HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/09/06 Item 19
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 19
Meeting Date 9/6/94
ITEM TITLE: Report on the "Notice of Availability of Draft Loss Permit" and "Draft
Loss Permit" (CS-95-01) for Rancho del Rey SPA III
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Pla~ng <Kft
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~00) (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No_KJ
Last year the Federal Department of the Interior adopted the Special 4( d) rule regulating the
habitat "take" of the California Gnatcatcher. This Special Rule links protection of the bird to
the California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) process. Prior to the
preparation of an overall NCCP plan, the process allows the "take" of up to 5 % of Coastal Sage
Scrub (CSS), which is the habitat for the Gnatcatcher.
Last month the City Council adopted an amendment to the Municipal Code which implements
the Federal Special 4(d) rule at a local level. An application for a Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)
loss permit was subsequently filed for SPA III of Rancho del Rey and a draft "pipeline project"
loss permit has now been issued by the City and has been filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, California Department of Fish and Game and SANDAG. This permit is based in part
by the previous approval of the development plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
City, the dedication of 360 acres of habitat in O'Neal Canyon located south of Otay Valley Road
to The Environmental Trust and the ability to make the necessary findings in the Municipal Code
and in the State Natural Community Conservation Program Guidelines (see attached CSS Loss
Permit - CS-95-0 1 Exhibit 1).
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the loss permit as drafted.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area III (SPA III) project site is located south of East
H Street and north of Telegraph Canyon Road in the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista.
The site is predominantly vegetated with Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS). Approximately
373.8 acres of the total 405-acre site contains DCSS. The site is habitat for California
Gnatcatchers, a Federally-listed threatened species.
The project consists of the residential development, community facilities (including a school),
community park, and open space uses on approximately 405 acres. The plan includes
j'~1
Page 2, Item ) 1
Meeting Date 9/6/94
construction of 1,380 single-family dwellings ranging in density from 3.8 to 11.2 dwelling units
per acre, including 530 specialty housing units to be located just south of East H Street, and
west of the proposed Paseo Ranchero.
The project will directly impact 256 acres of DCSS and have indirect impacts to an additional
117.8 acres of DCSS. To mitigate this impact, the on-site revegetation and long-term
preservation of approximately 117.8 acres of DCSS is proposed, as well as the dedication of a
360 acre off-site mitigation in O'Neal Canyon (see Attachment C to the Loss Permit) to The
Environmental Trust (TET).
Thus, while the 256 acres removed by site grading will be permanently eliminated, the long term
preservation of off-site habitats removes the biologically important O'Neal Canyon area from
the long term jeopardy of development. The placement of this area in permanent open space
provides for the best available assurance of preservation. The loss of fragmented and urbanized
habitat is being replaced with non-urbanized habitat where long-term viability of species is more
probable; therefore, the overall Project effect is beneficial to the coastal California gnatcatcher.
Draft Findings
1. The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit, will not exceed, when considered cumulatively
with all other loss of CSS occurring since March 21, 1993,5% by acreage of the then
existing CSS within the region. The regional CSS loss acreages are as follows:!
San Diego Region initial allowable CSS loss
Cumulative CSS loss since March 21, 1993
Remaining allowable CSS loss
Loss allowed by this permit
Remaining allowable regional CSS loss
11,371.9 ac.
0.8 ac.
11,371.1 ac.
256.0 ac.
11,115.1 ac.
2. The proposed Project is bordered to the north, west, and east by urbanized development
and to the south by agricultural lands that are of low biological value. The habitat being
impacted has been given an NCCP rating of moderate because DCSS is present and
target species occur on the site but the area is not the most dense DCSS in the subregion,
it is not in close proximity to Higher Value Habitats, and it is not part of a critical
corridor. The Project retains areas with an intermediate rating on site, although even
without on-site development, the Project site is already isolated by existing development
and will become further isolated by future development.
The off-site mitigation parcel provides for certainty of a key connection between areas
of high habitat values.
These CSS loss acreages will be reconfirmed with SANDAG prior to the finalization of this loss permit.
/1'';''
Page 3, Item /1
Meeting Date 9/6/94
3. The site is not a crucial habitat link, but is rather at the periphery of already approved
or constructed development. The Core Biological Resource Areas are located well south
of the project along the Otay River Valley. This site is not considered a high priority
preservation area because of the existing development on three sides which result in high
edge effect (Le., intrusion by humans, pets, weedy plant species) and habitat
fragmentation or part of a significant wildlife corridor. For these reasons, the site is not
considered important in the preparation of the City of Chula Vista's open space planning
efforts or NCCP planning efforts.
4. The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit, has been minimized and mitigated in accordance
with Section 4.3 ("Interim Mitigation") of the "Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub
Natural Communities Conservation Planning Process Guidelines," dated 11/5/93, and
thereafter, to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition to the retention of 117.8 acres of CSS in dedicated open space on-site, the
256 acres of impact would be mitigated by the following on- and off-site mitigation
measures:
. On-site restoration of CSS on natural slope areas.
. Management of the on-site open space
. The acquisition and management of 360 acres of the O'Neal Canyon open
space mitigation bank. This parcel would expand existing open space on
and adjacent to Otay Mountain. It is ranked as higher potential value for
long-term conservation by the NCCP because it supports DCSS, is part of
a much larger block of habitat that represents the most dense DCSS in the
subregion, and is part of a significant wildlife corridor.
Loss Permit Process
Section 17 .30.053 of the CSS Loss Permit ordinance states in part:
The Notice of Availability of the Draft Loss Permit and Draft Loss Permit shall
also be placed on the City Council agenda, as a consent agenda item unless the
City Manager directs otherwise, for the soonest regular Council meeting
scheduled to occur after the beginning of the Review Period as the agenda
preparation schedule may permit. The Council shall have the right to express
concerns and give directions to the Director regarding the decision to grant the
Permit, or to add, delete or modify the terms and conditions thereof. Concerns
and directions issued by the Council shall be forwarded to SANDAG and the
Resource Agencies as soon as possible.
The Draft Loss Permit was issued on August 24, 1994, and therefore this is the appropriate
agenda for Council to consider the Loss Permit.
19-J
Page 4, Item /9
Meeting Date 9/6/94
Conclusion
Staff has determined that the habitat loss, as proposed for issuance under the 4(d) Loss Permit,
is consistent with the "interim loss criteria" in the November, 1993 State Natural Community
Conservation Program (NCCP) Conservation Guidelines, and all other requirements of the City's
Interim Loss Ordinance. It should be noted that there is still an unresolved issue with the
Resource Agencies and the County of San Diego regarding the allocation of allowable interim
take to jurisdictions within the San Diego region, as discussed in previous Council Agenda
Statements on this matter (see Attachments C and D). City staff is continuing to work with
these agencies to resolve this issue.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Attachment:
\A.
\ B.
C.
D.
Notice of Proposal to Issue a 4(d) Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Loss Permit for Rancho Del Rey SPA III - Case
No. CS 95-01
Habitat Management Plan
Council Agenda Statement of 617/94 - Report: Implementation of the Endangered Species Act Special Rule 4(d)
for the Interim Habitat Loss Ap 1 Process
Council Agenda Statement 0 4 - Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code to Create a Voluntary Take
Permit Process Sanctio der Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act Alternative to the Process
Permitted Under S (a) of Said Act
~O
(c:\wp51 \nancy\marilyn\McMillin\4dl1lle.al13)
1'1-1 /19-3
~Iq
ATTACHMENT A
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL
/tJ/~r-
August 24, 1994
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL
TO ISSUE A 4(d) COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (CSS)
LOSS PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT FOR RANCHO DEL REY SPA III
CASE NO.: CS 95-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S INTENT TO ISSUE A
4(d) COASTAL SAGE SCRUB LOSS PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. NOTICE OF FURTHER GIVEN OF THE AVAILABILITY
OF THE DRAFT FINDINGS SUPPORTING ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 17.30.053(D) OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE.
Proiect Location:
The Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area III (SPA III) project site is located south of East
H Street and north of Telegraph Canyon Road in the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista
(see attachment A).
Proiect Site Descrintion:
The site is predominantly vegetated with Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS). Approximately
373.8 acres of the total site contains DCSS. The site is habitat for California gnatcatchers, a
Federally-listed threatened species, as well as cactus wren, orangethroat whiptaiI, San Diego
barrel cactus and snake cholla, which are all Federal candidate species and/or State species of
special concern (see attachment B).
Proiect Descrintion:
The project consists of the residential development, community facilities (including a school),
community park, and open space uses on approximately 405 acres. The plan includes
construction of 1,380 single-family dwellings ranging in density from 3.8 to 11.2 dwelling units
per acre, including 530 specialty housing units to be located just south of East H Street, and
west of the proposed Paseo Ranchero.
Imnacts to Coastal Sal!e Scrub lCSS Habitat):
/9-?
4(d) Loss Permit Draft Findings
Rancho Del Rey SPA III
Page 1
The project will directly impact 256 acres of DCSS and have indirect impacts to an additional
117.8 acres of DCSS. Additionally, up to approximately 0.2 acre of vernal pool habitat would
be impacted by the project. The on-site revegatation and long-term preservation of
approximately 117.8 acres of DCSS is proposed as well as the dedication of a 360 acre off-site
mitigation parcel to The Environmental Trust (TET), to mitigate the impacts to CSS habitat and
the California gnatcatcher.
Anticipated Take of the CoastaI California Gnatcatcher:
Imoacts:
The primary impacts to the California gnatcatcher associated with the project pertain to the direct
and indirect effects of grading, construction, traffic, and development of land that is currently
undeveloped. The primary impacts of concern are:
. displacement of gnatcatchers in areas slated for grading and development;
. removal of nesting and foraging habitat;
. noise and lighting impacts from construction and development that might increase
the physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful
reproduction by disrupting breeding, feeding, and sheltering behavior;
. habitat fragmentation which occurs when barriers, such as developments, break
up larger habitat areas (isolated populations are more susceptible to localized
extinction from fIre, disease, parasitism, and predation from animals such as
domestic cats); and
. increased nest parasitism and habitat alteration that are indirectly due to land uses
that attract brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus aJer) and small mammals to
gnatcatcher habitat. (Brown-headed cowbirds are attracted to rural and semi-rural
developments which often contain horse corrals and other such enclosures that
they use for roosting. Cowbirds may be drawn to the development therefore
increasing the risk of nest parasitism on gnatcatcher pairs in the adjacent open
space areas.)
Effect of Anticioated Take on the Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The anticipated loss of the Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat would eliminate the potential for
a portion of the Project site to support the coastal California gnatcatcher (256 acres). The extent
and location of the development would reduce the quality of remaining habitat through
fragmentation and isolation of that habitat. The remaining habitat will be Sllitable for occupation
by gnatcatchers, but this population will be isolated by development.
)9-- 7
4(d) Loss Permit Draft Findings
Rancho Del Rey SPA ill
Page 2
Mitil!:ation to CSS Habitat Imoacts
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Rancho Del Rey SPA m addressed the
impacts of the project to the California gnatcatcher and CSS habitat. Four mitigation alternatives
were identified to mitigate the impact. The preferred mitigation alternative includes a provision
for off-site mitigation through the purchase/dedication and preservation of property that meets
the following criteria:
. It must contain at least 256 acres of CSS habitat which may support less than 10 pairs
of California gnatcatchers and has long term conservation potential;
. It must make a significant contribution to a regional natural open space design benefiting
the coastal California gnatcatcher;
. It must provide multiple species conservation benefits;
. It must have the potential for coastal California gnatcatcher habitat restoration and
enhancement through management action; and,
. It shall provide a critical ecological function for adjacent areas of coastal California
gnatcatcher habitat (e.g. corridor, dispersal area, buffer, etc.); and,
An active coastal California gnatcatcher Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is required for both
the remaining open space on Rancho Del Rey SPA m and the off-site mitigation location. An
HMP has been prepared for this site as well as the off-site mitigation areas by Sweetwater
Environmental Biologists. The HMP is hereby incorporated in this document by referenced.
The United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) , in consultation with the applicant, the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the City of Chula Vista has identified
O'Neal Canyon as the preferred off-site mitigation parcel (see attachment C).
FINDINGS PER SECTION 17.30.054(D) OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL
CODE
The 256 acres removed by site grading will be permanently eliminated; however, the long term
preservation of off-site habitats removes the biologically important O'Neal Canyon area from
the long term jeopardy of development. The placement of this area in permanent open space
provides for the best available assurance of preservation. The loss of fragmented and urbanized
habitat is being replaced with non-urbanized habitat where long-term viability of the species is
more probable; therefore, the overall Project effect is beneficial to the coastal California
gnatcatcher.
The following fmdings have been made based on the information contained in the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Amended Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program
/9~~
4(d) Loss Permit Draft Findings
Rancho Del Rey SPA m
Page 3
(MMRP) for Rancho Del Rey SPA m and the Rancho Del Rey SPA ill Habitat Management
Plan (HMP) prepared by Sweetwater Environmental Biologist and dated August 23, 1994.
Findings:
1. The habitat loss, as proposed for issuance under the 4(d) Loss Permit, is consistent with
the "interim loss criteria" in the November, 1993 State Natural Community Conservation
Program (NCCP) Conservation Guidelines (as specified in items a. through d. below)
and, if a subregional interim take process is established in a form approved by the City
of Chula Vista at the time of the issuance of the Loss Permit, consistent with such
approved subregional interim loss process.
a. The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit as proposed by the Director for issuance,
will not exceed on the date of issuance, when considered cumulatively with all
other loss of CSS occurring since March 21, 1993, exceed 5% by acreage of the
then existing CSS within the region. The regional CSS loss acreages are as
follows: 1
San Diego Region initial allowable CSS loss
Cumulative CSS loss since March 21, 1993
Remaining allowable CSS loss
Loss allowed by this permit
Remaining allowable regional CSS loss
11,371.9 ac.
0.8 ac.
11 ,371.1 ac.
256.0 ac.
11,115.1 ac.
The NCCP Conservation Guidelines have indicated that a 5% loss of CSS is
acceptable within any individual subregion during the preparation of a subregional
NCCP or its equivalent (i.e. MSCP Subarea Plan). The proposed habitat loss
does not cumulatively exceed the 5% guidelines. The loss of 256 acres of CSS
combined with current losses of sage scrub within the San Diego Region do not
exceed 5 % of the existing sage scrub habitat.
b.
The proposed Project is bordered to the north, west, and east by urbanized
development and to the south by agricultural lands that are of low biological
value. The habitat being impacted has been given an NCCP rating of moderate
because DCSS is present and target species occur on the site but the area is not
the most dense DCSS in the Subregion, it is not in close proximity to a Higher
Value District, and it is not part of a critical corridor. The Project retains areas
with an intermediate rating on site, although even without on-site development,
1
These CSS 10s8 acreages will be reconfirmed with SANDAG prior to the
finalization of this loss permit.
)c;-j
4(d) Loss Permit Draft Findings
Rancho Del Rey SPA ill
Page 4
the Project site is already isolated by existing development and will become
further isolated by future development.
The off-site mitigation parcel provides for certainty of a key connection between
areas of high habitat values.
c. The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit as proposed by the Director for issuance,
will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the subregional NCCP.
The site is not a crucial habitat link, but is rather at the periphery of already
approved or constructed development. The Core Biological Resource Areas (see
the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program, 1994 which is still
being fmalized) are located well south of the project along the Otay River Valley.
This site is not considered a high priority preservation area because of the
existing development on three sides which result in high edge effect (i.e.,
intrusion by humans, pets, weedy plant species) and habitat fragmentation or part
of a significant wildlife corridor. For these reasons, the site is not considered
important in the preparation of the City of Chula Vista's open space planning
efforts or NCCP planning efforts.
d. The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit as proposed by the Director for issuance,
has been minimized and mitigated in accordance with Section 4.3 ("Interim
Mitigation") of the "Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Communities
Conservation Planning Process Guidelines, dated 11/5/93, and thereafter, to the
maximum extent practicable.
In addition to the retention of 117.8 acres of CSS in dedicated open space on-site,
the 256 acres of impact would be mitigated by the following on- and off-site
mitigation measures:
. On-site restoration of CSS on natural slope areas.
. Management of the on-site open space
. The acquisition and management of 360 acres of the O'Neal Canyon open
space mitigation bank. This parcel would expand existing open space on
and adjacent to Otay Mountain. It is ranked as higher potential value for
long-term conservation by the NCCP because it supports DCSS, is part of
a much larger block of habitat that represents the densist DCSS in the
Subregion, and is part of a significant wildlife corridor.
An alternatives analysis conducted by the City of Chula Vista as part of the CEQA
review for the EI Rancho Del Rey Sectional Area Plan concluded that the least damaging
practicable alternative was selected. The mitigation measures have been incorporated to
minimize impacts to the extent practicable.
/9/ /t}
4(d) Loss Permit Draft Findings
Rancho Del Rey SPA ill
Page 5
2. The habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery
of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Potiaptila Califomica Califomica).
As is noted in Finding Number One above, the area of habitat loss meets the "interim
loss criteria" in the November 1993 State Natural Community Conservation Program
(NCCP) Conservation Guidelines. Therefore, the project site does not have high habitat
potential for a long-term conservation area. Off-site mitigation through the preservation
of higher value habitat will increase the likelihood of the long-term success of regional
open space planning efforts. Due to these reasons, the proposed habitat loss would not
appreciably reduce the survival or recovery of any listed species, including the
gnatcatcher.
