Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998/11/18 - Agenda Packet - Attachments #2
The Auk 114(4):601-609, 1997 ASSOCIATION OF WITHIN-TERRITORY VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS AND FITNESS COMPONENTS OF CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHERS GERALD T. BRADEN,:':7; ROBERT L. MCKERNAN,~ AND SHAWN M. POWELL2 ~ San Be~,~ardmo County Museura, 2024 Orange Tree Lane. Red,ands, Cah}~ornia 92374, USA; and : De?artment t? Fm'l!'?.lr~ and Wildl?'e Manageraent, University of Massachusetts. Amherst. Massachusetts 01003, USA ABsl'RACT.--Correlatic. n~, among habitat characteristics and fitness components of Ca]i- fornia Gnatcatchers (Pohoptita californica californica) were examined using within-territory vegetation and life-history data for 41 pairs of gnatcatchers at four sites from 1993 through 1995. C;natcatchers nested earlier, had more successful nests, produced more fledglings, had a longer nesting period, and had lower fledgling costs when their territories were associated with increased grass and forb cover, increased perennial structure. increased horizontal pe- rennial homogeneity, decreased vertical perennial homogeneity, and decreased perennial di- versity Within-territory w?getation variables, derived from the correlation of vegetation and life-history variables, were able to discriminate among gnatcatcher pairs grouped by site. Surviwd of adult gnatcatchers was significantly higher in the gnatcatcher group that had average within-territory vegetation characteristics associated with maximization of other life-history variables and was significantly lower in the gnatcatcher group that had average within 4erritory vegetatior~ characteristics associated with minimization of other life-history variabt. es. Survival of juvemles was not associated with within-territory vegetation. The fi- nite ra~:e of population increase (),) was > 1 for the gnatcatcher group where within-territory vegetation and life-history variables were maximized, approximately equal to 1 for gnat- catcher groups where withm..territory vegetation and life-history variables were moderate, and <:1 for the gnatcatcher group where within-territory vegetation and life-history vari- ables were minimal. Our study suggests that within-territory vegetation characteristics are associated with adult survival and X, but site characteristics independent of vegetation also could have contributed to such an association. Received 3 September 1996, accepted I April 1997. SPECIES ABIJNDANCE can be a misleading in- dicator of habitat quality and reproductive suc- cess (Van Horne 1983, PullJam 1988, Martin 1992, Vickery et al. 1992a). Assuming that hab- itat features associated with fitness compo- nents (i.e. increased reproductive output and survival) will be chosen more often over time, preservation of (or management for) such fea- tures should increase fitness and promote short-term increases in abundance (Martin 1992). For most bird species, however, specific habitat features associated with increased fit- ness are poorly understood (but see Vickery et al. 1992b). Most studies have taken a qualitative approach to linking fitness components with habitat or nest location (e.g. Walkinshaw 1953, Grabe¥ 1961, Nolan 1963, Thompson and Nolan 1973, Stewart et al. 1977, Knapton 1978, Mid- dleton 1979, Fischer 1980, Zimmerman 'I982). E-mail: gbraden@co. san-berna rdino. ca.us Although these studies provide valuable infor- mation on life history, they lack quantitative as- sessments of the association between habitat and fitness. This study focuses on identifying the asso- ciation between habitat features and fitness components for the California Gnatcatcher (Po- lioptila californica californica ), a small, sedentary passefine endemic to the coastal sage scrub community of southern California and north- em Baja California (Atwood 1991). The Cali- fornia Gnatcatcher is listed as a threatened spe- des. The current population estimate for the United States is approximately 2,000 pairs (At- wood 1992), The decline of this species has been concomitant with the disappearance and degradation of the coastal sage scrub habitat throughout southern California (Atwood 1993). The coastal sage scrub community is a Med- iterranean habitat characterized by facultative- ly drought-deciduous, mesophilic shrubs from 601 602 BRADEN, McKERNAN, AND POWELL [Auk, Vol. 114 L. Mathews Motte ~ Rirnr°cL ~t~ 1-215 Skinner FIG. 1. Location of the California Gnatcatcher study areas. Circle is Lake Skinner, triangle up is Lake Mathews Site 1, triangle down is Lake Mathews Site 2, and square is University of California Motte Ecological Reserve. Scale is approximate. 0.5 to 2.0 m tall (see Westman 1981, Mooney 1988, O'Leary 1990a). This community has been heavily modified by agriculture, invasion of exotic weeds, increased frequency of fire, air pollution, livestock grazing, and urban expan- sion (Klopatek et al. 1979; Westman 1981, 1985; O'Leary 1990a). Large areas of coastal sage scrub have been converted, or are undergoing conversion, to non-native grasslands (Kirkpat- rick and Hutchinson 1980, Malanson 1985), and it is generally accepted that 70 to 90% of this habitat type has been lost over the last 100 years (Westman 1981, O'Leary 1990a). We identified within-territory vegetation variables that are associated with life-history variables in California Gnatcatchers and then used these vegetation variables to explore whether average within-territory vegetation of gnatcatcher groups also is associated with ju- venile survival, adult survival, and the finite rate of population growth (X). STUDY AREAS AND METHODS All study sites were in western Riverside County California (Fig. 1), and were dominated by the Riv-. ersidian coastal sage scrub sub-association (O'Leary 1990a). The Lake Skinner site was located within the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve. Vegetation data at this site were collected in 1995 and life-history data from 1992 through 1995. The site was heavily dominated by perennial shrubs that in- cluded California buckwheat (Eriogonum fascicula- tura) with relatively smaller proportions of Califor- nia sage (Arteraisia californica), bush penstemon (Keckiella antirrhinoides), and white sage (Salvia api- ana). A few territories were dominated almost en- tirely by black sage (Salvia mellifera). Two study sites were located within the proposed Lake Mathews Multi-Species Reserve. Vegetation data at these sites were collected in 1993 and 1995 and life-history data from 1993 through 1995. Territories occupied bg gnatcatchers in 1993 along the lakeshore were no Ion.- get occupied by 1995. Occupied territories in 1995 were approximately 1.6 km from the lakeshore. October 1997] Gnatcatcher Habitat and Fitness 603 Therefore~ vegetation and life-history data for 1993 were frotr~ a different, although relatively close, study area than data collected in 1995. The study area in 1993 is hereafte~ referred to as Lake Mathews Site 1, and was dominated by the perennial shrubs Encelia cal~i!~rnica and California sage. The 1995 study area, hereafter referred to as Lake Mathews Site 2, also was dominated by E. cal!~brnica and California sage but ]~ad substantial proportions of California buckwheat, bush penslemon, white sage, and black sage. The ~ourth study site was located at the Motte Rimrock Ecological Reserve, which is a part of the University of California Reserve System. Vegetation data at thi,~; site were collected in 1993 and life-his- tory data in 1993 and 1994. The Motte Site was dom- inated by black sage, E. cafifarnica, and California sage. Cover of annual plant species at all sites was dominated by wild oa~s ~Avena sp.), brome (Bromus sp.), storksbill (Erodim, n sp.), m~stard (Brassica sp.), and other introduced grasses and forbs. Native grasses and annuals consisted of relatively rare and patchy clumps of bunchgrasses (Stipa sp.); onion (Al- ljura sp.), fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.), mariposa lily (Calochortu~ sp.), cryptantha (Cryptantha sp.), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum)~ goldfields (Lasthenia sp.), and baby blue-eyes (Nemophila menziesii) were seasonally abundanL All study ..sites had been af- fected to s~me degree by fire, dryland farming, graz- ing, or various forms of recreation over the previous 100 years. Vegetation data.--Vegetation within gnatcatcher ter- ritories was sampled using radial tramsects (n = 10 per territory) located randomly' 'within each territo- ry. Transect locations were based on random com- pass orientations and distances from arbitrary start- ing point,~; within each territory. Vegetation data were collected concurrently for each pair at all sites from May through early July to minimize potential difference:~ in vegetation due to seasonal changes. Each transect consisted of two perpendicular 10-m tapes, centered on the 5-m mark, with one tape ori- ented north-south. We sampled vegetation at 1-m in- tervals using a fiberglass rod that was 0.5 cm in di- ameter, 2 rr~ long, and marked at decimeter intervals. At each interval we recorded height of annual veg- etation, height of perennial shrubs, height of dead wood, species of perennial shrub, litter depth, num- ber of perennial shrub rod contacts (hits) per deci- meter, and physiognomic cover type. Physiognomic cover types consisted of perennial shrub, non-native grass, native grass, grass-forb rn~x, dead wood, bare ground, and rock. Physiognomic cover types were not neces~arily mutually exclusive. Finally, we re- corded the four point-quarter distances to the closest perennial plants from the intersection of the two tapes for each transe~t. Twenty-three habilat variables were derived from the vegetat:ion data k~r each territory using the tran- sect as th~ sample malt. These 'variables described different aspects of the physiognomic cover, pe~ren- nial and antreal characteristics, and spatial perennial structure of the habitat for 41 gnatcatcher territories. Diversity of perennial species was calculated as 1 /,c p~ (Hill 197~, where p~ is the proportion of perennial species i wi~in a territory. We descrflmd the perennial spatial structure of the habitat witl~n gnatcatcher territories based on vari- ables relating to vertical and horizontal struct~are. Variables related to vertical structure consisted of the number of n~d hits below 0.5 m, the number of rod hits from 0.5 to 1.0 m, the number of rod hits from 1.0 to 1.5 rn, the coefficient of variation (CV) in pe- rennial height, and the perennial homogen.~ity among the ~ height classes. We used 0.5-m height classes because the mean height of nests was ap- proximately 0.5 m (Braden unpubl. data). We used the diversity formula of Hill (1973) and the propor- tions of hits 'm the three height classes as a measure of perennial homogeneity among height clas.ses. Variables re~ated to horizontal structure consisted of the mean l~int-quarter distances, the CV in point quarter-distances, the total number of rod hits, the CV in hits per rod, the mean number of rod hits among tramects, and the homogeneity of hits among transects. ~e used the diversity formula of Hill (1973) and ~ proportion of hits among the 10 tran- sects in ea~ territory to calculate the homogeneity in hits among transects. Life-histor~data.~Adult birds were uniquely co [or- banded at lira beginning of the study and as needed at the onset ~f each breeding season; all observati.vns were of balded birds. 'Nestlings were banded at eight days ~ age. Territories were visited two to four times a wee~ throughout the breeding season, which extended f'mm late February or early March to ee~rly July or early August. Territory boundaries were de- termined u~ng spot-mapping, and territories were delineated ~sing the MCPAAL (Stuwe 1985) har- monic mea~ algorithm with a grid width of 25. '['he 95% contour was used to designate territory size in order to eliminate outliers. Nests were visited at two- to five-day intervals and monitored for the onset of egg laying, clutch size, and number of nestlings and fledglings. ~ effort was made to locate all nesting attempts, including nests that were abandoned be- fore complYion. Although some nesting events un- doubtedly were undetected, all attempts that res~alt- ed in fledglings were observed. A nest was con:;id- ered succe~fuI if one or more young fledged, re- gardless of the fate of the fledgling. Young were considered to have fledged if they were detected within five or more days after leaving the nest. Associati~ of vegetation with life-history variable~;.-- We used c~xonicat correlation analysis to examine the association between life-history and vegetation variables. ~ariables were entered and removed s~ach that all variables in the reduced life-history vari~ble set were significantly correlated with all variables in 604 BRADEN, McKERNAN, AND POWELL [Auk, Vol. 114 the reduced habitat variable set and vice versa. The final canonical correlation consisted of the fewest variables that explained the greatest amount of vari- ation between habitat and life-history variables, with no dependencies within the two variable sets. To determine if vegetation variables were associ- ated with adult and juvenile survival and the intrin- sic rate of population growth, we compared vegeta- tion within territories among different groups of gnatcatcher pairs. Because gnatcatcher pairs oc- curred at different sites, we used site as a grouping factor and stepwise discriminant analysis to deter- mine if vegetation within terrritories varied among the four gnatsarcher groups. Stepwise discriminant analysis was likely to select the most important with- in-territory vegetation variables but unlikely to use all variables that were associated with other life-his- tory traits. Therefore, we used ANOVA to compare gnatcatcher groups using all the within-territory' vegetation variables that were associated with other life-history variables. We then calculated adult sur- vival, juvenile survival, and the finite rate of popu- lation growth for the different groups of gnatcatcher pairs and compared them against each group's standing relative to within-territory vegetation vari- ables. Survival was calculated as the proportion of band- ed gnatcatchers from the previous breeding season known to be alive at the beginning o~ the next breed- ing season. Two years of dispersal studies indicated that 95% of the banded juveniles were found within a 1.5-kin radius of their natal territory and that adults rarcaty dispersed more than one territory wndth (i.e. 200 m) from the previous year (Braden un- publ. data). Therefore, study areas and suitable hab- itat within a 1.5-kin radius from each study area were searched at the onset of each breeding season for banded individuals. Adults or juveniles pre- sumed to be dead by this method were never detect- ed in subsequent seasons. Survival among different groups of gnatcatchers was compared using contingency tables of surviving versus non-surviving individuals. Contingency table subdivisions followed Zar (1984). The finite rate of population increase (X) for each gnatcatcher group was determined by using adult .survival, juvenile survival, mean number of fledglings per pair, and Pulliam's (1988) model: X = P^ + P~[~, (1) where P^ is the adult survival rate during the non- breedi~tg season, Pj is the survival rate of juveniles during the same period, and ~ ts the number of ju- veniles produced at the end of the breeding season. Lambda values should be viewed as maximum val- ues because there was no consideration of environ- mental stochasticity. -2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 CNVR1 (life-history) FIG. 2. Canonical correlation of the first canonical variables (CNVR 1) for within-territory vegetation and life-history data sets. Circtes are gnatcatcher pairs at Lake Skinner (1995), triangles down are pairs at Lake Mathews Site 2 (1995), triangles up are pairs at Lake Mathews Site 1 (1993), and squares are pairs at Motte Reserve (1993). RESULTS Association between vegetation and life-history variables.--Eight within-territory vegetation variables were significantly correlated with five life-history variables (P = 0.003, r: = 0.67). There were no dependencies within variable sets, and the correlation between habitat and. life-history variable sets was described by the first canonical variable for each set (Fig. 2). A second canonical variable approached signifi- cance. However, including additional life-his- tory or vegetation variables invariably resulted in a lack of significance between at least one variable in the vegetation set with all variables in the life-history set or vice versa. The correlation coefficients indicated that in- creased grass-forb cover, number of hits belove 0.5 m, total number of hits, and homogenei~' of hits among transects, accompanied by de- creased perennial diversity, CV in hits, homo- geneity in hits among height classes, and CV in point-quarter distance among perennials were associated with increased fledging success, in- creased nesting success, early date of first nest, a longer nesting season, and lower cost per fledgling (Table 1). October' 1997] Gnatcatcher Habitat and Fitness 605 T^SLE t. Canonical correlation of life-history and within-territory vegetation variables for California Gnatcatcher pairs. Values are correlation coeffi- cients (r) of life-history variables with all vegeta- tion variables, and vice versa, and canonical vari- able correlation coefficients (CNVR) of each variable with the first canonical axis. See text for description of variables; CV is coefficient of vari- ation. r CNVR Life-history variables No. of fledglings 0.627 -0.674 No. of successful nests 0~494 -0.422 Date of first nest -0.546 0.640 No. days from first to last nest 0.576 -0.754 No. fledglings/no. of nest days -0.562 0.659 Vegetation variables Grass-forb cover 0.473 -0.659 Perennial diversity -0.579 0.640 No. hits below 0.5 m 0.579 -0.704 Total nc~. of hits 0.611 -0.664 CV in E~ts -0.459 0.562 Homogeneity in hits among ~:ran~ sects 0.557 -0.682 Homogeneity in hits among ver- tical ]~eight classes -0.406 0.513 CV in point-quarter distances of perentlials -0.404 0.504 Association among vegetation, survival, and Stepwise discriminant analysis did not discrim- inate among the four gnatcatcher groups using within- ~erritory vegetation due to similarities of vegetation at the Motte and Lake Mathews Site 1. When these two groups of gnatcatchers were combined, there was a significant discrimina- tion (P < 0.0001, r~ =: 0.63), with an 85.4% cor- rect jackknifed classification among at Lake Skinner, Lake Mathews Site 2, and the combined Motte and Lake Mathews gnatcatcher territories. The discriminant function selected grass-forb cover, r~umber of hits below 0.5 m, and total number' of hits as the most useful variables for distinguishing the three gnatcatcher groups, based on within-territory vegetation. Within-territory vegetation variables that were positively associated with increased fledging success, increased nest success, early date of first nest, a longer nesting season, and lower cost per fledgling (Table 1) were signifi- cantly ihigher for territories at Lake Skinner than for territories at the. combined Motte and Lake Mathews Site 1, with values at Lake Ma- thews Site 2 in between (Table 2). Within-ter- ritory vegetation variables that were negatively associated with increased fledging success, in- creased nest success, early date of first ~test, a longer nesting season, and lower cost per fledg- ling (Table 1) were significantly lower for ter- ritories at Lake Skinner than for territories at the combined Motte and Lake Mathews Site 1, with values for territories at Lake Mathews Site 2 in between (Table 2). Adult survival was consistent with the gra- dient for within-territory vegetation str~acture among the three groups of gnatcatchers (Table 3). Adult survival was significantly higher at Lake Skinner and Lake Mathews Site 2 tlhan at the combined Motte and Lake Mathews Site 1 (P < 0.01 ). Fledging success also was consis- tent with the gradient in within-territory veg- etation among the three gnatcatcher groups (Table 2). There were no significant diffe~:ences in juvenile survival among the three groups (P > 0.30), indicating no association of juvenile survival and within-territory vegetation. The finite rate of population growth also re- flected the same gradient among gnatcatcher groups as did within-territory vegetation (Ta- bles 2 and 3). At Lake Skinner, where within- territory vegetation values indicated maximi- zation of life-history variables, the k value was concordant with a growing population, or source habitat (k > 1). At the combined Motte and Lake Mathews Site 1, where within-terri- tory vegetation values indicated minimization of life-history variables, the k value wa:; con- cordant with a declining population, o~: sink habitat (k < 1). At Lake Mathews Site 2, ,~here within-territory vegetation indicated moderate life-history values, the k value was ap!?roxi- mately 1. The results suggest that within-ter- ritory vegetation variables that were asso flared with life-history variables may also be associ- ated with adult survival and the intrinsic rate of population growth, but not with juvenile survival. Potential confounding effects.--.There were no significant differences in fledging success among years within a site. Thus, annual differ- ences in fledging success within sites were not confounding factors in the association of with- in-territory vegetation and fledging success. These results also suggest that annual within- site vegetation growth, if present, did not influ- ence ftedging success. Because perennial struc- ture and spatial homogeneity were associated with fledging success, any significant cha:nge in 606 ~RAVE~, MCKEANAN, AND POWELL [Auk, Vol. 114 TABLE 2. Vegetation and life-history variables (g - SE) from 41 California Gnatcatcher territories deemed important from canonical correlation analysis. Different superscripts in the same row represent multiple comparisons among study areas where P ~ 0.05. No. of fledglings No. of successful nests Date of first nest No. days from first to last nest No. fledglings/no. of nest days Grass-forb cover Perennial diversity No. hits below 0..'5' m Total no. of hits CV in hits Homogeneity in hits among transects Homogeneity in hits among vertical height classes CV in point-quarter distances of perennials ·Motte and Lake Ma~¼ews I study areas combined. Motte / Lake Mathews 1' Lake Mathews 2 Lake Skinner Life-history variables 1.4 --- 0.44^ 3.1 --+ 0.50^'~ 3.8 +-- 0.77~ 0.4 +_. 0.14^ 1.2 ~- 0.25~ 1.1 +-- 0.19" 85.4 ~ 3.8^ 75.9 -+ 4.2^'" 71.4 "- 2.4~ 72.7 -* 6.0^ 94.8 +- 7.3^'s 101~.4 __+. 5.3~ 0.97 ~- 0.043 0.94 --- 0.037 0.94 ~' 0.038 Vegetation variables 8.1 - 1.0^ 338 -* 2.9" 37.3 --- 2.2" 1.7 - 0.05^'" 19 - 0.08~ 1.6 - 0.06* 25.5 -+ 1.1^ 32.8 -~ 1.5" 69.7 ~- 2.5c 53.5 -:- 2.1^ 70.8 - 3.4" 113.3 -* 3.8c 147.7 + 5.6^ 125.8 = 4.9" 92.3 +- 2.2c 8.1 --- 0.28^ 8.5 --- 0.29^'" 9.1 = 0.10" 2.1 - 0.03^ 2~2 = 0.03* 1.9 + 0.2B 35.9 - 1.4' 34.9 -~ 1.5^ 27.2 +- 1.1" perennial vegetation due to growth of vegeta- tion should have been reflected in differences in fledging success within sites. However, within-site fledging success was not signifi- cantly different among years. DISCUSSION Our results identified vegetation character- istics of gnatcatcher territories that were sig- nificantly correlated with life-history charac- teristics of gnatcatcher pairs. Within-territory vegetation variables accounted for 67% of the variation in life-history variables. Date of the first nest, number of successful nests, number of fledglings, length of the nesting season, and cost per fledgling were associated with grass- forb cover, the number of rod hits below 0.5 m, the total number of rod hits, the homogeneity of hits among radial transects, perennial diver- sity, the CV in rod hits, the homogeneity in hits among height classes, and the CV in point- quarter distances among perennials. These same within-territory vegetation variables sug- gest that on average, the vegetation within gnatcatcher territories was better at some site than at others. The gradient in within-territory vegetation among gnatcatcher groups was coincident with the gradient in adult survival and X among gnatcatcher groups. Gnatcatcher pairs at Lake Skinner, where the average within-territory vegetation indicated maximization of other life-history parameters, had a X value :>1 and significantly higher adult survival, which is consistent with increased fitness. Gnatcatcher pairs at Lake Mathews Site 2, where the aver- age within-territory vegetation suggested TABLE 3. Survival and intrinsic rate of population increase (k) for different groups of California Gnatcatcher pairs. Values are proportion surviving (sample size in parentheses). Overall values for adult survival with different superscripts are different among groups at P < 0.01. Juvenile survival did not differ among groups (P > 0.30). Lambda values are not adjusted for environmental stochasticity. Adults Juveniles Grou. p 1993-94 1994-95 Overall' 1993-94 1994-95 Overall' k Lake Skinner 0.50 (26) 0.44 (25) 0.47* 0.22 (23) 0.32 (28) 0.28 1.50 Lake Mathews 2: --B 0.60 (10) 0.60^ -- 0.14 (7) 0.14 1.03 Motte 0.21 (14) -- 0.17" 0.00 (6) -- 0.15 0.38 Lake Mathews ~l 0.19 (21) 0.08 (12) 0.57 (7) 0.00 (14) · Overall and Lambda values for Motte represent combined data from Motte and Lake Mathews t study areas. ~--. no data. 608 BRADEN, McKERNAN, AND POWELL [Auk, Vol. 114 luff 1988). Also, Marzluff (1988) and Martin (1992) argued that nest predation may affect territory occupancy and size. Additional stud- ies are needed to determine whether territory size in California Gnatcatchers is related to nest predation. In summary, our results identify within-ter- ritory vegetation variables that were associated with life-history variables. These same vari- ables also may be associated with adult surviv- al and the intrinsic rate of population growth. Six of the eight vegetation variables that were associated with life-history variables indicated that increased perennial spatial composition and horizontal homogeneity, accompanied by decreased perennial vertical homogeneity and diversity within gnatcatcher territories, were associated with increases in the number of suc- cessful nests, length of the nesting season, start of the nesting season, fledging success, cost per fledgling, and perhaps adult survival and k. Preservation of and management for these hab- itat characteristics should promote fitness and short-term population growth for California Gnatcatchers. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Kent Beeman, Gene Cardiff, Marnie Crook, Arthur Davenport, Kim Ferree, Cin Greyraven, Christine Harker, Stacy Love, Chet McGaugh, Tracy Me,vets, Steve Myers, and Mary Beth Woulfe helped collect the data. Dr. David Moriarty reviewed a draft of the manuscript. The study was funded by the Metropol- itan Water District of California via the Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve Manage- ment Committee and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice, Carlsbad, California. We thank them all. LITERATURE C I~[~ED ATWOOD, J. L. ].991. Subspecies limits and geo- graphic patterns of morphological variation in California Gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica). Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 90:] 18-133. ATWOOD, J. L. '~992. A maximum estimate of the California Gnatcatcher's population size in the United States. Western Birds 23:1--9. ATWOOD,.J.L. [993. California Gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub: The biological basis for en- dangered species listing. Pages 14!)-169 in Inter- face between ecology and land development in California (J. E. Keeley, Ed.). Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles. BLANCHER, P. J., 2~ND R J~ ROBERTSON 1985. Site con- sistency in kingbird breeding performance: Im- plications for site fidelity. Journal o[ Animal Ecology 54:1017-1027. FISCHER, D. H, 1980. Breeding biology of Curve- billed Thrashers and Long-billed Thrashers in south Texas. Condor 82:392-397. GRABER, J. W. 1961. Distribution, habitat require- ments, and life-history of the Black-capped Vir- eo (Vireo atricapilla ). Ecological Monographs 31: 313-336. GREIG-SMITH, P. W. 1982. Dispersal 'between nest sites by Stone Chats Sax~cola torquata in relation to previous breeding success. Ornis Scandinav- ica 13:232-238. HARVEY, ?. H., P. J. GREENWOOD, AND C. M. PERRINS. 1979. Breeding area fidelity of Great Tits (Parus major). Journal of Animal Ecology 48:305-313. HILt., M. O. 1973. Diversity and evenness: A unify- ing notation and its consequences. Ecology 54: 427-432. KIRKPATRICK, J. B., AND C. E HUTCHINSON. 1980. The environmental relationships of California coastal sage scrub and some of its component communities and species. Journal of Biogeogra- phy 7:23-28. KLOPATEK, J. M., R. J. OLSON, C. J. EMERSON, AND J. L. JONES. 1979. Land use conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States. Environmental Conservation 6:191-199. KNAPTON, R. W. 1978. Breeding ecology of the Clay- colored Sparrow. Living Bird 17:137-57. MALANSON, G. P. 1985. Fire management in coastal sage scrub, southern California, USA. Environ- mental Conservation 12:141-146. M^RTI~, T. E. 1992. Breeding productivity consid- erations: What are the appropriate habitat fea- tures for management? Pages 455-473 In Ecolo- gy and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds (J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston, Eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washing- ton, D.C. MARZLUI:F, J. M. 1988. Do Pinon Jays alter nest placement based on prior experience? Animal Behaviour 36:1-10. MIDDLETON, A. L. A. 1979. Influence of age and hab- itat on reproduction by the American Goldfinch. Ecology 60:418-432. MOONEY, H. A. 1988. Southern coastal scrub. Pages 471-489 In The terrestrial vegetation of Califor- nia (M, G. Barbour and J. Major, Eds.). California Native Plants Society Special Publication No. 9. NOLAN, V., JR. 1963 Reproductive success of birds in a deciduous scrub habitat. Ecology 44:305- 313. O'LEAR¥, J. E 1990a. Coastal sage scrub: General characteristics and consideration for biological conservation. Pages 24-41 In Endangered plant communities of southern California (A. A. October 1997] Gnatcatcher Habitat and Fitness ,607 moderate values for other life-history parame- ters, had a ~, value equal to 1 and high adult survival, which is consistent with moderate fit- ness. Gnatcatcher pairs at the combined Motte and Lake Mathews Site 1, where the average within-territory vegetation suggested minimi- zation of other life-history parameters, had a k value < 1 and significantly lower adult survival, which is consistent with lowered fitness. Gnatcatcher pairs were grouped by site be- cause (1) survival and k were calculated based on groups of gnatcatcher pairs; and (2) step- wise discriminant analysis and ANOVA com- parisons indicated that grouping gnatcatcher pairs by sites, based on similarities of within- territory vegetation, made sense biologically. But, using site as a grouping factor introduced the possibility that survival and k were influ- enced by' unmeasured site characteristics that were not related to within-territory vegetation. Thus, our results suggest that within-territory vegetation is associated with adult survival and k. Six of the eight habitat variables that were as- sociated with fitness components were mea- sures of habitat structure. Collectively, these variables were a measure of spatial perennial structure, horizontal homogeneity, and vertical homogeneity. The correlation coefficients of these six variables indicated that fitness com- ponents decreased with reductions in spatial perennial structure, decreased horizontal ho- mogeneity, and increased vertical homogeneity within C, natcatcher territories. These observa- tions suggest that habitat disturbances that po- tentially affect perennial structure and homo- geneity within gnatcatcher territories, such as fire, grazing, or urban expansion, also may af- fect gnatcatcher fitness. Seven of the eight habitat variables were re- lated to the structure of perennial vegetation within gnatcatcher territories in such a way as to suggest that fitness components increase as the coastal sage habitat within their territories matured. Assuming that the maturation of coastal sage scrub results in an increased oc- cupation of space by perermial shrubs, then mI~turation should lead to increased numbers of hits below 0.5 m, the total number of hits, and the homogeneity in hits among transects. The same increase in the occupation of space by perennial shrubs with coastal sage scrub mat- uration should lead to decreased CV in hits, CV in point-quarter distances among perennial shrubs, and homogeneity among vertical height classes. Homogeneity among vertical height classes should decrease due to the dis- proportionate amount of perennial strucl:ure below 0.5 m. One of the two remaining habitat variables, decreasing perennial diversity, has been associated with maturation of coastal s.age scrub (Westman 1981), especially after fires (Westman et al. 1981, O'Leary 1990b). Fu'~ure studies should be directed at testing this hy- pothesis. Our results suggest that preservation o~, or management for, within-territory vegetation characteristics that were associated with life- history variables, possibly including adult sur- vival and k, should increase fitness and !pro- mote short-term increases in abundance of Cal- ifornia Gnatcatchers. Our results may be useful as part of an assessment of areas of coastal .,;age scrub already occupied by California Gnat- catcher but should not be relied upon without further studies of habitat-fitness relationships. Application of our results to areas of co:lstal sage scrub that are not occupied by gnatcatch- ers is problematic because we did not compare occupied versus unoccupied gnatcatcher terri- tories. The suitability of coastal sage scrub hab- itats for gnatcatchers is likely to consist of many factors in addition to the within-territory veg- etation variables described here. Our re:~ults suggest that average within-territory vegeta- tion is not the same among sites; therefore, some areas of occupied habitat are more im- portant than others. It is noteworthy that territory size wa~,~ not correlated with vegetation variables. Give~ the scope and intensity of the within-territory veg- etation measurements, it is unlikely that cor- relations between territory size and veget,~tion characteristics existed but were undetected by us. More likely, territory size is correlated with life-history variables. Gnatcatcher territories averaged 3.4 ha (Braden unpubl. data), which is relatively large for a small passerine. Gnat- catchers undertake two to eight spatially dis- tant nesting attempts per season. Spatially dis- tant nesting attempts are associated with nest depredation in several species of passerines (Harvey et al. 1979, Greig-Smith 1982), an:l ter- ritory occupancy has been shown to be nega- tively related to predation risk for some bird species (Blancher and Robertson 1985, Marz- October 1997] Gnatca'tcher Habitat and Fitness 609 Schoeni~err, Ed.). Southern California Botanists Special Publication No. 3. O'LEAR'~. J E 1990b. Postfire diversity patterns in two subassociations ot Cafifornia coastal sage scrub. journal of Vegetation Science 1:173-180. Pldt. LIA,',a, t~11 R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132:652-661. STEWART, l~.. g., R. P. HENDERSt)N, AND K~ DARLING. 1977. l~reeding ecology of the Wilson's Warbler in the High Sierra Nevada. California. Living Bird 1 ec83-102. SIC!WE, M. 1985. MCPAAL vl.2: Micro-computer programs for the analysis of animal k)cations. Conser~,ation and Research Center, National Zoological Park, Smithson,an Institution, Front Roval. Virginia. THOMPSOn. C. E~ AND V. Not.,~,~,, JR 1973. Popula- tion bi,:llogy of the Yellow-breasted Chat (letefta tnrens ]..)in southern Indiana. Ecological Mono- graphs, 43:145-171. VA~ HORn. I:. B. 1983. Density as a misleading in- dicatot of habitat quality Iourna] of Wildlife Management 47:893-901. V~C:KEr~¥, P D., M. L. HUr-,TER, ]~., AND J~ V WELt,S. 1992a. Is density an indic~ltor of breeding suc- cess? A~k 109:706-71(t~ VICKERY, P. D., M. L. HUNTER, JR., AND J. V. WELLS. 1992b. Use of a new reproductive index to eval- uate relationship between habitat quality and breeding success. Auk 109:697-705. WALKINSHAW, L. H. 1953. Life-history of the Pro- thonotary Warbler. Wilson Bulletin 65:152-168. WESTMAN. W. E. 1981. Diversity relanonships and succession in California coastal sage scrub. Ecol- ogy. 62:170-184. WESTMAN, ~,'. E. 1985. Air pollution imury to coas,ta[ sage scrub in the Santa Monica Mountains, southern California. Water. Air, and Soil Poilu-. tion 26:19-41. WESTMAN, ¥~'. E.,J. E O'LEAR'r, ANDG. P. MALANSON 1981. The effects of fire intensity, aspect, ~.nd substrate on post-fire growth of California coastal sage scrub. Pages 151-179 In Com]vo- nents of productivity of Mediterranean-climate regions: Basic and applied aspects (N. S. Mar- garis and H. A. Mooney, Eds.). W. Junk, The Hague. ZAR, J. H. 1984. Biostatistica[ analysis, 2nd ed. Pren- tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. ZiMMEI~MAN, J. L. 1982. Nesting success of Dick:is- sels (Spiza americana) in preferred and less t:.re- ferred habitats. Auk 99:292-298. Associate Editor: R. L. Hutto DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES SAIl BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM '~0~4 0riltgl qh*Ol LB11 * RIINIfilJl, CA 8~074 · (Oil) 107~080 Mr. Br~d Bullet City ofl~me. ho Cuc, mnonsa 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 ~ Cucamon8~, CA 91727 cou oF .,iN PAUL J. OLES MUle(iml Director 29 October, 1998 As you may know, the San Bernardino County Museum Biology Section rnzintalns a reseerch stiff of professional research biologists and field technicians'ective~y involved in scientific investi~tions ofthe flora and finms ofthe Southwestern United States and espechlly San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The Museum's studies and expertim include desat, mouatai~ riparian, ~r-#t-,xl. coa~al sa~e scrub, and tan sqe scrub (AFFS) h~itats and ecolystems in and around the San Bernardino Valley. Some of'the Muaeum's on 8oin~ resem'ch includes life-history and habiMt relationships of the federally threatened California Gn~tcatch~ (Po/~//~ c=/~./~c~ c~/~.f(~c~) and the Cederally endangered San Serntrdino Y, ana~oo '~ ' 'The Biology Section of'the San Bernardino County Museum is also the tectmk~l. "~ biological lead for the San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, also known u the Valley Multi-species Plan, of.which Rancho Cucamon~a is a signatory. of As & prof?. 'onal biologist, re,arch director and field supervisor for the Biology Section the San Bernardino County Museum, ~enior research scientist for the collection and ~lysis of/ biological data for the Valley Multi-species Plan, and a~ a Rancho Cucamonga resident, I re~pe, cffully submi~ the followin~ comments on the biological as~emnent report "Report of a Biological Assessmere of Tentative Tract 13316 and an A~oci~ed 11.29 acre Soil Borrow Site Tentative Tract 15914, Rancho Cucamon~a, Califomin, 15 July, 1998". These comments sze submitted to mist the City of Rancho Cucamon~a and the Rancho Cucarnonl~a Planning Department in their a~sesm~ent of Tentative Tracts I3316, 15914, and in tnaki~ land use plannin~ decin'one within tlmir jurigliction. San Berum'dino Kanpr~ RAt The San Bernardino Kan~oo Rat (D~podo~ys me~r;amipan,us) (SBKR) is a federally endangered sub=species of Merriam' s kanl~roo rat. SBKP, is not s rat but a heteromyid rodent related to the native pocket mouse. SBKR is restricted to the alluvial fans and wa~es of the San Bernardino Valley and srmtll portions of Riverside Count-. Based on Museum research 0VIcKeman 1997), population size, present distribution, and historic distribution of SBKR is a fraction of the population and range of the endangered and better known Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephens0. Due to stream bed alterations and development of the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino Valley, SBKR is truly on the verge of extinction. For these reasons, the long term survival and recovery of the SBKR is a major component of the Valley Multi-species Plan. The proposed project is within the known and historic distributions of SBKR. The biological report correctly cites the occurrence of SBKR three miles east of the proposed project. In addition, SBKR have recently been found west of the proposed project in the San Antonio Wash near Baseline Avenue in conjunction with State Route 30 construction. Nevertheless, the biological report for the proposed project did not include trapping surveys for SBKR, as per USFWS requirement for the endangered species. Based on Museum SBKR research since 1987, the absence of kangaroo rat burrows or scat will not accurately determine the presence or absence'of SBKR. More importantly, Tierra Madre Consultants contacted the Museum via phone, during the biological surveys of the proposed project site, concerning the accuracy of using kangaroo rat sign to indicate presence or absence of SBKR. Tierra Madre was advised by Robert McKeman, Curator of Biology and leading expert in SBKR biology, that the lack of kangaroo rat sign in no way precludes the presence of SBKR at a site. Tierra Madre was informed that the only definitive means to determine presence or absence of SBKR was by five nights of live trapping in suitable habitat, which includes most of the proposed project area. Regardless of SBKR being a federally endangered species, the presence of suitable SBKR habitat, and advise from the leading scientist in SBKR habitats and biology, there was no SBKR trapping on or adjacent to the proposed project .area. C~liforni~ Gnatcatcher Gnatcatcher surveys on the parcel do not comply with the federal survey protocol for California Gnatcatcher. First, the biological report identifies 5.04 acres of sage scrub habitat within the proposed project boundary. The figure is not correct. Nearly all of the 95.2 acres of the project area consists of sage scrub habitat. The exception being a perimeter along existing paved roads which is annually disted for fire control. Because the extent of sage scrub habitat was not correctly identified, the full extent of gnatcatcher habitat was not surveyed. Second, the California Gnatcatcher survey report by Tierra Madre Consultants identifies undisturbed coastal sage scrub as suitable and recovering coastal sage scrub as less suitable gnatcatcher habitat. This is incorrect. Long term studies by the Museum, published in peer reviewed scientific journals (Braden et al. 1997a, 1997b, Braden 1998), found that although some sage scrub habitats are better than others, all sage scrub habitats are suitable and can be occupied by California Gnatcatchers, regardless of the condition of the habitat. It is particularly disconcerting that Tierra Madre failed to accurately assess gnatcatcher habitat since the firm received reprints of the publications and participated in the Museum's studies that defined California Croatcatcher habitat. It is equally disturbing that PSBS would incorporate the results of Tierra Madre's gnatcatcher surveys in the biological report since PSBS was also sent reprints of 2 the publications and PSBS personnel were present at many symposia where the results of the Museum's studies were presented. Third, the California Gnatcatcher surveys did not take into account the fact that California Gnatcatcher are know to use chaparral habitats where sage scrub and chaparral habitats interface. Museum archive material of California Gnatcatcher nests, beginning from the early 1900's, and photographs of California Gnatcatchers at the nest ca. 1920, document the historical use of chaparral habitats by California Gnatcatcher within in the San Bernardino Valley. Recent observations of California Gnatcatchers in the J'urupa Hills, Etiwanda Fan, Santa Ana Wash, and Mid Valley Landfill by Museum biologists document the occurrence and successful nesting of California Croatcatcher in habitats dominated by chaparral fioristic components. A study of California Gnatcatcher in the peer reviewed scientific literature documents the use of chaparral habitats adjacent to sage scrub habitats by gnatcatchers in San Diego County (Sockman 1997). The failure to recognize that California Gnatcatcher use chaparral habitats when they interface with sage scrub habitats means 'that the habitat interface on the north boundary of the proposed project site was not surveyed for California Gnatcatcher. Finally, California Gnatcatcher breeding season territories average 8.2 acres and non- breeding season home ranges can be up to 60 acres (Braden et al. 1994). Due to the size of the area used by California Coatcatchers, it is essential to survey habitat adjacent to a proposed project when assessing potential impacts to the species. Gnatcatcher surveys for the proposed project did include habitat adjacent to the proposed project. Again, it is disconcerting that Tierra Madre Consultants failed to recognize these aspects of California Gnatcatcher biology since Tierra Madre personnel participated in the Museum's studies that defined the spatial and temporal habitat use of the California Gnatcatcher. Quino Checkerspot butterfly The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Occi~yas editha quino) is a federally endangered nymphalid butterfly endemic to San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. The type specimen for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly was collected near Little Mountain near California State University San Bernardino and the proposed project site is within the historical distribution of the species. It is generally believed by those unfamiliar with the species thin the occurrence of Quino Checkerspots is restricted to clay soils. This is not correct as the type specimen was collected on an alluvial fan with typical well drained, sandy, and rocky alluvial soils. The presence of the larval host plants, Plantago erecta and sometimes Owl's clover (Orthocarpus sps. ) is a better indicator of the presence of Quino Checkespot, however, larval host plants are small ephemeral plants that are not present year round and Quino Checkespot are known to occur in areas where the larval host plant is not immediately present. The only definitive means to conclude the presence or absence ofQuino Checkespot at a site is by annual surveys during the flight period of the adult butterfly, approximately mid February through early April depending on variations in rainfall and local micro climates. The federal survey protocol for this endangered species calls for two y~.nrs of focused s~rvgys. No Quino Checkespot surveys were conducted on or adjacent to the proposed project site. The Quino Checkespot is not even mentioned in the biological report. Plant Surveys The biological report states that sensitive plant surveys were conducted March 25 and May 6 by PSBS Incorporated. The report does not state how much of the project area was inventorled on each' visit nor how much effort (hours spent performing surveys) was expended. Absent a precise accounting of the effort expended inventorying sensitive plant species it is not possible to determine the accuracy of the inventory results. In addition, annual plants are not present at all times of the year, Thus, it is important to perform surveys during the growth periods for specific plants. Likewise, the time of year when annual plants flower is not the same for all species and many plants cannot be definitively identified absent the presence of flowers. Many of the plant ~pecies listed in the biological report' do not flower until late spring and .some do not flower until mid summer. The days on which floral surveys were performed strongly suggest that some sensitive plants were not even growing, much less flowering, on the days that plant surveys were performed. Sage Scrub Habitat In addition to mis-caiculating the extent of sage scrub habitat wiihin the project boundary, the biological report mis-identifies the sage scrub habitat present on the project site. The report identifies sage scrub habitat as being present within the project boundary, but the sage scrub habitat is more precisely defined as Rivemidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (AFSS). AFFS is a sub- unit of coastal sage scrub habitats exclusive to the alluvial fans of the San Bernardino Valley. AFFS consists of distinct floral and faunal species compositions. The California Department of Fish and Game ranks AFFS as S 1.1 - very threatened natural community. AFFS habitats have been identified by some authors as one of the most endangered habitats in North America. AFFS habitats are one of the most important habitats targeted for preservation under the Valley Multi- species Plan. The biological report does not mention the occurrence or importance of AFFS on the proposed project site. Rodent Surveys The biological report states that the proposed project site is not suitable habitat for the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (Perognathus long~membris brevinasus). However, suitable habitat is not well understood for the L.A. Pocket Mouse. Trapping for L.A. Pocket Mouse is complicated due to the fact that the animal is seasonally and facultatively inactive. L.A. Pocket Mouse will be inactive during periods of extreme hot and cold weather as well as during periods of low food availability. The Museum is currently involved in a long term study to define the current distribution, habitat preferences, and seasonal inactivity periods for this species 4 throughout the San Bernardino Valley. The highest density of L.A. Pocket Mouse to date as been found on the Etiwanda fan, approximately three miles east of the proposed project site (McKeman 1994a, 1994b). These animals were still present at the same location as of late summer 1998 indicating that AFFS habitats support viable populations of the L.A. Pocket Mouse. The habitat and soil substrate where these animals were captured is identical to the habitat and substrate found on the proposed project site. Due to a lack of information on distribution and habitat preferences, the presence or absence of the L.A. Pocket Mouse can only be determined through live trapping surveys at the appropriate time of year. No trapping surveys were conducted on or adjacent to the proposed project area. The next trapping window for the L.A. Pocket Mouse will not occur until late spring 1999. Similarly, systematic live trapping is the only way to determine if San Diego Pocket Mouse (Chaetodipusfallaxfallax) is present on the proposed project site. Another sensitive species, the Southern Grasshopper Mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona), was not even mentioned in the biological report, even. though the animal appears to be more rare than the L.A. Pocket Mouse and arguably less abundant than the endangered SBKR. Southern Grasshopper Mouse are known to occur 'in AFFS habitat three miles east of the proposed project (lVlcKeman 1994a). Herpetofauna Surveys The California Legless Lizard (,4mellapulchra) is a fossodal snake that inhabits the top inches of soils rich in leaf liter and organic material. The legless lizard rarely, if ever, moves on the surface of the soil~ thus the chances of observing the animal by vislial surveys are infinitely ' small. Nevertheless, the biological report insinuates the animal is not present on the proposed project site. The Coast Patch-nosed Snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea) is a crepuscular/noeturnal snake that preys on small rodents and arthropods. Daytime surveys, as reported in the biological report, have slim to no chance of observing the animal if it were present on the project area. Museum biologists have rarely encountered the Coastal Patch-nosed Snake, however, the few recent sightings of the animal have been in AFFS habitats on the Etiwanda Fan, three miles east of the proposed project site. The fact that recent sightings of the Coast Patch-nose Snake were in AFFS habitat identical to tha~ on the proposed project site suggests a very strong possibility that the animal could be present on the proposed project site. Little else is known about the biology or habitat preferences of the Coast Patch-nose Snake except that it was historically common in the San Bernardino Valley but now appears to be exceedingly rare for reasons unknown. Additional sensitive herpetofauna that have a reasonable chance to occur on the proposed project site, but were not mentioned in the biological report include Western Spadefoot Toad, Western Sicink, Western Whiptail, Southern Alligator Lizard, Rosy Boa, Two-s~criped Garter Snake, Night Snake, and Ring-necked Snake. With a few exceptions, the presence or absence of sensitive herpetofauna can only be determined through passive pitfall trapping at the appropriate time of year. There was no pitfall trapping on the proposed project site nor were there any nocturnal surveys. The next active period for nearly all herpetofauna will not occur until early spring 1999. Corridor Functions The biological report states that adjacent housin8 has denied wildlife access to the proposed project area and that the area is not a functional regional wildlife corridor. The statement is egregiously incorrect. Any resident near the proposed project, including myself, can attest to the presence and movement of racoon, coyote, and bobcat through the proposed project area, east/west along horse trails and suburban streets to adjacent open spaces elements in the Alta Loma foothills. Coyote annually den in the proposed project area. Deer forage on the proposed project area. Bobcat sightings are frequent in and around the project area. Mountain lion tracks, including adult and juveniles, can be found when deer are present. The occurrence of top predators is essential to maintaining a healthy ecosystem. In the absence of top predators a phenomenon known as mesopredator release will result in decreased species diversity and eventual demise of sage scrub fauna (Soule et al. 1988). Besides mammalian predators, avian predators are abundant on and around the proposed projec~ area. In addition to ' American Kestrel, White-tailed Kite, Cooper's Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, and Red-tailed Hawk listed in the biological report, Merlin, Great-horned Owl, Western Screech Owl, Short-eared Owl, Long-eared Owl, and Barn OWl regularly forage or nest on or adjacent to the proposed project site. Prairie Falcon, Ferruginous Hawk, and Golden Eagle are annual visitors to the area. A variety of bat species forage seasonally over the proposed project area, including the endemic and declining Greater-mastiffBat. The fact that top predators from different taxa are abundant within and around the ~ proposed project site indicates that the proposed project are~ !s an integral part of a healthy AFFS ecosystem and is functionally connected to other AFFS habitats of Alta Loma and the San Bernardino Valley. The high biodiversity found on the project area, 71 species of plant from 26 families and 72 species of animals from 30 families listed in the biological report, attests to the health of the biological community on the proposed project site. The high species diversity found within the project site is impressive considering the fact there were disturbances to the site in the recent past. The high biodiversity found on the proposed projec~ site is all the more impressive considering that fact that project site was surveyed for only a few days out of the year and that survey techniques were inadequate to accurately census the rodent and herpetofauna taxa present on the proposed project area. The nightly movement of coyote from east to west along existing horse trails and suburban streets indicates the proposed project site is a major regional wildlife corridor that is essential to maintaining the biodiversity and ecological health of open space elements of AFFS habitats in the Alta Loma foothills and adjacent communities. Even if no sensitive species occur on the proposed project site, the fact that the proposed project area currently functions as a significant wildlife corridor defines the site a significant and irreplaceable biological resource. 6 Regional Importance to the Valley Plan Of the 53 animal species included in the Valley Multi-species Plan, 79% (42 species) are known to occur in AFFS habitats and 64% (34 species) are known to breed in AFFS habitats. Signatories to the Valley Plan are best advised to consider the fact that the acceptability of the Valley Multi-spoeies Plan to state and federal regulatory agencies will ultimately depend on the ability of the plan to successfully provide long term preservation of AFFS habitats and the associated flora and fauna. Developing a successful multi-species plan is complicated due to the fact that AFFS habitats, other critical habitats, species' distributions, and wildlife corridors do not recognize local or county jurisdictional boundaries. Thus, a successful Valley Plan depends on all sigruttories recognizing and fulfilling their responsibility to conserve critical habitats, wildlife corridors, and functioning ecosystems within their jurisdictional boundaries. A successful Valley Multi-species Plan will have obvious benefits in reducing conflicts between the environment versus development 'issues while reducing the need for federal and state involvement in local issues. However, a Valley Multi-species Plan will not be successful unless all signatories diligently pursue their responsibilities. Unforturmtely, recent urban and suburban developments, approved projects, and propo~! projects in sensitive biological areas throughout the San Bernardino Valley are making the possibility of a successful Valley Multi-species Plan increasingly problematic. The proposed development of Tentative Tracts 13316 and 15914 is a case in point~ Despite an inadequate biological assessment, the proposed project site is an AFFS habitat which by its rarity constitutes a significant biological resources. The fact that the proposed project site is a healthy ecosystem, supports a diverse compliment ofpredators, and functions as a significant wildlife Corridor, makes the project area an irreplaceable biological.component to the Valley Multi-species Plan, even if endangered or threatened species are eventually shown to be absent through proper biological surveys. Thus, the preservation of tentative tract 13316, as well as other undeveloped areas on the alluvial fan and sensitive biological habitats, should take precedence over competing land uses, at least until a Valley Multi-species Plan is in place. In summary, a review of the biological report by the Biology Section of the San Bernardino County Museum and the technical lead to the Valley Multi-species Plan finds the report an inadequate and amateurish attempt at assessing biological impacts from development of the proposed project site. Whether intentional or not, the biological report does not adequately census the biological resources of the site. The misleading and incomplete biological information could lead to the illegal take of endangered and/or threatened species, the loss of a significant biological resources, and irreversible danaage to the development of a successful Valley Multi- species Plan. As professional research biologists, the Biology Section of the San Bernardino County Museum respectfully encourages the City of Rancho Cucamonga to seriously consider these issues. I have included a few supporting documents for your consideration. Copies of other literature cited in this correspondence will be provided upon request. If the Museum can be of further assistance to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department in regards to the proposed development, issues pertaining to the proposed Valley Multi-species Plan, or any other biological issues, please do not hesitate to contact the research staffof the Biology Section at the San 7 Bernardino County Museum. Respectfully, Gerald T. Braden Research Director/Field supervisor Randy Scott: Senior Planner, San Bernardino County Glenn Black: California Department of Fish and Game Scott Eliason and Arthur Davenport: USFWS Carlsbad Iris. Leona Klipstien: Spirit of The Sage Council Eugene A. Cardiff: San Bernardino Valley Audubon Mayor Bill Alexander: Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga Antol Szi. ij: Army Corp of Engineers 8 15:32 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES SAIl B~RNAROIN0 COUNTY MUSIUlll ~f~4 0flip hl L#i · Rtdliidl, CA I~J14 · (t01) N7.~111 Fm (NS) ~07.ml SAN BDNO CC MUSEUM COUNTY OF SAN IERNA#OIINO PUBLIC IEIlIVIC!$ P4UL d. OLES MuBlum~ D~reclor !tand, o Cuea,no~a C~ Coun~ IO~X) Civic Center Drive !t~ncko C~~ CA 91~7 18 November, 1998 Dear Mayor aml Member~ oftbe Cit~ Council, The Biology Sootion of the Sam Bernard!no Cottory Mineurn und,~stands there is a he·ran& ~beduled for Wedraaday, t8 November oonoernir~ tentative tract 14771 known as The Heights at Me~en View Earn·a, formerly know. u The Laura. Project, in the Deer Crook wash of Alta Loma, As the technical lead for the ¥tlley Multi-species Plan, we respectfully submit the followin8 comments in re~ardB to detrimentaJ impacts to the prc4~sed Valley Plae, The comments are abo relevant to item 6, p~e 3. oftbe City Council St~r Report on The Heights at Haven View E~to~, LLC dated September 16, 1998, re: nonoomplian~ with CBQA A~ ~t~ed i~ o~- lettot to Mayor A[examdot on 29 Ootober, biolo~ie4d impacts m~d to be adequately identified ~o that Ioeml phmtm and juri~lictions ema make informed decisions, lrmoourme biok~ioal tmeom~o~ ·my foreclose the pombility ot'a mx:ce~l Valley Multi- q~ee, ie~ PI,m, to wbioh Ke~:ho Cucamo~ iB si~rmtory, In this rqard, it is our u.demar~n6 that beeauto the projeot w~ approved prior to the listin& oftbe Sm't Bernardino Kanproo Rat, no $BK.R ~urvey~ were completed. A comprehensive ~tudy of $BKR by the San Bernardino Count~, Mtmeum Biology Scot,on (McKeeram ! 997) ida·tit·am the Etiwanda Fan, which encompasses the propom~ pro)act lite, I~ one oftbroo qnLl~oaat ~ SBF. u~ populations Thu~, it is es~ttid to determine on m. td off-~ite impBors to $BKI~ by t!gs mtd other projeols, throuBh cornprobe·alva ~ !~)~)tlk8 before · biolo~iodly informed decision can be made, A~so, impacts to a fie4erally ~ species m'aclude the use of'a Negative Declaration to satis~ CEQA The ~11. eerub habitat prusent within and around the project boundary iB more precisely defined es Rivemidian A!luvi~ Fan Sage Scrub (AF$S). AFFS is a sub-unit of'coastal Base scrub habitats e,tokteive to the alluvial rims of the San Bernardino Valley. AFF$ consists of'distinct floral and faunal ~ compositions. The CalLfomia ~ of'Fish and Oame ranks AFF$ as $1.1 - voty th~&~tn sd natural oommunit),, AFFS habitats have been identified by some ·u~hors es one of'the most e~Jar~_r~ habitats in North America. AFFS habitats aze one of'the most important habitat· tarested tbr pre~rv·lion under the Valley Multi-species Plan. Of the 5:1 nnimal q)~:ies included in the Valley l~4ulti-spe~ie$ Plan, ?9% (42 species) are ~own to oecur in AFF$ habitats and 64% (34 species) ·re known to breed in AFFS habitats. A~ least haJfof'the 42 ta~st speol~ tha~ are lmow,n to oecur in AF$$ habitats Ee nocturrmt or semmal~ mive LM thsr,fu~. not likely to be deteeted, even when th~ are present, by standard ¢onsultin~ l~m biole~'n-~ atomremit Mlbrta, 8tlr. atortes to the Valley P~m~ m'e best advised ~o review b ~ ~:klq; ......... -,-- ,,--,- C---,~, Museum is e sci~c '"'~'"~'"" ' . _"?"-"~" -- [g¥.~_ . -. ' · ' ~ Sin ]3all~c~no !vluleum loc~ Sore md 111unl. ~d & public 'm~/mlx~ the B~oio~ Section of d, tr~ Ir6 with 8nyone with I bs~timito need ix' such ~on. u ~ ~ FINAT, ENVI~ONHENTAL ASSESS~T OF THE I~OPOSED SECTIUH 4¢d) RULE TO DE~IN~ T~E CONDITIONS U~D~ ~IC~ ~I~Ci~'rAT. ~ OF THE COAS~AT~ CAT-TFOP/T/A GNATCA~cm~ ~OULD NOT BE A VIOLATION OF SECTION 9 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT November 1993 U.S. FISH AND W/LD~ SERVICE P~GION i ECOLOGICAL SERVICES gll NE 11THAVENUE PORTLAND, O~EGON ~7232-4181 COFfACT: FIELD sTrPI-r~FISOR 2730 LOKEKAVEBTrE, VEST CAKLSBAD, c*T-TFORNIA 92008 (619) 431-9440 This Environmen=el Assessmen= (F.A) was prepared pursuan= =o =he Na=ional Environmen=al Policy Ac= by the U.S. Fish and ~ildlife Service (Service) =o analyze =he environmen=el effec=s of =he proposed ac=ion =o issue a special rule pursuan= =o sec=ion 4(d) of =he Endansered Species Ac= (Ac=) which would define =he condi=ions under which inclden=al sake of ~he =hrea=ened coas=al California she=ca=chef ~Poliopcila californica cai/fornica), resul~in$ from cer=ain land-use ac=ivt=ies re~ula=ed by s=a=e and local ~overnmen=, would no= viola=e sec=ion 9 of =he Ac=. The special rule was proposed in reco~ni=ion of =he si~nifican= conserve=ion plannin~ effor=s under=aken b~ =he S=a=e of California and several ci=y and coun=y Eovernmencs pursuan= =o =he S=a=e's Na=ural Communi=y Conserve=ion Plannin~ Prosram (NCCP ProEram). Under =he special rule, a limi=ed amoun= of inetden=el sake of =he sna=ca=cher within subre$ions ac=ivel¥ enEa~ed in preparin$ a Na=ural ¢ommuni=~ Conserve=ion Plan (NCCP) would no= be considered a viola=ion of sec=ion 9 of =he Ac=, prov£ded =ha= =he ac=ivi=ies resul=in~ in such ~ake are conduc=ed in accordance wish =he S=a=e's NCCP Conserve=ion and Process Guidelines. The Service analyzed =hree al=erna=ives in ~his ~A: =he ?roposed Special Rule; =he Proposed Special Rule bus wish No In=erim Take; and =he No Action Al~erna=ive. The Proposed Special Rule is =he Preferred Al=erna=ive. Under =he Preferred Al=erna=ive, loss of a maximum of 5Z of exis=ing coas=al saEe scrub (CSS) habi=a=, es=ima=ed =o be approxima=ely 20,920 acres of coas=al sage scrub would occur, and up =o 116 pair of She=ca=chefs of an es=ima=ed 2°562 wi=hin =he NCCP Plannin~ Area would be =aken. Hi=i~a=ion for =he loss of CSS and gna=ca=chers would be defined by local agencies or subregional mi=i~a=ion guidelines developed accordin~ =o s=andards iden=ified in =he NCCP Process Guidelines and consis=e== wish =he Conserve=ion Guidelines and =he s=andards imposed under =he California Environmen=el Quali=y Ac=. The Proposed Special Rule wish No In=erim Take Al=erna=ive and =he No Pro]ec= Al=erna=ive were no= selec~=d ~ecaus~ uhey would diffus~ re~io!~al con~r%-&alon plaDnir,~ effur=s an~ concen=ra=e ac=ivi~y on individual proice= needs. Addi=ional!y, =hese al=arna=ive$ could resul~ ~n adverse impac=s =o =he social envirotunen~ ~inhin =he NCCP plannin~ area, due =o Endangered Species A¢=-rela=ed ccns=rain=s on land-use ac=ivi=ies =ha= would impact =he ~na=ca=cher. 01989 OF THE PROPOSED SECTION ~(d) RIILE ~ D~ ~ CO~ONS ~ ~ ~~- ~0~ NOT BE A ~O~T~ON OF SE~0N 9 OF ~ ~~ SFEC~ A~ TARLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ..................... 1 Ao B. C. D. E. F. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 BACKGROUND .......................................... 1 PROPOSED ACTION ...................................... 8 PURPOSE OF AND.NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ............. 8 DECISIONS NEEDED ...................................... 9 SCOPING ............................................... 9 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE EA ....... 10 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................... 11 Ao ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED BY THE PUBLIC ................ 11 THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE SP~P's INTERIH STRATEGY RECOHHENDATION ............... 11 THE PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE ............................ 12 THE PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE. BUT 9'ITH NO INTERIH PROCESS ............................. 18 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................ 19 CHA~TER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONHENT .................................. 20 Ao NCCP PLANNING AREA .................................... 20 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .................................. 20 SOCIAL ENVIRONHENT .................................... 23 CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................... 26 Ao Bo Do CHAPTER 5 A. B. C. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL RUIn. - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 26 Natural Environment: ........................... 26 Social Environment .............................. 31 THE SPECIAL RULE AS PROPOSED, BUT NO INT~ PROCESS ALTERNATIVE ................ 33 Natural Environment: ............................ 33 Social Envirozunent ............................ 34 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................... 36 Natural Environment ............................ 36 Social Environment ............................ 37 CUNITLATIVE IMPACTS .................................. 38 PUBLIC INVOLVEHENT .................................... 39' LIST OF PP, XPAXERS .................................. 39 LIST OF 9'HOH THE EA WAS SENT ....................... 39 PUBLIC INVOLVKNENT .................................. 39 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES ............................................ 4O 01990 TABLE OF CONTENTS, Conl:izmed A~PENDICES: A.~F~ND~ A - ~E~ORANDUH OF UNDERSTANDING APPENDIX B - NCCP CONSERVATION GUIDELINES APPENDIX C - NCCP P~OCESS GUIDELINES APPENDIX D - PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE APPENDIX E - SB~ LIST OF SENSITIVE SPECIES APPENDIX F - NCCP HAILING LIST Lis= of FiEures FiE=re 1 - Coas=al Sage Scrub NCCP Planning Area ................ 3 Ftsure 2 - Generalized Hap of Coas=al Sage Scrub Habi=a= ........ 4 FiLmre 3 - NCCP Subregional Focus Areas ......................... 5 Figure 4 - Evalua=ton Lo$£c Flow Chart ........................... 15 L/.s= of Tables Table 1 - St~.-~=y of Impac=s ..................................... 28 01991 CHAPTER 1 - PUP. POSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION A. INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEFA) by the U.S. Fish and gildlife Service (Service) to analyze the environmen:el effects of it's proposed at:ion to ' issue a special rule pursuant to section 4(4) of -....he Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to define the conditions under which incidental take of the threatened coastal California 8xLatcatcher (Poliop~ila californica californica) would not violate section 9 of the Act. In reco~nition of the State's Natural Communt~ Conservation Planning Program (NCCP Program) being implemented under the au=horic~ of the Sta:e of California's Neutral Community Consa~=ion Pla~E Act of 1991 (NCCP Act), and several local Eove~en= on-Eo~E ~=i-species conse~=t~ pla~E efforts =~= intend :o apply Federal ~nEered Species Ac: s:an~rds activities affec=in~ the coastal Cal~o~ia ~tca=cher (~=aa=cher), the Semite proposed a special ~le when the ~a:ca:cher was listed as a =hreatened species on ~rch 25, 1993 (58 ~ 16742). Under the special ~e, ~cidental take of =he ~=catcher b~ land-use ac:i~ttes adamseed ~ an approved Natural Co~t~ Conse~a=ion Plan (NCCP) wo~d not be considered a violation of section 9 of :he Act, pr~ided =~= ~e Semite dete~es that the NCCP meets the tss~nce criteria for an "~cidental take" petit, p~nt =o set=ion 10(a)(2)(B) of the Ac: and 50 ~ 17.32 (b)(2). A State and Federal environentel docket= will be prepared =o renew environentel effects of each NCCP (CDFG e= el. 1992), ~clud~8 an7 take of ~atca=chers and are therefore not considered ~ this ~. Under the special rule, a limited amount of incidental take of the gnatcatcher within subregions actively engaged in preparing a NCCP would also not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act, provided chat such take results from activities conduc=ed consistent with the State's NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines. This is the federal action that is analTzed in this EA. The Service intends to use :he environmental analysis presented in this EA in making its decision to issue a final 4(d) rule. B. BACKGROUND NCCP Program The NCCP Program was established in 1991 by the State of California through enactment of the Natural Community Conservation Planning Ac~ (CA Fish and Game Code 2800 et seq.). Planning and implementation of the NCCP Program is the responsibility of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), in concert with The Resources Agency. The purpose of the NCCP Program is to provide long-term, regional protection of natural wildlife diversity while allowing appropriate and compatible land development (CDFG et al. 1992). 'l"nese goals are to be achieved through devalopmen~ a~sd implementation of NCCPs. A NCCP is intended to provide for the establishment of permanent multi-species preserves, including corridors and linkages with o~her natural lands, as well as allow for compatible and appropriate land development and economic growth (CDFG et el. 1992). Creation of a NCCP is intended to be a collaborative effort between local governments, environmental groups, developers, the CDFG and the Service. The Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) NCCP Program is the firs~ NCCP planning effort initiated under the NCCP Act. It is being Jointly undertaken by the CDFG and the Service under the authority of a 1991 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Appendix A). Under the MOU, CDFG is responsible for developing the NCCP process and creating planning guidelines, with review and concurrence by the Service. The two agencies have also agreed to work together to ensure that 01992 NCCPs are designed to facilitate compliance with section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act and wish section 2081 of =he California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The CSS NCCP Program is a pilot program intended to develop a process for conserve=ion planning a= a regional scale =ha= will serve as a model for =he NCC~ process throughout =he State. The coastal sage scrub community was selected as the focus of the first NCCP planning effort in part because of'the anticipated Federal listing of =he coastal California S~atcatcher and the intense pressure for urban development within its range. The gnat=etcher was proposed for Federal endangered status on September 17, 1991 (56 FR 47053). The ~natca=cher occurs almost exclusively in coastal sage scrub, a plant community that generally occurs in =he lower elevation coastal areas of sou=hem California. This plant community has come under increasing pressure for development as =he ~,~n population in this area has increased. In addition =o the ~natca=cher, approximately 100 species considered rare, sensitive, threatened or endangered by the Service and CDFG are associated with CSS (CDFG et el. 1992). I= is essay-ted that be=ween 85 to 90 percent of =he historical distribution of CSS in California has been lost as a result of urban and agricultural development (~estman 1981). CDFG, The Resources Agency, and the Service acknowledge the potential for conflict between development and preserve=ion of sensitive resources in CSS habitat, and have agreed that c~nserva=fon planning on a regional scale must be implemented in order to provide long-term pro=action of this unique community (cite HOU). Scientific Review Pane1 To Eu£de =he CSS conservation planning process, the State es=ablished a Scientific Review Panel (SP, P), composed of five experts in plant and animal ecology and conservation bioloTy. The SP~F's pr~-ry role has been co provide strategic recommendations concerning the conservation of =he species ~nhabittng CSS, using =he'best available scientific data. A brief summary of =he SP, F's technical ~=idance for the NCC~ Program is provided below. Target Species. The SP, F's planning objectives for CSS conservation planning focus on three vertebrate. species, =he California ~natca=cher, the cactus wren (Camp71orhTnchus brunneicapillum) and orange-throated whiptail lizard (Cn~m~doRhorus hTpery~u'us beldingi) (Hurphy 1992). Conservation efforts which plan for these three NCCP target species would form =he basis for maintaining =he viability of =he remaining coastal sage scrub ecosystem (Hurph7 1992). The SP~P developed a standardized methodology for collection of biological information on =he coastal sage scrub community (SP~? 1992). CSS NCCP Plannin~ Area. The SRP defined =he CSS planning area, which includes =he lower elevation portions of Orange, San Diego, ~iverside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties (O'Leary e= al 1992) (Figure 1). A generalized map of CSS habitat in =he planning area is shown in Figure 2. The NCCP planning area also includes areas of CSS habitat on =he Palos Vetdes Peninsula, Los Angeles County and in ~es~ Coyote Hill=, Orange ~oun=~. Other areas of CSS in northwestern portions of Los Angeles and Ventura Gounties were excluded from consideration because of the urban barrier which isolates these areas from =he remainder of the C$S habitat in southern California.. CSS NCCP Subregions. Since the N¢CP Planning Area is Coo large Co effectively address conservation of =he coastal sage scrub community in a single planning effort, ~DFG and =he SP.P recommend that =he planning area be divided up into subregions for planning purposes. Subregions would be determined by the local Jurisdictions and landowners, wish other input as necessary from CDFG and the Service. A subregion must be large enough co provide for the preparation 'and implementation of ecologically viable NCCPs. The SRP identified approximately 13 subregional biological focus areas of CSS (Figure 3) which are intended co form the basis of the C$S NCCP subregions (Brussard and Hurphy 1992). o] 93 Figure 1 Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Planning Area I I no~m~ '~.0 M~es 01994 ' Generalized Map of Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (CSS) Heri~ge Division. Coverage Ir~tem. CSS as Mapped by UC:SB Gap Program from Lands:at Data. Primary CSS Caverage.. i~' Seconclary C:SS Covemg~ C~.rac~eris~Jc _~'-oe~es --"f ~ sac~e sc~'.~b include C~iifomla sagebrush (Art. ernisia c~.Ii[o~z~:a). sever~ species of s~ge (SeJv/a meEff~,-a. SaJvia/eucop.~FJa. and Salvia apiana}, California encelia (Encelia calffornica). brittlebush (Er~=e~/at/rx~a). San Diego sunflower (Viguiera la~, arid buckwheats (in- cluding Eriogonum fasciculallm~ and E.q'ogonurn c~n&reum). Eve~men sciemphyllous shrubs such as am often patc~ily cf~-tn'buted in stands of coastal sage scrtlb. 10 M~es 1 7/2o/g3 01995 .t~ ~gure a NCCP Subregional Focus Areas J! Subregional CES NCCP decim~ ~ reflec~ ~ 7/20/'93 The fo~s ~ s~tenite nre~ m'e I~tse~ ~ evmum~n of Planning UnJJ Focus ~ap (.. 01996 Gonservation Guidelines The Conservation Guidelines for the Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP planning process were finalized by GDFG in November 1993 (Appendix B). The guidelines were prepared in coordination among the Department, the Service, and the SRP, and are based upon technical review by and the recommendations from the SIL?. The Conservation Guidelines broadly define CSS conservation goals and objectives and provide specific biological guidance for the preparation of subregional NCCPs. Because the SIL? has determined that there is a lack of scientific information on important aspects of CSS biology that may be necessary co formulate and i~plemen= a iong-cerm plan, the Conservation Guidelines contain recommendations for both a short-term and a long-term conservation strategy for coastal sage scrub. The short-term strategy is to limit habitat loss so that long-term conservation planning options will not be foreclosed. Under the $IL?'s interim. strategy recommendation, total habitat loss would be limited to 5% of the existing habitat within each subregion during the time when NCCP Plans are being prepared and additional information is being collected and analyzed. In addition, the SIL? also recommended that development that is allowed to proceed during this interim period occur in areas of lower potential value for long-term conservation. To develop a long-term conservation plan for CSS habitat, additional scientific data will probably have to developed (CDFG 1993b). The NCCP Conservation Guidelines contain six interactive research tasks recommended by the SP, P that would result in =he development of the needed information. Since each subregion has distinct local conditions that will determine the particular design of its conservation program, some research needs in eachsubregion could be different. Generally, the amount of additional data needed to complete a NCCP will depend in large part on the amount of projected CSS loss within the subregion. The amount of additional data necessary for decision making will be minimal where subregional habitat losses are expected to be minimal or where adequate mitigation for losses can be demonstrated conclusively. On the other hand, where greater habitat loss is proposed or where proposed mitigation measures cannot be adequately demonstrated, additional data needs will be greater (CDFG 1993b). Scientific research should also be coordinated with region-wide efforts. NCCP Process Guidelines The NCCP Process Guidelines,. firs= published by CDFG in 1992, were finalized in November 1993 (Appendix C). These are nonregulatory guidelines =hat describe the roles and responsibilities of the involved parties and outline subregional NCCP Plan preparation. As envisioned by the NCCP Process Guidelines, subregional NCGP planning is in=ended as a collaborative effort by local jurisdictions, land owners, environmental groups and others working with the resource agencies to create a comprehensive NCCP. As identified in uhe NCCP Process Guidelines, the firs= step in the subregional planning process is enrollment in the NCCP Program. Once enrolled in the NCCP program, local jurisdictions, working with local land owners, environmental groups, and in consultation with the Service and CDFG are to designate the boundaries of a subregion for the purposes of preparing a subregional NCCP. Once the subregion is established, the NCCP participants within the subregion must. prepare and enter into a planning agreement that sets forth the roles and responsibilities of each participant in the preparation of the subregional NCCP. Each NCCP will need to meet explicit conservation objectives to promote ecosystem stability a= both the subregional and regional levels (CDFG 1993b). The NCCP Process Guidelines provide a tool for subregional planning. However, tt is up to the individuals planning the subregional NCCP to determine the 01997 form that the Plan will take. Regardless of the conservation design for a given subregional NCCP, the NCCP Process Guidelines require that each NCCP plan ensure connectivity with other NCCP plans to the maximum extent feasible, so that a true regional conservation plan is arrived at through this subregional mechanism. The Service and CDFG have a responsibility to coordinate the development of the various subregional NCCPs to ensure a cohesive regional strategy. ' The NCCP Process Guidelines were amended in July 1993 to provide ~uidance for the interim habitat loss approval process. Approval of loss of CSS in the interim would be accomplished through the local Jurisdiction with entitlement responsibility for the associated project, with oversight by =he Service and CDFG. The Process Guidelines were finalized in November 1993. Status of the CSS NCCP Plannin~ Process The NCCP Program is currently being implemented in two counties within the NCCP planning area. The County of Orange has divided the county into two CSS NCCP subregions: the southern portion of the County that abuts San Diego County to the south and Riverside County to the east is referenced as the Southern Subregion; and the central portion of the county, including the coastal area and inland central area were consolidated into one large subregion, the Coastal and Central Subregion. The County has initiated preparation of NCCPs in both the Coastal and Central and the Southern Subregions. In addition, the County of Orange and the Service have initiated the environmental review process and intend to prepare Joint environmental documents for both subregional NCCP Plans. The northern portion of Orange County contains CSS habitat, but is not being included in the County's CSS NCCP planning efforts at this t~me. San Diego County has elected to determine subregions based upon the planning boundaries of on-going multi-species plans: the Clean ~ater Program's Hulti- Species Conservation Plan; adjacent to the north, the North County Hultiple Habitat Conservation Plan; the City of Carlsbad Habitat Hanagement Plan; and covering the eastern portion of the county; the San Diego County Openspace and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. These various multi-species planning efforts have been recognized by the Service and CDFG as the equivalent of NCCP Plans. These plans are in varyinE stages of completion. While Riverside County has no= yet formally enrolled in the NCCP Program, the County has indicated it intends to enroll (Tippets, personal communication, June 1993), and is engaged in multi-species planning efforts that cover large portions of the county. Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties are also considering enrollment in the NCCP Program, but as of this date, have not yet enrolled. Proposed Special Rule Section 4(d) of the Act provides uha= whenever a species is listed as a threatened species, such regulations deemed necessarT and advisable to provide for the censerration of the species may be issued. ~hese regulations may prohibit any act prohibited for endangered species under section 9(a). These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export, ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell. or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed wildlife species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. The implementing regulations for threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.31) incorporate, for the most part, the prohibitions for endangered 01998 wildlife (50 CFE 17.21), except where a special rule applies (50 CFR 17.31(c)). In the case of coastal California 8nat=etcher, the Service found that the prohibitions for endangered species were generally necessary and advisable for conserve=ion of the species. However, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, as amended, and 50 CFE 17.31(c), the Service proposes to issue a special rule that would define the conditions under which take of the coastal California gnat=archer would noc violate section 9 of the Act. ' C. PROPOSED ACTION The Service proposes to promulgate a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act which would define the conditions under which the incidental take of =he threatened coastal California gnat=at=her would not violate section 9 of the Act. The action that is analTzed in this EA is the Service's issuance of a final special rule which would determine that incidental take of the gnat=at=her that occurs within subregions actively engased in preparing a NCCP will not be considered a violation of section 9 of =he Act, provided that activities resulting in such take results are conducted in accordance with the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines. Pursuant to the these ~uidelines, loss of CSS habitat is limited to 5Z of =he existing habitat during the interim NCCP planning period. This is expected to result in the incidental take of a limited number of gnat=at=hers. Host of the CSS habitat that ma7 be lost is expected to be of low quality (i.e. small isolated patches and/or in degraded condition) that may or may not be occupied by the ~natcatcher. Loss of CSS habitat will be mitigated through individual project mitigation plans which incorporate the specific mitigation guidelines developed by each subregion, which must be concurred with by the Service and CDFG. Projects must be designed to be consistent with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and subregional mitigation guidelines, and must minimize habitat loss to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to CSS and the target species (including the.gnat=at=her) must be mitigated to levels of insignificance as required by CEQA and according to the mitigation requirements in the NCCP Process Guidelines. Proposed loss of CSS involving intermed£ate or high value CSS habitat, as defined in the Conservation Guidelines, will be reviewed by the Service and CDFG and may be deferred or require special mitigation. Impacts to high value CSS will require special mitigation. D. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION PurPose of the Proposed Action The purpose of the proposed action is to relieve the existing section 9 prohibitions against take of gnat=at=hers for activit£es which are conducted consistent with the State's NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines while subregional CSS NCCP Plans are being prepared. This action is proposed in recognition of a state program that intends to provide for habitat conservation and management essential to the recovery of the gnat=at=her in a manner consistent with the Act. Need for the Proposed Aceion The CSS NCCP Program will apply Federal Endangered Species Act standards to NCCP plans that include land-use activities affecting the gnat=at=her (CDFG et al. 1992; see NCCP Process Guidelines). The proposed action is needed to provide an efficient means to allow incidental take of the gnatcatcher for legal activities within NCCP subregions while NCCP plans are being prepared to not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act and to encourage the development of conservation plans under the NCCP Program. 8 01999 E. DECISIONS NEEDED The Service's decision to authorize incidental take of the Enatcatcher is a Federal agency action that may affect a listed species. Therefore, an internal formal consultation must be completed by the Service, which will result in a Biological Opinion regarding the proposed action. The Service has issued a Biological Opinion that the proposed action is not likely to - Jeopardize the continued existence of the coastal California Enatcatcher. After thorough review of the EA, the Service must determine that the proposed action will not si~nificantly affect the human environment, prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and publish such finding in the Federal Register, or, determine that significant impacts may result from the proposed action and initiate preparation of an Environmental Impact S=atement. F. SCOPING The Resources Agency, :he CDFG and the Service have involved :hose interest groups that would be most affected by the NCCP Program in the NCCP Program planning process. During the initial phases of the NCCP Program (1991 and 1992), a small advisor7 committee composed of development industr~ representatives, landowners, environmental groups and local governmental agencies met regularly to provide input into the development of the NCCP Program. As interest in the NCCP Program has grown, the advisory committee has evolved into a mvch larger group of par:icipants. Three NCCP workshops were held to help the public understand the NCCP Program. The first workshop was held on September 30, 1992 in Carlsbad, California. This workshop focused on the application of NCCP Process Guidelines to subregional NCCP planning. The second workshop was held on February 3, 1993 to discuss the preliminary concepts regarding the SP, P's recommended conservation strategy. The Service participated in this workshop as part of a panel leading the conservation planning discussion. The third workshop was held on March 31, 1993, the purpose of which was to review and discuss the SRP's draft Conservation Guidelines. The advisory committee was chaired and the public workshops were organized and administered by the California Environmental Trust, (a non-profit organization), at the request of the California Resources Agency. In the March 30, 1993 proposed special rule and associated notifications, all interested parties were requested by the Service to submit factual reports or information that might contribute to the development of a final rule. Appropriate elected officials, 3 State agencies, 4 county, and 50 city governments, 7 Federal agencies, and 50 landowners and other affected or interested parties were contacted and requested to comment. A legal notice announcing this proposed action and inviting general public comment on the proposal was published in the Orange County ReEister, Riverside Press- Enterprise, and the San Diego Union-Tribu=le on april $, 1993. The Service held three public hearings on the proposed special rule. A notification of the hearings, reopening of the public comment period, and availability of the draft EA, draft NCCP Conservation Guidelines, and draft NCCP Process Guidelines was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 1993 (58 FR 38736). A legal notice announcing the hearings and invi=ing. general public comment on the proposal and draft documents cited above, was published in the Orange County Re~ister on July 12, 1993, in the Riverside Press- EnterDr~.s9 on July 13, 1993, and in the San Diego Union-Tribune on July 14, 1993. The draft Environmental Assessment, draft NCCP Conservation Guidelines and NCCP Process Guidelines were distributed on August 2, 1993 to 256 interested parties, including the Governor's Office, 2 State Senators, 3 Federal and 3 State agencies, 15 local governments, and other interested 02000 parties. Public hearings were conducted in San Dieso, California on 1993, in Irvine, California on August 11, 1993, and in Eiverside, California on August 13, 1993. About 300 people in total at=ended these hearings. A total of 198 comments were received during the two comment periods which encompassed almost 4 months (multiple comments, whether writ=an or oral from the same party on =he same date are regarded as one comment). Of these, 43' (22 per=an=) supported =he proposed special rule, 64 (32 percent) opposed the special rule, and 91 (46 percent) neither supported nor opposed =he special rule. Comments received specifically regarding =he EA were considered in =he preparation of the final G. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE EA The issues and concerns raised =o-date regarding the proposed action have focused on the potential effects of =he proposed action on =he Enaccaccher and =he CSS ecosystem, and on the potential effects on =he gro%-ch and development within human communities. Therefore the EA will address =he following issues and concerns: Natural Environment. Issues co be addressed include: CSS habitat; ocher habitats including grasslands and chaparral which are most commonly interspersed with CSS habitat; =he ~natca=cher; and other species associated with CSS. Social Environment. Issues co be addressed include: population grow=h; housing; transportation~ emploImen=; agriculture; and fire pro=action. Issues and Concerns Not Addressed This EA does not review =he environmental effects of a subregional NCCP, including socio-economic effects of a subregional NCCP, effects to historic and/or cultural resources, or the incidental take of =he gust=at=her associated with a NCCP. These impacts will be analyzed in subsequent State and Federal environmental documents pursuant to CEQA and NEPA requirements. Also, this EA does not review the environmental effects of individual development projects, since =he effects of development projects .must be analyzed in a project-specific EIR, as required by =he local jurisdiction with project entitlement responsibility, pursuant to CEQA. Since NCCP Plans will probably alter the designation of certain existing land uses, depending upon the final formula=ion of a subregional NCCP Plan, =he NCCP Plan and the accompanying environmental review document will be required co address issues such as consistency of =he Plan with ocher plans and policies, like local coastal plans, local general plans, and EPA Clean ~a=er Act policies. In addition, all development projects and ocher regulated activities must also address consistency with local plans and policies, outside of and in addition to =he N¢CP Planning Process. The NCCP Planning Process does not remove the obligation of a development project or other regulated activity to go through local permitting and approval procedures. Therefore :his issue is not addressed in =his EA. 10 02001 ¢HA~TER 2 - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This chapter describes :he alternatives considered in the decision-making process. Two alternatives were suggested by the public during the public review process, but were rejected from further review. Three alternatives were analyzed in greater detail, including: 1) The Special ~ule - The Preferred Alternative; 2) The Special ~ule, but with No Interim Process Alter~ative; and 3) The No Action Alternative. A. ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED BY THE PUBLIC Two alternatives were suggested during the public review period of =he EAr 1) Exemption of private agricultural land use activities on lands that do not have gnatcatchers from the special rule; and 2) Modified NCCP planning area to include those portions of Los Angeles and Ventura counties that are not currently included in =he NCCP planning area. These alternatives were considered but rejected from further consideration. The first alternative, exempting private agricultural land uses on lands not occupied by gnatcatchers from the special rule, was rejected from further consideration because any such exemptions are inconsistent with =he objectives of =he Act and its ~nplementing regulations, and are inconsistent with the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines. The second alternative .suggested, to modify the NCCP planning area to include those portions of Los Angeles and Ventura counties that are currently excluded was not pursued because the habitat in these portions of Los Angeles and Ventura counties are isolated from the rest of CSS habitat in Southern California by dense urban development. The SP.P concluded =hat the inclusion of these areas would no= contribute to the regional conservation strate~ for CSS habitat (O'Lear~ e= al 1992). B. TI{.E ~ATIONA?-F BEHIND THE SP~'S INTEP~-H STRATEGY RECOHHENDATION The.difference between the two action alternatives rests on whether or not proposed special rule includes the SP~'s recommended interim strate~, as outlined in the Conservation Guidelines, of allowing no more than a 5% loss of CSS during the period in which an NCCP Plan is being prepared. The rationale. behind the SRP's recommended interim strategy in the Conservation Guidelines is presented below, followed by a description of =he three alternatives analyzed in =his gA. The SRP's interim strategy recommends=ion in the State's Conservation Guidelines specifies a maximum 5% loss of CSS habitat during the interim planning period in which a NCCP Plan is being prepared. This figure represents a conservative estimate of the amount of habitat that could be lost in. each subregion without foreclosing conservation planning options. In the opinion of the SRP, the 5% limit would result in a level of habitat loss that can be compensated for by long-term management of the remaining CSS. %~e quan=i=a:i~e basis for the 5% value is =he SP~'s belief tha: the a~grega:e carryin~ capacity of CSS habitat for CSS species, including the gnatcatcher, could be enhanced by ~% using reasonably available management =echnlques. The present threatened status of the ~natcatcher is the resul= of a variety of effects: 1) habitat area has been reduced by urbanization and agricultural conversion leadin~ to a lower population size; 2) habitat fragmentation hinders dispersal and increases predation and nest parasitism by the.brown- heaeed cowbird (MoloChrus a~er) leading to lower population size,' lower recolon~zatton rates and less effective utilization of remaining habitat; and 3) habitat quality has been degraded by fire, invasive exotic species, off- road vehicles, and over-~razing. The aggregate effect is a significant reduction of the gnatcatcher population and its ability to persist. 02002 This habitat-based threat to the gnatcatcher was recognized by the SRF in its recommended consecvation strategy for CSS. The SI~ recommended des£Enation of a reserve network which would preserve habitat area, maintain connectivivy, and manage threats to habitat quality in a way that no net loss of habitat value for the gnatcatcher would occur. Land to be incorporated into =he reserve network would be selected on the basis of size, location and quali~.y. Land in small patches, isolated and degraded by urban land uses would be of little long term value to a CSS reserve network. ~hile some CSS and some gnatcatchers would be lost, limited shor~-term losses could be offset by the enhanced long-term cazTying capacity of =he reserve network. Enhancement can take several forms: increasing plant cover or diversity in existing CSS; reestablishing CSS in disturbed lands or lands now dominated by other communities; improving connectivity between CSS patches; and protecting CSS patches and the species found therein from excessive fire, off-road vehicle activity, cowbird parasitism,. or exotic species threats. 'Information gathered by the SP.P supports the §C estimate of mittgable CSS loss. Habitat naturally reestablishes itself after limited dist~trbance. Some small-scale restoration trials have shown success in recreating CSS vegetation in disturbed areas. There is evidence that fire management can be adapted to provide a combination of protection and type conversion. Connectivity between reserves w~11 be difficult to restore where lost to urbanization, but active management for the gnatcatcher could entail deliberate transport of individuals to reestablish colonies or to maintain genetic diversity, if necessary. The Conservation Guidelines recommend research on CSS restoration and enhancement as well as several other population biology and biogeosraphic concerns to support ongoing NCCP planning and reserve management. This research information will be the basis for allowing greater than 5X loss of CSS in a NCCP, beyond the interim planning period. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL KULE This alternative is the Service's Preferred Alternative. Under this alternative, the Service would issue a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act which defines the conditions under which take of the gnatcatcher would not be a violation of section 9 of the Act. Under the special rule, incidental take of the gnatcatcher by land-use activities addressed in an approved NCCP will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act, provided that the Service determines that the NCCP meets the issuance criteria for an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 50 CF~ 17.32(b)(2). As discussed in the NCCP Process Guidelines, the environmental effects of each completed NCCP will be analyzed in subsequent joint state/federal environmental documents. Therefore, the environmental effects of NCCPs, and any take of gnatcatchers associated with completed NCCPs are not considered in this F.A. The special rule a[so would provide a mechanism whereby incidental take of the gnatcatcher within subregions actively engaged in preparing a NCG~ plan will also not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act, provided the activities resulting in such take are conducted in accordance with the NCGP Conservation Guidelines and Process Guidelines. The Special Rule also requires the Service to monitor the implementation of the NCCP Conservation and Process as a whole, and conduct a review every six months to determine whether the guidelines, as implemented, are effective in progressing cowards or meeting regional and subregicnal conservation objectives during =he interim planning period. If the Service determines that the ~uideltnes are not effecting adequate progress towards meeting subregional or regional conservation objectives, the Service shall consult with CDFG to seek appropriate modification of the Tuidelines, or their application by individual 12 0200 projects. If appropriate modification of the guidelines or =heir application does not occur, =he Service may revoke the interim take provisions of =he special rule on a subregional or subarea basis. The Service shall publish =he findings for revocation in the Federal Register and provide for a 30-day public comment period prior to the effective date for revoking =he provisions of the special rule in a particular area. Revocation would result in the reinstatement of the take prohibitions set for=h under 50 CFR 17.31(a) and'(b) in the affected NCCP area. This is the action is the federal action analyzed in this gA. The special rule as originally published (Appendix D) has been modified in response to public tommen=, to reflect minor changes =ha= were made to the NCCP Process and Conservation Guidelines as these documents were finalized by the CDFG, and to help clarify =he intent of the rule. The changes that were made to the special rule and to the NCCP Process and Conserve=ion Guidelines are minor and do not substantially change the proposed action or its effects. The modifications to the special rule are described briefly below. The modifications that were made to the proposed special rule occurred only in parts (3) and (4) of =he rule, both of which concern the interim plan=inE process. The special rule as originally proposed (see Appendix D) required that the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines and mi=tEa=ton for loss of coastal sage scrub habitat that would occur during the interim plan=inE process by activities conducted pursuant =o the guidelines, conform =o Section 10(a)(1)(B) criteria. Part (3) of the rule was changed =o require that the limited amount of eSS habitat loss that would occur in =he interim be mitigated according =o the standards presented in =he S=ate's NCGP guidelines. The NCCP Process Guidelines include the elemen=s of =he 10(a)(1)(B) issuance criteria and require mitigation for loss of CSS habitat and target species (including the ~natcatcher) consistent with the provisions of =he California Environmental Quality Act. The NCCP Process Guidelines make this mitigation obligation clear, so while the change in part (3) of the special rule will not require mitigation for in=erim habitat loss according =o =he Section 10(a)(1)(B) criteria, mitigation will be required under =he N¢CP process. Part (4) of the special rule, as originally proposed, required the Service to review the NCCP ~uidelines every six months to determine if they continued to meet Section 10(a)(1)(B) criteria and were providing =he guidance necessary =o produce plans that effectively protected the gust=at=her. The final rule requires the Service to examine the implementation of =he guidelines and their application during the interim planning process =o ensure that activities are conducted accordinE to the ~uidelines and that regional and subregional conservation objet=ives are being met. The rule was also modified to include a revocation process whereby the Service could revoke the interim take provisions of the special. rule if the Service determines that the provisions of'the guidelines, as implemented by individual projects, are no= bainE met. The revocation process provides for public participation by requiring the Service to publish a notice in the Federal Register 30 days prior to revoking authority established by the Section 4(d) special rule. The Service main=sics authority over the NCCP planning process by virtue of the six. month review of the effectiveness of the N¢¢P ~uidelines and their impleman=at!on in providing protection for the coastal California gnat=at=her. As discussed above, under the special rule a limited amount of incidental take of the gnat=at=her will not be a violation of section 9 of the Act, provided that the take occurs within the jurisdiction of a local government agency that is enrolled and actively engaged in the preparation of such a plan and is consistent with the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines. 13 02004 Conservation Guidelines The Conservation Guidelines emphasize that there is curren:ly a lack of scientific information on important aspects of CSS biology that is necessary to formulate and implement a long-term plan. Therefore, =he Conservation Guidelines recommend an interim strategy in which total loss of CSS habita~ would be limited to 5Z of the existing CSS within any given subregion. The interim strategy is intended to minimize short-term loss of CSS habitat and associated species and to prevent foreclosure of options for long-term conservation planning. To accomplish this goal, the Conservation Guidelines suggest that development decisions be deferred on lands which may be impor=ant components of a final CSS NCCP plan. The Conservation Guidelines include an evaluation process that segregates CSS habitat into three categories based upon fundamental conservation biology tenets. This process is described graphically in the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart (Fi~ure 4) (the Flow Chart assumes the= specific habitat data are in GIS format and the vegetation patches have a minimum mapping unit of 5 acres (2 hectares)). This evaluation process would be used to roughly discriminate be=ween three general conditions of remaining CSS. By utilizing this evaluation process, a subregional authority or the Service or CDFG would be able to classify lands as higher, intermediate or lower potential value for long-term conservation, for the purpose of ~uidtng interim CSS loss where it is most likely to have a minimal effect. Generally, large, dense areas of CSS are identified as higher potential value lands. Land in linkages, close to possible core areas or with high species richness are defined as having intermediate value. The remaining small and fragmented stands of CSS are desi~nated as low value, with the exception of any of these remaining stands that may support high densities or significant populations endemic or target species. If this evaluation process is followed, the Conservation Guidelines indicate that 50% of the CSS in a subregion would be in the higher potential value category, and an estimated 10% to 25Z would be classified into the lower potential value category, with the remainder of the habitat being classified as having intermediate value. How much is a 5% habitat loss?. The precise CSS acreage baseline for the 5% value vould be calcula:ed by the subregional lead or coordinating agency established for the subregion and must be verified by the Service and the CDFG. In no case will the base number of acres be less than that which existed on March 25, 1993, the date of the listing of the gnat=at=her as a threatened species. The baseline acreage should be calculated using GIS data and with the use of current satellite imagery for updating those data. For the putposed of assessing the potential impacts of the special rule, the Service has estimated =he total amount of CSS habitat within the planning area based on GIS data provided to the Service by the local jurisdictions. Total amounts of eSS based on :hese data are slightly different :har~ previously estimated by the Service. This is due to expected variation in mapping techniques. ~ne differences amount to about 5%. Estimates of :he amount of CSS habitat is presented below for San Diego, Orange and Riverside Counties. Relatively little CSS habitat remains in San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties. Currently, there are no large-scale data on the distribution and abundance of this habitat type in these two counties. Vegetation data from San Diego Gounty yes prepared by several different sources and was compiled by the San Diego Association of Governments. The data included areas mapped as GSS and areas mapped as disturbed G$S - both of which are combined in the CSS category. 02005 Evaluation Logic Flow Chart .1< R~U~ N~ ~ f~ Higher Potenthal Value For Long-term .~' ks lard most dense -~'ms ~ Cons~rvation Yes NoT I :4o I Intermediate Potential Value ~or Long-term Gonserva/Jon case byc~se ~ Lower Potential Value For Long-term Conserwfion 02006 Orange County data are still being assembled but preliminary est!~otes were made available to the Service. As these data are updated (i.e. as subregions submit more thorough and updated GI$ vegetation data) the estimated values will be adjusted accordingly. For Riverside County it is based upon vegetation mapping done by Dr. Richard Hinnich, (Depar:ment of Geography, University of California a= Riverside) fn 1991. This map includes vegetation mapped as coastal sage scrub and yeseta=ion mapped as coastal sage scrub / grassland. Pot =he purpose of =/lis analysis, these designations were combined into =he coastal sage scrub category. A s,,--,-t-y of this data is presented below: Total CSS: Riverside Councy .... 152.974 acres (61.933 ha) San Diego County .... 112.750 acres (86.134 ha) Orange County .... 51.000 acres (20.647 ha) TOTAL 416,724 acres (168.714 ha) Under the special rule take of coastal sage scrub would be limited to approximately: Loss Limit: Riverside County ..... 7.650 acres (3.100 ha) San Diego County -~. 10.720 acres (4.340 ha) Orange CounTy .... 2.550 acres (1.030 ha) TOTAL -- 20,920 acres (8,470 ha) NCCP Process Guidelines The Conservation Guidelines are intended to be used along with the NCCP Process Guidelines for planning both interim and long-term Conservation strategies (Appendix C). The first step in the Subregional NCCP process is the establishment of such a planning process. This includes defining subregion boundaries, establishing a lead or coordinating agency and executing a planning agreement among participating local governments, private landowners, the lead or coordinating agency, CDFG and the Service. ~hile the long-term conservation planning effort is underway, rules for an interim strategy have been defined and included in the NCCP Process Guidelines. ADDroval Process for Interim Habitat Loss. The NCCP Process Guidelines provide specific ~uidance on how applicants would obtain approval for interim loss of CSS, which may or may no= include take of gnatca=chefs. Approval of interim loss of CSS would be granted by a local agency, with oversight and guidance from the designated subregional lead or coordinating agency, and with oversight by the Service and CDFG. Consistent with the NCCP Process and Conservation Guidelines, the .lead or coordinating agency would then: * establish the baseline acreage of CSS habitat within the;subregton (but in no case shall the base number of acres be less than what existed on Hatch 25, 1993, the listing date of the gnatcatcher); 16 02007 * calculate S~ estimate for the interim habitat loss; * establish mitigation ~uidelines for CSS habitat that is lost during the interim period. The ~uidelines shall seek to minimize project impacts to CSS habitat consistent with the Conservation Guidelines. The CDFG and the Service must concur with these ~uidelines. Mitigation may be approved by a local agency on a case by case basis prior to the adoption of the subregional mitigation guidelines; * keep a cumulative record of the habitat actually lost, to assure the 5~ interim habitat loss limit is not exceeded. Interim habitat loss approval status should Be forwarded to the Service at least once a month. The NCCP Process Guidelines allow that local agencies may determine the specific application and process requirements. In order to obtain approval for interim take, an applicant must apply to the appropriate local agency, and must include a mitigation plan which is justified as appropriate for the proposal. Project proposing to impact intermediate and high value CSS habitat should involve CDFG and the Service early so as to avoid delays in the final approval process. Development decisions having a substantial adverse impact on high value habitat should be deferred until completion of the NCCP if possible. The applicant must demonstrate capaci=y of funding appropriate mitigation and the mitigation must be legally assured. The NCCP Process Guidelines require that impacts to CSS habitat be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Any impacts to CSS and the target species (includinE the gnatcatcher) mu~t be mitigated to below level~ of significance, as required by CEQA, by using one or more of the following options: * Acquisition of habitat - habitat acquisition and set asides should occur in areas with long-term conservation potential; * Dedication of land; * Management agreements; * Restoration; * Payment of fees; * Transfer of development rights; * other measures approved in writing by CDFG and the Service. In addition, impacts to high value habitat areas will require and impacts to intermediate value habitat area may require special mitiga=ton. Impacts in higher value areas must demonstrate that the loss will not foreclose fu=ure reserve planning options.. The local agency responsible for approving the project must require environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Based upon the CEQA review and other information, the local agency must make specified findings in order to approve a habitat loss application. These findings include: * l~e proposed habitat loss is consistent with the interim loss cri=aria of Conservation Guidelines, and with any subregional process if established by the subregion. - the habitat loss does noc cumulatively exceed the 5% loss limit; - the habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values; - the habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the sublegional NCCP; - the habitat loss has been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable; ¸17 02008 * The habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of listed species in the wild; * The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Once the local agency makes the above findings, the local agency would then notify the subregional lead or coordinating agency, who would review the interim take approval to confirm that it does not exceed =he 5Z cap on loss of CSS or prejudice the preparation and implementation of the subregional NCCP. The subregional lead or coordinating agency would communicate its findings in writing to the local agency, who would then post public notice of its decision and notify the CDFG and the Service. The Service, in close coordination with CDFG, shall review the project for consistency with the Conservation Guidelines and any approved subregional habitat loss guidelines. If the Service concludes the project, as approved and mitigated, is inconsistent with the Conservation Guidelines or subregional mitigation ~uidelines, the Service shall notify the local approving agency. After consulting with CDFG, the Service shall provide recommendations for modifying the project or mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. Until the Service concurs that the project, as modified, is consistent with =he Conservation Guidelines and subregional mitigation guidelines, the project may not proceed. If no notification is provided by the Service, the project may proceed as approved by the local agency. Upon approval of a NCCP by the Service and the CDFG, the interim planning period in the subregion shall terminate. The interim rules for loss of GSS habitat would no longer apply. Instead, each NCCP is expected to provide a conservation plan appropriate for the subregion. A NCCP could include provisions for a greater than 5% CSS habitat loss, provided that =he acceptability of such loss is demonstrated by the results of additional research, restoration and management activities. As required under the provisions part (4) of the special rule, the Service shall monitor the implementation of the Conservation and Process Guidelines every six months to determine whether the guidelines, as implemented, as effective in progressinE towards or meeting regional and subregional conservation objectives. If the Service determines that the guidelines, as they are implemented by projects, are not effectins adequa=e progress towards or meeting regional and subregional conservation objectives, the Service shall consult with the CDFG to seek appropriate modification of the Guidelines and/or their application as defined therein. If appropriate modification of the ~uidelines or their application does not occur, the Service may revoke the interim take provisions of the special rule on a subregional or subarea basis. Following receipt of public comments, the Service shall publish its determination. D. THE FKOPOSED SPECI~a RULE, BUT WITH NO iNTEKIM PROCESS ALTE.R~NATIVE This alternative is i~enuical to the preferrad alternative, except =hat the final rule would contain no provisions for an interim process, during the period in which a NCCP is being prepared. All other'provisions of the final rule would remain the same. Under =his alternative, incidental take of the coastal California gnatcatcher would not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act, if it results from activities conducted pursuant to the State of California's NCCP Act, and in accordance with a Natural Community Conservation Plan for the protection of eSS habitaT, which has been prepared consistent with the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines be authorized if: an NCCP Plan has been prepared, approved and implemented pursuant to CaLifornia Fish and Game Code sections 2800-2840; and the Service has issued %rritten concurrence that the NCCP Plan meets the standards for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) 18 02009 permit, as set forth in 50 CF~ 17.32(b)(2). The Service is required to monitor the implementation of the NCCP and may revoke its concurrence that the NCCP meets section 10(a)(1)(B) standards if the NCCP, as implemented, fails to adhere to these standards. Take of the gnat=at=her would be prohibited by section 9 of the Act during the period in which an NCCP Plan was being prepared. If an applicant wanted t= proceed with development plans that would result in take of the ~natcatcher during the interim period, a permit would be required pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act; this would involve the preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan. Alternatively, if there was a federal nexus, then a formal consultation under section ? of the Act would be required between the action agency and the Service. E. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under this Alternative. a special rule would not be promulgated by the Service; any incidental take of the ~natcatcher, by activities conducted pursuant to the State's NCCP Program or by any other activities would be prohibited under section 9 of the Act. Any projects or activities that involve take of the ~natcatcher, regardless of their participation in the NCCP Program would have to comply with section 7 or section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, as appropriate. As required by the HOU, the Service would continue to support the CSS NCCP process. However, the NCCP Program would not have available the special provision for incidental take of. the Etlatcatcher described in the proposed special rule, NCCP Plans and projects that impact the gnatcatcher, would require take authorization from the Service through the section 10 or the section 7 process, as appropriate. 19 02010 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONHENT A. NCCP PLANNING A/LEA The NCCP planning area encompasses approximately 6,000 square miles of the southern California region, including pot:ions of five California counties: San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino (see FiTure 19. "The entire planning region includes areas up to 3,500 feet in elevation in Orange County and cismontane portions of wes:ern San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Extensions of this core area reach wes=ward into eastern Los Angeles County along the southern base of the San Gabriel Hountains to the Honrovia-Glendora area, and into the Chino Htlls-La Habra Heights and San Jose Hills area. Areas within the overall planning region above 3,500 feet elevation will also be included due to :heir importance as habita: and in facilitating dispersal of some species. The planning region also includes two disjunct, outling areas--one on Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles Count7 and the other in the ~est Coyote Hills in extreme northwestern Orange County" (O'Lear~ et.al. 1992). While coastal sage scrub habitat exis=s nor:h of the NCCP planning area in Ven=ura and Los Angeles, :his habitat is effectively isolated from the rest of the planning area due to urbanization. In addition, the 8~atcatcher has been extirpated from both :hese counties, except from a small patch of habitat on the Palos Vetdes Peninsula, which provides refugia for a small colony of ~naccatchers. This planning area incorporates the current known dis:ributton of the coastal California ~natcatcher within the United States, as well as the distribution of two other sensitive species, coas:al cactus wren and orange-throated whip:all, that have been selected by the Scientific Review Panel (SP~) as target species because of their associa:ion with coas:al sage scrub habitat. B. NATURAL ENVIRONKENT Coastal Sa~e Scrub The'coastal sage scrub vegetation community extends from the San Francisco Bay area, to the north, southward to E1 Rosario in BaJa California, Mexico. This community is lotaced primarily on coastal plains and foothills, and may be found at elevations ranging from sea level to 3,500 feet. Coastal sage scrub is not a homogeneous plant community, but differs floristically depending upon geographical location, slope, aspect, soil tTpe, and disturbance (e.g., grazing and fire). Not all plant or animal species commonly classified as CSS species are found in all stands of :his habitat. Coastal sage scrub has been subdivided by botanists in~o several floristically different associations based primarily upon geographic location. The dominant sage scrub associations within the NCCP planning area are Riverstdian, found in dryer inland areas, and Diegan, primarily coastal in distribution. The Sk~ described coas:ai sage scrub as follows: "~h~rac:eristic species cf coastal sage scrub include California sagebrush (Arremi$ia ca!ifornica), several species of sage (Salvia mellifera, Salvia ~eucophlya, and Salvia apiana), California encelia (Encelia californica), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), San Diego sunflower (Vi~uiera latintara), and buckwheats (Eriogonum fascicula~um and Eriogonum cinereum). Evergreen sclerophyllous shrubs such as Malosma laurina, Rhus in~egrifolia, and F, hus ova~a are often patchily distributed in stands of coastal sage scrub. During moist win=er and spring periods, high transpiration rates and carbon assimilation rates .allow for rapid plant growth, flowering and frutttng (Harrison ec.al. 1971, Hooney 1988). Most of the dominant species are drought evaders by virtue of their factlitatively-deciduous life history strategies, thus they are particularly well adapted to prolonged periods of low rainfall" (O,Leary et.al. 1992). 20 02011 Approximately 394,000 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat has been estimated to currently exist within the NCCP planning area. Estimates for the loss of coastal sage scrub during historic times may be as high as 85 percent (~es=man 1981). Loss of CSS habitat has been primarily due to agriculture and urbanization within the southern California region. Huch of the habitat that remains has been fragmented or disturbed. "Recent estimates indicate that the percentage of remaining CSS that is degraded is 51 percent in Riverside County (Regional Environmental Consultants 1991), 15-25 percent in Orange County (Fred Rober:s, personal co,,,~nfcation), and 9-23 percent in San Diego County (Pacific Southwest Biological Services 1988, Ogden Environmental and Energy Services 1992)" (O'Leaz7 et.al. 1992). Other Habitats Several other habitat types are commonly found associated with or abutting CSS. Because coastal sage scrub is often naturally patchy, being confined to certain slopes or soil tipes, or a relatively open habitat, other vegetation communities may intardigi=ate with it and form a mosaic of habitats over the landscape. The habitats most commonly found in association with sage scrub are various lower elevation chaparral associations, non-native grasslands, occasionall7 oak woodlands, and more rarely native bunch grass communities. Riparian communities are often found at the bottom of drainages within landscapes that contain coastal sage scrub. Non-native annual grasslands are dominated by introduced annual grasses with some introduced forbs and some native forbs. This habitat t~pe is generally found below 3000 feet elevation and commonly intermixed with coastal sage scrub. The native bunch grass community is dominated by perennial, tussock forming. native species. This community is much reduced over its former distribution and now onl7 rarely found in association with coastal sage scrub. Non-native grasslands have displaced native bunch grass communities in most locations. Chamise chaparral, southern mixed chaparral, southern maritime chaparral in San Diego County, and at slightly higher elevations scrub oak chaparral, are the chaparral communities most likely to be found associated with coastal sage scrub. There are also instances of a coastal sage scrub community that is mixed with plant species more tipical of chaparral such as chamise (Adeno$~oma fa$cicula~un). Chaparral communities are a dominant feature of the landscape within the geographic confines of the NCCP planning area. They are found adjacent to coastal sage scrub on slightly wetter, steeper slopes. Oak woodlands, predominantly coast live oak woodland, can be found adjoining or in the vicinity of coastal sage scrub. Coast live oak woodland is typically found on north-facing slopes and shaded ravines, generally at lower elevations. Riparian corridors and fallow agricultural fields are also found within larger stands of CSS. Southern arroyo willow riparian forest, southern sycamore-alder riparian woodlands and various tipes of riparian scrub are the cozmon riparian communities found near coastal =age scrub. Because of the naturally pa=chy nature of eSS, any of =hese other habi=ats could be found in the immediate vicinity of a stand of coastal sage scrub. Such habitats can be important for dispersal of plant and animal species between sage scrub patches. Fire Fires at- a natural, periodic occurrence within many of the natural vegetation communities in Southern California. The role of fire is well recognized as a periodic and necessaz-y component of many of the vegetation communities in the region, particularly the lower to mid-elevation communities such as most chaparral tipes, grasslands and coastal sage scrub. Research information 21 02012 suggests that fire is most frequent (e.g. 35 to 70 years) in chaparral and grasslands, less so (perhaps 50 to 100 years) in coastal sage scrub and other community types. The wildlife species native to these vegetation communities have adapted to periodic'fire and the mosaic of vegetation types and stages of plant growth that are expected with occasional fire. Fire periodicity, intensity and extent depends on fuel accumulation, weather conditions (especially relative humidity, wind speed, and temperature). and landscape' features including ridgelines and locations of recent fires that would serve as natural firebreaks. Under presettlement conditions =he cycle of fire, regrowth, fuel accumulation over time, and eventual reoccurrence of fire maintained a dynamic landscape with a mosaic of vegetation in various stages of maturity. Such conditions allow for recolonization of recently burned areas with individuals from adjoining habitat that did noc burn. Coastal California Gnatcatcher The coastal California gnatca=chef is a small insectivorous bird found almost exclusively within coastal sage scrub habitat, from Los Angeles County south to upper Baja California, Mexico (30 degrees N. latitude). Historically the species was present in Ventura, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, California. However, the bird has been extirpated from Ventura and San Bernardino Counties, and is only found on the Palos Vetdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County. Significant populations of ~natcatchers continue =o persist in Riverside. Orange and San Diego Counties. The decline in California gnatcatcher distribution and populations relates directly to the loss of coastal sage scrub habitat to agriculture and urbanization, as discussed above. Also, in certain portions of its current range this species is subject to nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (Molor3Lrus acer). The Service listed this bird species as "threatened" on Hatch 25, 1993. The Service estimates that =here are currently 2,56l pairs of coastal California ~natcatchers remaining within the United States. Of these, 24 to 30 pairs occur in Los Angeles County, 224 to 294 pairs in Orange County. 724 to 916 pairs in Riverside County, and 837 to 1,061 pairs in San Diego County. Approximately 2,800 pairs of gnatcatchers are estimated to persist in Baja California, Mexico (50 FR 16742). The gnatcatcher is a resident species. The breeding season for this gnatcatcher extends from late February through July, with the peak of nesting activity occurring between mid-March and mid-May. Gnatcatcher pairs establish defended breeding territories of between 2 to 14 acres (1 to 6 hectares), and have home ranges varying in size from 13 to 39 acres (5 to 15 hectares). Nests are constructed in a variety of shrub species, and tend to be located approximately 3 feet (1 meter) above the ground. Clutch size averages 4 eggs, and if a nest is destroyed or abandoned due to disturbance the birds will often tenest. Both parents are involved in nest incubation and care of the young. Once nestlings have fledged they remain with their parents for several months befor~ dispersing. Data on dispersal dis=antes i& scant, but evidence exists that they may disperse up to 9 miles (14 km) from their birth site (50 FR 16742). Other Species Approximately 100 plant and animal species are described by the SRP as sensitive species associated with coastal sage scrub in southern California (Appendix g). The SP, P has also designated two wildlife species, coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunnecapiliu$ sandiegensis) and orange-throated whiptail (¢nemidophorus hyper~r3lrus), as target species for special study within the NCCP planning area. The habitat and long-term protection needs of these two species will also be incorporated into final habitat preserve design 22 02013 in NCCP Plans. These species, like the California ~natcatcher, are strongly associated with CSS habitat. Many of the above mentioned species, associated with coastal sage scrub, are largely restricted to this habitat and generally confined to a geographic range within the NCCP planning area. The NCCP goals, as reflected in the direction within the Conservation Guidelines, strive to accomodate =he hahi-cat conservation needs of all these species. Other plant communities found in association with coastal sage scrub, addressed above, provide habitat for a variety of species of plants and animals. Some species that depend on these habitats are generally restricted to the area covered by the NCCP planning area. C. SOCIAL ENVIRONKENT Population Growth For more than 130 years the human population in California has grown faster, annually, than any other state in the union. In the fifty years between 1940 and 1990 the rate of increase in the population was on average, twice the national growth rate. In 1971 the state accounted for roughly 10% of the nation's population, by 1990 - 12%. There are now more than.30 million people in California (Times-Herald 1993). By 2040 the state's population is projected to grow to 60 million (~eintraub 1993). This means 667,000 people a year for the next fifty years - an increase equivalent to0 two cities the size of Sacramento being added to the state every year (Armstrong 1993). The five counties in which the NCCP planning area is found account for 54% of the s=ate's population. Hore than half of this population occurs in the NCCP area (California 1991). Oranse County is the only county completely enveloped by the NCCP area. It accounts for approximately 27% of the population in the NCCP area. The other counties, including Los Angeles, R/verside, San Bernardino, and San Diego, account for approxfmstel~ 30%, 7%, 10%, and respectively of the population within the NCC~ area (California 1991). Between 1980 and 1990 these counties grew rapidly: Los Allgales County increased by approxlm~tely 20%, Orange County by approximately 25%, Riverside County by approximately 57%, San Bernardino County by approximately 60% and San Diego County by approximately 35%. The growth rate in the NCCP area is estimated to be growing faster than the state average of 2.6% rate (California 1991). Most of the recent growth that has occurred in the state has been in these five counties (Hublet 1993). Significant population growth is forecasted for this area in the future. The California Department of Finance, using the 1990 federal census data, estimated in 1991 that while San Diego County currently has 2.4 million residents, by the year 2010 San Diego County will reach a population of 3.1 million residents. Los Angeles County's population of 8.9 million residents and Orange Councy's populacicn of about 2.5 Million is ~stimated to increase to over 13 million residents in both counties by 2010. Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are the fastest Stowing counties in the Southern California area and by the year 2010 are expected to almost do=ble their existing populations (In 1991 Riverside was estimated to have over 1.2 million residents, and San Bernardino County was estimated to have almost 1.5 million residents). By =he year 2040, the Department of Finance study indicated that the State's population will more than double. Over the 50-year span of this forecast, Los Angeles, and San Diego County are expected to double their 1990 populations, and Riverside and San Bernardino County would nearly quadruple in population. Population growth in Orange County would gain about 1.2 million from 1990 to 2040 (Times-Herald 1993),, 23 02014 Pat=am of Growth. In the 19§0's, the h~m~n population growth pattern was predictable and consistent; populations pushed out from urban centers such as Los Angeles to con=iiuous suburban "bedroom communities' such as the San Fernando or San Gabriel valleys. The pattern began to change in the 1960's as more and better freeways were built, creating the backbone of what are now known as transportation corridors. These corridors allowed development to "leap-frog" outward, primarily eastward, toward P~verside and San Bernardino Counties, and southward through Orange and San Diego counties. The deconcentric growth pattern degenerated into a polycentric mosaic of residential, commercial and industrial centers along the transportation corridors, and suburbia became an urban sprawl (California 1988). Subsequently, many cities in the southern Galifornia area passed various forms of grow=h-con=rolling ordinances or initiated other local actions to attempt to better manage and control the growth of their communities. Housing. While population growth was the driving force for the development in southern California, the quest for the "American Dream" was the lure. As urban areas became more and more populated, housing prices increased. People moved further and further out, to areas where development cost, hence housing prices, were lower ~Fulton 1992). In the years from 1950 through 1990 housing prices in some areas increased more than tenfold. Be=ween 1980 and 1990 the average median value of houses increased by more than 13OZ. With the recession of the early 1990s however, housing prices have fallen. To meet the housing needs for the interval for 1980 until 1990, in the five counties of the planning area, more than 1,262,000 residential building permits (for single family and multi-family dwellings) were issued (California 1991). In San Diego County, more than 200,000 housing units were built since 1980. San Bernardino County is expected to need an additional 750,000 housing units; Riverside County is expected to need over 680,000 housing units and Orange County at least 610,000 new housin$ units (Southern California Association of Governments 1989). Los Angeles County is anticipated to gain 912,000 housing units by the year 2010 (BLM 1992). Transportation The automobile allowed the southern California population to pursue housing and jobs, facilitated by an unprecedented freeway system. This system enabled the various employment centers in the five counties of the planning area to import workers from all parts of the NCCP Planning Area. California Transportation Department statistics show that between 1964 and 1987 population had increased in southern California by 44Z, vehicles registered increased by 94% and miles per vehicle had increased by 163~ (California 1988). The five-county NCCP planning area accounted for 54~ of the 17 million automobiles registered in the state but only 24~ of the highways (state and interstate). To address traffic jams and gridlock will require more than just fundinE additional freeways; it wii~ require :he regional cootdine:ion of land use and traffic circulation patterns, beyond =he scope of most local jurisdictions (California 1971). SCAG reviewed the transportation patterns of their region, in order to anticipate growth and housing needs (SCAG 1989). An increase of 5 million people using the freeway system was projected by 2010, which will result in an increase of the number of daily person trips and work conmrutes by 42~ from 1984 levels. To deal with the near gridlock conditions forecast for southland freeways, the Regional Mobility Plan (SCAG 1986) was developed, through which state and local transportation agencies will coordinate activities. This plan details the specific measures that will have to be taken to accommodate the increased traffic and transportation needs through 2010. Hany of these 24 02015 measures are improvements that develop or enhance more efficient use of existing systems. A~ricul=ure Traditionally, California has been an agricultural state. Riverside, San Diego and Orange Counties still have a significant amount of agricul~ural land, b~t conversion to other, higher intensive land uses, such as housing developmen=s, provides cons=ant pressure. In 1980, 34 million acres of agricultural land existed in California, 10% of which was in the NCCP planning area. By the end of the 1980s, 13% of the State's agricultural acreage had been lost to development (California 1990). This trend continues in the NCCP planning area, especially in rapidly developing areas such as sou=hem Riverside county (Gorman 1991). EmPloYment As described earlier, the urbanization of southern California accompanied an increase in employment oppor~nities. However, =he reliance on =he automobile in southern California led to urban sprawl and has contributed to a leap-frog, disjointed pattern of land-uses, including employment centers. This decentralization of employment centers is expected to continue, as future development continues in this sprawling pattern. Employment rates in the NCCP Planning Area have declined significantly since the 1980s; late in the eighties unemployment rates began =o climb in all five planning area counties. The 1990, unemployment rates ranged from the low of 3% in Orange county to almost 8% in Riverside County, with =he other three counties rates falling in-be=ween these estimates (California 1991). Conservative projections for unemployment in southern California expect average rates to be near the 6Z mark through 2040 (Hublet 1992). Hore pessimistic assessments forecast chronic 13% levels for the same period (~eintraub 1993). Fire ?rotetrion The fraTmented pattern of human and natural landscapes, Juxtaposed with one another, occurs throughout Sou=hem California, including =he NCCP Planning Area. This extensive urban/wildland inferface creates the potential for loss of property and human life. Prevention strategies have focused on various methods, including construction of firebreaks and prescribed burning by =he California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) or County Fire Departments to reduce fuel loads, and local weed abatement programs near structures vulnerable to wildfire. The effectiveness of such programs varies. It is questionable if even these measures can prevent damage when development penetrates wildlands and flammable structures are in such close proximity to fire-prone vegetation communities. %Fnen Santa Ana conditions occur fire can spread fast, jumping over even large firebreaks as burning embers are blown long dis=antes or flammable struc~u£e= are exposed =o high predisposin~ them to Ln=ineratfon.. Conducting controlled burns are especially problematic for CDF. Air Quality, the concern/objection of local property owners, budget limitations, and effects to endangered species are amon~ the many issues with ~hich CDF must contend. 25 02016 CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE This alternative is the Service's Preferred Alternative. 1. Natural Environment Coastal Sa~e Scrub Under the Preferred Alternative, up =o 5% of the existing CSS habitat would be subject to loss under the interim provisions specified in the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and Process Guidelines. Each subregion would be able to develop up to 5% of the existing CSS within a subregion in accordance with the Conservation Guidelines, while long-term NCCP planning was underway. The SP~ determined that the apportionment of the 5Z loss by subregion would be necessary to ensure against any one area receiving an inordinate or inappropriate amount of loss while long-range conservation plans are being developed. The following analysis of the anticipated loss of 5% CSS habitat was performed with the assistance of a Geographical Information System (GIS). The GIS data are derived from vegetation maps prepared by local jurisdictions. The derivation of these data is described in more detail in Chapter 2. The spatial pattern (i.e. size and configuration of patches) of the current distribution of CSS differs from one location to another, in response to human land use patterns and natural disturbance factors. Because the Conservation Guidelines criteria depend significantly on spatial features and analysis, accounting of habitat loss by subregion is necessary to avoid dtspropor:tonate losses in certain geographic areas. Therefore, quantitative estimates of habitat subject to the interim provisions of the Conservation Guidelines are expressed below in geographical units of general biological regions, which may be representative of the anticipated NCCP subregions. The intent of this analysis is to provide a region-wide estimate of maximum CSS habitat loss. In the analysis presented below, San Diego County has been subdivided into 4 areas for purposes of analysis because of the significant habitat fragmentation that has occurred in the coastal part of the County. It should be noted that Area 4 of San Diego County consists of Camp Pendleton, which is owned by the United States Marine Corps. Since this is a Federal Agency, the Marine Corps would proceed with approval of CSS habitat loss and incidental take of gnatcatchers through the section 7 process. However, the Service considers the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and supporting documentation to represent the best available information on the biological needs of the gnatcatcher and intends to apply the standards of the Conservation Guidelines and supporting documentation to the maximum extent permitted by law in reviewing activities under section 7. Under the stipulations of the Consa~--vation Guidelines, loss of coastal sage scrub habitat under the interim provisions is intended to be drawn largely from coastal sage scrub habitat identified as having lower potential conservation value for the subregion~ Using the criteria explained in the Conservation Guidelines, the existing coastal sage scrub habitat was segregated into three categories based on their estimated long-term conservation value. These GIS derived data were used for the subsequent impact analysis. If the Preferred Alternative is implemented, it would result in the loss of a maximum of 5% of the existing CSS habitat within subregions that are actively engaged in preparation of NCCPs. The estimated loss of CSS (in Riverside, 26 02017 Orange and San Diego CounTies) That would result from tmplemen=aTion of ~he Preferred AlTernaTive is s,,~rized in Table 1, by geographic area. ~h£1e Riverside CounTy is not currently parTicipaTing in The NCCP Program, the Service expects ~haT The Coun=y will elec= =o join The NCCP Program, either by iniTiaTing a NCCP or Through formalizing Their on-going mulTi-species planning effor=s. Therefore, The esT~m-ced loss of CSS presented below represen=s an esTimaTed maximum of habiTaT loss; if ~_%verside GounTy chooses no= To parTicipaTe in =he NCGP Program. =he CounTy would not be able =o Take advan=age of =he in=erim provisions of The special rule and =he ac=ual ~mpacT in Terms of eSS loss would be reduced. If San Bernardino and Los Angeles CounTies were To parTicipa=e in =he NCCP Program, =hese coun=ies would also be eligible co apply for a m~ximum of §Z loss of The CSS wi=hin their subregions. Only a limited amount of CSS exists in These coun=ies and =he $Z value =hat would be represented by losses in These counties would not sign~fican=ly increase =he ToTal. 02018 TABLE 1 ANTICIPATED TW~AGTS TO COASTAL SAGE SCRUB AND T~ GALIPO~NIA GNAT~LT~m~ UNDEr THE PP~PEP~KD ALT~ATIFE Coastal Sage Scrub Loss Max Hi=h Interm. Lo~* ~0s$ Na=ural Habitats Gnatcatchers Total** Iake Riverside County 77,368 30,836 44.746 7,650 25,300 261 7-13 San Diego Area 1 33,636 13,005 20,100 3,359 14,750 531 16-27 Area 2 33,880 9,485 24,940 3,415 31,960 256 8-13 Area 3 16,690 4,325 12,930 1,700 19,817 434 14-22 Area 4 21,445 7,768 13,943 2,156 7,695 210 6-11 Orange TOTALS 25,500 ? ? 2,550 ? 673 15-30 416,724 20,920 2,562 66-116 * Low Value estimates will be adjusted as more data area received, particularly on the distribution of target and/or endemic species. ** Gnatcatcher estima:es are available for entire County, s:ated estima=es are based on data compiled in the Garlsbad Field Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service. ;~; The four areas in San Diego County are described as follows: Area 1 is southern San Diego County, south of Interstate 8; Area 2 is northern inland San Diego County, north of Interstate 8 and east of Interstate 15; Area is northern coastal San Diego County, north of Interstate 8 and west of Interstate 15; Area 4 is Camp Pendleton. **** Orange County GIS ~ata were not available at the time this document was prepared, estimates are based on available tabular data; will be revised as needed. Data on estimates of pairs includes known pairs and individuals (presumed to be paired). 28 02019 The S~ has concluded that the impact of an overall loss of ~% of CSS habitat will not preclude long-te~m conservation options if it is managed according to certain ~uidelLnes. ~e de~Zs o~ ~hese mees~es ~re described ~ ~he Consedation ~u~deZ~nes. ~n s,,~, ~he ~n~e~ s~a~e~ ~ss~es ~) sho~- ~e~ ~osses are m~n~zed, w~h a 5~ ~x~ ~oss, 2) losses are l~ed pr~rily ~o CSS wi~h lower ~ong-~e~ conse~ion po~encial, 3) ~he shor~- =e~ losses will be mitigated =o re=a~ lonE-=e~ ~bi=a= value ~ each subregion, an~ 4) losses will no= be uoncen=ra=e~ ~ispropor=io~=el~ ~ any one geographic area. ~ese factors, which are conditions of opera=~ ~der a NGGP proart, indicate =ha= losses of GSS ~der =he auspices of =he proEr~ sh~ld no= pre~en= =he es=ablis~en= of viable prese~es and will be in~i~tfican=. Since publication of the draft EA, a number of brush fires in late October, 1993 have impacted a substantial portion of the remaining coastal sage scrub within the NCCP Planning Area. Approximately 89,000 acres of chaparral, coastal sage scrub and grasslands burned in Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties. About 20,000 acres of this is es=tms=ed to be mixed CSS and grasslands. The most sieniftcant fire occurred in the San Joaquin Hills area, involving about 4,000 acres of CSS and an estimated 122 pair of ~natcatchers. Some CSS habitat remains around the fringe of the fire, supporting both birds resident to those areas as well as a small but undetermined number of birds that apparently escaped the fire. These remaining refu$ia take on an added sisnificance, at least in the short-term while the burned areas reestablish the original cover of CSS habitat. This means that these areas, which may have been considered of lower potential conservation value prior to the fire, are now considered intermediate or high potential conservation value. Other fires of significance include a fire in southeastern Orange County (=he "0r=ega Fire") which involved 3,900 acres of CSS and an estimated 22 pair of gnat=at=hers, three fires in western ~iverside County which involved a total of ?,400 acres of CSS and an estimated 5 pair of ~atcatchers, and ~wo fires in San Diego County involving 4,900 acres of CSS and an estimated 10 pair of gnat=at=hers. The ultimate effect of these fires on regional conservation planning is of concern. There may be some areas that were identified as having low conservation value prior =o the fires which may now be considered to have high conservation value because =hey provide the only remaining refugia adjoining burned areas. The value of these areas lies in their importance as future sources of animals and plants for recoLonization of the burned areas. Moreover, areas that were of high conservation value and =hat burned remain of high conservation value due to their location and the potential for reestablishment of a ¢SS community. The fire his=ory of an area as well as biotic and abiotic factors will influence the plan= community that establishes itself on the burned areas. Some areas could t]m~e convert to grassland, depending upon how the areas respond after the fire and what treatments are applied To prevent flood and erosion damage, while others will return to a CSS community. Despite the localized short-term affec=s of the fire cn recovery of the burned areas and subsequent conservation planning, the longr=erm effects are expected =o be minimal. The burned areas represent a temporary loss of suitable habitat, losses that will potentially reoccur periodically over some portion of the landscape at any given time. The burned areas are now CSS at its earliest sere1 stages, a component of natural mosaic of a broad landscape. Losses contemplated under the provisions of the special rule involve permanent losses which has a decidedly different effect on the 8ha=catcher and the maintenauce of its habitat. Assuming the areas burned are able to recover and reestablish suitable CSS, the effects on long-term conservation planning should be minimal. Given the requirements of the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines, which include the control on the amount and location of 29 02020 habitat and gnu=catchers that can be lost during the period of subregionaZ plan development, the Service concludes that P~e~erred Alternative w£~l not result in siSni~icant impacts to the ~natcatcher or £~s hab£~a~. Other Natural Habitats The Conservation Guidelines also define other natural habitats located with-In, adjacent to, or corridors between high value coastal sage scrub habt:at as important to this conset,ration program. These habitats ~-ypically include non- native grasslands, various kinds of chaparral, or occasionally other natural communities such as oak woodlands or native perennial grasslands. ~iparian woodlands are commonly found in the stream courses of the watersheds containing these upland plant communities. These other tTpes of naL~ural habitats will be critical elements of :he landscape in an NCCP Plan. ~htle neither preserves nor corridors be:ween core reserves have been ident~ied for an~ subregion 7at, the naLmral habitats within or adjacent (wi=htn 500 meters) to the high value CSS are likely to play important roles in the CSS preserve s~stem. Table 1 estimates the acreage of these kinds of habitats that occur within 500 meters of the CSS considered to have high long-term conservation potential. Because of the proximi~ of these habitats to high potential CSS, these areas are likely to receive special conservation attention, at least during the interim planning phases. These particular lands are referred to as "Natural Habitats contained near Coastal Sage Scrub" in Table 1. Other areas containing natural habitats will be impacted as an indirect result of the Preferred Alternative. Due to its patch~ and na=urally fragmented distribution, a wide variety of other natural habitats are embedded wiThin CSS, creating a mosaic of habitat types. As development projects go forward they will involve tracts of land that transcend boundaries of CSS. Loss of some CSS therefore would be accompanied unavotdabl~ by loss of the other habitat tTpes associated wiEh In general, non°native grasslands and various tTpes of chaparral =~pically found at lower elevations are the most common plant communities that would he expected to be effected along with the 5Z CSS under the Preferred Alternative. To a lesser extent some oak woodland communities and perhaps some riparian woodlands or freshwater marsh may be found occasionally intermixed wiTh CSS. The latter community tTpes are potentially subject to oTher federal regulations, i.e. the Clean Water Act, and their conseLtra=ion should be addressed elsewhere. However, some acreage of the above mentioned upland plant communities will be subject to loss in conjunction with development of css under the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to these habitats would be addressed and mitigated, as necessary, through the CEQA process, as required under State law. Precise quantitative estimates are not possible to provide until the location of development projec:s is identified. However, the estimated area of CSS subject to loss under this in:erim program suggests what might be expec=ed. If :he full 20,000 acres of GSS was developea probably at leas: :his --'~o~t of other habitats would be embedded within the footprin: of :he development proposals. Effects to :hese habitats would be addressed through :he CEQA process, with or without this proposed special Coastal Califoz-nia Gnatcatcher A 5~ loss of CSS habitat will resul: in a concomitant minimal loss of coastal California gnat=at=hers. The most re=an: comprehensive es:imates of =he distribution and abundance of gnatcatchers within the United States (Fish and Wildlife Service unpubl. data) provides a basis from which the effects of this taking provision can be addressed. Precise locations of all known birds are not readily available in GIS forma: for this analysis. However, the estimate of take of ~natcatchers provided in Table 1 is based upon the following 30 assumptions: 1) Host loss of habitat under the interim procedures will occur on the lower valued areas; l) Based upon 8natcatcher biology and their apparent requirements for larger stands of intact coastal sage scrub, the birds are less likely to currently be found on small, fragmented, distant patches of coastal sage scrub (generally what constitutes the lower value areas); 3) the above statements suggest that, with some exceptions, ~natcatchers are less likely =o occur on the low valued areas. It is · conservatively estimated that low value habitat supports somewhere between 50~ co 100% the densities expected on intermediate or high valued lands. This information is reflected in the estimates of take of gnatcatchers described in Table 1. The impacts of the brush fires which occurred in the Southern California area in October 1993 to the ~natcatcher is discussed under r. he impact section for costel sake scrub. As a result of the many fires, approximately 159 paris of gnatcatchers were estimated to be lost. Coastal sage scrub habitat remains around the fringe of the fire areas, now supporcinE both birds resident to those areas as well as a small but undetermined number of birds that apparently escaped =he fires. These remaining refugia take on an added significance, at least in the short-term while the burned areas reestablish the original cover of CSS habitat. As discussed above, the areas burned represent a temporary loss of suitable habitat, losses that will potential17 reoccur periodically over some portion of the landscape at any given time. The burned areas are now CSS at its earliest seral stages, a component of natural mosaic of a broad landscape. Losses contemplated under the provisions of the special rule involve permanent losses which has a decidedly different effect on the ~na=ca=cher and the maintenance of its habitat. Assuming the areas burned are able to recover and reestablish suitable CSS, the effects on long-term conservation planning should be minimal. Given the requirements of the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines, which include the control on =he amount and location of habitat and gnatcatchers that can be lost during the period of subregional plan development, the Service concludes that Preferred Alternative will not result in significant impacts to the gnatcatcher or its habitat. Other Species of Plants and Wildlife The loss of coastal sage sc~-ub habitat =hat is contemplated through the proposed action is anticipated to have some effect on various species of plants and animals. There are certain species of plants and wildlife that are known to be associated with CSS, non-native grasslands and certain low elevation chaparral types that would be most likely to be impacted. Some of these taxa are, in fact, primarily restricted to the geographic boundaries of the NCCP planning area. These species would be most effected by additional losses of CSS and the habitats that adjoin Species that depend primarily on CSS are discussed in the section on CSS habitat. .~b.e purpose of the NCCP program is =o cons~z~ct a regional conrex= for conservation pla~ing that would benefit the full complement of species in ¢SS. It is expected that such a program would have some long-term benefits =o other habitats that are found in association with CSS. Losses of species in these other habitats resulting from the interim Losses of CSS discussed here will be addressed through CEQA requirements, as is the case now without the NCCP program. 2. The Social Environment Under the Preferred Alternative, the population growth forecasted for the southern California area would place an increasing demand for residential, commercial, public infrastructure-related development and other activities essential to the community. Development that would impact CSS and the 31 02022 ~natcatcher will be limited under the interim conservation strategy contained within the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines. Approval for interim habitat loss would be given by local agencies, as outlined in the ~uidelines, with oversight by the Service and CDFG as necessary. Projects :hac are necessaz-y to the economic health of the community or that are needed for public safety (i.e. brush management) or that meet other essential community concerns as determined by the local jurisdiction, would be allowed as long as the total loss of CSS within the subregion is limited to no more than 5~ of the existing CSS habitat. The purpose of this interim loss allowance is to provide a mechanism by which local jurisdictions could proceed with needed development and improvements, alleviating some of the restraints on growth imposed under the Act prohibitions, while at the same time proceeding with NCCP planning efforts. Housin~ During the interim period for NCCP planning, the tremendous population grow:h forecasted will require additional housing, along with the public infrastructure support. However, the 5Z limit on loss of CSS will limit the amount of housing development and other activities that involve take of CSS and CSS that can proceed in the interim planning period. Local jurisdictions would determine the priority of developments or ocher projects applying for loss of CSS under the 5Z limit. Projects that may otherwise have been developed may be halted because the project would consume more than the 5Z amount allowed, or the local agency determines that other projects serve a higher public benefit. Transportation Improvements to existing roadways and additional transportation corridors will need to be built to accommodate the increasing population growth in the NCCP planning area. As discussed above, the 5Z limit on loss of CSS within the subarea will limit transpor=ation corridor construction and improvements which impact CSS, to those projects that are determined to be in =he best interest of the community, as determined by the local ]ur£sdictton. Improvement of roadways which pose si~nificant safety hazards, or that are essential to the community could be the types of projects authorized to proceed in the interim period. A~riculrure Agricultural use of lands would not be directly impacted by the action proposed under the Preferred Alternative. Lands currently in agricultural use would probably not have CSS or ~natcacchers, thus activities would not be constrained by the prohibitions of the Act, nor affected by the in=erim take limit on CSS imposed under the special rule. The Conservation Guidelines indicate that agricultural lands with nonintensive uses, or lands that are fallow. and that are interspersed with CSS habitat will be important considerations for ions-term N¢CP piannin$, because of :hei~ po=en=ial value as linkages between future CSS preserves. However, this would be dealt with in the long-term NCCP planning and environmental review process. In the interim planning period, agricultural lands would be.affected if the property lies within a NCCP-enrolled jurisdiction and is subject to a discretionaz7 action by that jurisdiction; in this case then the landowner would be subject to any NCCP-related requirements established by the local agency under its land use authorities and would also have the benefits of the special rule during the planning period. Employment Development, including employment centers that would impact CSS would be limited in the interim period. Essential projects, as determined by the local 32 02023 agency, would be allowed to proceed. Under the Preferred Alternative, employment needs would continue to grow as the b,,m~n population in the planning area grows. Employment centers would continue to be needed in the NCCP planning area. This alternative would allow a limited amount of development of structures needed for workplaces, if such a need was identified by the local Ju~isdiction. The local jurisdiction would have to consider the needs of housing its work, orca along with residential or public in~rastrnc~u~e projects, when making the determination of which projects to authorize under the special rule. Fire Protection The Preferred Alternative, by allowing a $X loss of ¢SS habitat, would give local Jurisdictions the ability to approve projects that would impact CSS habitat as may be required by local brush management ordinances. This may be necessary to reduce wildfire safety hazards to existing or new development. This Alternative would also potentially allow CDF to conduct prescribed burns in habitat occupied by the gnat=at=her that would ordinarily require approval from the Service, provided that the 5X loss limit within the particular subregion was not exceeded. B. THE SPECIAL RULE AS PROPOSED, BUT ~ITH NO INTEEIH PROCESS ALTERNATIVE 1. The Natural Environment Coastal Sa~e Scrub Under this alternative loss of CSS that constituted take of gnatcatchers would not be authorized until a final subregional NCCP was completed. Except where the NCCP program prevented it, CSS would continue to be lost indirectly, when take of gnatcatchers was not involved, through project by project development. The.NCCP program would continue to develop subregional incarim strategies to deal with interim losses of CSS. However, where such losses involved take of gnat=at=hers it would require a separate process, i.e. a section 7 or section 10(a) authorization. This would likely discourage comprehensive long-term planning. Individual projects could continue to develop on a project by project basis ~ith disregard for the implications on a long-term, future preserve system. ~ithout the interim strategy, there would be no regional mechanism for identifying or protecting lands important to a CSS preserve system. This project by project type of approach would defeat =he purpose of the NCCP Program, which is to take a regional perspective and plan for protection of an ecosystem. This approach would seriously impact the possibility of creating a CSS NCCP Plan for the long-term. The Service believes that this alternative would remove an important tool needed to address short-term problems. Comprehensive, long-term solutions are needec to adequately provide for th~ s~xrvival of the gnat=at=her and other coastal sage sty=b-dependant species. ~ithout a means of addressLng short-term problems efficiently, i~ is anticipated that there will be insufficient attention devoted to comprehensive long-term solutions. Other Natural Habitats Other natural vegetation in and around CSS patches would not be protected during %he interim period. The Conservation Guidelines place a high value on lands serving to connect and link larger patches of CSS and provide a strategy that seeks to minimize loss of such lands. With no interim strategy in place, there would be no particular protection afforded to these lands. CEQA requirements would still function to assess losses on a case by case basis and 33 02024 provide for mitigation, as appropriate under thac lay, but no regional, comprehensive effort would be in place over an interim program period thac might tend to protect core habitat areas. Na~aral habitats like non-native grasslands and chaparral would continue to be developed, fur=her fragmenting the coastal sage scrub with which they are associated. Coastal California Gnatcatchers Under this Alternative, the special rule would not provide for incidental cake of the ~natcaccher during the interim period in which an NCCP Plan was being prepared. The special would provide that incidental take of the 8natcatcher by activities included in a NCCP Plan that has been prepared, approved and implemented pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Sections 2800-2840 and the Service issued written concurrence thac the NCCP meets the issuance criteria for a permit under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act would not violate section 9 of the Act. The impacts of such incidental cake would be addressed in a subsequent joint state and federal environmental document. Under this Alternative, there would be no direct loss of CSS that would constitute take of ~natcatchers. Any project requiring incidental take of the ~natcaccher during the interim period would have to obtain approval chroush section 7 or section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Without an interim take provision, short-term problems would be addressed on a case by case, project b7 project basis. As mentioned above, this would draw efforts away from a more comprehensive long-term solution now underway through the NCCP program. Mitigat£on efforts would likely be more disjointed and long-term planning would be distracted. Other Species of Plants and Wildlife As described above vith regard co other natural habitats, it is anticipated that losses of certain taxa co continue without any particular considerations that this interim program might afford. CEQA requirements would still function to assess losses on a case by case basis and provide for mitigation, as appropriate under that law. No regional, comprehensive .effort would be in place over an interim program period that might tend to protect core habitat areas. 