis funeralis), anise
swallowtail (Papilio zelicaon), checkered white (Pontia protodice), and pacific sara orange‐tip
(Anthocharis sara sara). Each of these species are considered generalists that typically sip nectar
from a wide variety of plant species from the sunflower, carrot, buckwheat, mustard, pea, and mint
families. Less commonly encountered species included western tailed blue (Everes amyntula),
marine blue (Leptotes marina), grey hairstreak (Strymon melinus pudica), and Behr’s metalmark
(Apodemia mormo virgulti). Except for the metalmark, the caterpillars of these species typically
feed on pea family plants such as coastal deerweed, ocean locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var.
lonchus) and western false‐indigo (Amoprha fruticosa) which are all found on‐site. Behr’s
metalmark was typically associated with flat‐top buckwheat which is the primary caterpillar food
source for this species.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 22
Amphibians
Baja California tree frog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca hypochondriaca) was commonly detected
within Poggi Creek channel and in adjacent coastal sage scrub and grassland habitats during the
winter and spring months. Although not detected, western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) is also expected
to utilize the creek channel and immediately adjacent vegetation communities. Bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeiana) may also breed within areas of the creek where water is stagnant. Another common
amphibian species, the garden slender salamander (Batrachoseps major major), is expected to
occur in upland habitats. This species prefers cool, damp soils below leaf litter and debris.
Reptiles
Reptiles observed on‐site include several snake species including Southern Pacific rattlesnake
(Crotalus oreganus ssp. helleri), gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer), and California striped racer
(Mastigophis lateralis lateralis). The sensitive two‐striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii)
was observed in coastal sage scrub vegetation in preserved habitat just west of the proposed
development. This aquatic species is expected to primarily utilize wetland habitats of Poggi Creek
channel but also refuge in immediately adjacent upland mammal burrows during the winter. Other
expected snake species include the common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula) and the sensitive red‐
diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber). The red‐diamond rattlesnake has been observed within the
last year occurring east of the site on the banks of Poggi Creek channel.
Lizard species observed on‐site include the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), side‐
blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata). A motion
activated camera placed along the edge of Poggi Creek channel captured an image of the sensitive
orange‐throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra beldingi) within a sandy wash area of one of the
drainages that connects to Poggi Creek. This species is expected to also utilize adjacent coastal sage
scrub and grassland habitats.
Birds
Numerous bird species were observed in Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. Typical bird species
detected in this habitat include California towhee (Melizone crissalis), spotted towhee (Pipilo
maculates), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii) Anna’s
hummingbird (Calypte anna), and western scrub‐jay (Aphelocoma californica). Fall migrant species
observed included white‐crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) and yellow‐rumped warbler
(Dendroica coronata). Other less commonly encountered species included California thrasher
(Toxostoma redivivum), blue grosbeak (Passerina caerulea), lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus),
orange‐crowned warbler (Oreothlypis celata), Pacific slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), and ash‐
throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens).
The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) was observed within coastal
sage scrub habitat during protocol surveys for this species. Two male territories were mapped.
This listed species is discussed further in the Sensitive Fauna section below.
Poggi Creek channel supported a variety of riparian bird species. Typical year‐long resident bird
species including song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)
were detected. Various migrant species including Wilson’s warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), black‐
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 23
throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), western tanager (Piranga ludociniana), and warbling
vireo (Vireo gilvus) were detected during spring surveys. Sensitive migrant bird species including
yellow warbler (Dendroica petechial), yellow‐breasted chat (Icteria virens) and the federally listed
endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) were also detected on‐site within Poggi Creek
channel. The least Bell’s vireo’s territory appears to extend from the eastern‐most 200 feet of the
channel to a willow scrub basin located just upstream of the property to the east. Least Bell’s vireo
is discussed further in the Sensitive Fauna section below. Common yellowthroat, red‐winged
blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) and Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola)
forage and nest in freshwater marsh habitat found within the channel.
Grassland habitats (including both native and non‐native grassland) provide foraging habitat for a
variety of raptor species. Observed species included urban tolerant species such as red‐tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis), red‐shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and
American kestrel (Falco sparverius). During early spring (i.e., March), a red‐tailed hawk pair nested
in a Eucalyptus tree snag near the southeast corner of the property. Three eggs were visibly
observed in this nest in mid‐March but it later appeared that only one young was hatched. Surveys
in early April did not reveal the nestling, and it was presumed that it was predated upon by one of
the many predatory birds (e.g., Cooper’s hawk, Common Raven) observed in the area. It should be
noted that the location of this nest was identified during the previous survey (Pacific Southwest
1989) of the site and it is possible that it has been routinely used by red‐tailed hawks if not other
raptors throughout its existence.
Sensitive raptor species such as the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) and white‐tailed kite (Elanus
leucurus) were also observed foraging over grassland habitat. No nests of these species were
observed during the site investigations. It should be noted that the northern harrier nests on the
ground with the nest concealed within a marsh or other dense vegetation (Unitt 2004).
Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) is a sensitive species that was historically
identified to occur on site (Pacific Southwest 1989) but was not observed during the recent surveys.
Given the abundance of grassland habitat throughout the site, western burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia) was sought during the site investigations. No burrowing owls were observed during the
numerous surveys of the site. In addition, no burrows with evidence of sign (i.e., molted feathers,
cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, excrement) were observed during the surveys.
Urban adapted bird species such as house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer
domesticus), and hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus) were common within non‐native, ornamental
plantings that border the southwest property boundary.
Mammals
Mammal species detected on‐site include coyote (Canis latrans clepticus), California ground squirrel
(Spermophilus beecheyi nudipes), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and desert cottontail
(Sylvilagus audubonii sanctidiegi). Raccoon (Procyon lotor psora) tracks were observed along the
muddy creek bottom of Poggi Creek channel. Other urban adapted mammals such as the striped
skunk (Mephitis mephitis holzneri) and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) are also expected to
scavenge for food along the channel at night. The dusky‐footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes
macrotis) is another mostly nocturnal species that is expected to occur on‐site. Although no stick
nests were detected, images of what is believed to be this species were captured by a motion
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 24
activated camera placed along the edge of the channel. Other species expected to occur on‐site
include, California vole (Microtus californicus sanctidiegi), agile kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis) and
various species of mice including western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis longicaudus)
and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). These small mammals provide a food source for the
various previously mentioned raptor species.
Other potentially occurring mammal species include bobcat (Lynx rufus) and the relatively urban
adapted gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus californicus).
Watersheds found within the southern part of the County including the Tijuana River Valley, the
Otay River Valley and the Sweetwater River Valley support a relatively large diversity of bat species
(Stokes 2005). Relatively common species including the Mexican free‐tailed bat (Tadarida
brasilensis) and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) are expected to forage for insects over the site,
especially along Poggi Creek channel.
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND NON‐WETLANDS RESOURCES
ACOE, RWQCB, CDFW, and/or City of Chula Vista jurisdictional wetlands and non‐wetland waters
are delineated for the project site as described further below and shown in Figure 4. Jurisdictional
wetland habitat types on the site include southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and coastal and
valley freshwater marsh. Jurisdictional non‐wetland waters (NWW) were also delineated where
applicable. Table 3 below summarizes the acreages of jurisdictional resources within the project
site and the following text discusses these habitats with regard to hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and wetland hydrology. Wetland determination data forms and photo points that support the
delineation are provided in Appendices 5 and 6, respectively.
Table 3. Summary of Jurisdictional Resources Present Within the Project Site
Jurisdiction
Jurisdictional Resource
Onsite
Total
(acreage)
ACOE/
RWQCB/
CDFW/
City
RWQCB CDFW/
City
Coastal and Valley Freshwater
Marsh
7.66 7.44 0.00 0.22
Southern Willow Scrub 2.06 1.85 0.01 0.20
Mule Fat Scrub 0.03 <0.01 0.00 0.03
Non‐wetland Waters of the U.S./
Waters of the State/Streambed
0.17
(2,044
linear feet)
0.17
(2,044
linear feet)
0.00 0.00
Total: 9.92 9.46 0.01 0.45
Southern Willow Scrub
Southern Willow Scrub is primarily found along Poggi Creek channel and includes a tree stratum
dominated by various FACW of willow species including arroyo willow, black willow, and Pacific
willow (Salix lasiandra ssp. lucida). Species within the shrub stratum included mule fat (FAC), San
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(!(
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
!(
!(
DP1
DP2
DP3
DP4
DP5 DP6
DP7
DP8
DP9
2'
0.5
'
3'0.5'1
2
'
2'1'6'3'1'
/
3
'
6'3'32.61087,-117.01285
32.60602,-117.02735
µ
M&A #94-021-36
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA AmendmentWetland Delineation Map Figure 4
Aerial Source: Merkel & Associates Jan. 2020 Created on: January 19, 2021
0 300 600150
FeetJurisdictional Habitats
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Waters of the State (RWQCB)/Streambed (CDFW)
Jurisdictions
ACOE, CDFW, RWQCB
CDFW Only
RWQCB Only
!(Wetland (ACOE) Sampling Point
!(Water (RWQCB) Sampling Point
!(Upland Sampling Point
!(Map Reference Point
Aquatic Resource Delineation Survey Area
Offsite Mapping Buffer
OLYMPIC PKWY
!
!
(
(
!
!
(
(
DP4
DP3
DP2
DP1
!(!
!
(
(
DP7
DP6DP5
!(
!(
DP9DP8
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 26
Diego marsh elder (FACW), and coyote brush (UPL). The herb stratum included mostly OBL species
such as southern cattail, southern bulrush, yerba mansa, and watercress. Several FACW species
including Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus) and great‐marsh evening primrose (Oenothera elata)
were noted at higher elevations within this stratum. Areas in which hydrophytic vegetation extends
beyond the ordinary high water mark of the creek are mapped as California Department of Fish and
Wildlife Jurisdiction Only.
Soil tests pits revealed a relatively dark matrix with redox depletions within the upper 8 inches of
the profile. Highly decomposed organic matter in the surface layer and a sulfidic odor was also
characteristic of the soils in these test pits. Primary hydrology indicators included water stained
leaves and hydrogen sulfide odor. Secondary hydrology indicators included drainage patterns and
drift deposits.
A small patch of willow scrub represented by one black willow (FACW), a few tamarisk (FAC) shrubs
and low‐growing forbs such as willow herb (FACW) and bristly ox‐tongue (FAC) occurs near the
southern property boundary. The hydric plant species in this area are supported by a seep that
occurs offsite, to the south on City owned property. No hydric soil indicators were observed within
the excavated soils pit; however, hydrology was indicated by the presence of surface water and
saturated soils. Since this area lacks a defined bed, bank, and ordinary high water mark and has no
defined drainage connection to Poggi Creek channel it’s not jurisdictional under ACOE or CDFW but
rather it is considered Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction Only.
Mule Fat Scrub
A small stand of mule fat (FAC) occurs within a narrow drainage ditch that feeds into Poggi Creek
channel. Hydrology was indicated by the presence of secondary indicators including drainage
patterns and sediment deposits.
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Perennial water flow along Poggi Creek channel results in permanently saturated soils that support
freshwater marsh vegetation. Two OBL species, southern cat‐tail and southern bulrush characterize
this habitat. Other lower‐growing species within the herb stratum include water cress (OBL), yerba
mansa (OBL), and curly dock (Rumex crispus)(FAC).
Soils in these areas exhibited a loamy gleyed matrix with redox features noted within the upper 6
inches. Primary hydrology indicators included inundation and oxidized rhizospheres within living
roots. Secondary hydrology indicators included drift deposits and drainage patterns.
NWW/Streambeds
Jurisdictional non‐wetland waters of the U.S./streambeds were mapped for drainages with a
defined bed and bank but which lacked hydric vegetation and soils.
Functions and Values of Jurisdictional Resources
Poggi Creek is a perennially flowing stream that is supported by urban runoff stemming from storm
drains originating from the adjacent Sunbow and Otay Ranch developments. Surface flow is
relatively slow throughout the year. This is fostered by upstream manufactured design features
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 27
associated with wetland mitigation created for the construction of Olympic Parkway. These design
features include rip‐rap drop structures with shallow wading pools and rock ribbed sand bars that
force flows to slow and meander down the channel, dropping sediment and allowing for the
planted wetland vegetation to effectively treat runoff. As a result, wetland functions such as
groundwater recharge, flood flow alteration, and sediment/toxicant retention is considered
relatively high. The presence of significant woody (i.e., willow) and herbaceous (i.e., cattail)
vegetation contributes to high nutrient transformation and streambed stabilization throughout the
channel. The created wetlands within the channel have proven to provide significant wildlife value,
especially for birds. A high diversity of resident and migratory bird species utilize the channel which
is further enhanced by the presence of the native Diegan coastal sage scrub which was planted on
the channel banks to buffer the wetlands. Sensitive migrant bird species including the least Bell’s
vireo, yellow warbler, and yellow‐breasted chat breed within the created wetlands during the
spring and summer months. The created coastal sage scrub on the channel banks provides
potential habitat for the resident coastal California gnatcatcher.
RARE, THREATENED, ENDANGERED, ENDEMIC AND/OR SENSITIVE OR MSCP‐COVERED SPECIES
Sensitive species are those considered sensitive by the City or any state or federal agency. For the
purposes of this report, species listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA); species designated as California
Special Concern species or Fully Protected species by the CDFW; and species listed as MSCP narrow
endemics by the City of Chula Vista (2003) are considered “sensitive”. Species considered rare by
the California Native Plant Society as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) species (2020) or as Special
Plants or Animals in the CNDDB (2020, 2019, respectively), may be considered “sensitive” if they
meet the CEQA Guidelines §15380 (Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 20) definition for “endangered, rare
or threatened species”.
Sensitive Flora
Twelve sensitive floral species were identified within the project study area during the general
biological surveys: Otay tarplant (ESA Threatened, CESA Endangered, MSCP NE and Covered
Species), Orcutt’s birds‐beak (CRPR 2B.1, CNDDB Special Plant, MSCP Covered Species), decumbent
goldenbush (CNDDB Special Plant, CRPR 1B.2), coast barrel cactus (CNDDB Special Plant, CRPR
2B.1), San Diego bursage (CRPR 2B.1), San Diego marsh elder (CNDDB Special Plant, CRPR 2B.2),
small‐flowered bindweed (CRPR 4.2), Palmer’s sagewort (CNDDB Special Plant, CRPR 4.2), San Diego
County needlegrass (CRPR 4.2), San Diego viguiera (CNDDB Special Plant, CRPR 4.3), southwestern
spiny rush (CNDDB Special Plant, CRPR 4.2), and ashy spike‐moss (CRPR 4.1) (Table 4; Figure 3).
Otay Tarplant was the only City narrow endemic identified and expected onsite. Surveys were
conducted in 2020 during the flowering period (April‐July) for this species. In addition, remaining
remnants of plants from the 2019 growth season were mapped during the late fall of 2019. The
2020 Otay tarplant mapped locations and plant numbers were combined with the 2019 Otay
tarplant survey results taking the largest numbers if the locations overlapped to estimate the onsite
Otay tarplant population. It is recognized that the number and locations of individual plants in any
Otay tarplant population varies each year, due to a number of factors, including rainfall,
temperature, soil conditions, and seed bank (USFWS 2004).
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 28
The following table identifies sensitive plant species detected on‐site and their location relative to
preserve boundaries.
Table 4. Sensitive Flora Located Onsite Inside and Outside Preserve Boundaries
Species Inside
Preserve
Outside
Preserve
Total
*Ashy Spike‐moss (Selaginella cinerascens) 0 2 2
Coast Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) 1 1 2
Decumbent Goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var.decumbens) 533 270 803
Orcutt's Bird's‐beak (Dicranostegia oructtiana) 705 206 911
Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) 4,044 1,405 5,449
Palmer's Sagwort (Artemisia palmeri) 16 28 44
San Diego Bursage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) 7 17 24
San Diego County Needlegrass (Stipa diegoense) 9 1 10
San Diego County Viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata) 2,745 4,902 7,647
San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayesiana) 641 175 816
Small‐flowered Bindweed (Convolvulus simulans) 91 0 91
Southwestern Spiny Rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii) 489 261 750
* = Prostrate ground cover herb quantified by number of patches
Other Potentially Occurring Sensitive Flora
Multiple biological surveys including focused rare plant surveys were conducted onsite throughout
the blooming period for all potentially occurring sensitive species. As a result, only one species,
Palmer’s grappling‐hook (Harpagonella palmeri) (CRPR 4.2, CNDDB Special Plant), has a moderate
or greater potential to occur on‐site despite not being observed during the biological surveys given
the cryptic nature of this inconspicuous annual plant.
No other potential sensitive floral species are expected to have at least a moderate potential to
occur within the project site predominately based on a lack of potentially suitable habitat, soils,
and/or the number of recent field surveys conducted by M&A biologists onsite throughout the year
that would have likely detected most species, if present. All of the potentially occurring sensitive
floral species are discussed in Appendix 3.
Sensitive Fauna
Ten sensitive fauna species were identified within the project study area during the general
biological surveys and/or protocol surveys: least Bell’s vireo (USFWS federally listed Endangered,
CDFW state list Endangered, CNDDB Special Animal, and MSCP Covered Species); California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) (USFWS federally listed Threatened, CDFW Species of
Special Concern, CNDDB Special Animal, and MSCP Covered Species); yellow‐breasted chat (CDFW
Species of Special Concern, CNDDB Special Animal); yellow warbler (CDFW Species of Special
Concern, CNDDB Special Animal, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern); Cooper’s hawk (CNDDB
Special Animal, CDFW Watch List, MSCP Covered Species); Nuttall’s woodpecker (CNDDB Special
Animal); northern harrier (CDFW Species of Special Concern, CNDDB Special Animal, MSCP Covered
Species); white‐tailed kite (CDFW California Fully Protected Species, CNDDB Special Animal);
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 29
orange‐throated whiptail (CDFW Species of Special Concern, CNDDB Special Animal, and MSCP
Covered Species); and two‐striped garter snake (CDFW Species of Special Concern, CNDDB Special
Animal). Several of the sensitive avian species onsite were observed within riparian habitat along
Poggi Creek consisting of yellow warbler, yellow breasted chat, Nuttall’s woodpecker, as well as
least Bell’s vireo discussed further below (Table 5; Figure 3). The sensitive raptors observed onsite
(i.e., Cooper’s hawk, northern harrier, white‐tailed kite) were detected only flying over and/or
potentially foraging throughout the site and were not observed to be nesting and are not expected
to nest onsite due to the limited amount of nesting habitat. The orange‐throated whiptail and two‐
striped garter snake were briefly detected in the central portion of the site within native grassland
and Diegan coastal sage scrub habitats, respectively. Coastal California gnatcatcher was identified
onsite and is discussed further below. The following table identifies sensitive animal species
detected on‐site and their location relative to preserve boundaries.
Table 5. Sensitive Fauna Located Onsite Inside and Outside Preserve Boundaries
Species Inside
Preserve
Outside
Preserve
Total
Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) 1 1 2
*Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperi) NA NA NA
Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) 0 1 1
*Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) NA NA NA
Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii) 1 1
Orange‐throated Whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) 1 0 1
Two‐striped Garter Snake (Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis) 1 0 1
*White‐tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) NA NA NA
Yellow‐ breasted Chat (Icteria virens) 2 1 3
Yellow Warbler (Setophaga brewsteri) 4 1 5
* = fly over species not limited to inside or outside the preserve
Least Bell’s Vireo
One least Bell’s vireo territorial male was incidentally detected by call within the southern willow
scrub in Poggi Creek during general biological surveys as well as during protocol surveys for quino
checkerspot butterfly and coastal California gnatcatcher conducted by M&A throughout the spring
months of 2020. The observations were relatively consistent and limited to the northeastern
portion of the project site (Figure 3). The least Bell’s vireo’s territory appears to extend from the
eastern‐most 200 feet of the channel onsite to an offsite basin that supports southern willow scrub
located just upstream of the property to the east.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The project site supports approximately 37 acres of potentially suitable gnatcatcher habitat
consisting of Diegan coastal sage scrub; however, not all of the 37 acres of the Diegan coastal sage
scrub onsite supports suitable nesting gnatcatcher habitat. The suitable nesting habitat is located
predominately within the existing Preserve in the central portion of the site along four rolling
hillsides north of Poggi Creek and Olympic Parkway, as well as a smaller patch of Diegan coastal
sage scrub that is located in the southeastern corner of the project site and extends offsite (Figures
3). The suitable gnatcatcher habitat quality in these areas is moderate to high quality
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 30
predominately due to the native species composition and diversity. The remaining areas of Diegan
coastal sage scrub onsite, specifically those areas that consist entirely of lemonadeberry are not
considered suitable nesting habitat for gnatcatcher due to the lack of plant species composition
preferred for nesting (e.g., Artemisia californica, Eriogonum fasciculatum) and those narrow linear
areas along Poggi Creek are less suitable gnatcatcher habitat and of lower quality for gnatcatcher
due to their linear configuration, and fragmented locations onsite.
Based on positive USFWS protocol surveys conducted in April 2020 (M&A 2020), two coastal
California gnatcatcher territorial males were observed and heard within the survey area in two
separate areas of Diegan coastal sage scrub onsite (Appendix 7). One gnatcatcher territory is
located in the central portion of the site within the larger area of high quality Diegan coastal sage
scrub. The other gnatcatcher territory is located both onsite and offsite within the southeastern
corner of the project site where a small amount of Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs onsite with
more suitable habitat that extends offsite onto the County of San Diego landfill property to the
south (Figure 3).
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
Based on USFWS protocol surveys for the federally listed endangered quino checkerspot butterfly
conducted by M&A in 2020, quino checkerspot butterfly is not present within the project site
(Appendix 8).
Other Potentially Occurring Sensitive Fauna
The red‐diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) has been recorded to occur in open space habitat
near the northwest corner of the site in 1987 and 2006 (CNDDB 2020). M&A biologists have
observed this often cryptic species east of the site in Poggi Creek Channel within the last year. This
cryptic species has a moderate potential to occur on‐site, given the presence of suitable habitat and
the most recent sightings near the property. This is the only sensitive potentially occurring faunal
species with at least a moderate potential of occurring on the site. No other potential sensitive
faunal species are expected to have at least a moderate potential to occur within the project site
predominately based on a lack of potentially suitable habitat and/or the number of recent field
surveys conducted by M&A biologists onsite throughout the year that would have likely detected
most species if present. All of the potentially occurring sensitive faunal species are discussed in
Appendix 3.
Nesting Sensitive Raptor Species
No nests of sensitive raptor species were observed or are expected to occur on‐site. These include
nests for tree/tall shrub nesting species such as the white‐tailed kite and Cooper’s hawk, as well as
ground nesting species such as the northern harrier. These species were only observed flying over
and/or foraging over the site. As discussed earlier, no burrowing owls or burrows with evidence of
sign (i.e., molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, excrement) were
observed during the surveys. Further, no ground squirrel burrows or other potential burrows were
observed onsite. As such, this species is not expected to occur on‐site. Nesting potential for
sensitive raptor species is also discussed in Appendix 3.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 31
Wildlife Corridors and Connectivity
The northern portion of the project site and Olympic Parkway are located in an area that was
historically Poggi Canyon. The project site is not located within a known regional wildlife corridor;
however the northern portion of the project site currently supports created wetlands along Poggi
Creek and adjacent upland slopes including dirt trails; as well as a few game trails and smaller
drainages throughout the upland habitat likely serve as local wildlife corridors for the project area
due to their topography, vegetation cover, and location that currently supports undeveloped land
within an urbanized area to the north, west, and portions to the south. Further, the project likely
serves as part of a stepping stone corridor for avian species in the region due to the available
habitat onsite that is generally surrounded by an urbanized area. As noted, the BO for the Sunbow
II project required off‐site habitat mitigation of sage scrub habitat associated with the further
fragmentation of the habitat connectivity associated with development of Sunbow II, Phase 3. As a
result, the anticipation of habitat connectivity impact associated with Phase III development has
been captured in regional conservation planning and project specific regulatory actions.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP
The MSCP Subregional Plan dated August 1998 under the NCCP Act of 1991 was prepared for 12
local San Diego jurisdictions including the City of Chula Vista that would be implemented through
MSCP Subarea Plans. Subarea Plans approved under the NCCP would allow, “take” of various
sensitive species through specific conditions of coverage pursuant to Section 4(d) of the FESA. The
City of Chula Vista has an adopted MSCP Subarea Plan (2003) and HLIT (2005, 2019) that regulates
the implementation of the Subarea Plan.
The western half of the project site and much of the northern edges along Poggi Creek are located
within the City’s MSCP 100% Preserve while generally the eastern half of the site is located within a
Chula Vista MSCP Development Area (Figure 2). In addition, there are adjacent MSCP designations
to the south and southeast (Figure 2). Directly south of the project site is a City of Chula Vista
owned property that is a MSCP Minor Amendment Area. As provided in the MSCP Subarea Plan
Section 5.1.3.1, these Minor Amendment Areas will require the processing of a Minor Amendment
to the Subarea Plan before Take Authorization will apply to any portion of the properties with this
designation. Directly southeast of the project site is a County of San Diego owned property where
the Otay Landfill is located. This County of San Diego property is designated as a MSCP Take
Authorization Area that has granted take to the County of San Diego under the County Subarea Plan
presumably for County landfill activities.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 32
PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The CEQA guidelines §15065 state that a project may have a significant effect on the environment
if:
“The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.”
“The project has the potential to achieve short‐term environmental goals to the disadvantage of
long‐term environmental goals.”
“The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable.”
The City of Chula Vista has not developed “standards” for evaluating biological impact significance
under CEQA. Any proposed project impacts located in the City of Chula Vista would be evaluated
under the above CEQA guidelines to determine significance. Applicable project avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures in conformance with CEQA, the project’s 1995 USFWS BO,
and the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan and HLIT conditions and requirements would be
applied to the proposed project, as provided below.
DIRECT IMPACTS
CEQA guidelines §15358 define a “direct impact or primary effect” as “effects which are caused by
the project and occur at the same time and place” that can produce a temporary or permanent
biologically significant, “physical change” in the environment.
Vegetation Community Direct Impacts
Based on the proposed project design, the project would result in direct permanent and temporary
impacts to sensitive vegetation communities/habitats consisting of native grassland (Tier I), Diegan
coastal sage scrub (Tier II), and non‐native grassland (Tier III) habitats (Table 6, Figure 5).
Permanent project impacts consist of vegetation clearing, grading, and residential development
including houses, fuel modification zone activities, detention basins, and roadways. Temporary
impacts consist of vegetation clearing, construction vehicular temporary access and activities,
grading in some areas, and subsequent revegetation efforts to ensure erosion control and/or native
habitat restoration activities to ensure long‐term biological functions and values. Permanent
impacts to these sensitive upland habitats would be considered significant under CEQA and require
mitigation consistent with the City MSCP Subarea Plan Section 5.2.4, Table 5‐3 and Table 5‐6
respectively as well as the HLIT to reduce impacts to a level below significance, as discussed further
below in the Mitigation Requirements Section. Temporary impacts to sensitive upland habitat
require onsite native revegetation pursuant to Sections 17.35.090 (A)(4) and 17.35.110 (A)(6) of the
HLIT to reduce impacts to a level below significance, as discussed further below in the Mitigation
Requirements Section. The HLIT does not limit encroachment into Tier I, II, and III habitats, except
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 33
where necessary to avoid or minimize potential impacts to Narrow Endemic species and/or
wetlands for projects within the Development Area outside of Covered Projects. The project
proposes to minimize potential impacts to Otay tarplant, the only narrow endemic species known
and expected to occur onsite that occurs predominately in native grassland and is discussed further
in the Sensitive Species Impacts section and City of Chula Vista MSCP Consistency section below. In
addition, the project proposes to completely avoid wetland habitat impacts. The proposed project
impacts to non‐native vegetation, a Tier IV habitat that does not support sensitive species would
not be considered significant under CEQA.
In addition, the original EIR and 1995 USFWS BO accounted for 2.5 acres of Diegan coastal sage
scrub impact onsite and 5.0 acres of associated Diegan coastal sage scrub mitigation offsite. The
residual project Diegan coastal sage scrub impacts and mitigation for the proposed project after the
Diegan coastal sage scrub impact and mitigation from the 1995 BO are applied to Table 4 and are
consistent with the MSCP.
Table 6. Quantitative Summary of Vegetation Community Impacts from the Proposed Project
Onsite Impacts (Acres) Offsite Impacts (Acres)
100%
Preserve
Development
Area
Vegetation Type
MSCP
Tier
Habitat
Type
Total
Onsite
Impact
Perm Temp Perm Temp
Total
Offsite
Impact
City
Minor
Amend
‐ment
Area
Otay
Ranch
Village 2
Southern Willow
Scrub Wetland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mule Fat Scrub Wetland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coastal and Valley
Freshwater Marsh Wetland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Native Grassland I 7.72 3.22 0.18 4.21 0.11 0.07 0.00
0.06
temp/
0.01
perm
Diegan Coastal
Sage Scrub II 8.25 2.24 0.39 5.08* 0.54 0.30 0.22
temp
0.01
temp/
0.07
perm
Non‐native
Grassland III 53.28 1.66 0.10 48.61 2.91 2.33 0.35
temp
0.37
temp/
1.61
perm
Non‐native
Vegetation IV 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Urban/Developed n/a 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total: 69.28 7.12 0.67 57.92 3.57 2.70 0.57 2.13
*The proposed project would permanently impact 7.58 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub in the onsite
Development Area; however, the 2.5 acres of DCSS impact as documented in the USFWS 1995 BO has been applied
to this proposed impact acreage resulting in a residual amount of 5.08 acres impact.