3. The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
The proposed loss of 256 acres of CSS is associated with a FEIR which has been
certified and a project that has already received discretionary approval by the City of
Chula Vista. The project has completed CEQA review and meets alllocal, State, and
Federal requirements.
4. Proposed mitigation is consistent with NCCP Process Guidelines requirements.
The NCCP Process Guidelines identify several options for mitigating impacts to CSS.
These options include acquisition of habitat, dedication of land, management agreements,
restoration, etc. The dedication and long-term preservation of O'Neal Canyon through
a management agreement with The Environmental Trust (TET) is consistent with the
NCCP Process Guidelines.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 17 .30.054(F) of the City of Chula Vista Municipal
Code, the USFWS in consultation with the CDFG, are requested to review the Draft 4(d) Loss
Permit and Draft Findings for consistency with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and submit
comments to the City of Chula Vista Director of Planning within thirty days of the date of this
notice.(September 26, 1994)
Further, in accordance with Section 17.30.054(F) of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code,
the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is requested to verify that the proposed
4(d) Loss Permit does not exceed the maximum permitted habitat loss for the subregion and
notify the Director of Planning for the City of ChuIa Vista, within fifteen days of the date of
notice, of that verification.(September 7, 1994)
;9-//
4(d) Loss Permit Draft Findings
Rancho Del Rey SPA III
Page 6
Comments and/or regarding the Draft 4(d) Loss Permit for Rancho Del Rey SPA III should be
directed to Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator at (619) 691-5101 or to the above
address.
~/Jfi;L
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
RAL/MRFP:mp
Distribution List:
City of Chula Vista Mayor and Councilmembers
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
California Department of Fish & Game
SANDAG
McMillin Communities
(MARlL YNlMCMILLINl4DPERMIT .RDR)
/9 ~ /~
4(d) Loss Permit Draft Findings
Rancho Del Rey SPA III
Page 7
I__--;~
SAN JUAN CAPlSTltAIilO
, .
CAPII,,,..MO..EACM ...
D.UJZ ..,
SAN CLEWEHTI: -
'ALL'.OO.
-
----
W.'U.[R "IIlI"IS
'ACI"'C I[ACH
IIIIIISION IEACM
eCEA" lEACH
'OT.[IItO
IM'U IAL
n:cnr
--
-
--
MEXICO
SITE VICINITY
ATTACHMENT HAil
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) Rancho Del Rev SPA m
Babitat Manal!ement Plan
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: /9-/3
NORTH 1" = 10 miles
.r
<-
~w
is
· i
~
::E
.
].-
.
-,.
- ..~,.
.",0;' ~.'
.~
.
"'-,'
.- ~~::~~..
'",""';
"';~ ~:.:/~ ...
.'~'. ~...~-- -'.
"t. ..,.
~;:,':'"
tp-,
D ..po<t......
Eii!J Opoa s.....
'. _ c-I Califomil Gnalcachcr PIIr Locatil)'
6 c-ICaIif_Ooa__
. San DieIO c.aus WJaI Loc:IIity
ATTACHMENT -8"
r CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
....ocATOR PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) /7~/{ Rancho Del Rev SPA m
Habitat Man8l!ement Plan
SCALE: FILE .NUMBER: 1994 Gnatcatcher and cactus wren locations
NORTH and Droiect imDacts.
\
~
~-.(
~.'
~..-
?"--. . '" ~ :': =, ,..
~,-
=_'-o~~.=.":.~
~
-,
,~
.
'- ' .,----::"-'
~,,~.~t~'-,~:::' ;'
" ~----:
. ..Jl.
5'5 ,I !r
'-
~'
~
~\.
.~
-
..---
.-
--
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
C) APPLICANT: McMILLIN PIlOJECT DESCIlIPTION:
COMMUNITIES BDR SPA m
ADDIlESS: O'NEALCANYON Mitigation Monitoriag Program
ICALE: FILE NUMIEIl: MMP.91-G4, DQ-069r4
NORTH NONE VARIOUS /9 -I
"
ATTACHMENT B
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Ie; ~/ ~
,.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR RANCHO DEL REY
SPA III
August 11, 1994
Revised August 23,1994
Preparedfor:
McMillin Communities
2727 Hoover A venue
National City, California 91950
~o Sweetwater
Environmental
, Biologists,loc. 3838 Camino del Rio North Suite 270. San Diego, CA 92108. (619) 624-2300
19-/1; /tf-/7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.Em
1.0 IN1RODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................. 1
1.2 PLANNING CONlEXT................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Environmentallmpact Report/Environmental Review...................... 2
1.2.2 Resource Agency Discussionsl1992 and 1994 Letters of
Agreement .......................................................................................... 4
1.2.3 Regional Conservation Plans ............................................................. 5
1.2.4 ESA 4(d) Rule and Permit Requirements .......................................... 6
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 8
3.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................. 11
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 13
4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THE PROJECT SITE ............................. 13
4.1.1 Sensitive Habitats............................................................................. 13
4.1.1.1 DCSS ............................................................................. 13
4.1.1.2 Southern Willow Riparian Woodland/Scrub .................14
4.1.1.3 Vernal Pools................................................................... 14
4.1.2 Species of Concern on the Project Site ............................................14
4.1.2.1 Sensitive Animals ..........................................................14
4.1.2.2 Sensitive Plants .............................................................. 17
4.1.3 Regional Context of the Project Site ................................................ 17
4.2 MITIGATION PROPERTY ...................................~....................................... 18
4.2.1 Vegetation Communities on the Mitigation Property ......................18
4.2.2 Species of Concern on the Mitigation Property ............................... 18
4.2.2.1 Coastal California Gnatcatcher ......................................18
4.2.2.2 Other Sensitive Species ..................................................21
4.2.3 Regional Context of the Mitigation Property................................... 21
5.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..............................................................24
5.1 ANTICIPATED TAKE OF THE COASTAL CALIFORNIA
GNA TCA TCHER ..................................................................................... 24
5.2 EFFECT OF ANTICIPATED TAKE ON THE COASTAL CALIFORNIA
GNATCATCHER ..................................................................................... 25
5.3 EFFECT OF DCSS PRESERVATION WITHIN THE MmGATION
PROPERTY ON THE COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER... 26
5.4 NET EFFECT OF PROPOSED PROJECT - 4(D) FINDINGS ..................... 26
Sweetwater EDvironmebtaJ Biologists. lac.
August 23. 1994
HabiuJI Management Pltm/OT Rancho Del R~ SPA III
) :} ~ / ~ Prepa<<d foc Ihe McMilliD Compuy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~
6.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES ............................................................................... 29
6.1 ON SITE HABITAT PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ................29
6.1.1 Preservation ...................................................................................... 29
6.1.2 Management..................................................................................... 29
6.2 OFF-SITE HABITAT ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT................... 31
6.2.1 Acquisition ....................................................................................... 31
6.2.2 Management..................................................................................... 31
6.2.3 Maintenance Activities .................................................................... 32
6.2.4 General Habitat Maintenance Guidelines ........................................ 32
6.2.4.1 Responsible Parties for Implementation ........................ 33
6.2.4.2 Schedule of Maintenance Inspections ............................33
6.2.4.3 Monitoring Plan ............................................................. 33
6.2.4.4 Annual Reports .............................................................. 34
6.3 COMPLETION OF MmGATION ................................................................34
6.3.1 Notification of Completion .............................................................. 34
6.4 CONSTRUCTION IMPACT MINIMIZATION ............................................ 34
7.0 FUNDING FOR THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES ..................... 35
8.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 36
8.1 AVOIDANCE OF IMPACTS ........................................................................ 36
8.2 A VOIDANCE OF HABITAT CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY THE
COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNA TeA TCHER ........................................ 36
8.3 CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER RELOCATION ....................................... 36
8.4 NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................37
9.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................... 38
SwcelWIlCl' EnvironmeDtaJ Biologists,lac.
August 23. 1994
.u.
I <j -JI
Habital ManogemDII Pion for Rtmdw Del Rey SPA 11/
Prcpored for 1he MoMim. Compauy
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is presented in seven sections. with this section
identifying the purpose and scope of the HMP and the planning context
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The HMP establishes a program for the conservation of the coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica) on the 405 acre Rancho del Rey SPA ill Property (Project).
in the City of Chula Vista, California, and culminates discussions with the resource agencies,
local jurisdictions, and the McMillin Company (Applicant). The coastal California gnatcatcher
is Federally-listed as Threatened. The Applicant is seeking approval under Section 4(d) of the
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) to allow for direct impacts to 256.0 acres of Diegan
coastal sage scrub (DCSS), and indirect impacts to an additional II7.8 acres of DCSS
(proposed Action). The Project and associated mitigation plan are consistent with the fmdings
necessary for approval under the 4(d) Rule.
In determining whether to approve the Proposed Action, the City of Chula Vista, the California
Department of Fish and Game (Department), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
will apply the criteria set forth in Section 4(d) of ESA (USFWS 1993). The Section 4(d)
criteria require the City of Chula Vista, the Department, and the Service to make specific
findings based on a habitat management plan prepared by an applicant seeking authorization for
incidental take of the gnatcatcher (see Section 1.3 below).
The Project site is predominantly vegetated with DCSS (373.8 acres). The Federally-listed
Threatened coastal California gnatcatcher occurs on the Project site within this habitat. The
cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), orangethroat whiptail (Cnemidophorus
hyperythrus beldingi), San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), and snake cholla
(Opuntia parryi var. serpentina) are all Federal candidate species and/or State species of special
concern which also appear on the site.
Grading associated with the proposed development of the Project would result in the direct loss
of approximately 256 acres of DCSS habitat, and indirect impacts to the remaining 117.8 acres
of DCSS. Additionally. up to approximately 0.2 acre of vernal pool habitat would be impacted
by the Project. To offset the adverse effects of grading, this HMP proposes long-term
prest<rvation of approximately 117.8 acres of DCSS on the Project site along with construction
Swutwalet Environmental Bjologists,lDC.
Augun 23. 1994
Habitat ManogemmJ Plonfor Rancho D.I Rey SPA JII
-1. Prepued fo< the McMilli. ~y
J1~oU)
impact minimization measures. The HMP also includes dedication of a 360 acre off-site
mitigation parcel to The Environmental Trust (TEn.
The HMP provides: 1) a. description of the biological resources on the Project site; 2) an
analysis of the effect of Project construction on the coastal California gnatcatcher and DCSS
habitat; 3) conservation measures the Applicant will fund and undertake to compensate for
anticipated impacts on the coastal California gnatcatcher; and 4) an analysis of alternatives to
the proposed Project
1. 2 PLANNING CONTEXT
Preparation of this HMP has occurred in the context of:
. the City of Chula Vista environmental review process;
. ongoing discussions with the Department and Service;
. regional habitat conservation planning efforts; and
. Federal and State laws and guidelines regarding wildlife and habitat conservation,
including but nat limited to the ESAs and the Natural Community Conservation
Planning Act
1.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTIENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW
Planning for the Project was initiated in 1988 through the City of Chula Vista's California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process, which was completed with the approval of
the Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (P and D Technologies 1990). As part of this
process, the Applicant worked with the City of Chula Vista, the Department, and the Service to
develop mitigation measures to offset significant impacts to the gnatcatcher. These mitigation
measures were incorporated into the EIR and are outlined below.
. "To reduce impacts to the habitat of the coastal California gnatcatcher, the Applicant
would acquire and preserve an area of DCSS habitat as described in one of the
following options:
Sweetwa1cI' Environmental Biologists. Ioc.
August 23.1994
-2-
IC}-c2/
HobiJat MtmDgemenl Pion faT Ranclw Del Rey SPA 11/
Preporod for the McMilli. CO......y
- Acquire and preserve an off-site area ofDCSS habitat encompassing at least 187
acres which supports at least 17 pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers. or
- Acquire and preserve an off-site area of DCSS habitat encompassing at least 256
acres which supports 10 pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers, or
- If an off-site mitigation area cannot be found, the Applicant would preserve the
70 acres of high quality DCSS habitat in the specialty housing area on site in
addition to the 117 acres of DCSS habitat proposed for open space.
The proposed mitigation site can be outside the City of Chula Vista. First priority
would be given to the acquisition of areas within the General Plan area, and then to
other areas within San Diego County. The preservation and management of this site
would be the responsibility of either a public or private entity that is satisfactory to
the City of Chula Vista (acceptable private entities are - Nature Conservancy, Sierra
Club; acceptable public entities - Bureau of Land Management, California
Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, County of San
Diego, City of Chula Vista). Interim responsibility for preservation of the mitigation
site would remain with the Applicant until an acceptable public or private entity is
secured.
. The proposed mitigation site would be acceptable to the City of Chula Vista. in
consultation with the Service and the Department in evaluating the site. The criteria
for determining the acceptability of the mitigation site would be (I) its use by the
coastal California gnatcatcher, and (2) its long-term conservation potential.
. The mitigation site would be evaluated for use by the coastal California gnatcatcher
through surveys of the site on a minimum of three days at least a week apart. If no
gnatcatchers are heard after the first visit, taped gnatcatcher vocalizations would be
used on a subsequent visit to attract gnatcatchers that were not sighted on the first
visit. A minimum of one hour would be expended for each 25 acres of habitat
surveyed. Surveys would be conducted in the morning between sunrise and 11 :00
a.m. or after 3:00 p.m. Surveys would be conducted when air temperatures are
between 55 and 95 degrees Fahrenheit, and winds are below 15 miles per hour.
Sweetwater EnviroDmenlal Biologists,loc.
August 23. 1994
H~bilal MQlJQgemenl Plan/or Rancho Del ReySPA/1I
-3- I'Rpued for the McMiIli. CompallY
) 9 ~ c2.:2--
. The mitigation site would be within, adjacent to, or connected by an appropriate
landscape corridor to a larger area or interconnected set of patches of habitat that are
currently in public ownership or designated open space or reasonably expected to
remain in a natural state. The gnatcatcher habitat within this block or interconnected
set of patches would be between 800 to 1,000 acres in area. This
mitigation/replacement site can be located outside the City of Chula Vista, if
necessary, but must be within San Diego County.
. No grading or activities which would adversely affect the habitat on the specialty
housing area would occur prior to accomplishing the off.site acquisition. Excluded
are the construction of sewer improvements and the extension of Paseo Ranchero
(which is not included in the 70 acres of quality DCSS habitat).
. The Project Applicant would make an irrevocable offer to dedicate the off.site
acquisition/mitigation site to the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, or other
appropriate open space holder at the time of issuance of the grading permit. If
ownership of the sites does not transfer prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
Applicant would record a conservation easement with an agency of appropriate
jurisdiction over the off.site mitigation area (186 or 256 acres) prior to issuance of
the permit
. Prior to or as a condition of approval of the Tentative Map, the Planning Department
of the City of Chula Vista would ensure that the mitigation program for gnatcatcher
habitat preservation has been implemented."
1.2.2 RESOURCE AGENCY DISCUSSIONS/1992 AND 1994
LETTERS OF AGREEMENT
Subsequent to the completion of the EIR, the Applicant continued discussions with the
Department and Service in order to identify potential off.site mitigation areas that would meet
the criteria outlined in the EIR. After a series of discussions, an informal agreement was made
between the involved parties to implement one of four options as mitigation for impacts to the
gnatcatcher. Three of the four included the fIrst three options outlined in the EIR. A fourth
option was identifIed as follows:
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, IDC.
August 23.1994
Habiuzl ManagemDII Planfor Rancho Del Rey SPA /IJ
-4. Prepu.d for lh. McMiIli. Campey
/9/,2}
"acquire and preserve an off-site area of DCSS habitat acknowledged by the
Service and the City of Chula Vista to equal or exceed the conservation goals"
of options I, 2, and 3 above. Specifically," Acquire and preserve an off-site
area or areas of DCSS habitat which may have fewer than 10 pairs of currently
resident coastal California gnatcatchers, but which meets or exceeds the
conservation value of the options listed above. The area or areas shall contain
not less than 256 acres of natural habitat but may contain more acreage
depending upon the site specific evaluation of habitat values. Implementation of
this option requires that the off-site preservation location and plan be approved
by both the City of Chula Vista and the Service. The criteria for acceptability of
this option includes: 1) the site makes a significant contribution to a regional
natural open space design benefiting the coastal California gnatcatcher; 2) the
site provides multiple species conservation benefits; 3) the site has the potential
for coastal California gnatcatcher habitat restoration and enhancement through
management actions; 4) the site provides a critical ecological function for
adjacent areas of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat (e.g., corridor, dispersal
area, buffer, etc.); and 5) an active coastal California gnatcatcher management
plan shall be prepared and implemented for both remaining open space on SPA
ill and the off-site mitigation location(s). This HMP shall be approved by the
City of Chula Vista and the Service."
Several mitigation sites were identified by the Service that would meet one of these four
mitigation options (USFWS 1992), although none of these were implemented at that time.
Additional discussions resulted in the identification of an off-site parcel in O'Neal Canyon as
the preferred off-site mitigation parcel (USFWS 1994). This is the parcel proposed in this
HMP.
