Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appendix D - Biology Report
Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project Chula Vista, California Prepared for Tri Pointe Homes 13520 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92128 Contact: Allen Kashani Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92108 P 619.308.9333 RECON Number 3396-1 September 19April 16, 2024 Cailin Lyons Director, Biology Group Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ iv 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description and Location ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Description ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.0 Methods and Survey Limitations ............................................................................................ 14 2.1 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 15 2.2 Field Reconnaissance ...................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Survey Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 20 3.0 Results of Surveys ...................................................................................................................... 20 3.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types .................................................................. 20 3.2 Plants .................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.3 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................. 26 3.4 Sensitive Resources ......................................................................................................................... 27 4.0 Compliance with MSCP ........................................................................................................... 40 4.1 Annexation Scenario ....................................................................................................................... 40 4.2 No Annexation Scenario ................................................................................................................ 41 4.3 MSCP Conditions for Coverage ................................................................................................... 42 5.0 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 44 5.1 City of San Diego ............................................................................................................................ 44 5.2 City of Chula Vista ............................................................................................................................ 45 5.3 Direct Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 46 5.4 Indirect Impacts – Annexation and No Annexation Scenarios .......................................... 79 5.5 Cumulative Impacts - Annexation and No Annexation Scenarios ................................... 80 6.0 Mitigation .................................................................................................................................... 81 6.1 Annexation Scenario ....................................................................................................................... 81 6.2 No Annexation Scenario .............................................................................................................. 105 7.0 References Cited ....................................................................................................................... 113 Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) FIGURES 1-1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................. 2 1-2 Hydrologic Setting ............................................................................................................................................ 5 1-3 USFWS Designated Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................. 6 1-4: MSCP Subregional Plan Habitat Linkages and Biological Core Areas ........................................... 10 1-5: City of San Diego MHPA and City of Chula Vista Conservation Areas .......................................... 11 3-1 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 21 3-2 Jurisdictional Resources ............................................................................................................................... 38 5-1: Impacts to Biological Resources ................................................................................................................ 50 5-2 Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources ......................................................................................................... 54 5-3: Wetland Buffers .............................................................................................................................................. 58 5-4a: Historic Wetlands 1981 .................................................................................................................................. 65 5-4b: Historic Wetlands 2000 ................................................................................................................................ 66 5-4c: Historic Wetlands 2014 .................................................................................................................................. 67 6-1: Covenant of Easement ................................................................................................................................ 104 TABLES 1: Schedule of Surveys ....................................................................................................................................... 16 2: Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the Project Area .......................................... 22 3: Potential Jurisdictional Resources within the Project Area ................................................................ 37 4: Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types (Annexation Scenario) ............................................................................................................................... 48 5: Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources within the Project Impact Area (Annexation Scenario) ............................................................................................................................... 55 6: Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types (No Annexation Scenario)......................................................................................................................... 73 7: Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources within the Project Impact Area (No Annexation Scenario)......................................................................................................................... 78 8: Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Sensitive Upland Vegetation Communities (Annexation Scenario) ............................................................................................................................... 82 9: Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Otay Tarplant in the City of San Diego ........................... 85 10: Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources (Annexation Scenario) .......... 102 11: Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Sensitive Upland Vegetation Communities (No Annexation Scenario)....................................................................................................................... 105 12: Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources (No Annexation Scenario) ... 112 Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) ATTACHMENTS 1 Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance Findings 2: 2020 Protocol Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Report 3: 2020 Protocol Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report 4: Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for the Nakano Project Site 5: Representative Photos of the Project Area 6: RiverEdge Terrace As-Builts 7: List of Plant Species Observed 8: List of Wildlife Species Observed 9: Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area 10: Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area 11: 2011 MSCP Annual Report Excerpt with Helix Memo 12: 2022 Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Consistency Analysis for the Nakano Project 13: Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Nakano Project 14: Response to USFWS and CDFW Comments Emailed May 10, 2023, for the Nakano Project 15: Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan for the On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project 16: Mitigation Credit Availability at San Luis Rey River Mitigation Bank and Rancho Jamul Mitigation Bank 17: Mitigation Proposal for Sensitive Uplands under the Annexation Scenario 18: Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan for the Nakano Project 19: Wildlife Agency Concurrence Letter on the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan Minor Amendment and Wetland Deviation, dated August 15, 2024 20: Post-survey Notification of 2024 Crotch’s Bumble Bee Focused Surveys for the Nakano Project Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project iv Acronyms and Abbreviations amsl above mean sea level APN Assessor’s Parcel Number BCME Biological Construction Mitigation/Monitoring Exhibit BI Building Inspector BMP Best Management Practices CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFGC California Fish and Game Code CFR Code of Federal Regulations CM Construction Manager CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CWA Clean Water Act dB(A) A-weighted decibels DSD Development Services Department ESL Environmentally Sensitive Lands FESA federal Endangered Species Act GC Grading Contractor GIS Geographic information system HLIT Habitat Loss and Incidental Take I-805 Interstate 805 LCD Landscape Construction Documents MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MHPA Multi-Habitat Planning Area MMC Mitigation Monitoring Coordination MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program NHD National Hydrography Dataset PRS Principal Restoration Specialist QBM Qualified Biological Monitor RE Resident Engineer RIC Revegetation Installation Contractor RMC Revegetation Maintenance Contractor RRME revegetation/restoration monitoring exhibit RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 1 1.0 Introduction This Biological Resources Technical Report provides an analysis of potential impacts on biological resources associated with the proposed Nakano project (project) located in the City of Chula Vista and the City of San Diego, California. The project site (i.e., Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 624-071-0200) is currently within the City of Chula Vista, with off-site areas in both the City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego. The project proposes two scenarios: the Annexation Scenario, with the project site being annexed into the City of San Diego, and the No Annexation Scenario, with the project site remaining in the City of Chula Vista. The off-site areas would remain in their respective jurisdictions in both scenarios. Because the project includes both the Annexation Scenario and No Annexation Scenario, this report addresses consistency with the requirements of both the City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista. Biological surveys of the property were conducted in 2020 and 2022 to inventory the biological resources present, determine the occurrence potential for special status species, species considered “covered” under the City of Chula Vista and the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plans, and to document the jurisdictional area present within the project area. The methods, results of the surveys, project impacts, and avoidance and mitigation measures are discussed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Clean Water Act (CWA), the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003), the City of San Diego Biology Guidelines (2018a), City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan (City of San Diego 1997), and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). 1.1 Project Description and Location The project is located east of Interstate 805 (I-805), northwest of Dennery Road, and south of the Otay River (Figure 1-1). The project is proposed within a the 23.77-acre APN 624-071-0200, as well as two off-site improvement areas. Grading and improvements are proposed on 21.69 acres of the project parcel, in addition to off-site improvements including 0.39 acre of remedial grading and trail improvements within the City of Chula Vista to the north of the project site, and 1.27 acres of grading for the project’s access road and secondary emergency access road within the City of San Diego. The survey area includes the entire project parcel and off-site improvement areas, plus an approximately 100-foot survey buffer. The project area is within Sections 19 and 24 of Township 18 South, Range 1 and 2 West, of the Imperial Beach, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The project includes two scenarios: the Annexation Scenario, with the project site being annexed into the City of San Diego, and the No Annexation Scenario, with the project site remaining in the City of Chula Vista. Both project scenarios propose the same development footprint. The project proposes a residential development with supporting recreational amenities and infrastructure on the approximately 23.77-acre project site. The proposed residential uses would consist of 215 multi-family residential dwelling units, including 61 detached condominiums, 84 duplexes, and 70 multi-family dwelling units. Development of up to 221 residential units could be supported on-site depending on the ultimate unit mix, but the project footprint would remain the same. Recreational amenities would include a local-serving park, a regional overlook park associated with the Otay Valley Regional Park, and a trail connection to the Otay Valley Regional Park. FIGURE 1-1 Project Location kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar 0 5Miles [ M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Biotec_2022\Fig1-1.mxd 06/01/2022 bma LOS ANGELES ORANGE RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO MEXICO Project Locationkj Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 3 To provide access to the project site via Dennery Road, off-site access improvements would be required within APN 645-400-0500, located in the City of San Diego to the east of the project site. Secondary emergency access via Golden Sky Way would also require off-site access improvements east of the project site in the City of San Diego on APNs 645-400-0100 and 645-400-0300. In addition, off-site improvements would be required to the north of the project site in the City of Chula Vista on APN 624-071-0100. Off-site improvements would consist of remedial grading to stabilize the adjacent slope in addition to improvements to formalize an existing disturbed trail connection through placement of decomposed granite and installation of a peeler pole fence on one side of the trail. 1.2 Site Description 1.2.1 Land Use and Zoning The project site is currently designated by the City of Chula Vista General Plan (City of Chula Vista 2020) as Open Space and is zoned by the City of Chula Vista as Agricultural Zone A-8. The off-site remedial grading area is also designated as Open Space but is zoned as Floodway Zone F1. The off-site access improvement area is designated as Residential – Low Medium by the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan (City of San Diego 2014) and is zoned by the City of San Diego as RM-2-4 (City of San Diego 2019). The project area is also identified as Open Space within the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan (County of San Diego et al. 2014), although this plan is a conceptual plan and does not have jurisdiction over the project area. The uses in the project site and off-site areas currently consist of vacant land, unpaved roads, and informal trails. The project site was used for agricultural use until 2000 and is heavily disturbed. Surrounding land uses include a vacant site and the Otay Valley River Park to the north, I-805 directly to the west, multi-family residential to the east and southeast, and Kaiser medical offices to the south. 1.2.2 Topography The elevations in the project area range from approximately 100 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northwest of the project area near I-805 to approximately 200 feet amsl in the southeast corner of the off-site impact area along Dennery Road. 1.2.3 Soils According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Soil Survey (USDA 2020a), three soil types were mapped in the project area: Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes; Riverwash; and Salinas clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. The Olivenhain series occurs within the southern portion of the project area and consists of well-drained, slow or medium runoff, with slow permeability. The Riverwash occurs in the northern portion of the project area and within the Otay River and consists of sandy, gravelly, or cobbly substrate with rapid permeability. Salinas series dominates the project area and consists of deep, well-drained soils that formed in alluvium weathered from sandstone and Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 4 shale, and it has moderately slow permeability. Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes, and Riverwash are considered hydric soils (USDA 2020b). 1.2.4 Hydrology The project area is located in the San Diego Subbasin (HU8) within the Otay River watershed (HU10). More specifically, it is located within the Poggi Canyon–Otay River Subwatershed (HU12) of the watershed (Figure 1-2). The project area is located less than 300 feet south of the Otay River. The Otay River flows southwest to the San Diego Bay (i.e., the Pacific Ocean, a navigable water of the United States) in Chula Vista, California (Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB] 1998). There is one U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) line feature occurring within the off-site area providing access to Dennery Road (USGS 2020; see Figure 1-2). The NHD line corresponds to a pipeline or aqueduct at or near the surface. The Otay River corridor to the north of the project area contains an NHD stream/river line and lake/pond water bodies (USGS 2020; see Figure 1-2). 1.3 Regulatory Context 1.3.1 Federal 1.3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (16 United States Code 1531 et seq.) is implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through a program that identifies and provides for protection of various species of fish, wildlife, and plants deemed to be in danger of or threatened with extinction. As part of this regulatory act, the FESA provides for designation of critical habitat, defined in FESA Section 3(5)(A) as specific areas within the geographical range occupied by a species where physical or biological features “essential to the conservation of the species” are found and that “may require special management considerations or protection.” Critical habitat may also include areas outside the current geographical area occupied by the species that are nonetheless “essential for the conservation of the species.” There is no USFWS critical habitat within the project area (USFWS 2020). The closest USFWS critical habitat is for Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) and is located approximately 0.75 mile northeast and 1.05 miles east of the project area (Figure 1-3). 1.3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the intentional take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any migratory bird. Under the MBTA, “take” is defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing, collecting, or killing, or attempting to do so (16 United States Code 703 et seq.). On October 4, 2021, the USFWS published a revision of interpretation of the MBTA. With the final rule, USFWS has effectively reinstated its position that “incidental take” (e.g., pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing, collecting, harming, killing) that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out otherwise lawful activity is prohibited by the MBTA. The project is designed to comply with MBTA, which precludes direct impacts to nesting birds and raptors. FIGURE 1-2 Hydrologic Setting ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! UV905 UV125 UV54 §¨¦805 §¨¦5 San D iego Su b b a sin C o t t o n w o o d -T i j u a n a S u b b a s i n Tijuana River-Frontal Pacific Ocean Subwatershed Telegraph Canyon-Frontal San Diego Bay Subwatershed Poggi Canyon-Otay River Subwatershed Paradise Creek-Frontal San Diego Bay Subwatershed Americas Cup Harbor-San Diego Bay Subwatershed Rice Canyon-Sweetwater River Subwatershed S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r O n e o n t a S l ou g h T i j u a n a R i v e r O t a y R iver Par a d ise C r e e k S e c o n d S a n D ie g o A q u e d u c t ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! UV905 UV125 UV54 §¨¦805 §¨¦5 San D iego Su b b a sin C o t t o n w o o d -T i j u a n a S u b b a s i n Tijuana River-Frontal Pacific Ocean Subwatershed Telegraph Canyon-Frontal San Diego Bay Subwatershed Poggi Canyon-Otay River Subwatershed Paradise Creek-Frontal San Diego Bay Subwatershed Americas Cup Harbor-San Diego Bay Subwatershed Rice Canyon-Sweetwater River Subwatershed S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r O n e o n t a S l ou g h T i j u a n a R i v e r O t a y R iver Par a d ise C r e e k S e c o n d S a n D ie g o A q u e d u c t Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, IMPERIAL BEACH quadrangle,1996, T19S R01W 0 5,000Feet [ Project Boundary ! !Stream/River Subbasin (HU8) Subwatershed (HU12) Watershed (HU10) Lower Sweetwater River Mission Beach-Frontal Pacific Ocean Otay River San Diego Bay Tecate Creek Tijuana River-Frontal Pacific Ocean M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Biotec_2022\Fig1-2.mxd 06/01/2022 bma San Diego Subbasin §¨¦5 §¨¦8 §¨¦15 §¨¦805 §¨¦8 §¨¦15 UV125 UV52 UV76UV78 UV56 FIGURE 1-3 USFWS Designated Critical Habitat ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! OTAY VALLEY BRANDYWINE PALM §¨¦805 OTAY TARPLANT OTAY TARPLANT SPREADING NAVARRETIA SPREADING NAVARRETIA O t a y R i v e r ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! OTAY VALLEY BRANDYWINE PALM §¨¦805 OTAY TARPLANT OTAY TARPLANT SPREADING NAVARRETIA SPREADING NAVARRETIA O t a y R i v e r Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) 0 1,000Feet [ Project Boundary USFWS Critical Habitat M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Biotec\2023\Fig1-3.mxd 05/09/2023 bma §¨¦8 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 §¨¦8 §¨¦15 UV125 UV52 UV94 UV54 UV67 UV94 UV52 UV54 UV905 UV163 UV163 Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 7 1.3.1.3 Clean Water Act Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into “waters of the United States.” The currently accepted regulations defining waters of the U.S. follow the September 8, 2023, publishment of the final rule: Revised Definition of “Waters of the U.S.”, Conforming. The agencies’ definition of “waters of the United States” provides jurisdiction over waterbodies that Congress intended to protect under the CWA, including traditional navigable waters (e.g., certain large rivers and lakes), territorial seas, and interstate waters. Notably, this new rule provides a new interpretation of the term “adjacent” whereas wetlands must contain a surface hydrologic connection to other waters of the U.S. to be considered adjacent waters of the U.S. and eliminates the applicability of the significant nexus standard for “non-relatively permanent waters.” 1.3.2 State 1.3.2.1 California Endangered Species Act The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (CFGC Section 2050 et seq.), which prohibits the take of plant and animal species designated by the California Fish and Game Commission as endangered or threatened in California. Under CESA Section 86, “take” is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” CESA Section 2053 stipulates that state agencies may not approve projects that will “jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with conserving the species or its habitat which would prevent jeopardy.” 1.3.2.2 California Fish and Game Code The CFGC regulates the taking or possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as natural resources such as wetlands and waters of the State. It includes the CESA (Sections 2050-2115) and Streambed Alteration Agreement regulations (Sections 1600-1616), as well as provisions for legal hunting and fishing, and tribal agreements for activities involving take of native wildlife. The CFGC also includes protection of birds (Sections 3500 et seq.) and the Native Plant Protection Act (Sections 1900-1913), which directed CDFW to carry out the Legislature's intent to "preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” Pursuant to Section 1602 of the CFGC, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. A Streambed Alteration Agreement (CFGC Section 1602 et seq.) is required for impacts on jurisdictional resources, including streambeds and associated riparian habitat. In addition, the CDFW affords protection over the destruction of nests or eggs of native bird species (CFGC Section 3503), and it states that no birds in the orders of Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) can be taken, possessed, or destroyed (CFGC Section 3503.5). The project is designed to comply with Sections 3503 and 3503.3 which precludes direct impacts to nesting birds and raptors. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 8 1.3.2.3 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter–Cologne Act) protects water quality and the beneficial uses of water. It applies to surface water and groundwater. Under this law, the State Water Resources Control Board develops statewide water quality plans, and the RWQCBs develop regional basin plans that identify beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation plans. The RWQCBs have the primary responsibility to implement the provisions of statewide plans and basin plans. Waters regulated under the Porter–Cologne Act include isolated waters that are not regulated by USACE. Developments with impacts on jurisdictional waters must demonstrate compliance with the goals of the Porter–Cologne Act by developing stormwater pollution prevention plans, standard urban stormwater mitigation plans, and other measures to obtain a CWA Section 401 certification for waters of the U.S. and Waste Discharge Requirements for waters of the State. 1.3.2.4 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.) require identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that could avoid or reduce significant impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b)(1) defines endangered animals or plants as species or subspecies whose “survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors” (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A rare animal or plant is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b)(2) as a species that, although not currently threatened with extinction, exists “in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or … [t]he species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered ‘threatened’ as that term is used in the federal Endangered Species Act.” Additionally, an animal or plant may be presumed to be endangered, rare, or threatened if it meets the criteria for listing, as defined further in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(c). CEQA also requires identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on riparian habitats (such as wetlands, bays, estuaries, and marshes) and other sensitive natural communities, including habitats occupied by endangered, rare, and threatened species. 1.3.3 Regional 1.3.3.1 MSCP Subregional Plan The municipalities of southwestern San Diego County collaborated in producing the MSCP Subregional Plan (City of San Diego 1998). The MSCP Subregional Plan is implemented through individual Subarea Plans adopted by each jurisdiction in order to receive take authorization for impacts to covered species and habitats. The MSCP serves as a habitat conservation plan pursuant to FESA Section 10(a)(1)(B), as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan under the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act of 2001. The MSCP, as implemented through the Subarea Plans, allows the participating jurisdictions to authorize take of plant and wildlife species identified within the plan area. USFWS and CDFW, herein referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have authority Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 9 to regulate the take of threatened, endangered, and rare species. Under the MSCP, the Wildlife Agencies have granted take authorization to the local jurisdictions, including the City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista, for otherwise lawful actions, such as public and private development that may incidentally take or harm individual species or their habitat outside the designated preserve areas, in exchange for the assembly and management of a coordinated MSCP Preserve. Both the City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego are participants in the San Diego MSCP through their respective Subarea Plans, which are described further below. The MSCP Subregional Plan established a regional preserve system designed to conserve large blocks of interconnected habitat having high biological value that are delineated in Multi-Habitat Planning Areas (MHPAs). To provide a framework for the establishment of MHPAs through Subarea Plans, the MSCP Subregional Plan identified Biological Core Areas and habitat linkages containing high concentrations of sensitive biological resources. As stated in Section 2.2 of the MSCP Subregional Plan (City of San Diego 1998): The core and linkages map was developed as an analytical tool to assist in testing preserve design criteria and levels of species conservation. It is not a regulatory map …While the entire acreage within a core area may not be important for preservation, the core and linkage configuration assists in visualizing a framework for a regional preserve network. Jurisdictions and other agencies prepared subarea plans with specific preserve boundaries by maximizing inclusion of unfragmented core resource areas and linkages in their preserve designs, given other parameters and objectives … Although this map was used to identify important biological areas and linkages, the habitat evaluation map is not intended to replace site-specific field survey data and evaluations. The project area is located within the MSCP Subregional Plan Biological Core Area 4 and Habitat Linkage M (County of San Diego 1998) (Figure 1-4). However, neither of these areas, where they overlap the project area, were included within the City of Chula Vista or City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan’s MHPA boundaries. 1.3.4 Local 1.3.4.1 City of Chula Vista a. Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan The MSCP is implemented in Chula Vista through the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). Within the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the project area is designated as “Development Area Outside Covered Projects” (i.e., not designated a preserve or conservation area) and is not located immediately adjacent to any 75% or 100% Conservation Areas (Figure 1-5). The closest conservation area (75 percent) is located approximately 197 feet north of the project area within the Otay River (see Figure 1-5). As defined by the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan, projects within the Development Area Outside Covered Projects planning area shall adhere to the City of Chula Vista’s Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) Ordinance (City of Chula Vista 2022). FIGURE 1-4 MSCP Subregional Plan Habitat Linkages and Biological Core Areas ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! S P R UC E RD RANCHO D R O T A Y V A L L E Y RD PALM AVE REGATTA LN RE G E N C Y C T AMB ER RI DG E P T MAIN ST K O STNER DR AV O C ET C T BALLAST LN OL E A N D E R AVE A DM IRAL W AY RANCHO C T D E LCA RDO AV E MA PLE DR M URR I E T A C I R K E NTMERE TER RE NE DR M A R S H H A R B O R D R SE R R E N A L N I S L A N D BREEZE LN B RA NDY W INE AV E S E A TERN CT R E D F I N L N MA I N C T B L U E CO R A L C V W IND S U R F W A Y C A M B E R L E Y CT GOLDEN SKY WAY CATAMARAN LN AUT O P A R K P L RED S A I L S W A Y SEAIS L E DR AUTO P A R K D R PO W DE RHORN D R FI R E T H O R N S T LA H U E RTA WAY O CE A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D LEMONSEED DR W H E E L H O U S E D RRED C O R A L L N M E L R O S E A V E R O Y A L I S L A N D W A Y OCEA N V IE W HILLS PKY §¨¦805 O t a y R i v e r CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO CHULA VI STA SAN DIEGO ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! S P R UC E RD RANCHO D R O T A Y V A L L E Y RD PALM AVE REGATTA LN RE G E N C Y C T AMB ER RI DG E P T MAIN ST K O STNER DR AV O C ET C T BALLAST LN OL E A N D E R AVE A DM IRAL W AY RANCHO C T D E LCA RDO AV E MA PLE DR M URR I E T A C I R K E NTMERE TER RE NE DR M A R S H H A R B O R D R SE R R E N A L N I S L A N D BREEZE LN B RA NDY W INE AV E S E A TERN CT R E D F I N L N MA I N C T B L U E CO R A L C V W IND S U R F W A Y C A M B E R L E Y CT GOLDEN SKY WAY CATAMARAN LN AUT O P A R K P L RED S A I L S W A Y SEAIS L E DR AUTO P A R K D R PO W DE RHORN D R FI R E T H O R N S T LA H U E RTA WAY O CE A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D LEMONSEED DR W H E E L H O U S E D RRED C O R A L L N M E L R O S E A V E R O Y A L I S L A N D W A Y OCEA N V IE W HILLS PKY §¨¦805 O t a y R i v e r CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO CHULA VI STA SAN DIEGO Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) 0 500Feet [ Project Boundary City Limit MSCP Subregional Plan Habitat Linkages and Biological Core Areas Biological Core Area 4 Biological Linkage M M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Biotec\2023\Fig1-4.mxd 05/12/2023 bma §¨¦8 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 §¨¦8 §¨¦15 UV125 UV52 UV94 UV54 UV67 UV94 UV52 UV54 UV905 UV163 UV163 FIGURE 1-5 City of San Diego MHPA and City of Chula Vista Conservation Areas ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! S P R UC E RD RANCHO D R O T A Y V A L L E Y RD PALM AVE REGATTA LN RE G E N C Y C T AMB ER RI DG E P T MAIN ST K O STNER DR AV O C ET C T BALLAST LN OL E A N D E R AVE A DM IRAL W AY RANCHO C T D E LCA RDO AV E MA PLE DR M URR I E T A C I R K E NTMERE TER RE NE DR M A R S H H A R B O R D R SE R R E N A L N I S L A N D BREEZE LN B RA NDY W INE AV E S E A TERN CT R E D F I N L N MA I N C T B L U E CO R A L C V W IND S U R F W A Y C A M B E R L E Y CT GOLDEN SKY WAY CATAMARAN LN AUT O P A R K P L RED S A I L S W A Y SEAIS L E DR AUTO P A R K D R PO W DE RHORN D R FI R E T H O R N S T LA H U E RTA WAY O CE A N M I S T P L DENNERY RD LEMONSEED DR W H E E L H O U S E D RRED C O R A L L N M E L R O S E A V E R O Y A L I S L A N D W A Y OCEANVIEW HILLS PKY §¨¦805 §¨¦805 O t a y R i v e r O t a y R i v e r CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! S P R UC E RD RANCHO D R O T A Y V A L L E Y RD PALM AVE REGATTA LN RE G E N C Y C T AMB ER RI DG E P T MAIN ST K O STNER DR AV O C ET C T BALLAST LN OL E A N D E R AVE A DM IRAL W AY RANCHO C T D E LCA RDO AV E MA PLE DR M URR I E T A C I R K E NTMERE TER RE NE DR M A R S H H A R B O R D R SE R R E N A L N I S L A N D BREEZE LN B RA NDY W INE AV E S E A TERN CT R E D F I N L N MA I N C T B L U E CO R A L C V W IND S U R F W A Y C A M B E R L E Y CT GOLDEN SKY WAY CATAMARAN LN AUT O P A R K P L RED S A I L S W A Y SEAIS L E DR AUTO P A R K D R PO W DE RHORN D R FI R E T H O R N S T LA H U E RTA WAY O CE A N M I S T P L DENNERY RD LEMONSEED DR W H E E L H O U S E D RRED C O R A L L N M E L R O S E A V E R O Y A L I S L A N D W A Y OCEANVIEW HILLS PKY §¨¦805 §¨¦805 O t a y R i v e r O t a y R i v e r CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) 0 500Feet [ Project Boundary City Limit Project Impacts City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan City of San Diego MHPA City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan 75% Conservation Area - Habitat Preserve 100% Conservation Area - Habitat Preserve M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Biotec\2023\Fig1-5.mxd 05/12/2023 bma §¨¦8 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 §¨¦8 §¨¦15 UV125 UV52 UV94 UV54 UV67 UV94 UV52 UV54 UV905 UV163 UV163 Offsite Impacts (within City of San Diego) Offsite Impacts (within City of Chula Vista) Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 12 b. Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance In compliance with the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Subarea Plan, the City of Chula Vista established development standards in the HLIT Ordinance (HLIT), as a condition of issuance of take authorization by the Wildlife Agencies. The HLIT is consistent with the conservation and mitigation goals of the 1998 MSCP Subregional Plan and the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Furthermore, the HLIT provides standards for development, identifies specific impact thresholds for special-status resources, and defines the mitigation requirements for impacts to native and some non-native communities (e.g., non-native grassland). HLIT Ordinance findings are presented in Attachment 1. c. Narrow Endemic Species The HLIT provides for the protection of narrow endemic species and outlines specific impact avoidance/ minimization requirements. Projects sited within Development Areas Outside Covered Projects shall avoid impacts to narrow endemic species to the maximum extent practicable and where unavoidable, shall be limited to 20 percent of the species population as approved by the City of Chula Vista, USFWS, and CDFW. If greater than 20 percent population impacts to narrow endemic species are anticipated as a result of the project, equivalency findings shall be prepared and approved prior to project approval. d. Wetlands Protection In accordance with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and HLIT Ordinance, development projects that contain wetlands are required to demonstrate that impacts to wetlands have been avoided to the greatest extent practicable and, where impacts are nonetheless proposed, that such impacts have been minimized. For unavoidable impacts to wetlands, the mitigation ratio will be in accordance with the wetlands mitigation ratios identified in the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and impacts will be subject to no-net-loss wetland policies. The wetlands mitigation ratios provide a standard for each habitat type but may be adjusted depending on both the functions and values of the impacted wetlands and the wetlands mitigation proposed by the project. 1.3.4.2 City of San Diego a. City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan The MSCP is implemented in the City of San Diego through the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan. The City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan identifies lands designated as MHPA, which is a “hard-line” preserve developed by the City of San Diego in cooperation with the wildlife agencies, developers, property owners, and various environmental groups. Within the MHPA, biological core resource areas and corridors targeted for conservation are identified and discussed, in which development restrictions may occur (City of San Diego 1997). The project area, with the exception of the off-site access area located within the City of San Diego, is located outside the City of San Diego Subarea Plan (see Figure 1-1). The project area is located outside the nearest MHPA, which is approximately 180 feet west of the project area, across I-805 (see Figure 1-5). Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 13 b. Environmentally Sensitive Lands Regulations Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) include sensitive biological resources, steep hillsides, coastal beaches, sensitive coastal bluffs and 100-year floodplains (City of San Diego 2022). Mitigation requirements for sensitive biological resources follow the requirements of the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (2018a) as outlined in the City of San Diego’s Municipal Code ESL Regulations (Chapter 14, Article 3, Division 1). Impacts to biological resources within and outside the MHPA must comply with the ESL Regulations, which also serve as standards for the determination of biological impacts and mitigation under the CEQA in the City of San Diego. The purpose of the ESL Regulations is to, “protect, preserve and, where damaged, restore the ESL of San Diego and the viability of the species supported by those lands.” The regulations applicable to the proposed project and discussed in this report require development avoid impacts to certain sensitive biological resources as much as possible including but not limited to MHPA lands; wetlands and vernal pools in naturally occurring complexes; federal and state listed, non-MSCP Covered Species; and MSCP Narrow Endemic species. Furthermore, the ESL Regulations state that wetlands impacts should be avoided, and unavoidable impacts should be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Where impacts are unavoidable, deviation findings must be made in accordance with Section 143.0150 of the City of San Diego Municipal Code. In addition to protecting wetlands, the ESL Regulations require that a buffer be maintained around wetlands, as appropriate, to protect wetland-associated functions and values. c. City of San Diego Wetlands Definition The extent of City of San Diego wetland jurisdiction is determined based on the definition of “wetland” provided in the Land Development Code Section 113.0103 under the ESL Regulations (Section 143.0141[b]), which state the following: “Wetlands” are defined as areas which are characterized by any of the following conditions: All areas persistently or periodically containing naturally occurring wetland vegetation communities characteristically dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, including but not limited to salt marsh, brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, riparian forest, oak riparian forest, riparian woodlands, riparian scrub, and vernal pools; Areas that have hydric soils or wetland hydrology and lack naturally occurring wetland vegetation communities because human activities have removed the historic wetland vegetation or catastrophic or recurring natural events or processes have acted to preclude the establishment of wetland vegetation as in the case of salt pannes and mudflats; Areas lacking wetland vegetation communities, hydric soils and wetland hydrology due to non-permitted filling of previously existing wetlands; Areas mapped as wetlands on Map No. C-713 as shown in Chapter 13, Article 2, Division 6 (Sensitive Coastal Overlay Zone). Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 14 The City of San Diego uses the criteria listed in Section 320.4(b)(2) of the USACE General Regulatory Policies (33 CFR 320–330) to apply an appropriate buffer around wetlands that serves to protect the function and value of the wetland. According to the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines, a wetland buffer is an area surrounding a wetland that helps protect the function and value of the adjacent wetland by reducing physical disturbance; provides a transition zone where one habitat phases into another; and acts to slow floodwaters for flood and erosion control, sediment filtration, water purification, and groundwater recharge (City of San Diego 2018a). The width of the buffer is determined by factors such as type and size of development, sensitivity of the wetland resource to edge effects, topography, and the need for upland transition (City of San Diego 2018a). There are no set buffer widths required for wetlands delineated outside the Coastal Zone. d. City of San Diego Biology Guidelines The City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (2018a) presented in the Land Development Manual have been developed “to aid in the implementation and interpretation of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Regulations (ESL), San Diego Land Development Code, Chapter 14, Division 1, Section 143.0101 et seq., and the Open Space Residential (OR-1-2) Zone, Chapter 13, Division 2, Section 131.0201 et seq.” (City of San Diego 2018a). The Biology Guidelines also provide standards for the determination of impact and mitigation under CEQA and the California Coastal Act. Sensitive biological resources, as defined by the ESL Regulations, include lands within the MHPA as well as other lands outside the MHPA that contain wetlands; vegetation communities classifiable as Tier I, II, IIIA, or IIIB; habitat for rare, endangered, or threatened species; or narrow endemic species. The most sensitive habitats are classified as Tier I, with the least sensitive classified as Tier IV, and varying mitigation ratios and requirements that mitigation be in tier or in kind are based on the sensitivity of the habitat being affected. In addition, the location of impact inside or outside the City of San Diego’s MHPA determines where and how much mitigation is required, with the highest ratios being required for mitigation outside the MHPA when project impacts occur within the MHPA (City of San Diego 2018a). Habitat mitigation requirements, along with seasonal grading restrictions, provide protections for sensitive species, with additional species-specific mitigation required for significant impacts to narrow endemic species. Limitations on development in the MHPA also protect wildlife movement corridors (e.g., linear areas of the MHPA less than 1,000 feet wide) (City of San Diego 2018a). The project site contains wetlands and Tier II and IIB habitat, as well as species addressed in the City of San Diego Biology Guidelines. The project site is not located in the Coastal Zone. 2.0 Methods and Survey Limitations Data regarding biological resources present within the project area were obtained through a review of pertinent literature and field reconnaissance, both of which are described in detail in this section. Survey areas were determined based on suitable habitat for the resource for which the survey was conducted. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 15 2.1 Literature Review The following data sources were reviewed to assist with the biological resources analysis: • Draft Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Property (Dudek 2022) • Nakano Environmental Constraints Analysis Report (RECON 2017) • Biological Technical Report and Wetland Delineation Report for the Nakano Property (RECON 2011) • U.S. Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey (USDA 2020a, 2020b) • CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Special Animals List (CDFW 2022a) • CDFW CNDDB – RareFind, Version 5 (CDFW 2020) • The Calflora Database (Calflora 2020) • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2020) • Consortium of California Herbaria vascular plant data (2020) • City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003) • City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan (City of San Diego 1997) • City of San Diego Municipal Code, Land Development Code—Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a) • USFWS Species Occurrence Data (USFWS 2020) • San Diego Geographic Information Source database (2020) 2.2 Field Reconnaissance Biological field surveys for the project were initially conducted in 2020 and included vegetation and land cover mapping, habitat quality assessment, a jurisdictional delineation, rare plant surveys, and protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In 2022, a general biological survey was conducted to verify the habitat conditions from the 2020 surveys and a jurisdictional delineation was also conducted to map the current extent of aquatic resources within the project area. Rare plant surveys were also updated in spring 2022 to verify the current extent of rare plant populations within the project area. Based on the habitat conditions noted on-site during the biological verification survey, the results of the 2020 protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher were determined to be valid, as discussed in further detail in Sections 2.2.4.2 and 2.2.4.3. Thus, no additional protocol surveys for these species were conducted. Table 1 lists the survey dates, times, surveying biologists, and weather conditions during the survey. All biological surveys were conducted in accordance with the City of San Diego’s Guidelines for Conducting Biological Surveys (City of San Diego 2018a). The surveys were performed under favorable survey conditions to detect most plant and animal species present and were conducted on foot to ensure 100 percent visual coverage of the site. The survey area incorporated the project area and a surrounding 100-foot buffer. Details regarding specific survey methodologies are provided in the sections that follow under each resource (i.e., flora, fauna, wetlands, and special-status species). Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 16 Table 1 Schedule of Surveys Date Time Personnel Purpose Conditions Vegetation Mapping, Jurisdictional Delineation, and Rare Plant Surveys 02/25/2020 09:29 a.m.–02:50 p.m. Erin Bergman1 Callie Amoaku1 Vegetation Mapping, Jurisdictional Delineation 68°F–75°F; 0% cc; 0–1 mph wind 05/04/2020 6:30 a.m.–1:18 p.m. Erin Bergman1 Rare Plant Survey Pass 1 57°F–78°F; 30%–70% cc; 0–2 mph wind 06/22/2020 9:00 a.m.–3:03 p.m. Olivia Koziel1 Rare Plant Survey Pass 2 66°F–72°F; 20%–100% cc; 1–4 mph wind 3/24/2022 9:30 a.m.–1:00 p.m. Cailin Lyons2 Gerry Scheid2 Biological Verification Survey & Habitat Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation 68°F–73°F; 0% cc; 0–1 mph wind 5/20/2022 7:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m. Jason Sundberg2 Rare Plant and Botanical Surveys 64°F–66°F; 100% cc; 1–6 mph wind 9/7/2022 8:30 a.m.–10:00 a.m. Cailin Lyons2 Gerry Scheid2 Biological Survey (off-site trail) 72°F–78°F; 0% cc; 0–2 mph wind 6/30/2023 10:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Gerry Scheid2 Jurisdictional Delineation Update (2023 Ordinary High Water Mark Forms) 71°F–72°F; 0% cc; 0–2 mph wind Protocol Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys 02/20/2020 8:29 a.m.–11:53 p.m. Erin Bergman1 CAGN Protocol Survey Pass 1 60°F–65°F; 0%–50% cc; 0–3 mph winds 02/27/2020 7:58 a.m.–11:11 p.m. Erin Bergman1 CAGN Protocol Survey Pass 2 60°F–76°F; 0%–25% cc; 0–2 mph winds 03/05/2020 6:43 a.m.–11:43 p.m. Erin Bergman1 CAGN Protocol Survey Pass 3 58°F–74°F; 0%–75% cc; 0–3 mph winds Protocol Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Surveys 05/22/2020 8:10 a.m.–10:00 a.m. Brock Ortega1 LBVI Protocol Survey Pass 1 / SWFL Protocol Survey Pass 1 55°F–61°F; 60%–70% cc; 3 mph wind 06/01/2020 6:10 a.m.–8:00 a.m. Brock Ortega1 LBVI Protocol Survey Pass 2 / SWFL Protocol Survey Pass 2 60°F–62°F; 80%–100% cc; 0–5 mph wind 06/13/2020 7:30 a.m.–9:30 a.m. Shana Carey1 LVBI Protocol Survey Pass 3 64°F–69°F; 0% cc; 1–5 mph wind 06/21/2020 6:30 a.m.–8:10 a.m. Brock Ortega1 LBVI Protocol Survey Pass 4 / SWFL Protocol Survey Pass 3 63°F–65°F; 5%–100% cc; 0–3 mph wind 07/01/2020 5:50 a.m.–8:00 a.m. Brock Ortega1 LBVI Protocol Survey Pass 5 / SWFL Protocol Survey Pass 4 60°F–62°F; 100% cc; 0–3 mph wind 07/10/2020 6:10 a.m.–8:00 a.m. Brock Ortega1 LBVI Protocol Survey Pass 6 / SWFL Protocol Survey Pass 5 65°F; 50%–100% cc; 0–3 mph wind 07/21/2020 7:30 a.m.–9:00 a.m. Brock Ortega1 LBVI Protocol Survey Pass 7 65°F–68°F; 0%–10% cc; 0–3 mph wind 07/31/2020 7:30 a.m.– 9:30 a.m. Shana Carey1 LBVI Protocol Survey Pass 8 68°F–75°F; 0% cc; 1–4 mph wind °F = degrees Fahrenheit; cc = cloud cover; mph = miles per hour; CAGN = coastal California gnatcatcher; LBVI = least Bell’s vireo; SWFL = southwestern willow flycatcher. 1Dudek 2RECON Environmental Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 17 2.2.1 Vegetation Mapping Vegetation communities and land cover types within the survey area were mapped in the field directly onto a 100-foot-scale (1 inch = 100 feet), aerial-photograph-based field map with overlay of the project survey area. Following completion of the fieldwork, all vegetation polygons were transferred to a topographic base and digitized using ArcGIS, and a geographic information system (GIS) coverage was created. Once in ArcGIS, the acreage of each vegetation community and land cover present within the project area was determined. Pursuant to the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a), the vegetation community and land cover mapping follows the Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County (Oberbauer et al. 2008), which is based on the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). These habitats were then cross-walked to their corresponding community in the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). Areas within the project area supporting less than 30 percent native plant species cover were mapped as disturbed land and areas supporting at least 20% native plant species, but less than 50 percent native cover, were mapped as a disturbed native vegetation community (e.g., disturbed coastal sage scrub). 2.2.2 Flora The plant species encountered during the field survey were identified and recorded directly into a field notebook. Plant species that could not be identified immediately were brought into the laboratory for further investigation. Latin and common names follow the Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County, 5th Edition (Rebman and Simpson 2014). Where the scientific name listed in Rebman and Simpson (2014) differs from the name currently recognized by the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized Plants of California (Jepson Flora Project 2020) or that listed in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2020), the synonym is included in brackets following the name listed in Rebman and Simpson (2014). 2.2.3 Fauna Wildlife species detected during the field survey by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs were recorded directly into a field notebook. Latin and common names of any animals detected follow Crother (2017) for reptiles and amphibians, American Ornithological Society (2018) for birds, Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals, and North American Butterfly Association (2016) or San Diego Natural History Museum (2002) for butterflies. In addition to species actually detected during the surveys, expected wildlife use of the project area was determined by known habitat preferences of local species and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area. 2.2.4 Special-Status Biological Resources Searches of the CNPS 2020 online inventory database and CNDDB online inventory were conducted to assist in the determination of special-status plant and wildlife species potentially present within the project area (CDFW 2020; CNPS 2020). Specifically, both a one-quad search and a nine-quad Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 18 search were conducted. In addition to these state database searches, each of the species covered under the City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plans, including narrow endemic species, were individually evaluated in relation to the project area to assist in determining their level of potential to occur on-site. Additionally, the potential for Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) was evaluated based on guidance from CDFW. The habitat on-site was evaluated for Crotch’s bumble bee based on the general biological and botanical surveys conducted between 2020 and 2022. During these surveys, a complete list of botanical resources, including potential host and nectar plants, were recorded. In addition, potential nesting resources were also evaluated. An updated records search of CNDDB was also conducted in 2023 to encompass data provided by the Bumble Bees of North America database contributed in 2022 (CDFW 2023a; Leif Richardson, pers. comm., July 27, 2023). Given that no Crotch’s bumble bee records occur within five miles of the project site and that habitat quality is low for nesting, as discussed in Section 3.4.2.4, no nesting surveys were proposed. Foraging surveys are proposed prior to construction as further discussion in Section 6.1.3.1 and 6.2.3.1. 2.2.4.1 Special-Status Plant Species Surveys Focused surveys for special-status plant species were conducted in May and June 2020 and updated in May 2022. The focused surveys were conducted at the appropriate phenological stage (blooming and fruiting) to detect and identify the target species. Reference checks of Otay tarplant populations were conducted at known populations in the vicinity to ensure spring visits were conducted during the optimal blooming period and during years with appropriate conditions. Surveys were conducted within suitable habitat areas within the project area. Field survey methods and mapping of rare plants generally conformed to California Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2009), and USFWS’s General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines (Cypher 2002). Special-status plant observations were mapped in the field using a global positioning system receiver. 2.2.4.2 Protocol Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys Protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher were performed within the project area between February and March 2020 by coastal California gnatcatcher-permitted biologists. The surveys were conducted following USFWS’s Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol (USFWS 1997), using the breeding season survey methods. The USFWS guidelines specify that each area potentially supporting coastal California gnatcatchers be surveyed a minimum of three times at a minimum interval of seven days. The survey report is provided in Attachment 2. Additional surveys were not deemed necessary in 2022 as all suitable habitat on-site is considered occupied based on the 2020 survey results. The biologists were provided with 100-scale (1 inch = 100 feet) aerial photographs of the study area overlaid with the vegetation and site boundaries to map any coastal California gnatcatcher individuals, pairs, nests, and family groups, if observed. Binoculars were used to aid in detecting and identifying birds and other wildlife species. Appropriate birding binoculars (8 millimeters × 42 millimeters power) were used by each permitted biologist to aid in detecting and identifying bird species. A recording Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 19 of vocalizations was used frequently to elicit a response from the species. The recording was played approximately every 50 to 100 feet, and when a coastal California gnatcatcher was detected, the playing of the recording was ceased to avoid harassment. 2.2.4.3 Protocol Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Surveys Protocol surveys for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher were performed within the project area between May and July 2020. Riparian habitat within the project area was surveyed eight times for least Bell’s vireo and five times for southwestern willow flycatcher. The survey report is provided in Attachment 3. Additional surveys for least Bell’s vireo were not deemed necessary in 2022 as all suitable habitat on-site is considered occupied based on the 2020 survey results. Furthermore, additional surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher were not deemed necessary in 2022 as the general biological survey confirmed that no suitable breeding habitat is present on-site. Surveys for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher were conducted concurrently. Due to differences in detectability, surveys were conducted sequentially, with surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher first (i.e., first thing in the morning) and surveys for least Bell’s vireo conducted immediately after. Additionally, for linear survey routes within a riparian corridor, southwestern willow flycatcher was surveyed from the starting point to the end, and least Bell’s vireo was surveyed on the way back. All surveys consisted of slowly walking a methodical, meandering transect within and adjacent to all riparian habitat on-site. The perimeter was also surveyed. This route was arranged to cover all suitable habitat on-site. If observed, special-status wildlife observations were mapped in the field using the ESRI Collector mobile application to record location and population information. Binoculars were used to aid in detecting and identifying wildlife species. The five surveys conducted for southwestern willow flycatcher followed the currently accepted protocol (Sogge et al. 2010), which states that a minimum of five survey visits is needed to evaluate a project’s effects on southwestern willow flycatcher. The protocol recommends one survey between May 15 and 31, two surveys between June 1 and June 24, and two surveys between June 25 and July 17. Consistent with the protocol, surveys during the final period (June 25 and July 17) were separated by at least 5 days. A recording of southwestern willow flycatcher vocalizations was used, approximately every 50 to 100 feet within suitable habitat to induce southwestern willow flycatcher responses. In compliance with the accepted Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2001), eight protocol surveys were conducted by qualified Dudek biologists within all riparian areas and any other potential least Bell’s vireo habitats between May 22 and July 31, 2020 (see Table 1). The site visits were conducted at least 10 days apart to maximize the detection of early and late arrivals, females, non-vocal birds, and nesting pairs. Recordings of least Bell’s vireo vocalizations were not used during the surveys. Surveys were conducted between dawn and 11:00 a.m. and were not conducted during periods of excessive or abnormal cold, heat, wind, rain, or other inclement weather. 2.2.5 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resource Delineation A routine jurisdictional waters/wetland delineation, following the guidelines set forth by the USACE (1987, 2008), was performed by RECON biologist Gerry Scheid on March 24, 2022 to verify Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 20 previous mapping conducted by Dudek in 2020 and gather field data at potential jurisdictional waters in the survey area for the aquatic resources delineation report. Wetland waters were delineated using the USACE three-parameter method. Non-wetland water parameters were evaluated as part of the assessment of the presence of an Ordinary High Water Mark. Prior to conducting the delineation, aerial photographs and USGS topographic maps of the site were examined. Once on-site, the potential federal, state, City of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista jurisdictional areas were examined to determine the presence and extent of any jurisdictional waters. More details regarding the delineation survey can be found in the aquatic resources delineation report (Attachment 4). 2.3 Survey Limitations Site visits were conducted during daylight hours. Surveys were conducted mostly during the daytime to maximize visibility for the detection of plants and most animals. Birds represent the largest component of the vertebrate fauna, and because they are active in the daytime, diurnal surveys maximize the number of observations of this portion of the fauna. Daytime surveys may result in fewer observations of animals that are more active at night, such as mammals. In addition, many species of reptiles and amphibians are nocturnal and/or secretive in their habits and are difficult to observe using standard meandering transects. To account for survey limitations, special-status wildlife species that could occur based on pertinent distribution and habitat preference literature and recorded off-site observations are analyzed herein based on their potential to occur. Focused surveys for potentially occurring special-status plants were conducted for the project area in two passes (i.e., spring and summer) to document rare plants that have different seasonal blooming periods. In addition, reference checks were performed at known Otay tarplant populations in the project vicinity to ensure that spring surveys were conducted during the optimal blooming period and during years with appropriate conditions. 3.0 Results of Surveys 3.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types A total of eight vegetation communities and four land cover types were identified within the project area: Diegan coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated, non-native grassland, Arundo-dominated riparian, mule fat scrub, southern willow scrub, emergent wetland, disturbed wetland, disturbed habitat, eucalyptus woodland, and urban/developed (Table 2; Figure 3-1). Vegetation communities are classified according to each City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and those considered sensitive are listed as wetlands, Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III/IIIB (City of San Diego 2018a; City of Chula Vista 2003). A brief description of each community and land cover type is also provided below and representative photographs are shown in Attachment 5. FIGURE 3-1 Biological Resources kj kjkjkj kjkjkj kjkj kj kjkjkj kj kj kj kj kj kj kjkj #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 kj GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 kj kjkjkj kjkjkj kjkj kj kjkjkj kj kj kj kj kj kj kjkj #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 kj GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) Project Boundary Survey Area Sensitive Wildlife #0 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) #0 Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) #0 Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) #0 Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia) Sensitive Plants California Adolphia (Adolphia californica) Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) San Diego County Viguiera (Bahiopsis lacniata ) San Diego Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) San Diego Bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) Ashy Spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens) Small-flowered Microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha) San Diego Marsh-elder (Iva hayesiana) kj South Coast Saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) Vegetation Communities Arundo-Dominated Riparian Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-dominated Disturbed Habitat Disturbed Wetland Emergent Wetland Eucalyptus Woodland Mule Fat Scrub Non-Native Grassland Ornamental Southern Willow Scrub Urban/Developed M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Biotec\2023\Fig3-1.mxd 05/09/2023 bma 0 150Feet [ kj kj kj kj kj kj Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 22 Table 2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the Project Area Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type City of San Diego Biology Guidelines Vegetation Community City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan Tier City of San Diego Biological Guidelines Tier Project Site (acres) Off-Site Area – City of Chula Vista (acres) Off-Site Area – City of San Diego (acres) Total Project Area (acres) Upland Vegetation Communities Diegan coastal sage scrub Coastal sage scrub II II 4.49 — 2.06 6.55 Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated Coastal sage scrub II II 0.16 0.76 — 0.92 Non-native grassland Non-native grassland III IIIB 13.96 0.11 0.71 14.78 Wetland Vegetation Communities Arundo-dominated riparian Riparian scrub Wetlands Wetlands — 0.09 0.03 0.12 Mule fat scrub Riparian scrub Wetlands Wetlands 0.11 — — 0.11 Southern willow scrub Riparian scrub Wetlands Wetlands 0.31 0.35 0.16 0.82 Emergent wetland Riparian scrub Wetlands Wetlands 0.18 — — 0.18 Disturbed wetland Disturbed wetlands Wetlands Wetlands 0.05 — — 0.05 Land Covers Disturbed habitat Disturbed land IV IV 4.51 2.05 1.57 8.13 Eucalyptus woodland Eucalyptus woodland IV IV — — 1.80 1.80 Ornamental Disturbed land IV IV — — 1.86 1.86 Urban/developed Disturbed land N/A IV — — 1.53 1.53 Total 23.77 3.36 9.72 36.85 3.1.1 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan coastal sage scrub is a native vegetation community that, according to Oberbauer et al. (2008), is composed of a variety of soft, low, aromatic shrubs, characteristically dominated by drought-deciduous species—such as coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and sages (Salvia spp.)—with scattered evergreen shrubs, including lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia) and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). Diegan coastal sage scrub occupies a total of 6.55 acres within the project area (see Figure 3-1). This vegetation community occurs on the southern portion of the project area. The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan identifies coastal sage scrub as Tier II “uncommon uplands” (City of Chula Vista 2003). Coastal sage scrub is considered a Tier II habitat by the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). 3.1.2 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-Dominated Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated is similar to Diegan coastal sage scrub except that it is dominated by Baccharis species (broom baccharis [B. sarothroides] and/or coyote brush [B. pilularis]) (Oberbauer et al. 2008). This community typically occurs on disturbed sites or those with nutrient-poor soils and is often found within other forms of Diegan coastal sage scrub and on upper Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 23 terraces of river valleys. This community is distributed along coastal and foothill areas in San Diego County. Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated occupies a total of 0.92 acres within the project area (see Figure 3-1). This vegetation community occurs on the northeastern portion of the project area. The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan identifies coastal sage scrub as Tier II “uncommon uplands” (City of Chula Vista 2003). Coastal sage scrub is considered a Tier II habitat by the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). 3.1.3 Non-Native Grassland Non-native grassland consists of dense to sparse cover of annual grasses with flowering culms between 0.5 to 3 feet in height (Oberbauer et al. 2008). In San Diego County the presence of wild oat (Avena fatua), bromes (Bromus spp.), stork’s bills (Erodium spp.), and mustards (Brassica spp.) are common indicators. In some areas, depending on past disturbance and annual rainfall, annual forbs may be the dominant species; however, it is presumed that grasses will dominate. Non-native grassland occupies a total of 14.78 acres within the project area (see Figure 3-1). This vegetation community is the most dominant community in the project area and occurs on the central portion of the project area. The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan identifies non-native grassland as Tier III “common uplands” (City of Chula Vista 2003). Non-native grassland is considered a Tier IIIB habitat by the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). 3.1.4 Arundo-Dominated Riparian The Arundo-dominated riparian vegetation community is composed of monotypic or nearly monotypic stands of giant reed (Arundo donax) that are fairly widespread in Southern California. Typically, it occurs on moist soils and in streambeds and may be related directly to soil disturbance or the introduction of propagules by grading or flooding. Mapped occurrences may include surrounding native trees. Giant reed often occupies jurisdictional wetlands. The area mapped as Arundo-dominated riparian occupies 0.12 acre within the project area and occurs entirely within the 100-foot survey buffer (see Figure 3-1). The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan identifies Arundo-dominated riparian (disturbed wetland) as “wetlands” (City of Chula Vista 2003). Arundo-dominated riparian is considered a wetland (riparian scrub) per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). 3.1.5 Southern Willow Scrub Southern willow scrub is a dense, broad-leafed, winter-deciduous riparian thicket dominated by several willow species (Salix spp.), with scattered emergent western cottonwood (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii) and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). This community was formerly extensive along the major rivers of coastal Southern California but is now much reduced (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 24 The areas mapped as southern willow scrub occupy 0.82 acre within the project area and occur along the eastern boundary of the project area (see Figure 3-1). The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan identifies southern willow scrub (riparian scrub) as “wetlands” (City of Chula Vista 2003). Southern willow scrub is considered a wetland (riparian scrub) per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). 3.1.6 Mule Fat Scrub Mule fat scrub is a depauperate, tall, herbaceous riparian scrub strongly dominated by mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia). This early seral community is maintained by frequent flooding. Site factors include intermittent stream channels with fairly coarse substrate and moderate depth to the water table (Oberbauer et al. 2008). This community type is widely scattered along intermittent streams and near larger rivers. The area mapped as mule fat scrub occupies 0.11 acres within the project area and occurs along the eastern boundary of the project area (see Figure 3-1). The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan identifies mule fat scrub (riparian scrub) as “wetlands” (City of Chula Vista 2003). Mule fat scrub is considered a wetland (riparian scrub) per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). 3.1.7 Disturbed Wetland Disturbed wetlands are characterized by areas permanently or periodically inundated by water, which have been significantly modified by human activity. Characteristic species include giant reed, tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) and fan palms, though may be consisting of bare ground or contain native wetland plants such as willows (Salix spp.) (Oberbauer at al. 2008). The areas mapped as disturbed wetland occupy 0.05 acre within the project area and occur along the eastern boundary of the project area (see Figure 3-1). The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan identifies disturbed wetland (disturbed wetlands) as “wetlands” (City of Chula Vista 2003). Disturbed wetlands are considered a wetland (disturbed wetlands) per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). 3.1.8 Emergent Wetland Emergent wetlands are generally persistent wetlands dominated by low growing, perennial wetland species. They can occur along channels and floodplains, often in previously disturbed areas where wetlands are emerging. Characteristic species include curly dock (Rumex spp.) (Oberbauer 2008). The areas mapped as emergent wetland occupy 0.18 acre within the project area and occur along the eastern boundary of the project area (see Figure 3-1). The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan identifies emergent wetland (riparian scrub) as “wetlands” (City of Chula Vista 2003). Emergent wetlands are considered a wetland (riparian scrub) per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 25 3.1.9 Disturbed Habitat Disturbed habitats are areas that have been physically disturbed and are no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation (Oberbauer et al. 2008). These areas may continue to retain soil substrate. If vegetation is present, it is almost entirely composed of non-native vegetation, such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species. According to Oberbauer et al. (2008), disturbed habitat refers to areas that are not developed yet lack vegetation and that generally are the result of severe or repeated mechanical perturbation. Disturbed habitat occupies a total of 8.13 acres within the project area (see Figure 3-1). This land cover occurs throughout the site, primarily along the southern and northern boundaries of the project area. The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan identifies disturbed habitat (disturbed lands) as Tier IV “other uplands” (City of Chula Vista 2003). Disturbed habitat is considered a Tier IV habitat (disturbed land) per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). 3.1.10 Eucalyptus Woodland Eucalyptus woodland is not recognized by Holland (1986) but is recognized by Oberbauer et al. (2008). This “naturalized” vegetation community is fairly widespread in Southern California and is considered a woodland habitat. It typically consists of monotypic stands of introduced Australian eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.). The understory is either depauperate (i.e., lacking species variety) or absent, owing to high leaf litter. Although eucalyptus woodlands are of limited value to most native plants and animals, they frequently provide nesting and perching sites for several raptor species. Eucalyptus woodland occupies a total of 1.80 acres within the project area, entirely within the 100-foot survey buffer (see Figure 3-1). This vegetation community occurs to the west of the western boundary of the project site. The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan identifies eucalyptus woodland as Tier IV “other uplands” (City of Chula Vista 2003). Eucalyptus woodland is considered a Tier IV habitat per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). 3.1.11 Ornamental Ornamental land cover consists of species planted for landscaping purposes, and totals 1.86 acres within the project area. Areas mapped as ornamental are located along the slope to the east of the project site along the RiverEdge Terrace development (see Figure 3-1). As documented in the as-built plans for that development, the adjacent slope to the project site was graded and subsequently planted utilizing hydroseed mix to reduce erosion along the slope. This hydroseed mix included native species (Attachment 6). 3.1.12 Urban/Developed According to Oberbauer et al. (2008), urban/developed land represents areas that have been constructed upon or otherwise physically altered to an extent that native vegetation communities Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 26 are not supported. This land cover type generally consists of semi-permanent structures, homes, parking lots, pavement or hardscape, and landscaped areas that require maintenance and irrigation (e.g., ornamental greenbelts). Typically, this land cover type is unvegetated or supports a variety of ornamental plants and landscaping. Areas mapped as urban/developed land occupy 1.53 acres of the project area (see Figure 3-1). This land cover occurs in the southeastern corner of the project area. Urban/developed is not ranked in the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). Disturbed habitat is considered a Tier IV habitat (disturbed land) per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). 3.2 Plants A total of 112 species of native or naturalized plants, 59 native (52 percent) and 53 non-native (48 percent), were recorded during the biological surveys for the project. A cumulative list of all common and sensitive plant species observed in the project area is provided in Attachment 7 of this report. 3.3 Wildlife The project area supports habitat primarily for upland species within coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, and disturbed habitat. These upland habitats also provide foraging and nesting habitat for migratory and resident bird species and other wildlife species. Suitable habitat for sensitive riparian species is present within riparian scrub (southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub) habitats along the eastern edge of the project area. The range of vegetated communities in the project area also likely provides cover and foraging opportunities for wildlife species, including reptiles and mammals. A total of 66 wildlife species, including 51 birds, 7 butterflies, 5 mammals, 2 reptiles, and 1 amphibian, were recorded during the biological surveys for the project area. A cumulative list of all common and sensitive wildlife species observed in the project area is provided in Attachment 8 of this report. 3.3.1 Reptiles and Amphibians Two reptiles were observed within the project area during biological surveys: western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata). One amphibian, a treefrog (Pseudacris sp.), was observed within the project area. 3.3.2 Birds A total of 51 species of birds were observed within the project area or immediately off site during the biological surveys. Some of the species commonly observed include spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and common raven (Corvus corax). Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 27 3.3.3 Mammals Five mammals were observed within the project area during biological surveys. Commonly observed species include coyote (scat signs only) (Canis latrans), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). 3.3.4 Invertebrates A total of seven butterfly species were observed within the project area during biological surveys. Commonly observed butterflies included Pacific sara orangetip (Anthocharis sara sara), funereal duskywing (Erynnis funeralis), western tiger swallowtail (Papilio rutulus), and painted lady (Vanessa cardui). 3.4 Sensitive Resources For purposes of this report, species will be considered sensitive if they are (1) covered species under the City of Chula Vista or City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan; (2) listed by state or federal agencies as threatened or endangered or are proposed for listing (CDFW 2022b, 2022c); (3) on California Rare Plant Rank 1B (considered endangered throughout its range) or California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 2 (considered endangered in California but more common elsewhere), CRPR 3 (more information about the plant’s distribution and rarity needed), and CRPR 4 (plants of limited distribution) of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (2022); or (4) designated by the City of Chula Vista or City of San Diego as a narrow endemic species (City of Chula Vista 2003; City of San Diego 1997, 2018a). 3.4.1 Special-Status Plant Species Nine sensitive plant species were observed within the project area: Otay tarplant, South Coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica), San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens var. viridescens), California adolphia (Adolphia californica), San Diego bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia), San Diego marsh-elder (Iva hayesiana), San Diego County viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata), small-flowered microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha), and ashy spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens). A comprehensive list of sensitive plant species with potential for occurrence within the project area is presented in Attachment 9 and includes those species with low potential for occurrence based on species range and habitat conditions. Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) Otay tarplant is federally listed as threatened, state endangered, City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego MSCP covered species and narrow endemic and has a CRPR of 1B.1. This annual herb is often found in coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland on clay soils. This species’ typical blooming period is May and June, and it occurs on elevations ranging from 82 feet to 984 feet amsl. A small population, totaling between 4 and 14 individuals based on surveys conducted in 2020 and 2022 occurs within the off-site area associated with roadway improvements in the City of San Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 28 Diego (see Figure 3-1). This population occurs outside of any Conservation Areas and the MHPA and does not represent a significant population of this species. South Coast Saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) South Coast saltscale has a CRPR of 1B.2. South Coast saltscale is an annual herb occurring in coastal sage scrub, as well as coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes and playa below 460 feet amsl (CNPS 2020). South Coast saltscale was observed within the off-site area associated with roadway improvements in the City of San Diego (see Figure 3-1). San Diego Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) San Diego barrel cactus has a CRPR of 2B.1 and is a City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan covered species. This succulent is located at elevations less than 1,500 feet amsl within chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and sometimes in vernal pools (CNPS 2020). This species blooms May through July. Approximately 24 San Diego barrel cactus individuals were observed within non-native grassland in the southeastern portion of the project area (see Figure 3-1). California Adolphia (Adolphia californica) California adolphia has a CRPR of 2B.1. California adolphia is a perennial deciduous shrub and is distributed along the coast of San Diego County (CNPS 2020). California adolphia is found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and valley grassland. This species’ blooming period is between December and May. California adolphia occurs on clay soils below 1,310 feet amsl. Approximately 74 California adolphia individuals were observed within Diegan coastal sage scrub and disturbed habitat in the southwestern corner of the project area (see Figure 3-1). San Diego Bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) San Diego bur-sage has a CRPR of 2B.1. San Diego bur-sage is a perennial shrub occurring in San Diego and Orange Counties (CNPS 2020). This species is found in coastal sage scrub at elevations between 180 feet and 510 feet amsl. This species’ blooming period is between April and June. Approximately 858 San Diego bur-sage individuals were observed within Diegan coastal sage scrub in the southwestern corner and along the eastern boundary of the project area (see Figure 3-1). San Diego Marsh-elder (Iva hayesiana) San Diego marsh-elder has a CRPR of 2B.2. San Diego marsh-elder is a perennial herb occurring in San Diego County and Baja California (CNPS 2020). San Diego marsh-elder is found in riparian and marsh habitats between 10 and 500 amsl. San Diego marsh-elder was observed within southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub habitat in the eastern portion of the project area (see Figure 3-1). San Diego marsh-elder on-site totals approximately 0.05 acre. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 29 Ashy Spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens) Ashy spike-moss has a CRPR of 4.1. Ashy spike-moss is a pteridophyte, California native fern that occurs in San Diego, Riverside, and Orange Counties (CNPS 2020). This species is found in chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Ashy spike-moss occurs at elevations of 65 feet to 2,100 feet amsl. Ashy spike-moss was observed within Diegan coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, and disturbed habitat in the southern portion of the 100-foot survey buffer (see Figure 3-1). Ashy spike-moss on-site totals approximately 0.02 acre. San Diego County Viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata) San Diego County viguiera has a CRPR of 4.2. This shrub is found at elevations ranging from 200 to 2,460 feet amsl in chaparral and coastal scrub (CNPS 2020). This species typically blooms February through June. Approximately 2,196 San Diego County viguiera individuals were observed within Diegan coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, and disturbed habitat along the southern and eastern boundaries of the project area (see Figure 3-1). The individuals observed along the eastern boundary within the 100-foot survey buffer occur on previously graded slopes associated with the RiverEdge Terrace development that were hydroseeded for erosion control (see Attachment 6). Small-Flowered Microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha) Small-flowered microseris has a CRPR of 4.2. Small-flowered microseris is an annual herb and is distributed along the coast of San Diego County (CNPS 2020). Small-flowered microseris is found in valley grassland, coastal sage scrub, and foothill woodland. This species’ blooming period is between March and May. Small-flowered microseris occurs in wetlands at elevations less than 3,600 feet amsl. A total of six small-flowered microseris individuals were observed within Diegan coastal sage scrub in one area in the southern portion of the project area (see Figure 3-1). 3.4.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Five sensitive wildlife species were observed during biological surveys: coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) (observed off-site), and western bluebird (Sialia mexicana). Special-status wildlife species determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the project area include the following: orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), San Diegan tiger whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), pallid bat (foraging only) (Antrozous pallidus), Mexican long-tongued bat (foraging only) (Choeronycteris mexicana), and western mastiff bat (foraging only) (Eumops perotis californicus). Additionally, two special-status wildlife species, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and Crotch’s bumble bee, were determined to have a low to moderate potential to occur within the project area. These species are discussed in further detail below. A comprehensive list of sensitive wildlife with potential for occurrence within the project area is presented in Attachment 10 and includes those species with low potential for occurrence based on species range and habitat conditions. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 30 3.4.2.1 Reptiles Orange-Throated Whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra ) Orange-throated whiptail is a City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan covered species. Orange-throated whiptail inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chamise–redshank chaparral, and valley–foothill hardwood habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). This species ranges from Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino County to San Diego County west of the Peninsular Ranges. The orange-throated whiptail ranges in elevation from sea level to 3,410 feet amsl (Jennings and Hayes 1994). This species uses dense vegetation, or other surface objects such as rocks, logs, decaying vegetation, and boards, as cover. Orange-throated whiptail has a moderate potential to occur within the Diegan coastal sage scrub in project area. San Diegan Tiger Whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) San Diegan tiger whiptail is a CDFW species of special concern. It is found in coastal Southern California, mostly west of the Peninsular Ranges and south of the Transverse Ranges, north into Ventura County, and south into Baja California, Mexico (Lowe et al. 1970; Stebbins 2003). Tiger whiptail (A. tigris) is found in a variety of habitats, primarily in areas where plants are sparse and there are open areas for running. According to Stebbins (2003), the species ranges from deserts to montane pine forests, where it prefers warmer and drier areas. The species is also found in woodland and streamside growth, and it avoids dense grassland and thick shrub growth. San Diegan tiger whiptail has a moderate potential to occur within areas of open habitat in the project area, primarily the Diegan coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland. 3.4.2.2 Birds Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Cooper’s hawk is a City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan covered species. It is found throughout California in wooded areas. This species inhabits live oak, riparian, deciduous, and other forest habitats near water. Nesting and foraging usually occur near open water or riparian vegetation. Nests are built in dense stands with moderate crown depths, usually in second-growth conifer or deciduous riparian areas. Cooper’s hawk uses patchy woodlands and edges with snags for perching while it hunts for prey such as small birds, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in broken woodland and habitat edges (Zeiner et al. 1990). Cooper’s hawk has a moderate potential to nest within the southern willow scrub and eucalyptus woodland within the project area. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally threatened species, a CDFW species of special concern, and a City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan covered species. Coastal California gnatcatcher breeds in lower elevations (less than 500 meters, or 1,640 feet amsl) south and west of the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges (Atwood and Bolsinger 1992). Higher densities of this Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 31 species occur in coastal San Diego and Orange Counties, and lower densities are found in Los Angeles, Orange, western Riverside, southwestern San Bernardino, and inland San Diego Counties (Atwood 1993; Preston et al. 1998). The coastal California gnatcatcher primarily occupies open coastal sage scrub habitat that is dominated by coastal sagebrush. This species is relatively absent from coastal sage scrub habitats dominated by black sage (Salvia mellifera), white sage (Salvia apiana), or sugar bush (Rhus ovata). One pair of coastal California gnatcatcher was identified during all three protocol surveys in 2020 (see Figure 3-1). The pair was found both visually and acoustically each survey visit in the farthest south-central portion of the site. Since it was breeding season, the male was identified by the fine narrow black cap, and the female was observed close by. Additionally, coastal California gnatcatcher was incidentally detected in the southeastern portion of the project area and in the 100-foot survey buffer during protocol riparian bird surveys in July 2020 and the biological verification survey in March 2022. Attachment 2 includes the methods and results of the coastal California gnatcatcher 2020 protocol-level survey. Based on the survey results, coastal California gnatcatcher is assumed to be present in all Diegan coastal sage scrub and Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated within the project area. Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) Least Bell’s vireo is federally endangered, state endangered, and a City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan covered species. The breeding range of least Bell’s vireo includes coastal and inland Southern California (including the western edge of Southern California’s southern deserts), a small area within California’s Central Valley, and extreme northern Baja California, Mexico. Least Bell’s vireo overwinters primarily along southern Baja California (Kus 2002). Least Bell’s vireo primarily occupy riverine riparian habitats along water, including dry portions of intermittent streams that typically provide dense cover within 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) off the ground, often adjacent to a complex, stratified canopy. Least Bell’s vireo nesting habitats in cismontane and coastal areas include southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, arroyo willow riparian forest edge, wild blackberry thickets, and more rarely, cottonwood forest, sycamore alluvial woodland, and southern coast live oak riparian forest. Least Bell’s vireo was observed during focused rare plant surveys and protocol riparian bird surveys in May 2020 (see Figure 3-1). Least Bell’s vireo was observed only on the eastern side of the site within the southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and disturbed habitat adjacent to the Arundo-dominated riparian. Two male least Bell’s vireo were detected as attempting to establish breeding territories within the protocol survey area. Areas with high potential for least Bell’s vireo to nest on-site include the eastern side of the project site within the southern willow scrub habitat. Attachment 3 includes the methods and results of the least Bell’s vireo 2020 protocol-level survey. Based on the survey results, least Bell’s vireo is assumed to be present in all southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and Arundo-dominated riparian within the project area. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Burrowing owl is CDFW species of special concern and a City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan covered species. It occurs throughout North and Central America west of the eastern edge of the Great Plains south to Panama. The winter range is much the same as the nesting range, except that most burrowing owls apparently vacate the northern areas of the Great Plains and Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 32 the Great Basin in winter (County of Riverside 2008). The majority of burrowing owls that breed in Canada and the northern United States are believed to migrate south during September and October and north during March and April and into the first week of May. These individuals winter within the nesting habitat of more southern populations. Thus, winter observations may include migratory individuals and the resident population (County of Riverside 2008). The burrowing owls in Northern California are believed to migrate (Coulombe 1971). In California, burrowing owls are year-round residents of flat, open, dry grassland and desert habitats at lower elevations. They can inhabit annual and perennial grasslands and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. They may be found in areas that include trees and shrubs if the cover is less than 30 percent; however, they prefer treeless grasslands (Bates 2006). Although burrowing owls prefer large, contiguous areas of treeless grasslands, they have also been known to occupy fallow agriculture fields, golf courses, cemeteries, road allowances, airports, vacant lots in residential areas and university campuses, and fairgrounds when nest burrows are present (Bates 2006; County of Riverside 2008). They typically require burrows made by fossorial mammals, such as California ground squirrel. This species also prefers sandy soils with higher bulk density and less silt, clay, and gravel (Lenihan 2007). While none were observed, burrowing owl has a moderate potential to occur within the non-native grassland within the project area. Though the project area currently lacks suitable burrows for nesting and ground squirrel activity, portions of the non-native grassland have suitable vegetation structure and species occurrence records are known from the general vicinity (e.g., Otay Mesa area). Therefore, this species could subsequently occupy the project area should suitable burrows develop in the future. Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia ) Yellow warbler is a CDFW species of special concern. Yellow warbler inhabits riparian woodland in coastal and desert lowlands, montane chaparral, open ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). This species breeds along the coast of California west of Sierra Nevada, and eastern California from Lake Tahoe south to Inyo County. The yellow warbler occurs in medium-density woodlands and forests with heavy brush understory and migrates to sparse to dense woodland and forest habitats. Yellow warbler was observed during riparian bird surveys in June 2020 (see Figure 3-1). This species has a high potential to nest within the southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub in the eastern portion of the project area and is assumed to be present within all southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub within the project area. Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) Western bluebird is a City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego MSCP covered species. It is a common resident bird in San Diego County, where it prefers montane coniferous and oak woodlands (Unitt 2004). It nests in old-growth red fir, mixed conifer, and lodgepole pine habitats near wet meadows used for foraging. Because this species is not considered special status by state or federal agencies, it is not tracked in the CNDDB. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 33 Western bluebird was observed during riparian bird surveys in June 2020 (see Figure 3-1). This species was observed foraging within the project area; however, the project area lacks suitable large trees with cavities for nesting. This species is assumed to utilize the site for foraging but not nesting. Yellow-Breasted Chat (Icteria virens) Yellow-breasted chat is a CDFW species of special concern. Yellow-breasted chat inhabits valley foothill riparian habitats 1,450 meters (4,757 feet) in elevation and desert riparian habitats 2,050 meters (6,726 feet) in elevation (Zeiner et al. 1990). The yellow-breasted chat is a summer resident and migrant in coastal California and in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. This species occurs along the coast of Northern California east to Cascades and locally south of Mendocino County (McCaskie et al. 1979). In Southern California, the yellow-breasted chat breeds on the coast and inland (Garrett and Dunn 1981). The yellow-breasted chat requires riparian thickets of willow and other brush near water for cover. Yellow-breasted chat was observed off-site during riparian bird surveys in June 2020 (see Figure 3-1). This species has a high potential to nest within the southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub in the eastern portion of the project area and is assumed to be present within all southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub within the project area. 3.4.2.3 Mammals Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) Pallid bat is a CDFW species of special concern. Pallid bat is widespread throughout the western United States; southern British Columbia, Canada; and mainland and Baja, Mexico (Hall 1981; Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). Within the United States, it ranges east into southern Nebraska, western Oklahoma, and western Texas. Pallid bat occurs throughout California, except for the highest elevations of the Sierra Nevada, in Southern California counties including Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, Riverside, Orange, and Ventura (CDFW 2020). Pallid bat is locally common in arid deserts (especially the Sonoran life zone) and grasslands throughout the western United States, and also occurs in shrublands, woodlands, and forests at elevations up to 8,000 feet amsl (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). Although it prefers rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices with access to open habitats for foraging, it has been observed far from such areas (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). Pallid bat has a moderate potential to forage within the project area but is not expected to roost due to lack of rocky outcrops and man-made structures. Mexican Long-tongued Bat (Choeronycteris mexicana) Mexican long-tongued bat is a CDFW species of special concern. Mexican long-tongued bat is known in San Diego County as a summer resident primarily in urban habitat (Arroyo-Cabrales 1999; Olson 1947). This species forages in desert and montane riparian, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub, and pinyon–juniper habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). Mexican long-tongued bat uses caves, mines, and buildings as day roosts (Arroyo-Cabrales et al. 1987). This species winters in Mexico and northern Central America (Zeiner et al. 1990). Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 34 Mexican long-tongued bat has a moderate potential to forage within the project area but is not expected to roost due to lack of suitable caves, mines, and buildings. Western Mastiff Bat (Eumops perotis californicus) Western mastiff bat is a CDFW species of special concern. Western mastiff bat’s year-round range includes the San Joaquin Valley, the coastal region from the San Francisco Bay area south to San Diego, and the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges and Mojave and Colorado Deserts of Southern California. It is absent in California from the agricultural regions of the Central Valley, northwestern California, and the Great Basin Desert of northeastern California (Zeiner et al. 1990). Records from counties in Southern California include Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, and Ventura (CDFW 2020). Western mastiff bat occurs in a wide variety of chaparral, coastal scrub, coniferous and deciduous forest and woodland, and desert scrub habitats (Best et al. 1996; Zeiner et al. 1988–1990). Day roosts are established in crevices in rocky canyons and cliffs where the canyon/cliff is vertical or nearly vertical (Best et al. 1996), as well as trees and tunnels (Zeiner et al. 1990). This species has also adapted to roosting in buildings and has been observed hanging from various other kinds of built structures, including awnings, ledges over doors and windows, large cracks in masonry, and rafters (Best et al. 1996). Western mastiff bat has a moderate potential to forage within the project area but is not expected to roost due to lack of suitable rock crevices and cliffs. 3.4.2.4 Invertebrates Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Quino checkerspot butterfly is a federally endangered species and is covered under the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, although it is not covered under the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan. This species is found only in western Riverside County, southern San Diego County, and northern Baja California, Mexico (USFWS 2003). This species is found on sparsely vegetated hilltops, ridgelines, and occasionally on rocky outcrops in open chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat (typically at less than 3,000 feet amsl). This species requires host plants within these vegetation communities for feeding and reproduction. The primary larval host plant is dot-seed plantain (Plantago erecta); however, several other species have been documented as important larval host plants, including desert plantain, sometimes called woolly plantain (Plantago patagonica); thread-leaved bird’s beak (Cordylanthus rigidus); white snapdragon (Antirrhinum coulterianum); owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta); and Chinese houses (Collinsia spp.) (USFWS 2003). The project site occurs within the USFWS Quino checkerspot butterfly survey area but outside the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan 2000 Quino checkerspot butterfly survey area. Quino checkerspot butterfly is not expected to occur within the project area based on lack of suitable habitat and surrounding urban development. The habitats on-site lack this species’ host plant, dot-seed plantain. In addition, the non-native grassland and disturbed habitat on-site have been subject to historic disturbance from agriculture, are characterized by dense, non-native species and lack suitable openings for this species. The project site is also surrounded by dense urban Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 35 development on three sides, including I-805, and lacks connectivity to suitable habitat in the vicinity. Surveys were conducted in 2005 and Quino checkerspot butterfly was absent. Furthermore, upon coordination with Eric Porter of the USFWS, focused surveys for this species were not deemed necessary (Dudek, pers. comm., February 27, 2020). Crotch's Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii ). Crotch’s bumble bee is a state candidate for listing as endangered. This species prefers open grassland and shrub habitats (Xerces Society 2018). In California, its distribution is exclusive to coastal areas from San Diego towards the Sierra-Cascade Crest. This species is less common in western Nevada. Crotch’s bumble bee are generalist foragers and feed on snapdragon (Antirrhinum spp.), phacelia (Phacelia spp.), clarkia (Clarkia spp.), bush poppy (Dendromecon spp.), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), and buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.) (USFS 2018; Xerces Society 2018). Nesting occurs primarily underground, often in abandoned holes made by rodents or occasionally abandoned bird nests typical of most bumble bee species (Xerces Society 2018; USFWS 2023). Near-surface or subsurface disturbance such as mowing, fire, tilling, grazing, and planting may preclude bumble bee nesting colonies (Xerces Society 2018). Crotch’s bumble bee was not observed on the site during the various site surveys between 2020 and 2023 (see Table 1). Per the CDFW survey considerations (CDFW 2023b), a database review and habitat assessment were completed to determine the potential for Crotch’s bumble bee. A review of historical and current occurrences (CDFW 2023a) found no Crotch’s bumble bee records within the vicinity of the project site and the nearest last known siting is five miles from the project site. The habitat assessment was based upon general biological and botanical surveys conducted between 2020 and 2022, which included an inventory of all floral resources as well as habitat suitability assessment for special-status species. Based on the habitat assessment, the majority of the project site (19.12 acres) consists of non-native grassland, wetland communities, and non-native land cover types dominated by riparian and non-native species (e.g., short-pod mustard [Hirschfeldia incana], crown daisy [Glebionis coronaria]) with limited known floral resources for foraging. However, some known nectar plants are present in low densities (<1% relative cover) including fiddleneck (Amsinckia spp.), wild Canterbury-bell (Phacelia minor), and California buckwheat within the coastal sage scrub on the slopes in the southern portion of the project site (4.65 acres). Furthermore, the project site supports limited nesting habitat due to dense thatch of non-native grasses and forbs present throughout the project site. Bare ground is primarily limited to dirt access roads and footpaths, and the project site lacks suitable abandoned burrows for nesting based on surveys conducted in 2022. The project site also lacks adjacency to high-quality foraging or nesting habitat. Though potential floral resources for foraging are present on the vegetated manufactured slopes south and east of the project site, these areas are bounded by dense urban development and have low potential to support nesting due to dense vegetation and lack of suitable existing cavities for nesting. The parcel to the north has been graded and heavily disturbed from past storage operations and primarily contains dense invasive species, with bare ground limited to a gravel staging area that been heavily compacted and is partially covered with gravel and a walking trail. Based on this information, the bumble bee has a moderate potential to forage within the project site based on the species range and available nectar sources on-site. This species has a low potential to nest on-site as the majority of the disturbed land and non-native grassland on-site are densely vegetated and lack suitable openings or burrows for nesting and lacks adjacency to high-quality foraging or nesting habitat. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 36 3.4.3 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the immigration and emigration of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute to population viability by (1) ensuring the continual exchange of genes between populations, which helps maintain genetic diversity; (2) providing access to adjacent habitat areas, representing additional territory for foraging and mating; (3) allowing for a greater carrying capacity; and (4) providing routes for colonization of habitat lands following local population extinctions or habitat recovery from ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires). Habitat linkages are patches of native habitat that function to join two larger patches of habitat. They serve as connections between habitat patches and help reduce the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation. Although individual animals may not move through a habitat linkage, the linkage does represent a potential route for gene flow and long-term dispersal. Habitat linkages may serve as both habitat and avenues of gene flow for small animals such as reptiles and amphibians. Habitat linkages may be represented by continuous patches of habitat or by nearby habitat “islands” that function as steppingstones for dispersal. Due to the limited amount of native habitat and its proximity to existing residential and commercial development, the project area is unlikely to be a wildlife corridor. Habitat associated with Otay River may support wildlife species movement; however, the river is outside the project area. Wildlife could move in an east–west direction through the Otay River riparian corridor, along the northern boundary of the project area; however, movement south through the project area would be restricted by development and major roads and freeways. Because the project area does not join two larger patches of habitat, functioning more to support live-in habitat for smaller wildlife species or stopover habitat for species using the Otay River corridor—albeit with limited native habitat—it would not be considered a habitat linkage. As described in Section 1.3, Regulatory Context, the MHPA was designed to include key biological core and linkage areas within the City of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. The project area is not within the City of San Diego designated MHPA or within the 75% or 100% Conservation Areas designated by the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The closest City of San Diego MHPA boundary occurs approximately 180 feet west of the project area and the closest City of Chula Vista designated 75% Conservation Area occurs approximately 197 feet to the north of the project area. Both the MHPA and the Conservation Area are located within the Otay River (see Figure 1-5). Therefore, the project is located outside of any significant regional corridors. 3.4.4 Jurisdictional Resources A wetland/waters delineation was performed on-site according to the guidelines set forth by USACE (1987, 2008). A wetland/waters delineation is used to identify and map the extent of the wetlands and waters of the U.S. and provide information regarding jurisdictional issues. The methods used for the wetland delineation and survey findings are further discussed in the wetland delineation report prepared for the project (see Attachment 4). Figure 3-2 shows the potential jurisdictional boundaries within the project area and summarized in Table 3. It should be noted that the majority of potential jurisdictional resources are currently located within the City of Chula Vista within the area of potential Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 37 annexation. These acreages are presented in Table 3 in separate columns for the City of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista; however, only one will take jurisdiction over those resources once a determination regarding the Annexation or No Annexation scenario has been made. Table 3 Potential Jurisdictional Resources within the Project Area Jurisdictional Resource Acreage by Jurisdictiona RWQCB CDFW City of San Diego (Annexation Scenario) City of Chula Vista (No Annexation Scenario) Wetlands/Riparian Habitat Arundo-dominated riparian — 0.12 0.12 0.12 Mule fat scrub 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Southern willow scrub 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Emergent wetland 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Disturbed wetland 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Total 0.66 0.78 0.78 0.78 USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board. aDue to overlap of resource jurisdictions, columns should not be added together. 3.4.4.1 Federal Waters of the U.S. Under CWA Section 404, the USACE is authorized to regulate waters of the U.S. The currently accepted regulations defining waters of the U.S. follow the September 8, 2023, publishment of the final rule: Revised Definition of “Waters of the U.S.”, Conforming. Notably, this new rule provides a new interpretation of the term “adjacent” whereas wetlands must contain a surface hydrologic connection to other waters of the U.S. to be considered adjacent waters of the U.S. Additionally, this new rule eliminates the applicability of the significant nexus standard for “non-relatively permanent waters,” so ephemeral features are no longer likely to be considered waters of the U.S. The southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, disturbed wetland, and emergent wetland associated with the channel in the eastern portion of the project area support an ephemeral flow regime and would be considered a “non-relatively permanent water.” Although it has connectivity to the Otay River, the lack of at least intermittent flow would likely preclude it from being considered waters of the U.S. 3.4.4.2 Waters of the State The RWQCB is the regional agency responsible for protecting water quality in California. The jurisdiction of this agency includes waters of the State and all waters of the U.S. as mandated by both CWA Section 401 and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by using the three-perimeter definition similar to the federal definition requiring a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology (RWQCB 2020). The potential RWQCB wetland waters of the State include 0.66 acre within the survey area (see Figure 3-2). These waters are equivalent to the USACE wetland waters (see Figure 3-2). FIGURE 3-2 Jurisdictional Resources GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) Project Boundary Survey Area RWQCB Wetland Waters of the State/ CDFW Riparian/ City of San Diego Wetland/ City of Chula Vista Wetland CDFW Riparian/ City of San Diego Wetland/ City of Chula Vista Wetland M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Biotec\2023\Fig3-2.mxd 11/01/2023 bma 0 150Feet [ Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 39 3.4.4.3 CDFW State Waters Under Sections 1600–1607 of the CFGC, the CDFW regulates activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of wetland vegetation, riparian habitat, or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. All streambeds and associated wetlands are considered sensitive. These areas fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFW (Section 1600 of the CFGC). The CDFW jurisdictional areas extend to the outer edge of wetland vegetation or to the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. The potential CDFW jurisdictional within the survey area totals 0.78 acre, including CDFW riparian (see Figure 3-2). The CDFW riparian includes 0.12 acre of Arundo-dominated riparian located off-site in the survey buffer area in addition to the RWQCB wetland waters in the on-site project area (see Figure 3-2). 