HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-21; City Council; 12746 Part 1; DRAFT FIELDSTONE/ RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENTr
8 8 g OL 4
z 0 F 0 4 6
=1 o
2
0
Cv OF CARLSBAD - AG€@A BILL
AB ’ - TITLE:
DEPT.~ PLN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Dm FIFLDSTONJZ/RANCHO SANTA FE
ROAD HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND CITY T MTG. k -&/-qLf
That the City Council:
(1) ADOPT Resolution No. 5+/6g, authorizing submission of the Fieldstone/Rancho S<
Road Habitat Conservation Plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Depr
of Fish and Game, and authorizing the Mayor to sign the required forms, indicating the
a co-applicant with the Fieldstone Company.
(2) Accept the draft Implementation Agreement in concept and authorize staff to negot
terms of the agreement with the Fieldstone Company as outlined in this agenda bill.
lTEM EXPLANATION
On July 23,1991, the City Council authorized entering into a Memorandum of Agreemt
the Fieldstone Company, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the California Dep
of Fish and Game (DFG). The purpose of the agreement was to lay the groundv
preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to address impacts to the California Gni
on land owned by Fieldstone and MAG Properties. The City was a participant in t
because the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road passes through Fieldstone’s and MAG’S
and has some gnatcatcher impacts. Although financing the new road is a developer respo
construction of the road is a City project, and it was proposed that the HCP serve as the m
plan for the road, as well as the private development.
As a result of negotiations on the conservation plan, a conceptual agreement was reachel
1992. This agreement was documented in a statement of Initial Points of Consensus. 1
it has no formal status, the Initial Points of Consensus document was presented to the Ciq
during consideration of the Environmental Impact Report for Rancho Santa Fe Road, a
initialed by staff of the City, FWS, DFG, and Fieldstone, to indicate that it accurately re
understandings that were reached. The Points of Consensus formed the basis for prepa
the HCP itself.
Subsequently, the City and Fieldstone proceeded with the many steps necessary to prodi
which was consistent with the Points of Consensus and would meet the approval of
DFG. The goal is to obtain federal and state Incidental Take permits for the gnatcatcher
species. After two years of effort, the draft plan is now complete and ready for submil
wildlife agencies. An Executive Summary of the HCP is provided in Exhibit 3.
FWS and DFG require that a complete submittal package for an Incidental Take Penn
the HCP, a completed application form, an environmental impact document that corn
both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Califorrlia Environmental C
(CEQA), and an Implementation Agreement. These components of the submittal pa
summarized below.
Summary of HCP and NEPNCEOA Document
To briefly summarize the biological provisions of the HCP, appro:lrimately 645 acres
would be conserved onsite on Fieldstone’s property. This habitat supports at least 19
The conserved areas
designed to maintain habitat connectivity within Carlsbad and to other important ha
southeasterly of Carlsbad. In addition to this onsite conservation, the plan calls for the i
and conservation of up to 240 acres of habitat offsite at a location to be determined
gnatcatcher territories as well as a number of other species.
I b, 0 0
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. .+44
b
contribution of $150,000 to the City for the Habitat Management Plan, establishme
managemenVmaintenance program for the conserved land, and $50,000 for independent 1
on the California gnatcatcher.
Accompanying the HCP is a Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment which is intend,
the basis for the necessary NEPMCEQA document.
Summarv of Imdementation Am-eement
The purpose of the Implementation Agreement is to provide the legal assurances that ea
intends to give and receive. For example, Fieldstone wishes to receive assurance that 1
proceed with development of their project. FWS and DFG wish to receive assurance
mitigation measures stated in the HCP will be carried out. The City wishes to receive a:
that Rancho Santa Fe Road can be constructed along its new alignment. TI
Implementation Agreement is a four party statement of legally binding mutual commitn
summary of the Implementation Agreement is included in Exhibit 3.
As part of the assurances, Fieldstone is requesting certain commitments from the City.
these commitments can be supported by staff because they were included in the P
Consensus. The following commitments are consistent with the Points of Consensus
supported by staff, although they are stiIl important policy decisions:
1.
2.
Amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan to redesignate Melrose Avenl
of Rancho Santa Fe Road from a prime arterial to a major arterial.
Grant Fieldstone the right to shift dwelling units and density from certain part.
property to other parts in order to compensate for loss of developable acreag
minimize loss of units. Some flexibility with respect to development standards is r
in order for Fieldstone to be able to utilize as many of the transferred units as 1
Approve the new configuration of open space in place of the open space areas j
in the General Plan.
Make the finding that the HCP satisfies all wildlife habitat mitigation require
CEQA and tRe Citfs wildlife constraints and requirements.
Guarantee that Fieldstone will be privately reimbursed for that portion of their
prepare and implement the plan which benefits other property owners.
Other commitments that Fieldstone is requesting of the City cannoit be fully supported
The most significant of these is a request that the City enter into a separate and su
development agreement with Fieldstone, referred to as a Public Benefit Agreement. Fie1
requesting that this agreement be a full development agreement which would freeze all
and development standards at their currently adopted levels. Fieldstone is also requer
the City commit to establishment of a conservancy to hold title to and management resp
for the conserved land.
Staff has analyzed the policy questions stated above in order to aid the Council in rt
determination. The complete analysis is provided as Exhibit 2. To summarize the anal
supports the requested amendment to the Circulation Element, the shifting of densities, tl:
that all wildlife requirements are satisfied, and the guarantee of reimbursement. Staff w
support entering into a focused Public Benefit Agreement addressing these issues. Altl
Fieldstone project will provide public benefits in terms of open space and mitigation fo
Santa Fe Road, staff does not believe that these benefits go beyortd simply meeting r
requirements, and therefore a full development agreement which freezes development I
and fees is not justified. Regarding the conservancy, the concept is worthy of further ani
3.
4.
5.
t
I1 'I e e
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. ldi 3 q&
consideration but staff would not recommend committing at this time to establishing one
any specified timeframe.
Processin2 and Formal Approval of Submittal Package
Ordinarily, in a multi-party agreement such as this the applicants would reach agreemenl
language before submitting it jointly to the permitting agency. In this case, staff recoi
allowing the draft Implementation Agreement to be submitted to FWS and DFG to bt
formal review process. Concurrently, staff would continue negotiations with Fieldstone t
at a focused development agreement consistent with City Council direction.
Although the draft HCP has been the subject of lengthy negotiations and the Initial P
Consensus document was accepted by the various parties, the plan is actually only at the f
of the formal federaystate permit process. A number of future actions will need to be t
the City and other agencies to formally approve the HCP and its related documents. The si
package will undergo extensive review by FWS and DFG, and they may require change
HCP and/or Implementation Agreement prior to their approval. In this way, the City's
negotiations with Fieldstone will not delay processing, and possible conceptual approval
and DFG, of the basic conservation plan.
When all of the documents are ready for find action by all parties, they will be brougl
City Council in final form. Certain public hearings and notices will be required at t
pursuant to state and federal law. These hearings and notices are the: responsibility of FV
and Fieldstone. Thus, the Council will not be taking any binding isction at this time.
approval is requested only to submit the package to FWS and DFG to initiate the next
processing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The HCP and Implementation Agreement are accompanied by a Prehhary Draft Envirc
Assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Prior to final approval of
and execution of the Implementation Agreement, the City will prepare the appropriate d
under the California Envkonmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACX
The short-term fiscal impact to the City as a result of approving the staff recommendatic
be the cost of attending meetings with FWS and DFG, preparing correspondence, a
miscellaneous activities in support of the applkation for an Incidental Take Pennit. ll
staff time in undertaking these activities is conservatively estimated to be approximately
Ultimate approval of the HCP and issuance of permits would be expected to result in cefl
to the City. Even if the City has no direct role in the long-term management of the c
land, the City may incur costs in the following areas:
Additional administrative staff time involved in implementing the HCP.
Participation in an oversight committee which is recommended in
Implementation Agreement.
(a)
(b)
When he HCP and Implementation Agreement are brought back to the City Council in f
staff will provide the Council with details regarding any additional fiscal impacts.
11 'I 0 *
PAGE 4 OF AGENDA BILL NO. j?, ?qb
EXHIBITS
1. Resolution NO. 7 ?'-(68
2. Analysis of Policy Issues
3.
4.
Executive Summaries of the Habitat Conservation Plan and 1:mplementation Ape
Draft Habitat Conservation Plan, Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment, ar
Implementation Agreement (on file With the City Clerk's Office).
11 'I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
w
RESOLUTION NO. 94-168
e
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, C AUTHOFUZING SUBMISSION OF THE FIELDSTONWRANCHO SANTA FE ROAl
CONSERVATION PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad did on the 21st day o
, 1994, received a staff report and recommendations regarding the Fieldsto
Santa Fe Road Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Implementation Agreement, i
documents; and
WHEREAS, the staff report recommends that the HCP and IPreliminary Draft En
Assessment be accepted as written; and
WHEREAS, the staff report recommends that the Implemenitation Agreement bc
concept, subject to further negotiation; and
WHEREAS, the staff report recommends that the HCP, Implementation Ag
related documents be submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service a~
Department of Fish and Game for processing and ultimate approval, including issuan
to take protected species of plants and animals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the staff recommendations and fi
appropriate for the documents to be submitted at this time; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also finds it appropriate that the City of Carh
applicant along with the Fieldstone Company in the application for federal and
because the HCP when approved will provide the wildlife habitat mitigation for t
construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road; and
WHEREAS, in approving the staff recommendation the City Council acknow'
HCP, Implementation Agreement and related documents are in clraft form, that the
subject to change, and that formal approval is contingent upon completion of
additional steps which must be taken by the City and other agencies; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the draft nature of the documents, the City Cot
their submission with the understanding that said documents are intended to sat%
2, ‘I
.I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0 P
in compliance with applicable state and federal regulations regarcling the treatment o
and threatened species.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the Ciq
California as follows:
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the Mayor is authorized to sign the application form for a fede
Take Permit.
That staff is authorized to submit the complete package of document
to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Departme
Game.
3.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Coun
of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2 1 st day of JUNE - 1994, by the fc
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard, Finnila
NOES: None
ABSENT: Counci.1 Member Lewis
ATTEST:
I
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Assistant City Clerk
(SEAL)
2
‘I I 0 0
I
ANALYSIS OF POLICY ISSUES
The following is staff‘s analysis of the policy issues related to the Fieldstone/Rar
Fe Road Habitat Conservation Plan and Implementadon Apeement.
Classification and Aliment of Melrose Avenue
The draft HCP proposes that the classification of Melrose Avenue in the City‘s (
Element be amended from Prime Arterial to Major Arterial. ‘The purpose of the
amendment is to conserve a particular area of habitat which would otherwise b
by the proposed alignment of Melrose Avenue. The change in classification a1
flexibility in the radius of mrns which then allows the road alignment to be n
as to avoid the habitat patch in question. This portion of Melrose is needed p
serve the Shelley property in Carlsbad and potentially other development in Enc
Shelley property is projected to have approximately 60-80 units, and it could be
served by a collector street. However, regonal traffic from Enchitas and the Ra.
Fe community is more difficult to quantiify at this time. As development plannin
in this part of Carlsbad and the surrounding area, staff can better determine I
capacity of Mekose Avenue. In any case the change in classification to major arl
anticipated to be a problem, and staff supports the request. This issue was inch
Initial Points of Consensus.
Dwelling Unit and Density Transfer
The conservation plan for Fieldstone’s property calls for a significant portion o
developable land to be preserved in permanent open space. Approximately 24
projected to be affected in this manner. Fieldstone is requesting to retain thes
use them on other parts of their property. If this request is approved, the net c
Fieldstone’s property as a whole would remain consistent with the current G
and the applicable Growth Management density control points. The total num
would remain consistent with the Proposition E cap for the Southeast Quadrz
Some developable land would be affected in all three of Fieldstone’s project ai
are Southeast 11, Rancheros, and Northwest, as shown on the attached map. 7
number of urhs would be affected on the Southeast I1 property. These unit
transferred to the remaining developable land on the Rancheros and Northwest
The General Plan designation for Rancheros is low density residential (RL), u-
one dwelling unit per acre. This designation allows a significant number of
added without creating unreasonably dense development.
The Northwest property has somewhat higher densities than Rancheros, with (
of RLM (low-medium density), RM (medium density), and RMH (medium-hi
However, clustering can still be utilized on certain portions of the property. It
to note that all three of these properties have no discretionary approvals
current Master Plan. Subsequent project processing will allow the City to re
1
*I I 0 0
distribution of units throughout the Master F'lan area to assure that the cl
successfully implemented.
In order to be able to utilize as many as possible of the transferred units, Fj
requesting some flexibility from the City in the application of certain dc
standards and regulations. In particular, Fieldstone is seeldng flexibility in 1
grading regulations.
Fieldstone indicates that the recovery of these units is a matter of financial fe;
their project. The City also has a need to assure that ii base number of
contribute to the financing of Rancho Santa Fe Road and otlher public facilitie:
General Plan and the Growth Management Plan contain policies allowing cl
provide improved open space for environmental protection. This issue was a1
the Initial Points of Consensus. For these reasons, staff supports Fieldstone's
Reconfiguration of Open Space
7le draft HCP proposes a significant change in open space compared with
Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. Both the size and
the open space will be changed by the HCP. The Open Space and Conservati
requires that certain findings be made in order to modify. the location of (
Although it is technically not necessary to make these findings until the HCP
approved and a General Plan amendment is processed, it is iimportant at this til
that the findings can be made. The required findings are as follows:
"(1) The proposed open space area is equal to or greater than the
depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map; and
(2) The proposed open space is of envkonmental quality equal to or gri
than that depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map;
(3) The proposed adjustment to open space, as depicted on the Official (
Space and Conservation Map, is contiguous or within close proximity to
space as shown on the Official Open Space Map.''
The first finding can be made because the proposed HCP open space is signific
than that shown on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map. The amo
space presently shown in the Official Open Space and Conservation Map is aF
396 acres. The HCP would provide approximately 645 acres of open space, ai
approximately 62 %. (The figure for HCP open space does not include
acquisition, which is anticipated to be up to 240 acres. Thus, if the e
acquisition were to occur within Carlsbad, the total open space provided by thc
be approximately 885 acres.)
The second finding can also be made because the HCP open space areas w
specifically for their envkonmental quality. 'The HCP open space consists (
quality coastal sage scrub habitat, riparian scrub, southern maritime chapam
habitat types. The Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan i~
Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources, particularly Plant/Animal I
is the first priority for open space protection.
2
$1 I 0 0
The third finding can be made because the HCP open space is located on prop
by the Fieldstone Company, in close proximity to the open space shown on
Open Space Map. There is actually considerable overlap between the existing
and the proposed open space, such as in San Marcos Creek canyon.
Although the HCP would satisfy the majority of Fieldstone’s open space requiren
are two items that will need to be addressed at a later time when mo
development plans are being processed. These items are the trail system and feature on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Fieldstone’s participation in the trail
anticipated to be addressed in the same manner as other deve1,opments throughc
This will consist primarily of setting precise trail alignments and participatinl
financing program. It is not anticipated that trails will require any additional
of land by Fieldstone. The gateway feature is intended to id,entify Rancho Sa
as a major entrance route into the City through slpecial landscape
monumentation, or other means. The proposed HCP open space will accoml
a large degree. Further specification of this feature can be addressed in the dl
applicable portions of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
The issue of reconfiguration of open space was addressed and conceptually agrc
Initial Points of Consensus. Staff supports the request and verifies that th
findings can be made.
Reimbursement to Fields tone
Fieldstone has advanced a significant amount of funding for the design of Rz
Fe Road, financing district formation, and HCP preparation. This work indirec
a number of other properties that are conditioned to finance the road by pr
mitigation to offset the wildlife habitat impacts of constructing the road. St;
using an independent third party to determine the amount of reimbursen
Fieldstone from the financing district. The timing of reimbursement would be
by the City based on the financing district‘s cash flows.
The plan also potentially benefits MAG Properlies directly by providing a mit
and permitting to offset the wildlife habitat impacts of MAG’S proposed pi
Implementation Agreement specifies that MAG Properties wdl receive these b
upon enterhg into a reimbursement agreement with Fielldstone. That rei]
agreement will be addressed between the two property owners. The City has
review the agreement but will not sign or approve the agreement. MAG Prope
option to not enter into a reimbursement agreement with Fieldstone and to pu
mitigation plan and permitting.
Public Benefit Aweement
In discussions with staff, Fieldstone has indicated that a full development agrec
freezes all development fees and development standards in place at the time
of the HCP is necessary to assure the financial feasibility of their project
extraordinary costs associated with the HCP. Presently, city ordinances on
development agreements related to affordable housing projects. However, staf
processing amendments to the ordinances to allow csnsideration of (
3
)I I e 0
agreements for other types of projects. Staff agrees that it would be appropri,
City to enter into a focused agreement which addresses Melrose Avenue, dweh
density transfer, flexibility in applying certain development standards, reconfif
open space, and which precludes any further environmental or open space
Beyond that, the freezing of development fees and regulations are not consister
policies contained within the city's existing development agreement ord
amendments to the ordinance which are now being processed by staff. The b
is that development agreements will be considered only when there is an ext
public benefit being provided. The benefit must be above and beyond reqd
facilities or mitigation that is necessary to obtain project approval. Based upon t
reflected in the existing development agreement ordinance and the amendments
processed by staff, staff has indicated to Fieldstone that a full development ag
not warranted. In response, Fieldstone has expressed the desire to address the C
directly on this issue.
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Implementation Agreement
subject to further negotiation, and authorize submission of the Implementation
to FWS and BFG for their review along with the HCP. This approach is the
efficient in that it allows for FWS and DFG review and processing of the biolog
of the plan and the agreement while the City and Fieldstone complete an
addressing development issues.
4
6 1 0 0
Summar Cdr/sbad-FIC\ HCPIGtVMSP
€XI
SUMMARY C Summary
A. Introduction
This Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan (HCP/OMSP) is th
culmination of a threeyear collaborative planning process undertaken by th
City oi Carisbad (City) and FieldstondLa Costa Associates (FLCA) in consultatio
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department (
Fish and Game (CDFG). It covers 1,940.2 acres of land essentially surrounde
by existing urban uses in the southeast quadrant of Carisbad (Figure S-1
conserving habitat for plant and wildlife species and mlitigating the impacts
anticipated urbanization.
Initiated prior to enactment of California's Natural Communities Conservatic
Planning (NCCP) Act, the HCPIOMSP technically is exempt from the NC<
program: however, it is consistent with NCCP Guidelines and with tv
planning eiforts that are enrolled in the NCCP program as OMSPs - the Cit)
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and the North County Multiple Habit
Conservation Program (MHCP). The plan fulfills NCCP goals and strengthe
the HMP and MHCP eiforts by:
0 Providing for the preservation and management o,f up to 885.1 acres
coastal sage scrub and other habitats in key locations that will suppc
viable populations of indigenous plants and animals and maintain the Iii
between the City's natural communities and the larger regional ecosystei
and
Reconciling the current and future needs of diverse public and prw
interests through a cooperative effort that will sustain and improve sensiti
biological ' resources w h i le allowing necessary econlom ic developmen t ai
anticipated urbanization to proceed.
0
In this way, the HCP/OMSP constitutes a completed aspect of NCCP for the C
and subregion.
Consistent with the federal and state Endangered Species Acts (ESAs) as well
the NCCP program, the HCP/OMSP addresses the rreeds of 66 listed a
unlisted species associated with habitats in the plan area. It focuses or
number of animal species that are representative of the diversity and sensiti!
of resources in the City and region, including the federally-listed coa:
California gnatcatcher, and provides protection for nearly 80 percent oi
sensitive plant populations in the plan area. Utilizing the best availa
scientific iniormation, the HCP/OMSP rrieets the requirements of the ESAs by:
Minimizing and mitigating anticipated impacts on the species ot concerr
the maximum extent practicable; and
3-28-94 Revised Draft
i
Carlsbad-Fi GI HCP/O M!
'1 0 0
Summary
Conserving habitat, habitat linkages, corridors, and buffers in 'a way th;
together with the other impact minimization ancl mitigation measure
ensures that the likelihood of the species' survivai arid recovery will not t
appreciably reduced.
Also in accordance with the ESAs, the plan assures adequate funding f
implementation of the conservation arid mitigation nieasures and includ
procedures for responding to unforeseen circumstances.
The HCP/OMSP also is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan, providing f
the conservation of sensitive resource!; and the development of land ar
facilities in accordance with the City's land use, circulation, open space, ar
growth management plans as well as the proposed HMP.
B. Planni.ng Process and Purpose
Preparation of the HCP/OMSP began in 1989 and evolved into a uniqi
planning process for a project specific plan, characterized by a consideration
rangewide conservation issues, open public participation, and cand
negotiations with conservation interests and federal, state, and local agencic
To ensure continued progress during the process, the planning participar
signed a Memorandum of Agreement in 1991 regarding development of a pl
and an Initial Points of Consensus document in 1992 establishing the pial
fundamental tenets.
The primary purpose of the planning process and this HCP/OMSP is to provi
for the conservation of wildlife and its habitat in the context of anticipat
urbanization. The HCP/OMSP establishes the basis for government planni
and regulation as well as assurances to the landowners and others that the PI
will be implemented and that projects and activities in the plan area c
proceed without further wildlife mitigation. Specifically, the plan provides t
basis for:
1. Issuance by USFWS of a Section 10Fa) permit, USNVS authorizations unc
the gnatcatcher 4(d) rule, and USFWS consultations (internal as well as w
other agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) under Section 7
the federal ESA;
2. Issuance by CDFC of a Section 2081 permit under the California ESA ant
Section 2835 permit under the NCCP Act;
3. Issuance of permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
4. Consummation of an implementation agreement, with USFWS, CDFC, '
City, and FLCA as parties, implementing the plan and providing the pad
with assurances; and
5. Planning and development activities by the City, FLCA, and otl
landowners in the plan area.
s-2 Revised Draft 3-28
', ,I 0 0
Carl sbad-F IC-\ H CPIO MS P 5ummar
C. Plan Area Profile
The plan area for the HCP/OMSP consists of two sers ot' lands
1,278.2 acres identified as "Rancheros-Southeast It," which inciudes 846.
acres that are the project area for the Rancho Santa Fe Road realignmen
347 acres that are the Rancheros component or FI-C.4's La Costa ,vast€
Plan, and 85 acres in San Marcos Creek; and
662.0 acres identified as "Northwest," another component or :he La Cos1
,Master Plan.
Combined, the lands account for 13 perc:ent, oi ail undeveloped land remainir
in the City. All ot the land IS private property, and 95 percent (1,844.4 acres)
owned by FLW. The other five percent includes 81 acres owned by ,MA
Properties and 14.8 acres oi miscellaneous private ownerships within propost
right-of-way easements for :he realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road. Except i
242.6 acres, all of the lands are currently designated in the General Plan i
residential or commercial development.
The biological significance of the lands stems irom their location in relation
other resources and their inherent values. Rancheros-Southeast II forms t
western tip oi the largest, contiguous stretch oi coastal sage scrub and natui
open space in northern San Oiego County and. by virtue of that connection,
the primary link between the City's natural communities and the larger regior
ecosystem. Northwest is less directly attached to the regional ecosystem t:
supports a mix of habitats and species representative ot the City's and regior
biodiversity.
Six habitat types occur within the plan area: Diegan coastal sage scrub, southe
mixed and southern maritime chaparral, non-native and native grasslar
riparian scrub and oak woodland, disturbed habitat, and eucalyptus woodlai
(Table El 1. Approximately twmhirds si Rancheros-Southeast II is coastal sa
scrub, with the remainder primarily southern mixed chaparral and disturb
habitat; all six habitat types occur in Nonhwest but no one type covers mc
than 38 percent of the area.
The habitats support hundreds of different plant and wildlife species, includ
the 66 that have been selected as "species or concern" for conservation plann
purposes. The 66 include species that are:
1. Already protected by the federal or state ESris;
2. Candidates for federal or state listing;
3. "Species ot special concern" in California as identified by CDFC;
4. Sensitive bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
5.. On the list of sensitive species for the NCCP progralm:
6. On the list of sensitive plant species in Caiifornia;
7. On the list of target species for the tiMP and North County MHCP; or
8. On the list of "other sensitive species" for the HMP.
c
7 78-94 Rpvrwd Drait
Habitat Type
Oieqan coastal sage scrub
Chaparral
Southern mixed
Southern maritime
Subtotal
Crass land.
Nonnative
Native
Subtotai
Riparian scrub and woodland
Disturbed habitat
Eucalyptus woodland
TOTAL
Rancheros-
Southeast II Northwest Plan Area
832.2 123.0 955.2
189.2 6.0 195.2
0.0 120.0 120.0
189.2 126.0 315 2
35.0 251.6 286.6
41.6 3.4 21 .o
76.6 255.0 306.6
16.6 97.0 11 3.6
157.4 55.5 191.9
1 .o 5.5 6.5
1,278.2 I 66;!.0 1,940.2
A-7
~-8
~-g
~-10
A-I 1
A-i 2
A-I 3
.
~-14
~-1 5
Range extends from coastal Santa Barbara County t
northwestern Baja California.
Occurs along ephemeral st.reams and vernal pools.
Range extends from Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties through San Diego County into Baja Cali
Occurs in CHP, CSS, and (2. Range includes
southern California from Los Angeles County
southward, Arizona, and northern Baja Calif.
Occurs in CSS. Range includes coastal San Diego
County to central Baja California.
Occurs in G and CSS with clay soils. Range inclu~
coastal San Diego County to extreme northwest oi
Baja California-
Occurs in RS and SM. Range includes coastal San
Diego County to central Baja California.
Occurs in FWM, SM, and RW. Range extends irc
San Luis Obispo and San Bernardino Counties to
Occurs in CSS and CHP cif bluffs and rocky cliffs.
Range includes southern Orange County to centri
San Diego County.
Occurs in CHP and SMaC:. Range includes coast'
Orange and San Diego Counties into northwest B
Califom ia.
Occurs in C and vernal pools with clay soils. Ra
indudes coastal San Diego County to central Bai,
CNPSl 8, OSS
0 rcutt ' s b rod i aea
Brodiaea orcurtti
CZ', CNPSi 8, T
Palmer's grappl inghook
Harpagonella palmer;
CNPSZ, OSS
San Uiego County viguiera
Viguiera lacrniata
CNPSJ. NCCP
San Oiego golden star
,Mur/la clevelandii
C2", CNPSl 6, T
San Diego marsh elder
Iva hayesiana
C2. CNPSZ, NCCP, OSS
Southwestern spiny rush
iunaus aaus var. leopoldii
CNPS4, oss central Haja California.
Stickv-leaved I iveforever
Dudleya viscida
Cl =, CNPS1 6, NCCP, OSS
Summer holly
Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversrfolia
Cl, CNPS 18, T
Thread-leaved brodiaea
Brodiaea filifolia
Cl', SE, CNPSlB, T ' California.
2
Carisbad-FLCA HCP.'O,MSP
1, 0 0 Surnmarv
Table S-2 (continued)
HCPlOMSP Species of Concern
Species Name and Listing Status Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
nderstory of CHP and CSS. Range
n Marin and Sonoima Counties to San
orthwestern Baja
c2. csc, NCCP, 05s
south central Baja California.
Occurs in CSS, CHP, juniper woodland, and alluvial
ange includes California and northern
ies Los Angeies, Orange
iego Counties into Baja
iear foraging areas.
I.S., excluding Alaska
3ed habitat. Range
rica; winters south to
SM, G, CSS, and agricultural fields.
rates throughout California.
S8 Revised Draft 3 28 S.
ID # Species Name and Listing Status Habitat Association and R,angewide Distribution
Breeds in FWM, forages in C and agricultural lands.
Range extends from southern Oregon to northern
Baja California.
Occurs in RW and RS. Range includes most of Nortt
America; breeds in southern California in spring and
Occurs in RW and RS. Range includes most of uorth
America; breeds in southern California in spring and
Occurs in CSS, CHP, and oplen weedy areas. Range
includes parts of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and San Diego Counties.
Occurs in CSS, G, and disturbed habitat. Range
includes coastal slope of southern California from
Santa Barbara County into northwest Baja Calif.
Occurs in rocky areas and Clip and CSS with cactus.
Range includes coastal slope of southern California
from San LiJis Obispo County to northwest Baja Calif
Occurs atop coastal bluffs in CSS. Range includes
coastal slope of southern California from San Luis
Obispo County to northwest Baja Calif.
Occurs on coastal bluffs in CSS. Range includes
Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties to centra
Tricolored black b i rd
CZ, CSC, IMBTA, NCCP, T
Yellow-breasted chat
CSC, MBTA, OS5 summer.
Yellow warbler
CSC, .MBTA, OS5 summer.
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
A-35 Lepus californrcus bennettri
CZ, CSC, NCCP, 05s
San Diego desert woodrat
cz, csc, 05s
B loc hman ' s dud I eya
CNPS 1 B, NCCP, OsS
Cliff spurge
CNPSZ, NCCP, 05s Baja California.
Coast barrel cactus .- Occurs on dry slopes with C.SS and CHP. Range
CZ', CNPSZ, NCCP, os5
Del ,Mar sand aster
FPT, CNPS 18, NCCP, T
Encinitas baccharis
8- j Baccharis vanessae
FPE, SE, CNPSl B, T
Orcutt's hazardia Occurs on coastal slopes in CHP. Endemic to
8-6 Hazardia OrCUttii northwest Baja California, with a disjunct population
CZ, CNPSl B
Orcutt's spineflower
FPE', SE, CNPSl8, NCCP
San Diego ambrosia
A-3 1 Ageiaius rrrcolor
A-32 Icteria virens
A-33 Dendroica petechia brewsteri
,434 Cbaetodipus fallax r'ailax
A-36 Neotoma leprda intermedia
Potentially Occurring Species of Concern (N = 30)
8-1 Dudleya blochmanrae ssp. blochmaniae
8-2 Euphorbia misera
8-3 Ferocactus viridescens includes coastal San Diego County, northwest Baja
California, and foothills of Sierra juarez.
Occurs in sandy, disturbed coastal areas, usually in
SMaC. Endemic to central, coastal San Diego
County.
8-4 Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linfolia
Occurs in SMaC and CHP. Endemic to northwest
and north-central San Diego County.
in Encinitas, California.
Occurs in SMaC. Endemic t.0 San Diego County.
Occurs in coastal G and disturbed habitat. Range
8-7 Chorizanthe orcuttiana
ID# !
6-1 0 icanthomrntha rlicrfolia
Species Name and Listing Status
San Diego rhornrnint
C1*, SE, CNPSlB, NCCP, T
iiarbison's dun skipper
C2. T
riermes copper
8-1 2 1 ivcaena hermes
C?', oss
Quino checkerspot
6-1 3 Euphydryas editha qurno
Cl*, os5
California red-legged frog
5-1 4 Rana aurora draytonri
FPE, CSC, OSS
Coast patch-nosed snake
8-1 j Salvadora hexaleprs vrrgultea
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Coronado skink
C2, CSC, NCCP, 0%
San Diego banded gecko
Coleonyx varregatus abbottr
C2, CSC, NCCP, OS5
San Diego ringneck snake
8- 18 Diadophis punctatus srrnrlis c2, csc, oss
Silvery legless lizard
5-1 g Annjella nigra argentea csc, oss
Southwestern pond turtle
C1 I, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Two-striped garter snake
5-2 1 Tharnnophis harnrnondii
c2, csc, oss
California homed lark
8-22 Eremophla aipestris actia
C2. CSC, MBTA, NCCP, 0%
Least Bell's vireo
FE, SE, MBTA, T
San Diego *actus : wren
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
5-1 1 Evphves vestris harbrnsonr
5- 16 Eurneces skrltonranus rnterparretalis
B- 1 7
5-20 Clemrnys marmorata pailida
5-23 Vireo bellii pusillus
8-24 Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi
Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
Occurs in G and vernal pools on clay soils. Range
includes coastal San Diego County to coastal area
above Ensenada and Sierra juarer mountains.
Occurs in RW, RS, and OW with perennial water
source. Range includes Orange and San Diego
Counties.
Occurs in CSS and CHP; larval foodplant IS
buckthorn. Range includes Sail Diego Co. to
northern Baja Calif.
Occurs in CSS, G, and VP; lanral foodplant IS
plantain. Range includes Orange, Riverside, and San
Diego Counties to coastal central Baja Calif.
Occurs in ponds, marshes, and pools. Range
includes northern California to northwestern Baja
California.
Occurs mainly in CHP but also in mixed CSS and C.
Range includes Santa Barbara County into northwest
Baja California.
Occurs in G, CSS, open CHP, OW, and pine forests.
Range includes Los Angeles County into northwest
Eaja Califorriia plus several islands.
Occurs in CHP and CSS with rocky outcrops. Range
extends from San Gabriel Mountains to northwest
Baja Califorriia and Cedros Island.
Occurs in OW, G, CHP, and (35. Range includes
southwest S;in Bernardino County to northwest Baja
California.
Occurs along washes, beache!;, alluvial fans and in
CSS and CHP. Range includes San Francisco to
northwest Baja California.
Occurs in RNM, creeks, and ponds. Range extends
from Monterey County to northwest Eaja California.
Occurs primary along permanent creeks and streams,
also in VP arid CHP. Range iricludes MOnterey
County to northwese Baja California.
Occurs in sandy beaches, G, and agricultural lands.
Range includes coastal slopes and lowlands from
Sonoma County to northern Baja California.
Occurs in lowland RW. Range includes southern
California to northwest Baja California.
Occurs in CSS, cactus patches, and thorny thickets.
Range includes southern Orange and San Diego
Counties into northwest Baja California.
1
Sum marv
1, 0 0
Carlsbad-F LCA HCP!G.MSP
Table S-2 (continued)
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
Species Name and Listing Status Habitat Association and Raingewide Distribution
? includes southwestern
ops, buildings; forages
udes Central California,
aexi co.
), and disturbed areas.
irgarita River to northern
vith sandy substrate.
:hem California; only
and CSS. Range extends from northern
County to northwestern 9aia California.
buildings; forages in
Cange includes most of
3-28-94 Revised Draft s-11
0
Carisbad-F1CA HCPIOiMSf
)I 0
Summary
Table S-2 (continued)
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID Codes
A -
B-
Status Codes c1 c2
c3c
Ch PS
Species observed or assumed to occur in one or both plan area components.
Species potentially occurring in habitats in one or both plan area components.
Category 1 candidate for federal listing
Category 2 candidate for federal listing
Category 3c candidate for federal listing
Listed by the California Native Plant Society as:
(1 B) rare or endangered in California and elsewhere
(2) rare or endangered in California and more comnion elsewhere
(4) plants of limited distribution
Identified by CDFC as a species of special concern in California
Listed as endangered under the federal ESA
Emergency listed as endangered under the federal ESA
Proposed for federal listing as endangered
Proposed for federal listing as threatened
Identified by federal agencies as a sensitive species
Listed as threatened under the federal €SA
Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
On the list of sensitive species for the NCCP program
"Other Sensitive Species" identified in draft Carlsbad HMP
Listed as threatened under the California ESA
Target species for Carlsbad HMP and North County MHCP
On the list of species covered by a settlement agreemerit between USFWS and environmental
groups who filed suit regarding the timely listing of C1 and C2 species.
csc
FE
FEE
FPE
F PT
FSS
FT
M B TA
NCCP oss
ST
T
Habitat Codes
AFS Alluvial Fan Scrub
CHP css Coastal Sage Scrub
FWM Freshwater .Marsh
C Grassland, native and non-native
JW Juniper Woodland
M FS Mu lefat Scrub ow Oak Wood land
RS Riparian Scrub
RW Riparian Wood land
SMaC Southern Maritime Chaparral
VP Vernal Pools
Chaparral types, excluding Southern Maritime Chaparral
s-12 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Northwest
Total
426.67 21.36
35.77 1 1.06
0.00 28.90
19.20 33.30
9.65 34.91
30.1 2 4.16
521.41 123.69
Plan Area
Total
448.03
36.83
28.90
52.50
44.56
34.28
645.10
Carlsbad-FICA ~CPOVS
x, 0. 0
jurnmarv
Preserves 426.67 acres of coastal sage scrub (57 percent of the 832.2 acre
in the plan area component) and 18 gnatcatcher use areas;
,Llaintains two primary habitat linkages with the larger regional ecosysten
one across Southeast II and one along San Marcos Creek; and
Concentrates future land uses adjacent to existing, development and i
relation to the ultimate alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
As shown on Figure S-2, the proposed configuration within Southeast
preserves a corridor that is 1,000 feet wide at its narrowest point ana widens t
approximately 1,800 feet in width at the eastern end where it crosses Ranchc
Santa Fe Road. The corridor retains linkages with designated conserved habit;
in San >Marcos Creek and Rancheros and linkages wit:h natural open spac
outside the plan area.
Conserved habitat along San Marcos Creek preserves a second linkage with th
regional ecosystem, ensures connectivity between conserved habitat ii
Southeast I1 and Rancheros, and includes non-sage scrub habitats and species ii
the "rnicro-ecosystem" captured by the configuration. In this case, th
conserved area forms a corridor that is at least 1,000 feet wide until it reache
the Rancho Santa Fe Road crossing a.nd enters the City of San Marco!
Additionally, there are at least 70 feet of vertical separation between the Cree
bottom and the road crossing. This design maximizes the contiguity of the ope
space and minimizes the overall edge effect of the proposed reserve.
The primary consideration in Rancheros was the need to reconcile conservatio
and land use priorities for lands with high biological and ,development value. A!
originally proposed in the La Costa Master Plan, Rancheros was designated fo
large lot ranchette-style residential development. This concept was replannec
in the context of the HCPIOMSP to cluster new housing near existinf
development on the western and northern borders and oln the upper terraces o
the site. Priority was given to minimizing edge effects; and conserving two
thirds of the gnatcatcher pairs onsite (1 0 of 15). The resulting configuratior
preserves the highest density occupied gnatcatcher habitat in a contiguous banc
oi primarily sage scrub habitat that adjoins San Marcos Creek and is over 0.5
mile wide.
b. Northwest
Conserved habitat in Northwest includes 123.69 acres selected to preserve plan
species of concern and maintain connectivity through the site (Figure 5-3). Fou
primary considerations affected the design of conserved habitat:
1. The presence and r:!ative abundance of rare plants associated with native
grassland (thread-leaved brodiaea, Palmer's grappliiighook) and southerr
maritime chaparral (Del Mar manzanita, summer holly, wart-stemmec
ceanothus, Uuttail's scrub oak);
2. The relatively fragmented nature of the sage scrub (by comparison wit1
Rancheros-Southeast II) but high number of gnatcatchers;
The bifurcation of the natural habitats by the La Costa Golf Course; and 3.
S-14 Revised Draft 3-28-9.
I,
A . .e\ c..-' '.*
LEGEND . ..
..I* ! h, .. CONSERVED HABITAT *\. C?, , ! 5; p] EXISTING ROADWAY '?. 1 ! \.* *._..-.. -..-**d ;>,,4! b4' '*.
N.1 1-1 FUTURE ROADWAY
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates
Figure S-2 Schematic of Conserved H
on IRancheros = South( -
*.
LEGEND
CONSERVED HABITAT
EXISTING ROADWAY
FUTURE ROADWAY
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates
Figure S-3 Schematic of Camserved Hi
in Nort -
S-16
,
Surnrnarv
I. 0 0
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP!OMSP
4. The existing albeit narrow habitat linkages with natural open space IO the
northeast and to Rancheros to the southeast.
Following a consideration of each of these factors, two interrelated decisions
were made: onsite conservation would focus on sensitive plants and would be
supplemented by offsite acquisitions of coastal sage scrub.
As proposed, the onsite conserved habitat preserves a majority of the sensitive
plant species. It also provides connections to and through the site from south tc
north and to the east (see Figures 5-3). in addition, onsite restoration of aboui
11 acres of sage scrub has been proposed for a portion of {conserved habitat thal
intersects a utility easement that currently serves as a narrow wildlife corridor
The restoration will provide a "stepping stone" of habitat for dispersing anc
breeding bird species of concern (including the gnatcatcher) as well as cover foi
dispersing predators such as coyotes.
Oiisite conservation will be used to:
1. Provide replacement habitat for the sage scrub that ultimately will be
removed from Northwest; and
2. Bolster the regional linkages conserved under the plan.
it also will incidentally benefit other species of concern.
Up to 240 acres of coastal sage scrub oc:cupied by gnatcatchers or otherwise
acceptable to USFWS and CDFG will be acquired by FLCA, with at least 120
acres in locations that will strengthen the habitat linkage between Southeast II
and the regional coastal sage scrub community that extends into the San
Dieguito and San Pasqual River Valley. No specific locations have been
proposed for acquisition at this time.
2. Impact Analysis
In connection with designating onsite conserved habitat, the City and FLCA
considered the beneficial and adverse effects on species of concern that would
likely result from conserving some areas of habitat and allowing development to
proceed in others. As noted, all species of concern were treated as listed
species, and all suitable habitat for each species was considered "taken" if not
designated as conserved habitat. This approach was used to ensure that habitat
impacts were not underestimated, to fulfill €SA requirements that "take" of
species be estimated, and to identify appropriate impact minimization and
mitigation measures. Also in accordance with the ESA and NCCP Guidelines,
alternatives to the taking were considered.
a.
Anticipated impacts to species of concern are summarized in Table 5-4 in terms
of habitat conserved and habitat assumed taken and biased on the primary
habitat associations of the species of concern (e.g., impacts to species found
only in sage scrub, impacts to species found in more than one habitat type). A
separate calculation of total conserved habitat that assuries acquisition of 240
acres of offsite sage scrub also is provided.
