HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP); Habitat Management Plan - Fish and Wild Life Record of Decision issuance of Incidental Take Permit; 2004-11-16RECORD OF DECISION
For the Proposed Issuance of a
Section lO(a)(l)(B) Incidental Take Permit
To the City of Carlsbad, based on their Subarea Plan,
Associated with the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Subregional Plan
I. SUMMARY
This Record of Decision (ROD) has been developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in
compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA, 40 C.F.R. 1505.2). The purpose of this ROD is to document
the decision of the Service, in response to the submitted application for an incidental take permit
(Permit) for species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(FESA). This decision is based on the submission of the City of Carlsbad’s permit application
and Subarea Plan (also known as the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan or HMP), as amended,
which is a component of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Subregional Plan
for the northwestern portion of San Diego County, California, hereby incorporated by reference.
The proposed issuance of the Permit is a Federal action subject to review under NEPA. The
Service, at the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, prepared a draft and final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with NEPA. The Service prepared these documents
jointly with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in fulfillment of
SANDAG’s responsibilities under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The joint
final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/ElR) and the MHCP
describe in detail the plan proposed by the City of Carlsbad (Applicant), the proposed action by
the Service, and alternatives to those actions. The EIS/EIR also addressed the subarea plans for
the cities of Oceanside, Encinitas, Escondido and San Marcos at the programmatic level,
however these cities have not submitted formal applications, to date, and therefore may require
further analysis pursuant to NEPA at the time they request a permit.
The purpose of the Service’s action is to determine if the MHCP Subregional Plan and the
Applicant’s Subarea Plan (Carlsbad HMP) and application meet issuance criteria in accordance
with section 1 O(a) of FESA for an incidental take permit.
The need for the section 10 permit under FESA exists because implementation of the proposed
Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP), and other subarea plans, is likely to result in incidental take of
species proposed for coverage. The Service proposes to achieve the following objectives under
the MHCP Subregional Plan and City’s Subarea Plan (HMP): 1) to protect 61 species proposed
for coverage and their habitats that occur or may in the future occur in the MHCP planning area
(northwestern San Diego County) in accordance with FESA and the California Endangered
Species Act; and 2) to provide coverage for the City of Carlsbad for initially 24 species and
conditionally for an additional 19 species either currently listed as threatened or endangered
under the FESA or that may become listed during the 50-year Permit term.
This ROD: a) states the Service’s decision; b) presents the rationale for the decision and
describes its implementation; c) provides background information about the development of the
MHCP; d) briefly describes the proposed project; e) describes the process for obtaining,
reviewing, and responding to public comments on the draft MHCP and draft EIS/EIR; f) explains
changes made between the draft and final versions of the MHCP and EIS/EIR; g) explains
changes made between the draft and final versions of the City of Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP);
h) describes alternatives considered in the EIS/EIR in reaching the decision; and I) states whether
all practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from implementation of the
selected alternative have been adopted (40 C.F.R. 1505.2).
Documents used in preparation of this ROD include: the MHCP Plan (Volumes 1,2, and 3), City
of Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP), City of Carlsbad Implementing Agreement, Final
Environmental Impact StatemenUEnvironmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) by the Service and
SANDAG (Volumes 1 and 2), Carlsbad Biological and Conference Opinion, and the Service’s
Findings on the Permit application. All of these documents are incorporated by reference, in
their entirety, as described in 40 C.F.R. 1508.13.
11. THE DECISION
Based on the results of the final EIS/EIR and the associated appendices, the Carlsbad Biological
and Conference Opinion, and the Findings for the proposed issuance of an Incidental Take
Permit to the City of Carlsbad under the MHCP, I have decided to select Alternative Number 2.
The MHCP Alternative Number 2 provides the over-arching scenario for development in
northwest San Diego County. The City of Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP), as amended, represents
how the City will implement Alternative 2 within the City. Consistent with this alternative, I
have decided to issue a permit to the City of Carlsbad which would provide the City immediate
coverage for 24 species. Six additional species would become Covered Species after the Service
issues a permit to the other respective cities for that species. Thirteen species would become
Covered Species once access and fbnding for management and monitoring of these species are
secured. Lastly, 18 species will not be covered under the City’s Permit, but may be covered by
other cities in the future under the MHCP Subregional Plan, as noted below (see Appendix A).
Based on subsequent Service findings, the Service may also issue permits in the fiture to the
cities of Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista provided that their fbture
applications meet permit issuance criteria and accompanying subarea plans are in substantial
conformance with the Proposed Project - MHCP Alternative as evaluated and revised pursuant to
the EIS/EIR public review process. A total of 61 species have the potential for coverage under
the MHCP Subregional Plan. Should material changes to these subarea plans or their Focused
Planning Area (FPA; preserve area) be made, subsequent review pursuant to NEPA would be
required.
2
111. RATIONALE FOR DECISION
The Service adopted the MHCP Alternative 2 because it best meets the statutory criteria for
issuance of a Section lO(a)(l)(B) Incidental Take Permit under the FESA to the City of Carlsbad
as explained in detail in the Service’s Findings. Implementation of the MHCP and the City of
Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP) will contribute to the maintenance of viable populations of the
Covered Species in the MHCP planning area (northwestern San Diego County), and specifically
for this permit, to the City of Carlsbad for the foreseeable future, and will minimize significant
adverse environmental impacts to the species and the habitats on which they depend, while
effectively mitigating unavoidable impacts to those species and habitats. A more detailed
analysis of the effectiveness of the take minimization and mitigation measures provided under
the MHCP is contained in the Services’ Section 7 Biological and Conference Opinion, and
Section 10 Findings.
The decision to select the MHCP Alternative 2 also rests, in part, on the analysis presented in the
EIS/ER which compared the environmental consequences of each of the alternatives against the
No Action Alternative. Of the four alternatives analyzed in the EIS/ER, the Service finds that
the combination of land acquisition, reserve configuration, reserve management, and monitoring
within the City of Carlsbad under the MHCP Alternative 2 adequately offsets the anticipated
levels of take on the Covered Species associated with implementing the City’s Subarea Plan
(HMP). This is the greatest level of preservation which can be practicably implemented by the
City since the biologically superior alternative (Increased Preservation Alternative) could
significantly impact population and housing by reducing the amount of developable land in the
City by 28.2 percent according to the MHCP EIS Volume 1. The Reduced Preservation
Alternative would conserve less habitat than the MHCP Alternative 2. The No Action
Alternative would result in piecemeal, scattered mitigation of far less value to the Covered
Species than the interconnected system of managed, high quality habitat reserves to be
established under the MHCP Alternative 2. The Service believes the conservation provided
under the MHCP Alternative 2 accurately accounts for the take anticipated from authorized
development in the Plan Area as analyzed in the EIWEIR and the Carlsbad Biological Opinion,
most effectively minimizes and mitigates the impacts of that take, conserves the greatest number
of acres of habitat in usable configurations with cores and linkages, conserves the most species,
and would provide a management structure for maintaining the viability of habitat for the
Covered Species in a manner that can be practicably implemented by the City. By adopting the
MHCP Alternative 2, with its Conservation Strategy, all practical means to avoid, minimize or
mitigate environmental harm from implementation of the Applicants’ proposed project have been
adopted. For these reasons, my decision is to issue the Section lO(a)(l)(B) Permit, with Terms
and Conditions, to the Permittee in accordance with the MHCP Alternative 2 and Implementing
Agreement.
3
IV. BACKGROUND
The MHCP began in 1991 with the formation of a consortium of local, regional, and special
purpose agencies to exchange information on land planning issues and to coordinate preparation
of local conservation plans. This North County Wildlife Forum, with the assistance and
sponsorship of SANDAG, developed a scope of work to prepare a MHCP plan for an area of
approximately 1,029 square miles. Since that time, the planning area has been reduced as the
County withdrew from the MHCP to prepare independent plans. The seven incorporated
jurisdictions that remain in the MHCP planning area continued the planning process, in
cooperation with adjoining jurisdictions. In 1995, the Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game determined that this reduced seven-city study area comprised a functional
subregional planning area under the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act.
The overall goal of the selected MHCP alternative is to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem
health in the region, while maintaining quality of life and economic growth opportunities.
The State of California began formally advocating regional, multi-species conservation planning
in 1991 with passage of the NCCP Act. The NCCP program was established to conserve
populations of multiple California native animal and plant species, and their habitats, in areas
large enough to ensure their long-term viability. The Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP process was the
first planning effort to be initiated under the NCCP Act as a pilot project to serve as a model for
developing accelerated regional conservation planning processes elsewhere in the state. The
Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Process Guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game, 1993)
state that NCCP plans are intended to meet the requirements of both State Management
Authorizations and Federal Habitat Conservation Plans for target species, to allow issuance of
the appropriate State and Federal take authorizations.
The Service, in recognition of the NCCP Program, published a special rule for the federally
threatened coastal California gnatcatcher pursuant to section 4(d) of FESA (58 FR 65088).
Under this special rule, all gnatcatcher impacts and mitigation are analyzed in the context of
long-term, multiple species conservation programs being generated in a manner consistent with
the NCCP program. The 4(d) rule thus integrates the State=s ecosystem-based NCCP Program
with the Federal incidental take permit requirements and provides the regulatory basis for the
development and implementation of multi-species, multi-habitat conservation plans with a broad
regional focus. The California gnatcatcher 4(d) rule allows for interim take of gnatcatchers
consistent with the Conservation Guidelines, which provide for a loss of up to five percent of the
habitat for this species (coastal sage scrub) within the NCCP Planning Area for any jurisdictions
actively developing an NCCP Plan, provided specific criteria are met, including that the habitat
loss cannot preclude the development of long-term NCCP plans. Once an NCCP plan becomes
finalized, a jurisdiction may remove coastal sage scrub exceeding the five percent limit provided
that it is consistent with the approved plan.
4
In keeping with the legislative intent of the NCCP Act to protect multiple habitat types, and in
recognition of the regional-based approach and conservation level achieved by the MHCP, the
State of California Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game, and the Service
(hereafter referred to as the “Wildlife Agencies”) have analyzed the MHCP Plan in terms of its
adequacy in providing a framework for protecting 60 species in addition to the California
gnatcatcher, including 21 other federally listed species and 39 species which are currently
unlisted.
The City of Carlsbad is located along the Pacific Coast in northern San Diego County, California,
and includes 24,570 acres within its incorporated boundaries. Approximately 35 percent of the
City is within the designated Coastal Zone. The Coastal Act and the City’s Local Coastal
Program (LCP) regulate development within this area. The LCP has been amended to include
conservation standards for properties in the Coastal Zone. The specific conservation goals of the
City are to maintain functional biological core areas, maintain functional linkages and movement
comdors, conserve rare vegetation and narrow endemic communities, maintain populations of
target species, and apply a no-net-loss policy to the conservation of wetlands, riparian and oak
woodland habitats.
On March 28,2003, the SANDAG Board of Directors certified the Final EIR in accordance with
CEQA. The Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) was included in the MHCP as a
“Subarea Plan” and the environmental impacts and mitigating measures associated with the HMP
were addressed in the EIR. On June 17,2003, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad approved
the Final EIR for the MHCP by resolution (Resolution Number 2003-157).
V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Statutory Framework
Section 10 of FESA permits take (including harm, harassment, injury andor mortality) of listed
species incidental to otherwise lawful activities provided the applicant’s activities “will not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the [covered] species in the
wild” and the applicant “minimizes and mitigates to the maximum extent practicable” the impact
of take likely to result from its activities. In order to obtain such permission, the Applicant must
submit a HCP that, in the judgment of the Service, meets these basic requirements as well as the
other criteria stated in Section lO(a)(2)(B) of FESA, including the requirement to ensure that
adequate funding for the HCP will be provided.
Under FESA and its implementing regulations, “take” of a listed species may arise fiom
significant habitat modification that results in actual injury or death to the species.
Implementation of the Applicant’s Subarea Plan (HMP) under the MHCP could result in “take”
of listed species. Therefore, the Applicant is seeking a Permit fiom the Service.
5
The Service has conducted a consultation and conference under Section 7 of FESA on the
proposed Permit, dated November xx, 2004. The Service has also adopted Findings on the
proposed permit on November xx, 2004. In accordance with the Service’s Section 7 Biological
Opinion and Conference Opinion, Findings, and this ROD, I have decided to issue a Section
lO(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit to the Applicants for a term of 50 years.
Summary of the Selected MHCP (Alternative 2) B Project Description
The selected MHCP (Alternative 2) is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program
that provides for a streamlined process to authorize incidental take for urban development and
provides for the conservation of multiple species and their habitat within an 1 1 1,908-acre
planning area in northwestern San Diego County. The proposed project under the MHCP Plan is
the Focused Planning Area 2 Alternative. Local jurisdictions will implement their respective
portions of the MHCP Plan through subarea plans which describe specific implementing
mechanisms for the MHCP Plan. The subregional MHCP Plan, and each subarea plan prepared
consistent with the MHCP Plan, are intended to serve as a multiple species habitat conservation
plan pursuant to section 1 O(a)(2)(A) of FESA.
The MHCP Plan area includes land within the boundaries of seven incorporated cities.
Implementation of the MHCP Plan within these seven cities will be phased over time. At this
time, only the City of Carlsbad has applied to the Service for a permit to authorize the incidental
take of species over a 50-year period, and to enter into an Implementing Agreement to implement
the City of Carlsbad’s Subarea Plan (HMP) under the MHCP. The cities of Encinitas,
Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista intend to apply to the Service within the
foreseeable future for incidental take permits pursuant to section lO(a)(l)(B) of FESA.
The Covered Species List for each subarea plan will include only those species determined by the
Service to be adequately conserved by that subarea plan and any other MHCP subarea plan
approved to date. The species list for an individual City may thus be smaller than the overall list
for MHCP, depending upon the conservation provided by that subarea plan and any previously
approved subarea plan(s) in relation to the proposed take. Therefore, there may be several
species lists considered for each jurisdiction. The City of Carlsbad has four different lists (see
Appendix A): (1) a list of “Species Adequately Conserved under the Carlsbad Subarea Plan”
based on the individual subarea plan; (2) a list of “Covered Species Contingent on Other Subarea
Plans Being Permitted”; (3) a list of “Covered Species Contingent on Funding for Management
of Conserved Areas”; and (4) a list of species not covered under the Carlsbad Subarea Plan
(HMP), but with potential coverage for other cities under the MHCP Subregional Plan. For each
Covered Species which is not listed as threatened or endangered under FESA, the Section 1 O(a)
permit will become effective with respect to such species concurrent with the listing of the
species to the extent that their take is prohibited by FESA (Implementing Agreement, Section
10.4) and any other conditions for coverage necessary for coverage to be invoked are met for
species in Tables 2 and 3.
6
The species for which the City of Carlsbad would receive immediate coverage is limited to 24
species. Six additional species would become Covered Species aRer the Service issues a permit
to the other respective cities for that species. Thirteen species would become Covered Species
once access and funding for management and monitoring of these species are secured. Lastly, 18
species will not be covered under the City’s Permit, but may be covered by other cities in the
future under the MHCP Subregional Plan.
Impacts resulting fiom implementation of the Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP) will be minimized
and mitigated below significance through habitat preservation, monitoring, and management.
The selected MHCP (Alternative 2) will conserve a minimum of 19,928 acres of natural habitat
(67 percent of the total remaining natural habitat in the planning area (as depicted in Volume 1))
and 17,966 acres of which are within the biological core and linkage area. Most of the remaining
vacant land not conserved by the MHCP Plan is expected to be developed for urban uses. The
MHCP is expected to assemble the preserve as stated in section 4.0 of MHCP Volume 1 and
implement the conservation measures for each covered species as described in MHCP Volume 2.
The preserve design is expected to be configured as shown, or in a manner biologically
equivalent to that shown in Figure 3-1 of MHCP Volume 1. The preserve lands are to be
permanently conserved, managed and monitored as described in sections 5.0 and 6.0 of MHCP
Volume 1.
The MHCP Subregional Plan specifies that each city needs to apply development regulations and
mitigation guidelines to both public and private projects as described in MHCP Volume 1.
Individual cities may adopt different policies and guidelines or may choose not to use mitigation
ratios as a method of preserve assembly, if they demonstrate that the alternative policies and
guidelines would achieve equivalent or greater levels of conservation. Each City must coordinate
implementation of their subarea plan under the framework of the MHCP and have development
and mitigation standards for the following: (1) Avoidance of Impacts and Allowed
Encroachment; (2) Major Population and Critical Location Policy; (3) Narrow Endemic Policy;
(4) Wetland and Upland Avoidance and Mitigation Criteria; (5) a No-Net-Loss of Wetlands
Policy; (6) Mitigation Requirements; (7) Biological Preserve Design and Checklist; and (8)
Management and Monitoring Standards (consistent with Volume 3 of the MHCP).
In order to obtain and maintain its take authorizations and assurances, the City of Carlsbad
commits to permanently preserve approximately 6,786 acres of the natural habitat within the
MHCP planning area as identified in Figures 4,5, and 6 of the Subarea Plan (HMP). The City of
Carlsbad will permanently conserve approximately the amount of acreage specified in Table 8 of
the Subarea Plan (HMP) (Addendum 2) for each vegetation community. The preserve will be
assembled through: a) conservation of existing public lands; b) conservation of negotiated open
space on private lands (existing hardline and proposed hardline areas); c) application of the City
of Carlsbad’s Standards for Local Facilities Management Zones (1,2, 8, 14, 15,20,21, and 25);
d) acquisition of land in the gnatcatcher core area by the City; e) application of a no-net-loss of
wetland policy, narrow endemic policy, major and critical population policy, and wetland
avoidance and minimization policy; and f) restoration of coastal sage scrub in the City.
7
The City developed a Draft Open Space Management Plan (OSMP) dated May 2004 to describe
a process and structure for open space management and monitoring in the City, to identify and
describe key open space management issues in the City, to recommend strategies and solutions
for effectively handling these open space management issues, and to quantify expected
management and monitoring costs for implementation of the OSMP.
Time Line
The selected MHCP (Alternative 2) is a 50-year plan intended to address the need to protect and
conserve Covered Species and other biological resources within the MHCP planning area, while
allowing some development and other proposed activities. The permit for the City of Carlsbad
Subarea Plan (HMP) would also be for 50 years.
VI. KEYISSUES
Through public scoping and with input from various agencies and the public, key issues for the
MHCP were identified that focused on the following subject areas: (1) biological resources, (2)
agricultural resources, (3) mineral resources, (4) population and housing, (5) public services, and
(6) land use planning. These issues were thoroughly examined in the draft and final EIS/ER.
The six major issues are summarized below. Specific issues related to the Carlsbad Subarea Plan
(HMP) are addressed in Appendix B.
Key Issue #1 - Biological Resources
Commentors expressed concern with the perceived lack of protection of the biological resources
in the MHCP planning area. The impacts are discussed in detail in section 4.0 of the EWER
Generally, implementation of the MHCP is not expected to have a substantial adverse impact on
any wetland or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the Wildlife Agencies, except chaparral in the City of San Marcos and
grasslands (native and non-native) throughout the MHCP planning area. Cumulative effects
associated with the proposed take authorization would involve direct loss of habitat and species
associated with ground disturbance in take authorized areas as development occurs in accordance
with projected growth. Cumulative indirect effects would occur to proposed Covered Species
and their habitats within the MHCP planning area, but are considered less than significant due to
all the minimization and mitigation measures, including management and monitoring in
perpetuity.
8
The MHCP FPA incorporates substantial acreages of suitable habitat and known locations of
Covered Species in a configuration that provides habitat for their breeding, feeding and/or
sheltering. The linkages planned in the FPA provide for the protection of established wildlife
corridors and genetic flow. With the combination of impact reduction features incorporated into
the MHCP, reserve configuration, adaptive management and monitoring, and species survey and
avoidance/minimization policies, the MHCP’s impacts to Covered Species would be less than
significant due to all the minimization and mitigation measures, including management and
monitoring in perpetuity.