3.4.4.4 City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista Wetlands Potential City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista wetlands occur on-site where CDFW riparian and RWQCB wetland waters were delineated (see Figure 3-2). The total City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego wetlands within the survey area is 0.78 acre. Under the Annexation Scenario, the City of San Diego would take jurisdiction over the CDFW riparian and RWQCB wetland waters within the project site. Under the No Annexation Scenario, the City of Chula Vista would take jurisdiction over the CDFW riparian and RWQCB wetland waters within the project site. 3.4.4.5 Wetland Buffer Currently, the wetland buffer from the on-site drainage consists of disturbed land, Diegan coastal sage scrub and ornamental, and is heavily dominated by non-native species such as black mustard (Brassica nigra) and crown daisy (Glebionis coronaria). A buffer that ranges between 18 feet and 99 feet is being provided as part of the project to protect and maintain the functions and values of the on-site wetlands. The buffer is located along the western boundary of the drainage between the proposed development and the wetlands to avoid and minimize any indirect edge effects to the wetlands within the wetlands (Figure 3-2). The buffer would consist of manufactured slopes and a biofiltration basin planted with a mix of native species. A buffer between 18 feet and 98 feet is considered adequate due to the marginal functions and values of the wetlands, which is dominated by invasive species and has been heavily disturbed by encampments and trash. Furthermore, the landscaping would improve the quality of the buffer from existing conditions by removing invasive species and establishing native upland species, and a 6-foot block wall running along the eastern boundary of the project site would further protect functions and values of the wetlands on-site. The biofiltration basin would also protect the drainage from runoff from the adjacent development and water quality improvements implemented by the project would improve run-off in a manner that would also reduce erosion and siltation issues into the Otay River off-site. The biofiltration basin would be separated from the on-site wetlands by a 6-foot masonry block wall, which would prevent intrusion into the wetlands (see Figures 5 and 7 6 of Attachment 15). A more detailed analysis of project design features related to the on-site wetlands is included in Section 5.3.1.5. In addition, best Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 40 management practices would be implemented of the biofiltration basin and masonry wall to prevent indirect impacts to the on-site wetlands during construction, as detailed in Section 6.1.1. In order to ensure that the wetland buffer provides protection of the functions and values of the remaining southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and disturbed wetland on-site, the following measures would be implemented to reduce avoid and minimize edge effects: • A 6-foot block wall would be installed along the outer edge of the buffer development footprint to restrict access to the adjacent wetlands and streambed (see Figures 5 and 7 of Attachment 15). • Signage shall be posted that informs people of the sensitive nature of the adjacent wetland habitat and prohibits any brush management activities. As shown on the landscape plans, three signs shall be located west of the drainage, and state “Environmentally sensitive area: no brush management shall be performed beyond this point” (see Figure 6 of Attachment 15). • Only native plants shall be used in the wetland buffer as shown on the project landscape plans. • Long-term management shall include ongoing removal of invasives from the drainage and wetland buffer, as detailed in the Long Term Management and Monitoring Plan for the On-site Wetlands Mitigation Plan and Long-term Management Plan and brush management plan (see Attachments 13 and 15). As stated in the Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan for the On-site Wetlands, brush management shall avoid the nesting seasons for coastal California gnatcatcher (March 1 through August 15) and least Bell’s vireo (March 15 to September 15) to prevent direct or indirect impacts. 4.0 Compliance with MSCP Within the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the project area is designated as “Development Area Outside Covered Projects” (i.e., not designated a preserve or conservation area) and is not located immediately adjacent to any 75% or 100% Conservation Areas (see Figure 1-5). The closest conservation area (75%) is located approximately 197 feet north of the project area within the Otay River (see Figure 1-5). The project site and off-site areas would be subject to different regional resource planning documents depending on the project scenario. These scenarios and relevant MSCP Subarea Plan policies are described in further detail below. 4.1 Annexation Scenario Under the Annexation Scenario, the project site would be annexed into the City of San Diego and therefore, would be subject to the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. Upon annexation into the City of San Diego, the Take Authorizations of the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan would then be applicable to the project site. In addition, the off-site area associated with road improvements in Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 41 the City of San Diego would continue to be subject to the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. The off-site area associated with remedial grading would remain in the City of Chula Vista and would continue to be subject to the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Provisions for the annexation of properties between MSCP Subarea Plans is provided in Section 5.4.3 of the MSCP Subregional Plan (County of San Diego 1998). Under this section, an amendment to a Subarea Plan is allowed provided the conservation policies of the two Subarea Plans involved in the transfer are consistent with one another. A consistency analysis prepared for a previous development proposal on the subject property was completed by Helix Environmental Planning that demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Wildlife Agencies (City of San Diego 2012) that the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan are consistent with each other considering they were both prepared pursuant to the MSCP Subregional Plan (County of San Diego 1998). This consistency analysis was discussed in the City of San Diego’s Final 2011 MSCP Annual Report (City of San Diego 2012) and is included in Attachment 11. A consistency analysis for the current proposed project is included in Attachment 12. As detailed in Attachment 12, the annexation would involve the transfer of a “Development Area Outside of Covered Projects” within Chula Vista to a “Development Area” in the City of San Diego. Mitigation ratios provided by the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and City of San Diego Biology Guidelines are consistent between jurisdictions; thus, no loss in habitat mitigation would result from the proposed transfer. In addition, no 75% or 100% Conservation Areas are proposed for development or would be transferred into the City of San Diego, so the transfer would not affect the City of Chula Vista’s ability to meet their conservation obligations under the MSCP. In addition, the project area as a whole would continue to be subject to the MSCP Conditions for Coverage for covered species, as discussed in Section 4.3 below, which is based on Table 3-5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan and is consistent between both Subarea Plans. Therefore, transfer of the project site to the City of San Diego would not result in additional impacts to covered species. Narrow endemic impacts are limited to the off-site improvement area in the City of San Diego, which would remain in the City of San Diego and would not be subject to annexation. Thus, there would further be no changes in the protection of narrow endemics as a result of the proposed annexation. Thus, biological resources would be equally protected under both Subarea Plans and the transfer of the project site from the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan to the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan would be consistent with the conservation goals of the MSCP Subregional Plan. Under the Annexation Scenario, the off-site area in the City of Chula Vista would also not be required to obtain a HLIT permit as the area is less than one acre in size and located entirely within a mapped “Development Area Outside of Covered Projects.” Nonetheless, the off-site area in the City of Chula Vista is analyzed in Chapters 5.0 and 6.0 below to ensure consistency with the provisions of the MSCP and address cumulative contributions given that the entire project area as a whole exceeds one acre when accounting for the project site and off-site area within the City of San Diego. 4.2 No Annexation Scenario Under the No Annexation Scenario, the project site and off-site area associated with remedial grading would remain in the City of Chula Vista and continue to be subject to the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The off-site area associated with roadway improvements would remain in the Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 42 City of San Diego and continue to be subject to the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. The project area as a whole would be subject to the MSCP Conditions for Coverage for covered species, which is consistent between both Subarea Plans. Under the No Annexation Scenario, the project would also be subject to conformance with the City of Chula Vista’s HLIT Ordinance, as described in Project Requirement (PR) BIO-1 in Section 6.2.5, Project Requirements. The HLIT Ordinance findings are provided in Attachment 1. 4.3 MSCP Conditions for Coverage This section addresses project compliance with conditions for coverage of MSCP covered species, which would be required for the entire project area for both scenarios. Four MSCP covered species were observed within the project area: least Bell’s vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, Otay tarplant, and San Diego barrel cactus. Additionally, three MSCP covered species have potential to occur within the project area: Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, and orange-throated whiptail. The project consistency with each MSCP condition of coverage for these seven species is addressed below. Least Bell’s Vireo – The MSCP conditions for coverage for least Bell’s vireo require measures to provide appropriate successional habitat, upland buffers for all known populations, cowbird control, and specific measures to protect against detrimental edge effects to this species. Any clearing of occupied habitat must occur between September 15 and March 15 (i.e., outside of the breeding period) (City of Chula Vista 2003; City of San Diego 1997). In order to comply with these conditions, off-site habitat-based mitigation at Spring Canyon, which contains suitable least Bell’s vireo habitat, is proposed to compensate for the loss of suitable least Bell’s vireo habitat within the project area, as detailed in Sections 6.1.1 and 6.2.1. Through the implementation of proper best management practices (BMPs) both during construction, the project would not cause any detrimental edge effects to the suitable least Bell’s vireo habitat adjacent to the project area or the upland buffers around this habitat. Specifically, disturbances to habitat that supports least Bell’s vireo such as construction-related runoff, ground disturbance, and the introduction of invasive non-native species in adjacent off-site habitat would be minimized through the implementation of erosion control devices, silt fencing, and the containment and proper disposal of invasive non-natives, respectively. In addition, the project is not expected to affect the conditions of any habitat adjacent to the project area that would make it more favorable for cowbirds. Restrictions on clearing of occupied habitat between September 15 and March 15 will be included as project mitigation and are discussed further in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.2.3. Coastal California Gnatcatcher – The MSCP conditions for coverage include avoiding clearing of occupied habitat within MSCP preserve areas between March 1 and August 15, as well as management directives to reduce edge effects and minimize disturbance during the nesting period (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997). Suitable habitat for this species within and adjacent to the project area occurs entirely outside of any Conservation Areas and the MHPA. Therefore, no clearing or disturbance to this species Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 43 within any Conservation Areas or the MHPA would result from project construction during the nesting period. In addition, the project’s implementation of proper BMPs during construction is expected to minimize edge effects on the coastal sage scrub that would remain adjacent to the project area. Otay Tarplant – The MSCP conditions for coverage include management directives for monitoring of populations and adaptive management of preserves (taking into consideration the extreme population fluctuations from year to year), and specific measures to protect against detrimental edge effects to this species (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997). Off-site mitigation is proposed to compensate for the loss of Otay tarplant within the project area. The mitigation site would be managed and monitored as part of the City of San Diego’s MHPA. No additional populations outside of the project area were observed during biological surveys that would be subject to edge effects. San Diego Barrel Cactus – The MSCP conditions for coverage include management directives to protect this species from edge effects, unauthorized collection, and include appropriate fire management/control practices to protect against a too frequent fire cycle (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997). The project’s implementation of proper BMPs during construction is expected to minimize edge effects on the coastal sage scrub that would remain within and adjacent to the project area. In addition, unauthorized collection is not expected as the project is separated by fencing and 2:1 manufactured slopes from the habitat for this species. Fire frequency is not expected to increase with project implementation. Cooper’s Hawk – The MSCP conditions of coverage for Cooper’s hawk include establishment of 300-foot impact avoidance areas around active nests, and minimization of disturbance in oak woodlands and oak riparian forests (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997). In order to accomplish this, the project includes measures to avoid the removal of potential Cooper’s hawk habitat during the breeding season or, if the removal of habitat must occur during the breeding season, to conduct preconstruction surveys and establish a 300-foot impact avoidance area around any active Cooper’s hawk nest. In addition, a biological monitor would be present during any vegetation removal activities, and it would be the responsibility of that monitor to assess the effectiveness of the 300-foot buffer. If needed, the biological monitor would identify additional measures necessary to avoid impacts to Cooper’s hawk, such as increasing the buffer or implementing noise attenuation barriers. Orange-throated Whiptail – The condition for coverage of orange-throated whiptail under the MSCP requires area specific management directives to address edge effects (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997). The project’s implementation of proper BMPs during construction is expected to minimize edge effects on suitable Belding’s orange-throated whiptail habitat. Burrowing owl – The MSCP conditions of coverage for burrowing owl include avoiding impacts to the species to the maximum extent practicable. If burrowing owl are detected on-site, any impacted Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 44 individuals must be relocated out of the impact area using passive or active methodologies approved by the wildlife agencies; mitigation for impacts to occupied habitat (at the Subarea Plan specified ratio) must be through the conservation of occupied burrowing owl habitat or conservation of lands appropriate for restoration, management and enhancement of burrowing owl nesting and foraging requirements (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997). This species has a moderate potential to forage in the project area due to presence of suitable low-lying grassland, though has a low potential to nest due to lack of suitable burrows. However, to ensure consistency with this condition, the project includes measures to avoid impacts to burrowing owl, including preconstruction surveys to ensure this species does not occur in the project area at the time of construction. 5.0 Impact Analysis The purpose of this section is to describe the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to biological resources that would result from implementation of the project. The significance determinations for potential impacts are described in this section. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts are provided in Section 6. Direct Impacts refer to the permanent loss of on-site habitat and the plant and wildlife species that it contains. Direct impacts were quantified by overlaying the anticipated limits of grading on the biological resources map and quantifying the impacts. All biological resources within the project impact area are considered direct, permanent impacts. Indirect Impacts result primarily from adverse edge effects on-site or off-site, and may be short term (temporary), related to construction, or long term, associated with development in proximity to biological resources within natural open space. During construction of the project, short-term indirect impacts may include dust and noise, which could disrupt habitat and species vitality temporarily, and construction-related soil erosion and runoff. Cumulative impacts refer to incremental individual environmental effects of two or more projects when considered together. These impacts taken individually may be minor, but become collectively significant as they occur over a period of time. 5.1 City of San Diego According to the City of San Diego Biology Guidelines, lands containing Tier I, II, IIIA, and IIIB habitats and all City of San Diego wetlands (see Table 2 of this report) are considered sensitive and declining and, as such, impacts to these resources may be considered significant. Lands designated as Tier IV are not considered to have significant habitat value and impacts would not be considered significant. Impacts to individual sensitive species, outside of any impacts to habitat, may also be significant based upon the rarity and extent of impacts. Impacts to state or federally listed species and all narrow endemics should be considered significant per the City’s Biology Guidelines. Certain species covered by the MSCP and VPHCP and other species not covered by the MSCP, may be considered significant Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 45 on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration all pertinent information regarding distribution, rarity, and the level of habitat conservation afforded by the MSCP. The City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines also include additional information regarding significance, as follows (City of San Diego 2018a): a. Total upland impacts (Tiers I–IIIB) less than 0.1 acre are not considered significant and do not require mitigation. b. Impacts to non-native grasslands totaling less than 1.0 acre which are completely surrounded by existing urban developments are not considered significant and do not require mitigation. c. Total wetland impacts less than 0.01 acre are not considered significant and do not require mitigation. This does not apply to vernal pools, road pools supporting listed fairy shrimp, or wetlands within the Coastal Zone. d. Brush Management Zone 2 thinning activities, while having the potential to adversely affect biological resources, are not considered potentially significant inside the MHPA or, to the extent that non-covered species are not impacted, outside the MHPA, because of the implementation of the MSCP. e. Habitat mitigation is not required for impacts to manufactured slopes or areas that have been planted with native species for the purpose of erosion control. f. Removal/control of non-native plants is not considered to constitute a significant habitat impact for which compensatory habitat acquisition, preservation, or creation for the area impacted is required. Mitigation for indirect impacts such as erosion control or off-site infestation by non-native species may be needed. 5.2 City of Chula Vista The City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan defines sensitive biological resources as lands that contain natural vegetation (i.e., vegetation identified as Tier I, II, or III) and/or wetlands, and/or habitat occupied by covered species, other listed non-covered species, and/or narrow endemic species (City of Chula Vista 2003). According to the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003), impacts to Tier I, II, and III habitats will be mitigated pursuant to HLIT mitigation standards contained in Table 5-3 of the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). Wetland impact mitigation ratios are included in Section 5.2.4 of the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 46 However, the HLIT includes exemptions for specific types of development, which are exempt from the mitigation standards contained in the HLIT: a. Development of a project area that is one acre or less in size and located entirely in a mapped development area outside of covered projects. b. Development of a project area which is located entirely within the mapped development area outside covered projects, and where it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, or his/her designee, that no sensitive biological resources exist on the project area. c. Development that is limited to interior modifications or repairs and any exterior repairs, alterations or maintenance that does not increase the footprint of an existing building or accessory structure, that will not encroach into identified sensitive biological resources during or after construction. d. Any project within the development area of a covered project. e. Any project that has an effective incidental take permit from the wildlife agencies. f. Continuance of agricultural operations. g. Brush management activities conducted in accordance with the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2022). 5.3 Direct Impacts As described previously, implementation of either the Annexation or No Annexation scenario will result in impacts to the entire project site. In addition, off-site areas currently under the jurisdiction of either the City of Chula Vista or the City of San Diego also would be impacted (see Figure 1-4). While both scenarios include impacts to the same areas; the analysis of impacts requires the application of policies, plans and regulations specific to each jurisdiction. In the following section, impacts to biological resources associated with the Annexation Scenario (in which the project site is annexed into the City of San Diego) are analyzed. The City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines will be applied to the project site as well as the off-site areas within the City of San Diego east of the project site. The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan will be applied in the analysis of impacts associated with the off-site area north of the project site that would remain in Chula Vista. Subsequently, an analysis of impacts associated with the No Annexation Scenario (in which the project site remains under the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista) is provided in accordance with the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan. The City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan will be applied in the analysis of impacts within the project site as well as the offsite areas north of the project site that would remain in Chula Vista. The City of San Diego's Biology Guidelines will be applied in the analysis of impacts associated with the off-site area east of the project site that would remain in the City of San Diego. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 47 5.3.1 Annexation Scenario 5.3.1.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities – Annexation Scenario The impacts to vegetation communities and land cover types from the project total 23.37 acres. Of this, a total 22.92 acres of impacts would occur in the City of San Diego resulting from the project site and off-site area associated with road improvements, and an additional 0.45 acre of impacts would occur in the City of Chula Vista resulting from the off-site area associated with remedial grading and trails. Table 4 summarizes the impacts to each vegetation community/land cover type within the project area. Impacts to upland vegetation communities in the City of San Diego include 3.43 acre (Tier II) of Diegan coastal sage scrub (Tier II), 0.16 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis dominated (Tier II), and 13.60 acres of non-native grassland (Tier IIIB). These vegetation communities are considered sensitive uplands by the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018b). Therefore, impacts would be significant and mitigation would be required. An additional 0.01 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis dominated (Tier II) and 0.05 acre of impact to non-native grassland (Tier III) would occur in the City of Chula Vista. As the impacts to non-native grassland within the City of Chula Vista are less than 0.10 acre, impacts would be less than significant and would be exempt from the HLIT mitigation standards. However, impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis dominated and non-native grassland associated with the entire project (0.17 acre and 13.65 acres, respectively) would collectively be significant; therefore, mitigation would be required to offset the project’s total impact. Impacts to wetland vegetation communities in the City of San Diego include 0.03 acre of mule fat scrub, 0.15 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.18 acre of emergent wetland, and 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland. These vegetation communities are considered sensitive wetlands by the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018b). Therefore, impacts would be significant and mitigation would be required. Impacts to land cover types in the City of San Diego include 4.48 acres of disturbed habitat (Tier IV), 0.64 acre of ornamental (Tier IV), and 0.23 acre of urban/developed (Tier IV). An additional 0.39 acre of impact to disturbed habitat (Tier IV) would occur in the City of Chula Vista. These land cover types are not considered sensitive by the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018b) or City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. In addition, the entire brush management zone 1 occurs entirely inside the limits of disturbance for the project. Brush management zone 2 occurs partially outside of the limits of disturbance within Diegan coastal sage scrub (0.14 acre) and disturbed habitat (0.01 acre). Brush management 2 thinning and pruning activities are considered “impact neutral” and are therefore excluded from the total impact acreage. Table 4 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types (Annexation Scenario) Vegetation Community/ Land Cover Type City of San Diego Biology Guidelines Vegetation Community City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Tier City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan Tier Existing Project Area Acreage City of San Diego Impacts City of Chula Vista Impacts Total Project Area Impacts (Acres) Project Site (acres) Off-site Area (acres) Subtotal (acres) Off-site Area (acres) Upland Vegetation Communities Diegan coastal sage scrub Coastal sage scrub II II 6.55 3.39 0.04 3.43 — 3.43 Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated Coastal sage scrub II II 0.92 0.16 — 0.16 0.01 0.17 Non-native grassland Non-native grassland III IIIB 14.78 13.60 — 13.60 0.05 13.65 Wetland Vegetation Communities Arundo-dominated riparian Riparian scrub Wetlands Wetlands 0.12 — — — — — Mule fat scrub Riparian scrub Wetlands Wetlands 0.11 0.03 — 0.03 — 0.03 Southern willow scrub Riparian scrub Wetlands Wetlands 0.82 0.15 — 0.15 — 0.15 Emergent wetland Natural flood channel Wetlands Wetlands 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 0.18 Disturbed wetland Disturbed Wetland Wetlands Wetlands 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 0.04 Land Cover Types Disturbed habitat Disturbed land IV IV 8.13 4.09 0.37 4.48 0.39 4.87 Eucalyptus woodland Eucalyptus woodland IV IV 1.80 — — — — — Ornamental Disturbed land N/A IV 1.86 — 0.64 0.64 — 0.64 Urban/developed Disturbed land N/A IV 1.53 — 0.23 0.23 — 0.23 Total 36.85 21.64 1.28 22.92 0.45 23.37 Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 49 5.3.1.2 Impacts to Sensitive Plants – Annexation Scenario The project would result in direct impacts to six special-status plant species: Otay tarplant, San Diego marsh-elder, South Coast saltscale, San Diego bur-sage, ashy spike-moss, and San Diego County viguiera (Figure 5-1). All impacts to special-status plants would occur within the City of San Diego following annexation and would be located outside of the MHPA. No direct impacts are anticipated to occur to San Diego barrel cactus, small-flowered microseris, and California adolphia as these species occur outside of project impact area. a. Impacts to Otay Tarplant Direct impacts to Otay tarplant would occur as a result of the project in the off-site area associated with road improvements. Otay tarplant populations vary year to year; however, based on 2022 surveys, impacts would occur to 14 individuals within 0.001 acre of occupied habitat. Impacts to this species, which is a narrow endemic under the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, would be significant and mitigation would be required. b. Impacts to San Diego Marsh-Elder, South Coast Saltscale, San Diego Bur-Sage, Ashy Spike-Moss, and San Diego County Viguiera Direct impacts would occur to San Diego marsh-elder, South Coast saltscale, San Diego bur-sage, ashy spike-moss, and San Diego County viguiera within the project site and off-site area associated with road improvements. Project impacts would be limited to only a portion of the populations on-and off-site within the development footprint. Thus, these species would persist both on-site within the Covenant of Easement area, as well as within off-site areas of habitat. In addition, suitable habitat within the project impact area is limited to 8.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (including Baccharis-dominated variant), disturbed habitat, and southern willow scrub which comprises a small fraction of the habitat available to this species identified in the MSCP MHPA both at a local level (2,515 acres in southern MSCP area) and on a regional scale (24,147 acres total) (City of San Diego 1997). Therefore, project impacts are not anticipated to reduce species’ populations below self-sustaining levels and would not be significant. 5.3.1.3 Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species – Annexation Scenario The project has potential to result in direct impacts to thirteen special-status wildlife species: least Bell’s vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, western bluebird, orange-throated whiptail, San Diego tiger whiptail, pallid bat, Mexican long-tongued bat, western mastiff bat, and Crotch’s bumble bee (see Figure 5-1). Potential impacts would occur within the City of San Diego to all thirteen species outside of the MHPA. Within the City of Chula Vista, potential impacts would occur to burrowing owl, San Diegan tiger whiptail, pallid bat, Mexican long-tongued bat, western mastiff bat, and Crotch’s bumble bee; all outside of any 75% or 100% Conservation Areas. FIGURE 5-1 Impacts to Biological Resources kj kjkjkj kjkjkj kjkj kj kjkjkj kj kj kj kj kj kj kjkj #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 kj GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 kj kjkjkj kjkjkj kjkj kj kjkjkj kj kj kj kj kj kj kjkj #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 kj GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) Project Boundary Survey Area Project Impacts BMZ Zone 1 BMZ Zone 2 Sensitive Wildlife #0 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) #0 Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) #0 Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) #0 Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia) Sensitive Plants California Adolphia (Adolphia californica) Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) San Diego County Viguiera (Bahiopsis lacniata ) San Diego Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) San Diego Bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) Ashy Spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens) Small-flowered Microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha) San Diego Marsh-elder (Iva hayesiana) kj South Coast Saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) Vegetation Communities Arundo-Dominated Riparian Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-dominated Disturbed Habitat Disturbed Wetland Emergent Wetland Eucalyptus Woodland Mule Fat Scrub Non-Native Grassland Ornamental Southern Willow Scrub Urban/Developed M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Biotec\2023\Fig5-1.mxd 12/13/2023 bma 0 150Feet [ kj kj kj kj kj kjOffsite Impacts (within City of San Diego) Offsite Impacts (within City of Chula Vista) Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 51 a. Impacts to Least Bell’s Vireo Least Bell’s vireo was observed within the project site and off-site areas and in the vicinity of the proposed Wetland Plan area in Spring Canyon (see Attachment 13) and has a high potential to nest in suitable southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and Arundo-dominated riparian within the project impact area and Wetland Plan area. Therefore, the project has the potential for direct impacts to any individuals occurring within suitable habitat. Significant direct impacts would also result from removal of approximately 0.28 acre of available foraging and nesting habitat outside of the MHPA for which habitat-based compensatory mitigation would be required. Species-specific mitigation to ensure the avoidance of nesting LBV is also required and described in Section 6.1.3.1. b. Impacts to Coastal California Gnatcatcher Coastal California gnatcatcher was observed within the project site and surrounding area and has a high potential to nest within the Diegan coastal sage scrub and Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis dominated within the project impact area. Significant direct impacts would result from removal of approximately 3.82 acres of available foraging and nesting habitat outside of the MHPA for which habitat-based compensatory mitigation would be required. Habitat-based compensatory mitigation is described in Section 6.1.1. c. Impacts to Cooper’s Hawk Cooper’s hawk has a moderate potential to nest within the southern willow scrub within the project impact area outside of the MHPA, as well as utilize the project impact area for foraging. Considering the abundance of foraging habitat in the area and large foraging range for Cooper’s hawk, project impacts to Cooper’s hawk foraging would be less than significant. Establishment of the 300-foot impact avoidance area identified within the MSCP area specific management directives would be required as a project condition of approval. Therefore, no direct impacts to Cooper’s hawk are anticipated and no mitigation would be required. d. Impacts to Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl has a moderate potential to occur within the non-native grassland and disturbed habitat within the project impact area outside of the MHPA. Based on current site conditions, the project impact area lacks suitable burrows for nesting and ground squirrel activity. However, this species is known to occur within one mile of the site and portions of the non-native grassland and disturbed habitat on-site contain suitable low-lying vegetation that have a moderate potential to support foraging. This species foraging range is relatively small considering they typically forage near their burrows, and local availability of foraging habitat in the foraging range of this species is limited. Potential direct impacts to nesting and foraging for this species would be significant and mitigation would be required as described in Section 6.1.3.1. As detailed in that section, mitigation would include a pre-construction survey to verify that no burrowing owls have occupied the project area. The project would also adhere to the MSCP conditions of coverage for this species, which include avoidance, relocation, and habitat-based mitigation. The project would be providing habitat-based compensatory mitigation is described in Section 6.1.1. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 52 e. Impacts to Yellow-Breasted Chat and Yellow Warbler Yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat were observed within the project impact area and in the vicinity of the proposed Wetland Plan area in Spring Canyon (see Attachment 13). These species have moderate potential to nest within the southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub habitats of the project impact area and Wetland Plan area. The project impacts to yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler habitat and nesting would be potentially significant and would require mitigation as described in Section 6.1.3.1. The project would be providing habitat-based compensatory mitigation is described in Section 6.1.1. f. Impacts to Western Bluebird Western bluebird was observed within the project area; however, the project impact area lacks suitable large trees with cavities for nesting and thus no direct impacts would occur to nesting western bluebird. While the project site may provide for western bluebird foraging, this species is adequately conserved by the MSCP and associated MHPA; therefore, impacts to foraging habitat outside the MHPA would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. g. Impacts to Orange-Throated Whiptail and San Diego Tiger Whiptail Orange-throated whiptail and San Diego tiger whiptail have a moderate potential to occur within the project impact area. Therefore, the project has potential to result in direct impacts to these species through incidental mortality during construction activities and through the removal of suitable habitat outside of the MHPA. However, these species were not observed during biological surveys conducted between 2020 and 2022 and likely only occur on-site in low numbers and, thus, the project would be expected to result in the loss of very few individuals, if any. Suitable habitat within the project impact area is limited to 3.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub which comprises a small fraction of the coastal sage scrub habitat available to these species identified in the MSCP MHPA both at a local level (1,257 acres in the southern MSCP area) and on a regional scale (18,951 acres total) (City of San Diego 1997). Therefore, the potential loss of these individuals would not reduce the population to less than self-sustaining and would not be significant and no species-specific mitigation would be required. h. Impacts to Pallid Bat, Mexican Long-Tongued Bat, and Western Mastiff Bat Pallid bat, Mexican long-tongued bat, and western mastiff bat have a moderate potential to forage within the project impact area; however, none are expected to use any portion of the project impact area for roosting or for a maternity colony due to lack of rock crevices, cliffs, mines, or man-made structures suitable for roosting. Additionally, because no nighttime construction or maintenance activities would occur (during foraging), direct impacts to individuals during construction activities are unlikely. Suitable foraging habitat within the project impact area is limited to 17.65 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (including Baccharis-dominated variant), non-native grassland, and southern willow scrub which comprises a small fraction of the habitat available to this species identified in the MSCP MHPA both at a local level (2,630 acres in southern MSCP area) and on a regional scale (26,642 acres total) (City of San Diego 1997). Therefore, this loss of foraging habitat on-site would be less than significant, and no species-specific mitigation would be required. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 53 i. Impacts to Crotch’s Bumble Bee No Crotch’s bumble bee has been observed on the site. Crotch’s bumble bee has a moderate potential to forage and low potential to nest within the project impact area. Considering the project has a low potential to support nesting, the project would not result in impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee nesting habitat. However, the project has the potential for direct impacts to any individuals occurring within suitable foraging habitat and would result in impacts to 4.65 acres of potential foraging habitat in the project impact area. As a candidate for listing, the species is temporarily afforded the same protections as a state-listed endangered or threatened species. Thus, direct impacts to foraging habitat for this species would be significant should this species become state listed as threatened or endangered and during its candidacy for which habitat-based compensatory mitigation would be required. Species-specific mitigation to avoid unauthorized take of Crotch’s bumble bee is also required and described in Section 6.1.3.1. 5.3.1.4 Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages – Annexation Scenario The project site likely functions for local wildlife movement but lacks regional value as a wildlife corridor due to the limited amount of native habitat and its proximity to existing residential and commercial development, roads, and highways. It does not act as a significant linkage to off-site areas of habitat given the adjacency on three sides of development. The project is located 197 feet south of a 75% Conservation Area associated with the Otay River, which may provide opportunities for regional wildlife movement. However, the project would not cause direct impacts to native vegetation communities within the riparian corridor and is separated by the 75% Conservation Area by dense, non-native vegetation (e.g., giant reed, black mustard). The project’s implementation of measures to protect biological resources during construction, as described in Section 6.1.1.1, is expected to minimize edge effects with little to no effect on the surrounding habitats. Specifically, disturbances to habitat such as construction-related runoff and ground disturbance would be minimized through the implementation of a biological monitoring program and proper BMPs. As a result, the project would not cause any loss of functionality of the Otay River wildlife corridor, therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 5.3.1.5 Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources – Annexation Scenario Impacts to potential jurisdictional resources within the project area would be avoided and minimized to the extent feasible. Nonetheless, impacts to potential jurisdictional resources would occur with project implementation. A total of 0.40 acre of impacts to potential RWQCB wetland waters, CDFW riparian, and City of San Diego wetland would occur with project implementation (Figure 5-2). Table 5 summarizes the impacts within the project impact area by jurisdiction following annexation. Impacts to potential jurisdictional resources would be significant and mitigation would be required. FIGURE 5-2 Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) Project Boundary Survey Area Project Impacts BMZ Zone 1 BMZ Zone 2 RWQCB Wetland Waters of the State/ CDFW Riparian/ City of San Diego Wetland/ City of Chula Vista Wetland CDFW Riparian/ City of San Diego Wetland/ City of Chula Vista Wetland M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Biotec\2023\Fig5-2.mxd 12/13/2023 bma Offsite Impacts (within City of San Diego) Offsite Impacts (within City of Chula Vista) 0 150Feet [ Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 55 Table 5 Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources within the Project Impact Area (Annexation Scenario) Jurisdictional Resource Acreages by Jurisdictiona RWQCB CDFW City of San Diego Wetlands/Riparian Habitat Arundo-dominated riparian — — — Mule fat scrub 0.03 0.03 0.03 Southern willow scrub 0.15 0.15 0.15 Emergent wetland 0.18 0.18 0.18 Disturbed wetland 0.04 0.04 0.04 Total 0.40 0.40 0.40 CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board. aDue to overlap of resource jurisdictions, columns should not be added together. a. Impacts to City of San Diego Wetlands Outside of the Coastal Overlay Zone The City of San Diego Biology Guidelines (2018a) and the ESL Regulations state that impacts to wetlands should be avoided and unavoidable impacts should be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. A wetland buffer shall be maintained around all remaining wetlands as appropriate to protect the functions and values of the wetland. For projects in the City of San Diego, outside of the Coastal Overlay zone, impacts to wetlands, excluding vernal pools outside of the MHPA, require a deviation from the ESL wetland regulations (City of San Diego 2018a). Deviations from the wetland regulations shall not be granted unless the development qualifies to be processed as one or more of the following three options: Essential Public Projects Option, Economic Viability Option, and Biologically Superior Option. The project includes a wetland deviation under the Biologically Superior Option. Both the City of San Diego and the Wildlife Agencies would need to review and concur with the Biologically Superior Option impact analyses, as discussed below. Biologically Superior Option In order to qualify as the Biologically Superior Option, a project deviating from wetland regulations must: (1) fully describe and analyze a no project alternative, a wetlands avoidance alternative, and a biologically superior alternative demonstrating that the project would result in the conservation of a biologically superior resource compared to strict compliance with the provisions of the ESL; (2) demonstrate that the wetland resources being impacted by the project shall be limited to wetlands of low biological quality; (3) demonstrate that the project and associated mitigation conform to the requirements for this option that include avoidance, minimization, and compensatory measures which would result in a biologically superior net gain in overall function and values of the type of wetland resource being impacted and/or the biological resources to be conserved; and (4) obtain concurrence from the USFWS and the CDFW (Wildlife Agencies). These four criteria are described below. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 56 Criteri on 1 No Project Alternative Under the no project alternative, the project proposed in this report would not be constructed. The site would remain undeveloped but would likely continue to undergo regular human disturbance from invasive species, homeless encampments, and trash. Wetlands Avoidance Alternative A wetlands avoidance alternative was considered for the project site. The proposed project impacts wetlands via the proposed main entrance road from Dennery Road and a gated secondary emergency access road, which are necessary to meet applicable fire codes for adequate emergency access per the City of San Diego Street Design Manual (City of San Diego 2017). The main entrance road is classified as a Class III Collector and the Street Design Manual (City of San Diego 2017) requires a 40-foot curb-to-curb width and 12 percent maximum grade. Due to existing topography and desire to minimize the impact footprint in sensitive habitats, the primary access road to the proposed residential development would be at the maximum 12 percent grade. The secondary emergency access road connects to a private driveway on an existing residential development that is situated higher than the project site. This secondary emergency access would also be provided at the maximum allowed grade (15 percent maximum grade allowed for emergency vehicles) to the existing private driveway. Due to the location of I-805 to the west and urban development to the south and east, these are the only feasible access routes to the project site. The only other secondary access would be to construct an access road north across the Otay River, which would result in greater wetland impacts considering its higher quality habitats and larger wetland area. To avoid the project impacts to wetlands from the proposed access roadways, the access would be redesigned to include bridging over the wetlands. This would involve the installation of two bridges to provide wetland crossings for the site’s primary and secondary access, as well as the installation of retaining walls. To allow for bridging with complete wetlands avoidance would require a substantially reduced project footprint. Due to the degraded and constrained nature of the existing wetland, bridging the wetland would not be biologically superior relative to the off-site Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan and Long-term Management Plan in Spring Canyon (Attachment 13) as discussed below. Specifically, restoration of Spring Canyon is consistent with the Specific Management Directives for Southern Otay Mesa in the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, which identifies restoration of disturbed areas in Spring Canyon as a priority (City of San Diego 1997). As discussed in greater detail below under the Biologically Superior Alternative, Spring Canyon provides habitat for riparian birds, including least Bell’s vireo, in a regional corridor with natural hydrologic inputs and thus is preferable for conservation. The on-site wetlands are surrounded by dense urban development in a narrow, linear corridor and are sourced primarily by urban runoff. Additional alternatives to reduce wetland impacts that were evaluated at the request of USFWS and CDFW are further discussed in Attachment 14. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 57 Biologically Superior Alternative The project has been designed to minimize wetland impacts to the greatest extent feasible through siting and design. The project would conserve and provide long-term management for 0.25 acre of the on-site City of San Diego wetlands, including the higher quality areas of southern willow scrub supporting willow stands with San Diego marsh-elder in the understory, as well as mule fat scrub and disturbed wetlands that provide some connectivity between the willows and the Otay River to the north (Attachment 15; Figure 5-3). The primary and secondary access roads have been designed using minimum road widths and to cross the wetlands perpendicular at their narrowest points in areas supporting lower quality wetlands, such as the disturbed wetland, emergent wetland, and mule fat scrub containing dense stands of non-natives and the portion of the southern willow scrub containing trash and encampments. The development has been sited to the farthest west possible on the project site considering constraints associated with the I-805 California Department of Transportation right-of-way. Additionally, the main access road design near the wetlands incorporates the steepest manufactured slopes allowable (2:1) and a 20-foot retaining wall to minimize grading into the wetlands. To avoid brush management (zones 1 and 2) within the on-site wetlands, the project was designed to incorporate a 6-foot fire-rated masonry block wall along the entire easternmost edge of the development footprint to provide alternative compliance for brush management, ensuring that no thinning or brush management activities occur within the on-site wetlands (see Attachment 15: Figure 76). The block wall would also ensure that no human intrusion would occur in the on-site wetlands from the adjacent development. The project incorporates design features to maintain existing flows into the on-site City of San Diego wetlands, while providing pollutant control and improving drainage conditions both on and off-site. To provide pollutant control, flows from the proposed development area would be directed away from the on-site City of San Diego wetlands via two vegetated biofiltration basins and a modular wetlands unit, which consists of a manufactured structure with plantings and media to filter water (see Attachment 15: Figure 5Figure 5-3). Existing flows into the on-site wetlands would be maintained via an underground culvert under the proposed entrance road. The culvert would direct off-site flows to the north to a low-flow splitter that would regulate the amount of run-on flowing into the on-site City of San Diego wetlands. In low flow conditions, exiting drainage flows to the wetland would be maintained via the low-flow splitter. During high flow conditions, excess drainage would be directed to an adjacent biofiltration basin and piped through the development, before sheet flowing north via a headwall with rip-rap along the northern project boundary. In addition, a culvert under the secondary access road would maintain flows between the on-site City of San Diego wetlands, before flowing north into an additional culvert that directs flows to rip-rap, before sheet flowing north towards the Otay River (see Figure 5-3). These drainage improvements would control the rate of discharge and reduce erosion and siltation, as well as to provide pollutant control prior to discharge to the north. Thus, the proposed wetland buffers in combination with the proposed drainage improvements would improve the drainage conditions into the on-site City of San Diego wetlands in a manner that would also reduce erosion and siltation issues into the Otay River off-site, improving the functions of both the on-site City of San Diego wetlands and the surrounding area. FIGURE 5-3 Wetland Buffers 40 ft 58 ft 61 ft 99 ft 113 ft 146 ft 481 ft 18 ft 21 ft D E N N E R Y R D S A N D S T A R W A Y W I N D S URF W AY GOLDEN S K Y W A Y B LUE C O R A L C V O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 40 ft 58 ft 61 ft 99 ft 113 ft 146 ft 481 ft 18 ft 21 ft D E N N E R Y R D S A N D S T A R W A Y W I N D S URF W AY GOLDEN S K Y W A Y B LUE C O R A L C V O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) Project Boundary Survey Area Project Impact Limits Site Plan Wetland Buffer Distance Wetland Buffer Onsite Wetland Buffer Offsite RWQCB Wetland Waters of the State/ CDFW Riparian/ City of San Diego Wetland/ City of Chula Vista Wetland CDFW Riparian/ City of San Diego Wetland/ City of Chula Vista Wetland M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Biotec\2023\Fig5-3.mxd 01/19/2024 bma Offsite Impacts (within City of San Diego) Offsite Impacts (within City of Chula Vista) 0 175Feet [ Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 59 The on-site City of San Diego wetlands would be preserved in perpetuity by a Covenant of Easement, which would restrict future development and ensure preservation in perpetuity. The Covenant of Easement will contain language allowing for long-term maintenance of the wetland buffer and on-site City of San Diego wetlands. Furthermore, walls, fencing, and steep manufactured slopes would prevent human intrusion from the adjacent development. The on-site biofiltration basins and modular wetlands unit would be maintained by the Permittee under a stormwater maintenance agreement, to ensure pollutant control is maintained. Access to the biofiltration basin would be from the west, from streets associated with the development, and intrusion into the wetland would be prevented by the block wall separating the development from the wetlands. The Permittee would also be required to comply with the standards for brush management within the wetland buffer, and signage would be installed indicating applicable standards for wetlands avoidance during brush management. Management of the wetland buffer and on-site City of San Diego wetlands would be maintained by the Homeowners Association in accordance with the Long-term Management and Monitoring Planrogram, which contains provisions for weed control, brush management, trash and debris removal, and access control (see Attachment 15). Thus, project design features related to the upland buffer would be maintained, and the City of San Diego wetlands would be preserved in perpetuity. In addition, mitigation for City of San Diego wetlands would be provided off-site in Spring Canyon on lands owned by the applicant, which would provide a minimum restoration creation of 0.48 acre of non-native grassland to riparian scrub habitat and an additional 0.4 acre of enhancement of tamarisk scrub (see Attachment 13). As a project design feature, the project would pursue invasive species removal in upstream locations off-site in order to support the long-term viability of the restoration effort, totaling 2.21 acres. The wetland mitigationCreation would involve recontouring to reconnect the floodplain and restoringe degraded areas of Spring Canyon supporting non-native grasses to riparian scrub habitat. Enhancement would involve removal of large stands of invasive species such as tamarisk, castor bean (Ricinus communis), and pepper trees (Schinus spp.) to high quality riparian scrub habitat with diverse native wetland vegetation layers and plant diversity. This would expand and enhance potentially suitable habitat to support least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler, which are known to occur in Spring Canyon immediately southwest of the restoration area and in the surrounding area. The existing riparian habitat within the restoration mitigation area ranges from approximately 70 to 150 feet in width, with adjacent uplands and conserved lands owned by the City of San Diego providing a buffer greater than 400-feet in width. The mitigationRestoration would be consistent with the priorities set forth in the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan for Southern Otay Mesa, which includes the prioritization of restoration of disturbed areas in Spring Canyon, which is a regional corridor identified by the MSCP. Restoration Mitigation would also be accompanied by long-term management and funding to ensure preservation of the biologically superior conditions in perpetuity. The project would provide a biologically superior design by avoiding and preserving the highest quality wetlands on-site, while incorporating mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts through habitat restorationcreation/enhancement of the same type of wetland resource being impacted (e.g., riparian scrub) in a regional corridor that provides greater functions and values for wildlife such as least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 60 Although tThe proposed 0.48 acre of proposed restoration creation would meet the City’s requirement that 1:1 of the mitigation effort be provided as restoration or creation, with the additional 1:1 of mitigation provided through enhancement. To ensure no net loss of wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of RWQCB, it is anticipated that the project would also provide an additional 0.40 acre of wetland creation bankcreation credits within Spring Canyon to satisfy state (CWA Section 401) wetland permits. It is anticipated that these If purchase of mitigation credits is necessary to satisfy state wetland permits, the credits would may be provided via the San Luis Rey River Mitigation Bank, which is the closest bank with available credits (Attachment 16). However, the project would endeavor to pursue credits at the closest available mitigation bank (e.g., Rancho Jamul Mitigation Bank or Otay River Mitigation Bank) to the project site should credits become available at these banks prior to impacts (see Attachment 16). Wetland Buffer Along the eastern project boundary, the project incorporates a wetland buffer consisting of a transitional area with a biofiltration basin and manufactured slopes containing native vegetation and a 6-foot block wall separating the proposed development from the City of San Diego wetlands (see Figures 5 and 6 of Attachment 15). The buffer would range from 21 to 99 feet from the higher quality southern willow scrub, and a buffer of 18 to 40 feet from lower quality mule fat scrub and disturbed wetlands. The manufactured slopes would be planted with a native coastal sage scrub species mix that includes coastal sagebrush, California buckwheat, deerweed (Acmispon glaber), bush sunflower (Encelia californica), red monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), and purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) with native annuals intermixed. The biofiltration basin would also include a transitional native plant mix that includes San Diego marsh-elder, mule fat, giant wildrye (Elymus condensatus), scarlet monkeyflower (Mimulus cardinalis), yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica), sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and other native species. The establishment of native vegetation would improve the native diversity and habitat quality of the buffer, which is heavily dominated by non-native, invasive species such as black mustard and crown daisy. The proposed wetland buffer would also provide similar functions as the existing wetland buffer provided from the RiverEdge Terrace Development, which consists of manufactured slopes landscaped with native upland plant species. The off-site buffer ranges from 61 to 113 feet, for an average of 87 feet. To the east, residences were built at the top of the manufactured slope with wrought iron fencing separating the development from the adjacent slope. Similar to the existing wetland buffer conditions to the east, the project would incorporate a varied width buffer ranging from 18 to 99 feet with separation provided by a block wall between the development area and the wetland. Thus, the proposed wetland buffers provide similar function as the off-site buffer to the east. The project impacts within the off-site manufactured slopes associated with the secondary access road within the existing buffer to the east would be revegetated with the native coastal sage scrub species mix maintaining the existing function of the buffer. The manufactured slopes associated with the main access road would similarly be revegetated with a native coastal sage scrub species mix, supporting buffer function. Therefore, the proposed buffers would be adequate to protect the functions and values of the City of San Diego wetlands on-site, while improving native diversity and habitat functions of the buffer. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 61 The project would also maintain a distance of approximately 146 feet to 481 feet from the off-site southern willow scrub associated with the Otay River, as well as 58 feet to off-site Arundo-dominated riparian (see Figure 5-3). The development area would be separated from the wetland and wetland buffer by walls and steep manufactured slopes to preclude human intrusion. Furthermore, peeler pole fencing would be installed along the trail associated with Otay Valley Regional Park to preclude unauthorized access. Criteri on 2 Demonstration of Project Impacts Limited to Wetlands of Low Quality Under the Biologically Superior Option, impacts to wetlands may be considered if the resources are of a low quality, and through project design and/or mitigation a biologically superior project would result. Mitigation for impacts to City of San Diego wetlands would occur off-site in Spring Canyon through permittee responsible mitigation (e.g., habitat restoration). The guidelines specify that the biological quality of all wetlands is assessed using the criteria listed below. Corresponding project details follow each criterion below. I. Criteria to determine biological quality of all wetland types include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Use of the wetland by federal and/or state endangered, threatened, sensitive, rare and/or other indigenous species; Discussion: A portion of the City of San Diego wetlands on-site provide habitat for riparian bird species, including least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler, as well as San Diego marsh-elder. The majority of the City of San Diego wetlands subject to impacts (0.22 acre) comprise disturbed and emergent wetlands that are dominated by non-native species and have limited value for these species. The remaining 0.18 acre of impacts supports southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub that contains some stands with willows and mule fat that provide habitat for least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler. However, the biological quality of these areas is considered relatively low for these species due to the prevalence of invasive species and extensive homeless encampments, trash, and trails. In addition, the willow and mule fat stands are relatively linear and isolated, ranging from approximately 10 to 55 feet in width, and are ultimately bounded by roads, development, and utility lines to the west, south, and east, which limits wildlife movement. Furthermore, habitat for least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler, and other riparian birds would continue to be provided on-site through preservation of the highest quality on-site wetland resources. The project would preserve 0.20 acre of City of San Diego wetlands, which includes southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub that supports least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler and San Diego marsh-elder. Preservation of the conserved portion of the drainage in a Covenant of Easement would maintain north-south connectivity from the preserved wetlands on-site to the Otay River to north. Additionally, where impacts were unavoidable, the project incorporates wetland and upland plantings within expanded wetland buffers as previously described. Additional high-quality habitat for least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler, and other wildlife also occurs approximately 197 feet off-site in the Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 62 Otay River, which is designated as MHPA by the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and 75% and 100% Conservation Areas by the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The riparian habitat in the Otay River north of the project site consists primarily of native willows, ranges from approximately 230 to 440 feet in width, and is part of a larger regional east-west wildlife corridor, providing higher biological quality and habitat value for wildlife in the immediate project area. For unavoidable wetland impacts, the proposed mitigation would provide habitat restorationcreation/enhancement in Spring Canyon, a regional wildlife corridor identified by the MSCP (see Attachment 13). Both least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler are known to occur in riparian habitats adjacent to the mitigation area (see Attachment 13). The proposed mitigation would consist of restoring creating riparian scrub in areas of non-native grassland and disturbed habitat, and re-establishingenhancing riparian scrub in disturbed riparian habitattamarisk scrub dominated by invasive species, which would increase the amount of habitat available to support least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler, and other riparian bird species. The restoration mitigation area would substantially increase the quality of the Spring Canyon drainage through removal of non-native species. Dominant non-native species include tamarisk, castor bean, and pepper trees, with instances of crown daisy, and other non-native annuals. RestorationCreation/enhancement of the drainage would remove non-native, invasive species which occupy approximately 40 percent of the drainage and replace these species with suitable wetland plant species (see Attachment 13). The Spring Canyon area is suitable for mitigation because the existing riparian habitat within the restoration mitigation area ranges from approximately 70 to 150 feet in width, with adjacent uplands and conserved lands owned by the City of San Diego providing a buffer greater than 400 feet in width. Compared to the impacted wetland habitat, which consists of degraded wetlands in an isolated corridor, the proposed mitigation habitat would provide greater functions and values and optimize long-term viability of wildlife such as least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler through higher quality wetlands with connectivity between larger natural open spaces with both wetland and upland habitat. In addition, restorationcreation/enhancement of this area is consistent with the Specific Management Directives for Southern Otay Mesa in the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, which identifies restoration of disturbed areas in Spring Canyon as a priority (City of San Diego 1997). Thus, the mitigation would provide biologically superior functions and values for wildlife when compared to the wetlands avoidance alternative. b. Diversity of native flora and fauna present (characterizations of flora and fauna must be accomplished during the proper season, and surveys must be done at the most appropriate time to characterize the resident and migratory species); Discussion: The on-site City of San Diego wetlands support a moderate diversity of native plant species, including willows, mule fat, curly dock, and San Diego marsh-elder. However, the City of San Diego wetlands also contain and are bordered by dense stands of black mustard and crown daisy, with scattered pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and giant reed. Disturbance from homeless Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 63 encampments, unauthorized trails, and trash are also prevalent. In addition, the persistence of native vegetation within the City of San Diego wetlands is likely due to runoff from the surrounding development based on the project’s hydrology study (Project Design Consultants 2023), as well as historic wetland mapping (as detailed further below). Thus, diversity and habitat quality of the City of San Diego wetlands on-site are considered low relative to both the adjacent wetlands associated with the Otay River, which provide more expansive riparian habitat dominated by willows and the wetlands present within the proposed mitigation area in Spring Canyon. The project would preserve a portion of the southern willow scrub with higher-quality stands of willows and undisturbed understory dominated by San Diego marsh-elder, as well as other areas of mule fat scrub and disturbed wetland habitat. For unavoidable wetland impacts, the project would mitigate off-site through restoration creation of mule fat scrub and southern riparian scrub habitat in Spring Canyon. The proposed mitigation habitat would provide a higher diversity of native flora and fauna species relative to the impacted wetlands on-site (see Attachment 13). The mitigation habitat would consist of diverse native wetland vegetation layers supporting several willow species, mule fat, and blue elderberry (Sambucua nigra ssp. caerulea) with a native understory consisting of western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), California rose (Rosa californica), and wild grape (Vitis girdiana). It is anticipated that the diversity of native plants would provide greater functions and values to support a diversity of wildlife, including riparian bird species such as least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler, which have been observed in the mitigation area. c. Enhancement or restoration potential; Discussion: While there is potential to restore or enhance the on-site wetlands, this option would not be biologically superior as project mitigation. As detailed under Criterion 1, preservation of the City of San Diego wetlands would provide a narrow, linear riparian corridor, ranging approximately 15 to 55 feet in width, surrounded by dense urban development. While habitat restoration in this area could increase the narrower portions of the riparian corridor in width to some degree, a utility easement located in the southern portion of the drainage limits the potential for expansion and the overall corridor width (including buffer) would be less than 400 feet wide for a distance greater than 500 feet, and thus would be considered isolated per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines and not suitable as mitigation. Furthermore, the on-site wetlands are present largely due to urban run-off from the medical facility to the south and lacks natural hydrology (as detailed further below). Additionally, the wetlands on-site are located in an area surrounded by urban development outside of the MHPA and are present largely due to urban run-off from the medical facility to the south. Thus, the project site lacks natural hydrology to support expansive riparian restoration on-site. Additional alternatives to provide wetland mitigation off-site adjacent to the Otay River were also evaluated at the request of USFWS and CDFW but determined to be infeasible due to existing contamination and other constraints associated with the parcel being owned by the City of Chula Vista (see Attachment 13). Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 64 The project has incorporated expanded wetland buffers and upland and wetland plantings within slopes adjacent to the avoided on-site wetlands to retain the existing function and enhance the values of the on-site drainage. Avoidance measures and design features have been incorporated to preserve the on-site drainage to the maximum extent possible. The on-site drainage would be placed in a covenant of easement to ensure it is protected in perpetuity. However, due to the isolated nature of the on-site wetland and considering the surrounding conditions (see additional discussion below), the proposed mitigation would occur within Spring Canyon, a regional riparian corridor identified by the MSCP, which provides higher enhancement and restoration potential. Furthermore, restoration of this corridor is identified as a regional priority in the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan as discussed above under Criterion 2a (City of San Diego 1997). As noted above and in the Wetland Mitigation Plan (see Attachment 13), in addition to the 0.80-acre restorationcreation/enhancement of City of San Diego wetlands as mitigation for project impacts, the project would pursue invasive species removal in upstream locations off-site as a project design feature in order to support the long-term viability of the Spring Canyon restorationmitigation effort. The wetland mitigation would restorecreate/enhance degraded areas of Spring Canyon to high quality riparian scrub within an unconstrained corridor with adjacent uplands and conserved lands owned by the City of San Diego providing a buffer greater than 400 feet in width. Thus, this area provides a more optimal configuration for restorationcreation/enhancement to support the long-term viability of on-site sensitive biological resources such as least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler and restorationcreation/enhancement of Spring Canyon would be biologically superior to restoration creation/enhancement within the project site. d. Habitat function/ecological role of the wetland in the surrounding landscape, considering: • The current functioning of the wetland in relation to historical functioning of the system; and • Rarity of the wetland community in light of the historic loss and remaining resource; Discussion: Historically from approximately 1968 until 2003, the project site was utilized for agriculture. Based on historic aerials, this present-day wetland area appears to have consisted of uplands, as no riparian canopy is visible on aerial photographs taken in 1981, prior to the grading of the adjacent Kaiser medical offices (Figure 5-4a). Aerial photographs taken subsequent to the completion of the adjacent Kaiser medical offices in 2000 and RiverEdge Terrace in 2014 show expansion of the City of San Diego wetlands on-site (Figures 5-4b and 5-4c). This is further supported by prior biological surveys conducted within the project site. In 2011, subsequent to construction of the Kaiser medical offices and prior to the development of the adjacent RiverEdge Terrace property, a total of 0.23 acre of City of San Diego wetlands (mule fat scrub and southern willow scrub) were mapped within the project site in 2011 (RECON 2011). FIGURE 5-4a Historic Wetlands 1981 O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 62407105 64540003 64540005 64540004 64540001 O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 62407105 64540003 64540005 64540004 64540001 Image Source: USGS (flown November 1981) 0 250Feet [ Project Boundary M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\EIR\Fig5-4a.mxd 07/24/2023 bma FIGURE 5-4b Historic Wetlands 2000 O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 62407105 64540003 64540005 64540004 64540001 O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 62407105 64540003 64540005 64540004 64540001 Image Source: USGS, Google Earth (flown February 2000) 0 250Feet [ Project Boundary M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\EIR\Fig5-4b.mxd 07/24/2023 bma FIGURE 5-4c Historic Wetlands 2014 O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 62407105 64540003 64540005 64540004 64540001 O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 62407105 64540003 64540005 64540004 64540001 Image Source: NearMap (flown September 2014) 0 250Feet [ Project Boundary M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\EIR\Fig5-4c.mxd 07/24/2023 bma Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 68 Additional biological surveys conducted subsequent to construction of the RiverEdge Terrace in 2017, 2020, and 2022 showed expansion of the City of San Diego wetlands each consecutive year (RECON 2017; Dudek 2022). These changes are anticipated to be due to increased hydrology from urban runoff from the developments to the south and east, which are the primary source of hydrology within the project site based on the project’s drainage study (Project Design Consultants 2023), as opposed to natural hydrologic conditions. Thus, the current functioning of the on-site wetlands exceeds the historic functioning of the system, which likely did not support riparian birds due to lack of suitable habitat and the previous agricultural use of the site. In addition, the project would preserve a portion of the on-site southern riparian scrub and mule fat scrub and additional southern riparian scrub habitat is present off-site in the Otay River, as described above. The preserved on-site wetlands maintain connectivity with the more expansive riparian habitat off-site associated with the Otay River and thus would continue to support the current functioning of the wetlands as riparian bird habitat. Thus, the remaining resources would provide similar habitat functions as the impacted wetland, and thus the impacted wetlands would not be considered rare in light of the remaining higher-quality biological resources on and adjacent to the site. The project’s proposed mitigation would occur in the Spring Canyon, a regional riparian corridor that has been identified as a priority for restoration by the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan as discussed above under Criterion 2a (City of San Diego 1997). Furthermore, Spring Canyon is part of a larger canyon network that provides connectivity between a mosaic of vernal pools, grasslands, and coastal sage scrub (City of San Diego 1997). Furthermore, Spring Canyon is identified as a linkage for cactus wren by the MSCP (City of San Diego 1997) and has further been documented to support movements by large wildlife such as bobcats and coyotes (Wildlife Tracking Company 2020). Mitigation in Spring Canyon would restorecreate/enhance degraded areas with invasive species to native wetland habitats, substantially improving the function of the riparian area compared to the existing condition and providing additional riparian habitat for least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat, which have been documented south of the mitigation area (see Attachment 13). Furthermore, upstream invasive removals would ensure long term success of the proposed mitigation area and contribute to higher functioning of the wetland system. Thus, the project’s restorationcreation/enhancement of wetlands in Spring Canyon would provide biologically superior functioning in the surrounding landscape when compared to the current and historic functioning of the on-site wetlands. e. Connectivity to other wetland or upland systems (including use as a stopover or steppingstone by mobile species), considering: • proximity of the wetland resource to larger natural open spaces, and • long-term viability of resource, if avoided and managed; Discussion: The on-site wetlands are not anticipated to provide significant stopover or steppingstone habitat as the City wetlands consist of a relatively small (less than 0.50 acre) and narrow (less than 50 feet wide) area of habitat. High-quality riparian habitat is Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 69 present 197 feet off-site to the north within the Otay River corridor, but no extensive wetland habitat is located to the south, east or west. While the project would include the long-term management of the remaining wetlands that would provide for the long-term viability of the remaining wetlands, this management would not occur without project implementation. In its current state without the project, the long-term viability of the resource is considered to be poor, as it relies on artificial hydrology (e.g., runoff) that substantially varies in volume and would continue in its current state of homeless encampment issues. Though the City wetlands would persist if the area were to be avoided and project not developed, the relative functions and values would continue to be low due to the existing habitat degradation issues and relatively small size of the area. The project’s proposed mitigation would occur in Spring Canyon, which is designated MHPA and part of the regional MSCP preserve system (see Attachment 13). Spring Canyon provides connectivity between larger natural open spaces with both wetland and upland habitat, with City of San Diego-owned open space immediately to the north and east. Although land to the west of Spring Canyon is privately owned, the area is within the MHPA and is not planned for development. The nearest planned development from the Spring Canyon mitigation area would be the eastern development area of the Southwest Village Specific Plan which would be located approximately 1,800 feet to the west of the mitigation area, separated by rugged topography. Additionally, the MSCP provides assurances for long-term conservation of this area. f. Hydrologic function, considering: • Whether the volume and retention time of water within the wetland is sufficient to aid in water quality improvements, and • Whether there is significant flood control value or velocity reduction function; and, • Whether there is an opportunity to restore the hydrologic functions; Discussion: The hydrologic functions within the existing wetlands are minimal, as the flows are primarily provided by urban runoff discharged from developments to the south and east (Project Design Consultants 2023). The potential to restore hydrological functions through habitat restoration is limited due to the surrounding urban development, lack of significant natural flows, and adjacent utility easement, as described above. However, the project incorporates design features to provide pollutant control and improve drainage conditions into the on-site and off-site wetlands. As discussed above under Criterion 2a, the project would maintain existing flows into the on-site wetlands via an underground culvert. The culvert would direct flows to a low-flow splitter that would allow for low flows to enter the on-site wetlands, while excess drainage during high flow conditions would be directed to an adjacent biofiltration basin. These drainage improvements would control the rate of discharge and reduce erosion and siltation in the on-site wetlands, as well as provide pollutant control prior to discharge to the north. Thus, the project would be biologically superior by improving the hydrologic functions of both the on-site City of San Diego wetlands and the surrounding area. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 70 g. Status of watershed considering whether the watershed is partially developed, irrevocably altered, or inadequate to supply water for wetland viability: Discussion: The on-site City of San Diego wetlands consist of a linear riparian area, approximately 10 to 55 feet in width, bounded by roads, and development to the west, south, and east. The surrounding watershed of the on-site wetlands consists of dense urban development and lacks natural water sources for wetland viability. The project’s proposed mitigation would occur in Spring Canyon, which is part of a system of canyons and drainages draining southward into the Tijuana River. The Tijuana River watershed begins east of Live Oak Spring and includes both developed and undeveloped areas that drain into Spring Canyon, thus providing natural water sources necessary for wetland viability. h. Source and quality of water, considering: • Whether the urban runoff is from a partially developed watershed; • Whether the water source is in part or exclusively from human-caused runoff which could be eliminated by diversion; and • Whether there is an opportunity to restore the water quality or flood control value. Discussion: The source of water within the wetlands are from storms and urban runoff discharged from developments to the south and east. The project proposes improvements to improve water quality and reduce erosion and siltation from human-caused runoff. A culvert would be placed under the proposed off-site access road to maintain existing flows into the City of San Diego wetlands to ensure persistence. A low-flow splitter would direct high velocity flows to a biofiltration basin, which would control the rate of discharge to reduce erosion and siltation into the on-site wetlands, as well as to provide pollutant control prior to discharge to the north. With the implementation of the project, the project would improve the drainage conditions to the Otay River and the City of San Diego wetlands in a manner that would reduce erosion and siltation issues off-site and improve water quality conditions (Project Design Consultants 2023). As discussed above in Criterion 2g, the project’s proposed mitigation would occur in Spring Canyon, which includes natural water sources in addition to urban run-off. However, the watershed immediately surrounding the canyon is largely undeveloped and provides upland buffers that protect water quality. Thus, the source and quality of the water is higher for the proposed mitigation area than the project site. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 71 II. Additional habitat-specific factors, requirements, and/or examples (by habitat type) to determine biological quality include the following: • Freshwater, Riparian, or Brackish Wetlands: Hydrologic evaluations of the effects of any impacts on the upstream and downstream biota and flooding must be conducted as part of the review process. Discussion: As discussed above in Criterion 2f and 2h, the project would maintain existing flows from urban runoff upstream and proposes improvements to improve water quality and reduce erosion and siltation from human-caused runoff that would improve conditions in the downstream wetlands. High-velocity flows would be directed to a biofiltration basin via a low-flow splitter and, thus, would not result in downstream flooding. In addition, as discussed in the Wetland Mitigation Plan and Long-term Management Plan (see Attachment 15), invasive species would be removed from the on-site wetlands and wetland buffer. This would further improve downstream conditions for biota by preventing the spread of invasive species onsite into downstream habitats. Thus, the project would maintain upstream conditions while improving downstream conditions, preventing flooding and the spread of invasives into off-site habitats. Criteri on 3 The project and proposed mitigation shall conform to the requirements for this option as detailed in Section III.B of the City’s Biology Guidelines (2018). Discussion: As discussed above in Criterion 1, mitigation for City of San Diego wetlands would be provided off-site in Spring Canyon on lands owned by the applicant, which would provide restorationcreation/enhancement of 0.8 acre of riparian scrub habitat (see Attachment 13). The wetland mitigationrestoration proposed would re-establish native species, remove invasive species, and improve hydrology within Spring Canyon, resulting in a biologically superior net gain in overall function and values of riparian scrub. RestorationCreation/enhancement of this area is consistent with the Specific Management Directives for Southern Otay Mesa in the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, which identifies restoration of disturbed areas in Spring Canyon as a priority (City of San Diego 1997). The mitigation ratios proposed would satisfy the 2:1 wetland mitigation ratio required for riparian scrub, including under the biologically superior design criterion, as shown in Table 2A of the City’s Biology Guidelines (2018). Sections 6.1.1.1, 6.1.2.1, 6.1.3.1, and 6.1.4.1 of this report includes mitigation measures which would reduce significant impacts to below a level of significance. Per the City of San Diego Biology Guidelines, the mitigation measures must be incorporated in the permit conditions and/or subdivision map and shown on the construction plans as appropriate. The proposed mitigation would conform to the City’s Biology Guidelines (2018). Criteri on 4 The Wildlife Agencies must concur with the biologically superior project design and analyses. The concurrence shall be in writing and be provided prior to or during the public review of the CEQA Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 72 document in which the biologically superior project design has been fully described and analyzed. Lack of unequivocal response during the CEQA public review period is deemed to be concurrence. Discussion: This analysis was presented to the Wildlife Agencies at a batching meeting held on March 17, 2023. A site visit was additionally held with the Wildlife Agencies on April 8, 2023, to review the on-site wetland areas and Biologically Superior Option analysis in further detail. Based on these meetings, project design changes were incorporated to avoid the on-site wetlands to the greatest extent feasible and provide additional detail on the project design features. Specifically, the project design was modified to remove a linear dog park in order to expand the on-site wetland buffer and other modifications were made to the grading design to reduce the project’s overall wetland impact from 0.51 to 0.40 acre. The project proponent worked closely with the City of Chula Vista at the request of the Wildlife Agencies to explore feasibility of implementing mitigation within the Otay River adjacent to the site, although that option was found to be infeasible. Further, based on additional discussions with the Wildlife Agencies, the proposal to provide wetland enhancement and restoration within Spring Canyon has been selected as the biologically superior mitigation option. The project proponent has worked in close coordination with the Wildlife Agencies to obtain concurrence. Conditional concurrence for the Biologically Superior Option analysis was provided at the Wildlife Agency batching meeting on October 20, 2023, subject to final review of the mitigation plan and long-term management plans. Final Wildlife Agency concurrence was provided on August 12, 2024 (see Attachment 19). 5.3.2 No Annexation Scenario 5.3.2.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities – No Annexation Scenario The impacts to vegetation communities and land cover types from the project total 23.37 acres. Of this, a total 22.09 acres of impacts would occur in the City of Chula Vista resulting from the project site and off-site area associated with remedial grading and trails, and an additional 1.28 acres of impacts would occur in the City of San Diego resulting from the off-site area associated with road improvements. Table 6 summarizes the impacts to each vegetation community/land cover type within the project area. Impacts to upland vegetation communities in the City of Chula Vista include 3.39 acre (Tier II) of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.17 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis dominated (Tier II), and 13.65 acres of non-native grassland (Tier III). These vegetation communities are considered sensitive uplands by the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). Therefore, impacts would be significant and mitigation would be required. An additional 0.04 acre of impact to Diegan coastal sage scrub (Tier II) would occur in the City of San Diego. As the impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub within the City of San Diego are less than 0.10 acre, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation would not be required per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (2018). However, impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub associated with the entire project (3.43 acres) would collectively be significant; therefore, mitigation would be required to offset the project’s total impact. Table 6 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types (No Annexation Scenario) Vegetation Community/ Land Cover Type City of San Diego Biology Guidelines Vegetation Community City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Tier City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan Tier Existing Project Area Acreage City of Chula Vista Impacts City of San Diego Impacts Total Project Area Impacts (acres) Project Site (acres) Off-site Impact Area (acres) Subtotal (Acres) Off-site Impact Area (acres) Upland Vegetation Communities Diegan coastal sage scrub Coastal sage scrub II II 6.55 3.39 — 3.39 0.04 3.43 Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated Coastal sage scrub II II 0.92 0.16 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 Non-native grassland Non-native grassland III IIIB 14.78 13.60 0.05 13.65 — 13.65 Wetland Vegetation Communities Arundo-dominated riparian Riparian scrub Wetlands Wetlands 0.12 — — — — — Mule fat scrub Riparian scrub Wetlands Wetlands 0.11 0.03 — 0.03 — 0.03 Southern willow scrub Riparian scrub Wetlands Wetlands 0.82 0.15 — 0.15 — 0.15 Emergent wetland Natural flood channel Wetlands Wetlands 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 0.18 Disturbed wetland Disturbed Wetland Wetlands Wetlands 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 0.04 Land Cover Types Disturbed habitat Disturbed land IV IV 8.13 4.09 0.39 4.48 0.37 4.87 Eucalyptus woodland Eucalyptus woodland IV IV 1.80 — — — — — Ornamental Disturbed land N/A IV 1.86 — — — 0.64 0.64 Urban/developed Disturbed land N/A IV 1.53 — — — 0.23 0.23 Total 36.85 21.64 0.45 22.09 1.28 23.37 Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 74 Impacts to wetland vegetation communities in the City of Chula Vista include 0.03 acre of mule fat scrub, 0.15 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.18 acre of emergent wetland, and 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland. These vegetation communities are considered sensitive wetlands by the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). Therefore, impacts would be significant and mitigation would be required. Impacts to land cover types in the City of Chula Vista include 4.48 acres of disturbed habitat (Tier IV). An additional 0.37 acre of impact to disturbed habitat (Tier IV), 0.64 acre of ornamental (Tier IV), and 0.23 acre of urban/developed (Tier IV) would occur in the City of San Diego. These land cover types are not considered sensitive by the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003) or City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018b). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. In addition, the entire brush management zone 1 occurs entirely inside the limits of disturbance for the project. Brush management zone 2 occurs partially outside of the limits of disturbance within Diegan coastal sage scrub (0.14 acre) and disturbed habitat (0.01 acre). Brush management 2 thinning and pruning activities are considered “impact neutral” and are therefore excluded from the total impact acreage. 5.3.2.2 Impacts to Sensitive Plants – No Annexation Scenario The project would result in direct impacts to six special-status plant species: Otay tarplant, San Diego marsh-elder, South Coast saltscale, San Diego bur-sage, ashy spike-moss, and San Diego County viguiera (see Figure 5-1). Of this, impacts to San Diego bur-sage, ashy spike-moss, and San Diego County viguiera would occur in the project site within the City of Chula Vista outside of 75% and 100% Conservation Areas. Additional impacts to Otay tarplant, South Coast saltscale, San Diego bur-sage, and San Diego County viguiera would occur in the City of San Diego outside of the MHPA resulting from the off-site road improvements. No direct impacts are anticipated to occur to San Diego barrel cactus, small-flowered microseris, and California adolphia as these species occur outside of project impact area. Impacts to sensitive plant species are addressed below. a. Impacts to Otay Tarplant Direct impacts to Otay tarplant would be limited to the off-site impact area within the City of San Diego. Otay tarplant populations vary year to year; however, based on 2022 surveys, impacts would occur to 14 individuals within 0.001 acre of occupied habitat. Impacts to this species, which is a narrow endemic under the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, would be significant and mitigation would be required. b. Impacts to San Diego Marsh-Elder, South Coast Saltscale, San Diego Bur-Sage, Ashy Spike-Moss, and San Diego County Viguiera Direct impacts would occur to San Diego marsh-elder, South Coast saltscale, San Diego bur-sage, ashy spike-moss, and San Diego County viguiera within the project site and off-site area associated with road improvements. Project impacts would be limited to only a portion of the populations on-and off-site within the development footprint. Thus, these species would persist both on-site Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 75 within the Covenant of Easement area, as well as within off-site areas of habitat. In addition, suitable habitat within the project impact area is limited to 8.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (including Baccharis-dominated variant), disturbed habitat, and southern willow scrub which comprises a small fraction of the habitat available to this species identified in the MSCP Conservation Area both at a local level (1,595 acres in City Planning Component) and on a regional scale (3,314 acres total in the Subarea) (City of Chula Vista 2003). Therefore, project impacts are not anticipated to reduce species’ populations below self-sustaining levels and would not be significant. 5.3.2.3 Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species – No Annexation Scenario The project has potential to result in direct impacts to twelve special-status wildlife species: least Bell’s vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, western bluebird, orange-throated whiptail, San Diego tiger whiptail, pallid bat, Mexican long-tongued bat, and western mastiff bat (see Figure 5-1). Of this, potential impacts to these twelve species would occur within and adjacent to the project site within the City of Chula Vista outside of 75% and 100% Conservation Areas. Additional impacts associated with the off-site road improvements in the City of San Diego would potentially occur to burrowing owl, orange-throated whiptail, San Diego tiger whiptail, pallid bat, Mexican long-tongued bat, and western mastiff bat outside of the MHPA. a. Impacts to Least Bell’s Vireo Least Bell’s vireo was observed within the project site and off-site areas and in the vicinity of the proposed Wetland Plan area in Spring Canyon (see Attachment 13) and has a high potential to nest in suitable southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and Arundo-dominated riparian within the project impact area and Wetland Plan area. Therefore, the project has the potential for direct impacts to any individuals occurring within this suitable habitat. Significant direct impacts would also result from removal of approximately 0.28 acre of available foraging and nesting habitat outside of the 75% and 100% Conservation Areas and MHPA for which habitat-based compensatory mitigation would be required. The project would adhere to the MSCP conditions of coverage for this species, which include habitat-based compensatory mitigation, as described in Section 6.2.4 below. b. Impacts to Coastal California Gnatcatcher Coastal California gnatcatcher was observed within the project site and surrounding area and has a high potential to nest within the Diegan coastal sage scrub and Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis dominated within the project impact area. Therefore, the project has the potential for direct impacts to any individuals occurring within this suitable habitat. Significant direct impacts would result from removal of approximately 3.58 acres of available foraging and nesting habitat outside of the 75% and 100% Conservation Areas and MHPA for which habitat-based compensatory mitigation would be required. The project would adhere to the MSCP conditions of coverage for this species and include habitat-based compensatory mitigation, as described in Section 6.2.1 below. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 76 c. Impacts to Cooper’s Hawk Cooper’s hawk has a moderate potential to nest within the southern willow scrub within the project impact area outside of the 75% and 100% Conservation Areas and MHPA, as well as utilize the project impact area for foraging. Considering the abundance of foraging habitat in the area and large foraging range for Cooper’s hawk, project impacts to Cooper’s hawk foraging would be less than significant. Establishment of the 300-foot impact avoidance area identified within the MSCP area specific management directives would be required as a project condition of approval. Therefore, no impacts to Cooper’s hawk are anticipated. d. Impacts to Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl has a low potential to nest within the non-native grassland and disturbed habitat within the project impact area based on current site conditions, which lack suitable burrows for nesting and ground squirrel activity. However, potential direct impacts to this species would be significant and mitigation would be required to conduct a preconstruction survey to verify that no burrowing owls have occupied the project area. The project would also adhere to the MSCP conditions of coverage for this species, which include avoidance, relocation, and habitat-based mitigation. e. Impacts to Yellow-Breasted Chat and Yellow Warbler Yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat were observed within the project impact area. These species have moderate potential to nest within the southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub habitats of the project impact area. The project impacts to yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler habitat and nesting would be potentially significant and would require mitigation as described in Section 6.2.3.1. The project would be providing habitat-based compensatory mitigation is described in Section 6.2.1. f. Impacts to Western Bluebird Western bluebird was observed within the project area; however, the project impact area lacks suitable large trees with cavities for nesting and, thus, no direct impacts would occur to nesting western bluebird. While the project site may provide for western bluebird foraging; this species is adequately conserved by the MSCP and associated MHPA; therefore, impacts outside of the 75% and 100% Conservation Areas and MHPA would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. g. Impacts to Orange-Throated Whiptail and San Diego Tiger Whiptail Orange-throated whiptail and San Diego tiger whiptail have a moderate potential to occur within the project impact areas. Therefore, the project has potential to result in direct impacts to these species through incidental mortality during construction activities and through the removal of suitable habitat. However, these species were not observed during biological surveys conducted between 2020 and 2022 and likely only occur on-site in low numbers, and the project would be expected to result in the loss of very few individuals, if any. Additionally, suitable habitat within the project impact area is limited to 3.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub which comprises a small Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 77 fraction of the coastal sage scrub habitat available to these species identified in the MSCP Conservation Area both at a local level (1,285 acres in the City Planning Component) and on a regional scale (2,481 acres total within the Subarea) (City of Chula Vista 2003). Therefore, the potential loss of these individuals would not reduce the population to less than self-sustaining and would not be significant, and no species-specific mitigation would be required. h. Impacts to Pallid Bat, Mexican Long-Tongued Bat, and Western Mastiff Bat Pallid bat, Mexican long-tongued bat, and western mastiff bat have a moderate potential to forage within the project impact area; however, none are expected to use any portion of the project impact area for roosting or for a maternity colony due to lack of rock crevices, cliffs, mines or man-made structures suitable for roosting. Additionally, because no nighttime construction or maintenance activities would occur (during foraging), direct impacts to individuals during construction activities are unlikely. Suitable foraging habitat within the project impact area is limited to 17.65 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (including Baccharis-dominated variant), non-native grassland, and southern willow scrub which comprises a small fraction of the habitat available to this species identified in the MSCP MHPA both at a local level (1,663 acres in the City Planning Component) and on a regional scale (3,908 acres total) (City of Chula Vista 2003). Therefore, this loss of foraging habitat on-site would be less than significant, and no species-specific mitigation would be required. i. Impacts to Crotch’s Bumble Bee Crotch’s bumble bee is a state candidate for listing with a moderate potential to forage and nest within the project impact area. Considering the project has a low potential to support nesting, the project would not result in impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee nesting habitat. However, the project has the potential for direct impacts to any individuals occurring within suitable foraging habitat would result in impacts to 4.65 acres of potential foraging habitat in the project impact area. As a candidate for listing, the species is temporarily afforded the same protections as a state-listed endangered or threatened species. Thus, direct impacts to foraging habitat for this species would be significant should this species become state listed as threatened or endangered and during its candidacy for which habitat-based compensatory mitigation would be required. Species-specific mitigation to avoid unauthorized take of Crotch’s bumble bee is also required and described in Section 6.1.3.1. 5.3.2.4 Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages – No Annexation Scenario The project site likely functions for local wildlife movement but lacks regional value as a wildlife corridor due to the limited amount of native habitat and its proximity to existing residential and commercial development, roads, and highways. It does not act as a significant linkage to off-site areas of habitat given the adjacency on three sides of development. The project is located 197 feet south of a 75% Conservation Area associated with the Otay River, which may provide opportunities for regional wildlife movement. However, the project would not cause direct impacts to native vegetation communities within the riparian corridor and is separated by the 75% Conservation Area by dense, non-native vegetation (e.g., giant reed, black mustard). The project’s implementation of measures to protect biological resources during construction, as described in Section 6.2.1.1, is expected to minimize edge effects with little to no effect on the surrounding habitats. Specifically, Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 78 disturbances to habitat such as construction-related runoff and ground disturbance would be minimized through the implementation of a biological monitoring program and proper BMPs. As a result, the project would not cause any loss of functionality of the Otay River wildlife corridor, therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 5.3.2.5 Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources – No Annexation Scenario Impacts to potential jurisdictional resources within the project area would be avoided and minimized to the extent feasible. Nonetheless, impacts to potential jurisdictional resources would occur with project implementation. A total of 0.40 acre of impacts to potential RWQCB wetland waters, CDFW riparian, and City of Chula Vista wetland would occur with project implementation (see Figure 5-2). Table 7 summarizes the impacts within the project impact area by jurisdiction. Impacts to potential jurisdictional resources would be significant and mitigation would be required. Table 7 Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources within the Project Impact Area (No Annexation Scenario) Jurisdictional Resource Acreages by Jurisdictiona RWQCB CDFW City of Chula Vista Wetlands/Riparian Habitat Arundo-dominated riparian — — — Mule fat scrub 0.03 0.03 0.03 Southern willow scrub 0.15 0.15 0.15 Emergent wetland 0.18 0.18 0.18 Disturbed wetland 0.04 0.04 0.04 Total 0.40 0.40 0.40 CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board. aDue to overlap of resource jurisdictions, columns should not be added together. a. Impacts to City of Chula Vista Wetlands Wetlands protection must be provided throughout the City of Chula Vista’s subarea and an evaluation of wetlands avoidance and minimization is required. If impacts are unavoidable, no net loss of wetlands must be achieved through compensatory mitigation as prescribed by the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Table 5-6 (City of Chula Vista 2003). As discussed in detail in Section 5.3.1.5, wetland impacts are unavoidable due to constrained space and access. Avoidance of the City of Chula Vista wetlands would require redesign of the entrance from Dennery Road and secondary site access, which have been designed to meet codes for emergency access (a health and safety requirement). Due to the degraded nature of the existing wetland, extraordinary design features such as bridging the wetland are not warranted for this project. Due to constrained space and access from the I-805 to the west and urban development to the south and east, the only other secondary access would be to construct a road from the north across the Otay River, which would result in greater wetland impact. Therefore, wetlands avoidance is considered infeasible. The project incorporates design features to minimize impacts to the wetlands, such as using minimum road widths and crossing the wetlands perpendicular at their narrowest points in areas supporting lower quality wetlands. Additionally, the main access road design near the wetlands incorporates the steepest manufactured slopes allowable Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 79 (2:1) and a 20-foot retaining wall to minimize grading into the wetlands. To avoid brush management (zones 1 and 2) within the on-site wetlands, the project design was designed to incorporate a 6-foot fire-rated masonry block wall along the entire easternmost edge of the development footprint. Significant unavoidable impacts to City of Chula Vista wetlands would be significant and mitigation would be required to demonstrate compliance with the City of Chula Vista Wetlands Protection requirements. HLIT findings related to wetlands are included in Attachment 1. 5.4 Indirect Impacts – Annexation and No Annexation Scenarios The indirect impacts would be the same for both the Annexation and No Annexation Scenarios and thus are presented in this section together. 5.4.1 Indirect Impacts to Vegetation Communities The following sensitive vegetation communities are mapped adjacent to the project impact area and may be subject to indirect impacts: Diegan coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated, non-native grassland, mule fat scrub, southern willow scrub, and Arundo-dominated riparian. Potential indirect impacts on these vegetation communities include dust, erosion, and runoff generated by construction activities. Indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be significant and mitigation would be required. 5.4.2 Indirect Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species The following sensitive plant species are mapped adjacent to the project impact area and may be subject to indirect impacts: California adolphia, San Diego bur-sage, San Diego barrel cactus, San Diego County viguiera, small-flowered microseris, and ashy spike-moss. Potential indirect impacts on these plant species include dust, erosion, and runoff generated by construction activities. Indirect impacts to sensitive plant species would be significant and mitigation would be required. 5.4.3 Indirect Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species a. Indirect Impacts to Least Bell’s Vireo Indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo may occur if construction and/or restoration activities are conducted during this species’ breeding season of March 15 to September 15. Occupied suitable habitat (southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub) for this species occurs adjacent to the project impact area both inside and outside of the MHPA (see Figure 5-1) and within the vicinity of the proposed Wetland Plan area in Spring Canyon (see Attachment 13). Grading and and construction areis likely to cause noise levels within these adjacent habitat areas to exceed 60 A-weighted decibels [dB(A)] average sound level (Leq), which would be considered a significant indirect impact requiring mitigation. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 80 b. Indirect Impacts to Coastal California Gnatcatcher Indirect impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher outside the MHPA may occur if construction activities are conducted during this species’ breeding season of March 1 and August 15. Occupied suitable habitat (coastal sage scrub) for this species occurs adjacent to the project impact area (see Figure 5-1), which may be subject to construction-related noise. However, suitable habitat for this species in the project vicinity occurs entirely outside of any Conservation Areas and the MHPA and the closest coastal sage scrub inside the MHPA is approximately 1,000 feet to the west across Interstate I-805. Therefore, indirect impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher as a result of noise would be less than significant. c. Indirect Impacts to Cooper’s Hawk Cooper’s hawk has a moderate potential to nest within eucalyptus woodland adjacent to the project impact area. Establishment of the 300-foot impact avoidance area identified within the MSCP area specific management directives would be required as a project condition of approval. Indirect impacts to Cooper’s hawk foraging would be less than significant considering the existing urbanized nature of the vicinity, disturbed conditions, existing noise levels, and the project’s compliance with standard BMPs. Therefore, no indirect impacts to Cooper’s hawk are anticipated. d. Indirect Impacts to Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl has a moderate potential to occur within disturbed habitat and non-native grassland adjacent to the project impact area. Potential indirect impacts to this species would be significant and mitigation would be required to verify that no burrowing owls occur adjacent to the project impact area, as discussed in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.2.3. 