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
2'
0.5
'
3'0.5'1
2
'
2'1'6'3'1'
/
3
'
6
'3'µ
M&A #94-021-36
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA AmendmentBiological Impacts Map Figure 5
Aerial Source: Merkel & Associates Jan. 2020 Created on: January 19, 2021
0 300 600150
Feet
OLYMPIC PKWY
DetentionBasin
Manufactured Slopesto be Restored
Special Status Fauna
#0 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) - 2
#0 Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo belli pusillus) - 1
#0 Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii) - 1
#0 Yellow Breasted Chat (Icteria virens) - 3
#0 Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) - 5
#0 Orange-throated Whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) - 1
#0 Two-striped Garter Snake (Thamnophis hammondii) - 1
Flyover Only
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus)
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Special Status Flora
!(Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) - 5,449
!(Decumbent Goldenbush (Isocoma menziessii var. decumbens) - 803
!(Orcutt's Bird's-beak (Dicranostegia orcuttianus) - 911
!(Ashy Spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens) - 2
!(Coast Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) - 2
!(Palmer's Sagwort (Artemisia palmeri) - 44
!(San Diego County Needlegrass (Stipa diegoense) - 10
!(San Diego County Viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata) - 7,647
!(San Diego Bursage (Ambrosia chenopodifolia) - 24
!(San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayesiana) - 816
!(Small-flowered Bindweed (Convolvulus simulans) - 91
!(Southwestern Spiny Rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii) - 750
Special Status Species (Numbers Provided IndicateTotal Observed On-site for Each Species)
,
,
,
,
,
Vegetation Communities
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Native Grassland
Non-native Grassland
Non-native Vegetation
Urban/Developed
Waters of the State (RWQCB)/Streambed (CDFW)
Jurisdictions
ACOE, CDFW, RWQCB
CDFW Only
RWQCB Only
Proposed Project Impacts
Permanent Impacts
Temporary Impacts
Fuel Modification Zone
Other
MSCP City of Chula Vista 100% Preserve
MSCP Minor Amendment Area
MSCP County of San Diego Take Authorized Area
50ft Offsite Mapping Buffer
Project Site
Site Plans - September 2020 Hunsaker
Buttress
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 35
Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waterways Direct Impacts
The project proposes to entirely avoid impacts to jurisdictional resources including wetlands and
any appropriate buffer around applicable jurisdictional resources to ensure complete avoidance
during project construction and implementation; therefore, no wetland mitigation or regulatory
permitting would be required.
Sensitive Species Direct Impacts
Sensitive Plant Species
The proposed project would directly impact several sensitive plant species as quantified in Table 7
and assessed by species further below.
Table 7. Proposed Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species
Existing Conditions Within
Project Site (Onsite and Offsite)
Proposed Impacts
(Onsite and Offsite)
Species
(in alphabetical order)
Inside
Preserve
Outside
Preserve Total Inside
Preserve
Outside
Preserve Total
*Ashy Spike‐moss (Selaginella
cinerascens) 0 2 2 0 1 1
Coast Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus
viridescens) 1 1 2 0 0 0
Decumbent Goldenbush (Isocoma
menziesii var.decumbens) 533 270 803 33 256 289
Orcutt's Bird's‐beak (Dicranostegia
oructtiana) 705 206 911 90** 1 91
Otay Tarplant (Deinandra
conjugens) 4,044 1,405 5,449 142 694 836
Palmer's Sagwort (Artemisia
palmeri) 16 28 44 0 0 0
San Diego Bursage (Ambrosia
chenopodiifolia) 7 17 24 0 16 16
San Diego County Needlegrass
(Stipa diegoense) 9 1 10 0 1 1
San Diego County Viguiera
(Bahiopsis laciniata) 2,745 4,902 7,647 1133 4825 5958
San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva
hayesiana) 641 175 816 0 3 3
Small‐flowered Bindweed
(Convolvulus simulans) 91 0 91 0 0 0
Southwestern Spiny Rush (Juncus
acutus ssp. leopoldii) 489 261 750 0 0 0
* = Prostrate ground cover herb quantified by number of patches
** = Impacts within Preserve are entirely within proposed Future Facility‐Detention Basin footprint
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 36
Otay Tarplant
Otay tarplant is a federal and state listed species and MSCP Narrow Endemic and Covered Species.
Otay tarplant occurs throughout the project site based on biological field surveys conducted by
M&A in 2019 and 2020. In 2019, as provided in the Sunbow II Phase III constraints report (M&A
2020a), biological surveys were conducted in November and December of 2019 which is outside of
the Otay tarplant flowering season (April‐July). However remnant remains of Otay tarplant from
the 2019 season were still highly detectable during these late surveys; and thus populations were
counted and mapped. In 2020, focused Otay tarplant surveys were conducted onsite between late
June and July 2020 during the flowering season when this annual species is most detectable. The
2020 Otay tarplant mapped locations and plant numbers were combined with the 2019 Otay
tarplant survey results taking the largest numbers where locations overlapped to estimate the
onsite Otay tarplant population. Based on the 2019‐2020 Otay tarplant field surveys, the onsite
population is estimated to be 5,449 plants predominately located in the western half of the project
site within the existing Preserve (4,044 plants within the Preserve and 1,405 plants outside the
Preserve). It is recognized that the number and locations of individual plants in an Otay tarplant
population varies each year, due to a number of factors, including rainfall, temperature, soil
conditions, and seed bank (USFWS 2004).
The proposed project would impact an estimated 836 Otay tarplant individual plants (142 inside
Preserve; 694 outside the Preserve) out of the total 5,449 Otay tarplant within the onsite
population (Table 5). Of the total Otay tarplant impacts, the proposed residential development
would permanently impact 142 Otay tarplant inside the Preserve (Future Facility‐Detention Basin)
and 424 Otay tarplant outside the Preserve; further, construction related vegetation clearing and
grading activities would temporarily impact 270 Otay tarplant outside the Preserve.
Based on the sensitivity of this federally endangered and narrow endemic species, the proposed
impacts to Otay tarplant would be considered significant under CEQA and require appropriate
mitigation that would consist of onsite habitat mitigation (i.e., native grassland‐Otay tarplant
occupied habitat) within appropriate onsite conserved lands in the City 100% Preserve, as discussed
further in the Mitigation Requirement section.
The project also proposes habitat restoration efforts (soil salvage, seed transplant) within
appropriate onsite areas proposed to be added to the City 100% Preserve. To this end,
considerable clay soil exists within the current project development areas and could be used to
develop suitable habitat to support Otay tarplant within an enhanced portion of the onsite
Preserve. This effort would further benefit the Otay tarplant population and native grassland
conservation onsite that could also support the goals of the City’s Subarea Plan and the
Conservation Recommendations of the 1995 BO.
Although USFWS designated critical habitat for Otay tarplant is mapped onsite and within the
proposed project footprint, the project would not require a federal permit, funding, or any other
federal action or nexus and therefore, USFWS critical habitat would not apply to the project on
private land under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (84 Federal Register 44976) or under
CEQA Section 15065, as currently designed.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 37
Orcutt’s Bird’s‐Beak
Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 10% of the Orcutt’s bird’s‐
beak estimated onsite population (91 out of 911 plants). The proposed impacts to Orcutt’s bird’s‐
beak would occur from the proposed detention basin located within Diegan coastal sage scrub just
south of the previously restored slope along Poggi Creek where the majority of the Orcutt’s bird’s
beak is located onsite (Figure 5). The proposed impacts to Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak, a CNDDB Special
Plant and MSCP Covered Species with a CRPR 2B.1 ranking, would be considered significant under
CEQA based on the sensitivity of this species and the rarity of this species in the region and the
extent of impacts to the onsite population. This species has a very limited U.S. distribution with
nearly all of its documented populations occurring south of Poggi Canyon and west of Otay
Mountain. Only one population has been documented north of the site, in Rice Canyon just south
of the Rancho Del Rey development. The proposed significant impacts to Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak
would require appropriate mitigation that would consist of habitat mitigation (i.e., Diegan coastal
sage scrub) and habitat restoration efforts (soil salvage, seed translocation) within appropriate
onsite conserved lands in the City 100% Preserve, as discussed further in the Mitigation
Requirement section.
Decumbent Goldenbush
Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 36% of the decumbent
goldenbush onsite population (289 out of 803 plants). A majority of the impacts to this species are
associated with non‐native grassland habitat located within the proposed development (Figure 5).
The proposed impacts to decumbent goldenbush, a CNDDB Special Plant with a CRPR 1B.2 ranking,
would be considered significant under CEQA based on the sensitivity of this species and the extent
of impacts to the onsite population. The proposed impacts to decumbent goldenbush would be
considered significant under CEQA and require appropriate mitigation that may consist of habitat
mitigation (i.e., native grassland and Diegan coastal sage scrub) and habitat restoration efforts
within appropriate onsite conserved lands in the City 100% Preserve, as discussed further in the
Mitigation Requirement section.
San Diego Viguiera
Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 78% of the San Diego viguiera
population (5,958 out of 7,647). Impacts to this species are associated with impacts to Diegan
coastal sage scrub along the western edge of the proposed development (Figure 5.). The proposed
impacts to San Diego viguiera, a CNDDB Special Plant with a CRPR 4.3 ranking, would be considered
significant under CEQA primarily due to the extent of impacts to the onsite population. The
proposed significant impacts to San Diego viguiera would require appropriate mitigation that would
consist of habitat mitigation (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub) and may also include habitat
restoration within appropriate onsite conserved lands in the City 100% Preserve, as discussed
further in the Mitigation Requirement section.
San Diego County Needlegrass
Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 10% of the San Diego County
needlegrass population (1 out 10 plants). Impacts to this species are associated with impacts to
Diegan coastal sage scrub along the western edge of the proposed development (Figure 5). The
proposed impacts to San Diego County needlegrass, with a CRPR 4.2 ranking, would not be
considered significant under CEQA based on the sensitivity of this species and the extent of impacts
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 38
to the onsite population. Although the proposed impacts to San Diego County needlegrass would
not be considered significant under CEQA and require mitigation, this species may be included in
habitat restoration efforts within appropriate onsite conserved lands in the City 100% Preserve to
enhance native grassland restoration species diversity however it is not required to mitigate
impacts.
Ashy Spike‐moss
Implementation of the proposed project would impact 100% (2 patches) of ashy spike‐moss onsite.
Impacts to this species are associated with impacts to coastal sage scrub vegetation near the
southeast corner and non‐native grassland along the eastern boundary of the site. The proposed
impacts to ashy spike‐moss with a CRPR 4.1 ranking would not be considered significant under
CEQA based on the limited amount of proposed impact, sensitivity of this species, and its local and
regional abundance throughout the County.
Small‐flowered Bindweed, Coast Barrel Cactus, San Diego bursage, Southwestern
Spiny Rush, San Diego Marsh Elder, Palmer’s Sagewort & Palmer’s Grappling‐hook
No project impacts are proposed by project implementation to the following species found onsite
or have the potential to occur onsite: small‐flowered bindweed, coast barrel cactus, San Diego
bursage, southwestern spiny rush, San Diego marsh elder, or Palmer’s sagewort. Further, the
majority of these species occur in the existing or proposed Preserve that would be protected, some
occur along the northern slopes of Poggi Creek closest to Olympic Parkway that are located outside
the proposed project impact areas, and a few of these species such as coast barrel cactus and San
Diego bursage occur in close proximity to the proposed impact areas but would be avoided through
biological construction monitoring and implementation of construction best management practices.
In addition, although Palmer’s grappling‐hook was not observed onsite by M&A during the many
biological field surveys, this species may still occur onsite in the Diegan coastal sage scrub or grassy
open areas presumably in small numbers and as such the proposed project may impact but is not
expected to have a significant impact on this species due to the limited potential impact that would
not be expected to adversely affect the local long‐term survival of this moderate sensitive species.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Two coastal California gnatcatcher territories were determined to be present onsite during the
USFWS gnatcatcher protocol surveys conducted by M&A in 2020 (Appendix 7). One gnatcatcher
territory is located in the central portion of the site west of the proposed western access road
within the larger area of high quality Diegan coastal sage scrub, while the other gnatcatcher
territory is located along the southeastern property boundary where a small amount of Diegan
coastal sage scrub occurs onsite along with more suitable habitat that extends offsite onto the
County of San Diego landfill property to the south (Figure 5).
The one gnatcatcher territory along the southeastern parcel boundary would be directly impacted
by the proposed project vegetation clearing, grubbing, and grading activities (Figure 5) through the
loss of a portion of nesting habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub) located onsite in the
southeastern corner of the site. This project impact would be considered significant under CEQA
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 39
and require appropriate mitigation as provided in the Mitigation Requirements section below.
Further, gnatcatcher specific MSCP Conditions of Coverage such as the avoidance of gnatcatcher
breeding season and adjacency guidelines would apply to the project, as provided in the MSCP
Consistency section below.
The other onsite gnatcatcher territory located in the central portion of the project site is not
expected to be directly impacted by the project. The gnatcatchers observed in this area were
limited to the Diegan coastal sage scrub west of the proposed western main access road largely
within the existing 100% Preserve that would remain protected as proposed by the project. In
addition, although suitable gnatcatcher habitat occurs in other surrounding areas, no gnatcatchers
were observed during the protocol surveys and/or any of the other biological surveys onsite east,
south, or north of this proposed western access road including the area of the proposed detention
basin just east of this access roadway. Nonetheless, the reduction of potentially suitable and
contiguous habitat and the potential for nesting failure due to the adjacent onsite construction
related activities are potential direct impacts to gnatcatcher that would be considered significant
under CEQA and would require mitigation to reduce impacts to a level below significance, as
discussed further below in the Mitigation Requirements Section.
Least Bell’s Vireo
The least Bell’s vireo that occurs onsite is located entirely within Poggi Creek where no project
impacts are proposed and within an existing conservation easement. Therefore, least Bell’s vireo
would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Nonetheless, the potential for nesting
failure due to the adjacent onsite construction related activities are potential direct impacts to vireo
that would be considered significant under CEQA and would require mitigation to reduce impacts to
a level below significance, as discussed further below in the Mitigation Requirements Section.
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
Based on USFWS quino checkerspot butterfly protocol surveys conducted by M&A in 2020, no
quino checkerspot butterfly (USFWS federally endangered), were observed or detected to be
present within the project site and none are expected (Appendix 8). Therefore, the proposed
project would not directly impact this species.
Yellow Warbler, Yellow‐breasted Chat, & Nuttall’s Woodpecker
The proposed project is not expected to directly impact yellow warbler, yellow‐breasted chat, and
Nuttall’s woodpecker since these species occur in the riparian habitat within Poggi Creek (inside the
existing and/or proposed Preserve; or existing conservation easements) where the project proposes
to avoid direct impacts.
Sensitive Raptors
No nesting activities or potential nests of any sensitive raptor species including white‐tailed kite,
northern harrier, and Cooper’s hawk were observed onsite and no potential nesting habitat for
sensitive raptor species is proposed to be impacted as a result of the project. Further, no indirect
impacts such as construction elevated noise levels during the breeding season would affect nesting
sensitive raptors since none are expected to nest onsite.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 40
The project will have direct impacts to potential raptor foraging habitat associated with the loss of
61.0 acres of grassland habitat (i.e., 53.28 acres of non‐native grassland, 7.72 acres of native
grassland). Raptors including sensitive species such as the white‐tailed kite, northern harrier, and
Cooper’s hawk were observed flying over and potentially foraging onsite and may be negatively
affected by the loss of this potential foraging habitat in the project area. The proposed impact to
potential foraging habitat for white‐tailed kite, northern harrier, and Cooper’s hawk would be
considered significant under CEQA and would require habitat mitigation (i.e., native grassland, open
Diegan coastal sage scrub) to reduce impacts to a level below significance, as discussed further
below in the Mitigation Requirements Section. As an important note, the potential raptor foraging
habitat proposed to be impacted is located almost entirely inside the MSCP Development Area and
is of lower habitat quality due to its densely thatched condition, while the proposed raptor foraging
habitat mitigation consists of higher quality native grassland and patches of non‐native grassland in
a matrix of native habitats that is either currently or proposed to be in the 100% Preserve.
Birds Protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code
The project site has the potential to support active nests for regionally common migratory birds and
raptors that are not necessarily designated as special status species under CEQA but are protected
under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game (CFG) Code Sections
3503 and 3513. The project could result in impacts to active bird and/or raptor nests protected
under the federal MBTA and/or CFG Code Sections 3503 and 3513 if construction‐related activities
were to occur during the avian and/or raptor breeding season. The project construction activities
undertaken for the project should comply with the regulatory requirements of the federal MTBA
and CDFG Codes Sections 3503 and 3513. As discussed previously, there is an abundance of
grassland onsite which is a potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl; however, much of the
grassland is dense and/or thatched and thus not preferred by this species. Further, no burrowing
owls were observed during the numerous surveys of the site throughout the burrowing owl nesting
and migratory season. In addition, no potential burrows with evidence of burrowing owl sign (i.e.,
molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, excrement) were observed during
the surveys. As such, this species is not expected to occur onsite. However, there is potential for
burrowing owls to subsequently occupy the project site as a result of construction vegetation
clearing and grading activities that may temporarily create attractive conditions for burrowing owl.
The potential impact to active nests of birds (including burrowing owl) protected under MBTA
and/or CDFG Codes would be considered significant under CEQA and would require that
construction related vegetation clearing, grubbing, or grading activities avoid the avian breeding
season (or if the breeding season is not feasible then pre‐construction surveys for active nest
surveys and applicable avoidance measures would be required where and when applicable) to
reduce impacts to a level below significance, as discussed further below in the Mitigation
Requirements Section
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 41
Orange‐throated Whiptail & Two‐striped Garter Snake
Both the orange‐throated whiptail and two‐striped garter snake were observed near the central
portion of the property within the existing 100% Preserve. Both species are not expected to be
abundant on‐site as they were each only observed on one occasion during the numerous surveys
that were conducted. Both species are expected to utilize riparian habitat associated with Poggi
Creek as well as adjacent coastal sage scrub vegetation. All riparian habitat and much of the
adjacent coastal sage scrub will be protected in open space.
No other sensitive wildlife species are expected to occur onsite based on recent negative focused
surveys and/or the lack of suitable habitat and thus would not be impacted by the proposed
project.
Wildlife Corridor Direct Impacts
The project site is not located within or in the vicinity of a known regional wildlife corridor and as
such no impacts to a regional wildlife corridor would occur as a result of the proposed project.
There are a few local wildlife corridors onsite including Poggi Creek along the northern extent of the
site as well as game trails and small drainages throughout the upland habitats particularly in the
western half of the project site. The current condition of the creek includes existing culverts and
creek crossings in two locations that would remain with the proposed project. The project
proposes to construct roadways on the existing crossings that currently support vegetation.
Although the new access roadways would bisect the habitat on the south side of the creek including
portions of the dirt trail along the creek, it is anticipated that wildlife movement would still be
facilitated through the culverts under drier conditions as well as across the roadways where
vehicular traffic is expected to be relatively slow due to the locations near the entrance and exit of
the residential development. Further, the wildlife species known or expected to occur onsite
consist of urban tolerant species such as coyote and raccoon that are expected to continue to move
throughout the site and along Poggi Creek under the proposed project condition. Similar to the
discussion above, the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact any of the function
and use of the local wildlife corridors onsite predominately due the urban tolerant nature of the
wildlife species that occur onsite.
In addition, the project site likely serves as part of a stepping stone corridor for avian species in the
region due to the available habitat onsite that is generally surrounded by urban development.
Although the entire site may provide habitat as part of a stepping stone corridor, the higher quality
habitats are located in the western half and northern portions of the property that would remain in
the 100% Preserve and thus no significant impacts to an avian stepping stone corridor is expected
from implementation of the proposed project.
As an important note, the 1995 USFWS BO for the Sunbow II project required off‐site habitat
mitigation of coastal sage scrub habitat associated with the further fragmentation of the habitat
connectivity associated with development of Sunbow II Phase 3. As a result, the anticipation of
habitat connectivity impact associated with Phase 3 development has been captured in regional
conservation planning and project specific regulatory actions.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 42
INDIRECT IMPACTS
CEQA guidelines §15358 define an “indirect impact or secondary effect” as “effects which are
caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably
foreseeable” that can produce a temporary or permanent biologically significant, “physical change”
in the environment.
In association with direct impacts to native vegetation communities, there are usually indirect
impacts to the remaining native vegetation and wildlife communities. Many of these are related to
habitat fragmentation, which occurs when a native vegetation community is not entirely altered or
developed, but what remains has a diminished wildlife habitat value due to edge effects and lack of
connectivity. Fragmented habitats may no longer be able to support large predators. The presence
of native predators has been demonstrated to hold in check populations of meso‐predators such as
domestic/feral cats. Without the presence of such predators, avian and small mammal diversity
and abundance declines, presumable due to increased depredation pressure from non‐native meso‐
predators (Crooks and Soule 2000). Edge effects may include increased predation pressure,
increased brood parasitism, increased competition for nesting cavities from non‐native species, and
increased floral competition from weedy species. Outside of those effects associated with
fragmentation, indirect impacts may include elevated noise above 60 dBA Leq, artificial night
lighting within wildlife habitat, increased human disturbance, change in duration and amount of
surface water within a floodplain, and increased erosion or sedimentation. These types of indirect
impacts can affect vegetation communities or alter habitat use by sensitive species.
The project proposes to fill in gaps within the existing 100% Preserve along Poggi Creek as well as
extend native habitat buffer widths between Poggi Creek and the proposed project footprint that
will be included in the 100% Preserve. Although this contiguous and wider Preserve along Poggi
Creek would not entirely avoid proposed indirect impacts, it is expected to minimize edge effects
such as elevated noise, increased human disturbance, artificial night lighting from the proposed
project site to the adjacent biological resources within Poggi Creek.
It is expected that the portions of the Preserve directly adjacent and closest to the proposed project
development boundaries would potentially be negatively affected by edge effects such as invasive
plant invasion, habitat degradation, increased predation pressure from domestic pets (i.e., cats),
and human disturbance. These potential indirect impacts would be considered significant and
would require mitigation to reduce impacts to a level below significance, as discussed further below
in the Mitigation Requirements Section.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP CONSISTENCY
The proposed project was assessed to ensure consistency with the City of Chula Vista’s HLIT
Ordinance and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The proposed project is not a Covered
Project and is located predominately within the City’s MSCP Development Area and partially within
the City’s MSCP 100% Preserve. For projects within Development Areas outside of Covered Projects
that contain sensitive biological resources, the HLIT Ordinance will require biological evaluation of
all resources onsite. In addition, the HLIT does not limit encroachment into MSCP Tier I, II, and III
except where necessary to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to Narrow Endemic Species
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 43
and/or Wetlands. Projects within 100% Preserve areas outside Covered Projects are limited to
certain Compatible Uses or Allowed Uses within the Preserve, as described in the City’s MSCP
Subarea Sections 6.1‐6.3 and further discussed below.
100% Preserve Compatible and Conditionally Compatible Uses
Compatible uses and conditionally compatible uses in the 100% Preserve are land uses and
activities that are compatible with the biological objectives of the MSCP Subregional Plan and the
City’s Subarea Plan. 100% Preserve compatible uses include public access and recreation, preserve
management including scientific and biological activities, and emergency safety and police services.
Conditionally compatible uses consist of mining, flood control, and road/infrastructure activities
that include Planned and Future Facilities.
The project proposes a detention basin that partially overlaps with an area of the existing 100%
Preserve onsite. The relocation of this basin was considered in the project design to avoid or
minimize impacts to the Preserve but was determined to be site specific due to the necessary
topography for drainage and the confined development configuration due to the avoidance of
wetlands and Otay tarplant (a narrow endemic) in this area; however, the size and configuration of
the basin was modified to reduce impacts to the Preserve to the maximum extent practicable. This
encroachment would qualify as a Future Facility in the Preserve (a conditional compatible use and is
analyzed in the project Functional Equivalency Criteria for the Facilities Siting Criteria report, dated
February 2021.
Facilities Siting Criteria
The proposed project has been designed to completely avoid any wetland habitat impacts and
predominately would result in impacts to non‐native grassland that consist of densely thatched
non‐native grasses in the majority of this habitat. There are proposed unavoidable impacts to
Diegan coastal sage scrub specifically for the proposed Future Facility‐Detention Basin as well as
impacts to native grassland for an area of residential buildings in the southwestern portion that is
unavoidable due to the avoidance of a smaller wetland along the southern boundary in the same
general area. The siting the proposed detention basin (MSCP Future Facility) within the Preserve is
analyzed in the project Functional Equivalency Criteria for the Facilities Siting Criteria report, dated
February 2021.
Narrow Endemic Policy and Wetland Protection Program Narrow Endemic Policy
The project would ensure consistency with the MSCP Narrow Endemic Policy Section 5.2.3.3 for
Development Areas outside of Covered Projects, where applicable. Otay tarplant is the only narrow
endemic species that is known and/or expected to occur onsite. To ensure consistency with the
City’s MSCP Narrow Endemic Policy, the project would minimize unavoidable impacts to Otay
tarplant to less than 5% within the 100% Preserve and less than 20% within the Development Area.
Based on the 2019‐2020 Otay tarplant field surveys, the onsite population is estimated to be 5,449
plants predominately located in the western half of the project site within the existing Preserve
(4,044 plants within the Preserve and 1,405 plants outside the Preserve). The proposed project
would impact an estimated 142 Otay tarplant plants (2.6%) inside Preserve and 694 Otay tarplant
plants (12.7%) outside the Preserve/within Development Area out of the total 5,449 Otay tarplant
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 44
onsite population (Table 6). The proposed project would meet the MSCP Narrow Endemic Policy
based on the estimated onsite Otay tarplant population onsite totals and estimated plants to be
impacted in the 100% Preserve and the Development Area that are below the Narrow Endemic
Policy impact thresholds, as provided in Table 8 below.
Table 8. Narrow Endemic Policy‐ Estimated Otay Tarplant Impact Assessment
100% Preserve
Development Area
(Outside Preserve) Total Estimated
Otay Tarplant
Population
In Project
Area/Onsite
Individual
Impact Percent
Narrow
Endemic
Policy
(<5%)
Individual
Impact Percent
Narrow
Endemic
Policy
(<20%)
5,449
142
2.6%
Consistent/
Meets Policy
694
12.7%
Consistent/
Meets Policy
Wetlands Protection Program
The project proposes to completely avoid any impacts to wetland; therefore, the project is
consistent with the Wetlands Protection Program provided in Section 5.2.4 of the Subarea Plan.
MSCP Conditions of Coverage
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for coastal California gnatcatcher specifies that the area specific
management directives must include measures to reduce edge effects and minimize disturbance
during the nesting period, fire protection measures to avoid habitat degradation due to unplanned
fire, management measures to maintain and improve habitat quality, and prohibit clearing of
occupied habitat during gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1‐August 15) within the Preserve. The
project proposes to comply and address the applicable Conditions of Coverage as specified in the
Mitigation Requirements section further below.
Least Bell’s Vireo Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for least Bell’s vireo specifies that the area specific management
directives must include measures consistent with the ACOE 404(b)(1) Guidelines into the project
where applicable. In addition, measures to provide appropriate successional habitat, upland
buffers for known populations, cowbird control, and measures to reduce edge effects, as well as
prohibit clearing of occupied habitat during vireo breeding season (March 15‐September 15). The
proposed project would completely avoid direct impacts to least Bell’s vireo and provides an upland
conserved buffer to the one vireo pair onsite that is limited to the northeastern most portion of
riparian habitat onsite. Further, the project proposes measures such as vegetated barriers, fencing,
and nigh light shielding to avoid and/or reduce potential edge effects to the vireo pair within Poggi
Creek. Due to the limited vireo presence/population onsite and uncertainty regarding a vireo
population within Poggi Creek upstream to the east, the project does not propose a brown‐headed
cowbird control program onsite. These cowbird control programs are typically implemented and
most cost effective within a river system where a larger known vireo population within conserved
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 45
lands would benefit. Although the project does not propose any direct impacts to vireo occupied
habitat, the project proposes to comply and address the applicable Conditions of Coverage as
specified in the Mitigation Requirements section further below.
Orange‐throated Whiptail Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for orange‐throated whiptail specifies that the area specific
management directives must include measures to address edge effects. The project proposes to
comply and address the applicable Conditions of Coverage as specified in the Mitigation
Requirements section further below.
Cooper’s Hawk Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for Cooper’s hawk specifies that the area specific management
directives must include 300‐foot impact avoidance areas around active nests and minimization of
disturbance to oak woodlands and oak riparian forests. No Cooper’s hawk potentially suitable
nesting habitat including oak woodlands and oak riparian forests occurs within the proposed impact
area. This species was not observed nesting or exhibiting any nesting behavior onsite. Therefore,
the Conditions of Coverage are not applicable.
Northern Harrier Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for northern harrier specifies that the area specific management
directives must include the following: (1) manage agricultural and disturbed lands (which become
part of the Preserve) within four miles of nesting habitat to provide foraging habitat; (2) include an
impact avoidance area (900 feet or maximum possible within the Preserve) around active nests; and
(3) include measures for maintaining winter foraging habitat in Preserve areas in Proctor Valley,
around Sweetwater Reservoir, San Miguel Ranch, Otay Ranch east of Wueste Road, Lake Hodges,
and San Pasqual Valley. No nesting northern harrier occur onsite and none are expected. The
northern harriers onsite were only flying over and potentially foraging onsite. No agricultural or
disturbed lands occur within the proposed Preserve; however, the non‐native grassland along with
the other potential raptor foraging habitat within the onsite Preserve will be managed to provide
potential foraging habitat for a variety of raptors including northern harrier. The project proposes
to comply and address the Conditions of Coverage where applicable as specified in the Mitigation
Requirements section further below.
Otay Tarplant Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for Otay tarplant specifies that the area specific management
directives must include measures for monitoring of populations, adaptive management of
preserves, and measures to protect against detrimental edge effects. The project proposes to
comply and address the Conditions of Coverage where applicable as specified in the Mitigation
Requirements section further below.
Orcutt’s Bird’s‐Beak Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak specifies that strategies to provide
protection for this species within the amendment area must be included at the time permit
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 46
amendments are proposed. The proposed project temporary work in the Minor Amendment Area
directly south of the Sunbow property does not support Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak.