While it is assumed that the conservation provided under the selected MHCP (Alternative 2)
could potentially benefit non-Covered Species that occur within the MHCP Focused Planning
Area, it is not possible to quantify the level of conservation because of the lack of information
available for these species. The MHCP features that would contribute to the conservation of
non-Covered Species would include maintenance of core habitat and linkages between habitat,
and impact avoidance and minimization policies. However, implementation of the MHCP could
result in cumulatively significant impacts on the non-Covered Species because the issuance of an
incidental take Permit will remove an impediment to development outside of the MHCP Focused
Planning Area. Non-Covered Species would receive little or no protection outside the MHCP
Focused Planning Area under existing ordinances and regulations, except as provided by CEQA
if they are considered sensitive or rare.
Preserve configuration was assessed separately for each MHCP species based on its particular
space requirements, dispersal abilities, and susceptibility to adverse edge effects. A variety of
features were then developed and incorporated into the selected MHCP (Alternative 2) to avoid
and minimize adverse edge effects, including: standard Best Management Practices, guidelines
for land uses within and adjacent to the preserve, buffers, and species specific standards (see
MHCP Volume 2). In addition, the management and monitoring plans that are developed for
each reserve will also help avoid and minimize edge effects. With these features incorporated,
the MHCP’s edge effects are offset to less than significant.
Key Issue #2 - Agricultural Resources
Commentors expressed concern over the loss of agricultural land to development and the
Conservation Area. Implementation of the MHCP could result in a decrease in the number of
acres of land available for agricultural use. The potential impacts to agricultural lands are
addressed in detail in the EISEIR Section 4.2.
9
The EIS/EIR concludes that flexibility has been incorporated into the selected MHCP Plan and
Subarea Plans to minimize or avoid impacts. The MHCP specifically notes that “the MHCP
recognizes the importance of some agricultural lands as wildlife habitat and considers
agricultural activities to be compatible adjacent to preserve areas. The MHCP will not impose
new regulations on existing agricultural activities nor attempt to displace existing agriculture.”
Thus, existing agricultural activities can be maintained. Nothing regarding the Plan will
adversely affect the ongoing operations. Expansion of agricultural activities will be required to
undergo the same evaluation by the cities and mitigation as any “development” project. Each
City has clearing and grubbing ordinances that regulate the clearing of land for hture agricultural
uses. Hence, no significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated.
Key Issue #3 - Mineral Resources
Commentors expressed concern that there may be lands currently designated for mineral
extraction that would not be available for mining as a result of the implementation of the MHCP.
This effect of the MHCP on these lands is addressed in detail EIS/EIR Section 4.2.
The EISEIR concludes that flexibility has been incorporated into the proposed MHCP Plan and
Subarea Plans to minimize or avoid impacts to conversion of land with the potential for sand and
gravel resources. The MHCP preserve management and monitoring program specifically
addresses mining operations. “The MHCP Plan does not impose any new regulations on owners
or operators of existing mining operations.” New or expanded mines are generally considered
incompatible with the MHCP preserve goals for covered species, however if agreement is made
with Wildlife Agencies prior to conversion of land to mining operations, there is the possibility
of new or expanded mining operations.
Key Issue #4 - Population and Housing
Commentors expressed concern with the potential change in growth rates for northwestern San
Diego County, including the City of Carlsbad. The MHCP is not intended to alter the overall
amount or rate of growth in the MHCP planning area, but it could cause a change in the
distribution, density, or pattern of growth. The effects of the MHCP on population, housing, and
employment are addressed in detail in the EIS/EIR Section 4.6.
With respect to effects on employment and planned residential land use and density, the analysis
presented in the EIS/EIR concludes that implementation of the overall MHCP Plan will not
significantly affect planned residential land use in the region.
1 Key Issue #5 - Public Services and Utilities
Commentors expressed concern with the potential impacts of the MHCP plan on public services
and utilities. The effects of the MHCP on public services and utilities are addressed in detail in
the EISEIR Section 4.5.
10
The EIS/EIR concludes that public services and utilities can be constructed using the design
guidelines established in the proposed MHCP Plan and Subarea Plans. This will minimize or
avoid impacts to regional public services and utilities. It is assumed that the cities’ Master Plans
for public services and utilities will be required for any of the alternatives. These facilities have
been evaluated during the adoption of the respective Master Plans for proposed future services
and utilities. No significant impacts have been identified for the proposed project or alternatives.
Key Issue #6 - Land Use and Planning
Commentors expressed concern with the potential impacts of the MHCP plan on land use and
planning. The effects of the MHCP on land use and planning are addressed in detail in the
EIS/EIR Section 4.2.
With respect to consistency with General Plan and community plan goals, the EIS/EIR concludes
that the proposed project will cause a significant impact. Amendments to cities general plans and
Local Coastal Programs (where applicable) will be required to mitigate impacts to below a level
of significance. With respect to effects on adjacent existing and planned land uses, the EIS/EIR
concludes that flexibility has been incorporated into the proposed MHCP Plan and Subarea Plans
to minimize or avoid impacts. Hence, no significant impacts to land uses are anticipated.
VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Service published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in
the Federal Register on April 15, 1999. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a draft joint
Environmental Impact Statemenfinvironmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was published on
April 13, 1999, in the San Diego Union-Tribune, San Diego Transcript, Asian Journal, La
Prensa, Voice & Viewpoint, and the Coastal and Inland editions of the North County Times. The
NOP was also distributed by mail to 538 recipients. An Initial Study of the MHCP was also
prepared and distributed with the NOP for public review.
On May 5, 1999, SANDAG, the Service, and California Department of Fish and Game held a
public scoping meeting to solicit public comments during the 30-day NOI/NOP public scoping
period. The meeting was advertised in the NO1 and NOP and held at Encinitas City Hall. In
response to the scoping process, eight letters of comment were received. Additionally, two
people spoke at the public scoping meeting. These comments were considered during
preparation of the draft EIS/EIR.
11
On June 28,2000, a notice of receipt of an incidental take permit application and availability of
an Environmental Assessment for the City of Carlsbad’s Subarea Plan (HMP) was published in
the Federal Register for a 30-day public comment period (65 FR 39919). We received a total of
32 comment letters on the draft Environmental Assessment. In response to comments received
during the 30-day public review period, the Service chose to complete its obligations under the
National Environmental Policy Act for the City’s Subarea Plan (HMP) by fully analyzing the
City’s Subarea Plan in the EIS/EIR prepared for the MHCP Subregional Plan. Notice of
availability of the draft EIS/EIR and draft MHCP Plan was published in the Federal Register on
December 28,2001, for a 120-day public comment period (66 FR 67292). The draft EIS/EIR
analyzed the potential environmental impacts that may result from the Federal action of
authorizing incidental take anticipated to occur with implementation of the MHCP, and identified
various alternatives. We received a total of 41 comment letters on the draft EIS/EIR. A response
to each comment has been included in Volume 2 of the final EIS/EIR for the MHCP Subregional
Plan. Several minor revisions were made to the EIS/EIR in response to comments. The majority
of these were for clarification or to correct minor errors. The revisions did not result in
significant change to the analysis of effects in the EIS/EIR.
The Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP) has been modified by addendum since the draft EIS/EIR was
published, as a result of responding to comments in the year 2000 from the California Coastal
Commission (CCC) in order for the City to receive a Federal consistency determination from the
CCC. All of the changes made to the Subarea Plan (HMP), as a result of the CCC (included in
the addendum), are limited to the coastal zone of the City, and do not substantially change the
effects analysis and proposed action in the final EIS/EIR. Thus, no additional NEPA analysis
was conducted of these changes.
Due to the amount of time that has passed since the public comment period on Carlsbad’s
original application for an incidental take permit, the Service published a subsequent notice in
the Federal Register on June 4,2004 (69 FR 3 1632), to inform the public of the proposed action
and to make available for review the three volume subregional MHCP Plan, Carlsbad Subarea
Plan (HMP) for the proposed permit, Implementing Agreement, draft Urgency Ordinance, and
final MHCP EIS/EIR, which includes responses to public comments received on the draft
EIS/EIR. Two letters were received during the public comment period. One letter did not have
any comments and the other letter provided lengthy comments. However, all issues in the
comment letter were previously identified during the public review process for either the MHCP,
MHCP EIS/EIR, or the Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP). All of these comments were fully
considered and addressed in Appendix B to this Record of Decision. No substantive changes
were made to either the MHCP or the City’s Subarea Plan (HMP) as a result of the comments
received. However, the City of Carlsbad has completed additional analysis on estimating
finding costs which are described in Appendix B.
12
VIII. CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL MHCP
The public comment period on the draft MHCP (SANDAG 2001) and its associated
environmental documents enabled the Service to gather comments from interested parties. The
process of reviewing and considering these comments led to the revision of the original proposed
MHCP. The final version of the EISEIR and MHCP were made available to the public in June
4,2004 (69 FR 31612). The final version of the EIS/EIR incorporated changes to figures and
tables in sections 2,3, and 4. In addition to updating the figures and tables, there were minor
revisions made to text found in Section 2.1.2 under the Financing Plan discussion in Section 4.6 -
Population, Housing, and Employment resulting from changes and updates made to the final
MHCP. This information did not raise any new significant impacts or introduce new information
that was not previously included in the Draft EIS/EIR or the Draft MHCP. These changes are
denoted in a strikeout and underline format. The revised tables, figures, and text are located in
the final EIS/EIR between the Table of Contents and the Executive Summary.
IX. CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL CARLSBAD Subarea Plan (HMP)
The Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP) was approved by the Carlsbad City Council on September 2 1 ,
1999. Subsequently, the first addendum was prepared based on comments by the Service and
California Department of Fish and Game. The completed document, dated December 1999, with
Addendum was submitted to the Service with an application for a lO(a)(l)(B) permit.
In August 2000, the Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management granted the
California Coastal Commission’s (CCC) request for a Consistency Review of the City of
Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP) to determine whether issuance of the Incidental Take Permit to
Carlsbad would be consistent with the California Coastal Act. A second Addendum, dated
February 2003, was prepared to revise the City of Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP) as
recommended by the CCC. The second Addendum also provided updated figures and tables.
The following figures were revised as described below:
1. Figure 6 - Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas: Updated to account for projects that
have been completed since the previous figures and to change Mandana from a standards
area to a hardline area;
Figure 8 - City Golf Course: Revised to account for changes from CCC standards;
Figure 12 - Kelly Hillman: Revised to add a standards area that was not previously
identified;
Figure 17 - Hub Park and San Diego Gas & Electric Property: Revised to account for
change from CCC standards;
Figure 26 - Proposed Standards Areas: Updated to account for projects that have been
Mandana property from the standards area;
Figure 27 - Conservation Components Map: Updated to account for changes in figures 6
and 26;
2.
3.
4.
5.
completed since the previous figures, to add the Kevane property, and to remove the
6.
13
7.
8.
Figure 34 - Summit at Carlsbad Property: Revised to account for changes from CCC
standards;
Figure 35 - Mandana Property: Added as a hardline area due to agreement from the
Service and California Department of Fish and Game that the mapped design meets the
standards for the area;
Figure 36 - Aura Circle: Revised to account for changes from CCC standards;
Figure 37 - Roesch: Revised to account for changes from CCC standards;
Figure 38 - Promenade: Revised to account for changes from CCC standards;
Figure 39 - Redeemer by the Sea: Updated to depict a completed project as an existing
hardline area; and
Figure 40 - Thompson - Tabata: Updated to depict a completed project as an existing
hardline area.
9.
10.
1 1.
12.
13.
Due to the above changes in figures, the following tables were updated to reflect such changes:
Table 4,6,7, and 8. Due to these changes, the City of Carlsbad has experienced a net increase in
habitat preservation in the City.
X. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Four alternatives were identified and analyzed in the Draft and Final EIS/EIR. These include: a)
the MHCP proposed alternative (Alternative 2); b) the Reduced Preservation Alternative; c) the
Increased Preservation Alternative; and d) the No Project Alternative. Section 5 of this
document provides a summary of the Final MHCP B Project Description (Alternative 2). A
brief description of the other three alternatives is provided below. A detailed description of all
four alternatives can be found in section 2 of the EIS/EIR. Under the Reduced Preservation
alternative, the preserve system would be similar to the proposed project; however, the preserve
system would not include preservation of the 400 to 500 acres of contiguous coastal sage scrub in
the coastal California gnatcatcher core area and the restoration of 338 acres of coastal sage scrub
habitat throughout the MHCP planning area. Overall, 19,928 acres (67 percent) of the habitat in
the total MHCP study area would be conserved under this alternative.
Under the Increased Preservation Alternative, all large contiguous areas of habitat, all areas
supporting major and critical species populations or habitat areas, and all important functional
linkages and movement corridors between them would be conserved. Approximately 83 percent
of coastal sage scrub, 93 percent of chaparral, 95 percent of coastal sage/chaparral mix, and 100
percent of riparian and estuarine habitats would be conserved in the total MHCP study area.
Overall, 24,565 acres (82 percent) of the habitat in the study area would be conserved under this
alternative.
Under the No Project Alternative, only listed species and habitat occupied by such species would
receive protection. It was estimated that conservation levels would include 19 percent of coastal
sage scrub, 3 1 percent of chaparral, and 18 percent of coastal sagekhaparral mix within the
MHCP study area. Overall, 8,989 acres (30 percent) of natural habitats in the study area would
be conserved under this alternative.
14
XI. IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of this decision may occur not sooner than 30 days after the date that the Notice
of Availability of the MHCP Final EIS is published in the Federal Register by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA published this notice over 120 days ago on June
4,2004 (69 FR 3 1612). Therefore, timing of the Service’s action on the MHCP permit
application is in compliance with the Council of Environmental Quality regulations found at 40
CFR 1506.10.
XII. CONTACT PERSON
For additional information concerning the specific activities authorized under this decision,
contact Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 601 0 Hidden Valley
Road, Carlsbad, CA. 92009, phone (760) 43 1-9440.
Deputy hlanager
Califomia/Nevada Operations Office
15
References
City of Carlsbad. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad
(dated December 1999), with Addendum 1 (dated December 1999) and Addendum 2
(dated June 2003).
Implementation Agreement by and among the City of Carlsbad, the California Department of
Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to establish the Habitat
Management Plan for the Conservation of Threatened , Endangered, and Other Species in
the City of Carlsbad, California. Dated November -, 2004.
SANDAG. Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Plan, Volumes 1,2, and 3. Dated March
2003.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and San Diego Association of Governments. Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Threatened and
Endangered Species Due to the Urban Growth within the Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program Planning Area. Volumes I and II. Dated March 2003.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Findings and Recommendations for the Issuance of Section
1 O(a)( 1)(B) Incidental Take Permit to the City of Carlsbad, based on their Subarea Plan,
Associated with the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. Dated November -, 2004.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological and Conference Opinions on Issuance of an
Incidental Take Permit to the City of Carlsbad pursuant to the Multiple Habitat
Conservation Program, San Diego County, California (1-6-03-FWS-847.4). Dated
November -, 2004.
16
Primed on Recycled Puper
Appendix B
a t t a chn-kr? t 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthomo Street
San Francisco, CA 91105-3901
June 28,2004
Jim Bartel
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad. California 92009
Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Multiple Habitat
Conservation Program (MHCP) for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to
the Urban Growth within the Planning Area, San Diego County, California (CEQ
#040247)
Dear Mr. Bartel:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency @PA) has reviewed the above-referenced
document pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act.
EPA reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the MHCP. We
rated the DEIS as Lack of Objections (LO). Having reviewed the FEIS, we continue to support
the project’s goal of protecting viable populations of native plant and animal species and their
habitats, while accommodating continued economic development and quality of life for residents
within the planning area.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this FEIS. When the Record of Decision is
signed, please send one copy to the address above (mail code: Ch4D-2). If you have any
questions, please contact me or David Schmidt, the lead reviewer for this project. David can be
reached at 415-972-3792 or schrnidt.davidp8epa.gov.
Sincerely ,
Cross Media Division
07/06!2064 15: 34 16197587748 SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER
Appendix B
attachnrcpt 7
OR IGI NAL
North County Open %ace Coalition*
A coalition of environmental organhtions dedicated to ensurfng effecfive regional habitat
planning in North County
Seat via facsimile and r@ - nr mall
July 6,2004
Mr. Jim Bartel
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
601 0 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: Comments on fiilnal EISETR for the MHCP and Response to Comments on
draft EIS/EIR, and Incidental Take Permit for the Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program (MHCP), Carlsbsd, CA
Dcar Mr. Bartcl:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the final MHCP EIS/ER and Response to
Comments on the &af€ EISZIR, as well as, thc pmit application for Carlsbad’s Subarea
Plan. We are very pleased that Carlsbad’s permit application is moving forward and hope
to be able to review pmit applications for other MHCP cities in the not too distant
future. We appreciate Carlsbad’s willingness to take the lead by adopting and
implemcnthg a program that, if done wcll, will protect the environment and securc a high
quaIity of life for existing and fhre rcsidetlts.
A comment letter on the draft EISEIR for the MHCP war submitted on April 29,2002,
by a group of conservation organizations. Your Response to Comments documcnt refers
to these comments under thc heading “California Native Plant Society” (CNPS). We
offer out previous comments for resubmission and with this Ietter attempt to summalizc
om remaining highest priority cornxmcnts.
Since the time of our first lettcr, several conservation oxgamzatious have formed tlie
North County Open Space Coalition (NCOSC) to continue to work on the MHCP and
other issues. This comment letter is being submitted by the following organizations;
Buma Vista Audubon Society; California Native Plant Society, San Diego Chapter;
1
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197567746 SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE 62
Center for Biological Diversity; Friends of Hedionda Creek; Preserve Calavera; San.
Diego Audubon Sociery, San Diego BayKeeper; San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy, Sierra
Club, San Diego Chapter; and the Surfrider Foundation, San Diego Chapter.
The NCOSC is dedicated to effective regional habitat planning in North Sal Diego
County. To that end, we offer the following comments beginning with comments (both
gcncrd and specific) on the Final EIS/EIR for the MRCP as a whole, and followcd by
specific comments on Carkbad’s Subarea Plan.
GEm COMMENT S on MHCP Hnal EISIEIS
1. The preferred alternativdproposed project does not preserve enough of the
natural habitats remaining in the MHCP study area
At a conservation level of 67%, we believe that this alternative will not gtlarantcc the
swival and recovery of the endangcrcd, threatened and other saithe species and their
habitats in the MHCP study area.
We strongly support the increased preservation dtemativc, which would consme all
large contiplous areas of habitat, aI1 areas supporting major and critical species
populations or habitat areas, and all important functional linkages and movcment
corridors between them. Ovdl, 24,565 acres (82%) of the habitat in the study area
would be conserved under the increased preservation alternative.
Wc made the above commmt in our letttr of April 29,2002, page 3. Your response to
this comment indicated that the percent conservation estimates in the plan reflcct the
minimum level of consmation guaranteed by the plan. You also stated, ‘The cities have
stated that they anticipate a 1Jgher percent con$ervation as projects arc cntitlcd, open
space set aside, and mitigation wsurcd, and as additional Ian& are acquircd fbm willing
selkrs.” (Responsc to Comments, CNPS-5, p. 129)
WE nota that total conservation lcvcls for the MNCP cities under the prefmed alternative
range from a high of 80% €or Encinitas to a low of 49% for San Marcos. San Marcos’
proposed conservation level is unacceptably low.
We hope to work with thc various cities to achieve the highcst level of consmation
possible.
2. Public access io the decisionmaking process on subarea plan developmtat is
needed.
In ordcr for organizations such as om to work with the citics to maximize consmation
through collaborativc efforts, a proccss must bc established. At this time, thee is no
2
87/06/2084 15: 34 16197587748 SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER PACE 03
formal mechanism for public input into the subarca plan development process. Wc havc
asked rhat the MHCP Stakeholders Subcommittee of the h&€CP Advisory Committee, as
described in Section 5.7.2 oftbe Final MHCP Plan, Volume 1, be formed immediately.
