HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 4a - D2 Functional Equivalency Analysis for MSCP Boundary Line AdjustmentM&A #94‐021‐33
SUNBOW II PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS FOR A
MSCP BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND
FACILITIES SITING CRITERIA REPORT
Revised February 2021
December 2020
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: Gina Krantz
Phone: (858) 560‐5465
Fax: (858) 560‐7779
E‐mail: gkrantz@merkelinc.com
Gina Krantz, Senior Biologist
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 .....................................................................................................................................................2
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................4
City of Chula Vista MSCP........................................................................................................................................5
METHODS.......................................................................................................................................................... 8
LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................................................................8
SURVEY DATES, TIMES, AND CONDITIONS ...........................................................................................................................8
GENERAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................10
PROTOCOL QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY SURVEYS ........................................................................................................11
PROTOCOL CALIFORNIA COASTAL GNATCATCHER SURVEYS ...................................................................................................11
RARE PLANT SURVEYS....................................................................................................................................................12
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELINEATION ..........................................................................................................................12
Wetland Parameters............................................................................................................................................13
Hydrophytic Vegetation...................................................................................................................................13
Hydric Soils.......................................................................................................................................................14
Wetland Hydrology..........................................................................................................................................14
Jurisdiction of Wetlands and Waterways ............................................................................................................14
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers..........................................................................................................................14
California State Water Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board..............................15
California Department of Fish and Wildlife.....................................................................................................15
City of Chula Vista............................................................................................................................................16
Wetland Functions and Values............................................................................................................................16
GENERAL SURVEY LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................16
RESULTS............................................................................................................................................................18
REGIONAL CONTEXT AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ..........................................................................................................18
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................18
Habitat/Vegetation Community Types................................................................................................................20
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub...............................................................................................................................20
Native Grassland..............................................................................................................................................21
Non‐native Grassland ......................................................................................................................................21
Non‐native Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................21
Southern Willow Scrub....................................................................................................................................22
Mule fat Scrub .................................................................................................................................................22
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh.............................................................................................................22
Zoological Resources............................................................................................................................................22
Butterflies........................................................................................................................................................22
Amphibians......................................................................................................................................................23
Reptiles............................................................................................................................................................23
Birds.................................................................................................................................................................23
Mammals.........................................................................................................................................................24
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND NON‐WETLANDS RESOURCES .............................................................................................25
Southern Willow Scrub.........................................................................................................................................27
Mule Fat Scrub.....................................................................................................................................................27
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh.................................................................................................................27
NWW/Streambeds...............................................................................................................................................27
Functions and Values of Jurisdictional Resources...........................................................................................28
RARE, THREATENED, ENDANGERED, ENDEMIC AND/OR SENSITIVE OR MSCP‐COVERED SPECIES .................................................28
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 ii
Sensitive Flora......................................................................................................................................................28
Other Potentially Occurring Sensitive Flora.....................................................................................................29
Sensitive Fauna....................................................................................................................................................29
Least Bell’s Vireo..............................................................................................................................................30
Coastal California Gnatcatcher........................................................................................................................30
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly..........................................................................................................................31
Other Potentially Occurring Sensitive Fauna...................................................................................................31
Nesting Sensitive Raptor Species.................................................................................................................31
Wildlife Corridors and Connectivity .....................................................................................................................32
MSCP PRESERVE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND FINDINGS .......................................................................33
PRESERVE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................34
APPLICABLE BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCY ...........................................................................................................34