1.2.3 REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS
The Proposed Action is in keeping with local, regional, and State programs. The cumulative
effects of anticipated urbanization within the HMP area and the more extended sub-region and
region are generally taken into consideration as part of City of ChuJa Vista's General Plan and
the accompanying EIR which have been developed over a number of years. In turn, specific
plans implement the General Plan. Accordingly, under California law, the Rancho Del Rey
Sectional Planning Area Plan (P and D Technologies 1990) has been the subject of extensive
cumulative impacts analyses addressing development within this HMP area and beyond. In the
Sweetwater Environmental BiologistS. IDC.
Augwt 23. 1994
-5.
/9~c:2i
H~bitQI MQlUlgemDJI Plan for Rancho Del Rty SPA /ll
Prepared for the McMillin Compauy
last Six years, wildlife resources have become the focus of additional consideration at the sub-
regional, regional, State, and Federal levels. As described in this HMP, programs are
underway on all of these levels to address wildlife resources. These programs include the City
of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) (City of San Diego 1994)
which is still being fmalized, and the Natural Community Conservation. Program (NCCP) for
the sub-region.
With regard to the NCCP, the Deparunent has confmned that the Project is technically exempt
from the NCCP program, but will be completed as an "on-going management plan" and
included in the fmal NCCP plan for the sub-region as a completed component
This HMP was developed in concert with the Draft MSCP program. It is anticipated that this
HMP will become a completed component of the MSCP and NCCP for the sub-region, and the
Proposed Action contemplates that the implementation of this HMP will be coordinated with
these programs. It is anticipated that the Applicant's DCSS conservation plans will be in place
prior to implementation of the MSCP. It also is anticipated that the conservation measures in
the Applicant's plans will be consistent with those in the MSCP. This HMP will achieve
conservation of 477.8 acres (117.8 acres on site and 360 acres off site) without any public
funding. Further, the information provided by the implementation of this HMP as a pilot effort
should be of significant assistance in completing the broader sub-regional and regional
programs. In summary, the Proposed Action is consistent with and will support local,
regional, State, and Federal policies and programs.
1.2.4 ESA 4(D) RULE AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
When a species is listed as threatened or endangered by the Service, the Federal ESA prohibits
any "taking" of that species. "Taking" is defined in the ESA as meaning "to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such
conduct," with "harm" and "harass" further defmed in Federal regulations and case law to
include acts that significantly disrupt or impair a listed species' behavioral patterns. The only
exceptions to the prohibition on take are those specified in the ESA, such as the "incidental
take" provision of Section lO(a), or Section 7 for projects related to a Federal activity or action.
Recently a special rule under Section 4( d) of the Federal ESA was finalized which authorizes
"interim" take of the gnatcatcher in conjunction with a plan which is approved under the
NCCP. This program was initiated under the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
Sweetwater EnviroDDleDtal BiolOSists,lnc.
AuSWI 23. 1994
HabilOl Managemnal Pion/or RtI1ICM Del Rey SPA III
-6-- /' Prepared for the McMillia Compu)'
)9~..2>7 .
of 1991 in an attempt to develop regional open space planning efforts designed to protect native
plants and animals and their habitats in regional preserve systems. The 4(d) Rule would
require the development of a mitigation plan for a project which impacts gnatcatcher habitat A
mitigation plan must meet the following criteria:
(1) "The proposed habitat loss is consistent with the interim loss criteria in the conservation
guidelines and with any subregional process if established by the subregion.
(a) The habitat loss does not cumulatively exceed the five percent guideline.
(b) The habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat
values.
(c) The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the subregional
NCCP.
(d) The habitat loss has been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable in accordance with 4.3.
(2) The habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery
of listed species in the wild.
(3) The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities."
The Project and the associated off-site mitigation parcel meet these criteria. It is intended that
the Project will be consistent with the 4(d) Rule as well as NCCP planning efforts for the
region.
Sweetwater EDvironmeDtaI Biologists. Joc.
August 23. 1994
-7-
/9r.,2?
HabilDI Management Plan for Rancho Del Rey SPA JI/
Propored foe the McMilli. Company
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located approximately eight miles south of the metropolitan area of San Diego
and six miles nonh of the' U.S.-Mexico border in the City of Chula Vista (Figure I). It lies
east of Interstate 805. south of East H Street. and north of Telegraph Canyon Road (Figure 2).
The site is within the Sweetwater Planning Area of the City of Chula Vista and the EI Rancho
del Rey Specific Plan Area
The proposed Project involves the construction of 1.380 single-family dwelling units on
approximately 206 acres. Approximately 48 acres are planned for community facilities (e.g..
access roads, sewer laterals, storm drains). Project grading would include a total of 256 acres
of habitat removal and preservation of the remaining 149 acres as natural open space. Of the
256 acres of DCSS to be impacted approximately 20 acres are proposed for restoration
(RECON 1991).
The O'Neal Canyon mitigation property would be acquired by the Applicant and preserved in
perpetuity. with TET acting as the habitat manager. The O'Neal Canyon parcel contains
approximately 211.7 acres of DCSS. 116.0 acres of chaparral. and 32.3 acres of Tecate
cypress forest
Sweerwatcr EDviroomc:DW Biologists,lnc.
Au_ 23. 1994
.1-
19 ~J/
Habilal ManogemmJ Plan for RtlllCho Del Rey SPA III
Prepared foe the McMillin Compu)'
L:: -..
TRAIUCO OAKS
L TORO SAN .,IUAN ,
. HaT ,~as.
",
14 /
1-_-
SAN "'UAN CAPISTRANO ,
,
CAPI STRANO.IIACH
SAN CLEWENTE
CAitO'"
SOLANA lEACH
WINCHESTER
-
MOUNTAIN
CEHTER
AHZA
D.UJZ
-
---_.
..ARNER :IPRINGS
'.C'''IC IrACH
III'$$ION eEACH
OC[AN lEACH
north
inch eQuals 10 MILES
Date: 8 - 8 -94
-
1M PER I AL
MEXICO
SITE VICINITY
RANCHO DEL REY SPA III HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
VICINITY MAP
@ Sweetwater
Environmental
Biologists. Inc.
Figure
1
JC) /;2~
Date: 8- 8-84
1 inch equals 2000 leet
RANCHO DEL REY SPA III HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
LOCA TlON MAP
@ Sweetwater
Environmental
Biologists. Inc.
/'j-,;L;
Figure 2
3.0 METHODS
A draft biological impact analysis and mitigation plan for the Project was prepared by Regional
Environmental Consultarits, Inc. (RECON) in May 1989 (RECON 1989). Information in this
report updated previous surveys performed on the site, reviewed biological resources present
on the Project, and reviewed the potential for impacts to open space not anticipated in the
original Specific Plan Area EIR and biotechnical report. In February 1990, RECON performed
field surveys and updated the May 1989 report.
Detailed surveys were conducted for the coastal California gnatcatcher for each RECON report.
The surveys were conducted on five different days for a minimum of five hours during the first
two surveys and for a maximum of nine hours during the last three surveys. The site was
searched on foot using existing dirt roads and animal trails on all ridges and in all ravines
present. Sightings and vocalizations were recorded on a topographic map along with an
estimate of the boundaries of the area utilized by the birds.
RECON conducted follow-up surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher and also surveyed
for the cactus wren in October 1991, February 1992, and March 1994. These surveys
included complete coverage of the site on foot. with surveys conducted between seven and 10
days of each other. On each survey the entire site was surveyed on three separate occasions.
These surveys followed Scientific Review Panel (1992) guidelines for surveying for the
gnatcatcher.
The assessment of the status of other sensitive biological resources on the O'Neal Canyon
mitigation site is a compilation of information from surveys performed by Sweetwater
Environmental Biologists. Inc. (SEB) and the Biological Technical Report for the East Otay
Mesa Specific Plan Area, prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services in October
1993 (Ogden 1993).
Surveys to assess gnatcatcher numbers on the mitigation property were conducted by SEB on
February 9 and 10. 1994. Surveys were conducted on foot and a route was chosen which
provided for direct visual observation of the entire site. Binoculars were used by each
participant in the zoological surveys. Taped vocalizations of the coastal California gnatcatcher
were used in areas of appropriate habitat.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologins, Inc.
August 23. 1994
-11-
Hab;1a1 Management Plan for Rancho Del Rty SPA III
fupored for the McMi1li. Compauy
)f-Jo
Nomenclature is consistent with the following sources: flora, Hickman (1993); vegetation.
Holland (1986); amphibians and reptiles. Collins (1990); birds, American Ornithologists'
Union (1986); mammals, Jones, et al. (1982).
Sweetwater EoviroDmeDW Biologists. Joc.
August 23. 1994
.12-
Habilat Managemenl Plan for Rancho Del Rry SPA 1//
Prepared for lb. McMilli. Comp.my
/9~J /
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Topographically the Project site is characterized by gently to steeply sloping hillside terrain and
deep westerly draining canyons. The hills south of the Project site consist of vacant
agricultural land. The hills to the north have been graded for the planned Rancho del Rey
SPA I development. The hills to the east and west consist of residential development. A San
Diego Gas and Electric transmission line and a water tank are located on the Project site. The
biological resources found within the Project and O'Neal Canyon mitigation property are
described in the following subsections.
4. 1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THE PROJECT SITE
The vegetation on the 405.5-acre Project site is predominantly DCSS (373.8 acres). Three
other plant communities occur on the site: patches of southern willow riparian woodland/scrub
(1.1 acres) along the bonom of the canyon south of Rice Canyon; vernal pool habitat (0.2 acre)
on top of a disturbed mesa in the eastern portion of the site; and non-native grassland (30.4
acres) along lower slopes north of Telegraph Canyon Road.
The following is a description of sensitive biological resources found on the Project site. For a
more complete description of vegetation communities and existing biological conditions refer to
the EIR for the El Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area (P and D Technologies 1990).
4.1.1 SENSITIVE HABITATS
Sensitive habitats are those which are considered rare within the region, are considered
sensitive by the City of Chula Vista or the resource agencies, or support sensitive plants or
animals. DCSS, southern willow riparian woodland/scrub, and vernal pools are considered
sensitive.
4.1.1.1
DCSS
DCSS is the preferred habitat of the coastal California gnatcatcher. The DCSS on site is
dominated by coastal sagebrush (Artemisia calif arnica), San Diego sunflower (Viguiera
laciniata), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), and jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis). There are
373.8 acres of DCSS on the Project site.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Joc.
August 23. J 994
HabilDJ Manogemens Pion/or Rancho De/ ReySPA 11/
.13. Prepucd foe the McM;lli. Compuy
/7-JJ.-
4.1.1.2
Southern Willow J{iparian Woodland/Scrub
This habitat is limited to scattered clusters of willows (Salix spp.) and mulefat (Baccharis
salicifolia) along the canyon bottom. Arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis) and black willow (S.
gooddingii) are the dominant species along with mulefat Cat-tail (Typha spp.) and non-native
wild celery (Apium graveolens) are present along the low-flow channel. This riparian habitat is
generally of low to moderate quality, but portions of it constitute a Federally-regulated wetland.
4.1.1.3
Vernal Pools
The site contains two areas of mima mound topography on the top of a disturbed mesa in the
eastern portion of the site which support 0.2 acre of vernal pool habitat.
4. 1.2 SPECIES OF CONCERN ON THE PROJECT SITE
4.1.2.1
Sensitive Animals
Two sensitive animal species associated with DCSS habitat, the coastal California gnatcatcher
and the cactus wren, occur on the Project site. The coastal California gnatcatcher is Federally-
listed as Threatened and is a California Species of Special Concern. The cactus wren is a
Category 2 candidate for federal listing and is also a California Species of Special Concern.
Both species are almost exclusively associated with sage scrub habitat; however, the cactus
wren requires the presence of a cactus component, usually cholla.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher . (California Species of Special Concem/Federally-Listed
Threatened)
Habitat. This species inhabits DCSS vegetation composed of relatively low-growing,
drought deciduous and succulent plant species such as coastal sagebrush, black sage (Salvia
mellifera), white sage (S. apiana), coast encelia (Encelia califomica), flat-top buckwheat
(Eriogonumfasciculatum), and yellow-flowered bush penstemon (Keckiella antirrhinoides).
Status and Distribution. The coastal California gnatcatcher population within California is
currently estimated at approximately 2,000 pairs or less (Atwood 1992). This species is
probably extirpated from Ventura and San Bernardino counties and is continuing to decline in
Los ~geles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties due to the continued loss of sage
Sweetwater Environmental Biolog.ists,lDC.
August 23. 1994
.14-
/9 ~JJ
HabiliJt MQlfQgemen, Plan/or Rancho Del R<y SPA III
Prepared roc the MeM;lli. CompallY
scrub habitats. Approximately 32 pairs are currently. protected within Mission Trails Regional
Park, and a significant number receive at least some degree of protection within Miramar and
Camp Pendleton military installations. Varied levels of protection are anticipated wit1tin areas
included in the Multi-Habitat Conservation Programs (MHCP) for North County; the proposed
San Dieguito River Regional Open Space Park, the MSCP under the City of San Diego's Clean
Water Program; the Open Space Habitat and Management Plan (OSHMP) for the
Loveland/Sweetwater area; and individual site-specific habitat conservation plans throughout
southern California. The species is distributed throughout southern Los Angeles, Orange,
western Riverside, and San Diego counties south into Baja California.
Status On Site - The 1994 surveys located 32-35 pairs of gnatcatchers scattered throughout
the DCSS on site (Figure 3).
No other animal species observed or expected on the site is listed as endangered or threatened
by the Service (USFWS 1991) or the Department (CDFG 1992); however, recent surveys have
resulted in the observation of one Federal Category 2 candidate species: the cactus wren.
Cactus Wren - (California Species of Special Concern/Category 2 candidate for Federal
Listing)
Habitat - Cactus wrens occur in a variety of habitats where cactus dominate. The coastal
population of cactus wrens are restricted to clumps of prickly-pear (Opuntia littoralis and O.
oricola) or coastal cholla (0. prolifera) growing in DCSS or along washes. Because of this
restriction to cactus patches, the coastal population of the cactus wren naturally occurs in smaIl,
isolated populations scattered throughout the coastal lowlands.
Status and Distribution. Much of the former cactus wren habitat has been impacted by
urban or agricultural development in the coastal lowlands, and this bird now occurs in much
smaller and more fragmented populations than it did historically. The largest population of
coastal cactus wrens occurs in Rancho Mission Viejo in Orange County along the slopes above
San Juan Creek. Other significant populations occur in the San Pasqual Valley (near
Escondido), in Lakeside, at the Sweetwater Reservoir, on Rancho Otay, and on Camp
Pendleton, all within San Diego County. As of 1990, the estimated number of cactus wren in
San Diego County is 200 pairs (Rea and Weaver, 1990).
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. IDe.
August 23. 1994
-IS-
/9~ 31
HabilDl Manage"..", Plan for R"""bo D.t R<y SPA 11/
Prepared toc the MeMilliD Company
@
tlllTlCl:l
-,'" '"
0<<:
5" ....,"
l/Q"""
<;;,g ~
!;;3el
. ""
-",""
~g,
"-
'-S:l
~
~\
i1
cO'
c:
..,
ll>
...
0 W
'"
~ c
n
CII !I!
I :u
CII
I m
.. Q
...
0
Z
)>
r-
m
z
<
:u
o
z
l::
m
z
....
)>
r-
()
o
z
U>
c:
r-
....
)>
Z
....
U>
....
I
-
CII
I
..
...
....
U)
U)
./>0.
G')
Z
)>
....,
0
)>
....,
0 ,.
I
m
:0
)> :0
Z )>
0 Z
0 0
)> I
0 0
...., 0
c m
C/J r-
::E :0
:0 m
m -<
Z
C/J
r- "tl
0 )>
,...
"
)>
....,
CA)
o
z
C/J
)>
Z
o
"tl
:0
o
c...
m
o
....,
I
)>
aJ
-
....,
)>
....,
~
)>
Z
)>
G')
m
~
m
z
....,
~
"tl
)>
o
....,
C/J
"tl
r-
)>
Z
lD
lD
!> .
(')
o
~
[
(')
'"
-
t:O;
o
3
j>>'
Cl
'"
'"
n
'"
-
n
:r
"
""
~
'"
-
I..,.,. 0
't8{:
........-................'..
.~~~::~!f
(')
o
~
[
(')
eo.
a;
2,
'"
Cl
'"
'"
-
n
'"
n
:r
~
...,
~.
b
n
'"
-
~.
.
CI:l
~
o
ii'
l/Q
o
(')
'"
n
-
c:
'"
,.
~
"
'"
CI:l
't:l
'"
n
"
...
-
3
't:l
'"
n
-
~
'"
'"
cl
,," ")",;..'
~. X!-:;{~;.-..
n~:~
\ '
. \,\J,.10..1
il::~~:"~\,' '.": i
"~., \',
.. ,
\
";J-;';~ '1
,., ,
\.:,'.<--i
.';.~i; .::' . /'}~' -'
'A .>~." oJ, I
.il ~. .:;., ,~ '. " .
,~~_;~.:~ ::J~lff,. ~\'~~
.' . '~V:."
,
If. , :
" '
,
,
, ,
, ,
,.
.'
,- ..
.,'
,.
.,
. ' ~
"
. ~.'
,.
',.j""'"
'\':
-.It
"~
;"\'.