However, we have been informed rhat it will be convened when there is a nexus of two
approved subarea plans. The Carlsbad Subarca Plan (HMP) will soon be permittcd;
however, it may be many month before the next subarea plan is approved. Not having a
fonrm for open discussion during thc subarea plan development process limits our ability
to work with the cities towards creation of an improved North County Preserve.
Wc believe that a public forum, such as the Stakeholders Subcommittee, will provide
benefits to thc cities that are in the process of finalizing thcir subarea plans. In the last
year, we have workcd with the cities of Carlsbad an.d Oceanside on their subcueas plans,
and we believe that significant improvements have resulted.
Again, we ask that the h4HCR Stakeholders Subcommittee of the MHCP Advisory
Committee he formod immediatcly.
3. Linkages between core areas must be adequate for wildlife movement
The second objective of the MHCP, as stated in the Biological Goals, Standards, and
Guidelines for Multiplc Habitat Preserve Design (Ogdcn, 1998, p. 1-l), is:
“Maintain hctional wildlife corridors and habitat linkages between critical biological
T-esourcc areas”
Section 6 of thc above document contains Guidclines for wildlife corridors design. Item
8 on page 6-4 states, “[m]inimiee barriers such as major roads.”
We are very concerned about roads that cross through wildlife corridors. It is
inappropriate to designate an area as a wildlife corridor and then allow a road to bc
constructcd through the corridor. We urge the MHCP cities and the Wildlife Agencies to
rcvkw the subarea plans to eliminate proposed roads through wildlife corridors.
Kroads cannot be etiminatcd, then the cities should strictly adhere to the design
guidelines for corridors and habitat linkages, as stated in item 8 on page 6-4. Too often,
wiIdlifc undercrossings are too small for the animals to cross unda the road, A casc in
point is the proposed 48 inch culvert undcr the extension of Las Posas Road along Agua
Hedionda Creek in northern San Marcos, This undercrossing is too small to allow deer which inhabit the arca to cross under the road.
We continue to find that the cities are not adhering to the design guidalincs for wildlife
corridors and habitat linkages. We seek assurance that dl of the design standards related
to roadways cmssings of wildlifc corridors as dcscribed in MHCP Design Guidclines,
page 6-4, “Biological Goals, Standards and Guidelines for Multiple Habitat Prmeme
3
07/06/2004 15: 34 1619750774tI SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE 04
Design” are inoorporatcd by refmce and will be fully complied with. If that is not the
case, then pleasc provide specific explanation of any proposed variation and its
justification.
4. Narrow endemlcs.
Volume II states that mow endemic species must be avoided to the maximum extcnt
possiblc. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation should be described in more dctail.
The specific biological conditions undcr which impacts would be pennittcd should be
detailed and included in the plan. For example, if 5% gross cumulative loss of nGow
endemic populations or occupied acerage is allowed within thc FPA for each Subarea, wc
need detailed information describing the circumstances under which this loss would bc
allowcd to occur. For example, which 5% could be lost? Would only isolatcd
populations be considwed expendable? Would impacts be limited to projccts required for
public hcalth and safety? Would impacts onIy be pmitted when a “biologically
superior” outcome could be achieved? Please include this level of detail regarding the
standards for “avoidance” of narrow cndcmics.
9. No-surprises policy.
We understand that the no-surprises policy that is in thc MHCP has been enjoined by a
recent fcderal court ruling. How will the MHCP be changed to reflect the court’s
decision?
6. Regiomall funding sourcc.
While we are aware that the MECCP plan addresses hding issues, such as the rcgional
finding source, wc are daeply concerned about the adequacy of funding for the MHCP.
Wc understand that thc proposed extension of the Transnct Tax includes funding for
habitat conservation programs h Sm Diego County, including the MHCP, for impacts
associated with transportation system improvements throughout the county. However,
thcrc is B likelihood that the voters will not pass the Tmnsnct Tax extension; even if it is
passed, it will provide only a small portion of the hnds required.
This is another compelling reason to convene the MHCP Stakeholders Subcommittee as
early as possiblc, as that subcommittee will provide a forum for early and continuous
involvement with issues of MHCP implementation, funding, and public outreach.
Wc reiterate our cotlccrn that a contingency fund nceds to be established for
compensation of propcrty ownets wherc all economically viable property use has been
removed.
4
07/06/2804 15: 34 16197587748 ’ SAN DIEGO BAWEEPER
7. Performance indicators.
PAGE 05
The performance monitoring system that has bcen proposcd will be a significant
improvement over current conditions. However, wc bclicve that it does not go far enough
to assess key indicators of the health of an ecosystem. A recent EPA report proposes a
€ramework for collecting data on measurn that are important, such as habitat
fragmentation, biological diversity, and nutrient cycling. This report, “A Conceptual
Framework for Reporting on Ecological Condition,” can be found at the following
website:
www.epagov/sab
We rqucst that the required data collection and reporting system include more indicators
of systcm health.
8. Financial oversight of organizations responsible for management and monitoring
of the MHCP Preserve.
The Environmental Trust, which has been responsible for managing scvmal important
ecological areas, has ceased managing their assets and have stopped taking on new
projects, This raises the question of financial oversight to assure the protection and
proper usage of MMCP funds. We recommend an oversight system that would include:
> a finmcial aclvisory committee similar to the scientific advisory committee
b mnual financial reporting at a publicly noticed meeting h definition of basic investment principles deigned to assure appropriatc level of
risk for endowed funds
9 requirements for carIy disclosure of a finn’s financial difficulties and provisions
for corrcctivc action
9. Some responses to comments were not adequate,
We appreciate the work that wcnt into responding to the comments in our letter of
Apn’I29,2002.
In some cases, the responses to our comments were not adequate. Two examples arc;
* CNPS-47 (page 145)
Thc comment rclatcd to large blocks of important habitat excludcd from the FPA in
northwest Escondido and portions of San Marcos.
07/06/2804 15; 34 16197587740 PAGE 86
The response discussed only the large blocks in. Escondido and did not discuss the blocks
in San Marcos.
* CNPS-4 15 (page 247-248)
The last sentence of the comment questioned the scientific basis for habitat re-creation
plans, such as revegetation of cut and fill slopes on Cerro de las Posas.
The response did not address this issue.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS on M HCP Nnal EXWEIS
Final EISBIR - Revised Text for Section. 2.0 and Section 4.0
1. On the first page of this section, under Financing Policics, Habitat Acquisition, it
states: “It is assumed for analysis that the federal and state governments collectively and
thc local jurisdictions, collEctively, will be responsible for meeting onehalf of that
habitat acquisition that may be needed for plan implementation.”
Does this mean that the govmnment agencies and local jurisdictions combincd will be
responsible for mccting one-half of the acquisition needed? If so, who is responsible for
the other half?
Also, “...habitat acquisition that may be ntedcd for plan implementation” should read
“...habitat acquisition that i,s needed for plan implementation,” sincc the plan clearly
requircs significant acquisition.
The minimum acreages speci.fi.ad for thc fcderal and state agencies and for each city
should be spcfled out more clearly, sincc acquiring land for the preserve is critical for the
plan’s success.
2. On the third page of this section, under “Establishing an Endowment to Fund
Recurring Costs in Perpetuity,” it statcs: “An alternative approach is to renew or replace
the regional finding program at the end of its initia1 tcrm. The latter approach wi11 reduce
the required annual revenues of the rcgional finding program.” This sentcnce indicates
that there could be an altemative to establishing an endowment. However, it is dangerous
to assume that the voters will extend the regional funding sowce after its initial term.
They may not do so, in which case rhe funding source for ongoing preserve expenses
would disappear. An endowment is a much more secure means of assu- that the fbnds
for preserve expenses will be available as needed.
3. The Chang06 to pagc 2-21 indicate that $1.3 million of coastal sagc scrub (CSS)
restoration is requircd for Carlsbad, $2.43 million for Oceanside, and $34 thousand for:
6
07/86/2004 15: 34 16197587748’ S&N DIEGO BAYKEEPER
San Marcos. How will you assure that there is adequate coastal sage scrub conservation
until all thc cities have funded their share of this restoration?
SE!EcIFIC COMMENTS ON THE FINAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF CARLS BAD
I. Inadequate level of conservation.
PAGE E7
As mentioned above in our general comments, wc have consistently indicated OUT
concern with the overall level of consmation of sensitive habitats provided for in the
MHCP. This concern also applies to the City of Carlsbad M. The City of Carlsbad
proposes to cmsc~e only 71% of the remaining sensitive habitat. Although Carlsbad is
only about halfbuilt out, their proposed level of conservation is csscntially the same a3
other North County cities that are over 80% built out. Because of the relatively low
perccntage of buildout, thcrc: arc significant opportunities to improve the level of
conswation oppontunities that will be lost if the conservation goal is cstablishcd at such
E) low lwel.
This low level of oonscrvation is of particular concern for the City of Carlsbad because of the edge effects on many small parcels, the ability to mitigatc outside the City boundaries,
thc need to protect corn areas and linkages, and the increasing pressure on opm space
from public use. There arc no machanisms to maximize the consmafion of the
remaining core areas. Counting stccp slopes, Home Owners Association (HOA) land
(that is not bcing managed to protect tbc biological resources) and isolated patches as
prosnvcd, downplays thc real losscs of sensitive habitat that are proposod.
The City of Carlsbad still has hundreds of acres of sensitive habitat remaining, the public
will to increase conservation (as evidenced by the vote on Measure C), and the financial
resources to make it happen, This is not just a once in a lifetime opportunity it is the only
opportunity.
2. Inadequate wetlands protection.
The MHCP responses to comments, CNPS-72, clarifies the MHCP language with rcspcct
to wetlands protection, adds mitigation ratios for wetlands habitats, and states that the
idcntified wetlands communities “arc subject to the goal. of no net loss in acreage,
function and biological value (see section 3.6-1). The highest prioritywill be given to
impact avoidance and minimization. Rqfacmcnt of habitat subject to unavoidabIe
impact Will occur through rcstoration or creation of substitute habitat mas, generally of
the same kind and in thc vicinity of the impacted habitat.”
7
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587740 SPM DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE E6
The HMP has not incorporated this reviscd language. During the last fourteen months
since the MHCP was approved by SANDAG, thc City has certified enwrOnmenla1
documents for several projects stating that thcy wcre in compliance with the adopted
MHO with respcct to wetlands avoidance, yet wetlands impacts were permitted when
avoidance options were readily attainable and the approvcd action did not opthke
wetlands restoration in the project vicinity. The Summit project ihstrates several of
thcse points, as well as the original draft EIR for Cantorini/Holly Springs. For the latter
project the DER was revised, because your agmcy required rhe elianges. Given these
recent examplcs, we are concerned about compliance when take authorrty is transferred.
How wilI compliance with thcsc provisions rclated to wetlands protection be assured?
Furthermore, we find no place in the HMP where the concept of wetland buffers is
mentioned outside of the coastal zone. The Wildlife Agencies have proposed wetlands
buffer language, but the City of Carlsbad responded that this would be done on a case by
cam basis. What general guidelines will be referrad to for the purposes of completing a
casc by casc analysis? Specific language should be added to address the need for wetland
buffers and provide a basis to evaluate whether projects are in compliancc,
3. Need for addithnal Special Resource Area.
In our comments on the Oceanside Subarea Plan we pointcd out that the Buena Vista
Creek vallq, particularly the area around the El Salt0 watcrfall (the “South Coast”
project area) should be designated a joint Special Rcsource Area with the City of
Carlsbad. The Responses to Comments, CNPS 112, indicated that this area would be
considered for such designation prior to approval of the hplcmenting Agreement. There
is no indication that this has occurred. This area is an important local east/west wildIife
conidor with connecting Linkages to the major regional wildlife corridor from Carlsbad
through Oceanside. The adjacent property, identified as th~ “Shemat?” parcel, is a
Priority Oiie acquisition for thc wildlife agencies because of its significance for regional wildlife connectivity. Acquisition by the Wildlife Conscrvation Board is pending. This
entire ma has special significance and should bc considered for focuscd planning. There
are opportunities to cnhanCe regional GOX’InCCtiVity, the biological functioii Of the wctlands
habitat, and the impaired Buena Vista sub-watmhed. This arca should be called out for
speci a1 consideration.
4. Protection of wildlife corridors.
The MHCP includes very specific requirements for wildlife corridors, with guidelines for
width of 1,000 fcet and restrictions on pinch points. The HMP identifies key wildlife
corridors (linkages), but includes project developmcnt footprints that are in violation of
thcse guidelines. For example, the Holly SpringdCantorini projccts include the primary
regional wildlife conidor as Link C (as shown on Figurc 4). Yet Figure 11, showing the
detailed pkojccl footprint, includes a conidor of less than 600 feet. This linkage includcs
8
SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE 09
a SDG&E easement which is routinely graded and is devoid of vegetation, as well as
various encroachments from thc adjacent residmtial neighborhood, including an
extensive bird feeding station. In reality this corridor is even more restricted than the 600
feet indicatcd on paper. The MHCP guidelines have not been incorporated in the HMT’
plms for wildlife conidors, nor m thcy incorpomted in the City’s practices. EIRs
routinely state projects are in compliance with the MHCP provisions in spite of clear
violations of thc lcttcr and the spirit of wildlife corridor protection.
a. The approved development footprints must clearly meet the standards for
wildlifc corridors or there must be adcquate means to compensate for
compromises such as through revcgctation of degraded areas thar could provide an
acceptable corridor. Tn the case of projccts like Holiy Springs or Mandana. which
have not yet been approved, the footprht should be changed to fully comply With
the standard for a 1,000 foot width corridor. In tha case of already approved
projccts, like the Carlsbad Raceway, aggressive efforts are ncedcd to rcstorc the
adjacent industrial park slopes to native habitat to compensate for thc pinch poitit
of the corridor created by the approvtd project footprint.
The Mandana project is of particular concern because it was included within ai1 addendum that primarily addressed the coastal zone, was approved after the MHCP was adopted, includes the major regional wildlifc conidor linkagc, fails to meet the wildlife corridor standards of the MHCP, fails to prcscrve other sensitive
habitat on site, and appears to include thrcc additional roadway crossings of this
regional wildlife conidor. This project footprint scriously degrades regional
connectivity but none of this was discussed in the staff report recommending
approval of thc projcct and consequently thme was no issue raised during the City
hearings on this. Final approval of this project footprint should bc dclaycd
pmding environmental review of this project.
b. Additionally, more consistent and aggressive action must be taken to protect the
existing and planned corridors ffom the edge cffccts of adjacent deveIopment.
MHCP Vol. II “3.12 Preserve Configuration” states that in spite of efforts to
prescrvc and enhance landscape linkages that “nevertheless, many of these
linkages and other: habitat areas will be narrow and subject to sevac cdge effects.
Consequently, active management to controI edge effects and msure ecosystem
function. will bc rcquired to achieve MHCP bioIogical goals.” The HMP fails to
provide sufficient action to compensate for thc compromises to the wildlife
corridors. HOA managed lands are a significant factor in several arcas, and these
lands are not proposed for active managmmt until the approval of thc regional fuading source. In othm cases, land causing the edge effect is in another
jurisdiction. Two examples of this are the Vista residential neighborhood north of
Faraday along Brookhavm Pass, and the Ocean Hills Country Club areas in
Oceanside. In both of these areas the adjacent residential neighborhoods bavc direct paths through smitjve habitat, have escaped or planted landscaped plants
into open space, and have installed bascball backstops and bird feeding stations in
9
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587748 SAN DIEGO BAWEEPER PAGE 10
designated open space areas. New development Codes, Covenants, and
Rtstrjctions (CCm’s) should protect adjacent opm space with fencing and
prohibitions on direct acccss by homeowners. Existing developrncnt HOA’s need
to be notified ofkey issues and inform their residents or be subject to sanctions,
and intejunsdictional coordination must be improved.
c. Protection of thc wildlife corridors must include adequate provisions for
wildlife crossings of roadways. The HMP has not integrated the revised MHCP
language that improved wildlife crossings and includes insufficient assurances
that such crossings will be part of the rorltine project review process.
Gnatcatchers and other endangered birds cannot be protected by conserving
coastal sage scrub habitat alone. Healthy mesopredator populations and adequate
roadway crossings are essential to keep these populations viable (Crooks and
Soult 1999, Evink et all 1996, Romin and Bissonette 1996, Gibeau 1993).
The MHCP Volme I“6.2.3 Development’’ indudes the following guidelinc,
“[ulse bridges, instead ofcdverts, for all major riparian crossings and regional
Wildlife movement corridors, and use 3-meter chain-link frncing to direct wildlife
movement toward the wildlife undu-pass. The site of the riparian crossing and its
importance ag a wildlife corridor should dictate the design. Noise within
underpasses should be lcss than 60 dBA (decibels, A-weighted scale) during the
time of day at which the animals use it, Shield comdors hrn artificial lighting.
Use skylight openings within the underpass to allow for vcgctative cover within
the underpass. Design underpasses or culverts to be at least 30 feet wide by 15
feet high with a maximum 2: 1 length-to-width ratio. Avoid co-locating human
trails and wildlife moveniemt com’dordcrossings.’’
This issue is critical to mceting the biological goals of the MHCP, These
standards should be specifically addressed in Carlsbad’s HMP. Beyond that., they
need to be incorporated into project design. One example of this is the proposed
wildlife culvert under Faraday. This is the primary regional wildlife corridor, yet
a bridge was ignored in favor of a box culvert. The culvert measures 12’ x 20’
and will extend about 300’. Pedestrian trails will cross the wildlife corridor a few
feet from the undercrossing, and there was no evaluation of decibel lcvds within
the culvert. The HMP needs to include better standards for wildlife road
crossings.
5. Funding for comtal sage scrub (CSS) restoration.
The MX-ICP EIR/EIS responses to commcnts indicated there will be a need for $1.3
million in CSS restoration within the City ofcarlsbad. This was not includcd in the
annual budget adopted by thc City on Junc 22,2004 and is not referenced in the Ilh. What mechanism will bc used to assure that this restoration is both funded and
implemented?
10
07/06/2884 15: 34 16197587740 SAN DIEGO BAWEEPER PAGE 11
6. Watershcd protection.
The City currently has no guidelines regarding the allowable increase in impervious cover
or incentives to increase the use of pervious or semi-pervious surfaces. This is of
increasing concern as wetlands habitats continue to decline as a result of cumulative
impacts of upstream developrncnt (much ofwhich the City has no control over). This is
an issue that needs to be addressed throughout the region, but each city nccds to
participate in a meaningful cffort to prevent the continued degradation of thc watershed.
The wetlands habitats throughout the area are in decline and have Iittle ability to
compensate for ftrthcr dcvclopment.
Wildlife agency staff has recently bccn commcnthg on the need for considering more
pervious or semi-pervious cover in their responses to iiidividual projects. The United
States Environmental Protcctjon Agency (USEPA 1999) has stated that increases in peak
flow volumes and velocity associated with increasing impervious cover can result in: 1
stream bed scouring and habitat degradation; 2) shoreline erosioii and stream bank
widcning; 3) loss or aquatic species; and 4) decreased base flow. Wetlands function and
quality cannot be protected without addressing this issue.
Another key issue is coordination between agencies including the City staff, Wildlifc
Agaicics, and Amy Corps of Engineers. Al1 wctlands impacts should require cross
notification and consultation between all of these agcncies. This is necessary because
permit applications can change between submittals €or the same project, and there have
been cases (such as Carlsbad Oaks North) whwc an item has been removed from one
agcncy permit, but not hm. another and each is respondng to a different project content.