5.5 Cumulative Impacts - Annexation and No Annexation Scenarios Cumulative impacts would be the same for both the Annexation and No Annexation Scenarios and are presented in this section together. The geographic scope for cumulative impacts related to biological resources includes the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista. These jurisdictions are both participants in the MSCP, which constitutes a subregional plan pursuant to the state of California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act and a Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(b) of the FESA. The MSCP considers biological resource conservation on a sub-regional scale and therefore serves as an appropriate measure of cumulative impacts. The City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan and City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan serve as the local implementation plans for the sub-regional MSCP. As such, the MSCP and its Subarea Plans provide mitigation programs to address the effects of cumulative development. If a project is determined to be consistent with the MSCP and applicable Subarea Plan, and/or provides appropriate mitigation to ensure the integrity of the plans, its cumulative effects would not be significant. The project would be consistent with both the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan and City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan, which are the applicable Subarea Plans Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 81 for the project area, and therefore no significant cumulative impacts to biological resources would result from implementation of the project. Furthermore, the project would achieve no-net-loss of wetlands through a 2:1 mitigation ratio, at minimum, as described in Sections 6.1.4 and 6.2.4, which would provide a greater acreage of wetlands to offset project impacts. The impacted wetlands consist of a narrow, linear corridor and are low quality due to invasive species, lack of natural hydrology, and disturbance from homeless encampments and trash. The project would preserve the higher quality wetlands on-site to continue to provide habitat for least Bell’s vireo and would provide an enhanced wetland buffer through revegetation with native upland coastal sage scrub species and drainage improvements, while providing off-site mitigation in to compensate for unavoidable impacts. In addition, long-term management and funding, as described in Attachment 13, would be provided to ensure continued maintenance in perpetuity. The off-site mitigation would occur in a regional corridor identified by the MSCP (e.g., Spring Canyon) in an unconstrained location that would have greater overall wetland value in the long term due to a lack of surrounding urbanization, as well as natural hydrology. Thus, it is anticipated that the replacement wetlands would provide overall higher functions and values for hydrology and wildlife. Therefore, cumulative impacts to wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation. 6.0 Mitigation This section is broken down by the two potential scenarios for the project: the Annexation Scenario and the No Annexation Scenario. The mitigation measures required under each scenario to offset significant direct and indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, special-status plants and wildlife, and jurisdictional resources are discussed separately under Sections 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. Mitigation measures that would be implemented by the City of San Diego are presented as SD-BIO-X and mitigation measures that would be implemented by the City of Chula Vista are presented as CV-BIO-X. These mitigation measures would reduce potential significant impacts to a level that is less than significant pursuant to CEQA. 6.1 Annexation Scenario As described previously, under the Annexation Scenario, the project site would be annexed into the City of San Diego jurisdiction. However, off-site project components would result in impacts to resources located in both the City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego. Mitigation required to offset project impacts in accordance with the regulations of both jurisdictions is provided below. Under the Annexation Scenario, mitigation measures SD-BIO-1 through SD-BIO-10 would be administered by the City of San Diego to offset project impacts to sensitive upland vegetation communities, special-status plants and wildlife, and jurisdictional resources occurring in both the City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 82 6.1.1 Sensitive Upland Vegetation Communities 6.1.1.1 City of San Diego Mitigation would be required for permanent impacts to 17.25 acres of sensitive upland vegetation communities, as shown in Table 8. Attachment 17 provides details of the proposed upland mitigation at the Pacific Highlands Ranch Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area. Table 8 Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Sensitive Upland Vegetation Communities (Annexation Scenario) Vegetation Community Impact Acreage City of San Diego Mitigation Ratiob Proposed Mitigation (Inside MHPA) On-site Off-site Inside MHPA Outside MHPA Diegan coastal sage scrub (Tier II) 3.39 0.04 1:1 1.5:1 3.43 Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated (Tier II) 0.16 0.01a 1:1 1.5:1 0.17 Non-native grassland (Tier IIIB) 13.60 0.05a 0.5:1 1:1 6.83 Total 17.15 0.10 — — 10.43 aIncludes 0.01 acre of impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated and 0.05 acre of impacts to non-native grassland within the off-site area in the City of Chula Vista. These impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated and non-native grassland are less than significant in the context of the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan as they total than 0.10 acre. However, mitigation would be required to offset the project’s total impact to 0.17 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated and 13.65 acre of non-native grassland. Therefore, mitigation for impacts within the City of Chula Vista are proposed to be accomplished with the project’s overall upland mitigation, which would occur in the City of San Diego. bMitigation ratios are based on the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a) Tier I–IV ranking system for impacts outside of the MHPA. This report assumes that mitigation would occur inside the City of San Diego’s MHPA. Ultimately the mitigation ratio would be dependent on the location of the mitigation as detailed in the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). To mitigate for permanent impacts to sensitive habitat under the Annexation Scenario, the following mitigation measures would be implemented by the City of San Diego: SD-BIO-1 Sensitive Upland Vegetation. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to the first Grading Permit, Demolition Permits and Building Permits, or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, by the City of San Diego for the Annexation Scenario, the owner/permittee shall mitigate for impacts to sensitive upland vegetation in accordance with the City of San Diego’s 2018 Biology Guidelines. The owner/permittee shall mitigate direct impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated at a 1:1 mitigation ratio, and non-native grassland at a 0.5:1 ratio inside the MHPA. Mitigation for 3.43 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (Tier II), 0.17 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated (Tier II), and 13.65 acres of non-native grassland (Tier IIIB) will be achieved through the preservation of 10.43 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (Tier II) at the Pacific Highlands Ranch Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area (City of San Diego 2001). The applicant shall provide proof of mitigation credit purchase to the City of San Diego via a mitigation ledger prior to issuance of any land development permits. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 83 To mitigate for potential indirect impacts to sensitive habitat under the Annexation Scenario, the following mitigation measures would be implemented by the City of San Diego: SD-BIO-2 Biological Resource Protection During Construction I. Prior to Construction A. Biologist Verification - The owner/permittee shall provide a letter to the City’s Mitigation Monitoring Coordination (MMC) section stating that a Project Biologist (Qualified Biologist) as defined in the City of San Diego’s Biological Guidelines (2018a), has been retained to implement the project’s biological monitoring program. The letter shall include the names and contact information of all persons involved in the biological monitoring of the project. B. Preconstruction Meeting - The Qualified Biologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting, discuss the project’s biological monitoring program, and arrange to perform any follow up mitigation measures and reporting including site-specific monitoring, restoration or revegetation, and additional fauna/flora surveys/salvage. C. Biological Documents - The Qualified Biologist shall submit all required documentation to MMC verifying that any special mitigation reports including but not limited to, maps, plans, surveys, survey timelines, or buffers are completed or scheduled per City Biology Guidelines, Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESL), project permit conditions; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); endangered species acts (ESAs); and/or other local, state or federal requirements. D. BCME - The Qualified Biologist shall present a Biological Construction Mitigation/Monitoring Exhibit (BCME) which includes the biological documents in C above. In addition, include: restoration/revegetation plans, plant salvage/relocation requirements (e.g., coastal cactus wren plant salvage, burrowing owl exclusions, etc.), avian or other wildlife surveys/survey schedules (including general avian nesting and USFWS protocol), timing of surveys, wetland buffers, avian construction avoidance areas/noise buffers/ barriers, other impact avoidance areas, and any subsequent requirements determined by the Qualified Biologist and the City ADD/MMC. The BCME shall include a site plan, written and graphic depiction of the project’s biological mitigation/monitoring program, and a schedule. The BCME shall be approved by MMC and referenced in the construction documents. E. Resource Delineation - Prior to construction activities, the Qualified Biologist shall supervise the placement of orange construction fencing or equivalent along the limits of disturbance adjacent to sensitive biological habitats and verify compliance with any other project conditions as shown on the BCME. This phase shall include flagging plant specimens and delimiting buffers to protect sensitive biological resources (e.g., habitats/flora & fauna species, including nesting birds) Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 84 during construction. Appropriate steps/care should be taken to minimize attraction of nest predators to the site. F. Education - Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Qualified Biologist shall meet with the owner/permittee or designee and the construction crew and conduct an on-site educational session regarding the need to avoid impacts outside of the approved construction area and to protect sensitive flora and fauna (e.g., explain the avian and wetland buffers, flag system for removal of invasive species or retention of sensitive plants, and clarify acceptable access routes/methods and staging areas, etc.). II. During Construction A. Monitoring - All construction (including access/staging areas) shall be restricted to areas previously identified, proposed for development/staging, or previously disturbed as shown on “Exhibit A” and/or the BCME. The Qualified Biologist shall monitor construction activities as needed to ensure that construction activities do not encroach into biologically sensitive areas, or cause other similar damage, and that the work plan has been amended to accommodate any sensitive species located during the preconstruction surveys. In addition, the Qualified Biologist shall document field activity via the Consultant Site Visit Record (CSVR). The CSVR shall be e-mailed to MMC on the 1st day of monitoring, the 1st week of each month, the last day of monitoring, and immediately in the case of any undocumented condition or discovery. B. Subsequent Resource Identification - The Qualified Biologist shall note/act to prevent any new disturbances to habitat, flora, and/or fauna onsite (e.g., flag plant specimens for avoidance during access, etc.). If active nests or other previously unknown sensitive resources are detected, all project activities that directly impact the resource shall be delayed until species specific local, state or federal regulations have been determined and applied by the Qualified Biologist. III. Post Construction Measures A. In the event that impacts exceed previously allowed amounts, additional impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with City Biology Guidelines, ESL and MSCP, State CEQA, and other applicable local, state, and federal law. The Qualified Biologist shall submit a final BCME/report to the satisfaction of the City ADD/MMC within 30 days of construction completion. 6.1.1.2 City of Chula Vista As discussed above, impacts to 0.01 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated and 0.05 acre of non-native grassland are less than significant in the context of the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan as they total than 0.10 acre. However, mitigation would be required to offset the project’s total impact to 0.17 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated and 13.65 acres of non-native grassland, which includes 13.60 acres in the City of San Diego and 0.05 acre in the City of Chula Vista. Therefore, impacts to non-native grassland would be mitigated via habitat mitigation Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 85 measure SD-BIO-1. In addition, indirect impacts to sensitive habitats in the City of Chula Vista would be mitigated via mitigation measure SD-BIO-2. 6.1.2 Special-Status Plant Species 6.1.2.1 City of San Diego The Annexation Scenario would result in significant direct and indirect impacts to special-status plants within the City of San Diego. As shown in Table 9, Otay tarplant would require mitigation at a 4:1 mitigation ratio. The Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan is included in Attachment 18. In addition, indirect impacts to California adolphia, San Diego bur-sage, San Diego barrel cactus, San Diego County viguiera, small-flowered microseris, and ashy spike-moss located adjacent to the project in the City of San Diego would be avoided through biological monitoring, construction fencing, and BMPs as described in SD-BIO-2. Table 9 Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Otay Tarplant in the City of San Diego Common Name (Scientific Name) Status (Federal/State/CRPR/Chula Vista MSCP/San Diego MSCP) Total Individuals (City of San Diego Only) City of San Diego Mitigation Ratio Total Mitigation Required (Individuals) Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) FT/SE/1B.1/Narrow Endemic/Narrow Endemic 14 4:1 56 FT = Federally threatened; SE = State endangered; CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank To mitigate for direct impacts to Otay tarplant under the Annexation Scenario, the following measure shall be implemented by the City of San Diego: SD-BIO-3 Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to the first Grading Permit, Demolition Permits and Building Permits, or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, shall incorporate the following mitigation measures into the project design and include them verbatim on all appropriate construction documents. In lieu of the below Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan, the applicant may also purchase equivalent mitigation credits at a City of San Diego-approved mitigation bank, subject to Wildlife Agency review and approval. The mitigation bank must contain an Otay tarplant population or have the species reintroduced for the purposes of mitigation. The applicant is required to provide proof of mitigation credit purchase to the City of San Diego prior to issuance of any land development permits. Prior to Permit Issuance A. Land Development Review Plan Check 1. Prior to NTP or issuance for any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits, whichever is applicable, the ADD environmental designee shall verify that the Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 86 requirements for the revegetation/restoration plans and specifications, including mitigation of direct impacts to Otay tarplant individual plants at a 4:1 ratio. While the number of individual plants present may vary year-to-year, it is estimated 14 individuals would be impacted and mitigation would include 56 Otay tarplant individuals. The landscape construction documents and specifications must be found to be in conformance with the Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan for the Nakano Project prepared by RECON (Attachment 18), the requirements of which are summarized below: B. Revegetation/Restoration Plan(s) and Specifications 1. Landscape Construction Documents (LCD) shall be prepared on D-sheets and submitted to the City of San Diego Development Services Department, Landscape Architecture Section for review and approval. Landscape Architecture Section shall consult with Mitigation Monitoring Coordination (MMC) and obtain concurrence prior to approval of LCD. The LCD shall consist of revegetation/restoration, planting, irrigation and erosion control plans; including all required graphics, notes, details, specifications, letters, and reports as outlined below. 2. Landscape Revegetation/Restoration Planting and Irrigation Plans shall be prepared in accordance with the San Diego Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter 14, Article 2, Division 4, the LDC Landscape Standards submittal requirements, and Attachment “B” (General Outline for Revegetation/Restoration Plans) of the City of San Diego’s LDC Biology Guidelines. The Principal Qualified Biologist (PQB) shall identify and adequately document all pertinent information concerning the revegetation/restoration goals and requirements, such as but not limited to, plant/seed palettes, timing of installation, plant installation specifications, method of watering, protection of adjacent habitat, erosion and sediment control, performance/success criteria, inspection schedule by City staff, document submittals, reporting schedule, etc. The LCD shall also include comprehensive graphics and notes addressing the ongoing maintenance requirements (after final acceptance by the City). 3. The Revegetation Installation Contractor (RIC), Revegetation Maintenance Contractor (RMC), Construction Manager (CM) and Grading Contractor (GC), where applicable shall be responsible to insure that for all grading and contouring, clearing and grubbing, installation of plant materials, and any necessary maintenance activities or remedial actions required during installation and the 120-day plant establishment period are done per approved LCD. The following procedures at a minimum, but not limited to, shall be performed: a. The RMC shall be responsible for the maintenance of the upland mitigation area for a minimum period of 120 days. Maintenance visits shall be conducted on a weekly basis throughout the plant establishment period. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 87 b. At the end of the 120-day period the PQB shall review the mitigation area to assess the completion of the short-term plant establishment period and submit a report for approval by MMC. c. MMC will provide approval in writing to begin the five-year long-term establishment/maintenance and monitoring program. d. Existing indigenous/native species shall not be pruned, thinned, or cleared in the revegetation/mitigation area. e. The revegetation site shall not be fertilized. f. The RIC is responsible for reseeding (if applicable) if weeds are not removed, within one week of written recommendation by the PQB. g. Weed control measures shall include the following: (1) hand removal, (2) cutting, with power equipment, and (3) chemical control. Hand removal of weeds is the most desirable method of control and will be used wherever possible. h. Damaged areas shall be repaired immediately by the RIC/RMC. Insect infestations, plant diseases, herbivory, and other pest problems will be closely monitored throughout the five-year maintenance period. Protective mechanisms such as metal wire netting shall be used as necessary. Diseased and infected plants shall be immediately disposed of off-site in a legally-acceptable manner at the discretion of the PQB or Qualified Biological Monitor (QBM) (City approved). Where possible, biological controls will be used instead of pesticides and herbicides. 4. If a Brush Management Program is required the revegetation/restoration plan shall show the dimensions of each brush management zone and notes shall be provided describing the restrictions on planting and maintenance and identify that the area is impact neutral and shall not be used for habitat mitigation/credit purposes. C. Letters of Qualification Have Been Submitted to ADD 1. The applicant shall submit, for approval, a letter verifying the qualifications of the biological professional to MMC. This letter shall identify the PQB, Principal Restoration Specialist (PRS), and QBM, where applicable, and the names of all other persons involved in the implementation of the revegetation/restoration plan and biological monitoring program, as they are defined in the City of San Diego Biological Review References. Resumes and the biology worksheet should be updated annually. 2. MMC will provide a letter to the applicant confirming the qualifications of the PQB/PRS/QBM and all City Approved persons involved in the revegetation/restoration plan and biological monitoring of the project. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 88 3. Prior to the start of work, the applicant must obtain approval from MMC for any personnel changes associated with the revegetation/restoration plan and biological monitoring of the project. 4. PBQ must also submit evidence to MMC that the PQB/QBM has completed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) training. Prior to Start of Construction A. PQB/PRS Shall Attend Preconstruction (Precon) Meetings 1. Prior to beginning any work that requires monitoring: a. The owner/permittee or their authorized representative shall arrange and perform a Precon Meeting that shall include the PQB or PRS, Construction Manager (CM) and/or GC, Landscape Architect (LA), Revegetation RIC, RMC, Resident Engineer (RE), Building Inspector (BI), if appropriate, and MMC. b. The PQB shall also attend any other grading/excavation related Precon Meetings to make comments and/or suggestions concerning the revegetation/restoration plan(s) and specifications with the RIC, CM and/or GC. c. If the PQB is unable to attend the Precon Meeting, the owner shall schedule a focused Precon Meeting with MMC, PQB/PRS, CM, BI, LA, RIC, RMC, RE and/or BI, if appropriate, prior to the start of any work associated with the revegetation/ restoration phase of the project, including site grading preparation. 2. Where Revegetation/Restoration Work Will Occur a. Prior to the start of any work, the PQB/PRS shall also submit a revegetation/restoration monitoring exhibit (RRME) based on the appropriate reduced LCD (reduced to 11”x 17” format) to MMC, and the RE, identifying the areas to be revegetated/restored including the delineation of the limits of any disturbance/grading and any excavation. b. PQB shall coordinate with the construction superintendent to identify appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) on the RRME. 3. When Biological Monitoring Will Occur a. Prior to the start of any work, the PQB/PRS shall also submit a monitoring procedures schedule to MMC and the RE indicating when and where biological monitoring and related activities will occur. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 89 4. PQB Shall Contact MMC to Request Modification a. The PQB may submit a detailed letter to MMC prior to the start of work or during construction requesting a modification to the revegetation/restoration plans and specifications. This request shall be based on relevant information (such as other sensitive species not listed by federal and/or state agencies and/or not covered by the MSCP and to which any impacts may be considered significant under CEQA) which may reduce or increase the potential for biological resources to be present. During Construction A. PQB or QBM Present During Construction/Grading/Planting 1. The PQB or QBM shall be present full-time during construction activities including but not limited to, site preparation, cleaning, grading, excavation, landscape establishment in association with the project’s grading permit which could result in impacts to sensitive biological resources as identified in the LCD and on the RRME. The RIC and/or QBM are responsible for notifying the PQB/PRS of changes to any approved construction plans, procedures, and/or activities. The PQB/PRS is responsible to notify the CM, LA, RE, BI and MMC of the changes. 2. The PQB or QBM shall document field activity via the Consultant Site Visit Record Forms (CSVR). The CSVR’s shall be faxed by the CM the first day of monitoring, the last day of monitoring, monthly, and in the event that there is a deviation from conditions identified within the LCD and/or biological monitoring program. The RE shall forward copies to MMC. 3. The PQB or QBM shall be responsible for maintaining and submitting the CSVR at the time that CM responsibilities end (i.e., upon the completion of construction activity other than that of associated with biology). 4. All construction activities (including staging areas) shall be restricted to the development areas as shown on the LCD. The PQB/PRS or QBM staff shall monitor construction activities as needed, with MMC concurrence on method and schedule. This is to ensure that construction activities do not encroach into biologically sensitive areas beyond the limits of disturbance as shown on the approved LCD. 5. The PQB or QBM shall supervise the placement of orange construction fencing or City approved equivalent, along the limits of potential disturbance adjacent to (or at the edge of) all sensitive habitats, including Diegan coastal sage scrub (including Baccharis-variant), non-native grassland, southern willow scrub, emergent wetland, and disturbed wetland, as shown on the approved LCD. 6. The PBQ shall provide a letter to MMC that limits of potential disturbance has been surveyed, staked and that the construction fencing is installed properly. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 90 7. The PQB or QBM shall oversee implementation of BMPs, such as gravel bags, straw logs, silt fences or equivalent erosion control measures, as needed to ensure prevention of any significant sediment transport. In addition, the PQB/QBM shall be responsible to verify the removal of all temporary construction BMPs upon completion of construction activities. Removal of temporary construction BMPs shall be verified in writing on the final construction phase CSVR. 8. PQB shall verify in writing on the CSVR’s that no trash stockpiling or oil dumping, fueling of equipment, storage of hazardous wastes or construction equipment/material, parking or other construction related activities shall occur adjacent to sensitive habitat. These activities shall occur only within the designated staging area located outside the area defined as biological sensitive area. 9. The long-term establishment inspection and reporting schedule per LCD must all be approved by MMC prior to the issuance of the Notice of Completion or any bond release. B. Disturbance/Discovery Notification Process 1. If unauthorized disturbances occurs or sensitive biological resources are discovered that where not previously identified on the LCD and/or RRME, the PQB or QBM shall direct the contractor to temporarily divert construction in the area of disturbance or discovery and immediately notify the RE or BI, as appropriate. 2. The PQB shall also immediately notify MMC by telephone of the disturbance and report the nature and extent of the disturbance and recommend the method of additional protection, such as fencing and appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). After obtaining concurrence with MMC and the RE, PQB and CM shall install the approved protection and agreement on BMPs. 3. The PQB shall also submit written documentation of the disturbance to MMC within 24 hours by fax or email with photos of the resource in context (e.g., show adjacent vegetation). C. Determination of Significance 1. The PQB shall evaluate the significance of disturbance and/or discovered biological resource and provide a detailed analysis and recommendation in a letter report with the appropriate photo documentation to MMC to obtain concurrence and formulate a plan of action which can include fines, fees, and supplemental mitigation costs. 2. MMC shall review this letter report and provide the RE with MMC’s recommendations and procedures. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 91 Post Construction A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Period 1. Five-Year Mitigation Establishment/Maintenance Period a. The RMC shall be retained to complete maintenance monitoring activities throughout the five-year mitigation monitoring period. b. Maintenance visits will be conducted twice per month for the first six months, once per month for the remainder of the first year, and quarterly thereafter. c. Maintenance activities will include all items described in the LCD. d. Plant replacement will be conducted as recommended by the PQB (note: plants shall be increased in container size relative to the time of initial installation or establishment or maintenance period may be extended to the satisfaction of MMC. 2. Five-Year Biological Monitoring a. All biological monitoring and reporting shall be conducted by a PQB or QBM, as appropriate, consistent with the LCD. b. Monitoring shall involve both qualitative horticultural monitoring and quantitative monitoring (i.e., performance/success criteria). Horticultural monitoring shall focus on soil conditions (e.g., moisture and fertility), container plant health, seed germination rates, presence of native and non-native (e.g., invasive exotic) species, any significant disease or pest problems, irrigation repair and scheduling, trash removal, illegal trespass, and any erosion problems. c. After plant installation is complete, qualitative monitoring surveys will occur monthly during year one and quarterly during years two through five. d. Upon the completion of the 120-days short-term plant establishment period, quantitative monitoring surveys shall be conducted at 0, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months by the PQB or QBM. The revegetation/restoration effort shall be quantitatively evaluated once per year (in spring) during years three through five, to determine compliance with the performance standards identified on the LCD. All plant material must have survived without supplemental irrigation for the last two years. e. Quantitative monitoring shall include the use of fixed transects and photo points to determine the vegetative cover within the revegetated habitat. Collection of fixed transect data within the revegetation/restoration site shall result in the calculation of percent cover for each plant species present, percent cover of target vegetation, tree height and diameter at breast height Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 92 (if applicable) and percent cover of non-native/non-invasive vegetation. Container plants will also be counted to determine percent survivorship. The data will be used to determine attainment of performance/success criteria identified within the LCD. f. Biological monitoring requirements may be reduced if, before the end of the fifth year, the revegetation meets the fifth-year criteria and the irrigation has been terminated for a period of the last two years. g. The PQB or QBM shall oversee implementation of post-construction BMPs, such as gravel bags, straw logs, silt fences or equivalent erosion control measure, as needed to ensure prevention of any significant sediment transport. In addition, the PBQ/QBM shall be responsible to verify the removal of all temporary post-construction BMPs upon completion of construction activities. Removal of temporary post-construction BMPs shall be verified in writing on the final post-construction phase CSVR. B. Submittal of Draft Monitoring Report 1. A draft monitoring letter report shall be prepared to document the completion of the 120-day plant establishment period. The report shall include discussion on weed control, horticultural treatments (pruning, mulching, and disease control), erosion control, trash/debris removal, replacement planting/reseeding, site protection/signage, pest management, vandalism, and irrigation maintenance. The revegetation/restoration effort shall be visually assessed at the end of 120-day period to determine mortality of individuals. 2. The PQB shall submit two copies of the Draft Monitoring Report which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the Biological Monitoring and Reporting Program (with appropriate graphics) to MMC for review and approval within 30 days following the completion of monitoring. Monitoring reports shall be prepared on an annual basis for a period of five years. Site progress reports shall be prepared by the PQB following each site visit and provided to the owner, RMC, and RIC. Site progress reports shall review maintenance activities, qualitative and quantitative (when appropriate) monitoring results including progress of the revegetation relative to the performance/success criteria, and the need for any remedial measures. 3. Draft annual reports (three copies) summarizing the results of each progress report including quantitative monitoring results and photographs taken from permanent viewpoints shall be submitted to MMC for review and approval within 30 days following the completion of monitoring. 4. MMC shall return the Draft Monitoring Report to the PQB for revision or, for preparation of each report. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 93 5. The PQB shall submit revised Monitoring Report to MMC (with a copy to RE) for approval within 30 days. 6. MMC will provide written acceptance of the PQB and RE of the approved report. C. Final Monitoring Reports(s) 1. PQB shall prepare a Final Monitoring upon achievement of the fifth-year performance/success criteria and completion of the five-year maintenance period. a. This report may occur before the end of the fifth year if the revegetation meets the fifth-year performance /success criteria and the irrigation has been terminated for a period of the last two years. b. The Final Monitoring report shall be submitted to MMC for evaluation of the success of the mitigation effort and final acceptance. A request for a pre-final inspection shall be submitted at this time, MMC will schedule after review of report. c. If at the end of the five years any of the revegetated area fails to meet the project’s final success standards, the applicant must consult with MMC. This consultation shall take place to determine whether the revegetation effort is acceptable. The applicant understands that failure of any significant portion of the revegetation/restoration area may result in a requirement to replace or renegotiate that portion of the site and/or extend the monitoring and establishment/maintenance period until all success standards are met. D. Management and Maintenance in Perpetuity The Otay tarplant mitigation area shall be protected and managed/maintained in perpetuity. The Otay tarplant mitigation site shall be addressed through a long-term management plan. The Otay tarplant mitigation area shall be covered by a Covenant of Easement to the benefit of the City of San Diego or dedicated in-fee title to the City of San Diego. The project proponent shall provide funding in an amount approved by the City based on a Property Analysis Record (Center for Natural Lands Management 1998), or similar cost estimation method, to secure the ongoing funding for the perpetual long-term management, maintenance, and monitoring of the off-site mitigation area pursuant to the long-term management plan by an agency, nonprofit organization, or other entity approved by the City of San Diego. 6.1.2.2 City of Chula Vista Direct and indirect impacts to special-status plant species in the off-site City of Chula Vista area would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 94 6.1.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species 6.1.3.1 City of San Diego The Annexation Scenario would result in potential significant direct and indirect impacts to special-status wildlife within the City of San Diego. To mitigate for impacts to least Bell's vireo, burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat under the Annexation Scenario, mitigation measure SD-BIO-4 shall be implemented by the City of San Diego. Additionally, direct impacts to habitat would be mitigated through upland and wetland habitat mitigation measures described in SD-BIO-1 and SD-BIO-8, respectively. Potential direct and indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo and burrowing owl would be further mitigated by SD-BIO-5 and SD-BIO-6. Potential direct impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be further mitigated by SD-BIO-7. SD-BIO-4 Measures to Protect Sensitive Bird Nesting A. Avian Protection Requirements - Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, removal of habitat that supports active nests in the proposed area of disturbance (both on-site and within the Wetland Plan area of work) should occur outside of the breeding season for least Bell's vireo, burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler (February 1 to September 15) or a preconstruction survey shall be completed by Qualified Biologist preconstruction to determine the presence or absence of nesting least Bell's vireo, burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler on the proposed area of disturbance. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). The applicant shall submit the results of the preconstruction survey to City DSD for review and written approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report in conformance with the City’s Biology Guidelines and applicable state and federal law (i.e. appropriate follow up surveys, monitoring schedules, construction and noise barriers/buffers, etc.) shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs or disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and written approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City. The City’s MMC Section and Biologist shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction. To mitigate for direct and indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo under the Annexation Scenario, the wetland habitat mitigation identified in SD-BIO-7, as well as the following measures shall be implemented by the City of San Diego. SD-BIO-5 Direct Impact Avoidance and Noise Restrictions for Least Bell’s Vireo Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit, Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 95 Subdivisions, the City Manager (or appointed designee) shall verify that the following project requirements regarding the least Bell’s vireo are shown on the construction and wetland restoration plans: No clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities shall occur between March 15 and September 15, the breeding season of the least Bell’s vireo, until the following requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the City Manager: A. A Qualified Biologist (possessing a valid Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(a) Recovery Permit) shall survey those wetland areas that would be subject to construction noise levels exceeding 60 decibels [dB(A)] hourly average for the presence of the least Bell’s vireo. Surveys for this species shall be conducted pursuant to the protocol survey guidelines established by the USFWS within the breeding season prior to the commencement of construction. If the least Bell’s vireo is present, then the following conditions must be met: I. Between March 15 and September 15, no clearing, grubbing, or grading of occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat shall be permitted. Areas restricted from such activities shall be staked or fenced under the supervision of a Qualified Biologist; and II. Between March 15 and September 15, no construction activities shall occur within any portion of the site where construction activities would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge of occupied least Bell’s vireo or habitat. An analysis showing that noise generated by construction activities would not exceed 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge of occupied habitat must be completed a qualified acoustician (possessing current noise engineer license or registration with monitoring noise level experience with listed animal species) and approved by the City Manager at least two weeks prior to the commencement of construction activities. Prior to the commencement of any of construction activities during the breeding season, areas restricted from such activities shall be staked or fenced under the supervision of a qualified biologist; or III. At least two weeks prior to the commencement of construction activities, under the direction of a qualified acoustician, noise attenuation measures (e.g., berms, walls) shall be implemented to ensure that noise levels resulting from construction activities will not exceed 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge of habitat occupied by the least Bell’s vireo. Concurrent with the commencement of construction activities and the construction of necessary noise attenuation facilities, noise monitoring* shall be conducted at the edge of the occupied habitat area to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 60 dB(A) hourly average. If the noise attenuation techniques implemented are determined to be inadequate by the qualified acoustician or biologist, then the associated construction activities shall cease until such time that adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the end of the breeding season (September 16). Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 96 *Construction noise monitoring shall continue to be monitored at least twice weekly on varying days, or more frequently depending on the construction activity, to verify that noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat are maintained below 60 dB(A) hourly average or to the ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dB (A) hourly average. If not, other measures shall be implemented in consultation with the Qualified Biologist and the City Manager, as necessary, to reduce noise levels to below 60 dB(A) hourly average or to the ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dB(A) hourly average. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, limitations on the placement of construction equipment and the simultaneous use of equipment. B. If least Bell’s vireo are not detected during the protocol survey, the Qualified Biologist shall submit substantial evidence to the City Manager and Wildlife applicable resource Aagencies for review and written approval which demonstrates whether or not mitigation measures such as noise walls are necessary between March 15 and September 15 as follows: I. If this evidence indicates the potential is high for least Bell’s vireo to be present based on historical records or site conditions, then condition A.III shall be adhered to as specified above. II. If this evidence concludes that no impacts to this species are anticipated, no mitigation measures would be necessary. To mitigate for direct and indirect impacts to burrowing owls under the Annexation Scenario, the habitat mitigation identified in SD-BIO-1, as well as the following measures shall be implemented by the City of San Diego: SD-BIO-6 Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey and Avoidance in San Diego. The following shall be implemented to avoid potential impacts to burrowing owl: Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit, Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, the City of San Diego Manager (or appointed designee) shall verify that the following project requirements regarding burrowing owl are shown on the construction plans: PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY ELEMENT Prior to Permit or Notice to Proceed Issuance: 1. As this project area has been determined to be burrowing owl occupied or to have burrowing owl occupation potential, the Applicant Department or Permit Holder shall submit evidence to the ADD of Entitlements and MSCP staff, to the satisfaction of the City, verifying that a Biologist possessing qualifications pursuant to the “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game. March 7, 2012 (hereafter referred as CDFG 2012, Staff Report), has been retained to implement a burrowing owl construction impact avoidance program. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 97 2. The qualified burrowing owl biologist (or their designated biological representative) shall attend the preconstruction meeting to inform construction personnel about the City’s burrowing owl requirements and subsequent survey schedule. Prior to Start of Construction: 1. The Applicant Department or Permit Holder and Qualified Biologist must ensure that initial preconstruction/take avoidance surveys of the project "site" are completed between 14 and 30 days before initial construction activities begin, including brushing, clearing, grubbing, or grading of the project site; regardless of the time of the year. "Site” means the project site and the area within a radius of 450 feet of the project site. The report shall be submitted and approved by the Wildlife Agencies and/or City MSCP staff prior to construction or burrowing owl eviction(s) and shall include maps of the project site and BUOW locations on aerial photos. 2. The preconstruction survey shall follow the methods described in CDFG 2012, Staff Report -Appendix D 3. 24 hours prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities, the Qualified Biologist shall verify results of preconstruction/take avoidance surveys via review of the Survey Report (see report requirements in CDFG 2012, Staff Report - Appendix D 3) that is to be provided to the City and Wildlife Agencies. Written verification via the Survey Report shall be provided to the City’s Mitigation Monitoring and Coordination (MMC) and MSCP Sections, and to the satisfaction of these sections. If results of the preconstruction surveys have changed and burrowing owl are present in areas not previously identified, immediate notification to the City and Wildlife Agencies shall be provided prior to ground disturbing activities. During Construction: 1. Best Management Practices shall be employed as burrowing owls are known to use open pipes, culverts, excavated holes, and other burrow-like structures at construction sites. Legally permitted active construction projects which are burrowing owl occupied and have followed all protocol in this mitigation section, or sites within 450 feet of occupied burrowing owl areas, should undertake measures to discourage burrowing owls from recolonizing previously occupied areas or colonizing new portions of the site. Such measures include, but are not limited to, ensuring that the ends of all pipes and culverts are covered when they are not being worked on, and covering rubble piles, dirt piles, ditches, and berms. 2. Ongoing Burrowing Owl Detection - If burrowing owls or active burrows are not detected during the preconstruction surveys, Section "A" below shall be followed. If burrowing owls or burrows are detected during the preconstruction surveys, Section "B" shall be followed. NEITHER THE MSCP SUBAREA PLAN NOR THIS MITIGATION SECTION ALLOWS FOR ANY BURROWING OWLS TO BE INJURED OR KILLED OUTSIDE OR WITHIN THE MHPA; in addition, IMPACTS TO BURROWING OWLS WITHIN THE MHPA MUST BE AVOIDED. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 98 A. Post Survey Follow Up if Burrowing Owls and/or Signs of Active Natural or Artificial Burrows Are Not Detected During the Initial Preconstruction Survey - Monitoring the site for new burrows is required using CDFG Staff Report 2012 Appendix D methods for the period following the initial preconstruction survey, until construction is scheduled to be complete and is complete (NOTE - Using a projected completion date (that is amended if needed) will allow development of a monitoring schedule). 1) If no active burrows are found but burrowing owls are observed to occasionally (1-3 sightings) use the site for roosting or foraging, they should be allowed to do so with no changes in the construction or construction schedule. 2) If no active burrows are found but burrowing owls are observed during follow up monitoring to repeatedly (4 or more sightings) use the site for roosting or foraging, the City’s MMC and MSCP Sections shall be notified and any portion of the site where owls have been sited and that has not been graded or otherwise disturbed shall be avoided until further notice. 3) If a burrowing owl begins using a burrow on the site at any time after the initial preconstruction survey, procedures described in Section B must be followed. 4) Any actions other than these require the approval of the City and the Wildlife Agencies. B. Post Survey Follow Up if Burrowing Owls and/or Active Natural or Artificial Burrows are detected during the Initial Preconstruction Survey - Monitoring the site for new burrows is required using Appendix D CDFG 2012, Staff Report for the period following the initial preconstruction survey, until construction is scheduled to be complete and is complete (NOTE - Using a projected completion date (that is amended if needed) will allow development of a monitoring schedule which adheres to the required number of surveys in the detection protocol). 1) This section (B) applies only to sites (including biologically defined territory) wholly outside of the MHPA – all direct and indirect impacts to burrowing owls within the MHPA SHALL be avoided. 2) If one or more burrowing owls are using any burrows (including pipes, culverts, debris piles, etc.) on or within 300 feet of the proposed construction area, the City’s MMC and MSCP Sections shall be immediately contacted. The City’s MSCP and MMC Section shall contact the Wildlife Agencies regarding eviction/collapsing burrows and enlist appropriate City biologist for on-going coordination with the Wildlife Agencies and the qualified consulting burrowing owl biologist. No construction shall occur within 300 feet of an active burrow without written concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies. This distance may increase or decrease, depending on the burrow’s location in Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 99 relation to the site’s topography, and other physical and biological characteristics. a) Outside the Breeding Season - If the burrowing owl is using a burrow on-site outside the breeding season (i.e., September 1 – January 31), the burrowing owl may be evicted after the qualified burrowing owl biologist has determined via fiber optic camera or other appropriate device, that no eggs, young, or adults are in the burrow. Eviction requires preparation of an Exclusion Plan prepared in accordance with CDFG 2012 Staff Report, Appendix E (or most recent guidance available) for review and submittal to Wildlife Agencies and City of San Diego (MMC and MSCP). Written concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies is required prior to Exclusion Plan implementation. b) During Breeding Season - If a burrowing owl is using a burrow on-site during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31), construction shall not occur within 300 feet of the burrow until the young have fledged and are no longer dependent on the burrow, at which time the burrowing owls can be evicted. Eviction requires preparation of an Exclusion Plan prepared in accordance with CDFG 2012 Staff Report, Appendix E (or most recent guidance available) for review and submittal to Wildlife Agencies and City of San Diego (MMC and MSCP). Written concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies is required prior to Exclusion Plan implementation. 3. Survey Reporting During Construction - Details of construction surveys and evictions (if applicable) carried out shall be immediately (within 5 working days or sooner) reported to the City’s MMC, and MSCP Sections and the Wildlife Agencies and must be provided in writing (as by e-mail) and acknowledged to have been received by the required Agencies and DSD Staff member(s). Post Construction: 1. Details of all surveys and actions undertaken on-site with respect to burrowing owls (i.e., occupation, eviction, locations etc.) shall be reported to the City’s MMC Section and the Wildlife Agencies within 21 days post-construction and prior to the release of any grading bonds. This report must include summaries of all previous reports for the site; and maps of the project site and burrowing owl locations on aerial photos. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 100 To mitigate for direct impacts to foraging Crotch’s bumble bee under the Annexation Scenario, the habitat mitigation identified in SD-BIO-1, as well as the following measures shall be implemented by the City of San Diego: SD-BIO-7 Direct Impact Avoidance for Crotch’s Bumble Bee. Prior to the Notice to Proceed for any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits, the Development Services Department (DSD) Director’s Environmental Designee shall verify the following project requirements regarding the Crotch’s bumble bee are shown on the construction plans: A. To avoid impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee, removal of habitat in the proposed area of disturbance must occur outside of the Colony Active Period between April 1 through August 31. If removal of habitat in the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the Colony Active Period, a Qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of Crotch’s bumble bee within the proposed area of disturbance. B. Surveys must be conducted by a Qualified Biologist meeting the qualifications discussed in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidance (i.e., Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act [CESA] Candidate Bumble Bee Species, dated June 6, 2023). The Qualified Biologist shall send all photo vouchers to a CDFW-approved taxonomist to confirm the identifications of the bumble bees encountered during surveys. B. A Qualified Biologist must demonstrate the following qualifications: at least 40 hours of experience surveying for bee or other co-occurring aerial invertebrate species (such as Quino checkerspot butterfly) and who have completed a Crotch’s bumble bee detection/identification training by an expert Crotch’s bumble bee entomologist; or the biologist must have at least 20 hours of experience directly observing Crotch’s bumble bee. C. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted during the colony active period between April 1 through August 31 by the Qualified Biologist prior to the issuance of Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits and within one year prior to the initiation of project activities (including removal of vegetation). The pre-construction survey shall consist of photographic surveys following California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidance (i.e., Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act [CESA] Candidate Bumble Bee Species, dated June 6, 2023). The surveys shall consist of passive methods unless a Memorandum of Understanding is obtained, as described below. The surveys shall consist of three separate visits spaced two to four weeks apart. Survey results will be considered valid until the start of the next colony active period. D. If additional activities (e.g., capture or handling) are deemed necessary to identify bumble bees of an unknown species that may be Crotch’s bumble bee, then the Qualified Biologist shall obtain the required authorization via a Memorandum of Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 101 Understanding or Scientific Collecting Permit pursuant to CDFW Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023). Survey methods that involve lethal take of species are not acceptable. E. The Qualified Biologist/owner permittee shall submit the results (including positive or negative survey results) of the pre-construction survey to City DSD (Mitigation Monitoring and Coordination) City Planning Department (MSCP) staff and CDFW for review and written approval prior to the issuance of Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits. F. If pre-construction surveys identify Crotch’s bumble bee individuals on-site, the Qualified Biologist shall notify CDFW and the Qualified Biologist shall notify and consult with CDFW to determine whether project activities would result in impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee, in which case an Incidental Take Permit ITP) may be required. If an ITP is required, it shall be obtained prior to issuance of Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits and all necessary permit conditions shall be fulfilled prior to initiation of project activities. Take of any endangered, threatened, candidate species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law (California Fish and Game Code §§ 86, 2062, 2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 786.9) under the CESA. G. Survey data shall be submitted by the Qualified Biologist to the CNDDB in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW, or Scientific Collecting Permit requirements, as applicable. Pre-construction surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee were conducted in 2024, in accordance with SD-BIO-7, and are included in Attachment 20. 6.1.3.2 City of Chula Vista The Annexation Scenario would result in potential direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds, including burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, and least Bell’s vireo, and direct impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee within the City of Chula Vista during construction. Impacts to nesting birds would be mitigated via habitat-based mitigation and avoidance measures SD-BIO-1, SD-BIO-4, SD-BIO-5, and SD-BIO-6. Impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be mitigated via SD-BIO-1 and SD-BIO-7. 6.1.4 Jurisdictional Resources 6.1.4.1 City of San Diego The Annexation Scenario would result in potential direct and indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources within the City of San Diego. This includes direct impacts to a total of 0.40 acre of potential RWQCB wetland waters, CDFW riparian, and City of San Diego wetland, as detailed in Table 10. Indirect impacts to wetlands would be avoided through compliance with the City of San Diego’s Biological Resource Protection During Construction measure SD-BIO-2 (refer to Section 6.1.1.1). Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 102 Table 10 Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources (Annexation Scenario) Vegetation Community Impact Acreage City of San Diego Mitigation Ratioa Total Mitigation Required (Acres) Mule fat scrub 0.03 2:1 0.06 Southern willow scrub 0.15 2:1 0.30 Emergent wetland 0.18 2:1 0.36 Disturbed wetland 0.04 2:1 0.08 Total 0.40 — 0.80 aMitigation is pursuant to the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a). Per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018a), mitigation must include a 1:1 creation or restoration component for native wetland habitats. To mitigate for direct impacts to jurisdictional resources under the Annexation Scenario, the following measures shall be implemented by the City of San Diego: SD-BIO-8 Wetland Restoration/Creation and Permits. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit, Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, the owner/permittee shall provide compensatory wetland mitigation in accordance with the City of San Diego Land Development Code Biology Guidelines, resulting in no overall net loss of wetlands. To offset the loss of 0.40 acre of impacts to RWQCB wetland waters, CDFW riparian, and City of San Diego wetlands would occur with project implementation, a minimum of 0.80 acre of mitigation for jurisdictional impacts shall be provided. To ensure no net loss, this shall include a 1:1 creation or restoration component (0.40 acre of creation or restoration). Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits by the City of San Diego that impact jurisdictional waters, the project applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from RWQCB and CDFW, and shall mitigate direct impacts in accordance with the terms and conditions of all required permits. Areas under the jurisdictional authority of RWQCB and CDFW shall be delineated on all grading plans. The applicant shall submit a Final Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and submit it for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City of San Diego, USACE,USFWS, RWQCB, and CDFW. The plan shall include, at a minimum, an implementation strategy; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated completion time; contingency measures; and shall identify long-term funding. The project applicant shall implement the Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan subject to the oversight and approval of the City of San Diego DSD director (or their designee), RWQCB, and CDFW. Additionally, as a project design feature, the Final Wetlands Plan shall include 2.21 acres of weed control within the Spring Canyon corridor and 0.46 acre of wetland creation/establishment area that shall serve as partial mitigation for Southwest Village project being processed by the City of San Diego (SCH 2004651076; PRJ-0614791. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 103 The project proponent shall provide funding in an amount approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies based on a Property Analysis Record (Center for Natural Lands Management 1998), or similar cost estimation method, to secure the ongoing funding for the perpetual long-term management, maintenance, and monitoring of the off-site wetland mitigation area by an agency, nonprofit organization, or other entity approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies. A Conceptual Wetland Mitigation and Long-term Management Plan has been prepared and is included in Attachment 13. SD-BIO-9 Protection and Management Element. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit, Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, the remaining environmentally sensitive lands (ESL) lands shall be placed in a covenant of easement per Section 143.0140(a) of the City of San Diego Municipal Code ESL regulation (City of San Diego 2022). These lands will not be used towards mitigation and will be protected from future development. Long-term management of the wetlands within the covenant of easement would be managed by the Homeowners Association in accordance with the Long-term Management Plan (see SD-BIO-10). Environmentally sensitive lands within the project site that would be placed in the covenant of easement are shown on Figure 6-1. SD-BIO-10 Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit, Demolition Permits and Building Permits or a Notice to Proceed for Subdivisions, a long-term management plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of San Diego DSD director (or their designee), USFWS, and CDFW to address the ongoing maintenance of the on-site wetland mitigation lands to remain. This plan shall require (1) yearly inspection and enforcement of lighting within the site to be directed and shielded away from the wetland area; (2) yearly maintenance of the 6-foot block wall that separates the development from the wetland area to reduce intrusion into the wetlands; (3) control invasive species appearing within the wetland three times a year; (4) brush management once a year with techniques that protect habitat quality; and (5) trash removal once a year. The project proponent shall provide funding in an amount approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies based on a Property Analysis Record (Center for Natural Lands Management 1998), or similar cost estimation method, to secure the ongoing funding for the perpetual long-term management, maintenance, and monitoring of the on-site wetland mitigation area by the Owner/Permittee. A Conceptual Long-term Management Plan for the On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project has been prepared and is included in Attachment 15. 6.1.4.2 City of Chula Vista As no direct impacts to jurisdictional resources would occur in the off-site City of Chula Vista area under the Annexation Scenario, no mitigation is warranted. Indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources in the City of Chula Vista would be mitigated via SD-BIO-2. FIGURE 6-1 Covenant of Easement GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) Project Boundary Survey Area Project Impacts Covenant of Easement Vegetation Communities Arundo-Dominated Riparian Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-dominated Disturbed Habitat Disturbed Wetland Emergent Wetland Eucalyptus Woodland Mule Fat Scrub Non-Native Grassland Ornamental Southern Willow Scrub Urban/Developed M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Biotec\2023\Fig6-1.mxd 05/12/2023 bma Offsite Impacts (within City of San Diego) Offsite Impacts (within City of Chula Vista) 0 150Feet [ Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 105 6.2 No Annexation Scenario As described previously, under the No Annexation Scenario, the project and off-site remedial grading area would remain under the City of Chula Vista’s jurisdiction and the off-site access area would remain under the City of San Diego’s jurisdiction. Mitigation required to offset project impacts in accordance with the regulations of both jurisdictions is provided below. Under the No Annexation Scenario, mitigation measures CV-BIO-1 through CV-BIO-10 would be administered by the City of Chula Vista to offset project impacts to sensitive upland vegetation communities, special-status plants and wildlife, and jurisdictional resources occurring in both the City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego. Mitigation measure SD-BIO-3 would be administered by the City of San Diego to offset project impacts to Otay tarplant, which are limited to the off-site impact area in the City of San Diego. 6.2.1 Sensitive Upland Vegetation Communities 6.2.1.1 City of Chula Vista Mitigation would be required for permanent impacts to 17.25 acres of sensitive upland vegetation communities, as shown in Table 11. Table 11 Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Sensitive Upland Vegetation Communities (No Annexation Scenario) Vegetation Community Impact Acreage City of Chula Vista Mitigation Ratiob Proposed Mitigation (Inside MSCP Preservec) Inside MSCP Preservec Outside MSCP Preservec On-site Off-site Diegan coastal sage scrub (Tier II) 3.39 0.04a 1:1 1.5:1 3.43 Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated (Tier II) 0.16 0.01 1:1 1.5:1 0.17 Non-native grassland (Tier III) 13.60 0.05 0.5:1 1:1 6.83 Total 17.15 0.10 — — 10.43 aIncludes 0.04 acre of impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub within the off-site area in the City of San Diego. These impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub are less than significant in the context of the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan as they total than 0.10 acre. However, mitigation would be required to offset the project’s total impact to 3.43 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub. Therefore, mitigation for impacts within the City of San Diego are proposed to be accomplished with the project’s overall upland mitigation, which would occur in the City of Chula Vista. bMitigation ratios are based on the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003) Tier I–IV ranking system for impacts outside of the MHPA. This report assumes that mitigation would occur inside the City of Chula Vista’s Conservation Area. Ultimately the mitigation ratio would be dependent on the location of the mitigation as detailed in the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). c Defined as any Preserve areas identified via the MSCP Subregional Plan and implemented via MSCP Subarea Plans (e.g., City of Chula Vista 75% or 100% Conservation Area, City of San Diego MHPA, or County of San Diego Pre-Approved Mitigation Area) Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 106 To mitigate for permanent impacts to sensitive habitat under the No Annexation Scenario, the following measures would be implemented by the City of Chula Vista: CV-BIO-1 Sensitive Upland Vegetation in Chula Vista. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits or development activities by the City of Chula Vista for the No Annexation Scenario, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits, the project applicant shall secure mitigation for direct impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated at a 1:1 mitigation ratio and non-native grassland at a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio if mitigated within the MSCP Preserve , or mitigate direct impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated at a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio and non-native grassland at a 1:1 mitigation ratio if mitigated outside the MSCP Preserve. Mitigation for direct impacts would be pursuant to the City of Chula Vista’s Subarea Plan consistent with the ratios listed in Table 5-3 of the Subarea Plan. The applicant may meet this mitigation requirement through purchase of upland mitigation credits (e.g., Tier II credits at San Miguel Conservation Bank or Willow Road Mitigation Bank). The applicant is required to provide proof of mitigation credit purchase to the City of Chula Vista prior to issuance of any land development permits. To mitigate for potential indirect impacts to sensitive habitat under the No Annexation Scenario, the following mitigation measures would be implemented by the City of Chula Vista: CV-BIO-2 Biological Monitor. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits, for any areas adjacent to the Preserve and the off-site facilities located within the Preserve, the project Applicant shall provide written confirmation that a City of Chula Vista-approved biological monitor has been retained and shall be on-site during clearing, grubbing, and/or grading activities. The biological monitor shall attend all preconstruction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles, storage areas, and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated project activities that may be in violation of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and/or permits issued by any other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the project. Before construction activities occur in areas containing sensitive biological resources within the off-site facilities area, all workers shall be educated by a City of Chula Vista-approved biologist to recognize and avoid those areas that have been marked as sensitive biological resources. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 107 CV-BIO-3 Best Management Practices. Best management practices will be implemented during all grading activities to reduce potential indirect effects on special-status species and habitat. Best management practices will include the following: • 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. • All trash will be properly stored and removed from the site daily to prevent attracting wildlife to the construction area. • Vehicles and equipment will be stored only on pre-designated staging areas in disturbed or developed areas. Fueling should be conducted in a manner that prevents spillage of fuel into riparian or wetland habitats. • All maintenance of vehicles and equipment will be conducted in a manner so that oils and other hazardous materials will not discharge into riparian or wetland habitats. • Dust control measures will be implemented to minimize the settling of dust on vegetation. • Appropriate firefighting equipment (e.g., extinguishers, shovels, water tankers) will be available on the site during all phases of project construction, and appropriate fire prevention measures will be taken to help minimize the chance of human-caused wildfires. • All construction will be performed between dawn and dusk to the degree feasible to minimize potential indirect effects (e.g., increased depredation) on the species beyond the limits of disturbance. 6.2.1.2 City of San Diego As discussed above, impacts to 0.04 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub are less than significant in the context of the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan as they total less than the City’s 0.10-acre significance threshold. However, the project’s total impact to 3.43 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub, which includes 3.39 acres in the City of Chula Vista and 0.04 acre in the City of San Diego, would be collectively significant and mitigation would be required. Therefore, impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub would be mitigated via habitat mitigation measure CV-BIO-1. In addition, indirect impacts to sensitive habitats in the City of San Diego would be mitigated via mitigation measures CV-BIO-2 and CV-BIO-3. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 108 6.2.2 Special-Status Plant Species 6.2.2.1 City of Chula Vista Direct impacts to special-status plant species in the City of Chula Vista would be less than significant and no mitigation is warranted. Indirect impacts to special-status plant species in the City of Chula Vista would be avoided through biological monitoring, construction fencing, and BMPs as described via CV-BIO-2 and CV-BIO-3. 6.2.2.2 City of San Diego The No Annexation Scenario would result in significant direct impacts to Otay tarplant (14 individuals) within the City of San Diego. The No Annexation Scenario would mitigate for impacts to Otay tarplant via habitat preservation and restoration or purchase of off-site mitigation credits at a City of San Diego-approved mitigation bank, as detailed in SD-BIO-3. Indirect impacts to special status plants located adjacent to the project in the City of San Diego would be avoided through biological monitoring, construction fencing, and BMPs as described via CV-BIO-2 and CV-BIO-3. 6.2.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species 6.2.3.1 City of Chula Vista The No Annexation Scenario would result in potential significant direct and indirect impacts to special-status wildlife within the City of Chula Vista. To mitigate for impacts to least Bell's vireo, burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat under the Annexation Scenario, mitigation measure CV-BIO-4 shall be implemented by the City of Chula Vista. Additionally, direct impacts to habitat would be mitigated through upland and wetland habitat mitigation measures described in CV-BIO-1 and CV-BIO-8, respectively. Potential direct and indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo and burrowing owl would be further mitigated by CV-BIO-5 and CV-BIO-6. Potential direct impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be further mitigated by CV-BIO-7. To mitigate for direct impacts to nesting birds under the No Annexation Scenario, the following measures shall be implemented by the City of Chula Vista: CV-BIO-4 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey. To avoid any direct impacts to raptors and/or any migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, including nesting least Bell’s vireo, burrowing owl, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat, removal of habitat that supports active nests on the proposed area of disturbance (both on-site and within the Wetland Plan area of work) should occur outside of the breeding season for these species. The breeding season is defined as February 15–August 15 for coastal California gnatcatcher and other non-raptor birds and January 15–August 31 for raptor species. If removal of habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, the project Applicant shall retain a Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 109 City of Chula Vista-approved biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on the proposed area of disturbance. The preconstruction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction, and the results must be submitted to the City of Chula Vista for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan, as deemed appropriate by the City of Chula Vista, shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities are avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista for review and approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista’s mitigation monitor shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction. To mitigate for direct and indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo under the No Annexation Scenario, the habitat mitigation identified in CV-BIO-8, as well as the following measures shall be implemented by the City of Chula Vista: CV-BIO-5 Least Bell’s Vireo Avoidance. For any on-site Wetland Plan related work proposed between March 15 and September 15, a preconstruction survey for the least Bell’s vireo shall be performed in order to reaffirm the presence and extent of occupied habitat. The preconstruction survey area for the species shall encompass all potentially suitable habitat within the project work zone, as well as a 300-foot survey buffer. The preconstruction survey shall be performed to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) by a qualified biologist familiar with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The results of the preconstruction survey must be submitted in a report to the Development Services Director (or their designee) for review and approval prior to the issuance of any land development permits and prior to initiating any construction activities. If least Bell’s vireo is detected, a minimum 300-foot buffer delineated by orange biological fencing shall be established around the detected species to ensure that no work shall occur within occupied habitat from March 15 through September 15. On-site noise reduction techniques shall be implemented to ensure that construction noise levels not exceed 60 dB(A) Leq at the location of any occupied sensitive habitat areas. The Development Services Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to modify the buffer width depending on site-specific conditions. If the results of the preconstruction survey determine that the survey area is unoccupied, the work may commence at the discretion of the Development Services Director (or their designee) following the review and approval of the preconstruction report. To mitigate for direct and indirect impacts to burrowing owls under the No Annexation Scenario, the habitat mitigation identified in CV-BIO-1, as well as the following measures shall be implemented by the City of Chula Vista: CV-BIO-6 Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey. Prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, and grading permits, the project Applicant shall retain a City of Chula Vista-approved biologist to conduct focused preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls. The surveys shall be performed no earlier than 30 days prior Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 110 to the commencement of any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. If occupied burrows are detected, the City of Chula Vista-approved biologist shall prepare a passive relocation mitigation plan subject to review and approval by the wildlife agencies and the City of Chula Vista, including any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to avoid impacts from construction-related activities. To mitigate for direct impacts to foraging Crotch’s bumble bee under the Annexation Scenario, the habitat mitigation identified in CV-BIO-1, as well as the following measures shall be implemented by the City of Chula Vista: CV-BIO-7 Direct Impact Avoidance for Crotch’s Bumble Bee. Prior to the Notice to Proceed for any construction permits, including but not limited to, the first Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits, the Development Services Department (DSD) Director’s Environmental Designee shall verify the following project requirements regarding the Crotch’s bumble bee are shown on the construction plans: A. To avoid impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee, removal of habitat in the proposed area of disturbance must occur outside of the Colony Active Period between April 1 through August 31. If removal of habitat in the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the Colony Active Period, a Qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of Crotch’s bumble bee within the proposed area of disturbance. B. Surveys must be conducted by a Qualified Biologist meeting the qualifications discussed in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidance (i.e., Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act [CESA] Candidate Bumble Bee Species, dated June 6, 2023). The Qualified Biologist shall send all photo vouchers to a CDFW-approved taxonomist to confirm the identifications of the bumble bees encountered during surveys. B. A Qualified Biologist must demonstrate the following qualifications: at least 40 hours of experience surveying for bee or other co-occurring aerial invertebrate species (such as Quino checkerspot butterfly) and who have completed a Crotch’s bumble bee detection/identification training by an expert Crotch’s bumble bee entomologist; or the biologist must have at least 20 hours of experience directly observing Crotch’s bumble bee. C. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted during the colony active period between April 1 through August 31 by the Qualified Biologist prior to the issuance of Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits and within one year prior to the initiation of project activities (including removal of vegetation). The pre-construction survey shall consist of photographic surveys following California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidance (i.e., Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act [CESA] Candidate Bumble Bee Species, dated June 6, 2023). The surveys shall consist of passive methods unless a Memorandum of Understanding is obtained, as described below. The surveys shall consist of three Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 111 separate visits spaced two to four weeks apart. Survey results will be considered valid until the start of the next colony active period. D. If additional activities (e.g., capture or handling) are deemed necessary to identify bumble bees of an unknown species that may be Crotch’s bumble bee, then the Qualified Biologist shall obtain the required authorization via a Memorandum of Understanding or Scientific Collecting Permit pursuant to CDFW Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023). Survey methods that involve lethal take of species are not acceptable. E. The Qualified Biologist/owner permittee shall submit the results (including positive or negative survey results) of the pre-construction survey to City DSD (Mitigation Monitoring and Coordination) City Planning Department (MSCP) staff and CDFW for review and written approval prior to the issuance of Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits. F. If pre-construction surveys identify Crotch’s bumble bee individuals on-site, the Qualified Biologist shall notify CDFW and the Qualified Biologist shall notify and consult with CDFW to determine whether project activities would result in impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee, in which case an Incidental Take Permit ITP) may be required. If an ITP is required, it shall be obtained prior to issuance of Grading Permit, Demolition Plans/Permits and Building Plans/Permits and all necessary permit conditions shall be fulfilled prior to initiation of project activities. Take of any endangered, threatened, candidate species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law (California Fish and Game Code §§ 86, 2062, 2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 786.9) under the CESA. G. Survey data shall be submitted by the Qualified Biologist to the CNDDB in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW, or Scientific Collecting Permit requirements, as applicable. 6.2.3.2 City of San Diego The No Annexation Scenario would result in potential direct and indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo and burrowing owl, as well as direct impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee foraging individuals and habitat within the City of San Diego. Impacts to least Bell’s vireo and burrowing owl would be mitigated via habitat mitigation measures CV-BIO-1 through CV-BIO-3, and indirect impact avoidance measures CV-BIO-5 and CV-BIO-6. To mitigate for impacts to nesting least Bell’s vireo within the City of San Diego, CV-BIO-5 would be implemented. To mitigate for impacts to burrowing owl under the No Annexation Scenario, CV-BIO-6 would be implemented. To mitigate for impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee No Annexation Scenario, CV-BIO-1 and CV-BIO-8 would be implemented. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 112 6.2.4 Jurisdictional Resources 6.2.4.1 City of Chula Vista The No Annexation Scenario would result in potential direct and indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources within the City of Chula Vista. This includes direct impacts to a total of 0.40 acre of potential RWQCB wetland waters, CDFW riparian, and City of Chula Vista wetland, as detailed in Table 12. Indirect impacts to wetlands would be avoided through compliance with CV-BIO-2 and CV-BIO-3. Table 12 Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources (No Annexation Scenario) Vegetation Community Impact Acreage City of Chula Vista Mitigation Ratioa Total Mitigation Required (Acres) Mule fat scrub 0.03 2:1 0.06 Southern willow scrub 0.15 2:1 0.30 Emergent wetland 0.18 2:1 0.36 Disturbed wetland 0.04 2:1 0.08 Total 0.40 — 0.80 aMitigation is pursuant to the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). To mitigate for direct impacts to jurisdictional resources under the No Annexation Scenario, the following measures shall be implemented by the City of Chula Vista: CV-BIO-8 Wetland Restoration/Creation and Permits. Prior to issuance of land development permits by the City of Chula Vista for the No Annexation Scenario, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits that impact jurisdictional waters, the project applicant shall provide compensatory wetland mitigation resulting in no overall net loss of wetlands. A total of 0.40 acre of impacts to RWQCB wetland waters, CDFW riparian, and City of Chula Vista wetlands. A total of 0.80 acre of mitigation for permanent impacts shall be provided, at minimum, to City of Chula Vista. To ensure no net loss, this shall include a 1:1 creation or restoration component. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/ or construction permits by the City of Chula Vista that impact jurisdictional waters, the project applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from RWQCB and CDFW, and shall mitigate direct impacts pursuant to the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and in accordance with the terms and conditions of all required permits. Areas under the jurisdictional authority of RWQCB and CDFW shall be delineated on all grading plans. The applicant shall submit a Final Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista, RWQCB, and CDFW. The plan shall include, at a minimum, an implementation strategy; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; a five-year maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; an estimated completion time; contingency measures; and shall identify a long-term funding source. A Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan has been prepared and is included in Attachment 13 which identifies Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 113 planned wetlands restoration creation and enhancement located within the City of San Diego. If restoration occurs in San Diego, the project applicant shall also be required to implement the Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Department director (or their designee), City of San Diego Parks and Recreation Open Space Division, RWQCB, and CDFW and any additional requirements of SD-BIO-9 shall apply. If the restoration is completed in Chula Vista, the applicant shall be required to enter into a Secured Agreement with the City of Chula Vista consisting of a letter of credit, bond, or cash for 100 percent of the estimated costs associated with the implementation of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The Applicant shall provide the endowment for the long-term funding source. Additionally, as a project design feature, the Final Wetlands Plan shall include 2.21 acres of weed control within the Spring Canyon corridor and 0.46 acre of wetland creation/establishment area that shall serve as partial mitigation for Southwest Village project being processed by the City of San Diego (SCH2004651076; PRJ-0614791). Should the purchase of additional mitigation credits be necessary to satisfy permit conditions from RWQCB and CDFW, applicant shall secure mitigation credits within a City of Chula Vista-approved conservation bank in accordance with the terms and conditions of all required permits. The applicant is required to present proof of mitigation credit purchase to the City of Chula Vista and the Wetland Agencies prior to issuance of any land development permits. CV-BIO-9 HLIT Permit. Prior to issuance of any land development permits (including clearing, grubbing, and/or grading permits), the project will be required to obtain a HLIT Permit pursuant to Section 17.35 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code for impacts to MSCP Tier II and III habitats and wetland resources. 6.2.4.2 City of San Diego As no direct impacts to jurisdictional resources would occur in the City of San Diego under the No Annexation Scenario, no mitigation is warranted. Indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources in the City of San Diego would be avoided through compliance with CV-BIO-2 and CV-BIO-3. 7.0 References Cited American Ornithological Society 2018 “Check-List of North and Middle American Birds.” Accessed October 24, 2018. http://checklist.americanornithology.org/. Arroyo-Cabrales, J. 1999 “Mexican Long-Tongued Bat: Choeronycteris mexicana.” In The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals, edited by D.E. Wilson and S. Ruff, 75–76. Washington, DC: University of British Columbia Press. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 114 Arroyo-Cabrales, J., R.R. Hollander, and J.K. Jones Jr. 1987 “Choeronycteris mexicana.” Mammalian Species 291:1–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/3503823. Atwood, J.L. 1993 “California Gnatcatchers and Coastal Sage Scrub: The Biological Basis for Endangered Species Listing.” In Interface between Ecology and Land Development in California, edited by J.E. Keeley, 149–169. Los Angeles: Southern California Academy of Sciences. Atwood, J.L., and J.S. Bolsinger 1992 “Elevational Distribution of California Gnatcatchers in the United States.” Journal of Field Ornithology 63(2):159–168. Bates, C. 2006 “Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia).” In The Draft Desert Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Desert-Associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/species/desert/burrowing_owl.htm. Best, T.L., W.M. Kiser, and P.W. Freeman 1996 “Eumops perotis.” Mammalian Species 534:1–8. Calflora 2020 The Calflora Database: Information on California plants for Education, Research and Conservation, with Data Contributed by Public and Private Institutions and Individuals. Berkeley, California. Accessed January 2020. http://www.calflora.org. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2009 “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Populations and Natural Communities.” November 24, 2009. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler. ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline. 2020 RareFind, Version 5. (Commercial Subscription). California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed in 2020. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/ cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. 2022a “Special Animals List.” California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. April. 2022b “State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California”. California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. 2023a California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed in 2023. 2023b Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. June 6, 2023. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 115 California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2001 “CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines.” December 9, 1983; revised June 2, 2001. https://cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf. 2020 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Sacramento: CNPS. Accessed January 2020. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Center for Natural Lands Management 1988 Property Analysis Record. Chula Vista, City of 2003 City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February 2003. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106. 2019 City of Chula Vista Best Management Practices (BMP) Design Manual. March 2019. 2020 City of Chula Vista General Plan: Chula Vista Vision 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov /departments/development-services/planning/general-plan. 2022 Municipal Code, Chapter 17.35 Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance. Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH) 2020 CCH1: Featuring California Vascular Plant Data from the Consortium of California Herbaria and Other Sources. Online database with specimen records from 36 institutions. Accessed May 2020. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. Converse Consultants 2003 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Davies Property. April 15. 2006 Soil and Groundwater Sampling Report, Davies Acquisition, 4501 Otay Valley Road, Chula Vista, California. Prepared for Pardee Homes. November. Coulombe, H.N. 1971 “Behavior and Population Ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California.” Condor 73(2): 162–176. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe 1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1979. Reprinted 1992. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/classification-of-wetlands-and-deepwater-habitats-of-the-united-states.pdf. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 116 Crother, B.I. 2017 Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding, edited by J.J. Moriarty. Prepared by the Committee on Standard English and Scientific Names (B.I. Crother, Chair). 8th ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR); Herpetological Circular no. 39. September 2017. https://ssarherps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/8th-Ed-2017-Scientific-and-Standard-English-Names.pdf. Cypher, E.A. 2002 General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines. Bakersfield: California State University, Stanislaus. Revised July 2002. Accessed May 2012. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES/Survey-Protocols-Guidelines/Documents/rare_plant_protocol.pdf. Dudek 2022 Draft Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project, Chula Vista, California. February 2022. Garrett, K., and J. Dunn 1981 The Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society. Hall, E.R. 1981 The Mammals of North America. 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hermanson, J.W., and T.J. O’Shea 1983 “Antrozous pallidus.” Mammalian Species 213:1–8. Holland, R.F. 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October 1986. Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes 1994 Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Final. Commissioned by the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Endangered Species Project. November 1, 1994. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/publications/docs/herp_ssc.pdf. Jepson Flora Project. 2020 Jepson eFlora. Berkeley: University of California. Accessed March 3, 2020. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange/index.html. Kus, B.E. 2002 “Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus).” In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian-Associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight and the Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, Version 2.0 (2004). Accessed August 27, 2012. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian_v-2.pdf. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 117 Lenihan, C.M 2007 “The Ecological Role of the California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi).” PhD dissertation; University of California, Davis. Lowe, C.H., J.W. Wright, C.J. Cole, and R.L. Bezy 1970 “Natural Hybridization between the Teiid Lizards Cnemidophorus sonorae (Parthenogenetic) and Cnemidophorus tigris (Bisexual).” Systematic Zoology 19:114–127. McCaskie, G., P. De Benedictis, R. Erickson, and J. Morlan 1979 Birds of Northern California: An Annotated Field List. 2nd edition. Berkeley: Golden Gate Audubon Society. North American Butterfly Association 2016 “Checklist of North American Butterflies Occurring North of Mexico.” Adapted from North American Butterfly Association (NABA) Checklist & English Names of North American Butterflies, eds. B. Cassie, J. Glassberg, A. Swengel, and G. Tudor. 2nd edition. Morristown, New Jersey: NABA. Accessed August 2019. http://www.naba.org/pubs/enames2_3.html. Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge 2008 Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. March 2008. Accessed August 2019. http://www.sdcanyonlands.org/pdfs/ veg_comm_sdcounty_2008_doc.pdf. Olson, A.C. Jr. 1947 “First Records of Choeronycteris mexicana in California.” Journal of Mammalogy 28(2): 183–184. Preston, K.L., P.J. Mock, M.A. Grishaver, E.A. Bailey, and D.F. King 1998 “California Gnatcatcher Territorial Behavior.” Western Birds 29(4): 242–257. Project Design Consultants 2023 Priority Development Project (PDP) Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP). Prepared for Tri Pointe Homes. Rebman, J.P., and M.G. Simpson 2014 “Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County.” San Diego Natural History Museum. 5th edition [online version]. Accessed October 24, 2018. https://www.sdnhm.org/download_file/view/3382/582/582/. RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON) 2011 Biological Technical Report and Wetland Delineation Report for the Nakano Property, Chula Vista, California. RECON Number 3396B. Prepared for Hewitt & O’Neil. San Diego, California: Recon. February 3, 2011. 2017 Nakano Environmental Constraints. Recon Number 3396. Prepared for A. Kashani. San Diego, California. February 15. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 118 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) 1998 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). California RWQCB, San Diego Region. 2020 Draft Guidance for the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. February. Riverside, County of 2008 “Understanding the Plants and Animals of the Western Riverside County MSHCP (Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan).” Prepared by Dudek. San Diego, City of 1997 City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. Final. Prepared by the City of San Diego Community and Economic Development Department. March 1997. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/ default/files/legacy/planning/programs/mscp/pdf/subareafullversion.pdf. 1998 Final MSCP Plan. Prepared by MSCP Policy Committee and MSCP Working Group. San Diego, California: MSCP Policy Committee and MSCP Working Group. August 1998. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/mscp/docs/SCMSCP/FinalMSCPProgramPlan.pdf. 2001 Restoration and Mitigation Credit Agreement - Pacific Highlands Ranch. Pardee Construction Company/City of San Diego (131 Acres). June 14, 2001. 2012 “Final 2011 MSCP Annual Report.” February 21, 2012. Accessed May 5, 2021. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy//planning/programs/mscp/docsmaps/pdf/mscpannualreport2011.pdf. 2014 Otay Mesa Community Plan Update. City of San Diego Planning, Neighborhoods, and Economic Development Department. March 11, 2014. https://www.sandiego.gov/ sites/default/files/otay_mesa_cmmty_plan_update_final-central_village_cpa.pdf. 2018a San Diego Municipal Code, Land Development Code—Biology Guidelines. Amended February 1, 2018, by Resolution No. R-311507. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/ files/amendment_to_the_land_development_manual_biology_guidelines_february_2018_-_clean.pdf. 2018b Storm Water Standards Manual. October 1, 2018. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/ default/files/storm_water_standards_manual_oct_2018.pdf. 2019 Official Zoning Map. City of San Diego, Development Services Department. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/development-services/zoning/pdf/maps/grid06.pdf. 2022 San Diego Municipal Code, Chapter 14: General Regulations, Article 3: Supplemental Development Regulations, Division 1: Environmentally Sensitive Lands Regulations. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 119 San Diego, County of 1998 Final Multiple Species Conservation Program MSCP Plan. San Diego, County of, City of Chula Vista, and City of San Diego 2014 Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan. County of San Diego, Parks and Recreation Department; City of Chula Vista, Development Services Department and Recreation Department; and City of San Diego, Planning Department, Public Utilities Department, and Park and Recreation Department. https://www.sdparks.org/content/dam/ sdparks/en/pdf/Development/OVRP%20Concept%20Plan%20Signed.pdf. San Diego Association of Governments 2014 Aerial maps. San Diego Geographic Information Source 2020 San Diego Geographic Information Source. Accessed January 2020. http://www.sangis.org/. San Diego Natural History Museum 2002 “Butterflies of San Diego County.” Revised September 2002. Accessed August 2019. http://www.sdnhm.org/archive/research/entomology/sdbutterflies.html. Sogge, M.K., D. Ahlers, and S.J. Sferra 2010 “A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher,” Chapter 10 in Section A, Biological Science, Book 2, Collection of Environmental Data. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 2A-10. https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/ tm2a10/pdf/tm2a10.pdf. Stebbins, R.C. 2003 A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87- 1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. January 1987. http://www.fedcenter.gov/Bookmarks/index.cfm?id=6403&pge_id=1606. 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. September 2008. http://el.erdc..army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel08-28.pdf. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2020a Web Soil Survey. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. 2020b Soil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soils List. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.html. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project Page 120 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1997 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol. July 28, 1997. 2001 Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. January 19, 2001. 2003 Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). 2020 “Critical Habitat and Occurrence Data” [map]. Accessed June 2020. http://www.fws.gov/data. U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 2018 Bumble Bees of the Western United States. Accessed May 2023. https://xerces.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/12-053_01_Western_BB_guide.pdf U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2020 NHD flowline map. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Accessed September 2020. https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography/national-hydrography-dataset?qt-science_support_page_related_con=0#qt-science_support_page_related_con. Unitt, P. 2004 San Diego County Bird Atlas. Online (Google Earth) version. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History, no. 39. San Diego, California: San Diego Natural History Museum. http://www.sdnhm.org/science/birds-and-mammals/projects/san-diego-county-bird-atlas/. Wildlife Tracking Study 2020 Spring Survey Report, Southwest Village Wildlife Movement/Crossing Study. Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005 Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Xerces Society, The 2018 Petition to List the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus franklini), Suckley cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi), and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) as an Endangered Species. Accessed May 2023. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=161902&inline Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990 California’s Wildlife, Volumes I–III. Updated in the California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENTS Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 1 Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance Findings Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance Findings Nakano Project Page 1 The purpose of the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) regulations is to protect and conserve native habitat within the City of Chula Vista and the viability of the species supported by those habitats. HLIT regulations are intended to implement the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003) and ensure that development occurs in a manner that protects the overall quality of the habitat resources, encourages a sensitive form of development, and retains biodiversity and interconnected habitats. HLIT regulations also intend to protect public health, safety, and welfare (Chula Vista Municipal Code [CVMC] 17.35 et seq.). Projects within the City of Chula Vista’s jurisdiction are required to comply with the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan. This includes obtaining a HLIT permit pursuant to the HLIT Ordinance. The proposed Nakano Project (project) is subject to this ordinance because, as stated in Section 5.2.2 Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance (City of Chula Vista 2003), the Subarea Plan requires issuance of an HLIT permit for “all development within the City’s jurisdiction which is not located within the Development Areas of Covered Projects prior to issuance of any land development permit.” The HLIT regulations apply to the earliest decision on any entitlement related to a Project Area located within the following mapped areas identified in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (unless exempt as noted): (1) 100% Conservation Areas, (2) 75-100% Conservation Areas, and (3) Development Areas outside of Covered Projects. The following are exempt from the requirements of the HLIT Ordinance: 1. Development of a Project Area that is one acre or less in size and located entirely in a mapped Development Area outside of Covered Projects. 2. Development of a Project Area which is located entirely within the mapped Development Area outside Covered Projects, and where it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, or his/her designee, that no Sensitive Biological Resources exist on the Project Area. 3. Development that is limited to interior modifications or repairs and any exterior repairs, alterations or maintenance that does not increase the footprint of an existing building or accessory structure, which will not encroach into identified Sensitive Biological Resources during or after construction. 4. Any project within the Development Area of a Covered Project. 5. Any project that has an effective incidental take permit from the Wildlife Agencies. 6. Continuance of Agricultural Operations. Proposed Project Areas The proposed project is within the City’s jurisdiction (outside the Preserve) and is not categorized as a “covered project.” In addition, exemption status for the proposed project does not apply. The proposed project is not located within lands designated as the Minor or Major Amendment Areas. As such, a Subarea Plan Amendment is not required. Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance Findings Nakano Project Page 2 The HLIT Ordinance requires biological evaluation of all resources on site for project’s within development areas outside of covered projects that contain sensitive biological resources. Section 5.2.2 HLIT Ordinance of the Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003) requires issuance of an HLIT permit for “all development within the City’s jurisdiction which is not located within the Development Areas of Covered Projects prior to issuance of any land development permit.” As such, the entire project area would require issuance of an HLIT permit. Pursuant to the City’s HLIT Ordinance, Section 17.35.080 – Required Findings for Issuance of an HLIT Permit, written findings need to be prepared and submitted to the City of Chula Vista for review and approval prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing and grubbing or grading permits. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the project’s conformity to the Required Findings and General MSCP Development Regulations for the HLIT Ordinance. The mitigation measures included in Tables 1 and 2 are from the Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project (BTR) and address the proposed project’s significant effects on special-status species and vegetation. With implementation of the proposed mitigation, the identified impacts will be reduced to less than significant and maintain the project’s conformity to the Required Findings and General MSCP Development Regulations for the HLIT Ordinance. Reference Cited Chula Vista, City of 2003 City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February 2003. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106. Nakano Project Page 3 Table 1 Required Findings for Issuance of an HLIT Permit (Chula Vista Municipal Code 17.35.080) Required Findings for Issuance of an HLIT Permit (Section 17.35.080): Analysis Consistency The proposed development in the project area and associated mitigation are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan as adopted on May 13, 2003, and as may be amended from time to time, the MSCP Implementation Guidelines, and the development standards set forth in Section 17.35.100 of the Municipal Code. The project would impact sensitive biological resources within the on-site wetland areas, coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland vegetation as well as the off-site non-native grassland as shown on BTR Figures 5-1 and 5-2. Mitigation for these impacts has been established in accordance with the ratios in the Subarea Plan. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to compensate for direct and indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities (i.e., coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, arundo-dominated riparian, southern willow scrub, non-vegetated channel, and mulefat scrub). Mitigation for impacts to these habitat types are described in CV-BIO-1, CV-BIO-2, CV-BIO-3, and CV-BIO-7. In addition, the project will be required to apply for and obtain all necessary regulatory agency permits as described in CV_BIO-7. Mitigation for these impacts will be in accordance with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (HLIT). Prior to issuance of any land development permits, the applicant shall mitigate for direct impacts pursuant to Section 5.2.2 of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). In compliance with the City’s Subarea Plan, the applicant shall provide permittee responsible mitigation (e.g., habitat creation and enhancement) consistent with the ratios specified in Table 5-1 which are in accordance with the ratios set forth in the Subarea Plan. Consistent The nature and extent of mitigation required as a condition of the permit is reasonably related to and calculated to alleviate negative impacts created in the project area. Appropriate mitigation measures, consistent with the MSCP, have been proposed and will be implemented for this project and are provided within the BTR. Consistent Narrow Endemic Findings No narrow endemic species have been documented within the project site. However, there are 14 Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) individuals within the off-site impact area located within the City of San Diego, which would not be regulated by the City of Chula Vista’s HLIT Ordinance. Impacts to these 14 individuals would be mitigated through off-site restoration (SD-BIO-3). Consistent Wetland Findings Wetlands impacts are anticipated from the proposed project due to necessary access into the project site from Dennery Road. See descriptions below. Consistent Prior to the issuance of a Land Development Permit or Clearing and Grubbing Permit, the project proponent The proposed project will incorporate the removal of vegetation identified as Wetland, Tier II, and Tier III on Table 5-3 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). Impacts to these areas require a permit issued pursuant to Consistent Nakano Project Page 4 Table 1 Required Findings for Issuance of an HLIT Permit (Chula Vista Municipal Code 17.35.080) Required Findings for Issuance of an HLIT Permit (Section 17.35.080): Analysis Consistency will be required to obtain any applicable state and federal permits, with copies provided to the Director of Planning and Building or his/her designee. Section 17.35 of the Municipal Code (the HLIT Ordinance). The HLIT Ordinance includes a provision for issuance of a Clearing and Grubbing Permit that allows removal of vegetation, including removal of root systems, which is not in association with other Land Development Work. A wetland delineation has been conducted for the project area and jurisdictional aquatic resources have been identified within the impact area. Further consultation with CDFW, USACE, and RWQCB will be conducted to verify the extent of jurisdiction for each agency. Upon this determination, the necessary permits will need to be obtained from the agencies and copies provided to the City prior to grading in order to address this finding in accordance with CV-BIO-7. Impacts to wetlands have been avoided and/or minimized to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Section 5.2.4. Impacts to wetlands within the City of Chula Vista’s jurisdiction have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands will be mitigated as described in CV-BIO-7. Prior to issuance of any land development permits, the applicant shall mitigate for direct impacts pursuant to Section 5.2.2 of the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). In compliance with the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the applicant shall provide permittee responsible mitigation (e.g., habitat creation and enhancement) consistent with the wetland ratios specified in Table 5-1. Consistent Unavoidable impacts to wetlands have been mitigated pursuant to Section 17.35.110. As described in Section 4.3.1.1 of the HLIT Ordinance, several project components will incur unavoidable impacts to wetlands. These impacts are determined to be unavoidable and necessary to gain access to the project site from Dennery Road and to provide secondary emergency access, which is a health and safety requirement. Due to constrained space and access, the only other secondary access would be to construct a road across the Otay River, which would result in greater wetland impacts. CV-BIO-7 describe mitigation to unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources. Consistent HLIT = Habitat Loss and Incidental Take; MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program; BTR = Biological Resources Technical Report; MM = Mitigation Measure; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board. Nakano Project Page 5 Table 2 General MSCP Development Regulations (Chula Vista Municipal Code 17.35.090) General MSCP Development Requirements (Section 17.35.090) Analysis Consistency Overall development within the Project Area including public facilities and circulation shall be located to minimize impacts to Sensitive Biological Resources in accordance with this chapter of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the MSCP Implementation Guidelines. As described in Section 5.1.9.3 of the HLIT Ordinance, compliance with several standard measures will be required to address habitat loss. Impacts to coastal sage scrub (Tier II), non-native grassland (Tier III), and wetland habitats are considered significant under the City of Chula Vista’s HLIT Ordinance and require mitigation (Subarea Plan Tables 5-3 and 5-6; City of Chula Vista 2003). Impacts to upland and wetland vegetation communities within the on-site and off-site project area are provided in CV-BIO-1 and CV-BIO-7. Mitigation will be in accordance with the HLIT Ordinance, as described in Table 5-1. No narrow endemics for Chula Vista Subarea have been documented to occur within the project site. However, off-site project areas located within the City of San Diego, which would not be regulated by the City of Chula Vista’s HLIT Ordinance, would impact four Otay tarplant individuals. Impacts to Otay tarplant within the City of San Diego’s jurisdiction would be mitigated through off-site restoration (SD-BIO-3). Prior to issuance of any land development permits, the applicant shall mitigate for direct impacts pursuant to Section 5.2.2 of the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan. In compliance with the City of Chula Vista’s Subarea Plan, the applicant shall secure mitigation credits within a City of Chula Vista/Wildlife Agency-approved Conservation Bank or other approved location offering such credits consistent with the upland and wetland ratios specified in Table 5-1 (City of Chula Vista 2003). Consistent Pursuant to Chapter 15.04 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, no Land Development or Clearing and Grubbing Permit that allows clearing, grubbing, or grading of Natural Vegetation shall be issued on any portion of a Project Area where impacts are proposed to Wetlands or Listed Non-covered Species until all applicable federal and state permits have been issued. The project would impact potential USACE/RWQCB wetland waters, CDFW riparian, and City of Chula Vista wetland (BTR Table 5-2). The applicant for City of Chula Vista entitlements would be required to obtain a 404 permit from USACE, a 401 permit from RWQCB, and Section 1600 agreements from CDFW (CV-BIO-7). Consistent Impacts to Wetlands shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Where impacts to Wetlands are not avoided, impacts shall be minimized and mitigated pursuant to Section 17.35.110 of the Municipal Code. Impacts to wetlands within the City of Chula Vista’s jurisdiction have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands will be mitigated as described in MM-BIO-7. Prior to issuance of any land development permits, the applicant shall mitigate for direct impacts pursuant to Section 5.2.2 of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). In compliance with the City Consistent Nakano Project Page 6 Table 2 General MSCP Development Regulations (Chula Vista Municipal Code 17.35.090) General MSCP Development Requirements (Section 17.35.090) Analysis Consistency of Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the applicant shall secure mitigation credits within a City/Wildlife Agency-approved Conservation Bank or other approved location offering such credits consistent with the wetland ratios specified in Table 5-1. As described in Section 4.3.2.1 of the BTR (relating to the HLIT Ordinance), several project components will incur unavoidable impacts to wetlands. These impacts are determined to be unavoidable and necessary to gain access to the project site from Dennery Road and to provide secondary emergency access. CV_BIO-7 describes mitigation to unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources. No temporary disturbance or storage of material or equipment is permitted in Sensitive Biological Resources unless the disturbance or storage occurs within an area approved by the City for development or unless it can be demonstrated that the disturbance or storage will not cause permanent habitat loss and the land will be revegetated and restored in accordance with the MSCP Implementation Guidelines. No temporary disturbance would occur within sensitive biology resources. Temporary impacts will be avoided through CV-BIO-2 and CV-BIO-3. Consistent Grading during wildlife breeding seasons shall be avoided or modified consistent with the requirements of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and in accordance with the MSCP Implementation Guidelines. To avoid any direct impacts associated with construction activities, CV-BIO-4 is proposed to encourage construction outside of the breeding season (February 1 through September 15). If construction does occur during the breeding season, specific actions would be taken to avoid impacts consistent with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and in accordance with the MSCP Implementation Guidelines (see CV-BIO-4). Consistent All fuel modification brush management zones required as a result of new development and as required by the City Fire Marshal shall be located outside the Preserve. All fuel modification shall be incorporated into development plans and shall not include any areas within the Preserve. Consistent MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program; HLIT = Habitat Loss and Incidental Take; MM = Mitigation Measure; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; BTR = Biological Resources Technical Report Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 2 2020 Protocol Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Report 12476.02 1 March 2020 March 30, 2020 12476.02 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attention: Recovery Permit Coordinator 2177 Salk Avenue, No. 250 Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Recovery Permit Coordinator: This letter report documents the results of three protocol-level focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica ) (CAGN) that were conducted for the proposed Nakano Project (project), which is located on an approximately 24-acre site, by Dudek biologist Erin Bergman between February 20, 2020 and March 5, 2020. The surveys were conducted across the entire site within both suitable and unsuitable habitat. The coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally listed threatened species and a California Department of Fish and Wildlife species of special concern. It is closely associated with coastal sage scrub habitat and, therefore, threatened primarily by loss, degradation, and fragmentation of this habitat. Coastal California gnatcatcher typically occurs below 820 feet above mean sea level within 22 miles of the coast. Studies have suggested that coastal California gnatcatcher avoid nesting on very steep slopes (greater than 40%) (Bontrager 1991). Coastal California gnatcatcher is also impacted by brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) nest parasitism (Braden et al. 1997). The approximately 24-acre project site is located east of Interstate 805 and west of Dennery Road and associated developments. The southern portion of the site is just above Palm Avenue and a Kaiser Building. North of the project site is Otay River in San Diego County, California. The site is generally surrounded by development except for Otay River directly north of the site (Figure 1). The site occupies Township 18 South, Range 1 West, Section 19, on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Imperial Beach quadrangle maps (Figure 1). The site includes Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 624-071-0200, as well as an off-site improvement area on a portion of APN 645-400-0500 that is required to provide site access along Dennery Road. Elevations range from approximately 96 feet above mean sea level to approximately 193 feet above mean sea level. Suitable habitat included the eastern and southern portion of the project site. The southern portion of the project site consists of high quality coastal sage scrub with some small patches of jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis). The eastern portion of the project site consists of restored coastal sage scrub. Besides California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), many of the plantings within this eastern coastal sage scrub plant pallet include San Diego sunflower (Bahiopsis laciniata) and San Diego bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodifolia ). The project site consists of a former agricultural use area with mostly Recovery Permit Coordinator Subject: 2020 Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Report for the Proposed Nakano Project, County of San Diego, California 12476.02 2 March 2020 flat ground with intersecting trails. The eastern and southern portion of the site consist of small hillsides with intersecting trails. Two plant communities were identified within the project site as being suitable coastal California gnatcatcher habitat: Diegan coastal sage scrub and Diegan coastal sage scrub –Baccharis dominated. In addition, all other vegetation communities were surveyed. However, all other vegetation communities within the project site are not considered suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher and would not be suitable for nesting. Approximately, 4.5 acres of suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher was mapped on site in accordance with Holland (1986) and Oberbauer et al. (2008) as described in Table 1, but all 24 acres of the site were surveyed, as well as an additional 100-foot buffer. The remaining plant communities and land cover types identified on site that are not considered suitable coastal California gnatcatcher habitat include disturbed habitat, eucalyptus woodland, non-native grassland, non-native grassland-broadleaf dominated, southern riparian scrub, southern willow scrub and arundo-dominated riparian. The spatial distribution of plant communities and land covers on the site, as well as the route used to survey, are shown on Figures 2 and 3. Diegan coastal sage scrub 4.37 Diegan coastal sage scrub-Baccharis dominated 0.22 Disturbed habitat 0.70 Eucalyptus woodland 0.92 Non-native grassland 15.8 Non-native grassland–broadleaf dominated 1.73 Southern riparian scrub 0.07 Southern willow scrub 0.84 Arundo dominated riparian 0.01 *Total may be off due to rounding The location of Diegan coastal sage scrub that provides suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher is shown on Figure 3 and discussed below. Diegan coastal sage scrub (coastal sage scrub) is a native plant community composed of a variety of soft, low, aromatic shrubs, characteristically dominated by drought-deciduous species such as California sagebrush, California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and sages (Salvia spp.), with scattered evergreen shrubs, including lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia ), and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina ). It typically develops on south-facing slopes Recovery Permit Coordinator Subject: 2020 Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Report for the Proposed Nakano Project, County of San Diego, California 12476.02 3 March 2020 and other xeric locations (Holland 1986). Coastal sage scrub is recognized as a sensitive plant community by local, state, and federal resource agencies. It supports a rich diversity of sensitive plants and animals, and it is estimated that it has been reduced by 75%–80% of its historical coverage throughout southern California. It is the focus of the current State of California NCCP (Oberbauer 2008). Within the study area, dominant species include California sage scrub, California buckwheat, spreading goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), black sage (Salvia mellifera ), jojoba, California adolphia (Adolphia californica), San Diego bur-sage, San Diego sunflower and lemonadeberry. Less commonly occurring species include wild cucumber (Marah macrocarpus), pygmyweed (Crassula connata) and mock parsley (Apiastrum angustifolium). Diegan coastal sage scrub is a dominant plant community within the study area. The Diegan coastal sage scrub within the study area is high quality habitat for numerous species. Few non-native plant species are present within this community and the floor consists of numerous bryophytes, spike mosses, small annuals and cryptogamic crusts. Approximately, 4.37 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs within the project site. Diegan coastal sage scrub-Baccharis dominated is similar to coastal sage scrub but is dominated by baccharis species. Diegan coastal sage scrub-Baccharis dominated typically occurs where soils are nutrient poor and disturbance is present. Diegan coastal sage scrub-Baccharis dominated is typically fills in areas after high levels of disturbance (Oberbauer 2008). Within the study area, broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothorides) dominates the site and makes up approximately 70 percent cover of the vegetation within this community. The understory of this community consists mostly of weedy species with a few natives. Less commonly occurring species occurring within the understory of the broom baccharis include annual yellow sweetclover (Melilotus indicus), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora ), slender leaf iceplant (Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum), pygmy weed (Crassula connata ), short-pod mustard (Hirchfeldia incana) and black mustard (Brassica nigra ). Large sections of this community are disturbed and some portions consist of bare soils. Overall, this community is a disturbed coastal sage scrub community when compared with Diegan coastal sage scrub (32500). The remaining plant communities and land cover types identified on site that are not considered suitable coastal California gnatcatcher habitat and therefore are not described in detail like the coastal sage scrub types. Three focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher were performed within suitable habitat between February 20, 2020 and March 5, 2020 by coastal California gnatcatcher-permitted biologist Erin Bergman (TE- 53771B-0) according to the schedule in Table 2. The surveys were conducted following the currently accepted protocol of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol (USFWS 1997), using the breeding season survey methods. Coastal California gnatcatchers were documented using a variety of features that helped distinguish individuals from one another in order to assist with determining the number of pairs/individuals. Some distinguishing features include male cap color (variation in the darkness of the black cap) and male cap thickness, width, and length. Coastal California gnatcatcher color patterns, unique markings, behaviors, pitch of call, and song variation were used to separate observations. Recovery Permit Coordinator Subject: 2020 Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Report for the Proposed Nakano Project, County of San Diego, California 12476.02 4 March 2020 02/20/2020 8:29 a.m.–11:53 p.m. 8 60°F–65°F; 0%–50% cloud cover, 0–3 mile per hour winds 02/27/2020 7:58 a.m.–11:11 p.m. 8 60°F–76°F; 0%–25% cloud cover; 0–2 mile per hour winds 03/05/2020 6:43 a.m.–11:43 p.m. 5 58°F–74°F; 0%–75% cloud cover; 0–3 mile per hour winds Survey routes for site visits completely covered the areas of suitable coastal California gnatcatcher habitat on site, as shown on Figure 2. Appropriate birding binoculars (8 x 42) were used to aid in detecting and identifying bird species. A recording of coastal California gnatcatcher vocalizations was used to elicit a response from the species. The recording was played approximately every 50 to 100 feet, and when a coastal California gnatcatcher was detected, the playing of the recording ceased to avoid harassment. A 100-scale (1 inch = 100 feet) aerial photograph of the study area overlaid with the vegetation and site boundaries was used to map any coastal California gnatcatcher detected. Weather conditions, time of day, and season were within protocol limits and appropriate for the detection of gnatcatchers, as shown in Table 2. During the survey efforts, coastal California gnatcatcher observations included one pair. The following discussion provides the description of the location and method of this observation. One pair of coastal California gnatcatcher was identified during all three surveys. The pair observed during the three surveys is shown on Figure 3. The pair was found both visually and acoustically each survey visit in the furthest southcentral portion of the site. Since it was breeding season, it was easy to identify the male with a fine narrow dark black cap and the female close by. No other CAGN was observed based on noted physical structures and distinctive calls of the pair back and forth. They were observed to be within a few meters other each other during all surveys. In total, 31 wildlife species were recorded during the survey efforts and are included in Appendix A. Appendix B describes plants noted while performing CAGN surveys but is not comprehensive. A full rare plant survey is planned to be performed during spring of 2020. Recovery Permit Coordinator Subject: 2020 Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Report for the Proposed Nakano Project, County of San Diego, California 12476.02 5 March 2020 Dudek certifies that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represents the work conducted by the coastal California gnatcatcher –permitted biologist who conducted this focused survey. Please feel free to contact Erin Bergman at ebergman@dudek.com if you have any questions regarding the contents of this report. Sincerely, __________________ Erin Bergman Atts: Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Survey Routes Figure 3: CAGN Locations Appendix A: Wildlife Species Observed During the 2020 Nakano Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys Appendix B: Plant Species Observed During the 2020 Nakano Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys cc: Erin Bergman, Dudek Dawna Marshall, Dudek Bontrager, D.R. 1991. Habitat Requirements, Home Range Requirements, and Breeding Biology of the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) in South Orange County, California . Prepared for Santa Margarita Company, Ranch Santa Margarita, California. April 1991. Braden, G.T., R.L. McKernan, and S.M. Powell. 1997. “Effects of Nest Parasitism by the Brown-Headed Cowbird on Nesting Success of the California Gnatcatcher.” Condor 99: 858–865. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame- Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October 1986. Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County . March 2008. Accessed April 2018. http://www.sdcanyonlands.org/pdfs/veg_comm_sdcounty_2008_doc.pdf. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. “Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica ) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol.” Carls bad, California: USFWS. Revised July 28, 1997. Accessed April 2018. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/documents/ CCalGnatcatcher.1997.protocol.pdf. BUSHTITS Psaltriparus minimus—bushtit FALCONS Falco sparverius—American kestrel FINCHES Haemorhous mexicanus—house finch Spinus psaltria—lesser goldfinch FLYCATCHERS Sayornis nigricans—black phoebe Sayornis saya —Say ’s phoebe Tyrannus forficatus—scissor-tailed flycatcher HAWKS Buteo jamaicensis—red-tailed hawk HUMMINGBIRDS Calypte anna —Anna’s hummingbird 12476.02 A-7 March 2020 JAYS, MAGPIES & CROWS Corvus brachyrhynchos—American crow Corvus corax—common raven MOCKINGBIRDS & THRASHERS Toxostoma redivivum—California thrasher NEW WORLD VULTURES Cathartes aura —turkey vulture OLD WORLD SPARROWS * Passer domesticus—house sparrow OLD WORLD WARBLERS & GNATCATCHERS Polioptila caerulea —blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica —coastal California gnatcatcher PIGEONS & DOVES Zenaida macroura —mourning dove WOOD WARBLERS & ALLIES Geothlypis trichas—common yellowthroat Setophaga coronata —yellow-rumped warbler NEW WORLD SPARROWS 12476.02 A-8 March 2020 Melospiza melodia —song sparrow Melozone crissalis—California towhee TYPICAL WARBLERS, PARROTBILLS, WRENTIT Chamaea fasciata —wrentit BUTTERFLIES Danaus plexippus—monarch Nymphalis antiopa —mourning cloak Vanessa cardui—painted lady Erynnis funeralis—funereal duskywing Papilio rutulus—western tiger swallowtail Papilio zelicaon—anise swallowtail Anthocharis sara sara —Pacific sara orangetip HARES & RABBITS Sylvilagus audubonii—desert cottontail SQUIRRELS Spermophilus (Otospermophilus) beecheyi—California ground squirrel * Indicates non-native species. 12476.02 A-9 March 2020 Selaginella cinerascens – mesa spike-moss Malosma laurina – laurel sumac Rhus integrifolia – lemonadeberry * Schinus molle – Peruvian pepper tree * Foeniculum vulgare – sweet fennel Ambrosia chenopodiifolia – San Diego bur-sage Artemisia californica – coastal sagebrush * Centaurea melitensis – tocalote * Glebionis coronaria – garland/crown daisy * Senecio vulgaris – common groundsel Baccharis pilularis – chaparral broom, coyote brush Bahiopsis laciniata – San Diego sunflower Isocoma menziesii – coastal goldenbush Amsinckia menziesii – rigid fiddleneck * Brassica nigra – black mustard * Hirschfeldia incana – short-pod mustard 12476.02 A-10 March 2020 Cylindropuntia prolifera – coast cholla Ferocactus viridescens var. viridescens – coast barrel cactus * Atriplex semibaccata – Australian saltbush Marah macrocarpa – manroot, wild-cucumber * Acacia redolens – vanilla scented wattle * Melilotus indicus – Indian sweetclover * Erodium cicutarium – red-stem filaree/storksbill * Eucalyptus camaldulensis – river red gum Mirabilis laevis – wishbone plant Linanthus dianthiflorus – farinose ground pink Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum – coast California buckwheat * Rumex crispus – curly dock * Portulaca oleracea – common purslane Adolphia californica – spineshrub Salix exigua – narrow-leaf willow 12476.02 A-11 March 2020 Simmondsia chinensis – jojoba, goatnut * Nicotiana glauca – tree tobacco * Tamarix ramosissima – saltcedar * Urtica urens – dwarf nettle Yucca schidigera – Mohave yucca Allium praecox – early onion * Washingtonia robusta – Mexican fan palm * Avena barbata – slender wild oat * Bromus diandrus – ripgut grass * Cortaderia jubata – purple pampas grass * Festuca perennis – perennial rye grass * Indicates non-native species. Da t e : 4 / 7 / 2 0 2 0 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c k u b a c k i - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 4 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ 0 2 N a k a n o \ B i o \ C A G N R e p o r t \ F i g u r e 1 _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n . m x d 905 805 Project Location Nakano Project SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Imperial Beach Quadrangle 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Boundary FIGURE 1 ChulaVista Solana Beach Encinitas SanDiego Carlsbad Oceanside Lemon Grove La Mesa El Cajon Santee Poway San Marcos Escondido Vista Imperial Beach Del Mar Coronado R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y S an D i eg o C o u n t y 905 52 94 163 125 241 54 274 195 56 1118674 74 67 76 79 78 8 15 5 8 215 805 5 Project Site Da t e : 4 / 7 / 2 0 2 0 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c k u b a c k i - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 4 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ 0 2 N a k a n o \ B i o \ C A G N R e p o r t \ F i g u r e 2 _ S u r v e y R o u t e . m x d E C O R A L C V NNG EUC CSS DEV CSS CSS CSS ARU DH SRS DEV SWS DHSWS DH NNGB NNGB DH DH NNGB CSSB CSSB CSSB NNGB DH CSSB Survey Routes Nakano Project SOURCE: SANGIS 2017 0 230115Feet Project Boundary 100-ft Buffer Survey Route Vegetation Communities andLand Cover Types ARU, Arundo-Dominated CSS, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub CSSB, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-dominated DEV, Urban/Developed DH, Disturbed Habitat EUC, Eucalyptus Woodland NNG, Non-Native Grassland NNGB, Non-Native Grassland: Broadlead-Dominated SRS, Southern Riparian Scrub SWS, Southern Willow Scrub FIGURE 2 Da t e : 4 / 7 / 2 0 2 0 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c k u b a c k i - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 4 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ 0 2 N a k a n o \ B i o \ C A G N R e p o r t \ F i g u r e 3 _ C A G N L o c a t i o n s . m x d E C O R A L C V NNG EUC CSS DEV CSS CSS CSS ARU DH SRS DEV SWS DHSWS DH NNGB NNGB DH DH NNGB CSSB CSSB CSSB NNGB DH CSSB CAGN Locations Nakano Project SOURCE: SANGIS 2017 0 230115Feet Project Boundary 100-ft Buffer Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ARU, Arundo-Dominated CSS, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub CSSB, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-dominated DEV, Urban/Developed DH, Disturbed Habitat EUC, Eucalyptus Woodland NNG, Non-Native Grassland NNGB, Non-Native Grassland: Broadlead-Dominated SRS, Southern Riparian Scrub SWS, Southern Willow Scrub Wildlife CAGN, pair FIGURE 3 Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 3 2020 Protocol Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report 12476.02 1 September 2020 September 1, 2020 12476.02 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attn: Stacey Love, Recovery Permit Coordinator 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Recovery Permit Coordinator: This report documents the results of eight protocol-level presence/absence surveys for the state- and federally listed endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), and five protocol-level presence/absence surveys for the state- and federally listed endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) conducted for the Nakano Project (project). The surveys were conducted in all areas of suitable least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. The southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo are closely associated with riparian habitats, especially densely vegetated willow scrub and riparian forest vegetation. These species are threatened primarily by loss, degradation, and fragmentation of riparian habitats. They also are impacted by brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) nest parasitism. 1 Location and Existing Conditions The 24.6-acre project site is located to the northwest of Dennery Road in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California (Figure 1). The project site is located within the northeast portion of the Imperial Beach U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle. Specifically, the project site is situated east of Interstate 805 (I-805), northwest of Dennery Road, and south of the Otay River. The City of San Diego is located directly east, south, and west of the project site. 2 Vegetation Communities Vegetation communities identified within the project area as potentially suitable habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo include southern riparian scrub and southern willow scrub. Southern riparian scrub is a wetland habitat dominated by small riparian trees and shrubs, and lacks taller riparian trees (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Southern riparian scrub occurs mostly in major river systems where flood scour occurs (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Characteristic species include arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), desertbroom (Baccharis sarothroides), and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), as well as other wetland shrubs. Southern riparian scrub is located in one patch within the northeastern section of the project site (Figures 2 and 3). Recovery Permit Coordinator Subject: Protocol-Level Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report for the Nakano Project, San Diego County, California 12476.02 2 September 2020 Southern willow scrub is a dense, broad-leafed, winter-deciduous riparian thicket dominated by several willow species (Salix spp.), with scattered emergent Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa). This community was formerly extensive along the major rivers of coastal Southern California, but is now much reduced (Oberbauer et al. 2008). The areas mapped as southern willow scrub are located within a corridor along the eastern boundary of the project site (Figures 2 and 3). 3 Methods Suitable habitat areas within the project area were surveyed eight times for vireo and five times for flycatcher. Flycatcher-permitted wildlife biologist Brock Ortega (Recovery Permit number TE813545) conducted sequential flycatcher/vireo surveys and vireo-only surveys, and Dudek wildlife biologist Shana Carey conducted vireo-only surveys (Table 1). Audio-playback techniques were used to elicit flycatcher responses during flycatcher surveys. Focused surveys for these species were initiated on May 22, 2020, and continued through July 31, 2020. 1-SWFL 1-LBVI 05/22/2020 Brock Ortega 8:10 a.m.–10:00 a.m. 55°F–61°F; 60%–70% cc; 3 mph wind 2-SWFL 2-LBVI 06/01/2020 Brock Ortega 6:10 a.m.–8:00 a.m. 60°F–62°F; 80%–100% cc; 0–5 mph wind 3-LBVI 06/13/2020 Shana Carey 7:30 a.m.– 9:30 a.m. 64°F –69°F; 0% cc; 1–5 mph wind 3-SWFL 4-LBVI 06/21/2020 Brock Ortega 6:30 a.m.–8:10 a.m. 63°F–65°F; 5%–100% cc; 0–3 mph wind 4-SWFL 5-LBVI 07/01/2020 Brock Ortega 5:50 a.m.–8:00 a.m. 60°F–62°F; 100% cc; 0–3 mph wind 5-SWFL 6-LBVI 07/11/2020 Brock Ortega 6:10 a.m.–8:00 a.m. 65°F; 50%–100% cc; 0–3 mph wind 7-LBVI 07/21/2020 Brock Ortega 7:30 a.m.–9:00 a.m. 65°F–68°F; 0%–10% cc; 0–3 mph wind 8-LBVI 07/31/2020 Shana Carey 7:30 a.m.– 9:30 a.m. 68°F –75°F; 0% ccr; 1–4 mph wind SWFL = southwestern willow flycatcher; LBVI = least Bell’s vireo; °F = degrees Fahrenheit; cc = cloud cover; mph = miles per hour. As directed by Stacey Love, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Recovery Permit Coordinator (via email sent on April 27, 2016), surveys for vireo and flycatcher were not conducted concurrently. Due to differences in detectability, surveys were conducted sequentially, with surveys for the flycatcher first (i.e., first thing in the morning) and surveys for the vireo conducted afterwards. The route was arranged to cover all suitable habitat on site (as depicted on Figure 2). A vegetation map (1:2,400 scale; 1 inch=200 feet) of the project area was available to record any detected vireo or flycatcher, all the locations of which will be depicted on the USGS Imperial Beach 7.5-minute quadrangle topographical map (Figure 4). Binoculars (10×50) were used to aid in detecting and identifying wildlife species. Recovery Permit Coordinator Subject: Protocol-Level Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report for the Nakano Project, San Diego County, California 12476.02 3 September 2020 The five surveys conducted for flycatcher followed the currently accepted protocol (A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher [Sogge et al. 2010]), which states that a minimum of five survey visits is needed to evaluate project effects on flycatchers. It is recommended that one survey is made between May 15 and 31, two surveys between June 1 and June 24, and two surveys between June 25 and July 17. Surveys during the final period (July 1 and July 11) were separated by at least five days. A tape of recorded flycatcher vocalizations was used, approximately every 50 to 100 feet within suitable habitat, to induce flycatcher responses. If a flycatcher had been detected, playing of the tape would have ceased to avoid harassment. A Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is not required to conduct presence/absence surveys for vireo. The eight surveys for vireo followed the currently accepted Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2001), which states that a minimum of eight survey visits should be made to all riparian areas and any other potential vireo habitats between April 10 and July 31. The site visits are required to be conducted at least 10 days apart to maximize the detection of early and late arrivals, females, non-vocal birds, and nesting pairs. Taped playback of vireo vocalizations was not used during the surveys. Surveys were conducted between dawn and noon and were not conducted during periods of excessive or abnormal cold, heat, wind, rain, or other inclement weather. Weather conditions, time of day, and season were appropriate for the detection of flycatcher and vireo (Table 1). 4 Results One willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) was detected within the survey area during the 2020 focused survey effort early in the season (Figures 3 and 4). It was observed on May 22, 2020, during the least Bell’s vireo portion of the survey without the use of playback located in the central portion of the riparian corridor within southern willow scrub. Willow flycatcher was not detected during any of the subsequent focused species surveys or incidentally during other survey on site. Thus, the individual observed could not be concluded to be the state- and federally listed southwestern willow flycatcher (E. traillii extimus) because it did not remain during the third survey period. Least Bell’s vireos were detected within the project area during the 2020 focused survey effort (Figures 3 and 4). Most vireos were observed both visually and aurally by hearing males singing, and some were detected only aurally, indicating that breeding territories were being established or maintained over the course of the survey effort. There was one pair of vireos observed together in the northeast corner of the project site on June 13, 2020; however, this pair was not observed during subsequent focused surveys. Based on review of the mapped results, it is estimated that there may be approximately two separate vireo males attempting to establish breeding territories within the focused survey area. No vireo nests or nesting behavior were detected during focused surveys; however, nesting has a potential to occur within the project area, and is likely to occur within 500 feet of the project boundary, particularly within the Otay River. A total of 49 wildlife species, including 41 bird species, were detected in the project area during focused surveys of the site and are listed in Attachment A. Common bird species observed include Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus), and lesser goldfinches (Spinus psaltria). Brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), varying from one to three individuals, were observed on site. The Willow Flycatcher Survey and Detection Form (Sogge et al. 2010) was filled out for each visit and is included in Attachment B. Representative photos of the habitat surveyed on site are included in Figure 5. Recovery Permit Coordinator Subject: Protocol-Level Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report for the Nakano Project, San Diego County, California 12476.02 4 September 2020 Please contact me at 760.479.4254 if there are any questions regarding this survey report. I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represent my work. Sincerely, ____________________________________ Brock Ortega Senior Wildlife Biologist, Principal Att.: Figure 1, Project Location Figure 2, Survey Route Figure 3, Species Locations Figure 4, Species Locations on USGS Quad Basemap Figure 5, Overview Photos of Habitat Surveyed Attachment A, Wildlife Species Observed Attachment B, Willow Flycatcher Survey and Detection Form cc: Erin Bergman, Dudek References Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. March 2008. Accessed June 14, 2019. http://www.sdcanyonlands.org/pdfs/veg_comm_sdcounty_2008_doc.pdf. Sogge, M.K., D. Ahlers, and S.J. Sferra. 2010. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 2A-10. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. January 19, 2001. Da t e : 4 / 7 / 2 0 2 0 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c k u b a c k i - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 4 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ 0 2 N a k a n o \ B i o \ C A G N R e p o r t \ F i g u r e 1 _ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n . m x d 905 805 SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Imperial Beach Quadrangle 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Boundary FI GURE 1 Chula Vista Solana Beach Encinitas San goDie Carlsbad Oceanside Lemon Grove La Mesa El Cajon Santee Poway San Marcos Escondido Vista Imperial Beach Del Mar Coronado R iv e r s i d e Co u n ty S a n D i e g o Co u n ty 905 52 94 163 125 241 54 274 195 56 1118674 74 67 76 79 78 8 15 5 8 215 805 5 Project Site Project Location Focused Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report for the Nakano Project Da t e : 9 / 1 / 2 0 2 0 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c k u b a c k i - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 4 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ 0 2 N a k a n o \ B i o \ L B V I a n d W I F L R e p o r t \ F i g u r e 2 _ S u r v e y R o u t e . m x d E C O R A L C V ARU CSS CSS CSS CSS CSSB CSSB CSSB CSSB DEV DEV DHDH DH DH DH DH EUC NNG NNGB NNGB NNGB NNGB SRS SWS SWS SOURCE: SANGIS 2017 0 230115Feet Project Boundary 100-ft Buffer Survey Route Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ARU, Arundo-Dominated CSS, Diegan Coastal Sage CSSB, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-dominated DEV, Urban/Developed DH, Disturbed Habitat EUC, Eucalyptus Woodland NNG, Non-Native NNGB, Non-Native Grassland: Broadlead-Dominated SRS, Southern Riparian SWS, Southern Willow FIGURE 2 Survey Route Focused Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report for the Nakano Project Da t e : 9 / 2 / 2 0 2 0 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c k u b a c k i - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 4 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ 0 2 N a k a n o \ B i o \ L B V I a n d W I F L R e p o r t \ F i g u r e 3 _ S p e c i e s L o c a t i o n s . m x d CO R A L C V 5/22 5/22 6/13 6/22 6/1 6/21 7/1 7/11 7/21 ARU CSS CSS CSS CSS CSSB CSSB CSSB CSSB DEV DEV DHDH DHDH DH DH EUC NNG NNGB NNGB NNGB NNGB SRS SWS SWS Species Locations Focused Least Bells Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report for the Nakano Project SOURCE: SANGIS 2017 0 230115Feet Project Boundary 100-ft Buffer LBVI, least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) Date Observed 5/22/2020 6/1/2020 6/13/2020 6/21/2020 6/22/2020 (Incidental Observation) 7/1/2020 7/11/2020 7/21/2020 WIFL, willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) Date Observed 5/22/2020 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ARU, Arundo-Dominated CSS, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub CSSB, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-dominated DEV, Urban/Developed DH, Disturbed Habitat EUC, Eucalyptus Woodland NNG, Non-Native Grassland NNGB, Non-Native Grassland: Broadlead-Dominated SRS, Southern Riparian Scrub SWS, Southern Willow Scrub FIGURE 3 Da t e : 9 / 1 / 2 0 2 0 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c k u b a c k i - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 2 4 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ 0 2 N a k a n o \ B i o \ L B V I a n d W I F L R e p o r t \ F i g u r e 4 _ S p e c i e s L o c a t i o n U S G S B a s e m a p . m x d 5/22 6/13 6/22 6/1 6/21 7/1 7/11 7/21 905 805 5/22 SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Imperial Beach Quadrangle 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Boundary LBVI, least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) WIFL, willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) FI GURE 4 Species Locations on USGS Quad Basemap Focused Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report for the Nakano Project Pa t h : Z Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 1 9 5 9 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ L B V I _ S W F L Photo 1: Representative photo of riparian habitat within project site. Facing NE. Photo 2: Representative photo of riparian habitat within project site. Facing SE. Photo 4: Representative photo of riparian habitat patch interior. Facing E. Photo 3: Representative photo of riparian habitat patch exterior. Facing SE. FIGURE 5 Overview Photos of Habitat Surveyed Focused Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report for the Nakano Project Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 4 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for the Nakano Project Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report for the Nakano Project Site San Diego, California Prepared for Tri Pointe Homes 13520 Evening Creek Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92128 Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92108 P 619.308.9333 RECON Number 3396.1 July 11, 2023 Gerry Scheid, Senior Biologist Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. ii 1.0 Site Description and Landscape Setting ..................................................................................1 2.0 Site Alterations, Current and Past Land Use ...........................................................................1 2.1 Soils .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2.3 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................ 2 3.0 Precipitation Data and Analysis ................................................................................................ 2 3.1 Climate and Growing Season ......................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Antecedent Precipitation Analysis ................................................................................................ 2 3.3 Wetland Hydrology and Analysis .................................................................................................. 2 4.0 Investigation Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 4.1 Pre-Field Review ................................................................................................................................. 3 4.2 On-site Aquatic Resource Investigation ..................................................................................... 4 4.3 On-Site Ordinary High Water Mark Investigation ................................................................... 4 5.0 Description of All Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................... 4 6.0 Deviation from National Wetland Inventory ......................................................................... 4 7.0 Mapping Method ......................................................................................................................... 5 8.0 Results and Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 5 9.0 Disclaimer Statement .................................................................................................................. 5 APPENDICES A: Maps B: Antecedent Precipitation Tool Results C: Wetland and OHWM Field Data Forms D: Ground Level Color Photographs E: Additonal Tables Information F: References Cited Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project ii Acronyms and Abbreviations APT Antecedent Precipitation Tool NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NWI National Wetland Inventory OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark project Nakano Project SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project Page 1 1.0 Site Description and Landscape Setting The 23.77-acre project site is located to the northwest of Dennery Road in the city of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California (Figure 1; all figures provided with this report are compiled as Appendix A). The project area is within Sections 19 and 24 of Township 18 South, Range 1 and 2 West, of the Imperial Beach, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2). The proposed project area is located east of Interstate 805 (I-805), northwest of Dennery Road, and south of the Otay River (Figure 3). Coordinates for the center of the site are 32.59 dd latitude and -117. 032 dd longitude. 2.0 Site Alterations, Current and Past Land Use Currently land uses of the property consist of vacant land and unpaved roads and trails. The project site was used for agricultural in the past until approximately the year 2000. Surrounding land uses include a vacant site and the Otay Valley River Park to the north, I-805 directly to the west, multi-family residential to the east and southeast, and Kaiser medical offices to the south. 2.1 Soils Information on the soil types that occur on the project site is summarized from the Soil Survey for San Diego County (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1973), the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG’s) geographic information system data (SANDAG 1995), and the Hydric Soils of California list obtained from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS; 2022). Three soil types have been recorded in the project area: Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 percent to 30 percent slopes; Riverwash; and Salinas clay loam, 0 percent to 2 percent slopes (USDA 1973; Figure 4). Both Riverwash and Olivenhain soils occur on the hydric soil list (NRCS 2022). Riverwash soils may be hydric in fans and drainage ways and Olivenhain soils may be hydric in ponded depressions. 2.2 Hydrology In general, the hydrology inputs to the site are from natural seasonal rainfall events and from storm water runoff from adjacent developed areas to the south. A single drainage channel enters the site from the south and is located along the eastern boundary of the site. The Otay River is located to the north of the project site. Flows from the on-site drainage channel appear to only reach the Otay River during larger rainfall events and via sheetflow as the channel bed has silted in towards the northern end. Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project Page 2 2.3 Vegetation Vegetation on-site is comprised of both upland and riparian communities. The majority of the site is vegetated with non-native grassland and disturbed habitat. Coastal sage scrub occurs on the hill side on the south end of the property. Southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub habitat occur along the drainage course. Emergent wetland is found adjacent to the channel and in a depressional area towards the north end of the drainage course where sheet flow and overbank flows occur. 3.0 Precipitation Data and Analysis Climate data, including precipitation totals, for the nearest recording station to the project site was gathered from the NRCS National Water and Climate Center databases. The climate data obtained are discussed below. 3.1 Climate and Growing Season The project is located along coastal slopes within southern California, in an area generally characterized by moderate temperature fluctuations throughout the year, with hot and dry summers and cooler and wetter winters. The majority of precipitation typically falls between December and March as somewhat frequent low- to moderate-intensity rainfall. The growing season typically lasts into early summer after winter and spring rainfall and ends in mid to late summer when little to no precipitation occurs and as temperatures increase. Rainfall amounts can vary substantially from year to year, with the potential for periods of extended drought. 3.2 Antecedent Precipitation Analysis The Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT) was used to analyze the 30-day rolling total and the 30year normal range of precipitation data for the nearest recording weather stations to the project. The data presented in the APT results graphics (Appendix B) indicate that normal conditions occurred at the time of the March 24, 2022 survey despite being in an extreme drought. Three rain events occurred during March 2022 prior to the site visit. 3.3 Wetland Hydrology and Analysis According to the results of the APT, three rain events occurred in the weeks prior to the day of the delineation. One event produced approximately 1.5 inches of rain, another event produced around 0.5 inch of rain, and the third event was approximately 0.01 inch of rain. Overall conditions were rated normal. Although the San Diego County area is in the midst of an extreme drought period, these March rain events contributed to the hydrology indicators observed during the delineation field work. Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project Page 3 4.0 Investigation Methods A routine waters/wetland delineation, following the guidelines set forth by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; 1987 and 2008), was performed on March 24, 2022, to gather field data at locations where aquatic resources occur in the project site. Once on-site, the project area was examined to determine the presence and extent of any aquatic resources. A routine waters/wetland delineation entails the evaluation of the presence of three wetland criteria and other non-wetland waters parameters. The three wetland criteria evaluated at each sample point included the presence of a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology indicators. Non-wetland water parameters were evaluated as part of the assessment of the presence of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM; see Section 4.3 below). For the evaluation of hydrophytic vegetation, the vegetation communities comprising partially or entirely hydrophytic plant species were examined, and data for each vegetation stratum (i.e., tree, shrub, herb, and vine) were recorded on the datasheet provided in the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (USACE 2008). The percent absolute cover of each species present by vegetation layer was visually estimated and recorded. The wetland indicator status of each species recorded within a vegetation community was determined by using the National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2020). Finally, the dominance test was then calculated to determine if a vegetation community qualified as hydrophytic vegetation at each sample area. In situations where a site failed the dominance test but contained positive indicators of hydric soils and/or wetland hydrology, the prevalence index was used. For the evaluation of hydric soils, soil pits were dug to a depth of at least 18 inches at each sample area to determine soil color, evidence of soil saturation, depth to groundwater, and indicators of a reducing soil environment (i.e., mottling, gleying, and hydrogen sulfide odor). A Munsell Soil-Color Book (2009) was used to determine soil colors, and the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (USACE 2008) and the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States guide (USDA 2017) was used to determine the presence of hydric soil indicators. For the evaluation of wetland hydrology indicators, hydrologic information for the site was obtained by reviewing USGS topographic maps and by directly observing evidence of hydrology indicators in the field. All portions of any potentially occurring wetlands or non-wetland waters within the project site were inspected for signs of hydrology as defined in the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (USACE 2008). 4.1 Pre-Field Review Prior to conducting the delineation, a recent aerial photograph, USGS topographic maps of the site, including the 7.5-minute Imperial Beach quadrangle (USGS 1997; see Figure 2), USDA soil maps of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2022) were examined to aid in the determination of potential locations for aquatic resources onsite. Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project Page 4 4.2 On-site Aquatic Resource Investigation Once in the field, the project site was examined to determine those areas where the presence of indicators of wetlands or non-wetland waters had the potential to occur. Field data was collected and data forms were completed for each selected sample area. Hand drawn maps made using site topography and recent aerial photography as aides were later digitized into ArcGIS. Mapped aquatic resources created using these data were analyzed in ArcGIS to provide acreages and display the limits of these resources on graphics. USACE wetland determination data forms are included as Appendix C. 4.3 On-Site Ordinary High Water Mark Investigation The lateral extent of the OHWM was delineated along the on-site drainage using the observed indicators in accordance with A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Lichvar and McColley 2008). The OHWM data forms are included in Appendix C. Indicators observed and used to determine the extent of the OHWM included the presence of bed and bank, distribution of sediment deposits, and a change in vegetation species and vegetation cover. In general, the drainage on-site exhibited indicators of bed and bank and a change in vegetation cover as the most frequent OHWM indicators. 5.0 Description of All Aquatic Resources Wetland aquatic resources were delineated on the site (Figure 5). No non-wetland waters were observed outside of the wetland areas. The emergent wetland aquatic resource occurs in a depressional area where sheet flow terminates at the northern end of the drainage course (Photograph 1; all photographs provided with this report are compiled as Appendix D) and as an adjacent wetland where over bank flows occur next to the mule fat scrub and willows along the north portion of the drainage course (Photograph 2). Mule fat scrub vegetated wetland occurs along the drainage course (Photograph 3). Southern willow scrub vegetated wetland occurs along the southern portion of the drainage course (Photograph 4). These wetland aquatic resource areas all support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. Hydric soil indicators observed included a reduced matrix with redox concentrations in the matrix. Wetland hydrology indicators observed varied by location and included observations of standing water, saturated soils, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns. 6.0 Deviation from National Wetland Inventory A review of information from the NWI data showed no areas designated under the system occur on the site (Figure 6). NWI areas occur off-site to the north along the Otay River and its floodplain. Therefore, no deviation from the NWI is present for the project site. Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project Page 5 7.0 Mapping Method The maps of the delineated aquatic resources are based on the above analysis. The boundary of the aquatic resources delineated was obtained from a combination of field maps using recent aerial photography and topographic survey data. Geographic information system mapping software (ArcMap) was used to produce the graphical maps contained in this report. 8.0 Results and Conclusions Wetland aquatic resources were delineated on the site on a drainage course located along the eastern boundary of the site. A list of the different aquatic resource vegetation types is provided in Table 1 (Appendix E). 9.0 Disclaimer Statement This report describes the results of an aquatic resource delineation conducted within the Nakano project site. It was prepared in accordance with the Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports (USACE 2017). The aquatic resource delineation is used to identify and map the potential extent of federal waters of the U.S. with the purpose to provide necessary background information for analysis by USACE in making a jurisdictional determination. USACE will review the content of this report and ultimately make a determination of federal jurisdiction for any waters of the U.S. that may be present in the project area. References used in the preparation of this report are included below in Appendix F. Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project APPENDICES Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project APPENDIX A Maps FIGURE 1 Regional Location kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar 0 5Miles [ M:\JOBS\3396b\gis\ARDR 2022\fig1.mxd 4/12/2022 fmm LOS ANGELES ORANGE RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO MEXICO Project Locationkj FIGURE 2 Project Location on USGS Map Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Imperial Beachquadrangle, 1994, T18S R02W 0 2,000Feet [ M:\JOBS\3396b\gis\ARDR 2022\fig2_USGS.mxd 4/12/2022 fmm Project Boundary FIGURE 3 Project Site Location on Aerial Photograph G O L DEN S K Y W A Y BL U E CO R A L C V OC E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D §¨¦805 G O L DEN S K Y W A Y BL U E CO R A L C V OC E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D §¨¦805 Image Source: Nearmap (flown: January 2022) 0 250Feet [ M:\JOBS\3396b\gis\ARDR 2022\fig3.mxd 4/12/2022 fmm Project Boundary FIGURE 4 Soils G O L DEN S K Y W A Y BLU E CO R A L C V OC E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D §¨¦805 G O L DEN S K Y W A Y BLU E CO R A L C V OC E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D §¨¦805 Image Source: Nearmap (flown: January 2022) 0 250Feet [ M:\JOBS\3396b\gis\ARDR 2022\fig4.mxd 4/12/2022 fmm Project Boundary Soils Olivenhain Cobbly Loam, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes Olivenhain Cobbly Loam, 9 to 30 Percent Slopes Salinas Clay Loam, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes Riverwash Gravel Pits FIGURE 5 Location of Aquatic Resource !( !( !( !( !( G O L DEN S K Y W A Y BLU E CO R A L C V OC E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D W2 W1 W5 W4 W3 W6 1 2 3 4 5 OHWM-2 OHWM-1 §¨¦805 !( !( !( !( !( G O L DEN S K Y W A Y BLU E CO R A L C V OC E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D W2 W1 W5 W4 W3 W6 1 2 3 4 5 OHWM-2 OHWM-1 §¨¦805 Image Source: Nearmap (flown: January 2022) 0 250Feet [ M:\JOBS\3396b\gis\ARDR 2022\fig5.mxd 4/12/2022 fmm Project Boundary Wetland OHWM !(Sample Points Southern Willow Scrub Mulefat Scrub Emergent Wetland Disturbed Wetland FIGURE 6 National Wetland Inventory G O L DE N SKY W A Y BL U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D OC E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 G O L DE N SKY W A Y BL U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D OC E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 Image Source: Nearmap (flown: January 2022) 0 250Feet [ M:\JOBS\3396b\gis\ARDR 2022\fig6.mxd 4/12/2022 fmm Project Boundary Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Pond Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project APPENDIX B Antecedent Precipitation Tool Results Sep 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Jan 2022 Feb 2022 Mar 2022 Apr 2022 May 2022 Jun 2022 Jul 2022 Aug 2022 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Ra i n f a l l ( I n c h e s ) 2022-03-24 2022-02-22 2022-01-23 Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range 30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2022-03-24 0.96378 2.207087 1.480315 Normal 2 3 6 2022-02-22 1.03189 2.792126 0.996063 Dry 1 2 2 2022-01-23 0.43937 1.994882 1.61811 Normal 2 1 2 Result Normal Conditions - 10 Coordinates 32.59, -117.033 Observation Date 2022-03-24 Elevation (ft)107.22 Drought Index (PDSI)Extreme drought WebWIMP H2O Balance Wet Season Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days (Normal)Days (Antecedent) SAN DIEGO BROWN FLD 32.5722, -116.9794 515.092 3.354 407.872 2.877 8570 90 CHULA VISTA 3.1SE 32.6044, -117.0508 200.131 1.436 92.911 0.78 2 0 CHULA VISTA 32.64, -117.0858 56.102 4.624 51.118 2.317 2712 0 IMPERIAL BEACH REAM FLD NAS 32.5667, -117.1167 23.95 5.132 83.27 2.737 44 0 NORTH ISLAND NAS 32.7, -117.2 25.919 12.335 81.301 6.554 25 0 Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project APPENDIX C Wetland Determination Data Forms WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: Nakano City/County: Chula Vista Sampling Date: 03/24/22 Applicant/Owner: TriPointe State: CA Sampling Point: 1 Investigator(s): G.Scheid Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2% Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.59 dd Long: -117.033 dd Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Salinas Clay Loam NWI classification: Riverine Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2 (B) 50% (A/B) Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Baccharis pilularis 5 Yes UPL Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species 95 x 3 = 285 FACU species x 4 = UPL species 5 x 5 = 25 Column Totals: 100 (A) 310 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1 2. 3. 4. 5. 5 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Rumex crispus 95 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test is >50% 6. X Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 95 = Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Yes X No Remarks: Area is low depressional area connected to sheet flow area of channel. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 1 _____________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 3/3 100 3-18 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 3/1 5 RM M 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Dark red0x concentrations observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) X Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) X Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Area supports herbaceous riparian vegetation and is connected to drainage channel via sheet flow during high volume events. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: Nakano City/County: Chula Vista Sampling Date: 03/24/22 Applicant/Owner: TriPointe State: CA Sampling Point: 2 Investigator(s): G.Scheid Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2% Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.59 dd Long: -117.032 dd Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Salinas Clay Loam NWI classification: Riverine Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2 (B) 100% (A/B) Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Baccharis salicifolia 10 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 3. 4. 5. 10 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Rumex crispus 80 Yes FAC 2. Glebionis coronaria 10 No UPL 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. X Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 90 = Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Yes X No Remarks: Area is low depressional area adjacent to channel and subject to over bank flows. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 2 _____________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/3 98 6 Gley 2 RM M sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Gleyed redox concentrations located approximately 6 inches deep. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) X Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) X Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) X Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Area is adjacent to channel and subject to frequent over bank flows. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: Nakano City/County: Chula Vista Sampling Date: 03/24/22 Applicant/Owner: TriPointe State: CA Sampling Point: 3 Investigator(s): G.Scheid Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): channel Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2% Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.59 dd Long: -117.032 dd Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Salinas Clay Loam NWI classification: Riverine Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 4 (B) 75% (A/B) Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. None 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Baccharis salicifolia 40 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 3. 4. 5. 40 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Rumex crispus 20 Yes FAC 2. Glebionis coronaria 10 Yes UPL 3. Verbena lasiostachys 10 Yes FAC 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. X Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 40 = Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Yes X No Remarks: Sample point in low flow channel of drainage.. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 3 _____________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 3/2 98 2 RM M 2-18 10YR 3/3 95 5 RM M 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Dark redox concentrations observed in upper 6 inches. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) X Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) X Biotic Crust (B12) X Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) X Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 12 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: Nakano City/County: Chula Vista Sampling Date: 03/24/22 Applicant/Owner: TriPointe State: CA Sampling Point: 4 Investigator(s): G.Scheid Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): channel Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2% Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.589 dd Long: -117.032 dd Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Salinas Clay Loam NWI classification: Riverine Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 4 (B) 100 (A/B) Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Salix gooddingii 30 Yes FACW 2. 3. 4. 30 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Baccharis salicifolia 40 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Iva haysiana 10 Yes FACW 3. 4. 5. 50 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Verbena lasiostachys 20 Yes FAC 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. X Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 20 = Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Yes X No Remarks: Sample point in low flow channel of drainage.. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 4 _____________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 90 5YR 6/8 10 RM M 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Dark redox concentrations observed in upper 6 inches. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) X Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) X Biotic Crust (B12) X Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) X Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 12 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: Nakano City/County: Chula Vista Sampling Date: 03/24/22 Applicant/Owner: TriPointe State: CA Sampling Point: 5 Investigator(s): G.Scheid Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): channel Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2% Subregion (LRR): LRR-C Lat: 32.588 dd Long: -117.032 dd Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Olivenhain cobbly loam NWI classification: Riverine Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes x No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No Yes x No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 4 (B) 75% (A/B) Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Salix laevigata 10 Yes FACW 2. Washingtonia robusta 2 Yes FACW 3. 4. 12 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Baccharis salicifolia 40 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 3. 4. 5. 50 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Cortaderia selloana 10 Yes FACU 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. x Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10 = Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 28 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Yes x No Remarks: Sample point in low flow channel of drainage.. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 5 _____________ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 90 5YR 6/8 10 RM M 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Dark redox concentrations observed in upper 6 inches. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) X Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) X Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) X High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) X Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 4 Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Standing water and high water table observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R. OMB Control No. 0710-XXXX Approval Expires: Project ID #:Site Name:Date and Time: Investigator(s):Location (lat/long): Step 1 Site overview from remote and online resources Check boxes for online resources used to evaluate site: gage data LiDAR geologic maps climatic data satellite imagery land use maps aerial photos topographic maps Other: Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources. Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc. Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM. OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be just below and above the OHWM. From the drop-down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by selecting either just below `b', at `x', or just above `a' the OHWM. OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and to attach a photo log. Geomorphic indicators Break in slope: on the bank: undercut bank: valley bottom: Other: Shelving: shelf at top of bank: natural levee: man-made berms or levees: other berms: Channel bar: shelving (berms) on bar: unvegetated: vegetation transition (go to veg. indicators) sediment transition (go to sed. indicators) upper limit of deposition on bar: lnstream bedforms and other bedload transport evidence: deposition bedload indicators (e.g., imbricated clasts, gravel sheets, etc.) bedforms (e.g., poofs, riffles, steps, etc.): erosional bedload indicators (e.g., obstacle marks, scour, smoothing, etc.) Secondary channels: Sediment indicators Soil development: Changes in character of soil: Mudcracks: Changes in particle-sized distribution: transition from to upper limit of sand-sized particles silt deposits: Vegetation Indicators Change in vegetation type and/or density: Check the appropriate boxes and select the general vegetation change (e.g., graminoids to woody shrubs). Describe the vegetation transition looking from the middle of the channel, up the banks, and into the floodplain. vegetation absent to: moss to: forbs to: graminoids to: woody shrubs to: deciduous trees to: coniferous trees to: Vegetation matted down and/or bent: Exposed roots below intact soil layer: Ancillary indicators Wracking/presence of organic litter: Presence of large wood: Leaf litter disturbed or washed away: Water staining: Weathered clasts or bedrock: Other observed indicators? Describe: Step 4 Is additional information needed to support this determination? Yes No If yes, describe and attach information to datasheet: 1 4 3396.1 Nakano OHWM #1 06/30/23 11:30am G. Scheid32.59 dd -117.03 dd MWI Mapping Site is an undeveloped parcel with residential homes to the east, commercial development to the south, Otay River valley to the north, and a freeway to the west. Natural hydrology altered upstream due to development and is largely storm water runoff. The drainage channel is developed upstream and flows enter it through a culvert/storm drain system.Flow regime is ephemeral. An access road crosses the drainage at the north end where it enters the site and an at-grade Arizona crossing is part of this road. Flows at northern end of the channel on the site sheet flow off-site to a secondary channel connection. x x b x x Silt loam x graminoids x ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 Page of Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHWM Project ID #: Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately. Photo log attached?Yes No If no, explain why not: List photographs and include descriptions in the table below. Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features. Photo Number Photograph description Additional observations or notes 2 4 The channel banks at this location are shallow with the top of bank about one foot above the bed.Vegetation in channel largely absent and transitions to grasses and herbaceous upland species above the top of bank in adjacent uplands. Soils transitions from silty-sand to loam. 3396.1 1 View of channel bed looking upstream. 2 View of channel bed looking downstream. P:\3396-1\Bio\ARDR\Photos\OHWM1_photos.docx 071023 PHOTOGRAPH 1 View of Channel Bed Looking Upstream PHOTOGRAPH 2 View of Channel Bed Looking Downstream ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R. OMB Control No. 0710-XXXX Approval Expires: Project ID #:Site Name:Date and Time: Investigator(s):Location (lat/long): Step 1 Site overview from remote and online resources Check boxes for online resources used to evaluate site: gage data LiDAR geologic maps climatic data satellite imagery land use maps aerial photos topographic maps Other: Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources. Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc. Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM. OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be just below and above the OHWM. From the drop-down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by selecting either just below `b', at `x', or just above `a' the OHWM. OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, and to attach a photo log. Geomorphic indicators Break in slope: on the bank: undercut bank: valley bottom: Other: Shelving: shelf at top of bank: natural levee: man-made berms or levees: other berms: Channel bar: shelving (berms) on bar: unvegetated: vegetation transition (go to veg. indicators) sediment transition (go to sed. indicators) upper limit of deposition on bar: lnstream bedforms and other bedload transport evidence: deposition bedload indicators (e.g., imbricated clasts, gravel sheets, etc.) bedforms (e.g., poofs, riffles, steps, etc.): erosional bedload indicators (e.g., obstacle marks, scour, smoothing, etc.) Secondary channels: Sediment indicators Soil development: Changes in character of soil: Mudcracks: Changes in particle-sized distribution: transition from to upper limit of sand-sized particles silt deposits: Vegetation Indicators Change in vegetation type and/or density: Check the appropriate boxes and select the general vegetation change (e.g., graminoids to woody shrubs). Describe the vegetation transition looking from the middle of the channel, up the banks, and into the floodplain. vegetation absent to: moss to: forbs to: graminoids to: woody shrubs to: deciduous trees to: coniferous trees to: Vegetation matted down and/or bent: Exposed roots below intact soil layer: Ancillary indicators Wracking/presence of organic litter: Presence of large wood: Leaf litter disturbed or washed away: Water staining: Weathered clasts or bedrock: Other observed indicators? Describe: Step 4 Is additional information needed to support this determination? Yes No If yes, describe and attach information to datasheet: 1 4 3396.1 Nakano OHWM #2 06/30/23 10:30am G. Scheid32.59 dd -117.03 dd NWI Mapping Site is an undeveloped parcel with residential homes to the east, commercial development to the south, Otay River valley to the north, and a freeway to the west. Natural hydrology altered upstream due to development and is largely storm water runoff. The drainage channel is developed upstream and flows enter it through a culvert/storm drain system.Flow regime is ephemeral. An access road crosses the drainage at the north end where it enters the site and an at-grade Arizona crossing is part of this road. a x x x x sand loam a woody shrubs x x x ENG FORM 6250, AUG 2021 Page of Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHWM Project ID #: Attach a photo log of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately. Photo log attached?Yes No If no, explain why not: List photographs and include descriptions in the table below. Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features. Photo Number Photograph description Additional observations or notes 2 4 The channel is incised at the sample location with steep banks that are 5 -6 feet high.Channel bed is mostly unvegetated but has a few scattered perennial grasses clump (pampas grass) or woody shrubs (mule fat) present. Soil goes from sandy silts in the channel bed to a sandy loam on the adjacent uplands. Vegetation is comprised of upland herbs and shrubs beyond the top of bank. Wrack lines of small woody debris are present in the channel. 3396.1 1 View of channel bed looking upstream. 2 View of channel bed looking downstream. P:\3396-1\Bio\ARDR\Photos\OHWM2_photos.docx 071023 PHOTOGRAPH 1 View of Channel Bed Looking Upstream PHOTOGRAPH 2 View of Channel Bed Looking Downstream Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project APPENDIX D Ground Level Color Photographs P:\3396-1\Bio\ARDR\Photos\Photos1-4.docx 04/12/22 PHOTOGRAPH 1 View of Emergent Wetland Dominated by Curly Dock Looking North (Photograph Date: March 24, 2022) PHOTOGRAPH 2 View of Emergent Wetland Adjacent to Drainage Channel Looking South (Photograph Date: March 24, 2022) P:\3396-1\Bio\ARDR\Photos\Photos1-4.docx 04/12/22 PHOTOGRAPH 3 View of Mule Fat Scrub Along Drainage Channel Looking South (Photograph Date: March 24, 2022) PHOTOGRAPH 4 View of Southern Willow Scrub From Hilltop Looking East (Photograph Date: March 24, 2022) Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project APPENDIX E Additional Tables Information Table 1 List of Aquatic Resources Waters ID Cowardin Code HGM Code Area (acre) Linear Feet Waters Type Latitude (dd NAD83) Longitude (dd NAD83) Local Waterway Dominant Vegetation W1 Riverine Riverine 0.08 74 NRPW 32.59 -117.032 Un-named Rumex crispus W2 Riverine Riverine 0.10 128 NRPW 32.59 -117.032 Un-named Rumex crispus W3 Riverine Riverine 0.11 259 NRPW 32.59 -117.032 Un-named Baccharis salicifolia W4 Riverine Riverine 0.05 125 NRPW 32.59 -117.032 Un-named Glebonis coronaria, Verbena lasiostachys, Rumex crispus W5 Riverine Riverine 0.41 657 NRPW 32.59 -117.032 Un-named Salix laevigata, Salix gooddingii, Baccharis salicifolia, Verbena lasiostachys W6 (Off-site) Riverine Riverine 0.06 60 NRPW 32.589 -117.032 Un-named Salix gooddingii, Baccharis salicifolia, Tamarix rammosissima TOTAL -- -- 0.81 1,303 -- -- -- -- -- NRPW = Non-relatively Permanent Waters that flow directly or indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waters Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project APPENDIX F References Cited Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Nakano Project Lichvar, R. W., and S. M. McColley 2008 A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. August. Munsell Color (Firm) 2009 Munsell Soil Color Charts: with Genuine Munsell Color Chips. Grand Rapids, MI. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 2022 Hydric Soils of California. Accessed April 5. Available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 1995 Soil Series GIS Data. Data digitized from USDA–1973. Soil Survey, San Diego area. Obtained from http://www.sandag.org/resources/maps_and_gis/gis_downloads/senlu.asp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, Department of the Army. January. 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. December. 2017 Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports. March 16. 2020 National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. Accessed April 6, 2022. Available at https://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/v34/home/home.html. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. Edited by Roy H. Bowman. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 2017 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 8.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2022 National Wetlands Inventory. Available at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1997 Imperial Beach, T18S R01W and R02W, Sections 19 and 24 USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Map. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 5 Representative Photographs of the Project Area Photo 1- Non-native grassland community looking east away from from Interstate 5. Photo 2 -Coastal sage scrub habitat looking south Photo 3 -Non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub looking west toward Interstate 5 Photo 4 -Section of Southern willow scrub Photo 5 -Coastal Sage Scrub habitat Photo 6-Non-native grassland facing north Photo 7- Giant reed vegetation Photo 8- Coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub and non-native grassland facing northeast Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 6 RiverEdge Terrace As-Builts Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 7 List of Plant Species Observed List of Plant Species Observed Nakano Project Page 1 Lycophytes [=Lycopods] SELAGINELLACEAE – SPIKE-MOSS FAMILY Selaginella cinerascens – ashy spike-moss Angiosperms: Eudicots AIZOACEAE – FIG-MARIGOLD FAMILY * Mesembryanthemum crystallinum – crystalline iceplant * Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum – slender-leaf iceplant AMARANTHACEAE – AMARANTH FAMILY Malosma laurina – laurel sumac Rhus integrifolia – lemonadeberry Toxicodendron diversilobum – western poison-oak * Schinus molle – Peruvian pepper tree APIACEAE – CARROT FAMILY Daucus pusillus – rattlesnake weed * Foeniculum vulgare – sweet fennel ASTERACEAE – SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia chenopodiifolia – San Diego bur-sage Artemisia californica – coastal sagebrush Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia – mule-fat, seep-willow Baccharis sarothroides – broom baccharis Deinandra conjugens – Otay tarplant Deinandra fasciculata – fascicled tarweed Erigeron canadensis – horseweed Iva hayesiana – San Diego marsh-elder Laennecia coulteri – Coulter’s fleabane Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha – small-flowered microseris Pseudognaphalium californicum – California everlasting Uropappus lindleyi – silver puffs * Carduus pycnocephalus ssp. pycnocephalus – Italian thistle * Centaurea melitensis – tocalote * Dittrichia graveolens – stinkwort * Erigeron bonariensis – flax-leaf fleabane * Glebionis coronaria – garland/crown daisy * Helminthotheca echioides – bristly ox-tongue * Hypochaeris glabra – smooth cat’s ear * Lactuca serriola – prickly lettuce * Logfia gallica – narrow-leaf cottonrose * Matricaria discoidea – common pineapple-weed * Oncosiphon piluliferum – stinknet List of Plant Species Observed Nakano Project Page 2 * Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum – fragrant everlasting cudweed * Senecio vulgaris – common groundsel * Sonchus asper ssp. asper – prickly sow-thistle * Sonchus oleraceus – common sow-thistle Baccharis pilularis – chaparral broom, coyote brush Bahiopsis laciniata – San Diego County viguiera Hazardia squarrosa – sawtooth goldenbush Isocoma menziesii – coastal goldenbush BORAGINACEAE – BORAGE FAMILY Amsinckia intermedia – rancher’s fiddleneck Amsinckia menziesii – rigid fiddleneck Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum – salt heliotrope Phacelia minor – wild Canterbury-bell BRASSICACEAE – MUSTARD FAMILY Lepidium nitidum – shining peppergrass * Brassica nigra – black mustard * Hirschfeldia incana – short-pod mustard CACTACEAE – CACTUS FAMILY Cylindropuntia prolifera – coast cholla Ferocactus viridescens var. viridescens – San Diego barrel cactus CARYOPHYLLACEAE – PINK FAMILY * Silene gallica – common catchfly CHENOPODIACEAE – Goosefoot Family * Atriplex semibaccata – Australian saltbush Atriplex pacifica – South Coast saltscale * Salsola tragus – prickly russian-thistle, tumbleweed CLEOMACEAE – SPIDERFLOWER FAMILY Peritoma arborea – bladderpod CRASSULACEAE – STONECROP FAMILY Crassula connata – pygmyweed Dudleya pulverulenta – chalk dudleya CUCURBITACEAE – GOURD FAMILY Marah macrocarpa – manroot, wild-cucumber EUPHORBIACEAE – SPURGE FAMILY Croton setiger – doveweed List of Plant Species Observed Nakano Project Page 3 FABACEAE – LEGUME FAMILY * Acacia redolens – vanilla scented wattle * Medicago polymorpha – California burclover * Melilotus indicus – Indian sweetclover * Vachellia farnesiana – sweet acacia GENTIANACEAE – GENTIAN FAMILY Zeltnera venusta – canchalagua GERANIACEAE – GERANIUM FAMILY * Erodium cicutarium – red-stem filaree/storksbill LAMIACEAE – MINT FAMILY Salvia mellifera – black sage * Marrubium vulgare – horehound LYTHRACEAE – LOOSESTRIFE FAMILY * Lythrum hyssopifolia – grass poly MALVACEAE – MALLOW FAMILY Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. fasciculatus – chaparral bushmallow * Malva parviflora – cheeseweed MONTIACEAE – MONTIA FAMILY Claytonia perfoliata – miner’s-lettuce MYRSINACEAE – MYRSINE FAMILY * Anagallis arvensis – scarlet pimpernel, poor man’s weatherglass MYRTACEAE – MYRTLE FAMILY * Eucalyptus camaldulensis – river red gum * Eucalyptus sideroxylon – red iron bark NYCTAGINACEAE – FOUR O’CLOCK FAMILY Mirabilis laevis – wishbone plant ONAGRACEAE – EVENING-PRIMROSE FAMILY Camissoniopsis bistorta – California sun cup PLANTAGINACEAE – PLANTAIN FAMILY Plantago erecta – dot-seed plantain Antirrhinum nuttallianum – Nuttall’s snapdragon POLEMONIACEAE – PHLOX FAMILY Linanthus dianthiflorus – farinose ground pink List of Plant Species Observed Nakano Project Page 4 POLYGONACEAE – BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum – coast California buckwheat * Rumex crispus – curly dock PORTULACACEAE – PURSLANE FAMILY * Portulaca oleracea – common purslane RHAMNACEAE – BUCKTHORN FAMILY Adolphia californica – California adolphia RUBIACEAE – MADDER OR COFFEE FAMILY Galium aparine – common bedstraw, goose grass SALICACEAE – WILLOW FAMILY Salix gooddingii – Gooding’s black willow Salix laevigata – red willow Salix exigua – narrow-leaf willow SIMMONDSIACEAE – JOJOBA FAMILY Simmondsia chinensis – jojoba, goatnut SOLANACEAE – NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Solanum parishii – Parish’s nightshade * Nicotiana glauca – tree tobacco TAMARICACEAE – TAMARISK FAMILY * Tamarix ramosissima – saltcedar URTICACEAE – STINGING NETTLE FAMILY Hesperocnide tenella – western nettle Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea – hoary nettle * Urtica urens – dwarf nettle VERBENACEAE – VERVAIN FAMILY Verbena menthifolia – mint-leaf vervain Angiosperms: Monocots AGAVACEAE – AGAVE FAMILY Yucca schidigera – Mohave yucca ALLIACEAE – ONION FAMILY Allium praecox – early onion ARECACEAE – PALM FAMILY * Washingtonia robusta – Mexican fan palm List of Plant Species Observed Nakano Project Page 5 IRIDACEAE – IRIS FAMILY Sisyrinchium bellum – blue-eyed-grass LILIACEAE – LILY FAMILY Calochortus splendens – splendid mariposa lily POACEAE – GRASS FAMILY Stipa pulchra – purple needle grass * Avena barbata – slender wild oat * Avena fatua – wild oat * Bromus catharticus var. catharticus – rescue grass * Bromus diandrus – ripgut grass * Bromus hordeaceus – soft chess * Cortaderia jubata – purple pampas grass * Cortaderia selloana – selloa pampas grass * Festuca myuros – rat-tail fescue * Festuca perennis – perennial rye grass * Polypogon monspeliensis – annual beard grass * Bromus rubens – foxtail chess, red brome * Hordeum murinum – barley THEMIDACEAE – BRODIAEA FAMILY Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum – blue dicks, school bells * Indicates non-native species. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 8 List of Wildlife Species Observed List of Wildlife Species Observed Nakano Project Page 1 AMPHIBIAN Frogs HYLIDAE—TREEFROGS Pseudacris sp.—no common name BIRD Blackbirds, Orioles, and Allies ICTERIDAE—BLACKBIRDS Icterus cucullatus—hooded oriole * Molothrus ater—brown-headed cowbird Bushtits AEGITHALIDAE—LONG-TAILED TITS AND BUSHTITS Psaltriparus minimus—bushtit Falcons FALCONIDAE—CARACARAS AND FALCONS Falco sparverius—American kestrel Finches FRINGILLIDAE—FRINGILLINE AND CARDUELINE FINCHES AND ALLIES Haemorhous mexicanus—house finch Spinus psaltria—lesser goldfinch Flycatchers TYRANNIDAE—TYRANT FLYCATCHERS Empidonax difficilis—Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax traillii—willow flycatcher Sayornis nigricans—black phoebe Sayornis saya—Say’s phoebe Tyrannus forficatus—scissor-tailed flycatcher Hawks ACCIPITRIDAE—HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES, AND ALLIES Buteo jamaicensis—red-tailed hawk Buteo lineatus—red-shouldered hawk Herons and Bitterns ARDEIDAE—HERONS, BITTERNS, AND ALLIES Ardea alba—great egret Ardea herodias—great blue heron List of Wildlife Species Observed Nakano Project Page 2 Egretta thula—snowy egret Nycticorax nycticorax—black-crowned night-heron Hummingbirds TROCHILIDAE—HUMMINGBIRDS Archilochus alexandri—black-chinned hummingbird Calypte anna—Anna’s hummingbird Selasphorus sp.—Allen’s/rufous hummingbird Jays, Magpies, and Crows CORVIDAE—CROWS AND JAYS Corvus brachyrhynchos—American crow Corvus corax—common raven Mockingbirds and Thrashers MIMIDAE—MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS Toxostoma redivivum—California thrasher New World Quail ODONTOPHORIDAE—NEW WORLD QUAIL Callipepla californica—California quail New World Vultures CATHARTIDAE—NEW WORLD VULTURES Cathartes aura—turkey vulture Old World Sparrows PASSERIDAE—OLD WORLD SPARROWS * Passer domesticus—house sparrow Old World Warblers and Gnatcatchers POLIOPTILIDAE—GNATCATCHERS Polioptila caerulea—blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica—coastal California gnatcatcher Owls TYTONIDAE—BARN OWLS Tyto alba—barn owl List of Wildlife Species Observed Nakano Project Page 3 Pigeons and Doves COLUMBIDAE—PIGEONS AND DOVES Zenaida macroura—mourning dove Shorebirds CHARADRIIDAE—LAPWINGS AND PLOVERS Charadrius vociferus—killdeer Starlings and Allies STURNIDAE—STARLINGS * Sturnus vulgaris—European starling Swallows HIRUNDINIDAE—SWALLOWS Petrochelidon pyrrhonota—cliff swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis—northern rough-winged swallow Swifts APODIDAE—SWIFTS Aeronautes saxatalis—white-throated swift Terns and Gulls LARIDAE—GULLS, TERNS, AND SKIMMERS —Gull sp. Thrushes TURDIDAE—THRUSHES Sialia mexicana—western bluebird Vireos VIREONIDAE—VIREOS Vireo bellii pusillus—least Bell’s vireo Waterfowl ANATIDAE—DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS Anas platyrhynchos—mallard Wood Warblers and Allies PARULIDAE—WOOD-WARBLERS Geothlypis trichas—common yellowthroat List of Wildlife Species Observed Nakano Project Page 4 Setophaga coronata—yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga petechia—yellow warbler Leiothlypis celata—orange-crowned warbler Woodpeckers PICIDAE—WOODPECKERS AND ALLIES Dryobates nuttallii—Nuttall’s woodpecker Wrens TROGLODYTIDAE—WRENS Troglodytes aedon—house wren Thryomanes bewickii—Bewick’s wren New World Sparrows PASSERELLIDAE—NEW WORLD SPARROWS Melospiza melodia—song sparrow Melozone crissalis—California towhee Pipilo maculatus—spotted towhee Chats ICTERIIDAE—YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT Icteria virens—yellow-breasted chat Typical Warblers, Parrotbills, and Wrentit SYLVIIDAE—SYLVIID WARBLERS Chamaea fasciata—wrentit INVERTEBRATE Butterflies NYMPHALIDAE—BRUSH-FOOTED BUTTERFLIES Danaus plexippus—monarch Nymphalis antiopa—mourning cloak Vanessa cardui—painted lady HESPERIIDAE—SKIPPERS Erynnis funeralis—funereal duskywing PAPILIONIDAE—SWALLOWTAILS Papilio rutulus—western tiger swallowtail Papilio zelicaon—anise swallowtail List of Wildlife Species Observed Nakano Project Page 5 PIERIDAE—WHITES AND SULFURS Anthocharis sara sara—Pacific sara orangetip MAMMAL Canids CANIDAE—WOLVES AND FOXES Canis latrans—coyote Hares and Rabbits LEPORIDAE—HARES AND RABBITS Sylvilagus audubonii—desert cottontail Sylvilagus bachmani—brush rabbit Pocket Gophers GEOMYIDAE—POCKET GOPHERS Thomomys bottae—Botta’s pocket gopher Squirrels SCIURIDAE—SQUIRRELS Spermophilus (Otospermophilus) beecheyi—California ground squirrel REPTILE Lizards PHRYNOSOMATIDAE—IGUANID LIZARDS Sceloporus occidentalis—western fence lizard ANGUIDAE—ALLIGATOR LIZARDS Elgaria multicarinata—southern alligator lizard * Indicates non-native species. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Nakano Project Page 1 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Abronia maritima red sand- verbena None/None/4.2/None/ None Coastal dunes/perennial herb/Feb–Nov/0–330 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020; CCH 2020). Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego thorn-mint FT/SE/1B.1/MSCP, Narrow Endemic/ Narrow Endemic Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Clay, openings/annual herb/Apr– June/30–3,145 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and non-native grassland present; however, the project site lacks suitable friable soils with clay lenses to support this species. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.5 miles east of the project site northeast of Dennery Canyon (CDFW 2020). In addition, rare plant surveys were performed during this species’ blooming period in May in 2020 and 2022 and San Diego thorn-mint was not observed. Acmispon prostratus Nuttall’s acmispon None/None/1B.1/ Covered/Covered Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub (sandy)/annual herb/Mar–June (July)/0–35 Not expected to occur. There are no sandy soils on-site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.7 miles northwest of the project site within a sandy area near Chula Vista powerplant (CDFW 2020). In addition, rare plant surveys were conducted in May and Nuttall’s acmispon was not observed. Adolphia californica California adolphia None/None/2B.1/ None/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay/perennial deciduous shrub/Dec–May/30–2,425 Observed on-site. Nakano Project Page 2 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Agave shawii var. shawii Shaw’s agave None/None/2B.1/ None/Narrow Endemic Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub; Maritime succulent scrub/perennial leaf succulent/Sep–May/5–395 Not expected to occur. There is suitable succulent scrub habitat; however, the site was previously used for agriculture and the site is disturbed. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). In addition, rare plant surveys were conducted in May and Shaw’s agave was not observed. Ambrosia chenopodiifolia San Diego bur-sage None/None/2B.1/ None/None Coastal scrub/perennial shrub/Apr–June/180–510 Observed on-site. Ambrosia monogyra singlewhorl burrobrush None/None/2B.2/ None/None Chaparral, Sonoran desert scrub; sandy/perennial shrub/Aug–Nov/30–1,640 Not expected to occur. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.6 miles west of the project site along the bed of Otay River (CDFW 2020). This perennial shrub was not observed during rare plant surveys. Singlewhorl burrobrush is easily observed year-round; however, another rare plant survey will be performed during the late season. Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia FE/None/1B.1/MSCP, Narrow Endemic/ Narrow Endemic Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; sandy loam or clay, often in disturbed areas, sometimes alkaline/perennial rhizomatous herb/Apr– Oct/65–1,360 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and sandy loam or clay soils present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.7 miles east of the project site (CDFW 2020). This is a perennial rhizomatous species that is easily observed in large clumps year-round and a reference check was performed for this species in 2020. San Diego Ambrosia was not observed during rare plant surveys in May in 2020 or 2022. Nakano Project Page 3 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Aphanisma blitoides aphanisma None/None/1B.2/ None/Narrow Endemic Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub; sandy or gravelly/annual herb/Feb– June/0–1,000 Not expected to occur. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the project site within Ocean View Hills (CDFW 2020). In addition, rare plant surveys were conducted in May and aphanisma was not observed. Arctostaphylos otayensis Otay manzanita None/None/1B.2/ Covered/Covered Chaparral, Cismontane woodland; metavolcanic/perennial evergreen shrub/Jan–Apr/900– 5,575 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Otay manzanita was not observed during rare plant surveys. Artemisia palmeri San Diego sagewort None/None/4.2/ None/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Riparian forest, Riparian scrub, Riparian woodland; sandy, mesic/perennial deciduous shrub/(Feb)May–Sep/45–3,000 Not expected to occur. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.5 miles west of the project site along the south side Otay River Valley at the base of the valley (CDFW 2020). San Diego sagewort was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Asplenium vespertinum western spleenwort None/None/4.2/ None/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub; rocky/perennial rhizomatous herb/Feb–June/590–3,280 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range. The closest known occurrence is approximately 4.2 miles north of the project site within Sweetwater Valley (CCH 2020). Nakano Project Page 4 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Astragalus deanei Dean’s milk- vetch None/None/1B.1/ None/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian forest/perennial herb/Feb–May/245–2,280 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and riparian habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site along the hills above Bonita within Upper Sweetwater Valley (CDFW 2020). Dean’s milk vetch was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Astragalus tener var. titi coastal dunes milk-vetch FE/SE/1B.1/None/ Narrow Endemic Coastal bluff scrub (sandy), Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie (mesic); often vernally mesic areas/annual herb/Mar– May/0–165 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Atriplex coulteri Coulter’s saltbush None/None/1B.2/ None/None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; alkaline or clay/perennial herb/Mar– Oct/5–1,505 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present; however, there are no dunes or bluff scrub present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2.6 miles south of the project site along an Otay Mesa top (CDFW 2020). Coulter’s saltbush was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Atriplex pacifica South Coast saltscale None/None/1B.2/ None/None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Playas/annual herb/Mar– Oct/0–460 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there are no dunes or bluff scrub habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.0 mile south of the project site along the western slope of Otay Mesa (CDFW 2020). South coast saltscale was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Nakano Project Page 5 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Bergerocactus emoryi golden-spined cereus None/None/2B.2/ None/None Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Coastal scrub; sandy/perennial stem succulent/May–June/5–1,295 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.0 mile south of the project site along the western slope of Otay Mesa (CDFW 2020). Golden-spined cereus was not observed during rare plant surveys in May but this succulent is easy to identify year-round. Bloomeria clevelandii San Diego goldenstar None/None/1B.1/ MSCP/Covered Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; clay/perennial bulbiferous herb/Apr– May/160–1,525 Not expected to occur. There is coastal scrub and grassland habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site north of Otay Valley Road at the crossing of Otay River (CDFW 2020). San Diego goldenstar had potential to occur in the non-native grassland; however, the grassland was highly disturbed with highly dense levels of invasive brome. San Diego goldenstar was not observed during this species blooming period in May 2020 and 2022. A reference check was performed prior to surveys in 2020. Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt’s brodiaea None/None/1B.1/ Narrow Endemic/Covered Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; mesic, clay/perennial bulbiferous herb/May–July/95–5,550 Not expected to occur. There is grassland habitat and clay soil present; however, the site was previously used for agriculture and is disturbed. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.2 miles east of the project site along edge of Otay Mesa above Otay Valley (CDFW 2020). A reference check was performed for this species and was in full bloom. Orcutt’s brodiaea was not observed during May rare plant surveys. Nakano Project Page 6 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Calandrinia breweri Brewer’s calandrinia None/None/4.2/ None/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub; sandy or loamy, disturbed sites and burns/annual herb/(Jan)Mar–June/30–4,000 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and sandy loam soil; however, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020; CCH 2020). Brewer’s calandrinia was not observed during rare plant surveys. Calochortus dunnii Dunn’s mariposa lily None/SR/1B.2/Narrow Endemic/Covered Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Valley and foothill grassland; gabbroic or metavolcanic, rocky/perennial bulbiferous herb/(Feb)Apr– June/605–6,000 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Camissoniopsis lewisii Lewis’ evening- primrose None/None/3/None/ None Coastal bluff scrub, Cismontane woodland, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; sandy or clay/annual herb/Mar– May(June)/0–985 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present; however, there are no dunes or bluff scrub on-site. The closest known occurrence is approximately 2.9 miles southwest of the project site in San Ysidro (CCH 2020). Lewis’ evening primrose was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Caulanthus heterophyllus California mustard None/None/None/ MSCP/Covered Coastal scrub, chaparral; dry, open, generally after fire, disturbance/annual herb/Mar– May/0–4,590 Not expected to occur. This species does not have a CRPR rank (CNPS 2020) and is not known to occur within the vicinity (CDFW 2020). Ceanothus cyaneus Lakeside ceanothus None/None/1B.2/ Covered/Covered Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral/perennial evergreen shrub/Apr–June/770–2,475 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 7 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Ceanothus otayensis Otay Mountain ceanothus None/None/1B.2/ None/None Chaparral (metavolcanic or gabbroic)/perennial evergreen shrub/Jan–Apr/1,965–3,605 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Ceanothus verrucosus wart-stemmed ceanothus None/None/2B.2/ Covered/Covered Chaparral/perennial evergreen shrub/Dec–May/0–1,245 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.1 miles southwest of the project site east of Smuggler’s Gulch along the U.S./Mexico International Border (CDFW 2020). Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana Orcutt’s pincushion None/None/1B.1/ None/None Coastal bluff scrub (sandy), Coastal dunes/annual herb/Jan–Aug/0–330 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.5 miles west of the project site near the south end of San Diego Bay (CDFW 2020). Chamaebatia australis southern mountain misery None/None/4.2/ None/None Chaparral (gabbroic or metavolcanic)/perennial evergreen shrub/Nov– May/980–3,345 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020; CCH 2020). Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum salt marsh bird’s-beak FE/SE/1B.2/Narrow Endemic/Covered Coastal dunes, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/annual herb (hemiparasitic)/May– Oct(Nov)/0–100 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 8 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Chorizanthe orcuttiana Orcutt’s spineflower FE/SE/1B.1/None/ None Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral (maritime), Coastal scrub; sandy openings/annual herb/Mar–May/5–410 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present; however, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Orcutt’s spineflower was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina long-spined spineflower None/None/1B.2/ None/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; often clay/annual herb/Apr–July/95–5,015 Not expected to occur. There is coastal scrub and grassland habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the project site northwest of the Otay landfill (CDFW 2020). Long-spined spineflower was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Cistanthe maritima seaside cistanthe None/None/4.2/ None/None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; sandy/annual herb/(Feb)Mar–June(Aug)/15– 985 Not expected to occur. There is coastal scrub and grassland habitat present; however, there is no bluff scrub on-site. The closest known occurrence is approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the project site within the Dennery West Quino and vernal pool restoration-site (CCH 2020). Seaside cistanthe was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Clarkia delicata delicate clarkia None/None/1B.2/ None/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland; often gabbroic/annual herb/Apr– June/770–3,280 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 9 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Clinopodium chandleri San Miguel savory None/None/1B.2/ MSCP/Covered Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; Rocky, gabbroic or metavolcanic/perennial shrub/Mar–July/390–3,525 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia summer holly None/None/1B.2/ None/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland/perennial evergreen shrub/Apr–June/95–2,590 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Convolvulus simulans small- flowered morning-glory None/None/4.2/ None/None Chaparral (openings), Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; clay, serpentinite seeps/annual herb/Mar– July/95–2,425 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present; however, there are no openings on-site. The closest known occurrence is approximately 2.0 miles east of the project site on the north side of Otay Valley (CCH 2020). A reference check was performed and small-flowered morning-glory was in full bloom. Small-flowered morning-glory was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. incana San Diego sand aster None/None/1B.1/ None/None Coastal bluff scrub, Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial herb/June–Sep/5–375 Not expected to occur. This species would have been observed during focused surveys. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there is no bluff scrub on-site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.1 miles north of the project site along the south slope of Poggi Canyon (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 10 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Cylindropuntia californica var. californica snake cholla None/None/1B.1/ Narrow Endemic/ Narrow Endemic Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial stem succulent/Apr–May/95–490 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.6 mile north of the project site north of Palm Ave; however, the site has since been developed (CDFW 2020). Snake cholla was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Deinandra conjugens Otay tarplant FT/SE/1B.1/Narrow Endemic/Narrow Endemic Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; clay/annual herb/(Apr)May–June/80–985 Observed on-site. Deinandra floribunda Tecate tarplant None/None/1B.2/ None/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub/annual herb/Aug–Oct/225–4,000 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2.9 miles southeast of the project site within Otay Mesa (CDFW 2020). Tecate tarplant typically occurs in eastern San Diego county in dry washes. Tecate tarplant would be surveyed for during late season rare plant surveys. Deinandra paniculata paniculate tarplant None/None/4.2/ None/None Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; usually vernally mesic, sometimes sandy/annual herb/(Mar)Apr–Nov(Dec)/80– 3,080 Not expected to occur. This species would have been observed during focused surveys. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present. The closest known occurrence is approximately 4.3 miles northwest of the project site near Los Flores (CCH 2020). Nakano Project Page 11 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Dichondra occidentalis western dichondra None/None/4.2/ None/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial rhizomatous herb/(Jan)Mar– July/160–1,640 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present. The closest known occurrence is approximately 1.9 miles south of the project site within Moody Canyon (CCH 2020). However, western dichondra not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Dicranostegia orcuttiana Orcutt’s bird’s-beak None/None/2B.1/ Covered/Covered Coastal scrub/annual herb (hemiparasitic)/(Mar)Apr– July(Sep)/30–1,145 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.2 miles west of the project site within the Otay River drainage (CDFW 2020). However, Orcutt’s bird’s- beak was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Dudleya attenuata ssp. attenuata Orcutt’s dudleya None/None/2B.1/ None/None Coastal bluff scrub, Chaparral, Coastal scrub; rocky or gravelly/perennial herb/May– July/5–165 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present; however, there is no bluff scrub on-site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Orcutt’s Dudleya was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae Blochman’s dudleya None/None/1B.1/ None/None Coastal bluff scrub, Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; rocky, often clay or serpentinite/perennial herb/Apr–June/15–1,475 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present; however, there is no bluff scrub on-site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.6 miles west of the project site near Imperial Beach (CDFW 2020). Blochman’s Dudleya was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Nakano Project Page 12 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Dudleya variegata variegated dudleya None/None/1B.2/ Narrow Endemic/ Narrow Endemic Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; clay/perennial herb/Apr–June/5–1,900 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.1 mile south of the project site (CDFW 2020). Variegated dudleya was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Dudleya viscida sticky dudleya None/None/1B.2/ Covered/Covered Coastal bluff scrub, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub; rocky/perennial herb/May–June/30–1,800 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there is no bluff scrub or woodland on-site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Sticky dudleya was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Ericameria palmeri var. palmeri Palmer’s goldenbush None/None/1B.1/ Narrow Endemic/Covered Chaparral, Coastal scrub; mesic/perennial evergreen shrub/(July)Sep–Nov/95–1,965 Not expected to occur. This species would have been observed during focused surveys. There is suitable coastal scrub present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence overlaps the eastern portion of the project site along the south flanks of Otay Valley recorded in 2002 (CDFW 2020). Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button-celery FE/SE/1B.1/MSCP/ Covered Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; mesic/annual / perennial herb/Apr–June/65– 2,030 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the project site within Otay Mesa between Dennery Canyon and Avenida de las Vistas (CDFW 2020). Mesic meadows and vernal pools are not present within the study area. Rare plant surveys were performed in May and San Diego button-celery was not observed. Nakano Project Page 13 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Erysimum ammophilum sand-loving wallflower None/None/1B.2/ Covered/Covered Chaparral (maritime), Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub; sandy, openings/perennial herb/Feb– June/0–195 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there are no coastal dunes on-site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Sand-loving wallflower was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Euphorbia misera cliff spurge None/None/2B.2/ None/None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub, Mojavean desert scrub; rocky/perennial shrub/Dec– Aug(Oct)/30–1,640 Not expected to occur. There is suitable scrub habitat present; however, there is no bluff scrub on-site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.3 miles east of the project site along a ridge south of Otay River Valley (CDFW 2020). Cliff spurge was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Cliff spurge can be observed easily all year round. Ferocactus viridescens var. viridescens San Diego barrel cactus None/None/2B.1/ Covered/Covered Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools/perennial stem succulent/May–June/5–1,475 Observed on-site. Frankenia palmeri Palmer’s frankenia None/None/2B.1/ None/None Coastal dunes, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), Playas/perennial herb/May– July/0–35 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.7 miles west of the project site along the bay side of Silver Strand Beach State Park (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 14 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Fremontodendron mexicanum Mexican flannelbush FE/SR/1B.1/None/ None Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland; gabbroic, metavolcanic, or serpentinite/perennial evergreen shrub/Mar– June/30–2,345 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Galium proliferum desert bedstraw None/None/2B.2/ None/None Joshua tree woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, Pinyon and juniper woodland; rocky, carbonate (limestone)/annual herb/Mar–June/3,900–5,345 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.7 miles northeast of the project site within Long Canyon (CDFW 2020). Geothallus tuberosus Campbell’s liverwort None/None/1B.1/ None/None Coastal scrub (mesic), Vernal pools; soil/ephemeral liverwort/N.A./30–1,965 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.4 miles north of the project site along a north facing slope in Rice Canyon (CDFW 2020). Campbell’s liverwort is typically associated with vernal pool and mesic areas. Cyrptogamic crusts typically occur with this species. Areas with potential for cryptogamic crusts had mostly been disturbed by non-native annual grasses. Grindelia hallii San Diego gumplant None/None/1B.2/ None/None Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial herb/May–Oct/605–5,725 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.0 mile south of the project site in Otay Mesa; however, the record is from 1935 and the occurrences needs field checking (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 15 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Harpagonella palmeri Palmer’s grapplinghoo k None/None/4.2/ None/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay; open grassy areas within shrubland/annual herb/Mar– May/65–3,130 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present; however, there are no open areas on-site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.2 miles east of the project site north of Brown Field Naval Auxiliary Air Station (CDFW 2020). A reference check was performed for Palmer’s grapplinghook and it was in full bloom in May when these surveys were performed. Palmer’s grapplinghook was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Hesperocyparis forbesii Tecate cypress None/None/1B.1/ Covered/Covered Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral; clay, gabbroic or metavolcanic/perennial evergreen tree/N.A./260–4,920 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2.1 miles east of the project site along the north slope of Otay Valley at the mouth of Wolf Canyon (CDFW 2020). Heterotheca sessiliflora ssp. sessiliflora beach goldenaster None/None/1B.1/ None/None Chaparral (coastal), Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub/perennial herb/Mar–Dec/0–4,015 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there are no coastal dunes on-site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2.1 miles south of the project site within Beyer Community Park (CDFW 2020). Beach goldenaster was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Nakano Project Page 16 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata graceful tarplant None/None/4.2/None/N one Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland/annual herb/May– Nov/195–3,605 Not expected to occur. This species would have been observed during focused surveys. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present; however, there is no woodland on-site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020; CCH 2020). Hordeum intercedens vernal barley None/None/3.2/ None/None Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland (saline flats and depressions), Vernal pools/annual herb/Mar–June/15–3,280 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there are no grassland saline flats or coastal dunes on-site. The closest known occurrence is approximately 1.2 miles east of the project site along the south side of Otay River (CCH 2020). Vernal barley was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Hosackia crassifolia var. otayensis Otay Mountain lotus None/None/1B.1/ None/None Chaparral (metavolcanic, often in disturbed areas)/perennial herb/May–Aug/1,245–3,295 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens decumbent goldenbush None/None/1B.2/ None/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub (sandy, often in disturbed areas)/perennial shrub/Apr– Nov/30–445 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the project site within an upland vernal pool complex northeast of the intersection of Ocean View Hills Parkway and Otay Mesa Road (CDFW 2020). Decumbent goldenbush was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Nakano Project Page 17 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Iva hayesiana San Diego marsh-elder None/None/2B.2/ None/None Marshes and swamps, Playas/perennial herb/Apr– Oct/30–1,640 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.2 miles west of the project site within riparian scrub in Otay Valley (CDFW 2020). San Diego marsh elder was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii southwestern spiny rush None/None/4.2/None/N one Coastal dunes (mesic), Meadows and seeps (alkaline seeps), Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/perennial rhizomatous herb/(Mar)May– June/5–2,950 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known occurrence is approximately 1.6 miles east of the project site along Otay River (CCH 2020). Southwestern Spiny rush was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter’s goldfields None/None/1B.1/ None/None Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), Playas, Vernal pools/annual herb/Feb– June/0–4,000 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.8 miles southwest of the project site within Tijuana Valley (CDFW 2020). A reference check was performed for Coulter’s goldfields. Coulter’s goldfields were not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Lepechinia ganderi Gander’s pitcher sage None/None/1B.3/ Narrow Endemic/ Covered Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Gabbroic or metavolcanic/perennial shrub/June–July/1,000–3,295 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 18 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Robinson’s pepper-grass None/None/4.3/None/N one Chaparral, Coastal scrub/annual herb/Jan–July/0– 2,900 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.9 mile west of the project site along Otay Valley Road (CDFW 2020). Robinson’s pepper grass was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Leptosyne maritima sea dahlia None/None/2B.2/ None/None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub/perennial herb/Mar– May/15–490 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there is no bluff scrub on-site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.1 miles southwest of the project site within Tijuana River Valley Regional Park (CDFW 2020). A rare plant reference check was performed for sea dahlia. Sea dahlia was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum ocellated Humboldt lily None/None/4.2/None/N one Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Riparian woodland; openings/perennial bulbiferous herb/Mar– July(Aug)/95–5,905 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there is no woodland or forest on-site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020; CCH 2020). Ocellated Humboldt lily was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Lycium californicum California box-thorn None/None/4.2/None/N one Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub/perennial shrub/ (Dec)Mar,June,July,Aug/15–490 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there is no bluff scrub on-site. The closest known occurrence is approximately 1.4 miles west of the project site along Otay River (CCH 2020). California box- thorn was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. California box thorn can be easily observed year-round. Nakano Project Page 19 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha small- flowered microseris None/None/4.2/None/N one Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; clay/annual herb/Mar– May/45–3,510 Observed on-site. Mobergia calculiformis light gray lichen None/None/3/None/ None Coastal scrub (?); On rocks/crustose lichen (saxicolous)/N.A./30–35 Low potential to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there are no rocks on- site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020; CCH 2020). Cryptogamic crusts are limited on-site due to invasion of many non- natives to the site. Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lanata felt-leaved monardella None/None/1B.2/ Narrow Endemic/ Covered Chaparral, Cismontane woodland/perennial rhizomatous herb/June– Aug/980–5,165 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Monardella stoneana Jennifer’s monardella None/None/1B.2/ None/None Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Riparian scrub; usually rocky intermittent streambeds/ perennial herb/June–Sep/30– 2,590 Low potential to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and riparian scrub present; however, there is no rocky intermittent streambed on-site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 20 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Monardella viminea willowy monardella FE/SE/1B.1/Narrow Endemic/Covered Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Riparian forest, Riparian scrub, Riparian woodland; alluvial ephemeral washes/perennial herb/June–Aug/160–740 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and riparian scrub present; however, there are no alluvial ephemeral washes on-site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). However, a late season rare plant survey will be performed for willowy monardella. Mucronea californica California spineflower None/None/4.2/None/N one Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; sandy/annual herb/Mar– July(Aug)/0–4,590 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present; however, there are no coastal dunes on-site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020; CCH 2020). California spineflower was not observed during rare plant surveys during May. Myosurus minimus ssp. apus little mousetail None/None/3.1/None/N one Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools (alkaline)/annual herb/Mar–June/65–2,095 Low potential to occur. There is suitable grassland habitat present; however, there is no alkaline soil on-site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.8 miles southeast of the project site east of the head of Dennery Canyon (CDFW 2020). No vernal pools are present on-site. Little mousetail was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Nama stenocarpa mud nama None/None/2B.2/ None/None Marshes and swamps (lake margins, riverbanks)/annual / perennial herb/Jan–July/15– 1,640 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.0 mile southeast of the project site in Otay Mesa mapped in 2005; however, the exact location is unknown (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 21 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Navarretia fossalis spreading navarretia FT/None/1B.1/MSCP/ Narrow Endemic Chenopod scrub, Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow freshwater), Playas, Vernal pools/annual herb/Apr– June/95–2,145 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the project site west of Dennery Canyon (CDFW 2020). Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal pool navarretia None/None/1B.2/ None/None Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline), Vernal pools; Mesic/annual herb/Apr– July/5–3,965 Low potential to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there is no alkaline soil on-site. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata coast woolly- heads None/None/1B.2/ None/None Coastal dunes/annual herb/Apr–Sep/0–330 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.2 miles northwest of the project site within the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve in southeast San Diego Bay (CDFW 2020). Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis slender cottonheads None/None/2B.2/ None/None Coastal dunes, Desert dunes, Sonoran desert scrub/annual herb/(Mar)Apr–May/-,165– 1,310 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.6 miles south of the project site along the Tijuana River (CDFW 2020). Ophioglossum californicum California adder’s- tongue None/None/4.2/None/ None Chaparral, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools (margins); mesic/perennial rhizomatous herb/(Dec)Jan– June/195–1,720 Not expected to occur. There is suitable grassland habitat present. The closest known occurrence is approximately 4.0 miles north of the project site within Rice Canyon (CCH 2020). California adder’s tongue was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. The site has limited cryptogamic crusts which is the typical habitat of California adder’s tongue. Nakano Project Page 22 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass FE/SE/1B.1/MSCP/ Narrow Endemic Vernal pools/annual herb/Apr– Aug/45–2,165 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the project site near the headwaters of Dennery Canyon (CDFW 2020). Ornithostaphylos oppositifolia Baja California birdbush None/SE/2B.1/None/ None Chaparral/perennial evergreen shrub/Jan–Apr/180–2,620 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.0 miles southwest of the project site along the U.S./Mexico International Border (CDFW 2020). Orobanche parishii ssp. brachyloba short-lobed broomrape None/None/4.2/None/N one Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub; sandy/perennial herb (parasitic)/Apr–Oct/5–1,000 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there are no coastal dunes or bluff scrub on-site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.7 miles northwest of the project site along the Coronado Peninsula at Silver Strand State Park (CDFW 2020). Short-lobed broomrape was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Pentachaeta aurea ssp. aurea golden-rayed pentachaeta None/None/4.2/None/N one Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland/annual herb/Mar– July/260–6,065 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present; however, there is no woodland or forest habitat on-site. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020; CCH 2020). Golden-rayed pentachaeta was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Nakano Project Page 23 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Phacelia stellaris Brand’s star phacelia None/None/1B.1/ None/None Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub/annual herb/Mar– June/0–1,310 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there are no coastal dunes on-site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Brand’s star phacelia was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Pickeringia montana var. tomentosa woolly chaparral-pea None/None/4.3/None/N one Chaparral; Gabbroic, granitic, clay/evergreen shrub/May– Aug/0–5,575 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020; CCH 2020). Piperia cooperi chaparral rein orchid None/None/4.2/None/N one Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial herb/Mar– June/45–5,200 Not expected to occur. There is suitable grassland habitat present; however, there are no woodlands on-site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020; CCH 2020). Chaparral rein orchid was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Pogogyne abramsii San Diego mesa mint FE/SE/1B.1/None/ Narrow Endemic Vernal pools/annual herb/Mar–July/295–655 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Pogogyne nudiuscula Otay Mesa mint FE/SE/1B.1/MSCP/ Narrow Endemic Vernal pools/annual herb/May–July/295–820 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the project site north of Otay Mesa Road (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 24 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Quercus dumosa Nuttall’s scrub oak None/None/1B.1/ None/None Closed-cone coniferous forest, Chaparral, Coastal scrub; sandy, clay loam/perennial evergreen shrub/Feb– Apr(May–Aug)/45–1,310 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and sandy, clay loam soil present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.0 mile southeast of the project site at the head of a tributary of Dennery Canyon (CDFW 2020). Nuttall’s scrub oak was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak None/None/4.2/None/N one Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial deciduous tree/Mar–June/160–4,265 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020; CCH 2020). Ribes viburnifolium Santa Catalina Island currant None/None/1B.2/ None/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland/perennial evergreen shrub/Feb–Apr/95–1,145 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.9 miles southwest of the project site along the side of Goat Canyon (CDFW 2020). Romneya coulteri Coulter’s matilija poppy None/None/4.2/None/N one Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Often in burns/perennial rhizomatous herb/Mar– July(Aug)/65–3,935 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present. The closest known occurrence is approximately 4.3 miles north of the project site within Sweetwater Valley (CCH 2020). Coulter’s matilaja poppy was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Rosa minutifolia small-leaved rose None/SE/2B.1/None/ Covered Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial deciduous shrub/Jan–June/490–525 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.6 miles south of the project site within Otay Valley Regional Park (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 25 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Salvia munzii Munz’s sage None/None/2B.2/ None/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial evergreen shrub/Feb–Apr/375–3,490 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.7 miles east of the project site between Johnson Canyon and O’Neal Canyon (CDFW 2020). Selaginella cinerascens ashy spike- moss None/None/4.1/None/N one Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial rhizomatous herb/N.A./65–2,095 Observed on-site. Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort None/None/2B.2/ None/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub; sometimes alkaline/annual herb/Jan–Apr(May)/45–2,620 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there is no woodland or alkaline soil on-site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.7 miles northwest of the project site within Silver Strand State Park (CDFW 2020). Chaparral ragwort was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Solanum xanti Purple nightshade None/None/None/ MSCP/Covered Coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest/perennial herb / perennial shrub/June–July/0– 8,855 Not expected to occur. This species does not have a CRPR rank (CNPS 2020) and is not known to occur within the vicinity (CDFW 2020). Sphaerocarpos drewei bottle liverwort None/None/1B.1/ None/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub; openings, soil/ephemeral liverwort/N.A./295–1,965 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, there are no openings on-site. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Many of the cryptogamic crusts on-site are heavily disturbed by non-native annual grasses. Nakano Project Page 26 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Stemodia durantifolia purple stemodia None/None/2B.1/ None/None Sonoran desert scrub (often mesic, sandy)/perennial herb/(Jan)Apr,June,Aug,Sep,Oc t, Dec/590–985 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence overlaps the project site recorded in 1928; however, the location information is vague and needs field work checking (CDFW 2020). Stipa diegoensis San Diego County needle grass None/None/4.2/None/N one Chaparral, Coastal scrub; rocky, often mesic/perennial herb/Feb–June/30–2,620 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present. The closest known occurrence is approximately 0.9 miles northeast of the project site northwest of Otay landfill (CCH 2020). San Diego county needlegrass was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Streptanthus bernardinus Laguna Mountains jewelflower None/None/4.3/None/N one Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest/perennial herb/May–Aug/2,195–8,200 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and there is no suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.6 mile east of the project site within the vicinity of Upper and Lower Otay Lakes; however, the exact location is unknown (CDFW 2020). Stylocline citroleum oil neststraw None/None/1B.1/ None/None Chenopod scrub, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; clay/annual herb/Mar–Apr/160–1,310 Not expected to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub and grassland habitat present. However, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Oil neststraw was not observed during rare plant surveys in May. Nakano Project Page 27 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR/ MSCP Chula Vista/ San Diego MSCP) Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet amsl) Potential to Occur Suaeda esteroa estuary seablite None/None/1B.2/ None/None Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/perennial herb/(May)July– Oct(Jan)/0–15 Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.9 miles northwest of the project site near the mouth of Telegraph Canyon (CDFW 2020). Tetracoccus dioicus Parry’s tetracoccus None/None/1B.2/ Covered/Covered Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial deciduous shrub/Apr–May/540–3,280 Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.6 mile east of the project site near the vicinity of Otay Mesa and the San Ysidro Mountains; however, the exact location is unknown (CDFW 2020). Tortula californica California screw-moss None/None/1B.2/ None/None Chenopod scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; sandy, soil/moss/N.A./30–4,790 Not expected to occur. There is suitable grassland habitat present. However, there are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Cryptogamic crusts are limited on-site due to non-native annual grasses dominated areas with potential for cryptogamic crusts. Viguiera laciniata San Diego County viguiera None/None/4.3/None/ None Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial shrub/Feb– June (Aug)/195–2,460 Observed on-site. Nakano Project Page 28 Attachment 9 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank; MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program; amsl = above mean sea level; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database. Vicinity refers to Imperial Beach USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and surrounding quadrangles, including Point Loma, National City, Jamul Mountains, and Otay Mesa (CDFW 2020). Status Designations The federal and state status of species primarily is based on the Special Animals List (August 2019), California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Federal Designations: FE: Federally Endangered FT: Federally Threatened State Designations: SE: State Endangered SR: State Rare CRPR Ranking: CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere CRPR 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere CRPR 3: Review List: Plants about which more information is needed CRPR 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution .1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) MSCP Designations: MSCP Chula Vista (City of Chula Vista 2003): City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan species with known occurrences or suitable habitat within the Chula Vista Subarea (Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Species Table 4-2) San Diego MSCP: San Diego Land Development Code Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018) Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Nakano Project Page 29 References Cited California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2019 “Special Animals List.” California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. August 2019. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data /CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals. 2020 RareFind, Version 5. (Commercial Subscription). California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Chula Vista, City of 2003 City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February 2003. Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH) 2020 CCH1: Featuring California Vascular Plant Data from the Consortium of California Herbaria and Other Sources. Online database with specimen records from 36 institutions. Accessed May 2020. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. San Diego, City of 2018 San Diego Municipal Code, Land Development Code—Biology Guidelines. Amended February 1, 2018, by Resolution No. R-311507. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/amendment_to_the_land_development_manual_biolo gy_guidelines_february_2018_-_clean.pdf. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Nakano Project Page 1 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur AMPHIBIANS Anaxyrus californicus arroyo toad FE/SSC/Covered/Covered Semi-arid areas near washes, sandy riverbanks, riparian areas, palm oasis, Joshua tree, mixed chaparral and sagebrush; stream channels for breeding (typically third order); adjacent stream terraces and uplands for foraging and wintering Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known geographic range, and the riparian habitats on-site are densely vegetated and lack suitable sandy banks for breeding. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Spea hammondii western spadefoot None/SSC/None/None Primarily grassland and vernal pools, but also in ephemeral wetlands that persist at least 3 weeks in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley–foothill woodlands, pastures, and other agriculture Low potential to occur. There is grassland present; however, it is highly disturbed and no suitable ephemeral wetland habitat was observed during surveys. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.8 miles southeast of the project site within the Dennery Canyon Vernal Pool Reserve (CDFW 2020). REPTILES Actinemys pallida southwestern pond turtle None/SSC/Covered/Covered Slow-moving permanent or intermittent streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs with emergent basking sites; adjacent uplands used for nesting and during winter Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known geographic range and there is no suitable habitat present. This species is not known to occur within the vicinity (CDFW 2020). Anniella stebbinsi southern California legless lizard None/SSC/None/None Coastal dunes, stabilized dunes, beaches, dry washes, valley– foothill, chaparral, and scrubs; pine, oak, and riparian woodlands; associated with sparse vegetation and moist sandy or loose, loamy soils Low potential to occur. The site is highly disturbed and lacks coastal dunes, beaches, dry washes, and moist sandy soils. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.3 miles north of the project site along the south site of Melrose Avenue (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 2 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake None/SSC/None/None Commonly occurs in desert regions throughout Southern California. Prefers open sandy areas with scattered brush; also found in rocky areas Low potential to occur. The site is highly disturbed lacks open sandy areas with scattered brush. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.7 mile west of the project site mapped within the vicinity of Otay in 1946 (CDFW 2020). Aspidoscelis hyperythra orange- throated whiptail None/WL/Covered/Covered Low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley–foothill hardwood Moderate potential to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, the majority of the site is highly disturbed. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.3 miles south of the project site east of I-805 and south of Palm Avenue (CDFW 2020). Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri San Diegan tiger whiptail None/SSC/None/None Hot and dry areas with sparse foliage, including chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas Moderate potential to occur. There is suitable riparian and scrub habitat present; however, the majority of the site is highly disturbed and lacks sparse foliage. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Chelonia mydas green sea turtle FT/None/None/None Shallow waters of lagoons, bays, estuaries, mangroves, eelgrass, and seaweed beds Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.9 miles northwest of the project site within south San Diego Bay (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 3 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Crotalus ruber red diamond rattlesnake None/SSC/None/None Coastal scrub, chaparral, oak and pine woodlands, rocky grasslands, cultivated areas, and desert flats Low potential to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, it is limited in size and the majority of the site is highly disturbed. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.0 mile north of the project site within Poggi Canyon (CDFW 2020). Masticophis fuliginosus Baja California coachwhip None/SSC/None/None In California restricted to southern San Diego County, where it is known from grassland and coastal sage scrub; open areas in grassland and coastal sage scrub Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known geographic range. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.7 miles west of the project site in Otay, recorded in 1936 (CDFW 2020). Phrynosoma blainvillii Blainville’s horned lizard None/SSC/Covered/Covered Open areas of sandy soil in valleys, foothills, and semi-arid mountains including coastal scrub, chaparral, valley–foothill hardwood, conifer, riparian, pine–cypress, juniper, and annual grassland habitats Low potential to occur. There is some suitable coastal scrub habitat present; however, it’s limited in size and the site lacks open areas of sandy soil. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.6 miles south of the project site and south of Otay Mesa Road (CDFW 2020). Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis Coronado skink None/WL/None/None Woodlands, grasslands, pine forests, and chaparral; rocky areas near water Low potential to occur. There is grassland present; however, it’s highly disturbed and the site lacks rocky areas near water. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.7 miles southwest of the project site along the north side of Tijuana River (CDFW 2020). Salvadora hexalepis virgultea coast patch- nosed snake None/SSC/None/None Brushy or shrubby vegetation; requires small mammal burrows for refuge and overwintering sites Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known geographic range. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 4 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Thamnophis hammondii two-striped gartersnake None/SSC/None/None Streams, creeks, pools, streams with rocky beds, ponds, lakes, vernal pools Not expected to occur. The Otay River may provide suitable habitat for this species, but there is no suitable habitat within the site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.7 miles southwest of the project site along the north side of Tijuana River (CDFW 2020). BIRDS Accipiter cooperii (nesting) Cooper’s hawk None/WL/Covered/Covered Nests and forages in dense stands of live oak, riparian woodlands, or other woodland habitats often near water Moderate potential to nest and forage within the southern willow scrub or southern riparian scrub on site. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Agelaius tricolor (nesting colony) tricolored blackbird BCC/SSC, ST/Covered/Covered Nests near freshwater, emergent wetland with cattails or tules, but also in Himalayan blackberrry; forages in grasslands, woodland, and agriculture Not expected to occur. No suitable nesting habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.9 mile north of the project site north or Otay River in Chula Vista (CDFW 2020). Aimophila ruficeps canescens Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow None/WL/Covered/Covered Nests and forages in open coastal scrub and chaparral with low cover of scattered scrub interspersed with rocky and grassy patches Low potential to occur. There is limited suitable coastal scrub and the grassland present is highly disturbed. Species not observed during surveys. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.8 miles northeast of the project site along the west slope of Wolf Canyon (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 5 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Aquila chrysaetos (nesting & wintering) golden eagle BCC/FP, WL/Covered/Covered Nests and winters in hilly, open/semi-open areas, including shrublands, grasslands, pastures, riparian areas, mountainous canyon land, open desert rimrock terrain; nests in large trees and on cliffs in open areas and forages in open habitats Not expected to occur. This species is not known to occur within the vicinity (CDFW 2020). Artemisiospiza belli belli Bell’s sage sparrow BCC/WL/None/None Nests and forages in coastal scrub and dry chaparral; typically in large, unfragmented patches dominated by chamise; nests in more dense patches but uses more open habitat in winter Low potential to occur. There is suitable coastal scrub present; however, it’s limited in size and adjacent to existing development. This species was not observed during surveys. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Athene cunicularia (burrow sites & some wintering sites) burrowing owl BCC/SSC/Covered/Covered Nests and forages in grassland, open scrub, and agriculture, particularly with ground squirrel burrows Moderate potential to forage in suitable open habitats; however, low potential for nesting sue to lack of suitable burrows. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2.9 miles southeast of the project site southeast of the intersection of Otay Mesa Road and Cactus Road (CDFW 2020). Buteo regalis (wintering) ferruginous hawk BCC/WL/None/None Winters and forages in open, dry country, grasslands, open fields, agriculture Not expected to occur. This species is not known to occur within the vicinity (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 6 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Buteo swainsoni (nesting) Swainson’s hawk BCC/ST/None/None Nests in open woodland and savanna, riparian, and in isolated large trees; forages in nearby grasslands and agricultural areas such as wheat and alfalfa fields and pasture Not expected to nest; low potential to forage in grassland habitat present. The site is limited in size, adjacent to existing development and I-805, and is highly disturbed. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis (San Diego & Orange Counties only) coastal cactus wren BCC/SSC/Covered/Covered Southern cactus scrub patches Low potential to occur. The site lacks suitable large patches of cactus scrub. The closest known CNDDB occurrence overlaps the southeast corner of the project site recorded in 1988 (CDFW 2020). Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (nesting) western snowy plover FT, BCC/SSC/Covered/Covered On coasts nests on sandy marine and estuarine shores; in the interior nests on sandy, barren or sparsely vegetated flats near saline or alkaline lakes, reservoirs, and ponds Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.2 miles west of the project site near San Diego Bay (CDFW 2020). Circus hudsonius (nesting) northern harrier None/SSC/Covered/Covered Nests in open wetlands (marshy meadows, wet lightly-grazed pastures, old fields, freshwater and brackish marshes); also in drier habitats (grassland and grain fields); forages in grassland, scrubs, rangelands, emergent wetlands, and other open habitats Not expected to nest, low potential to forage in grassland or scrub habitat. The site is highly disturbed, lacks marshy wetlands, and occurs adjacent to existing development. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.8 miles southeast of the project site north of Otay Mesa Road (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 7 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Coccyzus americanus occidentalis (nesting) western yellow- billed cuckoo FT, BCC/SE/None/None Nests in dense, wide riparian woodlands and forest with well- developed understories Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known geographic range and there is no suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.9 miles north of the project site along Sweetwater River near Bonita (CDFW 2020). Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail BCC/SSC/None/None Nesting requires wet marsh/sedge meadows or coastal marshes with wet soil and shallow, standing water Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Empidonax traillii extimus (nesting) southwestern willow flycatcher FE/SE/Covered/Covered Nests in dense riparian habitats along streams, reservoirs, or wetlands; uses variety of riparian and shrubland habitats during migration Not expected to occur. Though a willow flycatcher was observed during 2020 least Bell’s vireo surveys that could not be identified to species, it is assumed that the individual identified was not the correct subspecies due to lack of suitable habitat. Nesting habitat is associated with large patches of well-developed riparian woodland 0.8 ha (2 ac) or greater with standing water or saturated soils; linear patches that are less than 10 m are not typically used for nesting (Sogge et al. 2010). In addition, breeding populations are restricted in San Diego County and are not known from the vicinity. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 8 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark None/WL/None/None Nests and forages in grasslands, disturbed lands, agriculture, and beaches; nests in alpine fell fields of the Sierra Nevada Low potential to occur. Grassland is present; however, the site is limited in size and adjacent to existing development, including I-805. Species not observed during surveys. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.1 miles southeast of the project site in Otay Mesa (CDFW 2020). Falco peregrinus anatum (nesting) American peregrine falcon FDL, BCC/FP, SDL/Covered/Covered Nests on cliffs, buildings, and bridges; forages in wetlands, riparian, meadows, croplands, especially where waterfowl are present Not expected to occur. No suitable nesting habitat present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Haliaeetus leucocephalus (nesting & wintering) bald eagle FDL, BCC/FP, SE/None/None Nests in forested areas adjacent to large bodies of water, including seacoasts, rivers, swamps, large lakes; winters near large bodies of water in lowlands and mountains Not expected to occur. No suitable nesting habitat present. This species is not known to occur within the vicinity (CDFW 2020). Icteria virens (nesting) yellow-breasted chat None/SSC/None/None Nests and forages in dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush Not expected to nest; low potential to forage within on-site riparian scrub. Observed outside of the project area, along Otay River during a focused riparian bird survey. The site lacks dense riparian woodlands. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2.7 miles east of the project site southwest of Lower Otay Reservoir (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 9 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail BCC/FP, ST/None/None Tidal marshes, shallow freshwater margins, wet meadows, and flooded grassy vegetation; suitable habitats are often supplied by canal leakage in Sierra Nevada foothill populations Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.8 miles southwest of the project site near the mouth of the Tijuana River (CDFW 2020) Pandion haliaetus (nesting) osprey None/WL/None/None Large waters (lakes, reservoirs, rivers) supporting fish; usually near forest habitats, but widely observed along the coast Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.3 miles northwest of the project site near the Chula Vista Bayfront Park (CDFW 2020). Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Belding’s savannah sparrow None/SE/Covered/Covered Nests and forages in coastal saltmarsh dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.) Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.3 miles west of the project site near the Otay River mouth (CDFW 2020). Pelecanus occidentalis californicus (nesting colonies & communal roosts) California brown pelican FDL/FP, SDL/Covered/Covered Forages in warm coastal marine and estuarine environments; in California, nests on dry, rocky offshore islands Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Phalacrocorax auritus (nesting colony) double-crested cormorant None/WL/None/None Nests in riparian trees near ponds, lakes, artificial impoundments, slow-moving rivers, lagoons, estuaries, and open coastlines; winter habitat includes lakes, rivers, and coastal areas Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 10 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Plegadis chihi (nesting colony) white-faced ibis None/WL/Covered/Covered Nests in shallow marshes with areas of emergent vegetation; winter foraging in shallow lacustrine waters, flooded agricultural fields, muddy ground of wet meadows, marshes, ponds, lakes, rivers, flooded fields, and estuaries Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known geographic range and there is no suitable vegetation present. This species is not known to occur within the vicinity (CDFW 2020). Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher FT/SSC/Covered/Covered Nests and forages in various sage scrub communities, often dominated by California sagebrush and buckwheat; generally avoids nesting in areas with a slope of greater than 40%; majority of nesting at less than 1,000 feet above mean sea level Observed within the coastal sage scrub within the southern portion of the site. There is suitable coastal scrub habitat present. One pair was observed during all three focused surveys for this species. The closest known CNDDB occurrence overlaps the southeast corner of the project site along the hills south of Otay River Valley (CDFW 2020). Rallus obsoletus levipes Ridgway’s rail FE/SE, FP/Covered/Covered Coastal wetlands, brackish areas, coastal saline emergent wetlands Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.2 miles west of the project site within the San Diego Bay marshes (CDFW 2020). Setophaga petechia (nesting) yellow warbler BCC/SSC/None/None Nests and forages in riparian and oak woodlands, montane chaparral, open ponderosa pine, and mixed-conifer habitats Observed foraging during focused riparian bird survey. Not expected to nest. The site lacks suitable riparian woodland nesting habitat. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.8 miles north of the project site along Sweetwater River corridor (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 11 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Sialia mexicana western bluebird None/None/Covered/Covered Nests in old-growth red fir, mixed- conifer, and lodegpole pine habitats near wet meadows used for foraging Observed foraging during focused riparian bird survey. Not expected to nest. No suitable nesting habitat present. This species is not known to occur within the vicinity (CDFW 2020). Sternula antillarum browni (nesting colony) California least tern FE/FP, SE/Covered/Covered Forages in shallow estuaries and lagoons; nests on sandy beaches or exposed tidal flats Not expected to occur. No suitable nesting habitat present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.9 miles west of the project site near salt pond dikes in south San Diego Bay (CDFW 2020). Thalasseus elegans (nesting colony) elegant tern None/WL/Covered/Covered Inshore coastal waters, bays, estuaries, and harbors; forages over open water Not expected to occur. This species is not known to occur within the vicinity (CDFW 2020). Vireo bellii pusillus (nesting) least Bell’s vireo FE/SE/Covered/Covered Nests and forages in low, dense riparian thickets along water or along dry parts of intermittent streams; forages in riparian and adjacent shrubland late in nesting season Observed within the southern willow scrub just south of the site. One pair was observed foraging within the southern willow scrub during focused surveys. Two additional males were observed. There are multiple CNDDB occurrences within the Otay River approximately 0.04 mile north of the site. FISHES Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10 southern steelhead - southern California DPS FE/None/None/None Clean, clear, cool, well-oxygenated streams; needs relatively deep pools in migration and gravelly substrate to spawn Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known geographic range and there is no suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2.6 miles south of the project site within the Tijuana River (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 12 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur MAMMALS Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None/SSC/None/None Grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, forests; most common in open, dry habitats with rocky outcrops for roosting, but also roosts in man-made structures and trees Not expected to roost; moderate potential to forage in grassland on site. The site lacks rocky outcrops, trees, and man-made structures suitable for roosting. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2.4 miles southwest of the project site near Southwestern Jr. High School (CDFW 2020). Chaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern San Diego pocket mouse None/SSC/None/None Coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, sagebrush, desert wash, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub, pinyon–juniper, and annual grassland Low potential to occur. There is very limited suitable coastal scrub, and the grassland present is highly disturbed. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.0 mile southeast of the project site south of Otay River (CDFW 2020). Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican long- tongued bat None/SSC/None/None Desert and montane riparian, desert succulent scrub, desert scrub, and pinyon–juniper woodland; roosts in caves, mines, and buildings Not expected to roost; moderate potential to forage in riparian scrub on site. The site lacks caves, mines, and buildings suitable for roosting. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.6 miles west of the project site near Imperial Beach (CDFW 2020). Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big- eared bat None/SSC/None/None Mesic habitats characterized by coniferous and deciduous forests and riparian habitat, but also xeric areas; roosts in limestone caves and lava tubes, man-made structures, and tunnels Not expected to roost; low potential to forage in riparian habitat. The site lacks caves and man-made structures suitable for roosting. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 13 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat None/SSC/None/None Chaparral, coastal and desert scrub, coniferous and deciduous forest and woodland; roosts in crevices in rocky canyons and cliffs where the canyon or cliff is vertical or nearly vertical, trees, and tunnels Not expected to roost; moderate potential to forage in scrub habitat on site. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.1 miles west of the project site in Otay (CDFW 2020). Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat None/SSC/None/None Forest, woodland, riparian, mesquite bosque, and orchards, including fig, apricot, peach, pear, almond, walnut, and orange; roosts in tree canopy Not expected to occur. The site is highly disturbed and lacks woodland and orchard habitat. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat None/SSC/None/None Valley–foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats; below 2,000 feet above mean sea level; roosts in riparian and palms Not expected to occur. The site is highly disturbed within very limited riparian scrub and occurs adjacent to existing development, including I-805. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit None/SSC/None/None Arid habitats with open ground; grasslands, coastal scrub, agriculture, disturbed areas, and rangelands Low potential to occur. The site is highly disturbed within very limited suitable habitat for this species and occurs adjacent to existing development, including I-805. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the project site along the western slope of Wolf Canyon (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 14 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat None/SSC/None/None Coastal scrub, desert scrub, chaparral, cacti, rocky areas Not expected to occur. There is very limited suitable coastal scrub habitat present and the site is adjacent to existing development, including I-805. No woodrat middens were observed during surveys within the coastal sage scrub. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.0 miles southeast of the project site west of Brown Field Naval Air Station (CDFW 2020). Nyctinomops femorosaccus pocketed free- tailed bat None/SSC/None/None Pinyon–juniper woodlands, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub, desert riparian, desert wash, alkali desert scrub, Joshua tree, and palm oases; roosts in high cliffs or rock outcrops with drop-offs, caverns, and buildings Not expected to roost or forage on site. The site lacks cliffs, rock outcrops, and buildings suitable for roosting and suitable desert habitat for foraging. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.4 miles northwest of the project site in Chula Vista (CDFW 2020). Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat None/SSC/None/None Rocky areas; roosts in caves, holes in trees, buildings, and crevices on cliffs and rocky outcrops; forages over water Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Odocoileus hemionus mule deer None/None/Covered/Covered Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, riparian, woodlands, and forest; often browses in open area adjacent to cover throughout California, except deserts and intensely farmed areas Low potential to occur. This site is highly disturbed and adjacent to existing development, including I-805. This species may use the Otay River corridor but has low potential to browse on site. This species is not known to occur within the vicinity (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 15 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Perognathus longimembris pacificus Pacific pocket mouse FE/SSC/None/None fine-grained sandy substrates in open coastal strand, coastal dunes, and river alluvium Not expected to occur. The site lacks coastal strand, dunes, and river alluvium. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.1 miles southwest of the project site within the Lower Tijuana River Valley (CDFW 2020). Puma concolor cougar None/None/Covered/Covered Scrubs, chaparral, riparian, woodland, and forest; rests in rocky areas and on cliffs and ledges that provide cover; most abundant in riparian areas and brushy stages of most habitats throughout California, except deserts Not expected to occur. Due to the proximity to existing development and I-805, the site’s high level of disturbance and limited size this species is not expected to occur This species is not known to occur within the vicinity (CDFW 2020). Taxidea taxus American badger None/SSC/None/None Dry, open, treeless areas; grasslands, coastal scrub, agriculture, and pastures, especially with friable soils Low potential to occur. Due to the proximity to existing development and I- 805, and the site’s high level of disturbance this species has low potential to occur. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.2 miles northeast of the project site within Poggi Canyon (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 16 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur INVERTEBRATES Bombus crotchii Crotch’s bumble bee None/PSE/None/None Open grassland and scrub communities supporting suitable floral resources. Nesting occurs underground, often in abandoned holes made by rodents, or occasionally abandoned bird nests. Near-surface or subsurface disturbance such as mowing, fire, tilling, grazing, and planting may preclude nesting colonies (Xerces Society 2018). Moderate potential to forage on-site due to available nectar sources on-site; however, low potential to nest due to lack of suitable burrows, history of tilling from prior agricultural use, and dense vegetation present throughout a majority of the site. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp FE/None/Covered/Covered Vernal pools, non-vegetated ephemeral pools Low potential to occur. There are clay soils on site; however, there are no vernal pools. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.8 miles south of the project site within San Ysidro in natural and artificial seasonal wetlands and were planned for translocation; the site has since been developed (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 17 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Chula Vista MSCP/ San Diego MSCP) Habitat Potential to Occur Euphydryas editha quino Quino checkerspot butterfly FE/None/Covered/None Annual forblands, grassland, open coastal scrub and chaparral; often soils with cryptogamic crusts and fine-textured clay; host plants include Plantago erecta, Antirrhinum coulterianum, and Plantago patagonica (Silverado Occurrence Complex) Not expected to occur. Although the project site occurs within the USFWS survey area for the species, it does not occur within the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan 2000 QCB Survey Area. The project site lacks this species host plant and the majority of the site is highly disturbed and surrounded by existing development. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.8 miles east of the project site in Otay Mesa (CDFW 2020). Lycaena hermes Hermes copper FC/None/None/None Mixed woodlands, chaparral, and coastal scrub Low potential to occur. There is no spiny rushberry (Rhamnus crocea) host plant on site. There are no known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (CDFW 2020). Panoquina errans wandering skipper None/None/None/None Saltmarsh Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 4.3 miles southwest of the project site within the Tijuana Estuary National Wildlife Refuge (CDFW 2020). Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp FE/None/Covered/Covered Vernal pools, non-vegetated ephemeral pools Low potential to occur. There are clay soils on site; however, there are no vernal pools. The closest known CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the project site within the Robinhood Ridge vernal pool preserve (CDFW 2020). Nakano Project Page 18 Attachment 10 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database. Vicinity refers to Imperial Beach USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and surrounding quadrangles, including Point Loma, National City, Jamul Mountains, and Otay Mesa (CDFW 2020). Status Designations The federal and state status of species primarily is based on the Special Animals List (August 2019), California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Federal Designations: FE: Federally Endangered FT: Federally Threatened FC: Federal Candidate BCC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern FDL: Federally Delisted State Designations: SE: State Endangered ST: State Threatened SSC: California Species of Special Concern FP: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Protected and Fully Protected Species WL: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Watch List PSE: Proposed State Endangered SDL: State Delisted MSCP Designations: MSCP Chula Vista (City of Chula Vista 2003): City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan species with known occurrences or suitable habitat within the Chula Vista Subarea (Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Species Table 4-2) San Diego MSCP: San Diego Land Development Code Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018). Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Area Nakano Project Page 19 References Cited California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2019 “Special Animals List.” California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. August 2019. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB /Plants-and-Animals. 2020 RareFind, Version 5. (Commercial Subscription). California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/ cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Chula Vista, City of 2003 City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February 2003. San Diego, City of 2018 San Diego Municipal Code, Land Development Code—Biology Guidelines. Amended February 1, 2018, by Resolution No. R-311507. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files /amendment_to_the_land_development_manual_biology_guidelines_february_2018_-_clean.pdf Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 11 2011 MSCP Annual Report Excerpt with Helix Memo HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 Memorandum Date: July 18, 2011 To: Kristy Forburger From: Bruce McIntyre Subject: Nakano Project This memorandum has been prepared to provide information requested by the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG). The information is intended to provide evidence that the proposed transfer of the Nakano property from the City of Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan (SAP) to the City of San Diego’s SAP will not affect the integrity of the MSCP commitments of either of the two jurisdictions nor would it jeopardize any of the sensitive biological resources associated with the project site. In addition, this memorandum is intended to provide support for the City of San Diego’s proposal to amend its SAP to include the property following annexation of the property without seeking formal approval from the Resource Agencies under the provisions of Section 5.4.3 of the MSCP Implementing Agreement. Under this section, an amendment to a SAP is allowed provided the conservation policies of the two SAPs involved in the transfer are consistent with one another. The conservation policies of both SAPs are consistent given the fact that both were prepared in accordance with the MSCP and its Implementing Agreement. As a result, the City of San Diego believes no formal Resource Agency approval is required to amend its SAP to include the Nakano property once annexation into the City of San Diego is approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Similarly, the City of San Diego believes that the Take Authorizations of its SAP would be applicable to the Nakano property upon annexation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project Location/Description The Nakano property consists of 23.8 acres, located south of the Otay River and east of Interstate 805. The property is currently within the City of Chula Vista (see Figure 2-3 from the EIR [attached]). However, the land to the east, south and west all lies within the City of San Diego. The property is located within the boundary of the Otay River Valley Regional Park (OVRP), which is a combined planning effort of both the County of San Diego and cities of Chula Vista and San Diego. The Page 2 of 5 Memorandum (cont.) HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 Conceptual Plan for the OVRP designates the subject property for recreational uses (see Figure 5.1-6 from the EIR [attached]). This designation (Recreation Area 8) covers the Nakano property and another property to the north, known as the Davies Property. According to the Concept Plan, the project site is intended for a variety of active or passive recreational uses. It also is intended to provide staging areas, and viewpoint and overlook areas, as appropriate. As indicated in the OVRP Concept Plan, recreation areas are intentionally located outside of the boundaries of MSCP preserve areas to avoid interfering with the habitat protection function of these preserve areas. Accordingly, as illustrated in Figure 5.4-3 of the EIR (attached), the Nakano property is located outside of the City of Chula Vista’s preserve area. Future development of the Nakano property is expected to entail a community park on approximately 11 acres and an institutional use (e.g. church) on approximately five acres. Approximately, three acres of the southern slope would be placed in a covenant of easement for non-MHPA lands. It is anticipated that the community park will include recreational uses oriented toward the OVRP including a planned trail on the south side of the Otay River. Biological Resources The entire parcel is currently undeveloped, although a large portion of it was previously used for agriculture. On site sensitive biological resources include two wetland and two upland vegetation communities. The wetland communities (southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub) occur along a drainage in the eastern portion of the site. The upland community of Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs along the southern slope. The other upland community (non-native grassland) occurs over the remainder of the site (Figure 5.4-1 of the EIR [attached]). Two sensitive plants are located within the Diegan coastal sage scrub: California adolphia (Adolphia californica) (17 individuals) and coast barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) (3 individuals). No narrow endemic species were observed on site. The following four sensitive wildlife species were observed or detected on site: red diamond rattlesnake, white-tailed kite, American peregrine falcon, and coastal California gnatcatcher. Thirteen other sensitive species are either known to occur in the project vicinity or have potential to occur on site. Of those with a potential to occur, three are state and/or federally listed species: Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Protocol surveys conducted in 2005 for the Quino checkerspot did not find this species. The southwestern willow flycatchers and least Bell’s vireo were not observed on site, and are not likely to occur because no appropriate habitat exists on site for either species. The burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea [Athen cunicularia]), a State Species of Special Concern, has the potential to occur within the non-native grassland habitat onsite. In addition, just west of the project site, eucalyptus trees border the entire property. These trees may provide nesting habitat for raptors. Page 3 of 5 Memorandum (cont.) HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 EIR Mitigation Future development of the site is expected to impact non-native grassland (17.75 acres), Diegan coastal sage scrub (1.89 acres), southern willow scrub (0.17 acres) and mule fat scrub (0.02 acres). Mitigation Measures 5.4-2 and 5.4-5 will require impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland to be mitigated through acquisition of Tier II and Tier IIB habitat within the MHPA or the equivalent mitigation credits, respectively. Mitigation ratios will be 1:1 for Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.5:1 for non-native grassland. The City of San Diego acknowledges that the impact to mitigation requirement for non-native grassland is too large to qualify for the City of San Diego’s Habitat Acquisition Fund. Thus, Mitigation Measure 5.4-5 will be revised in the Final EIR to remove this option. Mitigation Measure 5.4-3 of the EIR requires the applicant to purchase wetland mitigation credits in the Highland Valley Ranch Mitigation Bank or other mitigation bank, with the approval from the City of San Diego, CDFG and Corps, to mitigate wetland impacts. Although not required as mitigation for significant impacts, the City of San Diego is including in the conditions of project approval a condition that requires pre-construction surveys be conducted for the following animal species: burrowing owl and Quino checkerspot butterfly. In addition, the condition of approval will require updated rare plant surveys be conducted prior to commencing construction. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROTECTION COMPARISON Vegetation Both SAPs and related support documents (e.g., City of San Diego’s Land Development Code Biology Guidelines) consider the four vegetation types found on the property to be sensitive. As a result, mitigation ratios are established for each of these vegetation types. As indicated below, the mitigation ratios established by the City of San Diego are equal to those established by the City of Chula Vista. Consequently, the resources would be equally protected under both SAPs. Vegetation Type Mitigation Ratios1 City of Chula Vista City of San Diego Southern willow scrub 2:1 2:1 Mule fat scrub 1:1 to 2:1 2:1 Diegan coastal sage scrub 1:1 1:1 Non-native grassland 0.5:1 0.5:1 1 Assumes impact occurs outside a preserve area, and mitigation occurs inside a preserve area. Page 4 of 5 Memorandum (cont.) HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 Sensitive Plants/Wildlife The coast barrel cactus is considered to be adequately conserved by both the City of Chula Vista and the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plans. Furthermore, only one individual of this plant species would be impacted by future development of the project site. No impacts would occur to the California adolphia, which are located within the conserved open space portion of the project site. The coastal California gnatcatcher is considered to be Adequately Conserved by the City of Chula Vista’s SAP and is a Covered Species in the City of San Diego’s SAP. In addition, the City of San Diego’s SAP identifies the gnatcatcher (together with barrel cactus) as Covered Species for the Otay River Valley. It should also be noted that the majority of the gnatcatcher’s habitat onsite would be protected by the proposed covenant of easement for non-MHPA lands. Since the property lies outside of identified preserve areas of both cities, mitigation for impacts or pre-construction surveys for gnatcatchers would not be required under either SAP. Both SAP’s include identical relevant management requirements as shown in Final MSCP Subregional Plan Table 3-5 through each SAP’s conditions of coverage and Area Specific Management Directives (ASMD’s). The Final EIR would be revised to reflect how ASMD’s for each MSCP-covered species located or detected onsite (California Adolphia, Coast Barrel Cactus, and California Gnatcatcher) is addressed. Nesting Raptors Although not covered species, both SAPs provide measures intended to reduce impacts to raptors. Due to the proximity of eucalyptus trees to the project site, both cities would require a pre-construction survey and, if necessary, setbacks and/or noise reduction techniques to minimize disturbance of nesting raptors. The City of Chula Vista identifies the raptor breeding season as occurring between January 15 and July 31; while the City of San Diego identifies it as February 1 to September 15. The Final EIR will be revised to maintain a setback of 300 feet of nesting raptors during the January 15 to September 15 breeding season. Thus, the City of San Diego’s criteria encompass the City of Chula Vista’s criteria as well as an extended timeframe during the summer. Adjacency Guidelines Both SAPs identify a series of guidelines intended to regulate development which is located adjacent to a designated preserve area. However, the adjacency guidelines do not apply to the Nakano Project because it is not located adjacent to the preserve area designated by the City of Chula Vista’s SAP along the Otay River (refer to Figure 5.4-3 of the EIR attached). Therefore, a comparison of the adjacency guidelines of the two SAPs is not considered relevant to the Nakano Project. Page 5 of 5 Memorandum (cont.) HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 Nevertheless, indirect effects of future institutional and park uses on the site are addressed on pages 5.4- 8 and 9 of the EIR. For the reasons discussed on these pages, it was determined that future development would not have a significant indirect impact on the biological resources within the Otay River. Additionally, conformance with the City of San Diego’s lighting code would limit offsite illumination impacts on wildlife. Implementation of the water quality controls included in Mitigation Measures 5.8-1 through 4 would avoid significant water quality impacts on biological resources associated with the Otay River. Long-term Conservation/Management Both SAPs have guidelines intended to assure that conservation areas are adequately maintained through the life of the MSCP. However, the long-term conservation/management provisions of the two SAPs are not relevant to the Nakano property because the project site is located outside of areas identified by either SAP for long-term preservation. Although the developer is proposing to place the southerly slope and most of the associated Diegan coastal sage scrub into a covenant of easement for non-MHPA lands, the easement would not be located within a preserve area, and would be surrounded on all sides by development. Therefore, the onsite easement would not be required to meet the specific conservation and management criteria defined by either SAP. SAP INTEGRITY Transfer of the Nakano Property out of the City of Chula Vista’s SAP would not adversely affect the ability of the City of Chula Vista to fulfill its commitments under the MSCP Implementing Agreement to preserve sensitive biological resources. As discussed earlier, the Nakano property is not included in the City of Chula Vista’s preserve area. In fact, the City of Chula Vista’s SAP recognizes the fact that the property is planned for recreational uses included in the OVRP and, as such, excludes the property from the City’s designated preserve areas. Attachments: Figure 2-3 from EIR Figure 5.1-6 from EIR Figure 5.4-3 from the EIR %&s( Dennery R o a d Project Boundary Palm Avenue Ocean View Hills Parkway Main Street O t a y R i v e r R e d Coral L an e R egatta L a n e Commercial Residential Residential Commercial Medical Center Residential Residential ResidentialCommercial RecreationResidential Commercial Industrial Residential Residential Commercial Dennery Ranch Villages PA 2/3 Proposed Las Casitas City of San Diego City of Chula Vista Aerial Photograph NAKANO Figure 2-3 I:\ArcGIS\H\HEO-01 Nakano\Map\ENV\EIR\Fig2-3_Aerial.mxd -AA Job No: HEO-01 Date: 04/09/10 600 0 600300 Feet §¨¦ SAN DIEGO 80 5 S B I- 8 0 5 N B SR-905 EB OTAY DEL SOL BL O L E A N D E R A V DENNERY R D BR A N D Y W I N E A V TW I N I N G A V S T L KO S T N E R D R OC E A N V I E W H I L L S P Y MAXWELL RD PA L M A V A V N D A D E L A S V I S T A S FI R E T H O R N S T I- 8 0 5 N B O N R A I-805 SB ON RA ENERGY WY DR O T A Y V A L L E Y R D AR L A V RI O S A V AV KIMSUE WY MA L MARCWADE DR VIA DEL BARDO SE A R E E F D R I-9 0 5 W B O N R A SEAGLEN WY WYATT PL WALNUT DR FU C H S I A L N AIRW A Y R D ON R A I- 8 0 5 S B O F F R A S U R F C R E S T D R SR-905 WB RA I-8 0 5 N B O F F R A IN N O V A T I V E D R NIR V A N A A V DR REGATTA LN V CA L I E N T E A V ANN PL DARWIN WY CARBINE WY SU R F W O O D L N VES WY RANCHO DR TOPSAIL DR ALCORN ST LA H U E R T A W Y LOTUS DR POWDERHORN DR CIMARRON W Y WELL LN MA P L E D R BL A C K C O R A L W Y SEA COR A L D R DIZA RD SEA BIR D W Y DR PE T E R L Y N N D R DATS A BANDOLA VALLEY AV N AV IL E X E Y A V MARGE WY CO R P O R A T E C E N T E R D R AV EN T E R T A I N M E N T C R WK E N D R I S L A N D B R E E Z E L N AUTO PAR K D R AU T O P A R K P L SE A I S L E D R LEMAT PL MY R A C T K H A V E N D R ENERO ST LYN D H U R S T T R KE N T M E R E T R PROGRESSIVE AV RIVIE R A S U M M I T R D S P R U C E R D OR A N G E D R RI V I E R A S H O R E S S T SEA WATE R L N LAYLA CT VIST A S A N T A C A T A R I N A BAY C R E S T L N LIGH T H O U S E V I E W P L ANGLER PL DESIGN CT PA R S O N S L A N D I N G EX P O S I T I O N W Y TOPAZ CT LEMONSEED DR RE G E N C Y W Y E N D O C I N O D R DR VI S T A S A N J A V I E R MELROS E W Y RESEARCH C T TANBARK ST LAYLA WY C A S T A W A Y C V MURRIETA C R SU N S E T C R O S S I N G P T VI S T A S A N M A T I A S MA R I N E R D R QUARTERD E C K L N A N C H O R C V MASTE R S O N L N FALC O N H U R S T T R V I S T A S A N T O D O M I N G O RA L P H W Y KE D Z I E A V BRE A K E R S W Y JAD E C O V E C T L O M A C T BEL L E C R E S T W Y NR I S E B L U F F D R MA I N C T V I S T A S A N R A F A E L RANCHO CT TESOTA C T SE A F I R E P T CO L E M A N C T DEL S O L C T STU CT PACIFIC RIVI E R A W Y CO V E V I E W W Y EBERSOLE DR AU T O P A R K A V TARATA CT BLACK CORAL CT I- 8 0 5 N B O F F R A I- 8 0 5 S B O N R A I- 8 0 5 N B O N R A OTA Y V A L L E Y R D I- 8 0 5 N B O N R A PR I V A T E R D PRIVA T E R D RD ST PRIV A T E R D H E R I T A G E R D I- 8 0 5 N B O N R A P 805 Heritage Rd A Way Area I:\ArcGIS\H\HEO-01 Nakano\Map\ENV\EIR\Fig5_1-6_OVRP.pmd -JP Otay Valley Regional Park NAKANO Figure 5.1-6 Project Site6 7 8 9 %&s( Dennery R o a d Project Boundary Palm Avenue Ocean View Hills Parkway Main Street O t a y R i v e r Multiple Species Conservation Plan NAKANO Figure 5.4-3 I:\ArcGIS\H\HEO-01 Nakano\Map\ENV\EIR\Fig5_4-3_MSCP.mxd -AA Job No: HEO-01 Date: 03/07/11 750 0 750375 Feet City Of San Diego Multi-Habitat Planning Area City of Chula Vista MSCP Preserve Source: City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 12 2022 Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Consistency Analysis for the Nakano Project An Employee-Owned Company 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92108-5726 | 619.308.9333 | reconenvironmental.com SAN DIEGO | BAY AREA | TUCSON May 26, 2023 Mr. Allen Kashani Tri Pointe Homes 13520 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 300 San Diego CA 92128 Reference: Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Consistency Analysis for the Nakano Project, City of San Diego, California (RECON Number 3396-1) Dear Mr. Kashani: This report is intended to provide an analysis of the Nakano Project for consistency with the provisions of the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan as documentation for the project’s proposal to amend the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan to include the subject property following annexation. Provisions for the annexation of properties between MSCP Subarea Plans is provided in Section 5.4.3 of the MSCP Subregional Plan (County of San Diego 1998). Under this section, an amendment to a Subarea Plan is allowed provided the conservation policies of the two Subarea Plans involved in the transfer are consistent with one another. A consistency analysis was completed in 2012 by Helix Environmental Planning associated with a prior development proposal that demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Wildlife Agencies (City of San Diego 2012) that the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan are consistent with each other considering they were both prepared pursuant to the MSCP Subregional Plan (County of San Diego 1998). Section 9.20 of the City of San Diego’s Implementing Agreement further provides that the City of San Diego shall amend its Subarea Plan upon annexation of lands into the City of San Diego (City of San Diego 1997a). The City of San Diego’s MSCP amendment would consist of updating City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan.to include the acreage and boundaries of the Nakano Project within the City of San Diego’s subarea. This would include an update to Figure 2 of the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan to depict the location of the Nakano Project within the City of San Diego’s jurisdictional boundaries. The analysis contained herein demonstrates that biological resources would be equally protected under both Subarea Plans and the transfer of the project site from the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan to the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan would be consistent with the conservation goals of the MSCP Subregional Plan. Further information is provided in the Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project (Biology Report; RECON 2022). BACKGROUND Project Location and Description The project site consists of a 23.77-acre unimproved lot located in the city of Chula Vista, with off-site improvement areas occurring in both the city of Chula Vista and city of San Diego (Figures 1 and 2). The project site is situated immediately east of Interstate 805, northwest of Dennery Road, and south of the Otay River, and is further surrounded by a mosaic of multi-family residential, medical offices, and open space (Figure 3). Within the City of Mr. Allen Kashani Page 2 May 26, 2023 Chula Vista Subarea Plan, the project area is designated as “Development Area Outside Covered Projects” (i.e., not designated a preserve or conservation area) and is not located immediately adjacent to any 75% or 100% Conservation Areas (see Figure 3). The closest conservation area (75%) is located approximately 197 feet north of the project area within the Otay River (see Figure 3). The project proposes a residential development with up to 221 residential units and supporting recreational amenities and infrastructure, including a local-serving park, a regional overlook park associated with the Otay Valley Regional Park, and a trail connection to the Otay Valley Regional Park. Off-site improvements in the city of San Diego would provide access from Dennery Road, as well as secondary emergency access from Golden Sky Way. Off-site improvements in the city of Chula Vista would consist of remedial grading to stabilize the adjacent slope in addition to improvements to formalize an existing disturbed trail connection through placement of decomposed granite and installation of a peeler pole fence on one side of the trail. The project includes two scenarios: the Annexation Scenario, with the project site being annexed into the city of San Diego, and the No Annexation Scenario, with the project site remaining in the city of Chula Vista. Under the Annexation Scenario, the project site would be annexed into the city of San Diego, and therefore would be subject to the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. This annexation would involve the transfer of a “Development Area Outside of Covered Projects” within the city Chula Vista to a “Development Area” in the city of San Diego. No 75% or 100% Conservation Areas are proposed for development or would be transferred into the city of San Diego. Upon annexation into the city of San Diego, the Take Authorizations of the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan would then be applicable to the project site. In addition, the off-site area associated with road improvements in the city of San Diego would continue to be subject to the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. The off-site area associated with remedial grading would remain in the city of Chula Vista and would continue to be subject to the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROTECTION COMPARISON Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types The project would result in impacts to the following vegetation communities/land cover types: Diegan coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated, non-native grassland, mule fat scrub, southern willow scrub, emergent wetland, disturbed wetland, disturbed habitat, ornamental, and urban/developed (Figure 4). As indicated below, mitigation ratios provided by the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and City of San Diego Biology Guidelines for these vegetation communities/land cover types are consistent between jurisdictions; thus, no loss in habitat mitigation would result from the proposed transfer (Table 1). Mr. Allen Kashani Page 3 May 26, 2023 Table 1 Mitigation Ratios for Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the Project Impact Area Vegetation Community/ Land Cover Type City of San Diego Biology Guidelines Vegetation Community City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan Mitigation Ratio1 City of San Diego Biological Guidelines Mitigation Ratio1 Proposed Project Mitigation Ratio1 Upland Vegetation Communities Diegan coastal sage scrub Coastal sage scrub 1:1 1:1 1:1 Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated Coastal sage scrub 1:1 1:1 1:1 Non-native grassland Non-native grassland 0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1 Wetland Vegetation Communities Mule fat scrub Riparian scrub 1:1 to 2:1 2:1 2:1 Southern willow scrub Riparian scrub 1:1 to 2:1 2:1 2:1 Emergent wetland Riparian scrub 1:1 to 2:1 2:1 2:1 Disturbed wetland Disturbed wetlands 1:1 to 2:1 2:1 2:1 Land Covers Disturbed habitat Disturbed land 0:1 0:1 0:1 Ornamental Disturbed land 0:1 0:1 0:1 Urban/developed Disturbed land 0:1 0:1 0:1 1Assumes impact outside of the preserve, with mitigation inside of the preserve. MSCP Covered Species Species Conservation The basis of analysis for coverage of each covered species are included in Attachment A of the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and Attachment A of the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. This includes the general basis for analysis for coverage, as well as quantified analysis of the populations being conserved, as well as potentially impacted under the MSCP. This analysis is identical between both Subarea Plans, as it is Table 3-5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan. Thus, there would be no change in the conservation or impact estimates for the MSCP covered species in either Subarea Plan. Conditions for Coverage This section addresses project compliance with respect to the conditions for coverage of MSCP covered species, which are based on Table 3-5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan and incorporated by reference into both Subarea Plans. Conditions for coverage are addressed by the project for the following species, which were observed or have potential to occur within the project area: least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens), coast barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra). Mr. Allen Kashani Page 4 May 26, 2023 Least Bell’s Vireo – The MSCP conditions for coverage for least Bell’s vireo require measures to provide appropriate successional habitat, upland buffers for all known populations, cowbird control, and specific measures to protect against detrimental edge effects to this species. Any clearing of occupied habitat must occur between September 15 and March 15 (i.e., outside of the breeding period) (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997b). In order to comply with these conditions, off-site habitat-based mitigation at the Otay River Mitigation Bank, which contains suitable least Bell’s vireo habitat, is proposed to compensate for the loss of suitable least Bell’s vireo habitat within the project area, as detailed in Sections 6.1.1 and 6.2.1 of the Biology Report. Through the implementation of proper best management practices (BMPs) both during construction, the project would not cause any detrimental edge effects to the suitable least Bell’s vireo habitat adjacent to the project area or the upland buffers around this habitat. Specifically, disturbances to habitat that supports least Bell’s vireo such as construction-related runoff, ground disturbance, and the introduction of invasive non-native species in adjacent off-site habitat would be minimized through the implementation of erosion control devices, silt fencing, and the containment and proper disposal of invasive non-natives, respectively. In addition, the project is not expected to affect the conditions of any habitat adjacent to the project area that would make it more favorable for cowbirds. Restrictions on clearing of occupied habitat between September 15 and March 15 will be included as project mitigation and are discussed further in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.2.3 of the Biology Report. Coastal California Gnatcatcher – The MSCP conditions for coverage include avoiding clearing of occupied habitat within MSCP preserve areas between March 1 and August 15, as well as management directives to reduce edge effects and minimize disturbance during the nesting period (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997b). Suitable habitat for this species within and adjacent to the project area occurs entirely outside of any Conservation Areas and the MHPA. Therefore, no clearing or disturbance to this species within any Conservation Areas or the MHPA would result from project construction during the nesting period. In addition, the project’s implementation of proper BMPs during construction is expected to minimize edge effects on the coastal sage scrub that would remain adjacent to the project area. Otay Tarplant – The MSCP conditions for coverage include management directives for monitoring of populations and adaptive management of preserves (taking into consideration the extreme population fluctuations from year to year), and specific measures to protect against detrimental edge effects to this species (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997b). No impacts to Otay tarplant would occur on-site within the project site in the area proposed for annexation. Off-site impacts to Otay tarplant from the project’s access road would remain in the City of San Diego, and mitigation is proposed to compensate for the loss of Otay tarplant within the project area consistent with the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines. The mitigation site would be managed and monitored as part of the City of San Diego’s MHPA. No additional populations outside of the project area were observed during biological surveys that would be subject to edge effects. Mr. Allen Kashani Page 5 May 26, 2023 San Diego Barrel Cactus – The MSCP conditions for coverage include management directives to protect this species from edge effects, unauthorized collection, and include appropriate fire management/control practices to protect against a too frequent fire cycle (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997b). The project’s implementation of proper BMPs during construction is expected to minimize edge effects on the coastal sage scrub that would remain within and adjacent to the project area. In addition, unauthorized collection is not expected as the project is separated by fencing and 2:1 manufactured slopes from the habitat for this species. Fire frequency is not expected to increase with project implementation. Cooper’s Hawk – The MSCP conditions of coverage for Cooper’s hawk include establishment of 300-foot impact avoidance areas around active nests, and minimization of disturbance in oak woodlands and oak riparian forests (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997b). In order to accomplish this, the project includes measures to avoid the removal of potential Cooper’s hawk habitat during the breeding season or, if the removal of habitat must occur during the breeding season, to conduct pre-construction surveys and establish a 300-foot impact avoidance area around any active Cooper’s hawk nest. In addition, a biological monitor would be present during any vegetation removal activities, and it would be the responsibility of that monitor to assess the effectiveness of the 300-foot buffer. If needed, the biological monitor would identify additional measures necessary to avoid impacts to Cooper’s hawk, such as increasing the buffer or implementing noise attenuation barriers. Orange-throated Whiptail – The condition for coverage of orange-throated whiptail under the MSCP requires area specific management directives to address edge effects (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997b). The project’s implementation of proper BMPs during construction is expected to minimize edge effects on suitable orange-throated whiptail habitat. Burrowing Owl – The MSCP conditions of coverage for burrowing owl include avoiding impacts to the species to the maximum extent practicable. If burrowing owl are detected on-site, any impacted individuals must be relocated out of the impact area using passive or active methodologies approved by the wildlife agencies; mitigation for impacts to occupied habitat (at the Subarea Plan specified ratio) must be through the conservation of occupied burrowing owl habitat or conservation of lands appropriate for restoration, management and enhancement of burrowing owl nesting and foraging requirements (City of Chula Vista 2003, City of San Diego 1997b). This species has a moderate potential to forage in the project area due to the presence of suitable low-lying grassland, though has a low potential to nest due to lack of suitable burrows. However, to ensure consistency with this condition, the project includes measures to avoid impacts to burrowing owl, including pre-construction surveys to ensure this species does not occur in the project area at the time of construction. Adjacency Guidelines Both Subarea Plans identify a series of guidelines intended to regulate development which is located adjacent to a designated preserve area. However, the adjacency guidelines are not relevant to the project because it is not located adjacent to the MHPA or any Conservation Areas. Long-Term Management Both Subarea Plans have guidelines intended to assure that conservation areas are adequately maintained in perpetuity. However, the long-term management provisions of both Subarea Plans are not relevant to the project Mr. Allen Kashani Page 6 May 26, 2023 because the project site is located outside of areas identified for long-term preservation (e.g., MHPA, Conservation Areas) and no on-site preservation areas are proposed as mitigation. SUMMARY As described above, the project is consistent with the provisions of the MSCP Subregional Plan as implemented by both the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. The annexation would involve the transfer of a “Development Area Outside of Covered Projects” within Chula Vista to a “Development Area” in the City of San Diego. No 75% or 100% Conservation Areas are proposed for development or would be transferred into the City of San Diego, so the transfer would not affect the City of Chula Vista’s ability to meet their conservation obligations under the MSCP. Mitigation ratios provided by the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and City of San Diego Biology Guidelines are consistent between jurisdictions; thus, no loss in habitat mitigation would result from the proposed transfer. In addition, the project area as a whole would continue to be subject to the MSCP Conditions for Coverage for covered species, which is based on Table 3-5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan and is consistent between both Subarea Plans. Therefore, transfer of the project site to the city of San Diego would not result in additional impacts to covered species. Thus, it is clearly demonstrated that the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and implementing strategies as applicable to the project are the same and biological resources would be equally protected under both Subarea Plans and the transfer of the project site from the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan to the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan would be consistent with the conservation goals of the MSCP Subregional Plan. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at clyons@reconenvironmental.com or (619) 308-9333 extension 108. Sincerely, Cailin Lyons Director, Biology Group CML:jg REFERENCES CITED Chula Vista, City of 2003 City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February 2003. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106. 2022 Municipal Code, Chapter 17.35 Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance. RECON Environmental (RECON) 2022 Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project, Chula Vista, California (Draft). October. San Diego, City of 1997a Implementing Agreement by and between United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, City of San Diego to Establish a Multiple Species Conservation Program (“MSCP”) For the Conservation of Threatened, Endangered, and Other Species in the Vicinity of San Diego California. Mr. Allen Kashani Page 7 May 26, 2023 1997b City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. Final. Prepared by the City of San Diego Community and Economic Development Department. March 1997. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default /files/legacy/planning/programs/mscp/pdf/subareafullversion.pdf. 2012 “Final 2011 MSCP Annual Report.” February 21, 2012. Accessed May 5, 2021. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy//planning/programs/mscp/docsmaps/pdf/mscpannualreport2011.pdf. 2018 San Diego Municipal Code, Land Development Code—Biology Guidelines. Amended February 1, 2018, by Resolution No. R-311507. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/ files/amendment_to_the_land_development_manual_biology_guidelines_february_2018_-_clean.pdf. San Diego, County of 1998 Final Multiple Species Conservation Program MSCP Plan. FIGURE 1 Regional Location kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar 0 5Miles [ M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\MSCP_memo\Fig1.mxd 10/27/2022 bma LOS ANGELES ORANGE RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO MEXICO Project Locationkj FIGURE 2 Project Location on Aerial Photograph G O LDEN S K Y W A Y BL U E CO R AL C V O C E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 G O LDEN S K Y W A Y BL U E CO R AL C V O C E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown April 2022) 0 300Feet [ Project Boundary M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\MSCP_memo\Fig2.mxd 10/27/2022 bma FIGURE 3 City of San Diego MHPA and City of Chula Vista Conservation Areas ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! S P R UC E RD RANCHO D R O T A Y V A L L E Y RD PALM AVE REGATTA LN RE G E N C Y C T AMB ER RI DG E P T MAIN ST K O STNER DR AV O C ET C T BALLAST LN OL E A N D E R AVE A DM IRAL W AY RANCHO C T D E LCA RDO AV E MA PLE DR M URR I E T A C I R K E NTMERE TER RE NE DR M A R S H H A R B O R D R SE R R E N A L N I S L A N D BREEZE LN B RA NDY W INE AV E S E A TERN CT R E D F I N L N MA I N C T B L U E CO R A L C V W IND S U R F W A Y C A M B E R L E Y CT GOLDEN SKY WAY CATAMARAN LN AUT O P A R K P L RED S A I L S W A Y SEAIS L E DR AUTO P A R K D R PO W DE RHORN D R FI R E T H O R N S T LA H U E RTA WAY O CE A N M I S T P L DENNERY RD LEMONSEED DR W H E E L H O U S E D RRED C O R A L L N M E L R O S E A V E R O Y A L I S L A N D W A Y OCEANVIEW HILLS PKY §¨¦805 §¨¦805 O t a y R i v e r O t a y R i v e r CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! S P R UC E RD RANCHO D R O T A Y V A L L E Y RD PALM AVE REGATTA LN RE G E N C Y C T AMB ER RI DG E P T MAIN ST K O STNER DR AV O C ET C T BALLAST LN OL E A N D E R AVE A DM IRAL W AY RANCHO C T D E LCA RDO AV E MA PLE DR M URR I E T A C I R K E NTMERE TER RE NE DR M A R S H H A R B O R D R SE R R E N A L N I S L A N D BREEZE LN B RA NDY W INE AV E S E A TERN CT R E D F I N L N MA I N C T B L U E CO R A L C V W IND S U R F W A Y C A M B E R L E Y CT GOLDEN SKY WAY CATAMARAN LN AUT O P A R K P L RED S A I L S W A Y SEAIS L E DR AUTO P A R K D R PO W DE RHORN D R FI R E T H O R N S T LA H U E RTA WAY O CE A N M I S T P L DENNERY RD LEMONSEED DR W H E E L H O U S E D RRED C O R A L L N M E L R O S E A V E R O Y A L I S L A N D W A Y OCEANVIEW HILLS PKY §¨¦805 §¨¦805 O t a y R i v e r O t a y R i v e r CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) 0 500Feet [ Project Boundary City Limit Project Impacts City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan City of San Diego MHPA City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan 75% Conservation Area - Habitat Preserve 100% Conservation Area - Habitat Preserve M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\MSCP_memo\Fig3.mxd 05/16/2023 bma §¨¦8 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 §¨¦8 §¨¦15 UV125 UV52 UV94 UV54 UV67 UV94 UV52 UV54 UV905 UV163 UV163 Offsite Impacts (within City of San Diego) Offsite Impacts (within City of Chula Vista) FIGURE 4 Impacts to Biological Resources kj kjkjkj kjkjkj kjkj kj kjkjkj kj kj kj kj kj kj kjkj #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 kj GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 kj kjkjkj kjkjkj kjkj kj kjkjkj kj kj kj kj kj kj kjkj #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0#0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 kj GOLDEN S K Y W AY B L U E CO R A L C V D E N N E R Y R D O C E A N M I S T P L §¨¦805 §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) Project Boundary Survey Area Project Impacts BMZ Zone 1 BMZ Zone 2 Sensitive Wildlife #0 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) #0 Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) #0 Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) #0 Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia) Sensitive Plants California Adolphia (Adolphia californica) Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) San Diego County Viguiera (Bahiopsis lacniata ) San Diego Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) San Diego Bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) Ashy Spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens) Small-flowered Microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha) San Diego Marsh-elder (Iva hayesiana) kj South Coast Saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) Vegetation Communities Arundo-Dominated Riparian Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-dominated Disturbed Habitat Disturbed Wetland Emergent Wetland Eucalyptus Woodland Mule Fat Scrub Non-Native Grassland Ornamental Southern Willow Scrub Urban/Developed M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\MSCP_memo\Fig4.mxd 05/17/2023 bma 0 150Feet [ kj kj kj kj kj kjOffsite Impacts (within City of San Diego) Offsite Impacts (within City of Chula Vista) Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 13 Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Nakano Project Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Nakano Project San Diego, California Prepared for Tri Pointe Homes 13520 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92128 Contact: Allen Kashani Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92108 P 619.308.9333 RECON Number 3396-1 August 14April 16, 2024 Katy Chappaz, Restoration Ecologist Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ iv 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location and Plan Area Location ................................................................................... 3 1.2 Mitigation Requirements ................................................................................................................. 8 2.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Wetland Plan Area Description.................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Rationale for Expecting Success .................................................................................................. 24 3.0 Roles and Responsibilities....................................................................................................... 34 3.1 Permittee and Financial Responsibility ...................................................................................... 34 3.2 Agencies .............................................................................................................................................. 34 3.3 Restoration Specialist ...................................................................................................................... 35 3.4 Installation/Maintenance Contractor ......................................................................................... 35 4.0 Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................. 35 4.1 Preliminary Design ........................................................................................................................... 36 4.2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ................................................................................... 37 4.3 Implementation Activities .............................................................................................................. 39 4.4 As-built Reporting ............................................................................................................................ 41 4.5 120-day Plant Establishment Period ........................................................................................... 41 5.0 Maintenance Plan ..................................................................................................................... 42 5.1 Weed Control .................................................................................................................................... 42 5.2 Watering ............................................................................................................................................. 43 5.3 Supplemental Planting ................................................................................................................... 43 5.4 Supplemental Seeding ................................................................................................................... 43 5.5 Trash Removal and Barrier/Sign Maintenance ...................................................................... 44 5.6 Erosion Control ................................................................................................................................ 44 5.7 Adaptive Management Approach ............................................................................................. 44 6.0 Ecological Performance Standards ....................................................................................... 45 6.1 California Rapid Assessment Performance Standards ......................................................... 45 6.2 Vegetative Performance Standards ........................................................................................... 46 6.3 Photographic Documentation ..................................................................................................... 49 6.4 Jurisdictional Delineation ............................................................................................................... 49 Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 7.0 Monitoring Requirements ........................................................................................................ 51 7.1 Qualitative Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 51 7.2 Quantitative Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 51 7.3 Wildlife Usage ................................................................................................................................... 52 7.4 CRAM Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 52 7.5 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 52 8.0 Financial Assurances ................................................................................................................. 53 9.0 Notification of Completion ...................................................................................................... 53 10.0 Site Protection Instrument and Long-term Management Plan ...................................... 53 11.0 References Cited ....................................................................................................................... 54 FIGURES 1: Project Location ................................................................................................................................................. 4 2: Project and Wetland Plan Area Location on USGS Map ...................................................................... 5 3: Wetland Plan Area Location on City 800’ Map ....................................................................................... 6 4: Wetland Plan Area on Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................. 7 5: Wetland Plan Area on Soils Map ............................................................................................................... 15 6: Wetland Plan Area Existing Hydrology .................................................................................................... 16 7: Wetland Plan Area Existing Biological Resources ................................................................................. 19 8: Wetland Plan Area – Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 25 9: Wetland Plan Area – Target Vegetation .................................................................................................. 27 10: Wetland Plan Reference Site ...................................................................................................................... 50 TABLES 1: Wetland Impacts by Jurisdiction .................................................................................................................. 9 2: Required Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources ...................................... 10 3: Proposed Work (Wetland Mitigation and Project Design Features) ............................................... 11 4: Implementation Activities Schedule ......................................................................................................... 39 5: Target Plant Species List ............................................................................................................................... 41 6: Maintenance Schedule ................................................................................................................................. 42 7: CRAM Metric Goals for Five Years Post-Establishment of Wetland Plan Area .......................... 46 8: Performance Standards for the Wetland Creation (Establishment) and Wetland Enhancement (Rehabilitation) Areas .................................................................................................... 48 9: Monitoring Schedule ..................................................................................................................................... 51 Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) PHOTOGRAPHS 1: Northern/Upstream Portion of Wetland Plan Area with Castor Bean (Ricinus communis), Peruvian Peppertree (Schinus molle), and Non-native Grassland, Facing North, June 2023 ...................................................................................................... 21 2: Central Portion of Wetland Plan Area with Peruvian Peppertree (Schinus molle), Facing South, June 2023 ........................................................................................................................... 21 3: Southern/Downstream Portion of Mitigation Area with Instances of Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) and Disturbed Habitat, Facing South, June 2023 ............................... 22 4: Downstream Portion of Plan Area with Monoculture Stand of Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) Circled in Red. Panoramic Photograph Facing Southwest to Northwest, July 2024. ..................................................................................................... 23 ATTACHMENT 1: Technical Memorandum for Spring Canyon Hydraulic Analysis and Preliminary Floodplain Mapping 2: Spring Canyon 1971 and Present 3: Summary of Drilling and Groundwater Measurements Nakano and Southwest Village Mitigation Areas, San Diego, California Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project iv Acronyms and Abbreviations BSO Biologically Superior Option Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CNPS California Native Plant Society CRAM California Rapid Assessment Method DSD Development Services Department I-805 Interstate 805 LTMP Long Term Management Plan MHPA Multi-Habitat Planning Area MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program NAS National Academy of Sciences PEP Plant Establishment Period plan Wetland Mitigation Plan project Nakano Project RECON RECON Environmental, Inc. RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 1 1.0 Introduction This mitigation planWetland Plan (plan) details the process for mitigating impacts to wetlands resulting from construction of the Nakano project (project). The project proposes a residential development with supporting recreational amenities and infrastructure. While the project is currently located within the City of Chula Vista, the site is anticipated to be annexed into the City of San Diego with mitigation being implemented within the City of San Diego. Project impacts to jurisdictional resources were analyzed in the project-specific biological technical report (RECON Environmental, Inc. [RECON] 20232024a). As currently planned, the project would permanently impact 0.40 acre of wetland habitat including the following jurisdictional resources: • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): Wetland Waters of the State • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): Riparian • City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista: Wetland This plan is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),, both the City of Chula Vista’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP; City of Chula Vista 2003) and the City of San Diego MSCP (City of San Diego 1997), as implemented through the Land Development Code – Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018), and in conformance with RWQCB guidelines on mitigation and monitoring plans. Impacts to RWQCB and CDFW waters would require a Waste Discharge Requirement from the RWQCB and a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW. Impacts to 0.4 acre of City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista wetlands shall be mitigated through the restoration of 0.8 acre of wetland habitatat a 2:1 ratio within Tri Pointe Homes property along Spring Canyon, in the Otay Mesa area, approximately three miles southeast of the project site. Restoration in the Otay Mesa area 1. Creation (establishment)2 would consist of the conversion ofbe implemented within 0.84 acre of disturbed habitat and non-native grassland that would be converted to native riparian habitat and. An additional 0.4 acre of enhancement (rehabilitation) would be implemented within non-native dominated tamarisk scrub. This area would provide 0.4 acre of enhancement (rehabilitation) credit due to the area having 100 percent non-native cover. The creation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) would be consistent with the priorities set forth in the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan for Southernsouthern Otay Mesa, which includesprioritizes the prioritization of restoration of disturbed areas in Spring Canyon, which is a regional corridor identified byin the MSCP. Although the mitigation is proposed within the City of San Diego, the mitigationit would also be consistent with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan 1The RWQCB will require an additional mitigation ratio for out-of-watershed mitigation; hence, the total mitigation ratio for RWQCB would be 3:1. However, the City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista mitigation requirement is a 2:1 ratio. 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and RWQCB terminology is provided in parentheses for RWQCB use during project permitting. City of San Diego definitions for wetland creation and wetland enhancement correspond to USACE definitions for wetland establishment and wetland rehabilitation, respectively. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 2 as the proposed mitigation locationarea would be located close to the impact location within an area suitable for mitigation, contributing to the overall goals of the 1998 MSCP Plan for the region. The wetland mitigation component of the project would restorecreate (establish) and enhance (rehabilitate) degraded areas of Spring Canyon currently supporting large and dense stands of invasive species such asand non-native grasses to high quality mule fat scrub habitat with diverse wetland vegetation. The 0.4-acre creation (establishment) area is located within non-native grassland habitat bisected by a narrow, incised channel. The incised channel is disconnected from the surrounding upland habitat, which is dominated by non-native grassland. The incised channel would be recontoured to hydrologically reconnect the channel surface flows to the surrounding floodplain. The identified 0.4-acre enhancement (rehabilitation) area is currently dominated by tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), castor bean (Ricinus communis), and pepper trees (Schinus spp.) and non-native grasses to high quality mule fat scrub habitat with diverse native wetland vegetation layers and plant diversity. Native plantings would includealong the channel invert. In the enhancement (rehabilitation) area, one monoculture stand of tamarisk scrub would be removed. In both the creation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) areas, non-native species would be replaced with native riparian species that would expand and restore potentially suitable habitat to support least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and), yellow warbler (Setophaga petachia), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), which are known to occur in Spring Canyon. upstream and downstream of the mitigation areas. The project also proposes the following project design features intended to support the long-term viability of the mitigation effort, as follows: (1) in addition to the minimum 0.8 acre of required restoration, the mitigation area would re-establish/enhance enhancement (rehabilitation) of an additional 0.4 acre (at minimum) of non-native riparian to native riparian habitat to provide a biologically superior condition as required by the City of San Diego Biologically Superior Option (BSO) wetland deviation criteria and to meet the RWQCB’s out-of-watershed mitigation requirements (for a minimum total of 1.2 acres); (2) the mitigation area would also incorporateweed control of an additional 2.13 2 acres of additional adjacent areas of riparian scrub and riparian buffer where weed control would be conducted; and (3) the project would pursue invasive species removal in upstream locations off-site, on publicly owned lands, and in small sections of Spring Canyon where the main channel makes a sharp, U-shaped bend or “oxbow” and a portion of the bend lies outside the Tri Pointe Homes property/wetland plan area on City of San Diego property. This plan includes a presentation of the project location, mitigationwetland plan locations, and mitigation requirements, proposed work, a discussion of existing conditions, a rationale for expecting success, mitigation roles and responsibilities, an implementation and 5-year maintenance plan, ecological performance standards, monitoring requirements, an approach to adaptive management, and discusses long-term management and funding. The purchase of mitigation credits at an approved wetland mitigation bank would not be required to satisfy City of Chula Vista or City of San Diego mitigation requirements. However, to ensure no net loss of wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of the RWQCB, the project would provide an additional 0.40 acre of wetland establishment credits from a mitigation bank (anticipated to be either Otay River or Rancho Jamul; to be determined based on the approval schedule for each of these pending mitigation banks within the project’s service area). Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 3 1.1 Project Location and MitigationPlan Area Location The project is located east of Interstate 805 (I-805), northwest of Dennery Road, and south of the Otay River, in the Otay Watershed (Figure 1). The project is currently located in the City of Chula Vista, but the area is planned to be annexed into the City of San Diego. The biological resources report addresses impacts and mitigation for both agencies, considering an Annexation Scenario and a No Annexation Scenario. More information about the project location and annexation is provided in the biological technical report (RECON 2023a2024a). Regardless of whether annexation proceeds, this mitigation plan addresses mitigation that would satisfy the requirements of either agency. The mitigationwetland plan area 1 is located off-site, in the city of San Diego, south of State Route 905 and east of I-Interstate 805 in the Tijuana Watershed (see Figure 1). The mitigationwetland plan area is approximately three miles southeast of the project, within Township 19 South, Range 01 West, of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic map, Imperial Beach, California quadrangle (Figure 2; U.S. Geological Survey 1996) and is presented on City 800-foot-scale map numbers 138--1749 and 138-1761 (Figure 3). The wetland plan area includes the project’s wetland mitigation and project design features and would occur within Spring Canyon, in the City of San Diego Multi--Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) Preserve, on Tri Pointe Homes property (Figure 4). The mitigationwetland plan area is surrounded by open space and occurs within existing riparian and disturbed habitat. A portion of City of San Diego Vernal Pool Habitat Conservation Plan MHPA is also located nearby, to the west of the mitigation area (see Figure 4). The wetland plan area would be reached via dirt roads accessible from Calle De Linea, near Britannia Boulevard. No utility easements are present within the wetland plan area, and potential future development in adjacent areas was taken into consideration when identifying the mitigation area. While the project impacts are occurring in the Otay Watershed, mitigation is being provided in the Tijuana Watershed because there are no mitigation opportunities available in the Otay Watershed. An additional 1:1 ratio of mitigation is proposed in this plan to compensate for the out-of-watershed mitigation. 1 This term is used for the entire restoration area that consists of the compensatory mitigation areas for the Nakano project and the Nakano project design features, including a portion of the compensatory mitigation for the Southwest Village project as detailed below. FIGURE 1Project Location kj USMC AIRSTATIONMIRAMAR Los PenasquitosCanyon Presv Mission TrailsRegional Park ClevelandNationalForestBatiquitosLagoon Lake Hodges San VicenteReservoir SweetwaterReservoir Lower OtayReservoir D ulz u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b el C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d ido C r e ek Sweetw a t e r R iv er S a n D i e g o R i ver Jamul IndianVillage SycuanReservation BaronaReservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G OC O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar kj USMC AIRSTATIONMIRAMAR Los PenasquitosCanyon Presv Mission TrailsRegional Park ClevelandNationalForestBatiquitosLagoon Lake Hodges San VicenteReservoir SweetwaterReservoir Lower OtayReservoir D ulz u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b el C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d ido C r e ek Sweetw a t e r R iv er S a n D i e g o R i ver Jamul IndianVillage SycuanReservation BaronaReservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G OC O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar 0 5Miles [ M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig1.mxd 08/06/2024 bma LOS ANGELES ORANGE RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO MEXICO Project Locationkj Nakano Project kj Off-site Wetland Plan Area FIGURE 2Project and Wetland Plan AreaLocation on USGS Map UV905§¨¦805 §¨¦5 UV905§¨¦805 §¨¦5 Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, IMPERIAL BEACH quadrangle,1996, T19S R01W 0 2,000Feet [Nakano Project Boundary Wetland Plan AreaWetland Area for Nakano Partial/Potential Mitigation Area for Southwest VillageWetland Creation (Establishment) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig2.mxd 08/06/2024 bma FIGURE 3Wetland Plan Area Location on City 800' Map Map Source: City of San Diego, Engineering and Development Department, City 800' Maps, Number 138-1749 & 138-1761 0 800Feet [Wetland Plan Area Wetland Area for Nakano Partial/Potential Mitigation Area for Southwest Village Wetland Creation (Establishment) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig3.mxd 08/06/2024 bma FIGURE 4Wetland Plan Area on Aerial Photograph kj kj kj kj kj kj kj B l vd .A e r o p u e r t o F i n g e r C a n y o n Dillon Canyon W r u c k C a n y o n Spring Ca n y on S prin g C a n y o n TRI POINTE HOMESAPN 6670401300 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6450801200 CITY OFSAN DIEGOAPN 6670400300 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6450800600 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6450800400 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6670400200 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6670400600 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6670400500 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6670400400 UNITED STATESOF AMERICAAPN 6670400700 STATE OFCALIFORNIAAPN 6450801100 UNITED STATESOF AMERICAAPN 6670401200 UNITED STATESOF AMERICAAPN 6670401400 kj kj kj kj kj kj kj B l vd .A e r o p u e r t o F i n g e r C a n y o n Dillon Canyon W r u c k C a n y o n Spring Ca n y on S prin g C a n y o n TRI POINTE HOMESAPN 6670401300 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6450801200 CITY OFSAN DIEGOAPN 6670400300 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6450800600 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6450800400 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6670400200 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6670400600 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6670400500 CITY OF SAN DIEGOAPN 6670400400 UNITED STATESOF AMERICAAPN 6670400700 STATE OFCALIFORNIAAPN 6450801100 UNITED STATESOF AMERICAAPN 6670401200 UNITED STATESOF AMERICAAPN 6670401400 Image Source: NearMap (Flown May 2024) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig4.mxd 08/06/2024 bma 0 600Feet [ kj Upstream Invasive Weed Location Mitigation Parcel City of SD MHPA VPHCP MHPA Wetland Plan Area Wetland Area for Nakano Partial/Potential Mitigation Area for Southwest Village Wetland Creation (Establishment) PRIVATEPROPERTY Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 8 The mitigation area consists of (1) the mitigation acreage required for the project impacts, and (2) as- The wetland plan area addressed in this plan includes (1) 0.4 acre of creation (establishment) and 0.4 acre of enhancement (rehabilitation) required by the City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego, and RWQCB (creation/establishment is proposed in Spring Canyon to avoid net loss of wetlands), and an additional 0.4-acre of enhancement (rehabilitation) provided to meet the City of San Diego biologically superior mitigation and required by RWQCB for out of watershed mitigation; (2) as-needed invasive species removal within additional acreage contiguous with the mitigation proposed as a project design feature.; and (3) a 0.46-acre creation (establishment) area proposed as a potential/partial wetland mitigation for the Southwest Village project. The additional 0.46-acre creation (establishment) for Southwest Village would undergo a separate permit application process and would not be approved by the Wildlife Agencies or RWQCB as part of the permit process for the project. The project would also pursue invasive species removal in small sections of Spring Canyon where the main channel makes a sharp, U-shaped bend or “oxbow” and a portion of the bend lies outside the Tri Pointe Homes property/wetland plan area on City of San Diego property and in upstream tributaries to the mitigationwetland plan area to support the long-term viability of the restorationmitigation effort. In coordination with the City of San Diego, 1,000 feet upstream was determined to be an appropriate distance for invasive species removal; however, as a project design feature, the applicant would conduct invasive treatment from all publicly owned lands upstream of the mitigation area (City of San Diego, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the California Department of Transportation), to the maximum extent feasible. The wetland plan area and all project design feature areas would be maintained throughout the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period to native wetland habitat, as described in Section 5.0. Figure 4 presents the locations of invasive weeds within all public lands upstream of the mitigationwetland plan area as observed during a project planning visitsite visits in 2023 and 2024. As noted above, Figure 4 identifies an additional 0.46-acre wetland creation (establishment) area. Due to its location in the upstream portion of the wetland plan area and embedded within the Nakano creation (establishment) site, this area would be implemented concurrently with the Nakano project’s mitigation and would serve as partial mitigation for the Southwest Village project (to be permitted separately). The additional 0.46-acre creation (establishment) area is considered a project design feature for the Nakano project but is not part of its required compensatory mitigation. 