Effects on significantly and sufficiently conserved habitats ............................................................................34
Effects on preserve configuration and management......................................................................................38
Effects on ecotones or other conditions affecting species diversity...............................................................38
Effects to species of concerns not on the covered species list........................................................................40
Effects to covered species ...............................................................................................................................40
Effects on habitat linkages and function of preserve areas.............................................................................41
FACILITIES SITING CRITERIA...............................................................................................................................42
100% Preserve Compatible and Conditionally Compatible Uses .........................................................................42
Narrow Endemic Policy and Wetland Protection Program..............................................................................53
Wetlands Protection Program.........................................................................................................................53
LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................................54
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Survey Dates, Times, Conditions, and Staff................................................................................8
Table 2. Habitats/Vegetation Communities within Project Study Area......................................................................20
Table 3. Summary of Jurisdictional Resources Present Within the Project Site.........................................................25
Table 4. Sensitive Plants Inside and Outside Preserve Boundaries............................................................................29
Table 5. Sensitive Animals Located Inside and Outside Preserve Boundaries............................................................30
Table 6. City of Chula Vista MSCP Preserve Boundary Line Adjustment Habitats and Acreages................................37
Table 7. Cumulative Impacts to Covered Habitat from Future Facilities within City of Chula Vista............................42
Table 8. MSCP Future Facilities Siting Criteria Project Assessment............................................................................44
Table 9. Narrow Endemic Policy‐ Estimated Otay Tarplant Impact Assessment........................................................53
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................................................3
Figure 2. Environmental Setting/MSCP Map................................................................................................................7
Figure 3. Vegetation Communities/Biological Resources Map ..................................................................................19
Figure 4. Jurisdictional Resources Map......................................................................................................................26
Figure 5. Proposed Project Impacts............................................................................................................................35
Figure 6. Proposed MSCP BLA ....................................................................................................................................36
Figure 7. Proposed Habitat Restoration.....................................................................................................................39
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Sunbow II USFWS 1995 Biological Opinion
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
FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS FOR A MSCP BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND
FACILITIES SITING CRITERIA
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
Revised February 2021
December 2020
INTRODUCTION
Merkel & Associates, Inc. (M&A) has prepared this Functional Equivalency Analysis report for MSCP
Boundary Line Adjustment and Facilities Siting Criteria for the proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment Project (project). The purpose of this report is to
demonstrate how the proposed MSCP Preserve Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) within the project
property would result in equal or higher biological value as compared to the existing Preserve in
accordance with meeting the six BLA functional equivalency criteria, as provided in the Regional
MSCP Plan (August 1998). 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 was 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. Due to this conflict between the currently
proposed development boundaries and the mapped MSCP 100% Preserve onsite prior to project
development plan finalization, the project proposes a MSCP Preserve BLA.
Further, the proposed project includes a MSCP Future Facility (i.e., detention basin) that would be
located partially in the existing 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. The proposed development of the Future Facility would result in unavoidable
permanent impacts to a portion of the existing Preserve onsite. Chapter 6.0 of the MSCP Subarea
Plan identifies permitted uses including Future Facilities within the Preserve. Future Facilities are
subject to the MSCP Facilities Siting Criteria which ensures that the facilities located within the
Preserve have been sited within the least environmentally sensitive areas and that impacts to the
Preserve have been minimized to the maximum extent practical. This document provides a
discussion and rationale for the proposed location of this facility as well as the required
compensation for applicable impacts to narrow endemic species per the MSCP Subarea Plan.
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,
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 2
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 16.5 acres of manufactured slopes/basins/wetland resources and associated
buffer area. 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
project area. 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.
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.
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; unrecorded conservation
easement for Olympic Parkway). 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
onsite 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 at the time of MSCP adoption
(See Figure 6). None of the conservation easement areas are proposed as Give to the Preserve in
the proposed BLA.
µ
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
M&A #94-021-33
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 4
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.
• #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 candidates 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
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 5
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). 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.
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
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
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 6
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 had 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 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.
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
through a biological functional equivalency analysis that the proposed adjustment to the proposed
Preserve boundary would result in the same or higher biological value of the present preserve
boundary. The project proposes an MSCP Preserve BLA as discussed further below.
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 8
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 2019a);
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 2020a, 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 including 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 9
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 10
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‐
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 of 1.66‐acre
area of 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 et al. (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,
or by detection of sign (e.g., burrows, tracks, scat, etc.). In addition, directed searches for sensitive
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 11
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 12
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 any other 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 13
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 2008a, 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 14
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
2008a, 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 2008a, 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 15
“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 16
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 17
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 18
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 in the Biological Report dated February 2021.