7. Lake Calavera Mitigation bank.
Concerns regarding thc operation of this mitigation bank, intended to mitigate public
infiaskuctura projects, have been submitted previously. The responses to comments
indicated that this would be addressed in a mitigation banking agreement. We believe
this banking agreaneult should bc part of the packagt of documents included with this
Federal Register posting and be part of the public notice process. This is necessary to
assurc that the bank is charged with previously approved projects, that remaining credits
are reduced to a maximum of 186.55 acres, (as was pohtd out to the City in Wildlife
Agency comments previously but has yet to be addressed) and that there arc adequate
provisions to protect this area, including endowment Mds for rnanagemmt in perpetuity.
Thc City’s managcment of this proposed mitigation bank is of particular concm since
the rccently circulated (with insufficient public notice) environmental documents would
allow partial draining of the lake with immediate habitat loss and a long tern restoration
need. A currently non-existent habitat cannot be used to mitigate for other projects. How
does the city intend to use this area as a bank and also destroy thc wetlands habitat around
the lake?
I1
SAN DfEGO BAWEEPER
8. Standards amas
Standards areas include hundreds of acres of rcrnaining sensitive habitat. Compliance with the guidelirles for dcvelopment of these arcas mwt be mured. The recently issued
Robertson Ranch projcct scope and the previously approved Summit projcct both include
hardlinc boundaries that vary hm standards.
CEQA is the environmental revicw process by wblch the public interacts with decision
makcrs in developjng policies affecting thc cnvironmcnt, Jts purpose has been cleatly
statcd by the Supme Court: the CEQA proccss "protects not only the environment but
also informed self-govcmment" (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990)). One of the primary purposes of thc law is to solicit public input ptior to find
determination of the outcomc of a projcct. If hardline boundaries are determined prior to
CEQA, OW concern is that, in esscncc, this amounts to a pre-determination that nullifies
the significance of public input and thc CEQA comment period.
CEQA requires agencies to prcparc ElTcs and negative declarations ''as earIy as feasibIe in
the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program
and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental
assessment." (CEQA Guidelines, Section 1.5004, subd. @)), We understand that
dctcrmining the tuning is a delicate problem, however, we hope we can work on a
solution with you that gets ar this issue of "predetermined outcomes" and ensurcs that
hardline negotiations are to be considered "tentativc" pcnding h11 review as requited by
CEQA.
Finally, CEQA not only ensures public input, it is ale0 the process though which
mitigation is determined. A projcct cannot be found to be fully in CO~OIITWICC with the
MHCP/HMp until the mitigation ofbiological impacts is evaluated through the CEQA
process. In short, Wines for a project cannot be considered final until CEQA
mitigation requirements are found to conform to the MHCPIHMP. Thus, for all of the
reasons identified above, we quest the following ~~mmitm~~~t.~: I) pubiic notice whcn
hardlinc discussions are initiated; and 2) that formal hardline agrement on Robertson
Ranch and other standards arcas be postponed until the CEQA public commcnt period($)
closcs.
Additionally, whilc puhIic participation should be ensured, it is cvm more important that
the Wildlife Agencies be involved in the CEQA proccss. Language should be added to
the pIan that requires both the U.S. Fish md Wildlifc Service md the DcpaWnent of Fish
and Oame to be involved in thc CEQA process for individual devclopmmt projects.
9. lnadequate mitigation for grasslands and coastal sagdchaparral mix.
The EIS/EIR 4.3.3.1, stated, "[tlha marginal level of consmation of thesc two vegetation
comrnunitics is inadequate, abd will have subsequcnt significant impacts." Each of these
12
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587740 SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE 13
vegetation communiticslsensitive habitats is proposed to be conserved at thc 38% level.
Table 4.3-6 indicates that the proposed mitigation measure - conservation of an additional
30% of the grasslands in a consolidated preservation program, is infeasible because of thc
associated impact to housing. This same analysis was applied to the significant impacts
to the Northem harrier, This assertion is incorrect for the City of Carlsbad. According to
Table 8 of the HMF, the City contains 1,856 acres of grassland and proposes to conserve
707 acres. Comparison of HMP Figure 3, ‘Vegetation Map” and Figure 27,
“Conservation Componmts Map,” indicates that the non-conserved grassland acres
include several large parcels dong the Palomar Aitport Rd and El Camino Real corridors,
in areas zoned industrial and commercial. Preservation of grassland habitats along these
corridors will have no adverse impact on housing. One of those parcels is contained
within thc proposcd Carlsbad Oaks North industrial park projcct. This projcct alonc would impact 2 1.7 acres of grassland including one of only 13 Northern harrier nesting
sites San Diego County. Conservation of this particular grassland area, adjacent to
wctlands and contiguous with a large core habitat area could certainly reduce the impacts
with absolutely no impact on housing. While it may be difficult to achieve B full 30%
incrcasc in grassland conservation, it is apparent that there remain substantial
opportunities to reduce these impacts, and no serious effort has bccn put into mitigation.
nc statcd justification for completely ignoring mitigation for this impact, its effect on
housing, is falsc.
This same justification was applied to the lak of mitigation for scved other grassland
related spccics including the burrowing owl, grasshopper sparrow, and tricolor blackbird.
Improved grassland consemation is feasible, wilI benefit multiple species, and can be
achieved with no adverse impacts to housing. Grasslands mitigation must be significantly
increased.
10. Funding.
For the last seycIstl months we have bm working with thc City on the Open Space
Management Plan. While tberc has been significant progress, we have remaining
concerns about the level of offort and the adequacy of the funding provided to support it.
We recognize that a funding plan must be provided within six months of the take permit.
We request that this funding plan also be subject to a public comment period.
11. Management of preserve lande
Please Cl.arify that the Open Space Management Plan for Carlsbad which was recently finalized is included in this permit application.
t3
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587740 SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER
12. Financial oversight for preserve land managers.
PAGE 14
Subsequent to the approval of the mCP, one of the two non-pofit rand managers
responsible for the permanent managment of conserved land in Carlsbad filed for
bankruptcy and ceased to manage their lands. As mentioned previously, this is an jssue
that needs to be addrased in both the MHCP, for the entire region, and in the Carlsbad
FfMP. The land that was supposed to be managed has already been significantly
degraded. This l~ardline conservation land, much of it in core habitat areas, needs
immediate interim provisions to assure the protection of biological resources. Tn addition,
there will need to be a reassessment of land condition and new management plans
developed once a permanent replacement is secured.
13. Failure to incorporate changes agreed to in the responses to comments.
In scveral cases the EWEITS responses to comments indicated that recommended changes
would be incorporated into subarea plans. Thc foollowing is a list of those comments that
haw not been addressed in the Carlsbad HMP : N22, CCC2-9/10, CNPS 49, CNPS 72,
CNPS 112, EHL2-6, SDC 17, SDC 65, SDC 72, PS-1, and Thum 4.
Approval of the MHCP and EWEIS by the SANDAG Board includcd these
commitments. It was our undcrstanding that these arc binding and should therefore be
itlcorporated into the Carlsbad HMP.
14. Management a.ctlons regarding recreation, pnhlfc access, and adjacent land use
are insufficient to protect the biological resources.
Control of key issues rclatcd to adjacent land uses are critical to minimize the impacts of
cdgc cffects, particularly on the many isolated fi-agmtnts and wildlife corridors that are
less than the minimum widths (Le., essentially all of them). Landscaping criteria for
adjacent land is a kcy concern that has not been addressed, TJI numcrous areas adjaccnt
landscaping has caused the problcm with ixlvasivcs and will continue Eo add to the on-
going rnaivtenancc costs and dcgradaCion of habitat quality. While prohibiting the sale
and distribution of the identified pcst plant species (per Ca PEC list) is problmatic,
these issues can be addressed through more effective outreach to the landscaping industry
a5 wcll as pubfic education. Given the significant amount of development that has not yct
bcm permitted, all new dwelopmenxt must be conditioned to use an acceptable plant
palette, with additional hitations on those plants adjacent to opm space.
Thc existing opm space arcas in Cmlsbad are subjcct to heavy public use, and this has
increased dramatically ag new rasidantial areas EUC completed which both add more users
and reduce the space for hiking and biking. Your staff documentcd these advcrse impacts
to the CaIavm Highlands mitigation bank last year and. closed the majo~ty of the area to
public use. Other areas suffered the same levels of damaging use but wae not closed.
14
87/66/2004 15: 34 16197587740 SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE 15
Limited public uses should continue where appropriate, but the guidelines for trails and
public USE must be improved. The listed critaia for mountain bikhg trails art in conflict
with the trdl guidelines developed by key USCT groups. For example, lh~ San Diego
Mountain Biking Association has guidelines for what thcy call sustainable trails -
minimal impact which will not cause erosion with continucd use. These are narrower and
loss steep than the minimum 6 feet wide and up to 25% slope allowcd in F 2.3..
Furthermore, water diversion is the critical issue for trail sustainability. The W
rcquiments to “install water breaks on steep trails to prcvcnt acceleratcd runoff and
erosion,” are not sufficient. Comprehensive planning to control the effccts of water along
all trail segments must bc rquired. The City of San Marcos trail standards provide for
2% slopes to the inside of trails, and watm control rncchanisms that art specific to slope
wd site conditions.
The City has been extending the waif system with each new dwdopmmt but has not bem
following thc guidclincs included in thc HMP in thdr dcsign. For cxamplc, the MHCP
contains very specific conditions on cquatrian uses including limitations on water
crossings, and restrictions on trail use after rain. The City practice has been to use
cxisting trails as part of the new City-wide trail system. ORen these existing segments fail
to mcet any reasonable trail guidelines for either width or grade. The rcsponsc to this has
bcm that it is better to use already degmded areas than to cut ncw trails in sensitive
habitat. Tlis determination should be based on sitc spmific conditions. Trails that
servcd historic access needs are likely to changc as the pattern of development changes
and should not be considered de facto trails. Betta criteria are needed to address trail
related public accas issues.
15. Actions related to uncovered species.
Exhibit A attached to the JA provides a clear delincation of covered species and my
specific conditions for their coverage. This will help asmc some relationship batwcen
the take pcrmit and the rnanagemmt actions to protect thc impacted species. Our
remaining concm relates to the uncovered species (List 4) that are likely to occw within
the City. How WiIl the public be assured that an adequate assessment for these uncovered
species has bwn completed? What provisions are there for consultation with the Wildlife
Agencies or othm means to cle&nnine adequate survey protocols and compliance with the
protocols for these species?
16. Figure 27 inconsistencies.
Figure 27, “Rcvised Conservation Components Map” included in Addcndum 2 still
shows a developed rectangle of Iand within Core # 3 but there is no detailed figure or
f’urther explanation that shows the impact of this development. This area was prcviously
identified as the site for relocation of thc police shooting range ftom the area that is now
the sit6 of the new municipal golf course. City represcntatives ham repeatedly stated that
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587740 SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER
this area Will no longer be used for the police shooting range, yet this development area
still shows on the map, and it is unclear if these acres have been subtracted from the area
of land to he conserved.
PAGE 16
Figure 27 also fdtls to show Cannon Road Rcach 4 as a dcvelopment impact, although
other planned mads are clearly shown. Reach 4 remains on the City Circulation Element
and was called out in the recent city budget hearbgs as now being an active project.
Why is Reach 4 being treated differently from other planned but unbuilt rods? Have the
acres of impact (through hardline preserve land) been correctly accounted for in assessing
the viability of the core area in the summary of habitat impacts?
CARLSBAD IMPLEMENTXNG AG REEMENT.COMMENTS
General Corn ments on I.A.
1. Area Specific Management Plans.
Language should be added to the LA. which states that Area-specific monitoring and
managanent plans must be devclopcd and approved by the wildlife agencies for preserve lands no later than 2 years aftcr lands are dedicated to thc preserve and they must be
implemented immediately upon approval of the plan,
2. Independent Scientific Review.
The J.A. agreement should include language requiring sciemtific peer review every three
years. This should include review by the sciencc advism who participated in the plan
development and review of the biological analysis, as well as independant advisors to
evaluate management and monitoring of covered species in the preserve. Also, to ensure
transparency, public trust, and also renew the various cities’ conunitmmt to the plan, language should be added to mure that the plan is taka to the respective City Councils
each par,
3. Development of ordinances and adoption of General Plan Amendments.
Language should bc add4 to thc LA. whi.ch specifically states that ordinances and
aeneral Plan hcndznmts, if not filly implemented, dl1 result in permit revocation.
16
I I
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587740
Gomments on Exhibit B of the LA.
1. Funding
SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE 17
Jt is stated that "plamcd responses will bc implemented by using the funding sources
described in Section 14 of the TA for each of the Changed Circumstances, and only to the
extent providd by the identified funding sowoes." Howeva. nonc of the hdkg sources
identified in Section 14 mention changed Circumstances, and many are restricted in a way
that would seem to prelude thcir use for this purpose. There is no assured responsc to
changed circumstances in a timely majylef unless firnds are made available in advance.
Please clarify exactly how many dollars are to be provided, from what fbnding source,
and when.
2. Repetitive fire
We arc concerned that the sourcc of all of the risk assessment data is the City of Carlsbad
Fire Dcppartment. Statements such as3 "vegetation that has been bumed rcquires
approximately five yews to grow before becoming a potentially hazardous fuel Ioad" do
not take into account variations by habitat type, and plant species. In many amas non-
native annual. grasscs are a common post fire dominant plant type, and ulty can create a
potentially hazardous fuel load in a year. The technical firc cxpartise needs to be
balanccd with input from botanists. The historical fire data does not indicate how many
of thc cighty fires (if any) met the critcria for changed circumstances.
The statistical basis for defining a repetitive fue as a repeat bum of less than 5 acres
occurring within less than thrcc years of the original fire is unclear. Did any of the 80 fires cited bum 5 acres or more? When was the last fire Of5 acres? Were any of thc 80
fires repetitk.? If USFWS determines a rcpetitive fire is within 1.0 years, why is thc
crit~a set at only 3 years in Carlsbad?
Thc preventive rncamres rely entirely on brush management &d management of fire
response. A critical fire prevention measure. is the municipal firc code. Adding
requircments to use fire resistant materials and reduce adjacent stn~cturc cxterior fuel
loads in new construction and in retrofits of misting construction would be much more
effective in reducing th.is risk than those proposed.
3. Flood
Therc is no clcar definition of what constitutes an unforeseen flood. Plcase provide a
clear, noa-di scretionary definition.
07/06/2804 15: 34 16197587740 SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE 18
The description of Agua Hdonda watershed is not correct with rcspcct to Calavera
Creek. Portions of Calavera Cmk in Oceanside are culverted and channclizcd.
A key preventive measurc for flooding is full implexnentation of the City’s Master
Drainage Plan. While thc statcd prcvcntivc rnasurcs address new development, they do not impact projects that are already built, many of which discharge directly to local
creeks. It is these existing projects, bath within the City limits and upstrcm from the
City boundaries that are currently adding to cumulative watershed impacts with increased
rurl-off volume, velocity, and changes m peak discharge rates. Cuxrently, elemcnts of the
Master Drainage Plan (such as roads and other public infrastmctwe) are only built when
an adjacent project is developed. Full jmplemmtation of the Master Drainage Plan is
rquired to address planned flooding up to the 100 year flood level, yet thcre has bccn no
environmental analysis of the impacts of the Master Drainage Plan. Scvcral elements of the plan, like the use of in-creek detention basins havc both direct and indirect habitat
impacts. The full impact offlooding or the proposed control of flooding as included in
the Master Drainage Plan has not been adcquately evaluated.
In addition a key problem with watershed protection is the parcentage of irnpcrvious
cover. This issue has been raised by wildlife agency staff in comments on individual
projccts. It also needs to be addr~ssed in a more comprehmsive way as a preventivc:
measure throughout the MRCP area and within each of the North County cities. Thcre should be specific goals to optimize the amount of permeable and semi-pameable cover.
Drought response measurcs WE an area where the use of volunteers could significantly
reducc the impacts. Volunteers are now hand watming plants in many areas, using
successful models of adopt a tree programs carricd out over years.
We appreciate all of thc work that your staff has put into the MHCP and this Subarea Plan and into considering our concerns. We are also grateful to Carlsbad staffand
CounciI members who have welcomed our input and continue to work with us to find
solutions to the comment9 described in this letter. Wc hope to continue to work with the
Wildlife Agencies, the city of Carlsbad, and the other North County cities in a
cooperative effort to achieve the most effective North County pwerve possible.
Please contact Allison Rolfa at (619) 758-7768 if you have any questions or comments.
She can direct you to the appropriate contact. Thank you for your consideration of our
concerns.
Yours truly,
07/86/2604 15: 34 16197587740 W DIEGO BANEPER
hdy Mauro
Buena Vista Audubon Societv
Carolyn Mamad
California Nativc Plant Society, San Diego Chapter _-
David Hogan
Center for Biological Diversity
Sandra Fmell,
Friends of Hedionda Creek
Prcsewe Calavera
Jamas Pcugh
San Dicgo Audubon Society
Allison Rolfe
San Diego BayKeeper
Doug Gi.bson
San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy
Mary H. Clarke Chair, MHCP Task Force
Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter
PAGE 19
19
Marco Oonzalcz, Esq.
Sufridcr Foundation, Sa Dicgo Chapter
Dennis R. Villavicexlcio, Esq.
City of Carlsbad Resident
*(this letter represents the position of the above-signed organizations on/y)
cc: Janet Fairbanks, SANDAG
Nancy Frost, California Department of Fish and Game
Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad
Michael Holzmillcr, City of Carlsbad
Patrick Mauphy, City of Enchitas
Barbara Rodlitz, City of Escondido
Jerry Hittlcman, City of Oceansidc City Manager, City of San Maws
Rita Geldert, City of Vista
Crooks, K.R. and M.E. Soule. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a
fkapcnted system.. Nature 400:$G3-566.
Evink, G.L.P. Barretf D. Zeigler, and J.Berry, eds. 1996. Trends in Addressing
Transportalion- related Wildlife Mortality. No. FLER-58-96. Florida Department of
Transportation. Tallahassee, FIonda
Gibeau, M. L. 1993. Use of urban habitat by coyotes in the vicinity of BmfC Alberta. MS
thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 6Gpp.
PAGE 20
Romin, LA., and J.A. Sissoncttc. 1996.Temporal and spatial distribution of highway
inortality on mule deer on ncwly constructed roads at JordatleIle Reservoir, Utah. Grcat
Basin Naturalist 54:l-11.
20
1x R
attachment 3
I Figure 27
Conservation Components Map
RECEIVED 0 0.5 1 2 +
Miles
5 OCT 04 2004
Appendix B
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
ON THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
MULTIPLE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
DATED MARCH 2003
1
The Service published a notice in the Federal Register on June 4,2004 (69 FR 3 1632) to inform
the public of the proposed action and to make available for review the three volume subregional
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Plan (MHCP), Carlsbad Subarea Plan (also known as the
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan or HMP) for the proposed permit, Implementing Agreement,
draft Urgency Ordinance, and final MHCP Environmental Impact StatementEnvironmental
Impact Report (EIS/EIR), which includes responses to public comments received on the draft
EIS/ER. Two letters were received during the public comment period (Appendix B, attachments
1 and 2). One letter did not have any comments and the other letter from the North County Open
Space Coalition provided lengthy comments. However, all issues in the comment letter were
previously identified during the public review process for either the MHCP, MHCP EIS/EIR, or
the Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP). All of these comments were fully considered and are
addressed below. The categorization and numbering of the following responses corresponds with
that used in the comment letter.
GENERAL COMMENTS on MHCP Final EIS/EIS
1. The preferred alternative/proposed project does not preserve enough of the natural
habitats remaining in the MHCP study area.
Response: The conservation program proposed in the MHCP is a combination of many
elements including the acreage amounts indicated for each city and for the MHCP as a whole,
conditions of coverage for species, preserve configuration, coordination between subareas,
management of the preserve system, monitoring of the status of resources, and reporting to the
wildlife agencies and public. Biological analysis performed as part of the MHCP concluded that
this combination of actions, properly carried out as described in the plan, will conserve an
amount and configuration of habitat necessary to adequately protect the species of concern.