Coast Barrel Cactus Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for coast barrel cactus specifies that the area specific
management directives must include measures to address edge effects, unauthorized collection,
and fire management/control practices. The project proposes to comply and address the
Conditions of Coverage where applicable as specified in the Mitigation Requirements section
further below.
Adjacency Management Guidelines
The City of Chula Vista requires that land uses adjacent to the MSCP Preserve be managed to avoid
and minimize impacts to the preserve; therefore, project mitigation measures pertaining to lighting,
noise, landscaping, access, and drainage would be required to ensure consistency with the MSCP
Subarea Plan Section 7.5.2 Adjacency Management Guidelines and ensure the long‐term viability of
wildlife and sensitive habitats in the Preserve. These Guidelines and applicability to the proposed
project are summarized below and incorporated where applicable into project mitigation measures
as provided in the Mitigation Requirement section below.
Drainage:
1. All developed and paved areas must prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum
products, exotic plant materials and other elements that might degrade or harm the natural
environment or ecosystem processes within the Preserve through the use of a variety of methods
including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices.
2. Develop and implement urban runoff and drainage plans which will create the least impact
practicable for all development adjacent to the Preserve. All development projects will be required
to meet NPDES standards and incorporate BMP as defined by the Citys SUSMP.
3. Pursuant to the San Diego RWQCB Municipal Permit, and the City of Chula Vista Storm Water
Management Standards Requirements Manual, all development and redevelopment located within
or directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an environmentally sensitive area are required to
implement site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs.
4. Require all NPDES‐regulated projects to implement a combination of BMPs as close to potential
pollutant sources as feasible.
The proposed project would comply with the applicable drainage and storm water permits and
implement features such as vegetated detention basins to avoid the potential release of toxins,
chemicals, and other elements from entering the Preserve and ensure consistency with the
Guidelines.
Toxic Substances:
All agricultural uses, including animal‐keeping activities, and recreational uses that use chemicals or
general by‐products that are impactive to biological resources or water quality need to incorporate
methods on their site to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage of such
materials into the Preserve. Methods shall be consistent with requirements of the RWQCB and
NPDES standards.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 47
The proposed project does not include any agricultural uses or recreational uses that would result
in potential impacts from toxic substances entering into the Preserve.
Lighting:
Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the Preserve should be directed away from the Preserve
wherever feasible and consistent with public safety. Where necessary, development should provide
adequate shielding with non‐invasive plant materials (preferably native), berming, and/or other
methods to protect the Preserve and sensitive species from night lighting. Consideration should be
given to the use of low‐pressure sodium lighting.
Although the specificity of the proposed lighting plan is not available at this time, the proposed
project would include the use of outdoor lighting along roadways and in association with proposed
buildings that may have the potential to spill into the adjacent Preserve. Due to this potential
impact, the project would incorporate applicable measures such as adequate shielding and the
potential use of low‐pressure sodium lighting if possible to ensure consistency with the Guidelines.
Noise:
Uses in or adjacent to the Preserve should be designed to minimize noise impacts. Berms or walls
should be constructed adjacent to commercial areas and any other use that may introduce noises
that could impact or interfere with wildlife utilization of the Preserve. Excessively noisy uses or
activities adjacent to breeding areas, including temporary grading activities, must incorporate noise
reduction measures or be curtailed during the breeding season of sensitive bird species, consistent
with Table 3‐5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan.
The Poggi Creek portion of the Preserve and the north‐facing slope directly adjacent to the Creek
are in close proximity to Olympic Parkway, a busy roadway that is a source of consistent noise from
vehicular traffic. The northern portion of the project site likely has a higher ambient noise level
than the southern portion of the site due to the Olympic Parkway traffic noise levels and thus the
proposed noise levels may or may not result in substantially greater noise levels. Conversely, the
proposed project may potentially introduce elevated noise levels into the Preserve particularly
along the southwestern boundary of the proposed development where the current conditions are
relatively quiet. Due to this potential impact, the project would incorporate applicable measures
such as the avoidance of the breeding season for construction activities to ensure consistency with
the Guidelines.
Invasives:
No invasive non‐native plant species shall be introduced into areas immediately adjacent to the
Preserve. All open space slopes immediately adjacent to the Preserve should be planted with
native species that reflect the adjacent native habitat. The plant list contained in the
Wildland/Urban Interface: Fuel Modification Standards, Appendix K, must be reviewed and utilized
to the maximum extent practicable when developing landscaping plans in areas adjacent to the
Preserve.
The proposed project includes fuel modification zones within the project development adjacent to
the Preserve as well as landscape areas that have the potential to introduce invasive non‐native
species into the Preserve. Due to this potential impact, the project would incorporate applicable
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 48
measures such as the prohibition of invasive plant species in the planting palette as well as the
maintenance and monitoring of the adjacent areas to ensure consistency with the Guidelines.
Buffers:
There are no requirements for buffers outside the Preserve, except as required for Wetlands
pursuant to Federal and/or State permits, or by local agency CEQA mitigation conditions. All open
space requirements for the Preserve shall be limited to the Preserve and do not include any buffers
that extend beyond the Preserve boundary. Fuel modification zones must be consistent with
Section 7.4.4 of the City’s Subarea Plan.
The proposed project has incorporated appropriate wetland buffers to ensure avoidance from
project construction and implementation. In addition, proposed fuel modification zones are
included in the project development footprint as a proposed impact. The proposed Preserve
includes open space to be conserved in perpetuity as well as some areas of proposed habitat
restoration that will include sensitive plant species.
MSCP Minor Amendment Area
The City of Chula Vista owned property directly south of the proposed project site is designated a
Minor Amendment Area (Figures 2 and 5). These designated areas throughout the City are not
currently a part of the City’s MSCP and do not receive any take authorization or coverage benefits
until it is amended into the MSCP Plan through the Minor Amendment Process described in the
MSCP Section 5.1.3.1.
The project proponent is working with the City of Chula Vista as the property owner to request a
Minor Amendment to allow offsite temporary project impacts that would encroach 25 feet onto the
City’s property and within this Minor Amendment Area. This request for a Minor Amendment
would also require wildlife agency concurrence.
These potential impacts onto the City property would consist of a 25‐foot grading buffer for
temporary construction equipment access and grading as well as a minor excavation and fill for a
buttress to address slope stability that would be located entirely within the 25‐foot construction
buffer. The temporary impact areas in the 25‐foot grading buffer within the Minor Amendment
Area from Sunbow project construction activities and buttress construction would be revegetated
with a native erosion control hydroseed mix acceptable to the City and wildlife agencies to ensure
soil stability and prevent subsequent erosion; further, these temporary impacts would be fully
mitigated within the proposed Sunbow project site inside the 100% Preserve. The natural ground
along the southwest boundary between Sunbow II Phase 3, and property owned by the City, is
underlain by geologic conditions that are below industry standards with respect to slope stability.
Minor excavations are planned in this area as part of the development of Sunbow II Phase 3. To
bring this area in compliance with code, a buttress fill will be required which consists of over‐
excavating weak materials from the natural ground and replacing them with soils of higher
strength. The dimension of the over‐excavation was calculated during slope stability analysis for
the proposed project and resulted in the proposed encroachment into the City’s property to
construct the buttress. The resulting condition after grading will be in compliance with code and
also improve the existing stability of the City’s property.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 49
The requested offsite temporary impacts onto City property are included in the total proposed
project impacts and proposed mitigation located within the Sunbow property as provided above in
the impact analysis and quantified in Tables 4 and 7.
HLIT Draft Findings
In order for the City of Chula Vista to approve or conditionally approve a HLIT permit, all of the draft
Section 17.35.080 HLIT Findings such as those that demonstrate the project and associated
mitigation are consistent with the Subarea Plan and the project results in minimum disturbance to
sensitive biological resources, except impacts to natural vegetation in mapped development areas,
shall be made by the decision maker.
The project is consistent with the HLIT Ordinance including the Findings the City needs to make for
Issuance of HLIT Permit (Section 17.35.080) and applicable MSCP Subarea Plan Sections 5.2.3 and
5.2.4 that addresses impacts to Narrow Endemics and Wetlands, as discussed above. Further, the
project is consistent with applicable general and specific MSCP development regulations/standards
as specified in Section 17.35.090 of the HLIT including but not limited to those summarized below:
Project impacts located on the least environmentally sensitive portions of the site to
minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources to the maximum extent practicable;
Wetland impacts shall be avoided;
Grading during applicable wildlife breeding seasons shall be avoided; and
Temporary impact areas to sensitive biological resources shall be revegetated with native
species.
The draft HLIT Findings for the project are included in Appendix 9 of this report. The City will finalize
the HLIT Findings during the HLIT Permit process.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA guidelines §15355 define cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental
impacts”.
The MSCP was designed to compensate for the loss of biological resources throughout the
program’s region; therefore, projects that conform to the MSCP would not result in a cumulatively
considerable impact for those biological resources adequately covered by the program. The
aforementioned direct and indirect impacts resulting from the proposed project will not be
cumulatively considerable once the project mitigation measures are implemented to ensure
conformance to the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and HLIT Ordinance.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 50
MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Implementation of the following project mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant
biological impacts to a level below significance and ensure conformance with CEQA, City of Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, and City of Chula Vista HLIT.
Impacts to Sensitive Upland Habitats Consisting of Native Grassland, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub,
Non‐native Grassland that support Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species and Raptor Foraging Habitat
would be mitigated by MM‐BIO‐1 and MM‐BIO‐2 (Habitat Impacts and Mitigation are summarized
in Table 9 and shown in Figure 6 further below):
MM‐BIO‐1 The Applicant shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication (IOD) to the City of
Chula Vista on the first final map for 62.16 acres of onsite Preserve land within
Preserve Management Area 3, Subunits 3‐1a, 3‐1b, and 3‐1c of the Chula Vista
Central City Preserve lands. The MSCP Preserve land shall be conserved, maintained,
and managed by the City of Chula Vista or its designee in perpetuity as directed in
the Chula Vista Central City Preserve Area‐Specific Management Directives (ASMDs)
for Preserve Management Area 3 (PMA 3) (RECON Environmental, April 26, 2004)
and funded by the Sunbow Preserve Community Facilities District (No. 98‐3). The
City of Chula Vista Preserve Habitat Manager shall be responsible for the long‐term
Preserve management activities identified in the Central City Preserve ASMD. Said
IOD for the 62.16 acres Proposed MSCP Preserve shall include 48.95 acres to
mitigate for significant habitat impacts to 7.79 acres of native grassland, 8.55 acres
of Diegan coastal sage scrub, and 55.61 acres of non‐native grassland as well as the
following sensitive species significant impacts:
Coastal California Gnatcatcher‐ occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub to
mitigate for significant direct impacts to coastal California
gnatcatcher occupied habitat;
Otay Tarplant‐ 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant occupied habitat (i.e.,native
grassland) to mitigate for direct impacts to 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant
occupied habitat that currently supports 836 Otay tarplant individual
plants;
Orcutt’s Bird’s‐beak‐ Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal
sage scrub) to mitigate for significant direct impacts to onsite Diegan
coastal sage scrub that currently supports 91 Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak
individual plants;
Decumbent Goldenbush‐ Decumbent goldenbush habitat (i.e., Diegan
coastal sage scrub and native grassland), that includes at least 289
decumbent goldenbush individual plants) to mitigate for significant
direct impacts to onsite native grassland and Diegan coastal sage
scrub that currently supports 289 decumbent goldenbush individual
plants; and
San Diego Viguiera‐ San Diego viguiera habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal
sage scrub) that includes at least 2,979 San Diego viguiera individual
plants) to mitigate for significant direct impacts to onsite Diegan
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 51
coastal sage scrub that currently supports 5,958 San Diego viguiera
individual plants.
MM‐BIO‐2 Prior to initiation of construction related activities including clearing and grubbing or
prior to vegetation/ground disturbance or prior to site mobilization activities or
issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City
demonstrating that the Applicant has contracted with a qualified biologist(s) to
monitor the project construction activities and avoid any inadvertent impacts to
sensitive biological and ensure complete avoidance of jurisdictional resources. Each
qualified biologist shall have demonstrated expertise with the sensitive habitats,
special status species of the project region. The qualified biologist(s) shall monitor
the installation of the construction temporary fencing and/or flagging, silt fencing,
and other best management practices (BMPs) along the construction limits prior to
construction activities. The qualified biologist shall be present full‐time during all
initial vegetation clearing and grubbing activities, and potentially on a less frequent
basis during grading activities to ensure construction remains within the approved
project development area. The Applicant shall report results of biological monitoring
activities to the City on a regular basis through the preparation and submission of
summary monitoring reports.
Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species (Otay tarplant, Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak, decumbent goldenbush, and
San Diego County viguiera) would be mitigated by MM‐BIO‐1 to MM‐BIO‐3.
MM‐BIO‐3 Prior to the issuance of any land development permits including for clearing and
grubbing or grading, the Applicant shall prepare a Restoration Plan prepared by a
qualified biologist to mitigate for impacts to sensitive plant species consisting of
Otay tarplant, Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak, decumbent goldenbush, and San Diego County
viguiera consistent with the conceptual Restoration Plan (Merkel & Associates,
February 2021). The Applicant shall implement the 5‐year maintenance and
monitoring activities consistent with the Conceptual Restoration Plan to the
satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee). The
revegetation plan must be prepared by a qualified City approved biologist familiar
with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and must include, but not be limited to, an
implementation plan; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation
method; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and
reporting program; estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The
Project Applicant shall be required to prepare and implement the revegetation plan
subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their
designee). NOTE: Since the revegetation is critical to approving the MSCP Boundary
Line Adjustment, the applicant will be required to enter into a Secured Agreement
with the City and will be required to provide a cash deposit.
Impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher territories and coastal California gnatcatcher potential
suitable habitats would be mitigated by MM‐BIO‐1 to MM‐BIO‐2 above and MM‐BIO‐4 to MM‐
BIO‐5 below.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 52
MM‐BIO‐4 To avoid any direct impacts to nesting coastal California gnatcatcher, all vegetation
clearing, grubbing and grading activities within gnatcatcher occupied habitat (i.e.,
Diegan coastal sage scrub) shall be conducted outside of the gnatcatcher breeding
season (February 15 to August 15).
MM‐BIO‐5 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall delineate coastal California
gnatcatcher occupied habitat located adjacent to the proposed project development
area during the breeding season (February 15 to August 15) by orange biological
fencing or comparable materials to ensure that no work shall occur within these
habitats. In addition, a minimum 300‐foot buffer and on‐site noise
reduction/attenuation techniques shall be incorporated, as appropriate to avoid
impacts to breeding gnatcatcher from elevated construction noise levels. The City
Development Services Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to
modify the buffer width depending on site‐specific conditions. Noise monitoring
may be required to ensure that the elevated construction noise levels are
appropriately attenuated at the edge of occupied habitat to a level that is not
expected to adversely affect nesting bird behavior (i.e., not to exceed an hourly
average of 60 A‐weighted decibels (dBA) or ambient at the edge of occupied
habitat).
Impacts to potentially suitable and contiguous habitat for least Bell’s vireo and nesting least Bell’s
vireo would be mitigated by MM‐BIO‐6.
MM‐BIO‐6 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall delineate least Bell’s vireo occupied
habitat by orange biological fencing or comparable to avoid direct impact to vireo
within occupied habitat located adjacent to the proposed project during the
breeding season (March 15 to September 15). In addition, a minimum 300‐foot
buffer and on‐site noise reduction/attenuation techniques shall be incorporated, as
appropriate to avoid impacts to breeding vireo from elevated construction noise
levels. The City Development Services Director (or their designee) shall have the
discretion to modify the buffer width depending on site‐specific conditions. Noise
monitoring may be required to ensure that the elevated construction noise levels
are appropriately attenuated at the edge of occupied habitat to a level that is not
expected to adversely affect nesting bird behavior (i.e., not to exceed an hourly
average of 60 dBA or ambient at the edge of occupied habitat).
Impacts to nesting birds protected under MBTA and CDFG Code Sections 3503 and 3513 would be
mitigated by MM‐BIO‐7.
MM‐BIO‐7 To avoid any direct impacts to migratory birds and/or raptors protected under the
federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503
and 3513, removal of habitat that supports active nests on the proposed area of
disturbance should occur outside of the breeding season for these species. The
breeding season is defined as January 15–August 31 for raptor species and February
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 53
15–August 15 for other non‐raptor birds (excluding listed species). If removal of
habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season,
then prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a City‐approved biologist to
conduct a pre‐construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting
birds on the proposed area of disturbance. The pre‐construction survey must be
conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction, and the results
must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any
construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation
plan, as deemed appropriate by the City, shall be prepared and include proposed
measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities are
avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City. The City’s mitigation
monitor shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or
mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction.
To reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl during construction, the City‐
approved biologist shall perform pre‐construction inspection of potential habitat,
and, at minimum, twice weekly inspections be performed while rough grading is
ongoing. All pre‐construction survey efforts shall be conducted prior to any project
activities that could result in habitat disturbance to soil, vegetation or other
sheltering habitat for burrowing owl. If any burrowing owls or sign of burrowing
owls are detected, the Wildlife Agencies (jointly, CDFW and USFWS) shall be
contacted; efforts shall be made to determine the breeding status of the species on
site, and whether it is safe at that point to exclude burrowing owls from occupied
burrows. Active or passive relocation methods shall only be employed with
concurrence by CDFW and USFWS.
Indirect impacts including edge effects would be mitigated by MM‐BIO‐4 to MM‐BIO‐6 above and
further reduced and mitigated in accordance with the City’s MSCP Adjacency Guidelines by MM‐
BIO‐8 through MM‐BIO‐11:
MM‐BIO‐8 Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape
Master Plan for the entire project which shall demonstrate compliance with the
proposed fence and wall plan for the project. The proposed fence and wall plan shall
include appropriate fencing and barriers (e.g., vegetation) where applicable to shield
human presence and deter human intrusion into the Preserve.
MM‐BIO‐9 Concurrent with design review and prior to issuance of a building permit for any
development located adjacent to the Preserve, the Applicant shall prepare, a
lighting plan and photometric analysis for review and approval the Development
Services Director (or their designee). The lighting plan shall illustrate the location of
the proposed lighting standards and type of shielding measures. Low‐pressure
sodium lighting shall be used, if feasible, and shall be subject to the approval of the
Development Services Director (or their designee).
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 54
MM‐BIO‐10 Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape
Master Plan for the entire project which shall demonstrate compliance with the
proposed plant palette for the project. The proposed plant palette shall prohibit
invasive non‐native plant species on the California Exotic Pest Plant Council List of
Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California that could spread into
the adjacent Preserve. No invasive non‐native plant species shall be introduced into
areas immediately adjacent to the preserve. All slopes immediately adjacent to the
Preserve shall be planted with native species that reflect the adjacent native habitat.
Further, the proposed plant palette shall be consistent with the plant list contained
in the “Wildland/Urban Interface: Fuel Modification Standards,” and provided as
Appendix L of the Subarea Plan, must be reviewed and utilized to the maximum
extent practicable when developing landscaping plans in areas adjacent to the
Preserve.
MM‐BIO‐11 To avoid habitat degradation to the adjacent Preserve lands, project irrigation shall
be contained to the project development and fuel modification zones and shall not
drain or overspray resulting in potential erosion/sedimentation, spread of invasive
plant species, and/or non‐native species such as Argentine ants.
Inadvertent direct impacts to habitat and sensitive species would be mitigated by MM‐BIO‐123 and
MM‐BIO‐13.
MM‐BIO‐12 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate how the project would
avoid or minimize applicable inadvertent impacts during construction. To ensure the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to biological resources during construction
the following construction BMPs shall be implemented:
a) Prior to ground disturbance, all permanent and temporary disturbance areas
shall be clearly delineated by orange construction fencing and the identification
of environmentally sensitive areas with flagging and/or fencing.
b) To minimize disturbance of areas outside the project site, all construction and
operation vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction
areas, and other designated areas. These areas shall be included in
pre‐construction surveys and, to the extent possible, shall be established in
locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent further impacts.
c) Construction and operation vehicles shall observe appropriate safe speed limits
and adhere to safety practices.
d) Dust suppression shall occur during construction activities when necessary to
meet air quality standards and protect biological resources.
e) No vehicles or equipment shall be refueled or undergo maintenance within 100
feet of a jurisdictional waters feature. Spill kits shall be maintained on the site in
sufficient quantity to accommodate at least three complete vehicle tank failures
of 50 gallons each. Any vehicles driven or operated within or adjacent to
drainages or wetlands shall be checked and maintained daily to prevent leaks of
contaminated fluids.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 55
f) All general trash, food‐related trash items (wrappers, cans, bottles, food scraps,
cigarettes, etc.), and other human‐generated debris scheduled to be removed
shall be stored in animal‐proof containers and removed from the site on a
regular basis (weekly during construction, and at least monthly during
operations). No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be allowed.
g) Use of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, or biocides shall comply with all local, state,
and federal regulations. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and
other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other state and federal
legislation. Use of first‐and second‐ generation rodenticides shall not be
permitted except for the limited use of zinc phosphide, or a rodenticide
approved by the City, and only after other means of pest control (e.g. rodent
traps) have proven to be ineffective.
MM‐BIO‐13 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, prior to vegetation clearing, grubbing, grading,
or any ground disturbing activities, the Applicant shall submit evidence to the City
that the Applicant has retained qualified biologists to prepare a Worker
Environmental Awareness Program that shall be presented to all construction
personnel and employees before any ground‐disturbing activities commence at the
project site and shall be continued through the construction phase for all new
construction personnel. The program shall consist of a brief presentation going over
the on‐site sensitive biological resources and compliance with project impact and
open space boundaries, and applicable environmental laws and requirements with
all personnel involved in the project. This presentation shall explain to construction
personnel how best to avoid impacts sensitive resources during construction. The
program shall include a description of all special status species potentially on the
project site and their habitat needs; an explanation of the status of the species and
their protection under the state and federal regulations; specific mitigation
measures applicable to listed and other special status species; permit conditions,
and the penalties for violation of applicable laws. The program shall also explain to
construction personnel how to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters, including
wetlands. The program shall include a map and description of jurisdictional waters
on the site to be avoided and measures to implement to ensure the protection and
avoidance of jurisdictional waters.
Temporary impacts to the Minor Amendment Area would require implementation of MM‐BIO‐14:
MM‐BIO‐14 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a revegetation plan for the
temporary impact areas within the 25‐foot grading buffer in the Minor Amendment
Area that utilizes a native erosion control hydroseed mix acceptable to the City and
the Wildlife Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of
Fish and Wildlife) to ensure soil stability and prevent subsequent erosion. The
revegetation plan must be prepared by a qualified City approved biologist familiar
with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and must include, but not be limited to, an
implementation plan; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 56
method; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and
reporting program; estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The
Project Applicant shall be required to prepare and implement the revegetation plan
subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their
designee).
The proposed project MSCP BLA and Minor Amendment would require implementation of the
following mitigation measures:
MM‐BIO‐15 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and
Wildlife Agencies for the MSCP BLA. The Applicant shall be required to implement
conditions associated with the BLA subject to the oversight and approval of the
Development Services Director (or their designee).
MM‐BIO‐16 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and
Wildlife Agencies for the MSCP Minor Amendment. The Applicant shall be required
to implement conditions associated with the Minor Amendment subject to the
oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee).
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 57 Table 9. Project Habitat Mitigation Ratios and Acreages Proposed Onsite and Offsite Impacts (acres) Required Project Mitigation (acres) Inside Preserve Outside Preserve Vegetation Type MSCP Tier Habitat Type Total Onsite (acres) Perm Temp Perm Temp Total Mitigation Ratio Impact Inside Preserve Impact Outside Preserve Total Available in Existing Preserve for Onsite Mitigation (acres) Proposed Onsite Habitat Mitigation/ Surplus Preserved Habitat (acres) Southern Willow Scrub Wetland 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1:1 to 2:1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 n/a Mule Fat Scrub Wetland 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1:1 to 2:1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 n/a Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Wetland 7.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1:1 to 2:1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.31 n/a Native Grassland I 24.09 3.22 0.18 4.22 0.17 7.79 2:1 (Impact Inside Preserve) 1:1 (Impact Outside Preserve) 6.80 4.39 11.19 15.98 11.19 (Existing Preserve)/ 4.79 (Surplus) Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub II 37.08 2.24 0.39 5.15 0.77 8.55 1.5:1 (Impact Inside Preserve) 1:1 (Impact Outside Preserve) 3.94 5.92 9.86 21.83 9.86 (Existing Preserve)/ 11.97 (Surplus)
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 58 Non‐native Grassland III 64.19 1.66 0.10 49.62 3.63 55.01 1:1 (Impact Inside Preserve) 0.5:1 (Impact Outside Preserve) 1.76 26.62 28.38 8.55 8.55 (NNG Existing Preserve) and 16.76 (Surplus NG & DCSS Existing Preserve), and 3.07 (NNG Proposed Preserve) Non‐native Vegetation IV 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 Urban/ Developed n/a 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: 135.70 7.12 0.67 59.01 4.58 71.38 12.50 36.93 49.43 54.33 46.36 (Existing Preserve) 3.07 (Proposed Preserve)
µ
M&A #94-021-36
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA AmendmentProposed Habitat Mitigation-MSCP Preserve Map Figure 6
Aerial Source: Merkel & Associates Jan. 2020 Created on: April 30, 2021
0 300 600150
Feet
OLYMPIC PKWY
DetentionBasin
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Vegetation Communities
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Native Grassland
Non-native Grassland
Non-native Vegetation
Urban/Developed
Waters of the State (RWQCB)/Streambed (CDFW)
Special Status Fauna
#0 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) - 2
#0 Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo belli pusillus) - 1
#0 Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii) - 1
#0 Yellow Breasted Chat (Icteria virens) - 3
#0 Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) - 5
#0 Orange-throated Whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) - 1
#0 Two-striped Garter Snake (Thamnophis hammondii) - 1
Flyover Only
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus)
Special Status Species (Numbers Provided IndicateTotal Observed On-site for Each Species)Special Status Flora
!(Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) - 5,449
!(Decumbent Goldenbush (Isocoma menziessii var. decumbens) - 803
!(Orcutt's Bird's-beak (Dicranostegia orcuttianus) - 911
!(Ashy Spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens) - 2
!(Coast Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) - 2
!(Palmer's Sagwort (Artemisia palmeri) - 44
!(San Diego County Needlegrass (Stipa diegoense) - 10
!(San Diego County Viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata) - 7,647
!(San Diego Bursage (Ambrosia chenopodifolia) - 24
!(San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayesiana) - 816
!(Small-flowered Bindweed (Convolvulus simulans) - 91
!(Southwestern Spiny Rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii) - 750
,
,
,
,
,
Other
MSCP Minor Amendment Area
MSCP County of San Diego Take Authorized Area
MSCP Proposed Preserve Habitat Restoration
Project Site
MSCP City of Chula Vista 100% Preserve
Site Plans - September 2020 Hunsaker
MSCP Proposed Preserve (Hunsaker September 2020)
Offsite Mapping Buffer
Proposed Habitat Mitigation
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 60
LITERATURE CITED
AECOM, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Conservation Biology Institute. 2011.
Vegetation Classification Manual for Western San Diego County, First Edition. Prepared for
San Diego Association of Governments.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020a. California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB). Biogeographic Data Branch. RareFind 3; GIS shapefile; update CD January 2020.
Sacramento, California.
_____. 2020b. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. January
2020. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. 140 pp.
Available from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline
_____. 2019. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. August 2019.
Special Animals List. Periodic publication. 67 pp. Available from:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants
of California (online edition, v8‐03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed
March 2020)
City of Chula Vista. 2019a. GIS Data Portal. Updated October 29,2019 https://chulavista‐
cvgis.opendata.arcgis.com/
_____. 2019b. Chula Vista Municipal Code. Chapter 17.35 Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT).
Passed November 12, 2019, pp. 1‐22.
_____. 2003. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February 2003.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106
Crother, B.I. (ed.). 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of
North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our
Understanding, pp. 1–102.
Crother, B.I., J. Boundy, J.A. Campbell, K. De Quieroz, D. Frost, D.M. Green, R. Highton, J.B. Iverson,
R.W. McDiarmid, P.A. Meylan, T.W. Reeder, M.E. Seidel, J.W. Sites, Jr., S.G. Tilley, D.B.
Wake. 2003. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North
America North of Mexico: Update. Herpetological Review 2003, 34(3), 196‐203.
Chesser, R.T., K.J. Burns, C. Cicero, J.L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette, P.C. Rasmussen, J.V. Remsen,
Jr., D.F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2019. Check‐list of North American Birds (online). American
Ornithological Society. http://checklist.aou.org/taxa
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 61
Dudek and Associates, Inc.. 2006. Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for Otay
Ranch Villages 2 & 3, City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California. Prepared for the
Otay Ranch Company. February 2006. 97pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical
Report Y‐87‐1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MS. 117 pp.
Google Earth™. V 7.3.3.7699 [Software]. 2020. Available from: http://www.earth.google.com.
Accessed 2020.
Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons. New York, New
York. Two volumes. 1,181 pp.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Nongame‐Heritage Program, State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and
Game. Sacramento, California. 157pp.
Klein, M.W., San Diego Natural History Museum. 2002. Butterflies of San Diego County [Internet].
Available from: http://www.sdnhm.org/research/entomology/sdbutterflies.html.
Merkel & Associates, Inc. (M&A). 2020. Biological Constraints/Due Diligence Report for the
Sunbow II Phase III Development Report. Prepared for Lennar‐San Diego Division. Dated
February 24, 2020. 25 pp.
Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell® Soil Color Charts. Revised Edition. Munsell® Color/GretagMacBeth,
New York.