".1;: I
. \ <~
" '\'"
,.,' (~
. ,:......~'cl~;.;_A~/
,I
.
!-,
"".\
~r"t,...<'~ "
e:Hi. t;
+"~. . r'te '1;,~....,(t~)~I.:~'" . '..
'f",
.,'j,
,.,'."
;~'~~~~:"
'(j
" ,. "
.'
I
~.:
,
'>
I. ,;.,
I,
"j,
,.
."
",
"
','.
:~.""
"
"
..
r....
'.
f : ,', ~
,
r
),
,
"
'1.
" ',..,i.,.,~;:r' ..'..
" :'~;l:.?:~~j.: . <::::.-:->
,,:.t.;' ~r.~<:.; . '
"'~'" IG ;,
'.". ~, ....
,'J,
,
,
"
.'
'.... I'
",i,'
"
.
,%~~;/,:;,;;,;~
"".;
...
-
.' ~_A~.
-" .....
,.
I,
i
./\
"'/i': "
..or
, ~ t
,-; i" ,
":'
. "
.,. \
',.,.
'j:'
,
j!
r
~ '~
. '111
. " ;l~
. lj(
'1
r
. " I,
!
':>'1 .I; ,
, , I
.. ,,'
" ,
f
"
r;:':;
\'.
I
. '
.:,
,'.Il
-I
t.~,
\\,
,.
,.
~~ 'X
. ,~
,'+;
.
~:~
-.'1
..'
~~rt,
" i \ ~
';1
,
,.
, .,:,
Status On Site - Cactus wrens were observed scattered throughout the cactus dominated
portions of the DCSS on the site. A total of seven to eight localities were observed during the
1994 surveys.
The San Diego homed lizard and the orangethroat whiptail have strong potential for occurrence
on the site. The orangethroat whiptail has been observed in the past; however, the occurrence
of this animal on the Project site has not been verified during recent surveys. Both the whiptail
and the homed lizard are Category 2 candidates for Federal listing and are California Species of
Special Concern.
4.1.2.2
Sensitive Plants
Two plants listed as sensitive by the California Native Plant Society (Skinner and Pavlik 1994)
and as Category 2 candidates for Federal listing by the Service were observed: San Diego
barrel cactus and snake cholla. Three plants listed as sensitive only by the CNPS were also
observed: golden-spined cereus (Bergerocactus emoryi), ashy-spike moss (Selaginella
cinerascens), and San Diego sunflower (Viguiera laciniata).
Individuals of San Diego barrel cactus were observed on one south-facing slope in the southern
portion of the Project site. Snake cholla was observed on north- and south-facing slopes of the
canyon in the northern portion of the Project site. The main population occurred over
approximately 12.5 acres on site and 6.2 acres off site but adjacent to the on-site population.
An individual clump of golden-spined cereus was observed in the extreme northwestern
portion of the Project site. Ashy-spike moss was observed within openings in the DCSS
throughout the site, and populations of the San Diego sunflower were observed throughout the
DCSS.
4.1.3 REGIONAL CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT SITE
DCSS habitat on the Project site is ranked as high and moderate on the Habitat Evaluation
Model mapping prepared for the Draft MSCP (City of San Diego 1993). This on-site habitat is
primarily connected to larger areas of residential/commercial development and agriculture.
Undeveloped areas in the surrounding vicinity are mostly isolated pockets of DCSS with a
moderate habitat rating.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Ioc.
AUgusI23,1994
-17.
Habitat ManagemDll Pion for RanclwDeI Rry SPA 1/1
Prepared for the McMilli. Compuy
/9, J ~7
The. Project site does not appear to provide any crucial link between areas of high quality
gnatcatcher habitat The preservation of the majority of the habitat on site (on-site preservation
alternative) would not significantly reduce the potential for habitat fragmentation and isolation
of gnatcatcher populations in the area.
4.2 MITIGA TION PROPERTY
The 360 acre O'Neal Canyon mitigation property is located to the east of the State Prison at
Otay. south of the County Jail and Lower Otay Lake. and adjacent to the Otay Mountain Truck
Trail (Figure 4). This large expanse of undeveloped land lies between Otay Ranch open space
to the northwest and Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ownership to the southeast.
Adjacent BLM open space and wilderness study areas form a network of intersecting drainages
and ridgelines. The area supports a wide array of flora and fauna with primarily high and very
high quality habitat value ratings (City of San Diego 1993).
4.2.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ON THE MITIGATION
PROPERTY
The off-site O'Neal Canyon Property includes approximately 211.7 acres of DCSS, 116.0
acres of southern mixed chaparral, and 32.3 acres of Tecate cypress forest (Figure 5). Both
DCSS and tecate cypress forest are considered sensitive habitat types.
The DCSS on this site is dominated by California sagebrush, flat-topped buckwheat. laurel
sumac (Malosma laurina) and white sage. Portions of the DCSS on site appear to have been
burned and/or grazed, and have not fully recovered. The southern mixed chaparral on site
contains some of the DCSS species but is dominated or co-dominated by chamise (Adenosroma
fasciculatum) and other chaparral species. Tecate cypress forest consists of relatively
monotypic stands of tecate cypress (Cupressus forbesii).
4.2.2 SPECmS OF CONCERN ON THE MITIGATION PROPERTY
4.2.2.1
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Based on Ogden's 1993 results, the mitigation site supports 10 pairs of coastal California
gnatcatchers (Figure 6). This is could be an overestimate. however. as these surveys were
conducted in October when juveniles produced during the 1993 breeding season could be
confused with adult pairs. Based on the topography, distance from the coast. and habitat
Sweetwaler EnvirolU'lleDtal Biolosists.loc.
August 23. 1994
.18.
/9 ~J?
H.bilat MC11IQgemem Pu..Jor Rando Del Rey SPA ll/
Prepared for the McMillin Comp&llY
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~_.~_ --s-' ~~r~ ';jIJ~;PJ'~ '!.
-.~\
~
Ii; 1'1 I]
l.ow Util\1ellJ)JIHJ
.'
.. Mo~<ril1.
,Agii~:llllllrla
~~jjjlh ! i .oistmbed
.\IlI \I,,,y 11i9h
, ....... jJl.
,.l." 7"--)~"--"'"
,", ".:L____ ~ '\. ;"-1
,
,
,-~-~:-......
.',
,~,
,/ ~....,
;::<-_~I.
I "
,/
.. ;-----1.
I~_.-..
J.;1i ,-
I' ,<I
/. !
/' :.
-:/ :'
.. . i '\:f~:~f~i~l._..
.':;,_:~ ,),.;":~i;!~; ,':" " ~
,-,.:-;",,""',:-';"',.i'>'"
,;,!',;'/,:>~;r::;:'-'
-:i',,:'.....". ..
""-:':"-"-'-!
,
j..'- ..
I
( ..~ .' ,"
"L'"." " ..
. "~,:,,,":.: ; ,';' ... .
........-..--1
. ,
. ,
.
,
,
~ 0-.-..--
, ".,'" I
..It~~:7_._.~j_.>>....
"~
'I inch__~_9..u,-a,l~ 6!iOO feet
Source: Multiple Species Conservation Program
Mexico
Date: 8 - 8 - 9 4
RANCHO DEL REY SPA III HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
OFF-SITE MITIGATION PARCEL-O'NEAL CANYON
@ Sweetwater
I EnvironmenlJll
Biologists, Inc.
/c;/Jrr
Figure 4
i ' ! Iii
..
.
___ilL/it..
, I
,I
-----:--..-{- --
S,S~- _"I
I . 'I' ,
\, '
'I i i'l;
'I I, 'I .'
I ') '/
: -css:"
.IJ ..~
,,'css-o<":
, "
C5S-0 ,:'
"6 .
'. I
I :
I j ( ...
---~ ',--
. . "\!':'" '
'. ';' '1'" " 5ICd.---
SICFi It ,\ ..... ct-',
" / , " ';)lS<.,.. CSS~~', '
,,/ --:05S-11
~D
/ '
~,..,'~"
, ..
-~-_.-.. >. '
."--:' - 10
~ r
i.!
. '/\
"", _h'
~~SJ.ci:~_ '
ess
~
. , ~.) i .' ~
.,' if
~..w:.
..~
. j f
. . i.
'-'~'- \ I
;
---'.....
i-' f I. I
'J [( \ '
.' , ,
"
.. '~"
t
I
I
-- ---.
h .,'~.
. ~- -" ,
'-.~ ~'."
. : i"'(i:C! .. <::':.' :
tSS-[)
-", ,
,
Source: 0 G 0 ENE N V I RON MEN TAL AND ENE R G Y S E R V ICE S . 1 9 9 3
Date: 8 - 8 - 9 4
@ Sweetwater
Environmental
Biologists. Inc,
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
CJ!ASTAl SAGE SCRUB
CSS Dlegan Coastal Sage Scrub (1,696.1)
CSS-R Rhus Integrllolla-domlnated
Coastal Sage Scrub (3.8)
CSS-D Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub (457.4)
CHAPARRAL
CHP-C
CHP-S
CHP-D
Chamlse Chaparral (235.4)
Southern Mixed Chaparral (136.5)
Disturbed Chaparral (15.5)
GRASSLAND
SG SlIpa Grassland (31.41
NNG Nonnative Grassland 416.0)
CONIFEROUS FOREST
SICF Southern Inte~or Cypress Forest (76.9)
WETtANDS
SWS Southern Willow Scrub (1.3)
MFS Mulelat Scrub (1.1)
TS Tamarisk Scrub (3.61
fW Freshwater Marsh (~.9)
VP Yernal Pool (1.3)
OW Disturbed Weiland (1.6)
HIGHLY-AlTERED HABITATS
fW Eucalyptus Woodland (3.8) .
ET Exotic Trees (0.3)
~ AG Ag~cunure (1.748.0)
D!S Disturbed Habitat (159.7)
DEV Developed land (189.1)
ADDITIONAL WAT~RS OF THE U.S.' AND OTIIER FEATURES
OW Open Water (2.6)
RES Reservoir (14.7)
OF Disturbed Floodplain (6.2)
JH Unvegetated Waters of the U.S.' (5.2)
RO Rock Outcrop/Bedrock (19.0)
.
,
Yernal Pool (Also See Yernal Pool Habnat map)
"*: krNOl" ~ ... .. ............
~
1 inch equals 800 feel
RANCHO DEL REV SPA "' HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
ICj - 3 <;
VEGETATION MAP
Figure 5
I
quality a long-tenn carrying capacity of 10 pairs is net an unreasonable estimate for the site, but
SEB biologists could not confmn these results.
4.2.2.2 Other Sensitive Species
The coastal California gnatcatcher is the most significant biological resource that would be
impacted by the Project, and gnatcatchers were the focus of biological surveys of the mitigation
property. The most significant attribute of the O'Neal Canyon mitigation site is its multispecies
value.
Sensitive vertebrate species known to occur on the mitigation site include the gnatcatcher,
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), and the Bell's
sage sparrow (Amphispiza bellii bellii). Both are Federal Category 2 candidate species and
California Species of Special Concern.
Sensitive animal species with the potential to occur in the O'Neal Canyon preserve area include
orangetbroat whiptail, coastal rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata roseofusca), San Diego horned
lizard, California mastiff bat (EUlrwps perotis califomicus), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), and
Dulzura California pocket mouse (Chaetodipus califomicusfemoralis). The horned lizard and
orangethroat whiptail occur near the site and would be expected to occupy it. The site also
provides a prey base for nearby foraging raptor species such as the black-shouldered kite
(Elan us caeruleus majusculus), Cooper' hawk (Accipiter cooperii), northern harrier (Circus
cyaneus hudsonius) and sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus velox), as well as large
mammals such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and mountain lion (Felis concolor).
Sensitive plants found on the mitigation site include the tecate cypress, San Diego goldenstars
(Muilla clevelandii), coast barrel cactus, and Otay manzanita (Arctostaphylos otayensis). All of
these plants are Federal Category 2 candidate species.
4.2.3 . REGIONAL CONTEXT OF THE MITIGATION PROPERTY
The O'Neal Canyon habitat is ranked as very high and moderate on the habitat evaluation
mapping prepared for the MSCP and is situated within a much larger block of native habitat
ranked primarily very high by the MSCP (City of San Diego 1993). Additionally, the O'Neal
Canyon parcel is included within the proposed preserve boundaries for all four of the MSCP
draft preserve alternatives (City of San Diego 1994).
Swcelwater Environmental Biologists.IDC.
August 23. 1994
.21-
Hab#QI ManagelMlIl Plan/or Rancho Del Rey SPA J/I
Prepared fur the McMillin Company
/9- t/ t:J
~ _ f. :'i/\ i I
'---fr-- r : -;-;"t-~-r...47' ..~.~
" ',I \'.' ,'., " \ .:~.,',,: ',-;; ,~'....II'.
J L g).... '.j - -' . . . .......... .
. (' I '-:"'". f:-:--"""71 ::-.':;:::: 1,,.::"';::-:'. :=
\ I / S .- .... :' ,._.__
\.' 1..-___....__t.L~' -.' '.
-../ f,'! I\\'{\I . ,'<,: (r\.-~"
", '.' II, I i Ii' I I \
J Ifl,1j!It.:L......:..1=-' ,'~: \ . IL:..:.....:~ .. ...~
,., ['" '~ 1 ,\,.-. "'"\'''''
., i 'I/'!<""'< ~'. "/If .::.tiJ\{'(\(\\' .~_ ..., "f/'I\'o~~' '\~. ',':?:::---':.%.:;~\~
. " ~ ' ' \ .r, .'" 'I " . .' . 'I J . ?. .",,,, -::..; :-,=""
,'. ",11 \ ~'-', '.' '", '_-'---~"--::s:::,~,.
:'. " . ,,~~< " I - - , {' , . '. ::--. -~ OJ
'," ", "'H4-"11 I ,.... '-,--, ,,- ,'. - ",' ~"0_._.r~~",".i1
~ .. '. '. F'(xi .....f.,al' I \' <,.,::---:-::...;:';'\ J(/~f'(~:: :::.::-: _"'::-::.7.::;';::':,:::
IF ". V V ~.. ~F........ -::ik r~~"""::~':':- " ..1' (I ( '_::::::-:'::: '. _,.:::--,. .~ ,'," ~
J' ,J~'l:OO: .,'y,.I,.. 7'tlO'~..1 . .' r -: --, ... :::::~'-'--I /,' ,', '-". --~""\,\,,, "" '.',
" "':-" .,----,-"'-, -~.\ CI, "''':''-'' C'" --".., -'\'.\\'_.:v-~
~ ':.~,::::.::::., r'/"r-..-a_.,~.::... '~.' ~ -","\';'~., :->"0, .~:'~~~01-:-f;
F "". , \. ..---'" I~' -'" -- '" -' ~ ,,- rN" - - 1 I ' ' "~" "
..~#f ..~. __~~:;-;'~ _~!...t,:::-=-=-'::':'''':'j::". -r::' _l.."'::Jl ":':~-A ",~.....:.:,,}
(;w , ':':'" ,'-;-- _\'__"II'~_'~,\f/Y.-. .-:~~':""'::"-:--... "V- -T\\\, .',
Iv vt:'(XJ' ....:', -'" ..~. //""",,,-::,,,,,'f('.. ~",....,\.::;;.---~j:,;f~'\ ') 'r) ,,',
t Pal"" . "'-'=~:"::~~-~', V !f/';~'/.:::~~~',"'f.i~J;,:,';:\i:~:~':"I' ,:,Ij!'/ ,s...~\~,
. ~':JV.":I'''l.'.I' '''':,:~' .... ~.. .:--..' '. ,','I.':::'::"j, - ":' ~:{!!I" ,;-"~~.....:::.-<,,';::C:,,, IJ' I /.] ..'
- '.~... . 1",1 ~ .-... ' .' ,-... ,\ '41/'1 .... -~.,... '''' '.. I ( , ..
-....-:.:.-.: !IJ_~\\;';(i ',' ...-..'-.,'~' .,:/;-:: "'\\\Il"!I.'r-::':~'~-':'~'::)"'::;::':::-' ,'\\\''''"'- ...
. ~'_..... - _._~\t, 11"1" 'j I" ! . . ~ ,""..... . \ I .___ -.:......,,' '~\r"'"",--""" ~ "'_
" .",,:. 1'.\lll" "'. '.' , "f;""- ...." III J-::'-:-~"':~,"~','.r-........; ,\ \ '.,::-.;::-"
, . ,..... ./1'", \ t I -.. '~~~"'.r-'~' "~-
. f. \ W. ',\ --~iflJ':'::~",.,- \'J'''f:!r~-''''::''''''''~;::\.''''''<'~'''-''''''''t\\\'l~~'', ...
.-.... II' ,,{ '\' '.' ,. lOt ..:::;:'} 'J'f/~ '-, -'..-, ,"'vril . !/~:-"','~-;.J"':::' \')\ I,'::"'" ~:"",\\
I , ' , . II JrL -. ',\.:.~ (f .......\/......p-'~ ,..qJ! :fif . ': ~ ".\~-:,"--:, :' ;\\'.....=:.".:" ~:::-_~ \'~
"'"' I I '.- I '",' -.. . .,' I .. '~""'-'- _....~, I' ._.;::--_ __ \.