Increased conservation acreage may occur during plan implementation but is not required. To
the extent additional acreage is conserved, it may provide an additional cushion of protection for
some species (see CNPS-5, p. 129). In regards to the comment that the proposed conservation
level in the City of San Marcos is unacceptably low, the proposed conservation level in the
MHCP and EIS/EIR does not necessarily represent the highest level of conservation that will
occur in the City. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and California Department of
Fish and Game (Department), hereafter referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have been working
with the City of San Marcos to increase the level of conservation throughout the City, especially
for coastal sage scrub and chaparral. We will continue to work with the City in this regard, prior
to consideration of issuing the City of San Marcos a permit under section lO(A)l(b) of the
Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (FESA). Please note, we have not
encouraged the City of San Marcos to request a permit until we address some of our outstanding
Appendix B
issues. Once we do receive such a permit request, there will be at least one 60-day public
comment period.
2
2. Public access to the decision-making process on subarea plan development is needed.
Response: Each City will determine their desired level of public involvement prior to release of a
public review draft subarea plan. Requests for such involvement should be directed to the
respective city. The Wildlife Agencies have and will continue to meet our obligations for public
accesdreview of such plans. There have been at least two formal 30-day comment periods on the
draft Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP) and a 120-day public comment period on the draft EIS/EIR
for MHCP, in addition to public workshops, providing information on the internet, responding to
phone and mail inquiries, etc. We will continue to provide such formal and informal
opportunities for public review during the subarea plan development and approval processes.
Such involvement will entail at least one 60-day formal public comment period for each subarea
plan once a permit request is received by the Service. As described in the comment, the MHCP
only requires formation of coordinating structures once two or more cities have approval of their
subarea plans. However, cities may also request formation of a coordinating group such as the
Stakeholders Subcommittee prior to approval of two or more subarea plans. Such a request
would be voluntary on the part of the cities. Such a request has not yet been made.
3. Linkages between core areas must be adequate for wildlife movement.
Response: The comment expressed concern about roads crossing wildlife corridors. We share
this concern. Where possible, such roads will be eliminated. The Biological Goals, Standards,
and Guidelines for Multiple Habitat Preserve Design are noted as a reference document and were
utilized by the cities as guidance in preparing their subarea plans. The guidelines provide broad
biological objectives and goals for the MHCP, guidelines to follow to achieve the goals and
objectives, and standards by which the preserve can be judged. This document was not intended
to set legal or numerical standards. Please note that the Biological Goals, Standards, and
Guidelines for Multiple Habitat Preserve Design document you reference were designed to guide
the biological analysis, and have been superseded by MHCP Volume II. With respect to future
roads, the cities will be required to utilize the steps of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation in
the planning stages and meet the conditions of coverage for species that the road may affect.
This includes applying the standard best management practices described in Appendix B of
MHCP Volume 2. If it is determined through this process that a road must pass through a
preserved area, the respective city will consult with the Wildlife Agencies regarding the location,
size and type of wildlife crossing that must be provided. One of the benefits of this process is
that cities, in order to obtain an Incidental Take Permit, must develop subarea plans based on best
management practices that they must implement. Projects in the City of Carlsbad have been
cooperative in achieving such wildlife crossing standards set by the Wildlife Agencies on a
project-by-project basis. For example, a wildlife undercrossing of Rancho Santa Fe Road has
already been constructed. Similar undercrossings at Palomar Airport Road and at Melrose Drive
have been funded and will be constructed as part of the Carlsbad Raceway project. Standards
Appendix B 3
for such crossings can be found in the “planning standards” for each zone within the Carlsbad
Subarea Plan (HMP).
4. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of narrow endemics should be described in
more detail.
Response: The Final MHCP Plan Volume II contains permitting conditions for all narrow
endemic species. These conditions, which will be required as part of a city’s Incidental Take
Permit, will ensure that any proposed projects which would involve impacts to narrow endemic
species will utilize avoidance and minimization to the maximum extent practicable. Particular
attention will be given to major or critical populations. Projects which address public health,
safety and welfare would have the highest priority for allowance of such impacts. Implementing
ordinances for the Subarea Plans may provide further definition of the circumstances under
which Narrow Endemics may be taken. We purposely have not outlined a specific process for
how the five percent cumulative loss could occur for each City because it is difficult to predict
the scenario(s) where take would be proposed and how best to respond to such losses. However,
the basic tenets of preserve design and biological needs of the particular narrow endemic species
will be used to determine where such a loss would minimize impacts on the species as a whole.
Such determinations would be made in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies and agreed to
prior to impacts.
5. Court ruling on No Surprises policy.
Response: Pursuant to an order issued on June 10,2004, by the District Court for the District of
Columbia in Spirit of the Sage Council v. Norton Civil Action No. 98-1873 (D. D.C.), the
Service is enjoined from issuing new section lO(a)(l)(B) permits or related documents
containing “No Surprises” assurances, as defined by the Service’s “No Surprises” rule published
at 63 FR 8859 (February 23, 1998), until such time as the Service adopts new permit revocation
rules specifically applicable to section 1 O(a)( l)(b) permits in compliance with the public notice
and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Until such time as the June
10,2004, order has been rescinded or the Service’s authority to issue permits with “No Surprises”
assurances has been otherwise reinstated, the Service will not approve any incidental take permits
or related documents that contain “No Surprises” assurances, consistent with the Director’s Order
dated June 28,2004.
6. Concern over potential lack of a regional funding source.
Response: The MHCP plan addresses hnding as noted in the comment, however, only from an
umbrella plan perspective to identify alternative funding sources and cost estimates. However,
each city under the MHCP will be receiving their own take permit under section 1 O(a)( l)(b) of
the FESA and as a result, a demonstration of adequate funding to implement the program is each
city’s responsibility; each city needs to identify how they will specifically fund their obligations
under the MHCP and permit. The MHCP plan does not state that the reauthorization of the
Transnet tax is the only means by which the plan would be implemented, nor has any subarea
Appendix B 4
plan. In addition, the MHCP clearly states that interim funding is required by each City to ensure
they can meet all of their obligations under the MHCP once a permit is issued. At this time, the
Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP) is the only MHCP plan that has requested a take permit under
section lO(a)(l)(b) of the FESA. They have provided a detailed funding analysis which identifies
the funding necessary to implement the plan and how such funds will be provided. This
information is within the draft Open Space Management Plan (OSMP) and commitment of such
fimding is within the Implementing Agreement. In addition, the City has noted that it can not
initially provide active biological management or monitoring on private lands or existing open
space as depicted as Private on figure 2-3 of the OSMP. The HOA or private landowner will be
responsible for controlling trash, fire, and illegal encampments. However, if funding becomes
available, such as through a regional funding source, the City will coordinate with private
landowners and Homeowners Associations to use these funds to implement and oversee active
biological management and monitoring on these lands at the MHCP level. As a result of this
delayed ability to access and fund management and monitoring for such lands, coverage for
certain species (as shown in List 2 and List 3), is not provided immediately with issuance of the
Incidental Take Permit; coverage may be provided when and if the City gains such access and
funds.
7. Performance indicators in plan are not adequate.
Response: We concur that meaninghl performance indicators are essential to the proper
functioning of preserve areas in perpetuity. We reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) report identified in the comment. The USEPA report is consistent with the
approach used in the MHCP, except that the USEPA report is more detailed for specific
measurements. When implementation of the MHCP management and monitoring program
begins, we will consult this document, as well as other sources of information on this topic.
Please note, the management and monitoring program for MHCP and the City of Carlsbad were
never intended to be static processes. We anticipate that future advances in research on
ecosystem functioning will provide important aids to implementation. An important feature of
adaptive management in the MHCP and Carlsbad’s OSMP is that the management program can
adjust based on new information derived from monitoring.
8. Financial oversight of organizations responsible for management and monitoring of the
MHCP Preserve.
Response: We concur that financial oversight will be important to long term implementation and
that steps need to be taken to oversee the investment and spending activities of third party
preserve managers. The precise methods of oversight will require further consultation between
the affected parties. The methods suggested in the comment letter will be given further study and
may be adopted by the cities. Please note that the City of Carlsbad has made a commitment to
ensure management and monitoring of any lands owned andor managed by The Environmental
Trust (TET) in the City of Carlsbad that have been identified as areas that will be managed
immediately after the City receives a permit, and will continue to be managed and monitored as
expected regardless of the organizational status of TET.
Appendix B 5
9. Some responses to comments were not adequate.
Response A: The comment pertains to large blocks of habitat excluded from the focus planning
area in portions of San Marcos. The San Marcos subarea plan includes a large unbroken block of
habitat located south of San Marcos Mountains. This ridgeline forms the western boundary of
Twin Oaks Valley. The northern focused planning area conservation levels along the ridgeline
range from 75 percent to 100 percent. This will ensure adequate conservation to this large,
unbroken block of coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat. Additionally, the City’s southern
focused planning provides a critical gnatcatcher and wildlife corridor linking the City of Carlsbad
and Lake Hodges. However, we recognize the proposed conservation level in the MHCP and
EISEIR for the City of San Marcos does not necessarily represent the highest level of
conservation that will occur in the City. The Wildlife Agencies have been working with the City
of San Marcos to increase the level of conservation throughout the City, especially for coastal
sage scrub and chaparral in the southern planning area. We will continue to work with the City
in this regard, prior to consideration of issuing the City of San Marcos a permit under section
lO(a)(l)(b) of the FESA. Please note, we have not yet received a permit request from the City of
San Marcos and once we do receive such a permit request there will be at least one 60-day public
comment period.
Response B: The second comment questions the scientific basis for habitat re-creation plans,
such as revegetation of cut and fill slopes on Cerro de las Posas. It is our understanding that this
comment is referring to the slopes on San Elijo Hills, of which the revegetation plan was part of
the San Elijo Hills EIR and subject to public review and comment prior to being permitted by the
City of San Marcos. This project is now part of the baseline of MHCP since it has already been
permitted by the City of San Marcos. We are committed to ensuring sound science is used
throughout the MHCP plan and will address this particular issue further once the City of San
Marcos requests an incidental take permit from the Service.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS on MHCP Final EIS/EIS
1. Acquisition of habitat areas.
Response: The assumption used in the MHCP analysis is that Federal and State agencies
together will purchase up to approximately 609 acres of Priority 1 conservation areas, which
support important biological resources, if there are willing sellers and if the cities agree to
establish an endowment for habitat management and monitoring. The endowment, or
endowments, must be sufficient to manage and monitor Priority 1 conservation areas in
perpetuity. In turn, the MHCP cities would acquire up to 738 acres of Priority 2 conservation
areas, which also support biological resources or which are important to the configuration of the
MHCP preserve system, if funding is available from a regional funding program or from
alternative funding sources. Due to uncertainty regarding the acreage to be provided by exaction
from development projects, the cost figures used in the MHCP should be understood as working
assumptions, subject to change as plan approval and implementation proceeds. After conducting
Appendix B 6
the species specific analysis of coverage for the MHCP Subregional Plan, the Wildlife Agencies
found that acquisition is likely unnecessary for all the species proposed for coverage if the
MHCP Volume 1 and 2 and Carlsbad HMP standards are applied to lands proposing
development. However, it is also likely that lands identified as Priority 1 conservation areas
would not retain viable economic use of the property if such standards were applied, thus, the
State and Federal government have committed to purchasing such lands from willing sellers at
fair market value. In conclusion, the MHCP participating cities have no obligation for
acquisition of lands, except for the City of Carlsbad which has an obligation to cause to effect the
conservation of 307.6 acres of habitat in the City of Carlsbad and gnatcatcher core area. The
acquisition obligation of the Federal and State governments is 660 acres throughout the MHCP.
The Federal and State governments are actively pursuing the purchase of priority 1 properties
within the MO planning area.
2. Endowment for recurring costs.
Response: We concur that establishment of a non-wasting endowment for recurring costs is
generally more secure than other forms of financing which have limited terms. However, each
form of financing contains risks that must be weighed, and it would be unwise to specify one
approach that must be utilized by all MHCP cities. The cities may each propose financing
structures that meet their needs while minimizing the risk to themselves and to the conservation
program. All such proposals must ensure that financing is available in perpetuity and will be
evaluated by the Wildlife Agencies as part of review and approval of the Implementing
Agreement.
3. Coastal sage scrub revegetation.
Response: The purpose of the revegetation requirement is to supplement the preservation of
existing coastal sage scrub habitat by creation of habitat on agricultural or disturbed lands. The
Carlsbad HMP discusses areas where restoration of 104 acres of coastal sage scrub is required in
key locations within the City’s FPA. For example, some key linkages involve agricultural land
when that is the most suitable route for connecting existing habitat patches. The purpose of the
restoration is to increase breeding habitat for the gnatcatcher and improve functionality of a
“stepping-stone” linkage through the MHCP plan area. The key locations identified were on the
Carlsbad Raceway, Robertson Ranch, and the City’s proposed municipal golf course. The
Carlsbad Raceway has since been approved under formal consultation with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers under section 7 of the FESA. The applicant has committed to restoration of 17.5
acres of coastal sage scrub restoration associated with this project. In addition, coastal sage scrub
restoration will occur onsite at the adjacent Palomar Forum (1.57 acres) and Carlsbad Oaks North
(20.9 acres) projects. The Robertson Ranch site is expected to have 10 acres of coastal sage
scrub revegetation associated with the Calavera Hills project and an additional 21 acres of coastal
sage scrub revegetation associated with developing the Robertson Ranch parcel. The City’s
proposed municipal golf course has since increased the amount of on-site revegetation of coastal
sage scrub by 15.4 acres, however, this restoration credit is being deducted from the City’s
obligations in the gnatcatcher core area. In addition, the Carlsbad Oaks North project will be
Appendix B 7
restoring 20 acres of nonnative grasslands to coastal sage scrub offsite at the Carlsbad Highlands
mitigation bank. Thus, shortly after receiving their permit for the HMP, the City is expected to
meet and exceed the 104 acres of coastal sage scrub revegetation expected in section 3.3.2 of
MHCP Volume 1. Additional coastal sage scrub conservation may occur through other means,
such as acquisition, which may reduce or eliminate the need for the revegetation requiremerit.
Each City will continuously monitor the levels of impact in relation to levels of conservation to
ensure that they remain in the proper proportions, and the Wildlife Agencies will ensure they are
in “rough step” on an annual basis. If at any time it appears that the level of conservation is less
than it should be, given the amount of impact that has been authorized, revegetation would be
one of several methods for increasing the coastal sage scrub conservation numbers to their
required level.
The MHCP assumes that the required revegetation will be paid for by regional funding.
However, any specific restorationhevegetation obligations would need to have interim funding
identified by the respective city if species coverage is dependant upon such restoration.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE FINAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1. Inadequate level of conservation in Carlsbad.
Response: Fragmentation is an issue that will be addressed in the management and monitoring
program which the draft Open Space Management Plan (OSMP) describes in more detail.
Although some additional conservation beyond the acreage thresholds stated in the HMP is
likely, the added acreage is not likely to significantly alter the overall percentage of conservation.
The City of Carlsbad has determined that a significantly higher level of conservation is not
feasible due to the requirements of other land uses, including state mandates for housing
production, public demand for active use recreation, and non-residential development to support
the City’s economic goals. The Service has determined that Conservation of 7 1 percent of
remaining sensitive habitat is adequate to conserve the covered species as described in more
detail in our Findings document. In addition, the City of Carlsbad has indicated a willingness to
consider targeted, strategic acquisition of important habitat land following approval of the HMP.
2. Inadequate wetlands protection.
Response: Wetland conservation will be accomplished by application of the wetland avoidance
and mitigation criteria stated in the MHCP Volume I, section 3.6. For wetland dependant
covered species, all projects will be required to comply with the conditions for species coverage
stated in the MHCP Volume II, including conditions for buffers and minimization of edge
effects. All projects in the vicinity of lagoons will be required to comply with the conditions for
coverage of estuarine species as stated in Appendix E of Volume II. For projects within the
coastal zone boundary of Carlsbad, more stringent limitations on wetland impacts have been
included in both the City’s Local Coastal Program and in the HMP. In addition, the City will
consider more specific wetland impact criteria and buffer standards as part of its adoption of
Appendix B 8
implementing ordinances following HMP approval. The Service has determined that the
standards within the HMP and MHCP for wetlands and estuarine species, combined with
additional measures in the coastal zone of Carlsbad, are adequate to protect wetlands within the
plan area.
3. Need for additional Special Resource Area.
Response: Three Special Resource Areas were designated in the City of Carlsbad for those areas
that are important to preserve design or the conservation of particular species that are naturally
vegetated, but too small, edge-effected, or isolated to be considered biological cores or linkage
areas. The Cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside are pursuing a coordinated response to your request
to add El Salta Falls as a Special Resource Area, however, additional information is necessary
before such a determination can be made. The area referred to as South Coast in the HMP is
governed by a Reclamation Plan approved by the State of California, for which the City of
Oceanside is the lead agency. An amendment to the Reclamation Plan is currently being
processed specifically to address the concerns of wildlife and resource agencies regarding Buena
Vista Creek. The South Coast area is also shown as a Hardline Area in the HMP, and that design
will require modification, due to the amendment to the Reclamation Plan. An environmental
impact report is in preparation, for which the City of Oceanside is the lead agency. The
combination of the above actions (Reclamation Plan, EIR, and HMP amendment) will provide
the vehicle for public input into the revised plans with a specific focus on El Salto Falls and the
wetland values of Buena Vista Creek. The City of Carlsbad’s goal for the falls and Buena Vista
Creek is to restore the area to a high level of ecosystem functioning, in conjunction with any
proposals to restore Buena Vista Lagoon.
4. Protection of wildlife corridors.
a. Development must meet corridor width standards.
b. Need more aggressive protection of corridors from edge effects.
c. Protection of corridors must include adequate wildlife crossings of roads.
Response a: Several parts of Carlsbad are highly fragmented in terms of both ownership and
remaining patches of native vegetation. The corridor design process incorporated scientific
knowledge regarding the needs of target species while also considering opportunities for housing
and other types of development. In many cases, this has produced corridors that are less than
1,000 feet in width, but are as wide as feasible under the circumstances. The Wildlife Agencies
worked closely with the City to identify the hardline for the Holly Springs and Raceway projects.
The Mandana project has not yet undergone environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Response b: Area Specific Management Plans for these portions of the preserve system will
address issues such as encroachment of landscape plants, encroachment of fences or other
Appendix B 9
structures, trespassing and unauthorized trails, and similar concerns. These factors tend to
increase the cost of management, which is a primary consideration in the funding program. For
developed areas that are not currently managed, it is anticipated that full biological management
will occur with regional funding. Please note, coverage for certain species (as shown in List 2
and List 3) is not provided immediately with issuance of the Incidental Take Permit due to the
delayed ability to access and fund management and monitoring for certain lands as described in
the draft OSMP. However, coverage may be provided when and if the City gains such access
and funds. Grants or local funding sources may also become available to fbnd management of
currently unmanaged areas.
Response c: MHCP Volume 1 Section 6.2.3 should be understood as constructive guidelines and
recommendations for use in developing road crossings. It may not be feasible to meet the
guidelines in every case. As with corridor widths, road crossings may be constrained by non-
biological factors such as topography, engineering safety standards, existing development, etc.