National Water and Climate Data Center (USDA‐NRCS 2019). USDA‐NRCS. Available from:
https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/
Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, J. Buegge. 2008, Revised 1996 and 2006. Draft Vegetation Communities of
San Diego County [Internet]. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural
Communities of California”, Holland RF, PhD., 1986. Available from:
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/Veg_Comm_SDCounty_2008.pdf.
Rebman, J.P. and M.G. Simpson. 2014. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County, 5th
Edition [Internet]. ISBN 0‐918969‐08‐5. Available from:
file:///C:/Users/gkrantz/Downloads/SDCoChecklist5ed2014%20(13).pdf
San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM) Plant Atlas Data Base. 2020. Available from:
http://sdplantatlas.org/publicsearch.aspx
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2016. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Clean Water Act Sections 305(B) and 303(D) Integrated Report for the San Diego
Region. Draft Staff Report 2016; approved by USEPA April 6, 2018. Clean Water Act
Sections 303(d) List and 305 (b) Report and interative Map, Accessed 2018. Available from:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb9/water_issues/programs/303d_list/index.shtml
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 62
Supreme Court of the United States. 2001. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
(SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al. 531 U.S. 159 (2001). Available from:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/531bv.pdf
_____. 2006. Rapanos v. U.S. and Carabell v. U.S. 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Available from:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/547bv.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)..2018. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.4. Available
from http://wetland‐plants.usace.army.mil/. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer
Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
Hanover, NH.
_____. 2016 Oct. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 16‐01, Subject: Jurisdictional Determinations.
Available from:
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits/juris_info.
aspx
_____. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid
West Region (Version 2.0), ed. [Internet]. JS Wakeley, RW Lichvar, and CV Noble. ERDC/EL
TR‐08‐28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Available
from: http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdictional‐
Determination/Wetland‐Delineations/
_____. 2008b Jun 26. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08‐02, Subject: Jurisdictional
Determinations. Available from:
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits/juris_info.
aspx
_____. 2008c. Aug. A Delineation Manual, A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. July 2010,
Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the
Arid West Region of the Western United States. Available from:
http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdictional‐Determination/OHWM‐
Delineations/
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2016.
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, A Guide for Identifying and Delineating
Hydric Soils, Version 8.0 [Internet]. L.M Vasilas, G.W Hurt, and J.F Berkowitz (eds.). USDA,
NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Available
from: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/
_____. 2007. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for San Diego County, California
[Internet]. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Available from:
http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov/.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 63
_____. 2002. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for San Diego County, California
[Internet]. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Available from:
http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). 2007.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook
[Internet]. Available from: http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil‐Works/Regulatory‐
Program‐and‐Permits/Related‐Resources/CWA‐Guidance/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO). 2019a. GIS
Division Species Occurrence Data Download (zip) updated May 2019.
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/giswebpage/giswebpage.htm.
______. 2019b. GIS Division Critical Habitat Data Download (zip) updated May 2019.
https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/GIS/CFWOGIS.html
______.2014 Dec. 15. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Survey Guidelines. 8
pp.
_____. 2004. Recovery Plan for Deinandra conjugens (Otay Tarplant). Portland, Oregon. vii + 65
pp. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/041228.pdf
_____. 1997 Jul 28. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
Presence/Absence Survey Protocol. 5 pp.
U.S. Geological Service (USGS). 2007. Preliminary Integrated Geological Map Databases for the
United States; Western States: California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
Utah. Version 1.2. GIS Data Download California (zip) [Internet]. Available from:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1305/#CA.Wilson DE, Reeder DM (eds). 2005. Mammal
Species of the World. Johns Hopkins University Press. 2,142 pp. Available from Johns
Hopkins University Press at: 1‐800‐537‐5487 or (410) 516‐6900, or
http://www.press.jhu.edu/ or http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw/.
Wilson DE, Reeder DM (eds). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. Johns Hopkins University Press.
2,142 pp. Available from Johns Hopkins University Press at: 1‐800‐537‐5487 or (410) 516‐
6900, or http://www.press.jhu.edu/ or http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw/.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendment
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33
APPENDIX1.SUNBOWIIUSFWS1995BIOLOGICALOPINION
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϮ
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϮͲ1
APPENDIXϮ.FLORASPECIESOBSERVEDONͲSITE
HabitatTypes:
D=DieganCoastalSageScrub
G=ValleyNeedlegrassGrassland
W=SouthernWillowScrub
F=CoastalandValleyFreshwaterMarsh
N=NonͲnativeGrassland
V=NonͲnativeVegetation
*=DenotesnonͲnativefloraspecies.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϮ
ScientificNameCommonNameHabitat
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϮͲ2
GYMNOSPERMS
PinaceaeͲPineFamily
Pinussp.pineV
DICOTYLEDONS
Adoxaceae–AdoxaFamily
SambucusnigraL.subsp.caerulea(Raf.)BolliblueelderberryD
Amaranthaceae–AmaranthFamily
*AmaranthusalbusL. tumbleweedN
Anacardiaceae–SumacFamily
Malosmalaurina(Nutt.)Abramslaurelsumac
Rhusintegrifolia(Nutt.)Brewer&S.WatsonlemonadeberryD
*SchinusmolleL.PeruvianpeppertreeV
Apiaceae–CarrotFamily
ApiastrumangustifoliumNutt.mockparsleyD
*ApiumgraveolensL.celeryW
*FoeniculumvulgareMiller fennelN
SaniculaargutaJ.Coulter&RosesharpͲtoothsanicleG
SaniculabipinnatifidaHook.purplesanicleG
Asteraceae–SunflowerFamily
AchilleamillefoliumL.yarrow,milfoilG
Ambrosiachenopodiifolia(Benth.)PayneSanDiegoburͲsageD
AmbrosiaconfertifloraDC.weakͲleafburragweedN
AmbrosiapsilostachyaDC.westernragweedS
ArtemisiacalifornicaLess.CaliforniasagebrushD
ArtemisiadouglasianaBessermugwortW
ArtemisiapalmeriA.GrayPalmer’ssagewortW
BaccharispilularisDC.coyotebrush,chaparralbroomD
Baccharissalicifolia(RuízLopez&Pavón)Pers.mulefat,seepͲwillowW
BaccharissarothroidesA.GraybroombaccharisD
Bahiopsislaciniata(A.Gray)E.E.Schilling&PaneroSanDiegoCountyviguieraD
*CarduuspycnocephalusL.ItalianthistleW
*CentaureamelitensisL.tocaloteD
Corethrogynefilaginifolia(Hook.&Arn.)Nutt.CaliforniaͲaster,sandͲasterN
*CynaracardunculusL.Artichokethistle,cardoonN
Deinandraconjugens(D.D.Keck)B.G.BaldwinOtaytarplantG
Deinandrafasciculata(DC.)GreenefascicledtarplantG
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϮ
ScientificNameCommonNameHabitat
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϮͲ3
*Dittrichiagraveolens(L.)Greuter stinkwort
EnceliacalifornicaNutt.CaliforniaenceliaD
*ErigeronbonariensisL.flaxͲleaffleabaneN
Eriophyllumconfertiflorum(DC.)A.Grayvar.confertiflorumlongͲstemgoldenͲyarrowD
EuthamiaoccidentalisNutt.westerngoldenrodW
*Gazanialinearis(Thunb.)Druce treasureflowerN
*Glebioniscoronaria(L.)Spach garland,crowndaisyN
GrindeliacamporumGreeneraylessgumplantG
Gutierreziasarothrae(Pursh)Britton&RusbymatchweedG
Hazardiasquarrosa(Hook&Arn.)Greenevar.grindelioides(DC.)W.Clark
sawͲtoothedgoldenbushD
*Hedypnoiscretica(L.)Dum.ͲCours.CretehedypnoisN
*Helminthothecaechioides(L.)Hoplub bristlyoxͲtongueN
HeterothecagrandifloraNutt.telegraphweedN
*HypochaerisglabraL.smoothcat’sͲearN
Isocomamenziesii(Hook.&Arn.)G.L.Nesomvar.decumbens(Greene)G.L.Nesom
decumbentgoldenbushN,V
Isocomamenziesii(Hook.&Arn.)G.L.Nesomvar.vernonioides(Nutt.)G.L.Nesom
coastalgoldenbushD
IvahayesianaA.GraySanDiegomarshͲelderW
*LactucaserriolaL.pricklylettuce
Lastheniagracilis(DC.)E.GreenecommongoldfieldsD
Logfiafilaginoides(Hook.&Arn.)MorefieldCaliforniacottonroseN
*Logfiagallica(L.)Coss.&Germ.narrowͲleaffilagoN
*Maticariadescoidea(DC.) pineappleweedN
OsmadeniatenellaNutt.OsmadeniaN
Plucheaodorata(L.)Cass.saltmarshfleabaneW
PseudognaphaliumbiolettiiAnderb.bicolorcudweedD
*Pseudognaphaliumluteoalbum(L.)Hilliard&B.L.Burtteverlastingcudweed W
Pseudognaphaliummicrocephalum(Nutt.)Anderb.whiteeverlastingD
*Sonchusasper(L.)Hillssp.asper pricklysowthistleN
*SonchusoleraceusL. commonsowthistleN
StephanomeriadiegensisGottliebSanDiegowreathͲplantD
StyloclinegnaphalioidesNutt.everlastingneststrawN
Uropappuslindleyi(DC.)Nutt.silverpuffsD
XanthiumstrumariumL.cocklebur
Boraginaceae–BorageFamily
AmsinckiaintermediaFischer&C.A.MeycommonfiddleneckN
Cryptanthaintermedia(A.Gray)Greenevar.intermedianievitascryptanthaD
Cryptanthamicromeres(A.Gray)GreeneminuteͲfloweredcryptanthaD
Brassicaceae–MustardFamily
*Brassicanigra(L.)Koch blackmustardN
*Hirschfeldiaincana(L.)Lagr.ͲFossat shortͲpodmustardN
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϮ
ScientificNameCommonNameHabitat
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϮͲ4
*LepidiumdidymumL. lesserswinecressN
*LepidiumlatifoliumL. broadͲleafpeppergrassW
LepidiumnitidumNuttshiningpeppergrassG
*LepidiumvirginicumL.ssp.virginicum VirginiapepperweedG
*NasturtiumofficinaleW.T.Aiton watercressW
*RaphanussativusL.wildradishN
*SisymbriumirioL.LondonrocketN
Cactaceae–CactusFamily
Cylindropuntiaprolifera(Engelm.)F.M.KnuthcoastchollaD
Ferocactusviridescens(Torrey&A.Gray)Britton&RosecoastbarrelcactusD
Caryophyllaceae–PinkFamily
Cardionemaramosissima(J.A.Weinm.)Nelson&J.F.Macbr.
treadlightlyN
*Polycarpontetraphyllum(L.)L.ssp.tetraphyllum fourͲleafallseedN
*SilenegallicaL.commoncatchflyN
Chenopdiaceae–GoosefootFamily
Atriplexcanescens(Pursh)Nutt.var.canescensfourͲwingsaltbush,shadescaleD
*AtriplexsemibaccataR.Br.AustraliansaltbushN
*AtriplexsuberectaI.Verd.peregrinesaltbushN
*ChenopodiummuraleL.nettleͲleafgoosefootN
Cleomaceae–SpiderflowerFamily
Peritomaarborea(Nutt.)H.H.IltisbladderpodD
Convolvulaceae–MorningͲGloryFamily
Calystegiamacrostegia(E.Greene)Brummittssp.cyclostegia(House)Brummitt
coastmorningͲgloryN
Calystegiamacrostegia(E.Greene)Brummittssp.intermedia(Abrams)Brummitt
southcoastmorningͲgloryN
*ConvolvulusarvensisL. fieldbindweedN
ConvolvulussimulansPerrysmallͲflowerbindweedG,N
Crassulaceae–StonecropFamily
Crassulaconnata(RuízLopez&Pavón)A.Bergerdwarfstonecrop,pygmyweedD
Cucurbitaceae–GourdFamily
Marahmacrocarpus(E.Greene)E.Greenevar.macrocarpus
manroot,wildͲcucumberD
Euphorbiaceae–SpurgeFamily
Chamaesycepolycarpa(Benth.)Millsp.smallͲseedsandmatD
CrotonsetigerusHook.DoveweedN
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϮ
ScientificNameCommonNameHabitat
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϮͲ5
Fabaceae–PeaFamily
*AcaciacyclopsG.Don cyclopsacaciaV
Acmisponglaber(Vogel)Brouilletvar.glabercoastaldeerweedD
Acmisponmicranthus(Torr.&A.Gray)BrouilletgrablotusD
AmorphafruticosaL.westernfalseͲindigoD
Astragalustrichopodus(Nutt.)A.Grayvar.lonchus(M.E.Jones)Barneby
oceanlocoweedD
LupinusbicolorLindleyminiaturelupineG
LupinussucculentusKocharroyolupineG
*MedicagopolymorphaL.CaliforniaburcloverN
*Melilotusindicus(L.)All.IndianSweetclover,sourcloverN
Fagaceae–OakFamily
QuercusagrifoliaNeévar.agrifoliacoastliveoak,encinaD
Gentianaceae–GentianFamily
Zeltneravenustum(A.Gray)G.Mans.CanchalaguaD
Geraniaceae–GeraniumFamily
*Erodiumbotrys(Cav.)Bertol.longͲbeakfilareeN
*Erodiumcicutarium(L.)L'Hér.redͲstemfilareeN
*Erodiummoschatum(L.)L'Hér.whiteͲstemfilareeN
*GeraniumdissectumL.cutͲleafgeraniumN
Lamiaceae–MintFamily
*MarrubiumvulgareL.horehoundN
SalviaapianaJepsonwhitesageD
SalviamelliferaGreeneblacksageD
ScutellariatuberosaBenth.Danny'sskullcapN
Malvaceae–MallowFamily
Malacothamnusfasciculatus(Torrey&A.Gray)E.Greenemesabushmallow,
chaparralmallowD
Sidalceasparsifolia(C.L.Hitchc.)S.R.HillcheckerͲbloomG
Myrtaceae–MyrtleFamily
*EucalyptusglobulusLabill.bluegumV
*Eucalyptussp.eucalyptusV
Myrsinacea–MyrsineFamily
*Lysimachiaarvensis(L.)U.Manns&Anderb scarletpimpernelN
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϮ
ScientificNameCommonNameHabitat
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϮͲ6
Nyctaginaceae–FourͲO’ClockFamily
Mirabilislaevis(Benth.)Curranvar.crassifolia(Choisy)Spellenb.D
Oleaceae–OliveFamily
Camissoniopsisbistorta(Torr.&A.Gray)W.L.Wagner&HochCaliforniasuncupN
Camissoniopsisintermedia(P.H.Raven)W.L.Wagner&Hoch
intermediatesuncupN
EpilobiumciliatumRaf.ssp.ciliatumwillowherbW
OenotheraelataKunthssp.hirsutissima(S.Watson)W.Dietr.
greatmarsheveningprimroseW
Orobanchaceae–BroomͲRapeFamily
Dicranostegiaorcuttiana(A.Gray)PennellOrcutt'sbird'sͲbeakD
Oxalidaceae–OxalisFamily
*OxalispesͲcapraeL. BermudabuttercupN
Papaveraceae–PoppyFamily
EschscholziacalifornicaCham.CaliforniapoppyG
Plantaginaceae–PlantainFamily
AntirrhinumnuttallianumBenthssp.subsessile(A.Gray)D.Thompson
bigͲglandNuttall'ssnapdragonD
Nuttallanthustexanus(Scheele)D.A.SuttonbluetoadflaxD
PlantagoerectaE.MorrisdotͲseedplantainG,N
Platanaceae–SycamoreFamily
PlatanusracemosaNutt.westernsycamoreS
Plumbaginaceae–LeadwortFamily
*Limoniumramossimum AlgerianrosemaryW
PolemoniaceaeͲPhloxFamily
Eriastrumsapphirinum(Eastw.)H.Masonssp.sapphirinum
sapphirewoollyͲstarD
Linanthusdianthiflorus(Benth.)GreenefarinosegroundpinkG,D
NavarretiahamataE.Greenessp.leptantha(E.Greene)H.Mason
hookedpincushionplantD
Polygonaceae–BuckwheatFamily
ChorizantheprocumbensNutt.prostratespineflowerD,N
EriogonumfasciculatumBenth.var.fasciculatumcoastalCaliforniabuckwheatD
Lastarriaeacoriacea(Goodman)HooeverleatherͲspineflowerN
*RumexcrispusL.curlydockW
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϮ
ScientificNameCommonNameHabitat
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϮͲ7
Primulaceae–PrimroseFamily
DodecatheonclevelandiiE.Greenessp.clevelandiipadre’sshootingstarG
RhamnaceaeͲBuckthornFamily
RhamnuscroceaNutt.spinyredberryD
Rosaceae–RoseFamily
Heteromelesarbutifolia(Lindley)M.Roemertoyon,ChristmasberryD
RosacalifornicaCham.&Schldl.CaliforniaroseD
RubusursinusCham.&Schldl.CaliforniablackberryW
Rubiaceae–MadderFamily
GaliumangustifoliumNutt.ssp.angustifoliumnarrowlyleavedbedstrawD
GaliumnuttalliiA.Grayssp.nuttalliiSanDiego/Nuttall’sbedstrawD
Salicaceae–WillowFamily
SalixexiguaNutt.narrowͲleavedwillowW
SalixgooddingiiC.BallGoodding'sblackwillowW
SalixlaevigataBebbredwillowW
SalixlasiolepisBenth.arroyowillowW
SalixlasiandraBenth.ssp.lasiandraPacificwillowW
Saxifragaceae–SaxifrageFamily
Jepsoniaparryi(Torr.)SmallcoastjepsoniaG
Simmondsiaceae–JojobaFamily
Simmondsiachinensis(Link)C.SchneidergoatͲnut,jojobaD
Solanaceae–NightshadeFamily
DaturawrightiiRegelwesternjimsonweedD
LyciumandersoniiA.GraywaterjacketD
LyciumbrevipesBenth.var.brevipescommondesertthornD
*NicotianaglaucaGraham treetobaccoN
*SolanumamericanumMiller whitenightshadeD
*SolanumnigrumL.blacknightshadeD
Tamaricaceae–TamariskFamily
*TamarixparvifloraDC.smallͲflower/fourͲpetalEuropean
tamariskW
Urticaceae–NettleFamily
*UrticaurensL.dwarfnettleN
Verbenaceae–VervainFamily
VerbenamenthifoliaBenth.mintͲleafvervainD
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϮ
ScientificNameCommonNameHabitat
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϮͲ8
Zygophyllaceae–CaltropFamily
FagonialaevisStandleyCaliforniafagonbushD
MONOCOTYLEDONS
Agavaceae–CenturyPlantFamily
ChlorogalumparviflorumS.WatsonsmallͲflowersoapplantD
YuccaschidigeraK.E.OrtgiesMojaveyucca
Alliaceae–OnionFamily
AlliumpraecoxBrandegeeearlyonionG
Arecaceae–PalmFamily
*WashingtoniarobustaH.Wendl. MexicanfanpalmW
Asphodelaceae–AsphodelFamily
*AsphodelusfistulosusL.asphodelN
Cyperaceae–SedgeFamily
CyperuseragrostisLam.tallflatsedgeW
EleocharismontevidensisKunthDombey'sspikerushW
Schoenoplectuscalifornicus(C.A.Meyer)SojáksouthernbulrushF
Iridaceae–IrisFamily
SisyrinchiumbellumS.WatsonwesternblueͲeyedgrassG
Juncaceae–RushFamily
JuncusacutusL.ssp.leopoldii(Parl.)SnogerupsouthwesternspinyrushW
Liliaceae–LilyFamily
CalochortussplendensBenth.splendidmariposaG
FritilariabifloraLindl.chocolatelilyG
Melanthiaceae–BunchFlowerorCamasFamly
Toxicoscordionfremontii(Torr.)Rydb.deathcamasG
Poaceae–GrassFamily
*ArundodonaxL.giantreedW
*AvenabarbataLink slenderwildoatN
*AvenafatuaL.wildoatN
*Brachypodiumdistachyon(L.)P.Beauv.purplefalsebromeN
*BromusdiandrusRoth ripgutgrassN
*BromushordeaceusL.softchessN
*BromusmadritensisL.ssp.rubens(L.)Husnot redbrome,foxtailchessN
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϮ
ScientificNameCommonNameHabitat
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϮͲ9
*Cortaderiaselloana(Schult.AndSchult.F.)Asch.&Graebn
pampasgrassW
*Cynodondactylon(L.)Pers. BermudagrassN
Distichlisspicata(L.)GreenesaltgrassN
*EhrhartaerectaLam.panicveldtgrassW
ElymuscondensatusJ.PreslgiantwildryeD
ElymustriticoidesBuckleybeardlesswildryegrassG
*Festucamyuros rattailsixweeksgrassN
*Festucatemulenta(L.)Columbus&J.P.Sm.darnelN
*Gastridiumphleoides(Nees&Meyen)C.E.Hubbard nitgrassN
*HordeummurinumL.ssp.leporinum(Link)Arcang. harebarleyN
*Lamarckiaaurea(L.)Moench goldentopN
MelicaimperfectaTrin.littleCaliforniamelicD
Muhlenbergiarigens(Benth.)Hitchc.DeergrassD
*Parapholisincurva(L.)C.E.Hubb.sicklegrassN
*PennisetumsetaceumForsskal crimsonfountaingrassN
*Polypogonmonspeliensis(L.)Desf.annualbeardgrassW
*Polypogonviridis(Gouan)Breistr.waterbeardgrassW
Stipadiegoensis(Swallen)BarkworthSanDiegoneedlegrassD
StipalepidaHitchc.foothillneedlegrassG
*Stipamiliacea(L.)Hoovervar.miliacea smilograssN
StipapulchraHitchc.purpleneedlegrassG
Themidaceae–BrodiaeaFamily
Bloomeriacrocea(Torrey)CovillecommongoldenstarG
BrodiaeaterrestrisKellogssp.kernensis(Hoover)T.Niehaus
dwarfbrodiaeaG
DichelostemmacapitatumAlph.Woodssp.capitatumbluedicksG
TyphaceaeͲCatͲTailFamily
TyphadomingensisPers.southerncattailF
MAGNOLIIDSͲPIPERALES
Saururaceae–LizardͲtailFamily
Anemopsiscalifornica(Nutt.)Hook.&Arn.yerbamansaF,W
LYCOPHYTES
Selaginellaceae–SpikeͲMossFamily
SelaginellacinerascensMaxonashyspikeͲmossD
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϯ
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϯͲ1
APPENDIXϯ.FAUNASPECIESOBSERVEDORDETECTEDWITHINTHESTUDYAREA
HabitatTypes:
D=DieganCoastalSageScrub
G=ValleyNeedlegrassGrassland
W=SouthernWillowScrub
F=CoastalandValleyFreshwaterMarsh
N=NonͲnativeGrassland
V=NonͲnativeVegetation
FO=flyover
*=denotesintroducedspecies
AbundanceCodes(birdsonly):
A=Abundant:Almostalwaysencounteredinmoderatetolargenumbersinsuitablehabitatand
theindicatedseason.
C=Common:Usuallyencounteredinproperhabitatatthegivenseason.
U=Uncommon:Infrequentlydetectedinsuitablehabitat.Mayoccurinsmallnumbersoronly
locallyinthegivenseason.
R=Rare:Appliestospeciesthatarefoundinverylownumbers.
“Numbers”indicatethenumberofindividualsobservedduringthefieldsurveywork.
StatusCodes(birdsonly):
M=Migrant:Usesthesiteforbriefperiodsoftime,primarilyduringthespringandfallmonths.
R=YearͲroundresident:ProbablebreederonͲsiteorinthevicinity.
S=Spring/summerresident:ProbablebreederonͲsiteorinthevicinityunlesscombinedwith
transientstatus.
T=Transient:Usessiteirregularlyinsummerbutunlikelytobreed.Notatruemigrantand
actualstatusoftenpoorlyknown.
W=Wintervisitor:Doesnotbreedlocally.
V=Casualvagrant:Notexpected;outofnormalgeographicorseasonalrangeandbydefinition
rare.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϯ
CommonNameScientificNameHabitatAbundanceStatus
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϯͲ2
BUTTERFLIES
Papilionidae(Swallowtails)
aniseswallowtailPapiliozelicaonG
westerntigerswallowtailPapiliorutulusG
Pieridae(WhitesandSulfurs)
checkered(common)whitePontiaprotodiceG
cabbagewhitePierisrapaeG
PacificSaraorangetipAnthocharissarasaraG
Lycaenidae(GossamerͲwingButterflies)
grayhairstreakStrymonmelinuspudicaD
marineblueLeptotesmarinaD
westerntailedͲblueEveresamyntulaD
Riodinidae(Metalmarks)
Behr’smetalmarkApodemiamormovirgultiD
Nymphalidae(Brushfoots)
mourningcloakNymphalisantiopaD
paintedladyVanessacarduiN,D,G
westcoastladyVanessaannabellaN,D,G
commonbuckeyeJunoniacoeniagriseaD
Lorquin’sadmiralLimenitislorquiniG
commonCaliforniaringletCoenonymphacalifornicacalifornicaG
monarchDanausplexippusD,V
Hesperiidae(Skippers)
funerealduskywingErynnisfuneralisN,D
whitecheckeredͲskipperPyrgusalbescensN
fieryskipperHylephilaphyleusmuertovalleD
AMPHIBIANS
Hylidae(TreefrogsandRelatives)
PacifictreefrogPseudacrisregillaF,N
REPTILES
Phrynosomatidae
westernfencelizardSceloporusoccidentalisD
sideͲblotchedlizardUtastansburianaN
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϯ
CommonNameScientificNameHabitatAbundanceStatus
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϯͲ3
Teiidae(WhiptailsandRelatives)
orangeͲthroatedwhiptailAspidoscelishyperythraW
Anguidae(AlligatorLizardsandRelatives)
southernalligatorlizardElgariamulticarinataN
SanDiegoalligatorlizardElgariamulticarinatawebbii
Colubridae(Colubrids)
CaliforniastripedracerMasticophislateralislateralisD
gophersnakePituophiscateniferG
twoͲstripedgartersnakeThamnophishammondiiD
Viperidae(Vipers)
SouthernPacificrattlesnakeCrotalusoreganushelleriN,D
BIRDS
Accipitridae(HawksandHarriers)
northernharrierCircuscyaneusNUM,R
whiteͲtailedkiteElanusleucurusNCR
Cooper’shawkAccipitercooperiiNCM,R
redͲshoulderedhawkButeolineatusFOCR
redͲtailedhawkButeojamaicensisNCR,M,W
Falconidae(CaracarasandFalcons)
AmericankestrelFalcosparverius CR
Rallidae(Rails,Gallinules,andCoots)
VirginiarailRalluslimicolaFUR,M,W
Laridae(GullsandTerns)
CaliforniagullLaruscalifornicusFOCM,W,T
westerngullLarusoccidentalisFOAR,T
Columbidae(PigeonsandDoves)
mourningdoveZenaidamacrouraDCR
Psittacidae(Parrots)
*redͲcrownedparrot Amazonaviridigenalis UR
Trochilidae(Hummingbirds)
Anna’shummingbirdCalypteannaDCR
Costa’shummingbirdCalyptecostaeDCR
Allen’shummingbirdSelasphorussasinDCM,R
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϯ
CommonNameScientificNameHabitatAbundanceStatus
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϯͲ4
Picidae(WoodpeckersandWrynecks)
Nuttall’swoodpeckerPicoidesnuttallii CR
Tyrannidae(TyrantFlycatchers)
PacificͲslopeflycatcherEmpidonaxdifficilisDCM,S
blackphoebeSayornisnigricans CR
Say’sphoebeSayornissayaDCW
ashͲthroatedflycatcherMyiarchuscinerascensDCM,S
Cassin’skingbirdTyrannusvociferansNCR,M
westernkingbirdTyrannusverticalisNCM,S
Vireonidae(TypicalVireos)
leastBell’svireoVireobelliipusillusWUM,S
warblingvireoVireogilvusWCM
Corvidae(Jays,Magpies,andCrows)
westernscrubͲjayAphelocomacalifornicaDCR
AmericancrowCorvusbrachyrhynchosDAR
commonravenCorvuscoraxVCR
Hirundinidae(Swallows)
northernroughͲwingedswallow
StelgidopteryxserripennisFOCM,S
Aegithalidae(Bushtit)
bushtitPsaltriparusminimusDCR
Troglodytidae(Wrens)
marshwrenCistothoruspalustrisFCM,W,S
Bewick’swrenThryomanesbewickiiDCR
housewrenTroglodytesaedonDCM,W,S
Sylviidae(SylviidWarblersandGnatcatchers)
coastalCaliforniagnatcatcherPolioptilacalifornicacalifornicaDUR
wrentitChamaeafasciataDCR
Turdidae(BluebirdsandThrushes)
westernbluebirdSialiamexicanaNCR,W
Mimidae(MockingbirdsandThrashers)
CaliforniathrasherToxostomaredivivumDCR
northernmockingbirdMimuspolyglottosDCR
Parulidae(Warblers)
orangeͲcrownedwarblerOreothlypiscelataDCM,W,S
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϯ
CommonNameScientificNameHabitatAbundanceStatus
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϯͲ5
commonyellowthroatGeothlypistrichasFCM,R
MacGillivray’sWarblerGeothlypistolmieiWCM
yellowwarblerDendroicapetechiaWCM,S
yellowͲrumpedwarblerDendroicacoronataDCM,W,S
blackͲthroatedgraywarblerDendroicanigrescensWCM,W,S
Wilson’swarblerWilsoniapusillaWCM
yellowͲbreastedchatIcteriavirensWCM,S
Thraupidae(Tanagers)
westerntanagerPirangaludovicianaWCM,W,S
Cardinalidae(Grosbeaks,Buntings,andRelatives)
lazulibuntingPasserinaamoenaGCM,S
bluegrosbeakPasserinacaeruleaW,DCM,S
blackͲheadedgrosbeakPheucticusmelanocephalusWCM,S
Emberizidae(Sparrows,BlackbirdsandRelatives)
spottedtowheePipilomaculatesDCR
CaliforniatowheeMelozonecrissalisDCR
larksparrowChondestesgrammacusDC,W,S
songsparrowMelospizamelodiaWAR
whiteͲcrownedsparrowZonotrichialeucophrysDCM,W
Icteridae(Blackbirds,Meadowlarks,Orioles,andRelatives)
hoodedorioleIcteruscucullatusVCM,S
redͲwingedblackbirdAgelaiusphoeniceusFCR
*brownͲheadedcowbird Molothrusater CS,M,W
Fringillidae(Finches)
housefinchHaemorhousmexicanusDAR
lessergoldfinchSpinuspsaltriaDCM,R
spicefinchLonchturapunctulateW,GRR
Passeridae(WeaverFinches)
*housesparrow Passerdomesticus CR
MAMMALS
Sciuridae(Squirrels)
CaliforniagroundsquirrelSpermophilusbeecheyinudipesD
Geomyidae(PocketGophers)
ValleyorBotta’spocketgopherThomomysbottaeG
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϯ
CommonNameScientificNameHabitatAbundanceStatus
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϯͲ6
Leporidae(HaresandRabbits)
desertcottontailSylvilagusauduboniisanctidiegiD,G,N
Canidae(Coyotes,Dogs,Foxes,Jackals,andWolves)
coyoteCanislatransclepticusD,G,N
Procyonidae(Cacomistle,Coatis,Raccoons,andRelatives)
raccoonProcyonlotorpsoraD,W
1Nomenclaturefrom:
OklahomaStateUniversityDepartmentofAnimalScience.2000.ScientificNamesofDomestic
Animals.Availablefrom:
http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/resourceͲroom/general/all/scientificnames.htm.