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
#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 20
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 21
Native Grassland
Native grassland is found throughout most of the eastern 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 22
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 23
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 24
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
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 25
nests were detected, images of what is believed to be this species were captured by a motion
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 4 and 5, respectively in the Biological Report dated February
2021.
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
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(!(
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
!(
!(
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 27
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
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 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.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 28
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
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) (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 previous year’s growth 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
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 29
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). The following table identifies sensitive
plant species detected on‐site and their location relative to preserve boundaries.
Table 4. Sensitive Plants 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 of the Biological Report dated February 2021.
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
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 30
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);
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 Animals Located 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
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 31
sage scrub that is located in the southeastern corner of the project site and extends offsite (Figure
3). The habitat quality in these areas is moderate to high quality 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 2021, Appendix 7), 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 of M&A biological report). 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 (M&A
2021, 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 of the project biological report (M&A 2021).
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 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 of the project biological report (M&A 2021).
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 32
Although no nesting sensitive raptor species are expected to occur onsite, the project site does
support potential foraging habitat for raptors including sensitive raptor species as discussed in
above sections. 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 MSCP 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. Project compliance with the MBTA and CFG Code is
provided in the project biological report.
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 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 III 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 33
MSCP PRESERVE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND FINDINGS
Although the original Sunbow II project and the currently proposed Sunbow project are not MSCP
Covered Projects, the western half and northern portions of the project property had been placed
in the City MSCP 100% Preserve when the MSCP Subarea Plan was adopted in 2003. The proposed
project includes a MSCP Preserve BLA to adjust the existing 100% Preserve boundary in areas onsite
that overlap with the currently proposed project development footprint. The following definitions
apply to the proposed MSCP BLA:
Proposed MSCP Take Areas are those proposed permanent impact areas that would
encroach into the existing Preserve onsite. In addition, there are three smaller distinct
areas of proposed Take from temporary construction impacts that encroach into the
existing Preserve where native habitat restoration is proposed. These three Take areas
are surrounded and contiguous with the existing Preserve and proposed Give‐habitat
restoration areas that will be included in the Preserve and as such after habitat
restoration is complete would provide a biological function to the ultimate Preserve,
despite being a Take in this proposed BLA;
Proposed MSCP Give Areas are those areas onsite that are currently outside the
Preserve and are proposed to be added to the Preserve. The proposed Give areas are
located generally along Poggi Creek and adjacent areas that support sensitive plant
species as well as the 4.53‐acre proposed habitat restoration area in the northeastern
portion of the site;
Existing Conservation Easements (one recorded easement, one unrecorded easement)
are located onsite generally along Poggi Creek. As described in the project description,
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 onsite 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 at the time of
MSCP adoption. These conservation easements are not a part of the proposed MSCP
BLA;
MSCP Future Facility‐Preserve Allowed Uses. Future Facilities are identified in the MSCP
Subarea Plan as a Conditional Compatible Use. 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 MSCP. The
proposed Future Facility‐Detention Basin (1.12 acres) partially overlaps with an area of
the existing 100% Preserve onsite as shown in Figure 6; and
MSCP Proposed Preserve‐ Habitat Restoration (4.53 acres) is the area onsite that is
located outside of the existing Preserve that supports non‐native grassland and no
sensitive species where native habitat and sensitive plant species restoration would be
implemented, and this area would be added to the Preserve.
The following findings are provided to describe how the proposed Sunbow Preserve BLA would
ensure that the biological functions and values within the City MSCP Preserve, as intended and
described in the City MSCP Subarea Plan, would be maintained or improved.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 34
PRESERVE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Preserve BLA would modify the existing Preserve boundary predominately in two
distinct areas to accommodate the proposed project development footprint on either side of the
main access road where these areas are different from the mapped MSCP Development Areas
onsite (Figures 5 and 6). The proposed Preserve BLA provided as Give and Take areas is depicted in
Figure 6.