Scientific information suggests the following standards should be applied in designing wildlife
undercrossings: (1) Underpasses should be situated along primary travel routes away from areas
containing noise and light pollution and serve only wildlife needs since human presence and/or
recreational activities can deter wildlife activity; (2) Native vegetation should surround all
underpass entrances and replace any proposed rock fill slope protection; (3) Concrete V-ditches
should be eliminated to allow for natural stream flows, which provide the elements critical for
the movement of sensitive reptile and amphibian species; (4) Sound walls should also be
considered along portions of the road that pass over underpasses in order to reduce noise levels,
as increased traffic volume may decrease the frequency at which a species uses the underpasses;
(5) Underpass dimensions are important in determining whether or not a species will use an
underpass as well as how frequently a species will use an underpass. One researcher found that
coyotes never used underpasses less than 1 m in height. A more important variable is the
openness of the underpass, which takes into consideration the height, width, and length of the
underpass (H*W/L). An openness value greater than 0.6 has been recommended for deer (Reed
1981). In fact, Haas (2000) reported that bobcat, coyote, and mule deer frequency of underpass
use increased as underpass height, width, andor openness increased. Although the smaller
drainage culverts may receive use by smaller vertebrates (rodents, herpetofauna, and
mesopredators), predator activity through underpasses less than 1 m in height is highly unlikely;
and (6) In order to prevent attempts in at-grade crossings by the target species, it is critical that
fencing be installed to complement the underpasses. Fencing should be placed along portions of
the road that bisect the natural open space to prevent end runs. Coyotes and deer are infamous
for end runs, which means they will continue to shift their movements to go around the end of a
fence instead of using an underpass. Furthermore, the fencing should also have mesh that is less
than 10 cm x 15 cm and be seated at least 15 cm into the ground to prevent the animals fi-om
exploiting any weaknesses, which would allow them access to the road. Finally, the fencing
should be installed to “funnel” the animals towards each underpass. In addition, noise levels
within culverts cannot be measured until they have been constructed but are generally expected
to be lower than under bridges because of the enclosed nature of culverts. We continue to work
toward ensuring the above and any future scientific knowledge on the subject of wildlife
undercrossings is adequately addressed in the HMP for projects that will be permitted under the
Appendix B 10
MHCP, however, the Faraday Avenue undercrossing is subject to a separate 404 permit
application and Section 7 consultation. It is not being permitted by the incidental take permit
under consideration as part of the HMP.
5. Funding for coastal sage scrub (CSS) restoration.
Response: See response to Specific Comments on MHCP Final EIR/EIS number 3 titled “CSS
revegetation.”
6. Watershed protection from impervious surfaces.
Response: The City will continue to take reasonable steps to discourage creation of impervious
surfaces as part of new development. The City will also continue to cooperate with other
agencies in the region to address hydrologic issues on a watershed basis. The City, in
conjunction with other permitting agencies, will strive to ensure that all permitting agencies for a
particular project are utilizing the same project description.
7. Operation of the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank.
Response: A formal mitigation banking agreement for the Lake Calavera property will be
prepared following HMP approval, with appropriate opportunities for public input as required by
law. Funding for management in perpetuity will be included in the overall fbnding structure for
the bank. If the City proceeds with partial draining of the lake in order to make repairs to the
dam, the effects of the project will be identified and the precise amount of mitigation credits
available to the City will be adjusted accordingly. In addition, mitigation for the effects of the
dam repair project will also be required. As described on page D-41 of the HMP, certain
deductions have been made fiom the potential number of credits available for future projects.
However, the status of some of these projects has changed and will need to be reflected in the
formal mitigation banking agreement. Specifically, 10 acres of mitigation credits on the Lake
Calavera site are to be used to mitigate the proposed municipal golf course. The proposed police
shooting range may be deleted. The deduction for 10 acres of impact in the Hub Park area is no
longer applicable due to Coastal Commission action which placed a conservation easement over
the potentially affected area. Twenty-two acres are still being reserved as a site for a possible
future water recycling project, and 17.55 acres are deducted to account for a 100 ft. perimeter fire
break. Assuming deletion of the police shooting range, the number of potential credits is
estimated at this time to be 216.55. However, the mitigation banking agreement will establish the
precise number of credits available to the City.
8. Process of changing standards areas to hardline areas.
Response: The HMP includes a discussion of processing for Standards Areas which addresses
this comment (see Figure 30 of HMP). When a project proponent for a Standards Area property
wishes to begin the approval process, a tentative Hardline design must be prepared in order to
have a project description for review pursuant to CEQA. This is described in Figure 30 as
Appendix B 11
“Consultation and Concurrence with Wildlife Agencies and City.” Preparation of a CEQA
document cannot begin until this step has been completed. The Service’s concurrence with a
draft Hardline design at that stage does not mean that the Service has approved the plan or
rendered a decision as to its adequacy. The plan may be changed by public comment or by the
Service’s subsequent review of the completed CEQA document. The Service’s tentative
concurrence on a draft Hardline design is merely an efficiency measure to prevent the waste of
time and funds on analysis of designs that clearly will not meet the standards. We concur that
other aspects of mitigation are equally important to the overall adequacy of the development
proposal, which may include offsite mitigation, impact minimization measures, measures to
address temporary or indirect effects, payment of fees, and establishment of funding for
management and monitoring in perpetuity. These additional measures are typically developed
during the public review process, taking into account all information provided by the CEQA
process. The CEQA process will be the primary mechanism for providing public input to the
review of Standards Areas.
9. Inadequate mitigation for grasslands gnd coastal sagekhaparral mix.
Response: The EIIUEIS acknowledges that conservation of grassland is marginal within the
MHCP. Table 4.3-6 of the EWEIS (Volume 1 of 11) is the Summary of Mitigation Measures for
Significant Biological Resources Impacts. Under the category of grasslands, it states as a
possible mitigation measure: “Provide conservation of an additional 30% of grasslands in a
consolidated preservation program. This mitigation is deemed to be infeasible because of the
associated impacts to populationhousing. Alternatively, USFWSKDFG cannot issue take
authorizations for grasslands and associated species.” This statement applies to all five cities
analyzed in the EWEIS. While an incremental increase in grassland conservation could be
achieved on certain non-residential properties, where there would be no impacts to
populationhousing, the anticipated amount of additional Conservation from these projects would
not meet the standard of the mitigation measure and would not likely be sufficient to conserve
viable populations of grassland-dependent species such as the Northern Harrier. In addition,
piecemeal conservation of grassland patches that do not form a “consolidated preservation
program” are unlikely to be effective. The City of Carlsbad has determined that it is not possible
to significantly increase grassland conservation without adversely affecting other necessary land
uses, such as housing. For these reasons, the Service will not be issuing take permits for several
grassland species via the MHCP or its subarea plans.
Regarding coastal sage/chaparral mix, Table 4.2-6 indicates that an acceptable mitigation
measure is preservation of 400-500 acres of coastal sage scrub in the unincorporated area
southeast of Carlsbad. This mitigation measure will be satisfied by a combination of acquisition
and mitigation actions by the MHCP cities.
10. Public comment period for the funding plan.
Response: In the California Coastal Commission’s (Commission) approval of the HMP, one
condition of approval is that the hnding program must be reviewed and approved by the
Appendix B 12
Commission as a Local Coastal Program Amendment. This requirement will serve as the vehicle
for public review of the final funding program, with ample opportunity for comment to the
Commission.
11. Management of preserve land.
Response: The draft Open Space Management Plan has been informally reviewed by the
Service. Although it has not been formally submitted for approval, its draft form has been
recognized in the City’s application as a commitment to manage and monitor the preserve system
consistent with the MHCP Volume III. The implementing agreement (Section 12.3) states that
the plan must be approved by the Service within one year of the effective date of the agreement.
Continued utilization of take authorizations is contingent on approval and implementation of this
management plan and associated funding.
12. Financial oversight for preserve land managers.
Response: We concur that improved oversight of third party preserve managers is vital to
successful long term conservation. Such oversight must include provisions for financial auditing
as well as biological monitoring and reporting. See also response to General Comments on
MHCP EWEIS #8.
13. Failure to incorporate changes agreed to in the responses to comments.
Response: The comment states that some responses to earlier comments on the draft EIR/EIS
made commitments to take certain actions, which have not been incorporated in the MHCP or
subarea plans. Our response here will focus on whether any such commitments were made
which have not been satisfied. The following table shows the original comment number from the
draft EWEIS and our present response.
N 22
CCC 9/10
The original comment referred to a “changed circumstance” fire and the need
to differentiate between a natural fire and one that has catastrophic impacts.
This comment was in reference to the Oceanside subarea plan. The response
remains the same, in that the language will be modified in the final Oceanside
plan to assure clarity between a nature and catastrophic fire. Exhibit B of the
City of Carlsbad’s implementing agreement contains the information the
commentor is looking for regarding a changed circumstance fire within the
City of Carlsbad.
The MHCP Volume 11 table 4-7 provides recommended mitigation ratios for
different classes of wetlands. The HMP, by incorporation of the standards of
the MHCP, will utilize the mitigation ratios stated in table 4-7. Wetland
buffers will be determined on a case-by-case basis, and will comply with the
standards stated in the conditions for species coverage. Within the coastal
zone of Carlsbad, the HMP requires buffers of 100 ft. for wetlands and 50 ft.
for riparian habitat.
Appendix B
EHL 2-6 1
13
As stated in response 4c above, future road projects will be consistent with the
standards contained in MHCP Volume 1 Section 6.2.3 to the maximum extent
practicable.
Projects outside the coastal zone of Carlsbad will be required to provide
buffers based on the needs of adjacent habitats and species. The conditions of
coverage for species will apply in all cases. Within the coastal zone, the
specific buffer requirements stated in HMP Addendum No. 2 will apply.
The original comment referred to the El Salto Falls located on the border
between Carlsbad and Oceanside. This item has been addressed above in the
response to Specific Comments on the Final HMP number 3. Therefore, the
commitment has been satisfied.
The City is committed to ensuring all losses will be iiroughly proportional” to
the quantity of habitat preserved.
The original comment referred to statements contained in a previous
environmental analysis prepared by the City of Carlsbad. The response
provided in the EWEIS states “This EIS/EIR does not incorporate the findings
of these documents. It is inferred that the commentor agrees with the
conclusions in the EISEIR. No further response is necessary.” Therefore, no
commitments were made which have not been satisfied.
~
The same provisions for analyzing and disclosing findings for unavoidable
impacts, as defined for wetlands, will be applied to the narrow endemic and
critical location policy.
The original comment stated that some species should be added to the list of
Narrow Endemic Species. The response provided in the EWEIS states that
the species in question do not meet the criteria to be included on the list of
Narrow Endemic Species. However, it also states that the Service did impose
the Narrow Endemics Policy on some species, and as a result these species
will be required to be treated consistent with the Narrow Endemics Policy in
any subarea plan that seeks coverage for those specie. Therefore, no
commitments were made which have not been satisfied.
The original comment noted an apparent inconsistency between two exhibits
in the EWEIS. In addition, the comment requested that the approved
alignments of College Boulevard and Cannon Road be shown. The response in
the EWEIS clarified that these exhibits appear to be inconsistent because they
are depicting different alternatives at different scales. No real inconsistency
exists. The response also states that the final approved boundaries of
development and conservation will result from approval of individual subarea
plans. Regarding the two roads, a new exhibit showing the alignments of the
roads has been prepared and is attached. The map showing the roads is
attached to these responses to comments (see Appendix B attachment 3). With
the addition of this exhibit, all commitments have been satisfied.
I THUM 4
14. Management actions regarding recreation, public access, and adjacent land use are
insufficient to protect the biological resources.
The original comment referred to an aspect of the Encinitas Subarea Plan. The
response provided in the EWEIS states that further information will be
provided in the Implementing Agreement and permit application for the
Encinitas Subarea Plan. Encinitas has not yet submitted a permit application
to trigger the requirement. Therefore, no commitments were made which have
not been satisfied.
Response: The HMP includes a discussion of invasive plants and provides a list of plants that
are prohibited for use in the landscape plans for new development. Nonetheless, populations of
invasive plants already exist in numerous areas, both developed and conserved. Controlling
invasive plants will continue to be one of the foremost management challenges in the MHCP
subregion. Trails and other recreational uses of preserved lands are also a significant concern for
preserve management. The HMP provides a number of guidelines for public access, recreational
activities, and future recreational expansion. For example, page F-13 of the HMP states “Limit
mountain bike trails to areas not highly susceptible to erosion and out of wetlands and other
sensitive areas. Page F-14 states “Install waterbreaks on steep trails to prevent accelerated runoff
and erosion.” The City of Carlsbad is also required to obtain approval of its Management and
Monitoring Plan within one year after HMP approval (see response to Specific Comments on the
Final HMP number 11).
15. Actions related to uncovered species.
Response: Species that are not Covered Species under the HMP (“uncovered species”) will be
evaluated through the CEQA process for any proposed projects that might affect such species. If
an uncovered species is listed as either endangered or threatened by the Service, or is a candidate
for listing by CDFG, the federal and state endangered species laws require consultation with the
respective agencies. The HMP further explains that some uncovered species may prove to be
adequately conserved by the existing conservation program. In that event, it is possible that an
uncovered species may become covered, allowing permitting to occur via the HMP. If
permitting cannot occur through the HMP, the project applicant will be required to obtain any
necessary permits from agencies having jurisdiction over the project. In all cases, surveys for
species will utilize the protocols established by the wildlife agencies for the species in question,
or where agency protocols do not exist, those methods generally accepted by the scientific
community. In addition, please note that the Service’s biological opinion on the finalization of
the MHCP and the issuance of a permit to the City of Carlsbad under the MHCP analyzed the
impacts of approving the City’s Subarea Plan (HMP) on the list of uncovered species to ensure
that the continued existence or recovery of those species would not be jeopardized.
Appendix B
16. Figure 27 inconsistencies.
15
Response: The comment refers to features included or omitted from Figure 27 of the HMP. The
small rectangular area within Core Area number 3 had been reserved for a municipal use. The
acreage (approximately 4 acres) has been subtracted from the conservation totals. No detail has
been provided regarding the site because a specific use is not proposed. It is probable that this
area will not be needed for municipal purposes, in which case it will be added to the preserve
system. It is possible that the shooting range could be sited here, but not likely. Cannon Road
Reach 4 is not shown on Figure 27 because alignment studies are still ongoing. As noted in the
comment, Cannon Road Reach 4 is included in the Circulation Element of the City’s General
Plan. It is also included in the list of City projects to be permitted under the HMP (Appendix B),
however it would have to meet specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to
proceed.
CARLSBAD IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT COMMENTS
General Comments on I.A.
17. Area Specific Management Plans.
Response: The I.A. requires preparation and approval of the Preserve Management and
Monitoring Plan. That plan, as well as implementing ordinances to be adopted after approval of
the HMP, will state the requirements for preparation and implementation of Area-Specific
Management Plans as new preserve areas are added.
,
18. Independent scientific review.
Response: The Wildlife Agencies have primary responsibility for objectively evaluating the
adequacy of subarea plan implementation. The HMP and its implementing agreement require the
City of Carlsbad to provide annual status reports to the wildlife agencies and to hold a public
meeting annually. The annual reports on the HMP will be provided to the City Council. The
scientific community will be invited to review annual reports and comment on them. In addition,
ad hoc meetings of scientists may occur to discuss new research findings, to identify research
needs, or to review information on the status of species. These types of scientific meetings
would be most valuable in looking at regional or range-wide issues, rather than peer review of
individual subarea plan implementation. In addition, one of the responsibilities of the Staff
Subcommittee is to “recommend to the Elected Officials Committee, as necessary, the
appointment of science advisors.”
19. Development of ordinances and adoption of General Plan Amendments.
Response: The I.A. Section 18 (Permit Remedies) provides procedures for suspension or
revocation of permits in the event of any material breach of the agreement. These provisions are
Appendix B 16
sufficiently broad to address ordinance and General Plan implementation issues should they
arise.
Comments on Exhibit B of the LA.
1. Funding for Changed Circumstances.
Response: The issue of changed circumstances is closely tied to adaptive management. The
overall concept is that the use of funds must be sufficiently flexible to address problems or needs
that may arise infiequently and unpredictably. The responses of permit holders and the Service
will relate to the nature of the changed circumstance and its potential for long term harm.
Funding to address changed circumstances in the Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP) comes fiom a
variety of public and private sources. Although such funds may normally be designated for
specific purposes, changed circumstances may necessitate the use of these funds to address an
urgent situation that, if left unaddressed, could threaten the viability of the preserve system or the
survival of individual species. Several categories of changed circumstances exist, and each of
these may operate at different geographic scales, ranging fiom a few acres to region-wide. For
these reasons, the Carlsbad Subarea Plan (HMP) does not budget a specific amount for changed
circumstances. Rather, it should be understood that funding for both changed circumstances and
adaptive management is integral to the total budget for implementation. However, the cost
estimate for implementing the plan in perpetuity was merely a cost estimate based on the best
available information at the time. If implementation costs more, the permittee is obligated to
raise the funds necessary to achieve the conservation program. The City factored in a 10 percent
contingency fund of the entire budget for changed and unforeseen circumstances and the
permittees have flexibility to spend more than the estimate if needed.
2. Repetitive fire.
Response: The use of data on fire frequency provided by the City of Carlsbad Fire Department is
appropriate because it is the best available information for the area of the permit application. In
considering this data, the Service reviewed data provided by other fire agencies within San Diego
County. We find the Carlsbad data to be generally consistent with that provided by other fire
agencies, although Carlsbad fires tend to bum smaller areas and to be contained more rapidly.
We concur with the Carlsbad Fire Department’s assessment that the smaller average size of
Carlsbad fires is due to its coastal microclimate, as well as the ability of the Fire Department to
respond very quickly to the majority of fire incidents. In the past, the City has not tracked
repetitive fire according to this definition because the definition was only recently developed as
part of the I.A. Therefore, historic records would not be possible in attempting to determine how
many past fires might have met this definition. While brush management will continue to be a
major component of the City’s fire prevention program, code modifications have already been
implemented to require fire resistive roofing materials and other fire resistive building materials.
Additional code modifications to improve the fire resistance of new homes will also be
considered.
Appendix B
3. Flood.
17
Response: Exhibit B provides a definition of changed circumstances for flooding as being a rain
event at less than the 50 year level. An unforeseen circumstance for flooding is, therefore, any
storm event exceeding that, i.e. a rain event at the 50 year level or greater. The impact of past
development on flooding is not under consideration in this permit application. The Drainage
Master Plan describes flood control facilities needed to protect developed areas, to prevent
damage to property and people. The Drainage Master Plan is not intended to prevent flood
damage to the preserve system. Although development may cause increased flows or velocities
going into the preserve system, the effect of new development on flooding is minimized by
implementation of the City’s Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, as described in Exhibit
B of the IA. New drainagektormwater facilities will consider designs that avoid wetland impacts
as a first priority. If impacts cannot be avoided, they will be minimized and mitigated
appropriately. Such impacts will be subject to separate permitting with the respective agency that
has jurisdiction.
67/06/2084 15: 34 16197567748 W DIEGCI BAYKEEPER PAGE 82
Center for Biological Diversity; Friends of Hdionda Creek; Preserve Calavera; San
Diego Audubon Sociew San Diego BayKeeper; San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy, Sierra
Club, San Diego Chapter; and the Surfrider Foundation, San Diego Chapter.
The NCOSC is dedicated to affective rcgional habitat planning in North S~UJ Diego
County, To that end, we offer the following comments beginning with comments (both
gmcral and specific) on the Final EIS/EIR for the MHCP as a whole, and followcd by
specific comments on Carlsbad's Subarea Plan.
GE"W&OMMENT S on MHC P Final EIS_/FIS
1. The preferred alternative/proposed project does not preserve enough of the
natural habitats remaining in the MHCP study area
At a conservation level of 67%, wc believe that this alternative will not gtlarantet the
survival and recovery of thc endangad, threatened and other switive species and thcir
habitats in the MHCP study atca.
We strongly support the increased preservation altemativc, which would conserve all
large contigtlous amas of habitat, all area supporting mjor and critical species
populations or habitat areas, and all important functional linkages and movanent
corridors between them. Ovcrall, 24,565 acres (82%) of the habitat in tho study area
would be conserved under the incraased preservation altemtive.