Impacts to Species of Concern
.
3-28-94 Revised Drah s-17
Carisbaa'-FLC4 HCP'O.bfSP
1, e 0
Summary
Table S-4
Habitat Conserved and Assumed "Taken"
by Primary Habitat Associations of the Species of Concern
(acres)
In addition to the habitat-based impacts, the following points can be noted
regarding the conservation of species given priority in the planning process:
Up to 18 pair of coastal California gnatcathers will be conserved onsite in
Rancheros-Southeast 11, and an undetermined number oi pairs on up to 240
acres will be conserved offsite;
At least 795 Del Mar manzanita individuals and approximately 3,800
thread-leaved brodiaea individuals will be conserved on Northwest.
All of the sticky-leaved liveforever will be conserved in the San Marcos
Creek corridor;
A significant portion of habitat suitable for the orange-throated whiptail and
San Diego horned lizard will be conserved on Rancheros-Southeast II, and
the two reptiles will also likely benefit from the offsite conserved habitat;
and
Ripariandependent bird species such as the yellow-breasted chat, yellow
warbler, and least Bell's vireo will benefit from the preservation of well over
95 percent of the onsite riparian habitats; sensitive Iplant species such as
southwestern spiny rush and San Diego marsh elder also will be preservec
onsite.
0
5-1 8 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Summar!
Lt e 0 Carisbad-FLCA HCP!OMSP
b. Alternatives to the Taking
Six alternatives to the anticipated taking were considered and uitimateb
eliminated from further consideration:
Complete avoidance of take of listed species;
No take of coastal California gnatcatchers;
Take only within the Rancho Santa Fe Road project area;
Delay of take in the plan area pending completion of the HMP;
0. An offsite mitigation strategy with unlimited take in thl? plan area; and
Reconfiguration of onsite conserved habitat and development areas.
E. ' Conservation Program
and Mitigation Measures
The conservation program and mitigation measures include those action
necessary to:
Conserve 645.1 acres of habitat in the plan area and up to an additiona
240 acres in offsite locations;
Provide for ongoing management of the conserved habitat;
Minimize and mitigate the impacts expected in the plan area; and
Ensure implementation of the plan and secure long-term (30-year
authorizations and assurances for projects and activities in the plan area.
1. Habitat Conservation
Implementation of the HCP/OMSP will conserve up to 885.1 acres of habitat io
the species of concern: 645.1 acres within Rancheros-Southeast II an(
Northwest and up to 240 acres in offsite locations to be selected in consultatior
with USFWS and CDFG. All of the onsite conserved habitat is in FLCA'
ownership.
Onsite conservation will occur in the areas shown on Figures 5-2 and 5-3 and a
described in the legal agreements that will accompany this plan. Offsit1
conservation will occur in conjunction with development within Northwest an(
will consist of acquisition by FLCA of up to 240 acres of coastal sage scrub ii
locations acceptable to USFWS and CDFG, with at least 120 acres in location
that will strengthen the habitat linkage with the regional coastal sage communit
that extends into the San Dieguito and Sari Pasqual River Valley.
In accordance with state guidelines for 2081 agreements (see Appendices:
FLCA will provide an irrevocable offer to convey fee interest or a conservatioi
easement for the conserved habitat to a conservancy established or designate(
for purposes of the Carlsbad HMP, to CUFC, or to another entity approved b
USFWS and CDFG. Conservation easements or fee interest also will bs
conveyed for the offsite mitigation lands.
3-28-94 Revised Draft s- 1
,
Cddsbad-FLCA HC?.'O,MS?
** ~ 0 0
Summarv
2. Habitat Management
Two types of habitat management will be provided under the plan:
Long-term, ongoing management of conserved habitat by an entity
designated for that purpose under the terms ot this HCPIOMSP, the HMP,
or North County MHCP.
Interim management of conserved hatlitat by FLCA; and
It is anticipated that the entity responsible for long-term management ot'
conserved habitat and the entity to which the conservation easements or iee
interest is conveyed will be a conservancy established for purposes of
implementing the HMP. However, alternative arrangements also have been
identified in the event that the HMP is substantially delayed or not completed.
Such alternatives include delegation of management responsibilities to CDFC
The Nature Conservancy, or (as a last resort) a homeowners association. The
arrangement actually made will be subject to USFWS and CDFC concurrence.
a. lnterim Habitat Management
FLCA will be responsible for management of conserved habitat until fee interes
is conveyed or FLCA delegates its management responsibilities to the HMF
conservancy or an entity approved by the City, USFWS, and CDFC. Interim
management activities will consist of:
0 Maintaining existing access controls;
0 Clean-up of conserved 'habitat areas where unauthorized trash dumping ha:
occurred; and
Implementation of project-specific impact minimiiration and mitigatior
measures (see below).
FLCA will prepare an interim management plan that describes the activities t(
be performed and, until fee interest is conveyed or the managemen
responsibilities have been delegated, will provide annual updates to the plan a
necessary. FLCA also will provide information on the implementation c
interim management measures in the annual reports on overall pia
implementation that will be prepared by FLCA and the City for USFWS an
CDFG review.
b. Ongoing Habitat Management
Ongoing management of conserved habitat will be guided by annual plar
prepared by the HMP conservancy or other designated entity in consultatio
with a management advisory committee. The committee will be composed (
representatives of USFWS, CDFG, the City, FLCA, and the management entity c
entities.
s-20 Revised Draft 3-28-5
Summar
SI e 0
Carlsbad-FIC.4 HCPiOMSP
c. Funding of Habitat Management
Funding of interim management activities will be FLCA's responsibilib
Funding of long-term management will be provided through the HMP by use (
any funds available to the City for wildlife, acquisition, conservation, an
management purposes, including but not limited to azisessments, levies, anc
grants or other types of funding from putilic or private sources. AS a last resori
a "conserved habitat maintenance charge" of $50.00 per residential unit pe
year would be assessed on each developrnent unit within the plan area.
3. lmpact Minimization
and Mitigation Measures
In addition to the impact minimization acheived through preserve design, th
HCPIOMPS provides for individual projects and activities in the plan area to bt
planned and implemented in a way that further avoids, minimizes, an(
mitigates impacts to species ot' concern and conserved habltat. Such measure
will include but not be limited to project-specific impact avoidance an(
minimization, impact phasing and project design, and supplemental rnitigatior
m eas u res.
a.
In configuring conserved habitat within the plan area, priority was given tc
minimizing direct impacts through preserve design. Ten additional impac
avoidance and minimization measures will pertain to iiidividual projects anc
activities that would affect conserved habitat.
1.
Project-Specific lmpact A voidance and Mi.nimizafion
Nest site protection. No clearing or grading operations will be allowed ir
habitat occupied by the gnatcatcher during its breeding season (February 15
to July 31). This measure also will protect other nesting species of concern
Prior to July 31, clearing may occur if it is determined that the birds have
already successfully fledged young, are no longer actively nesting, and the
young have dispersed from the area. In addition, although no direc'
impacts to trees currently used for nesting by raptors are anticipated, if it i!
determined that raptors are nesting in any trees scheduled for removal, the
trees will be avoided until after the nesting season. ,Additionally, where
feasible, clearing activities within 200 feet of raptor nest sites will be
avoided during the nesting season.
2. Access control. Prior to commencement of clearing or grading activities,
access barriers to conserved habitat will be established at key entry points.
The boundaries of conserved habitat immediately adjacent to a grading area
will be flagged by a biologist, and a fence will b.e installed to prevent
disturbance by construction vehicles. This fencing may be removed upon
completion of all construction activities and/or replacement with permanent
fencing to protect conserved habitat. Reasonable, appropriate measures
also will be taken to ensure that the construction crew is informed of the
sensitivity of conserved habitat.
3-28-94 Revised Draft s-2 7
Cads ba a- F 1 CA cl CPGM 5 P 0 , rf 5urnmarv 0 0
3. Noise Control. Grading, construction, and other activities that create noise
in excess of 61 d.b.a. Leq level in conserved habitat occuoled by
gnatcatchers will be limited to the non-breeding season (August 1 through
February 15) unless six foot temporary noise berms are used to reduce noise
I eve Is.
4. Storage and staging areas. No temporary storage or stockpiling oi
construction materials will be allowed within conserved habitat, and ail
staging areas for equipment and materials (especially rock crushing
equipment) will be located as far from conserved habitat as possible.
Staging areas and construction sites will be kept as free as possible of trash,
retuse, discarded food wrappers, and other waste that might attract small
scavengers that prey on gnatcatchers and other sensitive small passerines.
Trash containers with animal-resistant lids will be provided on the site
during construction.
3. Monitoring. During grading and construction adjacent to conserved
habitat, a biologist will monitor the adjacent habitat for excessive
accumulations of dust or other disturbance. Erosion control devices also
will be monitored during the rainy seaon to ensure that dirt, topsoil, and
other materials are not washing into the conserved ha.bttat area. If at any
time significant amounts of dust or material are determined to be impacting
conserved habitat, then corrective measures will be taken immediately.
Unavoidable disturbances of conserved habitat. Disturbance oi conserved
habitat will be avoided to the maximum extent possible. However, where
disturbance is unavoidable and has been authorized, it will be mitigated by
restoration of the affected sites. Revegetation plans will be prepared for the
approval of the City prior to such disturbances occurring. In addition, the
location and installation of utilities will be planned cooperatively with the
City, USFWS, and CDFG to minimize and mitigate the impacts of such
projects on species of concern and conserved habitat. Examples of
disturbances that may be unavoidable include: (a) temporary noise buffers
and fencing adjacent to conserved habitat; (b) fuel modification zones at
the edge of conserved habitat; (c) temporary and permanent public facilities
for water, electricity, sewer, gas, and other utilities; and (dl remedial
grading for structural purposes, such as easements, buttresses, and crib
walls.
6.
7. Fuel management zones. Fuel management zones separating conserved
habitat from adjacent development will be designed tcl minimize impacts tc
native vegetation. The final location of the zones in relation to the interface
of development of conserved habitat will be defined at the tentative map
stage of planning. Measures to minimize or further reduce impacts tc
vegetation include: (a) removal of high fuel species, iriigation, and selective
pruning (as specified in the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual) tc
suppress the potential for slope fires; (b) planting of native, low-fuel plan'
species within fuel management zones; and (c) use of alternative fuel break:
such as coastal prickly pear cactus, that reduce water use, have additiona
wildlife value, and minimize access to conserved habhat.
s-2 2 Revised Draft 3-28-9
e
Sumrnarv
*. , I 0
Carlsbad41CA HCPIO.MSP
8. Lighting. Llghting within new development projects adjacent to conserved
habitat wii I be selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from
conserved habitat. In addition, lighting from home; abutting conserved
habitat will be screened by planting vegetation, and large spotlight-type
backyard lighting directed into conserved habitat will be prohibited.
Landscaping. Invasive species such as giant reed and pampas grass will not
be used in landscaped area directly adjacent to conserved habitat. A list of
species that should not be used in landscaping will be provided to home
buyers. Additionally, these species will be identified in the CC&Rs of the
homeowners association as plants to be avoided in landscaping.
9.
10. Public information program. Homeowners, homeowner associations, and
the interested public wiii be informed of ways to avoid impacts to the
conserved resources through a public information program developed in
cooperation with the City. The program will include: (a) a public
information brochure that describes the natural resources and prohibited
activities within conserved habitat; arid (b) a landscaping and fuel break
planning brochure for homeowners arrd homeowner associations adjacent
to conserved habitat.
b. Impact Phasing and Project Design Measures
impact phasing and project design measures pertain to projects and activities
Lvithin Rancheros-Southeast II. They are as follows.
1, Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road will proceed in two-phases tied to
the City's level of service and financing requirements and subject to final
environmental review.
2. Grading and construction within Southeast II will occur in the areas
identified in the plan as "phases."
Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road and the configuration of conserved
habitat in Southeast II assumes redesign of Meirose Avenue to avoid two
gnatcatcher use areas and reclassification of the road from a prime to major
arterial.
3.
c. Supplemental Mitigation Measures
In addition to the measures already described, FLCA will work cooperatively
ivith the City, USFWS, and CDFC to implement the following supplemental
mitigation measures.
1. Research. To provide additional data that can be u:sed to guide habitat
management, FLCA will provide $50,000 for research on the coastal
California gnatcatcher. The focus and design of the research program will
be determined prior to the conveyance of conserved habitat to the
designated management entity.
3-28-94 Revised Drae s-23
Ca risbad- FLCA HCPIOMS .-, , .' I .. 0 Summarv
2. Coordination. To ensure that the needs of multiple species are addressec
and to avoid duplication oi effort, the City will coordinate th
implementation of this plan with other conservation programs in anc
adjacent to Carlsbad. In addition, FLCA will provide the City wit,
9 150,000 for the completion of the HMP.
Cooperation. Working with USFWS and CDFG, the City and FLCA wii
seek the cooperation of Vallecitos Water District in maintaining the existlnL
biological value of the District's lands near Stariley Mahr Reservoir
SDG&E's cooperation in the consolidation and relocation of powerline
easements in conserved habitat; and the City of San Marcos' cooperation ir
the preservation of a wildlife corridor in that portion oi San ,Marcos Creek
outside of the City.
3.
4. Plan Implementation
Implementation of the HCPIOMSP will be governed by an agreement amon)
the City, FLCA, USFWS, and CDFG. In addition to reiterating the roles an(
responsibilities cited above, the agreement will specify reporting requirement
and procedures to address unforeseen circumstances. It also will provide long
term (30-year) authorizations and assurances allowing projects and activities
planned and conducted in accordance with the HCP/OMSP to proceed withoul
further wildlife mitigation. Such projects and activities will include but are no1
I i rn i ted to:
1. Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road and related transportatior
improvements in Rancheros-Southeast II;
Development of FLCA master planned residential communities, together
with the requisite infrastructure and public facilities, in both plan are2
corn pon en ts;
Commercial development by MAG properties on 81 acres in Rancheros
Southeast I I;
Fire management and roadway maintenance in both plan area components;
and
5. Management of conserved habitat in both plan area components.
2.
3.
4.
5-24 Revised Draft 3-28-94
*t , 3.1 0 0
SUMMARY OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT REGARDING
THE CITY OF CARLSBADlFIELDSTONE LA COSTA ASSOCIATES
HABTTAT CONSERVATION PLAY
(Prepared March 23, 1994)
The following generally summarizes the major provisions of the Draft
Implementation Agreement Regarding the City of Carisbad/Fieldstone La Costa Associat
Habitat Conservation Plan ("IA").
A. ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS
In general, the following significant definitions are used in the draft IA:
1. The term "City Wildlife Constraints and Requirements" is defined to
include all City of Carlsbad ordinances, regulations policies, and conditions of developm
approval of any lund related in any way to conservation, protection, enhancement,
management or mitigation for Wildlife and habitat.
2. The terms "Existing Rancho Santa Fe Woad" and "Future Rancho SanE
Road" are defmed to distinguish between the road as it currently exists in its present
alignment and the road as it will exist in the future. Further, the temi "Rancho Santa Fc
Road and Mass Grading Project" is defined (in the text only) to distinguish between the
project as discussed in the original Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Santa F
Road and Mass Grading Project, and the road as it will exist in the future in its new
alignment, but with mass grading modified to correspond to Impact Areas identified in tl
HCP and to provide for the possibility that its construction will be phased.
3. The term "Take" and the terms that deal with prohibitions against Take
permit authority to Take are all defined under both the Federal Endangered Species Act
("ESA") and the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA"). Further, the terms are
defined to include any similar provisions under similar future laws. In this way, if the s
or federal governments enact different laws or regulations prohibiting Take of Wildlife c
providing different permitting authority, Fieldstone and rhe City will be entitled to perm
allowing Take of Species of Concern under the new state or federal laLws and regulatiom
The terms that refer to activities that may occur pursuant to the Agree1
are: "Plan Activities," "Project," and "Future Rancho Santa Fe Road." The term "Plar
Activities" encompasses all activities that might occur in, connection with development o
improvements or in connection with any type of conservation, mitigation or managemen
measures, including revegetation efforts. The term "Project" is defmed to mean any
anticipated development of Impact Areas for either private residential and commercial u!
or public and infrastructure uses. In other words, the term refers to any development w
4.
1
I, ,,'I 0 e
the Impact Areas by either Fieldstone, MAG Properties or the City.r' The term "Future
Rancho Santa Fe Road" means Rancho Santa Fe Road as realigned to the canyon aligmn
but excluding any adjacent mass grading for purposes of residential or commercial
development (which will be modified to be consistent with the Impact Areas defined in tl
HCP) and including the possibility that construction of die realigned road will be phased
B. ARTICLE II - RECITALS
The Recitals generally describe the factual context in which this Agreement F
reached. The following provisions are the most likely to be important to the City.
RelationshiD to the NCCP Promam and the Prouosecl Rule. This recita
explains that under the Proposed Rule take of the Gnatcatcher under ElSA will be permir
(1) in accordance with Section 10(a) or Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 6 1536) of ESA; (2) if the
results from activities conducted in accordance with a natural comuruty conservation pl
for coastal sage scrub habitat, provided that: (a) the plan bas been prepared, approved iil
implemented as an Ongoing Multi-Species Plan pursuant to the NCCP Act; and (b) FWI
issued written concurrence that such plan meets the standards set forth in 50 C.F.R. 0 17.32(b)(2); or (3) if the take results from activities conducted in accordance with
guidelines promulgated pursuant to the NCCP Act and concurred in by FWS. The recit;
does not discuss the interim take provisions of the Proposed Rule because we anticipate
the HCP will be approved as a final, not an interim natural communities conservation pl
in accordance with the following structure.
1.
The recital makes it clear that the HCP:
is exempt from the NCCP Act;
independently meets the requirements of Secticin 10(a) and Sectio
208 1 ;
will be coordinated with the NCCP Program as a final initial
component of the KMP; and
will be consistent with the subregional natural communities
conservation plan ("NCCP"), the MHCP, through its connection
the HMP, which in turn is an initial component of the MHCP.
I' This definition represents a change from earlier drafts. In an earlier draft, the term "Private Project"
referred to any private subdivision improvement constructed by Fieldsrme solely to benefit the subdivision. Y
term "Public Improvements" meant infrastructure and other improvements, including Rancho Santa Fe Road, b
connection with subdivision development, but which benefit not just the subdivision, but also the public genera
The distinction was eliminated because Conserved Habitat will be dedicated up-front and all at one time, rathei
in separate parcels prior to development within each Subarea or prior to construction of Future Rancho Santa E
Road.
2
,I 1-1 0 0
This structure will allow the Wildlife Agencies to approve the HCP as a final plan prior i
approving the HMP on the basis that it is a final plan, not subject to the interim take
limitations of the Proposed Rule, whch may be approved as such because it is consistent
with the subarea natural communities conservation plan, the HMP, and which is thereby
consistent with the subregional natural communities conservation plan, the MHCP. The (
will be able to build on this logic to obtain approval of the HMP prior to approval of the
MHCP.
2. Authoritv of the Citv. This recital sets forth generally the authority tha
City has to enter into the Agreement as a Permittee and to enforce certain provisions of t
Agreement as a land-use regulator. The City may wish En the future to cite additional
authority in this recital, such as the new legislation recently enacted pursuant to S.B. 445
which provides local agencies authority to assess citizens to finance habitat conservation
management efforts.
3. ReiationshiD to Other Planning and Regulatory prom,^. This Section
forth the relationship between the HCP and the HMP, the MHCP and the PA Program.
The relationshp between the HCP and the HMP and MHCP is important for two reason!
First, the HCP looks to the HMP and the MHCP as broader Wildlife conservation progr
that can provide conservation and protection for some of the Species of Concern that occ
or use the Plan Area, but that are not directly benefitted or are disadvantaged by the HC
The fact that the HMP and MHCP can provide for such species will enable the Wildlife
Agencies to find that the City and Fieldstone can Take those species without jeopardizing
their future survival. In essence, the HMP and MHCP will serve, in part, as the basis f
the Wildlife Agencies to promise that they will issue a permit allowing Take of such Spe
of Concern if they become listed under ESA or CESA.
Second, the connection with the HMP and the MHCP, which will become thc
subarea and subregional natural community conservation plans, respectively , for Carlsbac
and the north San Diego County area, is critical to obtaining approval of the HCP as a f
plan that not only meets the requirements of Section lo(@ of ESA and Section 2081 of
CESA, but that also is consistent with the NCCP Act and the NCCP Program. This
relationship is discussed in depth in paragraph B.l.
C. ARTICLE III - TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
The 30-year stated term of the Agreement is subject to extension and cancelli
by Fieldstone and the City for several reasons as set forth in Article 111. For example, i
either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or DFG fails to issue a Section 404 permit or
streambed alteration agreement, then either the City or Fieldstone may terminate the
Agreement, or withdraw from the obligations of the Agreement related to the Subarea th
affected by the failure to issue such Section 404 permit or the failure to enter into such
streambed alteration agreement.
Also of importance, if the City fails to reclassify Melrose Avenue as require(
the HCP, putting the right to receive Take permits in jeopardy, then Fieldstone may
3
$1 I 0 0
terminate or withdraw from portions of the Agreement.: Further, if f;ieldstone is unable
develop the Project, or if further mitigation, conservation, enhancement, or protection fo
Species of Concern or Plan Area habitat is imposed on Fieidstone, Fieldstone is granted
right to terminate.
At the request of the City, most of the provisions allowing termination of or
withdrawal from portions of the Agreement are subject to a notice and. negotiation procec
intended to alleviate the need to terminate or withdraw.
D. ARTICLE IV - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
1. Public Benefit Ameement. Before the obligations of Fieldstone becomt
effective under this Agreement, the City and Fieldstone must enter into a development
agreement under California Government Code $5 65864, 65865 and 65865.4. Howevei
exact provisions of the Public Benefit Agreement are not specified, and will be left to la1
negotiation and agreement. Later negotiations and agreement wdl be guided by City Co1
direction, in that Fieldstone has indicated that it is impoi-tant for it to receive assurances
it may develop enough of a project within the Impact Areas to make implementation of t
HCP economically feasible for Fieldstone to perform.
2. Environmental Review of the HCP. this Agreement and the Public Ben
Agreement. The Agreement presumes that the actions of approving the HCP and execut
the Agreement have been environmentally reviewed under ESA, CESA, NEPA and CE(
and that the public and the Wildlife Agencies have commented on, and that the agencies
approved those actions pursuant to such review prior to the time that those actions are ta
This review enables FWS, DFG and the City to attest to the findings and determinations
forth in Article VI. of the Agreement and is the basis for the covenants and obligations (
those agencies. This section also requires that environmental review of the Public Bene1
Agreement is complete and that no litigation is pending related to the HCP, Agreement (
Public Benefit Agreement prior to implementation of the HCP.
E. ARTICLE V - COVENANTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF FIELDSTONE
1. Dedication of Conserved Habitat and the Mitigation Lands. In general
Fieldstone must irrevocably offer to dedicas’ all Conseirved Habitat ais one unit prior to
concurrently with the later of either: (1) one year after the Effective Date; or (2) six mo
after the execution of the Public Benefit Agreement by Fieldstone and the City as requir
2‘ Originally, the Agreement required the City to modify Melrose as a condition \precedent to Fieldstone’
obligations. However the likely timing of a modification decision indicated that the modification should be a b
for termination, not a condition precedent, because implementation of the HCP should not be postponed until
modification of Melrose Avenue occurs.
2’ An irrevocable offer to dedicate is required rather than completed conveyance of a conservation easen
fee interest because DFG has a long and arduous approval process that must be completed prior to its acceptan
any interest in land. The irrevocable offer to convey an interest eliminates the requirement that DFG or moth
Conservation Entity must accept the interest to complete the conveyance and fulfill the obligation.
4
7 (C 1' 0 e
the condition precedent; and, notwithstanding the foregoing, in any event prior to
undertaking grading or significant disturbance related to development of the Project wid
the Impact Areas of the Plan Area. This provision ties the dedication to a specific date
falls soon after the Agreement becomes effective, or to first grading for any private or F
development.
With respect to the Northwest Subarea, Fieldstone must also acquire and dec
the off-site Mitigation Lands prior to or concurrently with the earlier of either: (1) the
recordation of a fml subdivision tract map pursuant to (California Government Code
Section 66499.30 for development within the Northwest Subarea; or (2) undertaking gra
or significant disturbance related to development of the Project within1 the Impact Areas
the Northwest Subarea.
2. Authorization of Take. With respect to Rancheros and the Northwest
Subareas, FWS and DFG authorize Take of the Species of Concern upon dedication of
Conserved Habitat.
With respect to the Southeast I1 Subarea, dedication in accordance with the E
provision allows development of the Project within all Impact Areas, including Future
Rancho Santa Fe Road, except for development within Fieldstone's P,arcel C. Prior to
grading within Parcel C, Fieldstone must demonstrate the biological viability of the corr
to FWS and DFG, and FWS and DFG must approve the corridor. The criteria for appr
currently require: (1) Fieldstone to revegetate the western portion of the corridor and sh
that 2 Gnatcatcher pairs (in addition to pair number 15) have established 75% of their u:
areas in the corridor; and (2) Fieldstone and the City to provide, in cooperation with FF
and DFG, assurances from the Vallecitos Water District that no further significant huma
induced degradation of existing Wildlife biological values on the lands surrounding Stan
Mahr reservoir will occur.$'
The Agreement specifically provides that dedication of Colnserved Habitat an
authorization of Take shall not be interpreted as a fml approval of thie development of 4
part of the Project by the City.
3. Interest in Conserved Habitat and Mitigation Lands Dedicated. Typica
conservation easement is dedicated over Conserved Habitat and the Mitigation Lands to
as the Conservation Entity, who then may enforce the conservation of' such lands. In
addition, the underlying fee interest, subject to the conservation easement, in such lands
conveyed to a Long Term Management Entity. In this case, the City anticipates that the
HMP Conservancy will act as both the Conservation Entity and the Long Term Manage
Entity. Therefore, it is possible that Fieldstone will dedicate a fee interest in Conserved
Habitat and the Mitigation Lands as required by the Agreement directly to the HMP
Conservancy, without dedicating a conservation easement to DFG. However, it is also
$' Fieldstone may propose other criteria for approval, and if DFG and FWS accept those criteria they w
used to evaluate and approve the biological viability of the corridor.
5
.-* i ’ e e
possible that the HMP Conservancy will not be ready to accept a dedication of Conserv
Habitat by the time that Fieldstone is required to perform.
Therefore, the Agreement provides either for conveyance of a fee interest to
HMP Conservancy as the Conservation and Long Term Management Entities or for the
typical conveyance of a conservation easement to a Conservation Entiity and separate
conveyance of the fee to the HMP Conservancy or another entity as the Long Term
Management Entity. Further, Section V.A.6. provides that if Fieldstone dedicates a fee
interest rather than a conservation easement up-front to the HMP Conservancy as the
Conservation Entity, then all of the provisions (discussed next) governing conveyance o
fee interest to the Long Term Management Entity also apply to the conveyance to the
Conservation Entity.
4. Conveyance of Conserved Habitat and the Mitigation Lands for pur00
Management or Delegation of Management Responsibilities to the Long Term Managen
Entity. Fieldstone is responsible for performing the Ongoing Management Duties and r
funding obligations for Conserved Habitat and the Mitigation Lands until Fieldstone cor
a fee interest in the lands (subject to a conservation easement) to the Long Term
Management Entity, or delegates the management and funding responsibilities to the en1
The Parties currently anticipate that the HMP Conservancy will be the Long Term
Management Entity that will manage Conserved Habitat and the Mitigation Lands, and
the HMP Conservancy will fund that long term effort by assessing fees or other comer
charges on City residents as a part of the HMP Program.
The Agreement requires this conveyance or delegation to be completed with
(6) months of the date that Conserved Habitat or the Mitigation Lands are dedicated to
Conservation Entity. This provision protects Fieldstone from the inequitable situation t
might arise if Fieldstone were required to dedicate all Conserved Habitat up-front, yet
continue to manage it for conservation purposes indefinitely. At Fielldstone’s sole discr
it may extend the six-month period.
As a last resort, Fieldstone may create a Homeowners Association for any
subdivision developed in any Subarea, which will be required to act as the Long Term
Management Entity. This institutional arrangement will only be used as a last resort if
Fieldstone cannot find any other entity to act as the Long Term Management Entity. T
Agreement provides that any Party may use funds from any source to supplement fundi
Conservation and Management.
Fieldstone must also perform certain Fixed Management Duties related to
development of its projects or revegetation of the corridor prior to the Occurrence of ce
events. Fieldstone may only delegate these duties by an agreement alpproved by FWS i
DFG, which approval shall not unreasonably be withheld.
5. Management and Omration of Conserved Habitat and the Mitigation 1
During the interhn period prior to conveyance or delegation of management responsibil
to the Long Term Management Entity, Fieldstone must undertake certain duties on an
6
i, : *\ 0 0
ongoing basis. In addition, Fieldstone must complete certain other Fixed Management C
prior to a fixed event.
The Ongohg Management Duties consist primarily of removing trash, trappb
cowbirds, and maintaining existing access controls. The Parties acknclwledge that these
duties are similar to the management Fieldstone already undertakes.
In addition, Fieldstone or its delegatee must perform three Fixed Interim
Management Duties: (1) prior to development of the Project, Fieldstone must fence
Conserved Habitat adjacent to the development; (2) at any time prior to grading in Puce
Fieldstone must revegetate the corridor in order to facilitate approval of biological viabil
of the comdor; and (3) prior to commencing construction, Fieldstone must incorporate i:
development construction plans a ConstructiodBuild-Out Impact Minimization and Mitig
Plan, which the City will review to ensure that Fieldstone has appropriately incorporated
such necessary minimization measures.
After Fieldstone conveys or delegates the Ongoing Management Duties to the
Long Term Management Entity, the Long Term Management Entity becomes the Plan
Operator responsible for long term on-going management of the Conserved Habitat and
Mitigation Lands. The Long Term Management Entity will manage tile Conserved Habi
and Mitigation Lands in consultation with the Management Advisory Committee, which
consists of representatives of the entity, the City (the City HMP may be the Long Term
Management Entity), DFG, FWS, and Fieldstone (for so long as Fieldstone owns any
property in the Plan Area). The Long Term Management Entity will also be responsible
funding the Ongoing Management Duties through fees, assessments or whatever mechani
can be established.
6. Funding Other Conservation Programs. Fieldstone must contribute to t
City a total of $150,000 prior to the final tract map approval of its first project in the Pli
Area. Fieldstone must also fund $50,000 of Gnatcatcher research prior to that time.
F. ARTICLE VI - FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
FWS, DFG and the City may attest to the findings and determinations set forl
this section based upon the completion of environmental review of the approval of the Hc
and execution of the Agreement under ESA, CESA, NEIPA, CEQA, and the City Wildlif
Constraints and Requirements, as applicable. Completion of that review will precede
execution of the Agreement by the Parties.
1. Findings of FWS. The frndings and determinations by FWS are drawn
directly from Section 10(a) and the regulations under Section lO(a). These frndings must
made to support issuance of a Section 10(a) Permit allowing development to proceed.
Findings and determinations necessary to support issuance of a Migratory Bird Treaty Ac
permit are also included in case the Act is interpreted to require either Fieldstone or the 1
to obtain an MBTA Permit before development can proceed.
7
h, : It 0 0
2. Findings of DFG. The fmdings and determinations by DFG are drawn
from Section 2081 of CESA, Sections 2053 and 2090-2097 of CESA. and from the NC(
Act. 'here is an argument that DFG does not need to rnake a "no jeopardy" detenninat
for private projects, and that the determination is only required for projects proposed by
State agencies. However, DFG is trying to establish its jurisdiction to make "no jeoparc
determinations for private as well as state projects. Therefore, obtaining the detenninatj
now pirovides Fieldstone and the City protection from later DFG clainis that such a fmdi
required, but was not made.
We did not include provisions pursuant to which DFG miks CEQA fmdinj
directly because DFG continues to take the position that it does not need to review perm
decisions under CEQA, although that position has been challenged in court. However, I
Agreement requires that DFG will have concurred in the City's CEQA frndings prior to
execution.
Findings drawn from the NCCP Act were included to assure that DFG deter
that the HCP is a consistent, fml plan, that is an initial component of the HMP, and
therefore of the NCCP Program. This determination that the HCP is consistent with thc
goals and purposes of the NCCP Act eliminates the possibility that the NCCP Program 1
delay or unravel the HCP. The determination that it is a final NCCP Program plan
eliminates the argument that the Take under the HCP is subject to the interim Take
restriction of the Proposed Rule.
3. Findings by the Citv. The findings and determinations in this section i
designed to assure Fieldstone that the HCP satisfies all City Wildlife [Constraints and
Requirements and CEQA. Of course, the Agreement is only executed after CEQA revic
conducted and if the information received pursuant to that review supports the ability of
City to make the findings in this Section. If the CEQA review does not support these
findings, the HCP and Implementation Agreement may have to be renegotiated or
abandoned.
(3. ARTICLE VII - COVENANTS AND OBUGATIONS OF THE CITY
The covenants and obligations of the City set forth in this Section are self-
explanatory. The following covenants and obligations are of most importance to Fieldst
No Further Mitigation Reauired Under CEOA or the Citv Wildlife 1.
Constraints and Reauirements. Because the City will have completed its CEQA review
the HCP and the Agreement prior to execution, it may agree not to request, recommenc
impose or require any further mitigation or conservation of any kind with respect to Wi
impacts of the Plan Activities. Instead, potential Wildlife impacts of future developmen
the Plim Area will be environmentally reviewed to determine c0nsiste:ncy with the HCP
Other development impacts will be analyzed and addressed as required by CEQA at the
appropriate stage of development planning.
2. Execution of the Public Benefit Agreement and Reclassification of Me1 -- Avenue. Consistent with the need for the City to execute a development agreement as
8
VI I’ 1 1 1 e 0
condition precedent to Fieldstone’s covenants and obligations talung effect, and given
Fieldstone’s right to terminate if the City fails to downgrade Melrose Avenue, the City
covenants to use its best efforts to enter into a development agreemenit and downgrade
Melrose.
3. Conditions of DeveioDment of the MAG Parcel. Because the HCP pro
all Wildlife mitigation required for MAG Properties to develop its prciperty, the City
conditions discretionary approval of or building permits for the MAG development on tk
executiion by MAG Properties of an agreement with Fieldstone. Under such an agreeme
MAG Properties will equitably share in the costs and expenses of preparing and
implementing the HCP that enables MAG development, but for which, Fieldstone has pa
In the alternative, MAG Properties may try to work out its own mitigation plan that con
with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including the City Wildlife Constraints a
Requirements, ESA, CESA, CEQA, and NEPA. The Agreement provides that the City
review the FieldstonejMAG Properties Agreement prior to its execution.
4. Creation of the HMP Conservancv. Fieldstone and the City intend thai
HMP Conservancy should be both the Conservation Entity and the Long Term Managen
Entity.
5. CooDeration with Other Landowners and Jurisdictions. With appropria
caveat:;, Fieldstone and the City must cooperate with FWS and DFG to encourage the
conservation of the San Marcos Creek Corridor and the maintenance of the existing
biological value of the land around the Stanley Mahr Reservoir owned by the Vallecitos
Water District. The wording of these covenants throughout the Agreement states the COI
that FWS and DFG are the only Parties with any real jurisdiction and authority to accon
those purposes. Of particular importance to Fieldstone is the City’s covenant to assist a
cooperate with Fieldstone to relocate the SDG&E easement from the southern-most ease
and consolidate the easement into the existing northem-most easement. This consolidatic
eliminates the need to devote any part of Parcel C to easement uses.
€3. ARTICLES IX AND X - COVENANTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF FWS 1
DFG
1. Issuance of Permits bv FWS. The primary provision of Article IX and
primary purpose of this Agreement is the covenant by FWS to issue a. Section 10(a) Pen
allowing Take in connection with the Plan Activities of any Species of Concern that becc
listed under ESA or any similar future laws, subject to Unforeseen Circumstances. Pro\
is made for the possibility that FWS could authorize Take under Section 7 through an
Incidental Take Statement, but this method of authorization is unlikely in this situation.
Under this Agreement, Fieldstone, the City and MAG Properties may all be Permittees.
covenant to issue an MBTA permit is included to address the slight clmce that an MBT
permit might be required to Take Birds of Concern.
2. Issuance of a Section 2081 Permit bv DFG. The primary provision of
Article: X and a primary purpose of this Agreement is the covenant by DFG to issue a
Section 2081 Permit allowing Take in connection with tlhe Plan Activities of any Species
9
*+ 6. I " Q e
Concern that becomes listed under CESA or any similar future laws, subject to Unforesc
Circurnstances.
3. Other Provisions. The other provisions of these
articles primarily require FWS and DFG to perform their statutory and regulatory dutie5
Also, mirror covenants require FWS and DFG to cooperate with Fielidstone and the Ciq
enable them to perform their obligations. For example, covenants anid obligations are
included to require cooperation with respect to: managing Conserved Habitat; acquiring
managing and approving off-site Mitigation Lands; designing, mitigating and approving
impacts of required utilities and public facilities that in the future it is determined must
traverse Conserved Habitat; approving the biological viability of the c:orridor; creating tl HMP Conservancy; encouraging the conservation of the San Marcos Creek Corridor;
maintaining the existing biological value of the Vallecitos Water District property; and
relocating and consolidating the SDG&E easement.
I[. ARTICLE XII - UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES
This Article sets forth the terms of a condition subsequent that partially excL
the performance by FWS and DFG of their covenants to issue Take permits. Essential1
WS or DFG determine that Unforeseen Circumstances have occurreid, their performanc
their covenants to issue a Take permit is excused, strictly subject to the terms of Article
which severely limits the effect of the excuse. Specifically, if FWS or DFG find that
Unforeseen Circumstances have occurred, the agency does not have to issue a Take per;
until tlhe Parties have agreed upon a response to Unforeseen Circumstances.
The response that FWS or DFG can request, recommend or impose, howeve
strictly limited to changes in management of Conserved Habitat or in the acquisition am
management of the Mitigation Lands. For example, my response to Unforeseen
Circurnstances required by the Wildlife Agencies shall be limited to changes in the HCE
the provisions of this Agreement applicable to: (a) the biological composition of, but nc
number of acres of the Mitigation Lands; (b) the management, operation, maintenance c
monitoring of Conserved Habitat and the Mitigation Lands; and (c) the allocation of fun
for the management and operation of Conserved Habitat and the Mitigation Lands as se1
in the Budget. In any event, any response to Unforesen CircumStances shall not inclut
(a) adverse modification of the authorization of Take within the Impact Areas; (b) ma@
adverse modification of the configuration of the Impact Areas; (c) increases in funding j
the management and operation of Conserved Habitat that result in maiterial adverse bpi
the economic value of the Plan Activities; or (d) any increase in the cost of acquiring th
Mitigaition Lands that results in material adverse impacts to the econcmnic value of the P
Activities.
An unforeseen circumstances provision is requiredl by the regulations promu
by FPJS under ESA, but this provision significantly limits the ability of FWS or DFG tc
excuse its own performance. The attached flow chart depicts the operation of this provii
10
?a \*i'k 0 e
11. ARTICLE Xm - AMENDMENTS AND MINOR ADJUSTMENTS
This Article sets parameters for completing amendments and Minor Adjustm
of the HCP, the Agreement or any Take permit. Under the provision, an amendment
procedure is required if the amendment is an action that must be reviewed under CEQA
PIJEPA. To allow FWS, DFG or the City to conduct necessary envirc)nmental review, tl
amendment procedure is allowed to extend for a maximum of 180 days. Time limits ar
important because no regulatory or statutory limitations govern amendments to HCPs or
Implementation Agreements, and amendments tend to take years to accomplish.
The provision also provides for Minor Adjustments. A Minor Adjustment is
minor change that does not require environmental review under CEQl4 or NEPA. For
example, a minor change in the Conserved Habitat boundary to allow use of proper grac
techniques or the approval of utilities that traverse Conserved Habitat could be accompli
as a Minor Adjustment. Because no environmental review is required, a Minor Adjustn
must be complete within 30 days if no Party needs clarification, or witthin 60 days at mc
Any amendment or Minor Adjustment must be agreed to by all Parties.
E;. ARTICLE XIV - BENEFITS CONFERRED UPON MAG PROPERTIES
This Article makes MAG Properties a third party beneficiary to the extent
required for MAG Properties to receive a Take permit, provided that MAG Properties
executes an agreement with Fieldstone to equitably share the costs and expenses of prep2
and implementing the HCP. Alternatively, MAG Properties may obtain separate pernic
from the Wildlife Agencies apart from the HCP.
L,. ARTICLE XV - ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
This Article provides for suspension and revocation of permits by FWS and ;
substantially as set forth in the regulations promulgated under ESA, but provides some
protection to the City and Fieldstone not contained in the regulations. For example, it
requires DFG and FWS to provide more specific and detailed notice of violation to the C
and Fit:ldstone than required by the regulations, and it allows the City and Fieldstone to
a reasonable amount of time to cure a violation even if the cure takes longer that the am4
of time for cure specified by regulations. Provision is made for emergency suspension c
permits as required by the regulations.
A severability provision is included so that a Party that is not in violation wil
be affelcted by the violation of another Party or MAG Properties. For example, if MAG
Froperties violates the conditions of its Section 1O(a) Permit, FWS maiy suspend or rev01
that permit, but may not take adverse action with respect to this Agreement or any permi
issued to the City or Fieldstone.