APPLICABLE BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCY
As a part of the MSCP BLA process, the project would need to propose a potentially suitable area(s)
currently located outside of the MSCP 100% Preserve to “Give” to the Preserve of equal size to the
portion of land that would “Take” from the Preserve (1:1 acreage ratio). In addition, a proposed
Preserve BLA would need to result in equal or higher biological value as compared to the existing
Preserve in accordance with meeting the six MHPA BLA functional equivalency criteria, as provided
in the Regional MSCP Plan (August 1998). These six criteria consist of: 1) effects on significantly and
sufficiently conserved habitats; 2) effects to covered species; 3) effects on habitat linkages and
function of preserve areas; 4) effects on preserve configuration and management; 5) effects on
ecotones of other conditions affecting species diversity; and 6) effects to species of concern not on
the covered species list. As defined in the City’s Subarea Plan, biological functional equivalency is “a
modification to a Preserve boundary which results in a Preserve configuration with a biological
value that is equal to or higher than the original Preserve configuration. The comparison of
biological value is based on the “like or equivalent” exchange concept for biological factors
identified in Section 5.4.2 of the MSCP Subregional Plan.” The determination of biological value of
the proposed MSCP Preserve BLA is made by the City of Chula Vista as the local jurisdiction and
must have the concurrence of the wildlife agencies (i.e., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serve, California
Department of Fish and Wildlife). Each of the six equivalency criteria are assessed below for the
proposed project BLA and depicted in Figure 6 and summarized in Table 6.
Effects on significantly and sufficiently conserved habitats
The MSCP Sub‐regional Plan Section 4.2.4 identifies significantly and sufficiently conserved habitats.
The applicable project site habitats that are considered significantly and/or sufficiently conserved
include Diegan coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, and freshwater marsh. The proposed project
MSCP BLA as summarized in Table 6 would result in a higher acreage of conservation of riparian
habitat (i.e., southern willow scrub), and freshwater marsh (i.e., coastal and valley freshwater
marsh) through onsite preservation in the proposed Give; and equal conservation for Diegan coastal
sage scrub through onsite preservation of Diegan coastal sage scrub within the proposed Give and
habitat restoration of non‐native grassland restored to Diegan coastal sage scrub within additional
areas of proposed Give (Figures 6 and 7). It is estimated that 2.91 acres out of the total 4.53 acres
of habitat restoration areas includes proposed manufactured that would be restored to support
Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. It is expected that the proposed BLA exchange would maintain
the conservation acreage and status of these significantly and sufficiently conserved habitats.
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
#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
µ
M&A #94-021-33
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA AmendmentMSCP Preserve BLA Map Figure 6
Aerial Source: Merkel & Associates Jan. 2020 Created on: September 18, 2020
0 300 600150
Feet
OLYMPIC PKWY
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 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
,
,
,
,
,
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
DetentionBasin
Other
MSCP City of Chula Vista 100% Preserve
MSCP Minor Amendment Area
MSCP County of San Diego Take Authorized Area
Project Site
Proposed MSCP Take Area (Hunsaker September 2020)
Proposed MSCP Give Area (Hunsaker September 2020)
Conservation Easements (Hunsaker September 2020)
Future Facility- Preserve Allowed Use (Hunsaker September 2020)
MSCP Proposed Preserve Habitat Restoration
Mapping Correction
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 37
Table 6. City of Chula Vista MSCP Preserve Boundary Line Adjustment Habitats and Acreages
*Proposed habitat restoration (4.53 acres) from non‐native grassland to native grassland and Diegan coastal sage
scrub within Give areas located in the eastern portion of the site. A portion of these habitat restoration areas (2.91
acres) are located within proposed manufactured slopes.
**Proposed habitat restoration within 3 distinct areas of Take from temporary impacts that encroach into the
existing Preserve.