,,,,,,,. ,'80 f .' .,- ,/-...,.'._.... ~J.. ; ..:-~'~';:.:. -.;:-, '. ,/-_-..:,o
.:..,_.,--....-'--'i.:-v, .;,~~ff.r ;'-'. ::::.~~,.:',-;;~:'.,':.~' It I ( ::..:~'~~~.l':;\' \;;;::\\\ .'';' _:.
I I . '.' . :'1/' I SO; i'i~',; ('\1 -: .~~::~-,;~-:-::::-:" :,-~ :J I / ( ':::.~'") \' d,,!1l ';i'.;:~~,\\:\~~~~/~ '
',I I -." " 10. \,1. (,', \ '.\'y'..... '.,\ \,\Il' Il.."".:::::::.=r-T: -, ',:-:- 'i.. ( :rI\I!t.:...:S-1 '''--;:''~Y, ~~:{fF- .
____.r . ..... '_~ ~ . (\ ._."'':::''''.... .~ ~."\\ .. '. \'" ~/;'-:::::::::.
, \ I' ,t. .. --:.~ \, I :::::- ......\....._. ,"\" \\ <rv:"---.
-f-""" ......, _~. f . '......., , v. . , \ "/' r",_. .
1.'-1' Ffi! '--10 "V~V:"'v'ff!\\'\' " ','," II &..1-' ~" :l':;~/"-:';" \'.'>7,/.-::.",
L._ :. "'10 .... 'V'1Il ,""..'-.'. .. . ~-":"'.r\ '-::-:_\
" I' '.'j /f (. ~If' ,(;\7..... , ". ", I _', ._, ',' ,_. /"',
~. I',~"' i~ I, '_'- , \ i ;;11\\>',:<:::' iJ,~~~'d-!:~~:;I)~"'(i~~1ui~.
'. '-." I ,'. 1......:-:-,.;~ /_-::...........f:-:. ::::-..., f.
' , .: . .".U...~......rBo...I--:' ;:-~.\ ~::::-'" :';-.:-":::~..., " _ -, '\' 'I
' !ll .....- f I'! 1\ '-_.: >11\'\'\\' '---..--:::. _;<'.~~:::::~: :,~':::.:::.:-.?~,,,.:---. ):'?
J I \... ~\\\\ '_ _...., ._.r........ __. ""_...",- ......
. '., ~-- ~., 'r { ... .-~- =-:. - . .!ti1\\\,.~,:::'::::::::;-:'.. ts ::'~:~:--:'~:~?::::~~-":'~~~~'~\~uE:::;
I '. - '... -- rT\\\\' "..,"'=.:::;,;:.- '-"'-:'-~--;-//~ ,:,_'';'' "~""lil ',_
...-\F . ."'..-.- -. .....- ".\1 \ .........'.:::-.-;--~.... ..:--=-.....,.:~""_ -'/-_-<;:":':':::=;Prild '<~.J1I11:-
_.,11 I . '", '1' . fl' '::-.:.:._-.::-}\\\ y .,<,:::/;,~:, ':':'~-;;~";{~~'..:-;~=.! J"-;:'-:'f.:"rn".
-t"l \ F. 'I"; ..:':,~ii~':'\~;'~~~~um~/I/);;'(''('('(((I!..~~;:~S(f;~(i<(I'
- I I I, I.. . .._' "_ ~-_.., III, ((( t ". '::'::'::--=';:"'::;:'-:'~;;iiilh,IIl[\
SENSITIVE SPECIES
IWilS
AD Otay Manzanita (Arctostaphylos olayensls)
AP San OIego Sagewort fArtemlsla palmeri)
B Orcutt's Brodiaea (Brodlaea orcuttll)
BE Golden-spfned Cereus (Bergerocactus emoryf)
CD Dunn's Martposa Lily (Calochortus dunnll)
CF Tecate Cypress (Cupressus forbesll)
o Western Dichondra ~Dlchondra occldentalls)
DV Vartegated Dudleya Dudleya varlegatal
EA San OIego BuUon-ce ery (Erynglum ar stulatum var. pa,1shli)
EP Palmer's Erlcamerta (Erlcamerta palmert ssp, palmeri)
r San Diego Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus vlrldescens)
H Otay Tarplant (Hemlzonla con)ugensl
HA Palmer's Grappllnghook (Harpagonel a palmert)
I S2n Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayeslana)
J Spiny Rusn (Juncus acutus var, sphaerocarptls)
L Gander's Pitcher Sage (Lepechlnla ganderl)
M San Dlegc Goldenstar (Mullla c1evelandll)
NF Prostrate Navarrella (Navarrelia lossalls)
PG Greene's .Ground-cherry (Physalis greenel)
PN Otay Mesa Mint IPogogyne nudluscula)
R Coulter's MaUllla Poppy (Romneya coulterl)
S Mesa Clubmoss fSelagln611a clnerascens)
SO San Diego County Needlegrass (SlIpa dlegoensls)
SM Munts Sage (Salvia munzil)
V San Diego County Vlgulera (VIgulera laclnlala)
ANiMAl S
BK Black-shouldered Kite (Elanus casruleus maJusculus)
BO Burrowing Owl (Speleotyto cunlcularta hypugaea)
CB Coastal Rosy Boa fLlchanura trlvlrgata roseolusca)
CG Call1ornla Gnatcatcher (Polloptlla call1ornlca calilornlca)
CH Cooper's Hawk (Acclplter coopertl)
. GE Golden Eagle (AqUila chrysaetos canadensis)
GS Two-striped Garter Snake (Thamnophls hammpndll)
GW Great-horned Owl (roost) (Bubo vlrglnlanus)
IlL San Diego Homed Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blalnvlllel)
LS Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovlclanus) .
NH Northern Harrter (Circus cyaneus hudsonlus)
OW Orange.throated Whlplail (Cnemldophorus hyperylhrus beldlngl)
RH R~d-talled Hawk (nest) fButeo jamalcensls)
RS Southern California Rulous-crowned Sparrow
(A1mophlla rurlCeps canescens)
SH Sharp.shlnned Hawk lAcclpler strtatus velox)
SS Bell's Sage Sparrow Amphlsplza belli belli)
Upper case teneri denote survey Inlormltlon Ilkln In 1981.
Low" cas. IInl.. denoll IUlYe, In'ol1l\lllon from hltlor1cal record..
'** lIrvt kIIIl """'........... PGfnonL,."...............""'" _....11I.......
=.:. -:'.... ~ ~~: .=.= ...... """""*' .. .... ...,., ..
Source: OODEN ENVIRONMENYAL AND ENEROY SERVICES, 1883
Date: 8-8-8~
~
1 Inch equele 800 'eel
RANCHO DEL REV SPA III HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
@ Sweetwater
Environmental
Biologists, Inc,
)c;-- Y;
SENSITIVE RESOURCES MAP
Figure 6
I
Regardless of the number of gnatcatcher pairs actually breeding on site during a specific year, it
is apparent that O'Neal Canyon provides a cruciailink between gnatcatcher habitat on the East
Otay Mesa and the Otay Valley/Otay Lakes areas. The preservation of a large network of
DCSS dominated ridge lines and drainages provides an important refuge for the gnatcatcher
population in anticipation of surrounding development. The preservation of such a large
canyon adjacent to public lands should reduce the potential for habitat fragmentation and the
isolation of remaining gnatcatcher populations.
O'Neal canyon also provides a major link between the San Ysidro Mountains and the Otay
River Valley for a number of large mammals. O'Neal Canyon provides cover, year round
water, and enough undisturbed habitat for movement and breeding of most species. Tracking
studies conducted by Ogden in 1992 show use of the area by mule deer, bobcat (Lynx rufus),
and mountain lion.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Inc.
August 23. 1994
Habikll Manogement Plan for RancltoDel Rey SPA III
/ '9" -' ?I' ;L Prepored fo< th. McMillin Compauy
5.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The following analysis provides an assessment of the net effect of the proposed Project and
mitigation measures on the coastal California gnatcatcher. The assessment of impacts assumes
the dedication of the mitigation property as permanent natural open space, and adherence to all
conservation measures and mitigation commitments outlined in Section 6 of this HMP.
5.1 ANTICIPATED TAKE OF THE COASTAL CALIFORNIA
GNATCATCHER
The agreement with the City of Chula Vista, the Service. and the Department would cover the
direct and indirect effects of grading, construction, traffic, and developed land on the coastal
California gnatcatcher. The primary impacts of concern are:
. displacement of gnatcatchers in areas slated for grading and development;
. removal of nesting and foraging habitat;
. noise and lighting impacts from construction and development that might increase the
physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful reproduction
by disrupting breeding, feeding, and sheltering behavior;
. habitat fragmentation which occurs when barriers, such as developments, break up
larger habitat areas (isolated populations are more susceptible to localized extinction
from rue, disease, parasitism, and predation from animals such as domestic cats);
and
. increased nest parasitism and habitat alteration that are indirectly due to land uses that
attract brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) and small mammals to gnatcatcher
habitat (Brown-headed cowbirds are attracted to rural and semi-rural developments
which often contain horse corrals and other such enclosures that they use for
roosting. Cowbirds may be drawn to the development therefore increasing the risk
of nest parasitism on gnatcatcher pairs in the adjacent open space areas.)
The effects of direct development of gnatcatcher habitat are fairly obvious: habitat is removed
and can no longer support the threatened species. Other, indirect effects are less easily
Sweetwater EDvironmeDI.al Biologists,Inc.
August 23.1994
Habitat Mana~ment PlDnfOT Roncho Del Rtry SPA III
.24- . Prepared foc the McMillin ComparlY
/1~YJ
assessed or quantified. For example, artificial lighting near interfaces between development
and wildlife habitat can affect wildlife in different ways. Artificially lighted areas are generally
avoided by nocturnal animals because the lighting increases their vulnerability to predation.
Lighted areas have more limited diversity because of this effect Species such as domestic cats
and other pets invade open space near lighted edges of residential communities, predating on
the native species, spreading diseases, and to some extent competing with native species for
food. Human intrusion also increases around these edges, which often results in illegal trash
dumping, landscaped plant invasion, trampling of plants, and removal of wildflowers.
Heightened noise levels are often caused .by heavy equipment operation during construction. It
has been theoretically proposed that noise levels above 60 dBa Leq may significantly alter the
ability of passerine species to interact with other members of their species, as well as
potentially increase predation (SANDAG 1990). Grading would likely exceed this threshold
on the site. Noise impacts following construction are not likely to significantly affect the
gnatcatcher, given the types of land uses proposed.
Consequently, for purposes of this HMP, all five of the impacts of concern are treated as take.
In addition, the Federal definition of harm has been used to identify unacceptable levels of
habitat impacts. This means that the take for which authorization is being sought may include
habitat modification that would significantly impair the essential behavioral patterns of a
gnatcatcher.
For the purposes of this HMP, take is further defined as the permanent removal of any portion
of a coastal California gnatcatcher territory through development of DCSS habitat. Direct
impacts from the removal of DCSS would significantly affect approximately two-thirds of the
population of coastal California gnatcatchers on the site (approximately 20 birds). The
fragmentation of habitat would be detrimental to the birds and limit the long-term carrying
capacity and viability of the habitat Based on 10 acre territories, it is estimated that the amount
of undisturbed DCSS remaining would only support about II pairs.
5.2 EFFECT OF ANTICIPATED TAKE ON THE COASTAL CALIFORNIA
GNATCATCHER
The anticipated take would eliminate the potential for a portion of the Project site to support the
coastal California gnatcatcher (256 acres). The extent and location of the development would
reduce the quality of remaining habitat through fragmentation and isolation of that habitat
Sweetwater EnviroomeDt.aJ Biologists.loc.
A"gun 23. 1994
.25-
HabilQ/ Management Plan for Rondo Del Rty SPA III
/ r - L-/ '/ Prepared foe the M.MiIli. Compaay
Remaining habitat will be suitable for occupation by gnatcatchers, but this population will be
isolated by development
5.3 EFFECT OF DCSS PRESERVATION WITHIN THE MITIGATION
PROPERTY ON THE COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER
The preservation of DCSS within the O'Neal Canyon Mitigation Property would be beneficial
to the coastal California gnatcatcher. Preservation of this habitat would remove the potential
for this area to be graded or disturbed in the future. The proximity of the site to regionally
important natural open space areas containing large populations of coastal California
gnatcatchers (East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Open Space and BLM holdings) would provide a
benefit to the coastal California gnatcatcher.
5.4 NET EFFECT OF PROPOSED PROJECT - 4(d) FINDINGS
The 256 acres removed by site grading will be permanently eliminated; however, the long term
preservation of off-site habitats, removes the biologically important O'Neal Canyon area from
the long term jeopardy of development. The placement of this area in permanent open space
provides for the best available assurance of preservation. The loss of fragmented and
urbanized habitat is being replaced with rural habitat where long-term viability of the species is
more probable; therefore, the overall Project effect is beneficial to the coastal California
gnatcatcher.
The following findings have been made based on the information obtained pursuant to Section
4.1.2 of the November 1993 NCCP Process Guidelines.
(1) The habitat loss. as proposed for issuance under the 4(d) Habitat Loss Permit, is
consistent with the "interim loss criteria" in the November, 1993 State Natural
Community Conservation Program (NCCP) Guidelines (as specified in items a through
d below) and, if a subregional interim take process is established in a form approved by
the City of Chula Vista at the time of the issuance of the Loss Permit, consistent with
such approved subregional interim loss process.
(a) The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit as proposed for the Director for
issuance, will not exceed on the date of issuance, when considered cumulatively
with all other loss of CSS occurring since March 21, 1993, exceed 5% by
acreage of the then existing CSS within the region. The regional CSS loss
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
August 23,1994
Habitat Management Planfor Rancho Del Rey SPA III
'26; j _ f 5' Prepared [m the MeM;lli. Company
acreages are as follows:
San Diego Region initial allowable CSS loss
Cumulative CSS loss since March 21,1993
Remaining allowable CSS loss
Loss allowed by this permit
Remaining allowable regional CSS loss
11,371.9 ac.
0.8 ac.
11,371.1 ac.
256.0 ac.
11,115.1 ac.
The NCCP Conservation Guidelines have indicated that a five percent loss of
DCSS habitat is acceptable within any individual subregion during the
preparation of a subregional NCCP or its equivalent (Le. MSCP Subarea Plan).
The habitat loss does not cumulatively exceed the five percent guideline. The
loss of 256 acres of DCSS combined with current losses of sage scrub within
the San Diego Region do not exceed five percent of the existing sage scrub
habitat
(b) The habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat
values.
The proposed Project is bordered to the north, west, and east by urbanized
development and to the south by agricultural lands that are of low biological
value. The habitat being impacted has been given an NCCP rating of moderate
because DCSS is present and target species occur on the site but the area is not
the most dense DCSS in the Subregion, it is not in close proximity to a Higher
Value District, and it is not part of a critical corridor. The Project retains areas
with an intermediate rating on site, although even without on-site development,
the Project site is already isolated by existing development and will become
further isolated by future development
The off-site mitigation parcel provides for certainty of a key connection between
areas of high habitat values.
(c) The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit as proposed by the Director for
issuance, will not preclude or prevent the preparation of a subregional NCCP.
The site is not a crucial link, but is rather at the periphery of already approved or
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Inc.
AUllU't 23, 1994
HabiIaJ Management Pion/or Rancho Del Rey SPA III
.27. / 9 ~ '/ ? Prepared fur the McMillin Company
constructed development The Core Biological Resource Areas (see the City of
San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program, 1994, which is still being
fmalized) are located well south of the project along the Otay River Valley. This
site is not considered a high priority preservation area because of the existing
development on three sides which result in high edge effect (Le., intrusion by
humans, pets, weedy plant species) and habitat fragmentation or part of a
significant wildlife corridor. For these reasons, the site is not considered
important in the preparation of the City of Chula Vista's open space planning
efforts or NCCP planning efforts.
(d) The habitat loss, under the Loss Permit as proposed by the Director for
issuance, has been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable
in accordance with Section 4.3 of the NCCP Process Guidelines, dated
11/5/93.
In addition to the retention of 117.8 acres of DCSS in dedicated open space on-
site, the 256 acres of impact would be mitigated by the following on- and off-
site mitigation measures:
- On-site restoration of approximately 20 acres of DCSS on natural slope
areas.
- Management of the on-site open space.
- The acquisition and management of 360 acres of the O'Neal Canyon open
space mitigation bank. This parcel would expand existing open space on and
adjacent to Otay Mountain. It is ranked as higher potential value for long-
term conservation by the NCCP because it supports DCSS, is part of a much
larger block of habitat that represents the densist DCSS in the Subregion, and
is part of a significant wildlife corridor.
An alternatives analysis conducted by the City of Chula Vista as part of the
CEQA review for the El Rancho del Rey Sectional Area Plan concluded that the
least damaging practicable alternative was selected. The mitigation measures
have been incorporated to minimize impacts to the extent practicable.
Habitat Managerrrent Plan for Rancho Del Rey SPA III
-28- / 1---J-! ? 17ep..-ed for the McMillin Company
Sweetwater Environmental Biolosists.lnc.
August 23.1994
(2) The habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery
of the coastal California gnatcatcher.