Provisions are included to ensure that the City and Fieldstone can enforce the
covenants and obligations of FWS and DFG. Most importantly, the article contains
provisions that prevent FWS and DFG from requesting, recommending or imposing funk
Wildlife mitigation or conservation of any kind.
11
w 1' ,'I 0 4)
Id. ARTICLE XV - NO FURTHER MITIGATION
This Article prohibits FWS, DFG, and the City from requesting, imposing o
recommending any further mitigation or conservation of any kind wit31 respect to WilW
impacts. This provision my be considered redundant. However, it is stated as a separi
article to assure that if the prohibition was not included in a specific section to which it
applies, its operation as a separate article will ensure tht the prohibition is interpreted tr
apply generally to all sections of the Agreement.
12
d9 1'89 a **
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
Dcdiarted to the PmtecHon df Cpapkll Sage Scrub and Other Thhreatmed &COSy-dCY?I6
Dan Silver Coordbtoor 8424A Santa Monica Blvd. 692 LosAngelee, CA 90069-4210 TEL/FAX 213=&.1456
I
June 20,1994
Mayor and City Cowcil Ci of'carlsbad 12 & Carisbad Village Drive CWlsbid, CA 92008-1989
RE: Carlsbad/Fieldstone Habitar Conservation Plan (HCP); Agenda item for June 21,1994
Honmlble Mayor and Memben of the Council:
The Endangered Habitats League is an organization of Southern Calllifmia comation groups and individuals dedicated to ecosystem protection and improved land use planning. We patticipated in the orisin;lx HCP advisory group in 1992, and currentl serve on the City's Habi Managiement Plan Warking Group. We again wish to commend the c! ity fca its leadership role habitat planning.
We da not, however, recommend moving forward with the HCP as currently propc~sec As detzliled in our letter of December 15,1993, during the intemening two years since the HCP
was designed, significant new biological information has developed which precludes our suppc ']This information consists of the c6nmhon Guidelines of Ihe Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) and the emer 'ng regional context of the Multiple Habitat Conserva wm (IbIEICP). "he proposed loss o P so much core gnatcatcher habitat (mot be justified a this the, and for this reason, we urge that the HCP be defemd and thea fully integrated into th( regionad plans, where solutions can better be reached.
In addition, two years ago, the timing and terms of the pro sed HCP were predicated c
Fe Road realignment, Contrrvy to the arguments used 9 the applicants in the HCP negotiation the bonds for the road weae never sold as scheduled. It is thus necessary tri reassess the curreni p'oposids from the standpoint of changed economic and social factors as well.
In conclusion, we urge you EO not 80 forward with the HCP until a &factory resdutic of thew problem is reached, preferably in the context of the: ongoing regional Mitat plans,
Thank you far your commitment tn good planning, and for considering our views.
unique set of social and ecooomic factors relating UI an urgent pub E" 'c safety need for Rancho Sa:
With kt regards,
&& an sinva, COaKtinator
a~w PW rlsrtI30 a ‘JY3 ‘%I m =PS ~PI~M pn rls~ +sn. wwwx PO
‘03 arrWspp!:d ‘auw UyOf
P *
SS330J
buTuueTd d33N ayq qqTM hUaqSTSUO3 SqT bU?qSTtqeqSa PUP UP1
aqq buyuiamo~ suoyspap ~Z~TFU?~ oq sn a-cqeua TTTML qeqq quamn~c
e a~p=>ai oq ST qsaiaquy zno *amq s~qq qe qzecoid eqso3 E
~euuoj 203 pasea~ax aq quamn3op aqq q~qq uo~q~puammo~ax AH
*quaum;3op paqqpuqns dl~eu.1~03 e bu~q~n-p~a pup ssmoid MaTAa
puno3u~ aqq dn 6u;ddem 03 pie~i03 yoo~ a~ *sm~iboid bu~uuq
dmN xpqq UT suo-cqDTpsyznc eaieqns d33~ iaq7.o pue dq~3 ay
qs~sse dpxg -CTTM ueTd syyq uo squaunxo3 in0 *M~TA~Z ~ewog sq aqaTduro3 03 quauqxedaa aqq alqeua TTTM uqd qjerp ayq 20 aseaTa
aU0Z)SpTaTd aqq 30 qUaUaSlOpUa UP aqtIqTqSUO3 7.OU SaOp Ma?""
.Uerbord (d33N) bU?UUeld UOTqeA2aSUO3 SayqTUnaO3 TeinqPN TIPZaA
ayq oq queqiodMT axe q3aFoid syqq uo paymar suoyspaa - uet
uoTZ)eAXaSUO3 qEqJqEH aldTqTnH dqUnO3 ObXa UPS qqiCIN aqq pup uel qUaUlabPUPH qPq?qPH S,peqSTia3 y>TM bUaqSTSU03 SqT pur? q3acO2
STqq 30 STTeqap aqq buTqeTq0bau 'suaz?q-p pauxa3uo2~ put? 'sapuab
iaqqo 'duedm03 auoqspp~d aqz 'dqp aqq qq~~ d~~ermoju~ payio
*Aqiadoid s~qq uo qeqTqeq ~AT~TSU~S J:O UOT~F?AX~SUO
aqq roj uqd oq qrojja pue am~q aTqenTeh paqexpap i3he
a~eq a~
aM 'peqSTie3 30 dqr3 aqq qqTM qUamaaXbV 30 UXnpUE!XOMaH F? paUbT aMe9 pUE qSTd 30 quaqredaa 3qq UaqM 'T66T 30 ALTnr a3UJS
suc13 TTTM Tpuno pu*%sxapun I
:s?Aaq JOXPH xea
80026 e?UIOJ:JTP3 'PeqSTJe aqxa ~~~TTTA peqs-Cze3 ooz
STM~~ (pna) apneT3 ~TC~~OUOH aq peqSTXe3 30 dq?L '2Oxe
V66T '62 WieW --
9SSL-ES! 0602WZV6 V:
t
u3
.1 g-/(44 ~WVE) arw HSM do IN:
'X43t)V S33HnOS311 3Hl-VINK e e JO"J~**D 'NOSIIM 3133
oquamel3eg amp3 pue qs~d JO quamqiedaa
a*qd '61x3 *q Axieq
peqsTie3
~D~AX~S ~JTTPTTM pula qsg *s*n
qD?qaqW 'Ip3 *a
obaya ues
Auedmoa auo:qsp~:a?d aq~, auoriea uqor -a
ioqDarTa Aqndaa jay
20 suoyqsanb @[{ a~eq nod 33 '~g~6-gsg (9~6) '61.13 drieq Ora squam io
qaequoa aseald *xaqq~?m syqq oq uoyquaqq~? rnod XOJ noA weq~,
- oM&a
P667: '62 Ya
STM~~ (pna) apnel:3 alqeiouog
e e
Habitat Conservation Plan/
Ongoing Multi-Species Plan
for Properties in the Southeast Quadrant
of the City of Carlsbad, California
Revised Draft
March 28, 1994
Prepared by
The City of Carlsbad
and
Fieldstone/La Costa Associates
Habitat Conservation Plan/
Ongoing Multi-Species Plan
for Properties in the Southeast Quadrant
of the City of Carlsbad, California
Revised Draft
March 28, 1994
Prepared by
The City of Carlsbad
and
Fieldstone/La Costa Associates
Comments and inquiries
regarding this document may be addressed to:
Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
or
John Barone
The Fieldstone Company
5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92121
This document is printed on recycled paper,
except for the color maps and aerial photos.
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Contents
Contents
Summary 5-1
1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context 1
A. Purpose and Scope 1
B. The Planning Context 5
1. Planning Agreements and Process 6
a. 1991 Memoranda of Agreement 6
b. HCP Facilitation Team 6
c. Initial Points of Consensus 7
d. Review and Revision of a Draft Plan 7
2. Road Project 8
3. Carlsbad's General Plan 9
a. CMP 9
b. Draft RMP 9
c. Draft HMP 10
4. Regional Conservation Programs 10
a. North County MHCP 11
b. San Dieguito River Valley
Regional Open Space and Park Plan 11
c. City of San Diego's MSCP 12
5. Federal and State Laws and Guidelines 12
2. Plan Area Setting and Land Use Profile 17
A. Regional and Local Setting 17
1. San Diego County 17
2. North County 17
3. Carlsbad 17
B. Plan Area Components 20
1. Rancheros-Southeast II 20
2. Northwest 20
3-28-94 Revised Draft
Contents Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation 29
A. Surveys and Studies 29
1. Pre-Survey Review of Biotechnical Reports 29
2. General Biological Surveys...... ..........30
3. Regional Vegetation Mapping 31
4. Focused Sensitive Bird Surveys 31
5. Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Dispersal Studies 31
6. Focused Rare Plant Surveys 31
7. Focused Herpetological Surveys 32
8. Focused Sensitive Invertebrate Surveys 32
9. Small Mammal Trapping 32
10. Literature Reviews.................... 32
B. Resource Inventory 33
1. Habitat Types 33
a. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 34
b. Non-Native and Native Grassland 34
c. Southern Mixed and Southern Maritime Chaparral 34
d. Riparian Scrub and Woodland 37
e. Disturbed Habitat 38
f. Eucalyptus Woodland 38
2. Species of Concern 38
a. Observed Species of Concern 39
b. Potentially Occurring Species 39
C. Habitat Evaluation 39
1. HMP Context 50
a. PPA7 50
b. PPA5 50
2. MHCP Context 56
Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Contents
4. Habitat Conservation Strategy
and Impact Analysis 63
A. Configuration of Conserved Habitat 63
1. Rancheros-Southeast II 64
a. Southeast II 64
b. San Marcos Creek 65
c. Rancheros 65
2. Northwest 65
a. Onsite Conservation 69
b. Offsite Conservation 69
B. Impact Analysis 69
1. Impacts to Species of Concern 73
2. Alternatives to the Taking 84
a. Complete Avoidance of Take 84
b. Take Only within Road Project Area..... 84
c. No Take of Cnatcatchers 85
d. Delay of Take Pending Completion of the HMP 85
e. Offsite Mitigation for Unlimited Plan Area Take 85
f. Reconfiguration of Onsite Conserved Habitat
and Development Areas 86
5. Conservation Program and
Mitigation Measures 87
A. Habitat Conservation 87
1. Onsite Conservation 87
2. Offsite Conservation 88
3. Ownership of Conserved Habitat 88
B. Habitat Management 88
1. Interim Habitat Management 88
2. Ongoing Habitat Management 89
3. Funding of Habitat Management 90
3-28-94 Revised Draft
Contents Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
C. Impact Minimization and Mitigation Measures 90
1. Project-Specific Impact Avoidance and Minimization 90
a. Nest Site Protection 90
b. Controlled Access and Barriers 91
c. Noise Levels 91
d. Storage and Staging Areas 91
e. Monitoring 91
f. Unavoidable Disturbances of Conserved Habitat 91
g. Fuel Management Zones 92
h. Lighting 92
i. Landscaping 92
j. Public Information Program 92
2. Impact Phasing and Project Design Measures 92
3. Supplemental Mitigation Measures 94
a. Coastal California Gnatcatcher Research 94
b. Coordination with Other Programs 94
c. Cooperation of Other Land Owners 94
D. Plan Implementation 94
1. Record Keeping 94
2. Annual Reports 95
3. Periodic Comprehensive Reviews 95
4. Procedures in Response to Unforeseen Circumstances 95
5. Authorizations and Assurances 96
References 97
Glossary 99
HCP Facilitation Team 109
Plan Preparers 111
Appendices
A Regulatory Framework of the HCP/OMSP A-1
B Profile of HCP/OMSP Species of Concern B-1
iv Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Contents
Figures
S-1 HCP/OMSP Plan Area Components S-3
S-2 Schematic of Conserved Habitat in Rancheros-Southeast II S-15
S-3 Schematic of Conserved Habitat in Northwest S-16
1 HCP/OMSP Plan Area 2
2 North County Resources 3
3 Plan Area Location 18
4 Northern San Diego County 19
5 CMP Zone Map 21
6 HMP Preserve Planning Areas 22
7 Road Project Finance District 23
8 Rancheros-Southeast II (aerial photo) 25
9 Northwest (aerial photo) , 27
10 Habitat Types in the Plan Area 35
11 Distribution of Coastal California Gnatcatchers
in Rancheros-Southeast II 51
12 Distribution of Coastal California Gnatcatchers
in Northwest 53
13 MHCP Habitat Evaluation Map for North County 59
14 MHCP Habitat Evaluation Map for Carlsbad.. 61
15 Schematic of Conserved Habitat on
Rancheros-Southeast II 66
16 Conserved Habitat in Rancheros-Southeast II 67
17 Schematic of Conserved Habitat on
Northwest 70
18 Conserved Habitat on Northwest 71
19 Grading Phases in Southeast II 93
3-28-94 Revised Draft
Contents Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Tables
S-1 Habitat Types in the Plan Area S-6
S-2 HCP/OMSP Species of Concern ................................................. S-7
S-3 Conserved Habitat in the Plan Area Components S-13
S-4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Species of Concern
by Primary Habitat Associations of the Species S-18
1 Summary of Applicable Federal and State Laws 13
2 Information Requirements and Approval Criteria
Relevant to the HCP/OMSP 15
3 General Plan Land Use Designations in the Plan Area 24
4 Surveys Conducted for the HCP/OMSP 30
5 Habitat Types in the Plan Area 33
6 HCP/OMSP Species of Concern 40
7 Comparison of Citywide, PPA, and Plan Area
Habitat Estimates 55
8 Comparison of MHCP Study Area, Carlsbad, and Plan Area
Habitat Estimates ...56
9 Results of MHCP Habitat Evaluation.. 57
10 Conserved Habitat in the Plan Area Components 64
11 Habitat Conserved and Assumed "Taken" by Primary
Habitat Associations of the Species of Concern 73
12 Estimated Impacts of Conservation Strategy
on Species of Concern 74
vi Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Summary
Summary
A. Introduction
This Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan (HCP/OMSP) is the
culmination of a three-year collaborative planning process undertaken by the
City of Carlsbad (City) and Fieldstone/La Costa Associates (FLCA) in consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG). It covers 1,940.2 acres of land essentially surrounded
by existing urban uses in the southeast quadrant of Carlsbad (Figure S-1),
conserving habitat for plant and wildlife species and mitigating the impacts of
anticipated urbanization.
Initiated prior to enactment of California's Natural Communities Conservation
Planning (NCCP) Act, the HCP/OMSP technically is exempt from the NCCP
program; however, it is consistent with NCCP Guidelines and with two
planning efforts that are enrolled in the NCCP program as OMSPs - the City's
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and the North County Multiple Habitat
Conservation Program (MHCP). The plan fulfills NCCP goals and strengthens
the HMP and MHCP efforts by:
• Providing for the preservation and management of up to 885.1 acres of
coastal sage scrub and other habitats in key locations that will support
viable populations of indigenous plants and animals and maintain the link
between the City's natural communities and the larger regional ecosystem;
and
• Reconciling the current and future needs of diverse public and private
interests through a cooperative effort that will sustain and improve sensitive
biological resources while allowing necessary economic development and
anticipated urbanization to proceed.
In this way, the HCP/OMSP constitutes a completed aspect of NCCP for the City
and subregion.
Consistent with the federal and state Endangered Species Acts (ESAs) as well as
the NCCP program, the HCP/OMSP addresses the needs of 66 listed and
unlisted species associated with habitats in the plan area. It focuses on a
number of animal species that are representative of the diversity and sensitivity
of resources in the City and region, including the federally-listed coastal
California gnatcatcher, and provides protection for nearly 80 percent of all
sensitive plant populations in the plan area. Utilizing the best available
scientific information, the HCP/OMSP meets the requirements of the ESAs by:
• Minimizing and mitigating anticipated impacts on the species of concern to
the maximum extent practicable; and
3-28-94 Revised Draft S-1
Summary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
• Conserving habitat, habitat linkages, corridors, and buffers in a way that,
together with the other impact minimization and mitigation measures,
ensures that the likelihood of the species' survival and recovery will not be
appreciably reduced.
Also in accordance with the ESAs, the plan assures adequate funding for
implementation of the conservation and mitigation measures and includes
procedures for responding to unforeseen circumstances.
The HCP/OMSP also is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan, providing for
the conservation of sensitive resources and the development of land and
facilities in accordance with the City's land use, circulation, open space, and
growth management plans as well as the proposed HMP.
B. Planning Process and Purpose
Preparation of the HCP/OMSP began in 1989 and evolved into a unique
planning process for a project specific plan, characterized by a consideration of
range-wide conservation issues, open public participation, and candid
negotiations with conservation interests and federal, state, and local agencies.
To ensure continued progress during the process, the planning participants
signed a Memorandum of Agreement in 1991 regarding development of a plan
and an Initial Points of Consensus document in 1992 establishing the plan's
fundamental tenets.
The primary purpose of the planning process and this HCP/OMSP is to provide
for the conservation of wildlife and its habitat in the context of anticipated
urbanization. The HCP/OMSP establishes the basis for government planning
and regulation as well as assurances to the landowners and others that the plan
will be implemented and that projects and activities in the plan area can
proceed without further wildlife mitigation. Specifically, the plan provides the
basis for:
1. Issuance by USFWS of a Section 10(a) permit, USFWS authorizations under
the gnatcatcher 4(d) rule, and USFWS consultations (internal as well as with
other agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) under Section 7 of
the federal ESA;
2. Issuance by CDFG of a Section 2081 permit under the California ESA and a
Section 2835 permit under the NCCP Act;
3. Issuance of permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
4. Consummation of an implementation agreement, with USFWS, CDFG, the
City, and FLCA as parties, implementing the plan and providing the parties
with assurances; and
5. Planning and development activities by the City, FLCA, and other
landowners in the plan area.
S-2 Rew'sed Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Summary
C. Plan Area Profile
The plan area for the HCP/OMSP consists of two sets of lands (see Figure S-1):
• 1,278.2 acres identified as "Rancheros-Southeast II," which includes 846.2
acres that are the project area for the Rancho Santa Fe Road realignment,
347 acres that are the Rancheros component of FLCA's La Costa Master
Plan, and 85 acres in San Marcos Creek; and
• 662.0 acres identified as "Northwest," another component of the La Costa
Master Plan.
Combined, the lands account for 13 percent of all undeveloped land remaining
in the City. All of the land is private property, and 95 percent (1,844.4 acres) is
owned by FLCA. The other five percent includes 81 acres owned by MAG
Properties and 14.8 acres of miscellaneous private ownerships within proposed
right-of-way easements for the realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road. Except for
242.6 acres, all of the lands are currently designated in the General Plan for
residential or commercial development.
The biological significance of the lands stems from their location in relation to
other resources and their inherent values. Rancheros-Southeast II forms the
western tip of the largest, contiguous stretch of coastal sage scrub and natural
open space in northern San Diego County and, by virtue of that connection, is
the primary link between the City's natural communities and the larger regional
ecosystem. Northwest is less directly attached to the regional ecosystem but
supports a mix of habitats and species representative of the City's and region's
biodiversity.
Six habitat types occur within the plan area: Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern
mixed and southern maritime chaparral, non-native and native grassland,
riparian scrub and oak woodland, disturbed habitat, and eucalyptus woodland
(Table S-1). Approximately two-thirds of Rancheros-Southeast II is coastal sage
scrub, with the remainder primarily southern mixed chaparral and disturbed
habitat; all six habitat types occur in Northwest but no one type covers more
than 38 percent of the area.
The habitats support hundreds of different plant and wildlife species, including
the 66 that have been selected as "species of concern" for conservation planning
purposes. The 66 include species that are:
1. Already protected by the federal or state ESAs;
2. Candidates for federal or state listing;
3. "Species of special concern" in California as identified by CDFG;
4. Sensitive bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
5. On the list of sensitive species for the NCCP program;
6. On the list of sensitive plant species in California;
7. On the list of target species for the HMP and North County MHCP; or
8. On the list of "other sensitive species" for the HMP.
3-28-94 Revised Draft S-5
Summary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table S-1
Habitat Types in the Plan Area
(acres)
Habitat Type
Diegan coastal sage scrub
Chaparral
Southern mixed
Southern maritime
5ufatota/
Grassland
Non-native
Native
Subtotal
Riparian scrub and woodland
Disturbed habitat
Eucalyptus woodland
TOTAL
Rancheros-
Southeast II
832.2
189.2
0.0
189.2
35.0
41.6
76.6
16.6
157.4
1.0
1,278.2
Northwest
123.0
6.0
120.0
726.0
251.6
3.4
255.0
97.0
55.5
5.5
662.0
Plan Area
955.2
195.2
120.0
375.2
286.6
21.0
306.6
113.6
191.9
6.5
1,940.2
Based on extensive surveys conducted over a two-year period, 36 of the 66
species of concern are known to occur in one or both plan area components;
the other 30 species are closely associated with habitats in the plan area and, for
purposes of this plan, have been treated as potentially occurring. Table S-2 lists
the species of concern under the headings of "observed" and "potentially
occurring"; it also indicates their primary habitat association and rangewide
distribution.
D. Habitat Conservation Strategy
and Impact Analysis
Based on an understanding of both the biological and land use issues to be
reconciled, the City and FLCA developed a onsite habitat conservation strategy
that is the foundation of this HCP/OMSP. Further, in accordance with the ESAs
and NCCP Guidelines, the City and FLCA considered the potential effects of the
strategy on the species of concern before proceeding with final planning. For
purposes of the impact analysis, all species of concern were treated as listed
species. "Take" as defined in the ESAs was calculated primarily based on the
occurrence of habitat for each species in areas designated for development. All
habitat suitable for a species of concern was assumed to be occupied by that
species, and all habitat not designated as being conserved was treated as
"taken." Also in accordance with ESA and NCCP requirements, alternatives to
the taking were considered.
S-6 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Summary
Table S-2
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID#Species Name and Listing Status Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
Observed Species of Concern (N = 36)
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-1 2
A-1 3
A-1 4
A-1 5
Ashy spike-moss
Selaginella cinerascens
CNPS4
California adder' s-tongue
Ophioglossum californicum
C3c, CNPS4
California adophia
Adolphia californica
CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Del Mar manzanita
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia
FPE*, CNPS1B, T
Engelmann oak
Quercus engelmannii
CNPS4, OSS
Nuttall's scrub oak
Quercus dumosa
CNPS1B, OSS
Orcutt's brodiaea
Brodiaea orcuttii
C2*, CNPS1B, T
Palmer's grapplinghook
Harpagonella pa/men
CNPS2, OSS
San Diego County viguiera
Viguiera laciniata
CNPS4, NCCP
San Diego golden star
Muilla clevelandii
C2*, CNPS1B, T
San Diego marsh elder
Iva hayesiana
C2, CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Southwestern spiny rush
Junctus actus var. leopoldii
CNPS4, OSS
Sticky-leaved liveforever
Dudleya viscida
C1*, CNPS1B, NCCP, OSS
Summer holly
Comarostaphylis divers/folia ssp. diversifolia
C1,CNPS1B, T
Thread-leaved brodiaea
Brodiaea filifolia
C1*, SE, CNPS1B, T
Occurs on flat mesas in open CSS and CHP. Range
includes Orange County to northern Baja California.
Occurs in grassy areas and vernal pools. Range
extends from northern California counties into
northwestern Baja California.
Occurs in CSS and CHP in clay soils on dry coastal
and foothill slopes below 1000 feet. Range includes
San Diego County to Baja California.
Occurs in SMaC in areas with marine sandstone.
Range includes coastal San Diego County to Cabo
Colonel.
Occurs in OW, EW, and SMaC. Range extends from
Los Angeles County foothills to Sierra Juarez in Baja
California.
Occurs in CHP and CSS in sandy soils and sandstone.
Range extends from coastal Santa Barbara County to
northwestern Baja California.
Occurs along ephemeral streams and vernal pools.
Range extends from Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties through San Diego County into Baja Calif.
Occurs in CHP, CSS, and C. Range includes
southern California from Los Angeles County
southward, Arizona, and northern Baja Calif.
Occurs in CSS. Range includes coastal San Diego
County to central Baja California.
Occurs in G and CSS with clay soils. Range includes
coastal San Diego County to extreme northwest of
Baja California.
Occurs in RS and SM. Range includes coastal San
Diego County to central Baja California.
Occurs in FWM, SM, and RW. Range extends from
San Luis Obispo and San Bernardino Counties to
central Baja California.
Occurs in CSS and CHP of bluffs and rocky cliffs.
Range includes southern Orange County to central
San Diego County.
Occurs in CHP and SMaC. Range includes coastal
Orange and San Diego Counties into northwest Baja
California.
Occurs in G and vernal pools with clay soils. Range
includes coastal San Diego County to central Baja
California.i
3-28-94 Revised Draft S-7
Summary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table S-2 (continued)
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID#
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
Species Name and Listing Status
Wart-stemmed ceanothus
Ceanothus verrucosus
C2, CNPS2, T
Western dichondra
Dichondra occidentalis
C3c, CNPS4, NCCP, OSS
Western spadefoot toad
Spea hammondii
CSC, NCCP, T
Coastal rosy boa
Lichanura trivirgata rosafusca
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Coastal western whiptail
Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Northern red diamond rattlesnake
Crotalus ruber ruber
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Orange-throated whiptail
Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
San Diego horned lizard
Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
Bell's sage sparrow
Amphispiza belli belli
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, OSS
Burrowing owl
Speotyto cunicularia
CSC, MBTA, T
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica californica
FT, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, T
Cooper's hawk
Accipiter cooper/
CSC, MBTA, T
Loggerhead shrike
/.an/us ludovidanus
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, OSS
Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus
CSC, MBTA, T
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, T
Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
Occurs in SMaC and CHP. Range includes coastal
San Diego County to central Baja California.
Occurs in understory of CHP and CSS. Range
extends from Marin and Sonoma Counties to San
Miguel Island and Baja California.
Occurs in CSS, CHP, and G. Range extends from
north central California to northwestern Baja
California.
Occurs in CSS and CHP with rocky substrates.
Range extends from Los Angeles County to northwest
Baja California.
Occurs in open CSS, CHP, and woodlands. Range
extends from Ventura County to south central Baja
California.
Occurs in rocky CSS, CHP, other scrub, and cactus.
Range includes southern California to northern Baja
Calfiornia.
Occurs in CSS, CHP, RW, weedy areas, and washes.
Range includes southern Orange and San Bernardino
Counties to south central Baja California.
Occurs in CSS, CHP, and OW. Range includes Santa
Barbara County to northwest Baja California.
Occurs in CSS, CHP, juniper woodland, and alluvial
fan scub. Range includes California and northern
Baja Calif.
Occurs in G. Range includes western United States,
Canada, and Mexico.
Occurs in CSS. Range includes Los Angeles, Orange,
western Riverside, and San Diego Counties into Baja
Calif.
Occurs in RS, RW, and OW near foraging areas.
Range includes continental U.S., excluding Alaska
and parts of Montana and the Dakotas.
Occurs in G, CSS, and disturbed habitat. Range
includes much of North America; winters south to
Central America.
Occurs in FWM, SM, G, CSS, and agricultural fields.
Winters and migrates throughout California.
Occurs in CSS and mixed CSS and G. Range
includes Santa Barbara County to northwestern Baja
California.
S-8 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Summary
Table S-2 (continued)
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID#
A-31
A-32
A-33
A-34
A-35
A-36
Species Name and Listing Status
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, T
Yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens
CSC, MBTA, OSS
Yellow warbler
Dendroica petechia brewsteri
CSC, MBTA, OSS
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia
C2, CSC, OSS
Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
Breeds in FWM, forages in C and agricultural lands.
Range extends from southern Oregon to northern
Baja California.
Occurs in RW and RS. Range includes most of North
America; breeds in southern California in spring and
summer.
Occurs in RW and RS. Range includes most of North
America; breeds in southern California in spring and
summer.
Occurs in CSS, CHP, and open weedy areas. Range
includes parts of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and San Diego Counties.
Occurs in CSS, C, and disturbed habitat. Range
includes coastal slope of southern California from
Santa Barbara County into northwest Baja Calif.
Occurs in rocky areas and CHP and CSS with cactus.
Range includes coastal slope of southern California
from San Luis Obispo County to northwest Baja Calif.
Potentially Occurring Species of Concern (N = 30)
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
Blochman's dudleya
Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae
CNPS1B, NCCP, OSS
Cliff spurge
Euphorbia misera
CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Coast barrel cactus
Ferocactus viridescens
C2*, CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Del Mar sand aster
Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linfolia
FPT, CNPS1B, NCCP, T
Encinitas baccharis
Baccharis vanessae
FPE, SE, CNPS1B, T
Orcutt's hazardia
Hazard/a orcuttii
C2, CNPS1B
Orcutt's spineflower
Chorizanthe orcuttiana
FPE*, SE, CNPS1B, NCCP
San Diego ambrosia
Ambrosia pumila
C2*, CNPS1B, NCCP
San Diego sagewort
Artemisia palmeri
CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Occurs atop coastal bluffs in CSS. Range includes
coastal slope of southern California from San Luis
Obispo County to northwest Baja Calif.
Occurs on coastal bluffs in CSS. Range includes
Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties to central
Baja California.
Occurs on dry slopes with CSS and CHP. Range
includes coastal San Diego County, northwest Baja
California, and foothills of Sierra Juarez.
Occurs in sandy, disturbed coastal areas, usually in
SMaC. Endemic to central, coastal San Diego
County.
Occurs in SMaC and CHP. Endemic to northwest
and north-central San Diego County.
Occurs on coastal slopes in CHP. Endemic to
northwest Baja California, with a disjunct population
in Encinitas, California.
Occurs in SMaC. Endemic to San Diego County.
Occurs in coastal G and disturbed habitat. Range
includes coastal San Diego County to northwest Baja
California.
Occurs in drainages with RS, CSS, and CHP. Range
includes coastal San Diego County to northwest Baja
California.
3-28-94 Revised Draft S-9
Summary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table S-2 (continued)
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID#
B-10
B-11
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-17
B-18
B-19
B-20
B-21
B-22
B-23
B-24
Species Name and Listing Status
San Diego thornmint
Acanthomintha ilicifolia
C1*, SE, CNPS1B, NCCP, T
Harbison's dun skipper
Euphyes vestris harbinsoni
C2,T
Hermes copper
Lycaena hermes
C2*, OSS
Quino checkerspot
Euphydryas editha quino
C1*, OSS
California red-legged frog
Rana aurora draytonii
FPE, CSC, OSS
Coast patch-nosed snake
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Coronado skink
Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
San Diego banded gecko
Coleonyx variegatus abbotti
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
San Diego ringneck snake
Diadophis punctatus similis
C2, CSC, OSS
Silvery legless lizard
Anniella nigra argentea
CSC, OSS
Southwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata pallida
C1 *, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Two-striped garter snake
Thamnophis hammondii
C2, CSC, OSS
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris act/a
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, OSS
Least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
FE, SE, MBTA, T
San Diego cactus wren
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
Occurs in C and vernal pools on clay soils. Range
includes coastal San Diego County to coastal area
above Ensenada and Sierra Juarez mountains.
Occurs in RW, RS, and OW with perennial water
source. Range includes Orange and San Diego
Counties.
Occurs in CSS and CHP; larval foodplant is
buckthorn. Range includes San Diego Co. to
northern Baja Calif.
Occurs in CSS, G, and VP; larval foodplant is
plantain. Range includes Orange, Riverside, and San
Diego Counties to coastal central Baja Calif.
Occurs in ponds, marshes, and pools. Range
includes northern California to northwestern Baja
California.
Occurs mainly in CHP but also in mixed CSS and C.
Range includes Santa Barbara County into northwest
Baja California.
Occurs in G, CSS, open CHP, OW, and pine forests.
Range includes Los Angeles County into northwest
Baja California plus several islands.
Occurs in CHP and CSS with rocky outcrops. Range
extends from San Gabriel Mountains to northwest
Baja California and Cedros Island.
Occurs in OW, G, CHP, and CSS. Range includes
southwest San Bernardino County to northwest Baja
California.
Occurs along washes, beaches, alluvial fans and in
CSS and CHP. Range includes San Francisco to
northwest Baja California.
Occurs in FWM, creeks, and ponds. Range extends
from Monterey County to northwest Baja California.
Occurs primary along permanent creeks and streams,
also in VP and CHP. Range includes Monterey
County to northwest Baja California.
Occurs in sandy beaches, G, and agricultural lands.
Range includes coastal slopes and lowlands from
Sonoma County to northern Baja California.
Occurs in lowland RW. Range includes southern
California to northwest Baja California.
Occurs in CSS, cactus patches, and thorny thickets.
Range includes southern Orange and San Diego
Counties into northwest Baja California.
S-10 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Summary
Table S-2 (continued)
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID#
B-25
B-26
B-27
B-28
B-29
B-30
Species Name and Listing Status
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus
FPE, SE, FSS, MBTA, T
California mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
C2, CSC, T
Dulzura California pocket mouse
Chaetodipus californicus femoralis
C2, CSC, T
Pacific pocket mouse
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
FEE, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Southern grasshopper mouse
Onychomys torridus ramona
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Townsend's western big-eared bat
Plecotus townsendii townsendii
C2, CSC, T
Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
Occurs in RW and RS. Range includes southwestern
U.S. into northwest Mexico.
Roosts in rock crevices, outcrops, buildings; forages
in CHP and OW. Range includes Central California,
western Texas, and northern Mexico.
Occurs in CHP, mulefat scrub, and disturbed areas.
Range extends from Santa Margarita River to northern
Baja California.
Occurs in CHP, CSS, and G with sandy substrate.
Range limited to coast of southern California; only
eight localities known.
Occurs in G and CSS. Range extends from northern
Los Angeles County to northwestern Baja California.
Roosts in tunnels, caves, and buildings; forages in
OW, G, and other habitats. Range includes most of
western U.S.
3-28-94 Revised Draft S-11
Summary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table S-2 (continued)
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID Codes
A- Species observed or assumed to occur in one or both plan area components.
B- Species potentially occurring in habitats in one or both plan area components.
Status Codes
C1 Category 1 candidate for federal listing
C2 Category 2 candidate for federal listing
C3c Category 3c candidate for federal listing
CNPS Listed by the California Native Plant Society as:
(1 B) rare or endangered in California and elsewhere
(2) rare or endangered in California and more common elsewhere
(4) plants of limited distribution
CSC Identified by CDFG as a species of special concern in California
FE Listed as endangered under the federal ESA
FEE Emergency listed as endangered under the federal ESA
FPE Proposed for federal listing as endangered
FPT Proposed for federal listing as threatened
FSS Identified by federal agencies as a sensitive species
FT Listed as threatened under the federal ESA
MBTA Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NCCP On the list of sensitive species for the NCCP program
OSS "Other Sensitive Species" identified in draft Carlsbad HMP
ST Listed as threatened under the California ESA
T Target species for Carlsbad HMP and North County MHCP
* On the list of species covered by a settlement agreement between USFWS and environmental
groups who filed suit regarding the timely listing of C1 and C2 species.
Habitat Codes
AFS Alluvial Fan Scrub
CHP Chaparral types, excluding Southern Maritime Chaparral
CSS Coastal Sage Scrub
FWM Freshwater Marsh
G Grassland, native and non-native
JW Juniper Woodland
MFS Mulefat Scrub
OW Oak Woodland
RS Riparian Scrub
RW Riparian Woodland
SMaC Southern Maritime Chaparral
VP Vernal Pools
S-12 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Summary
1. Configuration of Conserved Habitat
The configuration of conserved habitat within the plan area achieves SIX goals:
1. Linkages to other significant habitat areas are maintained;
2. Conserved habitat is buffered from existing and anticipated development;
3. The conserved habitat values are representative of the regional and local
ecosystem;
4. The exclusion of areas from conserved habitat will not pose jeopardy to
listed and other species of concern;
5. Preservation of key species in each plan area component is maximized; and
6. The City, FLCA, and others are provided with certainty regarding which
areas will be permanently conserved and which will not.
A total of 645.1 acres has been designated conserved habitat in the plan area:
521.41 acres within Rancheros-Southeast II and 123.69 acres in Northwest
(Table S-3). The specific configurations of onsite conserved habitat were
developed in coordination with the USFWS, CDFG, local conservation groups,
and City staff. Onsite conservation also was weighted based on existing habitat
values, with priority given to the gnatcatcher and other sage scrub vertebrates
on Rancheros-Southeast II and to sensitive plants on Northwest. Key
considerations in the planning process are summarized below.
Table S-3
Conserved Habitat in the Plan Area Components
(acres)
Habitat
Type
Coastal sage scrub
Southern mixed chaparral
Southern maritime chaparral
Grassland
Riparian scrub/woodland
Disturbed habitat
TOTAL
Rancheros-Southeast II
Rancheros
144.81
15.73
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.00
161.52
San Marcos
Creek
79.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.60
0.00
85.00
Southeast
II
202.46
20.04
0.00
19.20
3.07
30.12
274.89
Total
426.67
35.77
0.00
19.20
9.65
30.12
521.41
Northwest
21.36
1.06
28.90
33.30
34.91
4.16
123.69
Plan Area
Total
448.03
36.83
28.90
52.50
44.56
34.28
645.10
a. Rancheros-Southeast II
Conserved habitat in Rancheros-Southeast II includes 521.41 acres that will
function as a local multiple species reserve and regional habitat linkage. The
proposed configuration:
3-28-94 Rev/sec/ Draft S-13
Summary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
• Preserves 426.67 acres of coastal sage scrub (51 percent of the 832.2 acres
in the plan area component) and 18 gnatcatcher use areas;
• Maintains two primary habitat linkages with the larger regional ecosystem,
one across Southeast II and one along San Marcos Creek; and
• Concentrates future land uses adjacent to existing development and in
relation to the ultimate alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
As shown on Figure S-2, the proposed configuration within Southeast II
preserves a corridor that is 1,000 feet wide at its narrowest point and widens to
approximately 1,800 feet in width at the eastern end where it crosses Rancho
Santa Fe Road. The corridor retains linkages with designated conserved habitat
in San Marcos Creek and Rancheros and linkages with natural open space
outside the plan area.
Conserved habitat along San Marcos Creek preserves a second linkage with the
regional ecosystem, ensures connectivity between conserved habitat in
Southeast II and Rancheros, and includes non-sage scrub habitats and species in
the "micro-ecosystem" captured by the configuration. In this case, the
conserved area forms a corridor that is at least 1,000 feet wide until it reaches
the Rancho Santa Fe Road crossing and enters the City of San Marcos.
Additionally, there are at least 70 feet of vertical separation between the creek
bottom and the road crossing. This design maximizes the contiguity of the open
space and minimizes the overall edge effect of the proposed reserve.
The primary consideration in Rancheros was the need to reconcile conservation
and land use priorities for lands with high biological and development value. As
originally proposed in the La Costa Master Plan, Rancheros was designated for
large lot ranchette-style residential development. This concept was replanned
in the context of the HCP/OMSP to cluster new housing near existing
development on the western and northern borders and on the upper terraces of
the site. Priority was given to minimizing edge effects and conserving two-
thirds of the gnatcatcher pairs onsite (10 of 15). The resulting configuration
preserves the highest density occupied gnatcatcher habitat in a contiguous band
of primarily sage scrub habitat that adjoins San Marcos Creek and is over 0.5-
mile wide.
b. Northwest
Conserved habitat in Northwest includes 123.69 acres selected to preserve plant
species of concern and maintain connectivity through the site (Figure S-3). Four
primary considerations affected the design of conserved habitat:
1. The presence and relative abundance of rare plants associated with native
grassland (thread-leaved brodiaea, Palmer's grapplinghook) and southern
maritime chaparral (Del Mar manzanita, summer holly, wart-stemmed
ceanothus, Nuttall's scrub oak);
2. The relatively fragmented nature of the sage scrub (by comparison with
Rancheros-Southeast II) but high number of gnatcatchers;
3. The bifurcation of the natural habitats by the La Costa Golf Course; and
S-14 Revised Draft 3-28-94
SOG1E EASEMENT
LEGEND
CONSERVED HABITAT
EXISTING ROADWAY
FUTURE ROADWAY
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates
NTS
Figure S-2 . Schematic of Conserved Habitat
on Rancheros - Southeast II
S-15
LEGEND
EXISTING GO
COURS
CONSERVED HABITAT
EXISTING ROADWAY
FUTURE ROADWAY
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates NTS
I
Figure S-3 . Schematic of Conserved Habitat
in Northwest
S-16
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Summary
4. The existing albeit narrow habitat linkages with natural open space to the
northeast and to Rancheros to the southeast.
Following a consideration of each of these factors, two interrelated decisions
were made: onsite conservation would focus on sensitive plants and would be
supplemented by offsite acquisitions of coastal sage scrub.
As proposed, the onsite conserved habitat preserves a majority of the sensitive
plant species. It also provides connections to and through the site from south to
north and to the east (see Figures S-3). In addition, onsite restoration of about
11 acres of sage scrub has been proposed for a portion of conserved habitat that
intersects a utility easement that currently serves as a narrow wildlife corridor.
The restoration will provide a "stepping stone" of habitat for dispersing and
breeding bird species of concern (including the gnatcatcher) as well as cover for
dispersing predators such as coyotes.
Offsite conservation will be used to:
1. Provide replacement habitat for the sage scrub that ultimately will be
removed from Northwest; and
2. Bolster the regional linkages conserved under the plan.
It also will incidentally benefit other species of concern.