City of Chula MSCP Preserve BLA
Existing Proposed
Habitat Type/
Biological
Resources
MSCP
Tier
Habitat
Type
Total
Onsite
(acres)
100%
Preserve
(acres)
Develop‐
ment
Area
(acres)
Proposed
100%
Preserve
Addition/
Give
(acres)
Proposed
100%
Preserve
Removal/
Take
(acres)
Net
Change
to 100%
Preserve
(acres)
Southern Willow
Scrub Wetland 2.06 1.14 0.92 0.22 0.00 +0.22
Mule fat Scrub Wetland 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coastal and Valley
Freshwater Marsh Wetland 7.66 6.31 1.35 0.24 0.00 +0.24
Native Grassland I 24.09 19.38 4.71 0.37 3.40 ‐3.03
Diegan Coastal
Sage Scrub II 37.08 24.46 12.62 0.91
1.48 and
0.04
Habitat
Restoration
**
‐0.61
Non‐native
Grassland III 64.19 10.31 53.88
0.46 and
4.53 Habitat
Restoration*
1.65 and
0.11
Habitat
Restoration
**
+3.23
Non‐native
Vegetation IV 0.53 0.44 0.09 0.04 0.00 +0.04
Urban/Developed n/a 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL: 135.70 62.07 73.63 6.77 6.68 +0.09
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 38
As a note, the proposed habitat restoration on manufactured slopes is not proposed within the
existing Preserve but rather is currently located entirely outside the Preserve and proposed to Give
to the existing Preserve through this BLA. Manufactured slopes and other modifications of lands to
support native restoration and ultimately achieve success criteria and agency sign off occurs
throughout the region as acceptable mitigation and subsequently added to the Preserve. For
example, the Poggi Creek and slope creation and native habitat restoration effort onsite for the
original Sunbow II project includes manufactured slopes on the south side of Poggi Creek where
native habitat restoration including rare plants was successfully achieved in the late 1990’s and
subsequently included in the 2003 City 100% Preserve.
Effects on preserve configuration and management
The proposed project MSCP BLA as shown in Figure 6 and summarized in Table 6 would result in an
equal to or greater Preserve conservation corridor and configuration as compared to the existing
Preserve. The proposed MSCP Preserve BLA includes the addition of a wider conservation corridor
along the easternmost portion of Poggi Creek, a slight reduction of the Preserve conservation
corridor along the central reach of Poggi Creek, and an addition to the Preserve located just west of
the main access entry that includes a portion of Poggi Creek itself as well as the adjacent upland
habitat that supports sensitive species to the south resulting in an equal to or greater Preserve
configuration. Further, the proposed BLA includes smaller areas along the Poggi Creek habitat
corridor to fill in gaps of Preserve where they had not been included in the Preserve configuration in
the 2003 City Subarea Plan. In addition, the proposed BLA would reduce the Preserve along the
southeastern extent of the existing Preserve that connects with offsite MSCP Minor Amendment
Area to the south but is generally consistent with the onsite Preserve boundary geometry. As
mentioned above, there are three distinct areas of proposed Take from temporary construction
impacts that encroach into the existing Preserve where native habitat restoration is proposed
(Table 6, Figure 6). These three Take areas are surrounded and contiguous with the existing
Preserve and proposed Give‐habitat restoration areas that will be included in the Preserve and as
such after habitat restoration is complete would provide a biological function to the ultimate
Preserve, despite being a Take in this proposed BLA. It is expected that the proposed BLA exchange
would maintain the Preserve general configuration and management as intended and provided in
the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan.
Effects on ecotones or other conditions affecting species diversity
The proposed project MSCP BLA would generally result in an equal or greater ecotone condition
considering the wider habitat buffer between Poggi Creek and the proposed development area in
the eastern half of the project site, the proposed addition of smaller areas to fill in the gaps of the
existing Preserve, as well as the reduction of edge in the proposed Preserve in the location where
the proposed western main access bisects the existing Preserve, as shown in Figure 6. In addition,
the project proposes native habitat restoration in a majority of the Give areas that currently
supports non‐native grassland in the vicinity of the eastern access road. These habitat restoration
areas are expected to improve the habitat quality, species diversity, and overall biological function
within the ecotones located between the proposed development and the proposed Preserve
including Poggi Creek.