The Project site is not part of an NCCP higher potential value for long-term
conservation area. Site development would impact habitat adjacent to existing
development. Off-site mitigation of a core area will increase the likelihood of the long-
term success of regional open space planning efforts. Due to these reasons, the
proposed habitat loss would not appreciably reduce the survival or recovery of any
listed species, including the gnatcatcher.
(3) The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
The proposed loss of 256 acres of DCSS is associated with an FEIR which has been
certified and a project that has received discretionary approval by the City of Chula
Vista. The Project has completed CEQA review and meets all local, State, and Federal
requirements.
(4) Proposed mitigation is consistent with NCCP Process Guidelines requirements.
The NCCP Process Guidelines identify several options for mitigating impacts to CSS.
These options include aquisition of habitat, dedication of land, management
agreements, restoration, etc. The dedication and long-term preservation of O'Neal
Canyon through a management agreement with The Environmental Trust (TET) is
consistent with the NCCP Process Guidelines.
Based on these findings, the Project meets the standards for interim take as outlined in the 4( d)
Rule of the ESA.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Inc.
August 23. 1994
Habitat Management Plan for Rancho Del Rey SPA III
'29; 9./ Y Y Prepared for the McM;llin Company
6.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES
To minimize, mitigate, and monitor the impacts of the estimated take, McMillin will implement
a three point conservation'and mitigation program. Components of the program include:
. on-site habitat preservation and management;
. off-site habitat acquisition and management; and
. construction impact minimization.
6.1 ON SITE HABITAT PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
6.1.1 PRESERVATION
Approximately 117.8 acres of DCSS will be conserved on site. Based on the normal range of
territory size, it is estimated that approximately 11 gnatcatcher pairs would be retained over the
long-term in the open space on site. A permanent open space easement will be dedicated to the
City of Chula Vista or other entity acceptable to the City, the Service, and the Department.
6.1.2 MANAGEMENT
Mitigation measures concerning impacts from the development adopted with the original
environmental documents, amendments, and supplemental documents have been incorporated into
the Project grading and construction plans.
Additional mitigation measures to compensate for impacts to open space areas on site are
described below.
. Impacts to the DCSS habitat in open space areas would be avoided; however, in
areas where fill slopes must encroach, impacts would be minimized by having a
qualified biologist monitor the grading of the site. Fire buffers that encroach into
open space areas would be hand cleared instead of using heavy equipment. The
monitoring biologist would have the authority to halt grading operations that impact
or threaten protected DCSS habitat. Prior to or as a condition of the grading permit,
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
August 23. 1994
-30-
/9- 'if
Habitat Management Planfor Rtl1JCho Del Rey SPA III
Prepared for the McMillin Company
the Applicant would make arrangements to retain a biologist to monitor grading and
hand clear ftre buffers that encroach into open space areas.
. Manufactured slopes within open space areas and impacted areas along sewer laterals
would be revegetated with DCSS species native to the site. The revegetation effort
would attempt to re-create the loss of DCSS habitat and enhance the biological value
and function of the open space system. A monitoring biologist would be hired by
the Applicant to monitor and supervise the revegetation program which would last
for five years. Prior to or as a condition of approval of the Tentative Map the
Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista would ensure that a biologist be
retained by the Applicant to implement the revegetation program, devise a ftve-year
monitoring program acceptable to City staff, and initiate the revegetation program on
site.
. Sewer laterals would be positioned to cause minimum impact to biological resources,
especially rare plant populations and sensitive bird habitat. Staging areas for
construction would be located to minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources.
The installation corridors for sewer laterals would be staked prior to design
finalization and then checked by a qualified biologist for potential adjustments to
minimize impacts to sensitive resources. The monitoring biologist would have the
authority to halt construction activities if the habitat area is damaged or threatened.
Prior to or as a condition of approval of the occupancy permit, the Planning
Department of the City of Chula Vista would ensure that sewer laterals have been
implemented according to the speciftcations of the monitoring biologist.
. A monitoring program would be designed and implemented by a qualified biologist
to determine the effect of the Project development on the population of coastal
California gnatcatchers. The monitoring program would be conducted for five years
after the Project is completed to assess the recovery of the gnatcatcher population
including the number of pairs of birds present and their territories. The purpose of
the monitoring program would be to provide basic population recovery information
on the coastal California gnatcatcher to be used in the design of future preserves for
this species. The information from this monitoring study would be available to
resource agencies to help them develop a regional set of guidelines for coastal
California gnatcatcher mitigation. The Planning Department of the City of Chula
Vista would ensure that the program be implemented prior to or as a condition of
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists.lnc.
August 23.1994
-31-
)Cj-S-O
HabitaJ Management Plan fOT Rancho Del Rey SPA III
Prepared for the McMillin Company
approval of the Final Map. The monitoring program would also incorporate open
space areas within the SPA I and SPA n developments within the study area.
. A project-wide revegetation plan, that includes transplant programs for cacti. would
be designed and incorporated in a project-wide specific plan. This revegetation plan
would be reviewed and implemented by a qualified biologist or horticulturist with
experience dealing with native plants. The transplant program would facilitate the
introduction of cacti species from impact areas on SPA 1lI and other SPA areas into
DCSS revegetation areas in an attempt to re-establish cactus wren habitat. The
revegetation plan would include a maintenance and monitoring plan for five years to
ensure the success of the revegetation effort. The Planning Department of the City
of Chula Vista would ensure that the program be implemented prior to or as a
condition of approval of the Final Map. The monitoring biologist would submit
reports to the Planning Department concerning the status of the program once a
month for the first year of the program, and once every three months for the
following five years of the program.
6.2 OFF-SITE HABITAT ACOUlSITION AND MANAGEMENT
6.2.1 ACQUISITION
To offset impacts to DCSS and the gnatcatcher, the 360 acre O'Neal Canyon mitigation parcel
will be dedicated to TET as permanent open space using a conservation easement. This
easement shall preclude all activities within the open space, except those activities necessary for
wildlife management purposes. Management of the parcel will be the responsibility of TET.
At least five pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers currently use some portion of the DCSS
within the O'Neal Canyon Mitigation Property, and approximately 10 pairs is considered to be
the carrying capacity of the site. The mitigation property is adjacent to other preserve areas
which currently support gnatcatcher populations.
6.2.2 MANAGEMENT
The purpose of the O'Neal Canyon Management Plan is to provide for the long-term
management of the mitigation parcel for the preservation and enhancement of biological
resources on the site. The Management Plan will focus on maintaining the existing biological
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Inc.
August 23,1994
-32-
/9-51
Habital Management Planfor Rancho Del Rey SPA III
Prepared for the McMillin Company
diversity of the site, and maximizing its value in relation to adjacent public and private open
space lands.
In general, the management of the site will be of a passive nature: controlling access, patrolling
the area for trespassers, trash removal, and an education program for the public to assist TET
in the preservation and protection of the site. This type of management approach is appropriate
on this site given its proximity to existing open space, limited access, and limited edge effects
from existing development
6.2.3 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
In general, maintenance activities will be kept to a minimum unless a situation arises that
requires intervention. Maintenance activities may include:
. weeding and removal of non-native invasive or weedy species if they become
established and are considered a problem to native species within the mitigation site;
. revegetation efforts, with approval by the City of Chula Vista, the Service, and the
Department if the mitigation site is required for mitigation by specific projects (this
may include funds allocated by mitigation for habitat that is destroyed or partially
destroyed by wil~frre);
. intermittent patrolling of the site for trespassing and/or disturbance of the site by
man, including trash removal if necessary (the entire land bank will be inspected at
least three times per year); and
. frre control-gates, etc.
6.2.4 GENERAL HABITAT MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES
In specific cases, when particular management needs are required, the following measures will
be taken.
Invasive Plant Control. Weed control measures will include the following: hand
removal, cutting or mowing, and the use of herbicides (RoundupTM). Hand removal of weeds
is the most desirable method of control and will be used whenever feasible. Herbicide
application will be used on the most invasive of the plant species. Giant reed (Arundo donax )
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Inc.
August 23. 1994
HabitIJI Management Planfor Rancho Del Rey SPA III
-33- / / -5.;J.- Prepared fur the McMilliu Cumpany
and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) are particularly invasive in San Diego County. Removal of these
species will be done by hand and approved herbicides applied at recommended doses and
under approved techniques. Application will be done under the supervision of a licensed
pesticide applicator. Neither of these species currently pose a threat on the site.
Clearinl! and Trash Removal. Pruning or clearing of any native vegetation will not be
allowed within the mitigation site. Deadwood and leaf litter of native trees and shrubs shall not
be removed. Downed logs and leaf litter provide valuable microhabitats for invertebrates.
reptiles. small mammals. and birds. In addition. the decomposition of deadwood and leaf litter
is essential for the replenishment of soil nutrients and minerals. Trash will be removed from
the mitigation site by hand on an as-needed basis. Trash consists of all man-made materials,
equipment. or debris dumped. thrown. washed, blown-in. or left within the mitigation site.
6.2.4.1
Responsible Parties for Implementation
TET will be responsible for financing and carrying out maintenance activities. The contact
person will be Dr. Don Hunsaker. or Kelli Rasmus of TET (telephone [619] 583-3933).
6.2.4.2 Schedule of Maintenance InSDections
Maintenance inspections will occur concurrent with the monitoring inspections, on a biannual
basis. unless a particular maintenance problem arises that requires immediate action.
6.2,4.3 Monitorin~ Plan
The biological monitoring period will begin upon transfer of the mitigation site to TET.
Monitoring of the site will occur on a biannual basis. Photographs and detailed notes will be
taken from established control points within the mitigation site. Subsequent monitoring will be
compared to the initial monitoring effort in order to assess if any remedial measures are
necessary to maintain the mitigation site in its natural state. A spring bird survey will be
conducted annually.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Inc.
August 23.1994
Habitat Management Planfor Rancho Del Rey SPA III
.34- /9 -5J . Prepared for the McMillin Company
6.2.4.4 Annual Reports
A report outlining the results of the monitoring effort will be maintained in the permanent files
of TET. Copies will be available to any agency that requires them. They will be finalized by
June I of any year for the previous year's monitoring.
The monitoring reports will describe the existing conditions of the site for that particular year.
It will identify wildlife use of the site, identify any significant changes of the mitigation site,
and recommend remedial measures necessary for the continued success of the mitigation site.
The reports also will include the following:
. a list of names, titles, and companies of all persons who prepared the content of the
annual report and participated in monitoring activities; and
. prints of all monitoring photographs and copies of all field notes.
6.3 COMPLETION OF MITIGATION
6.3.1 NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION
At the end of the five-year monitoring period, if TET considers that the mitigation site has
successfully been maintained in its natural state, the final monitoring report shall include
notification as such. Although the legal five-year monitoring effort will end, TET will continue
to monitor and maintain the mitigation site in perpetuity.
6.4 CONSTRUCTION IMPACT MINIMIZATION
To minimize impacts on the gnatcatchers that will be displaced, the Applicant will implement
the following measures.
. No occupied habitat will be removed during the gnatcatcher's breeding season
(February 15 to July 31).
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Inc.
August 23. 1994
.35-
JC;5,/
Habitat Management Plan/or Rancho Del Rey SPA III
Prepared for the McMillin Company
7.0 FUNDING FOR THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES
Funding for the on- and off-site mitigation areas will be provided by the McMillin Company.
Funding for the mitigation property open space management and maintenance will be the
responsibility ofTET. to whom the land is dedicated.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Inc.
August 23.1994
Habitat Management Planfor Rancho Del Rey SPA III
-36- /' ,--- Prepared for the McMillin Company
/9~3P
8.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Three alternatives to the proposed Project and the no project alternative have been considered.
Alternatives include:
. complete avoidance of impacts to DCSS within the respective HMP areas;
. avoidance of impacts to habitat currently used by gnatcatcher pairs;
. on- or off-site gnatcatcher relocation; and
. no project alternative.
8.1 AVOIDANCE OF IMPACTS
Under this alternative. all DCSS within the Project would be preserved. This option was
eliminated from further consideration because the physiography and biological constraints on
the Project and avoidance of all impacts would preclude development of the Project.
8.2 AVOIDANCE OF HABITAT CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY THE
COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER
Avoidance of impacts, direct and indirect, to gnatcatcher-occupied habitat would result in the
conservation of nearly all of the DCSS, as in the previous alternative; however, the Project
would not be economically feasible considering the extant biological constraints. This
alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.
8.3 CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER RELOCATION
Under this alternative, gnatcatchers present on site would be netted and relocated to another
suitable habitat area which already is protected and is not occupied. This alternative fails
primarily because there is no precedent of successful relocation in existing literature, and
therefore no assurance that such a measure would be practical biologically. In addition, any
forced relocation would still be considered a take under Section 9 of the ESA. Consequently,
this measure would not provide an alternative to this HMP process or permitting process for
take.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
August 23.1994
Habitat Management Plan/or Rancho Del Rey SPA III
.37- / 9 ~ t? Prepared for the McMillin Company
804 NO-PROTECT ALTERNATIVE
The no-project alternative assumes that the Project site would remain in its current use as
natural open space. The no-project alternative would not result in direct adverse impacts to the
coastal California gnatcatcher. No DCSS would be removed and, over time, it is probable that
coastal California gnatcatchers would remain on the site; however, plans for surrounding
development could result in the eventual isolation of the population on the site, eventually
threatening the viability of this population. This alternative was not adopted because it would
preclude any reasonable use of the property, and because no funding is currently available for
acquisition of the site as open space. Additionally, if the no project alternative is adopted, a
valuable off~site mitigation parcel (ONeal Canyon) would not be acquired.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Inc.
August 23.1994
H.bitaJ M.nagement PlDnfor Honcho Del Hey SPA 1II
-38- _ /r-; Prepared for the McMillin Company
/9 /~ /
9.0 REFERENCES CITED
American Ornithologists' Union, committee on classification and nomenclature. 1986. Thirty-fourth
supplement to the A.O.o. Checklist of Nonh American Birds. The Auk Vol. 99 (3).
Atwood, J. 1992. A maximum estimate of the California gnutcatcher's population size in the United States.
Western Birds. 23:1-9.
California Department of Fish and Game et al. 1992. Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural
Community Conservation Planning Process Guidelines. November 1993.
City of San Diego 1993. Multiple Habitat Evaluation Map. Prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy
Services Co., Inc. for the City in connection with the City of San Diego's Clean Water Program
Multiple Species Conservation Program.
City of San Diego 1994. Clean Water Program's Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP).
Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and
reptiles (3rd Edition). Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular No.
19, 44 pp.
Hickman, J. C. (Ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press,
Berkeley, 1400 pp.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of
California, The Resources Agency.
Jones, J. K., Jr., D. C. Carter, H. H. Genoways, R. S. Hoffman, and D. W. Rice. 1982. Revised checklist of
North American mammals north of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum Texas Tech.
University 80: 1-22.
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Company, Inc. 1993.
P and D Technologies, Inc. 1990. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for EI Rancho Del Rey
Sectional Planning Area Prepared for the City of Chula Vista. November 1990.
Rea, A.M. and KL Weaver. 1990. The taxonomy, distrubution and status of the Coastal California Cactus
Wrens. Western Birds 21: 81-126.
Regional Environmental Consultants, 1990. Biological Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan for the SPA 3
Development Unit of the EI Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. Prepared for Rancho Del Rey Partnership.
February 21, 1990.
Regional Environmental Consultants, 1991. Native Revegetation Plan for the SPA III Development Unit of
the Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. November 4, 1991.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1990. Draft Comprehensive Species Management Plan
for the Least Bell's Vireo. January 1990.
Scientific Review Panel, Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub. 1992. Standard survey guidelines for coastal
sage scrub habitat. Unpublished Report prepared for interested parties. February 20, 1992.
Skinner M.W. and B. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plan Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California. Tbre California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. California, 336 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Anima1 candidate
review for listing as endangered or threatened species. Notice of review. United States Fish & Wildlife
Service Federal Register 56(225):58804-58836, November 21.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
August 23,1994
.39.
/9 - ___~Y'
Habital Management Planfor Rancho Del Rey SPA III
Prepared for the McMillin Company
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Letter to the McMillin Company.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service March, 1993. Proposed Rule Concerning the threatened Coastal
California Gnatcatcher (Federal Register, Vol. 58 No. 236, December 10, 1993).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Letter to the McMillin Company.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
August 23, 1994
HabiltJl Management Plan for Rancho Del Rey SPA III
.40-/ 97" J . Prepared for the McMilliu Company
ATTACHMENT C
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT OF 6/7/94
/~~?O
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
/'1
Meeting Date 6/7/94
SUBMITTED BY:
Report: Implementation of the Endangered Species Act Special Rule 4(d)
for the Interim Habitat~s~. ~7proval Process
Director of Planning iWe::..