Wc made the above oommcnt in our letter of April 29,2002, page 3. Your rcsponst to
this comment indicated that the percent conservation estimates in the plan reflcct the
minimum level of conemation guaranteed by the plan. You also stated, "The cities have
stated that they anticipate a higher pcrcent conservation as projects are entitlcd, open
space set aside, and mitigation assurcd, and as additional lands are acquircd hm willing
sellers." (Responsc to Comments, CNPS-5, p. 129)
WE note that total conservation lcvcls for tbe MNCP cities un,der the preferred alternativc
range fiom a high of 80% €or Eminitas to a low of 49% for San Marcos. San Marcos'
proposed conservation level is unacceptably low.
We hope to work 6th thc various cities to achieve the highest level of conswation
possible.
2. Public aCCeB8 to the decision-rnaldng process on subarea plan development is
needed.
In ordcr for organizations such as om to work with the citics to maximize conservation
through collaborativc efforts, a process must br: established. At this time, tha~ is no
2
07/06/2084 15: 34 16197587748 SAN DIEGO ECAYKEEF’ER PACE 03
formal mechanism for public input into the subarea plan development process. Wc havc
asked that the MHCP Stakeholders Subcommittee of the MHCP Advisory Codtttc, as
described in Stctioii 5.7.2 ofthe Final MHCP Plan, Volume 1, be formed immediately.
However, we have been informed that it will be convened when there is a nexus of two
approved subarea plans. ?he Carlsbad Subarca Plan (”) will soon be permittd;
however, it may be many months before the next subarea plan is approved. Not having a
fomm for open discussion during the subarea plan development process limits our ability
to work with the cities towards creation of an improved North County Prcsenre.
We believe that a public fom, such as tbc StakchoIders Subcommittee, will provide
benefits to the citics that are in the p.rocess of finalizing thcir mbarea plans. In the last
year, we have workcd with the cities of Carlsbad and Occanside on their subareas plans,
and we believe that significant impmvements have resulted.
Again, we ask that the MHCP Stakeholders Subcommittee of th,e MHCP Advisory
Committee be formed immediatcly.
3. Unkages between core areas must be adequate for wildlife movement
The second objective of the MHCP, as stated in the Biological Goals, Standards, and
Guidelines for Multiple Habitat Preserve Design (Ogdcn, 1998, p. 1-l), is:
“Mahtain functional wildlife corridors and habitat linkages between critical biological
resource areas”
Section G of the above document contains Guidelines for wildlife corridors design. Item
8 on page 6-4 states, ‘‘[rn]iimize banicrs such as major roads.”
We are very concerned about roads that cross through wildlife corridors. It is
inappropriatc to designate an area as a Wildlife corridor and then allow a road to bc
constructcd through the corridor. We urge the MHCP cities and the Wildlife Agencies to
review the subarea plans to eliminate proposed roads through wildlife corridors.
If roads cannot be etiminatcd, then the cities should strictly adhere to thc design
guidalincs for comdon and habitat linkages, as stated in item 8 on page 6-4. Too often,
wildlife undercrossings arc too small for the animals to cross under the road, A cast: in
poirlt is the proposed 48 inch culvert under the extension of Las Posas Road along Agua
Hedionda Creek in northm San Marcos. This undercrossing is too small to allow deer
which inhabit the ma to cross undcr the mad.
We continue to find that the cities arc not adhering to the design guidalincs for wildlife
corridors and habitat linkages. We seek wurance that all of the design standards related
to roadways crossings of wildlife corridors as dcscribed in MHCP Design Guidelines,
page 6-4, “Biological Goals, Standarde; and Guidelines for Multiple Habitat Prosme
3
SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE 04
Design” are incorporatcd by reference and will be fully complied with. If that is not the
case, then plcasc provide specific explanation of any proposed variation and its
justification.
4. Narrow endemics.
Volume 11 states that mow cndcmic spwics must be avoided to the maximum cxtcnt
possiblc. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation should be described in rnorc dctaif.
The specific biological conditions undcr which impacts would be pcrmittcd should be
dehiled and included in the plan. For example, if 5% gross cumulative loss of nabw
endemic populations or occupied acerage is allowed within the FPA for each Subarca, WE
need detailed information describing the circumstances under which this loss would be
allowcd to occur. For example, which 5% could be lost? Would only isolatcd
populations be considcred expendable? Would impacts be limited to projccts required fbt
public hcalth and safety? Would impaots onIy be pcrmittcd when a “biologically
superior” outcome could be achieved? Please include this level of detail regarding the
standards for “avoidance” of narrow endemics.
5. No-surprises policy.
We understand that the no-surprises policy that is in thc MHCP has been enjoined by a
recent fcderal court ruling. How will the MHCP be changed to reflect the court’s
decision?
6. Regional. funding source.
While we are awarc that the MHCP plan addresses funding issues, such as the rcgional
funding source, wc are deeply concerned about the adcquacy of hnding for the MHCP,
We understand that tbc proposed extension of the Rmsnct Tax includes finding for
habitat conservation programs in San Diego County, including the MkICP, for impacts
associated with transportation system hprovcments throughout the county. Howcva,
thcrc is a likelihood @at the voters will not pass the Transnct Tax extension; even if it is
passed, it will provide only a small portion of the funds required.
This is another compelling reason to convene the MHCP Stakeholders Subcommittee as
early as possiblc, as that subcommittee will provide a forum for early and continuous
involvement with issues of MHCP implementation, fwding, and public outreach.
Wc reiterate our conccrn that a contingency fund nceds to be established for
compensation ofpropmy owners whm all economically viable property use has been
removed.
4
PAGE 05
7. Performance indicators.
The performance monitoring system that has bccn proposcd will be a significmt
improvement over current conditions. However, we bcliwe that it does not go far enough
to assess key indicators of the health of an ecosystcm. A recent EPA rcport proposes a
framework for collecting data on mcasum that are important, such as habitat
fragmentation, biological diversity, and nutrient cycling. Tbis report, “A Conceptual
Framework for Reporthg on EcologicaJ Condition,” can be fwnd at the following
website:
www . epa govlsab
Wc rqucst that the zequired data collection and reporting systcm includc more indicators
of systcm health.
8. Financial oversight of organizations responsible for management and monitoring
of the MHCP Preserve.
The Environmental Thst, which has been responsible for managing scvmal important
ccological mas, has cd managing their assets and have stopped taking on new
projects, This raises the question of financial oversight to assure the protection and
proper usage of MHCP funds, We recommend an oversight system that would include:
> a financial advisory committee similar to tfic scientific advisory committee
% annual financial reporting at a publicly noticed meeting
k definition of basic investment principles designed to assure appmpriatc level of
risk for endowed funds
P requirements for aarly disclosure of a firm’s financial difficulties and provisions
for corrective action
9. Some responses to comments were not adequate.
We apprcciatc the work that wcnt inb responding to the commmts in our letter of
April 29,2002.
h some cases, the responses to our comments wwe not adequate. Two examples are;
* CNPS-47 (page 145)
The comment relatcd to large blocks of important habitat excludcd from the IFPA in
northwest Escondido and portions of San Marcos.
07/06/2004 15; 34 16197587740 SAN DIEGO BAM(EEPER PAGE 86
The response discussed only the latgc blocks in Escondido and did not discusrs the blocks
in san Marcos.
* CNPS-415 (page 247-248)
The last sentence of the comment questioned the scientific basis for habitat re-creation
plans, such as revegetation of cut and fill slopes on Cerro de las Posas.
The response did not address this issue.
SPECIFIC COMME NTS OB M HCP Anal. EI[S/EI$
Final EIS/EIR - Revised Text for Saction 2.0 and Section 4.0
1. On the first page of this section, under Financing Policics, Habitat Acquisition, it
states: “It is assumEd for analysis that the federal and state governments collectively and
the local jurisdictions, collectivef.y, will be responsible for meeting onc-half of that
habitat acquisition that may be needed for plan implementation."
Does this mean that the govanmat agencies and local jurisdictions combincd will be
responsible for rnecting one-half of the acquisition needed? If so, who is responsible for
the other half?
Also, “...habitat acquisition that may be ntcdcd for plan implementation” should read
“...habitat acquisition that i.s needed for plan implementation,” since thc plan clearly
requires significant acquisition.
T4c minimum acreages specified for thc fcdml and statc agencies and for each city
should be spcled out more clearly, since acquiring land for the preserve is critical for the
plan’s success.
2. On the third page of this section, under “Establishimg an Endowment to Fund
Recuning Costs in Perpetuity,” it statcs: “An alternative approach is to renew or replace
the regional finding program at the end of its initial tcnn. The latter approach will reduce
the required annual revenues of the rcgional funding program.” This smknce hdicatcs
that there could bc an alternative to cstablishiug an endowment. Howcvcr, it is dangerous
to assume that the voters will extend the regional funding soiircc after its initial tm.
They may not do so, in which case the hding source for ongoing preseive expenses
would disappear. An endowment is a much more secure means of assuring that the finds
for preserve expenses will be available as needed.
3. The changes to pagc 2-21 indjcatc that $1 -3 million of coastal sagc scrub (CSS)
restoration is required for Carlsbad, $2.43 million for Oceanside, and $34 thousand for
6
07/86/2084 15: 34 16197587740’ SAN DIEGO BA’/KEEpER PAGE 07
San Marcos. How will you assure that there is adequate coastal sage scrub conservation
until all he cities have funded their share of this restoratitm?
@cIFIC COMMENTS ON THE FINAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
1. Inadequate level: of conservation.
As mentioned above in our general coments, wc have consistently indicated our
concern with the overall level of conservation of sensitive habitats provided for in the
MHCP. This conce.m dso applies to the City of CarlBbad HMP. The City of Carlsbad
proposes to conserve only 71% of the remainmg sensitive habitat, Although Carlsbad is
only about half built out, their proposed level of consmation is csscntially the same as other North County cities that are over 80% built out. Because of the relatively low
percatage of buildout, them arc significant opportunities to improve the level of
consmation opportunities that will be lost if the conscrvation god is astablishcd at such
a low level.
This low level of oonscrvation is of particular concern fox the City of Carlsbad becausc of the edge efftcts on many small parcels, the abirity to mitigatc outside the City boundarjes,
thc need to protect corn arcas and linkagcs, and the increasing pressure on open space
hm public use. There arc no mechanisms to maximize the consavafion ofthc
remaining core mas. Counting steep slopes, Home Owners Association (HOA) land
(that is not being managed to protect tbc biological resources) and isolated patches as
prosmcd, downplays thc real lOS5cS of smsitive habitat that are propossd.
The City of Carlsbad still has hundreds of acres of sensitive habitat remaining, the public
will to inmeasc conservation (as evidenced by the vote on Mcasure C), and the financial
resources to make it happcn. This is not just a once in 8 lifetime opportunity it is the only
opportunity.
2. Inadequate wetlands protection.
The MHCP ES~OI~SCS to comments, CNPS-72, clarifies the MHCP language with mspcct
to wetlands protection, adds mitigation ratios for wetlands habitats, and states that the
idmtified wctlands communities “arc subject to the goal of no net loss in acreage,
function and biological value (see section 3.6.1). The highest prioritywill be given to
impact avoidance and minimization. Rqlacem.ent of habitat subject to unavoidable
impact will occur through rcstoration or creation of substitutc habitat mas, generally of the same kind and in the vicinity of the impacted habitat.”
7
SAN DIEGO BAWEEPER PAGE 08
The WMP has not incorporated this revised language. During the last fourtem months
since the MHCP was approved by SANDAG, thc City has certified enwmnmental
documents for several projects stating that they wcre in compliance with the adapted
MHCP with respcct to wetlands avoidance, yet wetlands impacts were pamitted when
avoidance options were readily attainable and the approvcd action did not optimize
wetlands restoration in the project vicinity. The Summit project illustrates several of
thcse points, as well as the original dtaft EIR for Cantorini/Holly Springs. For the latter
project the DER was revised, because your agency required rhe changes. Givm these
recent examplcs, we are concerned about compliance when take authority is transferrad.
How will compliance with these provisions dated to wetlands protection be assured?
Furthermore, we find no place in the HMP where the concept of wetland buffers is
mentioned outsicla of the coastal zone. The Wildlifb Agencies have proposed wetlands
buffer language, but the City of Carlsbad responded that this would be done on a case by
case basis. What general guidelines will be rcferrcd to for the purposes of completing a
casc by case analysis? Specific language should be added to address the need for wetland
buffers and provide a basis to evaluate whether projects are in oomplimcc,
3. Need for additional Special Resource Area.
In our comments on the Omside Subarea Plan we pointcd out that the Buena Vista
Crcck valley, particularly the area around the El Salt0 waterfall (the “South Coast”
project area) should be designated a joint Special Rcsourcc Area with the City of
Carlsbad. The Responses to Comments, CNPS 112, indicated that this area would be
considered for such designation prior to approval of tbc Implementing Agreement Them
is no indication that this has occurred. This area is an important local easthest wildIife
corridor with connecting linkages to the major regional wildlife corridor from Carlsbad
through Oceanside. The adjacent property, identified as the “Sherman” parcel, is a Priority One acquisition for thc wildlife agencies becausc of its significance for rcgional
wildlife commtivity. Aoquisition by the WilcUifc Conscrvatian Board is pending. This
entire ma has special significance and should be considerad for focuscd planning. There
are opportunities to cnhance regional coxmcctivity, the biological function of tha wotlands
habitat, and the impaired Buena Vista sub-watershed. This arca should be called out for
special consideration.
4. Protection of wildlife corridors.
The MHCP includa very specific requirements for wildlife corridors, with guidelines for width of 1,000 fcct and restrictions on pinch points. The HMP identifies key wildlife
comdors (liilkagas), but includes project devclopmmt footprints that are in violation of
thcss guidelines. For example, the Holly Springs/Cantorini projects include the primary
regional wildlife corridor as Link C (as shown on Fin= 4). Yet Figure 1 1, showing the
detailed projcct footprint, itleludas a comdor of less than 600 feet, This linkage includcs
a
87/06/2004 15: 34 16197587740 SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE E9
a SDG&E easement which is routinely graded and is devoid of vegetation, as well aS
various encroachments from thc adjaacnt residential neighborhood, including an
extensive bird feeding station. In reality this corridor is evm more restricted than the 600
feet indicatcd on paper. The MHCP guidelines have not been incorporated in tha €IMP
plans for wildlife corridors, nor arc they imorporated in the City’s practices. Ems
routinely state projects are in compliance with the MHCP provisions in spite of clear
violations of the Icttcr and the spirit of wildlife corridor protection.
a. The approved development footprints must clearly meet the standards for
wildlifc corridors or there must be adequate means to compensate for
compromises such as through revcgctation of degraded areas that could provide an
acceptable corridor. Tn the case of projrxts like Holly Sprlngs or Mandana. which have not yet been approved, the footprint should be changed to fully comply with
the standard for a 1,000 foot width corridor. In thc case of already approved
projccts, like the Carlsbad Raceway, aggressive efforts arc ncedcd to rcstore the
adjacent industrial park slopes to native habitat to compensate for the pinch point
of the corridor created by &e approved project footprint.
The Manh projact is of particular concern because it wag included within an
addendum that primarily addressed the coastal zone, was approved after the
MHCP was adoptcd. includes the major regional wildlifc corridor linkagc, fails to
meet the wildlife corridor standards of thc MHCP, fails to prcscrvc other sensitive
habitat on site, and appears to includc thrcc additional roadway crossings of this
regional wildlife corridor. This project footprint seriously degrades regional connectivity but none of this was discussed in the staff report: recommanding
approval of the projcct and consequently them was no issue raised during the City
hearings on this. Final appmval of this project footprint should be delaycd
pmding Environmental redew ofthis project.
b. Additionally, more consistent and aggressive action must be taken to protect the
existing and planned corridors from the edge cffccts ol‘adjaceni development.
MHCP Vol. II “3.1.2 Preserve Configuration” states that in spite of efforts to
prescrvo and enhance landscape linkages that “nevertheless, many of these
linkages and other habitat arcas will be narrow and subject to sevac cdge effects.
Consequently, active managanent to control edge effects and ensure ecosystem
function will be rcquircd to achieve MHCP biological goals.” The HMP fails to
provide sufficient action to compensate for thc compromises to the wildlifc
corridors. HOA managed lands arc a significant factor in several arcas, and these lands are not proposed for active management until the approval of thc regional
fhding SOUT~;~. In othw cases, land causing the edge effect is in another
jurisdiction. Two examples of this arc the Vista residential neighborhood north of
Faraday along Brookhavea Pas, and the Ocean Hills Country Club meas in
Occanside. In both of these areas the adjacent residential neighborhoods bavc
direct paths through sensitive habitat, have escaped or planted landscaped plants
into open space, and have installed bascball backstops and bird feeding stations in
9
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197567740 SAN DIEGO BAVKEEPER P&GE 16
designated dpcn space areas. Now davalopment Codes, Covenants, and
RcstrMons (CC&R’s) should protect adjacent open space with fencing and
prohibitions on direct acccss by homeowners. Existing dwelopmcnt HOA’s need
to be notified ofkey issues and inform their residents or be subject to sanctions,
and interjurisdictional coordination must be improved.
c. Protection of thc wildlife corridors must include adequate pmwsions for
wildlife crossings of roadways. The HMP has not integrated the revisal MHCP language that improved WiIdlife crosskgs and hcludcs insufficient assurances
that such crossings will be part of the routine project review process.
Gnatcatchers and other endangered birds cannot be protected by comerkg
coastal sago scrub habitat alone. Healthy mesopredator populations and adequate
roadway crossings are essential to keep these populations viable (Crooks and
Soult 1999, Evink et all 1996, Romin and Bissonette 1996, Gibeau 1993).
The MHCP Volwne 1 “6.2.3 Devdopmcnt“ includes the followhg guidclinc,
“[ulse bridges, instead of culverts, for all major riparian crossings and regional wildlife movement corridors, and use 3-meter chain-link facing to direct wildlife
movement toward the wildlifc undcrpass. The site of the riparian crossing and its
importance as a wildlife corridor should dictate the design. Noise within
underpasses should be lcss than 60 dBA (decibels, A-weighted scale) during thc
time of day at which the animals USE it. Shield comdors from artificial lighting. Use skylight openings within the underpass to allow for vcgctative cover witbin
the undarpass. Dcsign underpasses or culverts to be at least 30 fed wide by 15
feet high with a maximum 21 length-to-width ratio. Avoid co-locating human
trails and wildlife movenien t coxxjdodcrossj.”
This issue is Critical to mcdng the biological goah of the MHCP, These
standards ahould be specificalIy addressed in Carlsbad’s HMP. Beyond that, they
need to be incarporated into project design. One example of this is the proposed
wildlife culvert under Faraday, This is the primary regional wildlife cotxidor, yet
a bridge was ignored in favor of a box culvart. The cu1vm-t measures 12’ x 20’
and will cxwd about 300’. Pcdcstrian trails will cross the wildlife corridor a few
fee$ fiom the undercrossing, and there was no evaluation of decibel lcvels within
the oulvcrt. The HMP ncds to include better standards for wildlifc road
crossings.
3. Funding for coastal sage scrub (CSS) restoration.
The MHCP EIRIEIS responses to comments indicated therc will be a need for S 1.3
million in CSS restoration within the City ofcarlsbad. This wag not includcd in the
annual budget adopted by thc City on June 22,2004 and is not reforencad in the IA.
What mechanism will be used fo assurc that this restoration is both fimded and
implcmen ted?
10
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587740 PAGE 11
6. W atersh td proteetlon.
The City currently has no guidelines regarding the allowable increase in impervious tover
or incentives to increase the usc of pervious or semi-pervious surfkce~. This is of
increasing cmcm as wetlands habitats continue to decline
impacts of upstream developmcnt (much ofwhich the City has no control over). This is
an issue that needs to be addressed throughout the region, but each city nccds to
participate in a meaningful cffort to prcvont the continued degradation of thc watcrshcd.