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
#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 #94-021-33
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA AmendmentProposed Habitat Mitigation-MSCP Preserve Map Figure 7
Aerial Source: Merkel & Associates Jan. 2020 Created on: September 28, 2020
0 300 600150
Feet
OLYMPIC PKWY
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
,
,
,
,
,
DetentionBasin
Other
MSCP Minor Amendment Area
MSCP County of San Diego Take Authorized Area
MSCP Proposed Preserve Habitat Restoration
50ft Offsite Mapping Buffer
Project Site
MSCP City of Chula Vista 100% Preserve
Site Plans - September 2020 Hunsaker
MSCP Proposed Preserve (Hunsaker September 2020)
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 40
Effects to species of concerns not on the covered species list
The proposed project MSCP BLA would result in an equal to greater Preserve that would include
native grassland and Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat restoration within the proposed Give
Preserve areas. The proposed Preserve BLA would benefit Covered Species as well as other
sensitive species that are not covered under the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan such as decumbent
goldenbush, San Diego viguiera, San Diego marsh elder, southwestern spiny rush, and potentially
grasshopper sparrow (not currently present but may potentially in future) within the Give areas
including the proposed habitat restoration areas that are contiguous with existing Preserve that
supports native habitat within a widened conservation buffer along Poggi Creek. These non‐
covered species within the proposed Give areas would be conserved and managed within the
Proposed Preserve and as such benefit the onsite populations of these species. There are a few
sensitive species not on the Covered Species list (i.e., decumbent goldenbush, San Diego viguiera)
found onsite that will decrease in numbers due to the proposed Take; however, the proposed
native habitat restoration within the proposed Give areas would include these species in the plant
palette and therefore, it is expected that the onsite populations of these species would be
maintained in the proposed Preserve.
Effects to covered species
The proposed project MSCP BLA would affect the following Covered Species: Otay tarplant and
coastal California gnatcatcher. Approximately 142 Otay tarplant would be removed from the
existing Preserve in the proposed BLA, as shown in Figure 6. The areas that are proposed to be
added to the Preserve supports 718 Otay tarplant (400 percent greater counts) and the proposed
Give‐habitat restoration from non‐native grassland to native grassland would be restored to
support Otay tarplant and other rare plants through clay soil salvage and seed translocation (Figure
7). The combination of Give and Give‐habitat restoration areas in the proposed project BLA
exchange would increase the conservation of Otay tarplant in the Preserve.
USFWS designated Otay tarplant critical habitat in 2001. The City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
adopted in 2003 included the extent of Otay tarplant critical habitat that occurs on site within the
City MSCP 100% Preserve. The proposed project BLA would overlap with Otay tarplant critical
habitat in some areas (Figures 2 and 6). City MSCP Section 5.9 Critical Habitat, specifically addresses
critical habitat for three Covered Species including Otay tarplant. It states that in approving the
MSCP, the USFWS included in their BO for the MSCP findings regarding whether activities permitted
under the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would result in the destruction or adverse modification of the
critical habitat. The MSCP permits development in nonessential areas for each of the Covered
Species, establishes a hardline Preserve, employs long‐term conservation for the protection of
Covered Species, and employs added protections for Narrow Endemic species (including Otay
tarplant) and wetlands. Because of these factors, it is anticipated that no additional special
management considerations or protection would be necessary for the Otay tarplant, as a result of
either implementation of the MSCP or any future federally permitted Covered Activity within the
areas designated as critical habitat for those species. Therefore, since the City MSCP provided for
future BLAs, the proposed BLA Take of Otay tarplant critical habitat would be addressed by
implementing the long‐term conservation and added protections for Narrow Endemic Species in the
MSCP.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 41
The proposed BLA would affect coastal California gnatcatcher suitable habitat through the Take of
Diegan coastal sage scrub in the existing Preserve; however, the proposed Give to the Preserve
includes additional good quality Diegan coastal sage scrub located northeast of the gnatcatcher
territory in the central portion of the project site (Figure 6). In addition, the proposed BLA includes
habitat restoration from non‐native grassland to Diegan coastal sage scrub within the northeastern
portion of the site that are not currently occupied by gnatcatcher but are located in proximity to
existing Diegan coastal sage that would benefit gnatcatcher through an increase in potential
foraging and nesting habitat onsite.