./.'.} 11
City Manager iJ0 r:; 1/ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.1LJ
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
Last year the Federal Department of the Interior adopted the Special 4( d) rule regulating the
habitat "take" of the California Gnatcatcher. This Special Rule links protection of the bird to
the California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) process. Prior to the
preparation of an overall NCCP plan, the process allows the "take" of up to 5% of Coastal Sage
Scrub (CSS), which is the habitat for the Gnatcatcher. During the past several months City staff
has been working with staffs from throughout the region to develop a process to allow local
agencies to implement this "take" process. The following report provides further information
regarding implementation of the 4(d) rule by the City including the issues associated with the
City adopting a local "4(d) rule" ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council direct staff to work toward resolving the issues identified in the staff
report, including working with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of
Fish and Game, and County of San Diego to revise the jurisdictional allocation formula for
interim take for Chula Vista, based on General Plan area or other acceptable method; and direct
City Staff, after resolving the issues, to draft an ordinance for implementation of the SpeciaI4(d)
rule at the local level.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Backe:round
On March 25, 1993, the Federal government listed the California gnatcatcher as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Typically, any "take" (harm or harassment)
of listed species is strictly regulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), through
ESA Section 7 or lO(a) permits. A Section 10(a) permit is issued by the Service for a "take"
on private property when there is no substantial Federal involvement (i.e. a Federal permit).
jJI-1 / '7 --~ /
Page 2, Item / tf
Meeting Date 6/7/94
Section 7 is a consultation process with the Service for Federal projects or private projects that
require other Federal permits such as a 404 permit which is issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers for alteration of watercourses. In the case of the California gnatcatcher, the USFWS
signed a unique Memorandum of Understanding with the State of California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) to cooperatively develop conservation strategies for long-term protection of
coastal sage scrub (CSS), which is the habitat for the gnatcatcher and other sensitive species.
The State's Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act, passed in 1991, and its
ensuing NCCP program, have outlined habitat conservation strategies in two sets of guidelines:
NCCP Conservation Guidelines, and NCCP Process Guidelines, both fInalized in November,
1993.
On May 2, 1992 the City of City Chula Vista emolled in the NCCP. By emolling in the NCCP,
the City agreed to join in the collaborative planning process to conserve long-term viable
populations of the State's native animal and plant species by providing interconnected open space
areas while allowing compatible and appropriate development and growth. On August 24, 1993
Resolution Number 17229 was adopted by the City Council, approving the Resolution of
Intention (ROI) to participate in the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
Plan. The ROI confIrmed Chula Vista's continued participation in the MSCP and the future
conservation planning efforts for the California Gnatcatcher and other potentially threatened and
endangered species.
The implementation of the Endangered Species Act and the NCCP is a two step process. The
fIrst step is the interim protection of CSS habitat through the Special 4(d) rule and the second
step is the adoption of the permanent conservation plan (MSCP). The MSCP is the functional
equivalent of the NCCP. By the previous actions taken by the City to emoll in the NCCP and
adoption of the ROI, we are part of the regional habitat conservation planning process and staff
is working actively toward its adoption.
On December 10, 1993, the USFWS formalized its relationship with the State's NCCP effort
by publishing the ftnal Endangered Species Act Section 4(d) special rule, effective on that date.
The 4(d) rule allows local jurisdictions to approve "incidental take" of gnatcatcher habitat up to
a cumulative 5 percent loss of CSS during the period of time that subregions of southern
California are preparing conservation plans consistent with the NCCP program. Individual
project CSS loss is only permitted if a mitigation plan is approved.
The interim loss allowed through the 4(d) process can be approved only through procedures
outlined in the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines. These procedures are intended to
be integrated into the normal local land use process. Among other requirements, the NCCP
guidelines contain several fIndings that must be made by the City in granting the "interim loss
permit. "
~ /9-t:2
Page 3, Item J'I
Meeting Date 6/7/94
It should be noted that without a jurisdiction adopting a speciaI4(d) rule process, incidental take
of listed species must be considered through ESA Section 10(a) on a case-by-case basis by the
USFWS, in a sometimes multiple-year process involving the preparation of Habitat Conservation
Plans by individual applicants. If there is a federal nexus, such as granting of another Federal
permit (i.e. Section 404 permit), Section 7 can be used. These processes remain available to
applicants who do not elect to use the 4( d) or in the case of a jurisdiction that does not adopt a
4(d) rule.
Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat in Chula Vista
The region of San Diego, which encompasses San Diego County, has a total of 227,437 acres
of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS). Within the corporate boundaries of Chula Vista there are 2,143
acres of CSS. The 4(d) Rule allows for an interim "take" of 5% of the habitat. The interim
period will end with adoption of the NCCP which is anticipated to take at least 18 to 24 months.
Staff has met with the City's large landowners and the Special Districts that are within our
General Plan area. Based on the information they provided as to their needs in the next two to
three years, it is anticipated that approximately 300 to 350 acres of "take" may be needed during
the interim period to accommodate projects within the City, as well as approximately 100
additional acres for projects outside the City but within our General Plan area. In addition,
Baldwin has indicated an anticipated interim take of less than 500 acres within the Salt Creek
Ranch and Otay Ranch projects. By way of comparison, if the City's interim take allocation
were limited to 5 % of the existing CSS habitat within the City, the total allowable take would
be approximately 107 acres. Attached is a summary of the anticipated projects and their planned
"take" of CSS habitat.
Should Chula Vista Implement the 4(d) Rule?
The following discussion addresses the positive and negative aspects of the City assuming the
responsibilities set forth in the NCCP Process and Conservation Guidelines, specifically,
adoption and implementation of the 4(d) rule at the local level. There are several issues that
must be addressed in determining if Chula Vista should implement a local 4(d) rule. The
advantages and disadvantages are detailed below;
ADVANTAGES TO ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL 4(d) RULE
1. Local Control of Land Use Decisions.
Implementation of the 4(d) rule would allow the City to approve "incidental take" of the
gnatcatcher up to a cumulative 5 percent loss of CSS. Should the City choose not to
assume this responsibility, during the interim period prior to adoption of an NCCP,
applicants wishing to develop property supporting the gnatcatcher would only be able to
~ /7~?J
Page 4, Item---.L.!L
Meeting Date 617/94
do so if they received approval from the Federal government under Sections 7 or 10(a)
of the Act. A major advantage of a local rule is that it would allow the City to decide
which projects can proceed during this interim period, and work directly with property
owners to coordinate take permits with other plan approvals.
2. Timeframes
Should the City of Chula Vista adopt and implement a local 4(d) rule, the City would be
able to develop its own implementing procedures. The amount of time that would be
required for the City to take action on an application for loss of CSS habitat ("habitat
loss permit") will depend on where a project is in the planning and approval process at
the time of application for such habitat loss permit. However, it appears that a maximum
of 75 days would be required for the City to issue such a permit, in accordance with
State guidelines.
With regard to the Federal permit process, the USFWS is mandated to conclude the
Section 7 consultation process within 90 days of determining if the biological assessment
or other information is adequate and an additional 45 days to write the biological opinion.
This would result in a 135-day process. However, there is no limit on the amount of
time that can be required by the USFWS to determine that either the biological
assessment or other biological information is adequate in order to begin the consultation
process.
The Service indicates that there is not a mandated timeline for processing a Section lO(a)
application. Federal environmental documentation, which would be required as part of
the Section lO(a) process, usually takes 3 to 12 months to complete. The Service must
also undergo an internal Section 7 consultation process. The Service indicates that 10(a)
permits for very small and non-controversial projects (e.g., projects which involve
minimal take of occupied CSS habitat in an area not being considered for inclusion in a
permanent preserve system) can be processed in about six months. However, larger,
more controversial projects can require several years. Locally, the Least Bell's Vireo
Habitat Conservation Plans for the San Diego and Sweetwater Rivers were initiated
approximately six years ago and have yet to receive approval.
In summary, while the local interim take process may require up to a 75 day review
period, this is significantly shorter than the Federal permit process.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES RELATED TO THE ADOPTION OF A LOCAL 4(d) RULE
1. Occuoied vs. Unoccupied Coastal Sal!e Scrub. The Endangered Species Act only
regulates impacts to listed species (i.e. the California Gnatcatcher). While the ESA
provides for a process whereby critical habitat for the species can be designated, this
~ /~ ---tf, f
Page S, Item
Meeting Date 6/7/94
III
process only affects federal project approvals, and has not been utilized in the case of the
gnatcatcher. Thus, prior to adoption of the Special Rule, only projects which contain
occupied habitat are required to obtain permits under Sections 7 or 10(a) of the Act.
The Special Rule changes this result by referring to the Natural Community Conservation
Planning process which regulates gnatcatcher habitat (coastal sage scrub) whether
occupied by the species or not.
The City's data base is not sufficiently detailed to determine the number of acres of
occupied vs. unoccupied habitat. However, data collected by the consultants for the
Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) indicate that approximately 20% to 50% of
the Coastal sage scrub located within their study area may not be inhabited, or suitable
for habitation, by the gnatcatcher.
Implementation of the Special Rule would impose regulations on unoccupied habitat that
would not be imposed under Sections 7 and lO(a) of the Act, thereby requiring an
additional permitting step and mitigation for habitat that is not occupied by the species.
2. Risks Inherent in the City ImDlementiDl! the Section 4(d) Rule.
Under the Endangered Species Act itself (in the absence of the Section 4(d) Rule), the
City would not playa primary role in implementing the Act on private projects. If an
applicant proposed to "take" gnatcatchers, that applicant would be required to obtain
permission (under either Section 7 or 10[a] of the Act) directly from the USFWS. The
USFWS would be the lead agency for all permitting and enforcement actions.
The Section 4(d) Rule, by referring to the NCCP Process Guidelines as an alternative
method of permitting a "take" under the Act, alters the above operation of the Act in two
significant respects: First, as noted above, the Guidelines expand protection of actual
gnatcatchers to protection of the coastal sage scrub habitat, thereby having a potential
effect of increasing the number of development projects subject to this new regulation.
Second, the Guidelines create a significant new role for local agencies, giving them
responsibility to issue "Habitat Loss Permits," with the attendant duty to determine
whether the amount of loss proposed is permissible under the Conservation Guideline
standards.
By allowing local governments to assume these responsibilities, local implementation of
the 4 (d) rule would place the City (rather than the federal agencies) in the "front line"
position of issuing approvals and denials of the habitat loss permits, with all the
consequences which may flow from such decisions. It can be expected that, due to the
Conservation Guideline limitations on the amount of coastal sage scrub habitat which may
be impacted, denials would occur in certain cases where the Act itself would not directly
have applied because of the absence of gnatcatchers. Such decisions by the City to deny
~ /7/j,;-
Page 6, Item /1
Meeting Date 6/7/94
habitat loss permits, or to impose conditions, may well be legally challenged by
applicants, based on real or perceived loss of property rights, while decisions to approve
permits may be challenged by third parties. Given these risks, if directed by the City
Council to do so, we would work with the City Attorney's office to obtain some sort of
indemnification from the Service for the potential liability related to this issue.
3. Jurisdictional Allotment Formula.
Because the City of Chula Vista is part of a larger region in which gnatcatcher habitat
is found, there are several issues associated with implementation of the 4(d) rule at our
local level. These issues are outlined in an attached letter, dated April 25, 1994, to Gail
Kobetich with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These issues include the allocation
of the regional 5% take under the 4(d) rule, specifically how much of the total regional
take will each agency be allowed to use, and who will make that determination. The
major issue is the selection of a formula for allocating the acreage of interim habitat take
to local jurisdictions. Both the City and County of San Diego, as well as several other
cities, have favored an allocation formula which is based on directly calculating 5 % of
the total Coastal Sage Scrub habitat within each jurisdiction. With the City of San Diego
currently considering adoption of a Special 4(d) Rule ordinance that is based on the
jurisdictional take allocation, and with the County having adopted an urgency interim
ordinance for implementation of the 4(d) rule, also based on the jurisdictional allocation,
it appears that there may be de facto acceptance by the other cities in the County of this
allocation formula.
As noted earlier, there are several potential projects in Chula Vista and its General Plan
area involving CSS take, with total acreage of up to 950 acres potentially being estimated
during the interim period. However, under a strict jurisdictional take formula, Chula
Vista would only have approximately 107 acres available for allocation during this
period. In order to accommodate reasonable projections of development during this
period, staff has considered alternative allocation formulas which are more directly
related to consideration of habitat quality and locations of planned urban development
within the overall subregion. One specific alternative which staff feels has particular
merit is one wherein the City's General Plan Area, rather than its jurisdictional
boundary, would be utilized in calculating the available take. This approach would
provide greater flexibility to the City, resulting in the availability of up to 1,000 acres
on an interim basis. We have begun discussions with the resource agencies and the
County of San Diego regarding this concept and others.
The most immediate project that Chula Vista has coming forward that could be affected
by the 4(d) rule is Rancho del Rey SPA III. McMillin has expressed a desire to staff to
be able to begin grading by September of this year. To that end McMillin has been
pursuing negotiating directly with the Service to determine what mitigation will be
~/'j~t~
Page 7, Item~
Meeting Date 617194
required for them to implement this project. It appears that McMillin will be purchasing
a large portion of O'Neal canyon, located south of Otay Valley, between the Donovan
Correctional Facility and Otay Mesa County Jail, to satisfy their off-site mitigation for
the loss of gnatcatcher habitat. ,This purchase represents a substantial cost to them.
Although other projects in Chula Vista have not progressed to that point as yet, it is
likely that others will have similar types of investment in mitigatic!lland that McMillin
does.
4. Soecial Districts. Special Districts, such as water districts and school districts, are often
not required to get City discretionary land use approval for their projects. Therefore,
a Special District could conceivably use all or a portion of a local agency's jurisdictional
"take" allotment without approval from the affected local agency by going through the
Service for a Section lOa permit, or if appropriate a Section 7. The City of Chula Vista
does have the opportunity to comment during the environmental process on improvement
projects that the various Special Districts within our jurisdiction are proposing. If the
City adopts a local 4(d) rule, a Special District could go through the City for approval
of a "take" for projects within our boundaries, rather than using a Section lO(a) or
Section 7 process. There are a variety of Special Districts within the City's boundaries
including two school districts and two water districts. Staff has consulted with them
regarding possible projects they will be proposing in the next two to three years that
could be affected by Special Rule. Their anticipated projects are included in the attached
chart. It is possible that some of the Special Districts will initiate projects during the
interim period that could further reduce Chula Vista's jurisdictional allocation, beyond
the control of the City.
5. Mitill:ation Guidelines. In order to implement the NCCP Process Guidelines, the USFWS
is requiring that the subregions prepare mitigation guidelines that could be used for
habitat loss approvals. Approval of the proposed mitigation guidelines will have to be
received from the USFWS and Fish and Game prior to implementation.
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES
While there are significant advantages to the City in adopting a local interim take ordinance,
there are also several major unresolved issues. The key unresolved issue is the allocation
formula to be used in determining the amount of interim take acreage which would be available
to Chula Vista. It is recommended that staff be directed to continue pursuing the alternative
described above, which would be based on the City's General Plan Area boundary. In addition,
staff should be directed to continue working toward resolution of the other issues identified in
this report.
~/1-t?
Page 8, Item-.1i
Meeting Date 6/7/94
STATUS OF THE GNATCATCHER LISTING
On May 3, 1994, a U.S. District Judge voided the Interior Department's listing of the
gnatcatcher. The Interior Department has filed a request for reconsideration of this decision,
as well as requesting that the listing be reinstated during the review of this appeal. Therefore,
while the listing is not currently in effect, it is staff s opinion that the City should continue to
pursue possible implementation of the 4(d) rule until this matter is resolved. Staff will continue
to monitor the status of the listing in this regard.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
This item was originally scheduled for Council consideration on May 24, 1994. At that time,
Tricia Gerrodette, representing the Sierra Club, submitted written comments regarding this
report (see Attachment C).
In response to these comments, staff would offer the following:
a) Baldwin has indicated that its interim take would be less than 500 acres; this is reflected
in Page 3 of this report.
b) The City would be subject to the NCCP Conservation Guidelines in implementing an
interim take ordinance. These guidelines establish criteria for ranking the value of
habitat areas, and providing interim protection to higher quality areas. It is our
understanding that any local ordinances would be required to be consistent with these
guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
Auachments;
A. Property Owner Survey
B. Leu.er to Gail Kobetich, U.S. Fish and Wildlife: Service. dated April 25. 1994.
C. Comments from Tricia Gerrodett.e
f,\homclpJannmg\gnatcal.l13
~/9~~~
Anticipated CSS/Gnatcatcher Acres of Take
within the City of Chula Vista Prior to
Adoption of the NCCP/MSCP
Project CSS acreage to be Graded CSS acreage 10 be Graded in
in City in next 2 to 3 years Ganeral Plan Area (outside City
limijs) in next 2 to 3 years
McMillin 256
Sun bow (Gafcon) 50
Otay Ranch (Baldwin) To Be Provided
Salt Creek (Baldwin) To Be Provided
EastLake 0
Watson Land Co. 32
Rancho San Miguel 35
Bonita Meadows (Buie 20
Development)
Lyndale Hills 7
Sweetwater Authority 0 0
Otay Water District 0 0.5
Chula Vista Elementary 0 0
School District
Sweetwater Union High 0 0
District
City of Chula Vista 20
(Miscellaneous)
Total 326 94.5
Note: Information based on surve cone ucted In Ma 1!
y
y
(MARIL YNIGNATCATCIGNATCAT2.CHT)
Mey 18. 1894
~~/:J-?C;
~v?-
~
cnv Of
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 2S, 1994
Gail Kobetich
U.S. Fish &. Wildlife Service
2730 Loker Ave. West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject:
Interim Habitat Loss Approval Process for Federal J::ntIangered Species Act
Consistency 4(d) - Jurisdictional Take Allocation
Dear Mr. Kobetich:
Through our recent discussions with you and your staff and our review of the FiDa1 Rule for
implementation of the 4(d) Rule within our jurisdiction, we have become aware of potential
problems with the currently proposed allocation of habitat by jurisdiction within San Diego
County. The City of Chula Vista would have serious difficulties implementing the 4(d) Nle
within its jurisdictional boundaries unless alternative methods of allocating acreage for interim
take are adopted.