Up to 240 acres of coastal sage scrub occupied by gnatcatchers or otherwise
acceptable to USFWS and CDFC will be acquired by FLCA, with at least 120
acres in locations that will strengthen the habitat linkage between Southeast II
and the regional coastal sage scrub community that extends into the San
Dieguito and San Pasqual River Valley. No specific locations have been
proposed for acquisition at this time.
2. Impact Analysis
In connection with designating onsite conserved habitat, the City and FLCA
considered the beneficial and adverse effects on species of concern that would
likely result from conserving some areas of habitat and allowing development to
proceed in others. As noted, all species of concern were treated as listed
species, and all suitable habitat for each species was considered "taken" if not
designated as conserved habitat. This approach was used to ensure that habitat
impacts were not underestimated, to fulfill ESA requirements that "take" of
species be estimated, and to identify appropriate impact minimization and
mitigation measures. Also in accordance with the ESA and NCCP Guidelines,
alternatives to the taking were considered.
a. Impacts to Species of Concern
Anticipated impacts to species of concern are summarized in Table S-4 in terms
of habitat conserved and habitat assumed taken and based on the primary
habitat associations of the species of concern (e.g., impacts to species found
only in sage scrub, impacts to species found in more than one habitat type). A
separate calculation of total conserved habitat that assumes acquisition of 240
acres of offsite sage scrub also is provided.
3-28-94 Revised Draft S-17
Summary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table S-4
Habitat Conserved and Assumed "Taken"
by Primary Habitat Associations of the Species of Concern
(acres)
Primary Habitat Associations of
the Species of Concern
Sage scrub
Chaparral
Grassland
Riparian scrub/woodland (and 6.5 ac. Eucalyptus)
Disturbed habitat
Sage scrub and chaparral
Sage scrub and grassland
Sage scrub and riparian
Chaparral and riparian
Grassland and disturbed
Grassland and riparian
Sage scrub, grassland, and riparian
Sage scrub, chaparral, riparian, and disturbed
Sage Scrub, chaparral, grassland, and riparian
Sage Scrub, grassland, chaparral, and disturbed
Total in
Plan Area
955.2
315.2
306.6
120.1
191.9
1,270.4
1,261.8
1,075.3
435.3
507.1
426.7
1,381.9
1,582.4
1,697.1
1,768.9
Conserved
Onsite
448.0
65.3
52.5
44.6
34.3
513.3
500.5
492.6
109.9
86.8
97.1
545.1
592.2
610.4
600.1
Assumed
Taken
Onsite
507.2
249.9
254.1
75.5
157.6
757.1
761.3
582.7
325.4
420.3
329.6
836.8
990.2
1,086.7
1,168.8
Conserved
Onsite and
Offsite
688.0
65.3
52.5
44.6
34.3
753.3
740.5
732.6
109.0
86.8
97.1
785.1
832.2
850.4
840.1
In addition to the habitat-based impacts, the following points can be noted
regarding the conservation of species given priority in the planning process:
• Up to 18 pair of coastal California gnatcathers will be conserved onsite in
Rancheros-Southeast II, and an undetermined number of pairs on up to 240
acres will be conserved offsite;
• At least 795 Del Mar manzanita individuals and approximately 5,800
thread-leaved brodiaea individuals will be conserved on Northwest.
• All of the sticky-leaved liveforever will be conserved in the San Marcos
Creek corridor;
• A significant portion of habitat suitable for the orange-throated whiptail and
San Diego horned lizard will be conserved on Rancheros-Southeast II, and
the two reptiles will also likely benefit from the offsite conserved habitat;
and
• Riparian-dependent bird species such as the yellow-breasted chat, yellow
warbler, and least Bell's vireo will benefit from the preservation of well over
95 percent of the onsite riparian habitats; sensitive plant species such as
southwestern spiny rush and San Diego marsh elder also will be preserved
onsite.
S-18 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Summary
b. Alternatives to the Taking
Six alternatives to the anticipated taking were considered and ultimately
eliminated from further consideration:
• Complete avoidance of take of listed species;
• No take of coastal California gnatcatchers;
• Take only within the Rancho Santa Fe Road project area;
• Delay of take in the plan area pending completion of the HMP;
• An offsite mitigation strategy with unlimited take in the plan area; and
• Reconfiguration of onsite conserved habitat and development areas.
E. Conservation Program
and Mitigation Measures
The conservation program and mitigation measures include those actions
necessary to:
• Conserve 645.1 acres of habitat in the plan area and up to an additional
240 acres in offsite locations;
• Provide for ongoing management of the conserved habitat;
• Minimize and mitigate the impacts expected in the plan area; and
• Ensure implementation of the plan and secure long-term (30-year)
authorizations and assurances for projects and activities in the plan area.
1. Habitat Conservation
Implementation of the HCP/OMSP will conserve up to 885.1 acres of habitat for
the species of concern: 645.1 acres within Rancheros-Southeast II and
Northwest and up to 240 acres in offsite locations to be selected in consultation
with USFWS and CDFC. All of the onsite conserved habitat is in FLCA's
ownership.
Onsite conservation will occur in the areas shown on Figures S-2 and S-3 and as
described in the legal agreements that will accompany this plan. Offsite
conservation will occur in conjunction with development within Northwest and
will consist of acquisition by FLCA of up to 240 acres of coastal sage scrub in
locations acceptable to USFWS and CDFG, with at least 120 acres in locations
that will strengthen the habitat linkage with the regional coastal sage community
that extends into the San Dieguito and San Pasqual River Valley.
In accordance with state guidelines for 2081 agreements (see Appendices),
FLCA will provide an irrevocable offer to convey fee interest or a conservation
easement for the conserved habitat to a conservancy established or designated
for purposes of the Carlsbad HMP, to CDFG, or to another entity approved by
USFWS and CDFG. Conservation easements or fee interest also will be
conveyed for the offsite mitigation lands.
3-28-94 Revised Draft S-19
Summary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
2. Habitat Management
Two types of habitat management will be provided under the plan:
• Interim management of conserved habitat by FLCA; and
• Long-term, ongoing management of conserved habitat by an entity
designated for that purpose under the terms of this HCP/OMSP, the HMP,
or North County MHCP.
It is anticipated that the entity responsible for long-term management of
conserved habitat and the entity to which the conservation easements or fee
interest is conveyed will be a conservancy established for purposes of
implementing the HMP. However, alternative arrangements also have been
identified in the event that the HMP is substantially delayed or not completed.
Such alternatives include delegation of management responsibilities to CDFG,
The Nature Conservancy, or (as a last resort) a homeowners association. The
arrangement actually made will be subject to USFWS and CDFG concurrence.
a. Interim Habitat Management
FLCA will be responsible for management of conserved habitat until fee interest
is conveyed or FLCA delegates its management responsibilities to the HMP
conservancy or an entity approved by the City, USFWS, and CDFG. Interim
management activities will consist of:
• Maintaining existing access controls;
• Clean-up of conserved habitat areas where unauthorized trash dumping has
occurred; and
• Implementation of project-specific impact minimization and mitigation
measures (see below).
FLCA will prepare an interim management plan that describes the activities to
be performed and, until fee interest is conveyed or the management
responsibilities have been delegated, will provide annual updates to the plan as
necessary. FLCA also will provide information on the implementation of
interim management measures in the annual reports on overall plan
implementation that will be prepared by FLCA and the City for USFWS and
CDFG review.
b. Ongoing Habitat Management
Ongoing management of conserved habitat will be guided by annual plans
prepared by the HMP conservancy or other designated entity in consultation
with a management advisory committee. The committee will be composed of
representatives of USFWS, CDFG, the City, FLCA, and the management entity or
entities.
S-20 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Summary
c. Funding of Habitat Management
Funding of interim management activities will be FLCA's responsibility.
Funding of long-term management will be provided through the HMP by use of
any funds available to the City for wildlife, acquisition, conservation, and
management purposes, including but not limited to assessments, levies, and
grants or other types of funding from public or private sources. As a last resort,
a "conserved habitat maintenance charge" of $50.00 per residential unit per
year would be assessed on each development unit within the plan area.
3. Impact Minimization
and Mitigation Measures
In addition to the impact minimization acheived through preserve design, the
HCP/OMPS provides for individual projects and activities in the plan area to be
planned and implemented in a way that further avoids, minimizes, and
mitigates impacts to species of concern and conserved habitat. Such measures
will include but not be limited to project-specific impact avoidance and
minimization, impact phasing and project design, and supplemental mitigation
measures.
a. Project-Specific Impact A voidance and Minimization
In configuring conserved habitat within the plan area, priority was given to
minimizing direct impacts through preserve design. Ten additional impact
avoidance and minimization measures will pertain to individual projects and
activities that would affect conserved habitat.
1. Nest site protection. No clearing or grading operations will be allowed in
habitat occupied by the gnatcatcher during its breeding season (February 15
to July 31). This measure also will protect other nesting species of concern.
Prior to July 31, clearing may occur if it is determined that the birds have
already successfully fledged young, are no longer actively nesting, and the
young have dispersed from the area. In addition, although no direct
impacts to trees currently used for nesting by raptors are anticipated, if it is
determined that raptors are nesting in any trees scheduled for removal, the
trees will be avoided until after the nesting season. Additionally, where
feasible, clearing activities within 200 feet of raptor nest sites will be
avoided during the nesting season.
2. Access control. Prior to commencement of clearing or grading activities,
access barriers to conserved habitat will be established at key entry points.
The boundaries of conserved habitat immediately adjacent to a grading area
will be flagged by a biologist, and a fence will be installed to prevent
disturbance by construction vehicles. This fencing may be removed upon
completion of all construction activities and/or replacement with permanent
fencing to protect conserved habitat. Reasonable, appropriate measures
also will be taken to ensure that the construction crew is informed of the
sensitivity of conserved habitat.
3-28-94 Revised Draft S-21
Summary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
3. Noise Control. Grading, construction, and other activities that create noise
in excess of 61 d.b.a. Leq level in conserved habitat occupied by
gnatcatchers will be limited to the non-breeding season (August 1 through
February 15) unless six foot temporary noise berms are used to reduce noise
levels.
4. Storage and staging areas. No temporary storage or stockpiling of
construction materials will be allowed within conserved habitat, and all
staging areas for equipment and materials (especially rock crushing
equipment) will be located as far from conserved habitat as possible.
Staging areas and construction sites will be kept as free as possible of trash,
refuse, discarded food wrappers, and other waste that might attract small
scavengers that prey on gnatcatchers and other sensitive small passerines.
Trash containers with animal-resistant lids will be provided on the site
during construction.
5. Monitoring. During grading and construction adjacent to conserved
habitat, a biologist will monitor the adjacent habitat for excessive
accumulations of dust or other disturbance. Erosion control devices also
will be monitored during the rainy season to ensure that dirt, topsoil, and
other materials are not washing into the conserved habitat area. If at any
time significant amounts of dust or material are determined to be impacting
conserved habitat, then corrective measures will be taken immediately.
6. Unavoidable disturbances of conserved habitat. Disturbance of conserved
habitat will be avoided to the maximum extent possible. However, where
disturbance is unavoidable and has been authorized, it will be mitigated by
restoration of the affected sites. Revegetation plans will be prepared for the
approval of the City prior to such disturbances occurring. In addition, the
location and installation of utilities will be planned cooperatively with the
City, USFWS, and CDFG to minimize and mitigate the impacts of such
projects on species of concern and conserved habitat. Examples of
disturbances that may be unavoidable include: (a) temporary noise buffers
and fencing adjacent to conserved habitat; (b) fuel modification zones at
the edge of conserved habitat; (c) temporary and permanent public facilities
for water, electricity, sewer, gas, and other utilities; and (d) remedial
grading for structural purposes, such as easements, buttresses, and crib
walls.
7. Fuel management zones. Fuel management zones separating conserved
habitat from adjacent development will be designed to minimize impacts to
native vegetation. The final location of the zones in relation to the interface
of development of conserved habitat will be defined at the tentative map
stage of planning. Measures to minimize or further reduce impacts to
vegetation include: (a) removal of high fuel species, irrigation, and selective
pruning (as specified in the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual) to
suppress the potential for slope fires; (b) planting of native, low-fuel plant
species within fuel management zones; and (c) use of alternative fuel breaks
such as coastal prickly pear cactus, that reduce water use, have additional
wildlife value, and minimize access to conserved habitat.
S-22 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Summary
8. Lighting. Lighting within new development projects adjacent to conserved
habitat will be selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from
conserved habitat. In addition, lighting from homes abutting conserved
habitat will be screened by planting vegetation, and large spotlight-type
backyard lighting directed into conserved habitat will be prohibited.
9. Landscaping. Invasive species such as giant reed and pampas grass will not
be used in landscaped area directly adjacent to conserved habitat. A list of
species that should not be used in landscaping will be provided to home
buyers. Additionally, these species will be identified in the CC&Rs of the
homeowners association as plants to be avoided in landscaping.
10. Public information program. Homeowners, homeowner associations, and
the interested public will be informed of ways to avoid impacts to the
conserved resources through a public information program developed in
cooperation with the City. The program will include: (a) a public
information brochure that describes the natural resources and prohibited
activities within conserved habitat; and (b) a landscaping and fuel break
planning brochure for homeowners and homeowner associations adjacent
to conserved habitat.
b. Impact Phasing and Project Design Measures
Impact phasing and project design measures pertain to projects and activities
within Rancheros-Southeast II. They are as follows.
1. Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road will proceed in two-phases tied to
the City's level of service and financing requirements and subject to final
environmental review.
2. Grading and construction within Southeast II will occur in the areas
identified in the plan as "phases."
3. Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road and the configuration of conserved
habitat in Southeast II assumes redesign of Melrose Avenue to avoid two
gnatcatcher use areas and reclassification of the road from a prime to major
arterial.
c. Supplemental Mitigation Measures
In addition to the measures already described, FLCA will work cooperatively
with the City, USFWS, and CDFC to implement the following supplemental
mitigation measures.
1. Research. To provide additional data that can be used to guide habitat
management, FLCA will provide $50,000 for research on the coastal
California gnatcatcher. The focus and design of the research program will
be determined prior to the conveyance of conserved habitat to the
designated management entity.
3-28-94 Revised Draft S-23
Summary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
2. Coordination. To ensure that the needs of multiple species are addressed
and to avoid duplication of effort, the City will coordinate the
implementation of this plan with other conservation programs in and
adjacent to Carlsbad. In addition, FLCA will provide the City with
$150,000 for the completion of the HMP.
3. Cooperation. Working with USFWS and CDFG, the City and FLCA will
seek the cooperation of Vallecitos Water District in maintaining the existing
biological value of the District's lands near Stanley Mahr Reservoir;
SDG&E's cooperation in the consolidation and relocation of powerline
easements in conserved habitat; and the City of San Marcos' cooperation in
the preservation of a wildlife corridor in that portion of San Marcos Creek
outside of the City.
4. Plan Implementation
Implementation of the HCP/OMSP will be governed by an agreement among
the City, FLCA, USFWS, and CDFG. In addition to reiterating the roles and
responsibilities cited above, the agreement will specify reporting requirements
and procedures to address unforeseen circumstances. It also will provide long-
term (30-year) authorizations and assurances allowing projects and activities
planned and conducted in accordance with the HCP/OMSP to proceed without
further wildlife mitigation. Such projects and activities will include but are not
limited to:
1. Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road and related transportation
improvements in Rancheros-Southeast II;
2. Development of FLCA master planned residential communities, together
with the requisite infrastructure and public facilities, in both plan area
components;
3. Commercial development by MAG properties on 81 acres in Rancheros-
Southeast II;
4. Fire management and roadway maintenance in both plan area components;
and
5. Management of conserved habitat in both plan area components.
S-24 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context
1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context
This chapter describes the purpose and scope of the plan, the process by which
it was prepared, its relationship to other plans and programs, and the federal
and state laws on which it is based.
A. Purpose and Scope
This HCP/OMSP has been prepared for private properties in two locations
within the southeast quadrant of Carlsbad: 1,278.2 acres identified herein as
"Rancheros-Southeast II" and 662.0 acres identified as "Northwest" (Figure 1).
Its primary purpose is to provide for the conservation of wildlife and its habitat
in the context of anticipated urbanization. The HCP/OMSP establishes the basis
for government planning and regulation as well as assurances to the landowners
and others that the plan will be implemented and that projects and activities in
the plan area can proceed without further wildlife mitigation. Specifically, the
plan provides the basis for:
1. Issuance by USFWS of a Section 10(a) permit, USFWS authorizations under
the gnatcatcher 4(d) rule, and USFWS consultations (internal as well as with
other agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) under Section 7 of
the federal ESA;
2. Issuance by CDFG of a Section 2081 permit under the California ESA and a
Section 2835 permit under the NCCP Act;
3. Issuance of permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
4. Consummation of an implementation agreement, with USFWS, CDFG, the
City, and FLCA as parties, implementing the plan and providing the parties
with assurances; and
5. Planning and development activities by the City, FLCA, and other
landowners in the plan area.
The plan's scope can best be defined in terms of the plan's biological focus and
the planning considerations and principles that guided its development.
• Biological focus. The biological focus of the plan is the western tip of the
largest coastal sage scrub community in northern San Diego County (Figure
2) and 66 species of concern associated with the habitats in that community
(see 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation).
3-28-94 Revised Draft
Oceanside
San Marcos
S. D. •
County ' I
LEGEND
j PLAN AREA
—"I EXISTING ROADWAYS
™ 1
I.'"' PROPOSED ROADWAYS
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates
Enclnttas
A
NTS
Figure 1. HCP/OMSP Plan Area
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 7. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context
• Planning considerations and principles. The planning considerations and
principles that guided development of the plan reflect its relationship to
other plans and programs and its regulatory framework (see "B. Planning
Context" below). Key considerations and principles include the following:
1. The conservation of wildlife habitat for the 66 species of concern, with
the objective of conserving adequate habitat, habitat linkages, corridors,
and buffers necessary for the long-term survival and recovery of all
wildlife in the plan area and surrounding region and in a manner that
acheives citywide, regional, ESA, and NCCP conservation objectives;
2. The need of the City, FLCA, and other for "certainty"; that is, the
identification of development areas (together wtih provisions for
infrstructure and facilities) that may be planned and developed without
further mitigation for wildlife purposes;
3. The utilization of the "best scientific information";
4. Addressing and providing for the species of concern as if they listed as
endangered under the ESAs;
5. Any take (disturbance in the case of plants) of the species of concern
will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and to the maximum
extent practicable any impacts on the species of concern will be
minimized and mitigated;
6. Adequate funding for the HCP/OMSP will be assured;
7. The anticipated taking of the species of concern will not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the
wild;
8. The provision for procedures for addressing unforeseen circumstances;
and
9. The utilization of a collaborative planning process that encourages the
entire constituency of agencies and interests (landowners, City,
resource agencies, conservationists) to participate from the outside in
the plan.
B. The Planning Context
Preparation of the HCP/OMSP has occurred in the context of:
1. A public planning process initiated by agreements with USFWS and CDFG
in 1991;
2. Preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road;
3. Carlsbad's General Plan, including the Growth Management Plan (CMP),
draft Open Space and Resource Management Plan (RMP), and draft HMP;
3-28-94 Revised Draft
7. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
4. Regional habitat conservation programs, including but not limited to the
North County MHCP; and
5. Federal and state laws and guidelines regarding wildlife and habitat
conservation, including but not limited to the ESAs and NCCP Act.
1. Planning Agreements and Process
Preparation of the HCP/OMSP dates back to 1989 as part of the planning for the
realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road in Southeast II. It evolved into a unique
planning process for a project specific plan, characterized by a consideration of
range-wide conservation issues, open public participation, and candid
negotiations with conservation interests and federal, state, and local agencies.
To ensure continued progress during the process, the planning participants
signed a Memorandum of Agreement in 1991 regarding development of a
conservation plan and an Initial Points of Consensus document in 1992
establishing the plan's fundamental tenets. A preliminary draft of the plan was
completed in March 1993, circulated for public review, and subsequently
revised.
a. 7 991 Memoranda of Agreement
In July and August 1991, the City signed memoranda of agreement (MOAs) with
USFWS and CDFG that expressed the City's intention to complete an HMP as
part of its General Plan and, in the interim, to work cooperatively with the two
wildlife agencies to prepare a conservation plan addressing the impacts of
individual projects on sensitive habitats such as coastal sage scrub, including
but not limited to the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road (see "2. Road
Project" below).
As the primary property owner involved in the road project, FLCA signed the
MOAs as a statement of its support for the HMP and its intention to prepare an
HCP for the road project area. At that time, the gnatcatcher was under
consideration for both federal and state listing as an endangered species, and
the City and FLCA anticipated that the road project would require a federal
incidental take permit and state endangered species management agreement to
proceed. The HCP for the road project was intended to provide the information
and conservation program required for both the federal permit and state
agreement for the gnatcatcher and other species of concern.
b. HCP Facilitation Team
In January 1992, an HCP Facilitation Team appointed by the City Council began
meeting regularly to discuss the potential scope of the HCP for the road project.
This team included representatives of the City, FLCA, USFWS, CDFG, Batiquitos
Lagoon Foundation, San Diego Zoological Society, San Dieguito River Valley
Joint Powers Authority, Endangered Habitats League, and San Diego Association
of Governments. Consultants to the City and FLCA participated in team
meetings, together with private land owners in the plan area, community
interest groups, and other interested parties. All meetings were publicly noticed
and open to all who wished to participate. Team meetings were held over a
five-month period, during which the scope of the HCP was expanded.
Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context
c. Initial Points of Consensus
In May 1992, a preliminary consensus was reached among the City, FLCA,
USFWS, and CDFG regarding the basic terms of a conservation and mitigation
strategy. An Initial Points of Consensus document establishing the plan's
fundamental tenets was signed by the planning participants, and an HCP
Preparation Team was formed to complete the planning process. Data
collection and analysis took an additional six months to complete and resulted
in a further expansion of the plan's scope to include multiple habitats and
species. By this time, USFWS had published a draft rule to list the gnatcatcher,
the NCCP Act had been adopted by the California legislature, and draft
guidelines were being prepared by CDFG for the NCCP program.
d. Review and Revision of a Draft Plan
In March 1993, the first draft of the plan (entitled "Habitat Conservation Plan for
Plant and Wildlife Species of Concern on Properties in the Southeast Quadrant
of the City of Carlsbad, California") was distributed for review and comment to
the members of HCP Facilitation Team and other interested parties. This review
was undertaken to provide additional opportunities for public involvement in
the planning process; it occurred in addition to, not instead of, the public
review of the HCP/OMSP that will take place in accordance with the federal
ESA, NEPA, and CEQA.
Approximately 200 copies of the March 1993 draft of the plan were distributed,
and discussion sessions were held to solicit verbal as well as written comments.
Public presentations on the draft were made at a combined meeting of the HCP
Facilitation Team and HMP Advisory Group and at a special workshop. The
HCP Preparation Team also held several meetings with staff of USFWS and
CDFG to hear and discuss the agencies' preliminary responses to the plan. Key
issues raised during the review process include:
• The relationship of the plan to the Carlsbad HMP and North County MHCP;
• The long-term viability of the wildlife corridors, habitat linkages, and
conserved habitat proposed in the plan;
• The potential effects of the take authorized under the plan on gnatcatcher
populations in Carlsbad and North County; and
• The benefits versus the costs of additional or alternative configurations of
onsite conservation within the two plan area components.
In addition, events that occurred after March 1993 prompted other revisions to
the plan:
1. CDFG proposed and adopted NCCP Process Guidelines, including
provisions for OMSPs;
2. The areas covered by the Carlsbad HMP and North County MHCP were
enrolled in the NCCP program as OMSPs;
3-28-94 Revised Draft
7. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
3. USFWS listed the coastal California gnatcatcher as a threatened species,
promulgated a special rule regarding conservation and take of gnatcatchers
in areas participating the NCCP program;
4. USFWS proposed several plant and wildlife species known to occur in
Carlsbad for federal listing as threatened or endangered;
5. CIS data bases of vegetation types in the areas covered by the Carlsbad
HMP and North County MHCP were completed;
6. A preliminary draft of the Carlsbad HMP was completed and distributed for
public comment;
7. USFWS approved mitigation measures for FLCA's Arroyo La Costa project
that build on the conservation program proposed in the March 1993 draft
HCP; and
8. FLCA prepared detailed mapping and legal descriptions of the lands
proposed for permanent conservation within the plan area.
2. Road Project
As noted, the project that precipitated the planning process is the realignment of
Rancho Santa Fe Road in the Southeast II segment of the plan area. As
originally proposed, the road project entailed mass grading of 448 acres to
accommodate realignment and widening of the roadway together with adjacent
development. The realignment and widening was proposed in accordance with
the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, with the planning and
financing of the improvements dictated by the local facility requirements of the
City's CMP (see "3. Carlsbad's General Plan). By the time the conservation
planning MOAs were signed in 1991, a draft EIR for the road project had
already been completed and was being circulated for public comment. The EIR
subsequently was certified, with the HCP and HMP cited as part of the
mitigation plan.
Concurrent with preparation of the HCP/OMSP, changes in economic and
market conditions made it impossible to finance the road improvements within
the time-frame originally proposed and consequently delayed the proposed
tinning of the project. City staff and FLCA subsequently have re-examined the
grading plan and recommended that the improvements occur in two phases
over a 10 to 15 year period rather than as a single mass grading. Both phases
would be tied to the City's CMP performance standards, facility financing, and
other requirements, with the first phase commencing when average daily trips
on the roadway reach 12,500.
The two-phase approach of the road project has been approved by the City
Council and will be incorporated into the final plans for the road project,
together with conservation and mitigation measures identified in this
HCP/OMSP.
Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context
3. Carlsbad's General Plan
Three components of the Carlsbad General Plan directly pertain to the
HCP/OMSP: the CMP, which is a component of the Land Use Element, and the
draft RMP and draft HMP, which are proposed components of the Open Space
and Conservation Element.
a. CMP
The GMP, which was adopted in July 1986, does not directly address wildlife
conservation but treats open space (including preserved natural habitats) as a
public facility that must be planned and provided in advance of development.
In general, the GMP divides the City into four quadrants along El Camino Real
and Palomar Airport Road and restricts the number of dwelling units that can be
constructed in each quadrant. This provision prohibits the approval of any
General Plan amendment, zone change, tentative subdivision map, or other
discretionary approval of a project which would result in development above
the limit in any quadrant.
The GMP also establishes performance standards for eleven public facilities: city
administration, library, wastewater treatment, parks, drainage, circulation, fire,
open space, schools, sewer collection, and water distribution. The performance
standards are identified in the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan, which
also defines the boundaries of 25 local facility management zones. Each zone
must have a Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) that has been approved
by the City Council before development applications can be accepted or
processed for that zone. A finance plan documenting financial guarantees for
the required facility improvements also must be approved by the City Council
before a final map can be recorded or a grading permit issued for individual
projects.
The HCP/OMSP covers lands within Growth Management Zones 10 and 11 (see
2. Plan Area Setting and Land Use Profile).
b. Draft RMP
The draft RMP, which was completed in June 1992, defines priorities for open
space planning on a citywide basis and for the City's 25 Growth Management
Zones. Priorities were set by considering the importance of individual
categories of open space and the degree of protection already afforded to that
type by existing regulations.
With respect to citywide goals, the draft RMP identifies open space for the
preservation of plants, animal life, and habitat as a top priority. This designation
expresses the City's general intent to optimize natural resource values
throughout the open space system and to maximize the protection and
enhancement of wildlife and habitats within various preserves. However,
within the context of the RMP, natural habitats are only one of several open
space types for which the City must plan. It is the HMP rather than the RMP
that focuses on how and where biological resources will be preserved and
managed.
3-28-94 Revised Draft
/. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
RMP priorities for Zones 10 and 11, which encompass the HMP/OMSP plan
area, include greenways, trails, gateway features for Rancho Santa Fe Road, and
plant/animal life/habitat preserves.
c. Draft HMP
Preparation of the HMP is occurring in phases. It began in 1991 with the
compilation of data on habitats and species within the City and development of
a habitat evaluation model by which to rank the relative biological values of the
City's remaining natural open space. This phase culminated in August 1992
with the issuance of a technical report that provides an inventory of the City's
biological resources and identifies seven "preserve planning areas" (PPAs) as the
focus for the next phase of conservation planning.
Opportunities and strategies for conserving habitat within the PPAs were then
examined, together with options for maintaining habitat linkages and wildlife
corridors within and between PPAs. Forty target species were selected as
indicators of both the biodiversity and sensitivity of the resources to be
conserved, and 43 additional species of concern were identified as occurring or
potentially occurring within the City. In addition, the HMP was formally
identified as a subarea component of the North County MHCP and an OMSP
under the NCCP program. This phase culminated in July 1993 with the
completion of a preliminary draft HMP that proposes:
• Citywide conservation goals for coastal sage, chaparral, grassland, oak and
sycamore woodland, and wetlands;
• Guidelines and institutional arrangements for the ongoing management of
conserved habitat; and
• Guidelines for project-level planning and impact mitigation within the City.
At the time of this writing, a revised draft is being prepared in response to
comments from the HMP Advisory Group and other interested parties. The
revised draft HMP will be distributed for additional public review and presented
to the City Council for discussion. The final phase of the HMP preparation
process is expected to begin in mid-to-late 1994.
The HCP/OMSP proposes project-level conservation and mitigation measures
for lands within PPAs 5 and 7 (see 2. Plan Area Setting and Land Use Profile). It
has been prepared in accordance with the 1991 MOAs with the intent of
helping to attain citywide and regional conservation goals. As also anticipated
in the MOAs, the HCP/OMSP is meant to be a stand-alone plan that is
consistent with the stated goals of the HMP but is not contingent on completion,
approval, or implementation of a citywide plan.
4. Regional Conservation Programs
Regional conservation programs that are relevant to the HCP/OMSP include the
North County MHCP, San Dieguito River Valley Open Space and Park Plan,
and City of San Diego's MSCP.
10 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 7. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context
a. North County MHCP
In addition to planning habitat conservation within its own boundaries, the City
is participating in regional planning efforts as a member of the North County
Wildlife Forum. Other members of the forum include the County of San Diego,
cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, Poway, San Marcos, Solana
Beach, and Vista, the County Water Authority, and the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG). The U.S. Marine Base Camp Pendleton, USFWS,
CALTRANS, and CDFG also are participating in the forum to ensure
coordination with federal and state concerns.
The forum was formed in 1991, primarily as a mechanism for exchanging
information about and coordinating the preparation of local conservation plans.
As the local planning efforts progressed, the need for an interjurisdictional
approach and data base became clearer. The forum then developed a scope of
work for the North County MHCP and selected a technical team to compile and
analyze a North County biological resource inventory. Subsequently, the
resource inventory and analysis have been completed, and the MHCP plan area
has been enrolled in the NCCP program as an OMSP, with Carlsbad's HMP
designated as a subarea component. In the current phase of the MHCP,
regional-scale PPAs are being identified, together with conservation goals and
implementation strategies. A preliminary draft of a conservation plan is
expected by the end of 1994.
The HCP/OMSP's primary connection to the MHCP is that it encompasses
habitat that forms the primary link between the City's natural communities and
the larger regional ecosystem.
b. San Dieguito River Valley
Regional Open Space and Park Plan
In June 1989, the County of San Diego and the cities of Del Mar, Escondido,
Poway, San Diego, and Solana Beach formed a joint powers authority (JPA) to
plan, establish, and operate an open space greenbelt and park system in the San
Dieguito River Valley. The JPA's goal is to preserve open space, protect natural
and cultural resources, create a scenic trail system, and establish appropriate
recreation areas within the 55-mile river valley. To this end, a "Concept Plan"
has been prepared to provide a framework for park planning, habitat
conservation, and land acquisition within the viewshed of the river valley and
its tributary canyons. Approximately 50 percent of the land in the viewshed
already is in public ownership, and recent acquisitions through special
partnerships with public and private entities have increased public holdings in
key areas of the valley.
The river valley does not include lands within Carlsbad, and consequently the
City is not part of the JPA or the park planning process. However, the coastal
sage scrub habitat within the City is linked to the sage scrub and natural open
space in the river valley via the lands within the HCP/OMSP plan area.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 11
/. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
c. City of San Diego's MSCP
In July of 1991, the City of San Diego began a multi-phase program to provide
for conservation and management of sensitive habitats and species within the
service area of the City's Metropolitan Sewerage System. The program covers
approximately 800 square miles in the urbanized core of San Diego County,
extending north from the international border to the San Dieguito River Valley.
The first phase of the program focused on mapping of vegetation types, existing
and planned land uses, and ownership of over 300,000 acres of vacant land in
and immediately adjacent to the service area. These maps, together with
technical studies of habitat requirements for 80+ target species, were used to
develop alternative conservation strategies for the plan area. A working draft of
the MSCP was completed in January 1994. Subsequently, a public policy
advisory group has been convened to review the working draft and determine
which alternatives should be developed into a final plan.
The areas covered by the Carlsbad HMP and the HCP/OMSP are not part of the
Metropolitan Sewerage System service area and consequently are not part of the
MSCP. However, the habitats within Carlsbad are connected to those within
the northern portion of the MSCP plan area and that connection is provided
primarily through the HCP/OMSP plan area.
5. Federal and State Laws and Guidelines
The federal and state laws and guidelines that most directly pertain to the
HCP/OMSP include:
• The federal ESA;
• The California ESA and NCCP Act;
• NCCP Process and Conservation Guidelines; and
• The federal special 4(d) rule for the coastal California gnatcatcher.
Table 1 summarizes the most relevant provisions of these and other applicable
laws and guidelines; a more detailed discussion of the plan's regulatory context
is provided as Appendix A. In addition, Table 2 identifies the information
requirements and approval criteria that pertain to the HCP/OMSP as:
• An HCP prepared in accordance within Section 10(a) of the federal ESA;
• Supporting documentation for a management agreement under Section
2081 of the California ESA; and
• An OMSP as defined in the NCCP Process Guidelines.
12 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context
Table 1
Summary of Applicable Federal and State Laws
Federal Law
Endangered Species Act
Section 4
Section 6
Section 7
Section 9
Section 10(a)
Special 4(d) Rule for the
Coastal California
Cnatcatcher
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
Key Provisions
Covers the federal listing process,
designation of critical habitat, special
rules for the protection of threatened
species, and preparation of federal
recovery plans.
Covers cooperative agreements with
states for the management and
conservation of listed fish, wildlife, and
plants.
Requires federal agencies to consult
with USFWS on actions involving
listed species; requires USFWS to
conduct internal consultations
regarding its own actions; includes
provisions for conferences with
USFWS on species proposed for listing
and for authorization for take of listed
species.
Prohibits the take of listed fish or
wildlife species; prohibits take of listed
plants in areas under federal
jurisdiction, except as provided under
Sections 6 and 10.
Authorizes take of listed species for
scientific purposes and in connection
with otherwise lawful activities;
requires preparation of an HCP for an
incidental take permit and specifies
approval criteria (see Table 2).
Allows incidental take of gnatcatchers
in areas with approved NCCPs and in
areas where NCCPs are being
prepared.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to provide assistance to and cooperate
with federal, state, and public or
private agencies.
Regulates the discharge of dredged
and/or fill material into the waters of
the United States; pertains to wetland
habitats as well as water bodies.
Prohibits taking of certain birds or their
nests and eggs during their breeding
season.
Requires federal agencies to evaluate
the effects of their proposed actions on
the human environment.
Relevance to HCP/OMSP
Plan anticipates future listings,
designation of critical habitat, special
rules, and recovery plans for species in
the plan area; 66 species of concern
treated as listed for planning purposes.
Conservation measures for sensitive
plants devised in accordance with
existing cooperative agreements
between USFWS and CDFG.
Internal consultation/conference will
be conducted as part of USFWS'S
action on the plan.
Prohibition of take currently applies to
one species observed in plan area
(coastal California gnatcatcher);
prohibition assumed to apply to all
species of concern.
Information requirements and approval
criteria for HCPs applied to plan.
As OMSP, plan is intended to provide
basis for authorization of take of
gnatcatchers.
Authorizes USFWS'S participation in
implementation of plan and expresses
federal intent to conserve habitat for
non-listed species.
Plan provides framework for
coordination of wetland conservation
and impact mitigation measures within
plan area.
Applies to 10 observed and 3
potentially occurring bird species of
concern.
Applies to USFWS'Ss action on plan as
an HCP.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 13
1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 1 (continued)
Summary of Applicable Federal and State Laws
State Law
Endangered Species Act
Section 2053
Sections 2070-2079
Section 2080
Section 2081
Sections 2090-2097
NCCP Act
Sections 2800-2840
Section 2835
Native Plant
Protection Act
Sections 1600-1603 of
Fish and Came Code
California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
Key Provisions
Stipulates that state agencies should
not approve projects that would
jeopardize listed species or destroy or
adversely modify their habitat; directs
CDFC to help develop reasonable and
prudent alternatives for such projects.
Covers the state listing process; calls
for periodic review of species' status,
habitat identified as essential to listed
species, and recommendations for the
recovery of listed species.
Prohibits take of state listed species
and of candidate species for such
listing.
Authorizes CDFC to enter into
memoranda of agreement for take of
listed species for scientific,
educational, or management purposes.
Requires state lead agencies to consult
with CDFG on projects affecting state-
listed species; requires CDFC to
coordinate consultations with USFWS
for actions involving federally listed
species and, wherever possible, to
adopt the federal biological opinion.
Establishes program to conserve
ecosystems on a regional scale; directs
CDFC to develop guidelines for
preparation and approval of such
conservation plans.
Allows CDFG to authorize take of
species covered by plans prepared in
accordance with NCCP Guidelines.
Protects rare and endangered native
plants; basis for agreement between
CDFG and USFWS regarding
protection of federally listed plants.
Requires agreement with CDFG for
projects that affect streambeds or
wetlands.
Requires state lead agencies to
evaluate the environmental effects of a
proposed project before rendering a
decision.
Relevance to HCP/OMSP
Applies to CDFG's action on a 2081
agreement, jeopardy consultations
triggered by CEQA reviews, and, if
listed species are involved, CDFG's
action on plans prepared under the
NCCP Act.
Plan anticipates future listings; 66
species of concern treated as state
listed for planning purposes.
Prohibition of take currently applies to
one observed plant species of concern
(thread-leaved brodiaea).
Information requirements and approval
criteria applied to plan.
Plan assumes coordination of
consultations on the species covered
the by plan; questions used by CDFG
in jeopardy consultations used in
planning process to help evaluate
potential effects of projects and
activities on species of concern.
Plan is intended to meet requirements
of NCCP Act as OMSP.
Plan intended to provide basis for
CDFC authorization for take of species
treated as state- listed.
Plan conserves the plant species
treated as listed in accordance with
provisions of this Act.
Plan provides framework for
coordination of wetland conservation
and impact mitigation measures for
projects and activities in the plan area.
Applies to City's action on the plan;
individual projects and activities
covered by plan also are subject to
CEQA review.
14 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context
Table 2
Information Requirements and Approval Criteria
Relevant to the HCP/OMSP
Information Requirements
Federal ESA California ESA California NCCP Act
HCP requirements, as stated in
Section 10(a) and 50 CFR 13 and
17:
1. Common and scientific
name(s) of species;
2. Names of responsible parties;
3. Impacts likely to result from
the taking;
4. Measures to monitor,
minimize, and mitigate
impacts;
5. Funding available to
undertake the proposed
measures;
6. Procedures to deal with
unforeseen circumstances;
7. Alternatives that would not
result in take and the reasons
why the alternatives were not
adopted; and
8. Additional measures (if any)
required by USFWS as
necessary or appropriate.
2081 agreement requirements, as
stated in CDFC draft guidelines:
1. Description of the affected
species and their habitat(s);
2. Description of the project that
will affect the listed species,
including maps showing the
overall project area and
impact area;
3. Analysis of potential impacts,
including cumulative effects
on listed species in and
adjacent to the project area;
4. Analysis of alternatives
designed to reduce or
eliminate impacts to the listed
species;
5. Description of on- and offsite
mitigation measures; and
6. Financial assurances
regarding the implementation
of mitigation measures.
NCCP conservation plan
components, as stated in NCCP
Process Guidelines:
1. Maps and text presenting: (a)
plan area boundaries; (b) the
distribution of coastal sage
scrub, target species
populations, and sensitive
species; (c) quantitative and
qualitative habitat
assessments; and (d) planned
land uses.
2. A habitat conservation and
management program that
includes: (a) options that
have been evaluated for their
effectiveness; (b) criteria that
treat target species as listed
species; (c) short-term and
long-term measures; (d) an
evaluation of alternatives to
activities that would take
target species; and (e) a
recommended approach.
3. An implementation program
that includes: (a) a phasing
program; (b) funding
mechanisms; (c) mitigation
and plan monitoring; and (d)
procedures to address the
effects of unforeseen
circumstances.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 15
7. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 2 (continued)
Information Requirements and Approval Criteria
Relevant to the HCP/OMSP
Approval Criteria
Federal ESA California ESA California NCCP Act
Approval criteria for an incidental
take permit, as stated in Section
10(a)(1 )(B) and 50 CFR 13 and 17:
1. The taking will be incidental
to an otherwise lawful
activity;
2. The applicant will, to the
maximum extent practicable,
minimize and mitigate the
impacts of the taking;
3. The applicant will ensure that
adequate funding for the plan
and procedures to deal with
unforeseen circumstances
will be provided;
4. The taking will not
appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the survival and
recovery of the species in the
wild;
5. The applicant will ensure that
the other measures, if any,
required by USFWS will be
met; and
6. USFWS is assured that the
conservation plan will be
implemented.