2. The Social Environment This Alternative would not remove the existing land use constraints placed on lands occupied by the gnatcatcher by the Act during the interim period in which a NCCP Plan is being prepared. The prohibitions of Section 9 of the Act apply; no take of the species would be allowed in the interim period. The human population would continue to increase, placing greater demands for housing and public infrastructure development. Limits on growth could result in adverse economic effects to the area. Projects or activities =hat wanted to proceed in the interim, but that would impact the ~natcatcher would have to obtain authorization through the section 10(a)(i)(B) or the section 7 process, as appropriate. Once a N~CP i= completed and approved, development wo-ald be able to proceed as envisioned in the NCCP, easing the constraints on growth in areas that would affect the ~natcatcher. However, this would not occur until the NCCP has been completed and approved. Housin~ This alternative would restrict development of housing projec:s which are needed to accommodate the growing h,,m-n population, but that would impact :he ~natcatcher. This could result in adverse economic impacts in the planning area. Development of housing and other infrastructure in the interim period would be directly limited by the federal Endangered Species Act prohibitions against take of the ~natcaccher. Housing projects that would not result in 34 02025 take of ~natcatchers could proceed through the normal approval process. Housing projects that would impact the gnatcatcher would only be able to proceed with development if federal Endangered Species Act requirements were satisfied; such projects would have to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan, as required under section 10(a)(1)(B), or, if there was federal nexus, proceed with consultation with the Service under section ? of the Act. TransPortation This alternative would restrict development of new transportation corridors or modifications to existing roadways that would impact CSS habitat occupied by gnatcatchers, until a NCCP was completed and approved by CDFG and the Service. This could result in increased traffic congestion in the NCCP planning area. Transportation projects needed during the interim vould be required to obtain authorization through the section 10(a)(1)(B) or section ? processes. A~riculture Like the Preferred Alternative, agricultural use of lands would not be directly impacted by this alternative. Lands currently in agricultural use would probably no= have CSS or gnatcatchers, thus activities would not be constrained by the prohibitions of the Act. Indirectly, there could be increased pressure for agricultural land conversion to accommodate development that would have otherwise occurred on lands with CSS. The Conservation Guidelines indicate =hat agricultural lands with nonintensive uses, or lands that are fallow, and that are interspersed wish CSS habitat will be important considerations for long-term NCCP planning, because of their potential value as linkages between future CSS preserves. However, this would be deal= wish in =he long-term NCCP planning and environmental review process. Employment As in the Preferred Alternative, ~z~der the Special ~ule with no interim Process Alternative, employment needs would continue to grow as =he human population in the planning area grows. Development of projects that would affect the gnatcatcher, including employment centers would continue to be curtailed in the interim period; only once the NCCP was completed and approved could such development proceed as provided for in the NCCP plan. Only by obtaining the Service's approval through the section 7 or section 10(a)(1)(B) processes would projects wanting interim take of the gnatcatcher be able to proceed during the interim period. Fire Protection This Alternative could result in conflicts between the need to protect communities from wildfires and the federal prohibitions against take of the gnatcatcher. Necessary state or federal brush management programs that involve C$S habitat containing gnatca=chars would be prohibited ~ntli the necessary approvals wer~ oh=aiDed, potentially even in circumstances were a safer7 threat was perceived. This alternative would result in significant potential impacts to the ability of a local jurisdiction or other entity responsible for brush control and vegetation management to protect agains: fire damage. Since gnatcatcher was listed as a threatened species and is a resident of fire-adapted CSS, the issue of impacts to the 8natcatcher from fire prevention activities as well as the impacts caused by Endangered Species Act prohibitions against take to necessary vegetation management activities has been a concern. However, to-date, the Service has not received any applicat:ons for take authorization regarding fire prevention. programs. The affect of this Alternative on the Fire Pro:action efforts of the State and local agencies would be temporary however, since the completed subregional 35 02026 NCCPs should address the need to protect structures and community resources from wildfires. C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Project Alternative, take of ~natcatchers would be prohibited under section 9 of the Act. Development necessary to accommodate the burgeoning urban growth anticipated, including residential, commercial and other projects necessary to support public infrastruc=ure, or projects with brush management requirements in gnatcatcher habitat would have to obtain authorization through the Section 10(a)(1)(B) process, or Section 7 before proceeding. These constraints on growth in the NCCP Planning Area could result in adverse economic impacts to growth and development in the area. 1. The Natural Environment Coastal Sate Scrub Similar to the Special Rule with No Interim Process Alternative, the No Project Alternative would result in further loss and fragmentation of habitat as projects continue to develop habitat in southern California. There would be less incentive for projects to participate in the NCCP Program, since they would still be required to obtain a Section 10(a) permit (or conduct a Section 7 consultation, as appropriate) for any action that might affect gnatcatchers. As development continues to occur in the Southern California area, coastal sage scrub would continue to be fragmented and lost. Coastal sage scrub impacts would continue to be addressed on a project by project basis. Research on coastal sage scrub management and restoration would probably not be initiated, since no one project could justify such an expense. Biodiversity within the CSS ecosystem would incur substantial losses (CDFG al, 1992). With no coordinated regional NCCP planning process to preserve CSS, the survival of the gnatcatcher could be further Jeopardized and may require consideration by the Service for listing as an endangered species. Other Natural Habitats Other habitat types would continue to diminish due to piecemeal losses from individual projects. The requirements of CEQA would continue to apply. The NCCP program would proceed but without being done in conjunction with other important environmental requirements (i.e. Act take prohibitions). The indirect protection provided to some other habitats that the NCCP effort offers would likely be less effective. Comprehensive, regional planning would receive less effort, diluting efforts that may conserve some other habitat types known to be associated with CSS. Coastal California Gnatcatchers The No AcTion Al=errAative would mean that the Service takes no action; the special rule would not be finalized. Take of coastal sage scrub and the coastal California gnatcatcher would be prohibited by Section 9 of the Act. Projects that needed to proceed with development plans ~hat impacted CSS would be required to address the criteria included Section 10(a)(1)(B) or, if appropriate, initiate a Section 7 consultation with the Service. As required under the 1991 MOU with CDFG, the Service would continue to support the NCCP Program, but not with federal law through the Act. Conservation programs would be disjointed, resulting in a diminished regional effort. A major concern to the long-term conservation of the gnatcatcher, regional habitat conservation planning, would be effected by this' action. Less incentive would be available for regional efforts when each project would require separate take authority. 36 02027 Other Species of Plants and Wildlife Similar to the effects to other habitat tTpes, other species of plan:s and wildlife would continue to be subject to piecemeal losses. With less incentive for regional conservation efforts, other species of plants and wildlife will continue to decline. Conservation of these species would be subject to CEQA requirements and any attending mitigation. 2. The Social Environment Housinl The housing needs of the growing human population will continue to increase under the No Project Alternative. Residential and the accompanying infrastructure projects that would impact CSS habitat occupied by the ~natcatcher would have to go through the section 10(a)(1)(B) permitting process or section 7 consultation process, as appropriate. The cape=it7 of existing housing and infrastructure would be saturated. This alternative would have si~nificant adverse economic impacts to the region's economy. Transportation Construction and modification of needed transportation corridors would be restricted. Projects that would affect the gnat=at=her would have to obtain the Service's approval through either the section 10(a)(1)(B) or section 7 process in order to proceed with development. As the ~---n population increases, more and more demands would be placed upon the existing transportation systems, resulting in ever greater congestion. This would be a significant impact to the already congested southern California region. EmDlo~ment Job decentralization is expected to increase with the expanding population, placing demands on the transportation system and on new development to accommodate this growth. As discussed above, the prohibitions of section 9 would restrict development for projects which impact the gnatcatcher. This restriction would result in fewer jobs within the NCCP planning area, and could result in Jobs leaving the area for places where endangered species restrictions would not curtail the ability to expand. This would result in adverse economic impacts. Azriculture Under the No Project Alternative, lands currently in agricultural use and that did not have ~natcatchers would not be constrained by the prohibitions of the Act. ~hile no direct impacts would result however, indirect effects on agricultural lands could occur. The trend of agricultural land conversion to other land uses seen over the past decade in the would probably increase as a result of the No Action Alternative. With development :onstraints placed upcn lands with gnat=at=hers by the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, urban development would be sceered towards lands used for agricultural or othe£ related purposes. A significant amount of agricultural land could be indirectly lost under =his alternative. Fire Protection This Alternative, like the Special Rule with No Interim Process Alternative, could result in conflicts between the need to protect human communities from wildfires and the federal prohibitions against take of the ~natcat~her. Necessary state or federal brush management programs that involve CSS habitat containing gnat=at=hers would be prohibited until the necessary approvals were obtained, potentially even in circumstances were a safety threat was 37 02028 perceived. This alternative would result in si~nificant potential impacts to the ability of a local jurisd£ction or other entity responsible for brush control and vegetation management to protect against fire damage. Since gnatcatcher was listed as a threatened species and is a resident of fire- adapted CSS0 the issue of impacts to the ~natcatcher from fire prevention activities as well as =he impacts caused by Endangered Species Act prohibitions against take to necessaz-yvegetation management activities ha~ been a concern. However, to-date, the Service has not received any applications for take authorization regarding fire prevention programs. D. CCPfULATIVE I'HPACTS Cumulative effects are those impacts of future State, local government and private actions, and reasonably foreseeable natural events, affecting the ~natcatcher that are reasonably expected to occur in the planning area. The proposed action would result in the loss of up to 20,920 acres of coastal sage scrub and up to 116 pairs of gnatca=chefs. The other project alternative would not result in take of gnatcatchers. Future federal actions will be subject to the consultation requirements of section 7 of the Act and are therefore not considered cumulative to the proposed action. A large number of projects that lack a federal nexus have occurred or are proposed within the current range of the gnatcatcher. These projects could contribute to siKntficant cumulative effects to the gnatcatcher. However, section 9 of the Act protects the gnatcatcher from unlawful take. Any private project that would impact the ~natcatcher would have to obtain the approval of the Service through the section 10(a)(1)(B) process. Cumulative effects to the' ~natcatcher from private and public development actions are therefore not anticipated. ~hile of significant concern, the damage to eSS habitat and loss of ~natcatchers caused by the brush fires that raged througho=t the NCCP Planning Area in late October 1993, these effects are considered short-term, temporar~ impacts. As discussed in Chapter 4, the burned areas represent a temporary loss of suitable habitat, losses that will potentially reoccur periodically over some portion of the landscape at any given time. The burned areas are now CSS at its earliest seral stages, a component of natural mosaic of a broad landscape. The losses contemplated under the provisions of the special rule involve permanent losses which has a decidedly different effect on the ~natcatcher and the maintenance of its habitat. Assuming the areas burned are able to recover and reestablish suitable CSS, the effects on long-term conservation planning should be minimal. Given the requirements of the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines, which include the control on the amount and location of habitat and 8natcatchers that can be lost during the period of subregional plan development, the advanced stage of planning for several subregional NCCPs, combined with the current Federal protection are anticipated to result in adequate mitigation of the proposed action's impacts even when cumulatively assessed with the impacts resulting from the recent fires. The Service concludes that proposed action w=11 no= re=ula in significant cumulative impacts to the ~natcatcher or it= habitat. 38 02029 CHAPTER 5 - PUBLIC INVOLVEHENT A. LIST OF PREPARERS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Cindy Barry Linda Dawes Nancy Gilbert Gall Koberich Larry Salata Peter Stine Tara Wood Richard Zembal Regional Solicitor's Office: Lynn Cox California Department of Fish and Game: Larry Eng Dave Lawhead Martin Mucshinske Bill Ttppetts and The Resources Agency: Carole 9hireside Michael Mantell Thomas Reid, consultant to the State B. LIST OF WHOM THE DRAFT EA VAS SENT The Draft EA was sent to Federal, State, and local agencies, and other interested parties as required under NEPA (40 CFR 1502.19). The list to whom the document was sent is included in Appendix F of this EA. C.. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Resources Agency, State of California and the Service have involved a diverse group of participants in the NCCP P£a~,ning Process. ~nree public workshops were held (see Chapter i) =o discuss the implications of the NCCF Process Guidelines and the conservation strate~ outlined in the Conservation Guidelines. These workshops also provided a forum for NCCP participants to provide input into the process. A Federal Register notice was published July 20, 1993, notifying the public of reopening of the comment period for the proposed special rule, and announcing public hearings to be held August 9, 1993 in San Diego County, August 11 in Orange County and August 12 in San Diego County. The Federal Register notice also notified the public of the availability of the draft gA. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EA will al~o be published in the Federal Register. 39 02030 CHAPTF/~ 6 - REFEKENCES Arms=tong, Scot=. 1993. California: the first 'world s=ate.'Chris=ian Science Monitor, v85, n98, April, 3, col 4, 8 col in. Bussard, P. & D. Hurphy. August 1992 "Subregionalization for NaTural Community Conservation Planning. California Department of Fish and Game. 1993a. Report on =he status a= =he Natural Communities Conserve=ion Planning Program 1991-1992. California Department of Fish and Game. 1993b. Sou=hem California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conserve=ion Planning, Conservation Guidelines. California Department of Fish and Game,e= el. 1992. Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conser~ation Planning Process Guidelines. California. Department of Finance. 1991. California Sea=is=ice1 Abstract. California. Legislature. Assembly. Science and Technology Advisory Council. 1971. California population problems and State policy: a report co the Assembly General Research Committee, California Legisl&=ure/Assembly Science and Technology Advisory Council. California. Legislature. Senate. Select Committee on Planning for California's Gro~rch. 1988. Growth management: s,,----ry report from =he join= interim hearing of =he Senate Select Committee on Planning for Californ£a's Growth and =he Senate Local Government Commit=ee/C&lifornia Legislam=re, Senate Select Committee on planning for California's Growth; Senate Committee on Local Government. Sacramento, CA:Joint Publications. 358 crumpacker, D.~., S.~. Hodge, D. Frtedley, and ~.P. Gregg, Jr. 1988. A preliminary assessment of =he sta=u~ of major terrestrial and we=land ecosystems on federal and Indian lands in the United States. Conservation Biology. 2:103-115 Fulton, William. 1992. Guide to California Planning. Point Arena:Solano Press Book~. Gorman, Tom. 1991. Desert bloom. (Bedroom communities of Temecula and Murrieta suffer from population explosion) Los Angeles Times, v110, Nov, A3, co13, 36 col in. Hublet, Shawn. 1992. 6-million rise in southland population by 2010 for=as=. Los Angeles Times, vlll, 23 July 1992, A1, col 5, 23 col in. Klopa=ek, J.M., R.J. Olson, C.J. Emerson, and J.L. Jones. 1979. Land-use conflicts with natural vege=ation in the United States. Environmental Conservation, Vol. 6 (3): Murphy, D. 1992. An NGCP Special Report: The California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel: It's purpose and approach. NCCF/CSS Special Report No. 1 February 1992. Hichael Brandman Associates. 1991. Unpublished job report: rangewide assessment of =he California gua=ca=cher (Poltoptila californtca). Prepared for the Building Industry Association of Southern California. 22p. 40 02031 Ogden E~vi:ot~en:al and E~erT' Se~a'ices. 1992. Prel~ry'vege:a:ion ~he ~t~species Conse~tion Pla~ing ~ea, S~ Diego C~. O'Lea~ J. e= al. O'Lea~, D. H~hy, P. B~sard, ~rch 1992. ~ NCCP Special Report: ~e Coas~l Sage Scabs Co~i~. Consem=i~ pl~8 ~egion O'Lea~, J., D. H~h~, and P. B~ssard. 1992. ~ NCCP Special ~epor:: ~e Coas:al Sase Scab Co~i:~ Conse~a:ion Pla~g ~eE~on. Special ~epor: No. 2. Prepared b7 :he NCCP Scientific ~evfew Panel. Pacific Sou:hwes= B~ological SedUces. !988. VeEe=acion ~p of Pendel:on, San Diego Co~:7. (1:42,000 ~p). Regional ~v~o~en:al Cons~can:s (~CON). 19~1. VeEe=a:t~ ~es wes:e~ ~verside Co~=7: dis:ribu:ton ~ps and acreage C1:95,000 ~ps). San Diego Associa=fon of G~e~en:s, AEen~ Repor: BOD ~eEt~al Gro~h · Forcas=s: Prel~na~ Porcas: (1990-2010). S~ D~e8o, Oc=ober 14 1991, ~-25, lop. ' Sou=he~ Caltfo~a ~socia:ion of Gove~en:s. 1989.~verside Co~:~ Board of Supe~isors 1989 ~n~l Gro~h Repor:. ~s ~eles. Sou:he~ Calffo~a Associa:ion of Gove~en:s. 1989. Reg~o~l Gro~h Managemen: ~lan. ~s ~geles. Sou:he~ Califo~ia Associa:ion of Gove~en:s. 1989. ~eE~al Hob~li~ Ply. ~s ~geles. T~es-Herald. 1993. S:ud7 forecas:s p~la:ion e~los~on for Califo~a. ~ein:raub, Daniel H. 1993. "Repor: predtc=s 60 million ~ sca:e b7 2040." ~geles T~es,vl12, 14 April 1993, A3, col 2, 10 col. in. ~es~n, ~. E. 1981. Diversi:~ rela:ions and succession tn Calffo~ta coas:al sage scab. Ecolo~ 62: 170-184. 41 02032 ; ~ge 2 COtVSERVA TiON GUIDELINES ' ' NATURAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL SAGE SCRUB COMMUNITY CONSERVATION Conservation Guidelines November, 1993 PLANNING Published by: California Department of Rsh and Game and California Resources Agency 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Larry Eng, PhD. Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program Manager Tel: 916-653-9767 Fax: 916-653-2588 TABLE OF CONTENTS o Introduction ........................................... 1 Foundation ............................................. a. Premises on CSS ecology .............................. ! b. Premises on the conservation challenge .................... 2 4 c. Premises on timing .................................. Conservation Planning' Guidance ............................. 5 5 a. The interim strategy .................. 5 b. The research agenda .................... · ............. 7 c. Management and restoration ........................... d. Application to subregional planning ....................... 8 Implementing Interim Strategy ............................... Determini,~g Pctentia! Long-term Conservation V~.lue ............... 11 a. Rankino land for interim protection ....................... 11 - 12 b. Evaluation process ................. 13 c. Evaluation methods .................................. 14 Policy ........................................ 15 a. Pending approval of subregional NCCP ..................... 15 b. With approved subregional NCCP ........................ c. In the absence of a subregional NCCP ..................... 15 Attachment A. Generalized Map of Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat .......... Attachment B. Subregional Focus Areas .......................... 17 18 November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Page 3 Attachment C. Evaluation Logic Flow Chart ....................... 19 CONSER', ~4 TION GUIDELINES Page 1. Introduction This document presents Conservation Guidelines for the Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) process. The guidelines are published by the California Department of Fish and Game. The guidelines were prepared in coordination among the Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), and are based on technical review by and recommendations from the SRP. These guidelines are intended to be used along with the NCCP Process Guidelines also published by the California Department of Fish and Game. The SRP was commissioned by the Department and the Service to review available scientific information to assist in preparation of the Conservation Guidelines. The review addresses information available as of March 1993 and is described in "Scientific Review Panel Conservation Guidelines and Documentation," which is available from the Department. 2. Foundation a. Premises on CSS ecology CSS vegetation is dominated by a characteristic suite of shrub species in southern California. The composition of coastal sage scrub vegetationai subcommunities may vary substantially depending on physical circumstances and the successional status of the habitat. An explicit definition of CSS and a description of its constituent species has been prepared by the .SRP. (See Special Report No. 2, March 1992.) A generalized map of CSS and a summary description is included in Attachment Ao While a variety of species are characteristic of CSS, no single animal or plant species readily serves as a consistent and entirely reliable indicator of CSS conditions across the entirety of the distribution of the habitat in southern California. Rather, many species dependent on CSS are found in only certain subsets of the community, and, conversely, many nominal CSS species are widely distributed in non-CSS habitats. Nonetheless, a suite of "target" species has been identified by the SRP tl~at is usefu! -~s a surrogate for planning purposes. Species other than target species that have been identified as deserving special consideration on account of possible rarity or endangerment are referred to as species of concern. These are state or federal candidates for listing. (See SRP Survey 6uidelines, February 1992.) Target species are three vertebrates that are among the community's most visible imperiled organisms: California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and orange- throated whiptail lizard. Their distributions embrace the majority of the geographic range of southern California CSS. November 9, 1993 CONSER VA TION GUIDELINE.~; Page 2 Many species that depend on coastal sage scrub exhibit transitory habitat occupancy, along with short lifetimes, high potential rates of reproduction, limited home ranges, dramatic population fluctuations, and great susceptibility to local extirpation. o Because of population fluctuations and routine local extirpation and recolonization events, a single point-in-time appraisal of the presence or absence of a species on an individual parcel of land does not reliably indicate the parce!'s long-term potential value or importance as habitat. o CSS may convert to chaparral or grassland, depending on slope, aspect, climate, fire history, and other physical factors and biological phenomena; conversely, chaparral or grassland areas may convert to CSS. CSS is a naturally patchy vegetation community. Over a scale of several miles, it is found in diverse habitat mosaics with other ecological communities. While there are species dependent on coastal sage scrub, th~se species do not always exhibit a clear tendency to occupy areas of continuous coastal sage scrub. Rather, vegetation components of coastal scrub habitat in mosaics with other habitat types may provide habitat for target species and other species of concern. b. Premises on the conservation challenge The southern California CSS planning region has been severely degraded by past urbanization and agricultural land conversion. Certain subhabitats, such as those at low elevation, those close to the coast, and those with lesser slope, have been disproportionally affected and many have experienced local losses of some species. .. Threats to CSS habitat are more than losses of total habitat area alone. Threats also include losses of distinct CSS subtypes and losses of the special conditions needed to maintain the broad suite of CSS-resident species. (See discussion in Attachment A.) Conversion of natural ~and has also severed connections among remnant habitat patches resultin9 in their increased isolation. Conqections among habitat patches are critical to tt~e long-term survival of CSS species. Because CSS is found naturally admixed with other vegetation communities, the best conservation strategy for CSS is to protect large areas of native vegetation that include biologically significant patches of CSS. Under present conditions, few CSS-dominated lands are of sufficient extent to be self-sustaining. A status quo strategy of "benign neglect" management likely will result in substantial further losses of CSS biodiversity. Habitat areas large enough to be self-sustaining should not be November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDELINE3 Page 3 10. 12. significantly reduced in size and they should be actively managed in ways responsive to pertinent new information as it accrues. The CSS community is inherently dynamic and should be managed to retain its capacity to support the broad range of CSS species over the long term. Under an adaptive management regime that provides for natural successional dynamics, a reserve system that consists of smaller habitat areas that are appropriately managed could have a greater likelihood of maintaining CSS biodiversity than a system of larger habitat areas that are unmanaged. The techniques associated with such a management regime, however, have not been fully developed. CSS conservation will require appropriate levels of participation by public agencies responsible for publicly owned land that contains CSS o~ that serves as linkages between reserves. State and local government can participate through the NCCP process and federal agency land owners can participate through federal programs coordinated with NCCPs. Although important to the integrity of regional conservation efforts, not enough CSS exists in public ownership for public land to be the sole basis of a reserve network. Within the southern California region as a whole, roughly a dozen biologically defined subregions, designed around extensive habitat areas can be identified based on geography, the ecological characteristics of CSS species, and patterns of past land use. Each subregion exhibits distinct local conditions that will affect the conservation approach to be used. Each subregion will need to meet explicit conservation objectives to promote ecosystem stability at both subregional and regional levels. Each subregion will need to provide for conservation of the three target species. Despite the extent of current threats, the majority of the species inhabiting the CSS do not appear to be in imminent danger of regional extinction. Some small amount of short-term habitat loss can be tolerated as long as it is ultimately counter-balanced by adequate long-term enhancement efforts. A few, small-scale efforts at CSS restoration and enhancement have been attempted; these examples indicate that net enhancement of habitat quality may be attainable. Furthermore, ecological studies of CSS show natural recovery from disturbance suggesting that active restorative projects may be successful. Information available to the SRP supports a conservative estimate of 5% habitat quality enhancement potential for existing CSS habitat. This potential for mitigation leads to a corresponding estimate of 5% short-term habitat loss that can be tolerated in any subregion. A level of enhancement beyond 5% may be possible and with adequate scientific information, November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDELINE-c, Page 13. improved prospects for enhancement can be the basis for allowing a greater than 5% loss of habitat. Land of high priority for inclusion in a reserve system can be identified based on a combination of size, location, and quality criteria. The impact of an overall 5% loss of CSS habitat area can be further reduced by avoiding losses of higher priority habitat. c. Premises on timing The southern California planning region is too large to be planned as a single unit. For conservation planning purposes, the region needs to be divided into subregions that are based on both biological and political considerations. The scale and focus of the subregions has been defined by the SRP (Subregional Planning Document, May 1992, revised August 1992). The focus area map is included as Attachment B. 2. Subregional ....... * .... ~,,,;,,~ w;IT progress at different rates due to different local economic conditions. Some subregions are ready to initiate NCCP planning now; others may not participate for several years. Some subregions may need to subdivide into subareas for planning purposes. Where appropriate, the CDFG and USFWS can accept the delineation and planning of subareas within subregions, provided subareas continue to participate in he subregicnal p!anning effort and adhere to the subregional goals and objectives. Planning on a subarea basis may proceed prior to "final approval of the subregional plan provided the subarea plan integrates its preserve design with adjacent subareas, is consistent with the overall design of the subregional plan, and describes how it will mesh with and augment the subregional plan.. Scientific information available to the SRP does not support a conservation plan that would lead to significant losses of CSS habitat. Despite recent efforts to address this data shortfall, there is still a lack of scientific information on important aspects of CSS biology that may be necessary to formulate and implement a long-term plan. Land owners and iocal governmerits should initiate the subregional planning process and identify and begin to fill information needs specific to that subregion. The extent of additional information needed, hence the time and effort needed, depends on the extent of projected habitat losses within a subregion. The amount of additional data necessary for decision-making will be minimal where subregional habitat losses are expected to be minimal or where adequate mitigation for losses can be demonstrated conclusively. Conversely, where greater habitat loss is proposed or where mitigation entails unproven technologies, data needs will be greater. November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDEUNES' Page Subregions are encouraged to formulate NCCPs for approval by CDFG and USFWS as early as possible. One element of a NCCP must be an assessment of the status of scientific information in the subregion. A NCCP can be approved for implementation in phases despite a need for scientific information. Implementation of each phase of the plan must be adequately supported by scientific information. 6. Short-term habitat conversion should not foreclose future long-term conservation planning options. 3. Conservation Planning Guidance a. The interim strategy Short-term losses of habitat should be minimized so as to not foreclose future conservation planning options untilsuch time as an NCCP has been completed and long-term enhancement and management programs are formulated. Total interim loss should be limited to 5% of CSS habitat in any individual subregion. To the maximum degree practicable, the 5% loss should be limited to areas with smaller populations of target species. To the maximum degree practicable, the 5% loss should not dispropdrtionally impact specific subunits of the environmental gradient in each subregion (as defined by vegetation subcommunity, latitude, elevation, distance from coast, slope, aspect or soil type). During the interim period, subregional and subarea planning should strive to protect areas of higher long-term conservation value - defined by extent of CSS habitat, proximity of that habitat to other habitat, value as landscape linkages or corridors, or presence of target species or other species of concern - until a subregional plan can be put in place. Development pressure should be directed toward areas thet have lower long- term conservation value. Such habitat areas are smaller in extent, are more isolated, have limited value as landscape linkages, and support comparatively fewer individuals of target species. Planning should ensure that all interim habitat losses are adequately mitigated and should contribute to the interim subregional mitigation program that will be subsumed in the long-term subregional NCCP as specified in the Process Guidelines. b. The research agenda November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDEI. JNES' Page 6 The following research program can resolve unanswered questions that bear on the conservation of target species that inhabit coastal sage scrub and the biodiversity associated with that community. The SRP recommends six interactive research tasks. Biogeography and inventory of CSS. The basic extent and distribution of CSS vegetation and its constituent species should be adequately mapped for the region and each subregion. This information will be required to support any subregional plan. The comprehensive literature review of CSS initiated by the SRP should be expanded and kept current. For the southern California region, maps of the planning region should be provided at a scale of 1:100,000, with minimum mapping units of 100 ha (250 acres) and a minimum resolution of 100 m (330 feet). Ideally these maps would be GIS-based. Data layers should include vegetation, urban and agricultural land use, land ownership, topography, climate, distribution of target species, and available information on species of concern. For each subregion, GIS-based maps (or accurate manually drawn maps based on similar data) should be provided at a 'scale of 1:24,000 with minimum mapping units of 10 ha (25 acres) and minimum resolution of 30 m (100 feet). Data layers should include those required for regional planning as well as specific conditions relevant to the subregion, with great emphasis on ground-truthing and verification of data. 2." Trends in biodivers'rty. It is the intent of the NCCP to preserve a substantial representation of the biodiversity associated with CSS. Better information on the effect of reserve size and adjoining !and uses on biodiversity would help planning decisions. Monitoring of select taxa is necessary to assess the ongoing success of CSS community conservation efforts. Indicator taxa (such as CSS dependent birds, small mammals, and butterflies) should be employed due to time and funding constraints. The relationships between species richness/composition and habitat patch area and the effects of -- isolation should be investigated in sampling programs. These sampling programs will entail surveys for species richness and composition within a carefully' ~_elected series of C$S patches in each s~Jbre~3ion. Dispersal characteristics and landscape corridor use. More information about dispersal limitations of CSS species would help planning for adequate linkages between reserves and reveal trade-offs between increasing reserve size and improving corridors. Dispersal information adequate to allow tests of sensitivity of metapopulation models to connectivity are required. Data from several locations within the planning region during both breeding and non-breeding seasons should be gathered on target species, mountain lions, coyotes, and representative small mammals and invertebrates. November 9, 1993 CONSER VA TION GUI[ JUNES Page Demography and population viability analysis. One test of the potential effectiveness of reserve systems is population viability analysis. Time-series data on the two target species of birds should be gathered in at least half the subregions and from representative physical circumstances that span those found across the regional distributions of the species. Data should include territory size, time budgets, reproductive success, survivorship, emigration and immigration, with separate data obtained both for males and females where possible. Population viability analyses should be carriled out for sample populations and metapopulations, and should consider connectivity and environmental effects. Surveys and autecologicai studies of sensitive animals and plants. Basic information on the location, abundance, distribution, and natural history of vertebrate and invertebrate candidate species for federal protection and CSS- associated plant species of special concern should be gathered from select sites throughout the planning region. Each subregional planning exercise should contribute to this regional effort. Genetic Studies. The maintenance of genetic variation is critical to the long- term viability of species inhabiting CSS and will be an important aspect of monitoring populations under a NCCP. Declining genetic variation will be one symptom of inadequate linkages between reserves and can signal a need for changes in reserve management. Baseline data for comparison with future conditions should be gathered at the earliest possible opportunity. Target species and several invertebrates should be sampled from several locations in each subregion. Most genetic data can be obtained with non- destructive sampling techniques in conjunction with other studies that require handling of individual animals. c. Management and restoration Management and restoration practices should be addressed as part of a well- coordinated research program. Management and restoration research will be valuable to subregional NCCP planning. Even after a NCCP is adopted, ongoing restoration research will be essential to adaptive management of coastal sage scrub habitat. The Cal!fornia Departmen+,. of Fish and Game in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will convene a committee of experienced practitioners in the management and restoration of coastal sage scrub habitats to develop guidelines for such activities. This committee should review pertinent documents and address the current state of knowledge in the following areas key to the management of coastal sage scrub: Exotic species control, including both animals (in particular, cowbirds and feral and domestic mesopredators such as house cats and introduced red foxes) and plants (weedy species, especially annual species of old world origin) November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDEUIVE$ Page 8 Recreational use of coastal sage scrub and other open space reserve areas, including identification of suitable low impact recreational pursuits consistent with preservation goals. The role of fire in natural ecosystem dynamics and processes, including the application of control burns and the control of ignitions of accidental and vandal origin. Restoration considerations to be addressed in well-designed field experiments include: identification of restoration unit sizes, including identification of maximum areas that are restorable using current techniques. A focus on patch enlargement techniques is advised. Identification of coastal sage scrub responses to soil conditions in restoration efforts, with focus on soil structure, soil nutrient levels, organic matter content, water holding capacity, and soil compaction. · Identification of appropriate seeding, outplanting, and irrigation techniques with focuses on proper mixes of seeds, seeding techniques, and timing of applications of seed and irrigation. · identification of techniques to encourage native herbaceous species and to ' discourage the establishment of exotic species. · Establishment of realistic success criteria to evaluate restoration considering sage species diversity and cover, and use by target species. The management and restoration committee will be expected to design multifactorial field experiments at appropriate spatial scales using explicit and repeatable scientific method to aid in differentiating among alternative techniques. Since treatments will in all likelihood vary with physical circumstances, local vegetation composition and structure, and other unique conditions, each su!~regiona! pl~.nning unit will be expected to contribute to the rvg,o,,-,, management and restoration research effort. d. Application to subregional planning The biogeography research task will provide mapping of physical features, land uses, and vegetation to portray the options for the design of a subregional reserve and corridor network. The other research tasks will assist planners in evaluating conservation planning options by documenting species distributions and relative abundances within each subregion, by identifying the sizes and configurations of habitat patches necessary to sustain stable demographic units of target species, and by assessing the physical characteristics of landscape corridor November 9, 1993 CONS£RW: 7'ION GUIDEUNE~; Page linkages required to facilitate dispersal, gene flow, and recolonization by species inhabiting the coastal sage scrub community. Based on this information, subregional NCCPs will designate a system of interconnected reserves designed to: 1) promote biodiversity, 2) provide for high likelihoods for persistence of target species in the subregion, and 3) provide for no net loss of habitat value from the present, taking into account management and enhancement. No net loss of habitat value means no net reduction in the ability of the subregion to maintain viable populations of target species over the long-term. The NCCP will need to establish a wide range of habitat management and enhancement tools and incorporate a monitoring program to provide guidance for ongoing management. With improved techniques for management and restoration, the goal of no net loss of habitat value may be attainable even if there is a net loss of habitat acreage. Several basic tenets of reserve design should be applied to each subregion: Conserve target species throughout the planning area: Species that are we!l-distributed across their native ranges are less susceptible to extinction than are species confined to small portions of their ranges. .. Larger reserves are better: Large blocks of habitat containing large populations of the target species are superior to small blocks of habitat containing small populations. Keep reserve areas close: Blocks of habitat that are close to one another are better than blocks of habitat far apart. 4. Keep habitat contiguous: Habitat that occurs in less fragmented, contiguous blocks is preferable to habitat that is fragmented or isolated by urban lands. o Link reserves with corridors: interconnected blocks of habitat serve conservation purposes better than do isolated blocks of habitat. Corridors or linkages function better when the habitat within them resembles habitat that is preT.,rr~.d by target species. 6. Reserves should be diverse: Blocks of habitat should contain a diverse representation of physical and environmental conditions. Protect reserves from encroachment: Blocks of habitat that are roadless or otherwise inaccessible to human disturbance serve to better conserve 'target species than do accessible habitat blocks. 4. Implementing Interim Strategy November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDELItVE~? Page 10 The interim strategy should be implemented as specified in the Process Guidelines. An annotated summary of the various tasks is included below. Establish a NCCP planning group and identify a lead or coordinating agency for each subregion according to process guidelines. The subregional lead or coordinating agency is responsible for working with local governments, landowners, and other interested parties in establishing the NCCP planning process. The subregional lead or coordinating agency is also responsible for coordinating with local jurisdictions and/or subarea authorities to accomplish the tasks listed below: Designate subregions. Focus areas have been designated by the SRP. Local jurisdictions are to draw the actual boundaries between focus areas to designate subregions for NCCP planning. Ideally, there should be one subregion for each focus area. However, subregional boundaries can be drawn for planning purposes according to convenient jurisdictional boundaries. Divisions along county boundaries are appropriate, and there is value to coordinating planning on a large scale. Additionally some subregions may need to subdivide into subareas for NCCP planning purposes. However, the 5% interim area loss cap will apply to each biologic~__~ defined subregion. Recognizing that large subregions must meet the objective of limiting short-term eSS losses on a biologically valid scale, some further subdivision of a large planning subregion into appropriately sized biological subareas for the purpose of accounting for interim habitat loss may be necessary. Inventory CSS habitat and species in subregion. As of winter 1993, basic inventory work on vegetation mapping has been completed. Species surveys, however, are largely incomplete, but comprehensive species surveys are not critical to interim effort. The Planning Agreement establishing a subregion will specify what other species, if am/, in addition to the target species will be explicitly addressed in planning for that subregion. IncFwidual parcels that are considered for development will need to be surveyed for those species. Determine long-term conservation value of lands in subregion. See evaluation process and evaluation methodology, below. All CSS habitat in the subregion is to be evaluated and mapped. Calculate CSS habitat area and compute 5% interim loss cap for each subregion. AI! CSS habitat in the subregion is to be counted to compute the basis for the 5% intodin loss, including all pub[i_-i,/and prbz=-tely owned land. The most inclusive definition of CSS should be used. There is no minimum parcel size threshold for consideration, Where a planning subregion has been drawn on a scale larger than the focus areas identified by the SRP, the subregion may need to be divided into smaller subareas that are adequate to account for interim CSS losses. The baseline should reflect the extent of CSS as of March 25, 1993, the time the SRP conservation strategy recommendation was made and the USFWS [~ting of the California gnatcatcher was -published. Only those projects approved by CDFG and USFWS prior to March 25, 1993, and explicitly meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act should be excluded from the baseline. The baseline calculation and designation of subareas for accounting must be verified by the U.S. F~h and VVildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Page i'1 Identify an entity to serve as a central cleadng house to account for cumulative habitat loss in each subregion. That entity will advise local land use judsdi~ to insure that the 5% interim loss guideline is not exceeded. The entity could be the lead or coordinating agency, a council of governments, or a wildlife agency. Some provision will need to be made to coordinate and to account for state projects, or for utility or transpod.3ton projects that cross subregional boundaries. Identify interim mitigation requirements guidelines for all development on CSS habitat loss. Mitigation guidelines for interim habitat loss must be developed for the subregion and must be established in a subregional planning agreement or another written documeht requiring concurrence of the U.S. Fish and Valdlife Service and the Carffomia Department of Fish and Game. The provisions for interim mitigation measures will need to be applied by local jurisdictions and may include a requirement that the landowner receiving approval for interim CSS habitat loss will make an appropriate commitment to continue to participate in the overall subregional NCCP program: It is recognized that full mitigation may not be practical during the interim period because reserve acquis'RJon programs and enhancement techniques have not been established. However, an approved subregional NCCP will eventually mitigate interim losses. In the interim phase, adequate mitigation for Io~ses of lower value habitat may' rang~ from payment of a fee to purchase or to set aside higher value habitat. Management and restoration efforts undertaken as m~gation during ~ interim program will add to the overall abir~y of these conservation tools to be employed more _su~-ce~'fully in the future. Identify and fill scien~c information nc. cds for long-term planning. Appropriate scientific research tasks will vary from subregion to subregion depending on the amount of information available, the amount of habitat conversion proposed, and the conservation ~ategies being cornida-ed. Sciantilic research must be coordinated with region-wide efforts. The timing and funding for subregional research' may need to be phased with staged implementation of a plan. Complete and implement subregional NCCP according to process guidelines. 5. Determining Potential Long-term Conservation Value a. Ranking land for interim protection CSS and some associated non-CSS natural lands need to be evaluated and ranked for interim protection. Intedm protection should be afforded to iands that are likely to be impoKant to long-term conservation planr, ing options due to CSS patch size and densiV, location, and biologic components. Higher potential value: To determine areas of potential long-term conservation value, large, relatively dense areas of CSS must be identified. These are termed Higher Value Districts and are possible core areas for a reserve system. They need to be identified early in the planning process and protected from habitat loss and fragmentation while planning is under way. The methodology described below places 50% of the CSS in a subregion in the higher potent[a[ value category. November 9, 1993 COIVSERVA TION GUIDEUNE,t; Page 12. Intermediate potential value: Lands that probably can not be managed as independent reserves, but which by virtue of high quality, or proximity or linkage to the Higher Value Districts should be treated as potentially significant for subregional conservation planning. Lower potential value: Land considered to have lower potential long-term conservation value will be that remaining after the higher potential value districts and the intermediate value areas have been identified. Small, isolated CSS patches (especially those surrounded by urban lands) with relatively small populations should be considered of low long-term potential value. Development of these lands could result in a take of small numbers of individuals of target species and would probably not affect the long-term viability of target: species or other species of concern. Overall, an estimated 10% to 25% of the CSS in a subregion would fall into the lower potential value category. For 'the ranking approach to interim habitat loss to function, it is important that a significant amount of land be classed as lower value. The criteria for identifying higher and intermediate value land should be adapted to local conditions. b. Evaluation process Each subregion needs to show interim protection for higher potential value lands on a map. The step-down evaluation process is outlined here. Large, dense areas of CSS are the Higher potential value lands. Natural lands that occur in linka~]es, that are close to possible core CSS areas, or that have high species richness are considered Intermediate potential value lands. Remaining CSS is considered to have Lower potential value. The guideline policy for local government treatment of the Higher, Intermediate, and Lower potential value lands during the interim period is given in section 6. A flow chart illustrating the logic is included as Attachment C. Natural Land: is natural vegetation present? Yes: Check CSS presence (#2) No: Not relevant for reserve planning. CSS: Is CSS present? Yes: Check large size (//3) No: Check landscape linkages (#5) Large Size: Is CSS the most dense CSS in subregion? Yes: Land forms a Higher Value District No: Check proximity (#4) o Proximity: Is land close to Higher Value District? Yes: Land is Intermediate Value No: Check landscape linkages (#5) November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDELINE? Page 13 o Landscape Linkages: Is land located in corridor between Higher Value Districts? Yes: Land is Intermediate Value No: Check species presence (#6) Species Presence: Does land support high density of target species? Does land support significant populations of highly endemic species or rare sub-habitat types? Yes: Land is Intermediate Value No: Land is Lower Value c. Evaluation methods Natural Land: Natural land is land with a significant cover of natural vegetation. Natural vegetation in this context includes all native California natural communities and includes forestlands, shrublands, native and non- native grasslands, non-irrigated land, grazed land, and vacant or disturbed natural !and. Natural land excludes lands subject to intensive agriculture and urban uses. Disturbed land or land recently cleared may still be restorable and should be included in the evaluation. The California Department of Conservation Farmlands Mapping and Monitoring Program is one way to identif7 natural lands: natural lands are areas classified as "grazing" or "other." Generally, !and not mapped by the Department of Conservation can be assumed to be natural in eastern portions of the study area and urban in western portions. Coastal Sage Scrub: CSS includes landscape areas supporting primary or secondary cover of characteristic CSS plant species dominants as defined by the SRP, Special Report No. 2, March 1992. A generalized map of CSS and a summary description is attached as Attachment A. ~ Large Size: The largest CSS patches in the subregion should be considered as possible core areas for future reserves. Because CSS distribution is naturally patchy, patch size needs to represent presence of CSS habitat at an intermediate spatial scale and needs to integrate over minor fragrnent~,tion and differences in vegetation mapping methodologies. Habitat patches should not be discounted as "too small" merely because they are mixed with other natural vegetation types. It is, however, appropriate to exclude landscape areas that are highly urbanized. The objective of the evaluation process is to identify larger patches of CSS in the subregion.. These are the Higher Value Districts. The method of finding the larger patches can be adjusted to conditions present in each subregion. The SRP recommends determining the percent of CSS cover in a neighborhood around individual CSS patches. When the entire subregion is evaluated, those patches of CSS habitat with the highest percent CSS cover in the neighborhood, cumulatively representing 50% or more of all CSS November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDELINE,'; Page cover within a subregion can be identified. Neighborhoods should have a radius of 1/2 to I mile. This spatial scale for planning reflects biological characteristics of CSS species and the need for agglomerations of CSS on a scale potentially suitable for incorporation into a reserve networks. The determination of the "core 50%" also takes into account the presence of urban and non-CSS natural land. Proximity: CSS patches close to a core can be identified by measuring direct, straight-line distances. Appropriate spatial scale must be determined for each subregion and should be on the order of one-quarter to one-half mile. Landscape Linkages: Natural lands, and even lands in intensive agriculture, may contribute to reserve network connectivity. Corridors must be drawn such that each Higher Value District is connected to the closest' adjacent districts. A geometric corridor between Higher Value Districts is defined by drawing two straight lines tangent to each district. Boundaries can be ,.,.j~,~.. cs ,~c~cc3P~' +~ r~f!~ct n3tura! features such =- riparian areas that may curve outside of a defined geometric corridor. Species Presence: A test must identify areas 1) that need special protection in the interim to reduce the likelihood of take of species and 2) that may have long-term value due to special conditions that support significant populations of highly endemic species, rare sub-habitat types, or vegetation subcommunities. What constitutes significant populations must be determined for each subregion. For target species, the SRP considers habitat that supports a portion of a local population with five or more pairs of gnatcatcher or cactus wrens to be significant. For other species of plants or animals (including those species listed or candidates for listing), the SRP considers habitat that supports a portion of a local population representing more than 20% of the known population of the subregion to be significant. The species presence test specifically means that each parcel under consideration for development wil~ be subject to a species clearance: a survey for target species and other rare plants and animals. The survey should use techniques specified by the SRP or equivalent methods. (See SRP Survey Guidelines.) Species presence during a one-time survey is not a reliable measure of habitat value. Moreover, species survey work is also expensive and time consuming. For this reason, the basic methodology to identify potential reserves relies most heavily on less variant aspects of the landscape. 6. Policy November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDELINE.<'; Pa.ce 15 a. Pending approval of subregional NCCP When formal planning is underway, the conservative interim strategy seeks to minimize short-term loss of habitat and CSS species and to prevent foreclosure of options for long-term conservation planning by deferring development decisions on lands that may be important components of a final CSS community conservation plan. Potential Long-term Conservation Value Poiicy Higher Value Defer development decisions where possible. Determine actual conservation suitability in NCCP. Allow development only where it can be proven that the loss will not foreclose reserve planning options. Special mitigation will be required. Intermediate Value Case-by-case decisions. Special mitigation may be warranted. Lower Value Allow development with adequate mitigation. Cumulative CSS loss in any subregion or, any subarea of a large subregion is limited to 5% during the interim period. b. With approved subregional NCCP An approved subregional. NCCP plan will supersede the interim designation of potential long-term conservation value and the interim 5% CSS loss limit will no longer apply. Implementation of an explicit subregional plan will allow long-term economic interests to be served. Inherent in the NCCP is resolution of technical and implementation issues to allow specification of long-term conservation programs. The final subregional NCCP may provide for development of lands initially designated as having potential long-term conservation value if it is later detern;ined that actual long-term conservation value is lower. Ccnvers.-!¥, lands originally thought to be of lower value may be determined to be valuable in final conse,-vation plans. This consideration is one of many that support a conservative interim loss ceiling. c. in the absence of a subregional NCCP A subregional NCCP is intended, among other things, to provide long-term mitigation for project impacts which occur within the subregion. However, if for any reasor~ the subregional NCCP fails to be completed, and provided the total cumulative loss of CSS habitat area is kept below 5%, public agencies should be able to undertake restoration independently of private lands to compensate for any November 9, 1993 CONSERVATION GUIDEUNES Page 16 portion of the 5% habitat area loss that was not directly mitigated by measures imposed on approvals on private land during the interim process. These guidelines have been adopted by the Department of Fish and Game on this .~ day of November, 1993. Bo d Gi~'~ Director Department of Fish and Game November 9, 1993 COiVSERV.4 TION GUIDELINES Page Attachment A. LOS ANGELES Generalized Map of Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat ORANGE COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (CSS) WCSS as Reported to CDFG Natural Heritage Division. Coverage Incomplete. CSS as Mapped by tJCSB Gap Program from Landsat Data. Primary CSS Coverage. -'.~-. '-'~ $e$ondaq/CSS Coverage. Characteristic species of coastal sage scrub include Califomia sagebrush (Artemisia californica}, several species of sage (Salvia me!lifera, Salvfa ieucophyila, and Salvia apiana), California encelia (Encelia califomica), brittlebush ( Encelia fafinosa), San Diego sunflower (Viguiera lacinata), and buckwheats (in- cluding Eriogonum fasciculatum and Edogonum cin~reum). Evergreen sc[erophytlous shrubs such a£ Malosma laurina, Rhus integrifolia, and Rhus ovata are often patchily distributed in stands of coastal sage scrub. ~,_ Ma~o: Thornas Reid A_~sociates j November 9, 1993 10 Miles CONSERVATION GUfDELINES Page 18 Attachment B. Subregional Focus Areas Subregional CSS NCCP Planning Unit Focus Map Subregional Focus Areas Contain functionin~ biological units ~ high co~servotkx~ vokse. Generally should be plonnad ~s im:l'~iduol NCCP ~'~'~;~'"-~'~'?-subregional plmu~ ~m~6ts. but rr~ be ?..:;~:;..,,--==_..divided into smaller units to m;slst "--~"=?~"-~ planning and impl~ The fu'sl ............. digit of the 0e~tity number sho-s the primary focus.oreo des~jn~ ar~ the dec~mol port reflects potential odministra[k,e sutx~wis~on of the oreo. Satellite Neas Is;ands of subst=n~Jcd C~ habitat value s~ ~ plon~d i~ c~c~ w;th one the fccu~ ureas Matrix Area Large open areas sun'ounding focus or satellite areas ma~ ir~clude CSS habitat. land with value as corr'~ors or habitat buffer Io~ CSS and ~ include natural communities of cons~votion v~lue. Note: The locus and satellite areas are based on evoluohon of coastal sage scrub vegetation components and does not reflecl d~stribut~on of s~nsit~ve species. This is not o mop of CSS habitoL ca. November 9, 1993 CONSERVA TIOIV GUIDEUNE$ Attachment C. Evaluation Logic Row.Chart Refer to text section 5.¢. Evaluation Methods for definitions. Page Yes Yes RESULT Not relevant for planning. Land forms a Prigher Value Distri~ Higher Potential . Value For Lonfl-term Conservation Dete~ development decisions Determine =__,~_ =~ ~ suitat~T~ in NCCP. ! las ndS~~Yes Intermediate Potential Value For Lon~-term Conservation Case ~' case decision=. SpeciaJ ~ '~n may be ~an~. Lower Potential Value For Long-term Conservation Allow development. Adequate mitigation. Novem'ber 9, 1993 APPENDIX C A General Stochastic Model for the Prediction of Biodiversity Losses Based on Habitat Conversion HAROLD KOOPOWITZ ALAN D. THORNHILL MARK ANDERSEN Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California Irvine, CA 92717, Al~tract: We present a model of species extinction rates that depends on the distribution of species and rates of habitat conver~io~ This model allows prediction of numbers of spe- cies lost as well as current extinction rat~ We apply the model to plant species in the Neotroptc¢ We examined dis- trlbutton data for51 angiosperm taxc¢ comprising 4258 spe- c/~ from Flora Neotropica monograph~ Of tbes~ 25. 7% had been recordod as occurring in a single locality, with 12896 a~d 9.596 being recorded from two or tbree localities respec. lively. Assuming that 18. 796 of Neotropical forested area has b~en cleared since 1950, when 60, 000 plant species extste~ the model prodicts that 3020 species will have been lost by 1992. At current deforestation rate$ the entire Neotropics loses between 7I and 95 plant species per year. We also apply the model to individual Neotroptcal countries and find an- nual rates of within-country extinctions ranging from 0 per year in Beltz'e to 63 per year in Ecuador. We suggest a means by which tim model may be tested in the field Papmr submittal Notmml~r 25, 1992; revised man~scrlpt accepted ~ay 5, Un modelo estoc:istico general para La predlcciOn de p~rdidas de la biodlversidad basatlas en la conversion del h~itat Resumen: Presentamos un modelo de las tasas de extinciOn de especies que depende de la dtstribuct~n de las tasas de conversion del habitat Este modelo permtte pre. decir el n~mero de especies extintas como asi tambidn las tasas de extinctOr~ Nosotros aplicamos el modelo a especies de plantas de los Areas Neotropicale~ Se examtnaron los datos de dtstrtbuctOn de 51 taxones de angiospermas ClUe comprendton 4.258 espectes obtenida~ de Flora NeotroptcaL De este n~mero 25. 796 ban stdo registra. das como presentes en una sola localtriad mtentras clue 18. 796 y 9.596 hah $tdo registradas en dos o tres 1ocalidades respectivamente Sl se asume que 18. 7% de has areas boscosas Neotroptcales ban sido taladas desde 1950, cuando existtan 60.000 espectes de planta& el modelo predice que 3.020 pectes habrdn desparecido en 1992. Alas tatas de defores- taclon actua( la p~dtda en t~reas Neotropicales $erd er~tre 71 y 95 especles tie plantas por afi~ Tambidn aplicamos el modelo a palees que se encuentran ubicados en el area Neo- tropica~ y encontramos que has vartdm entre 0 pot avco en Beltze y 63 por ~ on Ecuador. Sugertmos un mdtodo por roeclio del cual el modelo puede ser probatto en el campo Volume 8, No, ~,June 1994 that species kxm ruses are dlrectty rehted m habitat c°n' version rates, Wilson (19o8) used ~ls mumptton to predict that 17,S00 spectes of trosdcsi pants sad ard. only ,cnp.~ld n, cd sdn81t~ narrmv erbdemtc species in his ~t~c~ilprk3~e Ifid "ru- ~*imtted" thfR such ~! Koopowitz (1992) utilized a similar IG~)roa~'tt m e~ti. marc the mul Siobei number of orchid species exttnc. M as wcU is Ibeir jlobsd yemty extinctKin fitte. Ht used published distribution data to d~termine avera~: sitet lie cortaidercd the probebilMes of forest ccmv~.. CelX. We formally present a stochastic model for plam~ species extinctton due to conversion of ~ af~t examine its uoufnjmom. The~ ctn be used m pre,. Uofi dam tre avu!ld~ sod Ifod conversion rates an; cb. Applications cd the model on lame a~ thee oclies avatlstle on bo~ pinnt distribution and !and conve~dml The Model This model is based o~ a hypothetical stiuation wher~ populations of species are randomly spresd actres moscneous matrix of habitat If the manix Is vWudlzed bc considered a sinlie discrilxtUon Iocdl~. Indlvtdud 8rid ts cl ..... :d accordIns to em number c~srid squares M wtdcb it is foumt For ¢--aq2i¢, a narrow endemic C D · Y D D Lr H · D C A D C D known from only one locality would bc assigned to B ~, while one th~ w~as recorded f~m four different sites would bc placed in B4. The proportion of species as- signed to a category B~ is equal to b~. We rcfer to the b~ collectively as the distribution profile. When an arbi- tr'a~ individual square of "habitat" is removed; there is a probability of extinction associated with each species according to the number of cells in which that species exists. The model expressed in its simplest terms then becomes E ~ a(b~c + b~ + b~c~ +...* b~d'), (1) which can be written as Y E + aZb,~, (2) where E is the number of extinct species, a is the total number of species that occurs in the area being consid- ered, b,~ is as above, c is the land conversion factor, and y is the maximum number of categories considered. The land conversion factor can either be the total propor- tion of land converted or a conversion rate per unit time. The proportion of species within any particular dis- tribution category will change following each iteration of the model. Not only will species go extinct if all sites in which they are found are extirpated, but each B cat- egory will contribute new members to lower categories and receive new members from higher categories. For any particular group, the proportion of species in each b,~ at time t + I can be calculated from the equations below. For those species that are narrow endemics (in category fi~) the proportion in that category (b~) after one iteration is b~,t+ ~ = bL, - (b~,~) + [(b:,~c) +(b3.tc:) + ... + (b,~'-'t)l. (3) The value being subtracted is the proportion of species lost from category Bi; those values being added are spe- cies acquired from other categories. For disjunct species that occur in two different locations, the proportion in that category (bz) after one iteration is (b~,~:) + ... + (b~"'":)]. (4) Terms being added are as above. Note that for this ex- ample case there are two terms being subtracted out; the first term is for those species dropping from B: into B~ and the second is for those species that go extinct as both their sites are obliterated simultaneously. The above equations and those describing the changing val- ues of other categories can be generalized to - b ,e + '-'+1), wh~e bn, ~t~om 1 tonin ~dex ~at ~ ~om n to y ~ ~e ~cond ~ation N~ b ~u~ m~t ~ nor~zed ~ ~t ~ b ~u~ ~m to one ~ ~ ite~on; ~, ~e to~ nm~ of s~ci~ rem~ ~er each itmflon Is ~justed a,.x = a~ - E~ (6) ~er n~ ~tincflon pr~ctions ~e sflB cfl~t~ by Eq~tion 2 ~ve. M~ pre~cted ~c~on mt~ ~ to ~c~nt for ~cies ~t ~t robing ~imt conve~tion or de- sk,ore For ~ple, ~con~ ~er ~bimt d~cflon c~ act m r~g~ for ~me s~ci~. M~ (19~) noted ~t ~en ~ a 99% re- duction m ~e~o ~cm m co~e p~mtiom ~d ~on~ ~r~ act~ m r~- u~a for m~y b~d s~cies. In W~tem Ecu~or tomy epiphyflc p~t ~ci~ ~e found in ~tivat~ orch~ (~n & ~n~ 1991 ). It ~ ~ible to ~d a te~ to Equa~on 2 ~t ~ ~ ~count ~ s~ies ~at suave habimt d~cflon: Y E = (~ - a)a ~ b,c", (7) where ~ is the proportion of original species that can be maintained in a fragmented or alternate habitat, and all other parameters are as defined above. In effect, 0t is the proportion of species that are extinction.proof. Esti- mates of this value could be obtained by comparing secondary forest species with the original flora. For this paper, however, the (1 - ~) term has not been used because there is very little information on the percent- ages of the original flora that persist after conversion. Data Collection We have used the plant species distributions published in Flora Neotroptca to apply the model on a regional scale. Flora Neotropica contains taxonomic accounts of known plant species growing spontaneously within the tropical regions of the Western Hemisphere. Locality data for each species covered are presented in the form of distribution maps and herbarium-specimen locality data. To determine the Neotropical floristic distribution profile, we examined 51 taxa of vascular flowering Vo~m" 8, No. 2, J~a~e 1994 ~ (Table z) md within each t~zoo, ~li q~'c~e~ ~ 1974, 19~, 19~), ~t ~ z ~p~~b ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~U~, ~r con. '~ P~'* ~ (F~ ~, T~e ~ ). ~ 1~ ~~~ ~.1~ ~ ~. ~en ~ v~ue ~ ~- ~, ~ ~ ~c~, we ~m~ ~ ~ ~o~ 15 ~e~ ~ a ~ue ~u~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ 0.6% ~ p~ m ba~. ~ ~tim~t~ ~UtiOR eom~s hvo~bly ~c~~ ~~, ~ue~ ~ ~ ~o a-" ~ ze~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ie This applX~im.,tion was used in the numerical studies below, All the c~]cula~om in this paper were ~merated ~ pro~r~ written in BASIC and Micro.R® Excel® on a desktop con~ter, We have had to make several as~m..~ons to formulate the model; these are bdefiy introduced here. (2) mt yor~t OPal ~ ~ .qu~. Thts as. mates aetoaa ~ ..... ~ ~ ~' ~... ~ ...... ~ out ~g in~, .... , ~ ~n~a~ ~ ~ do ~ ~ ~e ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1~5, 1~; M~o et ~. 1~5). duc~. ~ere we ~ve comp~ old mono- ~ ~ o~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m or ~ ~ ~ ~~) or ~ ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ a~ ~ ~ion (~ 1~). ~ ~ ~ ~ it ~ ~e to ~c~e ~tm ~ ~ m~! to corn- Number of Species at n sit~s Tara n I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 + Total Sourc~' Aechmea 63 2 ! 14 g 4 5 '7 ~ 3 44 170 14 ( Al'ecaceae 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 ~ I 5 I 1 53 Balanophoraceae 0 2 I 2 I O 1 ~ O 9 17 23 Bi~noniaceae 5 5 9 0 I I 0 2 I 9 33 2 Billb~gta 17 9 3 2 3 0 0 2 0 14 50 14 ( HI Bnmelliaceae 36 10 9 2 0 O 0 0 0 4 61 2, 2S Burmatmiaceae 7 8 2 3 3 2 I i I 21 49 42 Calceolarieae 43 28 27 16 4 ! 1 9 ~; 6 36 185 47 Campon~m~/a ~t a~ 10 4 5 2 3 3 0 2 0 19 48 45 Car/owrtgbtta 1 2 0 2 0 0 2 ~ 0 10 18 34 Cagyocaraceae 3 2 I 3 2 0 I I~ 0 10 22 12 C. az~/~a 41 20 12 6 3 4 2 ~ 1 7 99 35 Eecropiaceae 12 10 5 5 3 6 2 (3 1 27 7 ! 5 ,~'y~alanaceae 86 52 27 29 26 17 16 :8 8 117 386 9, 9S Cochlospermaceae 0 0 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 27 Corlnaraceae 10 11 7 2 4 7 1 2 3 35 82 36 Cx~toldeae 8 3 6 4 I I 3 0 0 18 44 8 13~ulpetalaceae 15 5 6 3 1 2 2 1 0 6 41 10 I~cratlag-eae 3 2 7 5 4 5 3 ~ 6 41 79 54 ]~ 6 3 2 0 3 3 2 0 0 7 26 44 Dyck/a 53 21 10 2 3 1 0 ;t 0 9 100 14 (I) IZlacourtiaceae 69 51 29 17 l 3 7 10 3 5 70 274 22 Gustavia ~t al 20 10 3 3 4 2 I 2 3 16 64 21 (I) ¢ ;u. gmanta 34 19 11 10 9 7 4 " 2 23 126 14 (Ill) 11~)nasmton 4 6 0 5 4 I 0 2 3 14 39 48 alCramm,~a 0 0 0 0 I I 0 ~ 0 14 17 49 IM 6 4 4 7 4 I I ] 1 21 50 31 1 ~cn]thidaceae 19 21 18 10 '~ I 4 8 2 46 136 21 (II) Malp4~laceae 13 12 9 6 8 I 6 3 2 26 86 30 lifttalbot 16 11 11 13 4 3 10 2 2 24 96 13 Meliaceae 16 10 12 11 9 4 5 4 2 52 125 28 Memecyleae 18 7 6 9 6 2 3 3 4 23 81 15 M~ 6 3 4 7, 3 4 4 2 3 30 61 7 ~(~kl 3 4 2 0 3 I 5 0 0 7 25 29 IV~oe~g~ila 49 5 3 2 .3 2 1 0 0 5 70 14 (Ill) /: ~llg/a I 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 16 43 Pby/lopsora 0 o 2 o o ! ~ ! 0 6 11 55 P~tcaa/rna 126 39 23 11 8 ~0 '7 2 2 28 256 14 (1) Pl~iotheci~eae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 50 Rm~a/mta I 1 8 7 4 8 3 4 I 1 i 7 64 18 !~~eae 1 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 1 3 11 Rlnamnus 0 1 3 1 I 2 0 1 0 12 21 20 R~cldaceae 10 2 0 I 2 0 ! 0 0 3 19 39 Ratateac 9 4 0 3 5 3 2 0 0 17 43 33 S~potaceae 73 46 33 33 21 15 15 10 6 101 353 52 S~tnaa, t~a 41 16 10 8 2 4 4 2 1 25 113 T~glhmdsta 103 42 30 21 11 g.:J 15 13 11 139 398 14 (I1) Tr~n~a i 1 I 3 I 0 I 3 0 0 4 24 19 Tlffmrida~eae 6 I 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 5 14 40 Violaceae 1 1 3 5 0 0 0 4 0 2 25 50 46 IA~'ta b ¥oyr~lla I 1 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 15 19 41 Total 1096 547 388 277 206 159 162 103 83 1237 4258 56 OcctllYetlce: 25.7 12.8 9.1 6.5 4.8 3~7 3.8 2.4 1.9 29.1 100.0 ' ,'?ource numbers refer to Flora Neotropica volume numbera. 1, Cowan 19681 2, Cuatrecasas 19701 2s, CuaZrecasas 19851 7, Berg 19721 8, Maas 197219, Pronce 1972a; 9~ Prance 19891 10,Prcmce 1972b; 11, Prance 1972c; 12, Prance & via Silva 19 73; 13, Rogers & Al2pan 19 73; 14 (!), Smith & Doums 19741 14 (H), Smith ~ Doums 19771 14 (HI), Smith & Doums 19791 15, Morley 1976. 1~ Matts 19771 19, Lierat 19781 20, Johnston ~ Joimston 1978121 (I), Prance & Mort 19791 21 (11), Moei & Prance 199~, 22, Sieurher 19801, 23, Hahten 19801 25, G~ntry 19801, 27, Popp~dteck 1981128, P~olg~nton 1981129, Landrum 1981130, Gates 1982131, Kubltzkt & R~nner 1982133, Katutra 1982134, Daniel 1983135, Luteyn 19831 3~ lgorero 1983. 39, Rog~rt 19841 40, Mmat & Rubsame~ 198~. 41, Maas & Ruyters 198~. 42, Maas et at 198~ 4~ Hopkins 1986. 44, da Slltna 15~ 45, Landrum 198~ 46 H~king 19881 47, Motau 19881 48, Todria 198& 49, $~mpson 19891 50, Buck & Ireland 1989; 51, Berg ot at 19901 5~ Pmmington 199~, 5~ Hontler$on 199~, 54, Frahm 19911 55, Brako 1991. (6) Areas occupied by species are equal to or less than areas converted In its present form, the model does not account for the sizes of local pop- ulation$, nor does' it specify the real extent of a "site." Populations are represented by points in conceptual space that have a probability of being randomly chosen based on the extent or rate of the land converstion. This is probably the weakest assumption of the model because we do not have information on the size of species' distributions Votume & No. 2, ]uae 1994 spite the fact that moat castrllx~ IN, Miles, irrespective cd' taxon and author, have stmitK shapes, with slnsle-stte ¢,~lcmics the most common clam, we cannot be cefiatn n~any of the speclea In out data base occur at additional mite da~ the distdbution pr~la tare not ~ ap- peectahly. Zt ~s tbu,.f~¢ equally l~-~qP~e that the d~- lesub asd Discusdon all of the taza studied are d~played tn FIS. 3 and tn Table I. The ajjresated dam indicate t2m 25.7% of ndJ the spectes counted fell into the s~njle site otr. Oo~¥, with 12.896 asld 9.1% occurFinS in the nc~t two cate8orjes req2ecffvely. Thereft'e, 47.6% or nearly half of all Neo- cate~rle& Wilson (19~) ~ag~ned that about 50~ of all suBSeat that about half Of thnt number fit into timt cat- egory. But if ooe take~ "nm'me oMem~" to include those specl~ found In two or three dtes, then Wibon's The data awnt~e tn the Plons N~otrop~ca is biased by the work on bromelinds (Smith & Downs 197,t, 1977, ]979). A!thousb we did not use the entire bromellad data set, theme tnxa we did lnc. lude account for approx. em~em.un, Puffy 38~ of the bromellad apetim are smcted to (or have only been recorded from) · site. The ~ and bs beomellnd values, 13,3% and 8.0% from 25.796 to 21.196, whfie the ba and b~ cate~xies remaifi appt'o~ the stone at 12.7% afxd 9.5% re- tion paRere, we have fetalned tht bmmelJad data for not yet repreferted in the ~1~ N~OWo~/cd~ reach as OrcMdaceae, apparently also have stmtlat cf orchid d~dbuUc~ (Koopo~ta ~992) surest that 37,9% of that lintoh's npecies are narrow endemics. a value very s~MIm' to that of the Iwomelladt tn the Neo. ttopl~ orchids form an Important component of ptmt b~dive~ty (Hamreel 1990; !~ster 1990; Foster & Hub- bell 1990). WorMwlde, they may account for 10% even ~.eater proponlon in the tropict It ts pos~ble that it nccesmry to retain the beomeliad dat~ to compensate fuund at a sm81e 1ocsdity. Tho~ species fo~md at multi. to this ptttem (Pig 2b, Table 1) are discumed bekTw. But ~or thc most part, these ctccptimu represent taxa Chrysob~lanaceae Blgnontaceae 4 o I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10+ 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10+ ~. ~ d. ~ ~cA~ Flacou~aceae ~0. 0 ~ 0 - I 2 3 4 5 ~ 7 8 9 10+ I 2 3 d 5 6 7 8 e 10+ L 4. f' N~I~ Ru~iaceae lO. o ' o I 2 3 4 [ ~ 7 8 9 lo+ 8 9 + Ftgu~ 2. Sel~t~ sp~ d~tion ~ftles compiled ~m Flora N~pica:: (a) ~ance 1989; (b) G~ J'980; (0 Smith & Do~ 1974; (d) Sieum~ 1980; (e) Smith & Do~ 1979; (~ Rog~ 1984. ics so that newly evolved ,~Ocdes have yet to spread, or obligatory relationships with pollinators that are them- selves restricted. Other less obvious relationships might also exist. It has been suggested that the number of narrow endemics might be an artifact brought about by collecting techniques in the tropics, where access is limited to road edges and parks. If that is the case, we need to explain why anemophilous taxa appear to be widespread where they occur in the tropics. Unfortu- nately, the Flora Neotropica covers few wind-pollinated taxa, but the work on the Arecaceae contains few en- demics (Henderson 1990). Other works reveal a pau- city of narrow endemics among tropical anemophilous plants (Balslev 1979; Pealersen & Balslev 1990). Spore- bearing mosses (Frahm 1991 ) have similar wide distri- bution patterns, and we have noted that many of the fi:rns usually have cosmopolitan distributions (Kornas 1979; Proctor 1985; Leilinger 1989). These groups are able to dis~minate widely and are not restricted by pollinators. Orchids, on the other hand, also have mi- croscopic propagules but tend to have highly specific pollinators (Dressier 1990), and they display high levels of endemism. There are orchid species that are nearly cosmopolitan around the tropics, such as Oeceoclades maculata and Sptranthes sinens~ but these might be serf-pollinating or nonspecific with regard to pollinators. It would be interesting to know if high levels of plant endernism correlate with the endemism seen in tropical insects (Erwin 1982, 1988), some of which might be pollinators. The possibility of rapid evolution of new species in the tropics has been suggested (Dodson & Gentry 1991 ) and could be investigated at the molecu- lar level. Comparisons of widespread and locally re- stricted species should allow differentiation between re- cent and more basally derived clades. With a recent radiation of species, one might expect to find that more widespread species would have more basally derived points of origin. Accounting for endemism this way, however, makes for a weak argument because some plants are known to have dispersed across continents in Volun~ 8, No. 2, June 1994 Numb~ of ram8 (Fi~ 5) as the habitat is pto~¢aqvel~ destroyed. Note that the propotion og species in the narrow endemic c~esory (b0 ~ hKer u'un any other cateamy. ted them to exploR unusual niches and whose presence adds rlchne~ to the b~ssphea~ It is also ~_t___a.s~stln~ to note that as the last of the habitat is destriced, there are Since 1981, FAO ha~ ~ dam on the extent · rorld fm~t ~ (~AO 1~1 ) ~ mine ~ent y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ (~AO 0.4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ N~~ P~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ plot~ · ~ ~t ~ ~ ym 1974 to 1~, ~,~ ~ h~ ~ We have used our model with species distribution pro- files and average defore~tatio~ rates to explore the con. A numerical study applying Equatiom 2, 6, and 8 to the distribution dam reveals that 50% of the original biodlvcrsity woMd be 1o~ ~ 98~ of ~he ortRlnal for. c~t has been cut ~ that further attrition would occur at ever-accelerating rn_t_~ (FIS. 6 ). Assuml~ that 18.7% of the Neotroplcll forests have been cut to date, and (Thorne 1973) for the Ncotropics, the model predicts that a total of 3022 species have been lost betwcen 1950 and 1992 (Table 2). Our model abo predicts dig fe~ent eraruction rates clependln~ on the inltM number of species and the ratcs o( defore~l~tion ~Fl~ 7). For example, If we assume that ncotroptc forests contarn eRher 60,000 or 80,000 vascular plant species, the model predicts an annual loss of 70 or 93 species pcr year respectively sfte~ havtnS lost 18.7~ of the forests ~ w~th a subsequent 0.5% forest loss per ycar. Other esttmates of dL~emt!on rates are hisher (for discus- V~,f..---* 8, No. LJune 1904 , //~ o o,2s o.s o.?~ o. oos o.oos Proportion of Forest Converted Figure 5. Cbanges in b values as tbe proportion o/forest converted increases The b values always sum to one sion see Sayer & Whitmore 1991) than we have used in our calculations. Table 2 gives extinction predictions ~or a variety of starting values of total species numbers and annual deforestation rates. Using Myers's (1988) estimate of 196 deforestation rate per year, our model :;uggests an extinction rate that is double that predicted when the FAO deforestation data are used. I~;tbtL~k). ~ ill !ndlvidllM Neotropic Countries The model allows one to predict "political extinctions," losses of species within the borders of a country. Using the distribution profile for the entire Neotropics (Fig. 3), the calculated 15-year averages for deforestation (FAO 1991 ) for each individual country, and estimated numbers of original species per country (Davis et al. 1986), we calculated the approximate number of yearly extinctions for each continental political entity in the Neotropics (Table 3). Numbers ranged from zero spe- cies lost per year in the case of Belize, which has no reported current deforestation, to a high of 67 per year In Ecuador where deforestation rates are 1.83% per an. hum and species diversity is reported to be very high. Other countries have higher percentages of deforestao tion but have lower starting numbers of species; for these the model predicts lower absolute species losses. (~ the other hand, slower rates of deforestation can lead to large extinction lo~es when there is a large starting number of species. For example, Brazil, with an estimated 55,000 plant species but only a 0.4% average atmual deforestation rate, is predicted to lose 52 species I~ year, one of the highest absolute extinction rates. If the extent of the original forests were known, the model would allow us to calculated the total numbers of spe. cies 1o~c In the absence of the data, we have used our calculated values of forest extent in 1950 and assumed that those were equivalent to the original areas. Table 3 shows the total number of species lost under these con- ditions. It is a truism that there are few observations of actual extinction events, and records of actual plant losses are very sparse. In the real world, deforestation is probably hardly ever complete, and some individuals can be ex- pected to survive the axe or plow. Some plants can endure for extended periods of time under adverse con- ditions, but whether their pollinators and other com- mensals can also persist so that reproduction can con- tinue appears unlikely. Even ff reproductive capabilities are maintained, in the face of incipient inbreexling de- pression in these reduced populations, such species may be no better than functionally extinct. Island ~neory The species-area relationship predicts changes in spe- cies number with reductions in habitat area (for re- views, see Frankel & Soul6 1981; Shafer 1990). One of the differences between that theory and ours is that we predict the number of species directly lost due to forest conversion. The two ideas, however, are not mutually exclusive. The number of species lost due to land con- ~ 76 .f SG% Extinct at 08% Cut 0 0 12.6 26 37,5 So 62.6 76 e?.s Percent of Original Forost Cut Figure 6. Predicted percentage of original flora be- coming extinct as a function of percentage of ortgt. nal forest cut Con~rvat/cm Biology Volume 8, No, 2, June 1994 l.Z~t I~r pmr ~R 41 ~ 4T ~ 82 8~ 9~ 114 122 1~1 1~ 152 1~ 175 187 1~ ~ 219 2~ O. 19 pe~ year 0.25 pe~ ye~ 0.]1 p~r~ 50~ of the ~ npect~ ~ from that habitat (sha~ t990~ ou~ model (N& 6) ~ that to% of ~e orll~nM hnl~at would permit ,::'w ~_ .trion of 62.6% af the plant ,IX~"i~..