AmericanOrnithologists’Union,etal.1998.CheckͲlistofNorthAmericanBirds,7thed.American
Ornithologists’Union,WashingtonD.C.
________.2014.FiftyͲfifthSupplementtotheAmericanOrnithologists’UnionCheckͲlistofNorth
AmericanBirds[Internet].Auk131,2014,pp.CsiͲCSxv.Availablefrom:
http://www.aou.org/.
Crother,B.I.2012.ScientificandstandardEnglishnamesofamphibiansandreptilesofNorth
AmericaNorthofMexico,withcommentsregardingconfidenceinourunderstanding.
Seventhed.SSARHerpetologicalCircularNo.39.pp.92.
HallER.1981.ThemammalsofNorthAmerica.2ndEdition.JohnWiley&Sons.NewYork,New
York.Twovolumes.1,181pp.
KleinMW,SanDiegoNaturalHistoryMuseum.2002.ButterfliesofSanDiegoCounty[Internet].
Availablefrom:http://www.sdnhm.org/science/entomology/projects/checklistͲofͲ
butterfliesͲofͲsanͲdiegoͲcounty/.
WilsonDE,ReederDM(eds).2005.MammalSpeciesoftheWorld.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
2,142pp.AvailablefromJohnsHopkinsUniversityPressat:1Ͳ800Ͳ537Ͳ5487or(410)516Ͳ
6900,orhttp://www.press.jhu.edu/orhttp://nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw/.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ1APPENDIXϰ.OCCURRENCEORPOTENTIALOFSPECIALSTATUSSPECIESONTHEPROJECTSITEKeytoabbreviations:FederalEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)U.S.ForestService(USFS)FE=FederallyͲlistedasEndangeredS=SensitiveFT=FederallyͲlistedasThreatenedFPE=FederallyproposedforlistingasEndangeredCaliforniaRarePlantRank(CRPR)FPT=FederallyproposedforlistingasThreatenedList1A=PlantspresumedextinctinCaliforniaFPD=FederallyproposedfordelistingList1B=Plantsrare,threatened,orendangeredinCaliforniaandelsewhereFC=FederalcandidatespeciesList2=Plantsrare,threatened,orendangeredinCalifornia,butmorecommonelsewhereSC=SpeciesofconcernList3=Plantsaboutwhichmoreinformationisneeded(areviewlist)Delistedspeciesaremonitoredfor5yearsList4=Plantsoflimiteddistribution(awatchlist)BCC=BirdsofConservationConcernThreatlevel0.1ͲSeriouslythreatenedinCalifornia(highdegree/immediacyofthreat)CaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct(CESA)0.2ͲFairlythreatenedinCalifornia(moderatedegree/immediacyofthreat)SE=StateͲlistedasEndangered0.3ͲNotverythreatenedinCalifornia(lowdegree/immediacyofthreats/nocurrentthreatsknown)ST=StateͲlistedasThreatenedSCE=StatecandidateforlistingasEndangeredMultipleSpecies/HabitatConservationProgram(MSCP)/(MHCP)SCT=StatecandidateforlistingasThreatenedNE=NarrowEndemicSCD=StatecandidatefordeͲlistingCS=CoveredSpeciesSR=CaliforniaRareSpeciesCP=CriticalPopulationCaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase(CNDDB)CountyofSanDiegoSP=SpecialPlantPlantListA=Plantsrare,threatenedorendangeredinCaliforniaandelsewhereSA=SpecialAnimalPlantListB=Plantsrare,threatenedorendangeredinCaliforniabutmorecommonelsewherePlantListC=Plantswhichmaybequiterare,butneedmoreinformationtodeterminetheirtruerarityCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame(DFG)PlantListD=Plantsoflimiteddistributionandareuncommon,butnotpresentlyrareorendangeredSSC=SpeciesofSpecialConcernAnimalGroup1=Animalsrare,threatenedorendangeredinCaliforniaandelsewhereFP=CaliforniafullyprotectedspeciesAnimalGroup2=Animalsrare,threatenedorendangeredinCaliforniabutmorecommonelsewhereWL=WatchList
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ2ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialPLANTSAcanthominthailicifoliaSanDiegothornmintESA:FTCESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:AMHCP:NE,CSNative,annualherbthathasadistinctivemicrohabitat,preferinggrassyopeningsinchaparralorsagescrubongabbroicsubstratewithfriableorbrokenclaysoils,includingvernalpools;rangesinelevationfrom10Ͳ960meters(33Ͳ3,150ft);bloomingperiodAprilͲJuneNoLowApopulationofthisspecieswasrecordedfrombentonitesoilsfoundatSunbowII,Phase1.SpringsurveysdidnotrevealthepresenceofthisplantonͲsite.Agaveshawiissp.shawiiShaw’sagaveCRPR2.1MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:BPerennialsucculentfoundincoastalDiegansagescrubandmaritimesucculentscrub;elevation10Ͳ75meters(33Ͳ250ft.);bloomingperiodSeptemberͲMayNoNotexpectedThesiteisoutsidetherecordedrangeforthisspecies.Knownpopulationsofthisperennialsucculentoccurwestofthepropertyoncoastalbluffs.AmbrosiachenopodiifoliaSanDiegobursageCRPR2B.1CntyofSDList:BPerennialshrubfoundincoastalsagescrubinsouthernSanDiegoCountyandBaja;elevation55Ͳ155meters(180Ͳ510ft.);bloomingperiodAprilͲJuneYesPresentonͲsitePopulationsofthisspeciesweremappedonrevegetatedcoastalsagescrubslopeswithinopenspaceareasadjacenttoOlympicParkway.ThisopportunisticspeciesisrelativelyabundantonsouthͲfacingrevegetatedslopesnorthofOlympicParkway,eastofthepropertywhereitwasplantedandhasnaturallyproliferated.AmbrosiapumilaSanDiegoambrosiaESA:FECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSNative,perennial,rhizomatousherbthatpreferscreekbeds,seasonallydrydrainages,andfloodplains;usuallyaprotectiveNoLowAlthoughthisspecieshasnotbeenreportedthisfarsouthinthecounty,nearbypopulationsoccurinNational
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ3ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialCntyofSDList:AMHCP:NE,CStreecanopyisabsentanditgrowsontheperipheryofwillowwoodland;rangesinelevationfrom20Ͳ450m(66Ͳ1,476ft.);bloomingperiodAprilͲOctober.City,SpringValley,andJamachaValley.ThesimilarlookingweakͲleafburͲsage(Ambrosiaconfertiflora)wasnotedalongtheupperedgeofPoggiCreekChannel.ArctostaphylosotayensisOtaymanzanitaCRPR1B.1MSCP:CSCntyofSDList:ANative,evergreenshrubthatgrowsinchaparralandcismontanewoodlandongabbroandmetavolcanicpeaks,bloomingperiodJanuaryͲApril.NoNotexpectedNosuitablehabitatorsoilsoccuronͲsiteforthisspecies.ArtemisiapalmeriPalmer’ssagewortCRPR4.2CNDDB:SPCntyofSDList:DNative,deciduous,shrubmostoftenfoundalongperennialcreeksanddrainagesnearthecoast;growswithinashadedunderstorybeneathriparianwoodland;inlanditmayoccurinmesicchaparralconditions;bloomingperiodMayͲSeptember.YesPresentonͲsitePopulationsweremappedwithinopenspaceonrevegetatedslopesofPoggiCreekchannel.AstragalusdeaneiDean’slocoweed/milkͲvetchCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1CntyofSDList:ANative/CAendemic,perennialherbthatoccursinsagescrub,chaparral,riparianforest,andsandywashes,particularlyalongSweetwater,Otay,andTijuanaRiversandtributariesinSanDiegoCounty;bloomingperiodFebruaryͲMay.NoLowSoughtbutnotfound.NearestpopulationisfromDehesaValleyneartheSweetwaterRiverandSingingHillsGolfCourseAtriplexpacificasouthcoastsaltscaleCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.2CntyofSDList:AAnnualherbusuallyfoundinDiegansagescrubdominatedbyArtemisiacalifornicabutalsoincoastalbluffscrubandplayas;elevation0Ͳ140meters(0Ͳ460ft.);bloomingperiodMarchͲNoLowThisspecieswassoughtbutnotfound.PopulationsofthisopportunisticsaltscalehavebeenobservedbyM&AbiologistsintheOtayRiver,justeastofHeritageRoad.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ4ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialOctober.BaccharisvanessaeEncinitasbaccharisESA:FTCESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSMHCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:ANative,deciduousshrubthatprefersmaturebutrelativelylowͲgrowingchaparral;atinlandlocalesmaybeassociatedwithlargegraniticboulders;bloomingperiodAugustͲNovember.NoNotexpectedThesiteisoutsidetherangeforthisspecieswhichoccursinnorthSanDiegoCounty.BerberisneviniiNevin’sbarberryESA:FECESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:ANative/CAendemic,evergreenshrubthatoccursinsandy/gravellyareasalongthemarginsofdrywashesandcoarsesoilsinchaparral,atelevationsrangingfrom274Ͳ825meters(898Ͳ2,706ft.);currentrangeextendsfromthefoothillsoftheSanGabrielMountainstothefoothillsoftheSantaAnaandPalomarMountains;bloomingperiodMarchͲJune.NoNotexpectedThesiteisoutsidetherangeforthisspecies.TheonlydocumentednativelocalityrecordedforthisevergreenshrubisfromtheSanDiegoRiver,inMissionValley.BergerocactusemoryigoldenͲspinedcereusCNDDB:SPCRPR2.2CntyofSDList:BPerennialstemsucculentshrubfoundinmaritimesucculentscrub;elevation3Ͳ395meters(10Ͳ1,300ft.);bloomingperiodMayͲJune.NoLowThisdistinctivecactuswassoughtbutnotfound.IthasbeenplantedeastofthesiteonsouthͲfacingrevegetatedslopesofOlympicParkway.Bloomeria(=Muilla)clevelandiiSanDiegogoldenstarCRPR1B.1CNDDB:SPMSCP:CSMHCP:NECntyofSDList:ANative,perennial,corm/bulbiferousherbthatprefersvalleygrasslands,particularlynearmimamoundtopographyorinthevicinityofvernalpools,inclaysoilswithgoodshrink/swellpotential;doesnottypicallygrowintheshadeofwoodyperennials,butNoLowThisspecieswassoughtinnativegrasslandhabitatduringspringsurveysbutwasnotfound.Therelatedbutubiquitouscommongoldenstar(Bloomeriacrocea)wasabundantinnativegrasslandvegetation.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ5ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialratherinsomewhatopenlocales;bloomingperiodAprilͲMay.BrodiaeafilifoliathreadͲleavedbrodiaeaESA:FTCESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:APerennialbulbiferousherbthatprefersvernallymoistgrasslandsandtheperipheryofvernalpoolsarethetypicallocaleswherethisspecieshasbeenfound.SpeciessuchasSisyrinchiumbellumandNassellapulchramaygrownearby;elevation25Ͳ1,220meters(82Ͳ4,000ft.);bloomingperiodMarchͲJune.NoNotexpectedThepropertyoccursoutsidethedocumentedrangeforthisspecies.BrodiaeaorcuttiiOrcutt’sbrodiaeaCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE(CityofCVonly),CSCntyofSDList:AUSFSList:SensitiveNative,perennial,bulbiferous/cormsproutingherbthatprefersvernallymoistgrasslands,mimamoundtopography,andtheperipheryofvernalpools,butwilloccasionallygrowonstreamsideembankments,andhasalsobeenfoundinmesicgrasslandsandopeningswithinchaparral,atelevationsrangingfrom30Ͳ1,692meters(98Ͳ5,551ft.);bloomingperiodMayͲJuly.NoLowThenearestU.S.documentedpopulationsofthisspeciesarefromOtayMesa,SanMiguelMountainandOtayMountain.Thislaterbloomingspecieswassoughtinappropriatehabitatduringthespringsurvey.Cisthanthe(=Calandrinia)maritimaseasidecalandriniaCRPR4.2CntyofSDList:DAnnualherbtypicallyfoundonSandybluffsnearthebeachandsandyopeningsinDiegansagescrub;occursatlocaleswithmoistseabreezes;flatͲtopbuckwheatandcoastalsagebrusharethedominantNoLowThisspecieshasbeenobservedbyM&AbiologistsonamesaborderingMainStreet,justsouthoftheSunbowsite.Itwassoughtduringthespringsurvey.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ6ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialshrubsatmostofthesesites;however,steepslopeswithopenchaparralmayalsoincludepotentialpopulations;elevation5Ͳ300meters(16Ͳ1,000ft.);bloomingperiodFebruaryͲAugust.CalochortusdunniiDunn’smariposalilyCESA:SRCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.2MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:AUSFSList:SensitiveNative,perennial,bulbiferousherbthatprefersgabbroandmetavolcanicderivedsoilsorsandstoneinclosedͲconeconiferousforest,rockyopeningsinchaparral,andchaparral/grasslandecotonehabitat,atelevationsrangingfrom380Ͳ1,830meters(1,246Ͳ6,004ft.);bloomingperiodAprilͲJune.NoLowPopulationsofthisplantareknownfromthewestslopesofOtayMountain(southeastofthesite)andtheJamulMountains(northeastofthesite).SuitablehabitatandsoilsarenotfoundonͲsite.CeanothuscyaneusLakesideceanothusCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.2MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:APerennialevergreenshrubfoundinclosedͲconeconiferousforest,inlandmixedchaparral;elevation235Ͳ755meters(770Ͳ2,500ft.);bloomingperiodAprilͲJune.NoNotexpectedThesiteisoutsidetheknownrangeforthisspecieswhichoccursnorthnearthecommunityofCrestandtheCityofLakeside.ChorizantheorcuttianaOrcutt’sspineflowerESA:FECESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MHCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:ANative,annualherbthatprefersopeningswithadistinctiveloosesandysubstrate;bloomingperiodMarchͲMay.NoNotexpectedThesiteisoutsidetheknownU.S.rangeforthisspecies.ConvolvulussimulanssmallͲfloweredbindweed/smallͲfloweredmorninggloryCNDDB:SPCRPR4.2CntyofSDList:DNative,smallannualgrowsonfriableclaysoilswhicharetypicallydevoidofshrubs,inopeningsinchaparral,sageYesPresentonͲsiteTwopopulationsofthiscrypticannualplantweremappedwithinpreservedareasoftheproperty.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ7ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialscrub,andgrasslands;bloomingperiodMarchͲJuly.Deinandra(=Hemizonia)conjugensOtaytarplantESA:FTCESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:AAnnualherbfoundinfracturedclaysoilsoflightlyvegetatedcoastalscrub,valleyandfoothillgrassland;elevation25Ͳ300meters(82Ͳ985ft.);bloomingperiodMayͲJune.YesPresentonͲsitePopulationsofthisendemicspeciesweredocumentedinmostlygrasslandhabitat.Deinandra(=Hemizonia)floribundaTecatetarplantCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.2CntyofSDList:AAnnualherbthatisfoundinchaparralandcoastalsagescrub;alsofoundinsandywashesinthehighdesert;elevation70Ͳ1,220meters(230Ͳ4,000ft.);bloomingperiodAugustͲOctober.NoLowRecordedpopulationsofthisspeciesarefoundeastofthesiteascloseasPortreo.Itwassoughtduringthespringsurveybutwasnotdetected.DichondraoccidentaliswesterndichondraCNDDB:SPCRPR4.2CNDDB:SPCntyofSDList:DNative,small,crypticperennial,rhizomatousherbthatoccursinsouthernmixedchaparral,chamisechaparral,sagescrub,rockyoutcropsingrasslands,andespeciallyinrecentlyexposedareasofpostͲburnhabitat;oftengrowsalmostcompletelyhiddenatthebaseofleafyshrubs;rangesinelevationfrom50Ͳ500meters(164Ͳ1,641ft);bloomingperiod(January)MarchͲJuly.NoLowPerennialherbthathasbeendocumentedbyM&AbiologiststooccuronamesaborderingMainStreet,justsouthoftheSunbowsite.Itwassoughtwithinappropriatehabitatbutwasnotfound.Dicranostegiaorcuttiana(=Cordylanthusorcuttianus)Orcutt'sbird'sͲbeakCNDDB:SPCRPR2B.1MSCP:CSCntyofSDList:BAnnualherb(hemiparasitic)foundincoastalscrubofteninseasonallydrydrainagesanduplandadjacenttoriparianhabitat;elevation10Ͳ350meters(33Ͳ1,150ft.);bloomingYesPresentonͲsitePopulationsofthisannualplantwererecordedwithincoastalsagescrubandgrasslandhabitats.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ8ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialperiodMarchͲSeptember.Dudleyabrevifolia(=blochmaniaesspbrevifolia)shortͲleafdudleyaCESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSMHCP:NECntyofSDList:ANative,cryptic,perennialherbthatprefersopenareasofchamisechaparralorTorreyPineforestonTorreysandstonewithsoilsmappedasCarlsbadgravellysandyloam;bloomingperiodinApril.NoNotexpectedThesiteisoutsidetheknownrangeofthisspecieswhichoccursnorthinareassuchasCarmelMountainandTorreyPines.DudleyavariegatavariegateddudleyaCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.2MSCP:NE,CSMHCP:NECntyofSDList:ANative,small,cormͲlikesprouting,succulent,perennialherbthatoccursinopeningsinsagescrubandchaparral,isolatedrockysubstratesinopengrasslands,aswellasinvernalpoolsandmimamoundtopography;usuallygrowsinsmallareasdevoidofshrubcover,eventhoughchamise,scruboak,orsagescrubelementsmayoccurnearby;bloomingperiodMayͲJune.NoLowThisspringsproutingcormspecieswassoughtbutnotfound.Ericameriapalmerivar.palmeriPalmer’sgoldenbushCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:BNative,evergreen,shrubthatstronglyprefersseasonallywet/moistlocales,alongcoastaldrainages,inmesicchaparralsitesorrarelyinsagescrub,andoccasionallyoccursasahillsideelement(usuallyathigherelevations,inlandonnorthͲfacingslopes);rangesinelevationfrom30Ͳ600meters(98Ͳ1,969ft.);bloomingperiod(July)SeptemberͲNovember.NoLowPopulationsofthisconspicuousshruboccurwithinthefloodplainoftheSweetwaterRiverValleytothenorthandtheOtayRiverValleytothesouth.ThisspecieswassoughtalongthebanksofPoggiCreekchannelbutwasnotfound.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ9ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialEuphorbiamiseracliffspurgeCNDDB:SPCRPR2.2MHCP:CSCntyofSDList:BPerennialshrubfoundinrockyareasofcoastalbluffscrub,coastalscrub,andMojaveandesertscrub;elevation10Ͳ500meters(33Ͳ1,640ft.);bloomingperiodDecemberͲAugust.NoLowThisshrubwithsucculentleaveswassoughtbutnotfound.IthasbeenrecordedjustsouthofthesiteintheOtayRiverValleyandhaslikelybeenplantedonrestoredslopesnorthofOlympicParkway.FerocactusviridescenscoastbarrelcactusCNDDB:SPCRPR2B.1MSCP:CSMHCP:CSCntyofSDList:BNativesucculent;optimalhabitatforthiscactusappearstobesagescrubhillsides;oftenatthecrestofslopesandgrowingamongcobbles;occasionallyisfoundontheperipheryofvernalpoolsandmimamoundtopography;bloomingperiodMayͲJune.YesPresentonͲsiteThiscactusoccursonreͲvegetatedcoastalsagescrubslopesoftheproperty.HarpagonellapalmeriPalmer’sgrapplinghookCNDDB:SPCRPR4.2CntyofSDList:DNative,inconspicuousannual,herbthattypicallyoccursonclayvertisolswithopengrassyslopesinopensagescruborchaparral,atelevationsrangingfrom20Ͳ955meters(65Ͳ3,133ft.);bloomingperiodMarchͲMay.NoModeratePopulationsofthisspringannualaredocumentedtooccurjustsouthofthesiteintheOtayRiverValley.Thisspecieswassoughtduringspringsurveysbutwasnotfound.Holocarphavirgatassp.elongatagracefultarplantCNDDB:SPCRPR4.2CntyofSDList:DNative/Californiaendemic,annualherbthatfrequentsannualandperennialgrasslands;usuallyshrubcoverisnotwelldeveloped,withaheavyincidenceofinvasivenonͲnativegrassesandherbs;bloomingperiodMayͲNovember.NoLowPopulationsofthisplantaredocumentedtooccurnearSweetwaterReservoir,approximately7.0miles,northeastofthesite.Thisspecieswassoughtduringspringsurveysbutwasnotfound.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ10ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialHosackia(=Lotus)crassifoliusvar.otayensisOtaymountainlotusCntyofSDList:ANative,perennialherbthatoccursonmetavolcanicsoilsinchaparraldominatedbychamiseandceanothusspecies;mildsoildisturbancemayenablethisspeciestopioneeronroadcuts,andpossiblyonburns;foundthroughoutOtaymountain;bloomingperiodMayͲAugust.NoLowThisspeciesisfoundonOtayMountain,approximately7.5mileseastofthesite.NometavolcanicderivedsoilsoccuronͲsite.Isocomamenziesiivar.decumbensclayͲfieldgoldenbush/decumbentgoldenbushCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.2CntyofSDList:APerennialshrubfoundinsandy,oftendisturbedareasofchaparralandcoastalsagescrub;elevation10Ͳ135meters(33Ͳ443ft.);bloomingperiodAprilͲNovember.YesPresentonͲsiteThisperennialshrubisfoundisfoundscatteredwithingrasslandhabitatthroughoutthesiteIvahayesianaSanDiegomarshelderCNDDB:SPCRPR2B.2MHCP:CSCntyofSDList:BPerennialherbthatpreferscreeksorintermittentstreambeds,marshes,swamps,andplayas;elevation10Ͳ500meters(33Ͳ1,640ft.);bloomingperiodAprilͲOctober.YesPresentonͲsiteThisperennialshruboccurswithinwetlandandborderinguplandrestorationareasofthePoggiCreekchannel.Juncusacutusssp.leopoldiispinyrush/southwesternspinyrushCNDDB:SPCRPR4.2CntyofSDList:DPerennialrhizomatousherbfoundincoastalsaltmarshatbrackishlocales,alkalinemeadowsandseeps,andriparianmarshes;elevation3Ͳ900meters(10Ͳ2,950ft.);bloomingperiodMayͲJune.YesPresentonͲsiteThisspeciesoccurswithinwetlandandborderinguplandrestorationareasofthePoggiCreekchannel.LepechiniaganderiGander’spitchersageCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.3MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:ANativeshrubwithadistinctiveacicularcalyxthatisrestrictedtogabbroicormetavolcanicderivedsoilsinchaparral,andprefersSanMiguelͲExchequerrockysiltloams,withalowͲNoNotexpectedThesitelacksthegabbroormetavolcanicderivedsoilsrequiredofthisspecies.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ11ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialgrowingbutrelativelydensechaparraldominatedbychamiseandblacksage;isnotedtooccuronOtayandSanMiguelMountains,aswellasinclosedͲconeconiferousforest,sagescrub,andgrasslands;bloomingperiodJuneͲJuly.LyciumcalifornicumCaliforniadesertͲthorn/CaliforniaboxthornCNDDB:SPCRPR4.2CntyofSDList:DPerennialshrubfoundincoastalbluffscrubandcoastalsagescrub;elevation5Ͳ150meters(16Ͳ492ft.);bloomingperiodDecemberͲAugust.NoLowThisshrubwassoughtbutnotfound.IthasbeendocumentedbyM&AbiologiststooccurjustsouthofthesiteintheOtayRiverValley.ThecloselyrelatedbutnotsensitiveLyciumandersoniiandL.brevipeswerenotedincoastalsagescrubontheproperty.Microserisdouglasiissp.platycarphasmallͲflowermicroserisCNDDB:SPCRPR4.2CntyofSDList:DNative,nonͲdescript,annualherbthatistypicallyfoundonclaylensesinperennialgrasslands,ontheperipheryofvernalpools,orinbroadopeningsinsagescrub;bloomingperiodMarchͲMay.NoLowThisannualherbwassoughtbutnotfound.ThecloselyrelatedbutmorecommonlyoccurringUropappuslindleyiwasabundantatthesite.Monardellahypoleucassp.lanatafeltͲleavedmonardellaCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.2MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:AUSFSList:SensitiveNative,rhizomatousherbthattypicallyoccursongabbrosoilsintheunderstoryofchaparral,beneathmaturestandsofchamiseinxericsituations,andcismontanewoodland,atelevationsrangingfrom300Ͳ1,575meters(984Ͳ5,167ft.);bloomingperiodJuneͲAugust.NoNotexpectedThesitelackstherequiredgabrroderivedsoilsrequiredofthisspecies.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ12ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialMonardellaviminea(linioidesvar.viminea)willowymonardellaESA:FECESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:CSCntyofSDList:APerennialherbfoundinalluvialephemeralwashesofclosedͲconeconiferousforest,chaparral,coastalsagescrub,riparianscrub,riparianwoodland;elevation50Ͳ225meters(164Ͳ738ft.);bloomingperiodJuneͲAugust.NoNotexpectedThesiteissouthofthisspeciesknownrangewhichprimarilyincludesareasnorthofStateRoute52.NolinainterrataDehesanolina(=beargrass)CNDDB:SPCESA:SECRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:ANative,distinctive,perennialherbthatpreferschaparralhabitatongabbroic,metavolcanic,orserpentinitesubstrate;bloomingperiodJuneͲJuly.NoNotexpectedThesiteoccursoutsidetheknownrangeofthisspeciesandlackssuitablegabbroicormetavolcanicderivedsoils.Opuntiacalifornicavar.californica(=O.parryivar.serpentina;and=Cylindropuntiacalifornica)snakechollaCNDDB:SPCNPSList:1B.1MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:APerennialstemsucculentthatgrowsinopeningsondryslopesofchaparralandcoastalsagescrub;elevation30Ͳ150meters(100Ͳ492ft.);bloomingperiodAprilͲMay.NoLowThiscactuswassoughtbutnotfoundonͲsite.PlantedpopulationsareknownfromsouthͲfacingslopesabuttingOlympicParkway.OrcuttiacalifornicaCaliforniaOrcuttgrassESA:FECESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSMHCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:AAnnualherbfoundinvernalpools;elevation15Ͳ660meters(49Ͳ2,165ft.);bloomingperiodAprilͲAugust.NoNotexpectedThisspeciesisassociatedwithvernalpoolhabitatnotfoundonͲsite.PogogyneabramsiiSanDiegomesamintESA:FECESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:AAnnualherbfoundinvernalpools;elevation90Ͳ200meters(295Ͳ656ft.);bloomingperiodMarchͲJulyNoNotexpectedThisspeciesisassociatedvernalpoolhabitatnotfoundonͲsite.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ13ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialPogogynenudiusculaOtayMesamintESA:FECESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR1B.1MSCP:NE,CSCntyofSDList:AAnnualherbfoundinvernalpools;elevation90Ͳ250meters(295Ͳ820ft.);bloomingperiodMayͲJuly.NoNotexpectedThisspeciesisassociatedvernalpoolhabitatnotfoundonͲsite.RosaminutifoliasmallͲleavedroseCESA:SECNDDB:SPCRPR2.1MSCP:CSCntyofSDList:BPerennialdeciduousshrubfoundinchaparralandcoastalsagescrub;originallyknowninCAfromonlyoneoccurrenceonOtayMesabuthassincebeenintroducedintorestorationprojectswithinthevicinityofthissite;elevation150Ͳ160meters(492Ͳ525ft.);bloomingperiodJanuaryͲJune.NoLowThisshrubwassoughtbutnotfound.TheonlyknownnativepopulationofthisspeciesisknownfromsouthofthesiteonOtayMesa.Plantshavebeenpropagatedfromthatpopulationandintroductedtorestorationprojectsinthatimmediatevicinity.SalviamunziiMunz’ssageCNDDB:SPCNPSList:2.2CntyofSDList:BNative,evergreen,shrubthatoccursinchaparralandsagescrub,andwhenfound,isoftenadominantplantinthearea;bloomingperiodFebruaryͲApril.NoLowThisperennialshrubwassoughtbutnotfound.ItisknowntooccureastofthesiteinrestoredcoastalsagescrubvegetationsituatedonslopesabuttingOlympicParkway.Clinopodium(=Satureja)chandleriSanMiguelsavoryCNDDB:SPCRPR1B.2MSCP:CSCntyofSDList:ANative,small,herbaceousshrubthatisfoundinchaparralandcismontanewoodland,andmayberestrictedtogabbroicandmetavolcanicderivedsoils;mayalsooccurinsagescrub,riparianwoodland,andgrassland;bloomingperiodMarchͲJuly.NoLowRequiredmetavolcanicorgabbroicderivedsoildoesnotoccuronͲsite.SelaginellacinerascensashyspikeͲmossCNDDB:SPCRPR4.1Native,perennial,prostrate,groundͲcoverherbthatoccursYesPresentonͲsiteThislowͲgrowingherbwasobservednearthesoutheast
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ14ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialCntyofSDList:Dinundisturbedchaparralandsagescrub;rangesinelevationfrom20Ͳ640meters(66Ͳ2,100ft.).cornerofthesite.Stipa(=Achnatherum)diegoenseSanDiegoCountyneedlegrassCRPR4.2CntyofSDList:DPerennialherb,monocot,thatisfoundinrockysubstatesofchaparralandcoastalsagescrubhabitat;elevation10Ͳ700meters(33Ͳ2,300ft.);bloomingperiodMayͲJune.YesPresentonͲsitePopulationsofthisperennialgrassweredetectedonͲsite.Nearlyallpopulationswerefoundwithinpreservedhabitatwestoftheproposeddevelopment.REPTILESAspidoscelishyperythraorangeͲthroatedwhiptailCNDDB:SACDFW:WLCntyofSDGroup:2MSCP:CSMHCP:CSUSFS:SThisspeciesisadiurnalreptilefromearlyspringtolatesummerthatpreferswashesandothersandyareaswithpatchesofbrushandrocksincoastalscrubandchaparral.YesPresentonͲsiteThisspecieswasobservedinasandywashareaofPoggiCreekchannel.ThamnophishammondiitwoͲstripedgartersnakeCDFW:SSCCNDDB:SACntyofSDGroup:1USFS:SAssociatedwithsemiͲpermanentandpermanentbodiesofwaterinavarietyofhabitats;requiresarelativelydenseriparianborderYesPresentonͲsiteThisspecieswasobservedincoastalsagescrubvegetationthatisinproximitytoPoggiCreekchannel.BIRDSAccipitercooperiiCooper’shawkCNDDB4:SACDFW:WLCntyofSDGroup:1MSCP:CSMHCP:CSYearͲroundresidentofSanDiegoCountythatfrequentlynestsindensestandsofliveoak,ripariandeciduousorotherforesthabitatslocatednearwaterandalongbrokenwoodlandhabitatandedges,whereitcanperchundercoverandhuntprey,includingamphibians,reptiles,andsmallYesPresentonͲsiteACooper’shawkpairwasroutinelyobservedforagingoverthesiteduringspringsurveywork.TheonlysuitablenestinghabitatobservedoccursinlargenonͲnativetreeslocatedalongthesouthernboundaryofthesite,westoftheproposeddevelopment.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ15ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialbirdsandmammals.CircuscyaneusnorthernharrierCDFW:SSCCNDDB4:SAMSCP:CSCntyofSDGroup:1YearͲroundresidentandwintervisitorthatnestsandforagesinopengrasslandandmarshes;foragesmostlyonvolesandothersmallmammals,birds,frogs,smallreptiles,crustaceans,andinsects;nestsbuiltofalargemoundofsticksinwetareas,andasmallercupofgrassesondrysites;breedsAprͲSep,withpeakactivityJuneͲJuly.YesPresentonͲsiteAnorthernharrierwasobservedonseveraloccasionsforagingovergrasslandhabitatonͲsite.Setophaga(=VDendroica)petechiabrewsteriyellowwarblerCDFW:SSCCNDDB4:SACntyofSDGroup:2USFWS:BCCSummerresidentbutcanbefoundduringmigrationandwinterinsmallnumbers;foundinmatureriparianwoodlands;nestingoccursfromMaythroughJuly.YesPresentonͲsiteYellowwarblerwasdetectedthroughoutmuchofthesouthernwillowscrubhabitatwithinPoggiCreekchannel.ElanusleucuruswhiteͲtailedkiteCDFW:FPCNDDB4:SACntyofSDGroup:1BLM:SYearͲroundresident;prefersriparianwoodland,oakgrovesorsycamoregrovesadjacenttograsslandsforforaging.DietconsistsoftheCaliforniavoleormeadowmouse.NestsmidͲFebruarythoughJune.PresentPresentonͲsiteThisspecieswasobservedonseveraloccasionsforagingovergrasslandhabitatnearthesouthwestcorneroftheproposeddevelopedportionoftheproperty.IcteriavirensyellowͲbreastedchatCDFW:SSCCNDDB:SAMHCP:CSCntyofSDGroup:1Summerresidenttoriparianwoodland/scrubwithdenseundergrowthbelow1500feetelevation.ArrivesinearlyAprilanddepartsbymidͲSeptember.PresentPresentonͲsiteYellowͲbreastedchatwasobservedneartheeasternendofthesitewithinPoggiCreekchannel.PicoidesnuttalliiNuttall’swoodpeckerCNDDB4:SAYearͲroundresident;typicallyusesamixofdeciduousriparianandadjacentoakhabitats,butisPresentPresentonͲsiteNuttall’swoodpeckerwasobservednearthenortheastcornerofthepropertywithin
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ16ScientificNameCommonNameSensitivityCodesandStatus1,2HabitatPreferences/Requirements3VerifiedOnͲSitePotentialToOccurOnͲSiteFactualBasisforDeterminationofOccurrencePotentialalsousingurbanlandscaping.Nestsintreecavities;breedsfromlateMartoearlyJuly.southernwillowscrubvegetationassociatedwithPoggiCreekchannel.PolioptilacalifornicacalifornicacoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherESA:FTCDFW:SSCCNDDB:SAMSCP:NE(CntyofSDonly);CSMHCP:CSCntyofSDGroup:1YearͲroundresidentincoastalareasbelow500m(1,500ft);preferscoastalsagescrubhabitatthatisdominatedbyEriogonumfasciculatumvar.fasciculatumandArtemisiacalifornicaaswellasopenchaparral.PresentPresentonͲsiteTwobreedingpairsofcoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherwereobservedonͲsiteduringprotocolsurveysforthisspecies.VireobelliipusillusleastBell’svireoESA:FECESA:SECNDDB:SAMSCP:NE(CntyofSDonly),CSMHCP:CSCntyofSDGroup:1Summervisitortosouthernwillowscrubhabitatandmesquitethickets.ArrivesinSanDiegoCountybylateMarchorearlyAprilandleavesbytheendofSeptember.PresentPresentonͲsiteOneleastBell’svireowasroutinelydetectednearthenortheastcornerofthepropertywithinwillowscrubvegetationofPoggiCreekchannel.Thisbird’sbreedingterritoryappearedtoextendupstreamtosimilarhabitatplantedwithinaconstructedbasinjustupstreamofthesite.1ReferencesforSensitivityCodesandStatus:County1997,Ogdenetal.1998,AMEC2003a,County2009bandd,CDFG2011bͲd2CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabaseSpecialPlants/Animals=AgeneraltermthatreferstoalltaxainventoriedbytheCDFGCNDDB,regardlessoftheirlegalorprotectionstatus;thesetaxaincludespecies,subspecies,orvarietiesthatfallintooneoftheabovecategoriesand/oroneormoreofthefollowingcategories:1)Taxaofficiallylistedorproposedforlistingunderthefederaland/orstateESA;2)Taxawhichmeetthecriteriaforlisting,evenifnotcurrentlyincludedonanylist,asdescribedinSection15380oftheCEQAGuidelines,whichmayincludeCaliforniaNativePlantSociety(CNPS)CaliforniaRarePlantRank(CRPR)Lists1and2,andsomeList3plants;3)BureauofLandManagement(BLM),U.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS),orU.S.ForestService(USFS)Sensitive(S)Species;4)TaxaconsideredSSCbytheCDFG;5)TaxalistedbytheCNPS;6)Taxathatarebiologicallyrare,veryrestrictedindistribution,decliningthroughouttheirrangebutarenotcurrentlythreatenedwithextripation,orhaveacritical,vulnerablestageintheirlifecyclethatwarrantsmonitoring;7)PopulationsinCaliforniathatmaybeperipheraltothemajorportionofataxon’srange,butarethreatenedwithextirpationinCalifornia;8)TaxacloselyassociatedwithahabitatthatisdeclininginCaliforniaatanalarmingrate(e.g.,wetlands,riparian,oldgrowthforests,desertaquaticsystems,nativegrasslands,valleyshrublandhabitats,vernalpools,etc.);and8)Inadditiontotheabovetaxa,thosetaxadesignatedasaspecialstatus,sensitive,ordecliningspeciesbyotherstateorfederalagencies,ornonͲgovernmentalorganization(NGO)[e.g.,TheWorldConservationUnion(IUCN)ConservationDependent(CD),CriticallyEndangered(CR),Data