No approval criteria stated in ESA;
CDFG uses the following
questions in consultations under
Section 2090 to assess impacts of
a project on listed species:
1. Would a viable or
recoverable population be
eliminated or a significant
proportion of a population be
adversely affected?
2. Would the range of the
species be significantly
diminished?
3. Would the quantity or quality
of the species' habitat be
reduced by immediate or
future effects?
4. Would the species' access to
its habitat be reduced or
rendered more hazardous?
5. Would current or future
efforts to protect species be
adversely affected?
6. Would plans for the recovery
or eventual delisting of the
species be adversely affected?
7. Would the project interfere
with reproductive or other
behavior of the species?
8. Would the project cause, or
increase the risk of, the
species' extinction?
No approval criteria stated in Act;
NCCP Process Guidelines indicate
that OMSPs must meet following
criteria to qualify as and be
accepted as an NCCP:
1. The planning effort was
funded and was underway as
documented either by a
memorandum of
understanding, an agreement,
a statutory exemption, or
other formal process at the
time the NCCP Act became
effective (January 1, 1992);
2. The plan protects coastal sage
scrub habitat and/or contains
an agreement for satisfactory
mitigation for any coastal
sage scrub loss approved by
CDFG pursuant to a prior
planning effort, and the plan
substantially achieves the
objectives of the NCCP Act;
3. CDFG approves the plan and
the plan meets state ESA
Section 2081 requirements
for named species of concern;
and
4. USFWS approves the plan
and it provides the equivalent
of federal ESA Section 10(a)
HCP requirements for named
species of concern.
16 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 2. Plan Area Setting and Land Use Profile
2. Plan Area Setting
and Land Use Profile
This chapter describes the regional and local setting of the plan area, together
with the existing uses and General Plan land use designations within and
adjacent to the plan area components.
A. Regional and Local Setting
The area covered by the HCP/OMSP is located in the City of Carlsbad in
northwestern San Diego County, approximately 30 miles south of Orange and
Riverside Counties and 30 miles north of the urban core of the City of San
Diego.
1. San Diego County
San Diego County forms the southwestern tip of the State of California and the
continental United States. It is bordered on the east by Imperial County, on the
north by Riverside and Orange Counties, on the west by the Pacific Ocean, and
on the south by Baja California, Mexico (Figure 3). It extends about 70 miles
from east to west and 60 miles from north to south, encompassing
approximately 2.7 million acres (4,250 square miles). With over 2.6 million
residents as of 1993, the county has the second largest population among the 58
counties in California; its population is larger than that in 33 of the 50 States.
2. North County
The term "North County" generally refers to the cities and unincorporated
communities located north of Del Mar, south of the Orange and Riverside
County borders, and west of Lake Henshaw (Figure 4). This area includes about
550,000 acres or about 20 percent of the county. Based on 1990 census data,
nearly 700,000 persons reside in North County, occupying about 250,000
housing units. Approximately 40 percent of the land in the subregion has been
developed.
3. Carlsbad
Carlsbad is located in the western portion of North County. It is situated along
the Pacific Ocean, extending 7 miles along the coast and 4.5 miles inland. It
encompasses about 25,000 acres and shares borders with four other cities and
two unincorporated areas (see Figure 4). Its population (63,000 in 1990)
constitutes about 10 percent of that in North County and is expected to exceed
100,000 by 2010. As in North County as a whole, about 40 percent (10,000
acres) of the City's total area has been developed; an additional 4,000 acres are
in agricultural use.
3-28-94 Draft 17
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates MIS
Figure 3 . Plan Area Location
18
PROJECT SITE
SOLANA BEACH
JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates NTS
CD
Figure 4 . Northern San Diego County
2. Plan Area Setting and Land Use Profile Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
B. Plan Area Components
Rancheros-Southeast II and Northwest are located in the southeast quadrant of
the City in CMP Zones 10 and 11 and in HMP PPAs 5 and 7 (Figures 5 and 6).
All of Rancheros-Southeast II also is within the proposed finance district for the
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project (Figure 7). As previously noted, all of the plan
area lands are in private ownership. FLCA owns 1,844.2 acres (95 percent);
MAG Properties owns 81.0 acres, and 14.8 acres are in multiple private
ownership in areas proposed as roadway easements for the realigned Rancho
Santa Fe Road in Rancheros-Southeast II. With the exception of approximately
260 acres, all of the lands are currently designated in the General Plan for
residential or commercial development (Table 3).
1. Rancheros-Southeast II
Rancheros-Southeast II includes 1,278.2 acres south of Alga Road near the City's
eastern boundary. It has three subcomponents (Figure 8):
• The Rancheros component of FLCA's La Costa Master Plan (347.0 acres);
• A segment of San Marcos Creek (85.0 acres); and
• The Rancho Santa Fe Road project area (846.2 acres), which includes 750.4
acres that are the Southeast II component of FLCA's La Costa Master Plan,
MAG Properties' 81 acres, and the 14.8 acres of proposed roadway
easements.
The 18.7-acre Stanley Mahr Reservoir and 2.7-acre Denk Reservoir within
Southeast II and the water tank area within Rancheros are not part of the plan
area.
This portion of the plan area is surrounded by existing development of various
densities on all sides except the southeast (see Figure 8). It is bisected by the
existing Rancho Santa Fe Road, which generally runs north-south and varies in
width from two to three lanes and has a truck by-pass route east of the main
road. With the exception of existing roads, powerlines, and water facilities, the
land is vacant; lands closest to existing development have been heavily
disturbed by illegal trash dumping and off-road vehicle (ORV) use.
Most (1,038.4 acres) of Rancheros-Southeast II is designated in the Carlsbad
General Plan for residential uses, primarily low density «1 dwelling unit per
acre) housing (see Table 3). All of the component is within GMP Zone 11 and
HMP PPA 7 (see Figure 5 and 6). Zone 11 has an approved LFMP. PPA7 is the
second largest PPA identified in the draft HMP, and Rancheros-Southeast II
constitutes 64 percent of its 1,986.9 acres.
2. Northwest
Northwest includes 662 acres that surround the La Costa Country Club Golf
Course north of Alga Road and east of El Camino Real (Figure 9). It coincides
with the Northwest component of FLCA's La Costa Master Plan.
20 Rev/'sed Draft 3-28-94
Oceanside
San Marcos
San
Marcos
s"5:.
County
LEGEND
PLAN AREA
EXISTING ROADWAYS
PROPOSED ROADWAYS
ZONE BOUNDARIES
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates NTS
Figure 5 . GMP Zone Map
21
NOTE:
FOCUSED PLANNING AREAS INCLUDE
THOSE AREAS THAT ARE PRESENTLY
VACANT AND WITH OR WITHOUT AN
APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.
CARLSBAD CITY BOUNDARY
LEGEND
| 3 : HMP PRESERVE PLANNING AREAS
K / | HCP PLAN AREA
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates NTS
Figure 6 . HMP Preserve Planning Areas
22
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY
LEGEND
FIELDSTONE PROPERTY
MAG. PROPERTY
OTHER OWNERSHIPS
DEVELOPED
NOT-A-PART ::;:;SOUTHEASTII
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates
L..J A
NTS
Figure 7 . Road Project Finance District
23
2. Plan Area Setting and Land Use Profile Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 3
General Plan Land Use Designations in the Plan Area
(acres)
General
Plan
Land Use
Designation
Open space
Commercial
Professional & related
Community
Subtotal**
Residential
Low density
Low-medium density
Medium density
Subtotal
Elementary school
TOTAL
Rancheros-Southeast II
Rancheros
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
347.0
0.0
0.0
347.0
0.0
347.0
San Marcos
Creek
72.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
73.0
0.0
85.0
Southeast
II*
103.3
11.5
36.7
48.2
386.6
291.8
16.3
694.7
0.0
846.2
Total
175.3
11.5
36.7
48.2
746.6
291.8
16.3
7,054.7
0.0
1,278.2
Northwest
67.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
453.2
131.5
584.7
10.0
662.0
Plan
Area
242.6
11.5
36.7
48.2
746.6
745.0
147.8
7,639.5
10.0
1,940.2
* Includes 750.4 acres of FLCA's Southeast II component of the La Costa Master Plan, 81 acres
owned by MAG Properties, and 14.8 acres covered by roadway easements.
** Subtotal for commercial uses does not reflect proposed Master Plan amendment for MAG
Properties' commercial development of 81 acres in the plan area component.
Source: HPA plannimeter measurements.
Northwest is bordered by residential development on the east and south, by
commercial and residential development on the west, and by agriculture on the
north and northeast (see Figure 9). Excluding the golf course, existing uses are
limited to an FLCA ranch house, powerlines, and access roads; land between El
Camino Real and the Golf Course has been disturbed by illegal dumping and
ORV use.
Most (584.7 acres) of the area is designated in the General Plan for residential
uses, primarily low to medium density (<.3.2 dwelling units per acre) housing
(see Table 3). All of the area is within CMP Zone 10 and HMP PPA 5 (see
Figures 5 and 6). Zone 10 has an LFMP that is pending final approval. PPA5 is
the fourth largest PPA identified in the HMP, and Northwest constitutes 49
percent of its 1,342.4 acres.
24 Rev/sec/ Draft 3-28-94
Prepared By: Aerial Fotobank Inc.
Figure 8 . Rancheros - Southeast II
25
Prepared By: Aerial Fotobank Inc.
Figure 9. Northwest
27
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
3. Resource Inventory
and Habitat Evaluation
This chapter describes the surveys and studies conducted in the plan area, the
habitats and species of concern that are the focus of the plan, and the
significance of the plan area resources in the context of the Carlsbad HMP and
North County MHCP. For convenience, common names of species have been
used in the text, and both common and scientific names have been used in the
tables in this chapter. A complete list of common and scientific names is
provided in the C/ossary; and additional information regarding the range and
habitat requirements of each species of concern is included in Appendix B.
A. Surveys and Studies
Ten types of surveys and studies were conducted as part of the data collection
and habitat evaluation for the HCP/OMSP, primarily by Sweetwater
Environmental Biologists, Inc. (SEB). The primary biological data base for the
plan is the result of extensive field surveys (at least 150 person-days in the field)
conducted in the plan area over a two-year period (Table 4), supplemented as
appropriate with information collected for the HMP and North County MHCP.
1. Pre-Survey Review of Biotechnical Reports
Prior to site surveys, sensitive biological resources that could potentially occur
in each plan area component were identified through a review of technical
resource manuals and biotechnical reports.
• Resource manuals consulted include: USFWS's list of endangered and
threatened wildlife and plants (USFWS 1987); CDFG's lists of endangered
and rare fish, wildlife, and plants (California 1980, 1986, 1987); the
California Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) (CDFG 1991); and CNPS's
inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California (Smith and
Berg 1988).
• Biotechnical reports reviewed include: Biological Resources Survey Report
Proposed Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Mass Grading (MBA
1991 a and b); Biological Resources Analysis of the La Costa Planning Sub-
Areas (WESTEC 1986); Draft EIR for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment
and Mass Grading (Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. 1991); Focused
California Gnatcatcher Mapping of the La Costa Planning Sub-Areas (ERCE
1989, 1990c); and, for surveys conducted after May 1992, the Carlsbad
HMP technical report (MBA/Dudek 1992).
3-28-94 Revised Draft 29
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 4
Surveys Conducted for the HCP/OMSP
Type of Survey
Vegetation
Sensitive Birds
Gnatcatcher Banding
Rare Plants
Sensitive Reptiles
Sensitive Invertebrates
Small Mammal Trapping
Surveys within
Rancheros-Southeast II
August 1 990
November 1990
April 1991
May 1991
October 1991
June 1992
April 1991
May 1991
September 1991
October 1991
December 1991
January 1991
March 1992
April 1992
August 1991
September 1991
March 1991
July 1992
September 1 992
October 1 992
May 1992
June 1992
June 1992
August 1992
Surveys within
Northwest
March 1991
November 1991
January 1 992
April 1992
May 1992
March 1991
August 1991
September 1991
January 1992
August 1991
September 1991
November 1991
January 1992
April 1992
May 1 992
September 1 992
October 1 992
May 1992
June 1992
June 1992
July 1992
2. General Biological Surveys
General biological surveys were conducted to assess and map all observable
biological resources within the two plan area components. The surveys were
conducted on foot over routes that provided for direct visual observation of the
entire site. Verification of species present onsite was made by direct
observation or by the identification of vocalizations, tracks, scat, nests, or other
sign. Bird observations were aided by the use of 10x40 and 8.5x44 power
binoculars. All observed plant communities, rare plants, and sensitive wildlife
were noted and mapped on topographic maps scaled at 1 inch equals 100 feet
or 1 inch equals 200 feet. No night time surveys or small mammal trapping was
conducted as part of the general surveys; in addition, many of the field days
were overcast and relatively cool, thus limiting lizard and invertebrate
observations.
30 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
3. Regional Vegetation Mapping
In addition to mapping the plan area components, SEB also prepared a regional
map of habitat distribution from the City of Carlsbad southeast to Lake Hodges
and east to the eastern end of the San Pasqual Valley (see Figure 2). The
vegetation in this region was mapped on U.S.G.S. topographic maps based on
previously prepared biotechnical reports, preliminary mapping for Carlsbad's
HMP (MBA/Dudek 1992), and aerial photo interpretation. Field verification was
conducted when possible. As citywide and North County mapping became
available through the HMP and MHCP programs, maps and corresponding data
were integrated into the plan and used as part of the habitat evaluation.
4. Focused Sensitive Bird Surveys
Sensitive bird surveys focused on the California gnatcatcher. In general, survey
methods developed by USFWS's California gnatcatcher working group were
used whenever possible. Surveys were conducted on rain-free days during the
morning hours between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., with wind velocities under
15 mph. Taped vocalizations of the species were used to help locate birds.
Gnatcatcher use areas were defined by spot mapping on aerial photographs
with acetate overlays. Observed pairs were followed for approximately two to
three hours at a distance far enough away as to not disrupt the birds' natural
movement and activity. Focused surveys also were conducted for the
endangered least Bell's vireo following protocols developed by USFWS's vireo
working group.
5. Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Dispersal Studies
Mist-netting and color banding of coastal California gnatcatchers were
conducted in accordance with the regulations established by USFWS's Banding
Laboratory. After banding, all publicly accessible coastal sage scrub within the
City was surveyed for coastal California gnatcatchers and to determine if any of
the observed birds had originated on Fieldstone's properties. When a
previously banded bird was observed, its location was mapped on U.S.G.S.
topographic maps. This location was then compared with the original banding
location to determine dispersal route and distance.
6. Focused Rare Plant Surveys
Focused rare plant surveys were conducted during the appropriate flowering
period for rare plants potentially occurring in each plan area component. The
surveys were conducted between March and July and between September and
November on foot, over routes that provided direct observation of all
representative habitats, slope aspects, and varied soil types. Prior to onsite
ground surveys, all previously prepared reports, soil maps, and historically-
recorded rare plant locations were reviewed to aid the ground surveys. Rare
plants observed were manually counted or population numbers estimated and
then mapped onto topographic maps at a scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet or 1
inch equals 200 feet. When needed, voucher specimens were collected and
placed in a temporary herbarium at SEB.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 31
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
7. Focused Herpetological Surveys
Focused herpetological surveys were conducted to determine the presence or
absence and estimated numbers of orange-throated whiptails and San Diego
horned lizards. Surveys were conducted in late May and June by slowly
walking transects along roads and through open habitats where these reptiles
would be expected to occur. Both actual sightings and physical signs (scat,
shed skin) were included as evidence of these species occurring on-site.
Surveys were conducted during the afternoon hours between 11:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. when ground temperatures ranged between 75 and 85° F. All
sensitive reptile species encountered during all surveys of the sites were mapped
onto topographic maps at a scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet.
8. Focused Sensitive Invertebrate Surveys
Focused surveys for several sensitive invertebrates were conducted in June
1992, with a special emphasis on two butterflies: Hermes copper and Quino
checkerspot. Potential for occurrence of the two butterflies was assessed based
on the presence and concentrations of larval host and adult food plants. The
survey and the results were limited by the time of year (i.e., past the adult
period for both species) and by the lack of certainty in the body of knowledge
about the species regarding the amount of larval host plants needed to support a
population of either butterfly.
9. Small Mammal Trapping
Small mammal trapping was conducted in July and August 1992. The primary
purpose of the trapping was to determine the status of several subspecies of
sensitive mammals, including the San Diego woodrat, northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse, Dulzura California pocket mouse, and southern grasshopper
mouse. Trapping methods consisted of setting 95 to 100 Sherman live traps in
each of the three primary terrestrial habitat types (i.e., chaparral, coastal sage
scrub, and grassland) for three consecutive nights. The traps were baited with a
mixture of rolled oats, "wild birdseed," and small amount of peanut butter and
set in transect lines ranging from 25 to 100 traps per line, generally in areas
where rodent signs (nests, burrows, tracks, or scat) were evident. Traps were set
in the late afternoon or early evening and checked early the following morning.
Weather conditions prevailing during the trapping period consisted of cool
nights (65-70° F) and warm humid days (75-85° F). Mornings and nights were
generally overcast. Species identification was based on the keys in Ingles (1965)
and on information obtained from examining specimens from the mammal
collection of the San Diego Natural History Museum.
10. Literature Reviews
Existing scientific literature on species of concern known or assumed to occur in
the plan area was reviewed and summarized, with a special emphasis on
species currently under consideration for federal or state listing (see Appendix
B). This effort was assisted by biologists from Regional Environmental
Consultants (RECON), who served as biological consultants to the City during
the preparation of the March 1993 draft of the plan.
32 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
Information about HMP and MHCP target species has been integrated into the
summaries in this chapter and Appendix B, based primarily on work completed
by Dudek and Associates, the biological consultants for the HMP and MHCP,
and the Biological Task Force for Reserve Design convened for the MSCP and
MHCP.
B. Resource Inventory
Results of the surveys and studies reflect the different mixes of habitat types
within each plan area component and the effects of existing development on the
distribution of habitats and species of concern.
1. Habitat Types
Six habitat types occur within the plan area: Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern
mixed and southern maritime chaparral, non-native and native grassland,
riparian scrub and oak woodland, disturbed habitat, and eucalyptus woodland.
Approximately two-thirds of Rancheros-Southeast II is coastal sage scrub, with
the remainder primarily southern mixed chaparral and disturbed habitat; all six
habitat types occur in Northwest but no one type covers more than 38 percent
of the plan area component (Table 5 and Figure 10). A brief description of each
habitat type follows Table 5.
Table 5
Habitat Types in the Plan Area
(acres)
Habitat Type
Diegan coastal sage scrub
Chaparral
Southern mixed
Southern maritime
Subtotal
Grassland
Non-native
Native
Subtotal
Riparian scrub and woodland
Disturbed habitat
Eucalyptus woodland
TOTAL
Rancheros-
Southeast II
832.2
189.2
0.0
789.2
35.0
41.6
76.6
16.6
157.4
1.0
1,278.2
Northwest
123.0
6.0
120.0
/26.0
251.6
3.4
255.0
97.0
55.5
5.5
662.0
Plan Area
955.2
195.2
120.0
375.2
286.6
21.0
306.6
113.6
191.9
6.5
1,940.2
3-28-94 Revised Draft 33
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
a. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Diegan coastal sage scrub is a drought-deciduous shrub community with a
diverse understory of annual and perennial herbs, perennial and annual grasses
and grass-like plants. It occurs primarily on dry-south facing slopes and hillsides
or clay-rich soils adjacent to chaparral or upslope from riparian woodlands,
frequently in a mosaic distribution with native grasslands and occasionally with
chaparral. Characteristic species include: California sagebrush, black sage, flat-
top buckwheat, lemonadeberry, laurel sumac, and California encelia.
In the plan area, coastal sage scrub dominated by California sagebrush occurs
on gentle slopes and has flat-top buckwheat and laurel sumac as associated
species; coastal sage scrub dominated by black sage generally occurs on the
steeper slopes in the plan area and has California encelia as an associate
species.
Rancheros-Southeast II contains 832.2 acres of coastal sage scrub; Northwest
contains 123.0 acres.
b. Non-Native and Native Grassland
Non-native grassland is a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses often
associated with numerous species of showy-flowered, native annual forbs,
especially in years of high rainfall. This association occurs on fine-textured,
usually clay soil that is moist or even waterlogged during the winter rainy
season and very dry during the summer and fall. Characteristic species include
slender wild oat, soft chess, red brome, ripgut grass, red-stem filaree, tarweed,
common goldenfields, and foxtail fescue.
Native grassland is characterized by perennial bunch grasses such as purple
needlegrass and a variety of herbaceous annuals and perennials such as
Cleveland's golden star and California blue-eyed grass. They generally occur on
fine-textured soils that exclude annual and exotic grasses. Almost all of the
native grasslands in California have been displaced by non-native grassland
dominated by introduced annual species.
Rancheros-Southeast II contains 35 acres of non-native grassland and 41.6 of
native grassland. Northwest has 251.6 acres of non-native grassland and 3.4
acres of native grassland.
c. Southern Mixed and Southern Maritime Chaparral
Southern mixed chaparral is composed of broad-leaved, fire- and drought-
adapted shrubs that are typically about 4 to 9 feet tall and form dense, often
nearly impenetrable stands. Dominant shrubs vary from site to site but are
likely to include chamise, interior scrub oak, mission manzanita, laurel sumac,
lemonadeberry, and toyon. Understory plants include rush-rose, deerweed,
wreathplant, and a variety of composites. The habitat occurs on dry, rocky,
often steep north-facing slopes with little soil.
34 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
Southern maritime chaparral is low to medium in height and occurs in dense to
fairly open stands on weathered sandstone formations in the coastal fog belt.
Characteristic species include several endemic shrubs such as Del Mar
manzanita, wart-stemmed ceanothus, coast spice bush, and coastal scrub oak.
Within the plan area, the habitat occurs in an area characterized by flat mesas
dissected by steep, severely eroded rills, gullies, and drainages. Chamise,
mission manzanita, and Del Mar manzanita dominate the mesas, while scrub
oak, lemonadeberry, and summer holly dominate the drainages.
Rancheros-Southeast II contains 189.2 acres of southern mixed chaparral and no
southern maritime chaparral. Northwest has 6 acres of southern mixed and 120
acres of southern maritime chaparral.
d. Riparian Scrub and Woodland
The riparian scrub and woodland habitats in the plan area include: mulefat
scrub, tamarisk scrub, floodplain scrub, southern willow scrub, and southern
willow woodland.
Mulefat scrub is a depauperate, tall, herbaceous, riparian scrub community
dominated by mulefat and interspersed with shrubby willows. This habitat
occurs along intermittent stream channels with a fairly coarse substrate and
moderate depth to the water table. Similar to southern willow scrub, this early
serai community is maintained by frequent flooding, the absence of which
would lead to a riparian woodland or forest (Holland 1986).
Tamarisk scrub is a weedy stand of plants comprised primarily of tamarisk
species, which is a non-native plant that displaces native vegetation subsequent
to a major disturbance. This habitat occurs along intermittent streams in areas
where high evaporation rates increase the salinity level of the soil. Tamarisk is a
phreatophyte, a plant that can obtain water from an underground water table.
Because of its deep root system and high transpiration rates, tamarisk can
substantially lower the water table below the root zone of native species,
thereby competitively excluding them. As a prolific seeder, it is able to rapidly
replace the native species that it displaces within a drainage (Holland 1986).
Floodplain scrub is an open to dense scrub community dominated by coyote
bush. This community occurs on the upper flood plains along large stream
courses. This is most likely a serai community, that in the absence of continued
disturbance such as periodic flooding will be replaced by later serai scrub or
woodland communities.
Southern willow scrub and woodland are open to dense riparian communities
dominated by willow species. Both occur along major stream courses where
there is an abundant supply of water at or near the surface for most of the year.
The woodland community differs from the scrub not so much in floristic
composition as in physiognomy; it has a greater vertical structure, greater
biomass and lower density of dominant species. In the absence of large,
periodic disturbances, southern willow scrub, which is characterized by a high
density of small individual willows, is replaced by southern willow riparian
woodland which is characterized by fewer larger individuals of these same
willows.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 37
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Rancheros-Southeast II contains 16.6 acres of riparian scrub and woodland;
Northwest has 97 acres.
e. Disturbed Habitat
Disturbed habitat is characterized by areas that either lack vegetation, support
weedy introduced species, or are irreversibly developed. Most of the disturbed
habitat in the plan are areas affected by past agricultural activities, construction
in adjacent areas, or trespassers. The level of disturbance is such that these
areas would not recover to native habitats without restoration efforts.
Moreover, some of the existing impacts will worsen unless specific management
measures are implemented.
Rancheros-Southeast II contains 157.4 acres of disturbed habitat, including 21
acres that are a recovering burn area. Northwest has 55.5 acres of disturbed
habitat.
f. Eucalyptus Woodland
Eucalyptus woodland is dominated by eucalyptus, an introduced species, that
produces a large amount of leaf and bark litter. The chemical and physical
characteristics of this litter limits the ability of other species to grow in the
understory and floristic diversity decreases.
Rancheros-Southeast II has 1 acre of eucalyptus woodland; Northwest has 5.5
acres.
2. Species of Concern
Of all flora and fauna associated with the habitats types in the plan area, 66
species were selected as "species of concern" for conservation planning
purposes. The species are representative of the biodiversity and sensitive of
resources in the plan area, Carlsbad, and the regional ecosystem. They include
species that are:
1. Already protected by the federal or state ESAs;
2. Candidates for federal or state listing;
3. "Species of special concern" in California as identified by CDFG;
4. Sensitive bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
5. On the list of sensitive species for the NCCP program;
6. On the list of sensitive plant species maintained by the CNPS;
7. On the list of target species for the HMP and North County MHCP;
8. On the list of "other sensitive species" for the HMP.
Information regarding the species' habitat associations, rangewide distribution,
and occurrence in the plan area is summarized in Table 6 and presented in
more detail in Appendix B.
As previously noted, 36 of the 66 species of concern were observed in one or
both plan area components; 30 of the 66 species have the potential to occur in
habitats in the plan area. Within the plan area components:
38 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
• 26 species of concern were observed, 2 are assumed to occur, and 27 have
a low to moderate probability of occurring in suitable habitat in Rancheros-
Southeast II; and
• 23 species of concern were observed, 3 are assumed to occur, and 26 have
a low to moderate probability of occurring in suitable habitat in Northwest.
a. Observed Species of Concern
Observed species of concern include 17 plant species, 1 amphibian, 5 reptiles,
10 birds, and 3 mammals (see A-1 through A-36 on Table 6). Of the 36 species:
• 1 is federally listed as threatened (coastal California gnatcatcher), 1 is
proposed for federal listing as endangered (Del Mar manzanita), and 19 are
candidates for federal listings;
• 1 is state listed as endangered (thread-leaved brodiaea) and 16 are species
of special concern in California; and
• 20 are on the list for the NCCP program, and 16 are target species for the
HMP and MHCP.
The distribution of the one federally-listed observed species of concern, the
coastal California gnatcatcher, is shown on Figures 11-12.
b. Potentially Occurring Species
The "potentially occurring" species of concern include 10 plants, 1 amphibian,
7 reptiles, 4 birds, and 5 mammals (see B-1 through B-30 on Table 6). Of the
30 species:
• 2 are federally listed as endangered (least Bell's vireo and pacific pocket
mouse), 5 are proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered (Del
Mar sand aster, Encinitas baccharis, Orcutt's spineflower, California red-
legged frog, and southwestern willow flycatcher), and 21 are candidates for
federal listing;
• 5 are state listed as endangered (Encintas baccharis, Orcutt's spineflower,
San Diego thornmint, least Bell's vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher)
and 15 are species of special concern in California; and
• 17 are on the list for the NCCP program, and 10 are target species for the
HMP and North County MHCP.
C. Habitat Evaluation
Habitat evaluations consistent with NCCP Guidelines have been conducted for
the HMP and North County MHCP and provide a relative measure of the
habitat values and species richness of HCP/OMSP plan area.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 39
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 6
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID#Species Name and Listing Status Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
Observed Species of Concern (N = 36)
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-1 2
A-1 3
A-1 4
A-1 5
Ashy spike-moss
Selaginella cinerascens
CNPS4
California adder's-tongue
Ophioglossum califomicum
C3c, CNPS4
California adophia
Adolphia californica
CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Del Mar manzanita
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia
FPE*,CNPS1B, T
Engelmann oak
Quercus engelmannii
CNPS4, OSS
Nuttall's scrub oak
Quercus dumosa
CNPS1B, OSS
Orcutt's brodiaea
Brodiaea orcutt.il
C2*, CNPS1B, T
Palmer's grapplinghook
Harpagonella palmeri
CNPS2, OSS
San Diego County viguiera
Viguiera laciniata
CNPS4, NCCP
San Diego golden star
Muilla develandii
C2*, CNPS1B, T
San Diego marsh elder
Iva hayesiana
C2, CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Southwestern spiny rush
lunctus actus var. leopoldii
CNPS4, OSS
Sticky-leaved liveforever
Dudleya viscida
C1*,CNPS1B, NCCP, OSS
Summer holly
Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia
C1,CNPS1B, T
Thread-leaved brodiaea
Brodiaea filifolia
C1*, SE, CNPS1B, T
Occurs on flat mesas in open CSS and CHP. Range
includes Orange County to northern Baja California.
Occurs in grassy areas and vernal pools. Range
extends from northern California counties into
northwestern Baja California.
Occurs in CSS and CHP in clay soils on dry coastal
and foothill slopes below 1000 feet. Range includes
San Diego County to Baja California.
Occurs in SMaC in areas with marine sandstone.
Range includes coastal San Diego County to Cabo
Colonel.
Occurs in OW, EW, and SMaC. Range extends from
Los Angeles County foothills to Sierra Juarez in Baja
California.
Occurs in CHP and CSS in sandy soils and sandstone.
Range extends from coastal Santa Barbara County to
northwestern Baja California.
Occurs along ephemeral streams and vernal pools.
Range extends from Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties through San Diego County into Baja Calif.
Occurs in CHP, CSS, and G. Range includes
southern California from Los Angeles County
southward, Arizona, and northern Baja Calif.
Occurs in CSS. Range includes coastal San Diego
County to central Baja California.
Occurs in G and CSS with clay soils. Range includes
coastal San Diego County to extreme northwest of
Baja California.
Occurs in RS and SM. Range includes coastal San
Diego County to central Baja California.
Occurs in FWM, SM, and RW. Range extends from
San Luis Obispo and San Bernardino Counties to
central Baja California.
Occurs in CSS and CHP of bluffs and rocky cliffs.
Range includes southern Orange County to central
San Diego County.
Occurs in CHP and SMaC. Range includes coastal
Orange and San Diego Counties into northwest Baja
California.
Occurs in G and vernal pools with clay soils. Range
includes coastal San Diego County to central Baja
California.
40 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
Occurence in Plan Area
Occurrence in
Components
R-SEII NW
Habitat Used by or Potentially Suitable for Species in Plan Area
CSS | G CHP SMaC RS RW OIS | Other
Widespread in suitable
habitat in R-SEII and NW.
Approx. 100 individuals
in R-SEII.
Approx. 6,500 individuals
on R-SEII and 3,600
individuals in NW.
Approx. 1 ,026 individuals
in NW.
One tree in NW only.
Occurs in both areas;
1,351 individuals in NW;
no count for R-SEII.
Two populations of five
individuals each in R-SEII.
Eight populations with
individual counts ranging
from 3000 to 20 in NW.
Approx. 75 individuals in
R-SEII.
Approx. 1,950 individuals
in three locations in R-
SEII.
Large population along
San Marcos Creek in R-
SEII.
Large and small
populations in R-SEII; 5
small populations in NW.
Several large populations
along San Marcos Creek
in R-SEII.
Approx. 1,100 individuals
in NW.
Sixteen populations,
approx. 7,000 individuals
in NW.
0
0
o
NE
NP
O
O
NE
0
O
o
0
o
ND
ND
O
NE
O
O
O
0
NE
O
NE
ND
ND
O
NE
O
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
in
riparian
corridor
3-28-94 Revised Draft 41
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 6 (continued)
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID#
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
Species Name and Listing Status
Wart-stemmed ceanothus
Ceanothus verrucosus
C2, CNPS2, T
Western dichondra
Dichondra ocddentalis
C3c, CNPS4, NCCP, OSS
Western spadefoot toad
Spea hammondii
CSC, NCCP, T
Coastal rosy boa
Lichanura trivirgata rosafusca
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Coastal western whiptail
Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Northern red diamond rattlesnake
Crotalus ruber ruber
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Orange-throated whiptail
Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
San Diego horned lizard
Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
Bell's sage sparrow
Amphispiza belli belli
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, OSS
Burrowing owl
Speotyto cunicularia
CSC, MBTA, T
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica califomica
FT, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, T
Cooper's hawk
Acdpiter cooper/
CSC, MBTA, T
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, OSS
Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus
CSC, MBTA, T
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, T
Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
Occurs in SMaC and CHP. Range includes coastal
San Diego County to central Baja California.
Occurs in understory of CHP and CSS. Range
extends from Marin and Sonoma Counties to San
Miguel Island and Baja California.
Occurs in CSS, CHP, and G. Range extends from
north central California to northwestern Baja
California.
Occurs in CSS and CHP with rocky substrates.
Range extends from Los Angeles County to northwest
Baja California.
Occurs in open CSS, CHP, and woodlands. Range
extends from Ventura County to south central Baja
California.
Occurs in rocky CSS, CHP, other scrub, and cactus.
Range includes southern California to northern Baja
Calfiornia.
Occurs in CSS, CHP, RW, weedy areas, and washes.
Range includes southern Orange and San Bernardino
Counties to south central Baja California.
Occurs in CSS, CHP, and OW. Range includes Santa
Barbara County to northwest Baja California.
Occurs in CSS, CHP, juniper woodland, and alluvial
fan scub. Range includes California and northern
Baja Calif.
Occurs in C. Range includes western United States,
Canada, and Mexico.
Occurs in CSS. Range includes Los Angeles, Orange,
western Riverside, and San Diego Counties into Baja
Calif.
Occurs in RS, RW, and OW near foraging areas.
Range includes continental U.S., excluding Alaska
and parts of Montana and the Dakotas.
Occurs in C, CSS, and disturbed habitat. Range
includes much of North America; winters south to
Central America.
Occurs in FWM, SM, G, CSS, and agricultural fields.
Winters and migrates throughout California.
Occurs in CSS and mixed CSS and G. Range
includes Santa Barbara County to northwestern Baja
California.
42 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
Occurrence in Plan Area
Approx. 155 individuals
in NW.
Five small populations in
R-SEII.
Tadpoles observed in rain
pools in R-SEII; potential
habitat present in NW.
Observed in R-SEII;
assumed to occur in NW.
Observed in both
subareas; does not appear
to be common.
Observed in R-SEII;
assumed to occur in NW;
not likely to be common.
Observed in NW;
assumed to occur in R-
SEI1.
Observed in both
components.
Approx. 1 3-20 pairs seen
in R-SEII; suitable habitat
present in NW.
Burrows and pellets found
in NW; suitable habitat
not present in R-SEII.
35 pairs in R-SEII; 13 pairs
in NW.
Observed foraging in both
subareas; potential
breeding habitat in R-SEII.
Two pairs in each
subarea.
One male observed
foraging in NW.
Individuals fairly common
in CSS in R-SEII; not
observed in CSS in NW.
Occurrence in
Components
R-SEII
NE
0
0
0
0
0
A
0
o
A
O
o
o
ND
O
NW
O
NE
P
A
0
A
O
0
A
NE
O
O
0
o
ND/P
Habitat Used by or Potentially Suitable for Species in Plan Area
CSS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G
X
X
X
X
X
CHP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SMaC
X
X
X
X
X
RS
AFS
AFS
X
X
RW
X
X
X
DIS
X
X
Other
washes
OW
OW
3-28-94 Revised Draft 43
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 6 (continued)
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID#
A-31
A-32
A-33
A-34
A-35
A-36
Species Name and Listing Status
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, T
Yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens
CSC, MBTA, OSS
Yellow warbler
Dendroica petechia brewsteri
CSC, MBTA, OSS
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia
C2, CSC, OSS
Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
Breeds in FWM, forages in G and agricultural lands.
Range extends from southern Oregon to northern
Baja California.
Occurs in RW and RS. Range includes most of North
America; breeds in southern California in spring and
summer.
Occurs in RW and RS. Range includes most of North
America; breeds in southern California in spring and
summer.
Occurs in CSS, CHP, and open weedy areas. Range
includes parts of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and San Diego Counties.
Occurs in CSS, G, and disturbed habitat. Range
includes coastal slope of southern California from
Santa Barbara County into northwest Baja Calif.
Occurs in rocky areas and CHP and CSS with cactus.
Range includes coastal slope of southern California
from San Luis Obispo County to northwest Baja Calif.
Potentially Occurring Species of Concern (N = 30)
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
Blochman's dudleya
Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae
CNPS1B, NCCP, OSS
Cliff spurge
Euphorbia misera
CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Coast barrel cactus
Ferocactus viridescens
C2*, CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Del Mar sand aster
Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linfolia
FPT, CNPS1B, NCCP, T
Encinitas baccharis
Baccharis vanessae
FPE, SE, CNPS1B, T
Orcutt's hazard ia
Hazard/a orcuttii
C2, CNPS1B
Orcutt's spineflower
Chorizanthe orcuttiana
FPE*, SE, CNPS1B, NCCP
San Diego ambrosia
Ambrosia pumila
C2*, CNPS1B, NCCP
San Diego sagewort
Artemisia pa/men
CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Occurs atop coastal bluffs in CSS. Range includes
coastal slope of southern California from San Luis
Obispo County to northwest Baja Calif.
Occurs on coastal bluffs in CSS. Range includes
Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties to central
Baja California.
Occurs on dry slopes with CSS and CHP. Range
includes coastal San Diego County, northwest Baja
California, and foothills of Sierra Juarez.
Occurs in sandy, disturbed coastal areas, usually in
SMaC. Endemic to central, coastal San Diego
County.
Occurs in SMaC and CHP. Endemic to northwest
and north-central San Diego County.
Occurs on coastal slopes in CHP. Endemic to
northwest Baja California, with a disjunct population
in Encinitas, California.
Occurs in SMaC. Endemic to San Diego County.
Occurs in coastal G and disturbed habitat. Range
includes coastal San Diego County to northwest Baja
California.
Occurs in drainages with RS, CSS, and CHP. Range
includes coastal San Diego County to northwest Baja
California.
44 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
Occurrence in Plan Area
Good foraging habitat in
NW, one bird sighted; not
detected in R-SEII.
Two pairs observed in
NW; none observed in R-
SEII.
A few individuals
observed in NW; none
observed in R-SEII.
Observed in both
components.
Observed in both
components.
Observed in both
components.
Occurrence in
Components
R-SEII
ND/P
ND/P
ND/P
O
0
0
NW
0
O
O
0
0
O
Habitat Used by or Potentially Suitable for Species in Plan Area
CSS
X
X
X
G
X
X
CHP
X
X
X
SMaC
X
X
RS
X
X
X
RW
X
X
X
DIS
X
X
Other
edge of
RWin
NW
Not detected, low
potential for occurring in
either component.
Not detected, low
potential for occurring in
either component.
Not detected or expected
in either component.
Not detected or expected
in either component.
Not expected in R-SEII;
low potential for
occurrence in NW.
Not detected or expected
in either component.
Not expected in R-SEII;
low potential for
occurrence in NW.
Only one population
known to occur in San
Diego County.
Low to moderate
potential for occurrence
in plan area.
ND/L
ND/L
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
ND/L
ND/L
ND/L
NE
NE
ND/L
NE
ND/L
NE
ND/M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3-28-94 Revised Draft 45
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 6 (continued)
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID#
B-10
B-11
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-17
B-18
B-19
B-20
B-21
B-22
B-23
B-24
Species Name and Listing Status
San Diego thornmint
Acanthomintha ilicifolia
C1*, SE, CNPS1B, NCCP, T
Harbison's dun skipper
Euphyes vestris harbinsoni
C2, T
Hermes copper
Lycaena hermes
C2*, OSS
Quino checkerspot
Euphydryas editha quino
C1*, OSS
California red-legged frog
Rana aurora draytonii
FPE, CSC, OSS
Coast patch-nosed snake
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Coronado skink
Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
San Diego banded gecko
Coleonyx variegatus abbotti
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
San Diego ringneck snake
Diadophis punctatus similis
C2, CSC, OSS
Silvery legless lizard
Anniella nigra argentea
CSC, OSS
Southwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata pallida
C1 *, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Two-striped garter snake
Thamnophis hammondii
C2, CSC, OSS
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris act/a
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, OSS
Least Bell's vireo
Vireo belli! pusillus
FE, SE, MBTA, T
San Diego cactus wren
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
Occurs in G and vernal pools on clay soils. Range
includes coastal San Diego County to coastal area
above Ensenada and Sierra Juarez mountains.
Occurs in RW, RS, and OW with perennial water
source. Range includes Orange and San Diego
Counties.
Occurs in CSS and CHP; larval foodplant is
buckthorn. Range includes San Diego Co. to
northern Baja Calif.
Occurs in CSS, G, and VP; larval foodplant is
plantain. Range includes Orange, Riverside, and San
Diego Counties to coastal central Baja Calif.
Occurs in ponds, marshes, and pools. Range
includes northern California to northwestern Baja
California.
Occurs mainly in CHP but also in mixed CSS and G.