* k .,~i~ tl~ ~ to be ~lam be the Immediate Iota of only 3?.4% of the species 1~ ~.6% of the species due to factors that ~ovem island theory. well known. Many othe~ areas or ~roup~ of plants could it ~hould be pomible to apply this model to some animal ~roups such as buttertiles or birds, but additional as- sumptions might be required to take into account the m~ T~mq Os~ model lends Iraelf to betn~ teated tn the field. De. S)restation sc'enaJ. tO~ and locaUty data from earlier works a~w one to predict the numbers of temainl~ sites in a particular ~o~raphicai aret One suitable pos- sibility would be ~ ~ M.4~.nr' whe~ both the pm~,n of d~f;_-e -.t~m (Green & susem~ 1990) and ltl~ OtChlg flora (P~'tt~ 19414, 1941b) Ire r~latively Besidea simple predictions of biod~veraity 1o~, the model abo paint~ a ~n acerratio for the future o~ bio. same rate that it has in the recent past. It ts small corn. fort that 98% of the world's forests can be cut before our model pre~cts that the tna~ority will be wtd~ by chance are ort~Inaily confined to the remaim~ 0,71 '1.21 1.7l ~n~g mmO~ of ~p~c~x ~t wa~ a~sum~ mot I~ ~ of t~ fo~t l~a~ l~ cut volmine & f~to. 3,,~ Ig~4 TMfle 3. Average 1950 1992 Yearly Estinuat~d S~cies P~m~e Nu~ P~t ~i~ F~t~ F~t~ P~t of P~e of N~ L~t ~ti~t of N~t~ L~ ~ F~t L~t ~f~s~t~on of Si~ Since ~t L~t Co~s (~1~)' (~1~)' 195~1~2' 197~1~ S~'* 1950 1950 P~ ~e 1,0 ! 2 1,012 0.~ 0.~ 3,2~ 0 0.~ 0 0.~ ~ 59,176 55,261 6.61 0.1, 18,~0 311 1.73 8 0.05 B~ ~5,~ 5~,2~ 1~.39 0.40 55,~ 2,261 4.11 52 0.10 ~l~a 62,~ 49,~ 20.22 0.54 45,~ 2,~4 5.~ 57 0.13 ~ ~ca 3,218 1,410 56.18 1.85 10,~ 1,739 17.39 33 0.40 ~r 22,~9 10,397 53.~ 1.83 20,~ 3,275 16.38 67 0.40 ~ ~r 282 85 69.72 2.~ 2,~ 582 23.28 10 0.52 ~. Gu~ 7,514 7,262 3.35 0.~ B,~ ~ 0.~ 2 0.03 G~ 6,843 3,~ 47.26 1.54 8,~ 1,~23 14.04 24 0.35 Gu~ 20~ 15,6~ 22.~ 0.67 8,~ 494 6.18 12 0.16 H~ 6,455 3,~5 52.05 1.77 5,~ 7~ 15.78 17 0.~ M~o 65,~5 41,172 37.21 1.12 20,~ 2,127 10.64 47 0.26 N~a 7,823 3,152 59.70 2.16 5,~0 9~ 18.~ 19 0.47 ~ 6,~1 ~,193 47.58 1.55 9,~ L274 14.16 27 0.~5 ~ 78,4~ 67,~ 1 ~.~9 0.35 20,~ 712 ~.~ 17 0.~ ~e 15,024 14,8~9 1.23 0.03 4,~ 14 0. ~ 1 ~ 1 0.~ V~e~ 41,775 ~,595 29A6 0.83 25,~ 2,028 8.11 ~ 0.20 * For~t linear extrapolations and deforestation rates are ~ on FAO (1991), ** Numbers of species are taken from Davis et al (1986) aml represent the bigbest estimates fcyr numbers of species within each country. patches and preserves will remain, and their persistence will depend on the abLUty of their pollinators and other symbionts to prevail in the ecosystem remnants. Plant distributions reveal important things about reserves and their structure. Careful analysis of distributions may re- veal hot spots of endemism, such as those suggested by Prance (1977) and Myers (1990), that deserve added protection, but there will be many other endemics and disjunct populations at four or fewer sites---perhaps the majority of plant speci~ r, cattered through the world's forests that can not be preserved in sttu because of pragmatic limitations on the number of reserves that can be maintained and protected. It is imperative that attention be focused on maintaining ex sau collections of germplasm of species that are outside the embrace of preserves, otherwise little of the richness of this planer's biosphere will remain. Acknowledgments We thank Alistair Cullum for the suggestions for com- puterization of the model. His help allowed us to prog- ress at a faster rate than would have otherwise been posaiblc. We also thank Dr. Marta Chikilian for translat- inS the al~tract into Spanish. Balslev, H. 1979. Juncaceae. Hora off Ecuador. No. 11. Publish. House Swedish Research Councils, Stockholm, Sweden. Ber~, C.C. 1972. O!medteae, Brosirneae (Moraceae). Mono. graph No. 7, Flora Neotropic~ New York Botanical Garden, New York. Berg, C.C., R. W. A P. Akkermans, and E. C. H. van Heusden. 1990. Cecropiaceae: Coussapoa and Pourounug with an in- troduction to the family. Monograph No. 51, Flora Neotropioz New York Botanical Garden, New York. Brako, L. 1991. Pbyllopsora (Bacidiaceae). Monograph No. 55, Flora Neotroptctz New York Botanical Garden, New York Brunton, D.F., 1986. The HeHeborinc, h~/pactts belleborlne (Orchidaceae), in northern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 100:127-130. Buck, W~ R., and R. R Ireland. 1989~ Piaglotheciaceae. Mono- graph No. 50, Flora Neotropicta New York Botanical Garden, New York. Burgman, M. A., H. R Akcakaya, and S.S. Lowe. 1988. The use of extinction models for species conservation. Biological Con- servation 43:9-25. Cowan, ILS. 1968. $umrtz/a (Leguminosae, Caesalpinioideae Swartzieae). Monograph No 1, Flora Neotroptc~z Hafner Pub- lishin8 Company, New York. Cuatrecasas, J. 1970. Brunelliaceae. Monograph No. 2, Flora Neotrop/cat Hafner Publishing Company, Darien, England. Cuatrecasas, J. 1985. Bmnelliaceae. Monograph No. 2S, Flora Neotroptcc~ New York Botanical Garden, New York. Daniel, T. F. 1983. Carlowrigbtia (Acanthaceae). Monograph No. 34, Flora Neotrc~oictz New York Botanical Garden, New York. da Silva, M. F. 1986. Dtmorpbandra (Caesalpmiaceae). Mono- graph No. 44, Flora Neotroptc~z New York Botanical Garden, New York. Davis, S. D., S.J.M. Droop, P. Gregerson, L. Henson, C.J. Leon, J. L. Villa-Lobos, H. Syan_ge, and J. Zantovska. 1986. Plants in Co~ervation Biology Volume FI, No, 2, June 1994 Green G. M., and it W. Summan. 1990. i:)LA~ #'~ion hMamry (Wr Science 248~212-215. Gentry, editor. Poqn'* Neolrop~ {little,_ '- Ysle Urllverui~ Hsme~ B. lg~0. h!~g~mg~e~e. M~o~lph No. 23, N~Mtro/~ Navy Yodc ~ G~rden, New York. Hekkln~ W.H.A. tg~. Vtolaceae Pa~t I fmor~ and A~os~. ~ MMM:~rq~ No. 4~,/t/or~N~ New Yodc ranlad G~chn~ New !g~ma'teln~e. Motlg:~galsh No. 53, P~ N~o/po~ N~v Yori~ · ~l~n~l G~d~ Ne~v York. ~ I4. C P. 1~..ss~t~ (L~;_'mfr'uw~e: Mln_amal~l~e). Mogso~,q~ No. 4~, Fk~ N'~oO~c~f4~ New Yodt Botnnd~l New ¥og~. .k~ M,C,, and L,.V.A..~ms~o~. 1978..d~m~N~f, Mono- New York. r, msus, p.c. ~2. PUc~a,~ -- (nutacese). Mo~ol . ,,~ No. 33, ~'/or~ N'~ New Yodt ~otsntcnl Gm~len, Ng, w york Koqxavllz, H. 1992. A s~c model fbr rJ~e extinction of m:,piefJ orchids. Sdbymu l~,Z ts-..122. Kornm, j, 19~. JCul)ll:dd, K., find S. ~am'. 1982. I.,murKcmc 1 (,,tn~f, and A~). Moeub ,,~ No. ~1, ~{or, f Ndq)m)pdc~ New York Bo. 'L'm:d ~ New yot. L landturn, L it 1991. A Monoirlph ~ ~ ~ ~~ (My,, -'~e). M0o0jrqgl No. 29, J~lor~N~)~ N~wYogk noum~ni Gm~ Ne~wr Ycwk vebm8 & Mo. Z,.hmm I~N goopo~t, et al. L..ner, C A., 1975. The native orchids of the United States and Canada excluding Florida. New York Botanical Garden, New York Lugo, A. E. 1988. Estimatin8 reductions in the diversity of trop- ical forest apecies. Page 521 in E. O. Wilson, editor. Biodiver- airy. National Aoxlemy Presa, W~htngton, D.C. Luteyn, J. L 1983. Ericaceae. Part I. CavendLeb&a Monograph No. 35, Floro Neotropicta New York Botanical Garden, New York Maa$, p.J.M. 1972. Costoldeae (Ztngiberaceae). Monograph No. 8, Flora Neotroptcta Hafner Publishing Company, New York. Maas, p.j. 1977. Renealmla (Zingiberaceae-Zingiberoideae) Coatoideae (Additions) (Zingiberaceae). Monograph No. 18, Flora Neotroptcta New York Botanical Garden, New York. Maas, P.J.M., and T. Rubsamen. 1986. Triuridaceae. Mono- graph No. 40, Flora Neotropt~4z New York Botanical Garden, New York Maas, P.j.M., and P. Ruyters. 1986. Voyr/a and Voyrlella (Sap. rophytic Gentianaceae). Monograph No.. 41, FloraNeotropictz New York Botanical Garden, New York. Maas, P.j.M., H. Maaa-van de Kamer, J. van Benthem, H. CM. Snelders, and T. Rfibsamen. 1986. Burmanniaceae. Monograph No. 42, Flora Neotropicta New York Botanical Garden, New York Melilio, J. M., C. A. Palm, R. A. Houghton, G. M. Woodwell, and N. Myers. 1985. A comparison of two recent estimates of dis- turbance in tropical forests. Environmental Conservation 12:37-40 Molau, U. 1988. Scrophulartaceae. Part I. Calceolarieae. Mono- graph No. 47, F/ora Neotroptcta New York Botanical Garden, New York. Mori, S. A., and G. T. Prance. 1990. Lecythidaceae. Part iI. The Zygomorphlc-flowered New World Genera (Couroupttt~ Corythopbor~ Bertholletic~ Couratar~ Eschwetlera, and LecyH~/s). Monoffraph No. 21 (If), Flora Neotropic~z New 'forit Botanical Garden, New York. Morley, T. 1976. Memecyleae (Melastomataceae). Monograph No. 15, Flora Neotroptcta The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. Myers, N. 1980. Conversion of tropical moist forests. National Academy Sciences, Waahington, D.C. Myers, N. 1988. Tropical forests and their species: Going, go- ing... ? Pages 28-35 in E. E. Wilson, editor. Biodiversity. Na- tional Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Miyers, N. 1990. The biodtverslty challenge: Expanded hot- spots analysis. Environmentalist 10:243-256. Pealersen, H.B., and H. Balslev. 1990. Ecuadorian palms for a~lro-forestry. AAU Report 23. Botanical Institute of Aarhus U~Mversity, Nordlandsvej, Norway. Pennington, T.D. 1981. Meliaceae. Monograph No. 28, Flora Neotroptcta New York Botanical Garden, New York Pennington, T. D. 1990. Sapotaceae. Monograph No. 52, Flora Neotroptc~ New York Botanical Garden, New York. Perrier, H. 1941~t 49c Famille. Orchidees. VoL [.. Imprimerie Officielle, Antananarivo, Malagasy. Perrier, H 1941/~ 49e FamUle. Orchidees, Vol. II. lmprimerie Officielle, Antananarivo, Malagasy. Poppendieck, H. H. 1981. Cochloapermaceae. Monograph No. 27, Flora Neotropfcca New York Botanical Garden, New York. Prance, G.T. 1972a Chrysobalanaceae. Monograph No. 9, Flora Neotroptc~t New York Botanical Garden, New York. Prance, G.T. 1972b. Dichapetalaceae. Monogr-,qah No. 10, Flora Neotroptca Hafner Publishing Company, New York Prance, G.T. 1972c Rhabdodendraceae. Monograph No. 11, Flora Neotroptcc~ Hafner Publishing Company, New York Prance, G.T. 1977. 'Uhe phyto~eographic subdivisions of Am- azonla and their influence on the selection of biological re- serves. Pages 195-212 in G. T. Prance and T. S. Elias, editors. Extinction is forever. New York Botanical Garden, New York. Prance, G T. 1989. Chryaobalanaceae. Monograph 9S, Flora Neotroptc~ New York Botanical Garden, New York. Prance, G. T., and M. F. da Silva. 1973. Caryocaraceae. Mono- graph No. 12, Flora Neotropictt Hafner Publishing Company, New York Prance, G. T., and S. A. Mori. 1979. Lecythidaceae. Part I. The Actinomorphic--fiowered New World Lecythldaceae (Aster- antbo~ Gusta~t~ Gr&~ Allantom~ and Car~tana). Mono- graph 21, Flora Neotroptc~ New York Botanical Garden, New York Proctor, G. R. 1985. Ferns of Jamaica: A guide to the Pterido- phytes. British Museum of Natural History, London. Reid W~ V. 1992. How many species will there be? Pages 55- 74 in T. C. Whitmore and J. A. Sayer, editors. Tropical defor. estation and species extinction. Chapman and Hall, London, England. Rogers, G.K. 1984. Gleasont~ Henrt~ and Platyear. pure (Rubiaceae). 39, Flora Neotropicca New York Botanical Garden. New York. Rogers, D.J., and S. G. Appan. 1973. Manibog Mantbototdes (Euphorbiaceae). Monograph No. 13, Flora Neotroptcca New York Botanical Garden, New York Sayer, J. A., and T. C. Whitmorc. 1991. Tropical moist forests: Destruction and apecie$ extinctions. Biological Conservation 55:199-213. Conaervatton BioioRy Volume 8, No. 2, June 1994 No. 49, Sbnuner, H.O. 1980. F~a-- i'--,~e. Plt~&, ~ No. Ne,,m~.Mc-- NewYoek Bom~lc~ ~ Ne, w Y0eiL ~mer, H.O. 19e4. Olncnceae. More:1, p~ No. M, F/ora kdl~ LK, and ~.$. Do~n~ 1974. DUg~lmloldeng (BtamcU. mine). Mmo&. p~ No. 14, Pm'r 1, P,~m Nmem/,~.~ ~ Sinida, L.B., mtd R.J. Dowm. 1977. TIUandMoidene. Mo(~o- graph No. 14, Part 2, Jqora N~gm~Mc~ ~ Pre~ Ne~ Ycm'k. ~ LB., and ILJ. Dowrd. 1979. Bromelioideae (Bromeli- acene~ Mmmeraph No. 14, Part 3, p'lom Nsotn~O~ New Yoel[ Bounicnl Garb, n, New Thorne, B.Jr. 1973. ~ ret"r~oe*'~i belweess tropic31A,f- rlcs sad u*opicnl Areeric& Puges 2?-4? in B.$. MqSe~, E. S. Ayeam, ~ W. D. Ducwafih, editon. Trapicnl ix*era _~,,-'~_~ s- .e~-"~m:'-n ~ ~ W .... '~z~% D.C. Toda~ C.A. 1988. Chlov, m~are,:Hen~mm~m ~ NO. 48, P/ohs ~ New Yoit Botmicd Gsrdm, New Yoek. ~ E.O. 1~ t~ C~BIT~t ~ ~ ~]~l'~1 Pu~eo ~--18 in L O. Wlboa, editor. BdodlverMty. National Acnd- emy PTem, W .... %tcr. D.C. Wlfilmore T.C., ,red J.A. Sm/e~. 1992. D,,.~u~' ' t!on ami spe. Vedm,,m 8, No. 3,.Atom SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL SAGE SCRUB NATURAl. COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS GUIDELINF.,S Amended: November, 1993 California Department of Fish and Game and Ca!iform. ia Resources Agency 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 in Coordination with U.S~ Fish and Wildlife Service Contact: Larry L. Eng, PhD. Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program Manager Tel: 916-653-9767 Fax: 916-653-2588 02058 o TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................... 1.I 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1 Statutory Basis .................. '! Program Purpose ................. 1 Southern California CSS Program ........ 1 CSS Planning Area ................. 2 Enrollment During Planning Period ......... 2 NCCP Planning Guidelines ............. 3 NCCP and Endangered Species Act .......... 3 CSS NCCP PLANNING ................... 4 REGIONAL PLANNING ................... 4 3.1 State and Federal Wildlife Agency Coordination 5 3.2 Scientific Review Panel .............. 5 6 3.3 Program Enrollment ................ 3.3.1 General Enrollment ............. 6 3.3.2 Enrollment Equivalent on State and Federal Lands .................... 6 7 3.4 Non-Enrolled Land ................. 7 3.5 Subregional NCCP Focus Areas .......... 3.6 Ongoing Multi-Species Plans .......... 8 3.7 Regional Conservation Guidelines ......... 9 PROCESS FOR SECURING INTERIM APPROVALS FOR CSS HABITAT 9 LOSS ........................... 9' 4.1 Subregional. Responsibilities .......... 4.2 Local Agency Interim Habitat Loss Approvals .... 10 4.3 Interim Mitigation ................ 12 4.4 USFWS' Concu~rrence ................. 12 4.5 Termination of Interim Period ......... 13 SUBREGIONAL PLA~ING ................ 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 14 15 Planning Agreement ................ Plan Formulation ................. 15 Public and Agency Review ............. 15 implemenUing Agreemenu and Formal NCCP Approval 16 Environmental Documentation ............ 17 Public Participation ............... 17 Parallel Federal and State Permits 18 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............... 18 6.1 NCCPs Complete or Near Completion ........ 19 6.2 Areas Not Subject to a NCCP ............ 19 REFERENCES 7.1 Glossary 7.2 Literature 19 Attachment Ao Conservation Guidelines (November, 1993) 02059 SOUTW~RN CALIFORNIA COASTAL SAGE SCRUB NATURAL COMMUNITIES CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS GUIDELINES S~ry The Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Process Guidelines explain the roles of local, state, and federal government, and describe how the planning process will shift in focus from the regional to the subregional level. Background The program was established by state law, the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (Fish and Game Code Section 2800 et. seq.). The Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Program is the first such program developed under the law. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is the principal state agency implementing the NCCP Program. CDFG is working under the auspices of the Office of the Secretary of the Resources Agency on this pilot program. The Regional Coastal Sage Scrub Planning Area is roughly 6,000 square miles and includes parts of five counties: San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino. Numerous local jurisdictions and public and private landowners' are affected. Coastal sage scrub is an ecological community that supports a diverse assemblage of native California plants and animals. Human activity in this five-county area has reduced the extent of coastal sage scrub to the point where conservation action is crucial to prevent endangerment of many species. Regional Coordination, Subregional Planning Generally, the conservation program and the biological issues need to be coordinated across the five-county region. However, because the area is so large and because specific biological and land use planning considerations vary throughout the region, it is imperative that functional planning be conducted on a subregional scale. During the planning period, participants agree voluntarily to protect coastal sage scrub. habitat on enrolled lands and lands within their jurisdiction. The original enrollment agreements were scheduled to terminate on October 31, 1993. However, in order to enable jurisdictions to benefit from interim habitat loss provisions provided in the USFWS special rule for the California gnatcatcher [4(d) rule], all existing and new jurisdictional enrollments will be extended until the completion of the appropriate subregional NCCP or approved NCCP subarea unless a jurisdiction requests earlier termination of enrollment. Through regional planning efforts undertaken in 1992 and 1993, it is expected that some 10 to 15 functional subregional planning areas will be formed. Most of these areas are already 11/5/93 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUI.~?ELINES Page ii in some stage of planning; the rest will initiate planning in the future. Regional Phase The regional phase establishes the overall scientific and legal framework for subsequent subregional efforts. . o Establish state and federal cooperation through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). o Convene a Scientific Review Panel (SRP) of experts. o Collect scientific information'from land owners and jurisdictions for use by the SRP. o Identify subregional focus areas for subregional NCCPs. o Document ongoing multi-species conservation planning. o Provide interim habitat protection through landowner and jurisdiction enrollments and through CDFG protection of non-' enrolled land. o Establish interagency pta~ing, public participation and review process. o Establish regional scientific framework for subregional planning, including survey guidelines, target species, and conservation guidelines. Subregional Pl~ing Process The subregional phase is when actual decisions regarding conservation and development are made through a collaborative process centered on local government and meshing with the conventional land planning and CEQA process. Specific subregional NCCP planning begins with a Pl~ing Agreement between local jurisdictions, landowners, CDFG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as described in Section 2810 of the Fish and Game Code). This Agreement sets forth the NCCP process as it applies to the specific planning area. Mandatory elements of the Planning Agreement include: - map of the planning boundary, - identification of a lead or coordinating agency and other jurisdictions affected, - list of species cf concern to be addressed in the NCCP, - identification of parallel permits, if any (e.g., Federal Section 10(a)), and - public participation and public notice of plan preparation. Optional elements may include: extent of state and federal agency participation, - identification of land ownerships, - discussion of the specific extent of biological information, - specific survey methods to be used to fill data gaps, - other aspects germane to the specific NCCP subregion. ~1/5/93 02061 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page iii Subarea Plannin~.~ Agreements for implementation of portions of a subregional NCCP can be authorized, subject to acceptance by C7)FG and USFWS. o Collaborative planning commences under auspices of lead or coordinating agency with CDFG and USFWS providing ongoing guidance and with appropriate public participation. . Completed NCCP plan is published in Draft form along with appropriate CEQA and NEPA compliance documents (eg., program EIR, Joint state/federal EIR/EA or EiS). CDFG and USFWS comment along with members of the interested public during a set time period. Because they have been involved throughout the planning process, it is expected that CDFG and USFWS will be able to accept the plan. If they cannot, however, they' must identify specific changes to the plan that need to be made to meet requirements. Lead or coordinating agency finatizes plan. Lead or coordinating agency, CDFG, USFWS and other parties as appropriate enter into an Implementing Agreement. This agreement specifies all terms and conditions of activities under the NCCP plan. By signing the Implementing Agreement, CDFG and USFWS explicitly acknowledge approval of the Final NCCP plan. Lead or coordinating agency or other Implementing Agreement parties report activity under the plan routinely to CDFG and USFWS demonstrating compliance, as outlined in the Implementation Agreement. Federal Involvement and the Endangered Species Act The NCCP process does not supplant the endangered species protection of existing state or federal law. At present, only a few coastal sage scrub associated species, such as the coastal California gnatcatcher, are formally listed as endangered or threatened under either state or federal endangered species acts. By 'taking a comprehensive ecosystem approach to conservation it is hoped that the NCCPs will forestall endangerment of other coastal sage scrub species, thereby avcidin~ the necessity cf subsequent listings. If species become listed, or if an already listed species other than the California gnatcatcher is found in the NCCP area, the jurisdictions or landowners affected will still need to obtain a federal Section 10(a) or state Section 2081 permit for activities that would involve take of listed species. However, the NCCP is meant to meet the requirements of both a state Management Authorization and a federal Habitat Conservation Plan to allow issuance of the appropriate permits if they are needed. 02062 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statutory Basis The Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program is authorized by California law: the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (AB 2172), set forth in Secti6n 2800 et. seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. The Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) NCCP is the first such planning effort to be initiated under the Act. It is undertaken as a pilot project to develop a process for accelerated conservation planning at a regional scale which may serve as a model for other NCCPs elsewhere in the state. Because the CSS NCCP program is a pilot program for possible application elsewhere in California, it is sponsored jointly by the California Resources Agency and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Where these process guidelines refer to participation in agreements or other action by CDFG, it should be 'understood that for this program, this means both the Resources Agency and CDFG. Both state agencies are proceeding in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (See 12/4/91 MOU between CDFG and USFWS). 1.2 Program Purpose The purpose of the Natural Community Conservation Planning program is to provide for regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and growth. These goals will be achieved through implementation of a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) . The NCCP process is designed to provide an alternative to current "single species" conservation efforts by formulating regional, natural community-based habitat protection programs to protect the numerous species inhabiting each of the targeted natural communities. The shift in focus from single species to the natural community level will greatly enhance the effectiveness of ongoing species protection efforts. It is intended that NCCPs will result in land use plans and management programs for the long-term protection of designated habitats and their component species. The pIanning process will be carried out with the voluntary and collaborative participation of landowners, local governments, state and federal agencies, and environmental organizations. 1.3 Southern California CSS Program This program, the first of the State's NCCP projects, provides the direction and collaborative support necessary to conduct research, planning, and habitat management efforts leading to long-term conservation and protection of species in the coastal sage scrub community of southern California. 02063 11/5/93 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUI£~ELINES Page 2 According to the Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel (SRP), approximately 100 species (plants and animals) considered rare, sensitive, threatened, or endangered by Federal and State resource agencies are associated with coastal sage scrub. The array of sensitive species within the coastal sage scrub community that would potentially benefit from this initial NCCP process illustrates the rationale of the proposed shift in focus from species to the natural community. The SRP has identified three target species within the CSS (two birds: California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and one lizard: orange-throated whiptail} for detailed study. Information on these target species along with other natural community conservation guidelines will be used in planning individual subregional NCCPs. 1.4 CSS Planning Area The Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP pilot project creates a regional planning and management system designed to protect coastal sage scrub habitat and reconcile conflicts between habitat protection and new development within the Southern California study area. Although coastal sage scrub is found further north as well, the study area for the Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP project embraces portions of five counties: San Diego County; Orange County; Riverside County; San Bernardino County; and Los Angeles County (See SRP Special Report No. 2, '~Conservation Planning Region"). The five-county study area will be divided into several large planning subregions in order to minimize the inherent problems related to addressing the entire region in a single planning effort. These subregions will be designated by participating local jurisdictions, subject to approval by CDFG and based on the analysis provided by the SRP. Designated planning subregions will consist of large areas where the cumulative impacts of development on coastal sage scrub can be analyzed. These subregions also will be large enough, in terms of the presence of sufficient coastal sage scrub and associated natural habitat acreage and species diversity, to constitute effective habitat planning units. All NCCPs will be prepared and submitted by landowners and/or local jurisdictions to CDFG on a subregional basis. Some subregions may need to break down into smaller subaraeas for planning purposes. 1.5 Enrollment During Planning Period Planning for long-term management and protection of coastal sage scrub natural community will be initiated by participating landowners and local jurisdictions enrolled in the NCCP process. The purpose of enrollment is to: 1) protect "enrolled" coastal sage scrub habitat during the planning period, and 2) to initiate the collaborative planning process which will result in long-term habitat protection through an NCCP. The original enrollment agreements were scheduled to terminate on October 31, 1993. However, in order to enable jurisdictions to benefit from interim take provisions established in the USFWS special rule [4(d) rule], all existing and new jurisdictional enrollments will be extended until the completion CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page of the appropriate NCCP unless a jurisdiction requests earlier termination of enrollment. 1.6 NCCP Planning Guidelines Fish and Game Code Section 2825 authorizes the California Department of Fish and Game to prepare nonregulatory guidelines' that will facilita'=e and expedite the preparation and implementation of natural community conservation plans statewide. The guidelines are intended to improve understanding of the NCCP program among potential private and public participants, thereby encouraging early participation in NCCP process, increasing the effectiveness of the program, and ensuring that proposed plans will ultimately gain approval. CDFG seeks to use the CSS pilot project to direct its future effort on the statewide guidelines. The CSS NCCP Process Guidelines published here explain how the regional coordination effort will lead to individual subregional NCCPs. The Process Guidelines are referenced'by the enrollment agreements as a basis for voluntary participation. The Process Guidelines incorporate by reference the Conservation Guidelines developed by CDFG for the CSS program. 1.7 NCCP and Endangered Species Acts The NCCP process does not supplant the endangered species protection of existing state or federal law. At present, only a few coastal sage scrub associated species, such as the coastal California gnatcatcher, are formally listed as endangered or threatened under either state or federal endangered species acts. By taking a comprehensive ecosystem approach to conservation it is hoped that the NCCPs will forestall endangerment of other coastal sage scrub species, thereby avoiding the necessity of subsequent listings. The California gnatcatcher was listed by the USFWS as a threatened species on March 25, 1993. At the time the gnatcatcher was listed, the USFWS proposed a special rule under Section 4(d) cf the Endangered Species Act (ESA), that defined the conditions under which take of the gnatcatcher would not be considered a violation of Section 9 of the federal ESA. When the rule is finalized (anticipated in November, 1993), activities conducted in enrolled jurisdictions pursuant to the NCCP Guidelines (Process Guidelines and Conservation Guidelines) that will involve take of gnatcatchers will not result in violations of Section 9 of the ESA. Therefore, no Section 10(a) permit would be needed for take of gnatcatchers for these activities. If other species become listed, or if an already listed species is found in the NCCP area, the jurisdictions affected will still need the applicable federal Section 10(a) or state Section 2081 permit; however, the NCCP is meant to meet the requirements of bo~:h a state Management Authorization and a federal Habitat Conservation Plan to allow issuance of the CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 4 appropriate permits provided the approved NCCP has adequately addressed those particular species. 2. CSS NCCP PLANNING MILESTONES Both conservation and development community interests will . be well served by rapid progress on NCCPs. The overall program is intended to incorporate the following NCCP planning milestones. Local conditions will vary, and not all jurisdictions or subregions will be able to respond fully within -the suggested timeframes. Participants are encouraged to meet the targeted milestones for cited tasks and work products. NovemBer, 1993 CDFG publishes final NCCP Process Guidelines and Conservation Guidelines. -- USFWS publishes final special rule for the gnatcatcher. Initial jurisdictional enrollments are extended following final publication of the Section 4(d) special rule for the gnatcatcher. Nov~her, 1993 and continuing. -- Implement interim habitat loss provisions. -- CDFG evaluates NCCP program status and considers options for areas without completed plans. -- Monthly informational report by CDFG to the California Fish and Game Commission concerning NCCP program status. -- Periodic informational report by CDFG to the California legislature. -- Research undertaken to fill information. needs. -- Preparation, submittal, and review of NCCP plans. S,~ ......er, 1994. -- Completion of first NCCP plans. Fall, 1994. -- Approval of first NCCP plans. 3. REGIONA~ PLANI~ING Coastal Sage Sc~ habitat under study is scattered broadly over portions of a five-county area in southern California. While long term conservation will come about from specific subregional NCCPs, the scientific and procedural framework for the subregional plans will be established at a regional scale. CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 5 3.1 State and Federal Wildlife Agency Coordination Because both state and federal wildlife agencies have clear legal mandates to protect endangered species, both agencies have an interest in the natural community approach to conservation. The overall intent for state and federal coordination is expressed in the 12/4/91 MOU between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. On March 25, I993, the Secretary of Interior listed the coastal California gnatcatcher as a threatened species. At the time of the listing the Secretary proposed a special rule that strongly supported the NCCP efforts and would closely tie the NCCP program to federal actions under the Endangered Species Act. State and federal coordination will occur throughout the process, but focuses on four phases: Exchange of scientific information and cooperative review of recommendations from the Scientific Review Panel to assist CDFG in promulgating survey, subregion, conservation, and process guidelines that can be applied uniformly throughout the region and which will be consistent with both state and federal policies. b. Initiation of specific subregional NCCPs or acceptance of Ongoing Multi. Species Plans (see section 3.5)to make clear what requirements the plans must meet.. This includes a joint effort to establish criteria for review and ultimate acceptance of a subregional plan. This will allow subregional planning efforts to prepare a single conservation plan that will meet both state and federal requirements. Where appropriate, the CDFG and USFWS can accept delineation and planning of subareas within subregions, provided subareas adhere to and conform with the basic subregional goals and objectives. Subareas must contain a section that indicates how that subarea implements the larger subregional effort and integrates its preserve areas across subregional boundaries. c. Establishment of procedures, consistent with the 4(d) rule, for subregions to utilize during the interim, planning period including procedures for monitoring interim habitat loss. d. Cooperative review of draft plans to coordinate requested modifications, requirements for monitoring, issuance of parallel permits (if any), and compliance with CEQA and NEPA in a time matched to the local plan adoption process. 3.2 Scientific Review Panel By agreement between USFWS and CDFG in a MOU (12/4/91), CDFG established a Scientific Review Panel (SRP) for the CSS NCCP. 020G7 11/5/93 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 6 According to the MOU, .information and analysis undertaken by the SRP shall be presumed to constitute the best scientific information available until, and unless, further credible analysis and investigations show the contrary". The SRP is described in NCCP Special Report No. 1. The role of the SRP is to collect readily available data a~d to integrate the information into a region-wide scientific framework for conservation planning activities. The scientific framework is to be communicated via a series of recommendations regarding: scientific survey methods, appropriate focus areas for subregional planning, and region-wide conservation needs. The SRP recommended a conservation strategy in March 1993 to serve as a basis for the state's Conservation Guidelines. CDFG and USFWS staff worked with the SRP to prepare the draft Conservation Guidelines published in June, 1993 and revised in November, 1993. (See Attachment A). 3.3 Program Enrollment The success of the NCCP program relies on conservation and management of a high percentage of the currently remaining coastal sage scrub habitat. 3.3.1 General Enrollment Cities and counties are encouraged to participate in the NCCP process by entering into an enrollment agreement with CDFG, including commitments to the following standards for the duration of the collaborative planning period. Agreements may be modified to reflect special circumstances or individual needs upon approval by the Department. Jurisdictional enrollment provides for a cooperative effort to initiate actual long term NCCP planning. This includes sharing survey data and generally heightening awareness of the NCCP program in the jurisdiction. Because they were asked to enroll prior to preparation of the guidelines, enrotlees have the option to withdraw from the NCCP process if the guideilnes or subregion designations are not acceptable to the enrollee. ~owever, enrollment and active participation in subregional planning are integral to the interim take provisions of the special rule for the California gnatcatcher, 3.3.2 Enrollment Equivalent on State and Federal Lands S~bstantial CSS habitat occurs on state or federally owned land. Major examples are the Cleveland National Forest, Military facilities at NAS Miramar and Camp Pendleton, and the Chino Hills State Park. Some public lands are governed by law that precludes use of the same enrollment process that is available for local jurisdictions. 11/5/93 02068 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 7 Kowever, most such public land has an established internal program of research and land use evaluation that fulfills the same objectives as the formal enrollment process: heightened protection of CSS, ongoing research, and progress toward long term conservation planning. For the state's purpose of limiting CSS loss during the planning period and establishing subregional coordination among major landowners, the availability of a state or federal CSS management program comparable to the planning and habitat loss provisions of NCCP will be viewed as being commensurate with formal enrollment. 3.4 Non-Enrolled Land Land not enrolled through jurisdictional enrollments will still be subject to the requirements of CEQA and the federal Endangered Species Act. CEQA has a mandatory finding of significance wherever: "(a) The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, .." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15065) By that standard, most CSS habitat in the NCCP Program area is sensitive and could trigger these CEQA findings. Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species Act prohibits take of a listed animal. With the federal listing of the California gnatcatcher, much CSS is subject to federal protection. Without participation in the NCCP program, a jurisdiction issuing land use approvals that may result in incidental take of the California gnatcatcher may be in violation of federal law. Similarly, landowners who develop land or otherwise engage in activities that result in take without authorization from an enrolled jurisdiction would be in violation of the federal ESA. 3.5 Subregional NCCP Focus Areas The SRP reviewed information on distribution and made a preliminary recommendation of the large CSS habitat areas that should serve as focus areas for designation of subregional NCCPs. The draft focus area map and interpreting text was published in May 1992 and the final report was published in August 1992. It is expected that subregional NCCPs will attempt to delineate planning areas that include large, manageable CSS habitat and suitable peripheral corridor and buffer habitat areas. Corridor and buffer areas are likely to consist of habitats other than CSS. Generally, a subregional planning area should include all of a focus area, but it is recognized that 02069 11/5/93 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 8 some subdivision of focus areas may be needed to reflect jurisdictional and land ownership patterns. Regardless of how a NCCP subregion is drawn, the boundary will be approved by CDFG and USFWS in advance of actual planning when CDFG and USFWS enter into a Planning Agreement (see section 4.1). In the course of planning, the subregional plan will need to explicitly treat the need to integrate with CSS conservation needs outside of the immediate planning area by providing for corridors or other features that will improve region-wide habitat values. The focus areas identified by the SRP are by no means the only areas of CSS and associated habitats of potential conservation value. ft is intended that the subregional planning areas will be drawn broadly to encompass both large and small CSS habitat and areas which serve as corridors for interconnection between CSS habitats. With the possible exception of completely urbanized areas, the entire five-county CSS planning area will eventually be included in subregional CSS NCCPs. 3.6 Ongoing Multi-Species Pl~s The CSS planning area has several active, large-scale conservation planning activities that have similar form and content to a NCCP. These so-called Ongoing Multi-Species Plans (OMSP) can be accepted into the CSS NCCP process with little or no change. It is easy to consider a prior conservation planning activity as equivalent to enrollment or a Planning Agreement as a NCCP; ultimately, all plans -- whether NCCPs or OMSPs -- must meet the same standards for protection of coastal sage scrub habitat. For a conservation plan to qualify as an OMSP and be accepted as an NCCP, all of the following must hold: a o The planning effort was funded and was underway as documented by either a memorandum of understanding, an agreement, a statutory exemption, or other formal process at the time that the NCCP Act became effective (1/1/92). b. Yhe plan protects CSS habitat and/or contains an agreement for satisfactory mitigation for any CSS loss approved by CDFG pursuant to a prior planning effort, and the plan substantially achieves the objectives of the NCCP Act, meaning that the plan provides assurance that CSS habitat and named species will be protected to a degree substantially equivalent to an NCCP prepared under the guidelines. c. California Department of Fish and Game approves the plan and the plan meets CESA Section 2081 Management Agreement requirements for named species of concern. d. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves the plan and it provides the equivalent of federal ESA Section 10(a) habitat conservation plan requirements for named species of concern. 02070 11/5/93 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 9 ]Because an OMSP will have commenced before all NCCP guidelines were in place, an OMSP may differ in detail from the NCCP process described here. A qualifying OMSP may include, among other things: (1) Habitat and species in addition to CSS habitat. and species. (2) (3) Boundaries different from CSS subregions as long as the boundaries have been previously approved by CDFG and do not significantly impair the long-term opportunities for conserving CSS region-wide. Survey methodologies may differ from the SRP recommended guidelines as long as the methods used have been approved by CDFG. (4) Timing requirements may differ from the target milestones for the CSS NCCP. (s) The prior planning effort includes provision for CDFG participation in planning and reimbursement of CDFG expenses. (6) The prior planning effort may include provision. for USFWS participation in planning. 3.7 Regional Conservation Guidelines A central element of the regional CSS NCCP coordination is promulgation of a set of conservation guidelines. These guidelines will accelerate the planning process by providing subregions with a general set of scientific principles and preserve management tools. CDFG published draft Conservation Guidelines based on recommendations by the Scientific Review Panel. CDFG, after considering public comments, finalized the Conservation Guidelines in November, 1993.. 4. PROCESS FOR SECURING INTERIM APPROVALS FOR CSS HABITAT LOSS The following procedure is set forth to govern activities during the subregional planning phase, prior to completion of a subregional NCCP. These procedures are intended to allow local jurisdictions to benefit from the 4(d) rule. 4.1 Subregional Responsibilities A subregional planning process shall be established. This entails defining subregion boundaries, establishing a lead or coordinating agency, and executing a planning agreement among participating local governments,' private landowners, the lead or coordinating agency, CDFG, and USFWS. 11/5/93 02071 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 10 Consistent with these guidelines and the Conservation Guidelines, the subregional lead or coordinating agency shall: Establish base number of acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat in each subregion base~ on local maps from field surveys conducted according to the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) survey guidelines or on vegetation maps submitted in digital form approved by CDFG/USFWS; in any case the base number of acres shall not be less than that which existed on March 25, 1993, the date the gnatcatcher was determined to be a threatened species. (2) Calculate 5% estimate for interim habitat loss. (3) Establish interim habitat loss mitigation guidelines appropriate for each subregion. The guidelines shall seek to minimize project impacts to CSS habitat consistent with the Conservation Guidelines. The CDFG and USFWS must concur with these guidelines. Mitigation may be approved on a case by case basis prior to adoption of the guidelines. See section 4.3. (4) Keep a cumulative record of all approvals for "interim habitat loss," including adjustments of totals if approvals expire, to assure the 5% interim habitat loss guideline is not exceeded in the subregion. Interim habitat loss approval status should be forwarded to the USFWS at least once a month. 4.2 Local Agency Interim Habitat Loss Approvals Applications for interim habitat loss permits are limited to projects proposed to proceed with grading in the near term. Habitat loss permits may be conditioned on payment of applicable development fees, including any miuigation fees. Any inuerim habitat loss approval shall expire if substantial site work or other site development activities have noc commenced within one year from the permit issuance. The application for interim habitat loss must be submitted to the local jurisdiction with entitlement responsibility for the associated project. c. Applications should include a mitigation plan which is justified as appropriate to the proposal. Projects impacting intermediate and high value CSS habitat should involve USFWS early in planning stages to avoid unnecessary delays during the final approval process. Development decisions having a substantial adverse impact on 11/5/93 n2071 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page I1 high value habiuat should be deferred until completion of the NCCP, if possible. Impacts to high value areas will require, and impacts to intermediate habitat may require, special mitigation. Impacts in higher value areas must demonstrate that the loss will. not foreclose future reserve planning options as stated in the Conservation Guidelines.. e o Local agencies may determine specific application and process requirements, provided that interim' habitat loss requests are integrated into the regular project entitlement process as much as possible and public notice and opportunity for public comment is provided according to law prior to the final decision by the local agency· California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, consistent with applicable requirements of state law, will be undertaken by the local agency to provide an appropriate level of analysis in order to make the required findings. (1) If the project proposed for interim habitat loss has already obtained final CEQA approval, the local government will determine whether the CEQA document addressed potential CSS impacts and potential impacts on gnatcatcher populations and minimized and mitigated the impacts to the gnatcatcher. If the local jurisdiction determines that the project impacts have not been mitigated consistent to the above standards then the p]roject must meet mitigation requirements of 4.3. (2) If no CEQA review has previously been undertaken, then CEQA review shall be necessary, consistent with current law, and the project must meet the mitigation requirements of 4.3. To approve an interim habitat loss application, the local agency must make the following findings, based on the information obtained pursuant to Section 4.1,2 above and the applicable CEQA review: (1) The proposed habitat loss is consistent with the interim loss criteria in the Ccnservation Guidelines and with any subregional process if established by the subregion. (a) The habitat loss does not cumulatively exceed the 5% guideline. (b) The habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values. (c) The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the subregional NCCP. (d) The habitat loss has been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with 4.3. 02073 11/5/93 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 12 (2) The habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of listed species in the wild. (3) The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities~ Projects meeting these criteria may be prioritized based on the likelihood of imminent development or which otherwise provide significant public benefit. The project and the draft findings for the interim habitat loss approval proposed by the local government shall be made available for comment to the subregional lead or coordinating agency, CDFG, USFWS, and the public at least 45 days prior to the local agency action on the proposed project and findings. 4.3 Interim Mitigation Project design must be consistent with the Conservation Guidelines and with any. guidelines adopted by the subregion and concurred with by the CDFG and USFWS and must, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize habitat loss. Prior to the adoption of subregional guidelines, local agencies may approve mitigation on a case by case basis as long as it is consistent with the conservation guidelines. Any impacts to the coastal sage scrub habitat and the target species must be mitigated to insignificant levels as required by the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) by using one or more of the following options: o o o o o o o Acquisition of habitat Dedication of land Management agreements Restoration Payment of fees Transfer of development rights Other mitigation measures approved in writing by CDFG and USFWS.) Appropriate mitigaticn must be identified in a mitiqation plan prepared by the applicant. The applicant must demonstrate capacity for funding appropriate mitigation and the mitigation must be legally assured. Habitat acquisition and set asides should occur in areas with long-term conservation potential. 4.4 USVWS Concurrence a. Once a local agency has completed its review and approval, it shall notify the subregional lead or coordinating agency. The subregional lead or coordinating agency shall review the interim habitat loss approval to confirm that it does not exceed the 5% habitat loss guideline or prejudice the preparation and implementation of the subregional NCCP. The subregional agency shall /5/93 02074 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 13 communicate its findings in writing to the appropriate local agency within 15 days after receipt of local agency notification. b o Within 5 days of receiving subregional agency confirmation, the local agency shall post public notice of. its decision and notify CDFG and USFWS of its actions and findings, including the findings by the subregion. Notification of CDFG and the USFWS shall include project and biological information, including the mitigation plan, and delineate the location of the boundaries of the subject project on a 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map. C o USFWS, in close coordination with CDFG, shall review the project for consistency with the Conservation Guidelines and any approved subregional habitat loss mitigation guidelines. If the USFWS concludes the project, as approved and mitigated, is inconsistent with the Conservation Guidelines or any approved subregional mitigation guidelines, the California State Supervisor shall notify the local approving agency within 30 days of receipt of the notice. Within 60 days after notification of inconsistency, the USFWS, after consultation with CDFG, shall provide recommendations for modifying the project or mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency(ies). Once USFWS has provided notice under this section, and until it concurs that the project as modified. is consistent with the Conservation Guidelines and mitigation guidelines, the project may not proceed. Once the USFWS, the approving agency, and the project proponent agree that there are no longer inconsistencies, the project can proceed. If no notification is provided by the USFWS within 30 days, the proposed habitat loss shall be deemed approved and may proceed as approved by the local agency. 4.5 Tez-mination of Interim Period a. Upon the approval of an NCCP by the USFWS and CDFG, (see section 5.4) the interim period in the subregion shall terminate and the rules for interim habitat loss shall be replaced by the "Habitat loss Provisions" of the approved NCCP plan withit the geographic area governed by the NCCP. b. As required. under the provisions of' the Section 4 (d) rule for the gnatcatcher, the USFWS shall monitor the implementation of the Conservation Guidelines and the NCCP Process Guidelines to ensure that the implementation of both sets of guidelines are effective in progressing towards meeting regional and subregional conservation objectives. Such monitoring will occur every six months. If, 'during its review of the implementation of the guidelines, the USFWS determines that either the Conservation Guidelines or the Process Guidelines are no longer effecting adequate progress towards meeting regional and subregional conservation objectives, the USFWS shall consult with the Department to seek appropriate modificatJ. on of the Guidelines and/or their 02075 11/5/93 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELIArES Page 14 implementation. If appropriate modification of the guidelines does not occur the USFWS shall publish a public notice of its intention to revoke the provisions of the special rule on a subregional or subarea basis. Following receipt of public comments, the USFWS shall publish its determination. . 5. SUBREGIONAL PLAlqlqING The actual conservation planning will be conducted within ten to fifteen subregions. The NCCP process is intended to give flexibility to each subregional effort to reflect local conditions while adhering to fundamental regional conservation principles. To expedite completion of NCCPs the program is designed to: encourage maximum cooperation between landowners, local governments and conservation interests during the preparation of NCCPs; and encourage local government participation by allowing local governments to adapt the NCCP process to their exisring administrative processes relating to plan preparation, public participation, public hearing, and environmental review. With these broad goals in mind, the local government process leading to preparation and approval of subregional NCCPs should be compatible with the following steps: so Local governments and landowners will cooperate in designating NCCP subregions of sufficient size and diversity to meet the CDFG Conservation Guidelines and to be effective long-term habitat management units pursuant to Fish and Game Code (Section 2800 et. seq.). b o Participating local governments and agencies will enter into a Planning Agreement with CDFG and USFWS to establish a coordinated subregional NCCP preparation and decision-making process that effectively involves enrolled participants, and the public. Public participation shall be at least equivalent to that provided by existing ordinances, hearings, public notice requirements and laws. C · Landowners~, conservation interests, and appropriate local government agencies, in consultation with the Resources Agency, CDFG, and USFWS, will formulate a conservation plan. This NCCP will satisfy all applicable requirements of the California ESA, the Federal ESA, CEQA and NEPA. Pursuant to the Planning Agreement, the principal affected local government agency will act as the initial lead or coordinating agency for CEQA purposes, and for any actions necessa~ to assist USFWS compliance with NEPA. 11/5/93 02076 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELIiVES Page 15 e o After public and agency review, the plan will be finalized and serve as the basis for an Tmplementing Agreement between involved parties and CDFG and USFWS. 5.1 Planning Agreement Specific subregional NCCP begins with a Planning Agreement between local jurisdictions, landowners, CDFG and USFWS (as described in Section 2810). This Agreement sets forth the NCCP process as it applies to the specific planning area. Mandatory elements of the Planning Agreement include: o map of the planning boundary, o identification of a lead or coordinating agency and other jurisdictions participating or affected but not participating, o list of target species and any other species of concern to be addressed in the NCCP, o identification of parallel permits, if any (eg., Federal Section 10(a) for a listed species other than the California gnatcatcher), o identify affected state and federal land ownerships, o identify any other habitat conservation plans or multi- species conservation plans completed or underway in the area affected, o schedule for plan preparation, public review, and agency approval, o public participation and public notice of plan preparation. Optional elements may include: o extent of state and federal agency participation, o funding for plan preparation and for local government or public participation, o identification of land ownerships, o discussion of the specific extent of biological information, o specific survey methods to be used to fill data gaps, and o provisions for coordinating with other subregions, the CDFG, and the USFWS to accommodate, where appropriate and consistent with the Conservation Guidelines, the exchange of conservation, development, and mitigation lands/credits across subregional boundaries. (Such transfers would not reduce the standards that the subregions must meet to obtain approval of their' respective NCCP plans.) o other aspects germane to the specific NCCP subregion. 5.2 Plan Formulation Collaborative planning commences under auspices of lead or coordinating agency with CDFG and USFWS providing ongoing guidance and with appropriate public participation. 5.3 Public and Agency Review The local lead or coordinating agency will review the proposed NCCP in accordance with existing local administrative/regulatory procedures and with the provisions of 02077 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 16 the Planning Agreement. The lead or coordinating agency then publishes the completed NCCP plan in Draft form along with CEQA compliance document. The Draft NCCP will be reviewed by CDFG and USFWS along with members of the interested public during a set time period. In reviewing and approving the subregional NCCPs, CDFG, in coordination with USFWS, will employ the Conservation Guidelines concerning habitat needs, species distribution and abundances, and other biologic considerations. As an additional part of its review and approval, CDFG will apply the provisions of Fish and Game Code Section 2081 to determine whether the NCCP provides a level of protection for named species, whether formally listed or not. USFWS, in coordination with CDFG will apply the provisions of Section 10(a) of the Federal ESA and make findings whether the draft subregional NCCP meets the criteria for issuance of a Section 10(a) permit pursuant to the Federal ESA for any named species, whether formally listed or not. The California Department of Fish and Game will consult administratively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding acceptability of the draft NCCP. If CDFG and USFWS approve of the NCCP, the lead or coordinating agency will be notified to submit the Implementing Agreement for action. Because the agencies have been involved in the planning, it is expected that the plan will be acceptable. If however CDFG and USFWS cannot accept the NCCP as drafted, the agencies shall prepare a written report within 60 days outlining the reasons for rejecting the NCCP, and suggested modifications that would result in acceptance of the NCCP. This report will be submitted to the local lead or coordinating agency for review and action. Because CDFG and USFWS will generally be routinely consulted during NCCP preparation, rejection of a completed plan is likely only if the agencies advice was not followed. 5.4 Imple~nenting Agreement and Formal NCCP Approval Upon receipt of public comment and the results of CDFG and US~WS review, lead or coordinating agency fina!izes plan. The lead or coordinating agency, CDFG, USFWS and other parties as appropriate enter into an Implementing Agreement (described in Section 2810 of the Fish and Game Code). This agreement specifies all terms and conditions of activities under the NCCP plan. By signing the Implementing Agreement, CDFG and USFWS explicitly acknowledge approval of the Final-NCCP plan and declare that the NCCP meets the requirements of a state Management Agreement or a federal Habitat Conservation Plan, respectively, to allow issuance of appropriate permits for target or other named species, should those species become listed. The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act does not establish a specific permit process for NCCPs. The CDFG and 02078 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 17 USFWS participation in the Implementing Agreement is the only formal "approval" process. 5.5 Environmental Documentation Pursuant to the Planning Agreement entered into by local governments and CDFG, the environmental impact report (EIR) for'a subregional NCCP will be prepared as a "Program EIR" in accordance to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. As provided in the CEQA Guidelines, the preparation of a Program EIR will avoid duplicaUive reconsideration of basic policy considerations and ensure consideration of the cumulative effects of planned development and other actions provided in the subregional NCCP. Funding for preparation of the NCCP EIR will be the responsibility of the lead or coordinating agency as is the case for any other EIR. At the start of a NCCP, the Planning Agreement will make explicit the extent of federal involvement and agency obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will be assessed. As appropriate, the NCCP lead or coordinating agency will provide documentation to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in NEPA compliance. Both state and federal law allow for preparation of a joint state/federal environmental document. Once the Program EIR for a subregional NCCP is certified and becomes final and the NCCP is approved by local governments and CDFG, mitigation for impact on designated species from developments provided within the NCCP will be those specified in the NCCP and any subsequent Implementation Agreement. The limitation of mitigation measures is subject to the "unforeseen circumstances" provisions of the Planning Agreement and CEQA provisions. 5.6 Public Participation Public participation is essential to the ultimate success of both the Natural Community Conservation Planning process and the actual NCCPs that result. from the process. The process seeks to ensure cooperation between landowners, public agencies, and other public/private interests to facilitate early coordination of planned habitat management efforts and to maximize efficient use and protection of habitat and economic resources. This participation will be established as appropriate to each subregion and could include noticed hearings, public workshops, formal advisory committees or other activities. The collaborative planning process envisioned as a part of the NCCP program relies on participation by a wide range of private citizens. Landowners. The NCCP process will require the broad-based support of private landowners. As described in the Enrollment Guidelines, participating landowners enter into agreements with the Resources Agency and Department of Fish and Game and are encouraged to cooperate with local governments to develop 02079 11/5/93 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 18 subregional NCCPs for the jurisdiction or NCCP subregion in which the property is located.. Conservation Organizations. Several statewide conservation organizations and numerous local environmental interest groups are involved in CSS species preservation efforts. While the exact role of conservation organizations will vary according to' the needs of each subregional NCCP effort, it is important to recognize these organizations as a major constituency for conservation decisions as well as a significant source of scientific information and as a possible future land steward in plan implementation. Other Private Interests. The NCCP will potentially affect many other private interests, particularly those associated with the construction industry (builders and labor), agriculture, recreation, tourism, and public utilities. CDFG should be contacted by any concerned group to obtain the identity of the subregional NCCP lead or coordinating agency for their area. 5.7 Parallel Federal and State Permits A variety of state and federal laws may apply to the area subject to a subregional NCCP. Inasmuch as any other law affects land planning and conservation issues, it is desirable that the NCCP anticipate these requirements so as to minimize conflicting purposes. For example, if a NCCP planning area contains other sensitive habitats, such as riparian or vernal pool, the NCCP can provide for conservation of these other habitats, even though the other habitats are not elements of the southern California coastal sage scrub community and their conservation would not be required to meet the Conservation Guidelines for a CSS NCCP. In particular, tlhe NCCP process does not supplant the endangered species protection of existing state or federal law. If other species become listed, or if an already listed species is found in the NCCP area, the jurisdictions affected may still need the applicable federal Section 10(a) or state Section 2081 permit if they propose activities that would result in take of a listed species. The Planning Agreement used to initiate a subregional NCCP will acknowledge that the conservation plan under preparation will be designed to meet the requirements of state and federal peruits and when complete and accepted by CDFG and USFWS through an Implementing Agreement, will be the basis for issuance of relevant pe~i[s. 6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION During 1992 and 1993, the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning process focused on initia~ing a broad series of subregional activities. Eventually, the interim planning period will pass and CDFG will need to evaluate the status of regional/subregional planning efforts. ' The NCCP process outlined in these guidelines will lead to a series of subregional plans progressing at different rates. CDFG and USFWS will monitor progress by each subregion and evaluate biological conditions in the focus areas that are not formally 02080 11/5/93 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 19 incorporated in a suDregional planning effort. The objective of monitoring and evaluation is to confirm satisfactory progress on NCCP planning and assure protection of CSS habitat. 6.1 NCCPs Complete or Near Completion Each subregional NCCP will be implemented through an agreement that specifies monitoring, reporting and enforcement requirements. Regionwide monitoring and subregional reporting will enable the California Department of Fish and Game to assess the overall status of the CSS community and its constituent species. If conservation goals are not being achieved, this assessment will be the basis for CDFG action to enforce provisions of the Implementing Agreement or may be the basis to find that unforeseen circumstances warrant additional conservation actions~ 6.2 Areas Not Subject to a NCCP In some areas no jurisdiction or landowner may be willing to come forward to initiate planning. Unfortunately, lack of adequate planning may jeopardize conservation activities elsewhere in the region. In these places, CDFG and USFWS will appraise the extent of threat to CSS and initiate long term conservation actions for CSS and constituent species if warranted. This may include requesting the Fish and Game Commission to list one or more CSS species as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. 7. REFERENCES 7.1 Glossary The following terms and abbreviations are used in this document: CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game. For the purposes of the Southern California CSS NCCP Program, the Department is working in close coordination with the Office of the Secretary of the Resources Agency. In these Process Guidelines, references to partic±pation by CDFG generally means joint participation with the Rescurces Agency. CSS: Coastal Sage Scrub: plants and animals. A natural community comprising CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act: Sets requirements for environmental review (Environmental Impact Reports) by local and state government of a wide range of public and private projects. CESA: California Endangered Species Act. ESA: Federal Endangered Species Act. 02081 11/5/93 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 20 HCP: Habitat Conservation Plan: A plan required in support of a federal Section 10(a) permit under the federal ESA. MOU: NCCP: Memorandum of Understanding: A common form of formal agreement between government agencies. Natural Community Conservation Plan: Usage here is that the abbreviation NCCP generally refers to a plan authorized pursuant to the Natural Communities Conservation Platting Act. OMSP: Ongoing Multi-Species Plan: A term applied to subregional conservation efforts already underway that will function as the equivalent of a NCCP if the NCCP standards are applied. Section 4(d): A section of the federal ESA that allows special rules to apply to a species listed as threatened. Can specify the conditions allowing incidental take. Section 10(a): A section of the federal ESA that governs issuance of a permit to allow incidental take of a listed endangered species. Section 2081: A section of CESA that governs take of listed endangered species. Special Rule: See Section 4(d) , above. US FWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 7.2 Literature The following references are cited in the text or provide additional relevant information. Copies of any of these can be obtained from the Resources Agency or from the CDFG Coastal Sage Scrub Project Coordinator. California Fish and Game Code: Department of Fish and Game, Chapter I0. Natural Community Conservation Planning, 1991. Federal Register March 26, 1993. as Threatened Listing California Gnatcatcher Federal Register July 20, 1993. Proposed 4(d) rule for Threatened California Gnatcatcher. Memorandum of Understanding By and Between The California Department of Fish and Game and The United States Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning in Southern California, December 4, 1991. Memorandum of Understanding by and Between The Irvine Company and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding the Advance 02082 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 21 Habitat Conservation Plan for The California Gnatcatcher, Cactus Wren, and Orange-Throated Whiptail Lizard, April 16, 1992. Natural Community Conservation Planning/Coastal Sage Scrub, An NCCP Special Report No. 1, Dennis Murphy, Acting Chair, Scientific Review Panel, February 1992. Natural Community Conservation Planning/Coastal Sage Scrub, An NCCP Special Report No. 2, John O'Leary, Dennis Murphy, and Peter Brussard, Scientific Review Panel, March 1992. United States Marine Corps Regarding: Proposed Regn~lations for Establishment of Habitat Protection Areas, Letter June 17, 1992. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Interim National Conservation Planning Guidelines, July 30, 1990. These guidelines have been adopted by the Department of Fish and Game on this /~ day of November, 1993. q~d Gibbons Director Department of Fish and Game 11/5/93 · ' 02083 SENSITIVE SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH SO UTHEIIN CA~n=OR-NL~ COASTAL SA~E SCRUB TO BE CONSIDFRED BY TH~ SCIEVI"I~C Rh-V~EW BANhi. California horned lark (ErernFhita alposiris actia) Southern Cali/ornia rufous-crowned sparrow (AirnaphiIa ruficeps ca~escens) Bell's sage sparrow (Arnphispiza bdli belh3 Tricolored blackbird (A getaius tricolor) San Diego horned Ezard (Phrynesoma coronaturn blainville~3 Coastal western whip~tI (Cneraidophorus tigris multiscutatus) San Diego banded gecko (Cole. orry~ ~ariegatus abbottO Coronado sld. rtk (Eurnec~ skiltoniaaus interparietMis) .. Red-diamond ratttesrmke (C. rotMus tuber) Coast patc~onosed saake ($alvadora hc.z~epis virgultea) Coastal rosy boa (Lichamzr~ tri~rgata rosafusca) Southwestern pond .tin'fie (C1ermmjs marinorata pallida) Westera spade/oot toad (Seaphiopu.s hammond£fi Arroyo southwestam toad (Bufo micrascaphus pacificus) Arroyo c~ub (Gila Santa ~ s~acker (Catostomus saata. anae) So= BernardSrio ~.garoo rat (Dipoaamys merriam~ parma) 5~ephens kangaroo rat (Dipodamys .Southern grasshopper mouse (Ony&omys torrid~s rataorta) Dutzara Califomia .pocket mouse (perognath~ cal~fornicus Pacific pocket mouse (perognatlms Iongimembris pacificms) Los Axtgeles podcet mouse (p erognathus Iongimembris Northwest~-m San Diego pocket mouse CPerognathus PaLlid San Diego pocket mouse (perognat//ms falIa~ pallidus) River~de f~iry shrimp ($treptoc~hdus woottonfi San Diego f'airy shrimp CSra=c. hi~ecta Qu~o check~ butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Hermes copper buttery (Lyca~a hames) D~ skipper (EuFhy~ ve~'rS.s '¥uc~ too& (Tzgerica~a ~-uccasd.,'z) PLAb.~S: San Diego thorn mint (Acanthor=i:fl~a iHdfoIi:) ~lifo~a adolp~a ~dolphia ~tffornica) Sha~s a~ve ~gave shawiO Mu~s onion ~Ilium . ~imb~atum var. munziO San Diego bur~ge (Ambrosia ~enopodiifolia) San Diego arnbrosL~ (Ambrosia pumila) Aphartisrrta (Apha,~isma blito~d~) ~n ~o sag~O~ ~.rt~isia Br~on's ~k vet~ ~tragat~ Dee'S ~ vet~ Plummer's bac~ (Bacchar~ Golden~oin~ cere~ (B~g~O~us Ned'S ~e~a (B~ckdlia n~niD ~a ma~sa ~jly (C~tochor~ O~ge Co~ ms:ff~sa ~ly (CalochortuS weedii va~ intermedius) Payson(s jewe~oW~ (CauIanthus simuIa~) Orca~s sp~ower (Chori~nthe or~ttiana) San Fem~do V~tey ~ineflower p~s ~eflower (~o~zanthe pa~i vat. ~a d~a (Core~F's~ ~riti~) fiia~nifolia v~n incaria) ~ego's~d ~t~ (Cor~hro~e linifolia) ~ · (Cor~hro~e fitaginifoI~ va~ W~t~ ffi~°n&~z (Dichondra octiSomil) Slender-horned ~ower (Do~h~a I~toc~) ~s du~eys (D~Iqa atte~ ~' or~tti~ Blo~an's du~ ~udI~a blo~iae ~' ovatifolia) ~o~leaved du~.eys ~udI~a ~atifolia)' ~y~~ du~eya (Dudlqa multi~uI~) Cone'o dudleye (Du~a p~a) . tonif~a) Bright ~n dudley~ S6~ky dudleys S~m Ana ~v~ w~llys~ (E~t~m ' ~ocatum) Cone~ buckheat (Erigonum Su~ent w~ow~ (E~si~m ~ ~ge (Euphnrbi~ mis~a) San Dido b~e~ ~ (F~ocact~ viaduct) Otay t~iant C;~emizonia conjugens) San~ S~ana Mountai~ ~lant Da~on's Nevin's baF~T (Mahonia Willowy mon~rdeHa (MonardelIa [inoid~ P~ngte's monazde~a (Monarddla 02085 San Diego goldenstar OMuilla cl~,vlandi~ Snake cholla ( 0I~:~tia parryi var. scr~entina) Short-lobed broo~:wape {Orabanr. ht IJarishi£ ssp- brachyloba) Greene's ground-cherry CPhysa//s gre. rnd) Coulter's mantilija poppy ORaranrya coulteri) Small-leaved rose (Rosa minutifolia) Munz's sage (Salvia murzzi~ Crown beard (V~rbesina dissita) San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata) 02086..... ...... FEDERAL' AGENCIES Jerry Boggs U.S. Navy Slader Buck MCB Camp Pendleton Lyn Creswell Department of Navy Dick Crowe Bureau of Land Mgmt Linda Dawes US Fish & Wildlife Svc Richard Frank Attorney General's Off Corelle Hull U S Navy Miramar Gall Koberich US F & W Ron Lard MCAS Larry McKenney U.S. Marine Corp Cliff Meyers Marin Corp Base Dave Riley US F&W Jeff Opdycke U.S.F. &W Jacqueline E. Schafer Asst Secretary of the Navy Carol Schultz US F & W Mike Scout Naval Air Station Miramar P.D. Willaims Marine Corps Air Base NCCP MAILING LIST STATE/ LOCALAGENCIES Jerry Backoff City of San Marcos Barbara Bamberger City of Chula Vista 3im Barnes City of San Clemente Glenn Black Ca Dept of Fish & Game David Acuff City of San Marcos Mary Lee Balko City of San Diego Gary Barberio City of Imperial Beach Robert Asher County of San Diego Joe Babb County of San Diego Carl Boyer City of Santa Clarita Marina Brand County of San Diego Job Brindle City of Escondido Paul Bussey Cry Rancho Palos Verdes Mark Cano City of Escondido Tracy Cline County of San Diego Tim Davy Clean Water Program Kay Ceniceros Riverside County Rikki Alberson Baldwin Company Jean Andrews Andrews &Associates Carolyn Avelos Phil Behrends Dudek & Associates Fred Bosselman Chicago Kent Law School Rick Alexander Cnsultnts Collaborative Jeff Arthur Dangerman &Associates Peter Aylward LME Investors George Basye Shell Western E6~ Inc. Craig Beneville Earth First! Bill Boyd Howard Rice Craig Adams Sierra Club Ed Almanza Almanza & Associates Art Zalourdas Helix Companies Terry Baker Cnsultnts Collaborative Michael Beck EHL Scott Bie Lute Forward 02087 Emily Howard Co of S.D., Planning & Land Use Charlie Grimm CiTy of Escondido Lauren Hall Cal trans Susan Hamilton City od S.D., CUP Michael Holzmiller CiTy of Carlsbad, Planning Dept. Gordon Howard City of Chula Vista Nancy Gilbert USF~S Marie Herbrandson City of Rancho Palos Verdes Andrew Horan Orange Co. Register AnnetTe Hubbell Officer of Senator Dave Kelly Michael Holzmiller City of Carlsbad Jeanne Eggenberger Sauls Company Leonard Frank Pardee Construction Co' Pete DeSimone Natl Audubon Society Bill Dougherry Buena Vista Audubon Bill Dumks Rick Engineering Robert E. gikel Eikel & Co Pam Engebretson Southwest Diversified Richard Friesen BioDiversiry Assoc Mark Dillon Terri Eagan MBA Laura Eisenberg Gordon Howard City of Chula Vista Sandy Holder City. of Oceanside Emily Howard County of San Diego Loren Kaye Govenors Office Cabine~ Secretary Joan Kouns County of San Diego e Fisher Los Encinitos Heritage Conservancy Monica Florjan The Irvine Company I Allen Franz Marymont Palos Verdes College Bill Geyer Geyer Associates Dr. Michael Gilpin U.C. San Diego Tara Wood U S F&W Tom Wright U.S. Navy NAS Miramar Dick Zembal US F&W Larry R. Sal~.ata US F&W Ron Woychak & Helen Ham£1ton U.S. Forest Service Sandra Cleisz City of San Diego Susan Cochrane Ca Dept of Fish & Game Jack Doyle San Diego Assoc of Govs Larry Eng Ca Dept of Fish & Game Anne Ewing County Planning Marry Bohl Gray Cary Eileen Brown Siemon, Larsen & Marsh Rod Cameron Baldwin Company Jim Carter Envrnmtl Land Sol Vin Ciruzzi Home Capital U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles, CA Dept. of Agriculture Forest SErvice San Francisdco,Ca Claudia FitzpatrickAnzures County Counsel Dan Fox City of Tustin Bill Cleves Mission Trails P.P. W.A. Colton III Arvida Katherine Mazaika San Francisco,Ca Robert Frazee State Capitol Brian Daniels 'P&D Ernmn=al Services San Bernardino County San Bernardino, CA Janet Fairbanks SANDAG Elizabeth Brown, PhD Laguna Greenbel~ Inc. Honorable Pete Wilson Sacramento,Ca R. David Flesh Clean Water Program Jim Carter Envrnmtl Land Solutions Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles, CA Kit Fox City of Dana Point David Claycomb Helix Environmental 02089 Bureau of Indian Affairs Riverside, CA California Dist Office Riverside, CA Mr. Gregg Lines, Chief San Diego, CA District Manager Cleveland National Forest Rancho Bernardo, CA U.S. Border Control San Diego, CA John Douglas City of Newport Beach Marla Cone Los Angeles Times Michael U. Evans County of San Diego Ken Frank City of Laguna Beach Bill Fulton Ca Plng& Der Report Mary Gale Ca Dept of Fish and Game Keith Great CiTy od S.D., PlanninE Departman[ Caroline Haigh Resources Agency Joan Herskowitz Co of S.D., Planning & Land Use Sandy Holder CiTy of Oceanside Richard Broming Santa Margarita Co Dr. Peter Brussard Univ of Nevada Constance Byram McMillin Communities Jean Carr PEGON Sam Couch Hunsaker &Associates Donna Damson Zoolgcl Soc of S D Claire T. Dedrick Julie Dillon Roberts Dillon Development' 02090 Jeff Lovich Bureau of Land Management North Palm Spr, CA Bob Leiter City of Chula Vista Claude A. Lewis City of Carlsbad Craig Jones City of Encinitas Brian Loew County of Riverside Dana Halle Siemon, Larsen & Marsh Tom Van Voorst · Building IndctstyAssoc. of Riverside Co. Marianne Gallagher Preston Gibson Coscan/Stewart Partnership Michael Gonsalves Uet=ieri-McIntyre Thomas Mathews County of Orange John McTaggart, Mayor City of Rancho Palos Verdes Dan McCorquodale, Senator State Capitol, Sacramento, CA Tim Neely~ Mgr County of Orange Marie McGowan City of Escondido Marty Meisler Metropolitan Water Dist. J~d Monroe Met. Wtr Dis~. So.Calif. [)avid Nagel County of San Diego Jim Nessel City of Poway Dr. John O'Leary San Diego State Univ. Carol Henderson Las Montanas/LME Inves=orsW Philip Hinshaw A.D. Hinshaw Assoc. Ty Garrison Biological Assessment Services Chambers Group, Inc. Kim Gould So Ca Edison Marcia H~mmett PIA San Diego Inc. Diana Hoard ~Baldwin Company Allen Jones Fenton-Western Properties W. Allen Kelly Carlsbad, CA Lois Knight Larue Save Our Coastline 0209 Norma Sullivan Audubon Society, San Diego Sat Tamaribuchi Irvine Company · Bob Uram McCutcheon, Boyle, Brown and Emerson F.D. Schlesinger Clean Water Prog For Gr~r San Diego Scot Scialpi Transportation Corridor Agencies Dan Silver Endangered Habitats League Tony Skidmore Michael BrandonAssn. Trish Smith The Natural Conservancy Christine Sproul Resources Agency Terry Stewart LaMesa, CA Stacy Thompson Gabrielino Tribal Council Laura Watt Nature Conservancy Drew Silvern San Diego Union-Tribune Tony Skidmore Michael Brandon Asso. 3erre A. Sgallcup San Diego, CA Kevin Sweeney San Diego, Ca William Toone Curator of BirdsBird 02092 Tom Olsen Tom Olsen &Associates Pamela Parker Biodiversiry Group Stephen Rynas Calif Coastal Commission Richard Perry Calif Bldg Industry Assn. Kevin Pollson Canyn Company Tom Reid Thomas Reid Assn. Paul Ross Grove Engineering Pike Oliver Southwest Diversified John Palmer So. Calif. Edison C.J. Postma Home Capital Development Edith Read Chambers Group Inc. Mary M. Renaker EHL Gary Ruyl Brian Mooney Assn. Ed Sauls Fieldstone Company i Gina Schultz RECON Lucia Sippel Kelly Ranch Glenn Smith E1 Cajon, CA Wayne Spencer Michael BrandmanAssn. Bill Stewart Consultant 02093 Dick MacMillen Endangered Habi:a:s League Barbara Massey Sierra Club · Adelia McCord Laguna Niguel, CA Mark Middlebrook Pac Cielo Der Inc. Chris Morrow PDC Dennis Moser 4 $ Ranch David Nairne San Miguel Partners Mary Nichols Nat. Res. Defense Council Andy McLeod Ca. Resource Agency Laurie McKinley Alliance for Habitat Conserra=ion Rod Meade Meade Consulting Frank Mickadeit Orange County Register Patrick Mock Ogden Environmental Chris Morrow Project Design Cons. Dr. Reed Nose Cor-~alis, OR 'Michael McCollum McCollum Associates Robert D. Mickelson Mickelson Planning Con. Jess Morton PV/SB Audubon Ann Northoff NRDC 02094 Dudley Onderdonk CiTy of Rancho Palos Verdes Mark Pisano So. Calif. Asso of Governments Jack Levy Der. Biolo§ical Center Michael Mantell The Resource Agency Larry Purcell San Diego Co Water Authority Dou§ Reid CiTy of Chula Vista Don Hur~aker Environmental Trust Barry Jones Ogden Catherin Rich So,, Ca, Asso of Governments Thomas Oberbauer Co. of San Diego Ann Rast County of San Diego Don Rideout City of Carlsbad Carolynn Petru City of Rancho Palos Verdes John Riess City of San Diego AtUnys Kenneth E. Sulzer San Diego Asso of Governments ~- Dennis Murphy S~anford UniversiTy Mike McLaughlin San Diego Asso of Government John Sullivan Calif Dept, F & G Leni Woods City of Carlsbad, CA David Kelley Michael Brandon Asso. Lisa King Hofman Planning Asso. Adam Koltz PAC S.W. Biological Services Stephen Kynas Calif Coastal Comm. Ellen Mackey MWD of So. California Lindell Marsh Simeon Larsen & Marsh Steve Johnson Nature Consrvancy 3a=rick Kelley I UC Riverside Leeona Klippstein San Bernadino Sage Friends David Kossack Friends of uhe Tecate Cypress Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies 02095 Terrry Watt Friends of Irvin Coast Harry Weinroth City of Imperial Beach James Whalen Alliance for Habitat Conservation Elizaberth Yamaguchi Fallbrook Community Planning Group Tesu Z. Zrecordforma= ZZZ Bigg Company Harold Weir Dudek Association Doug Wheeler Resources Group Barbara Wilson Environmental Planner William Woolerr Transpor=a=ion Corridor Agencies Inez Yoder EHL Dolores Welry EHL Carol Whirside Rousources Agency n2o96 Rece]_vec~: 2/19/98; 7:04AM; 916 ~.)24 0475 => EGAS L[CNUOC; #~ NATURIqL HERITAGE DIU TEL...:916-524-O¢'?5 Feb 18 98 14:02 No,008 P,02 Natural (Jommun~ty Conscrvlt~on Planning General Process Guidelines C. alifi~rnJa Departm~.m of FiSh :inrl Oame Sacramento, CA Received: 2/19/98; 7:05AM; 916 B24 0475 => EGAS LICNUOC; #',5 NF:ITURAL HERITAGE DIV TEL..:916-32Zl-OZ"7'5 Feb 18 98 14:03 No.008 P.03 Table of CenCe"l,~ fiji. Component/of~n NCCP .......................... 2 A. Plmming AiFeernent ' 2 B Planning Doeumenl ............................................. 3 1 Planning Consideratioas ................................... :~ ~. Research ........... , ............... 3 b. Ailric~ltural Land Promctio~i ...................................... 3 e. Aquatic Ecosystem Re~pon~ibiliti~ ' 3 2 Key Phm F__.lements ................................................ 3 a. S~ope .............................................. 3 b. Covered Species ...................................... 4 c. Anticipated Activities ........................................ 4 d: Prindpl¢s of Conservation Biology ................................. 4 e. Conservation Sirate87 .......................................... 4 £ Monitonng ................................................. 4 g. Aclaptive Managemenl .......................... 5 h, Pm,dh,~ ..................................... ) i. Assumne~ .............................................. 5 C. Implementation Agreement ............................................ 5 ~. '~ake Authonz~ton ................................... o 2. § ~081 Compliance ................................. 6 £. Ei~vi~u,unemal Documentation ........ ' .............. 6 IV. 8.cla~ion~l~ip [o Odr[e[ (iuificiine.s a. Coastal 2)age ~crub Em~delmes H Fur~hor C*uidvli,~cs , . V, Adoption and Eff¢cl~ve Dam Rece.Lvecl: 2/lg/98; 7:06AM; g1§ ,324 0475 => EGA$ LiI;NUOC; NF~TURFtL HERtTFtGE DIU TEL,,,:9J. 6-32r-O,,~75 Feb 18 98 14:04 No.008 P.04 i' ' 11QINAL .... a~3R QUALITY: CALI~ORN!