Effects on habitat linkages and function of preserve areas
The proposed project MSCP BLA would generally maintain the habitat linkages and functions of the
Preserve. In some areas of the proposed BLA, habitat linkages would be improved but in another
area habitat linkages would be reduced. More specifically, the proposed BLA would result in a
greater habitat linkage connectivity and function in the Preserve along Poggi Creek due to the
addition of smaller areas within Poggi creek to the Preserve and the larger habitat buffers south of
the creek that would better facilitate wildlife use and movement in this area of the Preserve (Figure
5.3‐5). The proposed BLA along the southeastern extent of the Preserve would result in less
conserved habitat connectivity along the southern boundary to other habitat to the south into the
Minor Amendment Area.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 42
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 consists of densely thatched
non‐native grasses located in the onsite MSCP Development Area. There are proposed unavoidable
impacts within the existing 100% Preserve 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, as 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 MSCP. 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 proposed Future Facility‐Detention Basin (1.12 acres) partially overlaps with an area of the
existing 100% Preserve onsite. Future Facilities are identified in the MSCP Subarea Plan as a
Conditional Compatible Use. 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. Future Facilities are identified in the MSCP Subarea Plan as a Conditional Compatible
Use and would be allowed within the existing Preserve if the facility is less than 2 acres in size, has
been avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and meets the Narrow Endemic and
Wetlands Policy (assessed below), and applicable Covered Species and sensitive habitats impacted
by the Future Facility are mitigated by the conservation strategies in the Subarea Plan and
authorized under the MSCP Take Authorization. The City of Chula Vista is allotted up to 50 acres of
impact/”Take” for Future Facilities. The cumulative impacts to covered habitats from Future
Facilities, including the proposed Sunbow Future Facility (i.e., detention basin) within the City of
Chula Vista are summarized in Table 7 below. The proposed Future Facility‐Detention Basin (1.12
acres) is partially within an area of the existing Preserve on site. The Future Facility‐Detention Basin
can be seen in Figure 5.3‐4.
Table 7. Cumulative Impacts to Covered Habitat from Future Facilities within City of Chula Vista
Project Project Permanent Impacts to Covered Habitat
(acres)
Village Eleven 0.50
Village Two 0.10
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 43
Village Eight West 0.09
Village Nine 0.20
Village Three North, Village Eight East,
Village Ten
6.10
Village Four 1.23
UID 4.00
Sunbow II Phase 3 1.12
Total Cumulative Impacts 13.34
Remaining Acres (out of 50 acres)36.66
The proposed Future Facility‐Detention Basin meets these identified conditions as provided in the
Facilities Siting Criteria assessment in Table 8 below.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 44 Table 8. MSCP Future Facilities Siting Criteria Project Assessment Facilities Siting Criteria Proposed Sunbow Future Facility‐Detention Basin Located in the least environmentally sensitive location feasible The proposed Future Facility‐detention basin is proposed within an area of the existing Preserve that supports Diegan coastal sage scrub and Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak. The relocation of the proposed Future Facility‐detention basin was considered in the project design to avoid or minimize impacts to the Preserve, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak 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 where a detention basin is necessary; however, the size and configuration of the basin was modified to reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable resulting in proposed impacts to 1.12 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 90 out of 911 Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak, and 705 out of 7,647 San Diego viguiera. Avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, impact to Covered Species and Wetlands The Future Facility completely avoids impacts to wetlands and avoids to the maximum extent practicable impacts to MSCP Covered Species: Otay tarplant, coast barrel cactus, orange‐throated whiptail, Cooper’s hawk, northern harrier, coastal California gnatcatcher. Proposed project impact avoidance and minimization for Covered Species are addressed in Project Mitigation Measures that include breeding season avoidance and biological monitoring requirements provided in the M&A Biological Impact Analysis Report, dated February 2021. Subject to the restrictions and mitigation requirements for Narrow Endemic species and Wetlands pursuant to Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 of the Subarea Plan 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. Proposed mitigation for Otay tarplant impacts include onsite preservation and habitat restoration within the Preserve in compliance with the MSCP and HLIT. Based on the 2019‐2020 Otay tarplant field surveys, the onsite population is