Range includes Santa Barbara County into northwest
Baja California.
Occurs in G, CSS, open CHP, OW, and pine forests.
Range includes Los Angeles County into northwest
Baja California plus several islands.
Occurs in CHP and CSS with rocky outcrops. Range
extends from San Gabriel Mountains to northwest
Baja California and Cedros Island.
Occurs in OW, G, CHP, and CSS. Range includes
southwest San Bernardino County to northwest Baja
California.
Occurs along washes, beaches, alluvial fans and in
CSS and CHP. Range includes San Francisco to
northwest Baja California.
Occurs in FWM, creeks, and ponds. Range extends
from Monterey County to northwest Baja California.
Occurs primary along permanent creeks and streams,
also in VP and CHP. Range includes Monterey
County to northwest Baja California.
Occurs in sandy beaches, G, and agricultural lands.
Range includes coastal slopes and lowlands from
Sonoma County to northern Baja California.
Occurs in lowland RW. Range includes southern
California to northwest Baja California.
Occurs in CSS, cactus patches, and thorny thickets.
Range includes southern Orange and San Diego
Counties into northwest Baja California.
46 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
Occurrence in Plan Area
Not detected in either
component; low potential
for occurrence.
Habitat occurs in R-SEII;
larval foodplant not
observed in NW.
Larval foodplant occurs in
both components; adults
not surveyed for.
Thought to be extirpated
in San Diego County;
potential habitat in R-SEII.
Extirpated in many areas
of southern California.
Not seen in plan area,
low potential for
unobserved occurrence.
Not detected but not
surveyed for; moderate
potential for occurrence.
Low potential for
occurrence in R-SEII; not
expected in NW.
Moderate potential for
occurrence in both
components.
Not observed; suitable
habitat occurs in both
components.
Not observed; suitable
habitat in R-SEII; marginal
habitat in NW.
Low potential for
occurrence in R-SEII; in
NW, moderate potential.
Low potential for
unobserved occurrence in
either component.
Not observed in plan
area; moderate potential
for occurrence.
Not observed; might
occur if cactus is used for
fire breaks.
Occurrence in
Components
R-SEII
ND/L
ND/L
P
NE
NE
ND/L
ND/M
ND/L
ND/M
ND/M
ND/M
ND/L
ND/L
ND/M
ND/P
NW
ND/L
ND/L
P
NE
NE
ND/L
ND/M
NE
ND/M
ND/M
ND/L
ND/M
ND/L
ND/M
ND/P
Habitat Used by or Potentially Suitable for Species in Plan Area
CSS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G
X
X
X
X
X
X
CHP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SMaC RS
X
X
X
X
X
X
RW
X
X
X
X
X
OIS
X
Other
creeks
OW
OW
OW
ponds,
stream
creek,
ponds,
stream
cactus
patches
3-28-94 Revised Draft 47
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 6 (continued)
HCP/OMSP Species of Concern
ID#
B-25
B-26
B-27
B-28
B-29
B-30
Species Name and Listing Status
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus
FPE, SE, FSS, MBTA, T
California mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
C2, CSC, T
Dulzura California pocket mouse
Chaetodipus californicus femora/is
C2, CSC, T
Pacific pocket mouse
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
FEE, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Southern grasshopper mouse
Onychomys torridus ramona
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Townsend's western big-eared bat
Plecotus townsendii townsendii
C2, CSC, T
Habitat Association and Rangewide Distribution
Occurs in RW and RS. Range includes southwestern
U.S. into northwest Mexico.
Roosts in rock crevices, outcrops, buildings; forages
in CHP and OW. Range includes Central California,
western Texas, and northern Mexico.
Occurs in CHP, mulefat scrub, and disturbed areas.
Range extends from Santa Margarita River to northern
Baja California.
Occurs in CHP, CSS, and G with sandy substrate.
Range limited to coast of southern California; only
eight localities known.
Occurs in G and CSS. Range extends from northern
Los Angeles County to northwestern Baja California.
Roosts in tunnels, caves, and buildings; forages in
OW, G, and other habitats. Range includes most of
western U.S.
ID Codes
A- Species observed or assumed to occur in one or both plan area components.
B- Species potentially occurring in habitats in one or both plan area components.
Status Codes
C1 Category 1 candidate for federal listing
C2 Category 2 candidate for federal listing
C3c Category 3c candidate for federal listing
CNPS Listed by the California Native Plant Society as:
(1 B) rare or endangered in California and elsewhere
(2) rare or endangered in California and more common elsewhere
(4) plants of limited distribution
CSC Identified by CDFG as a species of special concern in California
FE Listed as endangered under the federal ESA
FEE Emergency listed as endangered under the federal ESA
FPE Proposed for federal listing as endangered
FPT Proposed for federal listing as threatened
FSS Identified by federal agencies as a sensitive species
FT Listed as threatened under the federal ESA
MBTA Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NCCP On the list of sensitive species for the NCCP program
OSS "Other Sensitive Species" identified in draft Carlsbad HMP
ST Listed as threatened under the California ESA
T Target species for Carlsbad HMP and North County MHCP
* On the list of species covered by a settlement agreement between USFWS and environmental
groups who filed suit regarding the timely listing of C1 and C2 species.
48 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
Occurrence in Plan Area
Not observed; low
potential for occurence in
R-SEII; moderate in NW.
Bats and roost sites not
observed; foraging habitat
in both components.
Not observed; potential
habitat occurs in both
components.
Not observed or expected
in plan area because of
rarity in region.
Not observed; low
potential for occurrence
in either component.
Bats and roost sites not
observed; foraging habitat
in both components.
Occurrence in
Components
R-SEII
ND/L
ND/P
ND/P
NE
ND/L
ND/P
NW
ND/M
ND/P
ND/P
NE
ND/L
ND/P
Habitat Used by or Potentially Suitable for Species in Plan Area
CSS
X
X
G
X
X
X
CHP
X
X
X
SMaC RS
X
MFS
RW
X
DIS
X
X
Other
ow
ow
Subarea Codes
R-SEII Rancheros-Southeast II
NW Northwest
Habitat Codes
AFS Alluvial Fan Scrub
CHP Chaparral types, excluding Southern Maritime Chaparral
CSS Coastal Sage Scrub
FWM Freshwater Marsh
G Grassland, native and non-native
JW juniper Woodland
MFS Mulefat Scrub
OW Oak Woodland
RS Riparian Scrub
RW Riparian Woodland
SMaC Southern Maritime Chaparral
Occurrence Codes
A Assumed to occur
L Low Probability of Occurrence
M Moderate Probability of Occurrence
ND Not Detected
NE Not Expected (or Observed)
O Observed
P Potentially occurs, based on presence of suitable habitat
3-28-94 Revised Draft 49
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
1. HMP Context
As discussed in the draft HMP, the identification of the PPAs was based on an
habitat value and sensitivity analysis that evaluated natural open space
throughout the City in terms of several factors:
• Amount and number of different habitats present;
• Connectivity with habitats of the same type;
• Vulnerability and manageability, based on adjacent land uses;
• Presence, amount, and diversity of sensitive habitats;
• Presence and abundance of gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub; and
• Numbers of sensitive plant and wildlife species.
Similar to the habitat evaluation process recommended in the NCCP guidelines
(see Appendix A), the analysis allowed for a comparative ranking of habitat
values. The PPAs were drawn to capture the higher value habitats, but not all
habitat within PPAs is high value and not all PPAs have habitats of equal value.
The relative values of PPAs 7 and 5, which encompass the plan area
components, can be described as follows.
a. PPA7
Based on HMP CIS mapping, PPA7 is 47 percent coastal sage scrub (937 acres),
17 percent chaparral (337 acres), 22 percent grassland (477 acres), and 3
percent riparian scrub and woodland habitat (53 acres) (Table 7). It is linked to
comparable habitat east of Carlsbad via Rancheros-Southeast II, to PPA6 via the
riparian corridor extending through Green Valley, and to PPA5 by a power line
corridor and La Costa Golf Course.
Habitat in the PPA supports a full complement of HMP target coastal sage scrub
species, including California gnatcatcher (at least 52 records from the area), San
Diego horned lizard, orange-throated whiptail, southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, and others. The PPA
also contains riparian habitat that is potentially suitable for least Bell's vireo and
southwestern willow flycatcher, plus grasslands that are potential foraging
habitat for raptors and potential nesting habitat for the burrowing owl. Sensitive
plants present in PPA7 include Del Mar manzanita and summer holly in
chaparral; Orcutt's brodiaea, San Diego golden-star, and San Diego thorn-mint
in grasslands; and other sensitive species such as California adolphia, western
dichondra, and ashy spike-moss.
Rancheros-Southeast II encompasses most (over 800 acres) of the sage scrub in
the PPA, more than one-half (about 190 acres) of the chaparral, and about one-
third (about 17 acres) of the riparian scrub and woodland in the PPAs.
Compared with the PPA as a whole, it contains a higher proportion of sage
scrub and lower proportion of grassland.
b. PPAS
PPA5 is 22 percent sage scrub (292 acres), 13 percent chaparral (172 acres), 34
percent grassland (450 acres), and at least 5 percent riparian scrub and
woodland habitat (60 acres).
50 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
Table 7
Comparison of Citywide, PPA, and Plan Area Habitat Estimates
(acres)
Habitat Type
Coastal sage scrub
Chaparral
Grassland
Riparian scrub/woodland*
Eucalyptus woodland
Salt and freshwater marsh
Disturbed wetlands
Other disturbed habitat**
Water
Developed
TOTAL
Total
in
City
3,377
2,024
2,469
621
302
360
189
4,706
880
9,989
24,917
Total
in All 7
PPAs
2,645
1,555
1,571
535
102
285
124
1,597
850
444
9,708
PPA 7
937
337
477
53
17
1
0
116
2
47
1,987
Rancheros-
Southeast
II
832.2
189.2
76.6
16.6
1.0
0.0
0.0
157.0
0.0
0.0
1,278.2
PPAS
292
172
450
60
8
8
35
291
7
20
1,343
Northwest
123.0
120.0
255.0
97.0*
5.5
0.0
0.0
191.9
0.0
0.0
662.0
* HMP "Riparian Scrub/Woodland" category excludes disturbed riparian areas, which are
treated as "Disturbed Wetlands" in the HMP.
** HMP "disturbed habitat" category includes agriculture and excludes disturbed coastal sage
scrub and chaparral; the latter are counted in the totals for those types.
NOTE: Acreage for Rancheros-Southeast II and Northwest is included for comparison; plan area
component totals were calculated based on site-specific mapping, not the HMP data base.
The La Costa Golf Course provides a buffer between existing uses and habitat in
the PPA, and the edge of the golf course also provides a narrow riparian
corridor that traverses nearly the entire PPA. The northern edge of the PPA is
adjacent to agricultural lands. Linkages to PPA7 are provided via narrow power
line easements. No permanent linkages to PPA2 and PPA4 currently exist.
At least 19 California gnatcatchers have been recorded from this PPA, and it is
likely that other target coastal sage scrub species (i.e., southern California
rufous-crowned sparrow, orange-throated whiptail, San Diego horned lizard) are
present as well. The sage scrub and chaparral provide potential habitat for
California aldolphia, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, Dulzura California
pocket mouse, mule deer, California mastiff bat, and Townsend's western big-
eared bat. Riparian scrub and woodland in the area also represents potential
habitat for San Diego sagewort, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow
flycatcher, Cooper's hawk, and Harbison's dun skipper. As in PPA7, the
grassland represents potential raptor foraging habitat and burrowing owl nesting
habitat. The southern maritime chaparral supports large populations of Del Mar
manzanita, wart-stemmed ceanothus, and summer holly, and other sensitive
species such as ashy spike-moss. Native grasslands support two sensitive plant
species, San Diego thorn-mint and thread-leaved brodiaea.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 55
3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Northwest contains approximately 40 percent of the sage scrub, 70 percent of
the chaparral, more than 50 percent of the grassland, and all of the riparian
scrub and woodland habitat in the PPA. Compared with PPA5 as a whole,
Northwest contains a higher proportion of riparian scrub and woodland habitat.
2. MHCP Context
The mapping and CIS data base for the North County MHCP indicate that the
sage scrub in the HMP PPAs constitutes less than 3 percent of 108,032 acres in
the MHCP subregion, the grasslands constitute less than 2 percent of 84,940
acres in the subregion, and the chaparral constitutes less than 1 percent of the
156,253 acres in the subregion (Table 8). In addition, preliminary results of a
habitat evaluation of lands within the MHCP study area largely confirm the
results of the HMP analysis. Approximately 10,100 acres within the City are
shown to have low to very high conservation values and the acres in question
closely correspond to the 9,700+ acres within PPAs. Carlsbad's 10,141 acres
of habitat constitute about 2 percent of the 422,776 acres in the MHCP study
area, and Carlsbad's 7,225 acres of "very high" rated habitat constitute about 4
percent of 186,346 acres with that same rating (Table 9 and Figures 13 and 14).
Combined, the two plan area components represent 0.5 percent of the rated
habitats (422,776 acres) in the MHCP study area, and, as previously noted,
about 30 percent of the habitats in Carlsbad. If all 1,940.2 acres were treated as
"very high" rated, they would constitute 1 percent of that category in the MHCP
study area and 27 percent of that category in the City. In reality, the plan area
components are a combination of very high to low value habitats (see Figure
14).
Table 8
Comparison of MHCP Study Area,
Carlsbad, and Plan Area Habitat Estimates
(acres)
Habitat Type
Coastal Sage Scrub
Chaparral
Grassland
Riparian Scrub/Woodland
Eucalyptus Woodland
Subtotal
All Other
TOTAL
MHCP
Study
Area
108,032
156,253
84,940
25,447
2,306
376,978
281,137
422,877
Total
in
City
3,377
2,024
2,469
621
302
8,793
16,124
24,917
Total
in All 7
PPAs
2,645
1,555
1,571
535
102
6,408
3,300
9,708
Rancheros-
Southeast
II
832.2
189.2
76.6
16.6
1.0
1115.6
162.6
1,278.2
Northwest
123.0
120.0
255.0
97.0
5.5
600.5
61.5
662.0
56 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 3. Resource Inventory and Habitat Evaluation
Table 9
Results of MHCP Habitat Evaluation
(acres)
MHCP Participant
Carlsbad
Del Mar
Encinitas
Escondido
Oceanside
Poway
San Diego*
San Marcos
Solana Beach
Vista
Unincorporated*
TOTAL
Results of Natural Open Space Ranking
Very
High
7,225
163
2,477
2,298
3,011
5,755
4,677
2,087
74
511
1 58,068
186,346
High
1,516
66
417
1,558
1,330
1,969
2,591
1,134
24
162
78,820
89,587
Moderate
1,015
11
141
2,314
1,107
3,869
1,709
1,112
5
427
64,218
75,928
Low
385
1
74
1,137
247
1,972
451
1,405
0
497
64,746
70,915
Total
10,141
241
3,109
7,307
5,695
13,565
9,428
5,738
103
1,597
365,852
422,776
Other
Lands
14,776
893
8,373
15,585
21,337
11,446
6,950
9,340
2,043
9,947
1 34,649
235,339
TOTAL
24,917
1,134
11,482
22,892
27,032
25,011
16,378
1 5,078
2,146
11,544
500,501
658,115
Includes only those lands within MHCP study area.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 57
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis
4. Habitat Conservation Strategy
and Impact Analysis
This chapter describes the habitat conservation strategy that underlies the
primary conservation and mitigation measures proposed in the plan. It explains
the factors that were considered in delineating conserved habitat within the plan
area and examines the expected effects on species of concern. For purposes of
the impact analysis, all species of concern were treated as listed species. "Take"
as defined in the ESAs was calculated primarily based on the occurrence of
habitat for each species in areas designated for development. All habitat
suitable for a species of concern was assumed to be occupied by that species,
and all habitat not designated as being conserved was treated as "taken." Also
in accordance with ESA and NCCP requirements, alternatives to the taking were
considered.
A. Configuration of Conserved Habitat
The configuration of conserved habitat within the plan area achieves six goals:
1. Linkages to other significant habitat areas are maintained;
2. Conserved habitat is buffered from existing and anticipated development;
3. The conserved habitat values are representative of the regional and local
ecosystem;
4. The exclusion of areas from conserved habitat will not pose jeopardy to
listed and other species of concern;
5. Preservation of key species in each plan area component is maximized; and
6. The City, FLCA, and other are provided with certainty regarding which
areas will be permanently conserved and which will not.
A total of 645.1 acres was identified for permanent onsite conservation: 521.41
acres within Rancheros-Southeast II and 123.69 acres in Northwest as
conserved habitat (Table 10). In addition, up to 240 acres of sage scrub will be
conserved in offsite locations, bringing the total amount of habitat conserved
under the plan to 885.1 acres.
The specific configuration of conserved habitat within the plan area and the
proposal for offsite acquisitions were developed in coordination with the
USFWS, CDFG, local conservation groups, and City staff. Onsite conservation
also was weighted based on existing habitat values, with priority given to the
gnatcatcher and other sage scrub vertebrates on Rancheros-Southeast II and to
sensitive plants on Northwest. Key considerations in the planning process are
summarized below.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 63
4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 10
Conserved Habitat in the Plan Area Components
(acres)
Habitat
Type
Coastal sage scrub
Southern mixed chaparral
Southern maritime chaparral
Grassland
Riparian scrub/woodland
Disturbed habitat
TOTAL
Rancheros-Southeast II
Rancheros
144.81
15.73
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.00
161.52
San Marcos
Creek
79.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.60
0.00
85.00
Southeast
II
202.46
20.04
0.00
19.20
3.07
30.12
274.89
Total
426.67
35.77
0.00
19.20
9.65
30.12
521.41
Northwest
21.36
1.06
28.90
33.30
34.91
4.16
123.69
Plan Area
Total
448.03
36.83
28.90
52.50
44.56
34.28
645.10
1. Rancheros-Southeast 11
Conserved habitat in Rancheros-Southeast II includes 521.41 acres that will
function as a local multiple species reserve and regional habitat linkage. The
proposed configuration:
• Preserves 426.67 acres of coastal sage scrub (51 percent of the 832.2 acres
in the plan area component) and 18 gnatcatcher use areas;
• Maintains two primary habitat linkages with the larger regional ecosystem,
one across Southeast II and one along San Marcos Creek; and
• Concentrates future land uses adjacent to existing development and in
relation to the ultimate alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
a. Southeast II
Five primary considerations affected the configuration of conserved habitat in
the Southeast II segment:
1. Southeast ll's critical location as the City's link to the regional ecosystem,
2. The quality of the sage scrub and number of gnatcatchers found onsite,
3. Existing habitat linkages with San Marcos Creek and Rancheros;
4. The bisection of the area by Rancho Santa Fe Road; and
5. The landscape changes that would accompany the approved realignment of
the roadway.
Priority was given to conserving sage scrub occupied by resident gnatcatcher
pairs in areas that also would preserve the habitat linkages within and leading
out of Southeast II.
64 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis
As shown on Figures 15 and 16, the proposed configuration within Southeast II
preserves a corridor that is 1,000 feet wide at its narrowest point and widens to
approximately 1,800 feet at the eastern end where it crosses Rancho Santa Fe
Road. Approximately 74 acres within the corridor is native and non-native
habitat, including 47.2 acres of existing sage scrub. As shown on Figure 16, the
corridor retains all of the use areas of three gnatcatcher pairs (numbers 9, 11,
and 12) and most of the use areas of two other pairs (numbers 15 and 18). The
corridor also retains existing linkages with designated conserved habitat in San
Marcos Creek and Rancheros and linkages to natural open space outside the
plan area.
b. San Marcos Creek
Conserved habitat along San Marcos Creek preserves a second linkage with the
regional ecosystem, ensures connectivity between conserved habitat in
Southeast II and Rancheros, and includes non-sage scrub habitats and species in
the "micro-ecosystem" captured by the configuration. Sensitive species in the
conserved habitat include sticky-leaved liveforever, spiny rush, San Diego marsh
elder, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat and others. The conserved area
forms a corridor that is in excess of 1,000 feet wide until it reaches the Rancho
Santa Fe Road crossing and enters the City of San Marcos. Additionally, there
are at least 70 feet of vertical separation between the creek bottom and the road
crossing. This design maximizes the contiguity of the open space and
minimizes the overall edge effect of the proposed configuration.
c. Rancheros
The primary consideration in Rancheros was the need to reconcile conservation
and land use priorities for lands with high biological and development value. As
originally proposed in the La Costa Master Plan, Rancheros was designated for
large lot ranchette-style residential development. This concept was replanned
in the context of the HCP/OMSP to cluster new housing near existing
development on the western and northern borders and on the upper terraces of
the site. As a result, the highest density occupied gnatcatcher habitat was
preserved onsite. Priority also was given to minimizing edge effects and
conserving two-thirds of the gnatcatcher pairs onsite (10 of 15). The resulting
configuration preserves a contiguous band of primarily sage scrub habitat that
adjoins San Marcos Creek and is over 0.5-mile wide.
2. Northwest
Conserved habitat in Northwest includes 123.69 acres selected to preserve plant
species of concern and maintain connectivity through the site. Four primary
considerations affected the design of conserved habitat:
1. The presence and relative abundance of rare plants associated with native
grassland (thread-leaved brodiaea, Palmer's grapplinghook) and southern
maritime chaparral (Del Mar manzanita, summer holly, wart-stemmed
ceanothus, Nuttall's scrub oak);
3-28-94 Rev/sec/ Draft 65
/-\
s
r—
Rancheros
LEGEND
w
CONSERVED HABITAT
EXISTING ROADWAY
/^| FUTURE ROADWAY
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates
NTS
Figure 15 . Schematic of Conserved Habitat
on Rancheros - Southeast II
66
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis
2. The relatively fragmented nature of the sage scrub (by comparison with
Rancheros-Southeast II) but high number of gnatcatchers;
3. The bifurcation of the natural habitats by the La Costa Golf Course; and
4. The existing albeit narrow habitat linkages with natural open space to the
northeast and to Rancheros to the southeast.
Following a consideration of each of these factors, two interrelated decisions
were made: onsite conservation would focus on sensitive plants and would be
supplemented by offsite acquisitions of coastal sage scrub.
a. Onsite Conservation
As proposed, the onsite conserved habitat preserves a majority of the sensitive
plant species and provides connections to and through the site from south to
north and to the east (Figures 17 and 18). Sensitive plant species conserved
include 795 Del mar manzanita individuals and approximately 5,800 thread-
leaved brodiaea individuals. Additionally, onsite restoration of about 11 acres
of sage scrub is proposed for a portion of conserved habitat that intersects a
utility easement which currently serves as a narrow wildlife corridor. The
restoration will provide a "stepping stone" of habitat for dispersing and breeding
bird species of concern (including the gnatcatcher) as well as cover for
dispersing predators such as coyotes.
b, Offsite Conservation
Offsite conservation will be used to provide replacement habitat for the sage
scrub that ultimately will be removed from Northwest and to bolster the
regional linkages conserved under the plan. It also will incidentally benefit other
species of concern.
Up to 240 acres of coastal sage scrub occupied by gnatcatchers or otherwise
acceptable to USFWS and CDFC will be acquired by FLCA, with at least 120
acres in locations that will strengthen the habitat linkage between Southeast II
and the regional coastal sage scrub community that extends into the San
Dieguito and San Pasqual River Valley. No specific locations have been
proposed for acquisition at this time.
B. Impact Analysis
In connection with designating onsite conserved habitat, the City and FLCA
considered the effects on species of concern likely to result from conserving
some areas of habitat and allowing development to proceed in others. As
noted, all species of concern were treated as listed species, and all suitable
habitat for each species was considered "taken" if not designated as conserved
habitat. This approach was used to ensure that habitat impacts were not
underestimated, to fulfill ESA requirements that "take" of species be estimated,
and to help identify appropriate impact minimization and mitigation measures.
Also in accordance with the ESA and NCCP Guidelines, alternatives to the
taking were considered.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 69
LEGEND
EXISTING GO
COURS
CONSERVED HABITAT
EXISTING ROADWAY
FUTURE ROADWAY
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates NTS
I
70
Figure 17 . Schematic of Conserved Habitat
on Northwest
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis
1. Impacts to Species of Concern
Anticipated impacts to species of concern are summarized in Tables 11 and 12,
primarily in terms of habitat conserved and habitat assumed taken. Table 11
summarizes potential onsite impacts by primary habitat associations of the
species of concern; it also includes a calculation of total conserved habitat that
assumes offsite conservation of 240 acres of sage scrub. Table 12 summarizes
impacts by individual species and plan area component; additional information
on potential effects to individual species is included in Appendix B.
In addition to the habitat-based impacts, the following points can be noted
regarding the species given priority during the planning process:
• Up to 18 pair of coastal California gnatcathers and a significant portion of
habitat suitable for the orange-throated whiptail and San Diego horned
lizard will be conserved onsite in Rancheros-Southeast II; these sage scrub
species also will benefit from the offsite conservation.
• At least 795 Del Mar manzanita individuals and approximately 5,800
thread-leaved brodiaea individuals will be conserved on Northwest, and all
of the sticky-leaved liveforever will be conserved in the San Marcos Creek
corridor; and
• Riparian species such as southwestern spiny rush, San Diego marsh elder,
yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, and least Bell's vireo will benefit from
onsite conservation of 95 + percent of the riparian habitats.
Table 11
Habitat Conserved and Assumed "Taken"
by Primary Habitat Associations of the Species of Concern
(acres)
Primary Habitat Associations of
the Species of Concern
Sage scrub
Chaparral
Grassland
Riparian scrub/woodland (and 6.5 ac. Eucalyptus)
Disturbed habitat
Sage scrub and chaparral
Sage scrub and grassland
Sage scrub and riparian
Chaparral and riparian
Grassland and disturbed
Grassland and riparian
Sage scrub, grassland, and riparian
Sage scrub, chaparral, riparian, and disturbed
Sage Scrub, chaparral, grassland, and riparian
Sage Scrub, grassland, chaparral, and disturbed
Total in
Plan Area
955.2
315.2
306.6
120.1
191.9
1,270.4
1,261.8
1,075.3
435.3
507.1
426.7
1,381.9
1,582.4
1,697.1
1,768.9
Conserved
Onsite
448.0
65.3
52.5
44.6
34.3
513.3
500.5
492.6
109.9
86.8
97.1
545.1
592.2
610.4
600.1
Assumed
Taken
Onsite
507.2
249.9
254.1
75.5
157.6
757.1
761.3
582.7
325.4
420.3
329.6
836.8
990.2
1,086.7
1,168.8
Conserved
Onsite and
Offsite
688.0
65.3
52.5
44.6
34.3
753.3
740.5
732.6
109.0
86.8
97.1
785.1
832.2
850.4
840.1
3-28-94 Revised Draft 73
4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 12
Anticipated Impacts of Conservation Strategy on Species of Concern
ID
#
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-1 2
A-1 3
A-1 4
A-1 5
A-1 6
Species Name
and Listing Status
Ashy spike-moss
Selaginella cinerascens
CNPS4
California adder's-tongue
Ophioglossum californicum
C3c, CNPS4
California adophia
Adolphia californica
CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Del Mar manzanita
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia
FPE*, CNPS1BJ
Engelmann oak
Quercus engelmannii
CNPS4, OSS
Nuttall's scrub oak
Quercus dumosa
CNPS1B, OSS
Orcutt's brodiaea
Brodiaea orcuttii
C2*, CNPS1B, T
Palmer's grapplinghook
Harpagonella pa/men
CNPS2, OSS
San Diego County viguiera
Viguiera laciniata
CNPS4, NCCP
San Diego golden star
Muilla clevelandii
C2*, CNPS1B,T
San Diego marsh elder
Iva hayesiana
C2, CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Southwestern spiny rush
Junctus actus var. leopoldii
CNPS4, OSS
Sticky-leaved liveforever
Dudleya viscida
C1*, CNPS1B, NCCP, OSS
Summer holly
Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia
C2, CNPS1B, T
Thread-leaved brodiaea
Brodiaea filifolia
C1*, SE, CNPS1B, T
Wart-stemmed ceanothus
Ceanothus verrucosus
C2, CNPS2, T
Rancheros-Southeast II
Conserved
Onsite
460 acres
100
individuals
2,400
individuals
NA
NA
35 acres
None
NA
75
individuals
400
individuals
Almost all
590
individuals
All
NA
NA
NA
Assumed
Taken
560 acres
None
4,100
individuals
NA
NA
1 50 acres
10
individuals
NA
None.
1,550
individuals
<100
individuals
None
None
NA
NA
NA
Northwest
Conserved
Onsite
50 acres
NA
700
individuals
795
individuals
None
640
individuals
NA
3,500
individuals
NA
NA
NA
45
individuals
NA
460
individuals
5,800
individuals
155
individuals
Assumed
Taken
200 acres
NA
2,800
individuals
261
individuals
1 tree
710
individuals
NA
3,775
individuals
NA
NA
NA
100
individuals
NA
635
individuals
1,190
individuals
None
74 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis
Benefit from
Offsite
Conservation
Potentially
Not Likely
Potentially
Not Likely
Not Likely
Potentially
Not Likely
Potentially
Potentially.
Potentially
Not Likely
Not Likely
Potentially
Not Likely
Not Likely
Not Likely
Potential Benefits/Other Considerations
At least 40 percent will be conserved onsite;
species is still widespread.
Population on Rancheros-Southeast II will be
preserved; species is still widespread.
Preservation of 3,200 individuals will
substantially add to species' long-term
viability.
Preserved population is one of larger
populations in region.
None; only one tree affected.
Approximately 30 percent of species'
potential habitat is preserved.
None; only two small populations (5
individuals each) are affected.
Preserved population is one of larger
populations in region.
All of population on Rancheros-Southeast II
will be preserved.
None, except preservation of 400
individuals.
Large population will be preserved in San
Marcos Creek.
Large population will be preserved in
Rancheros-Southeast II.
Large population will be preserved in San
Marcos Creek.
Large population will be preserved in
Northwest.
A significant population in the southern end
of the species' range will be preserved.
None.
Potential Impact Minimization and
Mitigation Measures
Would benefit from control of access and
removal of exotic species.
Would indirectly benefit from control of
access and removal of exotic species.
Could be used in habitat restoration efforts.
Would benefit from access control and
removal of exotic species.
Plan provides for preservation of other oak
species.
Would benefit from access control and
removal of exotic species.
Plan provides for preservation of other
sensitive plants.
Would benefit from access control and
removal of exotic species; could be used in
habitat restoration efforts.
None necessary; no take.
Would benefit from access control;
preserved population is near development.
Could be used in wetland restoration.
None necessary; no take.
None necessary; no take.
Could be used in habitat restoration efforts.
Would benefit from access controls and
removal of exotic species.
Not necessary; no take.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 75
4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 12 (continued)
Anticipated Impacts of Conservation Strategy on Species of Concern
ID
#
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
Species Name
and Listing Status
Western dichondra
Dichondra occidentalis
C3c, CNPS4, NCCP, OSS
Western spadefoot toad
Spea hammondii
CSC, NCCP, T
Coastal rosy boa
Lichanura trivirgata rosafusca
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Coastal western whiptail
Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Northern red diamond rattlesnake
Crotalus ruber ruber
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Orange-throated whiptail
Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
San Diego horned lizard
Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
Bell's sage sparrow
Amphispiza belli belli
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, OSS
Burrowing owl
Speotyto cunicularia
CSC, MBTA, T
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica californica
FT, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, T
Cooper's hawk
Accipiter cooper/
CSC, MBTA, T
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, OSS
Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus
CSC, MBTA, T
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, T
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, T
Yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens
CSC, MBTA, OSS
Rancheros
Conserved
Onsite
2 of 5
populations
480 acres
460 acres
460 acres
460 acres
460 acres
460 acres
460 acres
20 acres
425 acres
Up to 18
pair
30 acres
480 acres
450 acres
(foraging
habitat)
425 acres
1 0 acres
1 0 acres
Assumed
Taken
3 of 5
populations
620 acres
560 acres
560 acres
560 acres
560 acres
560 acres
560 acres
60 acres
405 acres
Up to 18
pair
65 acres
580 acres
450 acres
(foraging
habitat)
405 acres
< 1 acre
< 1 acre
Northwest
Conserved
Onsite
NA
85 acres
50 acres
50 acres
50 acres
50 acres
50 acres
50 acres
35 acres
20 acres
None
assumed
70 acres
60 acres
55 acres
(foraging
habitat)
20 acres
35 acres
35 acres
Assumed
Taken
NA
420 acres
200 acres
200 acres
200 acres
200 acres
200 acres
200 acres
220 acres
100 acres
Up to 13
pair
280 acres
370 acres
320 acres
(foraging
habitat)
1 00 acres
<1 acre
<1 acre
76 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis
Benefit from
Offsite
Conservation
Potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Not as planned
Yes
Potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Not Likely
Not Likely
Potential Benefits/Other Considerations
Preserved population is not large but large
area of potential habitat is protected.
Large area of potential breeding habitat is
preserved.
Large area of potential habitat preserved.
Large area of potential habitat preserved.
Large area of potential habitat preserved.
Large area of potential habitat preserved.
Large area of potential habitat preserved.
Large area of potential habitat preserved.
Measures for Northwest do not directly
benefit this grassland species.
Preservation of habitat linkage will help
sustain viability of City's gnatcatcher
populations.
Preserved habitat in San Marcos Creek will
help sustain prey base for species.
Habitat and dispersal corridors used by
species are preserved.
Indirectly benefited by preservation of
potential foraging habitat.
Large area of potential habitat preserved.
Some habitat preserved on Northwest.
Potential habitat preserved.
Potential Impact Minimization and
Mitigation Measures
Would benefit from access control and
removal of exotic species.
Would benefit from having potential
breeding pools maintained.
Would benefit from access controls.
Would benefit from access controls.
Would benefit from access controls.
Would benefit from access controls and
predator management.
Would benefit from access controls and
predator management.
Would benefit from removal of non-native
species.
Would benefit habitat conservation under
HMP and MHCP.
Would benefit from access controls, predator
controls, and fire management.
Would benefit from nest site protection
during breeding season.
Would benefit from access controls, control
of non-native plants, and revegetation efforts.
Would benefit from wetland enhancement.
Would benefit from access controls and
control of non-native plants.
No direct impacts expected; only one
transient bird observed onsite.
Would benefit from cowbird trapping, nest
monitoring, and access control.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 77
4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 12 (continued)
Anticipated Impacts of Conservation Strategy on Species of Concern
ID
#
A-33
A-34
A-35
A-36
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-11
B-1 2
Species Name
and Listing Status
Yellow warbler
Dendroica petechia brewsteri
CSC, MBTA, OSS
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia
C2, CSC, OSS
Blochman's dudleya
Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae
CNPS1B, NCCP, OSS
Cliff spurge
Euphorbia misera
CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Coast barrel cactus
Ferocactus viridescens
C2*, CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
Del Mar sand aster
Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linfolia
FPT, CNPS1B, NCCP, T
Encinitas baccharis
Baccharis vanessae
FPE*, SE, CNPS1B, T
Orcutt's hazardia
Hazard/a orcuttii
C2, CNPS1B
Orcutt's spineflower
Chorizanthe orcuttiana
FPE*, SE, CNPS1B, NCCP
San Diego ambrosia
Ambrosia pumila
C2*, CNPS1B, NCCP
San Diego sagewort
Artemisia palmeri
CNPS2, NCCP, OSS
San Diego thornmint
Acanthomintha ilicifolia
C1*, SE, CNPS1B, NCCP, T
Harbison's dun skipper
Euphyes vestris harbinsoni
C2,T
Hermes copper
Lycaena hermes
C2*, OSS
Rancheros
Conserved
Onsite
1 0 acres
510 acres
480 acres
460 acres
L
L
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
L
L
1 0 acres
465 acres
Assumed
Taken
< 1 acre
745 acres
580 acres
560 acres
L
L
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
L
L
<1 acre
180 acres
Northwest
Conserved
Onsite
35 acres
90 acres
60 acres
50 acres
L
L
NE
NE
L
NE
L
NE
M
L
35 acres
50 acres
Assumed
Taken
60 acres
470 acres
370 acres
200 acres
L
L
NE
NE
L
NE
L
NE
M
L
< 1 acre
200 acres
78 Rev/sec/ Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis
Benefit from
Offsite
Conservation
Not Likely
Potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Not Likely
Not Likely
Not Likely
Not Likely
Not Likely
Not Likely
Not Likely
Not Likely
Potentially
Not Likely
Not Likely
Potentially
Potential Benefits/Other Considerations
Potential habitat preserved.
Large area of potential habitat preserved.
Large area of potential habitat preserved.
Large area of potential habitat preserved.
Low potential for occurrence.
Low potential for occurrence.
Not expected to occur.
Not expected to occur.
Not expected to occur.
Not expected to occur.
Low potential for occurrence in Northwest.
Not expected to occur.
Low to moderate possibility of occurring;
potential habitat preserved.
Low potential for occurrence.
Potential habitat preserved.
Potential habitat preserved.
Potential Impact Minimization and
Mitigation Measures
Would benefit from cowbird trapping, nest
monitoring, and access controls.
Would benefit from predator controls.
Would benefit from predator controls.
Would benefit from predator controls.
No take expected.
No take expected.
No take expected.
No take expected.
No take expected.
No take expected.
No take expected.
No take expected.
No take currently expected.
No take currently expected.
No take expected.
No take expected.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 79
4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 12 (continued)
Anticipated Impacts of Conservation Strategy on Species of Concern
ID
#
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-17
B-18
B-19
B-20
B-21
B-22
B-23
B-24
B-25
B-26
B-27
B-28
Species Name
and Listing Status
Quino checkerspot
Euphydryas editha quino
C1 *, OSS
California red-legged frog
Rana aurora draytonii
FPE, CSC, OSS
Coast patch-nosed snake
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Coronado skink
Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
San Diego banded gecko
Co/eonyx variegatus abbotti
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
San Diego ringneck snake
Diadophis punctatus similis
C2, CSC, OSS
Silvery legless lizard
Anniella nigra argentea
CSC, OSS
Southwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata pallida
C1 *, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Two-striped garter snake
Thamnophis hammondii
C2, CSC, OSS
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris act/a
C2, CSC, MBTA, NCCP, OSS
Least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
FE, SE, MBTA, T
San Diego cactus wren
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi
C2, CSC, NCCP, T
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus
FPE, SE, FSS, MBTA, T
California mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
C2, CSC, T
Dulzura California pocket mouse
Chaetodipus californicus femoralis
C2, CSC, T
Pacific pocket mouse
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
FEE, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Rancheros
Conserved
Onsite
NE
NE
465 acres
495 acres
465 acres
495 acres
45 acres
1 0 acres
1 0 acres
20 acres
1 0 acres
425 acres
1 0 acres
45 acres
(foraging
habitat)
65 acres
NE
Assumed
Taken
NE
NE
1 80 acres
620 acres
180 acres
620 acres
1 60 acres
< 1 acre
< 1 acre
55 acres
< 1 acre
405 acres
< 1 acre
1 60 acres
(foraging
habitat)
280 acres
NE
Northwest
Conserved
Onsite
NE
NE
50 acres
90 acres
50 acres
90 acres
65 acres
35 acres
35 acres
35 acres
35 acres
20 acres
35 acres
65 acres
(foraging
habitat)
35 acres
NE
Assumed
Taken
NE
NE
200 acres
510 acres
200 acres
510 acres
1 55 acres
< 1 acre
< 1 acre
220 acres
< 1 acre
1 00 acres
<1 acre
1 65 acres
(foraging
habitat)
1 45 acres
NE
80 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis
Benefit from
Offsite
Conservation
Potentially
Not Likely
Potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Potentially
Not Likely
Not Likely
Not Likely
Not Likely
Potentially
Potentially
Not Likely
Potentially
Not Likely
Potentially
Potential Benefits/Other Considerations
Not expected to occur.
Not expected to occur.
Potential habitat preserved.
Potential habitat preserved.
Potential habitat preserved.
Potential habitat preserved.
Potential habitat preserved.
Potential habitat in San Marcos Creek
preserved.
Potential habitat preserved.
Potential foraging habitat preserved.
Potential nesting and foraging habitat
preserved.
Potential habitat preserved.
All potential habitat preserved.
Potential foraging habitat preserved.
Potential habitat preserved.
Not expected to occur in plan area.
Potential Impact Minimization and
Mitigation Measures
No take expected.
No take expected.
If present, would benefit from access
controls.
If present, would benefit from access
controls.
If present, would benefit from access
controls.
If present, would benefit from access
controls.
If present, would benefit from predator
controls.
No take expected.
If present, would benefit from access
controls and control of non-native plants.
No take expected.
If present, would benefit from cowbird
trapping and access controls.
Would benefit from use of cacti and other
succulents in fuel modification zones and as
access controls.
If present, would benefit from cowbird
trapping and access controls.
No take expected.
If present, would benefit from predator
controls and access controls.
No take expected.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 81
4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Table 12 (continued)
Anticipated Impacts of Conservation Strategy on Species of Concern
ID
#
B-29
B-30
Species Name
and Listing Status
Southern grasshopper mouse
Onychomys torridus ramona
C2, CSC, NCCP, OSS
Townsend's western big-eared bat
Plecotus townsendii townsendii
C2, CSC, T
Rancheros
Conserved
Onsite
450 acres
45 acres
(foraging
habitat)
Assumed
Taken
450 acres
1 60 acres
(foraging
habitat)
Northwest
Conserved
Onsite
55 acres
65 acres
(foraging
habitat)
Assumed
Taken
320 acres
1 65 acres
(foraging
habitat)
ID Codes
A-
B-
Species observed or assumed to occur in one or both plan area components
Species potentially occurring in habitats in one or both plan area components
Occurrence Codes
L Low Probability of Occurrence
M Moderate Probability of Occurrence
NA Not Applicable
NE Not Expected (or Observed)
82 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis
Benefit from
Offsite
Conservation
Potentially
Not Likely
Potential Benefits/Other Considerations
Potential habitat preserved.