^ D]~PARTiVfEm OF FISH ~n NATURA I, (70 MM I lNITV CONgE~ATION PLANN~(; (;ENI~RAI. I'ROCEgS GU~EL~ES Introduction ^. wa~_t u an NCCT." A Natural Community Censersion iala~ (NCCP or "plan") is a plan &,, ,h~ ~.o,~ radon o[ natural cornmu~me$ I~t glKes ~ ~ approla;h and e4~.x,,,,,,~ra ~.,,,pvradon bet-ween private aud 8ovenutTerer aterests. ]'he plan identifies and provides for the re~uonal or areawide protection aM perpetuation ofp{a.ms, animals, and their habitats, virile aliov4ng compatible land ~ and econorolo activity. An NCCP seeks ~o anticipate and prevent the controve~'~ie4 ga, IJligl'lly ~i~gg;i~.,g' H~linEs hy t'nc,,i.6~l'g nn the tong-term stability of natural communities. 10 o£Divi~i~, 9 ul'~hc CalifOrnia Fish and 'Lionroe L;oee (§§ 2800 et. seq.). Approved NCCPs provide the oasis for issuance of miata authorizations for the lake of species ill liOnrl in fir adrt nr nnt .tro,r'i linr,d.nn Ihlm,,,,d ,, .no rnaypro,~ae in~ bas,s ~or ~sua~oe or 'teS-erii~-endau;ierea ~lmecles UenTlils. statutory sumdards for natural r. ommunitv ~JOn i~ll;h and GameJ2.ntt~. §§ 9g'~n .t seq.) and other ~pplicabte laws and regulations. It is importaat to note tha~ the lqCC? process must ensure cons?stencg with the fecler~ and state Endangered Species Acts. C. Purpq:,me of the GuideJin~s. ]'he~ ~idcliaa~, adaprod ~ilTatanf In § ?g?5 of the l;imh end Game Code for the general application of the lq(~P Act. are designed to help planners provide for regional protection and pe~am~ 9~ ~ ~Y~Y m~ ]~1~ may be adepte41 in tl,c £ulu, c £u, £{tc appllcatkm ofthe ~4W~CP Ac~ to spacing e~syste~s or regions oFthe state Characteristics of an NCCP NCCP is defined by the following chara~e. cistics and ~ ~mbin~ cha~6~fi~ may di~in~s, an NCCP from ~ti,e~ ~ypes of ~nse~ation ~ A. Scope The scope of the plan is ,cgionai or a~ ~de ~ ~d O~e Code ~ ~ ~e pl~mng re~o~ eff~iw NCCP "subr~ phnning units" ~y be ~}in~aled 19 ~ both hlnlnglr~l ,~ admini;trati~ boun~fi~. ~ ~CCP is ~ o,,. mtegr~e them ~th multi-)urisdicdonal o~ ~bm~on~ ~a~in8 efforts. NIDO[t ~l ~ em,~t~llr~s Rece3. ved: 2/19/98; 7:07AM; 9t6 324 0475 => EGAS L~CNUOC; #5 NRTURRL HERITRGE DI~ TE!_'r916-$2zl-O~75 Feb 18 98 14:05 No.008 P.05 g. Ecasy~lem Conscw~,ation The plan prom~es wfidlife diversity through con~tion o~ ~[ on a~ ~sy,~em level "Wildlife" ~s and includ~ all w~ld animals, b~rds, plants, ~sh. ampl~ b ar~, a,~ reJ~cd ~olog~l com~nities, including the habita~ upon wh~c~ wiJdlifc d~pcnd fo~ their comi~ ~ability ~ish and ~me Code ~ 7 ~ 1.2~. C. ~ee. ~e pl~ pr~(Ics a ~nse~ation s~t~ th~ is ~ on re~g~z~ principl~ oration bio]o~, ~ ~l ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ation about sp~ies ~d hahharm D. Coe~iaation. The plan proxies ~i~ion ~d ~o~ion ~g ~blic ag~oies, [~s, ol~r pdvatc interests, and ~ oflM p~[ic, and i~ludes a mechanism by which private interests c~ p~i~te ~ t~ ~i~ pr~s. E. teenomic Activity. The plan ~1ow$ ~mpa~ ~mie acti~ty including resource u~tion and de~l~pm~t. I~L Compenenls of an NCCP A. PLanning A~reement 1. The De,,parlment o£Fiah and Gnme (Department) may enter into agreements with any perso~ for the purpose of~epafm~ end im~e~nt~ng an NCCP. A planning agreement identifies the scope of' the plan to be preplKed and the Imrticipaling parties. More specifically, thc planning agreement: sha~l be entered into by, and binding uPOn, all parties, including, bm not linfited to, the department, other pa~r, ipaling federal, state, or local agencies, and pank;ipaling private ]~dowilers; shaU identify those naturaJ communities. and the endangered, threatened, proposed. candidate, or other species known, or reasonably ~xpe, cted to be found in those communities, which will be the focus of the plan; should establish a process for the identification otrtargm species, which may include lis[ed species, and which shall collectively serve as indicators of the natural communitie.~ which are the focus.of the plan, shall establish a process for the collection of data, information, m<l independent inpul rm~essa .r?/to meet scien:JficalJy sound principles for the conservation of species coverage in whe p~an; e shall c'stsblish a process ~¥~t public participation throughout pla~ development and revmw; f. should establish ~ interim process - (during plan development) for projec~ review, by wherein projects whic~ potentially conflict v,,ilh goals oFtl~e plan are discussed with lhe De~artrrmnt pn6r to formal processing by the jurisdiction. NCICP Genial ~ Ouidel roes Rece].veci: 2/1g/98; 7:ORAU; => F_GAS LIGNUOC; NCqTURI::IL HERITRGE DI~ ~Et...:916-$24-0~'% Feb 18 98 14:06 No.008 P 06 g. shalt provide that draft documents ~ssoci,,led with a natural commu~ty ~nservalion plan shaft bc available for public review and commern for a! least 45 ~';a¥s prior :o adoF4ion The revicw period specified m r'Ul~ I~'~rll::lJrrc,.n11 w'l}l the review period providod For tl~ Cali£omia F. nviro[wnental Qualily Acl (CEQA) document ~sociated with the natural community conservation plan, however, nothing in this paragraph limits the discretion era city or county to revise any draft documents at ~ public hemrag The Depa~Jnent nay also enter inlo a Memorandum of'Understanding (frijOl0 with the appropriate f~deral a~d state agencies to set up a joint program by which state.and federal p~rticipafion in the (tevelopraent and impiememation of one or more NCC?s may bc coordinated. Pursuant to §20~$ oftbe Fish and Game Code, the Departmen! encourages con~istenl and compatible findings betwee~ stale and federal age.ncies on biological opinions. B. Flanning DecemertL The plan should be tailored to meet the resoerce nee~Ls of a particular region or ~bregio~. The plan must specify a struteaT for achievin& the required objectives of natural comicdairy r_,onservatioA and compatible la~d use and economic ac. tivi~y. The strateg~, might include such techniques as reser,,e assembly or watershed manageme,at. ?~anning considerations and key plan eteme~ts should include, but are not limited 1o, the following: I. Planning Considerations }Ceseareh Take into account, a~d coordinate with, ongoing scientific thai roll be helpful in fulurt management adaptations. Agricu!t~[al L~nd ProtergiQli. Consider the impact of the plan on the use of~e~ ~miml la~ ~ ~ =vmion of~m~ ~nd to non- ~ltu~ ~. ~ ~~ ~e erthe t~s ofa~lturc ~ the plan ar~ should be r~ in ~e phn. N~s ~M disfin~i~ ~w~ ~ t~t ~e ~m~ to ~ain M a~ in ~i~, ~ ~p~ to ~ ~n~ m u~ ~pm~t, and ar~ to be re~ to' a nam~ ~te wh~ ~ ~~ ~ expir~. ~ ~CP may be d .~eb~ in con~.tion wit~ or to ~d in, an aa6culmral proram crated m~der Amcle ~ ~ of Chapt~ 1.5 oft~ Fish and ~me Code. P, qua!ic l~co~,stem Re~onsibilities Consider methods by which the Department's responsibilities under Chapter 6 of Division 2 of the Fish and {r~une (;ode (§160', et seq ) can be integrated with illlure NCCP planning processes aud with the re~onsibilities of' various federal agencies ['or regulation o£~[at¢?ways and wetlands 2. Key iqan E!emenls a. S~9.P¢. Desrmbe the ,atural communities and geographic area of the pine. ^.tso idemtfy [he ¢-~nscrvation goals for d~c plan area. ~ Geu~d Proc~q Gu,~:hnc, Rece.~ved: 2/19/98; 7:0gAM; 916 324 0475 => EGAS LICNUOC; #7 NRTU~RL HEEITR6E D[k) TEL'915-524-O,~75 Feb 18 98 lz~:07 No..008 P.07 CO_v_¢£~~ !denti .fi/ those species to t)c conserved and managed within the plan ~ m~d may th~ore be aulhorized for I~ng pursuan{ to Sedim~ 2~35 ~ su~ how the ~l~i~l ~s of those sp~es are met by the plan. AnltCipatcd AclLYilj~. Describe the activities or calegories of amirtries anticipated to be aulhoriz~l by phm participants, which will result in the taking ofq~ies rmrsuam to Section 2835 witlfin the plan area. Activities shall be desert'bed in mlrmient detail to allow the dcpartme~ to evalu&t~ ti~e impa¢l of sum amirtries on the eoosyslems, natural comnuJaiti¢s. and spccie~ identifi~ tn the pl~. The oombined effect of these nedrilles must ,~ol negate the conservation benefit~ of the: plan for any cove, ed species. l!rieciplcs of Co~aservation Biology. Delineate the ~cienti~cally so~od :~rinciples of~n~e~ion bi~ u~ in regulating those pm~o~ of t~ pl~ to ~, r~, or ~ the~s~ ~a~uml ~umd~ ~ ~mt ~cs ~thin the ~n ~. Demoamrale a~t~ pdndp!~ of ~ti~ bbiu~ for s~es co~ have ~ us~ in formuhti~ the plan. e. C~lnservation Strategy. ConservattonMeavwe. t Identify those actions to be undertaken to protect, restore or enhance the natural communities within the plan area CoaJp~ttble ,(/,.~.~ Idenfffy appropriate activities, and art/ restticlions on acthtities, within the conserved areas. · ,¥ched~le. Su forth a schedule for the implementaltec of conservation raeasures. Measurable Goo/s. Set forth objective, measurable goals to ensure that the conservation measures identified in the plan are tamed out in accordance with the schedule and goals set forth in lhe plan. Mt!~itonng The plan must include a monitoring program that provides periodic evaluations of monitonng results and other new information to be u~ed I0 · evaluate c~mpliance with plan implementation mechanisms;' · evaluate biological performance of the plan, and Recelvecl: 2/19/98; 7:10AM; 910 324 04.75 => EGAS LICNU0C;, #8 NRTURRL HERITRGE DIM TEL:915-324-O.475 Feb 18 98 1,~:08 No.008 P.08 determine whether management objeclives remain appropriate and whether new or different techniques could be ulilizcd Io better ~chfev¢ tonnagemerit goals ~dLotivc ~lage~ncrll Ea~ plan will dcveJop a management plan which will provide far adaptive management. The plan will provide for the impJemenlation of' an adaptive management program which establishes a flexible, iterative approacah to lone-term management of nalural cx~nunun~tie$, habitat types, and species within the plan area. Management ~A!! be refined and improved over time ba~cl upon the reaults o~ongoing monitoring activities and other relevant info~mation. Elements 0£ a management plm~ ~b)e~t to adapfiv~ manasement may include, but are not limited to, habitat management and enhanc;e. menl, fire management, ]nanagcracnt of human impoels, and exotic species control. FundJr~, Se tbrth an adequate funding source or sot:tees to ensure that the conservalion ac:fio~t,~ idmtified ~ Ihe p~ are c.~ried'ou~ in accordance with schedule and go:d.~ set forth in the plan. Assurances An NCCP may include, in both the plan and in a separate impleanenting agreement, assurances that p~ovide for the long-term reconcilialion of' new land d~velopmcnt in the plantting area and the conservation and protection o£spec~ and nalural ¢ommtmilie$ idearifled i~ !he plan. Depanmenta~ assurances ~ be deterrained for individual plans according to Ihe level ofconservation eae. h plan affords. If'warranted, the Department will p~ovicle its assurance that the NCCP provide~ measures sf~eiem to conserve the apecies-a~ddt~ it: the plan and that no ~urlher iand dedications, }and use reslricaions, waler use e.~)mmitnlents, or financial compensation wdl be required by the Departmenl of plan participants, excep! in defined exhaordinary circtarastances. · C. Implementation Agreement. NCCP participants commit to implemenling the NCCP by preparuag and signing an Implementation Agreement The Implementation Agreem~t' · defines 1he obligation.~ o{':~e signatories anal other partms, · prowdes iegal[y binding a~d enforceable assurances thai the plan will be implemented and adequately funded; and · pro-ides a !),uce~s for amendment ofthe ]'he I. rnplememtat~)n Ag[cement may pro~4de that a se.:arMe manageanent plan or plans will be adopted in the fu:u[c or at periodic intervals provided that the mallagernenl plan(s) meets ceilaria set forth in the NCCP ~rhere appropriate, tke Department may require additional memoranda or' understanding that Ihe DeparuT. ent believes would assist in the impiemenlalion of the plan Rece.l. vecl: 2/19/98; 7:11AM; NRTURRL HERITRGE DIU Feb 18.98 14:09 No.008 P.09 916 324 0475 => EGAS LICNUOC; #9 TEL,: 915-~2zl-0z~'?5 D. 'l'akc Aulhorization § 2835 Section 2835 o£thc Fish and Ganz Code a~lows the Departmen! to &uthorize incidental tav, e m an NCCP Take may be authoriaed for aey identified species whose conservation a~d management ~s provided for in the plan, whether: or not the species is listed ae threatened or endangered under lhe federal or stale Prodangered Species Acts. Identified species that are not tL~ed shall be treated as i£1is~ pursuant to the Califbn~ia Endangered Species Ac~ (C£$A) eider by addressing the species themselves or by addresslag species whos¢'habkst and survival needs.are demonstrably similar to tho~e oflhe identified species. b. Within the mea sub]ec~ to the. plan, should dem0rtslralo that it contributes to the recovery of listed species aulhorized for take. § 2081 Compliance. To ensure compliance with CESA, authorization for taking of' species identified in the plan shall also meet the trollowing conditions ~equired by §2081(b) of the Fi.4~ and Came Code: a. Th~ talcing is incidental lo an othea'wLse lawqul activity. The ~mpact~ o£ the authorized lake shall be minimized and fully mitigated. impa~ls of takbtg include all impa~s on the idealized spex;ies that result from ~y act that would cause the proposed laking The measures required to meet this obligation shall be roughly prt>portionat in e~ent to the impact of' the authorized taking on the species~ Where various measures sre available to meet this obligation, ~he measures r~uired shall ma~tain the applic~at's objectives to the gre.~test extent possible All required measures shall be capable of sue~cessful Lmplementation. c ]'he dulhorir,ation is consistera with any resutations adopted pursuanl Sections 2] 12 and 2114 of I he Fish and Game Code (Recovery Strategies). TI~ applicant sh~11 ensure adequate ~uncling to implement the measures required and fi~ monitonng with, and effectiveness of, those measures Environments! Documentation NCCPs shall provide for appropriate compliance with CEQA as required by § 2825(b) of the Fish and Game Code and, to the ex'tem applicable, with the Natrenal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CEQ^ document for the plan sinil include a specific mitigation and implementation monitoring program, consistent with the rm~uirementz of l)ivisio. 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code Ordirmrily, the Department will act ag a CEQA responsible agency for the purpose Rece[vecl: 2/19/98; 7:12AM; 916 324 0475 => EGAS L.ICNUOC; #10 NATURAL HERITAGE DIV TEL'g16-324-O~'75 Feb 18 98 lZI:10 No.008 of'approving an NCCP. In ccrlam circu~s, the Department may act as a CEQ^ lead a~¢ncy. i.-either case, CEQA review ofNCCPs mu~ be coordinaled with the Depaament Coastal Sage Scrub Geidelines. The Department has previously adopted both process guid=Iines and conservation guidelines'£or the Southern Cali£orma Coastal Sage Scrub (CS5) lqCCP pilot project. Those 8uideliaes remain ia.effect. NCCPs within the CS5 pl _a~ain8 region, that incorporate C88 habitat, will comply with those guidelines. Further Guide[iaes. Further gui~ieliaes may be adopted ie the .rumre for specific pJans u~y~mms oi regions ol t~ sram. ~u~ ~ -ffi~-~o~t ~ffi ~ g~ guidelineg. Such guldeliu~ ~it] ~ c~'c~at~ ~r tppropHtte p~c renew b~ore thur adoption by the ~p~nmmt V. Adoption and Effective Date These guideline. s are adopted by the Department offFish and Crame this '~'* day of January, 1998 These guidelinec are eftbetive imm~ately aad ap0Iy Lu all NCI2Ps h'-~'~afier approved by the Department. ~CQT_rELIh'I: E. ~,CIUd-'ER Director Receivel~: 2/19/98; 7;03AM; N~TURI:IL qERITRGE DIV TEL"916-324-0475, $~cr~menlo, CA 9~814 (916) 6~3-7667 February 5, Feb 18 98 ORIGINAL POOR QU/U.rrv 1~:01 No.008 P .01 To: IndS~[duals Interested in Natural Community C.~ail~ti~ Planrang "Natural Community Cons~'vation Pi~-.iuE ,(N~I~~) O~xal Process Ouideline~" were approved by the Department of Fish and Game oa ~ 22, I99~, These guidelines. adopted pursuant to Section 2825 oflhe Fish and Game Code fo~ ihe je~al al~licalion of the NCCP Act, am designed to help planners provide for rcjiellal 'plbtecl/on ~ peq~mJalion of biological diversity. meet NCCP regulatory requireminis, Jml to allew fo~ flexibility i~ plan developmeat Further guidelines may be adopted in the furare fm ~ Jp!~Hontion ofthe NCCP Act to specific ecosyslems or regions oflhe State, A copy of the NCCP GenereJ P,oces~ '_~~ ,'J~oll~ t'or your l~fel~nc~. These Seavi~s Diviaion, 1416 Ninth Street, staff at (916) 653-9834. Alt~chme~t Depamnent of Fish a~ Game Mn Ronald D. Rempel Ms. Oail Presley United States Department of the Interior FISH .~NT)[~LDLIFESER¥7CE ECOLOGICAL SLRViCES Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 November I0, 1993 ~LLMO RANDUM To~ From: Subject: State Super-zisor Biological Opinion on the Proposed Special Rule to Authorize IncidenTal Take of Coastal California Gnatcatchers(i-6-93-F~X-37) Tinis Biological Opinion :responds to a request for formal inte~'-nal consu!~auion pursuant to section 7(a)(4) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) and the implementing regulations pertaining thereto (50 C~-R a02). The request was dated August 18, 1993. The referenced action may affect a Federally-listed, threatened species, the coastal California gnatcatcher (Poliooti!a ca!ifornica ca!ifornica) and impact coastal sage scrub habitats. At issue are the direct and/or indirect impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher that may result from adoption of the special rule. This Biological Opinion was prepared using the following information: 1) Draft Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Section 4(d) Rule to Authorize Incidental Take of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher for Activities Conducted under the Authority of the State of Ca!ifornia'$ Natural Community Conservation Planning Act; 2) California Department of Fish and Game's Draft Conse~ation Guidelines (Conservation Guidelines) (October 1993)~ 3) California Department of Fish and Game's Draft Process Guidelines (Process Guidelines) (November 1993); and 4) other biological references (see below, "Literature Cited"). Biological Ooinion lu is the opinion of the Service that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the coastal California gnatcatcher. Criuica! habitat has not been proposed for the coastal California gnatcatcher and, therefore, no critical habitat would be adversely modified. Descriotion of the Prooosed Action The proposed Federal action is the adoption of a proposed special rule under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The reason the Service has proposed this special rule is in recognition of the State of California's Natural Community Conse~;a~ion Planning (NCC?) program and the benefits the coastal California g~.atcatcher and associated coastal sage scrub species would receive through its proper implementation. Adoption of this special rule would define the conditions under which incidental take of coastal California gnatcatchers (Po!iooTila californica ca!ifornica) would not ke a 'z5oia~ion of sack!on 9 of Tke Act. ?he NCCP Program was established in 1991 by the State of California through passing of the Natural Community Conse~zation Planning Act of 1991. Planning and implementation of the NCCP Program is the responsibility of the California Department of Fish-and Game (CDFG), in collaboration with The Resource Agency. The purpose of the NCCP Program is to provide long-term, regionally designated protection of natural wildlife diversity while permitting appropriate and compatible land development. Subregional Conservation Plans and Subregional MiTigation Guidelines will be guided by the establishment of the Natural CommuniTy Conservation Guidelines and will be integral to the program. The Natural CommuniTy Conservation Guidelines have been drafued by the CDFG and are based on recommendations by the SKP [CDFG 1993a). The CDFG has also prepared Natural Community Conse~zaticn ?!arming Process Guidelines which are to provide guidance on tke overall imn!ementation of the program (CDFG 1993a). ~ne ultimate goal of a NCCP Program is no provide for the establishment and managemenu of permanent multi-species prese~zes. This establishment of prese~zes under the NCCP includes the incorporation of biological corridors and linkages with other natural lands. Local governments, enviror~ental groups, land owners, land developers, =he CDFG and the Service will be collaborating on the development of suah plans. There are ~o important features of the special rule. The first aspect of ~he special rule defines the conditions under which a limited amount of incidental take of coastal California gnatcatchers would not violate Section 9 of the Act, prior to the development of an approved conservation plan pursuant to the NCCP. This loss of coastal sage scrub habitat and coastal California gnatcatchers could only occur within areas tha~ were participating in, and preparing conse~¢a~ion plans under, the NCCP. The amount of interim loss permitted would be that which The Scientific Review Panel (SRP) has found acceptable (i.e., no more ~han 5% of remaining coastal sage scrub habitat) and which occurred in accordance with the California DeparTment of Fish and Game's Conse~;ation Guidelines. The area included in the NCCP Planning Area includes portions of Orange, San D.iego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties (CDFGa)(Figure 11). The role of the SRP was to collect available scientific and commercial information on the coastal California gnatcatcher, identify focus areas for coastal sage scrub conservation, identify needed research, and provide ~aidance on the development of a set of conservation guidelines. Moreover, this information was to provide the basis for regional conservation planning (CDFG 1993b). The SRP recommended, based on a review' of available information, that during the interim when long-term plans are being drafted that no more than 5 percent of the coastal sage scrub should be lost to prevent foreclosure of~future conservation planning options. It was recommended ~hat these short-term losses of habitat occur in areas of low conservation value (CDFG 1993b). This loss equates to approximately 20,920 acres of CSS and from 66 to 116 pairs of coastal California gnazcatchers (US~--WS 1993). There is estimated to be approximataiy &00,000 acres of coastal sage scrub remaining within the NCCP planning ar~a (USerS 1992). ~e number of =~?.atcatcher pairs that could be lost during This interim planning period are estimated to represent from 3 to 5 percent of the United States population (US~2S 1993). Enhancement measures that can be used as mitigation during the interim phase include prevention of overgrazing by domestic livestock and reducing the impacts to coastal sage scrub due to off-rQad vehicle activities. It must be stressed that restoration is largely experimental at this point in time and therefore should not be considered full mitigation for unavoidable project impacts. The Process Guidelines are to be used in concert with the Conservation Guidelines and are meant To provide guidance to the participating local platting enzities and describe how the planning process will shift in focus from the regional to the subregional level. Prior to a subregion/subarea being able to apply the provisions of the special rule (i.e. the interim period losses under the Conservation and Process Guidelines), and prior To deve!op~nt and approval of a Subregional Conse.~vation Plan, they will have had to~'~om~ieted the following tasks per the California Department of Fish and Game's Process Guidelines (CDFG 1993a~: Establish a subregional planning process. The establishment of this process involves the identification of a lead/coordinating agency and the execution of a Planning Agreement among participating entities such as the local governments, private landow~ers, the lead/coordinating agency, CDFG, and the Service. Esuab!ish the base number of acres of coastal sage scrub habitat within the subregion. This estimation of coastal sage scrub shall be based on local maps that were derived from field surveys conducted according to the S.~'s su~;ey guidelines or vegetation maps submitted in a digital form previously approved by both the CD?G and the Service. The base number of acres shall not be less than that which existed at the time the coastal California gnatcatcher was listed as threatened (i.e., March 25, 1993). Calculate the amount of coastal sage scrub habitat within the subregion that equates to their share of the 5 percent limit on interim take. Establish interim habitat loss mitigation guidelines for each subregion and make a finding that the losses have been mitigated to insignificant levels as required by CZQA using one or more of the following options; acquisition of habitat, dedication of land, management agreements, restoration of habitat, payment of fees, transfer of development rights, or other mitigation~ measures approved in writing by CDF&G and the Service. Maintain a cumulative record of all development approvals that will result in the loss of coastal sage scrub habitat during the interim period of the Subregional Conse~ation Plan development. Include adjustments of totals if approvals expire to assure that the 5 percent 4 limit is not exceeded within the subregion. Interim habitat loss approval should be forwarded to the Service at least one a month. Important components of the Conservation Guidelines are: "Short-term losses of habitat should be minimized so as to not foreclose future conservation planning options until such time as long-term enhancement programs are formulated." "Total interim loss should be limited to 5% of CSS habitat in any individual subregion." "To the maximum degree practicable, the 5% loss should be limited to areas with smaller populations of target species." "To the maximum degree practicable, the 5% loss should not disproportionally impact specific subunits of the environmental gradient in each subregion (as defined by vegetation subcommunity, latitude, elevation, distance from coast, slope, aspect or soil "During the interim period, subregional and subarea planning shculd snrive to protect areas of higher long-term conservation value -- defined by extent of CSS habitat, proximity of that habitat to other habitat, value as landscape linkages or corridors, or presence of target species or other species of concern -- until a subregional plan can be put in place." ~/~" "Development pressure should be directed toward areas that have lower long-term conservation value. Such habitat areas are smaller in extent, are more isolated, have limited value as landscape linkages, and support comparatively fewer individuals of target species." The Service,is.pres.qming that.~h~gq9%{.__andstrategy. of the program will be. ~f~l10wea "f~ily b~'lh~-pa~'ip-~ing parties. If this presumption is correct, preserve compromising developments will_no~,~.proposed or approved by parti~i'~t'~'in-~he NCCP program during the interim period. "Planning should ensure that all interim habitat losses are adequately mitigated or should contribute to an interim subregional mitigation program that will be subsumed in the long-term subregional NCCP as specified in the Process Guidelines." _~ The second aspect of the special rule would authorize incidental take above and beyond the initial 5% and define the general conditions under which this' could occur. This future loss would be dependent on the establishment of Service and CDFG approved Subregional or Subarea Conservation Plans. Furthermore, mitigation for the loss of coastal sage scrub and gnatcatchers would be defined by local Subregional or Subarea Mitigation Guidelines. Approval of such plans by the Service, and the corresponding incidental take of coastal California gnatcatchers, will require additional formal consultation under section 7 of the Act. Effects of Prooosed Action on Listed Soecies Species Accoun=s Primarily because of substantial, recent reductions in the habitat and range of the species and the inadequacy of existing regulations, the Service has listed the gnatcatcher as threatened (Federal Regisget 58(59), 16742-16757, March 30, 1993). The co~stal California gnaTcatcher is a recognized subspecies of the California gnatcatcher (?otiooti!a califorr/ica [Brewster]) and is endemic to coastal southern California and northwestern Baja Califor- nia, Mexico (American Ornithologists' Union I983, 1989: 535~ Ar~ood 1980, 1988, 1990). The gnatcatcher, a smalt,. gray songbird, is an. obligate resident of coastal sage scrub dominated plant communities from Los Angeles County generally south along the coast to the United States/Mexico border (see, for instance, Grinnell and Miller 1944~ Garrett and Dunn 1981). The appropriate habitat or habitat t)Te, however, apparently occurs in patchy or mosaic distribution. ~ne distribution and size of these patches of suitable habitat varies through- out the range of the species from year to year due to the expressed effects of a variet]z of variables. Typical coastal sage scrub habitat constituents are relatively low-growing, drought-deciduous, and succulent plant species. Representative plant t~xa in this plant community include coastal sagebrush (Artemisia ca!ifornica), sever- al species of sage (Salvia spp.), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California encelia (Encelia ca!ifornica), various species of cactus and cholla (0ountia spp.), and several species of Hao!ooaoous (Munz 1974; Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1980). Of the 11 subassociations of coastal- sage scrub identified by Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson (1977), the gnatcatcher apparently routinely occupies only three of these. The gnatcatcher is primarily insectivorous and defends territories ranging in size from approximately 2 to 40 acres (AT~ood 1990; John Konecny, personal communication). Atwood's comprehensive studies and status review (1990) further reveal that the breeding season of the species extends from February through July, and apparen'tly peaks in April. Juveniles associate with their parents for several weeks or even months after fledgling. Although considered locally commonsfewer than 50 years ago (Grinnell and Miller 1944), Atwood (1990) has concluded that current United States popu- lation is almost certainly less than 2,000 pairs. Although the documented decline of the gnatcatcher undoubtedly is the result of numerous factors, including nest depredation and brood parasitism by the essentially non-native brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), habitat destruction, fragmentation or' modification must be principal reasons for the gnatcatcher's current, precarious statu~. It has been estimated that as much as 90 percent of coast- al sage scrub vegetation has been lost as a result of development and land conversion (see Westman 1981a, 1981b; Barbour and Major 1977), leawing coastal sage scrub as one of the most depleted habitat types in the United States (Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1977~ ~xelrod 1978~ Klopatek et el. 1979; Westman 1987; O'Leary 1990). pair of gnatcatchers, and ~o fires in San Diego County involving 4,900 acres of coastal sage scrub and an estimated i0 pair of gnatcatchers. ~ae ulzima=e effec~ of these fires on regional conservation platting is a concern. There may be some areas that were identified as having low conse~zation value prior to the fires which may now be considered to have high conse~zation value because they provide the only remaining refugia adjoining burned areas. The value of these areas lies in their importance as future sources of animals-and plants for recolonization of the burned areas. Moreover, areas that were of high conser~zation value remain of high conse~ation value due to their location and the potential for re- establishment of a coastal sage scrub community. The fire histo~/ of an area as well as biotic and abiotic factors will influence the plant COmmunity that establishes itself on the burned areas. Some areas could t]zpe-convert to grassland, depending on how the areas respond after the fire and what treatments are applied to prevent flood and erosion damage, while others will ranurn to a coastal sage scrub community. Despite the localized short-term affects of the fire on recove~£ of the burned areas and subsequent conservation planning, the long-term effects are expected to be minimal. The burned areas represent a temporary loss of suitable habitat, losses that will potentially reoccur periodically over some portion of the landscape at any given time. ~ae burned areas are now coastal sage scrub at its earliest seral stages, a component of natural mosaic of a broad landscape. Losses contemplated under the provisions of the special rule involve permanent losses which has a decidedly different affect on the gnatcatcher and the maintenance of its habitat. Assuming the areas burned are able to recover and reestablish suitable coastal sage scrub habitat the effects on long-term conservation planning should be minimal. Given the contents and structure of the Conse~zation and Process Guidelines, the control on the amount and location of habi:at and gnatcatchers that can be incidentally taken during the period of Subregional Plan development, and :he requirement that the Service must consult under section 7 of the Act prior to formally approving of NCCP Subregional Plans, the Service concludes that the proposed action would not jeopardize the continued existence of the coastal California gnatcatcher. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative effects are :hose impacts of future State, local government and private actions affecting endangered and threatened species that are reason- ably expected to occur in the action area. Future federal actions will be subject to the consultation requirements established in section 7 of the Act, and therefore are not considered cumulative to the proposed action. Although the action areas of several proposed Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, and Environmental Protection Agency projects include the current range of the gnatcatcher, lit is anticipated that these federal agencies will appropriately minimize impacts to the gnatcatcher. Informal consultation between the Service and each of these agencies has already begun in this regard. A ~ar=e number of land development projects that lack a federal nexus have occurred or are proposed within the current range of the gnatcatcher. The majority of activities anticipated to impact this species within the foresee- able future will be local projects wi~h no direct federal involvement. These projects could contribute to significant cumulative effects to the gnatcatcher. However, Section 9 of the Act prohibits the unlawful "take" (e.g., harm, harassment) of gnatcatchers without authorization under ~he Act. Anticipated prohibitions against take and a desire to engage in proactive planning have prompted efforts by local governments and large land owners to develop Habitat Conse~ation Plans~ In addition, and as discussed within this document, the Resources Agency, the California Department of Fish and Game with input and support from the Sea'-vice are developing the Natural Communities Conse~zation Planning program. The efforts of these agencies, combined with the current federal protection, are presently anticipated to result in ade- quate mitigation of project related impacts to the gnatcatcher in the future. However, in the present absence of suitable habitat conse~zation plans incorporating substantive: impact avoidance and compensation measures, the Se~zice believes that habitat destruction, cowbird parasitism, and indirect impacts resulting from a variety of projects currently limit the distribution and potential expansion of gnatcatchers throughout their historic range in California. Incidental Take Subject to the provisions and requirements of 50 CFR 402.10(d), this inciden- tal take statement is intended to satisfy the requirements of sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits the take of listed species without special exemption. Take is defined as harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation ~hat results in death or injur7 to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral. patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and 7(0)(2) of the Act, taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with this Incidental Take statement. ~16~~pai.r~ !) A maximum of 20,920 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and/o (232 individual birds) of coastal California may be taken nunde auspices of the special rule. The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the agency and the project applicant(s) and made a binding condition of any grant or permit, as appropriate. This incidental ~ake authorization is null and void if the above project description changes in a material way, if any mitigation measure is not fully carried out or executed, or if any term or condition or mitigation measure as defined below is not met. If she amount or extent of the incidental take is exceeded prior to ~he development of Service approved NCCP Subregional Plans, the Service shall suspend ~he provisions of the special rule and re-initiate internal formal consultation to avoid violation of section 9 of the Act as required by 50 CFK ~02.14(i). All NCC~ program participants musg cease ac:ivi~ies that are resulting in ~ake of coastal California gnaTcatchers under the provisions of the s~ecia! rule in the interim period between the initiation and completion of zh~ new in~arnal consultation for take will no longer be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. If i~ is determined ~ha~ the impact of additional taking will no~ cause an irreversible and adverse impact on ~he species, as required by seo~ion 7(a)(2) of the Act, the Service shall ~ · Process Guidelines and the provisions of reevaluaze the NCCP Conservatlon and the special rule and develop reasonable and prudent al:ernazives/measures to minimize the amount or extent of such take. The Se~zice and the State should provide an explanation of ~he causes of The excessive ~aking. Reasonable and Prudent Measures The Se~ice believes that ~he following Reasonable and Prudent Measures are necessary and appropriate Eo minimize the amount and/or extent of incidenZa! take of ~he proposed action' 1. The Service shall monitor the implementation of ~he interim components of the NCCP program and its effects on the gnatcatcher. A monitoring program shall be established to assess the success of ~he NCCP program at conserving the coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat and to ensure tha~ take of this species is being minimized and that its su~;ival and/or recovery are not being precluded during the interim period of NCCP subregional plan development. Terms and Conditions In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, =he Se~zice responsible for compliance wi~h the following germs and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measure described above. 1) The Se~;ice s~all ensure that both the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines are implemented to accomplish the goals of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the State's Natural Community Conservation Planning ACt of 1991. 2) Monitoring efforts shall ensure that no more than 20,920 acre of coastal sage scrub habitat and 116 pairs (or 232 individual birds) of coastal California gnatcatchers shall be incidentally taken during the interim period of Subregional Plan development. Moreover, no subregion shall incidentally take more than 5 percent of ~he coastal California gnatcatchers in their subregion or subarea within a subregion. 10 3) The Sea;ice, in conjunction with the subregional lead agencies and the CDFG shall develop and implement a monitoring program co track the incidental take of coastal CalLforr..ia gnatcatchers and the loss of coastal sage scrub during the interim period during which development of NCCP Subregional Plans is under~ay. A report of such monitoring will be developed eve~j 'six (6) months and shall contain maps indicating such activities. The Service ~hall ensure the= the State or participating party maintains a cumulative record of all development approvals that will result in the loss of coastal sage scrub habitat during the interim period of Subregional Plan development. The Service shall ensure that the State or participating party establish a central clearing house to account for cumulative habitat loss in each subregion prior to the incidence! take of coastal California gnatcatchers under the interim provision of the 4(d) rule. This information will be incorporated into a GiS database and be available in report form semi-annually. The long-term conse~?~ation value of lands in each subregion shall be determined by the Service, in cooperation with CDFG and the subregional lead agencies, prior to coastal California gnatcatchers being taken during the interim period of NCCP plan development. The Service shall ensure that each subregion shall calculate the coastal sage scrub habitat area and compute its 5 percent interim loss cap prior to the incidental take of coastal California gnatcatchers under interim take provision of the 4(d) rule. All coastal sage scrub habitat in the subregion shall be counted to compute the basis for the 5 percent interim loss cap. This'calculation shall include all publicly and privately owned land... In addition, the most inclusive definition of coastal sage scrub shall be used~ 5) The Service shall ensure that scientific information needs for long-term conservation planning are identified and shall conduct and/or support such research, as deemed necessa~¥~. Disposition of Sick, Injured, or Dead Individuals The Service's Carlsbad Field Office must be notified within three workin~ days should any listed species be found dead or injured within a lead agency's NCCP Subregional projec~ area. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the carcass, cause of death or injury, and any other pertinent information. If necessary~ the Service will provide a protocol for the handling of dead or injured, listed animals. In the event that the Service or State suspects that a species has been taken in contravention of any federal, State, or local law, all relevant information shall be reported within 24 hours to the Service's Carlsbad Enhancement Office at (619) 431-9440 or to the Service Division of Law Enforcement, Torrance, California at (310) 297-0062. 1! Conse~;ation Recommendations Section 'a)(1) of the Act directs federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of :he Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. The term "conservation recommendations" has been defined as Service suggestions regarding discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat or regarding the development of information. The recommendations provided here relate only to the proposed action and do not necessarily represent complete fulfillment of the agency's 7(a)(1) responsibility for these species. The Se~ice, in consultation with other federal agencies, working groups or recovery team members, should assess the efficacy of various measures for minimizing project related direct or indirect impacts to coastal California gnatcatchers and the ecosystem upon which they depend. The $e~ice should actively pursue the reduction and or removal of acti'zities on federal lands that reduce the quality of coastal sage scrub or hinder movement of native species associated with the coastal sage scrub ccmmunity across the landscape. The Service should assist other federal agencies in identifying opportunities for forwarding the intent of the Act. Such measures include active discussions with federal agencies that provide financial backing for development projects and the proactive development of appropriate mitigation/compensation measures that would assist in the formation of viable preserves for coastal sage scrub species. In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions that either minimize or avoid adverse effects or that benefit listed species or their habitats, the Se~ice requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations from the local Se~zice Office.. Conclusion This concludes the consultation on the proposed adoption of the section 4(d) rule referenced in this document. As is required by 50 CFR 402.16, reiniris:ion of formal consultation is required if the action is significantly modified in a manner not discussed above, if new information becomes available on listed species or impacts to listed species, or if the incidental take limit is exceeded. Any questions or comments should be directed to the Field Supervisor at (619) 431-9440. 12 LIT ~°~lrURE CITED American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds, Sixth Edition. American Ornithologists' Union. Printed by Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pages. American Ornithologists~ Union. 1989. Thir~f-seventh Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Checklist of North American Birds. Auk 106 (3): 532-538. Atwood, J. 1980. The bnited States Distribution of the California Black- tailed Gnatcatcher. Western Birds 11: 65-78. A~ood, J. 1988. Gnatcatchers. Union). Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Ornithological Monograph Number 42 (American Ornithologists' At=ood, J. 1990. Status review of the California Gnatcatcher (?ol!oprila cali£o~n..!ca). Mahomet Bird Obse~zato~z, Mahomet, Massachusetts. Unpublished report: 79-pages. ~xelrod, D. 1978. The Origin of Coastal Sage Vegetation, Alta and Baja California. American Journal of Botany 65 (10): 1117-1131. Barbour, M. and J. Major 1977. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, New York. California Department of Fish and Game. (!993a). Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Co£mmunity Conservation Planning Process Guidelines. Amended November 1993. California Department of Fish and Game. (!993b). Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning Conservation Guidelines. October 1993. Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. The Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society; 407 pages. Grinnell, J. and A. Miller 1944. The Distribution of the Birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna 27.0 Kirkpatrick, J. and C. H~tchinson. 1977. The Community Composition of California Coastal Sage Scrub. Vegetation 35: 21-33. Kirkpatrick, J. and C. Hutchinson. 1980. The Environmental Relationships of Californian coastal sage scrub and some of its component communities and species. Journal of Biogeography 7: 23-28. Klopatek, J., R. Olson, C. Emerson, and J. Jones. with Natural Vegetation in the United States. 6: 191-199. 1979. Land Use~Conflicts Environmental Conservation: Munz, P. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. Berkeley. O'Lea~z, J. 1990. Californian Coastal Sage Scrub: General Characteristics and Considerations for~ Biological Conservation. Pages 24-41 in "Endangered Plant Communities of Southern California", A. Schoenherr (ed.). Southern California Botanists Special Publication Number 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se~zice. 1993. Draft Environmental Assessment Of The Proposed Section 4(d) ~ule To Authorize Incidental Take Of The Coastal California Gnatcatcher For Activities Conducted Under The Authority Of The State Of California's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. Westman, W. 1981a. Diversity Relations and Succession in California Coastal Sage Scrub. Ecology 62~ 170-184. Westman, W. 1981b. Factors influencing the distribution of species of California Coastal Sage Scrub. Ecology 62: 439-455. Westman, W. 1987. Implications of Ecological Theo~f for Rare Plant Consensation in Coastal Sage Scrub~ Pages 133-1490 in "Proceedings of the Conference on Consensation and Management of Rare and Endangered Plants", T. Elias (ed.): California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. LEF'T. FISH ~qNI)GRNE ]:D:G19-'~GF-42z5 t4~:b 15 q::: i ;='~ I',1~1 c'.'-~-I 619-467.4207 Philip Unitt San Diego Natural History Museum P,O. Box 1390 San Diego, CA 92112 Ga!loy Proof on California gnatcatcher paper Dear Phil: As requested I Imv¢ e~lose. zt the: mark-up galley proof and original manuscript. '?hanks for making our paper tighter t~ information. All our nutrk-ups on. the galley proof should bc explanatory. Th,re is one important comment regarding the second pategraph under STUDY ARIMA AND METHODS. The galley proof para&n, aph is not botanically correct for southwestern San Bernardino County and we have noted lh, r,~wised paragraph bdow as well as on the galley ptoo£. To stay oloae to your revision we have revised the galley proof paragraph to read: "The pr~omitmt~ natural vegetntion in the valley is Riversidean alluvial-fan sage scrub along washes and uplm~ds where it intergrade~ with c, hapatral at 600,700 m elevation. Other vegetation consists of a patchwork of Rivetaide, an ooaatal ~age ~mb, valley grasslm~ds,...." We have inserted yotu name in the aeknowledgug:nts. Tbazdc you. Sinoetely, Liam H, Dav[8 Associate Wildlife Biologist c: Robert McKexaan HISTORY AND STATUS OF THE CALIFORNIA GNATCAtCHER IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 5~ D,~jo, Cal~,c~m,~ 92123 ROHh.R~ L M~, San ~ C4:~n~ Mur, a~'n, 20'2.40ra~3t Tre~ L~e, Raa3a~, Ea~mia 92347 H~, ~he C.~o~ noah Io s~x,'d~vestm~n San Berna..-fl~o Coum'~. where it ~ ncn~ beam r~aarly ~mic, ated by ~ in .~l.hwe~t~ San ~o County, in~Jadi~j pon~m~ o! Lytle C~eek early 1970s ~ 1969, 1970, ~ 19'71. 19733. He ~ (e~:,,...~,. ~ t 994._R~d ]9o~ D.C, fsmd} ~ ~,lu~mlle Cd~/emie ~ ~ ~een ~ 1995 ~/~ Liam H Din,is and: Robe.-'. ~ .~Ke~.~ THE CHAFFEY HILLSIDE SITE, CA-SBr-895; Report of tlhe Cultural Resource Mitigation Program By: Lawrence P. Allen Project Director Archaeological Resource l~nagement Corporation 12918 Haster Street Garden Grove, California 92640 James N. Hill, Ph.D. Principal Investigator For: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District Environmental Planning Section 300 No Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Contract #DACW09-81-C-0016 JANUARY 1982 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is a product of the energies and expertise of many individuals. Mro Richard Macias and Ms. Patricia Mar~z administered the project on behalf of the Army Corps and Mro Macias also providedour liason with the Corps. Mso Martz supplied the field notes and photographs from the test investi- gation of the site. The overall project, of which the archaeo- logical investigation of SBr-895 is one part, has been coordinated by Marie Cottrell, President of ARMCo Principal Investigator for the projec~ has been Dr. James N. Hill of UCLA. Helping us to better understand the cultural context of the site were researchers interested in the area; Dr. Thomas Black- burn of Cal Poly Pomona, Dr.~ Bernice McAllister of Chaffey College and Dr. Fred Reinman of Cal State Los Angeles° Mrs. Grayce Teal of the San Bernardino County Museum graciously pro- vided the records of sites in the vicinity of SBr-895. Mr. N. Nelson Leonard III of the San Bernardino County Planning Department provided background information on earlier investi- gations of the s~e. Mr. W. Waugh and Mr. KoE~ Gwin of the Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles and Mr. J. Kline and Mr. Po Herrera of the Cucamonga County Water District provided helpful informa- tion on the extent and locations of modern disturbance to the site° Our field crew members included Katie Del Chario, Debra Digu~, Karen Jasper, Larry Sullivan, Terry Quenette, and John Milburn. John Milburn also served as stratigrapher for the project and is responsible for the wall profiles and strata descriptions found in Appendix E,~ Debra Digua was responsible for the cataloging, material iden.~ification, and preliminary classification of the artifacts recovered in addition to contributing the paper on the geologic history of the region. as it applies to the lithics of SBr-895, included here as Appendix Do She would like to acknow- ledge the guidance of Mr. Ronald Gibson, Dr. Hugh Wagner, and Dr. Steven Williams with the lithic material i~entifications and the editorial advice of Dr. Wagner. Dr. Wagner also identified the faunal remains discussed in Section 8.0. Adella Schroth, in her capacity as laboratory director of ARMC, was responsible for' the processing of samples for special- ized analyses° Glenn Russell of the Obsidian Hydration Laboratory of UCLA, provided the hydration measurements. Esta Wing drew the obsidian items depicted in Figure 1, while James Bennett illus- trated the spherical ground stone piece of Figure 2 and provided the base map used for Maps 2 through 5o Janet H~,,,-ond typed the manuscript. Special thanks are due several individuals. Marie Cottrell contributed to the sections dealing with food resources and tool functions° Dr~ Hill, along with ~lr. Macias and Helen Wells of the Corps provided thorough reviews of the draft of this report, their suggestions have eliminated many instances of convoluted logic and grammar. Those that remain are my responsibility alone° L. ~P .A. ABSTRACT This report focuses on the archaeological segment of a three- part project undertaken by Archaeological Resource Management Corporation in fulfillment of Contract DACW09-81-C-0016 issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. This archaeological portion had as its subject the Chaffey Hillside Site, CA-SBr-895, at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains overlooking the Cuca- monga area of the Pomona Valley. The research included a review of relevant site survey and site report recor.ds and consultation with archaeologists inter- ested in the Cucamonga area=, in addition to fieldwork at the site itself involving a program of controlled surface collection and excavation. The site represents a small cyclically re-occupied camp at least 1300 years old. Activities at the camp appear to have focused on the extraction and processing of plant materials, specifically yucca and oak. It is hypothesized that the people responsible for creating the deposit were based for the greater portion of the year at a larger settlement near Red Hill, and visited SBr-895 while following a seasonal round of movement targeted at particularly abundant wild resources. Included in the report are sections dealing with the natural and cultural contexts of the site, field procedures used, radio- carbon dates and obsidian hydration measurements obtained, and probable lithic source areas along with detailed accounts of the artifacts, debitage, and faunal remains recovered. Also included is a discussion of the problems in the application of existing cultural historical frameworks to sites in the interior portions of the greater Los Angeles Basin, and some predictions of what might be expected at other sites in the region if the reconstruc- tion offered for the settlement system of which SBr-895 was a part is correct. Included among the appendicies are discussions of the geologic history of the region as it applies to.lithic resources of inter- est to the site's inhabitants and the soil. stratification encountered° TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.2 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 7.0 8.0 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 10.0 10.1 10.2 INTRODUCTION Background to the Investigation Location of the Site Previous Investigations Present Condition of the Deposit PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS Natural History Cultural Setting RESEARCH DESIGN ~;D IMPLEbfENTATION FIELD PROCEDURES DATING THE DEPOSIT Radiocarbon Dating Obsidian Hydration Measurements THE ARTIFACT INVENTORY Introduction Ground Stone Chipped Stone Hammerstones Miscellaneous Lithic Materials SPATIAL REI~TIONS AMONG THE ARTIFACTS FAUNAL ANALYSIS SUBSISTENCE AND SETTLEMENT IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Sites Reported in the Vicinity of CA-SBr-895 Subsistence-Related Activities Assemblages in the Region The Context of Settlement at CA-SBr-895 SUMMARY AN-D CONCLUSIONS Substantive Interpretive REFERENCE S 1 1 1 3 7 9 9 11 17 24 29 29 31 34 34 37 42 51 54 54 59 64 67 67 68 72 75 79 79 8O 83 Appendix A - Transit Reading Conversions Appendix B - Catalog Sorted by Provenience Appendix C - Catalog Sorted by Material Appendix D - Identification and Sources of the Lithic Materialtos From CA-SBr-895 Appendix E - Soil Stratification Page 86 94 99 104 126 9. 10. 11. 12. TABLES 1. Uses and Seasonality of the Ethnographically Used Food Resources 2. Radiocarbon Dates and Corrections Applied 3. Obsidian Hydration Measurements 4. Lithic Material Codes 5. Artifact Types by Lithic Material 6. Artifact/Material Summarl!~. Table 7. Artifact Types by Excava~i:::ton Strata and Surface Collection Faunal List Bone Provenience Comparative Site Characteristics Geologic Time Scale Levels Assigned to Each Stratum 20 30 32 36 55 58 61 65 66 73 119 143 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FIGUP, ES Obsidian Tools and Debitage Sphere Excavation Unit ~5-South, West Wall Profile Excavation Unit #6-South, West Wall Profile Excavation Unit ~7-North, East Wall Profile Excavation Unit #8-South, West Wall Profile Excavation Unit #9-North, East Wall Profile Excavation Unit #9-South, West Wall Profile Excavation Unit ~' 7r10-East, South Wall Profile Excavation Unit f~ll-North, West Wall Profile Page 33 43 131 132 133 134 135 136 138 PLATES 1. View Facing North Across Site 2. View Facing South From Half Way Up Hill 3. Slab Metate #8817 4. Basin Metate #8816 5. Excavation Unit #6~ South Wall 100 cm Floor 6. Excavation Unit #6, South Wall 130 cm Floor 7. Excavation Unit #9~ North Wall 120 cm Floor 4 5 40 41 128 129 130 MAPS 1. Site Location 2. Area of Investigation 3. Disturbances 4. Positions of Excavation Units 5. Positions of Surface Materials & Site Boundaries 6. Geology of the Site Environs 7, Lithic Source Areas 2 6 8 2!5 60 110 Ill 1o0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Investigation The following report presents the findings of an archaeologi- cal salvage investigation conducted at the prehistoric Chaffey Hillside Site, CA-SBr-895. The purpose of the mitigation program was to alleviate any adverse impacts which may occur to the site as a result of' the construction of a flood control related hillside debris basin. This archaeological investigation was one aspect of a three-part interdisciplinary mitigation program which also included an extensive archival study of the early census records housed at the San Gabriel Mission and a related interpretive display exhibit which is being prepared for the San Manuel Reservation Cultural Center. The entire project was undertaken by .Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC) in fulfillment of Contract #DACW09-81-C-0016 as amendec! November 14, 1980 and issued by the Environmental Planning Section of the Los Angeles District, United States Army Corps of Engineers. Marie Cottrel. 1, President of ARMC, served as coordi- nator for the project, and Dr. James N. Hill as Principal Investigator. The project was coordinated with Patricia Martz and Richard Macias of the Army Co=ps of Engineers. 1.2 Location of the Site The site is situated at the base of the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains overlooking the Cucamonga area of the vast Pomona - San Bernardino -Riverside Valley, an inland, inter- montane segment of the Los Angeles Basin, to the south (Map 1). From the northern edge of the valley floor at about 2200' (670.6 m), the mountains rise rapidly to an elevation of 8859' (2700.2 m), at Cucamonga Peak, 6.4 kilometers north of the site. MAP 1: Site Location Source: U.S.G.S. Cucamonga Peak 7.5' Quad 1966 (Photorevised N kilometers The channel of a small spring-fed stream forms the western boundary of the site, while the broad alluvial. fan of Deer Creek opens to the east. The site backs up against the steep (45© slope) hillside to the north,and scattered artifacts were found down the more gentle 12° grade to the south and southwest (Plates 1, 2; Map 2). More specifically, the site is located at 37© 9' 55" North Latitude and 117° 34' 43" West Longitude in the Southeast ¼ of Section 14; Township 1 North, Range 7 West on the U.SoG.S. Cucamonga Peak 7o5' Quadrangle (1966, photorevised 1980)o The Universal Transverse Mercator designation is Zone 11, 446630E, 3780480N. The cult~ural deposit itself spanned the 2245' (684.3 m) to 2225' (678~2 m) contours and scattered artifacts continued down the slope to the 2205' (672.1 m) elevation~ 1.3 Previous Investigations The site was discovered by students of nearby Chaffey College and officially recorded in August of 1975 by N. Nelson Leonard, then with the Archaeological Research Unit at the University of California, Riverside.(UCRARU). T~e.San Bernardino County Museum designation for the site is #2707. A surface inspection and a series of test excavations were carried out at the site in conjunction with a program of survey and testing of sites in the Cucamonga, Demens, Deer, and Hill- side Creek Channels conducted for' the Army Corps of Engineers. These investigations were conducted by the UCRARU, under the direction of Patricia Mart~ (£976). The results of this inves- tigat.'on were presented in a report (Martz 1976), which also set forth a series of~ mitigation recommendations that structured the format of the present project. Excavations in Progress at Unit f/8 (left middle ground) and Unit f/7 (center middle ground),~ Note position of transit over datum between units~ Plate 1: View Facing North Across Site. --4-¸ Units #f, 6, 7, 9 open (],eft foreground)and #8 (right background)° Plate 2: View Facing Soutlh From Half Way Up Hillo 5 MAP 2: Area of Investigation 1.4 Present Condition of the Deposit ~p 3 illustrates some of the modern disturbances which have affected the deposit. An unpaved power line maintenance road crosses the area and bisects the site. The area to t]e south of the road has been scraped clean, and the only remnant of the original ground surface ~s a s~11 rise that can be seen as the 2225' comtour on Map 3. Additionally, a Cucamonga County Water District pipeline trench runs down from the northeast and into the control valve vault before exiting to the southwest and then turning south. The north side of the road cuts to a depth of 150 cm into the hillside near the datu~ point. To the east, the hillside and road more gradually merge in the vicinity of Transmission Tower #22111° The west side of the hill itself has been cut by mechanical equipment, and an area ham been gouged ~ediately east of the datum~ both a 22 cm diameter concrete pipe and a 7 cm iron pipe cross the site here. According to Mr. M. Waugh of the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles, a copper grounding cable, attached to the south leg of the trans-. mission tower, was ~id across the area in the 1930's. The surface of the site has served am a recent dimpersed dump, with broken bottles being the most common objects ~een. The spot has evidently retained its attraction as a focus of ¢mmp- site activities. Modern materialm penetrated to a mmximum depth of 30 cm below surface in the units excavated. ! / ! ! ! ,~,,_ Contour Interval = 5' E.T. =exploratory trent 0 2 10 ~ = disturbed areas north of road. -I MAP 3: Disturbances. 8 2.0 PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS 2.1 Natural History The northern edge of the Pomona Valley intersects the southern face of the San Gabriel Mountains at approximately ahe 2200' (671 m) elevation contour near which the site lies. This is also roughly the boundary between the warm-semiarid climate of the valley and the warm-subhumid climate of the foothills (Bailey 1954)o Rainfai. 1 along the northern edge of the valley averages 20-24" (51-61 cm) per year (Storey 1948:Figure 4). The site sits between the Recent alluvium of the Deer Canyon Wash to the west and older remnant Pleistocene deposits that cover the higher elevations in the valley to the west and sour'h- west (Appendix D:Map 6). Immediately north of the site, the San Gabriel Mountains begin with some of the oldest rocks in the region, the Precambrian igneous and metamorphic complex (Rogers 1967). These rise on the northern side of the Cucamonga Fault, a northward dipping thrust fault. At successively higher' elewm- tions are exposed first the Pre-Cretaceous metamorphic rocks and then the Mesozoic granitic batholith. A more detailed account of the geologic hJslory of the region, particularly as it applies to lithic resource.s important to the native inhabitants and found at SBr-895, is given in Appendix Spring-fed streams run along the canyon bottoms near the site. Rainfall is particularly heavy in the shadow (southeast) of Sawn Antonio Peak located in the mountains north of the site in an area that forms the watershed for these streams (Storey 1948:11). The amount of water in any particular stream is in part a fu~c- tion of the permeability of the underlying rocks. The streams, that drain the mountain front in the area of the site and generally from the region north of Ontario to Lytle Creek, are underlain by areas of massive diorite that is not fractured to any great depth (ibid:14). Here stream flow continues through the s~mmer. This is in contrast to the San Dimas Canyon area, feeding into the San Gabriel Valley to the west. Here the Pre-Cretaceous rocks are fractured to greater depths and a great deal of water can seep through and down into the valley fill without ever appearing on the surface~ 'In years of normal precipitation, stream flow usually stops by the middle or end of July (ibid). Springs also fed the marsh that covered a portion of the plain at the base of Red Hill before it was drained for 19th century agriculture. In addition to providing plant materials, the marsh would have served as the home of the densest popula- tions of year-round resident birds and fall/winter resident migrants. The site itself is located at the juncture of the Coastal Sage-scrub (soft chaparral) and (hard) Chaparral Plant Coa~uni- ties. Scattered Woodland associations occur along nearby moist canyon bottoms. In its lower reaches, chamise-dominant Chapar- ral merges indistinctly into the Coastal Sage (Bailey 1954:37). The Coastal Sage-scrub of the edges of the plain south of the site presents a low-to-medi~nn density cover of low shrubs. Common plants of this co~udnity include California sagebruslh (Artemisia californica), white sage ('Salvia apiana), black sage (Salvia mellifera), yerba santa (Eriod±ctyon crassifolium), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and lemonadeberry (R~us integrifolia). Common mammals include the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), nimble kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis), desert wood rat (Neotoma lepida), California mouse (Peromyscus californicus), and the short-eared pocket mouse (Perog~nathus fallax). Associated reptiles include the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), striped racer (Masticophis ~ateralis), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viri- dis), (Jaeger and Smith 1966:44). The chaparral of the mountains north of the site presents a denser, almost' impenetrable cover. Characteristic plants of the Chaparral Community include chamise (Adenostoma 'fasciculatum), California holly or toyon (Heteromeles arbuti'folia), holly-leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), California lilac (Ueanothus sp.), Spanish bayonet (Yucca whipplei), laurel s,i,mac (Rhus laurina)~, and sugar bush (Rhus ovata) (Ornduff 1974:92-93). Associated mammals include the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoarKenteus), bo~bcat (Lynx rufus), and brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmmni). Reptiles include the southern alligator lizard (Gerrhono'tus multicarina- tus) and coast horn lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum) in addition to the species also ~found in the Sage-scrub zone (Jaeger and Smith 1966:44-45)~ Canyon-bottom woodland trees identified near the site inclu~de coast live oak (Quercus aKrifolia~, golden willow ~(Salix lasi- andra), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and big-leaf maple (Acer mmcrophyllum). 2.2 Cultural Setting Cultural change in the southern California coastal region was very slow when compared to the cultural changes which occurred elsewhere in North America. This has lead to. numerous problems in culture historical reconstruction in the local area. Unlike other regions where cultures have undergone fairly distinct changes through time which can be readily documented through the archaeological record~ the cultures represented along the southern California coast have undergone more subtle changes which are more difficult to define and even more difficult to explain. The end product of this situation has been the development of some rather broad, general frameworks which serve as the basis for the culture chronologies in the area. While there have been two regional chronologies presented for the southern California coastal region, the classic statement of culture chronology was presented by William Wallace in 1955. This chronological framework was phrased in terms of four suc-- cessive "Horizons"; however, this is potentially misleading, since in more common usage of the term (e.g., Willey and Phillips 1958), horizons are marked by the appearance of a combination of distinctive characteristics that spread rapidly through a culture area and persist only over relatively brief spans of time. The term is inappropriately applied to the patterns of continuity and gradual ill-defined change that describe the prehistory of the southern California coastal region. While Wallace's scheme can be considered to be somewhat inappropriate for the inland valley region, it is the more frequently cited chronology in the literature, and it,. therefore,. bears reiteration. Wallace's four-fold scheme begins with Horizon I: Early Man, best known from the San Dieguito complex of the south and desert regions. This complex has not been identified in the Los Angeles Basin area and, therefore, will not be discussed in this text. The first period which is relevant to the interior of the Los Angeles Basin is Wallace's :'Hc~rizon II: Milling Stone Assemblages". These are characterized by large proportions of manos and metares evidently not used in the earlier period. The remaining features 12 are largely negative. That is, the assemblages lack bone or shell tools and ornaments, lack evidence of vessels for storing or cooking food~ and contain few well-made projectile points ar,~d only scant dietary bone remains. The picture is one of thorough dependence on wild plant resources except along the coast where shellfish remains may be included. The succeeding "Horizon III: iLntermediate Cultures Assemblages" fills an amorphous span between the Milling Stone and Late periods. Common features include greater evidence of hunting and the introductiom of the mortar and pestle tool complex. This last is usually linked to the crushing of acorns prior to leach- ing the tannic acid out of the nut so that the meal could be consumed. Chipped stone tools are more common and more diverse, and include large st~',,,,ed projectile points. Bone, antler, and shell tools and ornmments are present, but the use of asphaltum and steatite is rare. Land m~mm~l bones are common as are sea ma,,.ml and shellfish remains near the coast. Nanos and metates continue to form an important part of the assemblage, but are no longer the predominant artifact type. The earliest assemblages attributed to the "Horizon III: Intermediate Cultures" are best known from the Santa Barbara region which Rogers (1929) referred to as the "Hunting Culture". This horizon has been dated to approximately 3000 B.C. in its northern extent, but only to approx~mmtely 1500 B.C. further south along the southern Los Angeles and Orange Counties coast. The initial appearance is less certain in the in~erior of the Los Angeles Basf'n, and is not: doc~mented at all in San Diego County. 13 S'! The final "'Horizon IV: Late Prehistoric Cultures" was a period of localization and specialization in adaptations° Local com- plexes do share certain characteristics which include an abund- ance of small,. finely-chipped projectile points, and sometimes pottery vessels (in the South), circular shell fishhooks, perforated stones, a variety of bone tools, and stone, shell and bone ornaments along with the co~m,~n use of asphaltum as an adhesive. The importance of hunting and fishing increased although wild plant exploitation continued. In the Los Angeles Basin, this period is often linked with a hypothesized intrusion of Shoshonean - speaking groups into the coastal region, placed by Kroeber at between 1000 and 1500 years ago (1925:578-579). In 1968, Claude Warren reappraised the region's chronology from a perspective of cultural ecology. He asserted that inter- assemblage variation. is not only a function of time, but also a product of ecological adaptation in the sense that groups thal~ live by hunting and gathering wild food resources most often move through a yearly seasonal round following the resources targeted as they become available. Contemporary settlements of the same people should contain assemblages reflecting these changing adaptations through the year. An explanatory framewo~rk for adaptive changes was offered by Kowta (1969), with the ultin~te motive force seen in climate change. He presented a set of interrelated hypotheses designed to explain the function o~f scraper planes, the contents of Milling Stone assemblages, and their appearance and localized replacement° Kowta proposed that a tool complex involving scraper planes~ hammerstones, manos, and metates, was linked to the processing of fleshy fibrous plants, particularly yucca and agave, for food and cordage~ The appearance of these assemblages 1.4 in coastal southern California is said to coincide with the onset of Antevs' (1952) Altithermal climmte phase at around 6000 B.C. As people of the interior were driven to the coast by the in- creasing aridity and dessication of interior water sources, the climate change also encouraged the spread of agave into the coas- tal areas which had previously been too moist.to support the spe- cies. The agave were gradually replaced'by yucca, but the tool k~ remained. These assemblages persisted with little alteration except in areas where shellfish or acorns were available. What is needed for a convincing account of either the cultural ecology or explanation of culture change in coastal southern California is a perspective that deals with the evolution of entire settlement systems rather than idealized site types con- sidered as normarive representatives of each t~mm period. Sites formed at very different t~mes may share identical assemblages a~ a function of continuity of seasonal subsistence orientations, just as contemporaneous sites of different positions in the same settlement system mmy well have very different assemblages. Moreover, a dynmmic description of the evolution of settlement systems. should be accompanied by an inventory of assemblage characteristics and environmental correlates expectable for sites of each type through time. One of the most critical tmsks facing us is t~o begin to outline~this dynmm~c structure by producing models that are testable by their deducible consequ.en- ces in the archaeological record. Returning to the cultural historical sequence, intense comtact with Europeans began in the area with the establishment of the Mission San Gabriel in 1771. The San Gabriel Mission was in possession of much of the coastal plain from Aliso Creek in Orange Cotmty~ north to somewhere between Topanga and Malibu (Johnston 1962). All of the native inhabitants within the domain of the Mission became known as the Gabrielinos. Ethnohistorical 15 kit records (Reid 1926; Johnston 1962) describe the Gabrielino villages or "ranchertas" as being often located on high ground in broad valleys near dependable sources of water. These were supplemented by more temporary campsites established near speci- fic seasonally abundant resources° Populations at the "ran- cherias" or v~llages ranged from 50 to 200 people. One aspect of the present project, of which the archaeological research at SBr-895 is but one part, involves an archival study of the early records of the Mission San Gabriel with particular note made of the records of people associated with the village of Cucamonga located on the rise on the valley floor now kno~n~ as Red Hill, 5 km southwest of SBr-895. This area was once ringed with prehistoric deposits, now virtually all destroyed. These are more thoroughly discussed in Sections 9~1 and 9.4° The greater inland Valley remained loosely controlled and used as pasture by the Mission until. the establishment of the San Bernardino Assistencia in its San Bernardino segment in 1819. Raids on the cattle and horses of the settlers by the nearby Serrano continued well. into the 19th century. 1¸6 3.0 RESEARCH DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION Little is currently known of the prehistory of the interior valley. The nearest fully reported sites lie in the Cajon Pass (Kowta 1969), 18 km to the northeast of SBr-895 and in the San Gabriel Valley (Eberhart 1962; Eberhart and Wasson 1975; Wasson et al. 1978). 'While radiocarbon dates are not available ~for any of these sites, they have 'been assigned to the "Milling Stone Horizon" (Wallace 1955) by their investigators, based on typolo- gical considerations. The culture historical framework for the region under consideration is, therefore, replete with gaps both in time and space, and it is difficult to measure the occupation of SBr-895 against the tenuous outline. Establishing the age of the deposit, in addition to describing its assemblage, therefore, is very important if these gaps are ever to be filled ino Both absolute and relative dating methods have been applied to the evidence of SBr-895. The former includes both radiocarbon age determination of suitable samples and obsidian hydration measurement of all pieces of obsidian recovered. The measure- ments were made by the UCLA Obsidian Hydration Laboratory before samples were sent to Dr. Roman Schmitt of the Department.of Chemistry, Oregon State University° for neutron activation trace- el ement charact erizat ion. Relative dating via the stylistic analysis of temporally sensitive items is based on the premise that societies develop elements of style in their material culture that can be consi- dered independent of function° These styles tend to occur within restricted periods of time and are usually shared among related cultures. The analysis of these stylistically diagnos- tic artifacts can be used for cross-comparisons between the site and other sites which have been previously dated where similar 17 artifacts have been found° This site, therefore, can be dated relative to other sites in the region° The problem with using relative dating in the southern Cali- fornia region stems from the persistence of partict~lar types with little or no stylistic changes for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years. ArtJ. facts in the area which have been con- sidered to be temporally sensitive include projectile points, beads, pendants, effigies, cogstones, discoidals and pottery (Warren 1968). While the site under investigation has been described as a seasonally occupied campsite, it was hoped that the types of data needed to use both methods of dating would be recovered. By using the two dating techniques, it was hoped that a more accurate projection of the duration of the occupation could be derived than relying on either method alone. The Gabrielino settlement system at the t~me of missionization most closely corresponded to a semisedentary central-base pattern with secondary c~mps set up near seasonally available resources. The antiquity of this arrangement is ur~nown, but it is a question to which our researches could contribute. l~mrtz (1976:25) charac- terized SBr-895 as a small hunting and gathering camp such as those described for the ethnohistorically known Gabrielino. One of our major tasks was to fill. in the details of this picture with a wider view of the subsistence strategies employed at the site. If SBr-895 was, in fact, a temporary cm? whichwas establi- shed near seasonally available resources, the first thing to be considered would be to determine what resources were available near the site which could have had food value to the inhabitmnts lB of the region° Based on the flora and fauna inventories presen- ted in the Natural History section of this report, there are five floral and three faunal genera available in the immediate vicinity of the site which are known ethnographically to have been impor- tant in the historic diet (Table 1). .on -ac- Specific to the site area, the presence of a spring and the occurrence of yucca in abundance would have been attractive features for its settlement° Desired fauna such as jackrabbits, brush rabbits and deer could have supplied needed protein to the diet, and would have been available whenever the site was occu- pied. Other plant resources may have been gathered as well, but their distribution in the Valley would have been widespread, and this locality may not have been occupied specifically for their collection° Yucca could have been collected and processed during the spring and s~mmer seasons~ and :Lt is interesting to note that most of the other plants would have been available for part of the same season or seasons~ Thus, while yucca may have been the primary focus of collection for part of the spring and summer season, seeds from the sages and buckwheat would also have been available for collection at the same time. During the spring, the yucca blossoms were probably collected, and fresh shoots from the buckwheat and berries from the to~on bush could have been gathered. The only two resources available during other times of the year, mainly the fall and winter, would be the acorn and toyon berries° Thus, the site could. have been re-occupied a number of times during an annual cycl. e. The tool assemblage recovered from the site should reflect the types of subsistence activities which were being carried out, and should aid in defining which of the available resources were, in fact, being procured and processed. Specifically, tools associated with yucca processing (such as choppers and scraper planes) were expected; projectile points, knives and scrapers 19 TABLE 1: Uses and Seasonality of the Ethnographically Used Food Resources PLANTS: SCIENTIFIC NAMt~ Eriogonum fasciculatum Heteromeles arbutifolia Quercus agrifolia Salvia apiana Salvia mellifera COMMON NAME Buckwheat Toyon Oak White sage Black sage USES shoots, seeds (flour) food, leaves, flowers and medicines berries- food F, W, Sp acorn- flour (food) F, W seeds-flour, 1 eaves, Su, F shampoo, dye, medic ine seeds-flour, food Su,F, condiments Sp SEASON* Sp, Su,] Odocoileus hemionus ~Lepus californicus Sylvila~us bac _hmmni H~le deer food, tools, clothing Jackrabbit food, clothing Brush rabbit food, clothing All yea ~[1 yea All yea *Sp = Spring; F = Fall; W = Winter; Sm = Slm~r. 2O P ~_ar ~ar should be evident if game was being captured and processed; and groundstone implements should be evident if the seeds from Salvia and Erio~onum were being collected and processed° Following the contract specifications, the data recovery pro- gram was designed with two aspects, including both an intensive surface collection and controlled excavation of between 25 amd 30 cubic meters of soil. Provenience control for surface items was by their exac~ positions, while excavated items not recovered in situ were located by reference to particular 10 cm excavatior~ levels. Consideration of the topographic position of the site, at the base of a steep slope~ tntroducted the possibility that it might exhibit physically detectable strata. Such a situation would allow us to trace any changes that might have occurred over the span of the site"s occupation. In the analyses that follow, the stratification of the deposit is exploited by assigning each 10 cm excavation level to the natural stratum to which it most' closely corresponds. This was done with the aid of detailed profiles drawn of at least two wal. ls of every excavation unit. The research design called f~r the placement of the excaw~- tion units to 'be determined by a sampling scheme with a random component. This was to be done in order to be more certain of the validity of extrapolation from the characteristics of the por- tions of the site sampled to the population of the site as a whole. Upon examination of the site, however, it became clea~ that the problem was one of finding any patch that had not been previously scraped, gouged, or otherwise disturbed. The units were placed so as to avoid the most obvious and extensive areas of disturbance (See Section 4.©; Map 4). Although the deposil~ varied in depth and density of cultural materials across lateral space, a good ~eal of redundancy was found among the units° 21 It is unlikely that any class of items present in appreciable quantities in t:he deposit was not encountered in either the s~Lr- face collection or excavation. The representativeness of our sample, at least :in terms of the range of artifact types, doe.~: not seem to be a problem~ In additiorL to temporal and site function dimensions, the question of et'hnic identity could well complicate the picture of inter-assemblage variability, since at the time of missionization both Gabrielino and Serrano villages occupied the valley (Kroeber 1925:65; Johnston 1962:14-16). The Serranos ("mountaineers") occupied the eastern San Gabriel Mountains north and east of .~;an Antonio and Cucamonga Peaks, as well as the area across the Cmjon Pass and into t:he San Bernardino Mountains. Serrano villages are also recorded in the eastern San Bernardino portion of t'he Valley. With control of the Pass, the Serrano also comtrolled the most: likely route for the obsidian and light-colored chalcedony folmd at SBr-895. Archaeological detectable cultural differentiation m~ght well be found in the products of differemtial access to these exotic l'£thic materials. Specifically, Serrano settlements may exhibit higher proportions of obsidian and theft chmlcedony- in their cl.