Loading...
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