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 45 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 onsite population (Table 8 below). 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. 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. Where roads cross the Preserve, they should provide for wildlife movement for MSCP Subregional Plan Generalized Core Biological Resources Areas and Linkages map (Figure 1‐4). Result in the least impact feasible to Covered Species and Wetlands. Where possible at wildlife crossings, road bridges for vehicular traffic should be employed. Crossings should be designed as follows: substrate left in natural condition or revegetated with native vegetation; a line‐of‐sight to the other end will be provided; and if necessary, low‐light illumination will be installed in the tunnel. The proposed project does not propose any roads that would cross the Preserve. Road access was already provided in the MSCP Development Area configuration provided in the 2003 Subarea Plan. Therefore, no proposed impacts due to roads crossing the Preserve. Avoid impacts to Narrow Endemic species and The project has been designed to avoid (to maximum extent practicable) impacts to Narrow Endemic species including Otay tarplant; however, unavoidable impacts to
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 46 quino checkerspot butterfly to the maximum extent practicable Otay tarplant are proposed as provided in the project Biological Impact Analysis Report, dated February 2021. Quino checkerspot butterfly is not present within the project site and thus would not be impacted by the project, as discussed further in the project Biological Impact Analysis Report, dated February 2021. Unavoidable impacts to Narrow Endemics within the Preserve are subject to equivalency findings and the limitations/provisions of Section 5.2.3.6. It is expected that unavoidable impacts to Otay tarplant within the Preserve would meet the Narrow Endemic Equivalency Findings in MSCP Section 5.2.3.6. Otay tarplant is the only narrow endemic species that is known and/or expected to occur onsite (project Biological Report dated February 2021). 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). The estimated onsite Otay tarplant population consists of 5,449 plants. 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 Biological Report dated February 2021). 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. The proposed impacts are consistent with the Narrow Endemic Policy and limitations as discussed further in the section above. The proposed impacts to Otay tarplant require appropriate mitigation that consists of the following applicable project mitigation measures:
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 47 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
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 48 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 49 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. 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‐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
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 50 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. 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.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 51 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. 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
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 52 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. Based on the impact and mitigation analysis and the proposed Give in the project BLA, it is expected that the project would meet the Narrow Endemic Equivalency Findings. Unavoidable impacts to quino checkerspot butterfly are subject to provisions in Section 5.2.8. The Project would not impact quino checkerspot butterfly and thus is not subject to provisions in Section 5.2.8. Quino checkerspot butterfly protocol surveys were conducted in 2020 for the project site and were negative, as provided in the project Biological Impact Analysis Report, dated February 2021.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 53
Narrow Endemic Policy and Wetland Protection Program
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 completed on the project site, 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). Of the 5,449 on‐site Otay tarplant population, the proposed project would impact an
estimated 142 Otay tarplant plants (2.6%) inside the Preserve and 694 Otay tarplant plants (12.7%)
outside the Preserve/within Development Area (Table 8). 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 9 below.
Table 9. 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 the City’s MSCP Section 5.2.4.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 54
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)
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
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.
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.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33 55
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). 2021. Biological Impact Analysis Report for the Sunbow II Phase
III Development Report. Prepared for Lennar‐San Diego Division. Date Revised February
2021 (December 2020, June 2020). 66 pp.
_____. 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 Geographic Information Source (SanGIS). 2012. Ecology, Vegetation Download (zip)
[Internet]. Available from: http://www.sangis.org/.
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 56
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 57
_____. 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/.
Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Merkel & Associates, Inc. #94‐021‐33
APPENDIX 1. SUNBOW II USFWS 1995 BIOLOGICAL OPINION