~ipped stone inventories than contemporaneous Gabrielino settlements. Alt~,ough the compar, ative perspective necessary 1~o address the question of ethnic differentiation is beyond the scope of this project, an effort has been made to thoroughly docu- ment the quantities of exotic lithic material¢ found at SBr-8'~5 (including volumetric information), in order to facilitate even- tual inter-assemblage comparisons. S2mples of the naturally occurring rock~ hoth in and around the site were collected in order to provide a base-line from 'which to investigate the processes of lithic extraction and curation by identifying those tools made of rocks not found in the immediate area. Our subsequent analytic efforts have been designed to 22 ~n ~r ,n 'e ~y. specify the material composition of all artifacts, and the geo- logic literature has been reviewed in order to isolate likely source areas for each material. A special provision was made for trace element characterization of the obsidian. Although a good many obsidian hydration measurements have been published for sites in coastal southern California, source characteriza- tion has rarely been attempted° Yet the source of the samples is a critical issue in the determination of the rate of hydra- tion and, ultimately, the age of the specimens. Researchers involved in the excavation of sites around Red Hill, the location of the proto-historic Cucamonga Village, 5 km southwest of SBr-895 were contacted. These included Dr. Thomas Blackburn of California State Polytechnic University, Dr. Bernice McAllis~er of Ghaffey Colle§e, and Dr. Fred Reinman of California State University, ]Los Angeles. The ~site records of the San Bernardino County Museum were inspected, and they revealed' several sites 'recorded for the area after Martz' review (1976) o no Um ch Y 4.0 FIELD PROCEDURES Our fieldwork took place between January 21, and February 15, 1981, and involved a program of intensive surface collection and controlled excavation. In all, 29.84 cubic meters of soil was excavated, apportioned among seven 2 x 2 m units (Map 4). Martz' original test investigation datum was first located with the help of field notes she provided. The entire crew then began an intensive surface inspection and collection. The examination extended well beyond the site limits indicated in the test, but in fact no cultural materials were found outside these limits. All suspected items were flagged before being assigned field n~mbers and collection and their positions were shot in from a transit station established at the test datum° As in the subse- quent excavation phase, crew members were urged to be generous in their evaluation of what constituted culturally relevant objects, with the final decisions to be made in the laboratory. This entire procedure was repeated after several days of rain° The results of the surface collection are discussed in Section 7.0. The transit station itself was tied to several fixed man-made objects in the vicinity (Map 4; Appendix A). It proved both impractical and unnecessary to establish a formal grid over the site due to the topographic irregularity introduced by modern disturbances acting on the natural slope (Section 1o4)o The positions of all surface materials and exca.- vation units are nonetheless specified by reference to their positions relative to the datum. 24 ! ! 1 / 1 ! cvv : control valve vault ~= datum MAP 4: Positions of Excavation Units. 25 The originall. plan to introduce a random element to the place- ment of the excavation units was abandoned in light of the actual condition of the deposit (Section 4.1). Five of the seven units were placed in what will be referred to as the central area of the site on the broadest, relatively flat, and least disturbed portion at the base of the hillside, north of the power line service road (Map 4). This was virtually the only part of the deposit that appeared reasonably intact, and had not already been sampled by the test level units nearer the stream bank to the west. All excavation units in the present investigation measured 2 x 2 m and were oriented on magnetic North (14~° East of true North). The numbering system used in Martz' original test was maintained. ~e 1 x 2 m 1976 test units had been designated ~1 through #4, and the present units continued with #5 through #11. The original test units are not shown on Map 4. Excavation Unit #8 was placed near the datum, between it and the stream bank, in order to allow us to better understand the limits and depth of the deposit° The same was true for Excava- tion Unit #10, positioned on a small rise that appeared to be the only remnant of the original ground surface south of the power line maintenance road. The units were excavated and materials collected in 10 cm arbitrary levels following the contour of the ground surface. All soil was dry sifted through rocker screens equipped with k" mesh. All lithic artifacts and fragments and suspected debitage not recovered in situ were collected from the screens, as were all animal bones° As in the surface collection, all artifacts recovered in the excavations were stone tools; no worked bone, shell, or ceramics were ~countered. 26 The soil matrix of the deposit included large quantities of unaltered rocks ranging from fist-sized through boulders weigh- ing well over 100 kg; they were predominately angular, reflec- ting their colluvial origins. These were removed, and excaw~- tion proceeded into the sandy yellow subsoil underlying the cultural deposit. The volume that these rocks conuributed to the midden appeared to rival that of the soil itself. Sub- angular and rounded rocks were more commnn in the two units atop the stream bank (#8 and #10) o The largest stream-rounded boulders were also found in these units. Before the units were backfilled, detailed profiles were drawn of at least two walls and photographs were taken of all walls. Soil samples were collected from selected walls of three excavation units (E.U.'s #6,7,10). Samples of naturally occur- ring rocks beyond the site's boundaries were collected and a sample was taken of the unaltered rocks found in the levels of Excavation Unit #9. Assisting our efforts to re-locate the roasting pit reported in earlier investigations, Mr~ P. Herrera of the CucamongaWater District marked the positions of the pipeline leading into az~d out of the contr,,l valve vault ~(~ap 3). A roamting pit-like depression ha~ been noted in the trench built for the pipeline running down ~om the northcant into the control valve.unit. Mr. Herrera informed us that the telephone and electric lines shared the pipeline trench. A ~mall cross-shaped exploratory trench was excavated by hand at the point along the pipeline trench indicated by a test level transit reading for the posi- tion of the roasting pit~ After a short 150 x 30 cm trench was dug perpendicular to the pipeline in order to locate its south- east wall, a ~ m long trench was extended paralleling the 2'7 pipeline° The unit was excavated with a pick-axe and shovel with. no level control, screening, or collection. Its sole purpose was to expose an expanse of stratification along the pipeline° The top 15 to 40 cm of the south wall of the 3 m segment was composed of a sterile medium brown overburden lay,~r related to the road edge. Below this, a thin (5-10 cm) older humus layer was exposed~ Underneath the humus lay a basal orange-yellow gravelly sand° 'I~nese layers were continuous across this portion of the pipeline, and no soil comparable to the midden north of the road was found. No carbonized material of any kind was seen. Im the north wall of the 3 m trench, the green-yellow clean sand used for pipeline trench fill was fo~d under the top overburden layers. er 28 5.0 DATING THE DEPOSIT 5.1 Radiocarbon Dating Two radiocarbon dates were obtained from samples of charcoal gathered in the excavation units° The samples consisued of scattered flecks of charcoal aggregated from various levels of several units in the central area° This was necessary in order to provide sample weights adequate for the analysis; thus, they do not carry the level of certainty associated with more secure hearth or fire-pit dates° The products of fires of various ages may well have been combined in the samples, and the ages reported may represent some middle interval in a range of younge~r and older materials~ Table 2 s~arizes the radiocarbon data and includes the raw dates, the measured C13/C12 ratios, the dates corrected for iso- topic fractionation, and finally, the calendar age of the samples calibrated by the dendrochronologic record using a procedure out- lined by Damon et al. (1976). Sample #1 was made up of charcoal from Strata II and III levels of Excavation Units #6 and #9. Sample #2 contained char- coal from the lowest levels of Stratum 1 in Excavation Units #7 and #9. The date of less th~n 180 years B.P. for Smmple #2 conforms to the reconstruction of the site's deposition (Appendix E). The colluvi,~, that caps the deposit is a recent phenomenon. The charcoal in this sample most probably was the product of brush fires occurring after the site was abandoned and during the early portion of the period of colluvial build-up. 29 TABLE 2: Radiocarbon Dates & Corrections Applied ARMC Sample Laboratory #: Provenience SBr-895-1 BETA-2552 E.U~6 70-130 cm EoU,9 60-120 ¢m (Strata 11 & below) SBr-895-2 BETA-2553 E.U.7 30-40 cm E.U.9 40-50 cm (Base of Stratum 1) C-14 Age in Years B.P. + 1 st. dev. 1450 + 70 B.P. less than 180 B.P. C13/C12 -25,47 0/00 -25.46 0/00 C13 Corrected date 1440 + 70 B.P. less than 180 B.P. Dendrochronologic Calibration A.D. 530 + 70 modern 3O Sample #1 dates some segment of the range of occupation of the site° An effort was made to avoid contamination from Stratum 1 by not including charcoal from the uppermost Stratum II levels in the sample. 5°2 Obsidian Hydration Measurements All five pieces of obsidian recovered were subjected to hydration measurememto The measurements, reported by Glenn Russell of the Obsidian Hydration Laboratory at UCLA, are listed in Table 3. Four of the five readings are in such a narrow range (5.4 - 5.8 microns) as to suggest a single or short-term production episode° The outlying value of 7.1 microns comes from the sole projectile point fragment recovered (Figure 1). Aside from t~he fact that this particular piece was the deepest found, there is no marked correlation between hydration thickness and either the stratum or level depth. The two pieces from Unit 5 were found at least 50 cm apart but differ by only one-tenth of a micron. The two Stratum ~ samples come from basal Stratum 1 levels, those most likely to contain an admixture of Stratum 11 materials. If the single radiocarbon date from the deposit itself is compared to the mean value of these measurements, a linear hydration rate of about 240 years per m~¢ron is suggested. ~his assumes that all pieces came from the same source and that both the obsidian and charcoal are represent~ive sm?mples of the total populations of material deposited. The latter assumption is particularly problemmtic~. 31 Dse 1 CD 0 0 0 0 00 00 cO 00 32 #8656 #8662 .~8821 FIGURE 1: Obsidia~ Tools and Debitage #8719 ~8634 Scale = iX 33 6.0 THE ARTIFAd.iT INVENTOt'~Y 6~ 1 Introduction The bulk of the SBr-895 artifact assemblage is made up of large, simple, percussion flaked scraping and cutting tools, with signi:ficant additional numbers of hammerstones and fragmented manos. Other notable ite~s incl. ude five whole metates, four mortar or bowl fragments~ two fragments of simple pestles, and a single fragment of a small obsidian projectile point. Examp]_es of highly siliceous crypt<~crystaline materials (chalcedony, chert, obsidian, quartz), whose <:~:haracu. eristic conchoidal fracture patterns make them suitable for delicate pressure flaking, are rare o All artifacts recovered were of stone. No shell artifacts or worked bone were encountered. Thirty-one of the 199 artifacts were found on the surface, while the remaining 168 came from the excavations. Seven of these artifacts had dual functional for a total of 206 distinct tools. For these, each function is enume- rated separately in the artifact listings that follow° In add:[- tion to the art£facts, 85 pieces of debitage were recovered° Non-artifacl: items lis:ted in the catalog and assigned acces- sion numbers include two small pieces of asphaltum, a piece of obsidian debitage, a small spheuoidal scoria pebble designated a manuport, and :five rocks possibly used as pigment stones° Within each descripti~:~n type category, the items are ordered first by the nu~nber of the excavation unit in which they were found, and witbin each ex(:~avation unit by the particular 10 cm level in which '~hey were found. The designation "5", for instance, refers to a 40-50 cm level° The designation "©" in 34 the EU (Excaw. ition Unit) column is used for items found on the surface; in these cases, the number in the LVL (level) column gives the surface collection field number assigned to each. %he next column reveals whetb. er the item is whole, "W" (at least 95% of the original[ tool), o~-, fragmentary, "F". This i~ followed by the weighs of whole items; in grams and their dimensions in centi- menters. The ~ext colu~m~ prow[des a mnemonic code for the lithic material. The~';e codes are explained in Table 4. The next column is reserved fo:~- any additional comments including alternate functions of m~'~lti-purpose tools, additional descriptive infozTna- tion, and for ~'~ano fragments, an estimate of the percentage of' the original when whole represented by' the fragment° The final, rightmost colLinen provides the A'RMC accession number assigned to each piece. The same information included in the listings of this section is provided in different forms in Appendices B and Co In Appen- dix B, the data are sorted by provenience, all items from a par- ticular level of each uni~ are grouped together. For Appendix C, they are sorted by the ma~;erial from which they are made. For several artifact classes, tables of summary descriptive statistics are interspersed with the listings. These tables include the range of the metric determinations for all whole objects in each class, the mean of the values, the sample stan- dard deviation, and the coefficient of variation (V). This last is simply the sl~andard dewiation divided by the mean and repre- sents the relat~i. ve degree of homogeneity among all items of each class on each measure~ A low value of V means that the items of the class are very similar on the measure and, conversely, a high value indicates a more varied range of values on the measure. A value of V of 0,0 would reflect a standard deviation of 0.0, which would be the case if all measurements were identica]~ 35 TABLE AND ANDV ASPH CAT CHALC DRT FELS GN GNE GNG GRDR GRNL MBST MTSD MTV OBS QZM QZT SCH SCO SDSTA SKARN VCFG 4: Lithic Material Codes. andesite vessicular andesire asphaltum cataclastic chalcedony diorite felsite gneiss epidote gneiss garnet gneiss granodiorite granulite metabasalt metasedimentary metavolcanic obsidian milky quartz quartzite rhyolite schist scoria arkosic sandstone skarn fine-grained volcanic 36 Lithic materials are more thoroughly dealt with in Section 6°6° Spatial relations within the deposit and the distribution of items in relation to the soil strata are discussed in Section 7.0° Comparison of the assemblage with those of other relevant sites is the subject of Section 9.3. 6.2 Ground Stone Fifty-three pieces of ground stone were recovered from SBr-895. Of these, thirty-one were identified as manos, fifteen as metates=. four as mortars, two as pestles, and one miscellaneous pigment grinding stone. Manos and metates, along with the hammerstones presumably used for their re-surfacing, comprise the millingstone tool complex, a group of artifacts probably involved in the pro- cessing of vegetal and animal foods, pigments, and medicines. Hard seeds, such as those of the local sages and buckwheat, were probably ground into a flour which then could be boiled and eaten. Similarly, small animals could have been processed using the same implements, so that they might be consumed in their entirety~ Medicines and pigments, likewise, were probably ground. When the process of le.ac~ing became known, the acorn was added to the list of exploitable resources and mortars and pestles became part of the ground stone inventoryx. Mano s Of the thirty-one manos recorded only five are complete. The manos are subdivided into unifacial (/U)(n=18) and bifacial (/B) (n=13) categories. The designation "/U?" (n=6) means that the fragment is at least unifacial, but that the piece is too small to determine whether the original was unifacial or bifacialo 37 Seven manos (all bifacial) are given the addition code "/ES" meaning that their edges have been deliberately shaped by varying degrees of pecking and grinding, An estimate of the percentage of the whole object represented by the fragments is recorded in the COMMENT column. ~t~3/B/ES BA~R3/B~S ~NO?J ~NU2J ~NO/J ~ANO/U ~NO/U? BqNO/U? 14ANO/U? I)ESCRIF'TID~; Ell LUL W/F ~IGHI' LENGTH WIDTH I)E2TN liAll~RIAL 0 1 F ~ 20I 5 5 F I~T 30I 5 8 F gU(T? )07. 7 B F I)RT 202: B 2 F !)RT B 4 F I)RT ~7. 5 4 F I)RT 5 4 8 ~I,00 9,~ 9,67 4,15 5 5 F 5 6 F ~T 5 7 F 1)RT 202: 5 8 F 7 5 F I~T 0 3 W (~"'9.~ 12,50 10,10 4,62 5 ¢ F ~T S B F ~T 20Z & B F ~ 402: 6 11 F CAT 40% 7 6 W 482,38 12,~ 8,44 4.30 ~T 8 4 F ~T 702: ? B F ? ? W 1021,50 13.60 9.63 6.12 11 6 W 744.~ 10,48 8,87 4,~ CAT 11 7 F ~ 202: 11 8 F CAT 402:, PA~COB 5 4 F GNG <10Z 5 ? F ~T 102: 8 3 F 8 4 F N(1)V ? 7 F I~F 202: 9 12 F ~RT XOZ .............. -", LF'j " 4'..q'-it,t. WEIGHT 10~l.5v '"'". 3 ~, B(,)5.05 ~ 16 0 .... LENGTH 1~.~0 ?.OS 'il.?7 1.55 0.1~ DEPTH 6.63 4 15 5,Z6 ~ 13 O.~'~ 38 ~"87~7 87~ ~62 8631 875 8714 8751 87~ ~20 ~61 ~81 Metares Five complete metares and ten metate fragments were recovered. Three of the whole examples are flat slabs ground on one surface,. but #8818 and #8819 also show evidence of lesser amm ~nts of grind- ing on their dorsal surfaces. The other two whole metares have oval basin-shaped ground surfaces. Metate #8816 has a roughly V- shaped bottom that would not have balanced unless it was set into the ground° The dorsal surface of #8820 was shaped by pecking. Examples of these complete metares are shown in Plates 3 and 4. Ell LUL W/F ~SIM 1.5 ~ H~I:', ~ ST~I# IN;IM 5 D! ~ftl~, ~ STAIN ~ 9T{IH ~ STAIM 8745 8817 8818 Mortars Three of the four mortar fragments recovered are portions of the base or walls, while the fourth is part of the rim. Judging from the differences in raw material composition, the fragments are pieces of four distinct mortars. The outer surface of each has been finished and either polished or pecked to shape. ttDP, T~ 0 Z[ [: ~ ~ BASE I~:~T~ ? B ~ gM' ~ ~Z, WBk'q'~ 5 4 ! ~6[A i{~45 39 ~7~ 88O4 8744 8745 875O [1774 ./ ~7 Plate 3: Slab Metate #8817. .! Plate 4: Basi, n Metate #8816 Pes les The ~.wo pestle fragments are portions of only slightly modified elongated cobbles with oval cross-sections and evidence of crush- ing wear near their fractured working ends. ~SCRIPTI~ E~J t~ W/F ~I~T LE]~I]TH WID'rt4 )~]~TH ~ERIN. PEST'~ 0 ~ F S'I)STA PESTLE 7 6 F GNG Miscellaneous Ground Stone The metasedimentary "dish" fragment has a concave ground sur- face with traces of a yellowish powdery substance. It may repre- sent a portion of a pigment grinding stone. The granite "sphere" has a~;: least five ground facets (Figure 2). Whether these were formed by the deliberate shaping of the object to spherical proportions or :in its use as a grinding tool is uncertain. DI~ 0 2O F HT$I) SF'~ 7 1C' W ~2.~ 7,~ 6,97 6,~ GRMT 6°3 Chipped Stone Tools A total of 129 chipped stone tools were identified. These include 49 cores or large, thick scrapers with steep edge angles, 24 retouched or "sharpened" tools and 56 utilized flakes. The large scrapers and scraper planes generally are assumed to have functioned as woodworking or heavy plant shredding tools (Kowta 1969, Wilmsen 1968). Of the 24 retouched tools, seven were cate- gorized as knives and seventeen as scrapers. In the utilized flake category, ten were categorized as 'knives and 46 as simple scrapers. Some portion of t~e 85 pieces of debitage recovered may also have been used as tools without producing any detectable modification to the original edges.. 4 2 8806 FIGURE 2: Sphere Scale 43 Scrapers, as their name implies, are used to scrape objects. For example, they may have been used to remove sinew and connec- tive tissue from hides, as well as to soften them; to perform various woodworking activities and to shred fibers of plants. The resultant wear pattern is observed as the removal of chips from one side of the edge, the edge which ihas contact with the object being worked. Knives on the other hand, are used to perform cntting functions, and as such, the wear appears on both sides of the edge. These tools were presumably used to cut meat, hides, bone, and wood° Scrapers The core and large, thick flake scrapers are coded SCR/P for scraper planes (plano-convex scrapers), SCR/CE for curved edge scrapers, SCR/SE for straight-edge scrapers, and SCR/CL for the single scraper-cleaver. This generally follows the classifica- tion devised by Kowta (1969:20-27)to categorize examples of these tools recovered from the Sayles Site in Cajon Pass. His classification, in turn, is an adaptation of earlier schemes used by Treganza and Malamud (1950:136-139) and Johnson (1966:5-7) for Milling Stone sites of the Topanga Complex of the Santa Monica Mountains. All these sites have much more extensive and diverse artifact inventories than that recovered from SBr-895 and wider ranges of scraper types. For the purpose of the present study Kowta's "Lowback Uniface Scrapers", that differ from his scraper plane category only in their lower profiles, are combined with the latter° This was done because the bulk of the examples from SBr-895 have a height (depth) less than half the maximum basal dimension, and thus would not qualify under Kowta's narrow defi- nition of scraper planes (although they certainly are such by the more common usage of the term, including the usages of Treganza and Malamud and Johnson). ~4 The scraper planes are core or, less commonly, 'thick flake tools. The flat basal surface may be formed by the cortex, a naturally flat fracture plane, or a single large flake scar. The convex dor- sal surface may exhibit varying amount of percussior flaking. A fundamental characteristic is the steep angle of the-working edge, generally between 70° and 90°. SCR/P/2A correspond to the Type 11A scraper planes of Kowta (1969), Treganza and Malamud (1950), and Johnson (1966)~ These have a curved working edge extending around one-half to three- quarters of the base. SCR/P/2B, the Type lib of the earlier authors, have a curved working ed§e extending around one-half to one-quarter of the base° SCR/P/2C, Type 11C in the earlier works, have a straight working edge or edges extending only partly around the basal outline. SCR/P/3, Type 111 at the other sites, have two distinct planar platforms, each with its own working edge or edges. These may be either curved or straight and extend around all or part of the p 1 a t form out 1 inc ;. At least two of the scraper planes doubled as hammer/choppers, and many more have evidence of battering. However, it is not possible to be certain whether this is the result of the object having been used as a hammer, or the product of attempts to re- move flakes via percussion. The functions of the scraper planes and thief implications for the nature of subsistence and settlement are discussed in Section 9.2. 45 )ESFAIPTIDN SCR/P/2A SCR/P/2A SCR/P/2A SCR/P/2A S~R/P/2A SCR/P/~ SCR/P/2A SCR/P/~ SCR/P/?J) SCR/P/2B SCR/P/2B SCR/P/2Is SCR/P/2) SCR/P/2B SCR/P/2B SCR/P/2~ SCR/F'/2C SCR/P/2C SCFYP/2C SCR/P/2C SCR/P/2C SCR/P/3 5CR/PI3 5C~?/3 0 21 t~ )6~,~0 7,~ 7,27 0 3~ ~ ~0,00 7.28 5,S7 5 7 ~ 249,~2 7,~ 6,~ 9 7 ~ ~+,14 8,~ 6,62 3,12 9 12 W l~,~ 6,!9 6,~ 3,~ 11 6 W 396,~ 9,11 7,87 6 11 W ~,~ 7,~ 6,45 ~ 7 ~ ~,~ 8.07 6,87 ),13 9 B W ~1,01 8,12 ~,14 9 11 W 147,~ 6,32 5,~ 11 8 W 4~,~ 10,20 7,16 5 B ~ ~B,60 11.~ 9,10 9 ~ W ~6,~, 8.91 S,~ 1I 1 W ~1,15: 10,~ 5.~ 0 31 W 1106,~ 11,17 10,~7 6,59 5 7 ~ ~B.~ 8,7~ B,~ 3,78 7 6 k ~25,~ 10,09 8,80 ~ 8 ~ 2~,45 7,93 7,31 ~ 9 ~ ~.~ 7,~ &.~9 5.15 ~C~ !)LACK STAIN !).A~K STAIN 88O7 ~16 8753 · 8669 87~.4 8782 8671 8711 8710 8715 877+ ~10 87~4 8~74 8672 B~13 8742 8627 8~70 SCR F'L (27) ki,::,X. kii~:, HF_.Ai: 57D DZ.V V WEIGHT 1106,63 147,~2 388,39 .... .77 0 58 LENGTH 11.32 6,19 8,6g 1,51 O, 17 WIDTFI 10 ~, 97 5.3,, bEF'TI4 6~68 ~. 12 4,45 1,06 O. Z~ Curved-edge and straight-edge scrapers are not plano-convex in outline. They are large~ thick flakes with a working edge more acute than the scraper planes, and generally between 35° and 55° with varying amounts of unifacial percussion retouch~. 4.6 The single cleaver scraper (SCR/CL) is a very large piece of diorite with two flat surfaces forming a 45° angle along a long straight edge. It has been unifacially flaked along a port:ion of this edge and is triangular in cross-section. D£S~?Tt~ EU LgL ~' ~I~l ~ ~IBTH IEB~ ~TERI& COHi~T !fi~B SO.OS ~,82 ¢.~ 1,9~ ERIE ~7.~ 8,74 ~.~ 3,~ ~ 1~,61 8,~ 7,79 ~,~ ~ ~6.61 8,70 7,~ 5,81 ~ ~,51 ~.01 4.% ~.70 · 197,26 7,93 ~.62 4.~ ~T 59.~ 6.91 ~.~ 2.~ ~ ~77.~ 10.~ 5~ 2.16 ~ 81,~ 7,~2 ~,~ 3.02 ~0 &~.~ 12.70 6.~ 5,43 ~ ~61.42 10.03 6,~ 2.~ ~S~ 3~1.~ 8.~ 7,16 3,76 ~ 510,]0 10.:~ 9,~7 3.70 ~ 8801 $GR f.E (11) MAX, filN, ~"- .... CoTD DEW WEIGHT 301.56 50.05 i88.08 10i.09 0.54 LENGTH 8.74 4.82 7.52 1.28 O. 17 WIDTH 8.56 S. VC 5.?~ 1. ~ 0. DEF'TH 4,71 I. ~8 S.80 I. 16 O. 5CR SE (8) iiA)<. ~t~;. N~_AN -STZ~ B;-V V WEIGHT 510 ~C' 81.60 266.79 152.35 0 LENGTH 12.70 7,,42 ? "" I 67 0,17 WIDTH 9.17 ~v 6.4? 1,~ 0 24 DEF'TH 5.45 *~ t~ Z.57 1,OO O Z8 47 l Retouched Flakes Along with the utilized flakes that follow, this group is extremely heterogenous both in size and shape. Both retouched and utilized flakes are classified by whether the relevant edge is unifacially (/U) or bifacially (/B) worked or worn. Within these, they are categorized by the shape of the working edge, CC(concave), S(straight), CV(convex), SER(serrated), or P(pointed). The final level of classification refers to the edge angle of the tool, /1(0-15°), /2(15-30°), /3(30_45o), /4(45_60o), and /5(60-75°). The larger unifacially retouched flakes grade into the curved-edge and straight-edge scrapers. The working edge is most commonly con- vex (n=11) and less frequently straight (n=8). There are also con- cave edges (n=3), and serrated edges (n=2). The modal edge angle is between 60° and 75° and the median between 45° and 60°. D£SCRIPTI~ EU t~L W/[ ~EIGHT tENGYM ~H.~H ~PTH ~IERI~ ~ ~ ~T ~B-S-~ 5 ~ F '~ ~ ~T ~-S-~ 7 7 ~ ,I~.4~ 10.69 5,~ 2.~ j~ ET ~-S-~ 8 6 ~ ~.~I 2,97 L71 0.~ '~ ~ ~T ~'~-S-5 8 3 W i~.~ 8,~ i,O~ 5.61 ~ ~ ~T ~/U~C-5 5 4 W 62,24 5.12 3,91 2,87 '~ ~ ~U-CV-4 0 23 W 4S,~ 5,81 4.62 ' ~T ~U-CU-5 5 4 F ~ ~T ~U-~-5 10 5 W 5.~ 2,9~ 1~ I.~ ~[ ~T ~U-~-~ 0 3 W 107,~ 7,~ 5,~7 1.92 ~ ~T ~-5 0 2 W ~3,15 5,4~ 4,78 1,~2 Utilized Flakes These show mr> evidence of secondary chipping but do have faint traces of use-wear along one or more edge. Like t~e retouched flakes, they constitute a very heterogeneous group. The coding used corresponds to that of the retouched flakes, although for the utilized flakes the working edge is most commonly straight (n=34) and less cozmmonly convex (n=17). There are also concave edges (n=4), and pointed edges (n=l). edge angle lies between 30° and 45°. Both the mode and the media~. UT FL/B-C[-~ 7 6 I~ 197.9,~ 9.54 6.06 2.67 UT Fb"~-C,¥-'~ 7 3 i~ 5.02 J.98 1.30 0.89 I~ 861 IJlFI~-CV-5 6 ? F Ifl'SO 877 UT Fb'~-~-,S 9 ~0 F QI~LC 867 UT FL/I~-S-: 8 4 if 41,75 7,It ~,~ 1,3% I~T 86.5 b'l'F1./B-$-~ 5 3 if ~0.20 4,05 2,88 0,99 FEL5 872 UT FL.~-S-~ 5 4 if 157.81 9o~3 6.32 2.85 gZT 872: UT FL~-S-3 5 ~0 if 49.4,5 6.22 5.~8 1.32 ~ ~ ~3 877: LITFL~-S-3 9 9 if 162.43 9.48 8.~ 2.94 ~ 867: LITF'~B-5-5 1~ ~L!i~ 3.82 2.71 1.58 0.70 ~ 87~ UT FL/U-CC-4 8 3 W 42.4,5 6.83 3.17 2.35 01' FI./U-C£-~ 11 7 IJ 196,28 10,17 6.84 2.87 ~ 01' fL/U-S-4 8707 LIT FL,'U-CC-5 7 ,'i2if 6,89 3, S3 2.27 1.00 UT FLAJ-C~-2 $ 4 F !~ST OT FL,'U-C~,'-2 8 2 ~ 14.~I 3.~0 2,~ I..31 fTLS 863? UT FL/',--C~-2 ~0 5 W 7~.,0! 5,80 S.27 2.S0 I;IM. UT P~O-CP-~ 5 I if 0,:[9 t,23 0,9~ '0,18 I 8719 LIT FL.,.'U-£P~.~ 5 ~ if 112,J~ &,86 6,20 2,90 I!ZT 8728 UT ~'U-C~-~ § 4 if ~,71 5.5! 5.64 1,97 ~ZT u~ Fb'O-CV-"J 5 8 if 13.10 6.15 2.93 0.79 ~ LIT FI./U-£':-~ 5 ,~if 8.16 3.25 3.18 0,96 FELS 8771 LIT, FD'~I-Ct;-3 11 7 ~1 ~.43 8.04 5.~ 2.70 gg 8705 u, Fb'LKCV-3 11 ~ if 44.59 6.02 4,1~ 1.$I I~ ~12 ~ FL/IJ-CV**~ 11 !~ li 17.~ 4,76 :I,91 1.~ ~ 8717 ~ r,..LH,.~-. 0 15 ~1 9~,~ 6,47 5,63 2,05 GI~ 8800 L,,d 4.2I ~.21 1,I4 i~ST 8718 UT F,.,.-CU-., 5 ,~ if 1l:5.1~' 8,57, 5.95 2.76 IllIlL UT FL,'U-~V--5 ~ I~?if ~.Tr~ ~.23 3,71 1.68 if!'S~ b'T FL/~J-.%i 0 :~ W 1.~6 2,68 1~77 0.32 FELS I~ ~ FLAJ-S-2 5 ~" ~i ~,,1 ~.~J 2,71 0.49 ~ 8758 UT FL/I;-S-2 ~ !i:!F I~ST 8/90 LiT FL/U-S-2 7 iilif 6~,69 8.~ 4.5i 1.T3 ~ 8619 b'T FL?d-S-2 9' !;,:'W 8.18 13,96 2.51 0.90 ~ 86~ UT r, ,, ~- -~ 5 ':~if' 16.87 a.:~ 3.~ 1.05 ~ 8770 49 .~..jI~T~ EU LUI W/*F GIGlIT LD(GIH, WIDll~ I)EPTll ~TERIAL C(~v~E)iT UT FL/U-S-3 5 10 W B,(B (,19 1,63 1,10 UT Fb~U-S'3 6 12 W 2,~ 2,,5 1,93 0,~ ~T UT FL/U-~-3 B ~ W 20,83 (,Z7 3,~ 0,97 ~T UT F~U-S-3 ~ 2 W 9,72 4,)0 2,~ 1,03 ~ Fb~-S-3 11 3 Y 6,,16 3,56 1,~ 0,~ UT F~U-S-4 0 5 W ~,73 8,20 7,~ ),~ UT FL~U-S-~ 5 3 W 17,76 5,33 ),4B 0,~ UT FL/U-S-4 5 7 W 42~ 7,3~ 4,&2 1,~ DT Fb~U-S-~ 6 1I W 1L61 3,17 3,0( 1,~ ~T ~ F~U-S-+ 7 ~ W 2B,BS 4,7B 4,~ 3,52 ~T UT FL~J-S-4 ? 2 W 23,+4 4~,B7 3,43 1.32 UT F~J-S-~ li ( W 1,~ 3.05 1.~ 0,~ UT F~U-S-( II 7 W I%,2B 10,17 6.B4 2,B7 ~ ~/U-S-5 0 5 W 41~ 6~ 3,~ 1,~ ~T ~ F~U-S-S 5 6 W 2~,38 7,~1 7.~ 3,~ ~ FL/U-S-5 5 8 W 34,52 6,4E' 3.~ 1,~ UT F~U-S-5 6 9 W 147,11 7,~ 7,~ 2,10 UT FL/~S-5 6 i0 F UT F~U-S-5 9 2 W 1%71 5,05 1,17 I,~ ~ST lit F1./U-CC-( Projectile Point The single obsidian projectile point fragment recovered is part of the tip of what appears to have been originally a small triangular point. It's weight wheH whole would most likely have been less than 3.5 g and it would therefore fall into the range of arrow heads (Fenenga 1953)~ A hydration measurement of 7.1 microns was obt:ained from the piece (see Section 5.2). It is depicted in Figure, 1. ~INT/SHALL? 7 lJ, F ..... OIl~ TIP 5O B773 O777 B7BS B~ B~I 0791 O722 B7B.I ~17 8707 ~11 B766 O77B B7~ Cores Only two cores were found, unmodified except for the effects of flake removal. This is in contrast to the large numbers of core tools found. Given the quantity of debitage recovered (n=85), it would appear' that, despite the infrequency of cores, flake and core tool production was an important activity at the site, and that the core reduction technology employed was designed to pro- duce both flake and core tools in the same process. DE~IF'TIDN EU t~t g/F ~IQfT LDgtlq ~IDll{ 1~13 ~TERI~ CO~ CDFC. 8 2 ~ 76,~2 $.~ 4.,71 ~),?~ FilS CDF.'F 1! 7 ~ 32,17 ~..76 2,71 2,(S a~LC 6.4 Hm~er stones A hammerstone or hammer tool is formed through the action of perpendicular impact of a stone against another hard object. Hmmmerstones have a number of inferred functions, but two of the most common are their use in the "sharpening" of ground stone implements and in the manufacture of chipped stone tools. As manos and metares are 'used, their wear surfaces become polished as a result of friction between the two implements. This process is accelerated by the oil released from the seeds and other foods being ground. This oil could also account ~for some of the discoloration seen on the ground stone implements. The surfaces of the ground stone tools, therefore, become so slick that it becomes very difficult to hold and grind seeds. Thus, these surfaces must be toughened periodically to facilitate grinding. Hau,aerstones are used r.o batter the surfaces of such ground stone impilements to roughen them and make them useable. 51 87O3 e The second function of hammerstones is in producing chipped stone tools° A core is prepared by striking flakes off of a cobble using a hard hammer° Secondary flakes are then removed[ which can be used i,~mediately as tools, (such as scrapers or knives), or further reduced, trimmed, or shaped into specific stylized tools (such as bifaces, scrapers, or projectile points). Hammerstones are classified as Hammer/Choppers, Hammer/Cobbles, or Hammer/Cores. Hammer/Choppers are triangular or, more commaonly, diamond-shaped in cross-section with evidence of battering alo~mg edges formed by two flat surfaces intersecting at an angle typi- cally betweem 60,o and. 70°. Hammer/Cobbles retain most of' their: cortex, but show' battering wear along short segments of a dull edge or pointed end (/P) of elongated pebbles. Hammer/Cores show little cortical retention, are irregular in cross-section, and have impact wear along several short or long segments of typi- cally dull, rounded edges. Two of the Hammer/Choppers also functioned as scraper planes. Hammer/Cobbles are typically asso- ciated witch the production of other chipped stone artifacts, while Hammer/Cores are associated with the milling stone ~ool complex as they are used to "sharpen" ground stone implements. Hammer/Choppers, as their classification implies, appear to have had a chopping or pulping function. Ell L~ W~Ir~E'ICJ~TLEN(~ ~IOTH ))E]NI(~TERIAL ~T 0 ~ ~ ~,~ 9,~ 8,02 7,~ ~ 0 ~ W ~0,~ 7,~ 5,~ 4,~ ~ 5 4 ~ 3%,~ 10.21 9,93 L78 ~T $ ~ ~ 4~,~ 8.10 S,~ 5,~ ~ ? ? W ~2.~ 10,~ 8.~ &,14 ~T ~ 11 W ~7.~ 8,15 ~,~ 4.71 ~ 11 i F ~ SCR/P/2A SC~/P/2A 52 £U L?~. ~'F ~!GHT LE~TH WIDTH BEPTH ~TERI~LC~ I(At%'CDB 0 12 W 4,~.® 7.50 7,15 S.74 I~ST HAi%'CDI~ 5 8 W ~7,~ B,69 6,17 6.~ ~T ~"~B ~ 4 W 1~.~ 7.23 6,~ 2,~ ~T HA~B 11 8 r ~T ~r~'~/F' 0 ~ ~ ~.~ 9.~~ 5.~ ~.~ ~ ~'~E 5 4 ~ 62~.~ 9.7B 8.67 5.~ ~ ~'~;~ ~ 5 6 g 7~.~ 9.10 7.~ 6.~ ~ FLAT W[I-,,'~ 6,~ 652.6S 53 421.66 140.19 0.3S ~,~ .... 10.30 7, O0 8.62 1.17 O. 14 WIDTH 9. ~ 5.35 6.8~ 1.54 0.22 DEPTH 7.00 4.80 5.~0 0.~0 O. i7 " -~'"' ' ....""' MIN. MF'~N STD DD_V V WEIGHT · ~. 595.38 643.17 59.07 0.09 L[NGTH 9 70 0.~5 9.~' 0.44 0.05 WIDTH G.67 7.07 7.60 DEF'TH 7 02 5.7:Z 6 ~ 0.69 0.il ********************************************************* WEIGH1 766.13 144.48 460.20 230.85 0.50 LENGTII 10.00 7 · 8.~ 1.21 0.14 WIDT;; E~. 41 5.32 6.61 1.20 O. 18 D[F'TH &.75 2.2J 5.11 I.~2 O. J6 53 87,17 6.5 Miscellaneous The two small flat pieces of asphaltum weigh a total of only 0.46 g. they appear to have originally adhered to a smooth surface~ Five lithics are classified as "paint rocks". The two skarn examples appear to have been ground and would have produced a white powder. DESCRIF'TIDN [] LUL W~T ~EIG~ LENGTH WIDT~ DEPTH ~TE~IAL .SF'rIAL, ~,H 10 5 F ~ 2 St~LL FLAT PIERS PAINT R~ 5 5 W %10 2,69 1,97 1.15 PAI~ l~K (~) lO 2 W 1)2,~ i,~ ),70 ~,~ ~S) PAINT ROCK? I1 7 W 1020,~ 12,~ lI,~ 5,~ PAINT ~OCK~ ll 11 W ~7,~ 10,13 B,71 4+~ E~9 E~7 E~BI5 6.6- Lithic Raw Materials Table 5 lists the lithic raw materials used for each class of artifact. Distinct functions of multiple-purpose tools are enume- rated separately in Table 5. Following Digua (Appendix D), the materials used for the stone tools recovered have been classified into three groups based upon the p~roximity of their sources to the site. "Local'~" materialIs consist of those found in their natural, unaltered form both on and around the site. Most of these were abundant in all of the natural samples collected. Metabasalt and workable granulite, on the other hand, are scarce in the natural samples and may have been intensively searched. for by the sites' inhabitants or more easily recognized by them (ibid).. These materials have washed out of the zones of Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks, mylonite, and the granitic batho- lith that comprises the portion of the San Gabriel Mountains that rises behind the site~ o o o o o o o o o "Regional" materials include: rocks that could be found between five and 20 km awayQ These probably originated in the hypabyssal rocks exposed along the E1 Luis Ridge separating Cucamonga and San Antonio Canyons 6~.5 km (linear distance) northwest of the site. An alternate and less likely source for these rocks could lie in the Glendora Volcanics west of San Dimas Canyon and 20 km west of the site° Expeditions up Cucamonga or San Antonio CarL- yons could ~well have been made by the same people who later manu- factured and used the tools found at SBr-895~ Unlike the locally and regionally available lithics, "Distant" rocks more likely passed through a series of transactions before coming to rest in the hands of the people of SBr-895o The obsi- dian and chalcedony had their origins in Mojave Desert sources and were probably funneled 'through the Cajon Pass. Results of the neutron actiw~tion of the obsidian are pending. The dark "chalcedony" and Chert would have come from the closest marine sedimentary unit, probably in t::he northern Santa Ana Mountains. A more detailed account of the geologic history of the area as it relates to !ithic resources used by the inhabitants is provided in Appendix Do As can be seen in Table 5, by far the most common material is granulite, accounting for 34% of the tools including the bulk of both chipped stone tools and hmmnerstones. Granulite, it'. will be recalled, occurs in the natural rock samples, but is not abundant. Not surprisingl. y, all metates and fragments are of locally available mmterials, as are 19 of the 20 hau,a~erstones and frag-- ments. Distant materials are confined to the smaller chipped stone tools. ~]ne bottom row of Table 5 gives the number of pieces of debitage for each material. ¸56 Table 6 summarizes the information of Table 5, with artifacts grouped into groundstone, chipped stone, and h~erstone cate- gories. Local materials were used for 89.3% of the tools recovered and 82°4% of the debitage. Regional materials were used for only' 5~8% of the tools and 4.7% of the debitage. The distant materials comprise 'the final 4°9% of the tools and 12.9% of the debitage. Table 6 also includes debitage counts and a debitage/chipped stone tool ratio for each lithic source group° ~he latter pro- vides a crude measure of the relative degree of chipped stone tool reduction that took place at the site with materials of each group. Distant materials (particularly chalcedony and chert) have an unusually high value on this measure; this indi- cates that they were brought to the site in unfinished forth, perhaps as general-purpose roughed out blanks, and worked at the site to produce tools suited to specific tasks as they arose. The obsidian is an exception to this, with only one piece of debitage for the four tools~, The sharpness of obsidian cutting edges may have encouraged the use and curation of almost every flake produced. 57 U,~L. II~"- ~ :~' '~ ~' ~'~ ' TOTAL GR[-oT, 49 90.74 ~' ?.26 0 0 O0 54 100.00 CHST. 116 87 88 6 ¢ ~=' 10 7 ~ 132 tO0 O0 DEDIT, 70 82,35 4 .4,71 11 1~ 94 85 t00,00 DE[.;~t-:o 0,60 O, ~ 1,10 0,6~ TABLE 6: Artifact/Material Summary Table. ¸,58 7.0 SPATIAL RELATIONS AMONG THE ARTIFACTS The positions of' items gathered in the surface collections are displayed in Map 5o A line drawn encompassing all these points circumscribes an area of approximately 3700 m2 As was discussed in Section 1o4, t~he present disagregation o£ the deposit is the ?roduct of modern scraping and excavation° The area of the deposit before these modern disturbances is di~ffi- cult to estimate precisely~ but ~between 650 m2 and 1300 m2 is a reasonable range:~ with the .actual area probably closer to the lower estimate° The positions of the artifacts on the modern surface have only the faintest correspondence to their original locations, and it would be senseless to treat surface patterning as a reflection of an activity surface. The first page of Appendix B (the catalog sorted by proveni- ence) includes more detailed. information on each of the surface items (EU=O, LVL=field number)~ Table 7 lists the numbers of artifacts in each category found on the surface and in the excavations (by strata, see Appendix E)o Since the excavation units were dug in 10 cm increments following the contour of the ground surface (and not following the soil strata),. it was nesessary to estimate that level break which most closely corresponded to each natural stratum boundary for each unit. Table 12 in Appendix E links the arbitrary exca- vation levels of' each unit to the natural strata to which they most closely correspond. Inasmuch as strat,~ boundaries tended to be uneven, this procedure must have the effect of combining materials from distinct portions of the deposit and muddling artifact proportJl. on comparisons° It is, however, the best 59 i i (' I / ,! / /' I t /// / .' . ~. ~.,-" ~ / · ..~' ~ / / / / / / ~ '._/: ~ ~ / ~, :.. 5""- '" .1"' "-""'"" .....--'-:h: ~/,/~ FEET .... / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .0 100 METERS 0 2 tO ~ 3O .... =limits of surface material & 5 ~ FL2~-Cb~ 5 gT 7 lit FL/U-S-:, ~P,,'F'I~ I1 kq' "~ ~i7 Fb~I-CV-5 15 ~' FL?~CV-.5 18 ~'CO~? ~T ~ FL,~-., ~CN ~T~ ~T~R ----'- =approximate boundary of original deposit. MAP 5: Positions of Surface Materials and Site Boundaries. 60 PES?~ F KISC 13.~ 2 6.06 9,62 2 6,06 0,~ I 3,03 I.~2 I 3.03 l..lu SC~'CE 3 11~ ii ~ ~.~ I 1.92 3 %0~ 13 6.31 ~'~ I A70 4 4.26 2 3,~ I 3.03 8 3.~ 1~.0, ~) ~'~ + 12.12 ~I~ 0 0,~0 0 0.~ :l 1.92 0 0.~ I 0.45' ~z~ 0 O,00 6 6,'~ I 1.92 3 9,0~ ~/~: 0 0.0~ 2 2.13 3 5,~ 2 6.~ 7 ~'~ 0 0.0~ 2 2.13 0 0.~ I 3.03, *{TOT~.~t 27 100,00 TABLE 7: Artifact Types by Excavation Strata and Surface Collection. 61 approximation possible to ].ink artifact provenience to stratifi- cation and is certainly preferable to combining for analytic purposes items of common level depth from all units across the site. When the assemblage is divided by strata, the actual number of categorized artifacts in each becomes quite small. In order not to mask this fact, both stratum percents and the raw numbers upon which they are based are included in Table 7, but the data should be approached with these limitations in mind. Differences between surface and excavation artifact propor- tions are attributable to the varying conditions of collection, with the surface materials including higher proportions of larger, more visible items. Table 7 also provides volumetric density measures :in terms of the numbers of artifacts or debitage per cubic meter of exca- vation volume for each stratum° The "Stratum 111-" column also includes material from lower levels since these contained insufficient numbers of items to warrant separate treatment. As might be expected, if the reconstruction of the deposi- tional history of' the site is correct, Stratum 1 contained the lowest artifact density, but it also contained a surprisingly high debitage density~ The majority of tools found in Stratum 1 are small utilized flakes. 'I"nere are slight variations in 'the proportions of artifact classes between Stratum 11 and Stra12um 111, but in general there is little clear cut differentiation. All four mortar and pestle fragments recovered in the excavation came from Stratum ll. This suggests that the mortar/pestle complex, and implied balanophagy, might not have yet been part of the subsistence repertoire of the site's inhabitant~ during the time the strata below Stratum 11 were deposited. 62 Within the individual excavation units, peak artifact densi.- ties were found in Stratum 11 levels. In the central area of the site (involving Unit #'s 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11) the ~,~ - SE trend in the modern surface correlates with the depth of peak artifact density (deeper downslope), the maximum depth of the deposit below tlhe surface (deeper upslope), and unit totalll artifact density (greater downslope). 63 8.0 FAUNAL ANALYSIS A striking characteristic of the deposit is the infrequency of animal bone it contained° Table 8 summarizes the taxa iden- tified and Table 9 provides more specific information on the provenience of each element. Much of the bone.was so highly fragmented as to be unidentifiable as to taxon or element. Notably absent are the bones of either migratory or resident birds. No worked bone or human bone was recovered° The faunal identification was accomplished by Dr. Hugh Wagner. Only seven taxa are represented, at least two of 'which are natural residents of the soil and whose remains may have nothing to do with the site's prehistoric inhabitants. In no case does the minimal n~umber of individuals exceed one. All remains therefore, could be the product of only seven distinct animals° All deer' bone recovered, with the single exception of an uncertainly identified tooth fragment, are from the lower ends of either fore or hind limbs (from the carpals or tarsals on down)° These seem more a souvenir, perhaps part of a deer-hoof rattle, than direct evidence of what was consumed at the site itself. The deer was probably butchered elsewhere. If any meat was brought back to SBr-895, i~ had been dressed, probably dried, and separated from the bone. This opens the possibility that th~ rarity olf bone (and projectile points) in the deposit does not necessarily mean that 'hunting did not play a role in the diet of its inhabitants (see Section 9.2). 64 Subphylum Class Order Faro i 1 y Genus Species Vertebrata Reptilia Ophidia Colubridae Family Mamma 1 ia Logomorpha Leporida iL_e_pu_s californicus Sylvilagus bachmani Rodent ia Sc iur idae Spe.rL_ -~philus beecheyi* Geomyidae Thomomys bottae* Carnivora G artida e Vulpus sp. Art iodac tyl a Cervidae Odocoileus spo TABLE 8: Faunal List Common Name Related to King Snakes Black-tailed Hare Brush Rabbit (Cotton Tail) Beechey Ground Squirrel Botta Pocket Gopher Fox De er * locally resident, expectable in soil horizon. ble pROVENIENCE E.U~5 10-20 cm 30-40 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm E.U.6 20-30 cm 90-100 cm E.U. 7 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm 50-60 cm E.U. 9 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm E.U. 10 40-50 cm E.U. 11 30-40 cm 80-90 cm TAXON ELEMENT ? Odocoileus Large Mammal Mamma 1 i a Mammalia Lepus californias ? Odocoileus Odocoileus ? Sylvilagu s bachmani Colubridae Thomomys bottae Phalanx Fragment Bone Fragments Bone Fragment s Bone Fragments Dista. Left Humerus ? Tooth ~_ragment Carpal, Left Cuneiform Bone Fragments Left Dentary, Right Maxillary Vertebra 'Right Rostrum ? Large Mammal Large Mmm~al Large Mammal Bone Fragments Bone Fragments Bone Fragments (1 burnt) Bone Fragments Thomomys bot~tae Left Dentary, Right Dentary Spermophitus beecheyi Left Proximal Femur Sylvilagus bachmani Large Mammal Lepus californicus Large Mammal Large Ma~nal Large Mammal Large Mammal Large Mmm~nat Ma~nmalia Right Dentary Fragment Bone Fragments Exdentulous Palate Bone Fragments Bone Fragments Bone Fragment s Bone Fragments Bone Fragments Bone Fragments Mammalia Bone Fragments Vulpes ? Odocoileus Bone Provenience Right Proximal Radius Tarsal (Burnf, Lo Unciform Fragment: 9~0 9.1 SUBSISTENCE AND SETTLEME~T IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Sites Reported in the Vicinity of CA-SBr-895 Between four and six km southwest of SBr-895 near ~ small rise on the valley floor known as Red Hill lies a cluster of ten recor- ded prehistoric sites~. These are concentrated on either side of the Cucamonga Creek channel at elevations between 1250' (381 m) and 1440' (439 m) overlooking a lower-lying area to the south- west once covered by a spring-fed marsh. This is the location of the historic Cucamonga Village Complex, a major population center of the greater valley at the time of missionization. Thousands of artifacts have been recovered from two of the sites (SBr-270, SBr-901) in the course of field classes conducted by Dr. Thomas Blackburn of Cal Poly, Dr. Hal Eberhart of CSU,LA, and Dr. Bernice McAllister of Chaffey College. These investiga- tions have revealed occupations as early as the Milling Stone period, and a sample of scattered charcoal from SBr-901 dates to about the time of Christ (R Sauls, CSU,LA, personal communica- tion). Cogged stones, usually associated with some portion. of the Milling Stone neriod, are reported on the initial site record forms for SBr-901 and SBr-902. Six of the sites (SBr-897 to SBr-902, inclusive) were first officially recorded as a result of the survey of the area reported by Martz (1976). Three sites were recorded after that research (including SBr-1608, SBr-1609, and SBr-2298). The last two are evidenced by single artifact finds, and the first by reports of manos and metares. 6'7¸ Although most of the evidence of prehistoric occupation in the Red Hill area has been destroyed by modern construction and land- scaping, it is clear that the initial occupation took place before 2000 years ago~ It is likely that the span of occupations at SBr-895 was contemporaneous with some portion of the longer range of settlement around Red Hill. ~d A second group of three sites involves those situated over.- looking the valley at the mouths of the canlyons exiting the San Gabriel Mountain foothills° These sites are strung out between the 2200' (671 m) and 2400' (732 m) elevation contours and are all virtually equidistant (4-6 km) to the Red Hill group. This group includes SBr-89.5 and SBr-2365, (3.8 km) to the west at the mouth of Cucamonga Canyon (north of the Red Hill group) and SBr- 896, (6 km) west of SBr-895 (northwest of the Red Hill group)° All sites are within one houris walk of each other and of Red[ Hill. d The final site in the area, SBr-1593, is located in a some- what anamolous position midway between SBr-895 and the Red Hill sites at an elevation of about 1660' (506 km) o The site record form reports an extensive site with metares, scrapers, choppers, and hammerstones. 9.2 Subsistence-Related Activities From all available evidence, the processing of various wild plant foods was the predominant subsistence-related activity conducted at the site. The rarity of both projectile points and animal bone in the depos~t indicates that hunting probably played a minor roleo This is not to say that the people who camped at SBr-895 did not-. often hunt, but merely that if they did, they left most of the 'remains elsewhere° The few bones that were re- Covered are attributable to animals that normally inhabit either the Sage-scrub or Chaparral Plant communities and include no identified bird or fish bones.. 68 With a relatively limited repertoire of stone tools available, it is probable that each was used for a variety of purposes° While acknowledging the likely multiple functions of each, r.mcall (Section 2°2) that Kowta (1969) linked the tools typical of milling stone assemblages (scraper planes, manos, roerates, and hammerstones) to various stages in the processing of yucca and agave for food and cordage. Yucca whipplei (Spanish 'bayonet or Our Lord's Candle) are scattered sparsely across the steep hillside slopes above the site. Among the Cahuilla, the Gabrielino's neighbors in the mountains and interior valleys to the southeast, these plants bloom in April and May and die soon after blooming (Bean and Saubel 1972:150-151). S~alks and blossoms were used for food~ the stalks roasted in rock-lined pits. Gathering could take place for several weeks a~ any one place, or much longer if the family collected at different altitudes. The dried product could be ground and mixed with water to form cakes that could be stored for winter use of for trading (Balls 1962:46-47). As was mentioned in ectzon 4~0, a discontinuity in the strata S ' exposed in a wall of the trench dug in 1975 for the large pipe- line that runs across the site was, interpreted as the remains of a possible roasting pit~ We were not able to relocate this feature. A number of artifacts exhibit "black stain" (see Section 6). This is actually a thin dull dark brown discoloration that migent be interpreted as the product of some interaction with the soil, except for the fact tha~ the stain inevitably appears on a work- ing surface of the tool~ This stain is found on some metares (Plate 3) and sc~raper p~anes, and also on some manos and hammer- stones~ If this stain is the product of reaction of the rocks with the organic materials crushed by the tools, Kowta's connec- tion of these tools is supported 69 ld ~d The recovery of five unbroken metates, both slab and basin- shaped, is an important clue: to the nature of settlement at SBr-895. Weighting up to 44.5 kgo, the metates are not practi- cally portable over any distance. For some, considerable effort was invested in their shaping allone. This probably offered an incentive to the Indians to return year after year, not only to the targeted envi'ronmental zone:,. but also to re-occupy the same site in order to aw)id the necessity of duplicating the labor investment° This, in turn, suggests localized use-rights to the products of the wild plants of the area. The metates (along with depth of the cultural deposit) suggest that the site was re-occu- pied repeatedly~ probably by a single kin group and its descend[- ants. At some point this cycle was broken and the deposit buried in subsequent colluviation~ Mortar and pestle fragments, although not abundant, are pre- sent at SBr-895~ Oak, particularly coast live oak (Quercus kellogii), is present, although ~not in any great density, along the canyon bottoms exiting the foothills to the west and east of the site° The inauguration of acorn expl. oitation must have had radical effects on the structure of existing settlement systems° One of the situations that may produce a 6entral-based wandering co~m~u- nity pattern is the introduction of a storable or preservable seasonally abundant wild food harvest (Beardsley et al. 1956:138). Both acorn meal and cakes are ipreservable, and unprocessed acorns may be stored in granaries.. Acorns came to play a major role in the prehistoric. die. t in most of California. Stored acorns, or their processed products, were often the most important foods during the winter months. Constraints imposed by the brief har- vest period, and overwhelming abundance, would have encouraged a trend toward sedent. ism (Beardsley et alo 1956:138; White 1963: 116; Bean and Saubel 1972:t22)~. A large number of harvesters 70 are needed to take advantage of the potential yield and to store enough to last through the winter. The location of settlements is also constrained by the necessity of ~ufficient amounts of fresh water for t~he leaching process. Among the Cahuilla, the acorn harvest took place during October or November, before significant winter rain could rot acorns already or~ the ground (Bean and Saubel 1972:125). Since the groves were often locate~d some distance (8-20 kin) from the villages, the majority o~f the villages' inhabitants (men, women, and children), would travel t~o the groves and camp there for one to four weeks The use rights ~o groves were owned by lineages, and individual trees by families within a lineage~ Each woman had her own bed- rock or portable mortars and pestles along with other non-durable equipment. The portable mortars were often left at a camp, turned upside dowr~ over a pestle~ Mortars and pestles were used both the pulverize~ the dried acorns into meal prior to leaching and to re-grind the baked meal cakes° The dried acorns themselves could be transported back to the village without any further processing, and stored in granaries through the winter~ This often happened if rains interrupted the drying during harvest° All other things being equal, the probability that unground acorns were brought back to a central base rather than processed at a grove-side camp is likely to be inversely proportional to the distance between the base and the groves. SBr-895, and a long stretch of th~ valley/foothill border, lie within one hour's walk (4-6 km) of the Cucmmonga Village Site Complex of the valley. The relative prominence of mortars and pestles in the assem-- blages of sites near the canyon mouth oaks may not directly reflect the importance of acorns in the diets of the inhabitants of those sites.. This is so because mortars and pestles mark the locations of specific stages in acorn processing, and these activities may have been conducted at sites some distance fron the trees tlhemselves. As has been mentioned, mortar and pestle fragments are present but infrequent in the SBr-895 assemblage. But even if no exaraples of these had been found at the site, we would not necessarily be able to conclude that acorn exploitation was not practiced since unprocessed acorns might have been transported to a nearby central base, for example, for processing° 9°3 Assemblages in the Region Four assemblages pre-dating the Late Prehistoric period have been described from three sites in the San Gabriel Valley 30 ~ west of SBr-895 (Eberhart 1962; Eberhart and Wasson 1975; Wasson et alo 1978), and one in the Cajon Pass 18 km northeast (Kowta 1969). Table 10 summarizes the a~semblage characteristics of the four sites and SBr-895~ Although precisely quantified comparisons are hindered bM w~riable conditions of recovery and classification, generalizations are possible. The sites all share the predominance of the scraper plane/ hammerstone/mano/metate tool complex in their assemblages (classic Milling Stone Horizon characteristics). All similarly share a rarity or absence of animal bone remains. The Sayles Site is unusual in that allthough 'bone is unco~m~on, projectile points are relatively numerous° Only Mesarica shares with SBr-895 any evi- dence of themortar/pestle tool complex, this from a single uncer- tainly identified mortar ~fragmento 72¸ 0 ~- 0 L ~ 0 ~ U ~ ~.J L L. 0 L C: C C: -U' r",,. F::: C~,, ro ~+1 ,..c I 0 " I I~- L ~ LC::~ ....':r '~,~ .C) 0 C C: 0 -- 0 Although the sources do not distinguish between the area of the modern surface scatter and the size of the original deposit, the three San Gabriel Valley sites seem roughly the same size as SBr-895, while the Sayles Site is at least twenty times as large. The topographic position of the San Gabriel Valley sites is more similar to that of SBr-895; all. are located in the narrow foot- hill zone overlooking the valley floor. In the absence of radiocarbon dates, the researchers involved were forced to rely on typological cross-dating with sequences developed from stratified sites much nearer the coast (e.g., Rogers 1929; Walker 1951.~ Treganza and ~alamud 1950; Johnson 1966). On this basis, al.l are said to have their closest affi.- nities with Milling Stone Horizon assemblages. Kowta characterized the Sayles Site as a Late Milling Stone assemblage that represents a survival of the pattern in the interior long after it had been replaced nearer the coast (1000 B.C. - A.D. 1000). He explained the abundance of projectile points, and the inferred importance of hunting, as the product of geographical and temporal differences with the coastal assem- blages. No attempt was made to reconcile this picture wi~h the paucity of animal ~bone recovered,. The assemblages from the San Gabriel Valley sites are very similar to that of SBr-895,~ With a smaller sample size one can easily imagine missing evidence of mortars and pestles at SBr- 895 altogether~ Yet by virtue of their supposed affinities with portions of the coastal sequence, the age of the San Gabriel Velley sites has been estimated at some 3500 years earlier than the radiocarbon date for the occupation of SBr-895o 74 The lesson in all this is that dating inland assemblages by their relationships to similar c. omponents in coastal sequences is a very risky step. Not only may the timing of the introduc.- tion of certain traits and their inferred subsistence correlates vary across space and regional ecology, but the occurrence of the traits themselves will vary among the settlements of 'The same system. The absence of eitlher mortars and pestles, or indications of hunting, in an assemblage is simply an unreliable indication of its age~ 9.4 The Contex~ of Settlement at CA-SBr-895~ Where does SBr-895 stand in relation to Wallace's chronology? The artifact inventory looks very much like Milling Stone assem.- blages except for the presence of six mortar and pestle frag- ments, one small obsidian arrow point, and two small bits of asphaltum. T~raits shared include an abundance of manos and metates, few projectile points or bone and shell artifacts, and little animal bone. The presence of mortars, pestles and asphaltum is associated with assemblages of the Intermediate Cultures or Late Prehistoric periods. Usage varies as to whether the mere presence of mortars and pestles marks these assemblages., or whether they must be co~on (or even predominate) propor- tionally over manos and metares. SBr-895 lack~ evidence of the importance of h~'~ting said to characterize Intermediate Cultures assemblages, either in the form of animal bone refuse or signi- ficant numbers of projectile points. Items that distinguish Wallace's Late Prehistoric period are conspicuously absent.. Missing from most discussions of comparative chronology is a perspective considering entire settlement systems. Implicit in all inter-ass~nblage comparisons is that the sites being compared held similar positions in their respective settlement 75 systems. Ecological factors are considered as affecting assem- blage variability, but these have usually been dealt with as regionalized variables inhibiting or encouraging the spread of certain traits. A site cannot be characterized as representative of a certain era in a given region without reference to the role it played in its settlement system and its relationship to environmental correlates, specifically seasonally abundant food resources. The following reconst'ruction places SBr-895 in a highly sim- plified model of an hypothesized settlement system. Although tentative in its details, it illustrates the kind of information that must be included in discussions of assemblage comparison. $Br-895 probably represents a specialized plant processing camp of a small family group probably based at a larger~. more permanent settlement near Red Hillo Particularly targeted plant resources became available at two times of the year: (1)~ in April, May, and June when. the yuccas bloomed and, (2) October and November when. the acorns were ready for harvest. The site was probably re-occupied periodically by the same group of close relatives for periods of up to s~veral weeks during the spring, and for brief durations in the fall. It is proposed 'that the Central-Based Wandering pattern of settlement hinted at in ethnohistoric records of the Gabrielino, and more thoroughly described for their neighbors, had an anti- quity of at least 1300 years in the Pomona Valley. More specifi- cally, it is proposed that settlements at Red Hill served this central-base function. Winter is the most likely season for population aggregation at the Red Hill sites, but some occupation may have continued. throughout the year. ¸76 If this reconstruction is correct, the hypothesized contempo- raneous component at Red Hill should contain evidence of a much larger population and a less specialized range of tools than was found at SBr-895o We would expect that scraper planes would make up a smaller portion of the assemblage than at SBr-g95. The rarity of:' evidence of hunting at SBr-895, a trait often used as a temporal marker,. is here interpreted as more a reflec- tion of the highly specialized nature of the occupation° If this is so, the contemporaneous base at Red Hill might be expected to contain both a higher proportion of projectile points and more animal bone refuse including, for example, the bones of birds taken from the nearby marsh° Mortars and pestles, insofar as they mmrk the locations of certain stages in acorn processing and not necessarily of the oak trees themselves, would be expected at the base, possibly even in proportions exceeding those found at SBr- 895 if significant amounts of acorns were brought the short distance base to the base before being crushed. Camps similar in function to SBr-895 should be found in compa- rable topographic positions at canyon mouths along the valley/ foothill border.~. Likely candidates among recorded sites include SBr-2365 and SBr-896. If the processes responsible for the burial of the site beneath colluvium are not peculiar to SBr-895, sites of this type might not be detectable from surface remains (unless the deposit. is disturbed, as was the case at SBr-895 when the power line nmintenance ~road was put in). The full set:tlement system must have included many more types of encampments: hunting blinds, ikill sites, other wild plant pro- cessing stations, and sites related to lithic extraction, for '~' example. But since none of these were targeted at resources whose harvest was so. abundant or so seasonally specific, their 77 ~S ~ke remains will. be more difficult to detect. The duration of occupation would have been more ephemeral, their location not necessarily ~ied to fresh water sources, and the same spots less likely to have been re-occupied. Compounding the problem of their detectability is the differential intensity of site surveys which has followed the requirements of utility right-of-ways, modern flood contro!~ and so forth° ~ted they ot the ~i 78 10.0 AND CONCLUSIONS 10.1 Subs tar., tire This report has dealt with the results of an ~rch~eo].ogical investigatio'r~, involwing surface collection and excavation, of the Chaffey Hillside Sit~e, CA-SBr-895. The total volume of the excavations amounted to 29.84 cubic meters° A total of 168 arti- facts were recovered in the excavations and another 31 in the surface collection,, These were all stone tools, the majority simple percussion flaked core or large flake scraping tools. Fragmented manos and metares form the bulk of the ground stone tools, but an unusually large proportion of the metates were unbroken. Chopper, c:obble, and core hmmmerstones are also Present but rare items ~include a single fragment of a small obsi- dian projectile point and two small pieces of asphaltum. Four mortar and two pestle f~ragments are included in the collection. An additional 85 pieces of debitage were found. Art:ifacts recovered from the surface were scattered over an 2 area of about 3700 m . It is estimated that the original deposit covered a muc"'~ smaller area of perhaps 650 to 1300 m2 tucked up around the base ,of the hillside~ Modern earth moving activit:ies, acting in concert with natural downslope disaggregation of materials, have produced the dispersed surface pattern. Locally available materials account for 89.3% of the tools, while another 5.8% are of 'hypabyssal rocks with a nearest known source in the hills 5 km to the west.. More exotic materials, such as light colored chalcedony and obsidian, account for the final 4o9%~ 79 e si. ! es, Animal bone is scarce i.n the deposit. The bones of deer, fox, black-tailed hare, brush rabbit, ground squirrel, pocket gopher, and a snake were identified, but: in such small quantities that each species could be represented by a single individual. Iden- tified deer elements are almost entirely lower limb bones. The deposit :is stratified, with the major break between the top 30 to 50 cm (Stratum 1) covering 40 to 80 cm of cultural layers. The top stratum may be the product of any of several natural or artificial processes, but it clearly post-dates the occupation of the site. A radiocarbon date from scattered bits of charcoal near the base of this stratum yielded a date of less than 180 B.P. (essentially modern). A second sample of charcoal from the occu- pational strata returned a date of A.D. 530 ~ 70 in calendar years, with all corrections applied. The hydration thicknesses of all five pieces of obsidian recovered were measured. Four of the five fell into the narrow range between 5.4. and 5.8 micronst. The single outlying value of 7.1 microns was obtained from the projectile point fragment.. 10.2 In t erpre t ive Trends in the interpretation of' inter-assemblage variability in coastal southern California over the last 25 years have paral.. leled developments throughout the science of Archaeology. Early interpretations stressed chronological explanations. As more radiocarbon dates became available, it was evident that roughly contemporaneous deposits might contain very different assemblages. Explanations were offered in terms of ethnic differentiation or, when the assemblages considered were more widely separated, in terms of the effects of broad-scale environmental zonation in the availability of food resources (e.g., agave/yucca, oak, shell- fish). It would be a very ~fortunate circumstance if all the sites considered perfo'.~-med identical f~mctions in their respective settlement syste~ms, and if the organization of these systems did not change over the time-spans considered. But what is needed for a convincing chronological ~framework is a perspective that focuses not on the level of the single site, but rather one that considered the integration and evolution of entire settlement systems and how these may differ by region. Are the SBr-895 remains best viewed as belonging to the Milling Stone Horizon or to, the Intermediate Cultures? Upon examination, th~s question proves to be more a matter of defini.- tion than of substance, and the definitions are inadequate. It 'has been proposed that SBr-895 represents a specialized plant iprocessing camp occupied by a small family group for' periods of up to ~everal weeks d~ring the months of April, May, or June (the optimal time for yucc~ exploitation)° Briefer visits to the s~te probably took place during the acorn harvest in October or November° The absence of any mortar or pestle fragments in levels below Stratum 11 opens the possibility that acorn exploitatJ.on was a later addition to the site's function, superimposed on the original 5n~cca focus. Both the thickness of' the strata bearing cultural materials and the range of obsidian 'hydration measurements hint that the span of re-occupation of tlhe site may have extended over several hundred years. The depos'it beneath the overburden stratum is 81 thicker than any of the deposits of the four sites used for com- parison. It should be noted however, that two obsidian samples separated by at least: 50 cm of depth in Excavation Unit #5 differ by only 0.1 micron in their ihydration measurements. The location of the deposit, up against the base of a steep hill, may mean that: colluviation was a more important factor in the ~formation of SBr- 895 than it was for the other sites° No neat sterile strata sepa-. rating the larger artifact bearing levels were discerned however. The location of refuse producing activities remained tightly focused over whatever span is represented. It is further hypothesized that the people that created SBr- 895 were based at a larger settlement near Red Hill, 5 km to the southwest. A central-based wandering pattern of settlement, with at least one focus on the area that came to be known as the Cucamonga "rancheria",. prevailed in the Pomona Valley at least 1300 years before missionization. What of the dynamics of settlement system evolution? If t:he Gabrielino and their neighbors followed a central-based seasonal round at the time of missionization, was there an earlier time when there were no central bases? As has been noted, the addi- tion of acorn products to the aboriginal diet introduced incen- tives encouraging trends toward sedent'ism. But milling stone assemblages often c]~aracterize very extensive deposits leading, for example, to Wallace's suggestion that coastal examples reflect the remains of groups that were "more or less sedentary" (1955:219). If so, central 'bases must have been very different places before and after the in. troduction of acorn exploitation. The settlement system proposed for the context of SBr-895 is Undoubtedly oversimplified° But our ignorance of the full com- plexity of the situation should not prevent us from making any inferences at all, especially if t'hose we make are testable. 8 2 REFERENCES CITED Antevs, Ernst 1952 Climatic History and the Antiquity of Man in California° Uniw~rsity of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 16:23-31, Berkeley. Bailey, Harry Po 1954 Climate, Vegetation, and Land Use in Southern California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 170, Geology of Southern California, PP. 31-44. San Francisco° Balls, Edward Ko 1962 Early Uses ~)f California Plants.~ Univeristy of California Press° Berkeley'° Bean, Lowell John & Kat:herine Siva Saubel 1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum, Banning. Beardsley, Richard K, Preston Holder, Alex D. Krieger, Betty J. Meggers, John Bo Rinaldo, & Paul Kutsche 1956 Functional and Evolutionary Implications of Community Patterning° Society for American Archaeology, Memoir 11o Salt Lake City. Damon, PoEo, CoWo Ferguson, A. Long & E~Io Wailick 1974 Dendrochronologic Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale° American Antiquity 39(2):350-366. Davis, James T. 1974 Trade Routers and Economic Exchang~ Among the Indians of California. Ballena Press, Ramona California° Eberhart, Hal 1962 Mesarica: A San Gabriel Valley Site° 36:69-76, Los Angeles. Southwest Museum, Masterkey .... & Warren Wasson 1975 The Sassor~e Site (LAn-339)o California Anthropologist 5:9-45. Departmen! of Anthropology, California State University, Los Angeles. Fenenga, Franklin 1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Tools: A Clue To Their Function., Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:309-323° 83 Jaeger, Edmund C. & Arthur C,, Smith 1966 Introduction to the Natural History of Southern California. sity of California Press.~ Berkeley° U n i ve r- Johnson, Keith L. 1966 Site LAn-2: A Late Manifestation of the Topanga Complex in Southern California Prehistory. University of California. Anthropological Records, Vol!ume 23° Berkeley. Johnston, Bernice Eo 1962 CaliforniaIs Gabrielin, Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. Kowta, Makoto The Sayles Complex, A Late Hi)ling Stone Assemb)age from Cajon Pass and the Eco)ogical Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Press, Berke]eyo Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethno- logy, Smithsonian Institution, Bulletin 78. Washington. Hartz, Patricia 1976 Description and Evaluation of the Cultural Resources Cucamonga, Demensi Deer, and Hillside Creek Channels, San Bernardino and Riverside County, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Envir- onmental Planning Section. Technical Report O-76-1. Ornduff, Robert 1974 Introduction to California Plant Life. Press, Berkeley. University of California Rogers, David B. 1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. of Natural History. Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara Museum Rogers, Thomas H. (compiler) 1967 Geologic Map of California. San Bernardino Sheet. sion of Hines and Geology, Sacramento. California Divi- Storey, H.Co 1948 Geology of t:he San Gabriel Mountains, California, and its Relation to Water Distribution° U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Treganza, A.E. & C.G. Malamud 1950 The Topanga Culture, First Season's Excavations of the Tank Site, 1947. University of California Anthropological Records 12(4):129-170. Berkeley. 84 Walker, Edwin F. 195! Five Prehistoric Sites ir'~ Los Angeles County. Publications of the F.Wo Hodge Fund, Volume 6. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 14allace, W~]liam J, 1955 A Suggested (;hrono~ogy for Southern California Archaeology° Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230. ~,'arren, Claude N. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Cali- Fornia Coast. Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C. Irwin-Williams (editor). Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology !(3):1_14. Wasson, Warren, Dana Bleitz-Sanburg, Delmer Sanburg Jr., Ralph Marshall Robert Fondren, & Ro~ Amerine , Th.e Wilson Site (CA-LAn-5IS),~ Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 14(2)::1-18. Costa Mesa. White, Raymond C. Luiseno Socia} Organization. University of California. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2). Willey, ~ordon R. & Phitlip Phillips 1958 MetSod and Theory in American Archaeology~ University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Wilmsen, Ed,~in M. 1968 Functional Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts. American Antiquity, Vo]tz-~e 38, NOo2, pp. 156-161. Washington D.Co 85 APPENDIX A Transit Reading Conversions 86 DISTANCE AND ~ ~ND Y COORDINATES EXF'F¢CSSED iN FEET ELEVATION5 EXPRESSED RELATIVE TO SEA LEVEL POINT $ LABEL ~NGLE DISTANCE X COORD 'f COORD ELEV( FT ) ELEVi M ) POWER TOWER S LEO 71.2 1i2 106.02 36.12 2235 681.23 ~u,~r .~= ~z /u.5 ze zz.~z u. O2 2254. Z4 680.77 $u&F'~L2 ~4 ~-' 6 z~ Z4.0i 87 ~ATUM ELEVATIOn, = 2Z33.03 FEET ~30.63 METCRS~ ADOVC ~CA L~VEL ANGLES ARE ~XF'RESSED E~T Of TRUE N~RTii DiSTaNCE '~ig X ,,,aD Y COORDINATES "~ ...... u~FRE~CB IN FEET ELEV~TiON'3 EXPRESSED '-' "~ = R~,,,,~,~ TO gCA LEVEL POINT $ LABEL ~NGLE DiSTaNCE X COORD Y COOF<D ELEV( FT ) CLEV( M ) I EU $5 SW CORNER 73.2 ~,? ,6.9i 14..17 22~5.42 '~.' .,~- ~v..L~ "~,~/' .7i · ~ EU ~; NE CORNER §3,o ~,;~,';.',.j 53,~5 ~5.'74 2---'53,;"5 "'"-.-' ,..q T.LL ii£TAL STAKE ~..99 22 -'7,i& 20,3 2230,~,5 6,-'?.i~ w,u~. oi...~. 2:04.5 z,' iS.e/ 225i ~: "~'~ ~)O 88 C~--~e<-.-O-~-5 READINGS OF 1/26/0i SCOPE tiEiGiiT : 5,22 FEET (i,57 METERS) 6ATUfi £k/.VATiOt~ = 2233.0.5 FEET (660.63 METER$) ABOVE SEA LEVEL DISTANCE AND X AND Y COORDINATES EXFRESSED IN FEET ELEVATIONS EXF'R[SS£D RELATtV[ TO SEA LEVEL SURFACE $30 77.2 15~ t49.I9 ~3.77 22J6.53 681. ~3 ~iTTO i 46.'8 51.~7 ~".Qi ~=.5i ~z~..,o ~iTT~ 2 au.~ a,' .~,~, 45.22 "" ....... - '~- -- ~&l,u ~ ~2.1 ~4.~.~ 57.5 ;v.aa ~'~ '.~ '~- '- 22 gii PIPE E '"' .... '-' ? ~ gi~ PiPE W WALL 5G.~ ~0.~5 50.G5 ~- ,. ..... · ....... CUT ~OF- 41.4 DITTO I Zi.O 78 '"~" 4i.22 66.4'} ~- .... i4 DITTO 6 16.0 i54.68 io CUT W EDGE 12.J. --: ? .... ~- ............. io ~iTlfi i ~5.~ 7'f.L,~ i7.0~ &','.54 2245.40 i9 7 un Fir'a a.U ,','.~, 0.04 i?.i5 Z~+i,ui 655.~o 89 SCOPE HEIGHT = 5.38 FEET (I.G4 D~TU~ E~VATION : 2233.03 FEET (680.~3 ~ISTANCE AND X AND Y COORDINATES EXPRESS~ IN FEET ~EVATIONS ~PRESSE~ RELATIVE TO SEA LEV~ POINT $ LAISEL ANGLE DISTANCE X COORD Y 1 EUI? SW CORNER 41 36 31.~ 17.~6 223S,85 2 ku $,' NE CORNER 60.2 ~4 3 EU ~8 ~W CORNE~ 250.9 1~ -17.01 90 CA--,.~I~R--I]95 READING5 OF 2/2/81 SCOPE HEIGHT ~ 5,51 FEET (t.&8 HETERS) DATUM ELEVATION : 2233°03 FEET (680,63 HETERS) ABOVE SEA LEVEL DISTANCE AND ~ AND Y COORDINATES EXPRESSED IN FEET ELEVATIONS EXPRESSED RELATIVE 'TO SEA LEVEL ?OINT ~ LABEL ANGLE DISTANCE X COORD Y COORD ELEV(FT) 1 EU Jl SW APPROX 19,4 37 12,29 ~a''~ 682.02 2 ~ $I HE APPROX 28.2 ~O,?~ 1~.36 36.i2 2236.62 682.S~ 3 EU ~2 SW APPROX 34,3 4~,~7 2~.15 ¢I.20 223~,76 662,68 ~ £U ~2 NE APPROX ~0,~ 5~.~2 3~o~9 ~I.~S zz~v.~,' 682,9 S UF' HILL 6 7 8 10 21 DITTO ! 37.1 B8.~3 $3.~S 76./ ~.~, 606,au DITTD 2 37,4 10~.~0 oz./~ uz,OS ~'~'.~6 668.6~ DITTO 3 56.6 12~ 75.~2 ~?.56 226~.6~ 67!.85 DITTO 4 35°7 I57.27 92.73 129.35 2284 DITTO S 3~.? I~B.2 .-- DITTO 6 35,'? 177,73 117.1 I61,8 ..... I;iTTO I ~--. _ ~*.2 54.05 59.87 2247.3 a64,~8 ~.'/ 86.15 6~,6 50.77 224~,75 60~.8~ ~irT~ 2 6~.2 9'0 .~S 82.28 38.04 2228' ¥~8 682,44 ~iTTG 3 76.0 I~1 t08.06 25.37 ~ . __ biTTa 4 65 171.76 '"~' 65 72.62 2z,~,~.z,6 ~iTlO 5 a~.'7 I71 ~= 146,7 88.54 2249,66 685.7 ~'' *~ ?,62 ii,51 2234,47 68i*07 Oi:f'Ef{ ZDGZ C~7 75.[:, ~8 47'."~ -3.18 2250.7~ 679 ~'i T'i 8 2 6.4 ",= -. .- ...... · ~.z+ 6.67 225Z.~ .500.e9 biTT8 4 i,,,o. ~ ifi i2.44 -iJ.0i 222'7~, 0i ~iTTO .5 ~L7.4 ~- ' ....... ' .... 91 RE~DiNS5 OF SCOF'E HEIGitT = "' " FEET (l~G6 METERS) DISTANCE AND X AND Y COORDINATES EXPRESSED IN FEET EXP~Eaa~ ~ELATIVE TO SEA L?VEL ELEVATIONS ~,-c~ POINT ~ LABEL ANGLE DISTANCE X ?~00,2D Y COQRD ELEV( FT ) EL:--V(M) i'!PELiN£ .,.z',',. ~ +u .~.a 57.0 ,-=:-=.-.,;;- ' ': ~'": "iO.81 ~.,, ~ ~.,,.,,~. VAULT ""~ o £XiTT,.NG VAULT ,,~"3. i 70.83 CONTiNUiNG zi5 ic,'; .4. -sv'.s,-' &5. ~5 2225.26 o/u. ~ 48.05 22.'24,','5 G78.iG · -~i.7G 222~.~4 G76,7 ISG. 77 22i2.85 674,4~ 158.57 .... ".2 o,',..,,. ,i g2 SCOF'E HF. IGHT = 5.2S FEET (I,~, MZ:TEF;$) ~ATUH ELEVATION : '~.03 FEET '~ "~' ~ : ..... -~0~[ DISTANCE ~ND X AND Y CDDRDINATES EXPRESSE~ IN FEET ELEg~TION~ ~XPRESSED RELATIgE T~ SEA L:ZVEL pOINT # LABEL ANG,~E DISTANCE X CODRD Y CDOP, Z~ rL£!;( FT; F_LE:J( ~i i I EU $11 $W CORNER &9.4 60 S~.I& 2!,12 93 APPENDIX B Catalog Sorted By Provenience 94 EU LLL ~IF~I~ 1 2 ILrT FL/1FSER-5 3 I~/U 5 ~ FL./U~CC-( 5 UT FL/U-S-4 7 UT FL/U-S-1 9 5CR/?/2C 10 ~ 11 RET FL/U-CC-S 12 HAH/COB 13 ~i'CL 1¢ Ik-T Fb'U-CV-S 15 UT FL?d-CU-5 17 ~/CE 18 18 ~ ~ I)ISH HA&'COIb'F' ET FL/U-CV-( SC~IP I2C UT FL/U-o-,~ SC~C/CF. S~CE HNUCH PE. ST~ i~]ETA~ UT FL?J-CV-S LIT FL/I)-S-3 UT FL/LHCU-3 LIT FLYIJ-S-3 UT FL/U-S-( H~CH HAH/CD~,f. F/WIO/B/ES ~Q~DI~/ES &~O,'"U NANO/U? FW]RTi~Jb')OWL RET RET FLYlFCC-S RET FLYlF-CU-S RLrT FLy"d-S-+ RgT FLYU-S-5 SCR/SE UT FL/)-S-3 UT FL/U-CU-3 UT FL~-L'I/-3 lit FLYU-CU-2 ~-S~-B?5 CAT~O(; SORTF.]) BY ~ILMU)UE](I~ Flie&L W/F Ii~IGIST l.E)l;ll4 WIDTH ~EBltt ~TEI~IAL F W 4J,,1S S,47 4,78 W 8~,&3 12.~ 10,10 W 25S,73 8,20 7,S3 W 2~S.93 8,2O 7.53 W 19;~,~ 9.~ 6,B;" W ~,~77 8.~ W 93,,~ 647 5.62, W 1~,~ 10.~ F W ~ 8,~ 7,02 F W 45,~ 5,81 4.62 W ~,(0 9.1( 6,62 W 107~ 7,~ S,(7 W ~2,,~ 9.~ 8,02 W 11~,,~ 11,17 I0,97 F F W ~,00 Y.~ ~.~ W IS.11 4,21 3,21 W 10,20 4,~ W 0.19 1.23 W 7,~5 3.~ W 396,~ 10,21 9,93 W ~.'25 9,~ 8,67 F F F F F W ~,24 5.12 F W 16~. li~ 8,~ W 167.19 8.~ 6.15 W 81.~ 7,42 4,23 W I~.B~ ~,~ 6,~ W 112.3~ 6,~ 6.~ F F F 1.62 4,62 3,00 0,32 FELS 6,S,0 GN? ~T 2.58 QZT 5,9¢ ~T 6,~ DRT 3.0~ IfTSD 2,05 2,16 5,2.7 7,02 NTSI) 1,60 6.68 MTSD 1.75 1.98 3.84 4,.59 VCFG 4,80 4,80 1,14 O,W F1CLS ' O.XB 1.2~ GRNL 0.{)4 3.78 CAI' 4,IS GRJ)R CAT SCSI' 1,~ IfFSD 2.87 I~ST 2,98 2.91) 3,02 IfFSD 2.90 1.97 ~I I~{ST 95 PA~.,E I UT FLYl~-S-4 RL'T FI./U-CC-4 <10I RIM RE'T FLYU-S-5 RL'T FL/U-S-4 20Z,Ii~II;E~ 8787 ~91 ~71 8794 8797 88OO 8801 88~)2 88O3 8~)7 ~12 8612 ~16 8718 ~19 ~21 8734 C~-SBR-8?5 C~T~O~ SORTED EU LVL Di3C~:IPTIO~, W/F ~IC, h'l LENGTH WIDTH }13q31 II~TERI~L ~ 9.10 2.69 1.97 l.lS 293.~ 8.59 ?.M 7~.~ 9.10 '?.~ 6,~ ~.~ 7,91 7.~ 3,~ ~.~ 7,~ 5.98 2,~ 24%42 7.~ 6,~ 3.~ ~.~ I1,32 8,~ ~.~ 8.7~ 8,~ 3.78 4~.60 12.70 6.~ 5.43 115.19 8.5~ 5.~ 2.76 3.41 3,~ 2,71 ~7,~ 8,69 6.17 6.~ ~.~ 11,~ 9.10 i3.10 4.15 2.93 0.7{ 7~.13 lO.~ 8,41 ~1.~ 8.~ 8.~ 4.42 8.~6 3,~ 3.18 0.96 14.87 4.~ 3.~ 1.~ 49.45 6.~ 5.~ i.~ 4%45 4.~ 5.~ 8.~ 4.1~ i,~ 1.10 1~.61 B,44 7,79 3.~ 147.11 7,~ 7,~ 2,10 ~.~ 7.~ 4.45 12,41 3,17 3,~ 1,) 2.~ 2.~ 1.~3 0.~ 5.02 4.~ 1.~ 0.~ ~,~ B.~ 4,51 ~.~ ~.~ 8.~ 4.~ ~6.41 8.70 7.~ 5,~ 44Z UT F1../~-6-3 NET FL/U-CV-3 60Z ~Glll 1.5 DI ]W3Z!~, NLN3K STAIN 8~ro 811/6 84,17 8418 64,17 8424. [U L~. 7 6 7 6 ' 6 / 7 B 7 7 tO 7 t! 7 ~2 t 2 2 J 6 ? ? 2 ~ 2 9 2 9 2 ~ 7 ? 7 t2 W/F ~IGXT LD~GTH WID~ I[cF'TH 42S.20 10.0~ 8,~ {+.28 161.42 10.03 6.~ 2,~ N'TS~ 197.94 9.~ 6,06 2.67 1~7,~3 10,69 S,d4 2.33 GI~iL 154.43 B.00 5.26 3J.~ ~T ~82.~ 7,~ 6,97 6,~ GR~T 6,8? 3,~ 2,2Z 1,00 CH~LC 28,1. ~ 9.07 7.~ 4.17 96.42 5,57 4.7! 3.9~ FELS ~T 14,S3 3,~ 2,57 1,~ FE].$ 18~.~ 8.~ 7.0~ ~.61 42.~5 6.~ ~.17 2.~ 1~.~ 7.23 &.~ 2,~ ~T ~}.~ ~,~ 4,}4 4,71 ~.S1 8.~1 4,~4 4,70 41,~ 7,~ 4,~ ~,31 ~T ~,~ 4,~ 3.~ ~,~7 ~T ~,~ 10,~ 8.~ 4,82 3,31 2,97 ~,71 0.~ ~,~ 4,~ 3,~ I,~ S97.26 7,93 4.62 4,~ 9,72 4,~ 2,M 1.03 23,~ 4,~ 3,43 1,~ 0,47 1,96 {),69 0.~ ~T ~,14 B,~ 6,62 3,12 ~,~ B,07 6,B7 3,13 ~T ~,W 7,~ 6,~ S,~ ~,45 7,93 7,31 4,14 ~.W 7,~ 6,~ 5,~ ~1,01 8,12 6,14 3,67 ~2,~ 10,~ B,~ 6,14 ~T 1021.~ 13,~ 9,~ 4,12 71,21 4,24 S,~ 3,~ ~6,~ 6,91 S,~ 3,~ ~,~ 7,~ 6,49 5,15 1~.43 9,~ 8.~ 2.94 ~,, ~C ~7.~ B.15 6.~ 4.91 147,~ 6,~ 5.~ 3.~ ~T 1~,~ 6.19 6.~ 3,~ 97 PAgE 3 ~LACK STAIN B{.N3~ STAIN 20Z TIP FLAT 70% USED ON 4 EIX2[S ~ ~AIM ~/~ B42,7 8429 BS,lO B431 B4,t2 B4,t4 B634 B4,1B B&17 8439 B441 8442 B44B 8447 B443 B&46 B445 B4SO 8451 B6S2 B641 B4S9 B442 B649 8447 647O 8449 B471 B472 B674 B476 B679 B67B B6B! ? I2 UT FL,qJ-S-2 10 2 ~ I0 2 PRINT ROCK 10 2 PAINT ROCK 10 5 ASPHALTU~ 10 5 RLrT FL/U-CU-5 10 S LIT Fl.~2 10 6 SCR/CE 11 1 ~/P/~ 11 2 SCR/CE 11 3 SCP./CE 11 3 UT Fl./U-S-3 11 ( lit Fl./U-S-( 11 5 lIT/BASIN 11 6 liq~b'CH 11 & i~N(D/U 11 & ~ 11 & RLrT FLYU-CU-S 11 & 5CR/P/2A 11 7 ~ 11 7 11 7 P~i(T 11 7 ~ F1./)-L'U-5 11 7 SOC/SE 11 7 UT F1./U-C~-4 7 UT FI./U-CU-3 11 7 UT Fl.~qJ-S-4 11 B iIM/COB 11 B NMO/U B 11 B 11 8 SER/P/2) 11 9 UT Fi./U'LI/-3 11 11 11 P~klKr[ 11 11 11 11 11 11 ~ FL/B-S-5 11 11 · 11 17 I[I/SI~A~ W/F EIGHT LBgTH WIDTH ~EPTH &~TERIAL 8,18 3.?6 2.51 0.90 181,7] 9,18 4,7'3 4.01 132,S4 &,30 L70 L2B MTSI) 5.~6 2.93 1.~ 1.~ liTV 7~,.01 5.80 5.27 2.~ 120,00 7,11 4,90 ~,60 261,15 10.54 5.~ ~.94 #TSI) 59.57 6.91 3,92 2,~ 57,76 5,6S (,B8 2,27 CAT 6,16 3.~ 1.~ 0.00 1,94 3,~ I.~ 0.~ 2S9~5,0 48,00 27.00 15,00 964.7'J 10,48 8.87 &.~ ~T ~59.6,t 8,00 6.45 L00 396,60 9,11 7,87 &,2~ I2.17 4,76 2.71 2.45 1020.00 12.00 1I.~ 5.75 311.B0 8.~ 7.I6 $.7& 19&.20 10,17 &,84 2,87 GRll. 89.~3 8.04 ~.S4 ?.70 19&,28 10.17 &o84 2,(E ~T 425.20 10.20 7.1& ¢JO 44,5'9 6,02 4,84 1.~ 44542,8 4%00 45,00 13,00 I~T s 7.oo 10.13 8.71 4,58 340,20 %48 ~,99 3J2 QIM. ~10,~0 10,~2 %17 3,70 3,B2 2,71 1,5B 0,70 17,52 4,76 3,91 1,~5 ~'J~S~,002~,00 I1,0~ &,00 ~T PAE 4 2 S#ALL FLAT PIECES ~IN S ~ IEEP, ~ STUN ACCI 88~8 f15 98 I APPENDIX C Catalog Sorted by Material 99 m AND RSPH CAT CAT CAT CAT CAT CAT CAT CAT CAT CAT CAT CAT CAT CAT CAT [;AT DiAI. C CHALC CHALC CHALC DRT ~T DRT ~T ~T ~T ~T DP, T ~T DF<T ~T DRT DRT I)RT ~T FELS FELS ELS ELS SB~:-89.5 'JTAI. OG SD~I~ BY ~iATD:IA;.~ FINAL PAGE Eld LUL W,'F ~EIQII LD~TH WIDTH B ( F 10 S F' ,S 4 W 396,90 10.21 ~ 9 W 652,00 10,30 8,~ 5 8 t~ ~7,50 8.69 6.17 5 9 W 766,13 10,00 841 B 4 W 1~,~ 7,23 6,~ II B F 5 4 F & 11 F 11 6 W 9~,~ 10.~B B.B7 11 B F ~ 6 F 6 10 8 2~,2 43.00 11 12 W ~,~ ~.00 ? 7 i ~.~ 8.07 6,87 7 B W 1~,43 8.08 5,26 II 7 W ~.17 4,76 2,71 11 7 F ~ 4 F 9 10 F I1 11 W L82 2,71 1,~ 7 12 W 6,~ 3.~ 2,~ 7 B F B 2 F B 4 F ~ 5 F ~, 6 F 'j 7 f 7 5 F :, B F 7 6 W ~,~ 12,~ B 4 F ~'. 9 F ~ 7 F 9 12 F 0 10 F lC 2 F ~) ~I ~ ~2,B ~9,~ ~,~ B 2 ~ 9642 ~.~ ~.71 ~: 6 ~ 7~.~ 9,10 7,~ ~ 3 ~ 10.~ ~.05 2.~ ,~,~;9 W 8,16 1,~ (,~ 7 ~ 1,~ 2,~ 1.~ ¢~ 3,W 87%~ 12.~ 10,10 t 18 F ' 6 F 1~ 6 F t S W 9.10 2.69 1,97 C, ~ W ~7.~ 8.7~ 6.90 10~ 2 S~L F~T PIECES 6,14 6.75 2.~ FLAT 6.63 11,00 I~-,SIN I,.5 CH ~, BLACK STAiH 6,00 2,~ 3,13 t)LAC~ STAIN 2.45 0,70 1,00 70Z 107. 2O7. 107. 5,00 ~ STAIN 13,00 ~L~%[]( STAIN 6.25 3.94 6.80 0,99 0.96 0.32 1,15 10 0 8~45 B~ 8737 876.t 8767 8647 87O8 872+ 6761 B, B20 B81.? B703 B7~ ~7B B716 ~7 B7~ B7,l B7~ B~I 8761 B7~ ~17 B7~. B7(7 879~; B7~ B776 CATALOG 5O~T~ BY ~WUERIAL~ FINAL P~ 2 DESCRIPTI~ 9CR/CE 91~7P/~ LIT FL/U-S-4 IJ~/CH Fi40/U It'T/IMS!N ~T~ ~/~ ~/~S ~/~ ~/U ~ZCH ~CH ~CH ~ ~-5-5 ~ ~C-4 ~ ~V-~ ~ ~C~ ~ ~C~5 ~ ~S-~ ~ ~-5 EU L~ W/F WEI~{T LENGTH WIDTH ~EPTH 26~,51 8.01 4.?6 4.70 2~.~8 7.54 6.45 17.96 5.9 3,48 0,8~ 878.80 8.~ 6.~ 397.~ 8,:5 6.20 1021.~ 1~.60 9,~ 6,12 9?45.0 48.00 2Z.O~ 396,68 9.I1 7.8,' 89,43 8.04 5,54 ~1o00 9.1~ 9,67 Y,&8.88 9.25 6.60 &52,&3 %O0 8.02 3~,0~ 7.28 `5.57 ~.~ B.~ 5.91 ~.99 7,00 6.~ <101 -i 5 ~ IL~', ~J, CK STAIN 8A?N 4.24 2.70 2O;: 4.15 4.O;: 5.2~ 4,80 9C~T/Y,A 5.04 5.11 5.63 9C~/2A 5'95.88 8.9~ 7.07 7.02 624,25 9.78 8.67 5.73 137.43 10.69 5.66 2.3~ 184.75 8.48 7.03 5.61 255.73 8.20 7.5~ {.00 b'T FLYU-S-4 49.45 6,Z2 5,58 1.32 UT FLYB-S-3 45.64 5.81 4.62 1,60 25.~ 4.2O {.55 648 171.35 %27 5.{4 4,68 159.63 8.05 6,45 3.00 107.20 7,06 5.47 1.92 167.19 8.68 6.15 2,98 RL"T FL/U-S-5 114.01 9,64 5,73 2.37 167.19 8.68 6.15 2.98 RET FL/U--S-4 43,15 5.47 4.78 1.62 78,08 7.58 5.98 2.27 50.05 4.82 4.55 1.98 301.56 8.05 8.56 4.42 185,61 8.44 7,79 3.72 296,61 8.70 7.20 5.81 239.68 8.3T 6.94 4.71 120.00 7.11 4.90 {.60 59.57 6.71 {.~ 2.56 340.00 7.28 5,57 4.80 204.14 8.~ 6.&2 3.12 2%.99 7.00 6,04 5.63 177.54 &.19 6,30 3.55 425.20 10.20 7.16 4.90 340,20 9.48 &.9~ 3,92 L106.63 11.17 10.97 6.59 293.68 8.59 7.64 ~.25 1368.50 8.79 B.58 3.78 8816 8~ 8787 . 8F~ ~9 8~ 8701 8~ 87~ : ~12 ': ~ ~ ~ 372~ 37B7 3734 t710 ))F.S~RIPTI~ EU LUL W/F iI:IGHT Lf)iGTHWIDTH DEPTH ({{ZR~q~/'J 7 ,6 W (~.20 10.09 8.80 ~{~R./P/3 9 B W 2~,45 7,93 7.31 4,14 ~I;R/P/3 9 9 W ~,$O 7,0B 6.(? 5.15 ~I~Ry'SE 0 ~6 W l~.~ 10.~ 5,20 2.16 9i:R/~ B I W 283,50 9,07 7,34 4,17 UT FIJB-CC-3 7 & W 197,94 9.S( 6,~ 2,67 tit FI./)-S-3 5 10 W 49.