The wetlands habitats throughout the area are in decline and have Iittls ability to
compensate for fbrthcr dcvclopment.
a result of cumul.ativa
Wildlife agency staff has recently been commenting on the need for considering more
pervious or semi-perviaus cover in their rasponsea to uidividual projects. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1999) has stated that increases in peak
flow volumes and velocity associated with increasing impervious ‘cover can resuJt i,n: I)
stream bed scowing and habitat degradation; 2) shoreline erosion and stream bank
widcning; 3) loss or aquatic species; ad 4) decreased base flaw. Wetlands function and
quality cannot bc protected without addressing this issue.
Another key issue is coordination between agencies including the City staff, Wildlife
Agencies, and Amy Corps ofhginetrs. All wctlands impacts should require cross
notification and consultation between all of thcse agmcies. This is necessary because
permit applications can change between submittals for the same project, and there have
been cases (such as Carlsbad Oaks North) where an item has been removed from one
agency permit, but not from another and each is responding to a different project content.
7. Lake Calavera Mitigation bank.
Concerns regarding thc operation of this mitigation bank, intended to mitigate public
inhshcture projects, have been submitted prcviously. The responses to comments
indicated that this would be addressed in a mitigation banking apeemcat. We believe
this banking agrement should bc part of tlio packagc of documents included with this
Federal Register posting and be part of the public notice process. This is necessary to
assurc that the bank is charged with previously approved projects, that remaining credits
are reduced to a maximum of 186.55 acres, (as was point4 out to the City in Wildlife
Agency comments previously but has yet to be adclresscd) and that there arc adequate
provisiom to protect this ma, including endowment funds for managemmt in perpotuity.
Thc City’s managcmmt of this proposed mitigation bank is of particular concern skcc
the rccently circulated (with insufficiemt public notice) enviromcn~ documents would
allow partial draining of the lake with immediate habitat loss and a long term restoration need. A curreatlynon-existent habitat cannot be used to mitigate for other projects. How
does the city intend to usc this am8 as a bank and also destroy the wetlands habitat around
the lakc?
I1
07/06/2064 15: 34 16197507740 SAN DIEGD MWER
I
8. Standards ana&
Standards areas include hundreds of acres of rmaining sensitive habitat. Compliance
with the guidelines for development of these arcas must be mured. The recently issued
Robertson Ranch project scope and the previously approved Summit projcct both include
hardline boundaries that vary from standards.
CEQA is the environmental revicw process by which the public intmacts with decision
makcrs in developing policies affecting thc mvironmoxrt, Its purpow has been clmly
stated by the Supma Court: the CEQA proccss "protects not only the environment but
also informed seKgovemment" (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990)). One of the primary purposes of thc law is to solicit public input prior to final
determination of the outcomc of a project. If hardline boundaries are determined prior to
CEQA, our concm is that, in esscncc, this mounts to a pre-determination that nullifies
the significance of public input and thc CEQA comment period.
CEQA requires agencies to prqarc ElRs and negative declarations "as earIy as feasible h
the planning process to mable cnviranmental considerationg to influence project program
and design and yet lata enough to provide meaningful information for envimmantat
assefisment.l' (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004, subd. (b)). We understand that
dctcrmining the timing is a delicate problem, however, we hope we can work on a
solution with you that gets at this issue of "pre-dotennintd outcomes" and ensurcs that
hardline negotiations am to be considered "ttntativc" pcnding fill review as rquimd by
CEQA.
Finally, CEQA not only enswcs public input, it is also the proccss tbrough which
mitigation is determined. A project cannot be found to be fully in corzEomancc with the
MHCP/HMP until the mitigation of biological impacts is evaluated through the CEQA
process. In short, hadines for a project cannot be considered final until CEQA
mitigation rquirernmts arc found to conform to the MHCPIHMP. Thus, for dl of the
reasons identified abova, we rcqucst the following oomrnitmcnts: 1) pubh notice when
hardlinc discussions am initiatd; and 2) that formal hardline agrement on Robertson
Ranch and other standards areas be postponed until the CEQA public comcnt period($)
closcrs.
Additionally, whilc public participation should be ensured, it is cven more important that
the Wildlife Agencies be involved in the CEQA pmccss. Language should be added to
the plan that requires both the U,S. Fish and Wildlifc Service and the Department of Fish
and Game to be involved in the CEQA pmcss for individual dcvclopmmt projects.
9. Inadequate mitigation for grasslands and coastal sagdchaparral rnk
The EJSS/EIR 4.3.3.1 statcd, "[tlba marginal level of consmation of thesc two vegetation
communitics is inadequate, and will have subsequcnt significant impacts." Each of these
12
07/06/2084 15: 34 16197567740 scv.I DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE 13
vegetation communitios/scnsitive habitats is proposed to be conserved at the 38% leva\.
Table 4.3-6 indicates that the proposed mitigation mcasura - conservation of an additional.
30% of thc grasslands in a consolidated preservation program, is infeasible because of the
associated impact to housing. This same analysis was applied to the significant impacts
to the Northern harrier, This assertion is incorrect fbr the City of Carlsbad. Awordhg to
Table 8 of the HMP, the City contains 1,856 ms of grassland and propos~s to conserve
707 acres. Comparison of HMP Figure 3, ‘Vegetation Map” and Figure 27, “Conservation Components Map,” indicates that the non-conserved grassland acres
include several large parcels along the Palomar Airport Rd and El Camino Red corridors,
in arcas zoned industrial and cornmaid. Preservation ofgtassland habitats along these
comdors will have no adverse impact on housing. One of those parcds is contained
within thc proposcd Carlsbad Oaks North industrial park projcct. This projcct alonc
would impact 2 1.7 acres of grassland including one of ody 13 Northern harrier nesting
sites in San Diego County. Conservation of this particular grassland area, adjacent to
wctlands and contiguous with a large. core habitat ma could certainly reduce the impacts
with absolutely no impact on housing. While it may bo difficult to achicvc a full 30%
increase in grassland conservation, it is apparent that there remain substantial
opportunities to reduce these impacts, and no serious effort has bccn put into miligation.
The statcd justification for completely ignoring mitigation for this impact, its effect on
housing, is falsc.
This same justification was appliad to tho lack of mitigation for several other grassland
related spccics including the burrowing owl, grasshopper sparrow, and tricolor blackbird.
Improved grassland consmation js feasible, will benefit multiple species, and can be
achicvcd with no adverse impacts to housing. Grasslands mitigation must be significantly
increased.
City on th
10. Funding.
For the last wcral months we have bccn workidg with th Open Space Management Plan. While there has been significant progras, we have remaining
concerns about the level of effort and the adequacy of the fuuding provided to support it.
We rccognizc that a funding plan must be provided within six months of the take permit.
We request that this funding plan also be subject to a public comment period.
lX. Management of preserve land.
Please clarify that the Open Space Management Plan for Carlsbad which was recently
finalized is included in, this permit application.
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587748 SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER P&GE 14
12. Mnaaclal oversight for preserve land managers.
Subsequent to the approval of the MHCP, one of the two non-profit land managers
responsible for the permanent management of conscrvcd land in Carlsbad filed for
bankruptcy and ceased to manage their lands. As mentioned previously, this is an issue
that needs to be addressed in both the MHCP, for the atire rcgion, and in thc Carlsbad
FIMP. The land that was supposcd to be managed has already betm significantly
degraded, This hardline conservation land, much of it in core habitat areas, needs
immediate interim provisions to assure the pmtection of biological resources. Tn addition,
there will need to be a reassessmmt of land condition and new management plans
developed once a permanent replacement is secured.
13. Failure to fncorporate changes agreed to in the responses to comments.
In scveral cases the EWEIS responses to comments indicated that racommendcd changes
would be incorporated into subarea plans. Thc following is a list ofthose comments that
have not been addressed in the Carlsbad HMP : N22, CCC2-9/10, CNPS 49, CNPS 72,
CNPS 132, Em-6, SDC 17, SDC 65, SDC 72, PS-1, and Thum 4.
Approval of the MHCP and EWEIS by the SANDAG Board includcd these
commitments. It was our undcrstmding that these are binding and should therefore be incoqomtcd into the Carlsbad HMP.
14. Maaagenent actlons regarding recreation, publfc access, and adjscent land use
are Insufficient to protect the biological resources.
Control of key issues related to adjacent land uses are critical to minimize the impacts of
cdgc cffects, particularly on the many isolated fi-agmonts and wildlife corridors that are
less than the minimum widths (i.e., essentially all of them). Landscaping criteria for
adjacent land is a kcy concern that has not been addressed. Tn numcrous areas adjacmt
landscaping has caused the problem with hvasivcs and will continue Eo add to the on-
going maintenancc costs and dcgradation ofhabitat quality. While prohibiting the aale
and distribution of thc identified pest plant species (per Ca IPEC list) is probhnatic,
these issues can be addressed through mora cffcctive ouhach to the landscaping industry
as well as public education. Givcn the significant amount of development that has not yct
bccn pannittcd, all new dcvelopmmt must be conditioned to use an acceptable plant
palette, with additional hitations on those plants adjacent to open spaca,
Thc existing open space arcas in Calsbad ara subjcct to heavy public use, and this has
increased dramatically ag new residential arms arc completed which both add more users
and tadwe the space for hiking and biking. Your staff documcntcd these advcrse impacts
to the Calavcra Highlands mitigation bank last year and, closed the majority of the area to
public use. Other areas suffmd the same levels of damaging use but were not closed.
14
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587740 !?AN DIEM BAVKEEPER PAGE 15
Limited public uses should continue where appropriate, but the guidelines for trails and
public use must be improved. The listed criteria for mountain bikitlg trails arc in conflict
with the tr~l guidelines developed by key uscr groups. For example, thc San Dicgo
Mountain Biking Association has guidelines for what they call sustainable trails -
minimal impact which will not cause erosion with continucd use. These are natxower and
less steep than the minimum 6 feet wide and up to 25% slope allowcd in F 2.3..
Furthermore, water diversion is the cxitjcat issue for Wail sustainability. The HMP
rcquircmcnts to ‘Tnstall water breaks on steep trails to prevcnt accelerated runoff and
erosion,” arc not sufficient. Comprehensive planning to control the effects of watcr along
all trail segments must be rquhed, The City of San Mmos mil StandaTdS provide for
2% sIopes to the inside of trails, and watcr control mechanisms that arc specific to slope
wd site conditions.
The City has bcen extending the trail system with each new devclopment but has not been
following the guidelines included in thc HMP in their design. For aamplc, the MHCP
contains very specific conditions on equestrian uses including limitations on water
crossings, and restrictions on trail use after rdn. The City practice has been to use
cxisting trails as part of the new City-wide trail system. Ofien these existing segments fail
to mcet any reasonable trail guidelines fbr either width or grade. The rcsponsc to this has
bcm that it is better fn use alrcady degraded areas than to cut ncw trails in sensitive
habitat. ”lis determination should be based on sitc specific conditions. Trails that
servcd historic access needs are likely to change as the pattern of development changes
and should not be considered de facto trails. Bcttm criteria are needed to address trail
related public a.ccas issues.
15. Actions related to uncovered specics.
Exhibit A attached to the IA provides a clear delineation of covered spccics and any
specific conditions fbr their coverage. This will help assure some relationship betwen
the take permit and the mansgment actions to protect thc impacted species. Our
remaining conccrn relates to the uncovered species (List 4) that are likely to occur within
the City. How WiIl the public bc assured that an adequate assessment for these uncovd
specics has bcm completed? What provisions arc thm for consultation with the Wildlife
Agencies or othu means to detmine adequate survey protocols and compliance with the
protocols for these species?
1.6. Figure 27 inconsistencies.
Figure 27, “Rcvised Conservation Components Map” included in Addcndum 2 still
shows a devcloped rectangle ofland within Core R 3 but there is no detailed figure or
firthor explanation that shows the impact of this development. This area was previously
identified as thc site for rclocation of thc police shooting range from the area that is now
the site of the new municipal golf course. City represcntativcs have repeatedly stated that
I 07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587740 SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER PAGE 16
Language should be added to the I.A. which states that Ana-specific monitoring and
managanent plans must be devcloped and approved by the wildlife agencies for prmervc lands no later than 2 years &cr lands are dedicated to the preserve and they must bc
implemented immediately upon approval. of the plan.
this =ea Will no longer be used for the police shooting range, yet this development area
still shows on the map, and it is unclear if these acres have been subtracted fiom the area
of land to he conserved.
Figure 27 also fails to show Cannon Road Reach 4 as a dcvclopment impact, although
other planned mads are clearly shown. Reach 4 remdns on the City Circulation Elcmmt
and wa9 callad out in the recent city budget hcarhgs as now being an active project.
Why is Reach 4 being treated differently hrn othcr planned but unbuilt mads? Have the
acres of impact (through hardline preserve land) been comedy accounted for in assessing
the viability of the core area in the summary of habitat impacts?
CARLSBAD IMPLEMENTING AG FtEErnT COMMENTS
Geaeral Corn ments on LA.
1. Ares Specific Management Plans.
2. Iodependcnt Scienmc Review.
The LA. agreement should include language requiring scientific peer rcview every three
years. This should include review by the sciencc advisors who participated in the plan
development and review of the biological analysis, as well as independent ad.visora to
evaluate management and monitoring of covered species in the preserve. Also, to ensure
transparency, public trust, and also rcnew the various cities' commianmt to the pIan,
language should be added to emure that the plan is taken to the respective City Councils
each year.
3. Development of ordinances and adoption of General Pian Amendments.
Language should bc added to the LA. wkch specifically states that ordinances and
aencral Plan Amendments, if not filly implunented, will result in permit revocation.
16
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587740 PAGE 17
mments on Exbibit B of the I.%
1. Funding
Tt is stated that "planned responses will be implemented by using the funding sourccs
described in Section 14 of the TA for each of the Changed CircumstanGcs, and only to the
extent provided by the identified funding sowocs." Howevcr, nonc of the futlding SOWCES
identified in Section 14 mention changed circumstances, and many are restricted in a way
that would seem to prelude thcir UBE for this purpose. Them i5 no assured responsc to
changed cjrcumstanccs in a timely mannet. unless hds are made available in advance.
Please clarify exactly how many dollars we to be provided, hm what fbnding source,
and when.
2. Repctitive fire
We arc concerned that the sourcc of all of the risk assessment data is the City of Carlsbad
Fire Dqartrnent. Statements such as, "vegetation that has bean burned rcquires
approximately five years to grow before becoming a potentially hazardous fuel load" do
not take into account variations by habitat type, and plant species. In many amas non-
native annual grasses are a common post fire dominant plant type, and they can create a
potmtially hazardous fuel load in a year. The technical fire cxp&sc needs to be
balanccd with input from botanists. Thc historical fire data does not indicate how many of thc eighty fires (if any) met the critcria for changed circumstances.
The statistical basis for defining a repetitive frre 89 a repeat bum of less than 5 acres
occurring within less than thrcc years of the original fin is unclear. Did any ofthe 80
fires cited bum 5 acres or more? When was the last fire of 5 acres? Were any of thc 80
fires repetitive? IfUSFwS determines a rcpetitive fie is within tO years, why is thc
criteria set at only 3 years in Carlsbad?
Thc preventive mcamres rely entirely on brush management &d management of fire
response. A critical fire prcvmtion measure is the municipal firc code. Adding
requircments to use fire resistant materials and rcduce adjacent smcme cxterioa fuel
loads in new construction and in retrofits of existing construction would be much mora
effective in reducing this risk than those proposcd.
3. Flood
Therc is no clcar definition ofwhat constitutes an unforeseen flood. Plcase provide a
clear, non-di scmtionary definition,
17
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197507740 SAN DIEGO BAM(EEpER PAGE 18
The description o
Creek. Portions of Calavera Crcck in Oceanside are culvcrted and channelizd.
gua HEdionda watershed is not comt With rcspcct to Calavcra
A key preventive; measurc for flooding is fbll implementation of the City's Master
Drainage Plan. While the statal prcvcntivc measures address naw development, they do
not impact projects that are already built, many of which discharge directly to local
creeks. It is these existing projects, both within the City limits and upstrcnm from the
City boundaries that are currently adding to cumulative watershed impacts With increased
mi-off volume, velocity, a-od changes in peak discharge ratesb Currently, elements of the
Master Drainage Plan (such as roads and other public inhtructtue) are only built when
an adjacent project is developed. Full implementation of the Master Drainage Plan is rquired to address planned flooding up to the 100 year flood level, yet thcre has bccn no
cnvironmentaI malysis of the impacts of the Master Drainage Plan. Scvcral elements of
the plan, like the use of in-creek detention basins havc both direct and indirect habitat impacts. The full impact offlooding or thc proposed control of flooding as included in
the Master Drainage Plan has not been adcquately evaluated.
In addition a key problem with watcrshcd protection is the parcantage of impervious
cover. This issue has been raised by wildlife agency staff in comments on individual
projccts. It also needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive way as a preventive
measure throughout the MHCP area and within each of the North County cities. There
should be specific goals to optimize the amount of permeable and semi-permeable cover,
Drought response measures are an area where thc use of volunteus could significantly
rcducc the impacts. Volunteers an now hand watering plants in many areas, using
wccessfil models of adopt a trce programs carricd out over years.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate all of thc work that your smhas put into the MHCP and this Subarea
Plan and into considering OUT concerns. We are also gratefil to Carlsbad staff and
Council members who have welcomed our input and continue to work with us to find
solutions to the comments described in this letter. Wc hope to continue to work with the
Wildlife Agmcies, the city of Carlsbad, and the other North County cities in a
cooperative effort to achieve the most eff'tivc North County preserve possible.
PIcase contact Allison Rolfa at (61 9) 758-7768 if you have any questions or comments.
She can direct you to the appropriate contact. Thank you for your consideration of our
concerns.
Yours truly,
18
07/06/2004 15: 34 16197587740
Andy Mauro
Buena Vista Audubon Society
Carolyn ~artuslJ .
California Nativc Plant Society, Sa11 Diego Chapter -- .
David Hogan
Center for Biological Diversity
Sandra Fartell,
Frhds afHcdionda Creek
Preserve Calavera
James Pmgh
San Diego Audubon Society
Allison Rolfe
San Diego BayKeepcr
Doug Gibson San Elijo La.goon Conser~acy
PmE 19
Mary H. Clarke
Chair, METCP Task Force
Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter
19
07/06[2004 15: 34 16197587740 PAGE 20
Marco Oonzalez, Esq.
Suri3idcr Foundation, Sm Dicgo Chapter
Dennis R. VillaVicencio, Ebq. City of Carlsbad Resident
*(this letter represents the position of the sbove-signed organizations only)
cc: Janet Fairbanks, SANDAC)
Nancy Frost, California Department of Fish and Game
Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad
Michael Holzmillcr, City of Carlsbad
Patrick Mwphy, City of Encinitas
Barbara Rdi tz, City of bcondido
Jcny Hittleman, City of Ocmsidc
City Manager, City of San Marcos
Rita Gelded, City of Vista
WNCES
Crooks, K.R, and M.E. Sode. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system.. Natw 400:$63-566.
‘EVink, G.L.P. BarreK D. Zeigler, and J.Bcrry, eds, 1996. Trmds in Addressing
Transportation- related Wildlife Mortality. No. FGER-58-96. Florida Department of
Transportation. Tallahassee, Florida.
Gibeau, M. L. 1993, Use of urban habitat by coyotes in the vicinity of BmfC Alberta. MS
thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 6Gpp.
Romin, L.A., and J.A. Bissoncttc. 1996.Tmpml and spatial distribution of highway inortality on mule deer on ncwly constructed mads at Jordanelle Reservoir, Utab. kat
Basin Naturalist 56: 1-1 1.