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ17Deficient(DD),Endangered(EN),LeastConcern(LC),NearThreatened(NT),Vulnerable(V)species;CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection(CDF)Sensitive(S)species;NationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS)SpeciesofConcern(SC);AmericanFisheriesSociety(AFS)Endangered(EN),Threatened(TH),Vulnerable(VU)species;XercesSociety(XERCES)CriticallyImperiled(CI),DataDeficient(DD),Imperiled(IM),Vulnerable(VU)invertebratespecies;USFWSBirdsofConservationConcern(BCC);AmericanBirdConservancy(ABC)U.S.WatchListofBirdsofConservationConcern(WLBCC);MarineMammalCommission(MMC)MarineMammalSpeciesofSpecialConcern(SSC);andTheWesternBatWorkingGroup(WBWG)High(H),LowͲMedium(LP),Medium(M),MediumͲHigh(MH)Priorityspecies].3ReferencesforHabitatPreferences/Requirements:(plants)Reiser2001,County2009d,CNPS2010;(butterflies)FaulknerandKlein2004,Opler2006;(amphibiansandreptiles)Stebbins2003,CDFG2010a;(birds)AOUBirdsofNorthAmericaOnͲline2010andCDFG2010a;(mammals)CDFG2010a.4CNDDBonlytracksthenestinglocationsofthesebirdspecies;thelocationofthenestoranyindicationofbreeding(i.e.,territorialmales,adultscarryingnestmaterial,adultscarryingfood,thepresenceofnewlyfledgedyoung,etc.)isacceptableevidenceofnesting.CountyofSanDiegolistingisforbreedingpopulationsonly.5CNDDBonlytracksthewinteringrangeofthesebirdspecies.CountyofSanDiegolistingisforwinteringpopulationsonly
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϰMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϰͲ18REFERENCESU.S.FishandWildlifeService.1998.PacificPocketMouse(Perognathuslongimembrispac~ficus)RecoveryPlan.Portland,OR.ll2pp.U.S.FishandWildlifeService.2000.RecoveryplanforbighornsheepinthePeninsularRanges,California.U.S.FishandWildlifeService,Portland,OR.xv+251pp.CaliforniaNativePlantSociety(CNPS).2012.InventoryofRareandEndangeredPlants(onlineedition,v8Ͳ01a).CaliforniaNativePlantSociety.Sacramento,CA.AccessedonThursday,November01,2012.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendment
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33
APPENDIXϱ.WETLANDDELINEATIONDATAFORMS
(DECEMBER20,2019;APRIL28,2020)
Appendixϱ
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Sunbow II Phase III City/County: Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: 12/20/19
Applicant/Owner: Lennar Homes State: CA Sampling Point: 1
Investigator(s): Kyle Ince; Gina Krantz Section, Township, Range: S17 & 18, T18S, R1W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) canyon valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.6060 Long: -117.0178 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Linne Clay Loam, 9-30% slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ 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 – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' x 8')
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.-2 (A)
2.
3.3 (B)
4.
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' x 8')
1.Salix gooddingii 30 Y FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Tamarix parviflora 30 Y FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.OBL species x 1 =
4.FACW species x 2 =
5.FAC species x 3 =
60 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' x 8') UPL species x 5 =
1.Brachypodium distachyon 90 Y UPL Column Totals: (A) (B)
2.Helminthotheca echioides 13 N FAC
3.Bromus hordeaceus 5N FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.Festuca perennis 2 N FAC
5.Erigeron bonariensis 1N FACU
6.Epilobium ciliatum 1N FACW
7.
8.
112 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' x 8')
1.-
2.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Test 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.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features Depth
(inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 10YR 3/2 100 -- - - silty loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Vernal Pools (F9)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present unless disturbed or
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Pit hits water at 5-6" deep. No mottles/redox indicators.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Salt Crust (B11)
Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches): 1"
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:
Aerial photos
Remarks:
Surface water seeping from offsite hillside to north (uphill that supports Typha and willows). Surface water doesn't continue downstream - turns into
swale with no hydrology indicators observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Sunbow II Phase III City/County: Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: 12/20/19
Applicant/Owner: Lennar Homes State: CA Sampling Point: 2
Investigator(s): Kyle Ince; Gina Krantz Section, Township, Range: S17 & 18, T18S, R1W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.6060 Long: -117.0178 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Linne Clay Loam, 9-30% slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ 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 – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 10')
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.-0 (A)
2.
3.1 (B)
4.
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 10')
1.-Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.OBL species x 1 =
4.FACW species x 2 =
5.FAC species x 3 =
0 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 10') UPL species x 5 =
1.Bromus diandrus 80 Y UPL Column Totals: (A) (B)
2.Bromus hordeaceus 10 N FACU
3.Stipa pulchra 10 N UPL
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.Foeniculum vulgare 5 N UPL
5.
6.
7.
8.
105 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' x 8')
1.-
2.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Test 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.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features Depth
(inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - silty clay
loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Vernal Pools (F9)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present unless disturbed or
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
No hydric soil indicators.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Salt Crust (B11)
Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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:
Aerial photos
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Sunbow II Phase III City/County: Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: 4/28/20
Applicant/Owner: Lennar Homes State: CA Sampling Point: 1
Investigator(s): Kyle Ince; Amanda Gonzales Section, Township, Range: S18, T18S, R1W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) in channel; s. edge Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.6087382035 Long: -117.021024643 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Diablo Clay, 30-50% slopes NWI classification: PSS1D
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ 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:
DP located within Poggi Creek, along the southern edge. Hydrophytic vegetation dominant; hydric soils present; wetland hydrology present.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20')
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.Salix lasiolepis 50 Y FACW
5 (A)
2.Salix gooddingii 30 Y FACW
3.6 (B)
4.
80 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20')
1.Iva hayesiana 15 Y FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Baccharis pilularis 15 Y UPL Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.Salix lasiandra 1 N FACW OBL species x 1 =
4.FACW species x 2 =
30 = Total Cover FAC species x 3 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20')FACU species x 4 =
1.Typha domingensis 40 Y OBL UPL species x 5 =
2.Juncus acutus 25 Y FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)
3.Nasturtium officinale 10 N OBL
4.Juncus mexicanus 5N FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.Melilotus indicus <1 N FACU
6.Lysimachia arvensis <1 N FAC
7.Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum <1 N FAC
8.Oenothera elata <1 N FACW
9.Apium graveolens <1 N UPL
80 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20')
1.-
2.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Test 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.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 % Cover of Biotic Crust -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located within Poggi Creek; within channel bed on south edge. Canopy dominated by willows with cattail in center within main flow channel.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features Depth
(inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 3/2 100 -- - - loamy sand gravel; foreign rock
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Vernal Pools (F9)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present unless disturbed or
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located within channel bed; on south side; ~6" depth; unable to dig deeper; likely grouted rip rap under; this soil likely washed down. Assumed
hydric.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Salt Crust (B11)
Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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:
Aerial photos
Remarks:
DP located within channel bed but outside flow of water; within 5' of water (~5-8" deep in center); soil at pit is moist and glistening. Large storm
events winter 2020; last one early April. On west side of double box culvert (~8 x 8' each)
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Sunbow II Phase III City/County: Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: 4/28/20
Applicant/Owner: Lennar Homes State: CA Sampling Point: 2
Investigator(s): Kyle Ince; Amanda Gonzales Section, Township, Range: S18, T18S, R1W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) slope/bank Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 2:1
Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.60869514 Long: -117.021042834 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Diablo Clay, 30-50% slopes NWI classification: UPL
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ 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:
DP located within upland.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20')
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.-0 (A)
2.
3.3 (B)
4.
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20')
1.Artemisia californica 75 Y UPL Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Iva hayesiana 5 N FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.Baccharis pilularis 5 N UPL OBL species x 1 =
4.Bahiopsis laciniata 5 N UPL FACW species x 2 =
5.ncelia californica <1 N UPL FAC species x 3 =
90 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20') UPL species x 5 =
1.Melilotus indicus 5Y FACUColumn Totals: (A) (B)
2.irschfeldia incana 2YUPL
3.Bromus rubens 1 N UPL
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.Bromus hordeaceus <1 N FACU
5.
6.
7.
8.
10 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20')
1.-
2.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Test 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.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 % Cover of Biotic Crust -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located on slope; dominated by DCSS; 100% vegetation coverage.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features Depth
(inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 10 YR 5/2 100 - - - -
silty clay
loam on bank
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Vernal Pools (F9)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present unless disturbed or
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located on bank; just upslope by Poggi Creek. Hydric soils not present.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Salt Crust (B11)
Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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:
Aerial photos
Remarks:
DP on slope; within upland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Sunbow II Phase III City/County: Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: 4/28/20
Applicant/Owner: Lennar Homes State: CA Sampling Point: 3
Investigator(s): Kyle Ince; Amanda Gonzales Section, Township, Range: S18, T18S, R1W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Poggi Creek Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 5%
Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.6088189505 Long: -117.021025859 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Salinas Clay Loam, 2-9% slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ 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:
DP located within Poggi Creek. Hydrophytic vegetation dominant; hydric soils present; wetland hydrology present.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20')
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.Salix lasiolepis 50 Y FACW
5 (A)
2.Salix gooddingii 30 Y FACW
3.6 (B)
4.
80 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20')
1.Iva hayesiana 15 Y FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Baccharis pilularis 15 Y UPL Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.Salix lasiandra 1 N FACW OBL species x 1 =
4.FACW species x 2 =
30 = Total Cover FAC species x 3 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20')FACU species x 4 =
1.Typha domingensis 40 Y OBL UPL species x 5 =
2.Juncus acutus 25 Y FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)
3.Nasturtium officinale 10 N OBL
4.Juncus mexicanus 5N FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.Melilotus indicus <1 N FACU
6.Lysimachia arvensis <1 N FAC
7.Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum <1 N FAC
8.Oenothera elata <1 N FACW
9.Apium graveolens <1 N UPL
10.Polypogon viridis <1 N
80 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 20' x 20')
1.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Test 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.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 % Cover of Biotic Crust -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located within Poggi Creek; within channel bed. Canopy dominated by willows with cattail in center within main flow channel.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features Depth
(inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 3/2 77 10YR 6/6 3 D M loamy sand
Gley2 5BG 20 D M organic decomposed organic material
roots intermixed
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Vernal Pools (F9)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present unless disturbed or
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located within channel bed; on north side; unable to dig deeper; likely grouted rip rap under; soft bottom further downstream. Flowing water in
channel.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Salt Crust (B11)
Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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:
Aerial photos
Remarks:
DP located within channel bed but outside flow of water; within 5' of water (~5-8' deep in center); soil at pit is moist and glistening. Large storm
events winter 2020; last one early April. On west side of double box culvert (~8 x 8' each)
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Sunbow II Phase III City/County: Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: 4/28/20
Applicant/Owner: Lennar Homes State: CA Sampling Point: 4
Investigator(s): Kyle Ince; Amanda Gonzales Section, Township, Range: S18, T18S, R1W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) on bank/slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 2:1
Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.6088712665 Long: -117.021044977 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Salinas Clay Loam, 2-9% slopes NWI classification: UPL
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ 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:
DP located within upland.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15' x 15')
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.-0 (A)
2.
3.3 (B)
4.
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' x 15')
1.Baccharis pilularis 50 Y UPL Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Artemisia californica 20 Y UPL Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.Bahiopsis laciniata 10 N UPL OBL species x 1 =
4.hus integrifolia 5 N UPL FACW species x 2 =
5.ncelia californica 5 N UPL FAC species x 3 =
90 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' x 15') UPL species x 5 =
1.Melilotus indicus 70 Y FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
2.entaurea melitensis 15 N UPL
3.Sonchus asper 5 N FAC
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.arduus pycnocephalus <1 N UPL
5.Brassica nigra <1 N UPL
6.
7.
8.
90 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' x 15')
1.-
2.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Test 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.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 % Cover of Biotic Crust -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located on cut slope/bank; just upslope from Poggi Creek and DP2.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features Depth
(inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 5/2 100 - - - -
silty clay
loam on bank
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Vernal Pools (F9)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present unless disturbed or
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located on bank; just upslope by Poggi Creek. Hydric soils not present.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Salt Crust (B11)
Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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:
Aerial photos
Remarks:
DP located on cut slope within upland; outside limit of OHWM.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Sunbow II Phase III City/County: Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: 4/28/20
Applicant/Owner: Lennar Homes State: CA Sampling Point: 5
Investigator(s): Kyle Ince; Amanda Gonzales Section, Township, Range: S18, T18S, R1W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) in creek Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): ~2%
Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.6095121671 Long: -117.016620631 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Salinas Clay Loam, 2-9% slopes NWI classification: PEM1D
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ 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:
DP located in Poggi Creek.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 10')
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.-2 (A)
2.
3.2 (B)
4.
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 10')
1.Salix exigua 5Y FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.OBL species x 1 =
4.FACW species x 2 =
5.FAC species x 3 =
5 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 10') UPL species x 5 =
1.Typha domingensis 90 Y OBL Column Totals: (A) (B)
2.Anemopsis californica 10 N OBL
3.Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 10')
1.-
2.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Test 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.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located within Poggi Creek. Dominated by FWM.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features Depth
(inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/1 100 2.5YR 5/8 1 D M
silty clay
loam
3-6 Gley2 7/5PB 80 Gley2 5BG 5 C M
silty clay
loam Redox - black spots
Gley1 8/10Y 3 D M Redox - white spots
5YR 4/6 2 RM PL Redox - red along roots
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Vernal Pools (F9)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present unless disturbed or
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Could have dug deeper because see hydric soil features within upper 10".
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Salt Crust (B11)
Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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:
Aerial photos
Remarks:
DP located within Poggi Creek bed; north side; no water at actual soil pit but flowing water within channel (~1-3" deep).
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Sunbow II Phase III City/County: Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: 4/28/20
Applicant/Owner: Lennar Homes State: CA Sampling Point: 6
Investigator(s): Kyle Ince; Amanda Gonzales Section, Township, Range: S18, T18S, R1W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) slope/bank Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 2:1
Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.6094975825 Long: -117.01669203 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Salinas Clay Loam, 2-9% slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ 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:
DP located within upland.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 15')
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.-1 (A)
2.
3.4 (B)
4.
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 15')
1.ncelia californica 40 Y UPL Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Iva hayesiana 20 Y FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.Baccharis pilularis 15 N UPL OBL species x 1 =
4.Artemisia californica 15 N UPL FACW species x 2 =
5.FAC species x 3 =
90 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 15') UPL species x 5 =
1.irschfeldia incana 5 Y UPL Column Totals: (A) (B)
2.entaurea melitensis 5YUPL
3.Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 15')
1.-
2.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Test 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.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 % Cover of Biotic Crust -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located within upland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features Depth
(inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 5/2 100 - - - -
silty clay
loam on bank
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Vernal Pools (F9)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present unless disturbed or
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located on bank; just upslope by Poggi Creek. Hydric soils not present.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Salt Crust (B11)
Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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:
Aerial photos
Remarks:
DP located on slope; just upslope from Poggi Creek and DP5.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: Sunbow II Phase III City/County: Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: 4/28/20
Applicant/Owner: Lennar Homes State: CA Sampling Point: 7
Investigator(s): Kyle Ince; Amanda Gonzales Section, Township, Range: S18, T18S, R1W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) in channel Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): ~1%
Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.6092924011 Long: -117.01657497 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Diablo Clay, 30-50% slopes NWI classification: PSS1D
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation _N_, Soil _N_, or Hydrology _N_ 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:
DP located within Poggi Creek; south side of channel. Area is a wetland.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 15')
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.Salix lasiolepis 40 Y FACW
4 (A)
2.
3.5 (B)
4.
40 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80% (A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 15')
1.Iva hayesiana 10 Y FACW Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.Baccharis pilularis 10 Y UPL Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.Artemisia palmeri <1 N UPL OBL species x 1 =
4.Baccharis salicifolia <1 N FAC FACW species x 2 =
5.FAC species x 3 =
20 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 15') UPL species x 5 =
1.Schoenoplectus americanus 50 Y OBL Column Totals: (A) (B)
2.Anemopsis californica 25 Y OBL
3.Typha domingensis 10 N OBL
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.Nasturtium officinale 5 N OBL
5.Leymus triticoides 3N FAC
6.Ambrosia psilostachya 3N FACU
7.umex crispus 3N FAC
8.
99 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 15')
1.-
2.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Test 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.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ~1 % Cover of Biotic Crust -
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP located within Poggi Creek; south side of channel.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: 7
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features Depth
(inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/1 100 2.5YR 5/8 1 D M
silty clay
loam
3-6 Gley2 7/5PB 80 Gley2 5BG 5 C M
silty clay
loam Redox - black spots
Gley1 8/10Y 3 D M Redox - white spots
5YR 4/6 2 RM PL Redox - red along roots
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Vernal Pools (F9)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present unless disturbed or
problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Generally the same as DP 5 but with more redox features.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Salt Crust (B11)
Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches): 2"
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:
Aerial photos
Remarks:
DP located within Poggi Creek; flowing water.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendment
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33
APPENDIXϲ.WETLANDDELINEATIONPHOTOPOINTS
(DECEMBER20,2019;APRIL28,2020)
Appendixϲ
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϲ
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϲͲ1
PhotoPoint1.ViewingnortheastatDataPoint1locatedinsouthernwillowscrubvegetationon
thesouthsideofPoggiCreekchannel.
PhotoPoint2.ViewingsouthwestatDataPoint2locatedaboveDataPoint1inDiegancoastal
sagescrubvegetationonthesouthbankofPoggiCreekchannel.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϲ
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϲͲ2
PhotoPoint3.ViewingsouthatDataPoint3locatedinsouthernwillowscrubvegetationonthe
northsideofPoggiCreekchannel.
PhotoPoint4.ViewingnortheastatDataPoint4locatedaboveDataPoint3inDiegancoastal
sagescrubvegetationonthenorthbankofPoggiCreekchannel.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϲ
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϲͲ3
PhotoPoint5.ViewingnortheastatDataPoint5locatedattheedgeoffreshwatermarsh
vegetationonthenorthsideofPoggiCreekchannel.
PhotoPoint6.ViewinghydricsoilsexcavatedatDataPoint5.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϲ
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϲͲ4
PhotoPoint7.ViewingnortheastatDataPoint6locatedaboveDataPoint5inDiegancoastal
sagescrubvegetation.
PhotoPoint8.ViewingwestatDataPoint7locatedinfreshwatermarshvegetationonthe
southsideofPoggiCreekchannel.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϲMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϲͲ5PhotoPoint9.ViewingsouthwestatDataPoint8locatedinsouthernwillowscrubvegetationthatissupportedbyrunofforiginatingfromaseepsituatedjustsouthofthesiteonaCityͲownedproperty.PhotoPoint10.ViewingDataPoint9locatedaboveDataPoint8innonͲnativegrasslandvegetation.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendmentAppendixϲMerkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33AͲϲͲ6PhotoPoint11.ViewingsouthatanonͲwetlandwateroftheU.S.drainagethatisatributarytoPoggiCreekchannel.PhotoPoint12.ViewingsouthatanonͲwetlandwateroftheU.S.drainagethatisatributarytoPoggiCreekchannel.
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendment
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33
APPENDIXϳ.COASTALCALIFORNIAGNATCATCHER
USFWS45ͲDAYREPORT(MAY11,2020)
Appendixϳ
Merkel Associates, Inc.
uffin oad San iego A
Tel - x ax -
e-mail associates mer elinc com
May11,2020
M&A#94Ͳ021Ͳ33
Ms.StaceyLove
RecoveryPermitCoordinator
U.S.FishandWildlifeService–CarlsbadFishandWildlifeOffice
2177SalkAve,Suite250
Carlsbad,CA92008
Re:45ͲdayLetterReportofCoastalCaliforniaGnatcatcherProtocolSurveysforthe
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProject,LocatedintheCityofChulaVista,SanDiegoCounty
DearMs.Love:
SUMMARY
Merkel&Associates,Inc.(M&A)conductedthreeprotocolsurveysforthefederallylisted
threatenedcoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher(Polioptilacalifornicacalifornica)forthepurposeof
determiningthepresenceorabsenceofthisspecieswithintheSunbowIIPhaseIIIProjectsite.
ThesesurveyswereconductedinaccordancewiththecurrentU.S.FishandWildlifeService’s
CoastalCaliforniaGnatcatcherPresence/AbsenceSurveyProtocol(USFWS1997),asauthorized
underM&A’sfederalEndangeredSpeciesAct,Section10(a)(1)(A)permit#797999Ͳ9and
CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife(CDFW)MemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU).The
projectsurveyareacontains37acresofpotentiallysuitablegnatcatcherhabitat.Twocoastal
Californiagnatcatcherterritoriesweredetectedwithinthesurveyareaduringtheprotocol
surveys.Thisletterreporthasbeenpreparedandsubmittedtoourclient,USFWS,andCDFWin
accordancewiththerequirementsofM&A’s10apermitandMOU.