(S 6,22 5,58 1,32 UT F1./)-S-3 ? 9 W 162.(3 9,48 I),~ 2,9( UT F'L/U.-~-( B 3 W 42,(5 6,83 3,17 2,3~ tit F1./U-CC-( 11 7' W 196,28 i0,17 6,84 2,87 tit FI../U-C"d-2 lO S W 7(.01 S,~ S~27 2.50 lit Fl.~-3 5 8 W ~3.10 &,lS 2.93 0.79 UT FL/U-CU-3 ~1 9 W 4.4,59 6,02 (,B( 1,~ tit FLYlJ-CU-3 ~I ~t W 17.52 (.76 3,91 1,~ UT FI./U-CU-5 0 ~ W ?),20 6.(7 S.~3 2,~ · FI./U-CU~5 5 ? W 115.19 B,~ 5.~ 2,76 ~ Fl./U-S-2 7 3 W ~,~ 8.32 4,51 1,7] UT FI.y2FS-2 9 I2 W 8,18 .1.96 2,51 0,90 ~ FL/U-S-3 5 ',~ W 7,75 3.22 2.45 1.25 UT Fl./U-S-3 5 V W I&,B7 4.37 3,(0 1.05 UT FL/U-S-3 7 5 W 28,37 4,~ 4.08 i,37 UT Fl./U-S-3 9 2 W ?,72 4,30 2,~ 1,03 ~ F].yl)-S-4 0 ~ W 2~J5,73 8,~ 7.~ 3,00 ~ Fl./U-S-4 5 ? W 42,35 7,34 4.62 1,32 UT F1..~2I-S-4 11 7 W 196,28 10,17 6,~ 2,87 ~ FL/U-S-5 5 B W 34,52 6,49 ~,53 1,~ ~ FI./U-S-5 6 ? {{ 147,11 7,~ 7,50 2,10 {~t~/CO~/P 0 ~ W ~,8,88 9,50 5.32 {~N(O/U 11 JyRI?. B ~ F ~ 5 ? F {~ 9 B F 9{:R/P/2) B ~.:.iW 575,~0 10,~5 8,56 4,82 9{~RE 7' 10 W 482,38 7,54 6,97 6,40 W~O/B 5 i) F !~/CDB 0 I2 W 45~,00 7,50 7,15 5,9( REl F{.YU-CC-5 5 ~ W &2,24 5. i2 3,91 2,87 9r.R/~ 9 I W i97,26 7.?3 4,&2 4,20 9{:877/2~ 0 2I W )~,8.50 7o~ 7,27 4.94 tit Fl./l-S-1 8 ( W 41,75 7.~ 4,48 1,3i Ul FI.YU-CU-2 5 4. F UT FL/IFCU-5 5 ~.: W 15,11 4.21. 3.21 1,14 UTFLYlY-S-2 6 17 F UT FL/U-S-3 6 l'J W 2,~7 2.~ 1.93 0,58 UI Fl./U-S-3 B * W 20,83 (,27 3.~5 0,97 if[ FL/U-S-4 6 Ii W 12,61 3,17 3,04 1,20 UT Fl./U-S-4 7 i W 28,85 (,78 4.22 3,52 tff Fl./U-S-5 0 25, W 41,48 &,&O 3.40 1,75 UT F]./U-S-5 9 :! W 19,71 5.05 1.17 1,08 I)I~H 0 2O F P{klNT ROCK ({U~{)) I0 ? W 181.7'3 9.18 4.7'3 4,01 PAINT {U)C~ (RE])) 10 ;! W 132.54 6.30 3.70 3,28 RET FL/])~U-4 7 5 F RET ~tx-5 0 1~ W 258,~ 8.06 7,80 ~/2A 5 / W 249,42 7,~ 6,48 102 IX~ BLACK STAIN ~ FL/U-CV-3 UT FI. YU-S-~ B~70 8675 8772 B&76 8707 8765 8712 8717 88OO 8?56 8721 8770 87~I 87O7 8778 1{702 87&2 B797 8726 8807 8718 8783 8617 ~11 ~87 8732 B~21 879~ 8802 ~T~I~ I)E~CRIPTIDN S~-8% CATAi.[)G SeaTED 8T ~TE~I~L:* FIM~. PAGE EU LVL W,T WEIGHT Li)iGll~ WIDll4 ~E2TH CINg~KT ? 8 W ? 11 W 0 24 W 11 I W 5 4 W 11 7 W 11 11 W 6 .~ F 6 12 W 7 6 W 10 5 W 11 4 W ~ 5 W 7 11 F 5 ~ F B 6 W 11 3 W 6 10 F 0 1I W ~ 7 I{ 11 8 {{ S 4 W ,~ W 7 W 10 W 6 B W ? 2 W 7 ) W ? 10 F ,~ F .~ 4 F 0 32 F I1 Z W 11 11 {{ 0 3:3 F 221.01 8.12 6.I4 3.67 147.92 6.32 5.73 3,58 680.~0 9,14 6,62 6.68 226,75 8.91 5.37 3.9 261.15 10.54 5.58 3,94 81.60 7.42 4.~ 3.02 311.80 8.68 Z.16 3.Z6 510,30 I0.32 9.17 3.70 46,7( 8.23 3.71 1.68 161,42 10.03 6.85 2.66 I~: STAIN 5,46 2.93 1.89 1.44 1.94 3.05 1,28 0,~0 0.47 1.96 0.67 0,4~ TIP 3.31 2.77 1.7I 0.60 USE] O~ 4 EDGES 0.19 1.23 0.93 O,1B 6. I6 3.56 1.85 0.80 197.54 9.53 6,87 2,58 595.30 11.32 8.65 5.28 198.40 7,51 5.98 5.58 l~.Bl 9,~ 6,~ 2,~ 112.~9 &.86 6,~ 2.90 63.71 5,51 5.04 1.97 3.41 3.75 2.71 8.48 4. I? 1.63 i.10 1.95 2.63 1.50 0.64 23.44 4,87 3.43 1.32 204.38 7.71 7.60 5,02 4.98 1.30 -0.89 71.~ &.~ 5.52 ~,IH I0~.00 12.00 11.00 5.75 567.00 10.13 8.71 4.58 1.03 APPENDIX D Identification And Sources Of The Lithic Materials From CA-SBr-895 By Debra A. Digua 104 CONTE~S Page I Map #6 Geology of the Site Environs 110 II Map #7 Lithic S Areas ~, our c e 111 III Table #11 Geologic Time Scale 119 IV Glossary 120 105 THE SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS: Rocks and Geologic History Some ancient rocks in the San Gabriel Mountains were formed over 1 billion years ago (Norris and Webb 1976:209)~ Later these rocks were altered by the heat and pressure associated with the intru- sion of plutonic rocks,, There were three intrusive episodes prior to the beginning of the Paleozoic Era, approximately 550 million years ago~ The older metamorphic rocks are the Mendenhall Gneiss with an age of about 1440 million years, and a distinctive augen gneiss that originated as a porphyritic granite about 1670 mil- lion years ago° The intrustives are of three rock types: anortho.- site, diorite, and granite~ The anorthosite has been dated at 1220 million years (Ehlig 1975:179)o Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks in the Cucamonga area are represented by the Cucamonga Complex., Following the intrusive episodes, the entire rock mass was elevated and exposed to the forces of weathering and erosion. These conditions 'prevailed for millions of years, and volumes of material was removed and deposited to the west. Near the close of the Paleozoic Era, most o~f the San Gabriel Mountain area was a depositional environment for marine sediments. Subsequent metamorphic and o~ogenic activity altered the original sedimen- tary rock complex to crystalline limestone and quartzite that are today found east of San Antonio Canyon. Pre-Cretaceous rocks in the study area are located in a zone north of the Cucamonga Complex° Uplift of the area began during early Mesozoic time. This was the beginning of large-scale mountain building in the region and extensive plutons of §ranitic rock were intruded in at least two, and possibly four episodes, occurring at different intervals throughout the area° These Mesozoic granitic rocks dominate the San Gabriel Mountains. They range in composition from granite to quartz monzonite, with some syenite and diorite. They con-- stitute almost 70% of the exposed rocks in the range. The Meso- zoic granitic rocks in the Cucamonga area are located north of the Pre-Cretaceous rock zone north of the Precambrian Cucamonga Complex. The San Gabriel Mountain area has been elevated and subject to erosiona] processes since the Mesozoic. Sometime during the Miocene, prior to 15 million years ago, east-west faults developed and the mountains began to assume their east-west alignment. Other faulting activity was initia- ted and accompanied by volcanism in the form of hypabyssal intrusives and extrusive lava flows. The Glendora Volcanics and the Tertiary intrusi~zes east of San Antonio Canyon formed during this time° During the middle Miocene, the sea began advancing over the Los Angeles Basin from south to north until by the close of the Miocene, the sea had reached the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. The San Gabriels underwent slow, continual, uplift during the late Miocene and Pliocene. The sea receeded from the San Gabriel Mountains during the Pliocene, and by the middle Pleistocene the shoreline was located near the Whittier fault zone. Marked up- lift continued into the Pleistocene. Th~ last major deforma- tional episode to affect the region, the Pasadenan orogeny, was initiated and appears to be a strong operational force. As the mountains rose, streams began down-cutting more rapidly and great V-shaped canyons formed w:ith large alluvial fans develop- ing at the mouths of the canyons on both the north and south flanks of the range. During recent times uplift appears to have lessened, producing steep, narrow, rejuvenated stream gorges. The discharge from these streams dissected the older fans, and extensive covers of recent sediments were deposited~ Large exposures of Recent allu- Vium occur throughout the Cucamonga area. 107 Prior to the initiation of the fieldwork, various sources (i.e., Bailey and Jahns 1954, Rogers 1967, and Martz 1976) were consulted in reference to what types of lithic materials might be expected in and around the area of SBr-895. The purpose of this research was to determine what the locally occurring rock types were, and 1::o become familiar with the char~ cteristics of these rocks in order to determine which local materials were used for tools and which, if anly~ were imported to the site~ It was important to have a working knowledge of the lithics before fieldwork commenced because previous work done at the site indi- cated that innumerable fragments of naturally occurring rock were present in l:he deposit° Two texts (Compton 1962, Huang 1962) were referred to for descriptions of the rock types antici- pated to be at the site. During fieldwork, a non-artifactual rock sample was collected from the surface of the site and its vicinity between Deer Canyon and Demens Canyon. This material provided a baseline of naturally occurring lithics against which the artifactual rock types could be measured. Another' sample of non-artifactual rocks was taken from each level of Unit #9. The lithic ~:aterials from SBr-895 were classified as either igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary rocks by means of megascopic determination of those physical properties that are characteris- tic of each group. The rock sample was then sorted and rocks of the same type as those in the artifact inventory were selected and cracked open to obtain. a fresh surface for mineral identifi- cation. Specif~c identification of the rocks was accomplished by consultation with three geologists (Gibson, and Drs. Wagner and Williams) who were shown the artifacts and rocks from the sample along wit:h the Geologic Map of California (San Bernardino Sheet), and the USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrange Maps for Cuca- monga Peak and Mount Baldy~ 11.08 Conclusions regarding the rocks identified as being of local occurrence were based, in part, on the rock types found in the non-artifactual rock sample. The sample contained the following types of rocks which are listed in order of their frequency within the sample: gneisses, cataclastic, metasediment, granulite, granite, diorite, pegmatite, schist, quartzite, metabasalt. Any artifacts of the rock types listed above are considered to have been manufactured from locally available materials (see Map #6). Conversely, those rock types not found in the sample, but present as artifacts, are inferred to be materials imported to the site. For example? obsidian is an imported material, al~ though its source is yet to be determined. Chalcedony is thought to have originated in the Mojave Desert° The other volcanics (rhyolite, andesitc, scoria, etc.) are thought to be imported to the site from either of two probable source areas: the Miocene Glendora Volcanics located west of San Dimas Canyon, and an area containing Tertiary hypabyssal intrusive rocks east of San Antonio Canyon (boYish areas are circled on Map #7). Both of these locations are noted as containing rock types that are similar to those found as artifacts. The skarn has only one apparent source area and that is at the same location as the Tertiary intCusives (east of San Antonio Canyon), where exposures of limestone are in contact with the igneous rock and presumably metamorphosed into skarn. A specu- lative source area ~for the arkosic sandstone are exposures of Miocene marine sedimentary units found with the Glendora Volca- nics. These marine units are also the possible source for the dark "chalcedony" and chert which are thought to form in the type of environment that resulted in these units. The "chalce- dony" gets its dark color from carbonaceous impurities. The only other units that contain similar types of "chalcedony" are located in the Santa Ana Mountains. 109 RECNTALLUVIUM ~PRE~AMBRIAN IGNE- OUS AND MEtAMOR- PHIC ROCKS PLEISTOCENE NON- MARINE SEDIMENTS i"~PRE-CRETACEOU~ ME?AMORP}{IC ROCKS Illtime 1 10 JMAP #6 - GEOLOGY OF THE SIT--~ ENVIRONS, CA-SBr- 8_~ (adapted from: USGS 7.5'Topo Quad Cucamonga Peak 1980 & Geologic Map of Calif.-San Bernardino Sheet1967) MAP 7: LITHIC SOURCE AREAS (adapted f~om Rogers,1967) O O O 1_11 .METAMORPHIC ROCKS Metamorphic rocks are derived from pre-existing rocks by the action of heat, pressure, and chemical changes associated with the processes of metamorphism. Alteration of rocks may result from any of several types of met~Lmorphism of which contact and regional are the most common° Characteristics of Metamorphic Rocks Metamorphic processes usually result in the recrystallization of the parent rock whose textural fabric indicates the type of environment in which it was formed. The size, shape, and arrangement of t.he crystal texture in metamorphic rocks is called the fabric° There are three general types of fabric commonly found in metamorphic rocks~ foliated' nonfoliated, and cataclastic Almost all of the metamorphic r'o~ks utilized as artifacts at the site were derived from local rock units. ~The one exception is called skarn, and this rock ~s believed to come from the same area as the Terti~ary intrusives located east of San Antonio Canyon° The ot~er types of metamDr~hi~ rocks are representative of the local basement units~. an~ may have been picked up almost anywhere within t'he site environs~ they are: gneiss, schist, granulite, quartzite, cataclastic, metasediment' metabasalt/ metavolcanico Tb. ese materials are shed from two units of base- ment rock which form the southern margin of the San Gabriel Mountains, from San Antonio Canyon east to Lytle Creek° The older unit is composed of Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks that within the area is termed the Cucamonga Complex; it is a complicated ~;eries of varied lithologies that include the gneiss, quartzite~ and granulite found at the site. North of the Cucamonga Complex is a zone of Pre-Cretaceous metamorphic rocks 112 that, in part, are composed of schist, cataclastics, metasedi- ments, and metavolcanics.~ Both of the rock units mentioned above were affected by episodes of large-scale regional metamorphism, and by localized processes of deformation produced within the Cucamonga fault zone. Gneiss is a general term used to describe a coarse-grained, quartzofeldspathic rock with characteristic gneissic structure (layering of alternating light (silicic) and dark (mafic) minerals), that is produced by regional metamorphism. Gneisses are named for some distinguishing feature such as characteristic mineralis (e.g., garnet gneiss), or structural elements (e.g., banded gneiss)° Gneissic rocks at SBr-895 were used mainly for ground stone and scraping r~ools. The types of geniss present a~.~e banded gneiss, garnet gneiss, epidote gneiss, and veined (quartz) gneiss. Granulite is formed at high pressures and temperatures during regional metamorphism. It is a dark colored, even-grained grano- biastic rock, that is very dense and holds up well under repeated pressure, making it suitable for use by the prehistoric inhabi- tants of the site as hammers, scrapers, and flake tools. Metasediments, as a group, can b~ described as low grade meta-- morphosed argillaceous rocks, some of which possess relict bedding planes° %"he characteristics of this rock type are so indistinct that to identify them in finer detail would be unwar-- ranted~ These rocks were used in a variety of chipped stone tools found at the site~ Cataclastics are produced by a mechanical deformation of rocks during episodes of cataclastic metamorphism associated with mountain building activity~ The initial stages of deformation result in granulation of mineral grains, and continued shearing 113 stress produces the progressive attrition of minerals and rock particles° Cataclastic rocks are subdivided according to the degree of granulation of the rock, and the rocks used for arti-~ facts at SBr-895 range .from micro-breccia types to pulverized forms. These rocks are compact and hard and wer~ used for heavy- duty tools such as hammers~ Quartzites are. granoblastic rocks formed either by contact or regional metamorphism and are composed chiefly of quartz. They usually represen~ altered sandstones or cherts. ~hey are homo- genous rocks and were highly suited for used as flake tools at the site. Schist is a regional metamorphic rock whose name signifies it's characteristic schistose foliation. Artifacts of schist are not at all numerous at the site:~ and 'this may be due to the unsuita- bility of the material, as it deteriorates rapidly from weather- ing. Metabasalt and metavolcanic rocks in the area are derived from metamorphosed dikes of basalt, andesite, and rhyolite. These are fine-grained porphyritic rocks that are dense and have conchoidal fracture suitab_e for used in flaked tools, such as the ones found at the site,. IGNEOUS ROCKS Igneous rocks are formed from molten material (mag~a) in either of two ways: 1) intrusive (pintonic) igneous rocks are produced by emplacement of a body of magma below the ground sur- face, which allows a slow rate of cooling that results in a medium to coarse-grained, phaneritic rock; 2) extrusive (volcanic) ignneous rocks are formed when magma is forced to the surface as lava flows or pyroclastic ejecta that cool so rapidly that in some cases the crystal ..... have no time to form, producing a volcanic glass, i.e., obsidian. Usually they are fine-grained rocks. Descriptions of Plutonic Rocks & Artifacts Plutonic rocks selected for use at the site include granite, granodiorite, and diorite~ These rocks are formed in similar environments as t?~.e batho!iths in mountain ranges, or in smaller intrusive bodies such as dikes and sills. The San Gabriel Moun- tains batholith o~ Mesozoic granitic rocks sheds material to stream canyons within the local site environs. Granite and granodiorite are silicic rocks characterized by quartz in amounts of more than 10%~. In granites orthoclase feld- spar predominates over plagioclase, and quartz may be present in amounts of up to ~0%. Granodiorite contains less quartz than granite and has p]agioclase feldspar in greater amounts than orthoclase. Characteristic accessory minerals of granites and granodiorites are muscovite, biotite, and hornblende° These rocks are mostly medium to coarse-grained with subhedral-granular or granitoid texture~ Diorite is intermediate between granites and gabbros in its silica content~ Most diorites lack quartz, but some contain up to 10% quartz. Diorite is composed chiefly of plagioclase with such minerals as hornblende, biotite, and pyroxene commonly occurring as accessories° Diorites have a variable texture~ and can be subhedral-granular~ anhedral-granular, or porphyritic, and[ are typically medLum to coarse-grained. The artifacts of granite are, for the most part, ground stone° The granite ranges from a fine-grained, white variety with less than 2% biotite (1 artifact -"sphere")to a medium to coarse- grained variety with 'biotite and ~ornblende combined at about 15% (slab metate, manos, etc~)o The granodiorite is a medium- coarse-grained rock with accessory biotite and hornblende to- gether in amounts of about 20%° This rock type was used for manoso ! 15 Diorite was used for numerous manos and some metates in the form of a medium-grained rock containing about 2% quart~, with accesory green and/or black hornblende and biotite mica occurring together at 15-20%o Description of Volcanic Rocks & Artifacts Volcanic rocks p'resent as artifacts include rhyolite, andesite, scoria, obsidian, felsite, and a fine-grained volcanic. None of these rock types are found in local rock units. The probable source area of th~-~ obsidian is the Mojave Desert; the other rocks possibly hav'e their source in an area southeast of Mount Baldy where Tertiary hypabyssal intrusives occur, or in an outcrop of Miocene volcan~cs in the Glendora area (see Map #7 and section on techniques of ]ithic sourcing). Rhyolite is the extrusive aphanitic equivalent of granites. Some rhyolites retain the ~flow structure of the original lava, and the rocks are typically porphyritic, with phenocrysts of quartz, sanidine, and plagioclase in a fine-grained groundmass. Andesitic lavas have plagioclase as 'the major constituent, though alkali f~ i:~!spar may occur in small amounts, and quartz is present in the groundmass~.. Phenocrysts of common accessory minerals such as biotite, hornblende, and other ferromagnesium minerals occur, a~ well as phenocrysts of feldspar° Obsidian is formed by the super-cool'ing Of a lava resulting from the rapid drop in temperature which prohibits crystallization and produces a volcanic glass, usuaily a glossy, jet black color. Lava flows containing gas vesicles yield a rock fiddled with air bubbles, which is said t:o be vesicula:r. When a rock contains numerous vesicles, it is called a scoria. 116 Only one flake tool was made of rhyolite, and none of this material (a fine-grained red rhyolite) was recovered as debitageo A few artifacts were made of andesire: a mortar fragment of gray- green andesite with phenoc~rysts of biotite and hornblende; a mano fragment of vesicular red andesire with biotite phenocrysts; and a manuport of red andesitic scoria. Obsidian artifacts (four flake tools and one piece of debitage), are a glossy, black vol.- canic glass with no obvious inclusions. SEDIMENTARY ROCKS Sedimentary rocks are divided into two groups: Detrital sedi- ments and chemical sediments° Detrital sediments are those made up of the fragments of weathered rock, and are called clastic rocks. Clastic rocks are categorized by the size and sorting of the clastic particles into groups such as conglomerates, sand- stone, or shales~ Chemical sediments are precipitated from aqueous solutions, usually in marine environments; they may be divided into the following groups based on chemical composition: carbonates (limestone, dolomite), evaporites (halites, gypsum), and siliceous rocks (chert).~ Description of Sedimentary Rocks & Artifacts Only one clastic sedimentary rock is found in the artifact inventory° This is an arkosic sandstone (contains much feldspar) represented by two fragments of ground stone (pestle and mortar). The sandstone is undeformed and assumed to be Miocene or Pliocene in age and nonlo~i.~al in occurrence. The probable source of this rock can be vaguely identified as the nearest undeformed marine sandstone unit of Miocene or later age, because it is similar 117 to rocks found in these types of formations. Chemical sediments are in the form of cryptocrystalline siliceous rocks, cher.r and chalcedony, which are also non-local in occurrence. There are two varieties of chalcedony at the site: a light-colored chalce- dony believed to occur in the desert as geodes~ c~ amygdules and a dark chalcedon? that., along with the cherts, is believed to have been produced in a marine environment. The chalcedony and chert are ideal rocks for use as flake tools because they pos- sess controllabl~ conchoidal fracture° Chalcedony flake tools and debitage are present, while chert is represented only by waste flakes. 118 0 0 m '~ '~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~) Table #11::Geolo~10 Time Scale 1 1 9 GLOSSARY amygdule(s) - are formed in gas cavities in an igneous rock by secondary mineralIs (quartz, chalcedony) deposited by hydrother- mal solutions° anhedral - describes a crystal of indeterminate shape that has failed to develop any bounding crystal faces. aphanitic - textural term applied to a rock composed of crystals that are too smaI1 to be seen by the nailed eye~ argillaceous - said of rocks composed chiefly of clay minerals° basement - usual]y, a complex series of igneous and metamorphic rocks of Precambrian age that extend over a large area and are unconformably overlain by youn§er rocks. batholith - a large, pluton~.c body, more than 40 square miles in area, that is composed of medium to coarse-grained granitic (or quartz monzonite) rocks.. sataclastic rocks - these rocks have a fabric of crushed, and angular fragments and are produced by the mechanical deformation of hard rocks during cataclastic metamorphism. contact metamorphism - a local process involving the rocks at or near the contact with an igneous body; changes in the surrounding rock are produced by iheat and materials coming from the magma, and some deformmtion may result during emplacement of the igneous rock° ~ryptocrystalline - textural term applied to rocks whose crystal structure is so small it must be viewed under the microscope. 120 feldspars - these are a group of minerals; orthoclase, albite, and anorthite that make up more than 50% of all igneous rocks. Albite and anorthit~e form the plagioclase series of feldspars (oli§oclase, andesine, labradorite); orthoclase and albite form the alkalic feldspars (microcline, sanidine, orthoclase). Alkalic feldspars occur widely in silicic rocks; whereas plagio- clase feldspars occl~r throughout a range of silicic to ultramafic rocks° ferromagnesian - describes dark silicate minerals containing iron and magnesium (i.eo,~ biotite, amphibole, pyroxene>. foliated rocks - a foliated texture is usually found in rocks deformed during regional metamorphism; it results from intense heat and pressure which causes the segregation and parallel orientation (realign~ment) of minerals giving the rock a layered or banded appearance.. Foliation in rocks can be subdivided as to the degree of perfection in the parallel surfaces: slaty cleavage (most perfect), schistosity,. and gneissic layering (least perfect). friable - said of rock or soil that can be easily crumbled (ioeo, a loosely cemented sandstone). hypabyssal - intrusive igneous rocks that have crystallized at depths intermediate between plutonic and surface-cooled rocks. inclusion - a crystal or fragment of older rock within a rock to which the inclusion may or may not be genetically related. nonfoliated rocks - nonfoliate 'rocks are for the most part either granoblastic (granular) or grants, lose (equidimensional) in habit, and this fabric is usually developed in rocks altered by contact metamorphism or in rocks whose minerals resist realignment. 121 '.b. ar:~ri'_~ic - te>:~:ura} er'm applied to rocks having: ~- .... ral ~ Ja~',e Dhepocrvsts - tb,~.se are the:: visibly large crystal wi~:hin t:he fine-~:'~ralned .qro~mdmass of some igneous.. pp2. iphFr{t&¢l.- a :ex~iural tlenn describing an igneous rock '~g lar~er crvs' ~ s t.:~ (pheqc.,~:r'ysts) set in a fine-grained uvr..,clastic - a .,,olcanic rock wit:h fragmented text-ure prodt~ce~ by i~ts explosive ej<:~cti.on f¥om a vo canic vent-~ ............................. _ ~:r.m useu t-o describe rocks in ~hict~ qua: [z a;~c: [e]dspa.r's ar,:, [he dominant m:..nerals. regional meramo'r ~hi sm- f:. f.['ec c s --_._zu_~._.. .....:~.__----_J .... ~t extensive areas of rocks large-scale mountain buildi:~g (orogenic) activity which c~fc~,n~ion in r~cks by 'not: only heat and pressure but powerful shearinB forces (cataclastic metamorphism). ~verse--n~ui{ - ~,~ faui:: along which the [hanging wall (th~ -~h;>v~- the fa~l~: :,lane) has been raised relative to the :Lhe r,.:~ck Nelov. i've ~!a~e'~ Reverse faults with a dip ,.:,f lea {hah 45© are cal]'ed ~:.hvus[_ [.'_gh.klJi. i_j:?l~2_a_]:._f_:_a_t~.]:_~2 .. .:~ ~-a~' t. in which there has bee~ ~e:p~ra~ ~!on to rh~ right tha:t [.s,, :separation parallel o": ~he fault, I~ a righ~-]at:erat fault the side ,-,:,~erve: appears It: hu. ve mo'..~ed t:(, t::he riF. ht 1 1! ? OFIIGINAL ?_?]a_n_y_~E..i..j_i/i_c - textural -erin app]ied to ::;ocks havin..,.l c ,,'~a ta ] s i az ~[e enou~.b t-o be seen by the naked eye. l~l_er.:_o?r.xsts nhese are the visibly large crystal ~.ri~hin the fine-grained groundmass of some :igneous,. p_o_r_phyritic - a textural term describing an igneous rock larger crystals (phenocryst:s) set in a fine-grained pyroelastic - a volcanic rock with fragmented texture produce~t '~,y its explosive ejection from a volcanic vent~ :'2Har'tzofeldspathic - a term used to describe rocks in which qt~a~ tz ~ci fe]d~ a~s ~p ..~ are the dominant ~inerals. .r~_g.i_f!_n_al metamorphism - affects extensive areas of rocks ¢tu~-i:-L large-scale mountain building (orogenic) activity which produ~ e~-~ deform. ation in rocks by not only heat: and pressure but a].so ~owerful shearing forces (cataclastic meta. morphism)~ ~.?verse--~'ault - a fault along which the hanging wall (the z¢~'.~ ~m:>v~ the 'fault- plane) has been raised relative to th~ f..oc.t-wal! .the rock below' ~he p!ane), Reverse fault~i! with a d~!~:, of le~: ~ ~han 45° are called ~_hrust faul!so ~g,,t--lauaral fault a fattit in which th~i~:re has bee~ st-rikv t~ap~ra! ion to ~'.he right t_hat is, separation parallel up the ,~.. ,_Me the fan]t~ In a right-lateral fault the side opposit~ :~!.,~.erve~ appears tc b,~.ve moved t::o the silic - applied to silfca-r.ich :i. gneous rocks 'in which silica <~oustitutes at leas~_ 657'o of the rock~ 122 skarn - carbonate contact metamorphic rock which effervesces in hydrochloric acid. It is a white, friable rock with granulose texture that may have been produced by hydrothermal metamorphism upon limestone subhedral - describes a crystal that is partly faced; between euhedral and anhedral in structure° 12 3 REFERENCES CITE1) American Geo]ogscal ins~ 1976 Dictionary of Geological Terms. City, New York. Anchor ~>'~ess, Garden Bailey, Thomas 1. &: Richar<t H. Jahns 1954 Geology .':~f ~' .~ the Tra:~sverse. Range Province, southern Cali- fornia. Ch2~ Geology of' Southern California Bulletin 170~ California Division of blines and Geology. - - Compton, Robert ~:{~ 1962 ~nuai o( Field Geology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Eckis, Rollin 1928 Alluvial Fans of t'}te Cuc~onga District:, Southern Cali- fornia~ Journal of Geology 36:224-247. Ehlig, Perry L~ 1975 Basement: Rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains, South of the San Andreas Fault, Southern California. In, San Andrea~ Fault: in Southern California, edited by J~n C~owell,- pp. 177-'185~ California Division of Mines and Geology. Gary, Margaret, Robert McAfee Jr~ & Carol L. Wolf, Editors 1974 Glossary of Geology,~. American Geological. Institute, Wash-{ ngt~:~n, D.C~ Huang, Walter 1962 Petrology. McGraw-Hill, New York. Jahns, Richard }.t~ Editor 1954 Mineralog. y and Petrology. California, Bullet:in 170. and Geolcgy, Ch. 7~ Geology of Southern California Division of [lines Martz, Patricia 1976 Description and g:valuation of the Cultural Resources: Cucamonga, Demens, Deer, and Hillside Creek Channels, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California°' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Techo Report 0-76-1. Morton, D~,M. 1975 Synopsis ;::~f the Geology of the Eastern San Gabriel Mountains.., Southern California~ In, San Andreas Fault in South~:n California, edited by--John C. Crowell, Cal. Divis],-.~_ ~ Mines and Geology pp. 170-175. 124. Norris, Robert M & Robert Wo Webb 1976 GeoloRy of California. John Wiley and Sons, New York Press, Frank & Raymond Siever 1974 Earth° WoH. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. Rogers, Thomas H (Compiler) 1967 Geologic Map of California _ San Bernardino Sheet, 1:250,000. California Division of Mines and Geology. Storey, HoC. 1948 Geology of the San Gabriel Mountains, California, and its Relation to Water Distribution. U. So Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 125 ^??END IX E SOIL STRATIFICATION '~26 As was mentioned in Section 4~.0, upon completion of each unit, photographs were taken of each wall and profiles were drawn of at least two walls of all units. Plate 5 depicts the south wall of Unit ~j6 with a metate (f~8820) i__q_n situ in the 100 cm excavation level. Plate 6 shows the same wall upon completion of the unit at 130 cm (compare to Figure 4 profile). The 7 ~'.~m diameter iron pipe crosses the unit near the surface~ The nor!~h wall of Unit fJ9 is illustrated in Plate 7 (compare to Figure 7 p~rofile~.~, after completion at 120 cm. Note that in ~he profile drawings and layer descriptions that follow layers designated A, ]~ and 11 were found acz'oss all units. Layer 111 was found in all units in the central area and absent in Units 8 and f~lf.i near the stream bank. The sterile basal con- glomerate (stippled in the profiles) is designated Layer IV in Units f~7, 8, 19, and 1t, Layer V in Unit fJ9, Layer V1 in Unit fJ5, and Layers V1 and Vii in Unit f~6o John Milburn, who served as str.atigrapher on the project, provided the foillowing layer descriptions° Label A: All Units Organic litter mat, identical to Layer 1 but with matted frass, roots, grass, and twigs. Irregular due to disturbance~ Slightly more prominent in Un~[t 8 next to the creek. Boundary: Clear Munsell: (10YR 3/2) very dark greyish brown Label I: All Units Sandy loam/loamy sand, friable, non-plastic° Estimate of non-clastic composition: 5% clay, 10-15% silt, 80-85% sand. Sand predominately very fine/fine sand 60%, 25% medium sand, 1~5% coarse Plate 5: Excavation Unit #6, South Wall, 128 100 cm Floor. Plate 6: Excavation Unit #6, South Wall, 130 cm Floor. 129 Plate 7: Excav,~cion Unit: #9, North Wall, 120 cm Floor. 13 0 FIGURE 3: Excavation Un~ ~5 ° ....... ..... ouucn/west Wall Profiles FIGURE 4: Excavation Unit fj6 - South/West Wall Profiles FIGURE 5: Excavation Unit #7 - North/East Wall Profiles FIGURE 6: Excavation Unit #8 - South/West Wall Profiles 4------ &f~4 ,./ FIGURE ~: Excavation Unit ~/9 - South/West Wall Profiles ~'oc.~ 8. VO ~£~r ~ 8 FIGURE 10: Excavation Unit ~kll - North/West Wall Profiles sand. Clastics =15% of layer, predominately small subangular pebbles, 70%, 1.5% granules (angular), 15% medium/large pebbles. Fairly compact, homogeneous deposit. High water holding capa- city (i.eo high permeability), numerous port spaces, massive structural grade, very limited ped formation, small to medium subrounded blocky structure~ Corresponds to A1 horizon° Proba- ble origin is slope-wash colluvium modified by plant growth. Very little cultural material, probably post-occupation accumu- lation~ Moderately sorted. High kurtosis (i.e., very peaked gra in- size curve). Boundary: gradational, very irregular Munsell Color: (10 YR 3/2) very dark greyish brown Additional Comments: penetrated by fine rootlets, relatively high organic matter content compared to lower layers. Unit #7: Layer thickens to the SE,, Unit #6: Layer increases in thickness to the south. Contains slightly more angular elastics than in Unit #7 very disturbed by two pipes° Unit #5: Very thin compared to outcrop in adjacent units. Probably disturbed by road construction and erosion. Probably partially deflated. Unit #8: Very th~n. Extensively disturbed. Due to proximity of the creek, this area has probably been extensively eroded. Label II: All Units Loamy sand, very friable to loose consistency, non-plastic. Clastics are present in large quantities =40-50%; boulders represent 20% of clastics~ mainly angular to subangular; cobbles represent 30% from subrounded to angular; 40% pebble, subrounded to very angular; ]0% subrounded granules. Rock types~are primarily schist or gneiss, with occasional contact metamorphics and intrusive plutonics. Non-clastic matrix predominates, fine 139 sand with small silt (5%?), sand =50% very fine/fine sand, 30% medium sand, 20% coarse sand~ Low water holding capacity, very high pore space, massive structure grade, no ped formation, granular to structurelesso Structure slightly modified by soil formation, primarily introduction o~f organic matt~r, penetrated by fine rootlets° Very poorly sorted° Low kurtosis (flat). Boundary: gradational, irregular Munsell Color: (10 YR 4/2) dark greyish brown Additional Comments: There is so much cultural material in this layer that it must represent an occupation layer° Unit f~7: Not very high boulder content compared to other unit outcrops. Unit #6: Most typical expression of this layer. Unit #5: Higher boulder/pebble percent than units #6 or f~7. Unit #8: Extremely high boulder content 50%, pebbles/cobbles 50%, clastics represent about 60% of the entire layer° Label III: Units 5, 6, 7, 9 & 11 Loamy sand, very friable to loose consistency, even looser than Layer #2, primarily distinguished by decrease in clastics and pebbles relanive to Layer 11o Non-clastics mmke up 70% of the layer: 5% silt, very fine/fine sand 50% medium sand 35%, coarse/very coarse sand 10%. Clastics (30% of layer): no boulders, 10% cobbles, 25% granules, 65% pebbles, predominately small to very small .... Rootlets absent. Rock types are essen- tially identical to Layer 11. Massive grade, structureless, very low moisture ~lding capacity. Non-plastic, moderate to poorly sorted. ~ Boundary: gradational, irregular ~ Munsell Color: (10 YR 4/2) dark greyish brown Additional Comments~ This is probably the main locus of occupa- tion. In Unit #5 there was an increase in Munsell value compared to the surrounding units. May be more organics for this layer. Unit #7: This layer in Unit 7 is equivalent to Layers 111 and IV in adjacent units. Unit #6: This is the purest expression of this layer. Unit #8: #11o Absent, possibly combined with 11. Label IV: Units 5, 6, and 9 Sandy/loamy sand, very friable and loose consistence. Essentially identical to Layer ill in the description of the non-clastic sediment except for an increase in the percent of coarse and medium sand (m=45%, c=15%)o The percent of clastics has increased dramatically however from 30% to 50% of the layer. Boulders are also present and make up to 30% of the clastics. This layer was distinguished from Layer 111 as a zone of larger rocks between Layer 111 and the basal conglomerate. It really represents only an accumulation of large rocks directly on top of the basal conglomerate~ It must be considered part of the occupation layer with metares appearing in this layer lying on top of the basal conglomerole in Unit 11. Very poorly sorted, no rootlets. Probably represents boulders and pebbles derived from the layer below which strayed in place when material around it eroded away, accompanied by soil development upon the basal conglomerate. Boundary: Abrupt/high contrast with. basal conglomerate, diffuse, very lowcontract with Layer 111. Munsell Color: (10 YR 4/2) dark greyish brown. Label IV in Units 7, 8, 10 and 11 Label V in Unit 9 Label VI in Unit 5 Label VII in Unit 6 Basal Conglomerate: sand, pebble conglomerate. Clastics make up 75% of the layer: 5% cobbles, 60% subangular to subrounded pebbles, 10% angular (predominates) to rounded granules. Rock 141 types are primarily schists or gneiss with occasionaP contact metamorphics. Sand makes up 25% of the layer, and is primarily 60% coarse to very coarse, 30% medium sand, 10% fine sand. Moderately sorted, structureless. Orientation is not consistent, some tendency to dip $E or NW and align on NW/SE axis, probably indicating they are derived from the adjacent stream channel° This layer's upper boundary is extremely irregular due to truly extensive rodent disturbance° All grams are stained yellow from oxidation° Limonite formation Fe2 03 _ N H20o Subareal surface at some point. Boundary: Unknown Munsell Color: betweem 25 Y and 10 YR 7/6 yellow° Additional Comments: Some rock types which appear in this layer do not show up in sediments above this layer (noted by Digua). Unit ~7: Some indication of armoringo Unit #6: This layer underlies a very similar depositional layer (V1) which respresents a remobilization of Layer VII with addi- tion of finer particles or simply a sorting of Layer Vii during r edepo s it ion o Unit #5: Occasional cobbles and boulders appear in this unit. Unit #8: Boulders are exposed in this layer. Creek/Road Profile It is evident that the layer is extremely thick (2 m+) and internally stratified with alternating bands (beds) of pebbles, sand, and cobbles. It is armored at the top and underlies the entire site. Definitely fluvial origin. For the purposes of intra-assemblage comparison (Section 7.0), each 10 cm excavation level was assigned to the stratum category to which it most closely corresponded (Table 12). The artifacts · were grouped into those found in Stratum 1 levels, those found in Stratum 11 levels, and those found in all levels below Stra~tum 11 ("111-"). Further distinctions among the strata below Stratum 11 were not used since these were generally less continuous and thinner and had little correspondence to our 10 cm excavation levels. The relation of artifact and debitage densities to the strata are discussed in Section ?o~0~ TABLE 12: Levels Assigned to Each Stratum In Centimeters Excavation Unit 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 STRATUM I 0-30 0-60 0-40 0-30 0-50 0-40 0-50 STRATUM I I 30-60 60-90 40-90 30-70 50-90 40-90 50-80 STRATUM III- 60-100 90-130 90-120 - 90-120 - 80-120 Any of several processes might be responsible for the forma- tion of Stratum 1. As was mentioned in Section 1.4, the west side of the hill has been scraped flat, evidently in conjunction with the laying of the pipes that cross this area (Map 3). Some portion of Stratum 1 in the central area of the site may be the result of this artifical displacement of the soilo But Stratum 1 was also found capp~ng Units #8 and #10 nearer the stream bank to the west and southwest of the central are~ and well beyond the limits of the area that would be expected to have been affected by the scraping. Stratum 1 appears to be more a product of an increased rate of colluviation possibly triggered by changes in the vegetatf. ve cover induced by historic-era grazing. Another factor that cannot be ruled out is the possibility that the increased colluviation might be the product of historic-era techtonic activity along the Cucamonga Fault, lifting the northern foothill side and increasing the gradient of the hill- side north of the site. In any event, it is clear that the deposition of Stratum 1 occurred during the historic-era, long after re-occupation of the site had ceased° Tihe radiocarbon date obtained for scat- tered charcoal fro~ basal Stratum 1 levels in Units #7 and #9 was less than 180 B.Po, essentially the modern limit of the method (Section 5.1). The tendency for peak densities of the natural rock to occur at the top of Stratum 1] lead to Milburn's suggestion that the surface of the cultural deposit may have been deflated by erosion prior to its burial by Stratum 1~ ,/ J /. .. LOEB&J.OEB LOEB ,~ LOE~ LLI~ A"'TORNE¥$ AT LAW ! C ~ ANGELE g, OA ~017-247~ TELEPHO~[; 213.688.~00 Date: FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL November 18, 1998 Time: 4:49pm To: From; Please deliver the following 6 pages (which include this cover letter)... Debbie Adams City of Rancho Cucamonga Matissa Hathaway McKeith Personal ID: 90089 Client/Re: 16311/2408 Facsimile: (909) 477-2846 Voice: (909) 477-2700 Direct Dial: Facsimile: (213) 688-3622 (213) 688-3460 Note: If transmission is not complete, please call our operator at (213) 688-3478 Message to Addressee: PLEASE COPY .AND DISTRIBUTE IMMEDIATELY. NOTE: DIANE WILLIAMS IS EXPECTING COPY. THANK YOU. Ibis transm]qs~on rs intended only for the me of ',he md!vidual or enti~, ~ ~ich ~t is ~d~ed, a~ my con.in infm~on fitat ~ p~vilege0, confiden~al and exert from d/~lnsure und~ applicable law. If [he ~r of ~s ~ge i~ ~r the mt~d~ recipient, or ~c cmploy~ m a~nt ~spc,mible f~ delivenng the ~mge m t~ i~nd~ recipient, you a~ hereby ~lifiefi ~v dissero nafi~, dis~bufion or copying of th~ cumunica~ is ~ctly orebible. If you ~ave mc~ved ~i5 ~m~nication m e~or, please notify ~ ~m~dislely by rolephone and return the original roesrage m u~ at ~ above ~dm~ via the U.S. Pos~l ~ice. ~nk y~. Nov 18 LOE~EBL~.. LO~ A.NGEL.rG NL=w Yo~ ~'~:h?E~'$ DIRECT [~IAL J'~OMBER 2 ] 3-688-3622 e-mail: MMCKEITH~Ioeb.com November 18, 1998 BY HAND DELIVERY AND TELECOPIER The Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center East Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Lauren Development Proiect Dear Council Members: This letter is written on behalf of CURE to set forth our position with regard to the Lauren Development Project. It concludes by urging that the City Council follow Mr. Markman's advice of September 16, 1998. _Mr. Markman suggested that a mediator be appointed if the parties were unable to reach a rcsolution prior to November 18, 1998. Such a mediator also could facilitate settlement of the overall pending lawsuits, thus, preventing the need to file even more litigation if the City approves the Lauren Project this evening. If a standstill agreement is reached, I recommend that all parti~q refrain from disseminating information to the media or general public while negotiations are taking place. Over the past few days, a number of questions have been raised that axe addressed below: I. Why has no progress been made on the Safety Study? As you know, the parties met on October 8, I998. to discuss settlement. Brant Dveirin from Loeb & Loeb participated on behalf of CURE because I was out-of-town. I was informcxt that Hewitt & McGuire began the meeting by presenting a purchase agreement with a 30 day er, crow and that the entire focus of the meeting was on Havenview, 'Rancho Cucamonga V and CURE purchasing the site and The Honorable City Council NoYember 18, 1998 Page 2 on how lhnds could be raised from the homeowner associations, CURE, the City, and other possible sources such as habitat mitigation banks. At the end of the meeting, it was agreed that homeowners associations and CURE's boards would meet to address the Christiano offer and that a response would be forthcoming shortly after October 22, 1998. When I personally learned that the safkty issues had not been discussed, I wrote to .Mr. Markman and each of you on October 19, 1998, expressing CURE's concern that no dialogue was taking place on the safety issue in response to the City Council's directire. Although CURE (and I believe Havenview and Rancho Cucamonga V) prefer to pttrchase the property, reaching an agreement prior to November 18, t998 seemed doubtthl. My October 19, 1998 letter was very specific mid suggested three possible engineering firms that had the experience and resources necessary to conduct a neutral s~dy. It also proposed a structure for selecting the consultant, developing a scope of work and jointly implementing the project. Joint characterization or investigations are conducted routinely by adverse parties to resolve issues, and l have numerous form documents that could facilitate such an effort. Unfortunately, no response was received from either the City or Christiano. I wrote again on November 3, 1998, expressing CURE's growing concern that only two weeks remained before the City Council meeting but that no safety discussions had taken place. I received no response from the City or Mr. Christlane until receipt of a letter on Friday, November 12, 1998, making the preposterous suggestion that CURE somehow "waived" its right to a safe~ study when it failed to discuss it on October 8, 1998. There are a number of oth~r misstatements in the Hcwitt cmTespondence that does not warrant a response at this time. CLrRE stands fully ready and willing to work with the City toward conducting a neutral safety study. With regard to the acquisition of the property, I personally am willing to purchase the property at 150 percent of the assessed value of the property with a reasonable escrow period. We also would be happy to share the details of the settlement discussions if the City ~,ad Christlane waive the confidentiality agreement. Otherwise, we are bound to keep the specific terms confidential. ' 2. Did Judge Mandebach confirm that the vroject is safe? I cannot fathom that an expericnc',.d attorney liXe Mr. Markman has ever suggested that Judge Mandebach's decision confirmed that the Project was safc. The CEQA lawn~it (which will be appealed when the final judgment is entered) dealt with the narrow issue of whether the City had any substantial evidence to support its decision in August 1997, that no changed circumstances warranted further environmental review. The Judge never made any determination as to whether the Project was s&fe or whether the City's decision was correct. Nov lB 9B OB:OSp maI~nda 909-9B9-B70~ p.~ The Honorable City Council November 18, 1998 Page 3 This raises an important issue. At the hearing last August, City Engineer O'Neill stated that he had no idea about the size, dimension or construction of the levee nor did he even know whether the "mound of dirt" was intended for flood control. As the City Engineer, ! suspect that this statement allayed any concerns that the Council might have ~ad. As you know, CURE has taken great umbrage with Mr. O'Neill's statement and has questioned qualifications to provide objective advice on what is a seriotrs issue. CURE recently obtained detailed plans from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District coneearning the construction of the levee in the 1930s. These plans are attached since it appears that the City apparently has never reviewed them. Additionally, attached is correspondence which the City produced to CURE in response to a recent Public Records Act request, from the Flood Contr~l District aiter the Debris Basin was eon.~tmcted stating their opinion that development of Tram No. 12332 should "not take place north of the Deer Creek Reception levee." According to staff at the Flood Control District the maps were made available to the City. This raises the obvious question as to why our City Engineer was not familiar with this information assuming that he was not. In any event, given that the City's August decision may have been influenced by an entirely inaccurate comment fi'om its engineer, the decision is even more questionable. Importantly, the fact that Judge Mandebach ruled on a narrow leeal issue and not the safety of the Project means that the City cannot rely on this decision to justify a decision to a~prove the Project. If the Project is approved and damage remlts. the City will not be ixmulated from liability because of a CEOA decision. Finally, contrary, to a statement in Hewitt & McGuir¢'s November 11, 1998 correspondence, CURE never requested that the hearing on September 16, 1998 be continued to await Judge Mandebach's decision. Councilman Dutton specifically asked me my views on this issue prior to the meeting, and 1 informext him that we were not interested in a continuance for that purpose because I was not optimistic that CURE would prevail at the trial court Ievel on the CEQA issue. If you review the tramcript or your visual CD Rein, you can confirm that CURE supported Mr. Markman's continuance for the sole purpose of the safety study. 3. Has the Civil Rights Action been Dismissed? Contrary to statements by Mr. Markman at the hcaring on September 16, 1998 and in Hewitt and McGuim's correspondence of November 1 t, 1998, CLrRE's claims for violation of the Federal Civil R~ght~ Act were not dismissed. The judge merely held that file case raised an issue of first impression under California law and that it should be heard first m a California court. The case is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of AppeaI. As part of titat appeal, CURE has requested that the appellate court certify the issue directly to the California Supreme Court,. This is a new procedure allowed under California law. The Honorable City Council Novembcr 18, 1998 Page 4 One way or the other, the Civil Rights action against the City will proceed if a global settlement in this matter is not reached. In this regard, tho City is not insured against its attorney fees or any ultimate punitive damage award nor can Mr. Christiant indemnify you for such costs. This is an important consideration because you will be continuing to pay the oitizen's money to defend the lawsuit and pay any judgment. Loeb & Loeb has estimated that the cost of taking the Civil Rights matter through trial (including extensive depositions) will be in excess of $300,000. Moreover, it is very likely that the lawsuit will be amended to add other defendants in hght of some of/he conduct that has more recently occurred. 4. Is damage from the project covered by the city's insurance? No. Based upon my review of the policies produced by the City, darnages resulting from the failure of the Debris Basin or Christiano's replacemen! charreel would not be covered. You may want to obtain an opinion from your risk manager on this issue. 5. Are attorneys fees a Necessary Com~)onent to Settlement? Yes. Loeb & Loeb ha bestowed an important pubIic benefit in challenging this Project as we have prevented the construction of a potentially dangerous project. As stated at the last City CouneiI heanng, the firm would be willing to cons).der a reasonable reduction in fees if doing so would settle the litigationg. As you know, two other law firms have been involved in this rustler, the California Environmental Law Project and the Berliner Law Offices. We would need to discuss any reduction in their fees once a specific proposal is addressed. 6. Where do we go from here7 Despite all the consternation expressed amongst the parties, man>, of CURE's members, and certainly all of the impacted homeowners, remain your residents and would prefer not to have an adversarial relationship with our City Council. The Lauren Project is not going to be constructed anytime in the foreseeable future as there wiI1 be more litigation, appeals, and other regulatory challenges to this development. At this time, Lauren still does not have necessary permits from the Department of Fish & Game or the Department of Water & Power. Therefore, the most sensible approach is to requh'e the parties to mcdiate tiffs matter. I am certain lvlr. Markman can explain the mediation process to you. ha the end, you have the unilateral power -- and frankly the obligation -- to commission a safety study by qualified consultants w/th sufficient insurance to support their opinion. Alternatively, you can send the matter for review to the State 12:)epartment of Water Resources. Conducting a meaningful study will take time because of the complicated nature of the issue at hand. Nevertheless, without such a study, the City risks creating substantial liability for its own residents. I was asked whether CURE will pay for a portion of the study. Some citizens have expressed their opinion that they should not have to pay for what the City should be doing as Mo~ lB BB 0~:0~ malaria 909-989-870~ The Honorable City Council November 18, 1998 Page 5 a matter of course. Despite this viewpoint, I suspect alI of' us would rather pay for a study thaa for more attorneys. Please accept these suggestions in the spirit in which they are offered. We can keep fighting or we can resolve matters. Hopefully, we will all chose to do the latter. I do not believe we should walk away from a possible resolution and go back to court simply because the parties did not reach a resolution over the past 60 days. look forward to seeing you this evening. MHM:ltl P16312408 MCM25640.L02 Very. truly yours, .~issa Hathaway McKei~ t Enclosures (will be hand delivered') ce: James Markman, Egl. (via fax) Mark McGuire, Esq. (via fax) Jack Rubens, Esq. (via fax) Laurens Silver, Esq. (via fax) Eric Berliner, Esq. (via fax) Board of Directors, CURE (via fax) Board of Directors, Havenview Estates (via fax) Board of.Directors, Rancho Cueamonga V (via fax) of' the ,sn48Ge C::ouzzc tl Novcmber 18, I~8 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cucnmo-~ 10500 Civic Ccntc~ Dr~ve P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonsa, CA. 91727 VIA FAX (909) 47%2846 City Council's "Consideration of Develol~nent Review 98-13 The Heights At Haven View Estates, LLC," Tract 14771 Agenda Item I. 1. and Rt~olution No. 98.178 The Sage Council formally requests that the City Council cooperate with providing the public with Civil and Constitutional Rigtits, to participate in government and exercise our Right to Freedom of Speech, by opening up public comment during your "consideration" and decision maidrig process on reftrene, ed project review, agenda item and proposed resolution. The Sage Council was not a plaintiff or party. to any previous litigation regarding this project or what referred to the Lauren project. However, our members that reside in the City and County of San Bernerdino (County) continue to be concerned about the envimmnentnl impacts that are anticipated by this project and others within the West Valley Foothills area and the County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Planning Area as indicated in the Memorandum of Understanding between the City, County, CDFG and FWS. The County MSHCP and associated MOU's are also considered to be consistent with the State of California "Natural Communities Conservation Planning" (NCCP) Program and NCCP Act, pursuant to Cal. Fish and Game Code § 2g00-2940 (ii),including the "Terms and Conditions" of the Special 4(d) Rule for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher pursuant the federal Endangered Species Act The Sage Council believes that since the Cit3' approved the Tentative Tract with a Negative Declamtkm without adequate environmemal review or Environmental Impa~ Report in 1990, and eight years that an Environmental Impact Report (E1R) is required at this time. There is substantial new information and changes in the environment since 1990 that were not considered or adequately addressed by the City. Although some local residems and a citizen group has legally challenged the former Lauren Project, all the concerns that the Sag~ Council raised were not addressed in that lawsuit. Therefore, it would be prudent for the City Council to hear and s~riously consider the Sage CotmeWs concerns and what we believe to be new substantial information regarding environmental impacts. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) has been formally listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). According to the listing regulations on this species, including the petition package proposal, Tract 14771 is within the habitat area identified for this endangered species. Surv~'s and studies for the species and the effects that the proj~c't will have must be performed prior to final 30 North Raymond Avenue 4) Peooclena · C,,uJifornta ~, 01103 · U.S.A. T~l~: (626) 744.0032 ® Fax: (ORS) 744403'J ® www. sagocoun~J.com Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: "Consideration of Development Rcvicw 98-13, The Heights At Haven View Estates, LLC," Tract 14771, Agenda Item I. 1. and Resolution No. 98-178 Page Two project approval. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an EIR with mitigation and monitoring when a project falls within the habitat of an endangered species. Surveys for the endangered SBKR must be pefformod using survey protocol acceptable to the USFWS and "best The referenced project if approvexl by the City council tomght will be in violation of CEQA, the NCCP Act and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and more specifically 50 CFR §17.41(b)(2) including the State's NCCP Conservation and Process Cruidelines. The pmjoct proponent, City or County has not applied for a section 10 "exception" to sect 9 "lake" prohibitions of the ESA, filed for "Hardship Exemptions" (sect 10 (CXb)), provided "Notice and Review" in the Federal Register (sect 10(3)(c), or received an "Incidental Take Permits" (1TP) in association with a "Habitat Conservation Plan" (HCP) approval or met the criteria set forth in 50 CFR 17.32(b)(1) and b(2). The Sage Council strongly urges the City Council as the local responsible "public trust" agency to not give final approval the referenced project and associated resolutions tonight without requiring the project proponent to prepme an EIR CEQA document and to prove that the CDFG and USFWS have issued the legally required permits and agreements for loss of habitat and "take" of endangered species. If the City does not follow the Sage Council's recommendations to uphold the "public trust" placed in the government agency to conserve our nation's plan~s, fish and wildlife, including the ecosystem upon which they depend for survival and recovery -- the Sage Council may also include the CiD' in any future legal challenges to this project. In addition, the City may also be held in violations of Public Trust Doctrines, 18 USC §1001, CEQA (Project and General Plan), ESA, NEPA and other applicable laws. The Sage Council has consulted with Gerald Braden, staff scientist with the County Museum regarding the referenced project, possible environmental impacts and effects on the endangered SBKR. According to our phone conversation this morning, Gerald Braden identified the project site as within the habitat area of the endangered species. The Sage Council has also become aware that the County's biological expert sent the City Planning Department a letter on October 29, 1998 regarding concerns that the City is approving projects (this letter from Gerald Braden and the County Museum to the Cily has been included as an attachment for the Administrative Record). It is the Sage Council's understanding that the County Museum scientific staff are also submitting a letter specific to the referenced project. Such letter should be included in an EIR for this project and available for public review. The City is aware that the proposed project as referenced is controversial and opposed by local residents and conservation organizations, thus such controversies alone call for a full environmental review and analysis of the project impacts on the environment, including adequate mitigation of such impacts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: "Consideration of Development Review 98-!3, The Heights At Haven View Estates, LLC," Tract 14771, A~,enda Item I. 1. and Resolution No. 98.178 Page Three CUPs proposed for the projec! do not mitigate environmental impacts to a level of less than significant and are such conclusions that ~hc City has stated in the Environmental Checklist, Initial Study or other documents are not scientifically substantiated, especially regarding sensitive and endangered biota. The project is not consistent with thc City's or County's General Plan regarding the conservation of natural resources and open space values. In closing, the Sage Council requests that our previous comments resarding the Lauren project, along with this new information, be included in the Administrative Record. Th~ Sage Council remains concerned about biological and cultural r~sources within this project area and in the City. Please include our non-profit organization on your distribution list for all projects proposed so that we might be notified in a timely manner and participate in government decision making. Thank you For the wild Earth, Leeona Klippstem, Co. founder Conservation Programs Director Spirit of the Sage Council cc: Craig Sherman, Esq. Ken Berg, USFWS Jim Banel, USFWS Jeff Newman, USFWS Sco~ Eliason, USFWS Glenn Black, CDFG County Supervisor Jerry Eavcs Valerie Pilmer, Platming DeparUnent Gerald Braden, County Museum pi it of the age Council Defending and Conserving Native Plants, Wildlife, Ecosystems and Sacred Lands November 18, 1998 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91727 VIA FAX (909) 477-2846 RE: City Councit's "Consideration of Development Review 98-13 The Heights At Haven View Estates, LINC," Tract 14771 Agenda Item I. 1. and Resolution No. 98-178 The Sage Council fi)rmally requests that the City Council cooperate with providing the public with our Civil and Constitutional Rights, to participate in government and exercise our Right to Freedom of Speech, by opening up public comment during your "consideration" and decision making process on the referenced project review, agenda item and proposed resolution. The Sage Council was not a plaintiff or party to any previous litigation regarding this project or what referred to the Lauren project. However, our members that reside in the City and County of San Bernardino (County) continue to be concerned about the environmental impacts that are anticipated by this project and others within the West Valley Foothills area and the County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Planning Area as indicated in the Memorandum of Understanding between the City, County, CDFG and FWS. The County MSHCP and associated MOU's are also considered to be consistent with the State of California "Natural Communities Conservation Planning" (NCCP) Program and NCCP Act, pursuant to Cal. Fish and Game Code § 2800-2840 (ii),including the "Terms and Conditions" of the Special 4(d) Rule for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher pursuant the federal Endangered Species Act. The Sage Council believes that since the City approved the Tentative Tract with a Negative Declaration without adequate environmental review or Environmental Impact Report in 1990, and eight years ago, that an Environmental Impact Report. (EIR) is required at this time. There is substantial new information and changes in the environment since 1990 that were not considered or adequately addressed by the City' to date. Although some local residents and a citizen group has legally challenged the former Lauren Project, all the concems that the Sage Council raised were not addressed in that lawsuit. Therefore, it would be prudent for the City Council to hear ~md seriously consider the Sage Council's concerns and what we believe to be new substantial information regarding environmental impacts. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) has been formally listed as endangered by the U. S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). According to the listing regulations on this species, including the petition package proposal, Tract 14771 is within the habitat area identified for this endangered species. Surveys and studies for the species and the effects that the project will have must be performed prior to final 30 North Raymond Avenue ,'.3 Pasadena ~ California ~ 9~i103 ;~ U,S,A. Tele: (626) 744-9952 ~ Fax: (626) 744~993'I ~ www.sagecouncil.com Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: "Consideration of Development Review 98-13~ The Heights At Haven View Estates, LLC," Tract 14771, Agenda Item I. 1. and Resolution No. 98-178 Page Two project approval. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an EIR with mitigation and monitoring when a project falls within the habitat of an endangered species. Surveys for the endangered SBKR must be performed using survey protocol acceptable to the USFWS and "best science." The referenced project if approved by the City council tonight will be in violation of CEQA, the NCCP Act and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and more specifically 50 CFR § 17.41 (b)(2) including the State's NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines. The project proponent, City or County has not applied for a section 10 "exception" to sect 9 "take" prohibitions of the ESA, filed for "Hardship Exemptions" (sect 10 (C)(b)), provided "Notice and Review" in the Federal Register (sect 10(3)(c), or received an "Incidental Take Permits" (ITP) in association with a "Habitat Conservation Plan" (HCP) approval or met the criteria set forth in 50 CFR 17.32(b)(1) and b(2). The Sage Council strongly urges the C'ity Council as the local responsible "public trust" agency to not give final approval the referenced prqiect and associated resolutions tonight without requiring the project proponent to prepare an EIR CEQA document and to prove that the CDFG and USFWS have issued the legally required permits and agreements for loss of habitat and "take" of endangered species. If the City does not follow the Sage Council's recommendations to uphold the "public trust" placed in the government agency to conserve our nation's plants, fish and wildlife, including the ecosystem upon which they depend for survival and recover3, -- the Sage Council may also include the City in any future legal challenges to this project. In addition, the City may also be held in violations of Public Trust Doctrines, 18 USC § 1001, CEQA (Project and General Plan), ESA, NEPA and other applicable laws. The Sage Council ha,s consulted with Gerald Braden, staff scientist with the County Museum regarding the ret~renced project, possible environmental impacts and effects on the endangered SBKR. According to our phone conversation this morning, Gerald Braden identified the project site as within the habitat area of the endangered species. The Sage Council has also become aware that the County's biological expert sent the City Planning Department a letter on October 29, 1998 regarding concerns that the City is approving projects (this letter from Gerald Braden and the County Museum to the City has been included as an attachment for the Administrative Record). It is the Sage Council's understanding that the County Museum :scientific staff are also submitting a letter specific to the referenced project. Such letter should be included in an EIR for this projecl and available for public review. The City is aware that the proposed project as referenced is controversial and opposed by local residents and conservation organizations, thus such controversies alone call for a ~311 environmental review and analysis of the project impacts on the environment, ~ncluding adequate mitigation of such impacts. The City of Rancho Cucamonga RE: "Consideration of Development Review 98-13, The Heights At Haven View Estates, LLC," Tract 14771, Agenda Item I. 1. and Resolution No~ 98-178 Page Three CUPs proposed for the project do not mitigate environmental impacts to a level of less than significant and are such conclusions that the City has stated in the Environmental Checklist, Initial Study or other documents are not scientifically substantiated, especially regarding sensitive and endangered biota. The project is not consistent with the City's or County's General Plan regarding the conservation of natural resources and open space values. In closing, the Sage Council requests that our previous comments regarding the Lauren project, along with this new information, be included in the Administrative Record. The Sage Council remains concerned about biological and cultural resources within this project area and in the City. Please include our non-profit organization on your distribution list for all projects proposed so that we might be notified in a timely manner and participate in government decision making. Thank you. For the wild Earth, Leeona Klippstein, Co-founder Conservation Programs Director Spirit of the Sage Council cc: Craig Sherman, Esq. Ken Berg, USFWS Jim Bartel, USFWS Jeff Newman, USFWS Scott Eliason, USFWS Glenn Black, CDFG County Supe~visor Jerry Eaves Valerie Pilmer, Planning Department Gerald Binden, County Museum DRAFT ENVI~ONHENTAL ASSESgHENT OF THE PROPOSED SECTION 4(d) RULE TO AUTHO~ZE INCIDENTAL TAKE OF THE COASTAL CALIFO~UqIA CNATCATCg~ FOR ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED UNDE~ THE AUTHOHXTY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S NATURAL COHHUNITY CONSERVATION PLANNING ACT Augus= 2, 1993 U.S. FISH AND ~ILDLIFE SERVICE · EGION i ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 911 NE 11THAVENUE PORTLAND, O~EGON 97232-4181 CONTACT: FIELD SUPERVISOR 2730 LOF. ERAVENUE~EST CARLSBAD, CALIFOB/qIA 92008 (619) 431-9440 This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared pursuan= Co =he Na=ional Environmental Policy Ac= (NEPA) by the U.S. Fish and ~ildlife Service (Service) Co analyze =he environmental effec=s of =he proposed ac=lon co progr-mmatically authorize inciden=al take of =he =hreatened coas=al California gna=ca=cher (Pollop=ila californica californica), =brough a proposed special rule, pursuan= Co ac=ivi=ies conducted under =he Sta=e of California's Na=ural Communi~y Conserva=ion Planning Ac= of 1991 (NCCP The proposed special rule would au=horize a limi=ed amoun= of inciden=al cake of =he gnatcatcher, while an NCCP Plan is being prepared, provided Chat certain condi=lons are me=. The Service analyzed =hree alterna=ives in =his EA: the Proposed Special Rule; =he Proposed Special Rule bu= wi=h No Interim Take; and =he No Action Al=erna=ive. The Proposed Special Rule is =he Preferred Al=ernative. Under =he Preferred Al=erna=ive, loss of a maximum of 5% of existing coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat, es=ima=ed to be approxima=ely 20,920 acres of coastal sage scrub would occur, and up to 116 pairs of gna=catchers of an es=lma=ed 2,562 within =he NCCP Planning Area would be =aken. Hi=iga=ton for =he loss of CSS and gnat=at=hers would be defined by local subregional mi=iga=ion guidelines, developed according co s=andards =ha= would mee= =he requiremen=s of sec=ion 10(a)(1)(B) of =he Endangered Species Ac=. The Proposed Special Rule wi=h No In=erim Take Al=erna=ive and =he No Project were no= selec=ed because =hey would diffuse regional conservation planning effor=s and concentra=e activi=y on individual project needs. Addi=ionally, =hese alterna=ives could resul= in significan= economic impac=s co =he, planning area due to ESA-rela=ed cons=taints on needed grow=h. The Service in=ends Co use =his analysis in making its decision co issue a final ~(d) rule Chat includes au=horiza=ion of cake during =he in=erim planning period. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHA/~TER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ............... B. C. D. E. F. C. 1 INTRODUCTION ......................... 1 BACKCROUND .......................... 1 PROPOSED ACTION ....................... 9 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ........... 9 DECISIONS NEEDED ....................... 10 SCOPING ........................... 10 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE EA ........ 11 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................... 13 A. THE RATIONAY-~ BEHIND THE SRP'S INTERIM STRATEGY RECOMMENDATION 13 B. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE - THE PREFF/LRF~ ALTERNATIVE .... 14 C. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE, BUT WITH NO INTERIM TAKE ALTERNATIVE ......................... 21 D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................... 21 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................... 22 A. NCCP PLANNING AREA ....................... 22 B. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ..................... 22 C. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ....................... 25 CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................. 31 A. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .... 31 B. THE SPECIAL RULE AS PROPOSEDi BUT WITH NO INTERIM TAKE ALTERNATIVE ......................... 40 C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................... 43 D. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................... 46 CHAPTER 5 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..................... 47 A. LIST OF PREPARF. RS ............ .......... 47 B. LIST OF WHOM THE DRAFT EA WAS SENT .............. 47 C. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................... 47 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES ......................... 49 Table 1. 2. LIST OF TABLES Page Forecast of Congestion on Freeway Corridors of SCAG .... 28 Anticipated Impacts Co Coastal Sage Scrub and the California Gnatcatcher Under the Preferred Alternative 33 Figure 1. 2. 3. 4. LIST OF FIGURES Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Planning Area Generalized Map of Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat NCCP Subregional Focus Areas Evaluation Logic Flow Chart Page 5 APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D. APPENDIX E. APPENDIX F. APPENDIX G. APPENDICES 1991 Memorandum of Understanding Conservation Guidelines NCCP Process Guidelines Interim Take Approval Process Proposed Special Rule SRP Sensitive Species Lis~ Dtstr£bution Lts= for Environmental Assessmen= CHAPTER 1 - PUlLPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION A. INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) is beinS prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to analyze the environmental effects of it's proposed action to progr~---atically authorize incidental take of the threatened coastal California snatcatcher (Poliop=ila callfornica californica), through a proposed special rule, pursuant to activities conducted under the State of California's Natural CommuniTy Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (NCCP In recognition of the NCCP Program and several on-going multi-species conservation planning efforts that intend to apply Federal Endangered Species Act standards to activities affecting the &mat=archer, the Service proposed a special rule when the gnatcatcher was listed as a threatened species on March 25, 1993 (58 FR 16742). Pursuant to section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, the proposed special rule would authorize incidental take of the ~natcatcher in conjunction with an approved NCCP Plan. Since a Joint State and Federal environmental review will be conducted prior to approval of any NCCP Plan, the authorization of incidental take in conjunction with an approved NCCP Plan is not considered in this EA. The proposed special rule would also authorize a limited amount of incidental take of the gnat=at=her, while an NCCP Plan is being prepared, provided that certain conditions are met. This authorization of take of the s~atcatcher in the interim period is the action that is analyzed in this EA. The Service intends to use this analysis in making its decision to issue a final 4(d) rule that includes authorization of take during the interim planning period. B. BACKGROUND NCCP Program and Process The NCCP Program was established in 1991 by the State of California through enactssent of the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (CA Fish and Game Code 2800 et seq.). Planning and implementation of the NCCP Program is the responsibility of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), in concert with The Resources Agency. The purpose of the NCCP Program is to provide long-term, regional protection of natural wildlife diversity while allowing appropriate and compatible land development (CDFG et al. 1992). These goals are to be achieved through development and implementation of Natural Community Conservation Plans. A NCCP Plan is intended to provide for the establishment of permanent multi-species preserves, including corridors and linkages with other natural lands, as well as allow for compatible and appropriate land development and economic growth (CDFG et al. 1992). Creation of a NCCP Plan is intended to be a collabors=ire effort between local governments, environmental groups, developers, the CDFO and the Service. Coastal Sa~e Scrub NCCP The Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) NCCP Program is ~he first NCCP planninS effort initiated under the NCCP Act. It is being Jointly undertaken by =he CDFC and the Service under the authority of a 1991 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Appendix A). Under the HOU, CDFG is responsible for developing the NCCP process and creating planning guidelines, with review and concurrence by the Service. The two agencies have also agreed to work together to ensure =ha= NCCPs are designed to facilitate compliance wi~h section 10(a)(1)(B) of =he Federal ESA and with section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The CSS NCCP Program is a pilot program intended to develop a process of conservation planning at a regional scale =hat will serve as a model for the NCCP process throu~out the State. The coastal sage scrub community was selected as the focus of the first NCCP planning effort in part because of the anticipated Federal listing of rile coastal California shat=at=her and the intense pressure for urban development within its range. The coastal California gnat=archer was proposed for Federal endangered status on September 17, 1991 (56 FRa70§3). The-saaatcatcher occurs almost exclusively in CSS, a Plant community that generally occurs in the lower elevation coastal areas of southern California. This plant com~unityhas come under increasing pressure for development as the human population in this area has increased. In addition to the gnat=at=her, approximately 100 species considered rare, sensitive, threatened or endangered by the Service and CDFG are associated with CSS (CDFG et al..1992). It is estima~ed that between 85 to 90 percen= of the historical distribution of CSS in California has been lost as a result of urban and agricultural development (Wes=man 1981). In the HOU, CDFG, The Resources Agency, and the Service acknowledged =he potential for conflict between development and preservation of sens~tive resources in CSS habitat, and agreed that conservation planning on a regional scale must be implemented in order to provide long-term protection of this unique com~un£ty. Scien=ific Review Panel To ~uide the CSS conservation planning process, the State established a Scientific Review Panel (SRP), composed of five experts in plant and animal ecology and conservation bioloKy. The SRP's primary role is to assist CDFG in preparing conservation guidelines to provide for the conservation of the species inhabiting CSS. The SRP used the best available scientific data. A brief s-mmary of the SRP's technical guidance for the NCCP Program is provided below. ~Tar~et Soecies. The SRP's planning objectives for CSS conservation planning focus on three vertebrate species, the California ~natcatcher, the cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapllIum) and orange-throated whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus hyperychrus beldin&i) (Hurphy 1992). Conservation efforts which plan for these three NCCP target species would form the basis for maintaining the viability of the remaining coastal sage scrub ecosystem (Hurphy 1992). The SRP developed a standardized methodology for collection of biological information on the coastal sage scrub counaunity (SRP 1992). 2 CSS NCCP Planning Area. The SRP defined the CSS planning area, which includes the lower elevation portions of Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties (O'Leary et al 1992) (Figure 1). A generalized map of CSS habitat in ~he planning area is sho~n in Figure 2. The NCCP planning area also includes areas of CSS habitat on the Palos Vetdes Peninsula, Los Angeles County and in West Coyote H£11s, Orange County. Other areas of CSS in northwestern portions of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties were excluded from consideration because of the urban barrier ~hich isolates these areas from the remainder of the CSS habitat in southern Calif~rnia. CSS NCCP Subrezions. The SRP has also provided technical ~uidance for subregionalization of the CSS NCCP planning area (Brussard and Hurphy 1992). A subregion must be large enough to provide for the preparation and implementation of ecologically viable NGCP plans. The SRP identified approximately 12 subregional biological focus areas of CSS (Figure 3) which are intended t0 form the basis of the CSS NCCP Plan subregions. Recommended Conservation Strategy. The SRP recommended that short-term habitat loss not foreclose future long- term conservation planning options, while additional information is being collected and analyzed and while long-term planning is underway. Therefore, the SRP recommended an interim strateKy which limits loss of CSS during the interim period, during which NCCP Plans are being prepared, to 5% of the existing habitat within a given subregion. In addition, the SRP recommended that development that is allowed to proceed during this interim period occur in areas of lower potential value for long-term conservation. Conservation Guidelines. The CDFG published draft Conservation Guidelines for the Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP process in July 1993 (Appendix B). The guidelines were prepared in coordination among the Depar~nent, the Service, and the SRP, and are based upon technical review by and the recommendations from the SRP. The Conservation Guidelines broadly define CSS conservation goals and objectives and provide specific biological guidance for the preparation of subregional NCCPs. They incorporate a 5% interim CSS loss limit for each biologically defined subregion. They specify the ranking of CSS habitat to direct development toward areas with low potential long-term conservation value and show how the ranking can be done. To develop a long-term conservation plan for CSS habitat, additional scientific data will have to be developed. The Conservation Guidelines contain six interactive research tasks recommended by the SRP that would result in the development of the needed information. The amount of additional data needed to complete a N¢CP Plan will depend in large part on the amount of projected CSS loss within the subregion. Since each subregion has distinct local conditions that will determine the particular design of its conservation program, some research needs in each subregion could be different. Other research requirements will involve the entire CSS NCCP planning area. Figure i Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Planning Area I NORTH .20 Miles Source: Automobile Association of Amenca e Figure 2 Generalized Map of Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat LOS ANGELES ORANGE COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (CSS) css as Reported to CDFG Natural Heritage Division. Coverage Incomplete. CSS as Mapped by UCSB Gap Program from Landsat Data. Primary CSS Coverage. RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO... 5~-~.~'~' , '..::..'~ Secondary CSS Coverage. Charactenstic species of coastal sage scrub include California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), several species of sage (Salvia mellifera, Salvia leucophylla, and Salvia apiana), California encelia (Encelia' californica), brittlebush (Ence/ia fafinosa), San Diego sunflower (Viguiera lacinata), and buckwheats (in- cluding Eriogonum fasciculatum and Eriogonum cinereum). ~vergreen sclerophyllous shrubs such as Malosma laurina, Rhus integrifolia, and Rhus ovata are often patchily distributed in stands of coastal sage scrub. k~ Map: Thomas Reid Associates jy Miles I NORTH 7/20/93 Figure 3 NCCP Subregional Focus Areas Su~regionoi CSS NCCP Plcnning Unit Focus Mop Cantran func~iamncj biological um~ hi,in cansetYatm~ mlue. ~neml~ awia~ ~mo smaller ~ piannm9 ~ ~obon. aigit of the i~nt~y n~er ~o~ the pnm~ ioc~ ~ ~iqnauon an= the dec.at ;~ mfl~ oatentint aammi~ suasion of Satellite Areas lslanas of suOstant=l CSS ~oDi~at value sl~ouJcl be plonnea ~n conceit mtrl one of the focus areas. Area Large open are,.