1.2 Mitigation Requirements The project would impact 0.40 acre of wetland waters under the jurisdiction of RWQCB, CDFW, City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista. These impacts to jurisdictional waters are summarized in Table 1. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 9 Table 1 Wetland Impacts by Jurisdiction Vegetation Community Impacts in Acres Impacts by Jurisdiction City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista Wetlands (Acres) RWQCB Waters of the State Wetland (Acres) CDFW Waters of the State Riparian (Acres) Mule fat scrub 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Southern willow scrub 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Emergent wetland 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Disturbed wetland 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 TOTAL 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018) and requirements of the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003), the project’s impacts to jurisdictional resources must be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1, with at least one component of the wetland mitigation effort (at a minimum 1:1 ratio) consisting of wetland creation or wetland restoration;. The RWQCB requires a minimum of 1:1 ratio of creation (establishment) to mitigate for any net loss of wetlands; per the Executive Order W-59-93, commonly referred to as California’s “no net loss” policy for wetlands, this mitigation requirement ensures that the Water Boards’ regulation of dredge or fill activities will be conducted in a manner “to ensure no overall net loss and long-term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values…” The remaining balance may occur either as wetland restoration or as wetlandin the form of re-establishment or enhancement Per the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (rehabilitation). An additional 0.4 acre of enhancement (rehabilitation) is being provided as a project design feature to demonstrate that the project is biologically superior per the City of San Diego BSO wetland deviation criteria. This additional 0.4 acre of enhancement (rehabilitation) would also satisfy RWQCB State Procedures, including State Supplemental Dredge or Fill Guidelines, Subpart J, which requires a watershed based approach for mitigation (the same would be required pursuant to the USACE) Compensatory Mitigation Standard Operating Procedures [USACE 2016]) and based on RWQCB comments to the project’s draft 401 permit applicationshould the USACE take jurisdiction). Therefore, an additional 1:1 ratio of restoration (re-establishment) or enhancement (rehabilitation) is anticipated to be required because the mitigation is occurring outsidein the Tijuana Watershed, which is adjacent the project’s watershedOtay Watershed, resulting in a total minimum mitigation ratio of 3:1. Table 12 presents the total mitigation required for each wetland type based on the impact acreage and the 3:1 mitigation ratio. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 10 Table 12 Required Mitigation for Significant Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources Vegetation Community Impacts in Acres City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista Minimum Required Mitigation Ratio1,2 City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista Minimum Required Mitigation (Acres) Additional RWQCB Mitigation Ratio for Out of Watershed Mitigation and No Net Loss (Via Mitigation Bank Wetland Credit Purchase)2 Total Mitigation Ratio Proposed Required Mitigation3 (Acres) Mule fat scrub 0.03 2:1 0.06 1:1 3:1 Southern willow scrub 0.15 2:1 0.30 1:1 3:1 Emergent wetland 0.18 2:1 0.36 1:1 3:1 Disturbed wetland 0.04 2:1 0.08 1:1 3:1 Total 0.40 — —0.80 — — 1.2 acres 1Consistent with the City of San Diego Biology Guidelines (Section III. B. 1. (a) Table 2a) and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, the project’s impacts to jurisdictional resources must be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1, with at least one component of the wetland mitigation effort (at a minimum 1:1 ratio) consisting of wetland creation (establishment) or wetland restoration; (re-establishment); the remaining balance may occur either as wetland restoration or as wetland enhancement. (rehabilitation). 2Consistent with State Procedures, including State Supplemental Dredge or Fill Guidelines, Subpart J, and USACE Compensatory Mitigation Standard Operating Procedures (USACE 2016) and RWQCB comments to the project’s draft 401 permit application.). 3Mitigation would be accomplished through 0.8 acre of wetland restoration and 0.44 acre minimum of wetland creation purchased through a(establishment) to mitigate for net loss of wetlands, and 0.4 acre minimum of wetland enhancement (rehabilitation) to satisfy City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista mitigation bank. Anrequirements, and an additional 0.404 acre minimum of wetland enhancement/re-establishment and (rehabilitation) for biologically superior conditions per the City of San Diego BSO criteria and to satisfy RWQCB mitigation requirements, totaling at least 1.2 .13 acres of weed control buffer are included as a project design feature. The project’s mitigation requirements would be achieved within Spring Canyon through at least 0.8 4 acre of wetland restoration, with creation (establishment) and 0.4 acre of wetland enhancement (rehabilitation) to satisfy City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and RWQCB mitigation requirements, and an additional 0.4-acre of enhancement/re-establishment as a project design feature within Spring Canyon. Wetlandof wetland enhancement/re- (rehabilitation) to provide biologically superior conditions per the City of San Diego BSO criteria and to satisfy RWQCB requirements for out-of-watershed mitigation. Wetland creation (establishment) (at least 0.4 acre) would include conversion of upland (non-native grassland) habitat to wetland (native riparian) habitat via topographic recontouring. Wetland enhancement (rehabilitation), including 0.4 acre to satisfy City of Chula Vista and City of San Diego mitigation requirements and an additional 0.4 acre pursuant to the City of San Diego BSO criteria and RWQCB requirements, would include the conversion of non-native riparian habitat into native riparian habitat, while wetland through invasive species removal and planting with native riparian species suitable for least Bell’s vireo. Table 3 summarizes the proposed mitigation, which exceeds the mitigation requirements presented in Table 2, and the project design features that are proposed to be implemented concurrently with the mitigation. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 11 Table 3 Proposed Work (Wetland Mitigation and Project Design Features) Mitigation/Project Design Components Proposed Mitigation and Project Design Features Mitigation Wetland Creation/Establishment (to avoid net loss) 0.451 Wetland Enhancement/Rehabilitation 0.802 Subtotal 1.253 Project Design Features Weed Control 2.21 Wetland Creation/Establishment 0.464 Total Area of Work 3.92 NOTE: Totals may not add due to rounding. 1Exceeds the required total creation (establishment) of 0.4 acre (see Table 2). 2Meets the required enhancement (re-establishment) of 0.8 acre (see Table 2). 3Exceeds the required total mitigation of 1.20 acre (see Table 2). 4This project component is partial/potential mitigation for the Southwest Village project (RECON 2024b). 1.2.1 Site Selection (Watershed Approach) The selection of Spring Canyon as a suitable wetland plan area for the Nakano Project is due to the lack of available mitigation sites in the watershed in which the project occurs (Otay River watershed). The Otay River watershed is encompassed by two large mitigation banks that would cover all available wetlands restoration potential; one mitigation bank in the upper Otay River watershed is proposed by the City of Chula Vista and the other in the lower Otay River watershed is planned by the City of San Diego. On the other hand, the City of San Diego supports the selection of Spring Canyon in the Tijuana River watershed based on the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan’s Specific Management Directives for southern Otay Mesa as a priority area for restoration would include the conversion of disturbed habitat and non-native grassland habitat to native riparian habitat (City of San Diego 1997). According to the State Supplemental Dredge or Fill Guidelines, Subpart J, a watershed approach must be applied to evaluate the concept of “no net loss” (SWRCB 2021). The loss of waters of the State must be offset by creating wetlands to achieve “no net loss” of wetlands overall. The watershed approach considers the needs of a watershed when making mitigation decisions to achieve a balance between wetland impacts and protecting ecological functions over time. In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conducted a study that included several recommendations related to adopting a watershed approach to compensatory mitigation (National Academy of Sciences 2001). For example, the NAS study states that mitigation preference should not be automatic but should be based on the wetland needs and the potential for the compensatory wetland to persist over time. The considerations may include current trends in habitat. These activities would restore loss or conversion, the presence and needs of sensitive species, and site conditions that favor or hinder the success of compensatory mitigation projects (among others). While the watershed approach is designed to enhance the aquatic resource mitigation, NAS acknowledged the risks of the watershed approach because it might prioritize individual wetlands that might not be ecologically functional over functional wetlands in a different watershed. Successful attainment of a watershed approach requires thorough consideration of landscape trends to properly site compensatory wetlands where they will maintain sustainable “no net loss” of wetland functions and Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 12 services. Given that the project and Spring Canyon wetland plan area are in close proximity to each other, despite being located in adjacent watersheds, and considering the unavailability of mitigation sites in the Otay River watershed, adding one mitigation ratio to compensate for out-of-watershed mitigation would provide a net gain to wetlands functions and services in south San Diego County. 1.2.2 Mitigation and Restoration Definitions The proposed mitigation would create (establish) and enhance (rehabilitate) the wetland functions and values within the mitigation area through re-establishment of wetland habitat,wetland plan area in line with City of San Diego and USACE/RWQCB definitions of wetland restoration, which are provided as follows: • Per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines Section III. B. 1. (a), wetland restorationcreation is an activity that re-establishesresults in the formation of new wetlands in an upland area. An example is excavation of uplands adjacent to existing wetlands to lower the surface elevation in a manner to allow for surface waters, and the establishment of native wetland vegetation that would be sustained by the new surface flows, and wetland enhancement is an activity that improves the self-sustaining habitat functions of a formeran existing wetland (City of San Diego 2018). o Per the USACE Compensatory Mitigation Standard Operating Procedures, restorationwhich are applied by RWQCB during the permitting process, wetland creation (establishment) is the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functionspresent to a former or degradeddevelop an aquatic resource. The USACE divides restoration into two categories: re-establishment, that did not previously exist at an upland site. Establishment results in a gain in aquatic resource area and rehabilitation, whereby,functions. o For the purpose of tracking net gains in aquatic resource area, restoration is divided into two categories: re-establishment and rehabilitation: Re-establishment is the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and functions. Rehabilitation is the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. Rehabilitation results in a gain in aquatic resource function but does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area. City of San Diego definitions for wetland creation and wetland enhancement correspond to USACE/RWQCB definitions for wetland establishment and wetland rehabilitation, respectively. USACE/RWQCB terminology is provided in parentheses after each use of the City terms “creation” and “enhancement.” Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 13 The proposed restoration will createcreation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) would result in hydrological and morphological changes to the creek through the removalconversion of non-native grasslands andby lowering the floodplain, and by removing dense stands of perennial invasive plant species, namely tamarisk, located within the floodplain. Removal that currently reduce water flow through the area. Topographic recontouring of non-native grasslands in the floodplain willgrassland uplands within the creation (establishment) area using mechanized equipment would further reconnect the incised channel to its floodplain. This would facilitate the re-establishment and recruitment of native wetland species by bringing the surface closer to groundwater levels and increasing the frequency and length of groundwater to surface flow connection during rain events. The installation of diverse native wetland plants within former non-native grassland areas is also anticipated to improve wetland hydrology by increasing the drainage’s hydraulic roughness and by supporting the development of wetland micro-topography, such as braiding and meandering, over time. By removing stands of tamarisk from the enhancement (rehabilitation) areas, hydraulic resistance values willwould be reduced for improved hydrologic function. The removal of the halophytic tamarisk and the resulting improved flushing capacity would also reduce soil salinity will be reduced for improved recruitment of native wetland vegetation and establishment of native wetland plantings. During tamarisk removal, the creek system will be modified by hand to improve the functions and services of the creekLarge invasive species such as tamarisk would be cut at the stump and treated with herbicide, but the stump and roots would not be removed to avoid disturbing the creek system. No manual or mechanical equipment would be used to modify the creek system within the enhancement (rehabilitation) areas. 2.0 Existing Conditions 2.1 MitigationWetland Plan Area Description The mitigationwetland plan area is located within Spring Canyon, in the City of San Diego MHPA Preserve, on land owned by Tri Pointe Homes (see Figure 4). The wetland plan area is characterized by monoculture of tamarisk and castor bean stands and other non-native species mixed with native riparian habitat. Non-native grassland surrounds an incised channel that is characterized by scour and other disturbances (including off-road vehicle tracks and erosion). Least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat have been observed within the wetland plan area. An additional wetland creation (establishment) potential/partial wetland mitigation area would be implemented concurrently with the mitigation and would be applied to the future Southwest Village project through the permitting process for the Southwest Village Project. Stands of invasive non-native species have also been identified upstream of the mitigation area, off-site on publicly owned lands, where weed removal is recommended and would provide long-term benefits to the mitigation area (see Figure 4). 2.1.1 Topography and Soils The mitigationwetland plan area is located within a riparian corridor and the surrounding topography consists of mesa tops and canyons. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Soil Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 14 Survey (USDA 2020a), two soil types were mapped in the mitigationwetland plan area: Linne clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, and Olivenhain cobbly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes (Figure 5). The Linne series is the dominant soil type within the mitigationwetland plan area and consists of well-drained soil, with very high runoff with moderately deep clay loam derived from soft calcareous sandstone and shale. The Olivenhain series occurs in a single small area at the southern end of the mitigationwetland plan area and consists of well-drained, moderately deep to deep clays derived from soft, calcareous sandstone, and shale with rapid runoff. 2.1.2 Hydrology The mitigationwetland plan area is located within Spring Canyon, with additional nearby tributaries including Dillon Canyon Finger Canyon and Wruck Canyon (see Figure 4). City of San Diego waters are mapped throughout Spring Canyon based on vegetation composition, which consists of a high concentration of mule fat scrub and are found within the mitigationwetland plan area and directly upstream of the mitigationwetland plan area (Figure 6). These waters would also be considered CDFW riparian. A hydraulic analysis was performed by Rick Engineering identifying the limits of inundation for selected storm events (see Figure 6; Attachment 1). The hydraulic analysis indicates that most of the wetland mitigation area lies within the 2-year floodplain. The watershed immediately surrounding the canyon is largely undeveloped and provides upland buffers that protect water quality. A hydraulic analysis was performed by Rick Engineering identifying the limits of inundation for the 2-, 5-, and 10-year flood events (see Figure 6; Attachment 1). The hydraulic analysis indicates that most of the wetland mitigation area is located within the 2-year flow limits, indicating adequate hydrologic functions to establish native riparian habitats. Additionally, a groundwater investigation was conducted in the upstream portions of the wetland plan area by Geocon in June 2024 by drilling for groundwater across the upland non-native grassland habitat and incised channel. The purpose of the groundwater investigation was to identify the depth to groundwater within the upland areas and the channel to understand the suitability and practicability of recontouring the floodplain to establish riparian vegetation in the lowered floodplain. Understanding the depth of groundwater during the dry season helps to determine the degree of upland grading to bring the surface of the restoration area close enough to groundwater to support wetland vegetation in all seasons. Figure 6 presents the drilling locations and depth to groundwater measurements at each drilling location. Four drilling locations were established, including two within the incised channel and two near the 2-year floodplain boundaries in the upland non-native grassland areas. Groundwater depths were between 7.5 feet and 15 feet (see Figure 6). Typical target groundwater depths for riparian systems in southern California are 15 feet during the dry season and 10 feet during the wet season, with groundwater to surface connection usually occurring during wet season rain events (California Riparian Habitat Joint Venture 2009; Rohde et al 2021). Topographic recontouring would bring the wetland surface closer to groundwater, increasing the frequency and length of groundwater to surface flow connection during rain events and reducing the distance to groundwater for established riparian species root systems. It would also broaden the 2-year flow limits further into portions of the wetland plan area currently mapped as non-native grassland. FIGURE 5Wetland Plan Area on Soils Map OhE OhF LsF DaF HrC Dillon Canyon S p r i n g C a n y on S p r i n g C a n y o n OhE OhF LsF DaF HrC Dillon Canyon S p r i n g C a n y on S p r i n g C a n y o n Image Source: Nearmap (flown May 2024) 0 200Feet [ Wetland Plan Area Wetland Area for Nakano Partial/Potential Mitigation Area for Southwest Village Wetland Creation (Establishment) Soil Type DaF | Diablo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes HrC | Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes LsF | Linne clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes OhE | Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes OhF | Olivenhain cobbly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig5.mxd 08/06/2024 bma FIGURE 6.1Wetland Plan Area Existing Hydrology ") !. !. !. !. 10.8 ft 7.5 ft 15 ft 10.5 ft ") !. !. !. !. 10.8 ft 7.5 ft 15 ft 10.5 ft Image Source: NearMap (Flown May 2024) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig6.mxd 08/06/2024 bma 0 100Feet [ Mitigation Parcel ")Culvert Natural Flood Channel 2-year Floodplain !.June 2024 Groundwater Drilling Location(Depth to Groundwater) Wetland Plan Area Wetland Area for Nakano Partial/Potential Mitigation Area for Southwest Village Wetland Creation (Establishment) City of San Diego Wetlands Wetland FIGURE 6.2Wetland Plan Area Existing Hydrology Image Source: NearMap (Flown May 2024) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig6.mxd 08/06/2024 bma 0 120Feet [ Mitigation Parcel Natural Flood Channel 2-year Floodplain Wetland Plan Area Wetland Area for Nakano City of San Diego Wetlands Wetland Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 18 2.1.3 Aquatic Resources Aquatic resources within the wetland plan area include non-wetland waters and riparian areas; the process for identifying and characterizing the wetland plan area’s aquatic resources is described in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for the Nakano Project Wetland Area in Spring Canyon (RECON 2024c). Non-wetland waters within the wetland plan area consist of unvegetated ephemeral drainage channels. The main drainage course flows southward through Spring Canyon, draining across the international border via a stormwater conveyance facility and into Mexico, where flows enter the Tijuana River and then continue into the Pacific Ocean. The channel is mostly devoid of vegetation and has a sandy or cobble bottom within incised banks that vary in depth. Riparian areas within the wetland plan area consist of mule fat scrub and tamarisk scrub on terraces above the ordinary high water mark and adjacent to the non-wetland water channels. These vegetation communities extend outside of the ordinary high water mark delineated for the non-wetland waters. The riparian areas support hydrophytic vegetation but lack wetland hydrology and hydric soil indicators required to meet the USACE definition of a wetland. 2.1.4 Biological Conditions The mitigationwetland plan area’s existing biological resources are shown on Figure 7. The mitigationwetland plan area consists of mule fat scrub with stands of non-native grassland, tamarisk, and disturbed maritime succulent scrub, disturbed habitat and disturbed land (i.e., unpaved access routes), with a natural channel meandering from the upstream end to the downstream end. The existing riparian habitat within the mitigationwetland plan area ranges from approximately 70 to 150 feet in width, with adjacent uplands and conserved lands owned by the City of San Diego to the east providing a buffer greater than 400-feet in width. Mule fat scrub is a depauperate, tall, herbaceous riparian scrub strongly dominated by mule fat. This early seral community is maintained by frequent flooding. Site factors include intermittent stream channels with fairly coarse substrate and moderate depth to the water table (Oberbauer et al. 2008). This community type is widely scattered along intermittent streams and near larger rivers. Within the mitigationwetland plan area, this community is dominated by mule fat with instances of riparian trees including black willow (Salix gooddingii) as well as non-native invasive species. The non-native grassland and disturbed habitat within the mitigation area consist primarily of stands of tamarisk, scrub and non-native grassland mixed with pepper trees, tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), non-native grasses, garland daisy (Glebionis coronaria), castor bean, bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). A large, dense stand of tamarisk scrub occurs towards the downstream end of the wetland plan area. The upstream end of the wetland plan area contains a stand of non-native grassland with pepper trees, castor bean and a few native shrubs mixed in. A stand of disturbed maritime succulent scrub juts into the non-native grassland area at its southern end. FIGURE 7.1Wetland Plan AreaExisting Biological Resources !U !U !U !U !U #0 #0 kj kjkj kj kj kj kj ") !U !U !U !U !U #0 #0 kj kjkj kj kj kj kj ") Image Source: NearMap (Flown May 2024) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig7.mxd 08/06/2024 bma 0 100Feet [ City of SD MHPA ")Culvert Wetland Plan AreaWetland Area for Nakano Partial/Potential Mitigation Area for Southwest VillageWetland Creation (Establishment) Vegetation CommunitiesDiegan Coastal Sage Scrub Maritime Succulent Scrub Disturbed Maritime Succulent Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Non-native Grassland Disturbed Wetland Natural Flood Channel Disturbed Land Disturbed Habitat Southern Willow Scrub Invasive PlantsCastor Bean(Ricinus communis) Fennel(Foeniculum vulgare) Peruvian Pepper Tree(Schinus molle) Sensitive AnimalsBirds #0 Coastal California Gnatcatcher(Polioptila californica californica) #0 (Yellow-breasted Chat(Icteria virens)Sensitive Plants !U San Diego Bur-sage(Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) !P kj Tree Tobacco(Nicotiana glauca) FIGURE 7.2Wetland Plan AreaExisting Biological Resources !U !U #0 #0 #0 #0 kj kj kj !P !P !P !P !Pkj kj !U !U #0 #0 #0 #0 kj kj kj !P !P !P !P !Pkj kj Im ag e Source: NearMap (Flown May 2024) M:\JOBS\3396-1\co m m o n _g is\Repo rts\WetMit\2024\Fig 7.m xd 08/06/2024 bm a 0 100Feet [ City of SD MHPA ")Culvert Wetland Plan AreaWetland Area for Nakano Vegetation CommunitiesDiegan Coastal Sage Scrub Maritime Succulent Scrub Disturbed Maritime Succulent Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Tamarisk Scrub Non-native Grassland Natural Flood Channel Disturbed Land Disturbed Habitat Invasive PlantsCastor Bean(Ricinus communis) Tamarix(Tamarix sp.) Sensitive AnimalsBirds #0 Co astal Califo rn ia Gn atcatcher(Polioptila californica californica) #0 Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus ) #0 Yello w Warbler(Setophaga petechia) #0 (Yello w-breasted Chat(Icteria virens)Sensitive Plants !U San Dieg o Bur-sag e(Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) !P kj Tree Tobacco(Nicotiana glauca) P:\3396-1\Bio\WetMitPlan\Photos\photos1-3.docx 08/06/24 PHOTOGRAPH 1 Northern/Upstream Portion of Wetland Plan Area with Castor Bean (Ricinus communis), Peruvian Peppertree (Schinus molle), and Non-native Grassland, Facing North, June 2023 PHOTOGRAPH 2 Central Portion of Wetland Plan Area with Peruvian Peppertree (Schinus molle), Facing South, June 2023 Peruvian Peppertree Non-native Grassland Peruvian Peppertree Castor Bean P:\3396-1\Bio\WetMitPlan\Photos\photos1-3.docx 08/06/24 PHOTOGRAPH 3 Southern/Downstream Portion of Plan Area with Instances of Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) and Disturbed Habitat, Facing South, June 2023 Tamarisk P:\3396-1\Bio\WetMitPlan\Photos\photos1-3.docx 07/31/24 PHOTOGRAPH 4 Downstream Portion of Plan Area with Monoculture Stand of Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) Circled in Red. Panoramic Photograph Facing Southwest to Northwest, July 2024. Additional tamarisk hidden behind willows Patches of castor bean are included in Tamarisk Scrub enhancement area Additional tamarisk hidden behind lemonade berry in foreground Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 24 Cover of invasive species within the mitigation area and upstream tributaries was determined through analysis of aerial photographs (Nearmaps 1 inch = 50 feet) combined with ground surveys. Aerial photographs were used to determine non-native species polygons based on the spectral signature and color in the photograph. Ground surveys were used to further refine the non-native species polygons. Photographs 1 through 34 provide representative overviews of the existing native vegetation and non-native weed infestations. Upstream tributaries within public property were surveyed on foot and instances of invasive species mapped as points using GPS (see Figure 4). The mitigationwetland plan area and the adjacent upland habitat is occupied by several sensitive and special status species. During surveys conducted by RECON in 2018, a least Bell’s vireo was, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat were observed downstream ofwithin or immediately adjacent to the mitigation area within the section of Spring Canyon plannedin vegetation mapped as part of the Southwest Village wetland mitigation. A yellow warbler wasmule fat scrub or tamarisk scrub (see Figure 7). Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) were observed within the southern portion and yellow-breasted chats (Icteria virens) have also been observed throughout the mitigation areain adjacent upland habitats during the 2018 surveys. San Diego bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodifolia) is mapped in the uplands to the west and east of the mitigation area. Other vegetation communities and sensitive animals have been observed and mapped in the Tri Pointe Homes property surrounding the mitigation site and are shown on Figure 7. 2.2 Rationale for Expecting Success 2.2.1 Mitigation Goals The goal of this mitigation effort is to restorecreate (establish) and enhance (rehabilitate) a minimum of 0.81.2 acre of wetlands as mitigation for 0.4 acre of impacts resulting from the project to wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, CDFW, and RWQCB (see Tables 1 through 3). This includes 0.84 acre of restorationcreation (establishment) and 0.4 acre of enhancement (rehabilitation) to satisfy City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista wetland mitigation requirements under the MSCP, as well as an additional 0.4 acre of enhancement/re-establishment as a project design feature (rehabilitation) to satisfy RWQCB mitigation requirements and to achieve biologically superior mitigation per the City of San Diego, for a total of 1.2 acres. Figure 8 depicts the mitigationwetland plan area in relation to existing site conditions and Figure 9 depicts the mitigationwetland plan area and the target vegetation communities. The implementation activities will be the same in the restoration areas as the enhancement/re-establishment areas (i.e., invasive species removal, channel recontouring with hand tools, and native seed and container plant installation); the 0.8 acre of restorationThe wetland creation (establishment) is distinguished from the 0.4 acre ofwetland enhancement (rehabilitation) because it would occur in portions of the mitigation site that do not contain existing City of San Diego wetlandscharacterized as uplands, whereas the 0.4 acre of enhancement/re-establishment (rehabilitation) would convert stands of invasive non-native species to stands of native species within areas mapped as existing City of San Diego wetlands (see Figure 8). FIGURE 8.1Wetland Plan Area - Existing Conditions Image Source: NearMap (Flown May 2024) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig8.mxd 08/06/2024 bma 0 100Feet [ Mitigation Parcel Wetland Plan Area (3.92 acres) Wetland Area for Nakano (3.46 acres) Weed Control / Project Design Feature (2.208 acres) Wetland Creation (Establishment) (0.453 acre) Partial/Potential Mitigation Area for Southwest Village Wetland Creation (Establishment) (0.457 acre) Vegetation Communities Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbed Maritime Succulent Scrub Non-native Grassland Mule Fat Scrub Natural Flood Channel Disturbed Habitat FIGURE 8.2Wetland Plan Area - Existing Conditions Image Source: NearMap (Flown May 2024) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig8.mxd 08/06/2024 bma 0 120Feet [ Mitigation Parcel Wetland Plan Area (3.92 acres) Wetland Area for Nakano (3.46 acres) Weed Control / Project Design Feature (2.208 acres) Wetland Enhancement (Rehabilitation) (0.801 acre) Vegetation Communities Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbed Maritime Succulent Scrub Non-native Grassland Tamarisk Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Natural Flood Channel Disturbed Habitat FIGURE 9.1Wetland Plan Area - Target Vegetation Image Source: NearMap (Flown May 2024) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig9.mxd 08/06/2024 bma 0 100Feet [ Mitigation Parcel Wetland Plan Area (3.92 acres) Wetland Area for Nakano (3.46 acres) Weed Control / Project Design Feature (2.208 acres) Wetland Creation (Establishment) (0.453 acre) Partial/Potential Mitigation Area for Southwest Village Wetland Creation (Establishment) (0.457 acre) Target Vegetation Mule Fat Scrub Natural Flood Channel Wetland Buffer FIGURE 9.2Wetland Plan Area - Target Vegetation Image Source: NearMap (Flown May 2024) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig9.mxd 08/06/2024 bma 0 120Feet [ Mitigation Parcel Wetland Plan Area (3.92 acres) Wetland Area for Nakano (3.46 acres) Weed Control / Project Design Feature (2.208 acres) Wetland Enhancement (Rehabilitation) (0.801 acre) Target Vegetation Mule Fat Scrub Natural Flood Channel Wetland Buffer Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 29 This plan also includes additional project design features aimed at reducing the impact of edge effects on the mitigation area and increasing the overall amount of restoration beyond the minimum required mitigation. Edge effects would be reduced through additional invasive species control proposed in portions of the mitigationplan area totaling 2.132 acres (see Figures 8 and 9), and by pursuing the removal of perennial invasive non-native plant species within publicly owned land in tributaries upstream of the mitigation area (see Figure 4).and in small “oxbow” sections of Spring Canyon where a portion of the main channel lies outside the Tri Pointe Homes property/wetland plan area on City of San Diego property (see Figure 4). These project design features are intended to support the long-term viability of the mitigation effort and are not part of the required compensatory mitigation. Invasive species removal areas on public land/City of San Diego property are not included in the wetland plan area acreage. Following mitigation implementation and five years of maintenance and monitoring, the mitigationwetland plan area would consist of diverse native wetland vegetation structure indicative of mule fat scrub, supporting mule fat, blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) and Goodding’s willow with a native understory consisting of western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), California rose (Rosa californica), and wild grape (Vitis girdiana). It is anticipated that the diversity of native plants introduced through restoration would provide greater functions and values than those currently occurring on-site and would support a greater number and diversity of wildlife, including sensitive riparian bird species such as least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler., yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler. Least Bell’s vireo breeding habitat consists of willow-dominated riparian woodlands with a dense growth of tall trees and underbrush covering a large tract, and with foraging also occurring in mulefat scrub (Unitt 2004). 2.2.2 MitigationWetland Plan Area Suitability The proposed mitigationwetland plan area is located in an area of Spring Canyon where portions ofnon-native grassland and stands of tamarisk scrub and castor bean provide opportunities for wetland restoration, specifically wetland creation (establishment) and wetland enhancement (rehabilitation). Based on aerial photographs from 1953 to 2024, the wetland plan area has a history of ranching (grazing) and off-highway vehicle use that has resulted in the encroachment of non-native grassland, scouring, and erosion, particularly within the area of proposed wetland creation (establishment) in the northern portion of the wetland plan area. Attachment 2 presents a series of historic aerial images of the wetland plan area beginning with an image taken in 1953, which is the earliest available aerial, and includes images from subsequent decades until the present. Based on these aerials, Spring Canyon has undergone repeated impacts from cattle grazing, vehicle access, road improvements, and other uses over decades. For example, more roads and trails are visible within Spring Canyon, including roads and trails bisecting the wetland plan area, on the historic aerials than on the 2024 aerial (except for the 1953 aerial), and several of the roads and trails presently visible in the wetland plan area appear wider and more developed on the historic aerial. Those historic impacts have caused changes in native vegetation cover, an increase in invasive species cover and erosion, and altered wetland hydrology and soils. In the northern portion of the wetland plan area that currently supports non-native grassland (see Section 2.1.4), the site appears to have historically supported upland habitats. This conclusion is based on a comparison of vegetation visible on historic and present-day aerials to the vegetation Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 30 observed during site visits in 2023 and 2024. From 1953 onward to present time, several trees can be identified persisting in the same location; these trees were confirmed during 2023 and 2024 field visits as Peruvian pepper trees (Schinus molle) and lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), both of which are upland indicators (see the pink and yellow dots in Attachment 2). In the period for which imagery is available, it appears that the entire proposed creation (establishment) area has primarily supported upland habitats, such as maritime succulent scrub, coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland habitat during and after periods of heavy grazing by livestock. For example, on the 1953 and 1971 images, the vegetation in the proposed creation (establishment) area appears to consist of sparse upland shrubs surrounded by herbaceous vegetation; the aerial signature of this vegetation is similar to the vegetation occurring on nearby slopes. In later decades, such as in the 1982, 1996, and 2003 aerials, much of the vegetation visible in the earlier aerials has been grassland vegetation, most likely due to grazing. Mature riparian vegetation would not be converted to grassland habitat through grazing in this relatively short period, whereas the conversion of upland scrub habitat to grassland due to grazing occurs much more rapidly (Vaughn et al 2020). Within the wetland habitat have become degradedupland non-native grassland areas, preliminary floodplain mapping by Rick Engineering (Attachment 1) and a high cover of non-native invasive species but otherwise supportgroundwater investigation by Geocon (Attachment 3) indicate that topographic recontouring could successfully create (establish) wetland hydrology. by lowering the surface elevation in relation to the groundwater level and by hydrologically reconnecting the surface flows of the incised channel that bisects the grassland areas to the floodplain (see Figures 6 and 7). The degraded upland areas would be restoredconverted to native wetland habitat through channel and/or floodplain recontouring/lowering; removal of non-native vegetation and installation of native wetland species and would be contiguous with existing areas of mule fat scrub. Because of its existing hydrology, the mitigation area is appropriate for restoration to high quality wetland habitat with diverse native wetland vegetation layers and plant diversity which would provide potential habitat for wildlife, including sensitive wildlife species that are present in the area and depend on wetland habitat. The mitigation area would be reached via dirt roads accessible from Calle De Linea, near Britannia Boulevard. No utility easements are present within the mitigation area and potential future development in adjacent areas was taken into consideration when identifying the mitigation area. The 1.2 acre of mitigation would be achieved by converting mature stands of perennial invasive plants and a stand of non-native grassland to mule fat scrub habitat using restoration methods, including removal of listed high and moderate invasive species (California Invasive Plant Council [Cal-IPC] 2023), including stands of tamarisk, fennel, and pepper tree,; the treatment and removal of non-native grasses,; and through the installation of native wetland species indicative. The proposed habitat improvements would be contiguous with existing areas of mule fat scrub. Within the stands of tamarisk scrub, the wetland habitat has become degraded by a high cover of non-native invasive species but otherwise supports wetland hydrology. By removing these highly invasive species and planting native riparian habitat. The historic conversion of the original, the wetland functions would be re-established and enhanced. More specifically, invasives presently prevent water flow through the area, increase soil salinity, and preclude native vegetation from growing. Their removal would allow for improved water flow, improved soil conditions and allow for long-term establishment of native wetland habitat. Because of its existing hydrology within the channel and its potential for the creation (establishment) of wetland hydrology through lowering of Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 31 the floodplain, the wetland plan area is appropriate for high quality wetland habitat creation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) suitable for the occupancy by sensitive wildlife such as the last Bell’s vireo and yellow-breasted chat. native riparian habitat to disturbed habitat dominated by Cal-IPC high and moderate invasive species and non-native grasses has degraded the wetland’s functions and values, because the spread of invasive species has decreased the cover of native wetland vegetation and altered the wetland hydrology and soils. The proposed restoration activities, including the conversion of disturbed and non-native habitat to native riparian habitat via invasive species removal and the installation of native wetland species would thus would improve the wetland functions and values within the mitigationwetland plan area and qualify as wetland restorationcreation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines and the USACE Standard Operating Procedures for Compensatory Mitigation (see Section 1.2; City of San Diego 2018 and USACE 2016). Additionally, although some of the The proposed wetland plan area is suitable for wetland creation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) because of the following factors: • The wetland plan area has been identified by the City of San Diego as a target site for habitat restoration areas currently consist of non-native grassland, set forth in the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan for Southern Otay Mesa, which would be indicativeprioritizes the restoration of disturbed areas in Spring Canyon. • Based on a comparison of historic aerial images compared with recent aerial photos and data from current site visits, the entire area of proposed wetland creation (establishment) appears to have historically supported upland habitats and is, therefore, suitable for wetland creation (establishment), as opposed to wetland restoration (re-establishment) or enhancement (rehabilitation). • Groundwater is within depths suitable for the recontouring of upland habitat conditions, the hydraulic analysis and preliminary grasslands to lower the floodplain mapping conducted by Rick Engineering shows that, within Spring Canyon, the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 100-year floodplain limits overlap with the non-native grassland areas. Therefore, the non-native grassland areas are suitable for restoration to native wetland habitat because they currently contain the hydrology necessary to support wetlandto bring it closer to the extant groundwater and thus create (establish) jurisdictional wetlands with native riparian habitat (see Figure 6). • Wetland hydrology is present in the enhancement (rehabilitation) areas and could be enhanced via invasive species removal and installation of native riparian plants (see Figures 6 and 7 and Attachment 1). The proposed mitigation area is suitable for wetland restoration because of the following factors: • It containsThe wetland hydrology (see Figure 6).plan area is located within the City of San Diego’s MHPA Preserve and is referenced in the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan’s Specific Management Directives for southern Otay Mesa as a priority area for restoration (City of San Diego 1997; see Figure 4). Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 32 • It would restore degraded areas with invasive species to nativeThe wetland habitats, substantially improving the function of the riparianplan area compared to the existing conditionhas the potential to create (establish) and providing additionalenhance (rehabilitate) riparian habitat suitable for least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat, which have been documented southwithin and downstream of the mitigationwetland plan area. • Native wetland habitats are present within and adjacent to the mitigation area, which is part of a larger contiguous wetland area containing mule fat scrub and southern willow scrub habitat. Outside the immediate flood plain, the mitigation area is surrounded by open space consisting mainly of maritime succulent scrub, a native upland habitat. • Least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler have been observed within the downstream riparian habitat. • It is part of a regional network of habitat corridors and conserved open space (wetland buffers). Per the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan’s Specific Management Policies and Directives for the Otay Mesa Area, the sitewetland plan area provides wildlife connectivity to MHPA lands on the western side of Otay Mesa, including for cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), via a linkage in the southwestern corner of the mesa (City of San Diego 1997). In addition, the Southwest Village Wildlife Movement/Crossing Study Spring Survey Report identifies the Spring Canyon as supporting Spring Canyon supports diverse wildlife species, including dominant carnivores such as bobcat (Lynx rufus) and coyote (Canis latrans), with coyote movement and several high activity bobcat hotspots document throughout Spring Canyon (Wildlife Tracking Company 2020). Native wetland habitats are present adjacent to the mitigationwetland plan area, which is part of a larger contiguous wetland area containing mule fat scrub and southern willow scrub habitat. Outside the immediate flood plain, the mitigationwetland plan area is surrounded by open space consisting mainly of maritime succulent scrub, a native upland habitat that provides wetland buffers to minimize edge effects. • There is adequate site access via dirt roads and city streets connecting to Britannia Boulevard (see Figure 7). • The mitigationwetland plan area lacks utility or other easements (see Figure 4). 2.2.3 MitigationWetland Plan Area Viability The viability of the proposed mitigation was assessed during the preparation of this plan per the City of San Diego’s Land Development Code–Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018) and the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista, 2003). The assessment included consideration of the site’s connectivity to larger planned open space, the surrounding land uses, and sensitivity of wetland habitat to change. Furthermore, the site’s viability is characterized by the potential to enhance native habitat and sensitive species values and water quality in perpetuity through long-term management. While development is anticipated within the Southwest Village Specific Plan Area located approximately 0.3-mile northwest of the mitigationwetland plan area, no future development is Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 33 planned in the open space surrounding the mitigationwetland plan area, which is part of the City of San Diego’s MHPA (see Figure 4). The development areas associated with the Southwest Village Specific Plan would be separated from the mitigationwetland plan area by approximately 0.3 mile including rugged topography that keep the mitigationwetland plan area away from potential human trespass. In addition, any future development associated with the pending Southwest Village Specific Plan would be required to comply with the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan (City of San Diego 1997). These guidelines apply to projects that are adjacent to the City of San Diego’s MHPA and include restrictions on drainage of urban runoff, release of toxic materials, lighting, noise, public access, invasive non-native species, brush management, and grading within the MHPA. As the proposed mitigationwetland plan area is located within the MHPA, these guidelines would provide protection for the mitigationwetland plan area from indirect impacts. The location of the mitigationwetland plan area within the MHPA would reduce fragmentation of this sensitive vegetation community and increase viability and longevity of the habitat quality. The 0.46-acre wetland creation (establishment) is intended to be available for potential/partial mitigation for the future Southwest Village project and would be not included in the required compensatory mitigation for the Nakano project (see Figure 4). However, it would be implemented concurrently with the Nakano mitigation because it is integrated in the Nakano wetland plan area. The concurrent grading and creation (establishment) implementation would ensure continuity in topography between the Nakano and Southwest Village portions of the wetland plan area and would maintain an upstream-to-downstream phasing of the restoration implementation. The remaining wetland mitigation required for the Southwest Village project would occur downstream of the Nakano wetland plan area and is addressed in the Southwest Village Mitigation Plan (RECON 2024b). Finally, the design of the mitigationwetland plan area includes considerations to minimize the spread of non-native species back into the mitigationwetland plan area from upstream reaches and surrounding habitats. The mitigation effort would address adjacent and upstream populations of invasive species both within Tri Pointe Homes property and within upstream reaches of the watershed within surrounding public ownerships., including small “oxbow” sections of Spring Canyon where the main channel lies outside the Tri Pointe Homes property/wetland plan area on City of San Diego property. Compared to the impacted wetland habitat, which consists of degraded wetlands in an isolated corridor (RECON 2023a2024a), the proposed mitigation habitat would provide greater wetland functions and values, improve hydrology and water quality, and optimize long-term viability of wildlife such as least Bell’s vireo, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler through higher quality wetlands with connectivity between larger natural open spaces with both wetland and upland habitat. 2.3 Reference Site The reference site for the proposed mitigation would be chosen from undisturbed mule fat scrub and southern willow scrub habitat also located within Spring Canyon. The most functional reference habitat at the reference site would be chosen at the time of the analysis to include the ranges of both physical and biotic characteristics that meet the performance standard goals. The area to be Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 34 used as the reference site for this mitigation project must be approved by the City of San Diego or the City of Chula Vista, RWQCB, CDFW, and USFWS. 3.0 Roles and Responsibilities 3.1 Permittee and Financial Responsibility The Permittee (Tri Pointe Homes) would be responsible for retaining (1) a qualified restoration specialist with over five years of experience monitoring habitat restoration to oversee the entire installation and monitoring of the mitigationwetland program and (2) a qualified installation/maintenance contractor with expertise in restoration of native wetland habitat. Tri Pointe Homes would be responsible for financing the installation, five-year maintenance program, and biological monitoring of the proposed mitigationwork described in this plan. Tri Pointe Homes Contact: John Fahey, Vice President of Operations Tri Pointe Homes 13520 Evening Creek Drive North San Diego, CA 92128 John.Fahey@tripointehomes.com 3.2 Agencies Under the No Annexation Scenario, the City of Chula Vista would be responsible for approving a final restorationwetland plan for the mitigation effort. Under the Annexation Scenario in the event the project is annexed to the City of San Diego, the City of San Diego Development Services Department (DSD) and MSCP staff would be responsible for issuing any necessary permits associated with the proposed restorationmitigation effort and approving the final restorationwetland plan for the mitigation effort. The following entities would be responsible for each agency. City of Chula Vista Contact: Dai Hoang, Senior Planner City of Chula Vista Development Services Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 dhoang@chulavistaca.gov City of San Diego Contacts: Ms. Dawna Marshall City of San Diego Development Services Department 1222 First Avenue, MS 501 San Diego, CA 92101 DLMarshall@sandiego.gov Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 35 Ms. Kristy Forburger City of San Diego Planning Department Multiple Species Conservation Program 9485 Aero Drive San Diego, CA 92123 kforburger@sandiego.gov 3.3 Restoration Specialist Overall supervision of the installation and maintenance of this mitigation effort would be the responsibility of a restoration specialist with at least five years of native wetland habitat restoration experience. The restoration specialist would oversee the installation/maintenance for the life of the mitigationwetland project. Specifically, the restoration specialist would educate all participants about restoration goals and requirements; inspect plant material; directly oversee weeding, plant installation, and other maintenance activities; and conduct regular monitoring as well as annual assessments of the restoration effort. The restoration specialist would prepare and submit the required annual reports. 3.4 Installation/Maintenance Contractor Tri Pointe Homes would hire a qualified restoration contractor. The contractor would be a firm holding a valid C-27 Landscape Contracting License from the State of California, a valid Pest Control Business License, and a Qualified Applicator Certificate or Qualified Applicator License, with Category B, that would allow them to perform the required work for this restoration effort. During the installation, the contractor would be responsible for initial topographic recontouring/grading, erosion control, weed treatment and removal, plant installation, as well as maintenance of the restoration sitewetland plan area during the 120-day Plant Establishment Period (PEP) and five-year maintenance period utilizing the methods detailed herein. Following installation, the contractor would submit marked up as-builts for all activities that occurred during implementation to the City. Following formal sign-off of the PEP, the contractor would maintain the mitigationwetland plan area for five years. During this period, the contractor would service the entire mitigation area as well as invasive weed occurrences within the upstream tributaries and oxbow-shaped portions of Spring Canyon on adjacent City property according to the maintenance schedule (Section 4.5, below). Service would include, but not be limited to, weed control, trash removal, watering, remedial cutting and seeding installation, access control, and pest and disease management. All activities conducted would be seasonally appropriate and approved by the restoration specialist. 4.0 Implementation Plan This section describes the design of the proposed mitigationwork and how it would be implemented. Implementation of the mitigation efforts would be conducted under the direction of the qualified Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 36 restoration specialist. All mitigation activities would commence the first summer-fall season prior to, or concurrently with, construction. The proposed mitigation design is shown on Figures 8 and 9. Implementation activities include recontouring within the creation (establishment) areas, weed treatment and weed dethatching, native container plant and cutting installation, and barrier installation. WeedRecontouring, weed treatment, and dethatching would occur before or concurrently with the start of the project construction. RestorationImplementation activities should occur in the order included in the following sections, although seasonal variability should be taken into consideration and the contractor’s best professional judgment should be applied. Some activities may be conducted concurrently. 4.1 Preliminary Design Mitigation for impacts to wetland habitat would use restoration methods to support establishment of structurally diverse native wetland habitat. The restoration areas would total 1.27 acres and are located within the larger 3.40-acre mitigation area (see Figures 8 and 9). Restoration would involveThe creation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) areas would total 1.25 acres (slightly more than the required 1.2 acre minimum) and are located within the larger 3.92-acre wetland plan area, which would also include the 0.46-acre wetland creation (establishment) for Southwest Village and the project design weed control areas (see Figures 8 and 9). Mitigation activities within the creation (establishment) area and the additional wetland creation (establishment) for Southwest Village would include topographic recontouring and native riparian species planting, while mitigation activities within the enhancement (rehabilitation) areas would include the removal of annual and perennial non-native species and the installation of native species indicative of native riparian habitat. Non-native species would be removed through chemical and physical removal, as appropriate for the life stage, phenology, and species of the plant. Native plantings would include riparian species that would provide a diverse habitat structure that is appropriate for native wildlife, particularly least Bell’s vireo. Decompaction of disturbed areas that are currently unauthorized trails or roads would occur, as needed. Tri Pointe Homes has notified U.S. Customs and Border Patrol of trails that will be closed and restored as part of the mitigation project. Site protection measures and access control are discussed in more detail in section 4.3.3. As a project design feature, invasive species management would also occur throughout the remaining portions of the mitigation.wetland plan area. In addition, tributaries on publicly owned parcels that are upstream of the mitigation site wetland plan area within Spring Canyon and Wruck Canyon including two contiguous off-site portions of the drainage on City property (the oxbow areas) would also be treated for non-native perennial weeds and annual weeds for the five-year maintenance period that pose a significant threat to the long-term viability of the mitigationwetland plan area (see Figure 4). Weed species that are found in upstream tributaries pose a threat to the long-term viability of the mitigationwetland plan area by their potential to set and deposit seed that may encroach into the mitigationwetland plan area. The mitigation areacreation (establishment), enhancement (rehabilitation) and all project design feature areas would be maintained throughout the five-year maintenance and monitoring period to native wetland habitat, as described in Section 5.0. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 37 4.2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures During mitigation implementation, avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented to avoid impacts to adjacent habitat, to ensure that the existing hydrology (rainwater runoff and subsurface flows) is maintained, and to avoid impacts to sensitive bird species. General avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented as follows: MitigationWetland Plan Area Design 1. Permanent protective fencing and/or use of other measures approved by the City would be implemented, if warranted, to deter human and pet access to on-site habitat. Due to the remote nature of the mitigationwetland plan area, fencing may not be needed; however, the need would be assessed based on evidence of human use in the surrounding area and coordination with the U.S. Border Patrol. Signage for the mitigationwetland plan area would be posted and maintained at conspicuous locations. The requirement for fencing and/or other preventative measures is further discussed in Section 4.3.2. During MitigationWetland Plan Implementation 1. The qualified restoration specialist that has been approved by the City of San Diego and/or Chula Vista, CDFW, RWQCB, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be on-site as needed during implementation activities to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures identified in the CEQACalifornia Environmental Quality Act environmental document. The restoration specialist would perform the following duties: a. Oversee installation of and inspect theconstruction fencing (if needed)and/or silt fencing and erosion control measures as needed, to ensure that any breaks in the fence or erosion control measures are repaired immediately. b. Periodically monitor the work area to ensure that work activities do not generate disturbances to adjacent habitats. c. Train all installation/maintenance contractor personnel on the biological resources associated with this project. At a minimum, training would include discussions of (1) the purpose for resource protection; (2) native and non-native species; (3) environmentally responsible restoration practices as outlined in measures 4, 5, and 6 below; (4) the protocol to resolve conflicts that may arise at any time during the restoration process; and (5) the general provisions of the project’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program, the need to adhere to the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and CDFW code, and the penalties associated with violating these regulations. d. Submit a final as-built report to the City of San Diego and/or the City of Chula Vista, CDFW, RWQCB, and USFWS, within 60 days following completion of implementation. The final report would include as-built drawings with an overlay of habitat that was restored Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 38 and other relevant summary information documenting that authorized impacts were not exceeded and that general compliance with all conservation measures was achieved. 2. The following conditions would be implemented during project implementation: a. Employees would strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and implementation materials to the fenced project footprint. b. The mitigationwetland plan area would be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food-related trash items would be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the sites. c. Disposal or temporary placement of brush or other debris would be limited to areas within the fenced project footprint. 3. All equipment maintenance and staging, and any other such activities would occur in designated areas as approved by the project biologist. These designated areas would be in previously compacted and disturbed areas to the maximum extent practicable in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering the habitats. Contractor equipment should be checked for leaks prior to operation and repaired, as necessary. A spill kit for each piece of construction equipment should be on-site to be used in the event of a spill. 4. To avoid any direct impacts to any species identified as a listed, candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the MSCP, removal of habitat that supports active nests in the mitigation area should occur outside the breeding season for these species (February 1 to September 15). To avoid indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler nesting within Spring Canyon and coastal California gnatcatcher nesting within the adjacent maritime succulent scrub, any work that may cause noise in excess of 60 A-weighted decibels hourly average, or the ambient if it is greater, shall be avoided during the breeding season for this species (February 1 to September 15). If removal of habitat in the mitigationwetland plan area must occur during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-implementation survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds in the proposed area of disturbance. The pre-implementation survey shall be conducted within 3 calendar days prior to the start of restoration activities (including removal of vegetation). The Permittee shall submit the results of the pre-implementation survey to the City of San Diego or Chula Vista, CDFW, RWQCB, and USFWS for review and approval prior to initiating any restoration activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report in conformance with the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines or Chula Vista requirements (i.e., appropriate follow-up surveys, monitoring schedules, work and noise barriers/buffers, etc.) shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs or disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report shall be submitted to the applicable City and CDFW, RWQCB, and USFWS for review and approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the applicable City. The City of San Diego’s Mitigation Monitoring Coordinator or the City of Chula Vista and CDFW, RWQCB, and USFWS shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report are in place prior to and/or during implementation. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 39 5. Per the Addendum to Historical Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Nakano Project (RECON 2023b2023), impacts to cultural resources associated with the implementation of restoration efforts within the survey area would be less than significant. No additional cultural resources work or monitoring for the wetland mitigation area is recommended. 4.3 Implementation Activities Implementation activities include lowering the floodplain through grading with mechanized equipment, invasive weed treatment, non-native weed biomass removal, barrier/signage installation, and native plant installation. The implementation schedule is shown in Table 24. Implementation would commence prior to or concurrently with the start of construction of the project. Table 24 Restoration Implementation Activities Schedule Task Time of Year 1. Topographic Recontouring Fall (outside bird breeding season1) 12. Initial weed removal Fall (outside bird breeding seasonseason1) 23. Barrier/Signage Fall, immediately following biomass removal 34. Plant installation Winter 1 Vegetation removal would occur outside of the bird breeding season for least Bell’s vireo, yellow breasted chat, coastal California gnatcatcher, and yellow warbler. Implementation of BIO-SD-4 and BIO-SD-5 during restoration activities would ensure avoidance of these species (RECON 2024a). 4.3.1 Initial Weed Removal Mitigation would begin with the initial removal of perennial and annual weed biomass. Perennial weeds present within the mitigationwetland plan area primarily consist of tamarisk, castor bean, tree tobacco, and pepper trees. Perennial weeds present throughout the mitigationwetland plan area, offsite oxbow areas and upstream tributaries would be removed through a combination of herbicide application, heavy equipment, and hand tools, depending on the life stage and species. In addition to the removal of perennial weed species, areas of dense non-native annual weed material would be removed throughout the mitigationwetland plan area. Annual weed material removal would be conducted by personnel familiar with native and non-native plants using mowers, line trimmers, and rakes. Cut material would be raked into piles, removed from the site, and taken to a landfill or put into a green waste dumpster for disposal. 4.3.2 Topographic Recontouring Topographic recontouring would be implemented within the wetland creation (establishment) and additional wetland creation (establishment) potential/partial wetland mitigation areas to create topography that supports wetland hydrology and vegetation. Grading would lower the ground surface approximately 2 to 4 feet within the existing non-native grassland habitat and reconnect the existing incised channel to the surrounding floodplain while maintaining existing channel Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 40 configuration. The shallow floodplain slope gradient and daylighting areas would be determined during engineering design and the development of plans and specifications, which would be submitted to the City, Wildlife Agencies and RWQCB for review and approval. The intent of the recontouring is to transition the created floodplain to the surrounding upland areas. The grading would be conducted under the direction of the wetland restoration specialist, as described in Section 3.3. Areas that are to remain unaffected by grading activities would be marked and fenced prior to implementation. The grading would be implemented using a small bulldozer or skidsteer, as deemed appropriate by the grading contractor. At the discretion of the restoration specialist and the grading contractor, the upper six inches of topsoil could be set aside at the beginning of the grading process for redistribution throughout the creation (establishment) and additional wetland creation (establishment) potential/partial wetland mitigation area after grading is complete. After grading, the soil may be tested and amended as needed, including but not limited to the addition of mulch, compost, and gypsum. Appropriate erosion control (i.e., fiber rolls, gravel bags) would be installed in strategic locations within the site to prevent erosion. After grading, high resolution aerial photography would be captured using a professional small unmanned aerial vehicle. Using industry-standard photogrammetry software and procedures, a digital surface model would be generated using the data collected by the small unmanned aerial vehicle. The as-built grading plans and report figures would include wetland boundaries and 0.5-foot contours, both of which would be derived from the digital surface model, and would be replotted at 1 inch equals 40 feet. The as-built grading plans and report figures shall be provided in the report described in Section 4.4 below. 4.3.3 Barrier Installation After initial weed removal and if warranted based on site conditions, the mitigationwetland plan area would be fenced with t-posts and rope at all unauthorized access points into the mitigationwetland plan area to prevent unauthorized access by U.S. Customs and Border Protection operational activities and trespassing by the public. Temporary or movable barriers would be installed at locations where entrance into the site is required by maintenance or water trucks for the purpose of maintaining the mitigationwetland plan area. Signs would be installed to provide notice that the area is an ecological preserve, notify that trespassing is prohibited, and cite penalties for trespass violation including liability for repair of any damage to soil or biological resources within the barrier. Signs in both Spanish and English would be mounted at approximately 200-foot intervals around the mitigationwetland plan area on metal t-posts or similar. 4.3.34 Plant and Seed Installation Planting and seeding would occur after the initial weed removal is complete and after the first significant rainfall of the wet season. All container plants and seed should be locally sourced, as close to the project site as possible. The container plant and seed palettes are included in Table 45. All plant and seed material would be placed in locations that mimic natural plant distribution (i.e., plants installed in clusters of the same species and with variable spacing, as seen in natural habitats). Plant layout shall be overseen by the Restoration Ecologist. In general, plant species would be grouped based upon indicator status, with obligate and facultative wetland species (most hydrophytic) Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 41 installed in depressional features where water collects and remains for longer durations, and facultative species (less hydrophytic) installed upslope primarily within transitional riparian areas of the site (see Table 34). Native plants would be installed using standard horticultural practices, using a hole at least twice the diameter of the root ball. All plants would be thoroughly watered in their pots before planting, as would the soil in all planting holes. Seed would be distributed by hand and lightly raked into the soil. Table 35 Target Plant Species List Plant Species Common Name Arid West Wetland Status1 Container Plants per Acre2 Pounds per Acre Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed FACU 50 1.0 Artemisia douglasiana mugwort FAC 250 3.0 Baccharis salicifolia mule fat FAC 300 1.0 Rosa californica California rose FAC 300 2.0 Salix gooddingii Goodding’s black willow FACW 100 1.0 Salix laevigata red willow FACW 150 1.0 Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow FACW 150 1.0 Vitis girdiana wild grape FAC 150 3.0 1Wetland Indicator Status per USDA plant database (USDA 2020): FAC = facultative FACU = facultative upland FACW = facultative wetland 2All container plants would be one-gallon in size. 4.4 As-built Reporting At the completion of implementation, the installation would be approved by the City of San Diego and/or Chula Vista and CDFW, RWQCB, and USFWS. An as-built report would be submitted that documents implementation activities and the dates they were completed. The report would include but not be limited to dates of on-site work, details of initial weed removal, final plant lists and quantities, and any modifications to the mitigationwetland plan area design. The report may be a brief letter report with photos of the final site design and figures with locations of site elements. 4.5 120-day Plant Establishment Period The 120-day PEP would begin once the implementation activities are approved, likely once all weed removal and native planting has been completed. The PEP shall last for 120 calendar days and shall consist of all maintenance activities and methods discussed in Section 5.0. Regular (at least every other week) qualitative monitoring would be conducted to assess native seed establishment and non-native weed germination and make recommendations for maintenance activities, as needed (Table 46). Year 1 would begin after successful completion of the PEP and any required remedial planting installation has been completed. At the completion of the PEP, the restoration specialist would prepare a letter report for submittal to the City of San Diego and/or Chula Vista and CDFW, RWQCB, and USFWS to document activities conducted during the PEP and the site progress towards final success criteria. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 42 Table 46 Maintenance Schedule Task 120-day PEP Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Weed Control (herbicide treatment) As needed Monthly1 Monthly1 5 to 6 times per year1 4 to 5 times per year1 4 times per year1 Watering As needed As needed As needed As needed -- – Supplemental Planting or Seeding At end of PEP Fall/Winter Fall/Winter – – – Trash Removal In conjunction with weed control In conjunction with weed control In conjunction with weed control In conjunction with weed control In conjunction with weed control In conjunction with weed control Barrier/Sign Maintenance As needed As needed As needed As needed As needed As needed Erosion Control As needed As needed As needed As needed As needed As needed 1Minimum frequency Note: Maintenance requirements in the off-site weed control areas would include weed control (herbicide treatment) and trash removal only over the 5-year maintenance period. 5.0 Maintenance Plan Regular maintenance of the mitigationwetland plan area would be required during the five-year maintenance period to control non-native weeds and establish riparian habitat. The need for weeding is expected to decrease substantially by the end of the maintenance period provided successful habitat restoration has been achieved. Maintenance activities would include weed control, watering, supplemental re-planting/re-seeding of native species, trash removal, erosion control, and barrier/sign maintenance. Maintenance activities would be conducted in a frequency and duration that ensures attainment of the final success criteria. Maintenance activities would be performed per the schedule in Table 6 or as needed to achieve project success. 5.1 Weed Control Weed control would be performed consistent with the following: • All herbicide and pesticide use would be under the direction of a licensed qualified applicator and would be applied by personnel trained to apply herbicide. All weeding personnel would be educated to distinguish between native and non-native species. • Herbicide would only be applied when wind speed is less than five miles per hour, and spray nozzles would be of a design to maximize the size of droplets, to reduce the potential for drift of herbicide to nontarget plants. Application of herbicide would not occur if rain is projected within 12 hours of the scheduled application. • Herbicide application should consider proximity to known Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) occurrences or nests (i.e., known occurrences within 1 kilometer of the mitigation site) during the nesting season (February 15 through September 15), and to the extent feasible avoid the peak blooming season when bees are most likely to be foraging. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 43 • Weeding would be done at a frequency and duration to ensure that weeds are not allowed to flower and set seed within the site. During the growing season this may be as frequent as every other week, depending on weather patterns. Any weeds that have set seed would be removed by hand and disposed of off-site. 5.2 Watering Hand watering would be performed consistent with the following: • The watering frequency and duration would be done in a manner to mimic natural rainfall and encourage deep root establishment of trees and shrubs, but not enough to create runoff. • Watering would be carefully tapered off towards the end of summer to allow plants to experience their typical summer dormancy and avoid overwatering or excessive soil shrinking and swelling that can damage plant roots. 5.3 Supplemental Planting Supplemental planting would be performed consistent with the following: • Willow and mule fat cuttings would be installed, as needed, within the site to increase vegetative coverage and provide competition for weed growth. • Containers of riparian plant species may be introduced to increase diversity and vegetative structure, as well as provide competition for non-native weed species. • Containers of transitional plant species may be introduced to preclude weed encroachment along the mitigationwetland plan area edges. 5.4 Supplemental Seeding Remedial seeding would be performed consistent with the following: • Areas of the site where native plants struggle to recruit would be remedially seeded during Years 1 and 2. • Remedial seeding of native trees and shrubs would be conducted to improve ontogenetic diversity. • Remedial seeding of herbaceous species would be conducted to increase species diversity. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 44 5.5 Trash Removal and Barrier/Sign Maintenance Trash removal and barrier/sign maintenance would be performed consistent with the following: • Trash and other debris would be removed as necessary. • All fencing and signs would be checked and repaired as necessary. • Other site problems, such as vehicle damage and trespassing, would be reported to the City of San Diego or Chula Vista or other adjacent landowners with recommendations for remedial measures. 5.6 Erosion Control Erosion control materials (Best Management Practices) installed within the wetland plan area during topographic recontouring (see Section 4.3.2) may need to be maintained and/or replaced during the 5-year maintenance period. Erosion control materials such as fiber rolls and gravel bags would be monitored and repaired or replaced as needed before rain events. Additionally, the wetland plan area would be monitored throughout the five-year maintenance period for new erosion issues such as the development of new rills on slopes. Additional erosion control materials would be installed to resolve any new instances of erosion appearing within the wetland plan area. Erosion is expected to diminish as the project progresses and native vegetation cover increases throughout the wetland plan area. 5.7 Adaptive Management Approach While the restoration and maintenance measures proposed by this plan are intended to improve the quality of the mitigationwetland plan area, unforeseen changes may occur because of unpredictable weather patterns, ecological processes, or other natural or anthropogenic stressors. The contractor would respond to any unexpected events that have a detrimental impact on the mitigationwetland plan area using an adaptive management approach. Adaptive management is defined, for the purposes of this mitigation, as a flexible, iterative approach to the management of biological resources that is directed over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and direct observation of environmental stressors that are producing adverse results within the mitigationwetland plan area. Achieving the key goals of the mitigation program and establishing self-sustaining native habitats would be the focus of all adaptive management decisions. Adaptive management measures would be based on qualitative data gathered in the field throughout the five-year maintenance and monitoring period and may include collection and dispersal of seed, additional weed control efforts, additional watering, and other actions deemed appropriate through consultation with the City of San Diego and/or Chula Vista and the Wildlife Agencies. If an interim performance standard (Section 6.0) is not met in any year or if the final performance standards are not met, the restoration specialist would prepare an analysis of the cause(s) of failure and, if deemed necessary, propose remedial actions for approval. If any of the restored habitat has Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 45 not met a performance standard during the initial five-year period, the maintenance and monitoring obligations would continue until the approving City deems the mitigation successful. 6.0 Ecological Performance Standards The performance standards used to determine successful wetland mitigation would include the achievement of standards for California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM), vegetation cover, plant species richness, and weed tolerance. The target values for the riparian habitat would be based on a reference site used to define the target vegetationtotal and establish target values forrelative percent native cover, species richness, and weed abundance. A native riparian reference site is identified in Section 6.2.1 to allow for a qualitative comparison of restoration success that accounts for stochastic events that may affect the broader area such as drought conditions and other variables unrelated to the restoration activities. Each of the specified performance standards would be evaluated following the completion of seasonal field monitoring to determine if the final performance standards have been met and to assess the likelihood that any particular standard would ever be met (taking into account the seasonal conditions). The final assessment of success shall be based on the combined achievement of the performance standards over the monitoring period and an analysis of the trends in habitat development established. 6.1 California Rapid Assessment Performance Standards CRAM is a quick wetland assessment method that combines biological, landscape, hydrological, and physical structure attributes into an index value. These indexed values are repeatable, scientifically defensible, and offer a window into overall wetland functionality. A search of the CRAM database did not identify any appropriate local CRAM sites that could be used as a suitable reference for this method (California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup 2018). Therefore, a baseline CRAM assessment of the mitigationwetland plan area would be conducted prior to the start of restoration activities to demonstrate the functional lift of the mitigationwetland plan area through the restoration actions. CRAM metric and sub-metric scores are expected to change from the baseline (pre-implementation condition) as a result of development of mitigationwetland plan area and the completion of adjacent residential development. CRAM scores for the mitigationwetland plan area should increase, both by index (or total) scores and by attribute scores, but mostly by physical and biotic attribute scores (Table 57). A CRAM assessment of the riverine system shall be conducted on the mitigationwetland plan area prior to implementation of this plan to provide the specific baseline target CRAM metric goals (see Section 8.1.3, CRAM Monitoring). Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 46 Table 57 CRAM Metric Goals for Five Years Post-Establishment of MitigationWetland Plan Area CRAM Attribute CRAM Metric and Submetrics Target CRAM Metric Goal Buffer and Landscape Context Stream Corridor Continuity Attribute rating greater than pre-implementation CRAM Percent of AA with Buffer Attribute rating equal to or greater than pre-implementation CRAM Average Buffer Width Attribute rating at least equal to the pre-implementation CRAM Buffer condition Attribute rating greater than pre-implementation CRAM Hydrology Water Source Attribute rating greater than or equal to the pre-implementation CRAM Channel Stability Attribute rating greater than pre-implementation CRAM Hydrologic Connectivity Attribute rating greater than or equal to pre-implementation CRAM Physical Structure Structural Patch Richness Attribute rating greater than pre-implementation CRAM Topographic Complexity Attribute rating greater than pre-implementation CRAM Biological Structure Horizontal Interspersion Attribute rating greater than pre-implementation CRAM Number of Plant Layers Attribute rating greater than pre-implementation CRAM Number of Co-dominant Species Attribute rating greater than pre-implementation CRAM Percent Invasion Attribute rating greater than pre-implementation CRAM Plant Community Composition Metric (average of A–C) Attribute rating greater than pre-implementation CRAM 6.2 Vegetative Performance Standards The vegetative performance standards are shown in Table 68 and would be as follows: • Container plant survival shall be 80 percent of the initial plantings for years 1 through 2, unless their function has been the first 5 years. At the first and second anniversary of plant installation, 80 percent of dead plants will be replaced by natural recruitment of native species providing similar habitat structure.with new container plants. • Year 5 criteria must be demonstrated following two years of no artificial watering. • At the end of the five-year monitoring program, required relative percent cover values shall be 60 percent of the reference site for tree cover and 70 percent of the reference site for shrub and herbaceous coverthe total combined absolute cover of planted and recruited native species shall be at least 80 percent. Absolute cover is the percentage of the ground covered by the vertical projection of all plants within the creation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) areas (California Native Plant Society [CNPS] 2024). Plant overlap is excluded (i.e., the total combined absolute cover does not exceed 100 percent, even if the total absolute cover of individual strata (i.e., the tree/shrub stratum and the herbaceous species stratum) exceeds 100 percent when they are combined. The absolute cover of herbaceous plants includes any standing plant parts (attached to a living plant, and not lying on the ground), whether alive or dead; this definition excludes litter and other separated plant material. The cover may include mosses, lichens, and recognizable cryptogamic crusts. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 47 • Overall species richness by taxon shall be evaluated for the reference and mitigation area. The mitigation area shall be considered to meet the species richness performance standard if the number of native species in the mitigation area is at least 85 percent the number of native species in the reference site after the five-year monitoring period. • Throughout the duration of the project, the relative cover of native tree and shrub species shall be within a range of 60 to 80 percent and the relative cover of native herbaceous species shall be at least 30 percent. This Plan defines relative cover as the cover of a vegetation stratum (i.e., either the tree/shrub stratum or the herbaceous species stratum) in relation to the total native vegetation cover within the creation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) areas. The purpose of the relative cover success criteria is to demonstrate that the site supports multiple overlapping vegetation layers (i.e., an overstory of shrubs and trees with an herbaceous understory). Therefore, when combined, the percent relative tree/shrub cover and the percent relative herbaceous cover may exceed 100 percent. The percent relative cover success criterion is higher for native tree/shrub cover than for herbaceous species, indicating that a greater proportion of native vegetation cover would be provided by trees and shrubs, though the mitigation site would still support a well-established understory of native herbaceous species. The success criteria for percent relative cover of native tree/shrub species are provided as a range to reflect the diversity of possible habitat compositions within a healthy wetland site. While interim success criteria for relative cover are provided in Years 1 through 4, natural variability in the development of vegetation strata during that period is expected; therefore, the performance standards are targets toward the ultimate Year 5 standard. Riparian habitats are non-equilibrium systems where frequent disturbance from fluvial and hydrological processes create an extremely dynamic herbaceous plant community (Gornish 2017). A 5-year target of 30 percent relative herbaceous cover accounts for these riparian dynamics. Percent relative native tree/shrub and herbaceous species cover will be calculated during each annual quantitative monitoring visit and provided in the annual reports to track the site’s progress towards the Year 5 success criteria. • At the end of the 5-year monitoring program, the creation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) areas will support at least eight native species (species richness). The annual species richness success criteria were determined based on the number of species in the Target Plant Species List (see Table 5) and the likelihood to retain this species diversity over time. • The cover of all non-native species within the mitigationwetland plan area shall not exceed an absolute value of less than 1 to 5 percent at the end of the five-year monitoring period, and no Cal-IPC List High or perennial species shall be present for any of the years of the five-year monitoring period. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 48 Table 8 Performance Standards for the Wetland Creation (Establishment) and Wetland Enhancement (Rehabilitation) Areas Year Container Plant Survival1 Percent Total Combined Absolute Native Cover2 Percent Relative Cover– Native Tree/ Shrub Species3 Percent Relative Cover–Native Herbaceous Species3 Species Richness4 Percent Cover– Non-native Species5 1 80 40 40-60 10 N/A 10 2 80 50 45-65 15 5 5 3 80 60 50-70 20 6 5 4 80 70 55-75 25 7 1-5 5 80 80 60-80 30 8 1-5 1At the first and second anniversary of plant installation, all dead plants will be replaced unless their function has been replaced by natural recruitment. 2Absolute cover is the percentage of the ground covered by the vertical projection of all plants within the creation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) areas (CNPS 2024). Plant overlap is excluded (i.e., the percent total combined absolute cover does not exceed 100 percent, even if the percent total absolute cover of individual strata (i.e., the tree/shrub stratum and the herbaceous species stratum) exceeds 100 percent. The absolute cover of herbaceous plants includes any standing plant parts (attached to a living plant, and not lying on the ground), whether alive or dead; this definition excludes litter and other separated plant material. The cover may include mosses, lichens, and recognizable cryptogamic crusts. 3This plan defines relative cover as the cover of a vegetation stratum (i.e., either the tree/shrub stratum or the herbaceous species stratum) in relation to the total native vegetation cover within the creation (establishment) and enhancement (rehabilitation) areas. The purpose of the relative cover success criteria is to demonstrate that the site supports multiple overlapping vegetation layers (i.e., an overstory of shrubs and trees with an herbaceous understory). Therefore, when combined, the percent relative tree/shrub cover and the percent relative herbaceous cover may exceed 100 percent. The Year 5 percent relative cover success criterion is higher for native tree/shrub cover than for herbaceous species, indicating that a greater proportion of native vegetation cover would be provided by trees and shrubs, though the mitigation site would still support a well-established understory of native herbaceous species. The success criteria for percent relative cover of native tree/shrub species is provided as a range to reflect the diversity of possible habitat compositions within a healthy wetland site. 4The species richness success criteria are presented in absolute values and are based on the number of species in the Target Plant Species List (see Table 5 of this plan). 5No Cal-IPC High or perennial species would be present during any monitoring years (Cal-IPC 2023). Table 6 Wetland and Riparian Establishment/Wetland Restoration Performance Standards (percentage) Year Container Plant Survival Percent Cover– Native Tree/ Shrub Species1 Percent Cover– Native Herbaceous Species1 Species Richness1 Percent Cover– Non-native Species2 1 80 10 30 N/A 10 2 80 20 40 40 5 3 -- 30 50 50 5 4 -- 50 60 60 <1 5 -- 60 70 85 <1 1Relative to reference site values. 2No Cal-IPC High or perennial species would be present during any monitoring years (Cal-IPC 2023). Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 49 6.2.1 Location of Reference Site APer City of San Diego Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego2018) and as requested by CDFW, a proposed reference site has been identified within the Spring Canyon that mimics the intended habitat composition, topography, and hydrology of the mitigation site after the implementation and maintenance have been successfully completed. The purpose of the reference site is to allow for a qualitative evaluation of mitigation site performance that may be affected by stochastic events that may affect the broader area, such as drought conditions and other variables unrelated to the restoration activities. The proposed reference site is directly upstream of the wetland mitigationwetland plan area (Figure 10). The reference site measures approximately 2.55 acres and is on City of San Diego-owned property accessible via public trails. The proposed reference site contains native riparian scrub habitat, diverse native species, and few non-native species. Impacts from unauthorized public uses (i.e., trash, vandalism, and/or unauthorized trails) appear minimal. Adjacent upland communities are in excellent condition. Native species observed within the proposed reference site include black willow, arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), mule fat, blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), and needlegrass species (Stipa sp.). Non-native species cover was low and included fennel and non-native grasses. The use of a reference site will aidis included in the documentation ofthis plan to provide a reference to document potential regional annual and seasonal changes that may occur unrelated to the restoration activities and will be approved by the City of San Diegoduring the mitigation implementation and maintenance. The selection of the reference site will be approved by the City of San Diego DSD and MSCP. 6.3 Photographic Documentation Permanent photograph location points would be located in strategic areas of the mitigationwetland plan area. Representative photographs would be taken at each photograph location point to visually document the progress of vegetation cover development over the monitoring period. 6.4 Jurisdictional Delineation In order to demonstrate that the project has met the required compensatory mitigation, the Permittee shall perform a jurisdictional delineation of the wetland mitigation site based on the applicable jurisdiction’s criteria. The RWQCB delineation would be performed using the methodology set forth in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region by the end of year 5. Using the jurisdictional delineation, the Permittee would demonstrate that 0.40 acre of wetland has been established and the three wetland indicators (wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology) are present. The jurisdictional delineation results would be submitted with the respective Annual Project Progress Report. A separate jurisdictional delineation would be submitted for the additional 0.46-acre creation (establishment) potential/partial mitigation area as part of the Southwest Village Project mitigation reporting. FIGURE 10Wetland Plan Reference Site Image Source: NearMap (Flown May 2024) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Fig10.mxd 08/06/2024 bma 0 100Feet [ Reference Site Wetland Plan Area Mitigation Parcel Vegetation Communities Natural Flood Channel Southern Willow Scrub Disturbed Maritime Succulent Scrub Non-native Grassland PA L M AIRWAY R DOTAYMESA UV905 §¨¦5 §¨¦805 Overall Site Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 51 7.0 Monitoring Requirements It is anticipated that the riparian habitat would become established within the five-year monitoring period, although full maturation of the community may take longer. Restoration monitoring would include qualitative maintenance monitoring and monitoring for performance standards, including semi-quantitative vegetation monitoring, complete flora and fauna inventories, and photographic documentation. The monitoring schedule is presented in Table 79. Table 79 Monitoring Schedule Task 120-day PEP Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Qualitative Monitoring Weekly Every other week during the growing season (Jan – May) Every other week during the growing season (Jan – May) Monthly Monthly Monthly Photograph Documentation Monthly As-needed Spring Spring Spring Spring Quantitative Monitoring None1 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring CRAM None Spring None None None Spring 1Quantitative monitoring to begin in Year 1. 7.1 Qualitative Monitoring Qualitative monitoring of the mitigationwetland plan area would be performed to guide maintenance activities and would be conducted as follows:. Qualitative monitoring would occur every other week during the growing season in Years 1 and 2 (January–May), monthly thereafter with additional visits conducted during the growing season, as needed to ensure project success (see Table 79). Monitoring would include, but not be limited to, assessment of container plant health, native seed germination, weed presence, and unauthorized trespassing. Monitoring results would be used to determine the timing and frequency of maintenance activities. 7.2 Quantitative Monitoring Overall native and non-native cover (i.e., trees, shrubs, herbaceous species) and species richness would be evaluated. These parameters would be measured using the point-intercept transect monitoring method to measure development towards the individual performance standards for each habitat type (see Table 79). Transect monitoring methods would follow the protocol published by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). Due to the increasing density of riparian vegetation over time and the difficulty and resulting destruction that occurs when trying to access vegetation along a 50-meter transect, this method has been revised to employ a 20-meter-long transect centered in a 20-by-5-meter plot. Approximately three transects per every five acres would be randomly positioned throughout the mitigation areapositioned throughout the wetland plan area, with at least one of the transects placed across Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 52 the channel (i.e., from edge of floodplain to edge of floodplain), if feasible, to capture all habitat types within one transect; the transects would follow the stratified random sampling method and a map of the transect locations would be reviewed by the City of San Diego or the City of Chula Vista, and USFWS, CDFW, and RWQCB. Vegetation would be sampled by the point method at every half meter (0.5-meter intervals) along the transect line to determine species and cover. The percent cover of a species would be determined by dividing the number of intercepts by that species by the total number of sample points. The surveyor would note the species encountered and classify their height (i.e., herb, shrub, or tree) at each interval, as described in the CNPS field sampling protocol (CNPS 1995). In addition, native species present within each target habitat type would be counted to determine native species richness. Dead container plants would also be counted to determine container plant survival. 7.3 Wildlife Usage A list of wildlife species observed using the mitigationwetland plan area would be prepared and included in the annual reports. Species lists would be compiled annually and would include observations made during qualitative and quantitative monitoring visits. Least Bell’s vireo, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler have been observed within the mitigation site, and yellow warblers have been observed upstream, as discussed in Section 2.1.34. The mitigation area would be required to demonstrate that it meets habitat criteria for least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler. 7.4 CRAM Monitoring As noted above, the newly established mitigationwetland plan area would have CRAM assessment monitoring conducted twice during the five-year mitigation and monitoring period to inform adaptive management. The CRAM assessments shall also include a pre-construction assessment as a baseline. The two post-implementation assessments shall be conducted in Year 1 and Year 5 of the monitoring period. CRAM assessments would use the Riverine Systems methodology (CRAM 2013, version 6.1 or most recent). The CRAM assessments shall occur in the spring when the native flora is typically at its peak. 7.5 Reporting An annual report shall be prepared for each year of the monitoring program and submitted to the RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, and the City of San Diego DSD, Mitigation Monitoring and Coordination section by January 15 of each year. The annual report would assess the mitigationwetland plan area’s attainment of yearly interim performance standards and progress toward the final performance standards. The period covered in the annual report shall be from January 1 to December 31 in any given monitoring year. The reports shall also summarize the project’s compliance with all applicable mitigation measures and permit conditions for each agency. A final monitoring report would be prepared and submitted to RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, and the City of San Diego for use in the notification of completion and final acceptance of the mitigation effort. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 53 8.0 Financial Assurances The Permittee must post a financial assurance (e.g., letter of credit, performance bond, etc.) to cover the initial implementation, and five-year maintenance and monitoring activities outlined in this plan. The same funding source established by the Permittee would be available to complete the compensatory mitigation project, provide alternative compensatory mitigation, and/or for use by a third party to complete required tasks should the initial mitigation effort fail to be successful. Furthermore, an endowment fund shall be invested by the applicant to ensure that the mitigation site can be managed by the land manager (i.e., City of San Diego) in perpetuity pursuant to the goals and tasks identified in the Long-term Management Plan (LTMP; see Section 10). 9.0 Notification of Completion If the final success criteria have been met at the end of the five-year monitoring program, notification of these events shall be provided with the fifth-year report. If the final success criteria have not been met by the end of the five-year monitoring program, the fifth-year report would discuss the possible reasons and recommendations for remedial measures to cause the site to meet the criteria. If the established wetland habitat has not met the performance standards, the Permittee’s maintenance and monitoring obligations would continue, until the RWQCB, USFWS, CDFW, and City of San Diego and/or Chula Vista deem the mitigation program as successful or contingency measures must be implemented (see Section 5.6, Adaptive Management Plan). Following receipt of the final annual report, the RWQCB, USFWS, CDFW, and the City of San Diego DSD Mitigation Monitoring and Coordination and Parks and Recreation Open Space and/or the City of Chula Vista shall be invited to visit the restorationmitigation site to confirm completion of the mitigation effort. The project wetland mitigation requirements shall be deemed complete once the final success criteria are met and after written approval by the RWQCB, USFWS, CDFW, and the City of San Diego and/or Chula Vista has been received. 10.0 Site Protection Instrument and Long-term Management Plan The mitigationwetland plan area is planned to be conveyed to the City of San Diego in fee title. The wetland plan area shall be protected in perpetuity through the establishment of a Conservation Easement, restrictive covenant, or other mechanism acceptable by the City and Wildlife Agencies, and an endowment to fund long-term management. During restoration activities and prior to dedication of the land to the City, a temporary covenant of easement1 would be required to ensure protection of the wetland plan area. After conveyance to the City, assurance of long-term conservation and management of the mitigationwetland plan area would be provided by the City of 1 The City of San Diego requires a temporary covenant of easement for protection of environmentally sensitive lands within the MSCP MHPA. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 54 San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan. Management and monitoring would be provided consistent with the City MSCP Subarea Plan, Section 1.5.2 General Management Directives. In the event the ownership of the mitigation area is not conveyed to the City of San Diego for long term management and the project is not annexed into the City of San Diego, an easement would be dedicated to the City of Chula Vista to ensure protection of the site in perpetuity and a third party land manager authorized by the USFWS, RWQCB, CDFW, and the City of Chula Vista would need to be identified to perform long term management of the mitigation site. An LTMP would be prepared to identify the habitat manager (i.e., City of San Diego) and management goals and tasks for long-term management of the mitigation site. The LTMP would be submitted to the City of San Diego and regulatory agencies (USFWS, RWQCB, and CDFW) for approval. A non-wasting endowment or similar secure funding method in an amount approved by the RWQCB, USFWS, CDFW, and the City of San Diego and/or Chula Vista based on a Property Analysis Record, (PAR), or similar cost estimation method, would secure the ongoing funding for the perpetual long-term management, maintenance, and monitoring of the mitigation area.wetland plan area. The PAR must be included in the LTMP and approved by the two cities and all regulatory agencies. The non-wasting endowment must be established prior to, or concurrently with impacts. The LTMP would be submitted to the City of San Diego and regulatory agencies (USFWS, RWQCB, and CDFW) for approval prior to issuance of grading permit. 11.0 References Cited California Invasive Plant Council (CAL-IPC) 2023 California Invasive Plant Inventory. https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/ California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1995 California Native Plant Society Field Sampling Protocol. CNPS Vegetation Committee. 2024 A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/. Accessed on July 24, 2024. California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) 2013 Riverine Wetlands Field Book. Version 6.1. January. California Riparian Habitat Joint Venture 2009 California Riparian Habitat Restoration Handbook. Second Edition. July. California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup 2018 EcoAtlas. https://www.ecoatlas.org. Chula Vista, City of 2003 City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February 2003. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 55 Gornish ES, Lennox MS, Lewis D, Tate KW, Jackson RD 2017 Comparing herbaceous plant communities in active and passive riparian restoration. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0176388. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176338. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2001 Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001. RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON) 2023a Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project, Chula Vista, California. 2023b Nakano Project – Addendum to Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Nakano Project (RECON Number 3396-1), July 19. 2024a Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project, Chula Vista, California. 2024b Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Southwest Village Specific Plan. San Diego, California. Project No. 614791. July 12. 2024c Aquatic Resource Delineation Report for the Nakano Project Wetland Area in Spring Canyon, San Diego, California. August 2024. Rohde, Melissa M., John C. Stella, Dar A. Roberts, and Michael Bliss Singer 2021 Groundwater Dependence of Riparian Woodlands and the Disrupting Effect of Anthropogenically Altered Streamflow. PNAS Vol. 118 No. 25. June 14. San Diego, City of 1997 City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) Subarea Plan. March. 2018 Land Development Code – Biology Guidelines. Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens 2009 A Manual of California Vegetation. Second Edition. California Native Plant Society. Smith Vaughn, Lydia, Stephanie Panlasigui, Erica Spotswood 2020 Livestock grazing and its effects on ecosystem structure, processes, and conservation. Prepared for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. San Francisco Estuary Institute Publication No. 1011. October. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2021 State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State [Also for Inclusion in the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California, and the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries for Waters of the United States]. Adopted April 2, 2019 and Revised April 6, 2021. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 56 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2016 Compensatory Mitigation Standard Operating Procedures U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2020a Web Soil Survey. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1996 Imperial Beach Quadrangle 7.5-Minute Topographic Map. Unitt, Philip 2004 San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego Natural History Museum. Wildlife Tracking Company 2020 Spring Survey Report, Southwest Village Wildlife Movement/Crossing Study. Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project ATTACHMENTS Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 1 Technical Memorandum for Spring Canyon Hydraulic Analysis and Preliminary Floodplain Mapping December 22, 2023 Ms. Christina Schaefer Schaefer Ecological Solutions 815 Madison Avenue San Diego, California 92116 SUBJECT: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR SPRING CANYON HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY FLOODPLAIN MAPPING (RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY JOB NUMBER 15013-CWE) INTRODUCTION Spring Canyon is a natural drainage course, located southeast of the Southwest Village master planned community. The canyon provides opportunities for the establishment of wetland species and therefore the environmental consultant, Schaefer Ecological Solutions and RECON Environmental, requested a detailed hydraulic model of the canyon to identify inundation limits, and flow depths, during the 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year storm events to assist in the evaluation of restoration opportunities within Spring Canyon. To support this request, RICK has prepared this Technical Memorandum. The analyses in this study focus on a detailed Hydrologic Engineering Center’s – River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) hydraulic model of the Spring Canyon drainage course and a desktop review of available hydrologic calculations, to estimate anticipated flow rates during the subject storm events. The results are the plotted limits of inundation for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm, detailed HEC-RAS model results output, and a hydraulic work map/exhibit to inform the Environmental Consultant’s future restoration alternatives evaluation. PROJECT BACKGROUND The subject portion of the Spring Canyon watershed encompasses approximately 3.4 square miles within the City of San Diego limits, in Otay Mesa. The watershed extends roughly from Brown Field to the north, Britannia Boulevard to the east, the mesa (to be developed with the Southwest Village Master Planned Community) to the west, and drains southerly to the United States and Mexico border at an existing cross-border culvert drainage system. The watershed area is largely natural with large commercial and industrial developments located at the north and east extents of the watershed. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 2 of 16 Cross-Border Drainage The Spring Canyon watershed ultimately drains to a box culvert, that conveys storm water flows southerly across the United States-Mexico border. Therefore, it is subject to the 1987 memorandum, entitled Drainage Requirements for Developments in Otay Mesa (Cross-Border Memo), distributed by the City of San Diego Engineering and Development Department. This memo requires all developments within the Otay Mesa area to incorporate detention facilities such that all discharge flows from the project sites do not exceed pre-development conditions for the 5- year, 10-year, 25-year and 50-year storm. Based on these requirements, it is assumed all development post-1987 within the area would not increase flows from the natural, pre-project conditions. Therefore, it would be appropriate to assume pre-project land-uses within the overall Spring Canyon watershed (for areas developed post-1987), as it would theoretically result in the same or similar calculated peak flows. HYDROLOGY The scope of this technical analysis was limited to a desktop review of existing hydrologic studies performed for the watershed and other readily available tools such as the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) publicly available StreamStats tool, and NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall data to estimate point precipitation frequency estimates. A large watershed-scale hydrologic analysis was not conducted as part of this study, and instead the available information was leveraged to approximate the anticipated peak flows. USGS StreamStats The StreamStats program is a spatial analytical tool that delineates drainage basins and estimates basin characteristics and flow statistics. The benefit of utilizing this tool is the simplicity, as the only user input is the downstream limit of the requested study area. For this study, the Spring Canyon drainage course, just upstream of the existing cross-border culvert was selected. The program automatically delineates the approximate drainage basin, as shown in Figure 1. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 3 of 16 Figure 1: USGS StreamStats Spring Canyon Basin Delineation The generated basin was then compared to available topographic information and aerial imagery, to confirm the limits of the watershed and compare to the previous drainage study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates. The calculated StreamStats basin area of 3.4 square miles matched closely with the previous hydrology report delineation (3.42 square miles) and was therefore deemed acceptable for this level of analysis. Previously Performed Hydrologic Studies A previous drainage study encompassing the Spring Canyon watershed entitled Drainage Study for the Otay Mesa Community Plan Update was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in 2007 (Kimley-Horn Study). A detailed Modified Rational Method Analysis was performed for the Spring Canyon Watershed, which is a subbasin of the larger West Watershed, as shown in Figure 2 (reflected in a solid thick green outline). The study analyzed the 50-year and 100-year storm events. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 4 of 16 Figure 2: Drainage Map Excerpt of West Watershed (Kimley-Horn, 2007) The total drainage area contributing to the existing box culvert outfall was delineated and totaled 3.42 square miles, according to the Kimley-Horn Study. This matches the approximated drainage area delineated by the StreamStats program. The resulting peak flows from the 50-year and 100- year storm events were 672 and 1,676 cubic-feet-per-second, respectively. Figure 3: Hydrologic Analysis Summary Excerpt (Kimley-Horn, 2007) Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 5 of 16 Hydrologic Calculation Methodology As mentioned previously, in lieu of performing a detailed hydrologic analysis, this study leverages the existing and easily accessible hydrologic information for the Spring Canyon watershed. A review of the StreamStats results show anticipated peak flows to be much lower than what is considered practical and reasonable for the region. Averaging out the peak flow from the 100-year storm event over the entire watershed area results in an average flow of 0.23 cfs per acre, which is much lower than expected or feasible for a watershed of this size and with these characteristics. Furthermore, a detailed and site-specific drainage study had previously analyzed the subject area, which provides more representative model of the watershed. Therefore, the calculated flows from the 100-year, 10-year, 5-year, and 2-year events defer heavily to the analysis provided in the Kimley-Horn Study. Given the results from the 100-year storm event, an estimated intensity and duration can be estimated based on the Rational Method: Q = C I A where: Q= peak discharge, in cubic feet per second (cfs) C= runoff coefficient expressed as that percentage of rainfall which becomes surface runoff (no units); I= average rainfall intensity for a storm duration equal to the time of concentration (Tc) of the contributing drainage area, in inches per hour; A= drainage area contributing to the design location, in acres Based on the Cross-Border Memo, it is appropriate to assume mostly natural, pre-project runoff coefficients (C), for areas developed post-1987. Available historical imagery suggests much of the industrial and commercial developments located within the watershed occurred past this date. Therefore, an estimated C value between 0.45-0.5 would be deemed appropriate. For this analysis, a value of 0.48 was used. Given the 100-year flow rate of 1,676 cubic-feet-per-second and a drainage area of 3.4 square miles (2,190 acres), the 100-year rainfall intensity is calculated to be 1.6 inches/hour. This correlates, as shown in Figure 4, to a time of concentration of approximately 45 minutes. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 6 of 16 Figure 4: Tc Calculation from City of San Diego Intensity-Duration-Frequency Chart To validate this calculation, an approximated time of concentration calculation was also performed for the Spring Canyon Watershed. The calculation provided verification on calculated intensities from the existing Rational Method analysis. TC = Ti + Tt Where: TC= Time of Concentration (minutes) Ti= Inlet Time (minutes) Tt= Travel Time (minutes) For the largely natural watershed, the time of concentration was estimated to be 45 minutes, which included a Ti of 10 minutes, an approximated travel time (Tt) within the upstream urbanized drainage facilities of 10 minutes, and a travel time (Tt) within the natural 2-mile-long drainage corridor of 25 minutes based on a preliminary flow velocity of 7 feet-per-second. Based on the results, the time of concentration value of 45 minutes was assumed valid. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 7 of 16 Peak Flow Calculations for Overall Spring Canyon Watershed Given the calculated time of concentration, the associated intensities for the 50-year, 10-year, 5- year, and 2-year storm events were estimated using the City of San Diego Intensity, Duration, Frequency chart in Figure 5. Although, theoretically, the time of concentration would increase due to a longer travel time within the conveyance systems, using a constant T c is adequate to estimate flows for this level of analysis. Figure 5: Overall Spring Canyon Watershed Intensity, City of San Diego IDF Chart Given the calculated intensities, the estimated peak flow rates for the subject storm events were calculated using the Rational Method formula. The results are provided in Table 1. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 8 of 16 Table 1: Peak Flow Rate Calculation Summary Storm Event C I (in/hr) A (acre) Q (cfs) 100-year 0.48 1.6 2,190 1,676 50-year 0.48 1.5 2,190 1,577 10-year 0.48 1.15 2,190 1,209 5-year 0.48 0.96 2,190 1,009 2-year 0.48 0.76 2,190 799 Peak Flow Calculations for Dillon Canyon and Wruck Canyon Tributaries Two main tributaries feed into Spring Canyon within the area of study: Dillon Canyon and Wruck Canyon. The estimated peak flows at the confluence with the Spring Canyon drainage corridor were calculated for these tributaries to provide an estimated flow change for use within the HEC- RAS hydraulic model. The same methodologies for calculating Tc for the overall Spring Canyon watershed were followed, resulting in a Tc of 35 minutes and 40 minutes for Dillon Canyon and Wruck Canyon, respectively. The intensities for each storm event were calculated from the City of San Diego Intensity-Duration-Frequency charts and the estimated peak flows were calculated using the Rational Method equation. Hydrologic calculation results for Dillon Canyon and Wruck Canyon are provided in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. Table 2: Dillon Canyon Peak Flow Calculation Summary Storm Event C I (in/hr) A (acre) Q (cfs) 100-year 0.48 1.88 350 316 50-year 0.48 1.7 350 286 10-year 0.48 1.33 350 223 5-year 0.48 1.1 350 185 2-year 0.48 0.88 350 148 Table 3: Wruck Canyon Peak Flow Calculation Summary Storm Event C I (in/hr) A (acre) Q (cfs) 100-year 0.48 1.7 250 204 50-year 0.48 1.6 250 192 10-year 0.48 1.22 250 146 5-year 0.48 1.05 250 126 2-year 0.48 0.8 250 96 Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 9 of 16 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS The hydraulic analysis focused on determining the inundation limits for the 2-year, 5-year, 10- year, and 100-year storm events to support the environmental consultant’s evaluation of restoration opportunities. The analysis was performed utilizing HEC-RAS and the software’s built-in RAS Mapper tool. The data required for a successful model is, at a minimum, topographic information, flow data (calculated above), boundary conditions, and channel flow characteristics. Topographic Data The hydraulic analysis utilized the City of San Diego, 2021 digital elevation model (DEM), provided by City of San Diego staff. The topography was built using raw collected LiDAR data, which was processed into a DEM for use by the City. RICK performed an internal conversion of this DEM from the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), to the National Geodetic Datum of 1929 (NGVD 1929), which is the datum used in the City of San Diego. Boundary Conditions The upstream extent of the hydraulic model was set at a location significantly upstream of the areas of interest, as delineated by the Environmental consultant. This location represents natural, unimpeded flow of the drainage corridor and thus a normal depth boundary condition was used. The downstream extent of the hydraulic model was set at the entrance to the existing cross-border box culvert. At this location, an inlet-control scenario will likely cause backwater impacts to upstream reaches of Spring Canyon. The box culvert was estimated to be approximately 25-feet wide by 10-feet high, based on available site information and photos. To account for the barred culvert opening, an effective width of 20 feet was used (assuming 1-inch bars installed at 6-inches on center). These approximations are reasonable for the purpose of this study, as the backwater effect will not be relevant to the areas of interest for mitigation and restoration. The inlet-control culvert design nomographs were used to calculate anticipated headwater based on the storm event flow rates, as shown in Figure 6. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 10 of 16 Figure 6: Inlet-Control Nomograph for Downstream Boundary Condition Spring Canyon Channel Characteristics The Spring Canyon drainage corridor slopes moderately (1 percent to 3 percent), from north to south towards the box culvert. The valley confining the flow path varies considerably through its length, with generally steeper, more well-defined banks at the upstream portions, and flatter, less- defined banks towards the south as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 11 of 16 Figure 7: Upstream Cross-Section (7240) Showing Well-Defined Valley Figure 8: Downstream Cross-Section (1045) Showing Less Well-Defined Valley The type, and quantity of vegetation also varies greatly from upstream to downstream, which impacted Manning’s Roughness (Manning’s n) determinations through the whole reach. Downstream, near the culvert entrance, there is thick vegetation, dense brush, and trees within the channel banks while upstream there is sparse brush and moderate grass coverage throughout the flow corridor. Therefore, Manning’s values of 0.075 to 0.03 were selected for this model. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 12 of 16 Model Development The hydraulic model was developed natively within the HEC-RAS software using RAS Mapper to visualize the terrain and flow paths of the channel as well as the flood conveyance within the channel overbanks. The DEM was imported into the program along with aerial imagery to help define the overall channel characteristics. First, the streamline of the channel was defined from the DEM topography file. Since there was a concentrated focus on the smaller storm event flows (i.e., 2-year and 5-year) in this analysis, the stream was modeled to follow closely to the channel flow line, rather than the center of overall flood conveyance. This provides a better definition on the shallower flows that would be more likely confined within the channel banks. Cross-sections were then cut across the streamline, perpendicular to the direction of flow. These sections were located approximately every 100 feet along the stream centerline and also at specific changes in stream alignment, such as curves, and at other locations of varied channel geometry. This combination of cross-sections provides a detailed analysis of the crucial drainage conveyance features of the Spring Canyon system. Reach lengths for left overbank, stream center, and right overbank, were automatically calculated within the software based on the distance between cross- sections. Then, Manning’s n values were associated to all cross-sections along the reach. To simplify the model in this analysis, the horizontal variation was limited to left overbank, center, and right overbank. A review of aerial imagery and site photos confirmed this to be an adequate assumption for this level of analysis, as much of the vegetative growth in the drainage corridor is within the channel banks. These values, as discussed previously, were selected based on available imagery, and site photos, and varied from 0.075 at the southernmost downstream extents of the reach, to 0.03 for the steeper portions of the valley. Results The full results of the hydraulic analysis are provided as an attachment to this memo, and the hydraulic workmap, showing the limits of inundation for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events are also provided as an attachment. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 13 of 16 Overall Spring Canyon Model The extent of inundation between the storm events varied along the reach, due to the channel characteristics described above. Little variation between the floodplains is noticed within sections well-defined by steep hillsides, but there are also locations where significant increases of floodplain limits are experienced due to site topography with flatter overbanks that convey flood flows such as those shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Figure 9: Steeper Valey Cross-Section Geometry (STA 7295) with Little Variation in Floodplain Inundation Extents Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 14 of 16 Figure 10:Flatter Overbank Topography Cross-Section Geometry (STA 582) with Significant Variation in Floodplain Inundation Extents Results within Environmental Areas of Interest The environmental consultant identified two separate locations for the evaluation of restoration activities. These are located between station 2409 and 5998 of the HEC-RAS model. Through this portion of Spring Canyon, there are many areas where flows are confined between steep valley banks, limiting opportunities for restoration. There were several locations identified during previous discussions between RICK and RECON staff, where restoration opportunities may be more feasible. Specifically mentioned during these discussions was the location between station 5687 and 5998. The cross-section shown in Figure 11 highlights an opportunity to flatten the right overbank, allowing flood waters from the smaller storm events to inundate a larger swath of area, potentially providing additional habitat. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 15 of 16 Figure 11: Potential Restoration Opportunity Location Identified During Previous Discussion with RECON The scope of this Technical Memorandum does not involve the identification of all of these opportunities, but rather the analyses performed shall be used by the environmental consultant to better inform their evaluation of potential locations. Ms. Christina Schaefer December 22, 2023 Page 16 of 16 CONCLUSION The analyses performed for this study identified the limits of inundation for selected storm events (2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 100-year) at the request of the environmental consultant, in order inform their evaluation of wetland restoration activities through the Spring Canyon drainage corridor. Based on the hydrologic flow calculations, and corresponding hydraulic analysis of the channel, there does appear to be opportunities, as discussed between RICK, Schaefer Ecological Solutions, and RECON during a meeting on December 13, 2023. After a thorough review of the entirety of the HEC-RAS hydraulic model results, workmaps and exhibits, it is anticipated that the mitigation area occurs within and adjacent to the floodplain of Spring Canyon and supports opportunities for re-establishment of wetland vegetation and transitional wetland buffer areas. Please feel free to contact Eric Hengesbaugh or myself if you have any questions and/or concerns at (619) 291-0707. Sincerely, RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY Brendan Hastie RCE #65809, Exp. 09/25 Principal BH:KDM:C_SD_J/15013-SouthOtay/WR Reports/SpringCanyonMemo/15013-CWE.001 9403 HEC-RAS CROSS SECTION LEGEND HEC-RAS 5-YEAR FLOODPLAIN STREAM FLOWLINE NOTES: 1. CROSS SECTIONS ARE ORIENTED LEFT TO RIGHT LOOKING UPSTREAM. 2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE ON THE NGVD-29 VERTICAL DATUM. TOPOGRAPHY: CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEM GENERATED FROM LIDAR DATA, DATED 2021. CONVERTED FROM NAVD 88 TO NGVD29 HEC-RAS 2-YEAR FLOODPLAIN HEC-RAS 10-YEAR FLOODPLAIN WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - SOUTHWEST VILLAGE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - NAKANO HEC-RAS 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN HEC-RAS WORKMAPFORSPRING CANYON © 2022 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2023 J-15013 SHEET 1 OF 3 C: \ R I C K \ P r o j e c t s \ C _ S D _ J \ 1 5 0 1 3 - S o u t h O t a y \ W a t e r R e s o u r c e s \ H y d r a u l i c s \ F l o o d p l a i n A n a l y s i s \ C A D \ 1 5 0 1 3 B W E _ D R N _ H R A S . d w g RE C _ N C S _ v 2 . c t b 5620 FRIARS ROADSAN DIEGO, CA 92110619.291.0707 rickengineering.com San Diego - Riverside - Santa Clarita - San Luis Obispo - Sacramento - Orange - Tucson - Phoenix - Las Vegas - Denver GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 100' 100 50 0 100 200 300 9403 HEC-RAS CROSS SECTION LEGEND HEC-RAS 5-YEAR FLOODPLAIN STREAM FLOWLINE NOTES: 1. CROSS SECTIONS ARE ORIENTED LEFT TO RIGHT LOOKING UPSTREAM. 2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE ON THE NGVD-29 VERTICAL DATUM. TOPOGRAPHY: CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEM GENERATED FROM LIDAR DATA, DATED 2021. CONVERTED FROM NAVD 88 TO NGVD29 HEC-RAS 2-YEAR FLOODPLAIN HEC-RAS 10-YEAR FLOODPLAIN WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - SOUTHWEST VILLAGE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - NAKANO HEC-RAS 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN HEC-RAS WORKMAPFORSPRING CANYON © 2022 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2023 J-15013 SHEET 2 OF 3 C: \ R I C K \ P r o j e c t s \ C _ S D _ J \ 1 5 0 1 3 - S o u t h O t a y \ W a t e r R e s o u r c e s \ H y d r a u l i c s \ F l o o d p l a i n A n a l y s i s \ C A D \ 1 5 0 1 3 B W E _ D R N _ H R A S . d w g RE C _ N C S _ v 2 . c t b 5620 FRIARS ROADSAN DIEGO, CA 92110619.291.0707 rickengineering.com San Diego - Riverside - Santa Clarita - San Luis Obispo - Sacramento - Orange - Tucson - Phoenix - Las Vegas - Denver GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 100' 100 50 0 100 200 300 9403 HEC-RAS CROSS SECTION LEGEND HEC-RAS 5-YEAR FLOODPLAIN STREAM FLOWLINE NOTES: 1. CROSS SECTIONS ARE ORIENTED LEFT TO RIGHT LOOKING UPSTREAM. 2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE ON THE NGVD-29 VERTICAL DATUM. TOPOGRAPHY: CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEM GENERATED FROM LIDAR DATA, DATED 2021. CONVERTED FROM NAVD 88 TO NGVD29 HEC-RAS 2-YEAR FLOODPLAIN HEC-RAS 10-YEAR FLOODPLAIN WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - SOUTHWEST VILLAGE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - NAKANO HEC-RAS 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN HEC-RAS WORKMAPFORSPRING CANYON © 2022 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2023 J-15013 SHEET 3 OF 3 C: \ R I C K \ P r o j e c t s \ C _ S D _ J \ 1 5 0 1 3 - S o u t h O t a y \ W a t e r R e s o u r c e s \ H y d r a u l i c s \ F l o o d p l a i n A n a l y s i s \ C A D \ 1 5 0 1 3 B W E _ D R N _ H R A S . d w g RE C _ N C S _ v 2 . c t b GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 100' 100 50 0 100 200 300 5620 FRIARS ROADSAN DIEGO, CA 92110619.291.0707 rickengineering.com San Diego - Riverside - Santa Clarita - San Luis Obispo - Sacramento - Orange - Tucson - Phoenix - Las Vegas - Denver 9403 HEC-RAS CROSS SECTION LEGEND HEC-RAS 5-YEAR FLOODPLAIN STREAM FLOWLINE NOTES: 1. CROSS SECTIONS ARE ORIENTED LEFT TO RIGHT LOOKING UPSTREAM. 2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE ON THE NGVD-29 VERTICAL DATUM. TOPOGRAPHY: CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEM GENERATED FROM LIDAR DATA, DATED 2021. CONVERTED FROM NAVD 88 TO NGVD29 HEC-RAS 2-YEAR FLOODPLAIN HEC-RAS 10-YEAR FLOODPLAIN WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - SOUTHWEST VILLAGE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - NAKANO HEC-RAS 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN INUNDATION EXHIBITFORSPRING CANYON © 2022 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2023 J-15013 SHEET 1 OF 3 C: \ R I C K \ P r o j e c t s \ C _ S D _ J \ 1 5 0 1 3 - S o u t h O t a y \ W a t e r R e s o u r c e s \ H y d r a u l i c s \ F l o o d p l a i n A n a l y s i s \ C A D \ 1 5 0 1 3 B W E _ D R N _ H R A S . d w g RE C _ N C S _ v 2 . c t b 5620 FRIARS ROADSAN DIEGO, CA 92110619.291.0707 rickengineering.com San Diego - Riverside - Santa Clarita - San Luis Obispo - Sacramento - Orange - Tucson - Phoenix - Las Vegas - Denver GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 40' 40 20 0 40 80 120 9403 HEC-RAS CROSS SECTION LEGEND HEC-RAS 5-YEAR FLOODPLAIN STREAM FLOWLINE NOTES: 1. CROSS SECTIONS ARE ORIENTED LEFT TO RIGHT LOOKING UPSTREAM. 2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE ON THE NGVD-29 VERTICAL DATUM. TOPOGRAPHY: CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEM GENERATED FROM LIDAR DATA, DATED 2021. CONVERTED FROM NAVD 88 TO NGVD29 HEC-RAS 2-YEAR FLOODPLAIN HEC-RAS 10-YEAR FLOODPLAIN WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - SOUTHWEST VILLAGE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - NAKANO HEC-RAS 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN INUNDATION EXHIBITFORSPRING CANYON © 2022 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2023 J-15013 SHEET 2 OF 3 C: \ R I C K \ P r o j e c t s \ C _ S D _ J \ 1 5 0 1 3 - S o u t h O t a y \ W a t e r R e s o u r c e s \ H y d r a u l i c s \ F l o o d p l a i n A n a l y s i s \ C A D \ 1 5 0 1 3 B W E _ D R N _ H R A S . d w g RE C _ N C S _ v 2 . c t b 5620 FRIARS ROADSAN DIEGO, CA 92110619.291.0707 rickengineering.com San Diego - Riverside - Santa Clarita - San Luis Obispo - Sacramento - Orange - Tucson - Phoenix - Las Vegas - Denver GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 40' 40 20 0 40 80 120 9403 HEC-RAS CROSS SECTION LEGEND HEC-RAS 5-YEAR FLOODPLAIN STREAM FLOWLINE NOTES: 1. CROSS SECTIONS ARE ORIENTED LEFT TO RIGHT LOOKING UPSTREAM. 2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE ON THE NGVD-29 VERTICAL DATUM. TOPOGRAPHY: CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEM GENERATED FROM LIDAR DATA, DATED 2021. CONVERTED FROM NAVD 88 TO NGVD29 HEC-RAS 2-YEAR FLOODPLAIN HEC-RAS 10-YEAR FLOODPLAIN WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - SOUTHWEST VILLAGE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS - NAKANO HEC-RAS 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN INUNDATION EXHIBITFORSPRING CANYON © 2022 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2023 J-15013 SHEET 3 OF 3 C: \ R I C K \ P r o j e c t s \ C _ S D _ J \ 1 5 0 1 3 - S o u t h O t a y \ W a t e r R e s o u r c e s \ H y d r a u l i c s \ F l o o d p l a i n A n a l y s i s \ C A D \ 1 5 0 1 3 B W E _ D R N _ H R A S . d w g RE C _ N C S _ v 2 . c t b 5620 FRIARS ROADSAN DIEGO, CA 92110619.291.0707 rickengineering.com San Diego - Riverside - Santa Clarita - San Luis Obispo - Sacramento - Orange - Tucson - Phoenix - Las Vegas - Denver GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 40' 40 20 0 40 80 120 HEC-RAS Plan: Sprg_Cnyn_Ex River: SpringCanyon Reach: Reach 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Reach 1 9403 q2 555.00 332.99 336.24 336.24 336.78 0.012263 6.55 98.19 85.95 0.80 Reach 1 9403 q5 698.00 332.99 336.42 336.42 337.04 0.012468 6.99 113.98 88.86 0.82 Reach 1 9403 q10 840.00 332.99 336.59 336.59 337.28 0.012473 7.33 129.16 91.91 0.83 Reach 1 9403 q100 1156.00 332.99 336.94 336.94 337.76 0.011941 7.85 162.45 97.45 0.83 Reach 1 9320 q2 555.00 330.32 334.19 334.19 335.06 0.011713 7.83 78.40 48.74 0.82 Reach 1 9320 q5 698.00 330.32 334.57 334.57 335.46 0.010441 8.05 98.30 55.38 0.79 Reach 1 9320 q10 840.00 330.32 334.86 334.86 335.79 0.010035 8.36 114.86 59.00 0.79 Reach 1 9320 q100 1156.00 330.32 335.31 335.31 336.44 0.010466 9.26 142.70 63.16 0.82 Reach 1 9285 q2 555.00 329.91 333.24 333.24 334.05 0.013235 7.55 81.07 53.88 0.86 Reach 1 9285 q5 698.00 329.91 333.59 333.59 334.42 0.011594 7.74 101.11 60.36 0.82 Reach 1 9285 q10 840.00 329.91 333.81 333.81 334.73 0.011880 8.25 114.82 63.90 0.85 Reach 1 9285 q100 1156.00 329.91 334.33 334.33 335.34 0.010904 8.79 150.39 73.77 0.83 Reach 1 9252 q2 555.00 329.06 332.66 332.66 333.19 0.008598 6.46 106.36 93.91 0.70 Reach 1 9252 q5 698.00 329.06 332.86 332.86 333.44 0.008843 6.88 126.04 99.47 0.72 Reach 1 9252 q10 840.00 329.06 333.00 333.00 333.66 0.009588 7.41 140.62 102.60 0.76 Reach 1 9252 q100 1156.00 329.06 333.38 333.38 334.10 0.009311 7.90 181.42 114.56 0.76 Reach 1 9183 q2 555.00 327.44 331.08 331.08 331.67 0.010149 7.09 97.66 78.33 0.76 Reach 1 9183 q5 698.00 327.44 331.25 331.25 331.95 0.011409 7.82 111.11 82.79 0.81 Reach 1 9183 q10 840.00 327.44 331.50 331.50 332.21 0.010735 8.02 134.13 97.89 0.80 Reach 1 9183 q100 1156.00 327.44 331.89 331.89 332.65 0.010033 8.38 175.64 111.54 0.78 Reach 1 9099 q2 555.00 325.49 329.39 329.39 330.39 0.014226 8.35 72.81 40.09 0.90 Reach 1 9099 q5 698.00 325.49 329.87 329.87 330.84 0.011533 8.40 94.80 50.09 0.83 Reach 1 9099 q10 840.00 325.49 330.16 330.16 331.22 0.011315 8.83 110.22 55.72 0.84 Reach 1 9099 q100 1156.00 325.49 330.81 330.81 331.90 0.009945 9.27 151.81 71.35 0.81 Reach 1 9017 q2 555.00 323.69 327.60 327.60 328.58 0.014440 8.14 74.03 40.88 0.89 Reach 1 9017 q5 698.00 323.69 328.00 328.00 329.03 0.013420 8.43 91.86 45.53 0.88 Reach 1 9017 q10 840.00 323.69 328.32 328.32 329.42 0.013307 8.83 106.62 48.47 0.88 Reach 1 9017 q100 1156.00 323.69 328.90 328.90 330.16 0.013193 9.58 135.99 52.34 0.90 Reach 1 8962 q2 555.00 322.15 326.36 326.84 0.007241 6.22 106.76 55.39 0.64 Reach 1 8962 q5 698.00 322.15 326.84 327.30 0.006262 6.14 134.70 60.98 0.61 Reach 1 8962 q10 840.00 322.15 327.21 327.70 0.005807 6.29 158.26 64.50 0.59 Reach 1 8962 q100 1156.00 322.15 327.93 328.46 0.005120 6.53 206.24 68.55 0.57 Reach 1 8926 q2 555.00 321.61 325.93 326.56 0.009939 6.41 87.33 39.57 0.74 Reach 1 8926 q5 698.00 321.61 326.35 327.05 0.009649 6.73 104.99 43.77 0.74 Reach 1 8926 q10 840.00 321.61 326.62 327.43 0.010272 7.27 117.41 47.80 0.77 Reach 1 8926 q100 1156.00 321.61 327.24 326.83 328.21 0.009597 8.03 151.22 61.02 0.77 Reach 1 8894 q2 555.00 320.86 324.88 324.88 326.07 0.019489 8.74 63.49 27.16 1.01 Reach 1 8894 q5 698.00 320.86 325.46 325.46 326.61 0.015999 8.64 82.90 42.40 0.94 Reach 1 8894 q10 840.00 320.86 325.87 325.87 327.03 0.013556 8.76 101.96 49.14 0.88 Reach 1 8894 q100 1156.00 320.86 326.38 326.38 327.80 0.014007 9.86 128.38 54.49 0.92 Reach 1 8827 q2 555.00 319.59 323.28 323.28 324.50 0.019446 8.85 62.69 26.21 1.01 Reach 1 8827 q5 698.00 319.59 323.85 323.85 325.07 0.015282 8.90 80.36 39.43 0.92 Reach 1 8827 q10 840.00 319.59 324.36 324.36 325.51 0.011914 8.76 103.76 52.14 0.84 Reach 1 8827 q100 1156.00 319.59 325.06 325.06 326.21 0.009965 9.07 145.02 63.35 0.79 Reach 1 8786 q2 555.00 318.31 322.03 322.03 323.03 0.014082 8.29 73.39 37.98 0.89 Reach 1 8786 q5 698.00 318.31 322.40 322.40 323.51 0.013457 8.82 87.91 40.53 0.88 Reach 1 8786 q10 840.00 318.31 322.74 322.74 323.93 0.012963 9.27 101.86 43.01 0.88 Reach 1 8786 q100 1156.00 318.31 323.36 323.36 324.75 0.012424 10.14 129.71 46.37 0.89 Reach 1 8721 q2 555.00 317.21 320.94 320.68 321.86 0.012540 7.96 74.78 32.24 0.84 Reach 1 8721 q5 698.00 317.21 321.24 321.14 322.37 0.013922 8.86 84.76 33.54 0.90 Reach 1 8721 q10 840.00 317.21 321.50 321.46 322.84 0.015188 9.68 93.57 34.45 0.94 Reach 1 8721 q100 1156.00 317.21 322.28 322.28 323.80 0.014033 10.44 124.11 43.07 0.93 Reach 1 8674 q2 555.00 315.59 320.15 320.15 321.21 0.014970 8.71 70.39 33.90 0.91 Reach 1 8674 q5 698.00 315.59 320.54 320.54 321.72 0.014247 9.26 84.21 36.75 0.91 Reach 1 8674 q10 840.00 315.59 320.91 320.91 322.17 0.013334 9.63 98.42 39.42 0.89 Reach 1 8674 q100 1156.00 315.59 321.60 321.60 323.02 0.012391 10.43 128.11 46.50 0.89 Reach 1 8618 q2 555.00 314.67 319.15 319.15 320.12 0.012675 8.29 75.11 41.51 0.85 Reach 1 8618 q5 698.00 314.67 319.59 319.59 320.57 0.011176 8.53 94.71 49.22 0.82 Reach 1 8618 q10 840.00 314.67 319.91 319.91 320.94 0.010647 8.86 111.65 54.25 0.81 Reach 1 8618 q100 1156.00 314.67 320.47 320.47 321.63 0.010341 9.59 143.75 60.70 0.82 Reach 1 8573 q2 555.00 314.09 318.31 318.56 0.002667 4.00 139.90 50.03 0.40 HEC-RAS Plan: Sprg_Cnyn_Ex River: SpringCanyon Reach: Reach 1 (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Reach 1 8573 q5 698.00 314.09 318.78 319.07 0.002648 4.34 164.65 56.64 0.40 Reach 1 8573 q10 840.00 314.09 319.20 319.52 0.002599 4.60 189.61 61.29 0.40 Reach 1 8573 q100 1156.00 314.09 319.98 320.36 0.002576 5.09 240.84 70.61 0.41 Reach 1 8537 q2 555.00 312.89 317.24 317.19 318.29 0.016758 8.24 68.73 32.17 0.94 Reach 1 8537 q5 698.00 312.89 317.78 317.61 318.82 0.013553 8.25 87.66 38.07 0.87 Reach 1 8537 q10 840.00 312.89 318.24 317.98 319.28 0.011348 8.35 106.33 44.50 0.82 Reach 1 8537 q100 1156.00 312.89 319.15 318.69 320.15 0.008235 8.39 153.29 58.18 0.72 Reach 1 8519 q2 555.00 312.78 317.53 317.95 0.004926 5.21 107.89 38.26 0.53 Reach 1 8519 q5 698.00 312.78 318.04 318.52 0.004557 5.56 127.83 39.79 0.52 Reach 1 8519 q10 840.00 312.78 318.48 319.01 0.004417 5.92 145.72 42.74 0.53 Reach 1 8519 q100 1156.00 312.78 319.29 319.95 0.004300 6.62 184.89 53.38 0.53 Reach 1 8480 q2 555.00 312.68 316.32 316.32 317.56 0.014098 9.17 64.54 27.35 0.92 Reach 1 8480 q5 698.00 312.68 316.81 316.81 318.15 0.012745 9.63 78.90 30.72 0.90 Reach 1 8480 q10 840.00 312.68 317.28 317.28 318.67 0.011402 9.89 94.52 35.14 0.87 Reach 1 8480 q100 1156.00 312.68 318.07 318.07 319.61 0.010376 10.62 124.56 41.70 0.85 Reach 1 8443 q2 555.00 311.70 316.17 316.95 0.010049 7.24 80.75 37.13 0.75 Reach 1 8443 q5 698.00 311.70 316.25 316.25 317.39 0.014490 8.83 83.41 37.87 0.90 Reach 1 8443 q10 840.00 311.70 316.63 316.63 317.84 0.013372 9.19 98.70 44.21 0.89 Reach 1 8443 q100 1156.00 311.70 317.35 317.35 318.61 0.011117 9.55 134.89 55.00 0.83 Reach 1 8355 q2 555.00 309.17 314.30 314.30 315.76 0.016718 9.76 58.68 74.53 0.93 Reach 1 8355 q5 698.00 309.17 314.46 314.46 315.03 0.008079 6.99 122.28 78.25 0.65 Reach 1 8355 q10 840.00 309.17 314.56 314.56 315.28 0.009795 7.83 130.06 78.90 0.72 Reach 1 8355 q100 1156.00 309.17 314.90 314.90 315.79 0.010531 8.62 157.77 81.50 0.76 Reach 1 8306 q2 555.00 307.74 312.61 312.52 313.28 0.010149 7.16 89.81 63.49 0.75 Reach 1 8306 q5 698.00 307.74 312.79 312.79 313.63 0.011923 8.08 100.69 75.11 0.82 Reach 1 8306 q10 840.00 307.74 312.79 312.79 314.00 0.017268 9.73 100.69 75.11 0.98 Reach 1 8306 q100 1156.00 307.74 313.54 313.54 314.40 0.009798 8.48 162.96 85.66 0.77 Reach 1 8278 q2 555.00 308.42 312.47 312.47 313.03 0.008538 6.97 106.68 85.02 0.70 Reach 1 8278 q5 698.00 308.42 312.67 312.67 313.30 0.009039 7.49 123.89 87.18 0.73 Reach 1 8278 q10 840.00 308.42 312.82 312.82 313.54 0.009927 8.08 136.84 88.55 0.77 Reach 1 8278 q100 1156.00 308.42 313.19 313.19 314.02 0.010118 8.74 170.24 92.42 0.79 Reach 1 8232 q2 555.00 307.85 311.16 311.16 311.97 0.020918 7.22 76.84 85.63 1.00 Reach 1 8232 q5 698.00 307.85 311.25 311.25 311.68 0.009331 4.99 133.35 88.46 0.68 Reach 1 8232 q10 840.00 307.85 311.25 311.25 311.87 0.013515 6.00 133.34 88.46 0.81 Reach 1 8232 q100 1156.00 307.85 311.51 311.51 312.37 0.015319 6.98 156.54 95.71 0.88 Reach 1 8197 q2 555.00 306.62 309.83 309.83 310.32 0.011141 6.22 100.34 87.93 0.75 Reach 1 8197 q5 698.00 306.62 309.97 309.97 310.58 0.012705 6.89 113.27 91.22 0.81 Reach 1 8197 q10 840.00 306.62 310.09 310.09 310.82 0.014494 7.57 123.93 95.52 0.87 Reach 1 8197 q100 1156.00 306.62 310.47 310.47 311.28 0.012827 7.75 160.54 96.81 0.84 Reach 1 8164 q2 555.00 304.75 309.18 309.18 309.68 0.009340 6.39 106.04 88.98 0.70 Reach 1 8164 q5 698.00 304.75 309.34 309.34 309.93 0.010379 6.93 120.40 89.80 0.75 Reach 1 8164 q10 840.00 304.75 309.50 309.50 310.15 0.010755 7.25 135.20 90.64 0.76 Reach 1 8164 q100 1156.00 304.75 309.82 309.80 310.62 0.011433 7.85 164.08 92.28 0.80 Reach 1 8122 q2 555.00 304.02 308.57 308.57 309.14 0.011808 6.67 97.55 83.38 0.77 Reach 1 8122 q5 698.00 304.02 308.86 308.76 309.42 0.009932 6.58 122.47 87.65 0.72 Reach 1 8122 q10 840.00 304.02 309.11 309.68 0.008784 6.58 144.80 89.20 0.69 Reach 1 8122 q100 1156.00 304.02 309.56 310.21 0.007946 6.90 184.91 91.70 0.67 Reach 1 8053 q2 555.00 302.63 307.80 307.80 308.44 0.007970 7.43 104.18 71.95 0.67 Reach 1 8053 q5 698.00 302.63 308.02 308.02 308.74 0.008760 8.08 120.39 74.41 0.71 Reach 1 8053 q10 840.00 302.63 308.23 308.23 309.02 0.009240 8.58 136.37 77.61 0.73 Reach 1 8053 q100 1156.00 302.63 308.63 308.63 309.55 0.009936 9.44 167.49 80.37 0.77 Reach 1 7909 q2 555.00 300.37 304.95 304.95 305.80 0.011280 8.37 83.02 60.25 0.79 Reach 1 7909 q5 698.00 300.37 305.37 305.37 306.15 0.008973 8.06 110.96 69.76 0.72 Reach 1 7909 q10 840.00 300.37 305.58 305.58 306.44 0.009350 8.52 125.95 71.40 0.74 Reach 1 7909 q100 1156.00 300.37 306.01 306.01 307.03 0.009702 9.27 156.88 73.31 0.77 Reach 1 7855 q2 555.00 300.14 303.99 303.99 304.69 0.011655 7.47 87.96 61.82 0.80 Reach 1 7855 q5 698.00 300.14 304.22 304.22 305.02 0.011807 7.95 102.71 63.81 0.82 Reach 1 7855 q10 840.00 300.14 304.42 304.42 305.33 0.012111 8.42 115.72 65.63 0.84 Reach 1 7855 q100 1156.00 300.14 304.89 304.89 305.94 0.011357 8.95 147.72 70.11 0.83 Reach 1 7778 q2 555.00 298.68 302.89 302.89 303.57 0.011417 7.71 93.17 64.82 0.80 Reach 1 7778 q5 698.00 298.68 303.13 303.13 303.88 0.011636 8.22 112.34 88.76 0.82 HEC-RAS Plan: Sprg_Cnyn_Ex River: SpringCanyon Reach: Reach 1 (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Reach 1 7778 q10 840.00 298.68 303.47 303.47 304.14 0.009634 8.00 143.16 97.15 0.76 Reach 1 7778 q100 1156.00 298.68 303.80 303.80 304.60 0.010517 8.87 176.01 102.26 0.80 Reach 1 7680 q2 555.00 296.31 300.64 300.64 301.17 0.009859 6.85 111.83 104.26 0.73 Reach 1 7680 q5 698.00 296.31 300.85 300.85 301.41 0.009919 7.22 134.29 112.21 0.74 Reach 1 7680 q10 840.00 296.31 301.00 301.00 301.62 0.010462 7.66 151.75 116.29 0.77 Reach 1 7680 q100 1156.00 296.31 301.34 301.34 302.04 0.010475 8.23 193.79 127.72 0.78 Reach 1 7604 q2 555.00 294.73 298.93 298.93 299.51 0.009587 6.83 108.01 87.27 0.73 Reach 1 7604 q5 698.00 294.73 299.14 299.14 299.79 0.010336 7.37 126.32 89.96 0.76 Reach 1 7604 q10 840.00 294.73 299.34 299.34 300.03 0.010741 7.77 144.25 93.48 0.78 Reach 1 7604 q100 1156.00 294.73 299.72 299.72 300.51 0.011254 8.42 181.86 100.83 0.81 Reach 1 7525 q2 555.00 293.21 297.35 297.75 0.006650 5.86 118.47 66.78 0.61 Reach 1 7525 q5 698.00 293.21 297.85 298.23 0.005181 5.76 153.16 73.88 0.56 Reach 1 7525 q10 840.00 293.21 298.10 298.54 0.005613 6.29 172.51 81.38 0.59 Reach 1 7525 q100 1156.00 293.21 298.68 299.18 0.005441 6.84 223.79 95.56 0.59 Reach 1 7455 q2 555.00 292.03 296.01 295.99 297.10 0.013143 8.66 71.53 36.85 0.88 Reach 1 7455 q5 698.00 292.03 296.36 296.36 297.63 0.013695 9.49 85.26 43.50 0.91 Reach 1 7455 q10 840.00 292.03 296.98 296.98 298.03 0.009535 8.87 119.85 64.39 0.78 Reach 1 7455 q100 1156.00 292.03 297.66 297.66 298.71 0.008479 9.29 170.00 83.69 0.76 Reach 1 7431 q2 555.00 291.30 295.75 295.75 296.75 0.014528 8.45 73.29 42.00 0.89 Reach 1 7431 q5 698.00 291.30 296.17 296.17 297.22 0.013123 8.82 92.23 47.66 0.87 Reach 1 7431 q10 840.00 291.30 296.52 296.52 297.62 0.012248 9.14 109.80 51.52 0.85 Reach 1 7431 q100 1156.00 291.30 297.07 297.07 298.39 0.012752 10.25 140.52 62.58 0.89 Reach 1 7386 q2 555.00 290.15 294.79 295.39 0.008241 6.28 90.25 36.89 0.68 Reach 1 7386 q5 698.00 290.15 295.15 295.88 0.008577 6.89 103.96 38.14 0.70 Reach 1 7386 q10 840.00 290.15 295.48 296.32 0.008840 7.41 116.78 40.29 0.72 Reach 1 7386 q100 1156.00 290.15 296.15 295.50 297.16 0.008513 8.24 153.31 68.05 0.73 Reach 1 7330 q2 555.00 289.18 293.78 293.78 294.78 0.012768 8.64 75.78 38.69 0.85 Reach 1 7330 q5 698.00 289.18 294.15 294.15 295.26 0.012607 9.23 90.57 41.53 0.86 Reach 1 7330 q10 840.00 289.18 294.47 294.47 295.69 0.012711 9.80 104.11 44.45 0.87 Reach 1 7330 q100 1156.00 289.18 295.11 295.11 296.54 0.012897 10.93 138.83 82.00 0.90 Reach 1 7295 q2 555.00 288.42 292.90 292.90 294.04 0.014416 8.70 68.55 33.05 0.90 Reach 1 7295 q5 698.00 288.42 293.32 293.32 294.57 0.013697 9.27 82.88 36.01 0.90 Reach 1 7295 q10 840.00 288.42 293.73 293.73 295.04 0.012572 9.61 98.24 38.89 0.88 Reach 1 7295 q100 1156.00 288.42 294.35 294.32 295.96 0.012865 10.78 123.70 43.29 0.91 Reach 1 7240 q2 555.00 287.30 291.94 291.94 293.15 0.014035 9.09 66.75 29.30 0.90 Reach 1 7240 q5 698.00 287.30 292.36 292.36 293.73 0.013797 9.79 79.56 31.80 0.91 Reach 1 7240 q10 840.00 287.30 292.81 292.81 294.24 0.012713 10.15 94.51 35.53 0.89 Reach 1 7240 q100 1156.00 287.30 293.49 293.49 295.22 0.012928 11.35 121.04 42.68 0.92 Reach 1 7168 q2 555.00 286.06 290.73 291.56 0.009489 7.61 79.54 31.04 0.73 Reach 1 7168 q5 698.00 286.06 290.75 290.74 292.04 0.014640 9.48 80.33 31.20 0.91 Reach 1 7168 q10 840.00 286.06 291.10 291.10 292.54 0.014727 10.08 91.78 34.71 0.93 Reach 1 7168 q100 1156.00 286.06 292.01 292.01 293.45 0.011555 10.34 131.60 51.63 0.85 Reach 1 7085 q2 555.00 285.13 289.45 289.45 290.54 0.015627 8.75 71.26 40.81 0.93 Reach 1 7085 q5 698.00 285.13 290.12 290.12 290.95 0.009623 7.94 110.95 69.02 0.76 Reach 1 7085 q10 840.00 285.13 290.55 290.55 291.28 0.007802 7.74 146.75 94.79 0.70 Reach 1 7085 q100 1156.00 285.13 291.00 291.00 291.80 0.007936 8.41 196.39 117.34 0.72 Reach 1 7025 q2 555.00 283.97 287.93 287.93 289.05 0.016566 8.63 66.01 29.77 0.95 Reach 1 7025 q5 698.00 283.97 288.37 288.37 289.59 0.014800 9.03 80.55 40.69 0.93 Reach 1 7025 q10 840.00 283.97 289.13 289.13 289.94 0.008116 7.78 134.09 96.39 0.71 Reach 1 7025 q100 1156.00 283.97 289.71 289.71 290.44 0.006686 7.79 200.46 126.86 0.66 Reach 1 6930 q2 555.00 281.75 286.48 286.48 287.41 0.015366 8.63 78.38 45.33 0.90 Reach 1 6930 q5 698.00 281.75 286.91 286.91 287.83 0.013223 8.77 99.72 58.77 0.85 Reach 1 6930 q10 840.00 281.75 287.22 287.22 288.16 0.012413 9.02 119.97 69.68 0.84 Reach 1 6930 q100 1156.00 281.75 287.86 287.86 288.72 0.009925 8.99 174.31 98.09 0.77 Reach 1 6843 q2 555.00 281.66 285.05 285.05 285.62 0.011397 6.92 95.38 75.71 0.77 Reach 1 6843 q5 698.00 281.66 285.21 285.21 285.90 0.012367 7.52 107.84 76.50 0.81 Reach 1 6843 q10 840.00 281.66 285.40 285.40 286.16 0.012010 7.77 122.64 77.43 0.81 Reach 1 6843 q100 1156.00 281.66 285.74 285.74 286.69 0.012361 8.48 149.02 79.16 0.84 Reach 1 6761 q2 555.00 279.76 283.88 284.38 0.010005 6.80 106.19 68.10 0.73 Reach 1 6761 q5 698.00 279.76 284.29 284.76 0.007926 6.65 134.31 71.02 0.67 Reach 1 6761 q10 840.00 279.76 284.70 285.15 0.006322 6.45 164.33 74.04 0.61 HEC-RAS Plan: Sprg_Cnyn_Ex River: SpringCanyon Reach: Reach 1 (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Reach 1 6761 q100 1156.00 279.76 285.33 285.83 0.005609 6.78 212.38 78.56 0.59 Reach 1 6704 q2 555.00 278.64 282.76 282.76 283.71 0.012011 8.45 77.01 41.05 0.84 Reach 1 6704 q5 698.00 278.64 283.13 283.13 284.16 0.011522 8.91 93.00 44.93 0.84 Reach 1 6704 q10 840.00 278.64 283.34 283.34 284.57 0.012928 9.80 102.33 46.91 0.90 Reach 1 6704 q100 1156.00 278.64 284.16 284.16 285.34 0.010140 9.92 148.19 63.62 0.82 Reach 1 6593 q2 555.00 277.07 280.84 280.84 281.87 0.014067 8.25 70.96 38.28 0.88 Reach 1 6593 q5 698.00 277.07 281.37 281.37 282.34 0.011015 8.21 94.10 51.03 0.80 Reach 1 6593 q10 840.00 277.07 281.74 281.74 282.70 0.009778 8.32 115.06 64.82 0.77 Reach 1 6593 q100 1156.00 277.07 282.38 282.38 283.38 0.008698 8.75 158.61 88.68 0.75 Reach 1 6532 q2 555.00 276.04 280.39 280.39 280.94 0.008856 6.92 104.11 88.03 0.69 Reach 1 6532 q5 698.00 276.04 280.59 280.59 281.19 0.009081 7.31 122.08 90.66 0.70 Reach 1 6532 q10 840.00 276.04 280.75 280.75 281.42 0.009518 7.72 136.72 92.25 0.73 Reach 1 6532 q100 1156.00 276.04 281.07 281.07 281.88 0.010046 8.41 167.21 100.78 0.76 Reach 1 6442 q2 555.00 274.73 278.63 278.63 279.18 0.012448 7.21 103.94 79.96 0.80 Reach 1 6442 q5 698.00 274.73 278.82 278.82 279.45 0.013264 7.66 119.65 81.17 0.84 Reach 1 6442 q10 840.00 274.73 278.99 278.96 279.69 0.014205 8.04 133.25 84.54 0.87 Reach 1 6442 q100 1156.00 274.73 279.33 279.33 280.19 0.014586 8.83 164.51 93.29 0.90 Reach 1 6388 q2 555.00 273.61 277.94 277.94 278.50 0.013664 7.02 106.76 88.23 0.76 Reach 1 6388 q5 698.00 273.61 278.15 278.15 278.77 0.014022 7.49 125.89 92.14 0.78 Reach 1 6388 q10 840.00 273.61 278.32 278.32 279.01 0.014563 7.94 142.18 94.47 0.81 Reach 1 6388 q100 1156.00 273.61 278.65 278.65 279.48 0.015562 8.80 174.32 98.46 0.85 Reach 1 6331 q2 555.00 273.37 276.51 276.51 277.18 0.014190 7.12 94.24 71.78 0.80 Reach 1 6331 q5 698.00 273.37 276.77 276.77 277.50 0.013980 7.56 113.71 76.69 0.80 Reach 1 6331 q10 840.00 273.37 276.99 276.99 277.78 0.013979 7.96 130.89 79.77 0.81 Reach 1 6331 q100 1156.00 273.37 277.41 277.41 278.32 0.014229 8.76 165.60 87.19 0.84 Reach 1 6290 q2 555.00 271.50 275.36 275.36 276.21 0.015148 7.65 81.70 55.05 0.82 Reach 1 6290 q5 698.00 271.50 275.70 275.70 276.61 0.014406 8.08 101.84 63.28 0.82 Reach 1 6290 q10 840.00 271.50 276.05 276.05 276.94 0.012806 8.19 125.37 71.92 0.79 Reach 1 6290 q100 1156.00 271.50 276.53 276.53 277.55 0.012954 9.00 162.46 82.86 0.81 Reach 1 6266 q2 555.00 270.63 274.41 274.41 275.43 0.020586 8.14 69.97 40.21 0.93 Reach 1 6266 q5 698.00 270.63 274.91 274.91 275.91 0.015949 8.15 93.92 56.11 0.85 Reach 1 6266 q10 840.00 270.63 275.27 275.27 276.27 0.014154 8.31 115.68 62.93 0.81 Reach 1 6266 q100 1156.00 270.63 275.82 275.82 276.93 0.013569 9.02 153.03 73.19 0.82 Reach 1 6163 q2 555.00 268.51 272.97 272.90 273.70 0.013479 7.74 86.37 52.72 0.77 Reach 1 6163 q5 698.00 268.51 273.37 273.22 274.08 0.011367 7.70 108.29 57.43 0.72 Reach 1 6163 q10 840.00 268.51 273.60 273.45 274.41 0.011817 8.19 121.91 60.23 0.75 Reach 1 6163 q100 1156.00 268.51 274.08 273.95 275.05 0.012197 9.03 152.92 68.39 0.77 Reach 1 6089 q2 555.00 267.72 271.58 271.58 272.58 0.017357 8.33 69.65 33.87 0.85 Reach 1 6089 q5 698.00 267.72 271.96 271.96 273.07 0.017026 8.80 83.20 37.92 0.85 Reach 1 6089 q10 840.00 267.72 272.51 272.51 273.49 0.013791 8.60 108.51 53.66 0.77 Reach 1 6089 q100 1156.00 267.72 273.03 273.03 274.15 0.013470 9.08 138.15 59.34 0.77 Reach 1 5998 q2 555.00 266.32 270.52 270.31 271.23 0.011157 7.33 86.36 47.59 0.72 Reach 1 5998 q5 698.00 266.32 270.81 270.66 271.64 0.011664 7.95 100.84 51.65 0.75 Reach 1 5998 q10 840.00 266.32 271.03 270.97 272.00 0.012539 8.58 112.49 54.35 0.78 Reach 1 5998 q100 1156.00 266.32 271.71 271.71 272.68 0.011691 9.26 157.90 80.23 0.78 Reach 1 5901 q2 555.00 264.51 269.30 269.30 270.02 0.013961 8.07 89.08 57.10 0.76 Reach 1 5901 q5 698.00 264.51 269.57 269.57 270.37 0.014463 8.64 105.39 63.92 0.78 Reach 1 5901 q10 840.00 264.51 269.84 269.84 270.67 0.013903 8.87 123.79 71.30 0.78 Reach 1 5901 q100 1156.00 264.51 270.29 270.29 271.22 0.014247 9.62 159.08 87.93 0.80 Reach 1 5853 q2 555.00 264.52 269.21 269.41 0.003790 4.30 158.78 87.64 0.40 Reach 1 5853 q5 698.00 264.52 269.44 269.69 0.004117 4.68 179.45 89.54 0.42 Reach 1 5853 q10 840.00 264.52 269.64 269.94 0.004452 5.04 197.39 91.21 0.44 Reach 1 5853 q100 1156.00 264.52 270.03 270.43 0.005115 5.74 234.18 96.61 0.48 Reach 1 5805 q2 703.00 263.75 268.48 268.48 269.05 0.011402 7.58 125.60 102.65 0.71 Reach 1 5805 q5 883.00 263.75 268.79 268.67 269.34 0.010019 7.52 159.74 118.77 0.68 Reach 1 5805 q10 1063.00 263.75 269.04 269.59 0.009143 7.50 191.92 126.55 0.65 Reach 1 5805 q100 1472.00 263.75 269.52 270.09 0.007511 7.32 252.66 129.94 0.60 Reach 1 5687 q2 703.00 261.61 266.75 266.75 267.57 0.013479 8.49 105.30 63.87 0.78 Reach 1 5687 q5 883.00 261.61 267.04 267.04 267.94 0.013555 8.96 125.03 69.32 0.79 Reach 1 5687 q10 1063.00 261.61 267.36 267.36 268.28 0.012963 9.21 148.17 77.92 0.78 Reach 1 5687 q100 1472.00 261.61 267.86 267.86 268.91 0.012892 9.88 190.36 94.20 0.79 HEC-RAS Plan: Sprg_Cnyn_Ex River: SpringCanyon Reach: Reach 1 (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Reach 1 5616 q2 703.00 260.92 265.06 265.06 265.32 0.005308 4.61 175.46 126.88 0.47 Reach 1 5616 q5 883.00 260.92 265.06 265.06 265.47 0.008377 5.79 175.44 126.88 0.59 Reach 1 5616 q10 1063.00 260.92 265.06 265.06 265.66 0.012142 6.97 175.44 126.88 0.71 Reach 1 5616 q100 1472.00 260.92 265.32 265.32 266.13 0.013274 7.71 208.64 127.59 0.75 Reach 1 5522 q2 703.00 260.08 263.79 263.79 264.30 0.012477 6.72 127.89 143.57 0.73 Reach 1 5522 q5 883.00 260.08 263.99 263.99 264.54 0.011965 6.85 153.25 151.25 0.72 Reach 1 5522 q10 1063.00 260.08 264.10 264.10 264.43 0.005164 4.59 231.78 153.17 0.47 Reach 1 5522 q100 1472.00 260.08 264.59 264.10 264.95 0.004467 4.64 307.59 155.11 0.45 Reach 1 5405 q2 703.00 257.39 262.18 262.18 263.03 0.012751 8.52 113.93 91.95 0.79 Reach 1 5405 q5 883.00 257.39 262.60 262.60 263.40 0.011099 8.54 148.11 109.58 0.75 Reach 1 5405 q10 1063.00 257.39 262.86 262.86 263.71 0.011300 8.98 170.83 115.20 0.76 Reach 1 5405 q100 1472.00 257.39 263.24 263.24 264.30 0.013200 10.27 206.67 121.08 0.83 Reach 1 5340 q2 703.00 256.85 260.89 260.89 261.64 0.017914 8.30 109.92 73.74 0.86 Reach 1 5340 q5 883.00 256.85 261.17 261.17 261.99 0.017831 8.80 130.65 78.00 0.87 Reach 1 5340 q10 1063.00 256.85 261.39 261.39 262.32 0.018651 9.41 148.00 81.84 0.90 Reach 1 5340 q100 1472.00 256.85 261.91 261.91 262.94 0.017729 10.11 194.44 93.16 0.90 Reach 1 5266 q2 703.00 256.47 259.25 259.25 259.86 0.017816 7.64 124.20 95.16 0.88 Reach 1 5266 q5 883.00 256.47 259.47 259.47 260.15 0.017707 8.09 145.32 97.30 0.89 Reach 1 5266 q10 1063.00 256.47 259.65 259.65 260.41 0.018067 8.56 163.41 98.80 0.91 Reach 1 5266 q100 1472.00 256.47 260.00 260.00 260.96 0.019521 9.63 197.87 102.07 0.97 Reach 1 5188 q2 703.00 254.65 258.31 258.67 0.009458 5.92 154.93 104.46 0.64 Reach 1 5188 q5 883.00 254.65 258.54 258.95 0.009654 6.33 180.06 108.45 0.66 Reach 1 5188 q10 1063.00 254.65 258.76 259.22 0.009577 6.62 204.11 110.75 0.66 Reach 1 5188 q100 1472.00 254.65 259.22 259.76 0.009314 7.15 255.44 115.35 0.67 Reach 1 5166 q2 703.00 253.60 257.92 258.44 0.011782 7.23 135.71 96.11 0.72 Reach 1 5166 q5 883.00 253.60 258.15 258.73 0.011920 7.63 158.27 98.31 0.73 Reach 1 5166 q10 1063.00 253.60 258.39 259.00 0.011500 7.84 181.77 100.50 0.73 Reach 1 5166 q100 1472.00 253.60 258.78 259.54 0.012201 8.64 221.49 103.61 0.76 Reach 1 5143 q2 703.00 253.37 257.63 257.63 258.22 0.011404 7.10 123.91 96.21 0.71 Reach 1 5143 q5 883.00 253.37 257.83 257.83 258.50 0.011756 7.52 143.61 98.38 0.73 Reach 1 5143 q10 1063.00 253.37 258.04 257.99 258.78 0.011581 7.78 164.92 105.12 0.74 Reach 1 5143 q100 1472.00 253.37 258.54 258.39 259.33 0.009630 7.76 220.32 113.12 0.69 Reach 1 5017 q2 703.00 251.50 255.98 255.98 256.69 0.011209 8.15 122.11 74.24 0.74 Reach 1 5017 q5 883.00 251.50 256.23 256.23 257.04 0.011917 8.78 141.14 75.70 0.77 Reach 1 5017 q10 1063.00 251.50 256.44 256.44 257.35 0.012806 9.41 156.90 76.57 0.81 Reach 1 5017 q100 1472.00 251.50 256.90 256.90 258.00 0.013656 10.41 192.45 78.86 0.85 Reach 1 4921 q2 703.00 250.52 253.73 253.73 254.44 0.020814 8.06 108.57 70.71 0.92 Reach 1 4921 q5 883.00 250.52 253.96 253.96 254.79 0.021436 8.60 125.08 72.09 0.94 Reach 1 4921 q10 1063.00 250.52 254.20 254.20 255.11 0.020833 8.90 142.74 73.50 0.94 Reach 1 4921 q100 1472.00 250.52 254.88 254.88 255.76 0.018375 9.36 205.32 104.81 0.90 Reach 1 4792 q2 703.00 246.92 251.64 251.64 252.39 0.013061 7.49 113.97 74.84 0.77 Reach 1 4792 q5 883.00 246.92 251.91 251.91 252.74 0.013310 8.03 134.81 77.50 0.79 Reach 1 4792 q10 1063.00 246.92 252.13 252.13 253.06 0.014030 8.61 151.55 79.10 0.82 Reach 1 4792 q100 1472.00 246.92 252.60 252.60 253.69 0.014219 9.46 190.13 82.38 0.85 Reach 1 4704 q2 703.00 246.09 250.54 251.00 0.009629 6.13 145.02 94.16 0.65 Reach 1 4704 q5 883.00 246.09 250.86 251.34 0.008930 6.29 175.71 96.52 0.64 Reach 1 4704 q10 1063.00 246.09 251.17 251.65 0.008252 6.38 205.96 99.10 0.62 Reach 1 4704 q100 1472.00 246.09 251.80 252.31 0.007291 6.60 270.42 105.57 0.60 Reach 1 4641 q2 703.00 245.35 250.20 250.59 0.005524 5.47 154.43 72.56 0.52 Reach 1 4641 q5 883.00 245.35 250.41 250.92 0.006796 6.26 170.06 75.03 0.58 Reach 1 4641 q10 1063.00 245.35 250.57 251.21 0.008320 7.08 181.80 77.55 0.64 Reach 1 4641 q100 1472.00 245.35 250.92 251.83 0.011058 8.53 209.96 82.59 0.75 Reach 1 4590 q2 703.00 244.24 249.51 249.51 250.13 0.012615 7.42 130.42 105.80 0.73 Reach 1 4590 q5 883.00 244.24 249.77 249.77 250.41 0.012207 7.70 160.73 119.45 0.73 Reach 1 4590 q10 1063.00 244.24 249.97 249.97 250.64 0.012318 8.03 185.29 125.76 0.74 Reach 1 4590 q100 1472.00 244.24 250.38 250.38 251.11 0.012251 8.59 240.71 142.86 0.75 Reach 1 4514 q2 703.00 243.59 247.91 247.91 248.49 0.014878 7.54 126.18 97.94 0.79 Reach 1 4514 q5 883.00 243.59 248.11 248.11 248.76 0.015599 7.99 146.31 101.60 0.82 Reach 1 4514 q10 1063.00 243.59 248.43 249.03 0.012787 7.61 179.72 108.10 0.75 Reach 1 4514 q100 1472.00 243.59 249.17 249.66 0.008070 6.70 268.68 139.14 0.61 HEC-RAS Plan: Sprg_Cnyn_Ex River: SpringCanyon Reach: Reach 1 (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Reach 1 4399 q2 703.00 241.47 246.71 247.39 0.009113 7.16 117.02 59.51 0.65 Reach 1 4399 q5 883.00 241.47 247.17 247.86 0.008121 7.31 146.32 65.16 0.63 Reach 1 4399 q10 1063.00 241.47 247.57 248.27 0.007616 7.52 172.75 69.59 0.62 Reach 1 4399 q100 1472.00 241.47 248.26 249.06 0.007729 8.32 231.08 94.03 0.64 Reach 1 4291 q2 703.00 238.94 244.61 244.61 245.95 0.018536 9.57 79.14 32.13 0.90 Reach 1 4291 q5 883.00 238.94 245.17 245.17 246.56 0.016316 9.91 99.01 38.86 0.87 Reach 1 4291 q10 1063.00 238.94 245.68 245.68 247.08 0.014419 10.09 120.76 46.68 0.83 Reach 1 4291 q100 1472.00 238.94 246.76 246.76 248.02 0.010733 10.03 185.42 75.66 0.74 Reach 1 4177 q2 703.00 237.00 242.83 243.49 0.009251 6.99 110.37 41.70 0.64 Reach 1 4177 q5 883.00 237.00 243.22 244.00 0.009570 7.61 127.00 44.40 0.67 Reach 1 4177 q10 1063.00 237.00 243.59 244.47 0.009590 8.07 144.11 47.32 0.68 Reach 1 4177 q100 1472.00 237.00 244.21 245.37 0.010622 9.27 174.69 52.06 0.73 Reach 1 4043 q2 703.00 235.30 240.81 240.81 241.85 0.015788 8.60 91.70 43.81 0.84 Reach 1 4043 q5 883.00 235.30 241.21 241.21 242.35 0.015503 9.13 109.60 47.31 0.85 Reach 1 4043 q10 1063.00 235.30 241.50 241.50 242.79 0.016087 9.79 123.63 49.43 0.87 Reach 1 4043 q100 1472.00 235.30 242.21 242.21 243.67 0.014932 10.55 161.37 55.93 0.87 Reach 1 3831 q2 703.00 233.02 238.57 238.92 0.005424 5.28 150.98 62.76 0.48 Reach 1 3831 q5 883.00 233.02 239.07 239.44 0.004826 5.27 183.30 65.44 0.46 Reach 1 3831 q10 1063.00 233.02 239.53 239.91 0.004443 5.29 213.61 67.78 0.45 Reach 1 3831 q100 1472.00 233.02 240.23 240.72 0.004619 5.75 262.42 71.24 0.46 Reach 1 3702 q2 703.00 231.57 236.84 236.50 237.77 0.018085 7.95 92.60 37.19 0.70 Reach 1 3702 q5 883.00 231.57 237.17 236.92 238.32 0.019933 8.81 105.58 41.95 0.75 Reach 1 3702 q10 1063.00 231.57 237.44 237.44 238.81 0.021661 9.57 117.84 47.02 0.79 Reach 1 3702 q100 1472.00 231.57 238.33 238.33 239.69 0.016894 9.50 166.49 61.39 0.72 Reach 1 3596 q2 703.00 231.39 234.47 234.47 235.53 0.025007 6.73 88.60 44.61 0.78 Reach 1 3596 q5 883.00 231.39 234.82 234.82 236.04 0.023428 7.00 104.66 46.14 0.77 Reach 1 3596 q10 1063.00 231.39 235.23 235.23 236.50 0.020187 7.01 124.19 50.98 0.73 Reach 1 3596 q100 1472.00 231.39 235.97 235.97 237.37 0.016608 7.40 166.12 60.21 0.68 Reach 1 3490 q2 703.00 227.32 232.63 233.12 0.012326 6.12 128.50 66.39 0.56 Reach 1 3490 q5 883.00 227.32 233.00 232.52 233.53 0.011540 6.31 153.68 69.80 0.55 Reach 1 3490 q10 1063.00 227.32 233.35 232.77 233.91 0.010551 6.38 178.98 72.02 0.54 Reach 1 3490 q100 1472.00 227.32 234.11 233.25 234.73 0.008837 6.49 235.23 77.31 0.50 Reach 1 3416 q2 703.00 226.48 230.63 230.63 231.76 0.028210 7.72 84.18 42.36 0.84 Reach 1 3416 q5 883.00 226.48 231.06 231.06 232.30 0.023865 7.61 102.71 44.67 0.78 Reach 1 3416 q10 1063.00 226.48 231.40 231.40 232.77 0.021808 7.82 118.33 46.74 0.76 Reach 1 3416 q100 1472.00 226.48 232.11 232.11 233.74 0.018311 8.17 152.90 50.47 0.72 Reach 1 3308 q2 703.00 223.81 228.62 229.31 0.014905 6.18 106.82 47.70 0.62 Reach 1 3308 q5 883.00 223.81 229.01 229.81 0.014011 6.35 126.14 49.98 0.61 Reach 1 3308 q10 1063.00 223.81 229.36 230.28 0.013400 6.49 144.03 51.79 0.60 Reach 1 3308 q100 1472.00 223.81 229.87 229.51 231.16 0.015072 7.28 171.12 54.64 0.64 Reach 1 3235 q2 703.00 222.69 227.34 228.19 0.017089 7.01 97.04 37.07 0.68 Reach 1 3235 q5 883.00 222.69 227.81 228.78 0.015952 7.40 115.27 41.10 0.67 Reach 1 3235 q10 1063.00 222.69 228.23 227.73 229.29 0.015175 7.74 133.60 48.31 0.67 Reach 1 3235 q100 1472.00 222.69 229.16 228.84 230.21 0.011663 7.76 189.10 68.09 0.61 Reach 1 3170 q2 799.00 221.49 226.03 225.72 226.97 0.019969 7.43 103.70 41.84 0.73 Reach 1 3170 q5 1009.00 221.49 226.34 226.15 227.54 0.021442 8.20 117.21 43.31 0.77 Reach 1 3170 q10 1209.00 221.49 226.61 226.52 228.04 0.022570 8.83 129.15 44.69 0.80 Reach 1 3170 q100 1676.00 221.49 227.32 227.32 229.12 0.021062 9.56 162.15 48.34 0.79 Reach 1 3082 q2 799.00 219.83 224.22 224.01 225.10 0.022462 7.43 106.78 48.57 0.77 Reach 1 3082 q5 1009.00 219.83 224.61 224.38 225.62 0.021246 7.85 126.09 51.31 0.76 Reach 1 3082 q10 1209.00 219.83 224.93 224.72 226.07 0.020615 8.23 142.98 54.05 0.76 Reach 1 3082 q100 1676.00 219.83 225.59 225.40 226.98 0.019275 8.89 180.15 58.06 0.76 Reach 1 3009 q2 799.00 218.91 223.36 223.90 0.011960 5.86 135.43 47.07 0.57 Reach 1 3009 q5 1009.00 218.91 223.70 224.39 0.013409 6.56 151.80 49.11 0.61 Reach 1 3009 q10 1209.00 218.91 223.98 224.81 0.014500 7.18 165.91 50.88 0.65 Reach 1 3009 q100 1676.00 218.91 224.52 225.69 0.017069 8.50 194.55 54.78 0.72 Reach 1 2891 q2 799.00 216.25 221.09 221.09 222.01 0.021112 7.75 103.83 57.75 0.73 Reach 1 2891 q5 1009.00 216.25 221.44 221.44 222.46 0.019251 7.88 124.54 61.09 0.70 Reach 1 2891 q10 1209.00 216.25 221.72 221.72 222.85 0.018485 8.10 142.68 64.89 0.70 Reach 1 2891 q100 1676.00 216.25 222.30 222.30 223.63 0.017287 8.53 181.93 72.32 0.69 Reach 1 2699 q2 799.00 215.72 219.40 219.53 0.004066 2.88 276.34 132.92 0.32 HEC-RAS Plan: Sprg_Cnyn_Ex River: SpringCanyon Reach: Reach 1 (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Reach 1 2699 q5 1009.00 215.72 219.68 219.84 0.004329 3.18 313.32 135.80 0.34 Reach 1 2699 q10 1209.00 215.72 219.91 220.10 0.004574 3.44 344.98 138.95 0.35 Reach 1 2699 q100 1676.00 215.72 220.36 220.63 0.005130 3.98 410.34 147.40 0.38 Reach 1 2549 q2 799.00 211.76 219.20 219.27 0.000820 2.14 396.09 157.99 0.16 Reach 1 2549 q5 1009.00 211.76 219.44 219.53 0.000980 2.41 434.89 160.88 0.18 Reach 1 2549 q10 1209.00 211.76 219.65 219.76 0.001118 2.63 467.99 162.67 0.19 Reach 1 2549 q100 1676.00 211.76 220.04 220.21 0.001435 3.11 532.83 166.61 0.22 Reach 1 2525 q2 799.00 216.92 218.63 218.63 219.17 0.004644 6.99 145.02 139.73 0.97 Reach 1 2525 q5 1009.00 216.92 218.85 218.85 219.43 0.004297 7.32 177.07 152.70 0.95 Reach 1 2525 q10 1209.00 216.92 219.00 219.00 219.64 0.004325 7.75 201.21 160.04 0.97 Reach 1 2525 q100 1676.00 216.92 219.39 219.35 220.08 0.003783 8.15 266.84 177.77 0.93 Reach 1 2517 q2 799.00 215.79 218.53 218.53 219.10 0.004418 6.98 143.01 137.65 0.95 Reach 1 2517 q5 1009.00 215.79 218.80 218.80 219.36 0.003786 7.11 181.17 150.83 0.90 Reach 1 2517 q10 1209.00 215.79 218.95 218.95 219.58 0.003798 7.50 204.97 154.66 0.91 Reach 1 2517 q100 1676.00 215.79 219.26 219.26 220.04 0.003936 8.37 255.22 167.92 0.95 Reach 1 2502 q2 799.00 209.45 213.46 213.93 0.020096 5.28 145.59 76.85 0.57 Reach 1 2502 q5 1009.00 209.45 213.74 214.31 0.020626 5.68 168.12 80.59 0.59 Reach 1 2502 q10 1209.00 209.45 214.00 214.65 0.020501 5.94 189.21 83.29 0.59 Reach 1 2502 q100 1676.00 209.45 214.51 215.32 0.021350 6.51 237.23 101.34 0.62 Reach 1 2466 q2 799.00 208.16 212.83 212.30 213.27 0.017650 5.43 150.06 82.04 0.55 Reach 1 2466 q5 1009.00 208.16 213.14 212.56 213.65 0.016908 5.67 176.21 84.61 0.55 Reach 1 2466 q10 1209.00 208.16 213.42 213.99 0.016817 5.97 200.40 91.14 0.55 Reach 1 2466 q100 1676.00 208.16 213.95 214.65 0.016145 6.40 251.72 98.90 0.55 Reach 1 2409 q2 799.00 207.77 211.56 212.04 0.021212 5.43 143.84 73.57 0.59 Reach 1 2409 q5 1009.00 207.77 211.92 212.46 0.020314 5.74 171.54 80.75 0.59 Reach 1 2409 q10 1209.00 207.77 212.22 212.81 0.019440 5.95 197.06 86.39 0.58 Reach 1 2409 q100 1676.00 207.77 212.83 213.52 0.017893 6.31 252.28 95.69 0.57 Reach 1 2333 q2 799.00 207.18 210.68 210.86 0.009059 3.42 233.45 94.33 0.38 Reach 1 2333 q5 1009.00 207.18 211.01 211.24 0.009733 3.81 265.15 96.31 0.40 Reach 1 2333 q10 1209.00 207.18 211.30 211.56 0.010271 4.13 292.82 97.88 0.42 Reach 1 2333 q100 1676.00 207.18 211.87 212.23 0.011315 4.79 349.98 100.46 0.45 Reach 1 2227 q2 799.00 206.39 208.58 209.01 0.043512 5.28 151.44 104.90 0.77 Reach 1 2227 q5 1009.00 206.39 208.83 209.33 0.041350 5.69 177.47 107.01 0.77 Reach 1 2227 q10 1209.00 206.39 209.04 209.61 0.039799 6.04 200.74 108.77 0.77 Reach 1 2227 q100 1676.00 206.39 209.50 210.19 0.037309 6.71 251.04 113.09 0.77 Reach 1 2105 q2 799.00 204.25 206.92 207.04 0.007784 2.72 293.42 149.81 0.34 Reach 1 2105 q5 1009.00 204.25 207.21 207.35 0.007930 3.00 336.10 150.82 0.35 Reach 1 2105 q10 1209.00 204.25 207.45 207.62 0.008044 3.24 373.60 152.01 0.36 Reach 1 2105 q100 1676.00 204.25 207.97 208.18 0.008247 3.71 452.82 154.77 0.38 Reach 1 2040 q2 799.00 203.24 206.28 206.43 0.011605 3.07 260.29 149.53 0.41 Reach 1 2040 q5 1009.00 203.24 206.57 206.74 0.011257 3.33 303.04 150.48 0.41 Reach 1 2040 q10 1209.00 203.24 206.81 207.01 0.011095 3.55 340.14 151.36 0.42 Reach 1 2040 q100 1676.00 203.24 207.32 207.57 0.010813 4.01 418.35 153.50 0.43 Reach 1 1965 q2 799.00 202.77 205.52 205.65 0.009148 2.91 274.75 144.34 0.37 Reach 1 1965 q5 1009.00 202.77 205.82 205.98 0.008917 3.16 319.26 145.59 0.37 Reach 1 1965 q10 1209.00 202.77 206.07 206.25 0.009062 3.41 354.85 146.62 0.38 Reach 1 1965 q100 1676.00 202.77 206.58 206.81 0.009285 3.90 430.40 148.81 0.40 Reach 1 1876 q2 799.00 201.39 204.18 204.44 0.021550 4.07 196.17 117.52 0.56 Reach 1 1876 q5 1009.00 201.39 204.51 204.79 0.021508 4.29 235.47 130.53 0.56 Reach 1 1876 q10 1209.00 201.39 204.74 205.06 0.021008 4.53 267.02 133.86 0.57 Reach 1 1876 q100 1676.00 201.39 205.25 205.64 0.019680 4.99 335.62 138.19 0.56 Reach 1 1784 q2 799.00 200.02 202.50 202.73 0.016232 3.80 210.44 113.51 0.49 Reach 1 1784 q5 1009.00 200.02 202.78 203.05 0.016768 4.17 242.02 116.18 0.51 Reach 1 1784 q10 1209.00 200.02 203.04 203.35 0.016637 4.43 273.12 119.08 0.52 Reach 1 1784 q100 1676.00 200.02 203.58 203.96 0.016939 4.95 338.62 126.45 0.53 Reach 1 1658 q2 799.00 197.52 200.60 200.78 0.014712 3.40 234.69 138.31 0.46 Reach 1 1658 q5 1009.00 197.52 200.92 201.12 0.013810 3.60 280.39 144.98 0.46 Reach 1 1658 q10 1209.00 197.52 201.23 201.44 0.013573 3.69 327.44 160.83 0.46 Reach 1 1658 q100 1676.00 197.52 201.78 202.02 0.013497 3.98 420.96 183.88 0.46 Reach 1 1492 q2 799.00 195.21 198.60 198.76 0.010155 3.16 252.60 126.22 0.39 Reach 1 1492 q5 1009.00 195.21 198.92 199.10 0.010728 3.42 294.93 136.51 0.41 HEC-RAS Plan: Sprg_Cnyn_Ex River: SpringCanyon Reach: Reach 1 (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Reach 1 1492 q10 1209.00 195.21 199.18 199.39 0.011258 3.65 331.65 150.63 0.42 Reach 1 1492 q100 1676.00 195.21 199.60 199.88 0.012395 4.25 396.79 160.04 0.46 Reach 1 1364 q2 799.00 192.26 196.15 195.93 196.58 0.034501 5.40 152.62 108.27 0.71 Reach 1 1364 q5 1009.00 192.26 196.40 196.15 196.89 0.033681 5.73 181.95 118.89 0.71 Reach 1 1364 q10 1209.00 192.26 196.64 196.35 197.16 0.032277 5.92 211.66 131.32 0.71 Reach 1 1364 q100 1676.00 192.26 197.11 196.78 197.68 0.027866 6.21 277.96 146.80 0.68 Reach 1 1277 q2 799.00 190.74 193.71 194.04 0.023958 4.58 174.55 94.87 0.59 Reach 1 1277 q5 1009.00 190.74 194.02 194.40 0.023333 4.95 203.69 96.28 0.60 Reach 1 1277 q10 1209.00 190.74 194.29 194.72 0.022924 5.25 230.07 98.10 0.60 Reach 1 1277 q100 1676.00 190.74 194.90 195.41 0.022184 5.67 295.40 109.39 0.61 Reach 1 1159 q2 799.00 188.58 191.86 192.06 0.011821 3.62 220.58 100.42 0.43 Reach 1 1159 q5 1009.00 188.58 192.22 192.46 0.011534 3.92 257.72 102.38 0.44 Reach 1 1159 q10 1209.00 188.58 192.53 192.80 0.011438 4.17 289.70 103.80 0.44 Reach 1 1159 q100 1676.00 188.58 193.17 193.51 0.011481 4.70 356.33 106.75 0.45 Reach 1 1045 q2 799.00 187.00 190.00 189.30 190.31 0.020703 4.50 177.60 88.86 0.56 Reach 1 1045 q5 1009.00 187.00 190.26 189.54 190.65 0.022976 5.00 201.72 93.08 0.60 Reach 1 1045 q10 1209.00 187.00 190.50 189.75 190.95 0.024459 5.40 224.03 96.68 0.63 Reach 1 1045 q100 1676.00 187.00 190.93 190.25 191.54 0.027991 6.27 267.20 102.68 0.68 Reach 1 895 q2 799.00 183.36 185.73 186.01 0.042329 4.20 190.16 180.81 0.72 Reach 1 895 q5 1009.00 183.36 185.94 186.24 0.038763 4.41 228.88 189.47 0.71 Reach 1 895 q10 1209.00 183.36 186.10 186.44 0.037586 4.66 259.50 193.13 0.71 Reach 1 895 q100 1676.00 183.36 186.44 186.85 0.034509 5.16 324.85 194.62 0.70 Reach 1 801 q2 799.00 181.36 184.01 183.09 184.15 0.010931 2.93 272.25 207.37 0.40 Reach 1 801 q5 1009.00 181.36 184.25 183.26 184.38 0.011365 2.88 350.65 219.81 0.40 Reach 1 801 q10 1209.00 181.36 184.44 183.43 184.59 0.011396 3.08 392.08 221.96 0.41 Reach 1 801 q100 1676.00 181.36 184.82 183.81 185.01 0.011754 3.51 477.51 227.73 0.43 Reach 1 701 q2 799.00 179.26 181.31 181.31 181.75 0.086704 5.33 150.03 171.66 1.00 Reach 1 701 q5 1009.00 179.26 181.47 181.47 181.97 0.079116 5.65 178.64 174.69 0.98 Reach 1 701 q10 1209.00 179.26 181.59 181.59 182.16 0.079000 6.04 200.02 176.48 1.00 Reach 1 701 q100 1676.00 179.26 181.87 181.87 182.57 0.074064 6.71 249.92 179.73 1.00 Reach 1 582 q2 799.00 170.73 176.13 174.39 176.49 0.011698 4.84 165.23 60.21 0.45 Reach 1 582 q5 1009.00 170.73 176.69 174.86 177.12 0.012557 5.24 192.68 71.36 0.47 Reach 1 582 q10 1209.00 170.73 177.43 175.23 177.73 0.013575 4.35 278.18 104.65 0.47 Reach 1 582 q100 1676.00 170.73 178.13 175.99 178.48 0.012829 4.74 353.43 111.85 0.47 Reach 1 430 q2 799.00 167.76 171.83 171.72 173.02 0.057746 8.78 90.98 34.76 0.96 Reach 1 430 q5 1009.00 167.76 172.50 172.20 173.69 0.048671 8.73 115.62 39.04 0.89 Reach 1 430 q10 1209.00 167.76 173.06 172.65 174.25 0.043470 8.73 138.51 42.85 0.86 Reach 1 430 q100 1676.00 167.76 174.32 173.46 175.41 0.033942 8.42 204.52 89.20 0.77 Reach 1 296 q2 799.00 164.78 170.23 170.48 0.007945 4.00 200.00 56.61 0.37 Reach 1 296 q5 1009.00 164.78 170.70 171.01 0.009335 4.43 227.99 62.60 0.41 Reach 1 296 q10 1209.00 164.78 171.13 171.48 0.010454 4.71 256.63 70.04 0.43 Reach 1 296 q100 1676.00 164.78 171.04 171.74 0.021432 6.71 249.92 68.79 0.62 Reach 1 151 q2 799.00 163.40 167.49 167.49 168.19 0.045532 6.90 119.85 86.97 0.83 Reach 1 151 q5 1009.00 163.40 167.76 167.76 168.52 0.042433 7.13 144.83 96.09 0.82 Reach 1 151 q10 1209.00 163.40 167.95 167.95 168.80 0.042525 7.41 162.91 98.32 0.83 Reach 1 151 q100 1676.00 163.40 169.64 170.04 0.007363 4.26 343.77 113.39 0.37 Reach 1 113 q2 799.00 160.27 165.78 165.97 0.005068 3.41 234.12 59.68 0.30 Reach 1 113 q5 1009.00 160.27 166.84 167.01 0.003676 3.35 306.20 78.74 0.27 Reach 1 113 q10 1209.00 160.27 167.80 167.95 0.002742 3.22 383.74 83.60 0.24 Reach 1 113 q100 1676.00 160.27 169.71 169.85 0.001757 3.05 548.63 88.54 0.20 Reach 1 88 q2 799.00 159.65 165.32 163.34 165.89 0.000586 6.07 131.54 27.56 0.49 Reach 1 88 q5 1009.00 159.65 166.32 163.89 166.94 0.000536 6.32 159.67 28.68 0.47 Reach 1 88 q10 1209.00 159.65 167.22 164.38 167.88 0.000501 6.50 185.97 29.74 0.46 Reach 1 88 q100 1676.00 159.65 169.02 165.40 169.77 0.000466 6.95 241.31 31.77 0.44 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 264 266 268 270 272 274 276 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 330 335 340 345 350 355 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 325 330 335 340 345 350 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 324 326 328 330 332 334 336 338 340 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 320 325 330 335 340 345 350 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 320 325 330 335 340 345 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 320 325 330 335 340 345 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 320 325 330 335 340 345 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 315 320 325 330 335 340 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 318 320 322 324 326 328 330 332 334 336 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 316 318 320 322 324 326 328 330 332 334 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 314 316 318 320 322 324 326 328 330 332 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 310 315 320 325 330 335 340 345 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 310 315 320 325 330 335 340 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 310 315 320 325 330 335 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 310 315 320 325 330 335 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 310 315 320 325 330 335 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 310 312 314 316 318 320 322 324 326 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 305 310 315 320 325 330 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 305 310 315 320 325 330 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q5 WS q10 WS q2 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 308 310 312 314 316 318 320 322 324 326 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 305 310 315 320 325 330 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q5 WS q10 WS q2 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 305 310 315 320 325 330 335 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 305 310 315 320 325 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 335 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 295 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 335 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 295 300 305 310 315 320 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 294 296 298 300 302 304 306 308 310 312 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 292 294 296 298 300 302 304 306 308 310 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 292 294 296 298 300 302 304 306 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 290 295 300 305 310 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 290 295 300 305 310 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 285 290 295 300 305 310 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 288 290 292 294 296 298 300 302 304 306 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 286 288 290 292 294 296 298 300 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 285 290 295 300 305 310 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 284 286 288 290 292 294 296 298 300 302 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 282 284 286 288 290 292 294 296 298 300 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 280 285 290 295 300 305 310 315 320 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 280 285 290 295 300 305 310 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 275 280 285 290 295 300 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 275 280 285 290 295 300 305 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 275 280 285 290 295 300 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 275 280 285 290 295 300 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 274 276 278 280 282 284 286 288 290 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 272 274 276 278 280 282 284 286 288 290 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 272 274 276 278 280 282 284 286 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 270 275 280 285 290 295 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 270 275 280 285 290 295 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300 305 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 266 268 270 272 274 276 278 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 264 266 268 270 272 274 276 278 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 262 264 266 268 270 272 274 276 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 260 265 270 275 280 285 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 260 265 270 275 280 285 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q2 WS q5 WS q10 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 260 265 270 275 280 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 256 258 260 262 264 266 268 270 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 256 258 260 262 264 266 268 270 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 256 258 260 262 264 266 268 270 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 254 256 258 260 262 264 266 268 270 272 274 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 250 255 260 265 270 275 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 250 255 260 265 270 275 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 240 245 250 255 260 265 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 234 236 238 240 242 244 246 248 250 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 230 240 250 260 270 280 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 230 235 240 245 250 255 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 230 232 234 236 238 240 242 244 246 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 225 230 235 240 245 250 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 220 225 230 235 240 245 250 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 220 225 230 235 240 245 250 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 220 225 230 235 240 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 215 220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 232 234 236 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 215 220 225 230 235 240 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 215 220 225 230 235 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 210 215 220 225 230 235 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 205 210 215 220 225 230 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 205 210 215 220 225 230 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 206 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 204 206 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 200 205 210 215 220 225 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 202 204 206 208 210 212 214 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 200 202 204 206 208 210 212 214 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 100 200 300 400 200 202 204 206 208 210 212 214 216 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 194 196 198 200 202 204 206 208 210 212 214 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 192 194 196 198 200 202 204 206 208 210 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 190 195 200 205 210 215 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 186 188 190 192 194 196 198 200 202 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 182 184 186 188 190 192 194 196 198 200 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 180 182 184 186 188 190 192 194 196 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Ineff Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q10 WS q100 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 50 100 150 200 160 165 170 175 180 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Station (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 WS q10 WS q5 WS q2 Ground Bank Sta 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 150 200 250 300 350 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Main Channel Distance (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q2 Ground SpringCanyon Reach 1 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 150 200 250 300 350 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Main Channel Distance (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q5 Ground SpringCanyon Reach 1 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 150 200 250 300 350 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Main Channel Distance (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q10 Ground SpringCanyon Reach 1 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 150 200 250 300 350 15013_RASMAPPEr Plan: SpringCanyon_ex 12/14/2023 Main Channel Distance (ft) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Legend WS q100 Ground SpringCanyon Reach 1 Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 2 Spring Canyon 1971 and Present ATTACHMENT 2Spring Canyon Historical Aerial Photographs !. !. !. !. Image Source: Historic Aerials, USGS (flown August 1971) 0 130Feet [Wetland Plan AreaWetland Creation (Establishment) Area for Nakano Wetland Creation (Establishment) asPartial/Potential Mitigation for Southwest VillageRemainder of Wetland Plan Area !.Lemonade Berry(Rhus integrifolia ) !.Peruvian Pepper Tree(Schinus molle) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Attach2.1.mxd 08/14/2024 bma !. !. Image Source: Historic Aerials, USDA (flown May 1953)1953 1971 ATTACHMENT 2Spring Canyon Historical Aerial Photographs !. !. !. !. Image Source: Historic Aerials, USGS (flown June 1996) 0 130Feet [Wetland Plan AreaWetland Creation (Establishment) Area for Nakano Wetland Creation (Establishment) asPartial/Potential Mitigation for Southwest VillageRemainder of Wetland Plan Area !.Lemonade Berry(Rhus integrifolia ) !.Peruvian Pepper Tree(Schinus molle) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Attach2.2.mxd 08/14/2024 bma !. !. Image Source: Historic Aerials, LandisCor (flown February 1982)1982 1996 ATTACHMENT 2Spring Canyon Historical Aerial Photographs !. !. !. !. Image Source: Nearmap (flown May 2024) 0 130Feet [Wetland Plan AreaWetland Creation (Establishment) Area for Nakano Wetland Creation (Establishment) asPartial/Potential Mitigation for Southwest VillageRemainder of Wetland Plan Area !.Lemonade Berry(Rhus integrifolia ) !.Peruvian Pepper Tree(Schinus molle) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\WetMit\2024\Attach2.3.mxd 08/14/2024 bma !. !. Image Source: Historic Aerials, USGS (flown February 2003)2003 2024 Wetland Mitigation Plan Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 3 Summary of Drilling and Groundwater Measurements Nakano and Southwest Village Mitigation Areas, San Diego, California GROCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALSO 6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone 858.558.6900 • Fax 858.558.6159 Project No. 06847-42-08 July 11, 2024 Tri Pointe Homes 13520 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92128 Attention: Mr. Allen Kashani Subject: SUMMARY OF DRILLING AND GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENTS NAKANO AND SOUTHWEST VILLAGE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Kashani: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to summarize drilling and groundwater depth measurements performed for the proposed Nakano and Southwest Village wetland mitigation areas. The approximate locations of the mitigation areas is shown on the Vicinity Map below. Vicinity Map Nakano and Southwest Village Summary of Drilling and Groundwater Project No. 06847-42-08 -2- July 11, 2024 Boring locations were determined by Recon Environmental. Boring locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. Logs of the borings are appended. Drilling began on June 3, 2024, using a tripod drill rig equipped with 6-inch, solid flight augers. Due to abundant cobble, refusal was encountered at depths between 2 feet and 7.5 feet. We were able to advance one boring to a dept of 15 with the tri-pod rig (Boring B-1) On June 5 and 6, 2024, we performed drilling with a track-mounted limited access drill rig equipped with an 18-inch auger and core barrel. Borings B-2 through B-5 were drilled using this drill rig. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 7 feet to 18 feet. Table I summarizes the borings and depths where groundwater was encountered. At B-5 the drill rig had a mechanical breakdown and the boring was terminated at a depth of 7 feet. Based on the exploratory borings, we found groundwater at depths ranging from approximately 7.5 feet to 15 feet below ground surface. Although we were not able to drill borings in the proposed Southwest Village wetland mitigation area due to sensitive habitat, it is our opinion that the groundwater depth would be similar to what we encountered in the Nakano wetland mitigation area considering their proximity. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Noel G. Borja Project Engineer Rodney C. Mikesell GE 2533 NGB:RCM:am Attachments: Figure 1, Site Plan Logs of Borings, GW-3 and LB-1 through LB-4 (e-mail) Addressee Nakano and Southwest Village Summary of Drilling and Groundwater Project No. 06847-42-08 July 11, 2024 TABLE I SUMMARY OF BORINGS AND GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENTS Boring No. Total Drill Depth (feet) Measured Groundwater Depth (feet) B-1 15 10.8 B-2 11.5 7.5* B-3 18 15** B-4 17 10.5* *Depth measured from creek bottom **Seepage encountered B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 1 NAKANO AND SOUTHWEST VILLAGE WETLAND MITAGATION AREAS SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159PROJECT NO. 06847 - 42 - 08 DATE 07 - 11 - 2024 FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS Plotted:07/11/2024 12:35PM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\06847-42-08 (Southwest Village Wetlands)\SHEETS\06847-42-08 Boring Location Map.dwg THE GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE FOR DISPLAY WAS PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH, SUBJECT TO A LICENSING AGREEMENT. THE INFORMATION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY; IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR CLIENT'S USE OR RELIANCE AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED BY CLIENT. CLIENT SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS GEOCON FROM ANY LIABILITY INCURRED AS A RESULT OF SUCH USE OR RELIANCE BY CLIENT.BORING LOCATION MAP ........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING GEOCON LEGEND B-5 ALLUVIUM (Qal) Loose, dry to damp, grayish brown to dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND Loose, moist, dark grayish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; few gravel and cobble Soft to firm, moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY -Becomes wet Soft to firm, saturated, light brown, Sandy CLAY BORING TERMINATED AT 15 FEET Groundwater encountered at 10.5 feet Backfilled on 06/03/2024 SM SC CL CL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Figure A-1, Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 1 DR Y D E N S I T Y (P . C . F . ) ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) Tripod Drill Rig w/ 6" SFA PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING B 1 ... CHUNK SAMPLE DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R N. BORJA CO N T E N T ( % ) SAMPLE NO.06/03/2024 SAMPLE SYMBOLS MO I S T U R E BY:EQUIPMENT ELEV. (MSL.)273' 06847-42-08.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 06847-42-08 ALLUVIUM (Qal) Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown, Sandy GRAVEL; some cobble up to 12" in diameter; some silt Firm, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY; some gravel and cobble up to 8" in diameter -Becomes brown to olive brown Firm, moist, dark grayish brown, Silty to Sandy CLAY; few gravel and cobble -Groundwater measured on 06/06/2024 BORING TERMINATED AT 11.5 FEET Static groundwater encountered at 7.5 feet Backfilled on 06/05/2024 GP CL SC ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 Figure A-2, Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1 DR Y D E N S I T Y (P . C . F . ) ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) LAR w/ 18" Auger PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING B 2 ... CHUNK SAMPLE DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R N. BORJA CO N T E N T ( % ) SAMPLE NO.06/05/2024 SAMPLE SYMBOLS MO I S T U R E BY:EQUIPMENT ELEV. (MSL.)271' 06847-42-08.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 06847-42-08 TOPSOIL Loose, dry to damp, light grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few gravel and cobble up to 6" in diameter ALLUVIUM (Qal) Loose, damp, grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; trace gravel and cobble -Becomes dark gray -Becomes medium dense, brown to grayish brown, fine- to coarse-grained; few mica -Boulder up to 15" in diameter encountered at 7 feet OTAY FORMATION (To) Medium dense, moist, light grayish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; few gravel and cobble Stiff, damp light olive brown, Sandy SILT Medium dense, moist to wet, light olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND; trace gravel -Minor seepage Stiff, damp, pink to light pink, Silty to Sandy CLAY Stiff, moist, olive brown, Sandy SILT BORING TERMINATED AT 18 FEET Minor seepage encountered at approx. 15 feet Backfilled on 06/06/2024 SM SM SC ML SM CL ML ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Figure A-3, Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 1 DR Y D E N S I T Y (P . C . F . ) ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) LAR w/ 18" Auger PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING B 3 ... CHUNK SAMPLE DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R N. BORJA CO N T E N T ( % ) SAMPLE NO.06/06/2024 SAMPLE SYMBOLS MO I S T U R E BY:EQUIPMENT ELEV. (MSL.)270' 06847-42-08.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 06847-42-08 ALLUVIUM (Qal) Loose, dry to damp, light grayish brown, Silty SAND; little gravel and cobble -Becomes damp, dark brown gray; metal debris encountered Soft to firm, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY; some gravel and cobble up to 4" in diameter -Becomes dark olive brown with gravel and cobble OTAY FORMATION (To) Stiff, moist, grayish brown, Sandy CLAY; trace gravel and cobble Medium dense, wet, grayish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; trace gravel and cobble -Excavates with caliche staining Stiff, moist to wet, light grayish brown, Sandy SILT BORING TERMINATED AT 17 FEET Groundwater encountered at 10.5 feet SM CL CL SC ML ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Figure A-4, Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of 1 DR Y D E N S I T Y (P . C . F . ) ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) LAR w/ 18" Auger PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING B 4 ... CHUNK SAMPLE DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R N. BORJA CO N T E N T ( % ) SAMPLE NO.06/06/2024 SAMPLE SYMBOLS MO I S T U R E BY:EQUIPMENT ELEV. (MSL.)267' 06847-42-08.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 06847-42-08 ALLUVIUM (Qal) Loose, dry to damp, grayish brown to dark grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few gravel and cobble up to 4" in diameter Loose, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND; some gravel and cobble up to 10" in diameter; some silt -Difficult drilling due to rock BORING TERMINATED AT 7 FEET Mechanical breakdown on drilling Backfilled on 06/06/2024 SM SC ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 Figure A-5, Log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of 1 DR Y D E N S I T Y (P . C . F . ) ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) LAR w/ 18" Auger PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING B 5 ... CHUNK SAMPLE DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R N. BORJA CO N T E N T ( % ) SAMPLE NO.06/06/2024 SAMPLE SYMBOLS MO I S T U R E BY:EQUIPMENT ELEV. (MSL.)266' 06847-42-08.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 06847-42-08 Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 14 Response to USFWS and CDFW Comments Emailed May 10, 2023 for the Nakano Project, City of San Diego, California An Employee-Owned Company 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92108-5726 | 619.308.9333 | reconenvironmental.com SAN DIEGO | OAKLAND | TUCSON May 30, 2023; Revised July 24, 2023 Mr. David Zoutendyk United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ms. Karen Drewe California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 Reference: Response to USFWS and CDFW Comments Emailed May 10, 2023 for the Nakano Project, City of San Diego, California (RECON Number 3396-1) Dear Mr. Zoutendyk and Ms. Drewe: This letter is intended to provide additional information in response to the comments received from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on May 10, 2023, for the Nakano Project (project). This letter provides additional context regarding design changes made subsequent to the field meeting held April 7, 2023, as well as additional clarification in response to USFWS comments based on the revised Biologically Superior Option Analysis contained in the Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project dated July 24, 2023 (RECON 2023). RESPONSES The following provides numbered and lettered USFWS comments, followed by the response in italics. USFWS Comment 1: Please describe how wetland avoidance and impact minimization has been incorporated in the design of the proposed wetland crossings. a. Include a description of engineering design features (such as culverted head walls) that have been selected to minimize wetland impacts. Subsequent to the site visit conducted with USFWS and CDFW on April 8, 2023, additional project design changes were incorporated to further avoid and minimize impacts to the on-site wetlands to the greatest extent feasible. The project reduced grading and eliminated amenities such as a dog park to avoid wetlands located in the northeastern portion of the property with an 18- to 40-foot buffer (RECON 2023, Figure 5-3). The project also incorporated fire-rated masonry block walls along the eastern development boundary to reduce the project’s brush management requirements. Overall, this reduced the proposed wetland impacts by an additional 0.11 acre relative to the previous project design (Table 1). Based on the updated project design, the project would avoid 0.25 acre of the on-site City of San Diego wetlands, including the highest quality area of southern willow scrub supporting the largest willow stand and San Diego marsh-elder, while minimizing unavoidable impacts to wetlands on-site. The primary and secondary access roads have been designed using minimum road widths and to cross the wetlands perpendicular at the Mr. David Zoutendyk and Ms. Karen Drewe Page 2 May 30, 2023; Revised July 24, 2023 narrowest point of the drainage in areas supporting lower quality wetlands, such as the disturbed wetlands and the portion of the southern willow scrub containing trash and encampments. The development has been sited to the farthest west possible on the project site considering constraints associated with the Interstate 805 California Department of Transportation right-of-way. The main access road design near the wetlands incorporates the steepest manufactured slopes allowable (2:1) and a 20-foot retaining wall to minimize grading into the wetlands. To avoid brush management (zones 1 and 2) within the on-site wetlands, the project design has been revised to incorporate a 6-foot fire-rated masonry block wall along the entire easternmost edge of the development footprint to provide alternative compliance for brush management, ensuring that no thinning or brush management activities occur within the on-site wetlands. The block wall would also ensure that no human intrusion would occur in the on-site wetlands from the adjacent development. Table 1 Comparison of Project Impacts to City of San Diego Wetlands Jurisdictional Resource Project Site (acres) Previous Project Impacts (acres) Re-designed Project Impacts (acres) Wetlands/Riparian Habitat Arundo-dominated riparian — — — Mule fat scrub 0.11 0.11 0.03 Southern willow scrub 0.31 0.17 0.15 Emergent wetland 0.18 0.18 0.18 Disturbed wetland 0.05 0.05 0.04 Total 0.65 0.51 0.40 b. Include an analysis of a wetlands avoidance alternative that concentrates development on the western part of the site, with a minimum 100-foot buffer between the development and remaining wetland along the eastern property boundary. The biological resources report has been revised to expand on the wetlands avoidance alternative required by the City of San Diego Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018). Below is a summary of this alternative analysis. A wetlands avoidance alternative was considered for the project site; however, due to project primary access with adjacent fill slopes that provide topographical access to the site, and secondary access requirements, complete avoidance of wetlands is not feasible. Due to the degraded and constrained nature of the existing wetland, extraordinary design features such as bridging the wetland, which would require a reduction of 37 units, the installation of two bridges, and associated retaining walls, are not warranted. The resulting wetlands would be linear and isolated, ranging from approximately 10 to 55 feet in width, and surrounded on three sides by dense urban development. Mr. David Zoutendyk and Ms. Karen Drewe Page 3 May 30, 2023; Revised July 24, 2023 In addition, a wetlands avoidance alternative was also evaluated which would incorporate a 100-foot buffer from the wetlands, while accommodating the project’s access requirements. As the project is constrained by the Interstate 805 California Department of Transportation right-of-way to the west, the project cannot be sited farther west and thus would be required to reduce the development footprint by 37 units to accommodate the 100-foot buffer, which would be economically infeasible. Furthermore, this reduction in units would only reduce project impacts to City of San Diego wetlands by 0.28 acre and would ultimately not result in a biologically superior mitigation design when compared with the proposed project mitigation for the following reasons: • Preservation of the on-site City of San Diego wetlands would provide a narrow, linear riparian corridor, ranging approximately 15 to 55 feet in width, surrounded by dense urban development. With this design, the overall corridor width (including buffer) would be less than 400 feet wide for a distance greater than 500 feet, and thus would be considered isolated per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018). • By removing a portion of the development, a swath of disturbed land would remain between the development area and the existing wetland. As in the existing condition, this “unused” area could continue to support trespass and homeless encampments, being subjected to trash, pollutants and ongoing disturbances. The proposed project would be biologically superior because it would retain the highest quality portions of the disturbed drainage while providing an enhanced wetland buffer through revegetation with native coastal sage scrub species and drainage improvements. In addition to the on-site preservation, the project would provide off-site mitigation in Spring Canyon, a regional Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) corridor located approximately 2.8 miles to the southeast. Spring Canyon is part of a larger canyon network that provides connectivity between a mosaic of vernal pools, grasslands, and coastal sage scrub (City of San Diego 1997). Furthermore, Spring Canyon is identified as a linkage for cactus wren by the MSCP (City of San Diego 1997) and has further been documented to support movements by large wildlife such as bobcats and coyotes (Wildlife Tracking Company 2020). Restoration of Spring Canyon would be consistent with the Specific Management Directives for Southern Otay Mesa in the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, which identifies restoration of disturbed areas in Spring Canyon as a priority (City of San Diego 1997). The existing riparian habitat within the restoration area ranges from approximately 70 to 150 feet in width, with adjacent uplands and conserved lands owned by the City of San Diego providing a buffer greater than 400 feet in width. Mitigation in Spring Canyon would provide restoration of the same type of wetland resource being impacted (e.g., southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub) in a regional corridor that supports species such as least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler. Least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler have been documented to be present in the vicinity of the proposed restoration area associated with biological surveys conducted for the Southwest Village Project. The locations of those documented species occurrences are shown in Figure 7 of the Wetland Mitigation Plan (RECON 2023, Attachment 14). In addition to the 0.80-acre restoration of City of San Diego wetlands as mitigation for project impacts, the project would also restore an additional 0.29 acre of wetlands in Spring Canyon, as well as pursue invasive species removal in upstream locations off-site as a project design feature in order to support the long-term viability of the Spring Canyon restoration effort. Thus, this area provides a more optimal configuration for restoration to support the long-term viability of on-site sensitive biological resources such as least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler. c. Include an analysis of a wetlands restoration/mitigation alternative that would impact the existing wetland but restore higher quality wetland onsite in a natural substrate channel with a minimum 100-foot buffer. Mr. David Zoutendyk and Ms. Karen Drewe Page 4 May 30, 2023; Revised July 24, 2023 While there is potential to restore or enhance the on-site wetlands, this option would not be biologically superior. As detailed above, preservation of the City of San Diego wetlands would provide a narrow, linear riparian corridor, ranging approximately 15 to 55 feet in width, surrounded by dense urban development. While habitat restoration in this area could increase the narrower portions of the riparian corridor in width to some degree, the overall corridor width (including buffer) would be less than 400 feet wide for a distance greater than 500 feet, and thus would be considered isolated per the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines. Furthermore, the on-site wetlands are present largely due to urban run-off and lack natural hydrology (as detailed in RECON 2023). Additionally, the wetlands on-site are located in an area of dense urban development, outside of the Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). The proposed mitigation would occur within the Spring Canyon, a regional riparian corridor identified by the MSCP, which provides higher enhancement or restoration potential due to its location in an unconstrained, regional corridor with natural hydrology. In addition to consideration of an on-site mitigation option, the applicant has extensively explored opportunities to mitigate within the Otay River, within the adjacent parcel owned by the City of Chula Vista, referred to as the Davies parcel. After coordination with the City of Chula Vista, it was determined that Chula Vista wanted to retain their own land for City of Chula Vista wetland mitigation as opposed to mitigation for the project and would require an additional 3:1 of wetland mitigation to be provided to the City of Chula Vista or fee title to an equivalent piece of land. Furthermore, after investigation into the condition of the Davies parcel based on a review of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Converse Consultants 2003) and a Soil and Groundwater Sampling Report (Converse Consultants 2006), which ultimately caused Tri Pointe Homes (formerly Pardee Homes) to not purchase the site in the 2003-2006 timeframe, it was determined that costs to remediate the site to a condition that would allow for wetland remediation would be economically infeasible. While the extent of the on-site contamination is not fully known at this time due to the age of referenced studies, there is evidence of hydrocarbon impacted soils and burn ash that could add substantial remediation costs and risk to a potential mitigation effort. Specifically, based on discussions with Converse Consultants in reference to the prior investigations, boring and trench logs indicate the presence of debris site wide from depths of 2 to 19 feet (deepest depth evaluated, groundwater encountered). Glass shards, wood, concrete and rock fragments, wire, resin, tar, etc., were encountered site wide. It appears that the site was backfilled with trash, dirt and burn ash to the current grade (10 to 15 feet above the south side of the Otay River, edge of the vegetation). Further, Converse Consultants expressed concern that there could be further unknown conditions. Based on the above information, wetland mitigation at the Davies parcel is not considered feasible for the project. USFWS Comment 2: Please provide additional analysis of the proposed modular wetland compared to the existing channel. a. Provide clarification on the extent of the existing channel compared to the configuration of the modular wetland. The project incorporates two vegetated biofiltration basins and a modular wetlands unit and detention vault as part of the project’s stormwater system for water quality treatment and pollutant control. The modular wetland unit, detention vault, and one biofiltration basin occur in the northwestern project boundary. The modular wetlands unit consists of a manufactured structure with plantings and media to filter water. An additional biofiltration basin occurs along the eastern project boundary adjacent to the onsite wetlands. These devices would be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) under a stormwater maintenance agreement, to ensure pollutant control is maintained. Existing flows into the on-site wetlands would be maintained via an underground culvert under the proposed entrance road. The culvert would direct off-site flows to the north to a low-flow splitter that would regulate the Mr. David Zoutendyk and Ms. Karen Drewe Page 5 May 30, 2023; Revised July 24, 2023 amount of run-on flowing into the on-site City of San Diego wetlands. A culvert under the secondary access road would maintain flows between the on-site City of San Diego wetlands, before flowing north into an additional culvert that directs flows to rip-rap, before sheet flowing north towards to Otay River (see RECON 2023, Figure 5-3). High flows would be culverted under the adjacent biofiltration basin through the development, before sheet flowing north via a headwall with rip-rap along the northern project boundary. These drainage improvements would control the rate of discharge into the on-site City of San Diego wetlands, as well as to provide pollutant control prior to discharge to the north in a manner that would also reduce erosion and siltation issues into the Otay River off-site. b. Explain why wetland enhancement has been proposed for the purpose of improved water quality and flood control, but not mitigation. Will Biologically Superior conditions be maintained in perpetuity? No on-site wetland enhancement has been proposed by the project. The drainage improvements (e.g., biofiltration basin and modular wetlands) would provide stormwater and pollutant control for the project. However, these features would contribute to the wetland buffer by improving both drainage conditions into the on-site wetlands and off-site Otay River, as well as improve the quality of the vegetation by providing native species in an area currently dominated by non-natives. The on-site City of San Diego wetlands would be preserved in perpetuity by a Covenant of Easement, which would restrict future development. Furthermore, block walls would run the entire eastern length of the proposed development, preventing human intrusion from the adjacent development. The on-site biofiltration basins and modular wetlands unit would be maintained by the HOA under a stormwater maintenance agreement, to ensure pollutant control is maintained. The HOA would also be required to comply with the standards for brush management within the wetland buffer, and signage would be installed indicating applicable standards for wetlands avoidance during brush management. Thus, project design features related to the upland buffer would be maintained, and the City of San Diego wetlands would be preserved in perpetuity. c. As discussed at the on-site meeting, please provide additional design and planting details for the modular wetland. The modular wetland consists of a manufactured structure with plantings and media to filter water to provide stormwater and pollutant control. The biofiltration basin would be vegetated with a transitional native plant mix that includes San Diego marsh-elder, mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), giant wildrye (Elymus condensatus), scarlet monkeyflower (Mimulus cardinalis), yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica), sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and other native species. USFWS Comment 3: Please provide evidence of previous agency review or approval of the Restoration and Mitigation Credit Agreement or demonstrate that standards for Mitigation Land Bank Agreements (i.e. the site has not been previously used for mitigation, will be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement, funding and parties responsible for long-term management responsibilities identified) have been satisfied. Pacific Highlands Ranch was the culmination of extensive coordination between the City of San Diego, Wildlife Agencies, California Department of Transportation, the Sierra Club, and many others that ultimately resulted in the citywide, voter-approved, Proposition M in 1998. Some of the extraordinary benefits made as part of the successful ballot measure, which allowed for a development agreement, included the relinquishment of Carmel Mountain Neighborhood 8 from development to conservation; establishment of right-of-way for State Route 56 within Pacific Highlands Ranch, as needed to avoid the sensitive area of Deer Canyon; and restoration of 130 acres of previously disturbed habitat. The Wildlife Agencies were involved in the review of the Pacific Highlands Mr. David Zoutendyk and Ms. Karen Drewe Page 6 May 30, 2023; Revised July 24, 2023 Ranch (PHR) project, we have not been able to find definitive documentation showing that the agencies reviewed and approved the Restoration and Mitigation Credit Agreement. The PHR Restoration and Mitigation Credit Agreement was part of the Development Agreement reached between the City of San Diego and Tri Pointe Homes (formerly Pardee Homes) associated with approval of the PHR project. The restoration credit areas were not restored as mitigation for impacts resulting from PHR, rather they were restored under an agreement with the City of San Diego that the land could be used as mitigation for future Tri Pointe Homes projects since the restoration was in excess of project requirements. Approximately 130 acres of disturbed, prior agricultural lands were restored to native habitat, providing extraordinary benefit to the City and supporting build-out of the City’s MSCP. At one point during the processing of the PHR project, Tri Pointe Homes was considering establishing a mitigation bank with the 130-acre restoration area; however, an official bank was never pursued. Instead, the restoration credit area was established as an area that could be used by Tri Pointe Homes for that owner’s subsequent development projects. The mitigation credits are administered by the City consistent with the MSCP Implementing Agreement Section 9.13 Contribution and Banking of Excess Mitigation, which states: Lands contributed to the MHPA preserve system by public or private owners in excess of the mitigation requirements imposed by THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO in accordance with Section 10 of this Agreement may either be used by such owner as mitigation for that owner’s subsequent development project(s), or it may be “banked” by those owners in accordance with Sections 9.14 and 10 of this Agreement. Such banked lands can later be used to provide mitigation for future development projects of other owners within the MSCP Area consistent with applicable USFWS and CDFG conservation banking policies. The restoration site meets the requirements and standards for mitigation lands including funding, protection in perpetuity and long-term management. Specifically, Tri Pointe Homes provided $250,000 in endowment funding to the City of San Diego to support long term management of all open space areas that were added to the MHPA as part of the PHR project. The endowment funding has been invested in a City of San Diego account that as of 2015 had a value of $419,000 (the City of San Diego can provide more updated accounting). As part of the PHR Development Agreement, the City of San Diego has agreed to serve as the long-term manager of PHR open space lands, including all areas restored pursuant to the PHR Restoration and Mitigation Credit Agreement. After use of the mitigation credits for the Nakano project, Tri Pointe Homes would pursue turning over ownership to the City of San Diego for long term management as part of the MSCP. USFWS Comment 4: We request a site visit to the Pacific Highlands Ranch Bank. A site visit to the PHR Mitigation Bank was conducted on May 17, 2023, with USFWS, CDFW, City of San Diego, and the applicant. Mr. David Zoutendyk and Ms. Karen Drewe Page 7 May 30, 2023; Revised July 24, 2023 If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at clyons@reconenvironmental.com or (619) 308-9333 extension 108. Sincerely, Cailin Lyons Director, Biology Group CML:jg cc: Anita Eng, USFWS Heather Schmalbach, CDFW Kristy Forburger, City of San Diego Dawna Marshall, City of San Diego Allen Kashani, Tri Pointe Homes REFERENCES CITED Converse Consultants 2003 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Davies Property. April 15. 2006 Soil and Groundwater Sampling Report, Davies Acquisition, 4501 Otay Valley Road, Chula Vista, California. Prepared for Pardee Homes. November. RECON Environmental (RECON) 2023 Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project, Chula Vista, California. July. San Diego, City of 1997 City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. Final. Prepared by the City of San Diego Community and Economic Development Department. March 1997. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/ default/files/legacy/planning/programs/mscp/pdf/subareafullversion.pdf. 2018 San Diego Municipal Code, Land Development Code—Biology Guidelines. Amended February 1, 2018, by Resolution No. R-311507. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/ files/amendment_to_the_land_development_manual_biology_guidelines_february_2018_-_clean.pdf. Wildlife Tracking Study 2020 Spring Survey Report, Southwest Village Wildlife Movement/Crossing Study. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 15 Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan for the On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan for the On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project Chula Vista, California Prepared for Tri Pointe Homes 13520 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92128 Contact: Allen Kashani Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92108 P 619.308.9333 RECON Number 3396-1 August 6, 2024December 13, 2023 Meagan Olson, Restoration Director Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. ii 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Location and Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Responsible Parties ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Owner .................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Management Entity ........................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Agencies ................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.4 Funding ................................................................................................................................................. 8 3.0 Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan .................................................................... 8 3.1 Long-term Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ............................................................ 9 3.2 Long-term Maintenance Requirements.................................................................................... 10 4.0 References Cited ........................................................................................................................ 13 FIGURES 1: Regional Location ............................................................................................................................................. 2 2: Project Location on USGS Map .................................................................................................................... 3 3: Project Location on City 800’ Map .............................................................................................................. 4 4: Project Location on Aerial Photograph ..................................................................................................... 5 5: Site Plan and Jurisdictional Resources ....................................................................................................... 6 65: Location of Management Area ..................................................................................................................... 7 76: Location of Brush Management Zones ................................................................................................... 12 TABLE 1: Annual Schedule of Maintenance Visits .................................................................................................. 10 Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project ii Acronyms and Abbreviations APN Assesor’s Parcel Number Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife COE covenant of easement HOA homeowners association LTMMP Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan project Nakano Project SWMDCMA Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Maintenance Agreement USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project Page 1 1.0 Introduction This long-term management and monitoring plan (LTMMP) details the process for managing the on-site wetland and wetland buffer associated with implementation of portions of the Nakano Project (project). The project is in the City of Chula Vista and is bordered to the west, east, and south by the City of San Diego (Figures 1 through 4). The project proposes a residential development with supporting recreational amenities and infrastructure on the approximately 23.77-acre project site (Figure 5). Off-site improvements would be required to provide driveway access, as well as secondary emergency access and remedial grading. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that the project would be annexed into the City of San Diego, with the off-site areas remaining in their respective jurisdictions. Wetland buffer lands that exist within the project’s development footprint will not be impacted by project activities (Figure 65). The wetland buffer consists primarily of manufactured slopes revegetated with native species and water quality features. A Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Maintenance Agreement (SWMDCMA) will be prepared for the City of San Diego for the water quality treatment features, which will guide maintenance of the stormwater basins and other features. A brush management plan has also been prepared for maintenance of the vegetation on the manufactured slopes in the wetland buffer that will be subject to fuel modification (Figure 67). The remaining lands between the development footprint and the property boundary will be placed in a covenant of easement (COE), which includes the on-site wetland (see Figure 5). These lands will not be used towards mitigation and will be protected from future development. The SWMDCMA and COE will be recorded against the property to ensure long-term management. The COE will reference the LTMMP to allow for maintenance activities such as invasive species removal. After the implementation and five-year maintenance and monitoring program has been completed and deemed successful by the City, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFW), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the management area will be turned over to the homeowners association (HOA) which will be the future owner of the property. This LTMMP will then be implemented by the HOA in perpetuity. 1.1 Location and Existing Conditions The project is located east of Interstate 805, northwest of Dennery Road, and south of the Otay River (see Figure 1). The project area is within Sections 19 and 24 of Township 18 South, Range 1 and 2 West, of the Imperial Beach, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (see Figure 2). The project is proposed within a the 23.77-acre Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 624-071-0200, as well as two off-site improvement areas (see Figure 6s 3 and 4). Grading and improvements are proposed on 21.69 acres of the project site, in addition to off-site improvements including 0.39 acre of remedial grading and trail improvements within the City of Chula Vista to the north of the project site (APN 624-071-0100), and 1.27 acres of grading for the project’s access road and secondary emergency access road within the City of San Diego (APNs 645-400-0100 and 645-400-0300) (see Figure 5). FIGURE 1 Regional Location kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar 0 5Miles [ M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\LTMP\Fig1.mxd 10/26/2023 bma LOS ANGELES ORANGE RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO MEXICO Project Locationkj FIGURE 2 Project Location on USGS Map Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Imperial Beachquadrangle, 1994, T18S R02W 0 2,000Feet [ Project Boundary M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\LTMP\Fig2.mxd 10/26/2023 bma FIGURE 3 Project Location on City 800' Map Map Source: City of San Diego, Engineering and Development Department, City 800' Maps, Number 210-1701 M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\LTMP\Fig3.mxd 10/26/2023 bma 0 800Feet [ Project Boundary FIGURE 4 Project Location on Aerial Photograph G O LDEN S K Y W A Y BL U E CO R AL C V O C E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 G O LDEN S K Y W A Y BL U E CO R AL C V O C E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown May 2023) 0 300Feet [ Project Boundary M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\LTMP\Fig4.mxd 10/26/2023 bma FIGURE 5Site Plan and Jurisdictional Resources O C E A N M IST P L GOL D E N S K Y W AY §¨¦805 O C E A N M IST P L GOL D E N S K Y W AY §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown May 2023) 0 120Feet [ Project Boundary Covenant of EasementSite PlanBlock Wall USACE Wetland Waters of the U.S./RWQCB Wetland Waters of the State/CDFW Riparian/ City of San Diego Wetland/City of Chula Vista Wetland CDFW Riparian/ City of San Diego Wetland/City of Chula Vista Wetland M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\LTMP\Fig5.mxd 08/06/2024 bma FIGURE 6Location of Management Area O C E AN M IST P L GOL D E N S K Y W AY §¨¦805 O C E AN M IST P L GOL D E N S K Y W AY §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown May 2023) 0 120Feet [ Project Boundary Wetland Buffer Onsite Covenant of Easement Site Plan USACE Wetland Waters of the U.S./RWQCB Wetland Waters of the State/CDFW Riparian/ City of San Diego Wetland/City of Chula Vista Wetland CDFW Riparian/ City of San Diego Wetland/City of Chula Vista Wetland M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\LTMP\Fig6.mxd 07/12/2024 bma Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project Page 8 The project site and off-site areas currently consist of vacant land, unpaved roads, and informal trails. The project site was used for agriculture until 2000 and is heavily disturbed. Surrounding land uses include a vacant site and the Otay Valley River Park to the north, Interstate 805 directly to the west, multi-family residential to the east and southeast, and Kaiser medical offices to the south. 2.0 Responsible Parties 2.1 Owner The Permittee, Tri Pointe Homes, will be responsible for the successful completion of initial management activities upon project entitlement prior to turnover to the long-term management entity, the HOA. In addition, the Permittee will establish the HOA budget for required maintenance of the features. 2.2 Management Entity The HOA will be the successor to the Permittee and will be the future owner for the property common area where the wetland and wetland buffer are located. The HOA will be responsible for contracting a suitable landscape or restoration firm for carrying out the LTMMP on an annual basis. The qualifications for the landscape or restoration firm are as follows: • Ability to carry out habitat monitoring and mitigation activities. • Has at least one staff member with a degree in biology, ecology, or wildlife management, or has a Memorandum of Understanding with a qualified person with such a degree. • Experience with “habitat management” in southern California, not just “landscape maintenance” which has a greater focus on aesthetics rather than habitat function in support of natural resources and wildlife. 2.3 Agencies The City of San Diego, CDFW, and USFWS will be responsible for review and approval of the LTMMP. 2.4 Funding Funding will be provided in perpetuity to pay for required management and monitoring. The Permittee will establish the HOA budget for required maintenance of the features. 3.0 Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan The LTMMP proposes an adaptive management framework to guide maintenance and monitoring. Adaptive management is a flexible, iterative approach to the long-term management of biological resources. Adaptive management is directed over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project Page 9 and direct observation of environmental stressors that are producing adverse results within the management area. Achieving the key goals of this plan and establishing self-sustaining native habitats will be the focus of all adaptive management decisions. 