Potential foraging habitat preserved.
Potential Impact Minimization and
Mitigation Measures
If present, would benefit from access and
predator controls.
No take expected.
Status Codes
C1 Category 1 candidate for federal listing
C2 Category 2 candidate for federal listing
C3c Category 3c candidate for federal listing
CNPS Listed by the California Native Plant Society as:
(1B) rare or endangered in California and elsewhere
(2) rare or endangered in California and more common elsewhere
(4) plants of limited distribution
CSC Identified by CDFG as a species of special concern in California
FE Listed as endangered under the federal ESA
FEE Emergency listed as endangered under the federal ESA
FPE Proposed for federal listing as endangered
FPT Proposed for federal listing as threatened
FSS Identified by federal agencies as a sensitive species
FT Listed as threatened under the federal ESA
MBTA Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NCCP On the list of sensitive species for the NCCP program
OSS "Other Sensitive Species" identified in draft Carlsbad HMP
ST Listed as threatened under the California ESA
T Target species for Carlsbad HMP and North County MHCP
3-28-94 Revised Draft 83
4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
2. Alternatives to the Taking
In addition to examining potential impacts, six alternatives to the anticipated
taking were considered:
• Complete avoidance of take of listed species;
• No take of coastal California gnatcatchers;
• Take only within the Rancho Santa Fe Road project area;
• Delay of take in the plan area pending completion of the HMP;
• An offsite mitigation strategy with unlimited take in the plan area; and
• Reconfiguration of onsite conserved habitat and development areas.
a. Complete Avoidance of Take
Under this alternative, all development within the plan area would be planned
to completely avoid take of listed species. The HCP/OMSP would not be
submitted to USFWS and CDFG for approval and would not be implemented by
FLCA and the City. Individual projects within the two plan area components,
including mitigation for impacts to biological resources, would be planned,
reviewed, and approved in accordance with the local, state, and federal laws in
effect at the time. Conservation of plants and wildlife in the plan area would be
determined in the context of existing laws and, upon its completion, the
Carlsbad HMP.
This alternative was rejected as counter to the intent of the MOAs signed in July
and August 1991, the preliminary consensus reached in May 1992, the federal
ESA and state NCCP program, and the citywide HMP planning process. In
addition, by failing to address the likelihood that additional species known to
occur in the plan area will be listed in the foreseeable future, the "no project"
alternative also fails to address the economic uncertainties that could render
both private development and public works infeasible.
b. Jake Only within Road Project Area
Under the "road project only" alternative, the HCP/OMSP would focus solely
on mitigation for the impacts of the Rancho Santa Fe Road realignment and
adjacent grading project. Land uses that would affect biological resources in
San Marcos Creek, Rancheros, and Northwest would be planned, reviewed, and
approved in accordance with local, state, and federal laws in effect at the time.
This alternative was the focus of initial planning efforts for this plan. It was
explicitly rejected by the HCP Facilitation Team because of (1) the obvious links
between habitats in the road project area, San Marcos Creek, and Rancheros; (2)
FLCA's willingness to include three components of the La Costa Master Plan in
an planning process; and (3) the need for greater flexibility (via a larger plan
area) in balancing conservation and development within the constraints of the
City's CMP.
84 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis
c. No Take of Cnatcatchers
Under this alternative, all proposed land uses in the plan area, including the
road project, would be reconfigured to avoid take of coastal California
gnatcatchers due to direct and indirect impacts. This approach was originally
proposed in anticipation of the federal listing of the gnatcatcher as a way to
comply with the federal ESA without requiring preparation of an HCP. It also
was proposed as a way to maximize the conservation of coastal sage scrub
habitat in the plan area.
The alternative was eliminated from further consideration because, given the
distribution of habitat and birds, take could not be completely avoided without
precluding all of the land uses currently proposed for the plan area and
authorized under the City's existing General Plan and CMP. The elimination of
development impacts in the plan area would have to assume acquisition of the
property or the development rights to it. Such acquisitions are not within the
City's current or foreseeable financial capabilities. Likewise, dedication of all or
part of the lands without the ability to develop elsewhere is financially
infeasible for FLCA.
d. Delay of Take Pending Completion of the HMP
Under this alternative, take in the plan area would not be allowed until the
citywide HMP is completed. This approach would delay but not avoid the
development impacts identified in this plan. It was eliminated from further
consideration primarily because it would also delay implementation of
conservation measures proposed in this HCP/OMSP and thereby preclude any
immediate benefits that those measures would provide to individual species. In
addition, the HCP/OMSP is specifically designed to provide an opportunity for
early implementation of conservation measures in two of the preserve planning
areas identified in the HMP. Further, the HCP/OMSP is consistent with the
HMP and stregthens it by preserving habitat, species, and wildlife corridors in
key locations.
e. Offsite Mitigation for Unlimited Plan Area Take
Under this alternative, a higher level of take in both plan area components
would be proposed and offsite lands would be the primary focus of the
conservation and mitigation measures. Onsite measures would concentrate on
minimization of development impacts, and replacement habitat would be
acquired offsite and established as a permanent preserve. A version of this
alternative also was considered prior to the preliminary consensus on the basic
terms of the strategy in this plan, in which occupied habitat in San Pasqual
Valley was identified as mitigation for impacts within Southeast II.
This approach was eliminated from further consideration primarily because,
given the pattern of habitat and land ownership in the City and region, the
offsite reserve would likely be located outside the urban area where coastal sage
scrub is most at risk. In addition, although an offsite preserve would have
benefits for the gnatcatcher and other species, it would not have the same
natural open space function and local conservation value as a strategy focused
on the plan area components. It also would not provide the connectivity
proposed in the HCP/OMSP.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 85
4. Habitat Conservation Strategy and Impact Analysis Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
f. Reconfiguration of Onsite Conserved Habitat
and Development Areas
During the preparation and review of the HCP/OMSP, a variety of alternative
onsite configurations of the conserved habitat and development areas were
considered. This was in keeping with the requirement that impacts must be
minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable and that the
HCP/OMSP not prejudice subregional NCCP planning efforts. Generally,
alternatives considered included the downsizing and relocation of major arterial
roadways, density transfers, dwelling unit losses, and boundary reconfigurations
to permit increases in conserved habitat. Among other factors, the financial
costs and feasibility of these alternatives were considered. It was determined
that further dedications and revisions by the landowner were not financially
practicable.
86 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 5. Conservation Program and Mitigation Measures
5. Conservation Program
and Mitigation Measures
This chapter describes the actions that the City and FLCA will undertake in
coordination with USFWS and CDFG in order to:
• Conserve 645.1 acres of habitat in the plan area and up to an additional
240 acres in offsite locations;
• Provide for ongoing management of the conserved habitat;
• Minimize and mitigate the impacts expected in the plan area; and
• Ensure implementation of the plan and secure long-term (30-year)
authorizations and assurances for projects and activities in the plan area.
A. Habitat Conservation
Implementation of the HCP/OMSP will conserve up to 885.1 acres of habitat for
the species of concern: 645.1 acres within Rancheros-Southeast II and
Northwest and up to 240 acres in offsite locations to be selected in consultation
with USFWS and CDFG.
1. Onsite Conservation
Onsite conservation will occur within Rancheros-Southeast II and Northwest as
shown on Figures 16 and 18 (see pages 67 and 71) and as described in the
implementing agreement that accompanies this plan.
In Rancheros-Southeast II, conserved habitat consists of 521.41 acres as shown
on Figure 16:
• 161.52 acres in Rancheros,
• 85.0 acres in San Marcos Creek, and
• 274.89 acres in Southeast II.
In Northwest, conserved habitat consists of 123.69 acres as shown on Figure 18.
All of the designated areas of conserved habitat are lands owned by FLCA;
inholdings shown on Figures 16 and 18 are not included in conserved habitat
and are not covered by the authorizations and assurances that the City and
FLCA are seeking based on this plan.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 87
5. Conservation Program and Mitigation Measures Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
2. Offsite Conservation
Offsite conservation will occur in conjunction with development within
Northwest and will consist of acquisition by FLCA of up to 240 acres of coastal
sage scrub in locations acceptable to USFWS and CDFG. As proposed in this
HCP/OMSP, at least 120 acres of the replacement habitat will be in locations
that strengthen the habitat linkage between Rancheros-Southeast II and regional
coastal sage scrub community that extends into the San Dieguito and San
Pasqual River Valley. Areas proposed as replacement habitat will be reviewed
on a case-by-case basis with USFWS and CDFG and, once acquired, will be
managed as conserved habitat. Criteria for acceptable sites will be developed
by USFWS and CDFG working in cooperation with the City and FLCA.
3. Ownership of Conserved Habitat
In accordance with state guidelines for 2081 agreements (see Appendix A),
FLCA will provide an irrevocable offer to convey fee interest or a conservation
easement for conserved habitat in the plan area to a conservancy established or
designated for purposes of the Carlsbad HMP, to CDFG, or to another entity
approved by USFWS and CDFG. Conservation easements or fee interest also
will be conveyed for the offsite mitigation lands.
B. Habitat Management
Two types of habitat management will be provided under the plan:
• Interim management of conserved habitat by FLCA; and
• Long-term, ongoing management of conserved habitat by an entity
designated for that purpose under the terms of this HCP/OMSP, the HMP,
or North County MHCP.
It is anticipated that the entity responsible for long-term management of
conserved habitat and the entity to which the conservation easements or fee
interest is conveyed will be a conservancy established for purposes of
implementing the HMP. However, alternative arrangements also have been
identified in the event that the HMP is substantially delayed or not completed.
Such alternatives include delegation of management responsibilities to CDFG,
The Nature Conservancy, or (as a last resort) a homeowners association. The
arrangement actually made will be subject to USFWS and CDFG concurrence.
1. Interim Habitat Management
FLCA will be responsible for management of conserved habitat until fee interest
is conveyed or FLCA delegates its management responsibilities to the HMP
conservancy or an entity approved by the City, USFWS, and CDFG. Interim
management activities will consist of:
88 Rev/sec/ Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 5. Conse/vat/'on Program and Mitigation Measures
• Maintaining existing access controls;
• Clean-up of conserved habitat areas where unauthorized trash dumping has
occurred; and
• Implementation of project-specific impact minimization and mitigation
measures for FLCA activities (see below).
FLCA will prepare an interim management plan that describes the activities to
be performed and, until fee interest is conveyed or the management
responsibilities have been delegated, will provide annual updates to the plan as
necessary. FLCA also will provide information on the implementation of
interim management measures in the annual reports on overall plan
implementation that will be prepared by FLCA and the City for USFWS and
CDFG review (see "D. Plan Implementation").
2. Ongoing Habitat Management
Ongoing management of conserved habitat will be guided by annual plans
prepared by the HMP conservancy or other designated entity in consultation
with a management advisory committee. The committee will be composed of
representatives of USFWS, CDFG, the City, FLCA, and the management entity or
entities. Subject to the availability of funds through the HMP and other sources,
long-term management would include the following types of activities.
1. Target species would be selected for monitoring, and highly sensitive
species would be targeted for special management.
2. Opportunities for habitat restoration and enhancement within conserved
habitat would be identified and ranked in order of priority.
3. Cowbird trapping and predator controls would be selectively applied in
connection with special management measures for highly sensitive species.
4. The locations of non-native and exotic plants within and immediately
adjacent to conserved habitat could be mapped and scheduled for removal,
monitoring, and control.
5. A fire management program would be developed in consultation with the
City Fire Marshall and the wildlife agencies to: (a) avoid a catastrophic fire
within conserved habitat; (b) develop alternatives for reducing fuel loads; (c)
minimize impacts to conserved habitat from fire management programs for
adjacent land uses; and (d) if controlled burns are required, develop
"optimal" fire regimes for key species.
6. Access controls would be maintained and where necessary increased to
limit access of people, vehicles, and domestic pets to conserved habitat and
to preclude access to highly sensitive resources.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 89
5. Conservation Program and Mitigation Measures Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
7. Public information materials and programs would be developed, including:
(a) a brochure that describes the natural resources, areas of special interest,
and prohibited activities within conserved habitat; (b) landscaping and fuel
break planning brochure for homeowners and homeowner associations
adjacent to conserved habitat, providing them with information about
which plant species to use or avoid; (c) provided impacts are avoided or
mitigated, inclusion of nature trails along or through portions of conserved
habitat as part of the City's Master Trails Plan; and (d) identification of study
areas within conserved habitat to be used for public education purposes.
3. Funding of Habitat Management
Funding of interim management activities will be FLCA's responsibility.
Funding of long-term management will be provided through the HMP by use of
any funds available to the City for wildlife, acquisition, conservation, and
management purposes, including but not limited to assessments, levies, and
grants or other types of funding from public or private sources. As a last resort,
a "conserved habitat maintenance charge" of $50.00 per residential unit per
year would be assessed on each development unit within the plan area.
C. Impact Minimization
and Mitigation Measures
In addition to the impact minimization acheived through preserve design, the
HCP/OMPS provides for individual projects and activities to be planned and
implemented in a way that further avoids, minimizes, and mitigates impacts to
species of concern and conserved habitat. Such measures will include but not
be limited to project-specific impact avoidance and minimization, impact
phasing and project design, and supplemental mitigation measures.
1. Project-Specific Impact Avoidance
and Minimization
Ten project-specific impact avoidance and minimization measures will pertain
to individual projects and activities that would affect conserved habitat.
a. Nest Site Protection
No clearing or grading operations will be allowed in habitat occupied by the
gnatcatcher during its breeding season (February 15 to July 31). This measure
also will protect other nesting species of concern. Prior to July 31, clearing may
occur if it is determined that the birds have already successfully fledged young,
are no longer actively nesting, and the young have dispersed from the area. The
presence of occupied habitat will be determined by a qualified biologist prior to
February 15 of the year in which any clearing or grading would occur.
Although no direct impacts to trees currently used for nesting by raptors are
anticipated, if it is determined that raptors are nesting in any trees scheduled for
removal, the trees will be avoided until after the nesting season. Additionally,
where feasible, clearing activities within 200 feet of raptor nest sites will be
avoided during the nesting season.
90 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 5. Conservation Program and Mitigation Measures
b. Controlled Access and Barriers
Prior to commencement of clearing or grading activities, access barriers to
conserved habitat will be established at key entry points. The boundaries of
conserved habitat immediately adjacent to a grading area will be flagged by a
biologist, and a fence will be installed to prevent disturbance by construction
vehicles. This fencing may be removed upon completion of all construction
activities and/or replacement with permanent fencing to protect conserved
habitat. Reasonable, appropriate measures also will be taken to ensure that the
construction crew is informed of the sensitivity of conserved habitat.
c. Noise Levels
Grading, construction, and other activities that create noise in excess of 61
d.b.a. Leq level in conserved habitat occupied by gnatcatchers will be limited to
the non-breeding season (August 1 through February 15) unless six foot
temporary noise berms are used to reduce noise levels.
d. Storage and Staging Areas
No temporary storage or stockpiling of construction materials will be allowed
within conserved habitat, and all staging areas for equipment and materials
(especially rock crushing equipment) will be located as far from conserved
habitat as possible. Staging areas and construction sites will be kept as free as
possible of trash, refuse, discarded food wrappers, and other waste that might
attract small scavengers that prey on gnatcatchers and other sensitive small
passerines. Trash containers with animal-resistant lids will be provided on the
site during construction.
e. Monitoring
During grading and construction adjacent to conserved habitat, a biologist will
monitor the adjacent habitat for excessive accumulations of dust or other
disturbance. Erosion control devices also will be monitored during the rainy
season to ensure that dirt, topsoil, and other materials are not washing into the
conserved habitat area. If at any time significant amounts of dust or material are
determined to be impacting conserved habitat, then corrective measures will be
taken immediately.
f. Unavoidable Disturbances of Conserved Habitat
Disturbance of conserved habitat will be avoided to the maximum extent
possible. However, where disturbance is unavoidable and has been authorized,
it will be mitigated by restoration of the affected sites. Revegetation plans will
be prepared for the approval of the City prior to such disturbances occurring. In
addition, the location and installation of utilities will be planned cooperatively
with the City, USFWS, and CDFG to minimize and mitigate the impacts of such
projects on species of concern and conserved habitat. Examples of disturbances
that may be unavoidable include: (a) temporary noise buffers and fencing
adjacent to conserved habitat; (b) fuel modification zones at the edge of
conserved habitat; (c) temporary and permanent public facilities for water,
electricity, sewer, gas, and other utilities; and (d) remedial grading for structural
purposes, such as easements, buttresses, and crib walls.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 91
5. Conservation Program and Mitigation Measures Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
g. Fuel Management Zones
Fuel management zones separating conserved habitat from adjacent
development will be designed to minimize impacts to native vegetation. The
final location of the zones in relation to the interface of development of
conserved habitat will be defined at the tentative map stage of planning.
Measures to minimize or further reduce impacts to vegetation include: (a)
removal of high fuel species, irrigation, and selective pruning (as specified in the
City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual) to suppress the potential for slope fires;
(b) planting of native, low-fuel plant species within fuel management zones; and
(c) use of alternative fuel breaks such as coastal prickly pear cactus, that reduce
water use, have additional wildlife value, and minimize access to conserved
habitat.
h. Lighting
Lighting within new development projects adjacent to conserved habitat will be
selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from conserved habitat. In
addition, lighting from homes abutting conserved habitat will be screened by
planting vegetation, and large spotlight-type backyard lighting directed into
conserved habitat will be prohibited.
i. Landscaping
Invasive species such as giant reed and pampas grass will not be used in
landscaped area directly adjacent to conserved habitat. A list of species that
should not be used in landscaping will be provided to home buyers.
Additionally, these species will be identified in the CC&Rs of the homeowners
association as plants to be avoided in landscaping.
/. Public Information Program
Homeowners, homeowner associations, and the interested public will be
informed of ways to avoid impacts to the conserved resources through a public
information program developed in cooperation with the City. The program will
include: (a) a public information brochure that describes the natural resources
and prohibited activities within conserved habitat; and (b) a landscaping and
fuel break planning brochure for homeowners and homeowner associations
adjacent to conserved habitat.
2. Impact Phasing and Project Design Measures
Impact phasing and project design measures pertain to projects and activities
within Rancheros-Southeast II. They are as follows.
1. Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road will proceed in two-phases, as
discussed in 1. Purpose, Scope, and Planning Context and subject to final
environmental review.
2. Grading and construction within Southeast II will occur in the areas shown
on Figure 19 as "phases."
92 Revised Draft 3-28-94
NOTES:
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD WILL BE PHASE 1A.
PHASES I - III MAY OCCUR IN ANY ORDER.
SDG&E EASEMENT
LEGEND
PRESERVE AREAS
II j PHASE NUMBER
Prepared By: Hofman Planning Associates NTS
Figure 19 . Phased Grading in Southeast II
93
5. Conservation Program and Mitigation Measures Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
3. Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road and the configuration of conserved
habitat in Southeast II assumes redesign of Melrose Avenue to avoid two
gnatcatcher use areas and reclassification of the road from a prime to major
arterial.
3. Supplemental Mitigation Measures
In addition to the measures already described, FLCA will work cooperatively
with the City, USFWS, and CDFG to implement the following supplemental
mitigation measures.
a. Coastal California Gnatcatcher Research
To provide additional data that can be used to guide habitat management, FLCA
will provide $50,000 for research on the coastal California gnatcatcher. The
focus and design of the research program will be determined prior to the
conveyance of conserved habitat to the designated management entity.
6. Coordination with Other Programs
To ensure that the needs of multiple species are addressed and to avoid
duplication of effort, the City will coordinate the implementation of this plan
with other conservation programs in and adjacent to Carlsbad. In addition,
FLCA will provide the City with $150,000 for the completion of the HMP.
c. Cooperation of Other Land Owners
Working with USFWS and CDFG, the City and FLCA will seek the cooperation
of Vallecitos Water District in maintaining the existing biological value of the
District's lands near Stanley Mahr Reservoir; SDG&E's cooperation in the
consolidation and relocation of powerline easements in conserved habitat; and
the City of San Marcos' cooperation in the preservation of a wildlife corridor in
that portion of San Marcos Creek outside of the City.
D. Plan Implementation
Implementation of the HCP/OMSP will be governed by an agreement among
the City, FLCA, USFWS, and CDFG. In addition to reiterating the roles and
responsibilities cited above, the agreement specifies reporting requirements and
procedures to address unforeseen circumstances, and states the authorizations
and assurances provided under the plan. Key provisions are summarized
below.
1. Record Keeping
To document and monitor plan implementation, the City will designate a
project manager to:
1. Maintain files with current information on projects and activities proposed
for the plan area;
94 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP 5. Conservation Program and Mitigation Measures
2. Maintain files with current information on the inventory of species and
habitats in the plan area;
3. Assist with project and activity planning; and
4. Assist with onsite monitoring of impacts and mitigation measures.
2. Annual Reports
The City and FLCA will cooperatively prepare annual reports on overall
implementation of the plan for review by USFWS and CDFG. Preparation of
these reports will be timed so that they are available when the management
entity is planning habitat management activities for the ensuing year. Each
annual report on plan implementation will include:
1. A summary of projects and activities that were initiated, continued, or
completed in the plan area in the year past;
2. A list of projects and activities expected to begin, continue, or conclude in
the plan area in the upcoming year;
3. Take of any listed species that occurred in connection with projects and
activities covered by the plan;
4. A report of any changes in the federal or state listing status of the species of
concern or other species known to occur in the plan area; and
5. A report of any significant changes in the status of resources in areas
designated as conserved compared with the previous year.
3. Periodic Comprehensive Reviews
At the end of the first five years of the program and every five years thereafter, a
comprehensive review of plan implementation will be undertaken by the City
and FLCA in cooperation with USFWS and CDFG. The biological scope of the
review will be determined by the management advisory committee and
conducted as part of the annual work program for the ensuing year.
4. Procedures in Response to Unforeseen
Circumstances
For purposes of this plan, the term "unforeseen circumstances" is meant to
include:
1. Significant adverse changes in the quality of habitat and species richness of
conserved habitat;
2. Significant changes in the anticipated impacts of projects and activities
covered by the plan; and
3-28-94 Revised Draft 95
5. Conservat/on Program and Mitigation Measures Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
3. Significant new information relevant to the HCP/OMSP that was unforeseen
at the time the plan was approved.
In determining whether such circumstances have occurred, USFWS and CDFG
will notify the City and FLCA of their intention to review the situation and
provide a written explanation of the facts that prompted the review. If it is
determined that unforeseen circumstances have occurred, the agencies, City,
and FLCA will work cooperatively to amend the HCP/OMSP as appropriate.
5. Authorizations and Assurances
Implementation of the plan is predicated on the approval of long-term (30-year)
authorizations and assurances that will allow planning and development
activities by the City, FLCA, and other landowners in the plan area to proceed
without further wildlife mitigation. The authorizations and assurances will
apply to projects and activities planned and conducted in accordance with the
HCP/OMSP, including but not limited to:
1. Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road and related transportation
improvements in Rancheros-Southeast II;
2. Development of FLCA master planned residential communities, together
with the requisite infrastructure and public facilities, in both plan area
components;
3. Commercial development by MAG properties on 81 acres in Rancheros-
Southeast II;
4. Fire management and roadway maintenance in both plan area components;
and
5. Management of conserved habitat in both plan area components.
96 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP References
References
California Department of Fish and Game
1980 At the crossroads: A report on the status of California endangered
and rare fish and wildlife.
1986 Endangered, rare, and threatened animals of California.
1987 Designated endangered or rare plants. Summary list from section
1904 Fish and Game Code (Native Plant Protection Act).
1991 Special Animals. Natural Diversity Data Base. April.
California Department of Fish and Game and California Resources Agency
1993 Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community
Conservation Planning Process Guidelines. November.
City of Carlsbad
n.d. Land Use Element (of the General Plan).
1992 Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan. June.
1993 Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of
Carlsbad, California. Review Draft. July.
Cotton/Beland and Associates
1991 Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Mass Grading, Draft
Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad.
ERCE
1989 Focused California gnatcatcher mapping of the La Costa planning
sub-areas. Prepared for The Fieldstone Company. Unpublished job
report.
1990 Focused California gnatcatcher mapping of the La Costa planning
sub-areas. Prepared for The Fieldstone Company. Unpublished
job report.
Holland, Robert F.
1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of
Fish and Game. October.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 97
References Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Michael Brandman Associates, Inc.
1991 a Biological assessment for Draft EIR for the Rancho Santa Fe Road
realignment and mass grading.
1991b Report on California gnatcatcher and sensitive plants of the Santa
Fe Creek Property, San Diego County, California.
Michael Brandman Associates and Dudek & Associates, Inc.
1992 Draft Biological Resources and Habitat Analysis City of Carlsbad,
California. May 14. Unpublished job report.
San Diego Association of Governments
1993 Habitat Model Results [for the] MHCP Study Area. Preliminary
tabulation. Report to North County Wildlife Forum. August.
Smith,]. P., and K. Berg
1988 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. California
Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1, 4th edition.
Sacramento, California.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
1987 Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Federal Register 50
CFR 17.11 and 17.12.
WESTEC Services, Inc.
1986 Biological resources analysis of the La Costa planning sub-areas: La
Costa, Northwest, Rancheros, La Costa Southeast, La Costa
Southwest. Prepared for Lay O. Round and Associates. September.
98 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Glossary
Glossary
Abbreviations and Acronyms
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cm centimeter(s)
CNPS California Native Plant Society
City City of Carlsbad
CSS Coastal Sage Scrub
db decibel
du dwelling unit
ESA Endangered Species Act (Federal or California)
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FLCA Fielstone/La Costa Associates
CIS Geographic Information System
CMP Growth Management Plan/Program
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HMP Habitat Management Plan
LFMP Local Facilities Management Plan
m meter(s)
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MHCP (North County) Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
mm millimeter(s)
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MSCP (City of San Diego) Multi-Species Conservation Plan
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning
NDDB (California) Natural Diversity Data Base
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
OMSP Ongoing Multi-Species Plan
PD Planned Development
RMP Resource Management Plan
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SRP Scientific Review Panel
ssp subspecies
USFWS (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
var variation
3-28-94 Revised Draft 99
Glossary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Common and Scientific Names
Plants
Trees
Ash
California sycamore
Coastlive oak
Cottonwood
Engelmann oak
Nuttall's scrub oak
San Diego mountain-mahagony
Toyon
Willow
b. Shrubs
Black sage
California adolphia
California buckwheat
California encelia
California sagebrush
Chamise
Chaparral broom
Cliff spurge
Coyote bush
Del Mar manzanita
Encinitas baccharis
Flat-top buckwheat
Laurel sumac
Lemonadeberry
Mission manzanita
Mulefat
Munz's sage
Orcutt's hazardia
Purple sage
Red berry
San Diego County viguiera
San Diego marsh elder
San Diego sagewort
Sugar bush
Summer holly
Tamarisk
Wart-stemmed ceanothus
White sage
Fraxinus velutina var. cor/acea
P/atanus racemosa
Quercus agrifolia
Populus sp.
Quercus engelmannii
Quercus dumosa
Cerocarpus minutiflorus
Heteromeles arbutifolia
Salix sp.
Salvia mellifera
Adolphia califonica
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Encelia californica
Artemisia californica
Adenostoma fasciculatum
Baccharis sarothroides
Euphorbia misera
Baccharis pilularis ssp. consangu/nea
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassfolia
Baccharis vanessae
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Malosma laurina
Rhus integrifolia
Xylococcus bicolor
Baccharis glutinosa ssp. salicifolia
Salvia munzii
Hazardia orcuttii
Salvia leucophylla
Rhamnus crocea
Viguiera laciniata
Iva hayesiana
Artemisia palmeri
Rhus ovata
Comarostaphylis diversifolia
Tamarix parviflora
Ceanothus verrucosus
Salvia apiana
100 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Glossary
Herbaceous Plants
Ashy spike-moss
Blochman's dudleya
Bulrush
California adder's-tongue
California blue-eyed grass
Cattail
Cocklebur
Common golden stars
Curly dock
Del Mar sand aster
Orcutt's brodiaea
Orcutt's spineflower
Palmer's grapplinghook
Plantain
Purple needlegrass
Rush
Salt grass
San Diego ambrosia
San Diego golden star
San Diego sedge
San Diego thornmint
Southwestern spiny rush
Spike sedge
Sticky-leaved liveforever
Thread-leaved brodiaea
Umbrella sedge
Western dichondra
Western ragweed
Yerba mansa
Cacti
Cholla
Coast barrel cactus
Butterflies
Harbison's dun skipper
Hermes copper
Quino checkerspot
Fish
Selaginella cinerascens
Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae
Scirpus sp.
Ophioglossum lusitanicum
Sisyrinchium bellum
Typha sp.
Xanthium strumarium var. canadense
Bloomeria crocea ssp. crocea
Rumex crispus
Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia
Brodiaea orcuttii
Chorizanthe orcuttiana
Harpagonella pa/men
Plantago erecta, Plantago insularis
Stipa pulchra
Juncus sp.
Distichlis spicata var. stricta
Ambrosia pumila
Muilla clevelandii
Carex spissa
Acanthomintha ilicifolia
Juncus acutus var. leopoldii
Eleocharis sp.
Dudleya viscida
Brodiaea filfolia
Cyperus ergrostis
Dichondra occidentalis
Ambrosia psilostachya var. californica
Anemopsis californica
Opuntia sp.
Ferocactus viridescens
Euphyes vestris harbinsoni
Lycaena hermes
Euphydryas editha quino
Mosquitofish
Large crayfish
Largemouth bass
Gambusia affinis
Procambarus clarki
Micropterus salmoides
3-28-94 Revised Draft 101
Glossary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Amphibians
Bullfrog
California red-legged frog
Western spadefoot
Reptiles
Coachwhip
Coastal rosy boa
Coastal western whiptail
Coast patch-nosed snake
Common kingsnake
Coronado skink
Gopher snake
Granite spiny lizard
Northern red diamond rattlesnake
Orange-throated whiptail
San Diego banded gecko
San Diego horned lizard
San Diego ringneck snake
Silvery legless lizard
Southern alligator lizard
Southwestern pond turtle
Striped racer
Two-striped garter snake
Birds
American crow
Bell's sage sparrow
Brown-headed cowbird
Black-tailed gnatcatcher
Burrowing owl
California horned lark
Canyon wrens
Coastal black-tailed gnatcatcher
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Common raven
Common yellowthroat
Cooper's hawk
Least Bell's vireo
Loggerhead shrike
Northern harrier
Scrub jay
Song sparrow
So. Calif, rufous-crowned sparrow
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Tricolored blackbird
Yellow-breasted chat
Yellow warbler
Rana catesbeiana
Rana aurora draytonii
Spea hammondii
Masticophis flagellum
Lichanura trivirgata rosafusca
Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
Lampropeltis getulus
Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis
Pituophis catenifer
Sceloporus orcuttii
Crotalus ruber ruber
Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi
Coleonyx variegatus abbotti
Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei
Diadophis punctatus similis
Anniella nigra argentea
Elgaria multicarinata
Clemmys marmorata pallida
Masticophis lateralis
Thamnophis hammondii
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Amphispiza belli belli
Molothrus ater
Polioptila melanura
Athene cunicularia
Eremophila alpestris act/a
Catherpes mexicanus
Polioptila melanura californica
Polioptila californica californica
Corvus corax clarionensis
Ceothlypis trichus
Accipiter cooper//
V/>eo bellii pusillus
Lanius ludovicianus
Circus cyaneus
Aphelocoma coerulescens
Me/osp/za melodia
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
Empidonax traillii extimus
Agelaius tricolor
Icteria virens
Dendroica petechia brewsteri
102 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Glossary
Mammals
Black rat
Bobcat
California mastiff bat
Coyote
Dulzura California pocket mouse
Field mouse
Mule deer
NW San Diego pocket mouse
Norway rat
Opossum
Pacific pocket mouse
Raccoon
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
San Diego desert woodrat
Southern grasshopper mouse
Townsend's western big-eared bat
Woodrat
Rallus rattus
Lynx rufus
Eumops perotis californicus
Canis latrans
Chaetodipus californicus femoralis
Peromyscus sp.
Odocolileus hemionus
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
Rattus norvegicus
Didelphis marsupialis
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
Procyon lotor
Lepus californicus bennettii
Neotoma lepida intermedia
Onychomys torridus ramona
Plecotus townsendii townsendii
Neotoma sp.
Definitions
Arterial: A street that provides for the movement of large amounts of traffic,
carrying traffic from collector roads to other collectors, arterials or freeways.
Biodiversity: A general term for species, habitats, and genetic diversity; the
distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and
species within an area.
Compensation Measures: Measures undertaken by public and private
landowners to offset the adverse environmental impacts of development through
agreements; may include dedication of land, provision of funds for wildlife
conservation, design modification, habitat reclamation or enhancement, and/or
other protective actions.
Conditional Use Permit: In Carlsbad, a permit allowing certain uses in certain
zones provided the uses will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and
welfare and will not impair the integrity and character of the zone. The
Planning Commission approves such permits subject to conditions, and each
application is considered on its own merits.
Control Point or Density Control Point: In Carlsbad, the number of du/ac in
each residential classification that cannot be exceeded by any new development
in the City.
Critical Habitat: Defined in the federal Endangered Species Act (1973) to
include the area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, specific areas in
the vicinity of the occupied habitat, and specific areas away from the occupied
habitat considered essential for the conservation of the species.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 103
Glossary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Cumulative Impact: The incremental environmental impact of an action
together with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions
(regardless of the source of the other actions).
Decibel (db and dbA): A unit for measuring the relative loudness of sounds
equal approximately to the smallest degree of difference of loudness ordinarily
detectable by the human ear. The A-weighted scale, expressed as dbA, gives
greater weight to frequencies.
Discretionary Project/Action: A project which requires the exercise of
judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or
disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the
public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been
conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations (CEQA
Guidelines 1986).
Dispersal: The movement, usually one way, and on any time scale, of plants or
animals from their point of origin to another location whether they subsequently
produce offspring.
Ecosystem: A community of organisms and their physical environment
interacting as an ecological unit.
Endangered Species: Any plant or animal in danger of extinction in all or a
significant part of its range.
Endangered Species Act: Federal Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. Sections
1531-1543; and California Act of 1984, as amended, California Fish and Came
Code, Sections 2050-2098.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR): A document prepared in accordance with
state law that contains detailed information about the effect which a proposed
project is likely to have on the environment, lists ways in which the significant
effects of such a project might be minimized, and indicates alternatives to the
project.
Environmentally Sensitive Lands: In Carlsbad, open space lands which are
constrained or prohibited from development, including beaches, lagoons, other
permanent water bodies, riparian habitats, steep slopes, and land with other
significant environmental features determined by the environmental review
process for a project.
Exclusive Agriculture: In Carlsbad, a zoning classification that provides for such
uses as agriculture which are customarily conducted in areas which are not yet
appropriate for urban development.
Exclusive Agriculture with Qualified Overlay: In Carlsbad, a zoning
classification that supplements agricultural zoning by providing additional
regulations for development within a designated area.
Extinct: No longer in existence; no longer living.
104 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Glossary
Growth Management Plan/Program: In Carlsbad, a comprehensive approach
to land use planning now and in the future that links residential, commercial,
and industrial development directly to the availability of public services and
facilities, sets limits on the total number of housing units to be built, and
increases the total amount of open space to be preserved in the City.
Growth Management Zone: In Carlsbad, a geographically-defined area in the
City for which a plan for public services and facilities is required before
development can occur. Under the City's Growth Management Plan, there are
25 such zones in the City.
Habitat: The combination of environmental conditions of a specific place
occupied by a species or a population of such species.
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): An implementable program for the long-
term protection and benefit of a species in a defined area; required as part of a
Section 10(a) permit application under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Habitat Management Plan (HMP): Here, a conservation plan being prepared by
the City of Carlsbad as a component of the General Plan to preserve sensitive
and other significant biological resources within the City's boundaries.
Harass: A form of take under the federal Endangered Species Act; defined in
federal regulations as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates
the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not
limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
Harm: A form of take under the federal Endangered Species Act; defined in
federal regulations as an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts
may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually
kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
High Density: In Carlsbad, a classification for residential development
characterized by two and three-story condominiums or apartments, 15 to 23
du/ac. The City's GMP sets a 19 du/ac control point on such residential
development.
Historic Habitat: Areas that have supported a species in the past and may or
may not continue to do so.
Historic Range: The maximum past or present distribution of a species or
subspecies.
Home Range: The area to which the activities of an animal are confined during
a defined period of time.
Incidental Take: The taking of a federally listed wildlife species, if such taking
is incidental to and not the purpose of carrying out otherwise lawful activities.
Lead Agency: The public agency which has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 105
Glossary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Limited Control: In Carlsbad, an interim zoning classification for areas where
planning for future land uses has not been completed or plans for development
have not been formalized.
Low Density: In Carlsbad, a classification for rural, residential, or agricultural
development that is characterized by single family dwellings on parcels one-half
acre of larger, or cluster-type and innovative housing development at an overall
density not to exceed 1.5 du/ac. The City's GMP sets 1 du/ac as the control
point for such development.
Low-Medium Density: In Carlsbad, a classification for residential areas usually
characterized by single family homes and planned residential development. A
variety of overall housing types may be allowed as long as the overall density
does not exceed 4 du/ac. The City's GMP sets 3.2 du/ac as the control point for
such development.
Master Plan: In Carlsbad, a plan that supplements and provides more detail to
the General Plan and Land Use Element as it applies to a large piece of land in
the City.
Medium Density: In Carlsbad, a classification for urban residential
development typically characterized by small lot single-family homes or
townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and low density apartment developments, 4 to
8 du/ac. The City's GMP sets 6 du/ac as the control point for such
development.
Medium-High Density: In Carlsbad, a classification for residential development
characterized by one and two-story condominiums or apartments, 8 to 15
du/ac. The City's GMP sets 11.5 du/ac as the control point for such
development.
Mitigation: Measures undertaken to diminish or compensate for the negative
impacts of a project or activity on the environment, including: (a) avoiding the
impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b)
minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the affected environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over
time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action;
or (e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
Monitoring: In the context of this plan and as per CEQA requirements for
certified EIRs and mitigated negative declarations, the process of collecting
information to document the implementation and evaluate the efficacy of
approved mitigation measures.
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP): Here, a wildlife species and
habitat conservation program initiated by the members of the North County
Wildlife Forum.
Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP): Here, a wildlife species and
habitat conservation program initiated by the City of San Diego in connection
with its Clean Water Program.
106 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Glossary
Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP): A habitat conservation
program instituted by the State of California in 1992 to encourage the
preservation of natural communities before the species within those
communities are threatened with extinction.
Negative Declaration: A document prepared in accordance with state law that
briefly describes the reasons that a proposed project will not have a significant
effect on the environment and does not require the preparation of an
environmental document.
Ongoing Multi-Species Plan (OMSP): As defined in NCCP Process Guidelines,
a multiple species conservation program that was formally underway prior to
enactment of the NCCP program on January 1, 1992, and that substantively
meets the same goals and objectives of plan prepared under the NCCP
Guidelines.
Open Space: Land on which no structural improvements are permitted.
Plan Area: Here, Fieldstone's Northwest, Rancheros, and Southeast II properties
in the City of Carlsbad, together with MAG properties within the Rancho Santa
Fe Road project area.
Planned Community: In Carlsbad, a zoning classification that designates large
tracts of land for a combination of residential densities and development
controlled by a Master Plan.
Planned Development: In Carlsbad, a contained development, often with a
mixture of housing types and densities, in which the subdivision and zoning
controls are applied to the project as a whole rather than to individual lots as in
most subdivisions. Therefore, densities are calculated for the entire
development, usually permitting a trade-off between clustering of houses and
provision of common open space.
Population: A collection of individuals that share a common gene pool.
Population Density: Number of individuals of a species per unit of area.
Public Facilities: Uses or structure that provide services to the public, such as a
library, City hall, fire station, police station, park, traffic signal, or major street.
Within the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan, public facilities are defined to
include city administration, library, wastewater treatment, parks, drainage,
circulation, fire, open space, schools, sewer collection, and water distribution.
Rare Species: A species of plant or animal which had limited numbers and/or
distribution.
Recovery Plan: A plan to ensure the conservation and survival of endangered
and threatened species. Recovery plans give priority, to the extent feasible, to
those endangered or threatened species that are or may be in conflict with
construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity.
Resource Management Plan (RMP): Here, an open space conservation plan
being prepared by the City of Carlsbad as a component of its General Plan to
provide and protect open spaces for different uses within the City.
3-28-94 Revised Draft 107
Glossary Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
Right-of-way: An area of land which has been dedicated for public use for
transportation purposes (i.e., a street, freeway or railroad).
Section 7: A section of the federal Endangered Species Act that provides for
consultation between federal agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat on
such species.
Section 9: A section of the federal Endangered Species Act that prohibits
"taking" of threatened and endangered species.
Section 10(a): A section of the federal Endangered Species Act that allows for
incidental takings of a threatened or endangered species through permits issued
for scientific purposes and for otherwise lawful activities.
Sensitive Species: Species which are rare, which have preternaturally small or
declining populations, or whose probably for long-term survival is in question.