INTRODUCTION
Merkel&Associates,Inc.(M&A)conductedprotocolsurveysforthefederallylistedthreatened,
coastalCaliforniagnatcatcher(Polioptilacalifornicacalifornica)(gnatcatcher)forthepurposeof
determiningthepresenceorabsenceofgnatcatcherwithintheSunbowIIPhaseIIIProjectsite.
Theapproximately135Ͳacreprojectsiteproperty(Assessor’sParcelNumbers644Ͳ011Ͳ06Ͳ00and
644Ͳ020Ͳ11Ͳ00)islocatedsouthofOlympicParkway(previouslyEastOrangeAvenue)andeastof
BrandywineintheCityofChulaVista.Further,theprojectsiteissituatedwithinSections17and18,
Township18South,Range1WestoftheU.S.GeologicalSurveyImperialBeach,California
Quadrangle(Figure1).
Project Vicinity Map
Sunbow Phase III Development Project Figure 1
M&A #94-021-33
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
μ
Source: USGS 7.5' Imperial Beach, CA Quadrangle1:24000
Project Site
CoastalCaliforniaGnatcatcherProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIII3
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33
METHODS
M&AconductedthreeprotocolsurveysforthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher,asauthorizedunder
M&A’sfederalEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA),Section10(a)(1)(A)permit#797999Ͳ9andCalifornia
DepartmentofFishandWildlife(CDFW)MemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU)(Table1).The
surveyswereconductedinaccordancewiththecurrentUSFWSCoastalCaliforniaGnatcatcher
Presence/AbsenceSurveyProtocol(USFWS1997).BasedontheProtocol,threeprotocolsurveys
wereconductedatleastoneweekapart.Thesurveyareaconsistedofpotentiallysuitable
gnatcatcherhabitat(e.g.,Diegancoastalsagescrub)andanyimmediatelyadjacenthabitatwithin
theprojectsite.
Table1.SurveyDates,Times,andConditions
Survey
#DateTimeConditions1
(startͲend)
Permitted
Biologist
Acresper
Hour/Day2
Taped
Vocalizations
Playback
Frequency
12020April150830Ͳ
1200
Weather:0%Ͳ0%cc
Wind:BS0Ͳ1
Temp.:63qFͲ75qF
GinaKrantz/
KyleInce
5.3/hour;
18.5/day
1per
12minutes
22020April220835Ͳ
1200
Weather:0%Ͳ0%cc
Wind:BS0Ͳ1
Temp.:62qFͲ72qF
GinaKrantz/
KyleInce
(AdamBehle/
Brandon
Stidum)3
5.3/hour;
18.5/day
1per
23minutes
32020April290840Ͳ
1145
Weather:100%Ͳ
100%cc
Wind:BS0Ͳ1
Temp.:63qFͲ67qF
GinaKrantz/
KyleInce
(AdamBehle/
Brandon
Stidum)3
6.2/hour;
18.5/day
1per
14minutes
1cc=cloudcover;BS=BeaufortScale;F=Fahrenheit
2Acresofpotentiallysuitablegnatcatcherhabitatsurveyedperpermittedbiologist
3M&Abiologistsintrainingsupervisedbypermittedbiologists
Basedonavisualhabitatassessmentpriortoconductingthesurveysfortheproject,thereis
approximately37acresofpotentialsuitablecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherhabitat(i.e.,Diegan
coastalsagescrub)withintheprojectsurveyarea.Thetotalsurveyareawasbrokenupintoa
westernareaandaneasternarea.AllonͲsitevegetationcommunitiesweremapped,andsurvey
routeswereslowlywalkedinpotentiallysuitablegnatcatcherhabitat.Tapedrecordingsof
gnatcatchervocalizations,aswellas“pishing’,wereusedtoelicitinitialvocalresponses,andan
approximate15minutetimeintervalwasallowedforaresponse,particularlyfromadvantageous
viewpoints.Thegnatcatchertapewasnotplayedwhenanypotentialgnatcatcherpredatorwas
detectedinthevicinity.Alistofalldetectedavianspecieswasrecordedinafieldnotebook.Data
collectedfromthesurveysweredigitizedintocurrentGeographicalInformationSystem(GIS)
EnvironmentalSystemsResearchInstitute(ESRI)softwareplatforms.
CoastalCaliforniaGnatcatcherProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIII4
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33
Thescientificnomenclatureusedinthisreportisnotedaccordingtothefollowingreferences:
vegetation,Holland(1986)andOberbauer(2008);flora,RebmanandSimpson(2014);andbirds,
AmericanOrnithologists’Union(1998and2019).
RESULTS
Thesurveyareasupportsapproximately37acresofsuitablegnatcatcherhabitatconsistingof
Diegancoastalsagescrublocatedpredominatelyinthecentralportionofthesitealongfourrolling
hillsidesnorthofPoggiCreekandOlympicParkway.ThedominantspecieswithintheDiegancoastal
sagescrubhabitatwereCaliforniasagebrush(Artemisiacalifornica)andCaliforniaencelia(Encelia
californica)aswellasCaliforniabuckwheat(Eriogonumfasciculatum),lemonadeberry(Rhus
integrifolia),andSanDiegoviguiera(Bahiopsislaciniata)(Figure2).TherearealsoareasofDiegan
coastalsagescrubthataredominatedalmostentirelybylemonadeberrymostlyinthewestern
portionbutsmallerpatchesalsooccurintheeasternportionofthesite.Theremainderofthe
Diegancoastalsagescruboccursinsmallerfragmentedpatchesthroughoutthesiteaswellaslinear
stripshistoricallyplantedonslopesabuttingPoggiCreek(Figure2).Thepotentiallysuitable
gnatcatcherhabitatqualitywithinthestudyareaismoderatetohighqualitypredominatelydueto
thenativespeciescompositionanddiversity.ThereisalimitedamountofcontiguousDiegan
coastalsagescruboffsitewithinadjacentopenspaceareas(i.e.,southeast,east);however,the
openspacedirectlynorthofOlympicParkwaysupportsDiegancoastalsagescrub.
TwocoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherterritorialmaleswereobservedorheardwithinthesurveyarea
intwoseparateareasofDiegancoastalsagescrubonsite.Onegnatcatcherterritoryislocatedin
thecentralportionofthesitewithinthelargerareaofhighqualityDiegancoastalsagescrub
(Figure2).Theothergnatcatcherterritoryislocatedbothonsiteandoffsitewithinthe
southeasterncorneroftheprojectsitewhereasmallamountofDiegancoastalsagescruboccurs
onsitewithmoresuitablehabitatthatextendsoffsiteontotheCountyofSanDiegolandfillproperty
tothesouth(Figure2).
#0#0μM&A #94-021-33Merkel & Associates, Inc.Sunbow Phase III DevelopmentCoastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Routes MapFigure 20 300 600 900150FeetVegetation Communitiescoastal and valley freshwater marshsouthern willow scrubmule fat scrubDiegan coastal sage scrubnative grasslandnon-native grasslandnon-native vegetationEastern survey routeWestern survey route#0coastal California gnatcatcher(Polioptilacalifornica californica)project siteAerial Source: Merkel & Associates Jan. 2020Created on: May 11, 2020
CoastalCaliforniaGnatcatcherProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIII6
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33
CONCLUSIONS
TwocoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherterritorieswereobservedordetectedonsitewithinDiegan
coastalsagescrubduringtheprotocolsurveys.
NootherpertinentobservationspertainingtothecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherwerenotedduring
thesurveyefforts.Duetothelimitednatureoftheworkonthisproject(i.e.,protocol
presence/absencesurveys,notlongͲtermresearch),wehavenoadditionalrecommendationsfor
speciesrecovery.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsconcerningthisreport,pleasedonothesitatetocontactmeat(858)560Ͳ
5465orgkrantz@merkelinc.com.
Sincerely,
GinaKrantz
SeniorBiologist/ProjectManager
KeithW.Merkel
PrincipalConsultant
cc:Mr.HansSin,CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife,SouthCoastRegion,
hans.sin@wildlife.ca.gov
Mr.DavidShepherd,Lennar,David.Shepherd@lennar.com
CoastalCaliforniaGnatcatcherProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIII7
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33
REFERENCES
AmericanOrnithologists’Union.1998.CheckͲlistofNorthAmericanBirds,7thed.American
Ornithologists’Union,WashingtonD.C.
_____.2019.RTerryChesser,KevinJBurns,CarlaCicero,JonLDunn,AndrewWKratter,IrbyJ
Lovette,PamelaCRasmussen,JVRemsen,Jr,DouglasFStotz,KevinWinker,Sixtieth
SupplementtotheAmericanOrnithologicalSociety’sCheckͲlistofNorthAmericanBirds,The
Auk,Volume136,Issue3,1July2019,ukz042,https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukz042
HollandRF.1986.PreliminaryDescriptionsoftheTerrestrialNaturalCommunitiesofCalifornia.
NongameͲHeritageProgram;StateofCalifornia;DepartmentofFishandGame.
Sacramento,California.157pp.
OberbauerT,KellyM,BueggeJ.2008,Revised1996and2006.DraftVegetationCommunitiesof
SanDiegoCounty[Internet].Basedon“PreliminaryDescriptionsoftheTerrestrialNatural
CommunitiesofCalifornia”,HollandRF,PhD.,1986.Availablefrom:
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/Veg_Comm_SDCounty_2008.pdf.
RebmanJP,SimpsonMG.2014.ChecklistofVascularPlantsofSanDiegoCounty,5thEdition
[Internet].ISBN0Ͳ918969Ͳ05Ͳ0.SanDiegoNaturalHistoryMuseumandSanDiegoState
University.https://www.sdnhm.org/science/botany/projects/checklist/
U.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS),CarlsbadFishandWildlifeOffice(CFWO).1997Jul28.
CoastalCaliforniaGnatcatcher(Polioptilacalifornicacalifornica)Presence/AbsenceSurvey
Protocol.5pp.
CoastalCaliforniaGnatcatcherProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIII
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33
Iherebycertifythatthestatementsfurnishedhereinandintheattachedexhibitspresentthedata
andinformationasrequiredpursuanttoRecoveryPermitTEͲ797999Ͳ9,andthatthefacts,
statements,andinformationpresentedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeand
belief.
1) FieldworkPerformedBy:
GinaKrantz,SeniorBiologist
10(a)PermitNumber797999Ͳ9
2) FieldworkPerformedBy:
KyleInce,SeniorBiologist
10(a)PermitNumber797999Ͳ9
SunbowIIPhase3SPAPlanAmendment
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ33
APPENDIX7.QUINOCHECKERSPOTBUTTERFLY
USFWS45ͲDAYREPORT(MAY21,2020)
Merkel Associates, Inc.
uffin oad San iego A
Tel - x ax -
e-mail associates mer elinc com
May21,2020
M&A#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
Ms.StaceyLove
RecoveryPermitCoordinator
U.S.FishandWildlifeService–CarlsbadFishandWildlifeOffice
2177SalkAve,Suite250
Carlsbad,CA92008
Re:45ͲdayLetterReportofQuinoCheckerspotButterfly(Euphydryasedithaquino)Protocol
SurveysfortheSunbowIIPhaseIIIProject,LocatedintheCityofChulaVistawithinSanDiego
County
DearMs.Love:
SUMMARY
Merkel&Associates,Inc.(M&A)conductedprotocolsurveysforthefederallylistedendangered
quinocheckerspotbutterfly(Euphydryasedithaquino)(quino)ontheSunbowIIPhaseIIIProject
site.ThesesurveyswereconductedinaccordancewiththecurrentU.S.FishandWildlifeService’s
QuinoCheckerspotButterflySurveyGuidelines(USFWS2014),asauthorizedunderM&A’sfederal
EndangeredSpeciesAct,Section10(a)(1)(A)permit#797999Ͳ9.BasedontheGuidelines,protocol
surveysshouldbeinitiatedthethirdweekofFebruary;however,wedidnotinitiatesurveysatthat
timebutdidspeakwithMr.EricPorteronMarch5,2020andMs.SusanWynnonMarch9,2020
regardingthepotentialtoinitiatequinosurveysimmediately(USFWSpers.comm.2020).Ms.
Wynnrecommendedstartingprotocolsurveysassoonaspossibleanddoubleupsurveysinthefirst
fewweekswhereapplicabletostillbeabletoconduct12surveysbeforetheendofthequinoflight
seasonwhichisthesecondSaturdayofMay(USFWSpers.comm.2020).Theprojectsitecontains
approximately75acresofpotentialquinohabitat.PotentialquinohostplantconsistingofdotͲseed
plantain(Plantagoerecta)andOrcutt’sbird’sͲbeak(Dicranostegiaorcuttiana)weredetected
throughoutportionsoftheprojectsite.Noquinocheckerspotbutterfliesweredetectedwithinthe
projectsurveyareasduringtheprotocolsurveys.Thisletterreporthasbeenpreparedand
submittedtotheclientandUSFWSinaccordancewiththerequirementsofM&A’s10apermit.
INTRODUCTION
Merkel&Associates,Inc.(M&A)conductedprotocolsurveysforthefederallylistedendangered
quinocheckerspotbutterfly(Euphydryasedithaquino)(quino)forthepurposeofdeterminingthe
presenceorabsenceofthisspeciesontheSunbowIIPhaseIIIProjectsite.Theprojectproperty
(Assessor’sParcelNumbers644Ͳ011Ͳ06Ͳ00and644Ͳ020Ͳ11Ͳ00)islocatedwithintheCityofChula
Vista,withinthewesternedgeoftheCarlsbadFishandWildlifeOffice(CFWO)recommendedQuino
SurveyArea(USFWS2014),inSections17and18,Township18South,Range1WestoftheU.S.
GeologicalSurveyImperialBeach,CaliforniaQuadrangle(Figure1).
μMerkel & Associates, Inc.M&A #94-021-33Project Vicinity MapSunbow II Phase III Development ProjectFigure 1Source: USGS 7.5' Imperial Beach, CA Quadrangle1:24000Project Site
QuinoCheckerspotButterflyProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProject3
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
METHODS
M&AconductedapreͲsurveyhabitatsiteassessmentandprotocolsurveysforthequino
checkerspotbutterflyinthewinterof2019andspringof2020,respectively,asauthorizedunder
M&A’sfederalEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA),Section10(a)(1)(A)permit#797999Ͳ9(Table1).The
surveyswereconductedinaccordancewiththecurrentUSFWSQuinoCheckerspotButterflySurvey
Guidelines(USFWS2014)aswellasincoordinationwiththeCarlsbadFishandWildlifeOfficestaff
biologists(USFWSpers.comm.2020),allowingprotocolsurveystostartthefirstweekofMarch
2020ratherthanthethirdweekofFebruary2020andwereconductedlessthanaweekapartwhen
surveyconditionsweremettocatchuptotheprotocolsurveyschedule.Inaddition,forthesecond
weekofApril(April5Ͳ11)noneofthedaysmetsurveyconditionsduetoinclementweatherandas
suchtwosurveyswereconductedduringthethirdweekofApriltomakeupforthemissedweek
(Table1).
Table1.SummaryofSurveyDates,Times,Conditions,andBiologists
Survey#DateTimeConditions1
(startͲend)
Permitted
Biologist(s)2
Acresper
Hour/Survey
or/Day3
Habitat
Assessment
2019Nov18
&
2019Dec20
1130Ͳ1530/
1130Ͳ1230
Weather:0%Ͳ0%cc/hazy
Wind:1Ͳ2mph/1Ͳ6mph
Temperature:85Ͳ82/73qF
GMK,KLINA
12020Mar61020Ͳ1340
Weather:0%Ͳ0%cc
Wind:0Ͳ5mph
Temperature:63qͲ64qF
GMK,AHB,
KLI7.7
22020Mar111245Ͳ1545
Weather:30%Ͳ50%cc
Wind:1Ͳ5mph
Temperature:62qͲ69qF
GMK,AHB,
KLI8.3
32020Mar171300Ͳ1645
Weather:40%Ͳ10%cc
Wind:0Ͳ3mph
Temperature:60qͲ62qF
GMK,KLI10.0
42020Mar211115Ͳ1515
Weather:50%Ͳ5%cc
Wind:0Ͳ3mph
Temperature:66qͲ68qF
AHB,KLI9.4
52020Mar241200Ͳ1600
Weather:40%Ͳ10%cc
Wind:5Ͳ3mph
Temperature:61qͲ62qF
GMK,AHB,
KLI6.3
62020Mar271045Ͳ1415
Weather:40%Ͳ0%cc
Wind:0Ͳ5mph
Temperature:60qͲ62qF
GMK,AHB,
KLI7.1
72020April31100Ͳ1500
Weather:20%Ͳ30%cc
Wind:0Ͳ4mph
Temperature:61qͲ74qF
GMK,AHB,
KLI6.3
82020April141100Ͳ1420
Weather:5%Ͳ5%cc
Wind:1Ͳ7mph
Temperature:64qͲ66qF
GMK,AHB,
KLI7.7
QuinoCheckerspotButterflyProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProject4
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
Survey#DateTimeConditions1
(startͲend)
Permitted
Biologist(s)2
Acresper
Hour/Survey
or/Day3
92020April161000Ͳ1505
Weather:0%Ͳ0%cc
Wind:3Ͳ7mph
Temperature:65qͲ72qF
AHB,KLI7.5
102020April230900Ͳ1235
Weather:0%Ͳ0%cc
Wind:1Ͳ5mph
Temperature:64qͲ78qF
GMK,AHB,
KLI7.1
112020April301100Ͳ1430
Weather:100%Ͳ50%cc
Wind:1Ͳ3mph
Temperature:70qͲ73qF
GMK,AHB,
KLI7.1
122020May70845Ͳ1215
Weather:0%Ͳ0%cc
Wind:0Ͳ4mph
Temperature:64qͲ74qF
GMK,AHB,
KLI7.1
1cc=cloudcover;mph=milesperhour;F=Fahrenheit
2GMK=GinaM.Krantz;AHB=AdamH.Behle;KLI=KyleL.Ince
3Averageacresofpotentiallysuitablequinohabitatsurveyedperhourpersurveyorpersurveyday
TheprojectquinosurveyareasaredepictedonFigure2.Surveyacrescoveredpersurveyareaand
surveydatewereconsistentwiththecurrentQuinoCheckerspotButterflySurveyGuidelines.Since
thesurveyareatotaledapproximately75acres,approximately2Ͳ3permittedbiologistsperweek
(e.g.,2Ͳ3biologistsperdayforonesurveydayperweek)werenecessarytoadequatelycoverthe
surveyareasperweek.Specificquinosurveydatesvariedwithinthetimeframeprovidedinthe
protocolaccordingtoweatherconditionsandschedulingneeds.Biologistsslowlywalkedavariable,
windingcoursethatgenerallyfollowed30ͲfoottransectswithinsuitablehabitatinthepreͲ
determinedbutterflysurveyareas,carefullyfollowedthemovementsofbutterflies,andperiodically
stoppedwithinareasthatappearedmostsuitable.
Alistofdetectednectarresourcesandbutterflyspecieswasrecordedondatasheetsorafield
notebook,andthelocationsofpotentialQuinolarvalhostplantswererecorded/mappedusinga
mobilemappingapplication(e.g.,AvenzaMaps,TrimbleGPS)andnotedonthedatasheets.Data
collectedfromthesurveysweredigitizedinEnvironmentalSystemsResearchInstitute(ESRI)
GeographicalInformationSystem(GIS)software,usingArcGISforDesktop.
Thescientificnomenclatureusedinthisreportisnotedaccordingtothefollowingreferences:
vegetation,Holland(1986)andOberbauer(2008);flora,Baldwin(2011);andbutterflies,Kleinand
SanDiegoNaturalHistoryMuseum(2002).
RESULTS
VegetationCommunities
Basedonthequinohabitatsuitabilityassessment,vegetationcommunitiesdeterminedtobe
potentiallysuitablequinohabitatwithinthesurveyareaconsistedofDiegancoastalsagescrub
nativegrassland,andonlyportionsofthenonͲnativegrasslandthatwerenotheavilythatched.
#########################################*****************************************############************μM&A #94-021-33Merkel & Associates, Inc.Sunbow Phase III DevelopmentQuino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey MapFigure 2Aerial Source: Merkel & Associates Jan. 2020Created on: May 13, 20200300600150FeetVegetation Communitiescoastal and valley freshwater marshsouthern willow scrubmule fat scrubDiegan coastal sage scrubnative grasslandnon-native grasslandnon-native vegetationPotential QCB Host Plant#*Orcutt's Bird's-beak (Dicranostegia orcuttiana)#*Dotseed plantain (Plantago erecta) Orcutt's Bird's-beak (Dicranostegia orcuttiana)Dotseed plantain (Plantago erecta) QCB survey area (75.03 acres)Project Site
QuinoCheckerspotButterflyProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProject6
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
Areasthatweredeterminednottobepotentialquinohabitatandthusexcludedfromthesurvey
areaincludedhabitatssuchassouthernwillowscrubriparian,coastalandvalleyfreshwatermarsh,
nonͲnativevegetation,andtheareasofnonͲnativegrasslandthatwereheavilythatched
predominatelyintheeasternportionoftheprojectsite.Theonsitevegetationcommunitiesin
relationtothesurveyareasareprovidedinFigure2anddescribedbelow.Atotalof75acresof
potentiallysuitablequinohabitatoccurswithinthesurveyareas.
DieganCoastalSageScrub
Diegancoastalsagescrubvegetationisprimarilyfoundinthewesternhalfoftheproperty.Itisalso
foundintheeasternhalfofthepropertytoalesserextentwhereitispredominantlyassociated
withtherestoredslopesofPoggiCreekchannelthatserveasabuffertothewetlandhabitatsthat
werecreatedwiththeSunbowII,PhaseIdevelopment.Inthewesternhalfoftheproperty,Diegan
coastalsagescrubischaracterizedbylargestandsoflemonadeberry(Rhusintegrifolia)mixedwith
lowerͲgrowingshrubssuchascoastalsagebrush(Artemisiacalifornica),flatͲtopbuckwheat
(Eriogonumfasciculatumvar.fasciculatum),Californiaencelia(Enceliacalifornica),SanDiego
viguiera(Bahiopsislaciniata),andbladderpod(Peritomaarborea).Restorationareasalongthe
slopesofPoggiCreekchannelincludeadiversemixofplantedsagescrubshrubsandcactispecies.
NativeGrassland
Nativegrasslandisfoundthroughoutmostofthewesternhalfofthepropertyinmostlyopenareas
adjacenttoDiegancoastalsagescrubvegetation.Itisalsofoundinpatchesalongthebottomof
thenorthͲfacingslopeintheeasternhalfofthepropertywhereitgiveswaytononͲnativegrassland
tothesouthinmoredisturbedsoilsconditions.Claysoilsaccommodatefieldsofpurple
needlegrass(Stipapulchra)aswellasnumerousgeophytesincludingcommongoldenstar
(Bloomeriacrocea),bluedicks(Dichelostemmacapitatumssp.capitatum),andsharpͲtoothed
sanicle(Saniculaarguta).Thetallerraylessgumplant(Grindeliacamporum)andlocallyendemic
Otaytarplant(Deinandraconjugens)arealsoassociatedwiththesegrasslands.NonͲnativeEurasian
grassesincludingripgutgrass(Bromusdiandrus)andsoftchess(Bromushordeaceus)arecommon,
buttypicallycompriselessthan60percentoftheoverallcover.Insomeareas,clumpsofthenonͲ
nativesweetfennel(Foeniculumvulgare)arealsofound.
NonͲnativeGrassland
MuchofthewesternhalfofthepropertyiscomprisedofnonͲnativegrassland.Adenselythatched
coverofnonͲnative,annualgrassspeciesincludingripgutgrass,purpleͲfalsebrome(Brachypodium
distachyon),softchess,wildoat(Avenabarbata),andredbrome(Bromusmadritensisssp.rubens)
dominatetheseareas.NumerousperennialandannualnonͲnativeforbsincludingshortͲpod
mustard(Hirschfeldiaincana),tocalote(Centaureamelitensis),Russianthistle(Salsolatragus),Crete
hedypnois(Hedypnoiscretica),crowndaisy(Glebioniscoronaria),andwildradish(Raphanus
sativus)arefoundthroughoutthishabitatamongstthegrasses.Somenativeannualforbsincluding
silverpuffs(Uropappuslindleyi),Californiacottonrose(Logfiafilaginoides),everlastingbedstraw
(Styloclinegnaphaloides)andtreadlightly(Cardionemaramosissimum)occuroccasionallyinthis
habitat.IndividualandsmallgroupingsoflemonadeberrysurroundedbythatchednonͲnative
grassesarefoundinsomelocationswithinthishabitat.
QuinoCheckerspotButterflyProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProject7
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
QuinoCheckerspotButterfly
Noquinocheckerspotbutterflieswereidentifiedwithinthesurveyareaduringtheprotocol
surveys.Themostcommonbutterfliesobservedthroughoutthesurveyareawerepaintedlady
(Vanessacardui),aniseswallowtail(Papiliozelicaon),whitespeciessuchascheckered(common)
white(Pontiaprotodice)andcabbagewhite(Pierisrapae).Allofthebutterfliesobservedduringthe
surveyarecommonlyfoundthroughoutSanDiegoCounty.Generally,therewasalowabundance
anddiversityofbutterfliesdetectedand/orobservedduringthesurveysonsite.
TwopotentialquinohostplantsweredetectedwithinthesurveyareaandconsistedofdotͲseed
plantain(Plantagoerecta)andOrcutt’sbird’sͲbeak(Dicranostegiaorcuttiana).Hostplantswere
detectedwithintheDiegancoastalsagescrub,nativegrassland,andonlywithintheopenareasof
nonͲnativegrassland,asdepictedinFigure2.HostplantabundanceisdepictedinFigure3andhas
beenclassifiedaslow(1Ͳ100individuals),medium(100Ͳ1,000individuals),andhigh(>1,000
individuals)basedonanestimatedcountobservedbythepermittedbiologistsinthefield.The
heightofthedotͲseedplantainobservedrangedfromapproximately1”to9”withanaverage
heightofapproximately3Ͳ4”.
Thesurveyareasupportedamoderatetohighdiversityandabundanceofpotentialquinonectar
plantsthatincluded(butnotlimitedto):commongoldfields(Lastheniagracilis),bluedicks,
commongoldenstar,longͲstemgoldenͲyarrow(Eriophyllumconfertiflorumvar.confertiflorum),
coastalCaliforniabuckwheat,earlyonion(Alliumpraecox),miniaturelupine(Lupinusbicolor),
westernblueͲeyedgrass(Sisyrinchiumbellum),farinosegroundpink(Linanthusdianthiflorus),silver
puffs,andintermediatesuncup(Camissoniopsiintermedia).
Acompletelistofnectarplantsobservedwithinthesurveyareasduringtheprotocolsurveysis
providedinAttachment1;alistofthebutterfliesobservedduringtheprotocolsurveysisprovided
asAttachment2;andcopiesofthefieldnotesfromthepermittedbiologistswhoconductedthe
protocolsurveysareprovidedinAttachment3.
μM&A #94-021-33Merkel & Associates, Inc.Sunbow Phase III DevelopmentQuino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Map with Potential Host Plant AbundanceFigure 3Aerial Source: Merkel & Associates Jan. 2020Created on: May 15, 20200 200 400 600100FeetHost Plant Abundancelow (1-100 individuals)medium (101-1000 individuals)high (>1000 individuals)QCB survey area (75.03 acres)Project Site
QuinoCheckerspotButterflyProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProject9
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
CONCLUSIONS
Noquinocheckerspotbutterflieswereidentifiedwithinthesurveyareaduringtheprotocol
surveys.
Nootherpertinentobservationspertainingtothequinocheckerspotbutterflywerenotedduring
thesurveyefforts.Duetothelimitednatureoftheworkonthisproject(i.e.,protocol
presence/absencesurveys,notlongͲtermresearch),wehavenoadditionalrecommendationsfor
speciesrecovery.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsconcerningthisreport,pleasedonothesitatetocontactmeat
(gkrantz@merkelinc.com)or(858)560Ͳ5465.
Sincerely,
GinaM.Krantz
SeniorBiologist/LeadFieldBiologist
KeithW.Merkel
PrincipalConsultant
cc:Mr.DavidShepherd,Lennar,David.Shepherd@lennar.com
QuinoCheckerspotButterflyProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProject10
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
REFERENCES
U.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS),CarlsbadFishandWildlifeOffice(CFWO).2014Dec.15.
QuinoCheckerspotButterfly(Euphydryasedithaquino)SurveyGuidelines.8pp.
_____.2020.PhoneconversationsbetweenMerkel&Associates,Inc.PrincipalConsultantKeith
MerkelandEricPorteroftheU.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS)onMarch5,2020and
betweenKeithMerkelandSusanWynnofUSFWSonMarch9,2020regardingM&A’s
requesttostartquinocheckerspotbutterflyprotocolsurveyslaterthanthethirdweekin
FebruaryattheSunbowIIPhaseIIIProjectSite.
QuinoCheckerspotButterflyProtocolSurveys45ͲdayLetterReport
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProject
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
Iherebycertifythatthestatementsfurnishedhereinandintheattachedexhibitspresentthedata
andinformationasrequiredpursuanttoRecoveryPermitTEͲ797999Ͳ8.1,andthatthefacts,
statements,andinformationpresentedaretrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeand
belief.