3.1 Long-term Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Qualitative monitoring visits will determine maintenance activities needed to keep the management area healthy and functional. Monitoring will also occur during scheduled maintenance to guide maintenance activities. A qualitative monitoring visit will be scheduled once per year prior to scheduled maintenance. In addition, incidental observations useful for guiding subsequent maintenance visits may be recorded during visits to monitor maintenance. General site assessment information shall be collected, including current or potential threats (such as invasive plants, dumping, off-highway vehicle activity, and trampling), and recommendations for management shall be generated. The management area shall be assessed for the following conditions and threats: • Lighting: To prevent light pollution into the habitat, the management entity shall verify that all lighting adjacent to the management area is shielded and directed to shine away from the wetland areas. • Wetland Buffer: A wetland buffer will be established at the edge of the development to protect the wetland from potential indirect impacts associated with the development. A 6-foot block wall running along the eastern boundary of the development will separate the wetlands from the development. Signage shall be posted that informs people of the sensitive nature of the adjacent wetland habitat and prohibits any brush management activities near the wetlands. This informational literature should provide the Permittee’s and/or long-term manager’s contact information for questions or reports of disturbance during their time of management. Monitoring visits will record evidence of trespassing and impacts to the wetland associated with development, assess the need to make repairs to barriers and signage, and recommend maintenance tasks to resolve existing issues and prevent future impacts on the habitat. • Invasive Species: Native plant species are to be used in the landscape areas directly adjacent to the management area, and the landscape plans shall be reviewed by the project biologist to ensure that only native plant species are identified for this area of the development. Monitoring visits will assess the need to control invasive species appearing within the wetland and make recommendations for invasive species removal during subsequent maintenance visits. Monitors shall record the invasive species observed, and their locations and quantities within the habitat. • Brush Management: To promote fire safety, flammable brush adjacent to structures is to be removed. This can be accomplished by pruning and thinning of vegetation and revegetation with low fuel volume plantings. Brush management zones within the site are depicted in Figure 76. During site visits, monitors will assess the need for brush management within these zones and will make specific recommendations for brush management techniques to be implemented during maintenance. Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project Page 10 • Trash: During each site visit, monitors are to record occurrences of trash including type, location, and management recommendations, and provide recommendations for removal during subsequent maintenance visits. • Other: Any additional observed disturbances that could affect habitat quality shall be noted, and recommendations provided to resolve each issue during subsequent maintenance visits. 3.1.1 Reporting The management entity shall prepare an annual report (due by the end of January each year) summarizing the management and maintenance activities conducted within the management area during the preceding year, addressing successes or failures of management approaches, and listing any new management concerns. The report should include visual documentation of site conditions from the same photo points taken each year and propose any management adjustments for the next year. The report will be provided to the City of San Diego, who may forward it to other agencies and interested parties. 3.2 Long-term Maintenance Requirements Long-term maintenance needs are assumed to be minimal; however, minor maintenance and monitoring activities may be required to control non-native vegetation, maintain barriers and fencing, and remove trash. These activities are outlined below. All maintenance requirements would be done in accordance with the LTMMP. Table 1 lists the annual schedule for maintenance and monitoring visits anticipated for this project. Table 1 Annual Schedule of Maintenance Visits Task Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual qualitative monitoring X Weed control X X X Brush management X Trash and debris removal (as needed) X Fence, signage, and trespassing repair (as needed) X Maintenance oversight X X X X = Anticipated month of occurrence. 3.2.1 Weed Control Monitoring visits will determine the need for treatment of non-native invasive species within the management area. Weed control will prioritize the removal of California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) high, moderate, or alert species currently present within the management area, which include Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), giant reed (Arundo donax), and salt cedar (Tamarisk ramosissima). Treatment should prioritize removing these and other Cal-IPC high, moderate, or alert species. Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project Page 11 Removal methods may include hand pulling, cutting, mechanical removal, and herbicide application. If herbicides are necessary, all safety and environmental regulations shall be observed. It is recommended to begin removal upstream and/or upwind, and to time removal based on the biology of each species (i.e., time of flowering and reproductive capacity). Seed heads for any Cal-IPC high, moderate, and alert species shall be bagged and removed from the site to avoid the spread of seed downstream. Removal activities can occur during the reproductive seasons of sensitive species (e.g., bird breeding season), but should consist of either herbicide application or hand pulling with no mechanized removal. This will allow annuals to be controlled before they set seed, while also avoiding potential impacts to sensitive species. If maintenance requires mechanized equipment or removal of mature vegetation, it can occur during the fall after bird breeding season. This requirement should remain in perpetuity. 3.2.2 Brush Management Brush management in identified zones (see Figure 67) will occur as needed, determined by monitoring visits. No thinning or brush management activities will occur within the on-site wetlands. Timing of brush management should occur before the majority of non-native annuals have set seed and prior to the bird breeding season, which would be anticipated to occur in February. Brush management shall be implemented according to guidelines set forth in the City of San Diego Landscape Standards (City of San Diego 2016) and as outlined below. • Invasive species are to be prioritized first for removal, and all Cal-IPC high, moderate, and alert species should be removed. If necessary, native and naturalized species may also be removed for fuel reduction, though native coverage is to be maintained to promote soil coverage and reduce visual, biological, and erosion impacts. Thinning methods should prioritize removing non-native invasive species growing between native shrubs and creating space between native shrubs by trimming and pruning the sides of the shrubs, as needed. Care should be taken to avoid killing native shrubs, which increases the amount of dry or dead plant material and promotes reinvasion by non-native species within the site. • Brush management shall avoid the nesting seasons for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) (March 1 through August 15) and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) (March 15 to September 15) to avoid the potential for direct or indirect impacts. • Brush management shall be limited to the designated brush management zones and will completely avoid the on-site wetland. • All dead branches, brush, debris, and trimmings shall be removed from the site or converted into mulch and evenly distributed. Seed heads for any Cal-IPC high, moderate, and alert species shall be bagged and removed from the site to avoid the spread of seed downstream. • Native trees and tree-form shrubs shall be retained to the maximum extent practicable, while maintaining consistency with the City of San Diego’s coverage and area limitations. Note that these limitations do not apply to native tree species (e.g., oaks [Quercus spp.], sycamores [Platanus spp.], willows [Salix spp.], and cottonwood [Populus spp.]). M:\JOBS\3396-1\bio\graphics\LTMP\Fig7.afdesign 07/12/24 bma Map Source:Project Design Consultants FIGURE 7 Location of Brush Management Zones 0 120 Feet Long-term Management and Monitoring Plan On-site Wetlands at the Nakano Project Page 13 3.2.3 Trash and Debris Removal Trash will be removed from the management area, as needed. Care should be taken not to trample any plants or alter wetland hydrology. 3.2.4 Fence, Signage, and Trespassing Repair Any damage caused to fencing and signage shall be repaired, per recommendations made following monitoring visits. Any new trails appearing within the habitat shall be closed. Any damage that alters hydrology will be assessed and measures implemented to resolve the problem. 4.0 References Cited San Diego, City of 2016 City of San Diego Landscape Standards, San Diego, California. April 5. U.S. Geographical Survey (USGS) 1996 7.5-minute topographic map Imperial Beach quadrangle. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 16 Mitigation Credit Availability at San Luis Rey River Mitigation Bank and Rancho Jamul Mitigation Bank WILDLANDS 6558 Lonetree Blvd. Rocklin, CA 95765 p: 916.435.3555 f: 916.435.3556 May 23, 2023 Via Electronic Mail Jennifer Campos Project Director RECON Environmental, Inc. 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92108-5726 RE: Confirmation of Mitigation Credit Availability at the San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank for the Nakano Project, San Diego County, California Dear Jennifer: Thank you for the opportunity to present you (“Project Proponent”) with the mitigation credit availability for the Nakano project located in the Chula Vista area of San Diego County (“Project”). Wildlands SLR Holdings I, LLC (“Wildlands”) has received approval of the San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank (“SLRMB”) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) to provide wetland and non-wetland waters of the United States/State credits for sale as compensation for the loss of waters of the United States, waters of the State and/or State jurisdictional habitats. One credit is equivalent to one acre of habitat. As of the date of this letter, SLRMB has sufficient credits available to provide 2 acres of mitigation credits. The current credit inventory is provided below; the agency-tracked creditt ledger can be accessed on the RIBITS (Regulatory In lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System) website, maintained by the Corps at https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/. WETLAND and NON-WETLAND WATERS CREDIT INVENTORY Credit Type Credits Available (Ac.) Rehabilitated River: Wetland Waters of the U.S./State 0.66 Re-established River: Wetland Waters of the U.S./State 7.63 Re-established Floodplain: Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./State 2.41 2 Please note, future credit availability is not guaranteed and is subject to change unless and until a binding contract is entered into by Project Proponent and Wildlands. As you may know, the primary benefit of purchasing bank credits is that it terminates your liability as a Project Proponent of habitat mitigation. By acquiring mitigation from the SLRMB, the Project Proponent is relieved of environmental engineering expenses, the construction and development costs, and the contingent liabilities of guaranteeing the success of an onsite or offsite mitigation project. Wildlands is fully responsible for all financial and performance obligations of mitigation credits purchased from the San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to working with you to provide a mitigation solution for your project. Very truly yours, Julie Maddox Director of Sales Wildlands 2125 19th Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95818 Corporate Headquarters 6575 West Loop South, Suite 300 Bellaire, TX 77401 Main: 713.520.5400 Mitigation Credit Commitment Letter Date | 1 MITIGATION CREDIT COMMITMENT LETTER WETLAND MITIGATION STATUS OF BANK ESTABLISHMENT Rancho Jamul (Phase IIB) Mitigation Bank To: Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Credit Provider: RES-RLH West Coast, L.L.C. (“Bank Sponsor”) Property Owner: California Department of Fish and Wildlife State and Federal Permitting Agencies Anticipated (collectively the “Permitting Agencies”): o Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) o Region IX of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) o California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) Bank Location: RJMBII is located at 14715 Campo Road, San Diego County, state of California, designated Assessor’s Parcel No(s). 597-160-06; 598-040-03; 598-040-04; 598-040-05. BANK Providing Credits: Rancho Jamul Phase IIB Mitigation Bank (RJMBII) The RJMBII is anticipated to be Established and receive the Initial Release by or before December 31, 2024. Whereas RJMBII is willing to sell credits to TriPointe Homes, LLC (“TPH”) and TPH seeks to purchase same credits for a project of unknown name and location (“Project”), the following is true: 1. The Initial credit release is anticipated to result in the release of the following: • 2.367 Wetlands 404/401 credits • 2.412 non-wetland 404/401 credits • 4.7805 Stream/Riparian (CDFW) credits • 2.1 Riparian Habitat (CDFW) credits 2. Reserved: The City of San Diego (“City”) has previously reserved the right to purchase 3.3 credits of unknown type and the remaining credits from the initial release will become available for sale to other buyers. 3. The Bank Sponsor currently notes that there remain 0.4 wetland credits that are not under reservation by another Permittee and are currently available for TPH to sign a Reservation Agreement that secures the right to purchase the credits once the bank is Established and the initial release has occurred. RES-RLH West Coast, L.L.C. By: Mandi Martinez, RES West Region Client Solutions Manager Resource Environmental Solutions, L.L.C. 2125 19th Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95818 Date: 03/27/2024 Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 17 Mitigation Proposal for Sensitive Uplands under the Annexation Scenario An Employee-Owned Company 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92108-5726 | 619.308.9333 | reconenvironmental.com SAN DIEGO | BAY AREA | TUCSON February 24, 2023 Ms. Kristen Forburger City of San Diego Planning Department – MSCP 9485 Aero Drive, M.S. 413 San Diego CA 92123 Reference: Uplands Mitigation for the Nakano Project Under the Annexation Scenario (RECON Number 3396-1) Dear Ms. Forburger: This memo documents the proposed mitigation for impacts to sensitive upland vegetation associated with the Nakano project under the Annexation Scenario. The applicant, Tri Pointe Homes, proposes to use excess mitigation credits available associated with the Pacific Highlands Ranch (PHR) project located in the City of San Diego. The mitigation credit area is located in the Del Mar Mesa area of the City of San Diego. The regional location of the mitigation site is shown in Figure 1. Refer to the Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project (Biology Report; RECON 2022) for additional detail about the Nakano project and overall impacts to biological resources. A Restoration and Mitigation Credit Agreement was executed between Tri Pointe Homes (formerly known as the Pardee Construction Company) and the City of San Diego on June 14, 2001. Refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the Restoration and Mitigation Credit Agreement. To date, Tri Pointe Homes has not used any of the 131-acre mitigation credit area. As written, the agreement allows Tri Pointe Homes to use 131 acres of mitigation credit as Tier II or Tier III mitigation for development activity occurring on Tri Pointe Homes ownership within the Citywide MSCP Subarea or caused by any development activity or project within Subarea III (refer to page 2, Section 2.1 of Attachment 1). The location of the 131-acre restoration and mitigation credit area is depicted on Figure 2. As shown, the mitigation credits available within Area 6 are located entirely within the MHPA and are proposed for use with the Nakano project. A total of 21 acres has been restored within Area 6 as Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat and City of San Diego sign-off of the restoration effort was obtained in July 2022. Detailed accounting of the available acreage of mitigation credits within the PHR areas is provided in Attachment 2. Refer to Figure 3 for the proposed mitigation location on an aerial photograph and Figure 4 for the existing vegetation communities. The Nakano project would impact 3.41 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (Tier II), 0.17 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated (Tier II), and 13.59 acres of non-native grassland (Tier IIIB). Under the Annexation Scenario (where the project would be annexed to the City of San Diego), uplands mitigation requirement would be satisfied by the City of San Diego consistent with the City of San Diego’s Subarea Plan and Biology Guidelines. As detailed in the project’s Biological Resources Technical Report (RECON 2022), SD-BIO-1 identifies the proposed mitigation for sensitive upland vegetation under the Annexation Scenario as follows: SD-BIO-1 Sensitive Upland Vegetation. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits or development activities by the City of San Diego for the Annexation Scenario, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits the project shall mitigate for impacts to sensitive upland vegetation in accordance with the City of San Diego’s 2018 Biology Guidelines. The project applicant shall mitigate Ms. Kristen Forburger Page 2 February 24, 2023 direct impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated at a 1:1 mitigation ratio, and non-native grassland at a 0.5:1 ratio inside the MHPA. Mitigation for 3.41 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (Tier II), 0.17 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated (Tier II), and 13.59 acres of non-native grassland (Tier IIIB) will be achieved through the preservation of 10.38 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (Tier II) at the PHR Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area (City of San Diego 2001). The applicant is required to provide proof of mitigation credit purchase to the City of San Diego via a mitigation ledger prior to issuance of any land development permits. Consistent with SD-BIO-1 the project proposes to use 10.38 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat within Area 6 of the PHR Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area. A ledger documenting the proposed use of these credits is included as Attachment 3, consistent with the requirements of Section 4 of the PHR Restoration and Mitigation Credit Agreement. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at jcampos@reconenvironmental.com or (619) 308-9333 extension 123. Sincerely, Jennifer Campos Environmental Project Director JYC:jg Attachments REFERENCE CITED RECON Environmental (RECON) 2023 Restoration and Mitigation Credit Agreement Pacific Highlands Ranch executed June 14, 2001. FIGURE 1 Regional Location kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar 0 5Miles [ M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Mitigation_PHR_memo\Fig1.mxd 02/24/2023 bma LOS ANGELES ORANGE RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO MEXICO Project Locationkj kj Nakano Project Site Proposed Nakano Mitigation Area !(1 !(2 !(9 !(10 !(8 !(6 Proposed Nakano Mitigation Area within Area 6 (10.38 acres) UV56 Proposed Nakano Mitigation Area Restoration Uplands Parcels Restoration Completed Restoration In Progress City of San Diego MHPA Pacific Highlands Ranch 130 Acre Mitigation Credit Area 0 1,000Feet [ M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Mitigation_PHR_memo\Fig2.mxd 02/24/2023 Image source: Nearmap (flown January 2023) FIGURE 2 PHR Area# SANTA FE CANYON PL SHERB O U R N E L N TORRE Y S A N TA F E R D K E N M A R W A YT E R R A Z O C T V I A C A N Y O N D R SOLTERRA V IS TA P K Y A L L E Y A L L E Y BELLEZA RANCH RD A L L E Y CANTABERRA C T E L E G A N T E W A Y M O L I N A L N CA M INIT O ME N D I O L A Proposed Nakano Mitigation Area PHR Area 6 Parcel PHR Area 6 Restoration Credit Area Proposed Nakano Mitigation Area on Aerial Photograph 0 250Feet [ M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Mitigation_PHR_memo\Fig3.mxd 02/24/2023 Image source: Nearmap (flown January 2023) FIGURE 3 SANTA FE CANYON PL SHERB O U R N E L N TORRE Y S A N TA F E R D K E N M A R W A YT E R R A Z O C T V I A C A N Y O N D R SOLTERRA V IS TA P K Y A L L E Y A L L E Y BELLEZA RANCH RD A L L E Y CANTABERRA C T E L E G A N T E W A Y M O L I N A L N CA M INIT O ME N D I O L A Proposed Nakano Mitigation Area PHR Area 6 Parcel Vegetation Community Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Proposed Nakano Mitigation Area Vegetation Communities 0 250Feet [ M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\Mitigation_PHR_memo\Fig4.mxd 02/24/2023 Image source: Nearmap (flown January 2023) FIGURE 4 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 Pacific Highlands Ranch Restoration and Mitigation Credit Agreement RESTORATION AND MITIGATION CREDIT AGREEMENT PACIFIC HIGHLANDS RANCH PARDEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY/CITY OF SAN DIEGO (131 ACRES) THIS RESTORATION AND MITIGATION CREDIT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this __ day of ______ , 2001 ("Effective Date"), by and between PARDEE CONSTRUCTION COMP ANY, a California corporation ("Pardee"), and THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation ("City"). Pardee and City may hereinafter be referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS This Agreement is made with reference to and in contemplation of the following facts and circumstances. A. Pardee and City are parties to that certain development agreement, in substantial part relating to Pacific Highlands Ranch, approved by Ordinance No. 0-18571, effective November 3, 1998 ("Development Agreement"). B. Pursuant to Section 5.2.6 of the Development Agreement, Pardee agreed to revegetate and restore 131 acres of the Pardee ownership in the Multi-Habitat Planning Area ("MHP A") of Pacific Highlands Ranch. The 131 acre revegetation area is generally described on Exhibit "1" attached hereto and incorporated herein (hereinafter the "Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area"). C. The Development Agreement contemplates that Pardee may utilize or sell mitigation credits from the Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area. Pardee is required by the Development Agreement to convey to the City title to the restored acreage no later than the time the Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area is utilized for mitigation credits. D. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which the 131 acre Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area will be established, restored, protected, maintained, managed and preserved. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by the Parties as follows: AGREEMENT I. Evaluation and Acceptance. City has evaluated and approved the Master Restoration Plan for Pacific Highlands Ranch-Subarea III dated October 31, 2000 attached hereto as Exhibit "2" and incorporated herein (hereinafter the "MRP"). Pardee agrees to restore and maintain the 131 acre Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area in accordance with the MRP. City acknowledges and agrees that upon satisfying the criteria contained within the MRP the revegetation area(s) will possess biological values which support mitigation credits. No further evaluation or assessment by City shall be required as a prerequisite to the use of the mitigation credits or for City's acknowledgment and acceptance thereof provided the 131 acre Restoration Page 1 of 5 and Mitigation Credit Area, or any portion thereof, is restored and maintained in accordance with theMRP. 2. Mitigation Credits. 2.1 City agrees to accept each acre of land within the 131 acre Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area as the functional equivalent of one acre of off-site mitigation for adverse biological impacts to MSCP Tier II or TIER III resources caused by development activity occurring upon Pardee's real property ownership within the Citywide MSCP Subarea or caused by any development activity or project within Subarea III. 2.2 Mitigation credit will be available for use as the restored habitat achieves the minimum success criteria identified in the MRP. City agrees to accept mitigation credits from the 131 acre Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area, or any portion thereof, upon achievement of the minimum success criteria identified in the MRP. 2.3 The Parties acknowledge that the level of mitigation credits provided to Pardee hereunder has been negotiated with the express understanding that enhancement and maintenance of the 13 I acre Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area, or any portion thereof, by Pardee shall occur in substantial accordance with the MRP in order to utilize the mitigation credits. 2.4 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to limit or to restrict the ability of the City, the California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") to fully discharge their responsibilities under applicable law, including, without limitation, CEQA, NEPA, CESA and ESA, respectively. 2.5 The use of mitigation credits shall be accounted for in accordance with Section 4 below. Once all mitigation credits have been used, no further mitigation credits shall be acknowledged by City. 3. Management of Mitigation Bank. 3 .1 Upon conveyance of title to City for all or any portion of the 131 acre Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area, City shall be solely and exclusively responsible to oversee, manage, protect and maintain in perpetuity the area conveyed to preserve its habitat and conservation values. City and Pardee shall meet and confer from time to time, upon the request of either Party, to revise the MRP to better preserve the habitat and conservation values of the Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area. 3.2 Pardee shall prepare and provide annually to City, on or before February 15th of each year, a Management Report for those portions of the 131 acre Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area remaining in Pardee's ownership or for which mitigation credits have not been used. The Management Report shall include the following, if applicable: 3.2.1 A general description of the status of the biological resources; 3 .2.2 The results of any biological monitoring or studies conducted; 3 .2.3 A description of all management actions undertaken; Page 2 of 5 3.2.4 A description of any management problems encountered; and 3.2.5 A description of management actions that will be undertaken, in accordance with the MRP, in the coming year. 3 .3 Pardee shall not be responsible for overseeing, managing, protecting or maintaining, and shall not be subject to any liability with respect to, those portions of the 131 acre Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area for which title has been transferred to the City. 4. Database for Mitigation Bank Transactions. A database shall be established by Pardee in the following manner for purposes of tracking the utilization of mitigation credits. Pardee shall be responsible for maintaining a database ("Ledger"), which shall include a numerical accounting of (i) all mitigation credits; (ii) the balance of unused mitigation credits available; (iii) the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity using the mitigation credits; and (iv) the location for which the mitigation credits were used. Pardee shall make the Ledger available to City within ten (10) business days of City's written request therefor. Upon use of mitigation credits, Pardee shall deliver to City an updated accounting of all mitigation credits used as of the date of the most recent use of mitigation credits. This information shall be sent to City within thirty (30) days after each use of mitigation credits. Pardee shall, on or before February 15th of each year, deliver to City a report ("Annual Ledger Report") covering the prior calendar year that contains all of the information described above. Pardee shall be responsible for maintaining a numerical accounting of mitigation credits used and the remaining balance of available mitigation credits. 5. Cooperation. City agrees to reasonably cooperate with Pardee and Pardee agrees to reasonably cooperate with City in the implementation of this Agreement. 6. Implementing Agreement. This Agreement is entered into by the Parties for purposes of implementing and satisfying the provisions of Section 5.2.6 of the Development Agreement. City agrees that Pardee's performance under this Agreement fully satisfies the provisions of Section 5.2.6 of the Development Agreement. From time to time, other implementing agreements may be entered into by the Parties for purposes of implementing other provisions of the Development Agreement. 7. Default. The provision of Section 7 of the Development Agreement relating to defaults (i.e., 7.1 Events of Default, 7.2 Procedure Upon Default and 7.3 Institution of Legal Action) shall be applicable to this Agreement in the event of a potential default by either Party. 8. Mitigation Credits. In the event of termination or a default under this Agreement, City shall honor all mitigation credits utilized prior to the date of any such termination or default. 9. Expiration. This Agreement shall expire and shall be fully performed upon Pardee's sale, transfer, or utilization of all mitigation credits and filing of its Final Annual Ledger Report to City. 10. Interpretation and Headings. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be simply construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against any of the Parties. Headings of the sections of this Agreement are for the purposes of convenience only, Page 3 of5 and the words contained in such headings shall in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify, or aid in the interpretation, construction, or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement. 11. Modification. This Agreement is not subject to modification except in a writing signed by the Parties, and any attempted modification not in compliance with this requirement shall be void. 12. Notices. All notices, demands, or requests in connection with this Agreement may be personally delivered or sent by facsimile, recognized overnight delivery service, or mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, to the persons set forth below, and shall be deemed received upon personal delivery, confirmation of facsimile transmission, one ( 1) day following deposit with an overnight delivery service, and two (2) days after deposit with the United States mail. All notices shall be addressed as follows or as the Parties may from time to time specify in writing: Ifto Pardee: With a copy to: Ifto City: Pardee Construction Company 12220 El Camino Real, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92130 Attn: Beth Fischer Facsimile No: (858) 794-2599 Telephone No: (858) 794-2500 Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek 750 B Street, Suite 2100 San Diego, California 92101 Attn: Thomas F. Steinke, Esq. Facsimile No: (619) 702-6819 Telephone No: (619) 685-3038 City of San Diego 202 C Street, MS 5A San Diego, California 92101 Attn: Gary Halbert Facsimile No: (619) 236-6478 Telephone No: (619) 533-6497 The Parties may change the address to which such notices, payments, or other communications may be sent by giving each other written notice of such change. The Parties agree to accept facsimile transmitted signed documents and agree to rely upon such documents as if they bore original signatures. 13. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and each of its covenants and conditions shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns. 14. Exhibits. All Exhibits referred to m this Agreement are attached to this Agreement and are incorporated herein by reference. Page 4 of 5 15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties in several counterparts, all of which together shall be deemed to be an original executed document. 16. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 17. Naming Rights. Pardee shall retain sole and exclusive naming rights to the 131 acre Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area. 18. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement is as set forth above. In the event a date is not inserted as the effective date, then the latest date entered on a signature line for this Agreement will be the effective date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the City of San Diego and by Pardee Construction Company. PARDEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a California corporation By: Its: By: Its: Assistant Vice President CITY OF SAN DIEGO, By: Its: Approved as to form and legality this / o/ day of -:PIMn1~ JV~ 2001. CASEY GWINN, CITY ATTORNEY By: ~, Deputy City Attorney \\CHOPIN\O_CLIENT\4\4352148812\TRANS\conserv land bank agt 5-11-01.doc Page 5 of5 Of:£ At:,lf lilf1011rs LEGEND - Approx. Location 131Acre Conservation Bank ~ ~ Not a Part Not a Part MHPA MHPA Future Development Future Development MHPA Not a Part Future Development MHPA Pacific Highlands Ranch/Subarea Ill 131 Acres Restoration & Mitigation Credit Area la~~m~: E~tffl1trlnt • UJJ ... , • .,._., Drl•r, s .. Vl•o•, CA U/11 ua-7$1-UJJ • Fo~ 151-TSI-Od~l EXHIBIT 11 1" ~ NORTll N.T.S. 5-30-01 ATTACHMENT 2 Pacific Highlands Ranch Restoration and Mitigation Credit Detail Pacific Highlands Ranch (PHR) Area Legal Description Area (Ac) Vegetation Community Tier (City of San Diego 2012) City Sign-off/Acceptance of Restoration Effort Lot 101 of Map 14311 Lot 'D' of Map 14816 Lot 'A' of Map 14484 12.8 DCSS II Complete Lot 'B' of Map 14994 5.1 DCSS II Complete Lot 'B' of Map 14635 10.4 DCSS II Complete Parcels 1-3 of PM 21001 16.1 DCSS II Complete 6 (PHR Unit 28)Lot 'A' of Map 16085 21 DCSS II 7/11/2022 1.3 Chamise Chaparral IIIA Anticipated Spring 2023 2 Chamise Chaparral IIIA Anticipated Spring 2023 0.5 Chamise Chaparral IIIA Anticipated Spring 2023 1.4 Chamise Chaparral IIIA Anticipated Spring 2023 Lot 'A' of Unit 8D Map 17.8 Chamise Chaparral IIIA 7/11/2022 Lot 'D' of Unit 9C Map 2.2 Chamise Chaparral IIIA 7/11/2022 Lot 'D' of Unit 9C Map and Lot 'A' of Unit 8D Map 10.4 Chamise Chaparral IIIA 7/11/2022 Credits Remaining 129.6 Areas Turned over to City of SD 1 Legal Description Area (Ac) Vegetation Community Tier (City of San Diego 2012)Ownership Turnover Date 0.6 Chamise Chaparral IIIA 2021 1 Chamise Chaparral IIIA 2021 1 Turned over areas are no longer eligible for mitigation credit 10 (PHR Units 8D & 9C) 2 (PHR UNITS 2, 3, & 12) 1 (PHR Units 1 &7)Chamise Chaparral IIIA28.6 Pacific Highlands Ranch Restoration and Mitigation Credit Detail 8 (PHR Units 18 & 20)Lot 'G' of Map 16107 9 (PHR Units 9A & 9B) Lot 'B' of Unit 9A map Lot 'A' of Unit 9B Map Complete ATTACHMENT 3 Pacific Highlands Ranch Restoration and Mitigation Credit Ledger PHR Mitigation Credit Ledger Total Credits 131 Credits Turned Over to the City 1.6 Credits Used 10.38 Credits Remaining 119.02 Last Name First Name Company Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Address Acreage Credits Used Credit Location Date Used Kashani Allen Tri Pointe Homes 13520 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 300 San Diego CA 92128 858-794-2510 allen.kashani@tripointehomes.com 10.38 Area 6 2023 /TBD TOTAL CREDITS USED 10.38 Mitigation Credit Agreement Excerpts: Section 2.2. "Mitigation credit will be available for use as the restored habitat achieves the minimum success criteria identified in the MRP. City agrees to accept mitigation credits from the 131 acre Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area, or any portion thereof, upon achievement of the minimum success criteria identified in the MRP." Section 4: "Database for Mitigation Bank Transactions. A database shall be established by Pardee in the following manner for purposes of tracking the utilization of mitigation credits. Pardee shall be responsible for maintaining a database ("Ledger"), which shall include a numerical accounting of (i) all mitigation credits; (ii) the balance of unused mitigation credits available; (iii) the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity using the mitigation credits; and (iv) the location for which the mitigation credits were used. Pardee shall make the Ledger available to City within ten (10) business days of City's written request therefor. Upon use of mitigation credits, Pardee shall deliver to City an updated accounting of all mitigation credits used as of the date of the most recent use of mitigation credits. This information shall be sent to City within thirty (30) days after each use of mitigation credits. Pardee shall, on or before February 15th of each year, deliver to City a report ("Annual Ledger Report") covering the prior calendar year that contains all of the information described above. Pardee shall be responsible for maintaining a numerical accounting of mitigation credits used and the remaining balance of available mitigation credits." Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 18 Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan for the Nakano Project Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan for the Nakano Project San Diego, California Prepared for Tri Pointe Homes 13400 Sabre Springs Parkway, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92128 Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92108 P 619.308.9333 RECON Number 3396.1 July 15, 2024June 10, 2022 Meagan Olson, Restoration Director Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ iii 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Otay Tarplant Biology and Status ................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Mitigation Requirements ................................................................................................................. 4 2.0 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Impact Site Environmental Conditions ........................................................................................ 8 2.2 Mitigation Site Description.............................................................................................................. 8 2.3 Topography and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Biological Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.5 Rationale for Expecting Success .................................................................................................. 10 3.0 Roles and Responsibilities........................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Project Proponent and Financial Responsibility ..................................................................... 13 3.2 Responsible Agencies ..................................................................................................................... 13 3.3 Restoration Specialist ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Installation/Maintenance Contractor ......................................................................................... 14 4.0 Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................. 14 4.1 Preliminary Design ........................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Implementation Activities .............................................................................................................. 16 4.3 As-Built Reporting ............................................................................................................................ 18 4.4 120-day Plant Establishment Period ........................................................................................... 19 5.0 Maintenance Plan ...................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 Weed Control .................................................................................................................................... 19 5.2 Watering ............................................................................................................................................. 20 5.3 Supplemental Seeding ................................................................................................................... 20 5.4 Supplemental Planting ................................................................................................................... 20 5.5 Trash Removal and Barrier/Sign Maintenance ....................................................................... 20 5.6 Adaptive Management Approach .............................................................................................. 21 6.0 Performance Standards ............................................................................................................ 21 Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 7.0 Monitoring Requirements ........................................................................................................ 21 7.1 Qualitative Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 22 7.2 Quantitative Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 22 7.3 Photographic Documentation ..................................................................................................... 22 7.4 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 23 8.0 Notification of Completion ...................................................................................................... 23 9.0 References Cited ........................................................................................................................ 23 FIGURES 1: Regional Location ............................................................................................................................................. 2 2: Mitigation Site Location on USGS Map ..................................................................................................... 3 3: Mitigation Site Location on City of San Diego 800' Map .................................................................... 5 4: Mitigation Site Location on Aerial Photograph....................................................................................... 6 5: Impacts to Otay Tarplant ................................................................................................................................ 7 6: Mitigation Site Location on Soils Map ....................................................................................................... 9 7: Existing Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 11 8: Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) Mitigation Site Design .......................................................... 15 TABLES 1: Impacts and Required Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 1 2: Restoration Implementation Activities Schedule .................................................................................. 16 3: Plant Species Targeted for Collection ...................................................................................................... 16 4: Maintenance Schedule .................................................................................................................................. 18 5: Monitoring Schedule ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project iii Acronyms and Abbreviations CBP Customs and Border Protection MHPA Multi-Habitat Planning Area mitigation site Otay tarplant mitigation site MMC Mitigation Monitoring Coordination MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program PEP Plant Establishment Period plan Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 1 1.0 Introduction This mitigation plan (plan) details the process for mitigating impacts to Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) resulting from implementation of portions of the Nakano Project (project). The project is in the city of Chula Vista and is bordered to the west, east, and south by the city of San Diego (Figures 1 and 2). The project proposes a residential development with supporting recreational amenities and infrastructure on the approximately 23.77-acre project site (Figures 1 and 2). Off-site improvements would be required to provide driveway access, as well as secondary emergency access and remedial grading. The project proposes two scenarios: the Annexation Scenario, with the project site being annexed into the city of San Diego, and the No Annexation Scenario, with the project site remaining in the city of Chula Vista. Off-site areas would remain in their respective jurisdictions in both scenarios. To provide access to the project site via Dennery Road, off-site access improvements would be required within Assessor’s Parcel Number 645-400-0500, located in the city of San Diego to the east of the project site. Impacts to Otay tarplant would result from construction of the driveway (impact site). Therefore, the impacts to Otay tarplant would occur within the city of San Diego in both scenarios, and mitigation for impacts to Otay tarplant would be subject to the requirements of the City of San Diego’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (City of San Diego 1997), and as implemented through the Land Development Code–Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018). In addition, the mitigation design described in this plan incorporates recommendations included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Recovery Plan for Deinandra conjugens (Otay tarplant) (USFWS 2004). As currently planned, the project will cause permanent impacts to 14 individuals of Otay tarplant (Table 1). Impacts to Otay tarplant shall be restored at a 4:1 ratio to ensure protection of this narrow, endemic plant species. The methods for implementing and maintaining this mitigation are laid out in this plan and include population monitoring measures and protections against edge effects as required by the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan Appendix A conditions of coverage for Otay tarplant (City of San Diego 1997). If any mitigation credits are not needed for this project, they will be available for future Tri Pointe Homes projects. Table 1 Impacts and Required Mitigation Direct Impacts to Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) Mitigation Ratio1 Required Otay Tarplants to Fulfill Mitigation 14 individuals 4:1 56 individuals 1Mitigation ratios are consistent with the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan, Appendix A and per discussions with the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan staff. Mitigation will be accomplished through seed collection and five years of maintenance and monitoring. This plan includes a discussion of existing conditions, an implementation and maintenance plan, ecological performance standards, monitoring requirements, and adaptive management. FIGURE 1 Regional Location kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar kj USMC AIR STATION MIRAMAR Los Penasquitos Canyon Presv Mission Trails Regional Park Cleveland National Forest Batiquitos Lagoon Lake Hodges San Vicente Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lower Otay Reservoir D u l z u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d i d o C r e e k S w e e t w a t e r R i v e r S a n D i e g o R i v e r Jamul Indian Village Sycuan Reservation Barona Reservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar 0 5Miles [ M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\TarplantMitPlan\Fig1.mxd 06/03/2022 bma LOS ANGELES ORANGE RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO MEXICO Project Locationkj kj Nakano Project Site Mitigation Site FIGURE 2 Mitigation Site Location on USGS Map UV905 §¨¦5 §¨¦805 UV905 §¨¦5 §¨¦805 Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, IMPERIAL BEACH quadrangle,1996, T19S R01W 0 2,000Feet [ Mitigation Site Nakano Project Site M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\TarplantMitPlan\Fig2.mxd 06/03/2022 bma Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 4 1.1 Project Location The Nakano Otay tarplant mitigation site (mitigation site) is in the community of Otay Mesa within the city of San Diego, and more specifically within the Southwest District of the Otay Mesa Community Plan, south of State Route 905 and east of Interstate 805 (see Figure 1). The project is within Township 19 South, Range 01 West, of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic map, Imperial Beach, California quadrangle (see Figure 2; U.S. Geological Survey 1996) and is presented on the City of San Diego 800-foot-scale map numbers 138-1761 (Figure 3). The mitigation site is surrounded by open space in all directions (Figure 4). The City of San Diego’s Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) occurs within and adjacent to the project site (see Figure 4). The mitigation site totals 0.001 acre, and is immediately adjacent to the 0.82 acre Southwest Village Otay tarplant mitigation site (RECON 2022a). Both sites are surrounded by a weed maintenance buffer that extends 30 feet beyond the boundary of the both mitigation sites. The mitigation site is located within open space, approximately 2.9 miles southeast from the impact site. The mitigation site occurs within non-native grassland on Linne clay loam, which is known to historically support Otay tarplant, as stated in the USFWS Recovery Plan for Deinandra conjugens (Otay tarplant) (USFWS 2004). 1.2 Otay Tarplant Biology and Status Otay tarplant is listed as a California endangered species and a federally threatened species (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2019). It is a California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1 species (California Native Plant Society 2019) and is a covered species and narrow endemic species under the City of San Diego’s MCSP Subarea Plan (City of San Diego 1997). This small, aromatic annual herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) produces mostly solitary yellow flower heads in May and June (Munz 1974). It ranges from southwestern San Diego County into Baja California, in open coastal sage scrub and grassland habitats below 1,000 feet (California Native Plant Society 2019). It typically occurs in herbaceous plant communities on slopes and mesas with expansive clay soils and may occur in non-native grasslands and fallow agricultural fields where clay soils are present (Reiser 2001). Otay tarplant habitat degradation and fragmentation have occurred largely because of residential and commercial development and highway construction (Reiser 2001). This habitat loss inhibits Otay tarplant’s ability to cross-pollinate, increase genetic diversity, and reproduce (USFWS 2004). When habitat is disrupted, pollination and gene flow stop, greatly impacting its resilience and ability to repopulate. Outside of human impacts, non-native invasive plants continuously threaten Otay tarplant due to their ability to outcompete the species (USFWS 2004). 1.3 Mitigation Requirements The project would result in direct impacts to approximately 14 Otay tarplant individuals which occupy 0.0002 acre (Figure 5; see Table 1). These impacts would be mitigated through off-site mitigation at a 4:1 ratio for establishment of 56 individuals within a total of 0.001 acre of Otay tarplant habitat to reduce these impacts to less than significant. FIGURE 3 Mitigation Site Location on City of San Diego 800' Map Map Source: City of San Diego, Engineering and Development Department, City 800' Maps, Number 210-1701 M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\TarplantMitPlan\Fig3.mxd 06/09/2022 bma 0 800Feet [ Mitigation Site FIGURE 4 Mitigation Site Location on Aerial Photograph APN 6670400700 APN 6670401300 APN 6670400200 APN 6670401400 APN 6670400700 APN 6670401300 APN 6670400200 APN 6670401400 Image Source: NearMap (flown April 2022) 0 300Feet [ Mitigation Site Parcels MHPA Trails City of SD MHPA VPHCP MHPA M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\TarplantMitPlan\Fig4.mxd 06/03/2022 bma FIGURE 5 Impacts to Otay Tarplant G O LDE N SKY W A Y BL U E CO R AL C V OC E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D §¨¦805 G O LDE N SKY W A Y BL U E CO R AL C V OC E A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2023) 0 250Feet [ Project Boundary Project Impacts Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\TarplantMitPlan\Fig5.mxd 05/16/2023 bma Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 8 The mitigation for impacts to Otay tarplant will be met through establishment of Otay tarplant within non-native grassland habitat. The non-native grassland will be replaced with native grasses and forbs to create a native ecosystem that supports Otay tarplant. While Otay tarplant impacts occurred outside of the MHPA, all mitigation will occur within the MHPA. This plan assumes that mitigation will occur concurrently with the Southwest Village Otay tarplant mitigation site; however, this mitigation could proceed independent of Southwest Village through alternative measures as coordinated with the City of San Diego (RECON 2022a). Alternative measures may include the purchase of mitigation credits or the selection of an alternative mitigation site, as approved by the City of San Diego. 2.0 Existing Conditions This section describes the existing physical and biological conditions of the impact site and the mitigation site. This includes a summary of land use, topographical features, and soils observed during biological surveys conducted in 2020 and 2022 (RECON 2022b). 2.1 Impact Site Environmental Conditions The impact site consists primarily of disturbed land and Diegan coastal sage scrub with areas of southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, emergent wetland, disturbed riparian, non-native grassland, Eucalyptus woodland, ornamental, developed, and disturbed habitat. Within the impact site where Otay tarplant will be impacted, the Otay tarplant are located within revegetated coastal sage scrub supported by Salinas clay loam, on 9.6-degree, west-facing slopes. 2.2 Mitigation Site Description The mitigation site occurs on one undeveloped parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 667-040-13) owned by Tri Pointe Homes (see Figure 4). The 0.001 acre Nakano Otay tarplant mitigation site is immediately adjacent to 0.82 acre of Otay tarplant mitigation planned for the Southwest Village development project, for a total of 0.891 acre of mitigation for Otay tarplant. The total mitigation site is approximately 2.9 miles southeast of the impact site. The mitigation site occurs on undulating topography, to the southwest of planned vernal pool and coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) mitigation areas. The mitigation site and adjacent areas are located within the MHPA (see Figure 4). The mitigation site has been subjected to some recent and historic disturbances, mostly off-highway vehicle use. 2.3 Topography and Soils The mitigation site is characterized by east- and south-facing slopes. Two soil types occur within the mitigation site: Linne clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes (LsF), and Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes (ohE; Figure 6; U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). Linne clay loam soils formed from calcareous sandstone and shale and are located on hillslopes. The soil is typically well drained with medium to very rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. Olivenhain cobbly loam soils formed in ancient cobbly and gravelly alluvium and are located on marine terraces and mesas. The topsoil is typically well-drained cobbly loam with a very cobbly clay subsoil (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). FIGURE 6 Mitigation Site Location on Soils Map Image Source: NearMap (flown April 2022) 0 100Feet [Mitigation Site Soil Type Linne clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes Olivenhain cobbly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\TarplantMitPlan\Fig6.mxd 06/03/2022 bma Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 10 2.4 Biological Conditions Non-native grassland is the dominant existing vegetation community within the mitigation site (Figure 7). The non-native grassland is dominated by dense non-native annual grasses, such as slender wild oat (Avena barbata) and wall barley (Hordeum murinum), as well as patches of black mustard (Brassica nigra), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). There are occurrences of native species within the non-native grassland including California encelia (Encelia californica), San Diego bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodifolia), jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis), and bladderpod (Peritoma arborea). In addition, a complex of dirt roads and unauthorized pedestrian and off-road vehicle trails traverse the site. 2.5 Rationale for Expecting Success 2.5.1 Restoration Goals The goals for this mitigation project are to restore, enhance, and maintain habitat that supports Otay tarplant. The restoration activities aim to establish Otay tarplant individuals while restoring and enhancing native grassland habitat necessary for the successful establishment of Otay tarplant. The restoration activities and methods described in this plan are intended to restore and enhance native habitat that is conducive and supportive to the growth and establishment of Otay tarplant. Restoration and enhancement will maintain as close to natural ecological conditions as possible, creating a self-sufficient, native habitat for a variety of species alongside Otay tarplant. 2.5.2 Restoration Site Suitability The proposed location of the mitigation site is within approximately 2.9 miles of the impact location within the City of San Diego’s MHPA (see Figure 4). The mitigation site was chosen based on the Linne clay loam (see Figure 6), which is known historically to support Otay tarplant (USFWS 2004), and therefore appropriate for Otay tarplant growth and establishment. The existing non-native grassland within the mitigation site supports few native species and contains evidence of anthropogenic impacts, through the presence of unauthorized trails used by pedestrians and vehicles. Such anthropogenic impacts result in loss of native habitat and designated pollinators. The restoration activities described in this plan will remove the fragmentation and effects of the anthropogenic impacts to create one contiguous patch of native plant species that supports Otay tarplant. In addition, it is anticipated that restoration of the disturbed lands and non-native grassland to native habitat will reduce the extent of non-native invasive plants and will increase the habitat quality of the vegetation communities. These improvements will increase connectivity between populations of Otay tarplant and their pollinators, increasing their ability to reproduce. FIGURE 7 Existing Biological Resources !U !U!U !U !U !( !. !. !U !U!U !U !U !( !. !. Image Source: NearMap (flown April 2022) 0 100Feet [ Mitigation Site Sensitive Plants !U San Diego Bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) !(San Diego County Viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata) !.Palmer's Grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri) Vegetation Communities Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Maritime Succulent Scrub Disturbed Maritime Succulent Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Non-native Grassland Wetland Seasonal Basin Disturbed Land M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\TarplantMitPlan\Fig7.mxd 06/03/2022 bma Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 12 The mitigation site is considered suitable for Otay tarplant restoration; factors that support this assessment include the following: 1) located on lands proposed as open space as mitigation lands; 2) within and adjacent to the MHPA; 3) the surrounding areas are anticipated to be maintained as open space; 4) located on Linne clay loam; 5) adequate site access; 6) proximity to planned mitigation sites; 7) adjacent to native maritime succulent and coastal sage scrub habitats; 8) sufficient buffering (at least 30 feet) from the planned MHPA trails (see Figure 4); 9) avoidance of utility easements; and 10) outside any brush management zone. Existing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) roads and planned MHPA trails occur near the proposed mitigation site (see Figure 4); these roads will facilitate maintenance access for restoration activities while existing roads located within the mitigation site will be closed off and their disuse will be coordinated with CBP and the City of San Diego. The mitigation site was planned with a buffer between planned MHPA trails located at the northwest end of the site to provide protection for Otay tarplant from pedestrians. 2.5.3 Restoration Viability The viability of the mitigation site was assessed during the preparation of this plan per the City of San Diego’s Land Development Code – Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego 2018). The assessment included consideration of the mitigation site’s connectivity to larger planned open space and the surrounding land uses. While the project site boundary will occur approximately 2.9 miles to the northwest of the mitigation site, land uses immediately adjacent are planned as open space per the Southwest Village Specific Plan and City of San Diego’s MHPA (see Figure 4). The location of the mitigation site adjacent to the larger open space preserve will reduce fragmentation of this sensitive plant species. By increasing habitat connectivity, necessary gene flow for the self-incompatible Otay tarplant will increase, which improves viability and longevity of the species and habitat quality. The MHPA trail system runs within 59 feet of the northern boundary of the mitigation site. No utility easements are present within the mitigation site (mitigation credit is not allowed within any easements) and potential future development in adjacent areas was taken into consideration when identifying the mitigation site. The design of the mitigation site includes several modifications to preserve the restored habitat from the adjacent non-native grasslands, including a weed maintenance buffer from the edge of the mitigation site. The weed maintenance buffer will be maintained for broadleaf and perennial weeds to prevent their encroachment within the mitigation site. Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 13 3.0 Roles and Responsibilities 3.1 Project Proponent and Financial Responsibility The project proponent (Tri Pointe Homes) will be responsible for retaining (1) a qualified restoration specialist with over five years of experience monitoring habitat restoration to oversee the entire installation and monitoring of the mitigation program, and (2) a qualified installation/maintenance contractor with expertise in restoration of native habitat and sensitive plant species. Tri Pointe will be responsible for financing the installation, five-year maintenance program, and biological monitoring of the proposed mitigation described in this plan. 3.2 Responsible Agencies The City of San Diego Development Services Department and City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan staff will be responsible for issuing any necessary permits associated with the entitlements. The following entities will be responsible for reviewing and approving this plan. Contacts: Ms. Liz Shearer-Nguyen City of San Diego Development Services Department 1222 First Avenue, MS 501 San Diego, CA 92101 Ms. Kristy Forburger City of San Diego Planning Department Multiple Species Conservation Program 9485 Aero Drive San Diego, CA 92123 3.3 Restoration Specialist Overall supervision of the installation and maintenance of this restoration effort will be the responsibility of a restoration specialist with at least five years of native habitat and sensitive plant species restoration experience. The restoration specialist will oversee the installation/maintenance for the life of the mitigation project. Specifically, the restoration specialist will educate all participants about restoration goals and requirements; inspect plant material; directly oversee seeding, weeding, and other maintenance activities; and conduct regular monitoring as well as annual assessments of the restoration effort. The restoration specialist will prepare and submit the required annual reports. Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 14 3.4 Installation/Maintenance Contractor Tri Pointe Homes will hire a qualified restoration contractor. The contractor will be a firm holding a valid C-27 Landscape Contracting License from the State of California, a valid Pest Control Business License, and a Qualified Applicator Certificate or Qualified Applicator License, with Category B, that will allow them to perform the required work for this restoration effort. During the installation, the contractor will be responsible for initial weed control/dethatching, seeding, as well as maintenance of the restoration site during the 120-day Plant Establishment Period (PEP) and five-year maintenance period. Following installation, the contractor will submit marked up as-builts for all activities that occurred during implementation to the City of San Diego. Following formal sign-off of the 120-day PEP, the contractor will maintain the mitigation site for five years. During this period, the contractor will service the entire mitigation site according to the maintenance schedule (Section 5.0, below). Service will include, but not be limited to, weed control, trash removal, watering, remedial seeding, and pest and disease management. All activities conducted will be seasonally appropriate and approved by the restoration specialist. 4.0 Implementation Plan This section describes the design of the proposed restoration and how it will be implemented. Implementation of the restoration efforts would be conducted under the direction of the qualified habitat restoration specialist. Seed collection should commence at least one season prior to the initiation of project impacts. All other restoration activities would commence the first summer-fall season prior to, or concurrently with, construction. The proposed restoration design is shown on Figure 8. Implementation activities include Otay tarplant seed collection and bulking, weed dethatching, barrier installation, and seed installation. Seed collection will occur prior to the start of construction to collect seed prior to impacts. Weed dethatching will occur concurrent with the start of the construction of the project. Restoration activities should occur in the order included in the following sections, although seasonal variability should be taken into consideration and the contractor’s best professional judgment should be applied. Some activities may be conducted concurrently. 4.1 Preliminary Design Mitigation for impacts to Otay tarplant will consist of improvements to native habitat through restoration efforts that support germination, flowering, and seed set of Otay tarplant. Restoration for the project will occur on approximately 0.001 acre of non-native grasslands, adjacent to the 0.82 acre mitigation site for the Southwest Village project to create contiguous 0.821 acre of Otay tarplant habitat. Non-native grassland will be restored to native grassland habitat that supports Otay tarplant and clay-tolerant native grasses and annuals with pockets of native shrubs. Restoration will occur through native seed introduction and weed maintenance. Decompaction of disturbed areas that are currently unauthorized trails or roads will occur, as needed. The mitigation site will be maintained throughout the five-year maintenance and monitoring period to native habitat that supports Otay tarplant, as described in Section 5.0. FIGURE 8Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens)Mitigation Site Design Image Source: NearMap (flown April 2022) 0 100Feet [Nakano Mitigation SiteSouthwest Village Mitigation Site30' Weed Maintenance BufferMHPA Trails M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\TarplantMitPlan\Fig8.mxd 07/12/2024 bma Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 16 4.2 Implementation Activities Implementation activities include seed collection and bulking, non-native weed biomass dethatching, barrier/signage installation, and seed installation. The implementation schedule is shown in Table 2. Implementation will commence prior to or concurrently with the start of construction of the project. Table 2 Restoration Implementation Activities Schedule Task Time of Year 1. Seed Collection and Bulking Fall through Spring 2. Dethatching Summer/Fall 4. Barrier/Signage Installation Fall 5. Seed Installation Winter, after first winter rains and prior to a predicted rain event 4.2.1 Seed Collection and Bulking Once the Otay tarplant have set seed, typically between August and November with variability due to seasonal weather patterns, seed will be collected from the existing plant populations found within the impact area. In addition to Otay tarplant seed, the native species listed in Table 3 will also be collected. The collected seed will be taken to an approved native plant nursery, rough cleaned, and stored until the fall. In the fall, when temperatures cool and conditions begin to favor native plant germination, a portion of the seed will be sown into flats to germinate over the winter for seed bulking. Individuals will be properly cared for through flowering and seed set and seed will be collected and rough cleaned. The bulking process will continue until adequate seed quantities are obtained to meet the project requirements, which may require several seasons (at least two) of bulking. Seed collection and bulking activities will be closely coordinated between the restoration specialist and native plant nursery to ensure proper timing of collection, bulking, and storage activities. Table 3 Plant Species Targeted for Collection Scientific Name Common Name Achillea millefolium1 yarrow Ambrosia chenopodiifolia San Diego bur-sage Amsinckia menziesii1 common fiddleneck Apiastrum angustifolium1 mock-parsley Artemisia californica coastal sagebrush Bloomeria crocea common goldenstar Cryptantha intermedia1 nievitas cryptantha Convolvulus simulans small-flowered morning-glory Daucus pusillus rattlesnake weed Deinandra conjugens1 Otay tarplant Dichelostemma capitatum blue dicks Encelia californica California encelia Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 17 Table 3 Plant Species Targeted for Collection Scientific Name Common Name Eriophyllum confertiflorum1 long-stem golden yarrow Grindelia camporum1 common gumplant Lasthenia gracilis1 common goldfields Lupinus succulentus arroyo lupine Lupinus truncatus collar annual lupine Microseris douglasii small-flowered microseris Peritoma arborea bladderpod Plantago erecta1 dot-seed plantain Simmondsia chinensis jojoba Sisyrinchium bellum western blue-eyed grass Stipa pulchra1 purple needlegrass NOTE: Quantities to be determined based on seed collection and bulking quantities as discussed in Section 5.3 1Species for which seed will be bulked. 4.2.2 Dethatching Prior to seed introduction, crews familiar with native and non-native plants will remove the accumulated weedy thatch throughout the mitigation site using line trimmers and rakes. Weedy thatch may be removed using mechanized equipment such as a ride-on mower or tracked skid steer with mowing attachment, if site conditions allow. Cut material will be raked into piles, removed from the site, and taken to a landfill or put into a green waste dumpster for disposal. Removal of the thatch aides in preparing the site for seeding and reducing future weed growth that may inhibit establishment of Otay tarplant. 4.2.3 Barrier Fence and Sign Installation After site dethatching, temporary barriers fencing will be installed along the mitigation site boundaryat all unauthorized access points into the mitigation site to delineate the site and prevent unauthorized access by CBP operational activities and trespassing by the public, as well as encroachment from weed control activities from the adjacent mitigation site. Barriers will not be installed at locations that will prohibit entrance into the site by maintenance or water trucks for the purposes of maintaining the mitigation site. Temporary fencing and signage will be removed upon project completion and final sign-off and Once site dethatching is complete, the mitigation site will be permanently fenced with t-posts and rope along the perimeter. Coast cholla cactus (Cylindropuntia prolifera) cuttings will be strategically placed along the trails and other locations to prevent unauthorized entry and minimize vandalism. Signs will be installed to provide notice that the area is an ecological preserve, notify that trespassing is prohibited, and cite penalties for trespass violation including liability for repair of any damage to soil or biological resources within the barrier. Signs in both Spanish and English will be mounted at corners of the mitigation site on metal tposts or similar. The permanent fencing will allow for a connection to the adjacent Otay tarplant mitigation Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 18 site to facilitate connectivity between both areas; however, temporary fencing will be maintained between the two mitigation areas until final sign-off of both areas. 4.2.4 Seed Installation Otay tarplant and clay-tolerant native species seed (see Table 3) will be distributed within the mitigation site in the approximate quantities determined by the results of seed collection and bulking. The methods of seed dispersal will be determined by site access at the time of restoration implementation. Methods will be as recommended by the restoration specialist and may include application via hydroseeding, drill seeding, seed imprinting, or hand-seeding. Seed will be scheduled for distribution in the fall/winter sometime following the first significant rain event of the season, after a weed maintenance event, and immediately prior to a forecasted rain event (not more than 48 hours). See Table 4 for the seeding schedule. All seed used for the mitigation will be collected from the site vicinity where feasible and as approved by the restoration specialist. The seed mix for the Otay tarplant restoration is listed in Table 3. The seed palette was designed to include native species that perform well in high-clay conditions, co-exist with Otay tarplant, and provide competition for non-native weed species. In addition, native cactus species salvaged whole or as cuttings from the impact area will be installed within the mitigation site. Table 4 Maintenance Schedule Task 120-day PEP Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Weed Control (herbicide treatment) As needed Monthly1 Monthly1 5–6 times per year1 4–5 times per year1 4 times per year1 Watering As needed As needed As needed As needed – – Supplemental Seeding/ Planting At end of 120-day PEP Fall/Winter Fall/Winter – – – Trash Removal In conjunction with weed control In conjunction with weed control In conjunction with weed control In conjunction with weed control In conjunction with weed control In conjunction with weed control Barrier/Sign Maintenance As needed As needed As needed As needed As needed As needed 1Minimum frequency 4.3 As-Built Reporting At the completion of implementation, the installation will be approved by the City of San Diego. An as-built report will be submitted that documents implementation activities and the dates they were completed. The report will include but not be limited to dates of on-site work, final seed lists and quantities, and any modifications to the mitigation site design. The report may be a brief letter report with photographs of the final site design and figures with locations of site elements. Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 19 4.4 120-day Plant Establishment Period The 120-day PEP will begin once the implementation activities are approved by the City of San Diego, likely once all site preparation and native seeding have been completed. The 120-day PEP shall last for 120 calendar days and shall consist of all maintenance activities and methods discussed in Section 5.0. Regular (at least every other week) qualitative monitoring will be conducted to assess native seed establishment and non-native weed germination and to make recommendations for maintenance activities, as needed (see Table 4). Year 1 will begin after successful completion of the 120-day PEP and after any required remedial seed installation has been completed. At the completion of the 120-day PEP, the restoration specialist will prepare a letter report for submittal to the City of San Diego to document activities conducted during the PEP and the site progress towards final success criteria. 5.0 Maintenance Plan Regular maintenance of the mitigation site will be required during the five-year maintenance period to establish Otay tarplant and control non-native weeds. The need for weeding is expected to decrease substantially by the end of the maintenance period, provided successful habitat restoration has been achieved. Maintenance activities will include weed control, watering, supplemental re-planting/re-seeding of native species, trash removal, and barrier/sign maintenance. Maintenance activities will be conducted in a frequency and duration that ensures attainment of the final success criteria. Maintenance activities will be performed per the schedule in Table 4 or as-needed to achieve project success. 5.1 Weed Control Weed control will be performed consistent with the following: • All herbicide and pesticide use will be under the direction of a licensed qualified applicator and will be applied by personnel trained to apply herbicide. All weeding personnel will be educated to distinguish between native and non-native species with a particular focus on protecting Otay tarplant. • Herbicide will only be applied when wind speed is less than five miles per hour, and spray nozzles will be of a design to maximize the size of droplets, to reduce the potential for drift of herbicide to nontarget plants. Application of herbicide will not occur if rain is projected within 12 hours of the scheduled application. • Weeds will only be removed by hand from within areas with dense concentration of Otay tarplant seedlings. • Weeding will be done at a frequency and duration to ensure that weeds are not allowed to flower and set seed within the site. During the growing season this may be as frequently as every other week, depending on weather patterns. Any weeds that have set seed will be removed by hand and disposed of off-site. Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 20 5.2 Watering Hand-watering will be performed consistent with the following: • The watering frequency and duration will be done in a manner to mimic natural rainfall, support annual plants through seed set, and encourage deep root establishment of shrubs, but not enough to create runoff. • Watering will be carefully tapered off once Otay tarplant begins to reach the flowering stage to allow plants to experience their typical summer dormancy and avoid over watering or excessive soil shrinking and swelling that can damage plant roots. 5.3 Supplemental Seeding Remedial seeding will be performed consistent with the following: • Areas of the site where native seed struggle to recruit will be remedially seeded during Years 1 and 2. • Remedial seeding of Otay tarplant will be conducted to increase the number of Otay tarplant individuals and vegetative coverage of Otay tarplant. • Remedial seeding of native grasses and forbs will be conducted to increase native competition with weed species. 5.4 Supplemental Planting Supplemental planting will be performed consistent with the following: • Cactus cuttings will be installed, as needed, within the site to deter trespassing and/or increase vegetative coverage. • Containers of maritime succulent scrub plant species may be introduced to provide competition for non-native weed species and preclude weed encroachment along the mitigation site edges. 5.5 Trash Removal and Barrier/Sign Maintenance Trash removal and barrier/sign maintenance will be performed consistent with the following: • Trash and other debris will be removed as necessary. • All fencing and signs will be checked and repaired as necessary. • Other site problems, such as vehicle damage and trespassing, will be reported to the City of San Diego or other adjacent landowners with recommendations for remedial measures. Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 21 5.6 Adaptive Management Approach An adaptive management approach will be implemented if areas of the site are not attaining the desired native habitat cover. Adaptive management is defined, for the purposes of this plan, as a flexible, iterative approach to the long-term management of biological resources that is directed over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and direct observation of environmental stressors that are producing adverse results within the mitigation site. Achieving the key goals of the mitigation program and establishing self-sustaining native habitats will be the focus of all adaptive management decisions. Adaptive management measures will be based on qualitative data gathered in the field throughout the five-year maintenance and monitoring period. Adaptive management measures may include collection and dispersal of seed, additional weed control efforts, additional watering, and other actions deemed appropriate through consultation with the City of San Diego. If an interim performance standard (see Section 6.0) is not met in any year or if the final performance standards are not met, the restoration specialist will prepare an analysis of the cause(s) of failure and, if deemed necessary by the City of San Diego, propose remedial actions for approval. If any of the enhanced or restored habitat has not met a performance standard during the initial five-year period, the maintenance and monitoring obligations will continue until the City of San Diego deems the mitigation successful. 6.0 Performance Standards At the end of the five-year monitoring period, a minimum of 56 Otay tarplant individuals should be present within the mitigation site. This number may be adjusted based on the results of the pre-construction survey. 7.0 Monitoring Requirements A minimum commitment of five years of monitoring of the mitigation site will be completed. Biological monitoring goals will include qualitative vegetation monitoring, Otay tarplant counts, and photographic documentation. The monitoring schedule is presented in Table 5. Table 5 Monitoring Schedule Task Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Qualitative Monitoring Every other week during the Otay tarplant growing/blooming season (January–June) Every other week during the Otay tarplant growing/blooming season (January–June) Monthly Monthly Monthly Quantitative Monitoring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 22 Table 5 Monitoring Schedule Task Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Photograph Documentation As Needed Spring Spring Spring Spring 1Quantitative monitoring to begin in Year 1. 7.1 Qualitative Monitoring Overall native and non-native cover and species richness will be qualitatively evaluated for the mitigation sites as they relate to Otay tarplant health and establishment but will not be used to determine project success. Qualitative monitoring of the mitigation site will be performed to guide maintenance activities and will be conducted as follows: • Qualitative monitoring will occur every other week during the growing season in Years 1 and 2 (January–June), monthly thereafter with additional visits conducted during the growing season, as needed to ensure project success (see Table 5). • Monitoring will include, but not be limited to, assessment of native seed germination, weed presence, and unauthorized trespassing. Monitoring results will be used to determine the timing and frequency of maintenance activities. 7.2 Quantitative Monitoring Counts of Otay tarplant individuals will be conducted annually throughout the mitigation site during the blooming period for the species, approximately May through June. The timing of these counts will be adjusted based on seasonal weather patterns and qualitative monitoring of the species phenology for that year. The population total will be calculated by counting individuals and estimating the proportion of individuals at each stage of phenology: seedling, vegetative, flowering, seeding. For large areas of dense Otay tarplant individuals, the total number of individuals will be calculated by estimating the density of Otay tarplant within a section and extrapolating for the entire area. 7.3 Photographic Documentation One permanent photo point will be established prior to the start of restoration activities. Representative photographs will be taken before implementation, at the completion of implementation, at the completion of the 120-day PEP, and annually to visually document the progress of vegetation cover development over the monitoring period. Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 23 7.4 Reporting Annual reports that assess both the attainment of yearly interim and progress toward the final performance standards for the site will be submitted to the City of San Diego’s Mitigation Monitoring and Coordination (MMC) by December 1 of each year. The reports will also summarize the mitigation project’s compliance with all applicable mitigation measures and permit conditions. A final monitoring report will be prepared and submitted to the City of San Diego MMC for use in the notification of completion and final acceptance of the mitigation effort. 8.0 Notification of Completion If the final success criteria have been met at the end of the five-year monitoring program, notification of these events will be provided with the fifth-year report. If the final success criteria have not been met by the end of the five-year monitoring program, the fifth-year report will discuss the possible reasons and recommendations for remedial measures to aid the site in meeting the criteria. If the mitigation site has not met the performance standards, the project proponent’s maintenance and monitoring obligations will continue, until the City of San Diego MMC deems the mitigation program as successful. Following receipt of the final annual report, the City of San Diego MMC shall be invited to visit the mitigation site to confirm completion of the mitigation effort. The Otay tarplant mitigation requirements shall be deemed complete once the final success criteria are met and after written approval by the City of San Diego MMC has been received. 9.0 References Cited California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2019 State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Natural Diversity Database. Department of Fish and Wildlife. August. California Native Plant Society 2019 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Munz, P. A. 1974 A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley. RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON) 2022a Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan for the Southwest Village Specific Plan Project. March 4. 2022b Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project San Diego, CA. June. Reiser, C. H. 2001 Rare Plants of San Diego County. Aquifir Press, Imperial Beach, CA. Otay Tarplant Mitigation Plan Nakano Project Page 24 San Diego, City of 1997 City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) Subarea Plan. March. 2018 San Diego Municipal Code: Land Development Code, Biology Guidelines. February. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. Edited by Roy H. Bowman. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. December. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2004 Recovery Plan for the Deinandra conjugens (Otay tarplant). Portland, OR. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1996 Poway Quadrangle 7.5-Minute Topographic Map. Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 19 Wildlife Agency Concurrence Letter on the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan Minor Amendment and Wetland Deviation, dated August 15, 2024 In Reply Refer to: 2023-0080593-S7-TA-SD August 15, 2024 Sent Electronically Kristy Forburger Project Manager Biodiverse SD City Planning Department 1222 First Ave. San Diego, California 92101 KForburger@sandiego.gov Dai Hoang Development Services Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue, Building C Chula Vista, California 91910 dhoang@chulavistaca.gov Subject: Proposed Minor Amendment to the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan and Biologically Superior Option (BSO) Wetland Deviation for the Nakano Project, City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California (EIR 22-001, SCH#2022060260) Dear Kristy Forburger and Dai Hoang: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department), hereafter collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have received and reviewed the City of San Diego’s minor amendment concurrence request for the annexation of the Nakano Project (Project) site dated July 20, 2024. The Wildlife Agencies have also reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); the August 15, 2024, Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project Chula Vista, California (BRTR; RECON 2024); the August 14, 2024, Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Nakano Project San Diego, California (WMP; BRTR, Attachment 13); and the May 26, 2023, Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Consistency Analysis for the Nakano Project, City of San Diego, California (RECON Number 3396-1) (consistency analysis; BRTR, Attachment 12). The Project details referenced here are based on information provided in those documents and through prior meetings and correspondence between the Wildlife Agencies, City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, RECON Environmental, Inc. (Project Consultants) and representatives of Tri Pointe Homes (Project Applicant), from April 2022 to present. The Wildlife Agencies also previously provided conditional concurrence Docusign Envelope ID: 3C1BC9ED-BBBB-497B-AE52-38EB13BFEEB3 2 Kristy Forburger, City of San Diego Dai Hoang, City of Chula Vista Nakano Project Minor Amendment (2023-0080593-S7-TA-SD) on the BSO wetland deviation for the Project in an email dated November 9, 2023. Final concurrence was conditioned on our review and approval of an updated BRTR and WMP. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and threatened and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including habitat conservation plans (HCPs) developed under section 10(a)(l)(B) of the Act. The Department is a Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the Project [California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15386 et seq.] and is a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed Project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program, a California regional habitat conservation planning program (Fish and Game Code §2800 et seq.). Both the City of Chula Vista and the City of San Diego participate in the HCP/NCCP Program by implementing their respective approved MSCP Subarea Plans (SAP)and Implementing Agreements. The 23.77-acre Project site is located in the City of Chula Vista, bordered by Interstate 805 (I-805) to the west, northwest of Dennery Road, and south of the Otay River. The Project includes a 221-unit residential development with supporting park amenities and associated off-site improvements. Most of the Project site, which is designated as Development Area in the City of Chula Vista’s SAP, will be developed. Impacts to areas within the City of San Diego’s SAP will occur outside of the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). The Project site is planned to be annexed into the City of San Diego; this annexation would involve the transfer of a “Development Area Outside of Covered Projects” within the City Chula Vista to a “Development Area” in the City of San Diego. The Project site is comprised primarily of Diegan coastal sage scrub, Baccharis-dominated Diegan coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, mule fat scrub, southern willow scrub, emergent wetland, disturbed wetland, disturbed habitat, ornamental, and urban/developed. Mitigation ratios provided by the City of Chula Vista MSCP SAP and City of San Diego Biology Guidelines for these vegetation communities/land cover types are consistent between jurisdictions; thus, no change in habitat mitigation would result from the proposed transfer. The following sensitive species were detected onsite, least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens), coast barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). There would be no change in the conservation or impact estimates for the MSCP covered species in either SAP. The Wildlife Agencies have provided feedback on proposed mitigation for the Project, which is detailed in the BRTR. Mitigation will be accomplished through a combination of credit purchase at the Pacific Highlands Ranch Restoration and Mitigation Credit Area for impacts to upland habitats; off-site restoration of Otay tarplant; avoidance, protection, and management of on-site wetlands; and Docusign Envelope ID: 3C1BC9ED-BBBB-497B-AE52-38EB13BFEEB3 3 Kristy Forburger, City of San Diego Dai Hoang, City of Chula Vista Nakano Project Minor Amendment (2023-0080593-S7-TA-SD) off-site wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement with long-term management at Spring Canyon and credit purchase at a mitigation bank if necessary to satisfy state wetland permits. Requirements for the annexation of properties between MSCP Subarea Plans are provided in Section 5.4.3 of the MSCP Subregional Plan. As described in this section, an annexation can be addressed through a minor amendment to a Subarea Plan, provided the conservation policies of the two SAPs involved in the transfer are consistent with one another. We concur with the findings of the consistency analysis that the conservation policies of the City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plans are consistent with one another and that the Project will proceed in accordance with the conservation goals of the MSCP SAPs. Therefore, the Wildlife Agencies concur with the proposed minor amendment to the City of San Diego’s SAP for the annexation of the Project site from the City of Chula Vista. We request the minor amendment for the annexation be documented in both the City of San Diego’s and City of Chula Vista’s SAP annual reports. Additionally, the Wildlife Agencies have reviewed and approve of the BRTR and WMP and give final concurrence on the BSO wetland deviation for the Project in accordance with Section III.A.2.ii.(C) of the City of San Diego’s Biology Guidelines. We acknowledge and appreciate the early efforts by the City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista to coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies through implementation of their Subarea Plans. We value the partnership of both cities and look forward to our continued collaboration. If you have questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Paola Perez 1 of the Department at 858-354-2413, or Anita Eng 2 of the Service at 571-547-3203. Sincerely, Jonathan D. Snyder 3 Glen M. Lubcke Assistant Field Supervisor Environmental Program Manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife cc: Kelley Stanco4, City of San Diego Tait Galloway 5, City of San Diego Julia Chase 6, City of San Diego 1 Paola.Perez@wildlife.ca.gov 2 Anita_Eng@fws.gov 3 Jonathan_d_Snyder@fws.gov 4 KStanco@sandiego.gov 5 TGalloway@sandiego.gov 6 ChaseJ@sandiego.gov JONATHA N SNYDER Digitally signed by JONATHAN SNYDER Date: 2024.08.15 12:06:43 -07'00' Docusign Envelope ID: 3C1BC9ED-BBBB-497B-AE52-38EB13BFEEB3 4 Kristy Forburger, City of San Diego Dai Hoang, City of Chula Vista Nakano Project Minor Amendment (2023-0080593-S7-TA-SD) Oscar Galvez III 7, City of San Diego Dawna Marshall8, City of San Diego Elizabeth Shearer-Nguyen,9 City of San Diego Desmond Corley 10, City of Chula Vista Allen Kashani 11, Tri Pointe Homes David Zoutendyk 12, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Susan Wynn 13, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Eric Porter14, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Melanie Burlaza, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Heather Schmalbach, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Alison Kalinowski, California Department of Fish and Wildlife LITERATURE CITED [RECON] RECON Environmental, Inc. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report for the Nakano Project, Chula Vista, California. August 2024. 7 GalvezO@sandiego.gov 8 DLMarshall@sandiego.gov 9 EShearer@sandiego.gov 10 Dcorley@chulavistaca.gov 11 Allen.Kashani@tripointehomes.com 12 David _Zoutendyk@fws.gov 13 Susan_Wynn@fws.gov 14 Eric_Porter@fws.gov Docusign Envelope ID: 3C1BC9ED-BBBB-497B-AE52-38EB13BFEEB3 Biological Resources Technical Report Nakano Project ATTACHMENT 20 Post-survey Notification of 2024 Crotch’s Bumble Bee Focused Surveys for the Nakano Project, dated September 9, 2024 An Employee-Owned Company 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92108 | 619.308.9333 | reconenvironmental.com SAN DIEGO | OAKLAND | TUCSON September 9, 2024 Mr. Justin Garcia Senior Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish and Wildlife; Wildlife Branch P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 Reference: Post-survey Notification of 2024 Crotch’s Bumble Bee Focused Surveys for the Nakano Project (RECON Number 3396.1) Dear Mr. Garcia: This letter provides the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with the results of the habitat assessment and focused surveys for the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) candidate Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) conducted for the Nakano Project (project). The focused surveys are authorized through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) issued on May 17, 2024, by CDFW to Principal Investigator Wendy Loeffler (SC-182980003- 19036-001). Other Independent Researchers authorized under the MOU include Alex Fromer (SC-192680001-19268-001), Anna Leavitt (SC-191060005-19106-001), Elizabeth Procsal (SC-190350007-19036-001), and Kathryn (Kayo) Valenti (SC-202320002-20245-001) with RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON). 1.0 Project Location The project is east of Interstate 805, northwest of Dennery Road, and south of the Otay River (Figure 1). The project area is within Sections 19 and 24 of Township 18 South, Range 1 and 2 West, of the Imperial Beach, California, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2; USGS 1994). For this project, the survey area consists of the proposed development footprint totaling 25.81 acres (Figure 3) and includes portions of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 624-071-0200, 645-400-0500, 645-400-0100, 645-400-0300, and 624-071-0100. 2.0 Methods A habitat assessment and focused survey for Crotch’s bumble bee were conducted in accordance with the CDFW Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) and the MOU. 2.1 Habitat Assessment The habitat assessment consisted of a database search and three site visits, conducted concurrently with the focused survey, to evaluate the likelihood of Crotch’s bumble bees to occur within and adjacent to the project area. Prior to the site visits, historical and current records of Crotch’s bumble bee occurrence within one to two miles of the project area were evaluated by consulting the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2024) and the citizen science data platform iNaturalist (2024). RECON conducted a habitat assessment for foraging, nesting, and overwintering habitat concurrently with focused surveys on June 21, July 5, and July 19, 2024, consistent with the colony active period of Crotch’s bumble bee within the south coast region (April through August). The habitat assessment was conducted on foot by meandering Mr. Justin Garcia Page 2 September 9, 2024 throughout the survey area and recording potential foraging, nesting (e.g., bare ground, rodent burrows), and overwintering resources (e.g., leaf litter, woody forest edge); documenting general plant diversity; and estimating the absolute percent cover of nectar sources. The percent cover of nectar sources was then split into six categories (as applicable) to classify the survey area: 0 percent, 1–5 percent, 6–15 percent, 16-25 percent, 26–50 percent, and greater than 50 percent. 2.2 Focused Surveys A total of three survey visits were conducted concurrent with the habitat assessment site visits. The surveys were conducted within a final survey area that encompassed 25.81 acres of suitable Crotch’s bumble bee habitat (Figure 4). The surveys were conducted on warm, sunny days, with low wind; began no earlier than one hour after sunrise; and were completed at least two hours before sunset. Survey dates, surveyors, times, and weather conditions are provided in Table 1. Table 1 2024 Crotch’s Bumble Bee Survey Dates, Personnel, Times, and Conditions Date Survey # Surveyor(s) Beginning Conditions Ending Conditions Acres per Hour per Person 6/21/2024 1 Kayo Valenti Alex Fromer 9:00 a.m.; 70ºF; winds 3-5 mph; 5% cloud cover 1:40 p.m.; 73ºF; winds 5-7 mph; 0% cloud cover 2.87 7/05/2024 2 Anna Leavitt Alex Fromer 9:30 a.m.; 76ºF; winds 1-2 mph; 5% cloud cover 2:15 p.m.; 78ºF; winds 1-6 mph; 0% cloud cover 2.87 7/19/2024 3 Anna Leavitt Alex Fromer 9:00 a.m.; 74ºF; winds 0-3 mph; 0% cloud cover 1:30 p.m.; 77ºF; winds 2-8 mph; 0% cloud cover 2.87 Foraging surveys were conducted at a surveyor rate of 2.87 acres per hour, which meets the survey protocol maximum rate of one person-hour of searching per three acres of suitable habitat. This survey time did not include the time for capture or photographic documentation. Prior to conducting the surveys, vials and nets were sterilized according to the methods described in the CDFW Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) and the MOU. During each survey, surveyors used large meandering transects that incorporated patches of floral resources and captured bumble bees with a net from blooms, avoiding damaging the flower, when possible. Each bee was then carefully transferred into its own sterile vial and kept at ambient temperature for no more than 10 minutes before being placed in a cooler on ice, at a temperature above 25 degrees Fahrenheit, for no more than 120 minutes. For each bee, photographs were taken to capture the face, top of the head, banding on the abdomen, and color pattern on the thorax and hind leg. Photographs were linked to the corresponding specimen using specimen numbers linked to the site locality and the location of collection captured using a global positioning system unit. Photographs were then submitted to the CDFW approved taxonomist, Jaymee Marty from Marty Ecological Consulting, and archived for long-term storage. Concurrently with foraging surveys, areas with potential nesting resources, identified during the habitat assessment, were systematically walked to try to detect nest activity (i.e., high levels of bee movements from a given location). Other pollinators and other bee use were also noted during the surveys. Mr. Justin Garcia Page 3 September 9, 2024 3.0 Results 3.1 Habitat Assessment No Crotch’s bumble bee individuals have been reported within one mile of the project area within the CNDDB database (CDFW 2024); however, two research-grade Crotch’s bumble bee observations have been recorded within two miles of the project area, based on the iNaturalist database (2024). Ten vegetation communities/land cover types are present within the survey area: Diegan coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub: baccharis-dominated, disturbed habitat, disturbed wetland, emergent wetland, mule fat scrub, non-native grassland, ornamental, southern willow scrub, and urban/developed. The majority of the survey area consists of non-native grassland with relatively large, continuous patches of disturbed habitat to the east and north and Diegan coastal sage scrub to the south. The remaining vegetation communities/land cover types can be found in small areas near the periphery of the survey area (see Figure 4). The Crotch’s bumble bee survey area contained a wide range of nectar source cover, primarily within the Diegan coastal sage scrub and ornamental vegetation communities. Representative photographs of the survey area are in Attachment 1. The majority of the site supported no flowering plants/nectar sources. These areas devoid of nectar source cover (0 percent) were within non-native grassland and disturbed lands within the central portion of the survey area. Within the 1–5 percent nectar source cover class, only a small number of nectar sources were present and included species such as black mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), crystalline iceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). This cover class is associated with disturbed habitat along the southern edge of the survey area. The 6-15 percent nectar source cover class is found throughout much of the survey area and contained a slightly higher amount of native nectar sources including California buckwheat and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) in addition to a significant increase in non-native herbaceous cover of crown daisy (Glebionis coronaria) and fennel. This cover class contains the majority of vegetation community/land cover types found within the survey area, though it includes large portions of Diegan coastal sage scrub and disturbed habitat. Only one small patch of disturbed habitat contained 16-25 percent nectar source cover and is found along the northern edge of the survey area. Nectar cover within this area is primarily provided by a mix of native shrubs (Baccharis sp). The 26-50 percent nectar source cover class primarily contained a moderate to high density of California buckwheat primarily associated with Diegan coastal sage scrub and ornamental vegetation. However, one area containing a high amount of dove weed (Croton setiger) within non-native grassland exists within the southwestern portion of the survey area. Areas containing over 50 percent nectar source cover within the survey area contain a relatively high abundance of non-native herbaceous species including fennel, crown daisy, and crystalline iceplant. The largest area occurs in the northwest corner of the survey area, while two smaller patches can be found within the southern half of the survey area. Potential nesting resources for Crotch’s bumble bee, such as old mammal burrows and bare ground, were observed throughout the survey area. Overwintering resources are not currently well documented or defined (CDFW 2023). Mr. Justin Garcia Page 4 September 9, 2024 However, based on the information available, a portion of the survey area supports insulating leaf litter under areas of moderate tree or shrub cover that could potentially support overwintering of future queens (gynes). 3.2 Focused Surveys Five bees were captured during the focused surveys. Table 2 provides a summary of the bumble bee identifications. Figure 4 provides a map showing the survey area and locations where bees were captured. No bumble bee mortalities occurred during the survey. All bees were processed in the vicinity of their capture or in a similar habitat and released in the shade and observed until they flew away. No Crotch’s bumble bees were detected during the course of this survey. Four yellow-faced bumble bees (Bombus vosnesenskii) and one California bumble bee (Bombus fervidus [=californicus]) were observed within the survey area, as confirmed by the CDFW approved taxonomist (Attachment 2). Representative photographs and a description of diagnostic characteristics of the identified bumble bees are shown in Attachment 2. Honey bees (Apis mellifera) and various other bee and wasp species were prevalent on nectar resources. Table 2 Results of the 2024 Crotch’s Bumble Bee Focused Surveys Survey # Specimen Identification Collection Date and Time Collection Method Nectar Source/ Habitat 1 yellow-faced bumble bee, male 6/21/2024; 1:10 p.m. Hand net Mesembryanthemum crystallinum within non-native grassland 1 yellow-faced bumble bee, male 6/21/2024; 1:15 p.m. Hand net Mesembryanthemum crystallinum within disturbed habitat 2 California bumble bee, male 7/5/2024; 11:45 a.m. Hand net Mesembryanthemum crystallinum within non-native grassland 2 yellow-faced bumble bee, male 7/5/2024; 12:05 p.m. Hand net Mesembryanthemum crystallinum within non-native grassland 2 yellow-faced bumble bee, male 7/5/2024; 12:20 p.m. Hand net Mesembryanthemum crystallinum within non-native grassland If you have any questions concerning the contents of this post-survey letter, please contact Anna Leavitt at (619) 308-9333, extension 121, or by e-mail at aleavitt@reconenvironmental.com. Sincerely, Wendy Loeffler Environmental Program Manager/Senior Biologist WEL:APF:llg Attachments cc: Hillary Sardiñas, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Kyle Rice, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Hans Sin, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Mr. Justin Garcia Page 5 September 9, 2024 References Cited California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2023 Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. June. 2024 California Natural Diversity Database, a Natural Heritage Program. Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento. Accessed June. iNaturalist 2024 iNaturalist. https://www.inaturalist.org. Accessed June. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1994 Imperial Beach quadrangle, Township 18 South, Range 02 West, 7.5-minute topographic map. FIGURE 12024 CBB Survey -Regional Location kj USMC AIRSTATIONMIRAMAR Los PenasquitosCanyon Presv Mission TrailsRegional Park ClevelandNationalForestBatiquitosLagoon Lake Hodges San VicenteReservoir SweetwaterReservoir Lower OtayReservoir D ulz u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b el C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d ido C r e ek Sweetw a t e r R iv er S a n D i e g o R i ver Jamul IndianVillage SycuanReservation BaronaReservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G OC O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar kj USMC AIRSTATIONMIRAMAR Los PenasquitosCanyon Presv Mission TrailsRegional Park ClevelandNationalForestBatiquitosLagoon Lake Hodges San VicenteReservoir SweetwaterReservoir Lower OtayReservoir D ulz u r a C r e e k S a n t a Y s a b el C r e e k O t a y R i v e r E s c o n d ido C r e ek Sweetw a t e r R iv er S a n D i e g o R i ver Jamul IndianVillage SycuanReservation BaronaReservation Bonita Bostonia Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Crest Eucalyptus Hills Fairbanks Ranch Granite Hills Harbison Canyon Jamul Lakeside La Presa Ramona Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Spring Valley Winter Gardens UV163 UV282 UV78 UV56 UV54 UV75 UV125 UV905 UV67 UV94 UV52 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 S A N D I E G OC O U N T Y M E X I C O Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Chula Vista San Diego El Cajon Encinitas La Mesa Poway San Marcos Carlsbad National City Santee Coronado Escondido Solana Beach Del Mar 0 5Miles [ M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\CBB\postCBB\Fig1.mxd 08/27/2024 bma LOS ANGELES ORANGE RIVERSIDE SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO MEXICO Project Locationkj FIGURE 22024 CBB Survey -Project Location on USGS Map Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Imperial Beachquadrangle, 1994, T18S R02W 0 2,000Feet [ Project Boundary M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\CBB\postCBB\Fig2.mxd 08/27/2024 bma FIGURE 32024 CBB Survey -Project Location on Aerial Photograph G O LDEN S K Y W AY BL U E C O R A L C V O CE A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 G O LDEN S K Y W AY BL U E C O R A L C V O CE A N M I S T P L D E N N E R Y R D O t a y R i v e r §¨¦805 Image Source: NearMap (flown May 2024) 0 300Feet [Project Boundary Crotch's Bumble Bee Survey Area M:\JOBS\3396-1\common_gis\Reports\CBB\postCBB\Fig3.mxd 08/27/2024 bma FIGURE 42024 CBB Survey -Crotch’s Bum ble Bee Ha bita t Assessm entResults a nd Survey Area !H !H !(!H!H G OLDEN SKY W AY B L U E CO R A L C V DE N N E RY R D O C E A N M I S T P L !H !H !(!H!H G OLDEN SKY W AY B L U E CO R A L C V DE N N E RY R D O C E A N M I S T P L Im a g e Source: Nea rMa p (flown Ma y 2024) 0 130Feet [ Project Bounda ryCrotch's Bum ble Bee Survey AreaBumble Bee Observation !H Yellow-fa ced Bum ble Bee(Bombus vosnesenskii) !(Ca lifornia Bum ble Bee(Bombus fervidus [=californicus])Nectar Source Cover0% 1-5% 6-15% 16-25%26-50%>50%Vegetation CommunitiesDieg a n Coa sta l Sa ge Scrub Dieg a n Coa sta l Sa ge Scrub: Ba ccha ris-dom ina ted Disturbed Ha bita t Disturbed Wetla nd Em erg ent Wetla nd Mule Fa t Scrub Non-Na tive Gra ssla ndO rna m enta lSouthern Willow ScrubUrba n/Developed M:\JO BS\3396-1\com m on_gis\Reports\CBB\postCBB\Fig 4.m xd 09/05/2024 bm a !H !( !H !H ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 Representative Photographs of the Survey Area P:\3396-1\Bio\CBB\Photos\Photos1-3.docx 09/04/24 PHOTOGRAPH 1 View of Non-Native Grassland Looking Southeast PHOTOGRAPH 2 View of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Looking East P:\3396-1\Bio\CBB\Photos\Photos1-3.docx 09/04/24 PHOTOGRAPH 3 View of Disturbed Habitat Looking Northwest ATTACHMENT 2 Bumble Bee Identification for Nakano Project 1 MARTY ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING, INC. 8925 Lanier Way Sacramento, CA 95826 TECHNICAL MEMO Date: 9/4/2024 To: Anna Leavitt Senior Biologist RECON Environmental, Inc. 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600, Ste 220 San Diego, CA 92108 From: Jaymee Marty Subject: Bumble Bee Identification for The Nakano Project (Project # 3396.1) This memorandum presents the results of my identification of five bumble bee specimens shown in photographs sent to me on 25 July 2024 by Kayo Valenti, Associate Biologist, RECON Environmental, Inc. Photos were taken by RECON biologists under an MOU issued to Wendy Loeffler per Scientific Collecting Permit S-182980003-19036-001. I examined each photograph and made an identification following Williams et al. (2014), taking into consideration the date the photo was taken and the approximate location where the bee was seen. All photos were taken of bumble bees actively foraging on flowers at a site in Chula Vista, California (Coordinates: 32.588689, -117.03288). Specimen 1 Image #: RECON3396.1_062124_apf_A4 (of 6 images) image cropped and brightened for detail Date: 21 June 2024 Identification: yellow-faced bumble bee (Bombus vosnesenskii) male. Based on the set of photos provided and the location, this bee is the common yellow-faced bumble bee. Males of this species are distinguished from other bumble bees by having yellow hair on the face and vertex, yellow hair on the scutum (front of thorax), a square cheek (malar space), and mostly black hair on the abdomen except for a yellow strip at the 4th tergal segment (T4) and some yellow hair at the side of T5. 2 Specimen 2 Image # RECON3396.1_062124_kov_A7 (of 9 photos), image cropped for detail Date: 21 June 2024 Identification: yellow-faced bumble bee (Bombus vosnesenskii) male. Based on the set of photos provided and the location, this bee is the common yellow- faced bumble bee. Males of this species are distinguished from other bumble bees by having yellow hair on the face and vertex, yellow hair on the scutum (front of thorax), a square cheek (malar space), and mostly black hair on the abdomen except for a yellow strip at the 4th tergal segment (T4) and some yellow hair at the side of T5. Specimen 3 Image # RECON3396.1_070524_ail_A16 (of 22 photos), image cropped for detail Date: 5 July 2024 Identification: California bumble bee (Bombus fervidus) male. Based on the set of photos provided and the location, this bee is a male California bumble bee. On the west coast, males of this species are distinguished from other bumble bees by having black hair on the face and upper side of the head (sometimes with yellow hairs intermixed), yellow hair on the scutum (front of thorax), a long cheek (malar space), a yellow strip of hair at the 4th and 5th tergal segments (T4 & T5) and black hair at T7. Male color patterns are variable and can have yellow hairs intermixed with black on the abdomen and thorax. 3 Specimen 4 Image # RECON3396.1_070524_ail_B9 (of 24 photos) Date: 5 July 2024 Identification: yellow-faced bumble bee (Bombus vosnesenskii) male. Based on the set of photos provided and the location, this bee is the common yellow- faced bumble bee. Males of this species are distinguished from other bumble bees by having yellow hair on the face and vertex, yellow hair on the scutum (front of thorax), a square cheek (malar space), and mostly black hair on the abdomen except for a yellow strip at the 4th tergal segment (T4) and some yellow hair at the side of T5. Specimen 5 Image # RECON3396.1_070524_ail_C9 (of 17 photos) Date: 5 July 2024 Identification: yellow-faced bumble bee (Bombus vosnesenskii) male. Based on the set of photos provided and the location, this bee is the common yellow- faced bumble bee. Males of this species are distinguished from other bumble bees by having yellow hair on the face and vertex, yellow hair on the scutum (front of thorax), a square cheek (malar space), and mostly black hair on the abdomen except for a yellow strip at the 4th tergal segment (T4) and some yellow hair at the side of T5. 4 Please let me know if you have any questions about any of the information in this document. Sincerely, Jaymee Marty, Ph.D. Ecologist Reference Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S.R. Colla. 2014. The Bumble Bees of North America: An Identification guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.