Serai Stage: A step in the practically continuous replacement of one plant
community by another (succession) as an ecological site passes from a pioneer
stage through intermediate to the climax stage of a vegetation type.
Recognizable stages, or seres, occur in the development of a climax vegetation
as it arises, grows, matures, and dies. The stages of progression from
colonization of bare land to formation of stabilized habitat are called early serai,
mid-serai, late serai, and potential natural community (climax).
Species: Groups of interbredding natural populations that are reproductively
isolated from other such groups.
Species of Concern: In this plan, the listed and sensitive species that are known
to or are likely to occur within the plan area. Also usually synonymous with
"sensitive species" if used to distinguish listed species from other species.
Take: To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect a listed species, or attempt to do so.
Territory: The area that an animal defends, usually during breeding season,
against intruders of its own species.
Threatened Species: Any species or subspecies that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Viability: The ability of a population to persist. The converse of vulnerability or
the propensity of a population to go extinct.
Zoning: A legal device used by local governments to control development
density and ensure that land uses are properly situated in relation to one
another.
108 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP HCP Facilitation Team
HCP Facilitation Team
The following persons were members of or advisors to the HCP
Facilitation Team that guided initial development of the
HCP/OMSP in 1991-93:
Rick Alexander*
Jonathan Atwood
Doug Avis*
John Barone
Glenn Black*
Jean Carr*
Mary Lynn Coffee.
Diana Coombs*
Michael Evans
Paul Fromer*
Brooks Harper*
Philip Hinshaw*
Bill Hofman
Michael Holzmiller*
Barry Jones*
Lisa King
Lindell Marsh*
Michael McCollum
Michael McLaughlin*
Jeff Opdycke*
Carrie Phillips*
Don Rideout*
Seth Schulberg*
Ed Sauls*
Dan Silver*
Terri Stewart*
Bill Toone*
The Rick Alexander Company
Manomet Bird Observatory
Fieldstone/La Costa Associates
Fieldstone/La Costa Associates
California Department of Fish and Game
Carr Consulting
(formerly) Siemon, Larsen & Marsh
San Dieguito River Valley Joint Powers Authority
Biological Consultant
Regional Environmental Consultants
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
A.D. Hinshaw and Associates
Hofman Planning Associates
Carlsbad Planning Director
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists Inc.
Hofman Planning Associates
Siemon, Larsen & Marsh
McCollum Associates
San Diego Association of Governments
(formerly) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Community Development Department
Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation
The Sauls Company
Endangered Habitats League
California Department of Fish and Game
San Diego Zoological Society
* Member of the HCP Facilitation team
3-28-94 Revised Draft 109
HCP Facilitation Team Carlsbad-Fieldstone HCP/OMSP
Other persons
include:
who participated in the initial planning process
Heidi Coates
Deborah Croft-Kornheiser
Claire Dedrick
Lewis Feldman
"Teen" Flores
Douglas Ford
John Foreman
Joe Gallagher
Marc Gerber
Dale Gleed
Kevin Hampton
L. Ski Harrison
Dave Hogan
Doug Jensen
Robert Kennedy
Mark Krai
Bob Ladwig
Fred Morey
Neal Pederson
Brian Rice
Mike Ryan
Bernie Scaparro
P. Jerold Walsh
John Weigand
Harold Weigand
John Yeager
Audubon Society
Silldorf, Burdman, Duigan & Eisenberg
Consulant
Cox, Castle & Nicholson
Brighton Homes
Douglas Ford and Associates
The Development Planning & Finance Group
Leisure Technologies
Cunningham-Baristic
Bren Company
Lincoln Property Company
Rutan and Tucker
San Diego Biodiversity Project
Vista Santa Fe and Broadmoor Homes
Jack Henthorn & Associates
Vistar Financial, Inc.
Ladwig Design
MAG Properties
Baywood Development Group
Rice Enterprises
Unocal Corporation
Cox, Castle & Nicholson
Weigand Properties
Weigand Properties
Pettis, Tester, Kruse & Krinsky
110 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Plan Preparers
Plan Preparers
The following persons contributed to the preparation of the
March 1993 and/or March 1994 versions of the HCP/OMSP.
City of Carlsbad Staff and Consultants
Michael Holzmiller
Don Rideout
Rick Alexander
Jean Carr
Paul Fromer
Gina Shultz
Philip Hinshaw
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
City of Carlsbad Community Development
The Rick Alexander Company
Carr Consulting
Regional Environmental Consultants
Regional Environmental Consultants
A.D. Hinshaw & Associates
Fieldstone/La Costa Staff and Consultants
John Barone
Doug Avis
Barry Jones
Chris Lindsay
Ed Reichenberg
Ed Sauls
Lindell Marsh
Mary Lynn Coffee
Michael McCollum
Bill Hofman
Lisa King
Dan King
Greg Hagen
Fieldstone/La Costa Associates
Fieldstone/La Costa Associates
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc. (mapping)
The Sauls Company
Siemon, Larsen & Marsh
(formerly) Siemon, Larsen & Marsh
McCollum Associates
Hofman Planning Associates
Hofman Planning Associates
Hofman Planning Associates
Hofman Planning Associates
3-28-94 Revised Draft 111
Plan Preparers Calrsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
112 3-28-94 Revised Draft
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP ' Appendix A
Appendix A
Regulatory Framework
of the HCP/OMSP
A. Federal Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Laws A-3
1. Federal Endangered Species Act A-3
a. Section 4 A-4
b. Section 9 A-4
c. Section 10(a) A-5
d. Section 7 A-7
e. Section 6 A-7
f. Special 4(d) Rule for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher A-8
2. Migratory Bird Treaty Act A-9
3. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act A-9
4. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act A-10
B. California Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Laws A-12
1. California Endangered Species Act A-12
a. Sections 2070-2079 A-12
b. Section 2080 A-12
c. Sections 2081 and 2053 A-13
d. Sections 2090-2097 A-13
2. Native Plant Protection Act A-15
3. Natural Community Conservation Planning Act A-15
a. Purpose and Focus A-15
b. Process Guidelines for NCCPs and OMSPs A-16
c. Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation Guidelines A-19
4. Streambed Alteration Laws „ A-20
C. Federal and State Environmental Documentation Requirements A-21
1. National Environmental Policy Act A-21
2. California Environmental Quality Act A-21
3-28-94 Revised Draft A-1
Appendix A Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
A-2 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Appendix A
Regulatory Framework
of the HCP/OMSP
The regulatory framework of the HCP/OMSP consists primarily of federal and
state laws and regulations that pertain to the plan's functions as a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for federally listed species, a Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP) equivalent, and as a menu of conservation and
mitigation measures for individual projects. This appendix discusses the
pertinent laws and regulations under three headings:
• Federal wildlife and habitat conservation laws,
• California wildlife and habitat conservation laws, and
• Federal and state environmental documentation requirements.
A. Federal Wildlife and Habitat
Conservation Laws
The federal wildlife and habitat conservation laws that pertain to the
HCP/OMSP include the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
1. Federal Endangered Species Act
Five sections of the federal ESA are relevant to the preparation, approval, and
implementation of the HCP/OMSP:
• Section 4, which covers the listing process, designation of critical habitat,
issuance of special rules for the protection of threatened species, and
preparation of recovery plans;
• Section 9, which prohibits the import, export, take, possession, transport,
receipt, or sale of listed species;
• Section 10(a), which authorizes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
to issue permits for incidental take of listed species and to approve HCPs
for listed and/or unlisted species;
• Section 7, which requires all federal agencies to consult with USFWS
regarding actions that would affect a listed species, includes provisions for
conferences with USFWS regarding impacts to species proposed for federal
listing, and allows for the authorization of incidental take resulting from
federal actions; and
• Section 6, which authorizes cooperative agreements between USFWS and
states and includes provisions for the conservation of federally listed plants.
3-28-94 Revised Draft A-3
Appendix A Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
a. Section 4
Section 4 of the federal ESA stipulates that a species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened based on any one of five factors:
1. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range;
2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
3. Disease or predation;
4. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
5. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Section 4 further stipulates the steps by which species may be proposed for
listing and the time-frame in which decisions must be made. It also requires
that critical habitat for the species be designated concurrently with the decision
to list the species and that a plan for the conservation and survival of the species
(recovery plan) be prepared and implemented. Section 4 also provides for the
issuance of special regulations for the protection of federally-listed threatened
species in any State that has entered into a cooperative agreement with USFWS
pursuant to Section 6 of the ESA.
The HCP/OMSP anticipates the future federal listing of species known or
expected to occur in the plan area and encompasses habitat currently occupied
by one federally-listed species, the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher.
USFWS has not designated critical habitat or initiated preparation of ecovery
plan for the gnatcatcher but has adopted a special rule for the species (see "f."
below).
b. Section 9
Section 9 of the federal ESA prohibits the taking of species listed by USFWS as
threatened or endangered. As defined in the ESA, "taking" means "to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or to attempt to
engage in such conduct." "Harass" and "harm" are further defined in federal
regulations and case law as follows:
"Harass" means an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates
the likelihood of injuring wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not
limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
"Harm" means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may
include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills
or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
A-4 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Appendix A
With respect to endangered plants, the ESA makes it unlawful to:
1. Remove and reduce to possession any such species from areas under
federal jurisdiction;
2. Maliciously damage or destroy any such species on such areas; or
3. Remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such species on any other
area in knowing violation of any law or regulation in any state or in the
course of any violation of a state criminal trespass law.
ESA protection for threatened plants is substantially the same as that given to
endangered plants, except that the seeds of threatened plants may be cultivated.
Within the area covered by the HCP/OMSP, Section 9 prohibitions on take
currently apply to only to one observed wildlife species (the gnatcatcher); no
currently listed plants have been observed to date in the plan area.
c. Section 10(a)
In recognition that take cannot always be avoided, Section 10(a) of the ESA
includes provisions for takings that are incidental to, but not the purpose of,
otherwise lawful activities. Similar provisions also are found in Section 7 for
actions by federal agencies.
Under Section 10(a)(1)(B), USFWS (via powers delegated by the Secretary of the
Interior) is authorized to approve "incidental take" permits provided that the
applicant has met certain conditions. As described in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) and draft conservation planning guidelines prepared by
USFWS, the application for such permits must be submitted on a specific form
and must be accompanied by an HCP that contains the following information:
1. The impact that will likely result from the proposed taking of the species;
2. Steps the applicant will take to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such
impacts;
3. The level and source of funding available to implement such steps;
4. Procedures that will be used to deal with unforeseen circumstances;
5. The names of the responsible party or parties;
6. Alternatives to the taking and the reasons why they were not pursued; and
7. Other measures that may be required by USFWS as necessary or
appropriate.
The application is submitted to the Regional Director of USFWS who, after a
public comment period, must issue the permit if it is found that:
1. The taking will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity;
3-28-94 Revised Draft A-5
Appendix A Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
2. The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and
mitigate the impacts of the taking;
3. The applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the conservation plan
and procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances will be provided;
4. The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and
recovery of the species in the wild;
5. The applicant will ensure that other measures (if any) that USFWS may
require as being necessary or appropriate will be met; and
6. USFWS is assured that the conservation plan will be implemented
(USFWS'Ss practice has been to require an "implementing agreement"
signed by the permittee and USFWS in which the actions identified in the
HCP are presented in the form of a legal contract.)
Prior to making the decision, USFWS must conduct an internal consultation in
accordance with Section 7 of the ESA. USFWS also must comply with the
environmental review requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), which requires that the potential effects of a major action be analyzed
in a written statement.
Although phrased in terms of criteria for issuance of incidental take permits,
Section 10(a)(1)(B) also was intended by Congress to authorize USFWS'Ss
approval of HCPs for unlisted as well as listed species. Moreover, if the HCP
treats unlisted species as if they were already listed, additional mitigation would
not be required within the area covered by the HCP upon the listing of that
species. As stated by the House Conference Committee when Section
10(a)(1)(B) was added to the ESA in 1982:
The committee intends that the Secretary [of the Interior] may utilize this
provision to approve conservation plans which provide long-term
commitments regarding the conservation of listed as well as unlisted species
and long-term assurances to the proponent of the conservation plan that the
terms of the plan will be adhered to and that further mitigation
requirements will only be imposed in accordance with the terms of the
plan. In the event that an unlisted species addressed in an approved
conservation plan is subsequently listed pursuant to the Act, no further
mitigation requirements should be imposed if the conservation plan
addressed the conservation of the species and its habitat as if the species
were listed pursuant to the Act. (House of Representatives Conference
Report No. 97-835, 97th Congress, 2d Session, p. 30).
Consistent with Congress' intent, the HCP/OMSP addresses the needs of listed
and currently unlisted species of concern in the plan. It also presents the type of
information and analysis required for USFWS to consider authorization for take
for each species of concern.
A-6 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Appendix A
d. Section 7
Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to consult with USFWS on
actions involving listed species, requires USFWS to conduct internal
consultations regarding the effects of its own actions on such species, and
includes provisions for conferences with USFWS regarding impacts to species
proposed for federal listing. It also requires USFWS to use its program to further
the objectives of the ESA.
A Section 7 consultation begins with a biological assessment that examines the
potential effects of the action on the species in question and concludes with a
written statement by USFWS stating whether the action would jeopardize a
listed or proposed species or adversely affect critical habitat. If USFWS finds
that the species would not be jeopardized, the written statement includes
authorization for incidental take. A Section 7 conference is conducted in much
the same way as a consultation but written findings are not always prepared.
With respect to the HCP/OMSP, USFWS must conduct an internal consultation
regarding the potential effects of plan approval on any federally listed species,
designated or proposed critical habitat, and any adopted recovery plans for
federally listed species; USFWS also will consider potential effects on species
currently proposed for federal listing.
e. Section 6
Section 6 of the ESA authorizes USFWS to enter into cooperative agreements
with States, such as the agreement between USFWS and CDFG regarding the
NCCP program for coastal sage scrub. In addition, Section 6(c)(2) deals
explicitly with conservation programs for listed plants; as stated in the ESA:
In order for a State program to be deemed an adequate and active program
. . . the Secretary must find, and annually thereafter reconfirm such finding,
that under the State program —
(A) Authority resides in the State agency to conserve resident species of
plants determined by the State agency or the Secretary to be endangered or
threatened;
(B) the State agency has established acceptable conservation programs,
consistent with the purposes and policies of this [ESA], for all resident
species of plants in the State which are deemed by the Secretary to be
endangered or threatened, and has furnished a copy of such plan and
program, together with all pertinent details, information, and date requested
to the Secretary;
(C) the State agency is authorized to conduct investigations to determine
the status and requirements for survival of resident species of plants; and
(D) provision is made for public participation in designating resident species
of plants as endangered or threatened . . .
Such a program has been authorized in California based on the state ESA, the
Native Plant Protection Act, and California Native Desert Plants Act.
3-28-94 Revised Draft A-7
Appendix A Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
The plant conservation program proposed in the HCP/OMSP is based on the
assumption that the authorized state program in California provides mechanisms
for approving take of federally as well as state listed plants.
f. Special Rule
for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The special 4(d) rule for the gnatcatcher was proposed in March 1993 and,
following an extended public review period, was adopted in December 1993.
As published in the Federal Register on December 10, 1993, the final rule reads
as follows:
(1) Except as noted in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, all
prohibitions of §17.31 (a) and (b) shall apply to the coastal California
gnatcatcher.
(2) Incidental take of the coastal California gnatcatcher will not be
considered a violation of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act), if it results from activities conducted pursuant to the State
of California's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991
(NCCP), and in accordance with a NCCP plan for the protection of coastal
sage scrub habitat, prepared consistent with the State's NCCP Process
Guidelines, provided that:
(i) The NCCP plan has been prepared, approved, and implemented
pursuant to California Fish and Game Code sections 2800-2840;
and
(ii) The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has issued written
concurrence that the Natural Community Conservation Plan meets
the standards set forth in 50 CFR 17.32(b)(2). The Service shall
issue its concurrence pursuant to the provisions of the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated December 4, 1991,
between the California Department of Fish and Game and the
Service regarding coastal sage scrub natural community
conservation planning in southern California. . . . The Service shall
monitor the implementation of the NCCP plan and may revoke its
concurrence under this paragraph (b)(2)(ii) if the NCCP plan, as
implemented, fails to adhere to the standards set forth in 50 CFR
17.32(b)(2).
(3) During the period that a NCCP plan referred to in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section is being prepared, incidental take of the coastal California
gnatcatcher will not be a violation of section 9 of the Act if such take occurs
within an area under the jurisdiction of a local government agency that is
enrolled and actively engaged in the preparation of such a plan and such
results from activities conducted in accordance with the NCCP
Conservation Guidelines and Process Guidelines.
A-8 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Appendix A
(4) The Service will monitor the implementation of the NCCP Conservation
and Process Guidelines as a whole, and will conduct a review every 6
months to determine whether the guidelines, as implemented, are effective
in progressing toward or meeting regional and subregional conservation
goals during the interim planning period. If the Service determines that the
guidelines are not effecting adequate progress toward or meeting regional
and subregional conservation objectives, the Service with consult with the
California Department of Fish and Game pursuant to the MOD to seek
appropriate modification of the guidelines or their application as guidelines
as defined herein. If appropriate modification of the guidelines or their
application as defined therein does not occur, the Service shall revoke the
interim take provisions of this special rule on a subregional or subarea basis.
The Service will publish findings for revocation in the Federal Register and
provide for a 30-day public comment period prior to the effective date for
revoking the provisions of the special rule in a particular area. Revocation
would result in the reinstatement of the take prohibitions set forth under 50
CFR 17.31 (a) and (b) in the affected NCCP area.
The HCP/OMSP is intended to fulfill 4(d) rule requirements as an OMSP that is
an NCCP-equivalent. With USFWS'Ss concurrence that the plan meets NCCP
Guidelines, which in turn requires USFWS'S concurrence that the plan as an
OMSP meets Section 10(a) criteria, take of gnatcatchers would be allowed in the
plan area.
2. Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, capture, kill, or possess or attempt
to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of such bird listed in
wildlife protection treaties between the United States and Great Britain, United
Mexican States, Japan, and the Union of Soviet States. As with the federal ESA,
the act also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for take. The
procedures for securing such permits are found in Title 50 of the CFR, together
with a list of the migratory birds covered by the act.
The HCP/OMSP is designed to ensure compliance with the MBTA by avoiding
direct harm to bird species of concern covered by the act.
3. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to:
1. Provide assistance to and cooperate with federal, state, and public or
private agencies and organizations:
(a) in the development, protection, rearing, and stocking of all species of
wildlife, resources thereof, and their habitat,
(b) in controlling losses of the same from disease or other causes,
(c) in minimizing damages from overabundant species,
3-28-94 Revised Draft A-9
Appendix A Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
(d) in providing public shooting and fishing areas, including easements
across public lands for access thereto, and
(e) in carrying out other measures necessary to effectuate the purposes of
said sections;
2. Make surveys and investigations of the wildlife of the public domain,
including lands and waters or interests therein acquired or controlled by
any agency of the United States; and
3. Accept donations of land and contributions of funds in furtherance of the
purposes of said sections.
The Act's stated purpose is to:
1. Recognize the contribution of the wildlife resources to the nation, the
increasing public interest and significance thereof due to the expansion of
the national economy and other factors; and
2. Provide that wildlife conservation receive equal consideration and be
coordinated with other features of water-resource development programs.
Specifically, the act requires that, except for water impoundment projects less
than 10 acres in size and federal projects on federal lands, all federal agencies
must consult with USFWS and the head of the state wildlife agency with
jurisdiction over the project area with a view to preventing loss of and damage
to and providing for the development and improvement of wildlife resources.
The reports and recommendations from such consultations must be included in
any documents prepared as part of the approval process for the project and must
be considered prior to approval being given. The act further authorizes federal
agencies responsible for the construction or operation of water-control facilities
to modify or add to the structures and operations of such facilities and acquire
lands in order to accommodate the wildlife conservation measures.
The HCP/OMSP assumes that the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act authorizes
USFWS'Ss active participation in the implementation of the plan, together with
the Conference Report on Section 10(a), expresses the intent of the federal
government to support the conservation of habitats for non-listed as well as
listed species.
4. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which is administered by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material
into the waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States"
generally defines COE's jurisdiction and is defined at 33 CFR Part 328 as:
1. All navigable waters (including waters subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide);
2. All interstate waters and wetlands;
A-10 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Appendix A
3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie
potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation
or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce;
4. All impoundments of waters mentioned above;
5. All tributaries to waters mentioned above;
6. The territorial seas; and
7. All wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned above.
Wetlands are further defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as:
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support ... a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
The vegetation, soils, and hydrology of a wetland is further characterized in the
manual used by COE as normally meeting the following three criteria:
• More than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be
typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the National List of
Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands);
• Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of
permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottled with a
matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between
aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and
• Hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to
within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing
season during a normal rainfall year.
Certain activities in wetlands or waters of the United States are automatically
authorized by COE or granted a nationwide permit, provided they meet specific
conditions. All impacts of 10 acres or more and aggregate wetland impacts
greater than 1 acre require an individual permit. The permitting process entails
consultation with federal agencies, public notice, and preparation of a project
alternatives analysis in accordance with guidelines issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA's guidelines are used as the
primary environmental criteria for evaluating the necessity of the proposed
activity and for determining the least damaging feasible alternative appropriate
mitigation for unavoidable impacts. In accordance with the provisions of
Section 404, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and, if federally listed species
are present, Section 7 of the ESA, COE also is required to consult with USFWS
prior to acting on a permit.
The HCP/OMSP provides a framework to coordinate the protection of wetland
habitats and the mitigation for authorized impacts to such habitats within the
plan area. However, the HCP/OMSP is not being submitted for approval as part
of an application for a nationwide or individual permit or other form of 404
authorization from COE for projects or activities in the plan area.
3-28-94 Revised Draft A-11
Appendix A Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
B. California Wildlife and Habitat
Conservation Laws
State conservation laws that most directly pertain to the HCP/OMSP include the
California ESA, Native Plant Protection Act, NCCP Act, and streambed alteration
laws.
1. California Endangered Species Act
The California ESA is part of the Fish and Game Code. Key sections that pertain
to the HCP/OMSP include:
• Sections 2070-2079, which cover the state listing process;
• Section 2080, which prohibits the taking, importation, or sale of state
listed species;
• Sections 2081 and 2053, which authorize California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) to allow take that is for scientific, educational, or
management purposes through memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and
specify state policy regarding projects with impacts to listed species; and
• Sections 2090-2097, which cover the state consultation process.
a. Sections 2070-2079
Sections 2070-2079 of the California ESA specify the process by which species
are proposed for listing as threatened or endangered or as candidates for such
listing. Unlike the federal law, however, the state law does not specify factors
that could trigger a listing. Instead, state law requires the CDFG to recommend
and the Fish and Game Commission to adopt criteria for determining a species'
status.
The HCP/OMSP anticipates the future state listing of species known or expected
to occur in the plan area. It also should be emphasized the plan has been
prepared under the NCCP Act, which is intended to preserve natural
communities in a way that will preclude the need to list certain species as
threatened or endangered.
b. Section 2080
Similar to Section 9 of the federal ESA, Section 2080 of the state law prohibits
the import, export, take, possession, purchase, or sale of listed species unless
explicitly authorized by other provisions of the law. However, the state
restrictions on take differ from those under federal law in two key ways:
1. Take is defined simply as "to hunt, pursue, capture, or kill or attempt the
same;" the terms "harm" or "harass" are not used; and
A-12 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Appendix A
2. Take of species designated as candidates for state listing is prohibited for
the one-year period during which the final listing decision is made (federal
law does not prohibit the taking of species proposed for federal listing).
In the HCP/OMSP, where state and federal definitions of take differ, the more
restrictive of the two has been applied.
c. Sections 2081 and 2053
Section 2081 authorizes CDFG to enter into management agreements with
"individuals, public agencies, universities, zoological gardens, and scientific or
educational institutions, to import, export, take or possess species for scientific,
educational or management purposes." In general, a 2081 management
agreement is similar to an implementing agreement for a 10(a) permit in that it is
a legal contract with CDFG regarding implementation of conservation and
mitigation measures. The agreement typically is prepared in which the parties
seeking the authorization for take provide CDFG with the same information
required for consultation under Sections 2090-2097 (see below). The state ESA,
however, does not specify the contents of or approval criteria for such
agreements other than the requirement that the agreements can be approved
only if they comply with Section 2053.
Section 2053 stipulates that:
... it is the policy of the state that state agencies should not approve
projects as proposed which would jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those
species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent
with conserving the species or its habitats which would prevent jeopardy.
Furthermore, it is the policy of the state and the intent of the Legislature that
reasonable and prudent alternatives shall be developed by the department,
together with the project proponent, and the state lead agency, consistent
with conserving the species, while at the same time maintaining the project
purpose to the greatest extent possible.
If the species also is federally listed, CDFG's practice has been to accept an
HCP prepared for a federal 10(a) permit as the basis for the management
agreement if it contains information that is sufficient for purposes of Section
2081 and 2053. Following review by both CDFG and the State Legal Advisors
Office, the agreement is signed by the Director of CDFG.
Consistent with NCCP Guidelines for OMSPs, the HCP/OMSP is intended to
meet the requirements of a 2081 management agreement for the species of
concern.
d. Sections 2090-2097
Sections 2090-2097 of the state ESA require state lead agencies to consult with
CDFG on projects with potential impacts on state-listed species and incorporate
by reference Section 21104.2 of CEQA. (CEQA requires state lead agencies to
consult with and obtain written findings from CDFG when preparing an
3-28-94 Revised Draft A-13
Appendix A Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
environmental impact report [EIR] for a project that affects a state listed species.)
These sections also require CDFC to coordinate consultations with USFWS for
actions involving federally as well as state listed species, and whenever
possible, to adopt the federal biological opinion as its findings in such
consultations.
To make its written findings on projects involving listed species, CDFG requires
that the following information be presented:
1. A full description of the project area and project impact area, including
maps.
2. Known and potential distribution of endangered and threatened species in
the project area and project impact area, based on recent field surveys
conducted in compliance with Fish and Game guidelines.
3. Additional information on the species' distribution and habitat, based upon
literature, scientific data review, and discussions with experts.
4. Analysis of possible effects of the proposed project on listed species,
including cumulative effects.
5. Analysis of alternatives designed to reduce or eliminate impacts to
endangered and threatened species.
A specific format for the data is not stipulated, but the information must be
presented clearly. CDFG then applies the following questions to the project:
1. Would a viable or recoverable population be eliminated, or would a
significant proportion of a population be adversely affected by the project
or the project's effects?
2. Would the range of the species be significantly diminished by the project?
3. Would habitat used by the species be reduced in quantity or quality by
either the immediate or future effects of the project?
4. Would a species' access to its habitat be reduced or rendered more
hazardous as a result of the project?
5. Would the project adversely affect current or future efforts at providing
protection for the species?
6. Would plans for recovery or eventual delisting of the threatened or
endangered species be adversely affected by the project?
7. Would the project interfere with reproductive or other behavior of the
endangered or threatened species?
8. Would the project cause extinction of the species?
To support a no jeopardy finding, the answers to all of the questions must be
no. A yes answer to any of the questions is considered the basis for an initial
assumption that a threatened or endangered species would be jeopardized.
A-14 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Appendix A
Final determination of whether or not jeopardy would occur is based on the
degree to which the project would increase the risk of extinction, limit options
for immediate protection, or decrease the likelihood of future recovery.
For planning purposes, the questions posed in the 2090 consultation have been
used to scope potential impacts of the projects and activities covered by the
HCP/OMSP.
2. Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act includes measures to preserve, protect, and
enhance rare and endangered native plants. The definitions of "rare" and
"endangered" in the plant act differ from those in the state ESA, but the list of
protected native plants encompasses ESA candidate, threatened, and
endangered species. The plant act also includes its own restrictions on take,
stating that "[n]o person shall import into this state, or take, possess, or sell
within this state" any rare or endangered native plant, except as provided in the
act. The exception is where a land owner has been notified of the presence of a
protected plant by CDFG and is required to notify CDFG at least 10 days in
advance of changing land uses to allow CDFG an opportunity to salvage the
plants. Salvaging typically is planned and authorized in connection with
consultations triggered by Sections 2090-2097 of the state ESA and Section
21104.2ofCEQA.
In the HCP/OMSP, the Native Plant Protection Act has been assumed to apply
to all state and federally listed plants and all candidates for such listing in the
plan area.
3. Natural Communities
Conservation Planning Act
The NCCP Act was approved in 1991 and took effect January 1, 1992. In
general, the act authorizes the preparation and approval of conservation plans
for communities of plants and wildlife, with Section 2835 explicitly providing
for the authorization of take of listed species covered by such plans. Currently,
the NCCP program is focused on the coastal sage scrub community in southern
California, which includes a broad range of sensitive plant and wildlife species.
a. Purpose and Focus
The primary purpose of the NCCP program is to preserve local and regional
biological diversity, reconcile urban development and wildlife needs, and meet
the objectives of the state and federal ESAs by conserving habitat before species
are on the brink of extinction. As stated in the planning and conservation
guidelines prepared by CDFG and the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) appointed
as technical advisors, the NCCP process is designed to:
• Promote coordination and cooperation among public agencies,
landowners, and other private interests;
• Provide a mechanism whereby landowners and development proponents
can effectively participate in the resource conservation process;
3-28-94 Revised Draft A-15
Appendix A Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
• Provide a regional planning focus which can effectively address cumulative
impact concerns, minimize habitat fragmentation, and promote multiple
species management and conservation;
• Provide an option for identifying and ensuring appropriate mitigation for
impacts on fish and wildlife;
• Promote the conservation of broad-based natural communities and species
diversity; and
• Provide for efficient use and protection of natural and economic resources
while promoting greater public awareness of important elements of the
state's critical resources.
As also stated in the guidelines, NCCPs are intended to:
1. Protect sufficient coastal sage scrub habitat to ensure the long-term survival
of designated "target" species associated with the habitat;
2. Be based on biological data on the distribution, abundance, and habitat
requirements of the designated target species;
3. Include habitat enhancement and protection measures for small as well as
large parcels of lands; and
4. Satisfy the requirements of the federal and state ESAs for any listed species.
The "target" coastal sage scrub species recommended by the SRP include but
are not limited to: the coastal California gnatcatcher, the cactus wren, and the
orange-throated whiptail. The SRP also has identified other sensitive species
associated with coastal sage scrub habitat and has prepared biological field
survey guidelines for use in the planning process.
The HCP/OMSP is intended to serve the above-stated purposes of an NCCP
within the plan area. In addition, the NCCP list of target and sensitive species
has been used in the identification of species of concern that should be covered
by the plan.
b. Process Guidelines for NCCPs and OMSPs
NCCP Process Guidelines developed in 1992 and 1993 were adopted by CDFG
in November 1993, concurrent with USFWS publication of the final special 4(d)
rule for gnatcatchers. In general, the Process Guidelines recommend that
conservation planning for coastal sage scrub communities be conducted in a
series of ten to twenty subregions through a process that:
• Encourages maximum cooperation between landowners, local
governments, and conservation interests; and
• Allows local governments to adapt the NCCP process to their existing
administrative processes relating to plan preparation, public participation,
public hearing, and environmental review.
A-16 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Appendix A
The recommended planning process entails six steps:
1. Enrollment of local governments and landowners in the NCCP program;
2. Designation of NCCP subregional boundaries by local governments and
landowners who have enrolled in the NCCP program, with each subregion
of sufficient size and diversity to meet the guidelines set by the SRP and
CDFG;
3. Establishment of a coordinated process for the preparation, review, and
approval of each subregional NCCP, with the process specified in a
planning agreement signed by the participating local agencies, landowners,
CDFG, and USFWS;
4. Formulation of the conservation plan through a public planning process,
with opportunities for public participation that equal or exceed those
provided by existing ordinances, public notice and hearing requirements,
and related laws;
5. Preparation and approval of an implementing agreement that specifies all
terms and conditions of activities under the NCCP plan; and
6. Preparation of appropriate CEQA and NEPA documentation for the actions
to be taken on the plan, with the lead agency responsibilities and type of
documentation identified in the planning agreement.
The guidelines do not specify a format for individual plans but require that the
following components be included:
1. Maps and text that clearly present: (a) the boundaries and extent of the
area included in the subregional NCCP; (b) existing coastal sage scrub
habitat within the subregion; (c) the distribution of target species
populations within the subregion and the presence of other sensitive
species; (d) quantitative and qualitative assessments of the coastal sage
scrub habitat required by the designated target species; (e) proposed land
uses or other activities that would affect coastal sage scrub habitat.
2. A habitat conservation and management component that includes: (a) a
range of habitat protection and management options that have been
evaluated for their effectiveness; (b) criteria for habitat conservation and
mitigation that treat all of the target species as listed species; (c) policies for
habitat protection and management, including short-term and long-term
actions to mitigate identified impacts; (d) evaluations of potential
alternatives to planned development or other activities that would result in
incidental take of target species; and (e) a recommended habitat
conservation plan.
3. An implementation component that includes: (a) a phasing program
designed to assure the long-term protection of habitat and open space
corridors over time; (b) funding measures; (c) a mitigation monitoring
program that satisfies CEQA requirements and is adequate to measure the
effectiveness of plan implementation; and (d) procedures to address the
effects of unforeseen circumstances.
3-28-94 Revised Draft A-17
Appendix A Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
The guidelines also recognize pre-existing conservation planning efforts as
NCCP equivalents, provided that four conditions are met.
1. The planning effort was funded and underway at the time that the NCCP
Act became effective (January 1, 1992), as documented by a memorandum
of understanding, an agreement, a statutory exemption, or other formal
process.
2. The plan protects coastal sage scrub habitat and/or contains a mitigation
agreement approved by CDFC pursuant to a prior planning effort, and the
plan substantially achieves the objectives of the NCCP Act, meaning that
the plan provides assurance that coastal sage scrub habitat and named
species will be protected to a degree substantially equivalent to an NCCP
prepared under the guidelines.
3. CDFG approves the plan, and the plan meets Section 2081 requirements
for named species of concern.
4. USFWS approves the plan, and it provides the equivalent of Section 10(a)
HCP requirements for the named species of concern.
Such efforts are termed "on-going multi-species plans" and may differ from
subregional NCCPs in one or more of the following ways:
1. The plan covers species and habitats in addition to those in the coastal
sage scrub community;
2. The boundaries of the planning area are different from those for NCCP
subregions (but have been previously approved by CDFG and do not
significantly impair long-term opportunities for conserving coastal sage
scrub region-wide);
3. Survey methodologies differ from NCCP guidelines but have been
approved by CDFG; and
4. Timing requirements differ from the target NCCP milestones.
The HCP/OMSP qualifies as an OMSP under the Process Guidelines for the
following reasons:
1. Preparation of the plan was funded and underway in 1991;
2. The planning process was initiated in accordance with memoranda of
agreement with both USFWS and CDFG;
3. Coastal sage scrub habitat and its associated species are the primary focus of
the plan;
4. USFWS and CDFG have participated in the planning process, including
review of the survey methodologies and preserve design;
5. The plan is designed to meet federal Section 10(a) and state Section 2081
requirements for the species of concern; and
A-18 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Appendix A
6. The plan is designed to help attain key conservation goals of two larger-
scale OMSPs enrolled in the NCCP program, the subregional North County
MHCP and subarea Carlsbad HMP.
c. Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation Guidelines
As part of the Process Guidelines, CDFG also adopted conservation guidelines
that focus on minimizing short-term losses of coastal sage scrub habitat while a
long-term enhancement and conservation program is being formulated. Under
this strategy, interim loss would be limited to 5 percent of the coastal sage scrub
habitat in any subregion. Implementation of the strategy would occur in the
following sequence:
1. In each subregion where an NCCP would be prepared, a planning body
would be established according to the approved NCCP Process
Guidelines.
2. Working in consultation with USFWS and CDFG, the subregional planning
body would define the boundaries of the area to be included in the
subregional NCCP.
3. An inventory of coastal sage scrub habitat and species would be completed
for the subregion.
4. Ail natural lands within the subregion would be evaluated for their long-
term conservation based on the method described below.
5. The amount of coastal sage scrub within the subregion would be
calculated, verified by USFWS and CDFG, and used to compute the
allowable 5 percent interim loss.
6. A central clearinghouse for data on habitat loss would be established
within the subregion, and that entity would advise the local land use
jurisdictions, USFWS and CDFG regarding actual and anticipated impacts
to coastal sage scrub within the subregion.
7. Interim mitigation requirements would be established for all development
of coastal sage scrub habitat, either through a subregional NCCP planning
agreement or other written document requiring the concurrence of USFWS
and CDFG.
8. The subregional planning body would work to identify and fill data needs
for long-term planning, using SRP conservation guidelines in the process.
9. The subregional NCCPs would then be completed according to the
approved process guidelines.
The evaluation of the long-term conservation value of coastal sage scrub would
include an analysis of all lands with natural habitats in the subregion or subarea,
including forestlands, brushlands, native and non-native grasslands, non-
irrigated grazed land, and vacant or disturbed natural land. Lands subject to
intensive agriculture and urban uses would be excluded. Coastal sage scrub
would be identified based on the presence of primary or secondary cover
3-28-94 Revised Draft A-19
Appendix A Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
characteristics, and the effective size of coastal sage scrub patches would be
determined by assays of natural habitat and clusters of coastal sage scrub within
a one or two mile diameter circle. Proximity to other habitat patches would be
measured as a direct, straight-line distance, with the appropriate scale
determined for each subregion. Landscape linkages also would be determined
by drawing geometric corridors that connect each higher value area to the
closest two or three other higher value areas. The presence of species also
would be taken into account, with higher value assigned to areas that support
significant populations of target species, highly endemic species, or rare sub-
habitat types. In this way, areas within an NCCP subregion would be
determined to have higher, intermediate, or lower potential value for long-term
conservation. Development would be constrained on the higher value area
until the NCCP is completed; development in intermediate areas would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis; and development on lower potential areas
would be allowed with appropriate mitigation.
The HCP/OMSP proposes a permanent, adaptive conservation strategy for
coastal sage scrub and other resources within the plan area; the measures would
be implemented over time, but the proposed conservation program is not
"interim" as defined in NCCP Conservation Guidelines. Consistent with the
guidelines for OMSPs, the habitat evaluation process used in preparation of the
plan differs from but is consistent with the intent of the coastal sage scrub
conservation guidelines. Specifically, the HCP/OMSP incorporates by reference
the habitat evaluation conducted for the HMP and North County MSHCP.
4. Streambed Alteration Laws
Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code regulate all
diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank
of any river, stream, or lake in California that supports fish or wildlife. "Stream"
is defined in CDFG regulations as:
a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a
bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This
includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or
has supported riparian vegetation.
CDFG jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based on the value of
those waterways to fish and wildlife and generally mirrors that of COE under
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Under state law, CDFG must be
contacted for a Streambed alteration agreement for any project that may impact
a Streambed or wetland. Public agency projects are addressed under Section
1601 of the Code; private sector projects are addressed under Section 1603.
The HCP/OSMP provides a framework to coordinate the protection of water-
related habitats and the mitigation for authorized impacts to such habitats within
the plan area. However, as in connection with the federal Clean Water Act, the
plan is not being submitted as part of an application for any individual or
comprehensive agreement with CDFG under these sections of the Fish and
Game Code.
A-20 Revised Draft 3-28-94
Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP Appendix A
C. Federal and State Environmental
Documentation Requirements
Both federal and state documentation and impact analysis requirements pertain
to the HCP/OMSP.
1. National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to
evaluate the effects of their proposed actions on the human environment in a
written statement that addresses:
1. The environmental impact(s) of the proposed action;
2. Any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the
proposed action be implemented;
3. Alternatives to the proposed action;
4. The relationship between short-term uses of the human environment versus
the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be
involved if the proposed action is implemented.
Compliance with NEPA generally begins with an internal "scoping" process. If
a preliminary review indicates that the proposed action has no or minimal
environmental impacts, then a "categorical exclusion" may be determined and
no further environmental documentation is required. If the review indicates that
the proposed action may have significant effects, then an environmental
assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared.
An EA is prepared when the preliminary review indicates that the proposed
action is not likely to have significant impacts; an EIS is prepared when the
expected impacts are significant.
Appropriate NEPA documentation for USFWS'Ss action on the HCP/OMSP will
be prepared jointly with that required under state law.
2. California Environmental Quality Act
Similar to NEPA, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state
agencies empowered to make discretionary decisions to evaluate the
environmental effects of a proposed project before rendering a decision. The
evaluation begins with an initial study that includes:
1. A description of the project, including the location of the project;
2. An identification of the environmental setting;
3-28-94 Revised Draft A-21
Appendix A Carlsbad-FLCA HCP/OMSP
3. An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or
other method;
4. A discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any;
5. An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing
zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and
6. The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the
Initial Study.
If one or more significant impacts are identified, a detailed environmental
impact report (EIR) must be prepared. If no significant impacts are determined
or if all of the significant impacts can be mitigated, a negative declaration is
prepared. CEQA also requires that a negative declaration or draft EIR be
prepared if a project has statewide, regional, or areawide significance and
defines projects that would substantially affect sensitive habitats as projects of
areawide significance.
CEQA documentation for the City of Carlsbad's action on the plan will be
prepared jointly with the NEPA documentation for USFWS'S decisions. In
accordance with the CEQA and the NCCP Act, the joint environmental
documentation also will be considered by CDFG in its decisions on the plan.
A-22 Revised Draft 3-28-94