..
The City of Chula Vista has not entered into a forma1agreement, nor have we formally endorsed
the use of the jurisdictional acreage allocation fDrmula previously discussed by the SANDAG
Regional Conservation Coordinating Committee (RCCC). We did concur with other members
of the RCCC that the U.S. Fish &. Wildlife Service (USF&.WS) should be consulted regarding
the potential use of such a formula. We never assumed that asking USF&.WS if such a formula
would be acceptable would be interpreted as Chula Vista's unconditional approval of this
possible method for allocating the region's S% take.
We believe there are a variety of issues that must be resolved in CODSideriD& bow tbe 4(d) Nle
will be implemented in region. 'Ibose issues are as follows:
. It is our understanding that "Takes" that exceed 1 loca1 agency's 4(d) allotment must
pursue 1 Section 7 or 10(1) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wbich tbe Service
may approve. These Section 7 or 100a) permits wiU COUDt .pm&{ the reJion's overall
S% take, and the jurisdictions' RCCC 4(d) alloanem. Section 7 and 10(1) approval from
1he Service may aceed a jurisdiction's allotment and preclude the use of the 4(d) Nle.
~~/9-7P
"~FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 9'9'0116'9,69'.5'0'
Gail Kobetich
Page 2
April 25, 1994
Under this scenario, it is conceivable that the region's 5'J1i take will be exhausted before
al1 of the jurisdictions grant permits up to their S'JIi jurisdictional allocation or a
jurisdiction's S'JIi allocation could be reached prior to the region's S'JIi allowable take.
The result could be that the jurisdictional allotment will be de facto overridden by the
Service without approval from the affected Cities unless this issue is dealt with early in
the process.
. Because of the large amount of CSS "Take" allocated to the County of San Diego versus
urbanizing cities, the RCCC jurisdictional allotment does DOt encounge habitat "Takes"
within urbanized, fragmented, low quality habitats where the long tmn viability of the
species is questionable. The jurisdiction al10tment does appear to encourage habitat
"takes" in rural high quality habitat areas where the long term viability of the species is
more probable than in the urbanizing areas.
. The RCCC jurisdictional al10tment is based on the corporate boundaries of the Cities and
the County of San Diego. It does not consider the likely boundaries of future
preservation areas that will be adopted in the MSCP andlor NCCP. The MSCP/NCCP
preservation boundaries will not necessarily relate to municipal bouDdaries but rather will
fol1ow logical biological boundaries. Specifically, the adopted NCCP Conservation
Guidelines state that "recognizing that large subregions must meet the objective of
limiting short-term CSS losses on a biologically valid scale;some further subdivision of
a large planning subregion into appropriately sized biological subareas for the purpose
of accounting for interim habitat loss may be necessary." (p.IO) Therefore, a system
should be devised that more closely aligns the interim preservation with the biological
subareas which will ultimately be used in developing a long-range plan.
. The RCCC jurisdictional allotment does not consider the viability of habitat in each
jurisdiction. This could lead to fragmented habitat ueas as each jurisdiction proceeds
to implement the 4(d) rule independently without regard for c:onnected viable habitats.
. A Special District within the bouDdaries of a local agency may potentially use all or a
portion of a local agency's RCCC jurisdictional "Take" alloanent without approval from
the affected local agency.
The City of Cbula Vista has worked closely with the County of San Diego and other local
agencies and will continue to so on efforts to adopt a regioaal plan for implementation of the
4(d) rule and/or alternative methods of allocating the iDterim 1Ike among jurisdictions. We
believe it is within the intent of the 4(d) implementation pideliDes that the fragmented,
urbanized, low quality habitat should be the fll'St considered for a "take" and that the rural areas
~~ )7'-7/
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Gail Kobetich
Page 3
April 25. 1994
containing high quality habitat should be preserved for tbe future pl.nnil1g efforts of the
MSCP/NCCP.
We appreciate your consideration of!bese points and look forward to working with your office
towards the resolution of the issues we have presented and !be implemerution of tbe 4(d) rule
in our region.
Sincerely.
/,.U;tU~
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
RAL:MRFP/nr
(r,_",lonIlina"_~h.lu)
cc: Larry Eng. California Deparunent of Fish & Game. Sacramento. CA
Sid Morris. Assistant City Manager. City of Chula Vista
Ernest Freeman. Planning Director. City of San Diego
Lauren Wassennan. Planning Director. County of San Diego
Bob Asher. Chief Planner. County of San Diego
~ J.lf-t;Z /J-?~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REQUEST TO SPEAK
IN FAVOR OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Agenda Item No 15 Date
Name_Tri cia ('TPrl"'~
CPl.... Printl
'f
1..R'8EJ
(Phonel
Address $~10 e.rw g+. ~(H\ {Y".I'>~ q11nlf
eStre.tl' (City)~)
Representing ~', e.. ~ r" ('} (' 1 ~
(N8l"M of Organizltion. etc.)
Co('(\N\~ ov\ ha...ck.
~ s,..t.. _1/mIIMI1o 5 -...... .."
o._.i...t ^ ,../IIiaoU """,. ..... _ _ r ~J _1/mIIMI . 15.......
" the City Council accepU the staff recommendation on your item as a part of
the Consent Calendar, would you atill desire the item pulled eo you can discuss
it later in the meeting? _Ves, I want to apeak anyway. _No, I only want
to speak if there is opposition to the staff recommendation.
Under CWe VISte Municiplll Cod. Slction 2.52.115. you mult
dilclo.. IhI feet the! you endlor otfiHfI or -clInt.. in 1M .a~r.a.l.,
contribU1ld more than ".000 to env councilt"Mfl'lber in 1M curr.nt
or prlceding election period; end .,.. . ....ntcip.nt.. Vou.....
-panicip.nt- if you ere not . party but Mve . finenci81 intlr." in I
eo_ntol "oci_ __ by .... City COIIne;1 ..... "_' 10
influence thefr __on.
Do vou ..... 0 __ Int..... III "" _""0 it_' v.._....,K
H 00, ..... VOU ...../or VOU' __ or _nt. in .... _'0,
contributed rnoretun ",000 to. ...u~r'. .....gn?
v.._ No_ . eo. IiW ..4,.A....::I,..,.. MI'M
GIVE THIS TO THE CITY CLERK BEFORE THE M~ETlNG
The Mayor will call you to the microphone at the appropriate time
t;C472 ,,_J
ATTACHMENT C
jJ/--If. J J - ?J
.'
:
9{ ~a.Q.d wi>>..- Lo MCV\Ld tb f~
~ f-ca ~ r O~ Ra..n..ch
<U\d ..&ili CAW<. cs.s. ~ -t:D M
~) ~ ~ -f3V-NA b..e..
Ata:hd ~ -t:k ~ ~.
~\I- ~.
11u.. e.o~~ ~ "11:1 .Gl.f'~ nuo~
.!h.ovlJ 00 '0 ~ Lll 0'\U\.d 1hcct: ~ 510
~ ~ 4~ o~ 0Cc.uA, ~
Q.ow-l\ioQ"p, JoW-,\.JJ4~ h.c..b~.
ft-/'1 /5'-7Y
June 3, 1994
COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
John Goss, City Manag~ ;;'d f'
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning N/f G
VIA:
SUBJECT: Additional Correspondence Received in Reference to Item # 14 on June 7 City
Council Meeting Agenda
Staff received the attached letter from Eastlake Development Company regarding the above
referenced item after the City Council agenda packet for the meeting of June 7 had been
distributed. In reviewing this item, staff does not feel that it represents a significant change
from the information presented in the report, and recommends that it simply be noted for the
record.
(F: \home\planning \elintrm. em)
/1-75
May 27, 1994
Mr. Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
CITY OF CHUl.A VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject:
IDterim Habitat Loss . 4(d)
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Altbough we initially responded to staff as not baving the need for any
Gnatcatcher acreage for development of EastLake projects over the
next two years, we would like to revise that estimate to allow for the
possible need of up to 10 acres for the extension of Orange Avenue.
While we can't provide positive verification that there is Gnatcatcber
habitat located on the proposed Orange Avenue alignment, the
possibility does exist that the babitat could exist and we would not want
to be precluded from development for lack of identifying those needs at
this stage.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
~ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
~...Y*
Project Manager
KW~b
cc: Bill Ostrem
P:\BURBRIlOOlEI1!Il27
~ )1-7;;
J..{-
l:.c t.:-., ~
....., v:=-,....,
.......
JlJN - :J
1994
PLANNING
I-
...
..
~
EASTLAKE
m~ENT
900 Lane lWenue
Suite 100
Chute \llste. CA 91914
(619) 421.Q127
FM (619) 421-1830
ATTACHMENT D
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT OF 8/16/94
/9 --- 77
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 8/16/94
REVIEWED BY:
Ordinance 2c..o~ AmencE.ng the Municipal Code to Create a
Voluntary Take Permit Process Sanctioned Under Section 4(d) of the
Endangered Species Act Alternative to the Process Permitted Under
Section 10(a) of Said ~~'J 1 f1/r..
Director of Pla;-gf; f" r f""; Ife/v'
City Manager ~"I'5~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes.lLNo~
In March, 1993 the Federal Department of the Interior listed the California Gnatcatcher as a
threatened species, and adopted a special rule under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act
which establishes specific regulations regarding the taking of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), the
habitat of the Gnatcatcher. This Special Rule allows local jurisdictions to grant CSS "take"
permits if certain findings can be made. The 4(d) Rule is intended to provide an alternative for
applicants who choose not to go directly through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
for a Section lO(a) permit. During the past several months, City staff has been working with
staff of the resource agencies and other local jurisdictions, as well as local property owners, to
implement this local "take" permit process. This emergency ordinance will implement a 4(d)
Take Permit Process for the City, thus allowing the City to issue CSS take permits at the local
level. The proposed ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act, under Class 8 of the Categorical Exemptions. Class 8 consists of
"actions taken by regulatory agencies... to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement
or protection of the environment, where the regulatory process involves procedures for
protection of the environment. "
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the ordinance as an emergency ordinance.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation Commission
considered the draft ordinance at their August 8, 1994 meeting. Staff briefed the committee on
the background of the 4(d) rule and the proposed process contained in the ordinance for
processing the permits. Staff also explained that the ordinance is proposed as an emergency
ordinance in order to accommodate grading for the Rancho Del Rey Middle/High School and
community park during the upcoming biological window. A motion to recommend adoption of
the emergency ordinance failed. The vote was 3-1 in favor of the ordinance; however, four
affirmative votes are required to support any motion. Committee Member Guerreiro voted
against the motion and stated that he was not in favor of any action that would accelerate
development in the City. Three members of the Committee were absent; therefore, a favorable
vote on the item would have required a unanimous vote by all in attendance.
.-/.YT
/5'-7r
Page 2, Item ,5
Meeting Date 8/16/94
DISCUSSION:
Backl!round:
As indicated above, on March 25, 1993, the Federal government listed the California gnatcatcher
as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Typically, any "take" (harm
or harassment) of listed species is strictly regulated by the USFWS, through ESA Section 7 or
10(a) permits. A Section 10(a) permit is issued by the USFWS for a "take" on private property
when there is no substantial Federal involvement (Le. a Federal permit). Section 7 is a
consultation process with the USFWS for Federal projects or private projects that require other
Federal permits, such as a "404" permit which is issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for
alteration of watercourses.
In the case of the California gnatcatcher, the USFWS signed a unique Memorandum of
Understanding with the State of California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to
cooperatively develop conservation strategies for long-term protection of coastal sage scrub
(CSS), which is the habitat for the gnatcatcher and other sensitive species. The State's Natural
Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act, passed in 1991, and the resultant NCCP
program, have outlined habitat conservation strategies in two sets of guidelines: NCCP
Conservation Guidelines, and NCCP Process Guidelines, both fInalized in November, 1993.
On May 2, 1992 the City of City Chula Vista enrolled in the NCCP. By enrolling in the NCCP,
the City agreed to join in the collaborative planning process to conserve long-term viable
populations of the State's native animal and plant species by providing interconnected open space
areas while allowing compatible and appropriate development and growth. In addition, on
August 24, 1993, the City Council approved a Resolution ofIntention (ROI) to participate in the
San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan. The ROI made Chula Vista
an active participant in the MSCP and the future conservation planning efforts for the California
Gnatcatcher and other potentially threatened species.
The implementation of the Endangered Species Act and the NCCP is a two step process. The
fIrst step is the interim protection of CSS habitat through the Special 4(d) rule; the second step
is the adoption of a permanent conservation plan, in coordination with the MSCP and NCCP
programs. By the previous actions taken by the City to enroll in the NCCP and to participate
in the MSCP, the City is working actively toward the adoption of a permanent conservation plan
that will comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
On December 10, 1993, the USFWS formalized its relationship with the State's NCCP effort
by publishing the fInal Endangered Species Act Section 4(d) special rule, effective on that date.
~ /9-/)
Page 3, Item ' S
Meeting Date 8/16/94
The 4(d) rule allows local jurisdictions to approve "incidental take" of CSS habitat, up to a
cumulative 5 percent loss of CSS within the region, during the period of time that subregions
of southern California are preparing conservation plans consistent with the NCCP program.
Individual project CSS loss is only permitted if a mitigation plan is approved.
The interim take of coastal sage scrub allowed through the 4(d) process can be approved only
through local procedures which are consistent with those outlined in the NCCP Conservation
Guidelines and Process Guidelines. These procedures are intended to be integrated into the
normal local land use process. Among other requirements, the NCCP guidelines contain
standards for evaluation of take requests, several required fmdings that must be made by the City
in granting an interim take permit, and review of local permits by the resource agencies within
a specified time period.
Summarv of the Draft Ordinance
The proposed ordinance is intended to provide an alternative procedures for obtaining
authorization to take CSS within the City of Chula Vista. Under the proposed ordinance, the
take permit would become a part of the City's environmental review process. The proposed City
take permit would be processed as a part of the project environmental review, either the Initial
Study or the EIR. Integration of the take permit process with the City's environmental review
process will ensure both a thorough evaluation of the biological resources issues and appropriate
mitigation requirements, and will also allow adequate opportunity for input from the public,
resource agencies, and other affected agencies.
The proposed ordinance has a provision for granting a take permit to previously approved
("pipeline") projects that have already been through the City's environmental review process.
In those cases only the Resource Agencies would be consulted and there would not be additional
public review.
As proposed, the Director of Planning would issue all take permits. In the case of discretionary
actions, the fmdings for granting the take permit would be considered by the decision makers
who would authorize the Director of Planning to issue the permit provided that the fmdings are
still valid at the time of issuance. The intent of this provision is to ensure that take permits are
only issued when grading or site clearance is imminent. Since the granting of a take permit
would essentially reserve a portion of the regional 5 % for a particular project, it is important
that the take allocation not be reserved until it is really needed. This wilI alleviate the possibly
of artificially using up the 5 % for take on paper but not actually in the field.
In addition to the provisions for granting take permits for those actions currently addressed by
City codes, this ordinance also includes a provision requiring authorization for the previously
unregulated activity of vegetation clearing and grubbing that does not involve grading or any
other type of City permit. It is required under the 4 (d) rule that this activity be regulated in
~ /'1-yo
Page 4, Item IS
Meeting Date 8/16/94
the ordinance to prevent property owners from destroying or disturbing CSS habitat that is
protected by the NCCP even when no other permits are requested.
Prooosed Adootion of Ordinance as Emereencv Ordinance
This ordinance is being presented as an emergency ordinance in order to allow consideration of
a interim take permit for at least one previously approved project (Rancho del Rey SPA III), for
which the applicant wishes to begin grading within the non-nesting "biological window" for the
gnatcatcher (September 1 through February 15). This project includes construction of major
public facilities, including a public middle school and community park, which will serve both
existing and future residents of the surrounding community. It is therefore important to the
applicant and the City that grading operations begin as quickly as possible in order to maximize
the grading activities during the "biological window". This will minimize, to the extent
possible, the impacts to the gnatcatcher during their breeding period. The mitigation plans for
this project have been reviewed and approved by both the City and the USFWS; however,
processing of a lO(a) permit by the USFWS would delay construction of the project by at least
one year.
Unresolved Issues
As reported to the City Council on June 7, 1994, there are still several unresolved issues
regarding the interim take process, including the fmal status of the gnatcatcher listing itself, as
well as issues regarding the allocation of interim take acreage within the San Diego region (see
Attachment). Staff is continuing to work with resource agency staffs and the County of San
Diego staff to clarify and resolve these issues. However, staff has determined that adoption of
the attached ordinance can proceed at this time, and as issues regarding the interim take process
are resolved, the ordinance and/or administrative procedures will be reviewed and, if necessary,
be proposed for amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT: All staff time necessary to implement this proposal would be reimbursed
by project applicants through the full cost recovery provisions of the City's environmental
review process.
(f:home\planning\ordilWlCe.113)
~J;t-g-/