1)FieldworkPerformedBy:2)FieldworkPerformedBy:
AdamBehle,SeniorBiologistKyleInce,SeniorBiologist
10(a)PermitNumberTEͲ797999Ͳ910(a)PermitNumberTEͲ797999Ͳ9
3)FieldworkPerformedBy:
GinaKrantz,SeniorBiologist
10(a)PermitNumberTEͲ797999Ͳ9
Attachment1
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProject
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
ATTACHMENT1.LISTOFPOTENTIALQUINONECTARRESOURCES
Attachment1
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProjectAͲ1Ͳ1
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
ScientificNameCommonName
DICOTYLEDONS
Adoxaceae–AdoxaFamily
Sambucusnigrasubsp.caeruleablueelderberry
AnacardiaceaeͲSumacFamily
Rhusintegrifolialemonadeberry
ApiaceaeͲCarrotFamily
Apiastrumangustifoliummockparsley
*Apiumgraveolenscelery
*Foeniculumvulgarefennel
SaniculaargutasharpͲtoothsanicle
Saniculabipinnatifidapurplesanicle
AsteraceaeͲSunflowerFamily
Achilleamillefoliumyarrow,milfoil
AmbrosiachenopodiifoliaSanDiegoburͲsage
AmbrosiaconfertifloraweakͲleafburragweed
Ambrosiapsilostachyawesternragweed
ArtemisiacalifornicaCaliforniasagebrush
ArtemisiapalmeriPalmer’ssagewort
Baccharispilulariscoyotebrush,chaparralbroom
Baccharissalicifoliamulefat,seepͲwillow
Baccharissarothroidesbroombaccharis
BahiopsislaciniataSanDiegoCountyviguiera
*CarduuspycnocephalusItalianthistle
*Centaureamelitensis tocalote
CorethrogynefilaginifoliaCaliforniaͲaster,sandͲaster
DeinandraconjugensOtaytarplant
Deinandrafasciculatafascicledtarplant
*Dittrichiagraveolensstinkwort
EnceliacalifornicaCaliforniaencelia
*ErigeronbonariensisflaxͲleaffleabane
Eriophyllumconfertiflorumvar.confertiflorumlongͲstemgoldenͲyarrow
Euthamiaoccidentaliswesterngoldenrod
*Gazanialinearistreasureflower
*Glebioniscoronariagarland,crowndaisy
Grindeliacamporumraylessgumplant
Gutierreziasarothraematchweed
Hazardiasquarrosavar.grindelioidessawͲtoothedgoldenbush
*HedypnoiscreticaCretehedypnois
*HelminthothecaechioidesbristlyoxͲtongue
Attachment1
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProjectAͲ1Ͳ2
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
ScientificNameCommonName
Heterothecagrandifloratelegraphweed
*Hypochaerisglabrasmoothcat’sͲear
Isocomamenziesiivar.decumbensdecumbentgoldenbush
Isocomamenziesiivar.vernonioidescoastalgoldenbush
IvahayesianaSanDiegomarshͲelder
Lastheniagraciliscommongoldfields
LogfiafilaginoidesCaliforniacottonrose
*LogfiagallicanarrowͲleaffilago
*Maticariadescoideapineappleweed
OsmadeniatenellaOsmadenia
Plucheaodoratasaltmarshfleabane
Pseudognaphaliumbiolettiibicolorcudweed
*Sonchusasperssp.asperpricklysowthistle
*Sonchusoleraceuscommonsowthistle
Styloclinegnaphalioideseverlastingneststraw
Uropappuslindleyisilverpuffs
BoraginaceaeͲBorageFamily
Amsinckiaintermediacommonfiddleneck
Cryptanthaintermedianievitascryptantha
CryptanthamicromeresminuteͲfloweredcryptantha
BrassicaceaeͲMustardFamily
*Brassicanigrablackmustard
*HirschfeldiaincanashortͲpodmustard
*Lepidiumdidymumlesserswinecress
*LepidiumlatifoliumbroadͲleafpeppergrass
*Lepidiumvirginicumssp.virginicumVirginiapepperweed
*Nasturtiumofficinalewatercress
*Raphanussativuswildradish
*SisymbriumirioLondonrocket
CactaceaeͲCactusFamily
Cylidropuntiaproliferacoastcholla
Ferocactusviridescenscoastbarrelcactus
CaryophyllaceaeͲPinkFamily
Cardionemaramosissimatreadlightly
*Silenegallicacommoncatchfly
Chenopdiaceae–GoosefootFamily
Atriplexcanescensvar.canescensfourͲwingsaltbush,shadescale
*AtriplexsemibaccataAustraliansaltbush
*ChenopodiummuralenettleͲleafgoosefoot
Attachment1
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProjectAͲ1Ͳ3
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
ScientificNameCommonName
Cleoaceae–SpiderflowerFamily
Peritomaarboreabladderpod
ConvolvulaceaeͲMorningͲGloryFamily
Calystegiamacrostegiassp.cyclostegiacoastmorningͲglory
Calystegiamacrostegiassp.intermediasouthcoastmorningͲglory
*Convolvulusarvensisfieldbindweed
ConvolvulussimulanssmallͲflowerbindweed
CrassulaceaeͲStonecropFamily
Crassulaconnatadwarfstonecrop,pygmyweed
CucurbitaceaeͲGourdFamily
Marahmacrocarpusvar.macrocarpusmanroot,wildͲcucumber
EuphorbiaceaeͲSpurgeFamily
ChamaesycepolycarpasmallͲseedsandmat
Crotonsetigerusdoveweed
FabaceaeͲPeaFamily
*Acaciacyclopscyclopsacacia
Acmisponglabervar.glabercoastaldeerweed
Acmisponmicranthusgrablotus
AmorphafruticosawesternfalseͲindigo
Astragalustrichopodusvar.lonchusoceanlocoweed
Lupinusbicolorminiaturelupine
Lupinussucculentusarroyolupine
*MedicagopolymorphaCaliforniaburclover
*MelilotusindicusIndiansweetclover,sourclover
GeraniaceaeͲGeraniumFamily
*ErodiumbotryslongͲbeakfilaree
*ErodiumcicutariumredͲstemfilaree
*ErodiummoschatumwhiteͲstemfilaree
*GeraniumdissectumcutͲleafgeranium
LamiaceaeͲMintFamily
*Marrubiumvulgarehorehound
Salviaapianawhitesage
Salviamelliferablacksage
ScutellariatuberosaDanny'sskullcap
Attachment1
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProjectAͲ1Ͳ4
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
ScientificNameCommonName
MalvaceaeͲMallowFamily
Malacothamnusfasciculatusmesabushmallow,chaparralmallow
SidalceasparsifoliacheckerͲbloom
Myrsinacea–MyrsineFamily
*Anagallisarvensisscarletpimpernel
MyrtaceaeͲMyrtleFamily
*Eucalyptusglobulusbluegum
*Eucalyptussp.eucalyptus
NyctaginaceaeͲFourͲO’ClockFamily
Mirabilislaevisvar.crassifoliacoastalwishboneplant
OleaceaeͲOliveFamily
*Oleaeuropeamissionolive
OnagraceaeͲEveningͲPrimroseFamily
CamissoniopsisbistortaCaliforniasuncup
Camissoniopsisintermediaintermediatesuncup
Epilobiumciliatumssp.ciliatumwillowherb
OrobanchaceaeͲBroomͲRapeFamily
DicranostegiaorcuttianaOrcutt'sbird'sͲbeak
PlantaginaceaeͲPlantainFamily
Nuttallanthustexanusbluetoadflax
PlantagoerectadotͲseedplantain
PlatanaceaeͲSycamoreFamily
Platanusracemosawesternsycamore
PlumbaginaceaeͲLeadwortFamily
*LimoniumramossimumAlgerianrosemary
PolemoniaceaeͲPhloxFamily
Linanthusdianthiflorusfarinosegroundpink
Navarretiahamatassp.hamatahookedskunkweed
PolygonaceaeͲBuckwheatFamily
Chorizantheprocumbensprostratespineflower
Eriogonumfasciculatumvar.fasciculatumcoastalCaliforniabuckwheat
LastarriaeacoriacealeatherͲspineflower
*Rumexcrispuscurlydock
Attachment1
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProjectAͲ1Ͳ5
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
ScientificNameCommonName
PrimulaceaeͲPrimroseFamily
Dodecatheonclevelandiissp.clevelandiipadre’sshootingstar
RhamnaceaeͲBuckthornFamily
Rhamnuscroceaspinyredberry
RosaceaeͲRoseFamily
Heteromelesarbutifoliatoyon,Christmasberry
RosacalifornicaCaliforniarose
RubusursinusCaliforniablackberry
RubiaceaeͲMadderFamily
Galiumangustifoliumssp.angustifoliumnarrowlyleavedbedstraw
Galiumnuttalliissp.nuttalliiSanDiego/Nuttall’sbedstraw
SalicaceaeͲWillowFamily
SalixexiguanarrowͲleavedwillow
SalixgooddingiiGoodding'sblackwillow
Salixlaevigataredwillow
Salixlasiolepisarroyowillow
SaxifragaceaeͲSaxifrageFamily
Jepsoniaparryicoastjepsonia
SolanaceaeͲNightshadeFamily
Lyciumandersoniiwaterjacket
Lyciumbrevipesvar.brevipescommondesertthorn
*Solanumamericanumwhitenightshade
*Solanumnigrumblacknightshade
TamaricaceaeͲTamariskFamily
*TamarixparviflorasmallͲflower/fourͲpetalEuropean
tamarisk
Verbenaceae–VervainFamily
VerbenamenthifoliamintͲleafvervain
ZygophyllaceaeͲCaltropFamily
FagonialaevisCaliforniafagonbush
Attachment1
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProjectAͲ1Ͳ6
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
ScientificNameCommonName
MONOCOTYLEDONS
Agavaceae–CenturyPlantFamily
ChlorogalumparviflorumsmallͲflowersoapplant
Alliaceae–OnionFamily
Alliumpraecoxearlyonion
ArecaceaeͲPalmFamily
*Washingtoniarobusta Mexicanfanpalm
Asphodelaceae–AsphodelFamily
*Asphodelusfistulosus asphodel
IridaceaeͲIrisFamily
SisyrinchiumbellumwesternblueͲeyedgrass
LiliaceaeͲLilyFamily
Calochortussplendenssplendidmariposa
Melanthiaceae–BunchFlowerorCamasFamly
Toxicoscordionfremontiideathcamas
Themidaceae–BrodiaeaFamily
Bloomeriacroceacommongoldenstar
Brodiaeaterrestrisssp.kernensisdwarfbrodiaea
Dichelostemmacapitatumssp.capitatumbluedicks
MAGNOLIIDSͲPIPERALES
SaururaceaeͲLizardͲtailFamily
Anemopsiscalifornicayerbamansa
*=DenotesnonͲnativefloraspecies
Attachment2
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProject
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
ATTACHMENT2.LISTOFBUTTERFLIESOBSERVEDDURINGPROTOCOLSURVEYS
Attachment2
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProjectAͲ2Ͳ1
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#13Ͳ026Ͳ02
CommonNameScientificName
Papilionidae(Swallowtails)
aniseswallowtailPapiliozelicaon
westerntigerswallowtailPapiliorutulus
paleswallowtailPapilioeurymedon
Pieridae(WhitesandSulfurs
checkered(common)whitePontiaprotodice
cabbagewhitePierisrapae
PacificSaraorangetipAnthocharissarasara
orangesulphurColiaseurytheme
Harford’ssulphurColiasharfordii
unidentifiedwhitesp.
unidentifiedsulphursp.
Lycaenidae(GossamerͲwingButterflies)
grayhairstreakStrymonmelinuspudica
marineblueLeptotesmarina
westerntailedͲblueEveresamyntula
Riodinidae(Metalmarks)
Behr’smetalmarkApodemiamormovirgulti
Nymphalidae(Brushfoots)
mourningcloakNymphalisantiopa
paintedladyVanessacardui
westcoastladyVanessaannabella
commonCaliforniaringletCoenonymphacal.californica
monarchDanausplexippus
commonbuckeyeJunoniacoeniagrisea
Lorquin’sadmiralLimenitislorquini
queenDanausgilippusthersippus
Hesperiidae(Skippers)
funerealduskywingErynnisfuneralis
fieryskipperHylephilaphyleusmuertovalle
Attachment3
SunbowIIPhaseIIIProject
Merkel&Associates,Inc.#94Ͳ021Ͳ34
ATTACHMENT3.FIELDNOTESFORPROTOCOLQUINOSURVEYS
1
From:Gina Krantz
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 1:14 PM
To:Gina Krantz
Subject:RE: Sunbow QCB #3
Sunbow QCB #3
3/17/20
GMK northern portion
Start: 1:00; 40%cc; 60F; 0-1BS
End: 4:45; 10%cc; 62F; 0-1BS
Common ringlet- IIII
(hilltoppping and resting in native grassland n facing slope)
Sara’s OT- III
Painted lady-IIIII
Funereal DW-II
Same flowering nectar plants as last time unless added here: -bladderpod (Isomeris arborea)
-Sanicula sp.
-Astragalus sp. Photo
-Achillea millefolium Photo
-Zaga lily
-Shooting star(Primula clevelandii) closed buds- photo
-Onion weed (Asphodelus fistulosus) photo
0 QCB
Sent from my iPhone
1
From:Matthew Krantz <mattkrantz@me.com>
Sent:Friday, April 17, 2020 3:28 PM
To:Gina Krantz
Subject:Sunbow QCB #5
Sunbow QCB #5
3/24/20 GMK northern portion
Start:1:15; 63F; 0-1BS; 30cc
End: 4:45; 61F; 0-2BS; 35cc
Anise ST I
Monarch I (next to houses west end)
Painted lady IIIII IIIII III
Ca Ringlet II
Funereal DW II
PE 600 2-9” avenza pt.
Same nectar plants as last times, except:
Black sage
Pacific tree frogs up on slope in grassland
0 QCB
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may hav e been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Sent from my iPhone
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
APPENDIX 9. CITY OF CHULA VISTA HABITAT LOSS INCIDENTAL
TAKE DRAFT FINDINGS
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
DRAFT SECTION 17.35.080 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR ISSUANCE OF AN HABITAT LOSS
INCIDENTAL TAKE (HLIT) PERMIT
A. In order to approve or conditionally approve a HLIT permit, all of the following written
findings shall be made by the decision maker:
1. The proposed development in the project area and associated mitigation is 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 CVMC 17.35.100.
The Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Project complies with and is consistent with
the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, the MSCP Implementation Guidelines, and the
development standards as set forth in Section 17.35.100 of Chula Vista Ordinance No.
3004. The project consists of a residential development including a detention basin that is
a MSCP Future Facility as defined in MSCP Section 6.3.3.1 of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan.
The project site is located partially in the City's MSCP mapped 100% Preserve and partially
in the City’s MSCP Development Area, where land development was anticipated at the
time of MSCP adoption.
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.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
The Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Project area is physically suitable for the design and
siting of the proposed project since it is predominately located within the mapped MSCP
Development Area of the City’s Subarea Plan. Site grading and development will result in disturbance
to sensitive biological resources including sensitive species and natural vegetation as defined by the
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The majority of the proposed impacts are located within the onsite
mapped Development Area. The proposed project completely avoids impacts to wetland habitats.
The project is located in the least environmentally sensitive location feasible, primarily within non‐
native grassland that does not support sensitive species. The project has been designed to minimize
and/or avoid impacts to sensitive biological resources to the maximum extent practicable. The
following list details the sensitive habitats and sensitive species (federally and/or state listed, Narrow
Endemic, and/or Covered Species only) that would potentially result in significant direct impacts by
the proiect:
• 7.79 acres of native grassland (temporary and permanent impacts)
8.55 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (temporary and permanent impacts)
55.61 acres of non‐native grassland (temporary and permanent impacts)
coastal California gnatcatcher
• 2.6 percent of Otay tarplant onsite population (within Preserve)
12.7 percent of Otay tarplant onsite population (within Development Area)
• 61 acres of potential raptor foraging habitat
• Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak
Decumbent goldenbush
San Diego viguiera
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.
The Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Project has been conditioned to require habitat‐based
mitigation, species‐specific mitigation, and/or avoidance, to the extent feasible, of sensitive biological
resources including sensitive species and habitats related to and calculated to alleviate negative impacts
created by the project.
The following project mitigation measures are required as conditions of the HLIT permit:
MM‐BIO‐1 The Applicant shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication (IOD) to the City of Chula Vista
on the first final map for 62.16 acres of onsite Preserve land within Preserve Management
Area 3, Subunits 3‐1a, 3‐1b, and 3‐1c of the Chula Vista Central City Preserve lands. The
MSCP Preserve land shall be conserved, maintained, and managed by the City of Chula Vista
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
or its designee in perpetuity as directed in the Chula Vista Central City Preserve Area‐
Specific Management Directives (ASMDs) for Preserve Management Area 3 (PMA 3) (RECON
Environmental, April 26, 2004) and funded by the Sunbow Preserve Community Facilities
District (No. 98‐3). The City of Chula Vista Preserve Habitat Manager shall be responsible for
the long‐term Preserve management activities identified in the Central City Preserve ASMD.
Said IOD for the 62.16 acres Proposed MSCP Preserve shall include 48.95 acres to mitigate
for significant habitat impacts to 7.79 acres of native grassland, 8.55 acres of Diegan coastal
sage scrub, and 55.61 acres of non‐native grassland as well as the following sensitive species
significant impacts:
Coastal California Gnatcatcher‐ occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub to
mitigate for significant direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher
occupied habitat;
Otay Tarplant‐ 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant occupied habitat (i.e.,native
grassland) to mitigate for direct impacts to 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant
occupied habitat that currently supports 836 Otay tarplant individual plants;
Orcutt’s Bird’s‐beak‐ Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage
scrub) to mitigate for significant direct impacts to onsite Diegan coastal sage
scrub that currently supports 91 Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak individual plants;
Decumbent Goldenbush‐ Decumbent goldenbush habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal
sage scrub and native grassland), that includes at least 289 decumbent
goldenbush individual plants) to mitigate for significant direct impacts to
onsite native grassland and Diegan coastal sage scrub that currently
supports 289 decumbent goldenbush individual plants; and
San Diego Viguiera‐ San Diego viguiera habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage
scrub) that includes at least 2,979 San Diego viguiera individual plants) to
mitigate for significant direct impacts to onsite Diegan coastal sage scrub
that currently supports 5,958 San Diego viguiera individual plants.
MM‐BIO‐2 Prior to initiation of construction related activities including clearing and grubbing or prior
to vegetation/ground disturbance or prior to site mobilization activities or issuance of a
grading permit, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City demonstrating that
the Applicant has contracted with a qualified biologist(s) to monitor the project construction
activities and avoid any inadvertent impacts to sensitive biological and ensure complete
avoidance of jurisdictional resources. Each qualified biologist shall have demonstrated
expertise with the sensitive habitats, special status species of the project region. The
qualified biologist(s) shall monitor the installation of the construction temporary fencing
and/or flagging, silt fencing, and other best management practices (BMPs) along the
construction limits prior to construction activities. The qualified biologist shall be present
full‐time during all initial vegetation clearing and grubbing activities, and potentially on a
less frequent basis during grading activities to ensure construction remains within the
approved project development area. The Applicant shall report results of biological
monitoring activities to the City on a regular basis through the preparation and submission
of summary monitoring reports.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
MM‐BIO‐3 Prior to the issuance of any land development permits including for clearing and grubbing or
grading, the Applicant shall prepare a Restoration Plan prepared by a qualified biologist to
mitigate for impacts to sensitive plant species consisting of Otay tarplant, Orcutt’s bird’s‐
beak, decumbent goldenbush, and San Diego County viguiera consistent with the
conceptual Restoration Plan (Merkel & Associates, Inc. February 2021). The Applicant shall
implement the 5‐year maintenance and monitoring activities consistent with the Conceptual
Restoration Plan to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their
designee). The revegetation plan must be prepared by a qualified City approved biologist
familiar with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and must include, but not be limited to, an
implementation plan; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation method;
quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting
program; estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The Project Applicant
shall be required to prepare and implement the revegetation plan subject to the oversight
and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee). NOTE: Since the
revegetation is critical to approving the MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment, the applicant will
be required to enter into a Secured Agreement with the City and will be required to provide
a cash deposit.
MM‐BIO‐4 To avoid any direct impacts to nesting coastal California gnatcatcher, all vegetation clearing,
grubbing and grading activities within gnatcatcher occupied habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal
sage scrub) shall be conducted outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 to
August 15).
MM‐BIO‐5 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or
grading permit, the Applicant shall delineate coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat
located adjacent to the proposed project development area during the breeding season
(February 15 to August 15) by orange biological fencing or comparable materials to ensure
that no work shall occur within these habitats. In addition, a minimum 300‐foot buffer and
on‐site noise reduction/attenuation techniques shall be incorporated, as appropriate to
avoid impacts to breeding gnatcatcher from elevated construction noise levels. The City
Development Services Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to modify the
buffer width depending on site‐specific conditions. Noise monitoring may be required to
ensure that the elevated construction noise levels are appropriately attenuated at the edge
of occupied habitat to a level that is not expected to adversely affect nesting bird behavior
(i.e., not to exceed an hourly average of 60 A‐weighted decibels (dBA) or ambient at the
edge of occupied habitat).
MM‐BIO‐6 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or
grading permit, the Applicant shall delineate least Bell’s vireo occupied habitat by orange
biological fencing or comparable to avoid direct impact to vireo within occupied habitat
located adjacent to the proposed project during the breeding season (March 15 to
September 15). In addition, a minimum 300‐foot buffer and on‐site noise
reduction/attenuation techniques shall be incorporated, as appropriate to avoid impacts to
breeding vireo from elevated construction noise levels. The City Development Services
Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to modify the buffer width depending
on site‐specific conditions. Noise monitoring may be required to ensure that the elevated
construction noise levels are appropriately attenuated at the edge of occupied habitat to a
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
construction noise levels are appropriately attenuated at the edge of occupied habitat to a
level that is not expected to adversely affect nesting bird behavior (i.e., not to exceed an
hourly average of 60 dBA or ambient at the edge of occupied habitat).
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
MM‐BIO‐7 To avoid any direct impacts to migratory birds and/or raptors protected under the
federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503
and 3513, removal of habitat that supports active nests on the proposed area of
disturbance should occur outside of the breeding season for these species. The
breeding season is defined as January 15–August 31 for raptor species and February
15–August 15 for other non‐raptor birds (excluding listed species). If removal of
habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season,
then prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a City‐approved biologist to
conduct a pre‐construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting
birds on the proposed area of disturbance. The pre‐construction survey must be
conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction, and the results
must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any
construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation
plan, as deemed appropriate by the City, shall be prepared and include proposed
measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities are
avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City. The City’s mitigation
monitor shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or
mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction.
.
MM‐BIO‐8 Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape
Master Plan for the entire project which shall demonstrate compliance with the
proposed fence and wall plan for the project. The proposed fence and wall plan shall
include appropriate fencing and barriers (e.g., vegetation) where applicable to shield
human presence and deter human intrusion into the Preserve.
MM‐BIO‐9 Concurrent with design review and prior to issuance of a building permit for any
development located adjacent to the Preserve, the Applicant shall prepare, a
lighting plan and photometric analysis for review and approval the Development
Services Director (or their designee). The lighting plan shall illustrate the location of
the proposed lighting standards and type of shielding measures. Low‐pressure
sodium lighting shall be used, if feasible, and shall be subject to the approval of the
Development Services Director (or their designee).
MM‐BIO‐10 Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape
Master Plan for the entire project which shall demonstrate compliance with the
proposed plant palette for the project. The proposed plant palette shall prohibit
invasive non‐native plant species on the California Exotic Pest Plant Council List of
Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California that could spread into
the adjacent Preserve. No invasive non‐native plant species shall be introduced into
areas immediately adjacent to the preserve. All slopes immediately adjacent to the
Preserve shall be planted with native species that reflect the adjacent native habitat.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
Further, the proposed plant palette shall be consistent with the plant list contained
in the “Wildland/Urban Interface: Fuel Modification Standards,” and provided as
Appendix L of the Subarea Plan, must be reviewed and utilized to the maximum
extent practicable when developing landscaping plans in areas adjacent to the
Preserve.
MM‐BIO‐11 To avoid habitat degradation to the adjacent Preserve lands, project irrigation shall
be contained to the project development and fuel modification zones and shall not
drain or overspray resulting in potential erosion/sedimentation, spread of invasive
plant species, and/or non‐native species such as Argentine ants.
MM‐BIO‐12 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate how the project would
avoid or minimize applicable inadvertent impacts during construction. To ensure the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to biological resources during construction
the following construction BMPs shall be implemented:
h) Prior to ground disturbance, all permanent and temporary disturbance areas
shall be clearly delineated by orange construction fencing and the identification
of environmentally sensitive areas with flagging and/or fencing.
i) To minimize disturbance of areas outside the project site, all construction and
operation vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction
areas, and other designated areas. These areas shall be included in
pre‐construction surveys and, to the extent possible, shall be established in
locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent further impacts.
j) Construction and operation vehicles shall observe appropriate safe speed limits
and adhere to safety practices.
k) Dust suppression shall occur during construction activities when necessary to
meet air quality standards and protect biological resources.
l) No vehicles or equipment shall be refueled or undergo maintenance within 100
feet of a jurisdictional waters feature. Spill kits shall be maintained on the site in
sufficient quantity to accommodate at least three complete vehicle tank failures
of 50 gallons each. Any vehicles driven or operated within or adjacent to
drainages or wetlands shall be checked and maintained daily to prevent leaks of
contaminated fluids.
m) All general trash, food‐related trash items (wrappers, cans, bottles, food scraps,
cigarettes, etc.), and other human‐generated debris scheduled to be removed
shall be stored in animal‐proof containers and removed from the site on a
regular basis (weekly during construction, and at least monthly during
operations). No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be allowed.
n) Use of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, or biocides shall comply with all local, state,
and federal regulations. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and
other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other state and federal
legislation. Use of first‐and second‐ generation rodenticides shall not be
permitted except for the limited use of zinc phosphide, or a rodenticide
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
approved by the City, and only after other means of pest control (e.g. rodent
traps) have proven to be ineffective.
MM‐BIO‐13 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, prior to vegetation clearing, grubbing, grading,
or any ground disturbing activities, the Applicant shall submit evidence to the City
that the Applicant has retained qualified biologists to prepare a Worker
Environmental Awareness Program that shall be presented to all construction
personnel and employees before any ground‐disturbing activities commence at the
project site and shall be continued through the construction phase for all new
construction personnel. The program shall consist of a brief presentation going over
the on‐site sensitive biological resources and compliance with project impact and
open space boundaries, and applicable environmental laws and requirements with
all personnel involved in the project. This presentation shall explain to construction
personnel how best to avoid impacts sensitive resources during construction. The
program shall include a description of all special status species potentially on the
project site and their habitat needs; an explanation of the status of the species and
their protection under the state and federal regulations; specific mitigation
measures applicable to listed and other special status species; permit conditions,
and the penalties for violation of applicable laws. The program shall also explain to
construction personnel how to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters, including
wetlands. The program shall include a map and description of jurisdictional waters
on the site to be avoided and measures to implement to ensure the protection and
avoidance of jurisdictional waters.
MM‐BIO‐14 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a revegetation plan for the
temporary impact areas within the 25‐foot grading buffer in the Minor Amendment
Area that utilizes a native erosion control hydroseed mix acceptable to the City and
the Wildlife Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of
Fish and Wildlife) to ensure soil stability and prevent subsequent erosion. The
revegetation plan must be prepared by a qualified City approved biologist familiar
with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and must include, but not be limited to, an
implementation plan; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation
method; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and
reporting program; estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The
Project Applicant shall be required to prepare and implement the revegetation plan
subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their
designee).
MM‐BIO‐15 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and
Wildlife Agencies for the MSCP BLA. The Applicant shall be required to implement
conditions associated with the BLA subject to the oversight and approval of the
Development Services Director (or their designee).
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
MM‐BIO‐16 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and
Wildlife Agencies for the MSCP Minor Amendment. The Applicant shall be required
to implement conditions associated with the Minor Amendment subject to the
oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee).
The following specific project mitigation measures with respect to wetlands are required as a
condition of the HLIT permit:
The proposed project would completely avoid wetland impacts and thus would not require
compensatory wetland habitat mitigation.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
B. In order to approve or conditionally approve an HLIT permit where the project area contains
narrow endemic species, all of the following additional written findings shall be made by the
decision maker:
1. Narrow endemic species’ populations within the project area have been avoided or total
avoidance is infeasible.
Total avoidance of Otay tarplant, the only narrow endemic within the proposed project site, is
infeasible.
2. If impacts to narrow endemic species have not been avoided, one of the following findings
shall be made:
a. In cases where impacts to covered narrow endemic species’ populations within the
project area have been limited to five percent in 100 percent conservation areas, and 20
percent in 75 to 100 percent conservation areas and development areas outside of
covered projects, the proposed project design, including mitigation, will result in
conservation of the species that is functionally equivalent to its status without the
project, including species numbers and area, and must ensure adequate preserve design
to protect the species in the long‐term; or
b. In cases where the five percent or 20 percent narrow endemic species impact threshold
has been exceeded, the proposed project design, including mitigation, results in a
preserve design for the narrow endemic species population within the project area that is
biologically superior to the preserve design that would occur if the impact had been
limited to five percent in 100 percent conservation areas or 20 percent in 75 to 100
percent conservation areas and development areas outside of covered projects.
The proposed project would limit impacts to the onsite population of Otay tarplant
(narrow endemic) to less than five percent in 100 percent conservation areas and less
than 20 percent in development areas outside covered projects; therefore, the project
design, including mitigation, will result in conservation of the species that is functionally
equivalent to its status without the project, including species numbers and area, and
must ensure adequate preserve design to protect the species in the long‐term.
C. In order to approve or conditionally approve an HLIT permit where the project area contains
wetlands, all of the following additional written findings shall be made by the decision maker:
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
1. Prior to 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.
No applicable state and federal permits such as wetland regulatory permits are expected to
be necessary for this project.
2. Where impacts are proposed to wetlands the following findings shall be made:
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; and
The project shall completely avoid wetland impacts.
b. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands have been mitigated pursuant to CVMC17.35.110.
(Ord. 3004 § 1, 2005).
Not applicable. The project shall completely avoid wetland impacts.