- sun'ounc~inq focus or satellite areas ~ mcluae ~ hcmitat. land wii~ value as COmPlain or habitat buffer for ¢~S and may include natural communities ol conservation value. Note: '[he focus aria satellite areas are basecl on evalual~on of coastal sacje scrub veqetat~on cam,orients aria ctoes reflect clistribution of $ansi~hm sbecies. This is no( a ma~ at ~ hal~it~L 7/'20/93 Additional data needs for the purpose of preparing a subregional NCCP plan will be minimal where subregional habitat losses are expected to be minimal or where adequate mitigation for losses can be demonstrated. Conversely, where greater habitat loss is proposed or where mitigation entails unproven technologies, data needs will be greater (GDFG 1993b). The NCCP Plan. The NCCP plan must serve ~o primary functions. First, it must identify a reserve system in the subregion, focused upon hi~her value CSS habitat intermixed with a mosaic of ocher natural habitats, and provide a long-term management scheme for this reserve system. Second, the NCCP plan must identify habitat areas of lower value that would be more appropriate for development. The actual type of contemplated development is not relevant to the NCCP Plan, except in those areas bordering the reserve system. N¢CP Process Guidelines CDFG prepared and published CSS NCCP Process Guidelines in September 1992 (Appendix C). The NCCP Process Guidelines are nonregulatory ~uidelines that describe the roles and responsibilities of the involved parties and outline subregional NCCP Plan preparation. Subregional NCCP planning is intended as a collaborative effort by local Jurisdictions, land ovners, environmental groups and others working with the resource agencies to create a NCCP plan. The first step in the subregional planning process is enrollment in the NCCP Program. Once enrolled in the NCCP program, local Jurisdictions, working with local land owners, environmental groups, and in consultation with The Service and CDFG are to designate the boundaries of a subregion for the purposes of preparing a subregional NCCP Plan. Once the subregion is established, the NCCP participants within the subregion must prepare and enter into a planning agreement that sets forth the roles and responsibilities of each participant in the preparation of the subregional NCGP Plan. Each subregion will need to meet explicit conservation objectives t~ promote ecosystem stability at both the subregional and regional levels. Each subregion will need to provide for conservation of the three target species (CDFG 1993b). The NCCP Process Guidelines are currently being amended to include ~uidance on how local Jurisdictions could obtain approval for interim loss of CSS (Appendix D). It is important to note that the Conservation Guidelines and the Interim Take Approval Process (Appendix D) refer to the "interim take of CSS habitat"; however, take has a defined meaning under the ESA, as amended. Therefore, the Service will refer to "loss of CSS habitat" to distinguish between loss of CSS habitat under the NCCP and take of the ~natcatcher tunder the ESA. Approval of loss of CSS in the interim would be accomplished primarily through the local jurisdiction and the local subregional lead/coordinating agency, with overs~h~b_~y~the Service and CDFG. The Service and GDFG are to be informed of each proposed approval of CSS loss by the local subregional lead/coordinating agency. If the Service finds that the proposed approval is inconsistent with the provisions of the Conservation Guidelines, the Service will assume responsibility for approving or disapproving the proposed take. Ensuring Regional Planning. The NCCP Process Guidelines provide a too1 for subregional planninS. However, i= is up to =he individuals planning =he subregional NCCP to determine =he form =hat =he Plan will take. Regardless of the design chosen for a given subregional NCCP Plan, =he NCCP Process Guidelines require that each NCCP plan ensure connectiviL-y with other NCCP plans to the maximum extent feasible, so ~hat a true regional conservation plan is arrived at through this subregional mechanism. The Service and CDFG have a responsibility to coordinate the development of ~he various subregions1 NCCP Plans to ensure a cohesive regional strategy. Status of the CSS NCCP Planning Process Local Jurisdictions were requested by CDFG to formally designate subregions and to begin the NCCP Process in a June 10, 1993 letter. The County of Orange has divided the county into ~wo CSS NCCP subregions: the southern portion of the County that abuts San Diego County to =he south and Riverside County to the east is referenced as =he Southern Subregion; and the central portion of the county, including =he coastal area and inland central area were consolidated into one large subregion, ~he Coastal and Central Subregion. The northern portion of Orange CounTy contains CSS habitat, but landowners have not enrolled in the NCCP Program. Therefore, =his portion of the County is not currently included in the Counvy's CSS NCCP planning efforts. The County has initiated preparation of NCCP Plans in both the Coastal and Central and the Southern Subregions. In addition, =he County of Orange and the Service have initiated =he scoping process for the Joint environmental documents that will be prepared for bo~h subregional NCCP Plans. San Diego County has elected to determine subregions based upon =he planning boundaries of on-going multi-spec£es plans: the Clean Water Program's Multi- Species Conservation Plan; adjacent to =he north, =he North County Hultiple Habitat Conservation Plan; the CiTy of Carlsbad Habitat Hanagement Plan; and covering the eastern portion of the county; the San Diego County Openspace and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. These various multi-species planning efforts have been recognized by the Service and CDFG as the equivalent of NCCP Plans. These plans are in varying stages of completion. ~hile Riverside CounTy has not yet formally enrolled in the NCCP Program, the County has indicated it intends to enroll (Tippets, personal communication, June 1993), and is engaged in multi-species planning efforts Chat cover large portions of the county. Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties are also considering enrollment in the NCCP Program, but as of this date, have not yet enrolled. Proposed Special Rule Sec,;ion a(d) of the ESA provides that whenever a species is listed as a threatened species, such regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provid~ for the conservation of the species may be issued. These regulations may prohibit any act prohibited for endangered species under section 9(a). These 8 prohibitions, in part, make it illesal for any person subject to =he Jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export, ship in interstate or foreign commerce in =he course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed wildlife species. It is also illesal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife =hat has been taken fliesally. Certain exceptions apply to asents of =he Service and State conservation asenctes. The implementinS regulations for threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.31) incorporate, for the most part, =he prohibitions for endansered wildlife (50 CFR 17.21), except where a special rule applies (50 CFR 17.31(c)). In =he case of coastal California gnatcatcher, the Service found =hat the prohibitions for endansered species were seneralty necessary and advisable for conservation of the species. However, pursuant to section &(d) of the ESA, as amended, and 50 CFR 17.31(c), the Services proposes to define the conditions under which take of the coastal California gnatcatcher would not violate section 9 of the Act, as land use activities =hat are conducted in conjunction with the State's NCCP Prosram. C. PROPOSED ACTION The Service proposes to promulsate a special rule under section &(d) of the ESA to authorize incidental take of the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher in accordance with the State of California's NCCP Prosram and its Conservation Guidelines. The action proposed by the Service that is analyzed in this EA is the authorization of incidental take of the ~natcatcher in the NCCP plannanS area, during the period that a NCCP Plan is beenS prepared. Pursuant to the CSS NCCP Conset-ration Guidelines and Process Guidelines, this interim loss of CSS habitat is limited to 5% of existinS habitat. This is expected to result in the loss of a limited number of snatcatchers. Most of the CSS habitat that may be lost is expected to be of low quality (i.e. small isolated patches and/or in degraded condition) that may or may not be occupied by the gnatcatcher (CDFG et el. 1993). Loss of CSS habitat will be mittsated through specific mitesetlon requirements that will be developed by each subresion. These requirements will have to adhere to basic standerds established to offset the losses and must be approved by the Service and the CDFG. Proposed loss of CSS involving intermediate or hish value CSS habitat, as defined in the Conservation Guidelines, will be reviewed by the Service and CDFG and may be deferred or require special mitisation. The Service has developed mitiSation standards to offset take of the gnatcatcher. D. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1. Purpose of the Proposed Action The purpose of the proposed action is to prosr-mm~tically authorize a limited amount of incidental take of the Califomia snatcaccher for activities conducted in accordance with the State of California's NCCP Act of 1991, while subresional CSS NCCP Plans are beenS prepared. This action is proposed in recognition of a state prosram =hat, by definition (see NCCP Process Guidelines in Appendix C), will apply Federal ESA standards to activities affecting the gnatcatcher. Although the CSS NCCP Program is addressing the conservation of CSS in general, the proposed Federal action is limited to cases involving take of the gnatcatcher. 2. Need for the Proposed Action The CSS NCCP Program viii apply Federal ESA sCandarcLs to NCCP-related activities affecting the ShatCatcher (CDFG et al. 1992; see NCCP Process Guidelines). The proposed action is needed co provide an efficient means to authorize incidental take of the ~rmtcatcher for otherwise legal activities within NCCP subregions ~hat are in compliance with Federal ESA standards. The Proposed Action is also needed to foster the development of multi-species conservation plans under the NCCP Program. E. DECISIONS NEEDED In order to take the proposed action and authorize a limited amount of incidental take of the gnatcatcher the Service must: 1. Determine that the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and NCCP Process Guidelines meet the issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and provide written concurrence to CDFG; 2. Conduct an internal formal consultation in accordance with section 7 of the ESA. The Service'.s decision to authorize incidental take of the ~natcatcher is a Federal agency action that may affect a listed species. Therefore, an internal formal consultation will be completed by the Service, which will result in a Biological Opinion regardinS =he proposed action; and 3. Finalize the proposed draft ~(d) rule, or withdraw the proposal. In addition, the CDFG would have to adopt the NCCP Conservation Guidelines, NCCP Process Guidelines (includinE interim take approval process gnidelines), and other documents that set forth the NCCP procedures pursuant to section 2825 of the Natural Conunity Conservation Planning Act of 1991. F. SCOPING The Resources Agency, the CDFG and the Service have involved those interest groups that would be most affected by the NCCP Program in the NCCP Program planninS process. During the initial phases of the NCCP Program (1991 and 1992), a small advisory committee composed of development industry representatives, landowners, environmental groups and local governmental agencies met regularly to provide input into the development of the NCCP Program. As interest in the NCCP Program has grown, the advisory committee has evolved into a much larger group of participants. Three NCCP workshops were held to help the public understand the NCCP Program. The first workshop was held on September 30, 1992 in Carlsbad, California. This workshop focused on the application of NCCP Process Guidelines to subregional NCCP planninS. The second workshop was held on February 3, 1993 to discuss the preliminary concepts regarding the SRP's recommended 10 conservation strategy. The Service participated in ~his workshop as part of a panel leading the conservation planning discussion. The Gird workshop was held on Hatch 31, 1993, the purpose of which was to review and discuss the SRP's draft Conservation Guidelines. The advisory committee was chaired and ~he public workshops were organized and administered by the California Environ~ental Trust, (a non-profit organization), at the request of the California Resources Agency. A Notice of Availability of the Draft EA was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 1993 (58 FR 38736). The Federal Register notice also notified the public that public hearings would be held on ~he special rule on August 9, 1993 in San Diego County, August 11, 1993 in Orange County and August 12, 1993 in Riverside County. ~.__V{~ G. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE EA I~O~' The issues and concerns raised to-date regarding the proposed action have focused on the potential effects of the proposed action on the ~11atcatcher and the CSS ecosystem, and on the potential effects on the growth and development within human communities. Therefore the EA will address the following issues and concerns: 1. Natural Environment - Issues to be addressed include: CSS habitat; other habitats including grasslands and chaparral which are most commonly interspersed with CSS habitat; the ~natcatcher; and other species associated with CSS. 2. Social Environment - Issues to be addressed include: population growth; housing; transportation; employment; agriculture; and fire protection. Issues and Concerlls Not Addressed ~~C~ Issues and concerns relating to c~ura___~l and historic resources and other potential environmental effects will not be addressed in the EA because these resources will be addressed in Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) prepared for individual development projects, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since NCCP Plans will probably alter the desi~nation of certain existing land uses, depending upon the final formulation of a subregional NCCP Plan, the NCCP Plan and the accompanying environmental review document will be required to address issues such as consistency of the Plan with other plans and policies, like local coastal plans, local general plans, and EPA Clean Water Act policies. In addition, all development projects and other regulated activities must also address consistency with local plans and policies, outside of and in addition to the NCCP Planning Process. The NCCP Planning Process does not remove the obligation of a development project or other regulated activity to go through local permitting and approval procedures. Therefore, since projects seeking approval of take in the interim period will be required to obtain the appropriate approvals through local permitting and 11 environmental review processes, through which consistency with local plans and processes will be addressed, this issue is not considered in this EA. In addition, this EA does not review the environmental effects of a subregional NCCP Plan, or the incidental take of the gnatcatcher associated with a NCCP plan. These impacts will be analyzed in a subsequent Joint State,/ Federal environmental document (CDFG et al 1992). 12 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEKED The alternatives analyzed in this EA include: 1) The Proposed Special Rule The Preferred Alternative; 2) The Proposed Special Rule, but wi~h No Interim Take Alternative; and 3) The No Action Alternative. The difference between the two action alterr~tives rests on whether or not the proposed special r~le includes r. he SRP's recommended interim strategy, as outlined in the Conservation Guidelines, of allowinS no more than a 5% loss of CSS durinS the period in which an NCCP Plan is beinS prepared. The rationale behind the SRP's recommended interim strategy in the Conservation Guidelines is presented below, followed by a description of the three alternatives considered in this A. THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE SRP'S INTERIM STRATEGY RECOMMENDATION The SRP's interim strategy recommendation in ~he State's Conservation Guidelines established a maximum 5% loss of CSS habitat durinS the interim planninS period in which a NCCP Plan is beinS prepared. The 5% value was selected by the SP.P as an estimate of the extent of short-term loss that could be offset by ions-term manasement of the remaininS CSS. The quantitative basis for the 5% value is the SRP's belief that the assresate carryinS capacity of CSS habitat for CSS species, includinS the ~natcatcher, could be enhanced by 5% usinS reasonably available manasement techniques. The present threatened status of the snatcatcher is the result of a variety of effects[ 1) habitat area has been reduced by urbanization and asricultural conversion leadinS to a lower population size; 2) habitat frasmentation hinders dispersal and increases predation and nest parasitism by the brown- headed cowbird (Molo~hrus acer) leadinS to lower population size, lower recolonization rates and less effective utilization of remaininS habitat; and 3) habitat quality has been desfaded by fire, invasive exotic species, off-~~3 road vehicles, and over-srazinS. The assresate effect is a si~nificant ~ reduction of the ~natcatcher population and its ability to persist. This habitat-based threat to the Smatcatcher was recosnized by the SlAP in its recommended conservation strategy for CSS. The SRP recommended desl~nation of a reserve network which would preserve habitat area, maintain connectivity, and manase threats to habitat quality in a way that no net loss of habitat value for the snatcatcher would occur. Land to be incorporated into the reserve network would be selected on the basis of size, location and quality. Land in small patches, isolated and desfaded by urban land uses would be of little lonS term value to a CSS reserve network. ~hile some CSS and some Enatcatchers would be lost, limited short-term losses could be offset by the enhanced ions-term carryinS capacity of the reserve network. Enhancement can take several forms: lncreasinS plant cover or diversity in existinS CSS; reestablishinS CSS in disturbed lands or lands now dominated by other communities; improvinS connectivity between CSS patches; and protectinS CSS patches and the species found therein from excessive fire, off-road vehicle activity, cowbird parasitism, or exotic species threats. 13 Information gathered by the SI~P supports ~he 5% estimate of mitigable CSS loss. Habitat naturally reestablishes itself after limited disturbance. Some small-scale restoration trials have shown success in recreating CSS vegetation in dis~urbed areas. There is evidence chat fire manaEement can be adapted to provide a combination of protection and Type conversion. Cormectivi~j~ be=ween reserves will be difficult to restore where lost to urbanization, but active management for the ~natcatcher could entail deliberate transport of individuals to reestablish colonies or to maintain genetic dtversi~y, if necessary. The Conservation Guidelines recommend research on CSS restoration and enhancement as well as several other population biology and biogeographic concerns to support ongoinS NCCP plannin~ and reserve management. This research information will be the basis for modifying the interim period 5% cap on loss of CSS. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE This alternative is the Preferred Alternative. Under this alternative, the Service would issue a special rule (Appendix E) under section &(d) of the ESA to permit incidental take of =he ~natcatcher in accordance with the State's Conservation Guidelines (58 FR 16759). The proposed special rule would allow the Service to authorize incidental take of the gnatcatcher associated with a completed NCCP Plan that the Service has approved. This action will be considered in subsequent Joint state/federal environmental documents and is noc considered in this EA. The special rule would also allow the Service to authorize a limited amount of take of the ~natcatcher during =he interim period in which NCCP Plans are being prepared. This take would be authorized, provided that: 1) the take is consistent with the SRP's recommendations in the Conservation Guidelines; 2) the take occurs in an area within a local governmental jurisdiction that is enrolled in the NCCP planning process; 3) the Service has issued written concurrence that the guidelines meet the standards set forth in 50 CFR 17.32(b)(2); 4) and the total loss of CSS habitat during this interim period does not exceed the restrictions defined by the Conservation Guidelines. The special rule also provides for the Service's review of the Conservation Guidelines every six months to determine if they continue to meet the standards set forth in 50 CFR 17.32(b)(2). If the Service determines that the guidelines no longer meet these standards, the Service shall consult with CD~ to seek appropriate modification. If appropriate modification of the ~uidelines does not occur, the Service shall revoke its concurrence, including authorization of take under the special rule. Take is Consistent with the Conservation Guidelines As discussed above, under the Preferred Alternative, the Service would approve a limited amount of inctdenkal take of the shatcatcher, provided chat the take is consistent with the Conservation Guidelines. The Conservation Guidelines emphasize that there is currently a lack of scientific information on important aspects of CSS biology that is necessary to formulate and implement 14 a long-term plan. There£ore, the Conse~vation Guidelines recommend an intert~ strateKy in which total loss of CSS habitat would be limited to 5% of the existing CSS within any given subregion. The interim strateKy is intended to minimize short-term loss of CSS habitat and associated species and to prevent foreclosure of options for ions-term conservation planning. To accomplish this goal, the Conservation Guidelines suggest ~hat development decisions be deferred on lands which may be important components of a final CSS NCCP plan. The Conservation Guidelines include an evaluation process that segregates CSS habitat into three categories based upon fundamental conservation bioloKy tenets. This process is described graphically in the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart (Figure 4) (the Flow Chart assumes that specific habitat data are in GIg format and the vegetation patches have a minimum mapping unit of 5 acres (2 hectares)). This evaluation process would be used to roughly discriminate between three general conditions of remaining CSS. By utilizing evaluation process, a subregional authority would be able to classify lands as hi~her, intermediate or lower potential value for long-term conservation, for the purpose of guiding interim CSS loss where it is most likely to have a minimal effect. Generally, large, dense areas of CSS are identified as higher potential value lands. Land in linkages, close to possible core areas or with high species richness are defined as having intermediate value. The remaining small and fra~nented stands of CSS are designated as low value, w£th exception of any of these remaining stands that may support high densities or si~nificant populations endemic or target species. If this evaluation process is followed, the Conservation Guidelines indicate~ that 50% of the CSS in a subregion would be in the hi~her potential value category, and an estimated 10% to 25% would be classified into the lower potential value category, with the remainder of the habitat being classified as having intermediate value. How much is 5%? As established by the Process Guidelines (CDFG et al. 1992), the precise CSS acreage baseline for the 5% value would be calculated by the Service and the Department using GIS data provided by the subregional authorities and with the use of current satellite imagery for updating those data. Current estimates of CSS habitat reflected in the data described below are based on GIS data 15 Figure 4 Evaluation Logic Flow Chart V ~/Is land located in comdor'~Yes ~between Higher Value~/ Yes Yes RESULT Not relevant for reserve planning. Land forms a Higher Value District. Higher Potential Value For Long-term Conservation Defer development decisions where possible. Determine actual conservation suitability in NCCP. If developed, special mitigation will be required. Intermediate Potential Value For Long-term Conservation Case by case decisions. Special mitigation may be warranted. / Are there significant ~ Yes <,,,. poputatJons of target ~ ~ orendemic ~ Lower Potential Value For Long-term Conservation Allow development. Adequate mitigation. 7/20/93 provided to the Service by the local Jurisdictions. Total amounts of based on these data are slightly different than amounts previously estimated by the Service. This is due to expected variation in mapping techniques. the differences amount to about 5%. For Riverside County it is based upon vegetation mapping done by Dr. Richard Minnich, (Department of Geography, University of California at Riverside) in 1991. This map includes vegetation mapped as coastal sage scrub and vegetation mapped as coastal sage scrub / grassland. For the purpose of this analysis, these designations were combined into the coastal sage scrub category. Vegetation data from San Diego County was prepared by several different sources and was compiled by the San Diego Association of Governments. The data included areas mapped as CSS and areas mapped as disturbed CSS - both of' which are combined in the CSS category. Orange County data are still being assembled but preliminary estimates were made available to the Service. Data from San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties is not cthrr-ntly =vailable. As these data are updated (i.e. ms'he subregions submit more thorough and updated GIS vegetation data) the estimated values will be adjusted accordingly. A s,,----ry of these data are as follows: Total CSS: Riverside County -- 152,974 acres (61,933 ha) San Diego County -- 212,750 acres (86,13~ ha) Orange County -- 51,000 acres (20,647 ha) TOTAL -- 416,724 acres (168,714 ha) Under the Preferred Alternative, take of coastal sage scrub would be limited to approximately: 5% !~ss Limit: Riverside County -- 7,650 acres (3,100 ha) San Diego County -- 10,720 acres (4,340 ha) Orange County -- 2,550 acres (1,030 ha) TOTAL -- 20,920 acres (8,~70 ha) Implementin§ the Interim Strategy The Conservation Guidelines are intended to be used along with the NCCP Process Guidelines, for planning interim strategies. Implementation of the interim approval process is outlined in the Interim Take Approval Process (Appendix D), which is currently being incorporated into the NCCP Process Guidelines. It is important to note that the Conservation Guidelines and the Interim Take Approval Process (see Appendix D) refer to the "interim take of 17 CSS habitat"; however, take has a defined meaninS under the ESA, as amended. Therefore, the Service will refer to "loss of CSS habitat" to distinguish between loss of CSS habitat under the NCCP and take of the ShatCatcher under the ESA. The Interim Take Approval Process provides specific ~uidance on how applicants would obtain approval for interim loss of CSS, which may or may not include take of ~natcatchers. Approval of interim loss of CSS would be granted by a desi~nated subregional lead/coordinatin~ agency, with oversi~ht by the Service and CDFG. The Interim Take Approval Process requires the subregional lead/coordinating agency * define subregional boundaries; * execute a Planning Agreement among participating local governments, private landowners, the lead/coordinating agency, CDFG and the Service; * establish the baseline acreage of CSS habitat within the subregion but in no case shall the base number of acres be less than what existed on March 25, 1993, the listing date of the ~natcatcher; * calculate an estimate of the habitat that could be lost (5% of the CSS in the subregion) * classify CSS habitat using the Conservation StrateKy evaluation process, in order to determine areas most conducive to interim take approval; * establish mitigation guidelines for CSS habitat that is lost during the interim period; * keep a cumulative record of the habitat actually lost, so as to ensure no more than 5% of the existing CSS is lost. As discussed in the Interim Take Approval Process Guidelines, in order to obtain approval for interim take, an applicant must apply to the appropriate lead/coordinating agency would review the interim take approval to coenfirm that it does not exceed the 5% cap on loss of CSS or prejudice the preparation and implementation of the subregional NCCP. The subregional lead/coordinating agency would communicate its findings in writing to the local agency, who would then post public notice of its decision and notify the CDFG and the Service. The Service has the opportunity to review the project for consistency with the interim take guidelines. If the Service determines that the project is inconsistent with NCCP biological strategies and the special rule, the Service would have final authority for interim take approval. State Guidelines meet Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit Issuance Criteria Under the Preferred Alternative, in addition to the requirements of the Interim Take Approval Process described above, the Service must issue written concurrence that the SRP's Conservation Guidelines meet the standards set forth in 50 CFR 17.32(b)(2), in order for incidental take of the ~natcatcher in the interim period to occur. The standards referred to are the criteria used by the Service to determine whether or not to issue a Section 10(a)(1)(B) 18 permit for a Habitat Conservation Plan. In order for a permit to be issued, the following criteria must be met: 1. The taking will be incidental; 2. The permit applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; 3. The applicant will ensure r/~at adequate fundin~ for the conservation plan and procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances will he provided; 4. The takir~ will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild; _'~' 5. The applicant will ensure chat ocher measures that the Director may require as being necessary or appropriate will be provided; and 6. The Director is assured that the conservation plan will be implemented. for !riss of CSS in the Interim Period In order to receive approval for loss of CSS or take of the ~natcatcher, a mitigation plan must be prepared consistent with the mitigation suidelines prepared by the subregional lead/coordinating authority. The specific mitigation ~uidelines must be completed with the concurrence of the CDFG and =he Service. The fundamental goal of these ~u/delines will be the development of a subregional strateKy for mitigating all individual instances of take within one comprehensive program. Mitigation for the CSS NCCP program is intended to be adaptive (CDFG 1993b); additional mitigation requirements for a subregional NCCP will be addressed during the NCCP planning process, and will build upon and modify the interim mitigation Suidelines. The Planning Agreement or an equivalent document si~ned by the participants of each subregion will include language that binds the subregion participants to meeting the requirements of the interim take mitigation ~uidelines. A supplement to an already si~ned Planning Agreement will satisfy this requirement. The Service will be a si~natory to all Planning Agreements. Mitigation will be presumed to be initiated concurrent with or prior to project start-up; however, this is not an absolute requirement. In all cases,, the identified mitigation must be initiated upon approval of the Implementation Agreement for the final NCCP Plan or within 24 months of the project start-up if the Implementation Agreement is not approved for the subregion. Completion of the necessary mitigation will be ensured by requirements in the Planning A~reement, or other appropriate documents. The 5% loss of CSS that is anticipated to be authorized under this proposed ~Tspecial rule will be predominantly in habitat defined as having minimal long- term conservation value (CDFG 1993b). The intent of the Conservation Guidelines is to avoid interim losses of habitat that might have an adverse effect on long-term subregional conservation planning efforts. Therefore, app, oval of habitat losses from the intermediate category will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Proposals that would impact high value areas will also be reviewed on a case by case basis and it must be demonstrated that the loss will no= foreclose future subregional reserve planning options. Any projects 19 impacting coastal sage scrub habitat defined as intermediate or high value should involve the Service and CDFG input in the early planning stages (CDFG et. al 1992). Interim loss of low value habitat and meeting the subregional interim strateKy mitigation guidelines will be approved by ~he Service and ~he CDFG, according to the procedures described in the Process Guidelines (CDFG et. al 1992). Take of Gnatcatchers For loss of coastal sage scrub habitat that involves take (see 50 CFR 10.12 and 50 CFR 17.3) of California ~natcatchers, the Service will require that certain specific standards be met. In the cases that involve take of ~natcatchers, the subregional interim mitigation guidelines will be required to meet the following two standards. One or both of these standards will apply in each sitnation, depending on the project-specific circumstances, as determined by the subregional lead/coordinating agency. 1) Retention of overall long-term habitat value for coastal California gnatcatchers within a given subregion; this implies the protection and management and/or restoration of habitat commensurate with that lost due to project development. This will be accounted separately for each subregion. Accomplishment of this standard will involve: a. habitat acquisition of lands considered to have long-term conservation potential; and b. management and restoration of degraded habitat that is a component of a mitigation effort intended to retain net habitat value in each subregion. Each project that is provided a take allocation from the subregional lead agency will contribute mitigation towards the subregion plan, as appropriate and as defined by the subregional lead agency. 2) Avoidance or minimization of project impacts on site, if appropriate (i.e. lands that may have some role in a long-term conservation strategy); and/or compensation for habitat losses with off-site habitat acquisition. The subregional mitigation gnidelines incorporating these standards must be implemented concurrently with the loss of up to 5% of CSS habitat, and take of ~matcatchers, if any, wit/~in a given subregion. This means that mitigation efforts will be expected to be initiated prior to or concurrently with the activities that result in loss of habitat, and or take. If a project proposes to defer the implementation of the mitigation requirements into the next gnatcatcher breeding season (mid-February through July), then additional mitigation will be required to offsee the additional temporary losses of habitat value. Provisions for these circumstances should be incorporated into the mitigation guidelines by the subregional lead/coordinating agency. 20 The subregional interim mitigation suidelines must be submitted to the CDGF and the Service for concurrence prior to authorization of any take of gnatcatchers. These interim mitigation Fidelines would identify how to miti&ate the projected loss of habitat in accordance rich the standerds described above. Responsibility for these requirements viii be defined in the PlanninS Agreement si~ned by the subresional lead/coordinatinS asency, NCCP participants, the CDFG and the Service. C. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE, BUT I~TITH NO INTERIN TAXE ALTERNATIVE This altez~attve would be identical to the Preferred Alternative, the proposed special rule, except that there would be no authorization of incidental take of the gnatcatcher durir~ the interim period Chat a NCCP Plan is bainS prepared. All ocher provisions of the special rule would remain the same. Incidental take of the coastal California ~atcatcher would be authorized if: an NCCP Plan has been prepared, approved and implemented; and the Service has issued written concurrence that the NCCP Plan meets the standards for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.32(b)(2). Take of the gnatcatcher would be prohibited by section 9 of the ESA during the period in which an NCCP Plan was bainS prepared. If an applicant vanted to proceed vi~a development plans chat would result in take of the Shatcatcher during the interim period, a permit would be required pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA; this would involve the preparation of Habitat Conservation Plan. Alternatively, if there was a federal nexus, then a formal consultation under section ? of the ESA would be required between the action agency and the Service. D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under this Alternative, a special rule would not be promulgated by the Service, and incidental take of the &matcatcher in conjunction with the StaCe's NCCP Prosram would noC be authorized. The Service would not have to approve the Conservation Guidelines and NCCP Process Guidelines, and would have to determine if these documents meet =he issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The prohibitions asainst take of the snatcatcher in section 9 of the ESA would apply; projects or activities that involve take of the gnatcatcher would have to comply with either section 7 or section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, as appropriate. As required by the MOU, the Service would continue to support the CSS NCCP process. However, the NCCP Prosram would not be subject to the take authorization provision described in the proposed special rule. NCCP Plans and projects that impact the Shatcatcher would require take authorization from the Service through the section 10 or the section 7 process., as appropriate. 21 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A. NCCP PLANNING AREA The NCCP planning area encompasses approximately 6,000 square miles of the southern California region, including portions of five California counties: San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino (see Figure 1). "The entire planning region includes areas up to 3,500 feet in elevation in Orange CounTy and cismontane portions of western San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Extensions of r/~is core area reach wes=ward into eastern Los Angeles County along the southern base of ~he San Gabriel Mountains to the Honrovia-Glendora area, and into the Chino Hills-La Habra Heights and San Jose Hills area. Areas within =he overall planning region above 3,500 feet elevation will also be included due to their importance as habitat and in facilitating dispersal of some species. The planning region also includes disjun=t, outlier areas--one on Palos Vetdes Peninsula in LOs Angeles CounTy and the other in the West Coyote Hills in extreme northwestern Orange County" (O'Leary et.al. 1992). Other areas of CSS in LOs Angeles and Ventura counties that were not included in the NCCP planning area due to the extensive urban barrier that isolates them. This planning area incorporates the current known distribution of =he coastal California gnatcatcher within the United States, as well as the distribution of two other sensitive species, coastal cactus wren and orange-throated whip=all, that have been selected by =he Scientific Review Panel (SRP) as "focal study species" because of =heir association with coastal sage scrub habitat. ~ile coastal sage scrub habitat exists north of the NCCP planning area, it is effectively isolated from the planning area due to urbanization. B. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Coastal Sage Scrub The coastal sage scrub vegetation cormunity extends from the San Francisco Bay area, to the north, southward to E1 Rosario in BaJa California, Hexico. This community is located primarily on coastal plains and foothills, and may be found at elevations ranging from sea level to 3,500 feet. Coastal sage scrub is not a homogeneous plant community, but differs flortstically depending upon geographical location, slope, aspect, soil type, and disturbance (e.g., grazing and fire). Not all plant or animal species commonly classified as CSS species are found in all stands of this habitat. Coastal sage scrub has been subdivided by botanists into several floristically different associations based primarily upon geographic location. The dominant sage scrub associations within the NCCP planning area are Riversidian, found in dryer inland areas, and Diegan, primarily coastal in distribution. The SRP described coastal sage scrub as follows: "Characteristic species of coastal sage scrub include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), severa'l species of sage (Salvia mellifera, Salvia leucophlya, and Salvia apiana), California encelia (Encelta californica), brittlebush (in=ella farinosa), San Diego sunflower (Viguiera lactniata), and buckwheats (ErioEonum 22 fascicula~um and £riogonum c/nereum). Evergreen sclerophyllous shrubs such as Halosma laurina, Rhus in~egrifolia, and Bahus ovata are often patchily distributed in stands of coastal sage scrub. During moist winter and spring periods, high transpiration rates and carbon assimilation rates allow for rapid plant growth, flowering and fruitinS (Harrison et.al. 1971, Mooney 1988). Most of ~he dominant species are drought evaders by virtue of their facilitatively-deciduous life history strategies, thus they are particularly well adapted to prolonged periods of low rainfall' (O,Leary et.al. 1992). Approximately 394,000 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat has been estimated to currently exist within the NCCP planning area. Estimates for the loss of coastal sage scrub during historic times may be as high as 85 percent (Westman 1981). Loss of CSS habitat has been primarily due to agricul~ure and urbanization within the southern California region. Much of the habitat that remains has been fragmented or disturbed. 'Recent estimates indicate that the percentage of remaining CSS that is degraded is 51 percent in Riverside County (Regional Environmental Consultants 1991), 15-25 percent in Orange CounTy (Fred Roberts, personal communication), and 9-23 percent in San Diego CounTy (Pacific Southwest Biological Services 1988, Ogden Environmental and Energy Services 1992)" (O'Leary et.al. 1992). Other Habttats Several other habitat types are commonly found associated with or abutting CSS. Because coastal sage scrub is often naturally patchy, being confined to certain slopes or sotl types, or a relatively open habitat, other vegetation communities may tnterdigitate with it and forms mosaic of habitats over the landscape. The habitats most commonly found in association with sage scrub are various lower elevation chaparral associations, non-native grasslands, occasionally oak woodlands, and more rarely native bunch grass communities. Riparian communities are often found a= the bottom of drainages within landscapes that contain coastal sage scrub. Non-native annual grasslands are dominated by introduced annual grasses with some introduced forbs and some native forbs. This habitat type is generally found below 3000 feet elevation and commonly intermixed with coastal sage scrub. The native bunch grass community is dominated by perennial, tussock forming, native species. This community is much reduced over its former distribution and now only rarely found in association with coastal sage scrub. Non-native grasslands have displaced native bunch grass communities in most locations. Chamise chaparral, southern mixed chaparral, southern maritime chaparral in San Diego County, and at slightly higher elevations scrub oak chaparral, are the chaparral communities most likely to be found associated with coastal sage scrub. There are also instances of a coastal sage scrub community that is mixed with plant species more typical of chaparral such as chamtse (Adenos~om~ fascicula~um). Chaparral communities are a dominant feature of the landscape within the geographic confines of the NCCP planning area. They are typically found adjacent to coastal sage scrub on slightly wetter, steeper slopes. 23 Oak woodlands, predominantly coast live oak woodland, canbe found adjoining or in the vicinity of coastal sage scrub, Coast live oak woodland is typically found on north-facing slopes and shaded ravines, generally at lower elevations. Riparian corridors and fallow agricultural fields are also found within larger stands of CSS. Southern arroyo willow riparian forest, southern sycamore-alder riparian woodlands and various L-ypes of riparian scrub are the common riparian communities found near coastal sage scrub. Because of the naturally patchy nature of CSS, any of these other habitats could be found in the immediate vicinity of a stand of coastal sage scrub. Such habitats can be important for dispersal of plant end animal species between sage scrub patches. Coastal California Gnatcs=chef The coastal California gnatcatcher is a small insectivorous bird found almost exclusively within coastal sage scrub habitat, from Los Angeles County south to upper BaJa California, Mexico (30 degrees N. latitude). Historically the species was present in Ventura, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, California. Nowever, the bird has been extirpated from Ventura and San Bernardino Counties, and is only found on the Palos Vetdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County. Significant populations of gnatcatchers continue to persist in Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. The decline in California ~natcatcher distribution and populations relates directly to the loss of coastal sage scrub habitat to agriculture and urbanization, as discussed above. Also, in certain portions of its current range this species is subject to nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (Bolo~hrus ater). The Service listed this bird species as 'threatened' on Hatch 25, 1993. The Service estimates that there are currently 2,562 pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers remaining within the United States. Of these, 2& to 30 pairs occur in Los Angeles County, 224 to 294 pairs in Orange County, 724 to 916 pairs in Riverside County, and 837 to 1,061 pairs in San Diego County. Approximately 2,800 pairs of gnatcatchers are estimated to persist in BaJa California, Mexico (50 FR 16742). The ~natcatcher is a resident species. The breeding season for this gnatcatcher extends from late February through July, with the peak of nesting activity occurring between mid-March and mid-Hay. Gnatcatcher pairs establish defended breeding territories of between 2 to 14 acres (1 to 6 hectares), and have home ranges varying in size from 13 to 39 acres (5 to 15 hectares). Nests are constructed in a variety of shrub species, and tend to be located approximately 3 feet (1 meter) above the ground. Clutch size averages 4 eggs, and if a nest is destroyed or abandoned due to disturbance the birds will often tenest. Both parents are involved in nest incubation and care of the young. Once nestlings have fledged they remain with their parents for several months before dispersing. Data on dispersal distances is scant, but evidence exists that they may disperse up to 9 miles (l& km) from their birth site (50 FR 16742). The habitat for the coastal California ~natcatcher is found primarily on the coastal plains and foothills of southern California. These relatively flat, and sometimes fertile, locations are also coveted for their agricultural and development potential. As such, a cor~lict between human activik-y and persistence of gnatcatcher habitat has arisen and is currently at a critical point. Without ions-term planning for the preservation of adequate tracts of CSS the California gnatcatcher will likely not persist. Ocher Svectes Approximately 100 plant and animal species are described by the SILP as sensitive species associated with coastal sage scrub in southern California (Appendix E). The SRP has also designated two wildlife species, coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brumnecapllius sandiegensls) and orange-throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hTpery~hrus), as target species for special study within r/~e NCCP planning area. The habitat and long-term protection needs of these two species will also be incorporated into final habitat preserve desi~ in NCCP Plans. These species, like the California ~matcatcher, are strongly associated with CSS habitat. Many of the above mentioned species, associated with coastal sage scrub, are largely restricted to this habitat and generally confined to a geographic range within the NCCP planninS area. The NCCP goals, as reflected in the direction wit_hit the Conservation Guidelines, strive to accomodate the habital: 'conservation needs of all these species. Other plant communities found in association with coastal sage scrub, addressed above, provide habitat for a variety of species of plants and animals. Some species that depend on these habitats are generally restricted to the area covered by the NCCP planning area. C. SOCIAL ENVlRON14ENT Povulation Growth For more than 130 years the human population in California has grown faster, annually, than any other state in the union. In the fifty years between 1940 and 1990 the rate of increase in the population was, on average, ~wice the national growth rate. In 1971 =he state accounted for roughly 10% of the nation's population, by 1990 - 12%. There are now more than 30 million people in California (Times-Herald 1993). By 2040 the state's population is projected to grow to 60 million (Weintraub 1993). This means 667,000 people a year for the next fifty years - an increase equivalent to, two cities the size of Sacramento being added to the state every year (Armstrong 1993). The five counties in which the NCCP planning area is found account for 54% of the state's population. More than half of this population occurs in the NCCP area (California 1991). Between 1980 and 1990 these counties grew rapidly: Los Angeles County increased by approximately 20%, Orange County by approximately 25%, Riverside County by approximately 57%, San Bernardino 25 County by approximately 60% and San Diego County by approximately 35%. The growth rate in the NCCP area is estimated to be growing faster than the state average of 2.6% rate (California 1991). Host of r/~e recent growth that has occurred in the state has been in these five coun:ies (Hublet 1993). Growth. A Department of Finance study using the 1990 federal census data indicated that the State's population will more than double by the year 2040. Over the 50-year span of the forecast, Los Angeles and San Diego County are expected to double their 1990 populations, and Riverside and San Bernardino County would nearly quadruple in population. Population growth in Orange County would gain only slightly, estimated to gain only about 12 million from 1990 to 2040 (Times-Herald 1993). Orange County is the only county completely enveloped by the NCCP area. It accounts for approximately 27% of the population in the NCCP area. The other counties, including Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego, account for approximately 30%, 7%, 10%, and 26%, respectively of the population within the NCCP area (California 1991). Pattern of Growth. In the 1950's, the human population growth pattern was predictable and consistent; populations pushed out from urban centers such as Los Angeles to contl~uous suburban "bedroom communities" such as the San Fernando or San Gabriel valleys. The pattern began to change in the 1960's as more and better freeways were built, creating the backbone of what are now known as transportation corridors. These corridors allowed development to "leap-frog" outward, primarily eastward, toward Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and southward through Orange and San Diego counties. The deconcentric growth pattern degenerated into a polycentric mosaic of residential, commercial and industrial centers along the transportation corridors, and suburbia became an urban sprawl (California 1988). The "San-San Hegalopolis" is a euphemism for the unbroken urbanization, predicted, for the entire costal region from San Francisco to San Diego- 50,000 square miles- by the middle of next centuric. Housing ~hile population growth was the driving force for the massive development in southern California, the quest for the "American Dream" was the lure. As urban areas became more and more populated, housing prices increased. People moved further and further out, to areas where development cost, hence housing prices, were lower (Fulton 1992). In the years from 1950 through 1990 housing prices have, in some areas, increased more than tenfold. Between 1980 and 1990 the average median value of houses increased by more than 130% To meet the housing needs for the interval for 1980 until 1990, in the five counties of the planning area, more than 1,262,000 residential building permits (for single family and multi-family dwellings) were issued (California 1991). Southern California Association of Governments forecasts the need for more than a million units to be built by the year 2000 (Hublet 1992) to meet the housing demand created by the influx of people. 26 Transvor~ation The automobile allowed the southern California population to pursue housinE and Jobs, facilitated by an unprecedented freeway system. This system enabled the various employment centers in the five counties of the planninE area to import workers from all parts of the NCCP PlanninE Area. California Transportation Department statistics show that between 196& and 1987 population had increased in southern California by ~%, vehicles reEistered increased by 94% and miles per vehicle had increased by 163% (California 1988). The five-county NCCP planninE area accounted for 54% of the 17 million automobiles reEistered in the state but only 24% of the hiEhways (state and interstate). To address traffic Jams and gridlock will require more than just fundinE additional freeways; i= will. require the regional coordination of land use and traffic circulation patterns, beyond the scope of most local Jurisdictions (California 1971). SCAG reviewed the transportation patterns of their teEion, in order to anticipate Erowth and housinE needs (SCAG 1989). They projected an increase 5 million people ustnE the freeway system by 2010 this will result in an increase of the number of daily person trips and work commutes by 42% from 1984 levels (Table 1). To deal with the near gridlock conditions forecast for southland freeways, the ReEional Mobility Plan (SCAG 1986) was developed, through which state and local transportation aEencies will coordinate activities, this plan details the specific measures that will have to be taken to accommodate the increased traffic and transportation needs through 2010. Many of these measures are improvements that develop or enhance more efficient use of existinE systems. 27 TABLE 1 Forecas= of Conges~ion on Freeway Corridors of SCAG Daily Trips Vehicle Miles Average Speed Miles o£ congestion am peak hours Hiles of conges=ion pm peak hours S~G, 1989 1984 40.2 million 221.29 million 35 mph 452 miles 856 miles 2010 52.0 million 376.19 million 19 mph 2,564 miles 4,56& miles 28 A~riculture Traditionally, California has been an agricul~ural state. As population and the accompanyir~ residanttal development exploded, much of the agriculture land was converted to other land uses. In 1980, 3& million acres of agricultural land existed in California, 10% of which was in the NCCP planninE; area counties). By the end of the decade 13% of the State's agricultural acresEe had been lost to development (California 1990). This trend continues in the NCCP planning area, especially in rapidly developing areas such as southern Riverside county (Gorman 1991). AEriculcural lands with nonintensive: uses, or lands that are fallow, will be important considerations for lonE-term NCCP planninE, because of their potential value as linksEes between future CSS preserves. EmPloyment As described earlier, the urbanization of southern California accompanied an increase in employment opportunities. However, the reliance on the automobile in southern California led to urban sprawl and has contributed to a leap-froE, disjointed pattern of land-uses, includinE employment centers. This decentralization of employment centers is expected to continue, as future development continues in this sprawlinE pattern. Employment rates in the NCCP Planning Area have declined si~nificantly since the 1980s; late in the eighties unemployment rates beEan to climb in all five planninE area counties. The 1990, unemployment rates ranEed from the low of 3% in OranEe county to almost 8% in Riverside County, with the other three counties rates fallinE in-between these estimates (California 1991). Conservative projections for unemployment in southern California expect averaEe rates to be near the 6% mark through 2040 (Hublet 1992). More pessimistic assessments forecast chronic 13% levels for the same period (Weintraub 1993). Fire Protection The NCCP planning area contains many thousands of acres of brush land, which includes costal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities. These plant communities are highly susceptible to fire. However, they are adapted to it and, to various deErees will generally recover from burn off, if not subsequently disturbed. Since wildfires are viewed as a public safety issue and a threat to residences and other structures, local Jurisdictions and local. fire control sEenties enforce weed abatement re~ulations as part of their fire control proErams. These proErams require the destruction and removal of combustible material for prescribed distances around residences and other livable structures. In addition to these local ordinances, the California Department of Forestry (CDF) is responsible for the implementation of brush control proErams, part of which is veEeta~ion manaEement. CDF's vegetation manaEement activities require controlled burns of vegetation in a mosaic pattern in order to: reduce fire hazard; enhance wildlife habitat; enhance air quality; and improve 29 watershed quality. Controlled burns are usually the only cost effective way to modify vege~ation. 30 CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE - THE PP, EF~ ALTERNATIVE This alternative is the Service's Preferred Alternative. 1. Natural Environment Coastal $a~e Scrub Under the Preferred Alternative, up to 5% of the existins CSS habitat would be subject to loss under the interim take provisions specified in the Conservation Guidelines and NCCP Process Guidelines (Interim Take Approval Process), described earlier in Section 2.B. Each subreEion would be able to develop up to 5% of the existinS CSS within a subreEion in accordance with the Conservation Guidelines, and as approved by the Service and CDFG. The Sit? determined that such apportionment by subreEions would be necessary to ensure against any one area recetvinE an inordinate or inappropriate amount of loss while lonE-ranEe conservation plans are being developed. The following analysis of the anticipated loss of 5% CSS habitat was performed with the assistance of a GeoEraphical Information System (GIS). The GIS data are derived from veEetation maps prepared by local jurisdictions. The derivation of these data is described in more detail in Chapter 2, Section B. The spatial pattern (i.e. size and confi~uration of patches) of the current distribution of CSS differs from one location to another, primarily in response to human land use patterns. Because the Conservation Guidelines criteria depend siEnificantly on spatial features and analysis, accounting of take by subregion is necessary to avoid disproportionate losses in certain geographic areas. Therefore, quantitative estimates of habitat subject to the interim take provisions are expressed below in geographical units of general biological regions, which may be representative of the anticipated NCCP subregions. Currently only San Diego County has been subdivided, because of the si~nificant habitat fragmentation that has occurred in the coastal part of the County. Additional data from other areas will be analyzed for these purposes as they become available. Under the stipulations of the Conservation Guidelines, take of coastal saEe scrub habitat: under the interim provisions is intended to be drawn largely from coastal sage scrub habitat identified as having lower potential conservation value for the subregion. UsinE the criteria explained in the Conservation Guidelines, the existing coastal sage scrub habitat was seEregated into three categories based on their estimated lonE-term conservation value. These GIS derived data were used for the subsequent impact analysis. If the Preferred Alternative is implemented, it would result in the ultimate loss of a maximum of 5% of the existing CSS habitats. The estimated loss of CSS (in Riverside, Orange and San Dieso Counties) that would result from implementation of the Preferred Alternative is s,,--~arized in Table 2, by 31 geographic area. If San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties were to participate in the NCCP Program, these counties would also be eligible to apply for a maximum of 5% loss of the CSS wi=hin ~heir subregions. Only a limited amount of CSS exists in these counties and r/~e 5% value that would be represented by losses in these counties would not st~nificantly increase the total. 32 TABLE 2 ANTICIPATED IHPACTS TO COASTAL SAGE SCRUB AND THE CALIFOI~NIA GNATCATCg~-R UNDER THE I~E~ ALTERNATIVE Coastal Sage Scrub Hax Natural ~Ud~h Medium Low* Take Habitats Gnatca=chefs Total** Take Riverside County 77,368 30,836 6~,746 7,650 25,300 261 7-13 San Diego County*** Area I 33,636 13,005 20,100 3,359 14,750 531 16-27 Area 2 33,880 9,485 24,940 3,415 31,960 256 8-13 Area 3 16,690 4,325 12,930 1,700 19,817 434 14-22 Area 4 21,445 7,768 13,943 2,156 7,695 210 6-11 Orange County**** 25,500 ? ? 2,550 ? 673 15-30 TOTALS 416,724 20,920 2,$62 66-116 * Low Value estimates will be adjusted as more data area received, particularly on the distribution of target and/or endemic species. ** Gnatcatcher estimates are available for entire County, stated estimates are based on data compiled in the Carlsbad Field Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service. *** The four areas in San Diego County are described as follows: Area 1 is southern San Diego County, sour/% of Interstate 8; Area 2 is northern inland San Diego County, north of Interstate 8 and east of Interstate 15; Area is northern coastal San Diego County, north of Interstate 8 and west of Interstate 15; Area 4 is Camp Pendleton. **** Orange County GIg data were not available at the time this document was prepared, estimates are based on available tabular data; will be revised as needed. Data on estimates of pairs includes known pairs and individuals (presumed to be paired). 33 The SRP has concluded that the ~mpact of an overall loss of 5% of CSS habitat will not preclude long-term conservation options if it is managed according to certain guidelines. The details of these measures are descr£bed in the Conservation Guidelines in Sections 3, &, and 5. In s,-~ry, the interim strategy assumes 1) short-term losses are min~ELzed, with a 5% maximum, 2) losses are l~nited pr~marily to CSS with lover long-term conservation potential, 3) the short-term losses will be m~t£gated to retain long-term habitat value in each subregion, and &) lossos will not be concentrated disproportions%ely in any one geographic area. These factors, conditions of operating under a NCCP program, indicate that losses of CSS under the auspice.~ of the program will be insignificant. Other Natural Habitats The Conservation Guidelines also define ocher natural habitats located within, adjacent to, or corridors between high value coastal sage scrub habitat as important to this conservation program. These habitats ~ypically include non- native grasslands, various kinds of chaparral, or occasionally other natural communities such as oak woodlands or native perennial grasslands. Riparian woodlands are commonly found in the stream courses of the watersheds containing these upland plant communities. These other ~]pes of natural habitats will be critical elements of the landscape in an NCCP Plan. While neither preserves nor corridors between core reserves have been identified for any subregion yet, the natural habitats within or adjacent (within 500 meters) to the high value CSS are likely to play important roles in the CSS preserve system. Table 2 estimates the acreage of these kinde of habitats that occur within 500 meters of the CSS considered to have high long-term conservation potential. Because of the proximity of these habitats to high potential CSS, these areas are likely to receive special conservation attention, at least durin§ the interim planning phases. These particular lands are referred to as "Natural Habitats contained near Coastal Sage Scrub' in Table 2. Other areas containing natural habitats will be impacted as an indirect result: of the Preferred Alternative. Due to its patchy and naturally fragmented distribution, a wide variety of other nauural habitats are embedded within CSS, creating a mosaic of habitat types. As development projects go forward they will involve tracts of land that transcend boundaries of CSS. Loss of some CSS therefore would be accompanied unavoidably by loss of the other habitat types associated with it. In general, non-native grasslands and various types of chaparral typically found at lower elevations are the most common plant communities that would be expected to be effected along with the 5% CSS under the Preferred Alternative. To a lesser extent some oak woodland communities and perhaps some riparian woodlands or freshwater marsh may be found occasionally intermixed with CSS. The latter community types are potentially subject to other federal regulations, i.e. the Clean Water Act, and their conservation should be addressed elsewhere. However, some acreage of the above mentioned upland plant communities will be subject to loss in conjunction with development of css under the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to these habitats would be addressed and mitigated, as necessary, through the CEQA process, as required under State law. 34 Precise quan=i=a=ive es=ima=es are noC possible co provide un=il the loca=ion of developmen= proJec=s is idencified. However, the astima=ed area of CSS subJec= Co loss under =his interim program sugges=s wha= reich= be expec=ed. If =he full 20,000 acres of CSS was developed probably a= leas= this amoun= of ocher habitats would be embedded within the footprin= of the developmen= proposals. Effec=s co =hese habi=ats would be addressed through =he CEQA process, wi=h or wi=hou= this proposed special rule. Coas=al California Gna=ca=cher A 5% loss of CSS hahice= will result in a concomitant minh~al loss of coas=al California ~na=cacchers. The mos= re=an= comprehensive estimates of the distribution and abundance of gnat=at=hers within the Uni=ed S=aCes (Fish and Wildlife Service unpubl. data) provides a basis from which the effects of this caking provision can be addressed. Precise locations of all known birds are no= readily available in GIg format for =his analysis. However, =he es=ima=e of cake of gnat=at=hers provided in Table 2 is based upon the following assump=ions: 1) Hos= loss of hahicao under the incer~ procedures will occur on =he lower valued areas; 2) Based upon ~=ca=cher biology and =heir apparent requiremen=s for larger stands of intac= coas=al sage scrub, the birds are less likely co curren=ly be found on small, frasmen=ed, dis=an= pa=ches of coastal sage scrub (generally wha= cons=i=u=es the lower value areas); 3) the above sta=ements suggest that, with some exceptions, ~na=cacchers are less likely to occur on the low valued areas. IC is conserva=ively es=imaCed ~hac low value habitat suppor=s somewhere between 50% co 100% =he densities expected on intermediate or high valued lands. This informa=ion is reflected in =he es=ima=es of cake of shat=etchers described in Table 2. The following discussion specifically considers =he effec=s co coastal California gnat=archers in the context of =he issuance cri=eria contained in ~he re~ula=ions governing inciden=al cake of Threecaned species (50 CFR 17.32(b)(1)). 1. Taking will be incidental The Service finds ~ha= the caking =ha= would occur in =he interim period, under =he provisions of proposed special rule, will be incidental co and noC =he purpose of otherwise lawful developmen= projects and ac=ivi=ies. This is ensured by =he requiremen= in =he Interim Take Approval Process Guidelines =ha~ an applica=ion for take co =he local subregional lead agency, mus= resul= in a finding =ha= =he cake proposed is incidental Co otherwise lawful acCivl=y. 2. The permi= applicant will, co =he maximum extent prac=icable, minimize and mi=lga=e =he impac=s of such caking Under the preferred al=erna=ive, ~ake of CSS is limited co a maximum of 5% of =he =ocal amount of existing CSS habica=. As discussed earlier in =his section, a 5% loss of CSS could resul= in the loss of maximum of 20,920 acres of CSS, mos= of which should be classified as having low Ions-term conserra=ion po=en=ial. I= is es=ima=ed =ha= =his could result in an 35 accumula=ed loss of a maximum of be=ween 66 co 116 pairs of coas=al Californ~.a gna=ca=chers, as described above. As required by =he SRP Conserve=ion Guidelines and ~he NCCP Process Guidelines, =he proposed loss of 5% of =he exis=inS CSS will be The specific means of mi=isa=ion for losses of gna=ca=chers will be defined in =he in=erim Cake mi~iga=ion guidelines developed by ~he subresional lead/coordinacinS asencies. Addi=lonally ~he loss of CSS habitat =ha= results in cake of snacca=chers will be required co adhere Co cer=ain s=andarde. The primary requiremen= will be co ensure re=en=ion of =he overall 1ons-=erm hahice= values for gnatcatchers. These provisions will involve acquisi=ion of hahice= wi=h lons-=erm conserve=ion po=en=ial and manasemenc and resCora=ion of degraded babi=acs. Before =he local agency can make a decision on whe=her or noc co approve cake, =he local asency must make required findin~s. One o£ =hese findinss is =ha= =he cake (represen=ed by =he application) has been mf=isaced and minimized co =he excen= feasible. Once =he decision is made by ~ local asency, =he Service and CDFG must be notified. The mi=iSa=lon packase included in =he application would =hen be approved, accordinS co procedures defined in =he Process Guidelines, by =he CDFG and =he Service. The cake micisacion ~u~delines is co process project by proJec= actions comprehensively and efficien=ly for an en=ire subresion. The local subrestonal lead/coordina=ing asency will be responsible for handlinS project by project processinS. However, if =he Service disa~rees with =he approval of the cake as noted in an applica=ion, or finde consiscen= wi=h =he Conserve=ion Guidelines, =he Service would =hen assume the responsibility co determine whether or no= co authorize =he cake. The Service has determined =ha= =he 5% loss of CSS and i=s effects on ~naccacchers is mitisaced and minimized Co =he maximum ex=en= practicable, based upon =he followins: - an application for Cake must include a mi=isa=ion plan approved by the local lead agency as mee=inS =he needs of =he subresional NCCP, and should include a Justifica=ion for =he mitisa=ion plan selected; - =he local agency must approve the mi=iga=ion plan for any applica=ion for cake by makinS =he finding chac the cake is mitigated Co =he excen= feasible: - =he Service will be able co review all proposed mitigation plans for consistency with =he Conserve=ion Guidelines. If i= is determined =hac =here is a discrepancy be=ween =he mitigation plan and =he Conserve=ion Guidelines, =he Service will have =he op=ion co notify subresional lead/coordinacinS asency =ha= =he cake does not comply wi=h the suidelines and should noc be allowed under =he interim cake provisions. 3. The applican= will ensure =ha= adequa=e funding for =he conserva=ion plan and procedures =o deal wt=h unforeseen circums=ances will be provided 36 The Interim Take Approval Process requires =ha= a local agency make specified findings before take canbe approved. One of =he findings is =he applicant has provided =he necessary funding, as required under =he subregional lead/coordinating plan. In addition, the Interim T~ke Approval Process requires =ha= =he lead agency conduct CEQA review of the project proposed in =he Cake application, as required under $~a=e law. Among ocher requiremen=s, ¢EQA requires assurances for funding any mitigation proposed as par= of =he environmental review process (cite). The Service =herefore finds =hat funding for =he mitigation proposed as par= of =he approval for take process will be ensured. ~. The taking will not appreciably reduce =he likelihood of survival and recovery of =he species in =he wild. The 5% loss of CSS habitat will be offset by =he requirement =hat habitat acquisition and management, which includes enhancement or rescora=ion, will retain =he long-term habitat value for ~natcatchers. The exact form of =his mitigation plan is to be determined by =he local subregional lead/coordinating agency as to what is best for =he specific biological conditions within =he subregion. As stated in =he Conservation Guidelines, a small amount of habitat loss can be Coleraced, as long as i= is ultima=ely counter-balanced by adequate long-term enhancement efforts. This amount was determined'by the SRP to be 5% of the existing CSS habitat. The Conserve=ion Guidelines and the NCCP Process Guidelines (Interim Take Approval Process) indicate =ha= such a loss of habitat could be colerated, provided Chat a corresponding lmount of habitat management, enhancement and res=oration is provided for with interim take mitigation guidelines. The 5% take is mitigated by a commi~men= chat provides for =he offset of the interim take and contributes to the overall likelihood of success of a subregional NCCP Plan. The minimization and mitigation of loss coupled with the incentives for long-term regional conserve=ion plans appreciably reduces overall impacts. The Service believes =ha= =he Subregions1 NCCP Plans, once implemented, will enhance =he recovery of the ~natcatcher by providing an ecosystem-based habitat management plan Chat would not be possible under a species-specific hab£=at conservation plan. Therefore, the Service finds that this proposed take would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in =he wild. 5. The applicant will ensure that other Heasures that the Director may require as being necessary or appropriate will be provided The Service has signed a Hemorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Game =o pursue a partnership in =he NCCP program. All the component provisions of the program are therefore adopted by reference and will be required in the context of =his proposed action. 6. The Director is assured that the conservation plan will be imple=~nted The Planning Agreements, including supplements Co existing documents as needed, will include specific provisions for accomplishing =he NCCPs. These 37 provisions, including by reference any accompanying documents such as the Process Guidelines and ~he Conservation Guidelines, viii delineate the necessary mitigation measures and o~her requirenos of a plan. As signatories Co the document, all the participating entities will be required to abide by the provisions of the program in order to receive the allocation of take that would be authorized by this proposed action. Other Species of Plants and Wildlife The loss of coastal sage scrub habitat that is contemplated through the proposed action is anticipated to have some effect on various species of plants and animals. There are certain species of plants and wildlife chat are known to be associated with CSS, non*native grasslands and certain low elevation chaparral ~rpes that would be most likely to be impacted. Some of these caxa are, in fact, primarily restricted to the geographic boundaries of the NCCP planning area. These species would be most effected by additional losses of CSS and the habitats that adjoin it. Species that depend primarily on CSS are discussed in the section on CSS habitat. The purpose of the NCCP program is to construct a regional context for conservation planning that would benefit the full complement of species in CSS. It is expected that such a program would have some long-term benefits to other habitats that are found in association with CSS. Losses of species in these ocher habitats resulting from the interim losses of CSS discussed here will be addressed through C~OA requirements, as is the case now without the NCCP program. 2. The Social Environment Under the Preferred Alternative, the population growth forecasted for the southern California area would place an increasing demand for residential, commercial, public infrastructure-related development and other activities essential to the community. However, any development that would impact CSS and the gnatcatcher will be limited under the SRP's interim conservation strategy. Projects that are necessary to the economic health of the community or that are needed for public safety (i.e. brush management) or that meet other essential community concerns, as determined by the local jurisdiction, would be allowed as lonS as the total loss of CSS within the subregion is limited to no more than 5% of the existing CSS habitat. The purpose of this interim loss allowance is to provide a mechanism by which local Jurisdictions could proceed with needed development and improvements, alleviating some of the restraints on growth imposed under the ESA prohibitions, while at the same time proceedinS with NCCP planning efforts. Houstn~ Du~lng the interim period for NCCP planning, the tremendous population growth forecasted will require additional housing, along with the public infrastructure support. However, the 5% limit on loss of CSS will limit the amount of housing development and other activities Chat will be able to 38 proceed in the interim. The local Jurisdiction would determine the priority of development or other projects applying for loss of CSS under the 5% limit. Projects that may otherwise have been developed may be halted because the project would consume more than the 5% amount allowed, or ~he local subregional lead/coordina:ing agency determines ~hat other projects ser~e a higher public benefit. Transportation Improvements to existing roadways and additional transportation corridors will need to be built to accommodate the increasing population in the NCCP planning area. As discussed above, the 5% limit on loss of CSS within the subarea will limit transportation corridor construction and improvements which impact CSS, to those projects that are determined to be in the best interest of the community, as determined by the local Jurisdiction. Improvement of roadways which pose significant safety hazards, or ~hat are essential to the community would probably be the types of projects authorized to proceed in the interim period. Agriculture Agricultural use of lands would not be directly impacted by the action proposed under the Preferred Alternative. Lands currently in agricultural use would probably not have CSS or gnatcatchers, thus activities would not be constrained by the prohibitions of the ESA, nor affected by the interim take limit on CSS imposed under the special rule. Agricultural lands with nonintensive uses, or lands ~hat are fallow, will be important considerations for long-term NCCP planning, because of their potential value as linkages between future CSS preserves. A subregional lead/coordinating agency may consider such lands as having long-term value for the subregional conservation plan, and may wish to restrict conversion or development of such land. Some agricultural lands interspersed with CSS habitat could be conserved by the interim NCCP conservation strategy. Employment Development, including employment centers that would impact CSS would be limited in the interim period. However, essential projects. as determined by the local ~g~m~y. would be allowed to Droc~md. Under the Preferred ~lternattve, employment needs would continue to grow as the human population in the planning area grows. Employment centers would continue to be needed in the NCCP planning area. This alternative would allow a limited amount of development of structures needed for workplaces, if such a need was identified by the local Jurisdiction. The loca~ Juri&dict~on wo,,l~ have to consider the needs of housing its workforce along. w~_t. th residential or public infrastructure r~~s, when makinK the determination of which projects to authorize under the special rule. 39 Fire Protection The Preferred Alternative, by allowing a 5% loss of CSS habitat, would give the local Jurisdictions the ability to approve projects that would impact CSS habitat:, as required by local brush management ordinances. This may be necessary to reduce wildfire safety hazards to existing or new development. ~// 1. THE SPECIAL RULE AS PROPOSED, BUT 9/TH NO INTEltIM TAKE ALTERNATIVE The Natural Envirorunent Coastal Sage Scrub Under this alternative loss of CSS that constituted take of &matcatchers would not be authorized until a final subregional NCCP was completed. Except where the NCCP program prevented it, CSS would continue to be lost indirectly, when take of snatcatchers was not involved, throush project by project development.. The NCCP program would continue to develop subregional interim strategies to deal with interim losses of CSS. However, where such losses involved take of Enatcatchers it would require a separate process, i.e. a Section ? or Section 10(a) authorization. This would likely discourage comprehensive long-term planning. Individual projects could continue to develop on a project by project basis with disregard for the implications on a long-term, future preserve system. Without the interim strategy, there would be no regional mechanism for identifying or protecting lands important to a CSS preserve system. This Project by project approach would defeat the purpose of the NCCP Program, which is to take a regional perspective and plan for protection of an ecosystem. This approach would seriously impact the' possibility of creating a CSS NCCP Plan for the long-term. The Service believes that this alternative would remove an important tool needed to address short-term problems. Comprehensive, long-term solutions are needed to adequately provide for the survival of the ~natcatcher and other coastal sage scrub-dependant species. Without a means of addressing short-term problems efficiently, it is anticipated that there will be insufficient attention devoted to comprehensive long-term solutions. Other Natural Habitats Other natural vegetation in and around CSS patches would not be protected during the interim period. The Conservation Guidelines place a high value on lands serving to connect and link larger patches of CSS and provide a strate[y that seeks to minimize loss of such lands. With no interim strateEy in place, there would be no particular protection afforded to these lands. Natural habitats like non-native grasslands and chaparral would continue to be _~developed, under the overview of CEQA requirements, further frasmen=ing the coastal sage scrub with which they are associated. ~0 Coastal California Gnatcatchers Under this Alternative, the Service would not authorize incidental take of the gnatcatcher during the interim period in which an NCCP Plan was being prepared. Incidental take of the bird would only be authorized through the special rule if an NCCP Plan was prepared, approved and implemented pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Sections 2800-28&0 and the Service issued written concurrence that the NCCP Plan meets the issuance criteria for a permit under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The impacts of incidental take authorized in this manner would be addressed in a subsequent Joint state and federal environmental document. Under this Alternative, there would be no direct loss of CSS that would constitute take of gnatcatchers. Without an interim take provision short-term problems would be addressed on a case by case basis. As mentioned above under CSS, this would draw effort away from a more comprehensive long-term solution now underway through the NCCP program. Each project requiring incidental take authorization during the interim period would have to pursue tahis through an individual Section 7 or 10(a) action. Mitigation efforts would likely be more disjointed and long- term planning would be distracted. Other Species of Plants and Wildlife As described above with regard to other natural habitats, we would expect losses of certain taxa to continue without any particular considerations that this interim program might afford. CEQA requirements would still function to assess losses on a case by case basis and provide for mitigation, as appropriate under that law. No regional, comprehensive effort would be in place over an interim program period that might tend to protect core habitat areas. 2. The Social Environment This Alternative would not remove the existing land use constraints placed on lands occupied by the gnatcatcher by the ESA during the interim period in which a NCCP Plan is being prepared. The prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA apply; no take of the species would be allowed in the interim period. The human population would continue to increase, placing greater demands for housing and public infrastructure development. Limits on necessary growth could result in significant economic effects to the area. Projects or activities that wanted to proceed in the interim, but that would impact the gnatcatcher would have to obtain authorization through the section 10(a)(1)(B) or the section 7 process, as appropriate. Also, significant concerns about the ability of local Jurisdictions to protect their communities from wildfires are raised by this Alternative. These impacts would be resolved once the NCCP Plan is completed and approved, and needed development and other activities for fire safety would be able to be developed, as provided for in the NCCP Plan. 41 Housint This alternative would restrict development of housing projects which are needed to accommodate the growing human population, but ~hat would impact the ~natcatcher. This would result in significant economic impacts. Development: of housing and other infrastructure in the interim period would be directly limited by the federal ESA prohibitions against take of the Shatcatcher. Projects that would not result in take of S~atcatchers could proceed through the normal approval process. Projects =hat would impact the Shatcatcher would only be able to proceed wir-h development if federal ESA requirements were satisfied; such projects would have to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan, as~ required under section 10, or, if there was federal nexus, proceed with consultation with the Service under section 7 of the ESA. Transportation This alternative would restrict development of new transportation corridors or modifications to existing roadways that would impact CSS habitat occupied by ~natcatchers, until a NCCP was completed and approved by CDFG and the Service. This would result in increased traffic congestion in the NCCP planning area. Transpornation projects needed during the interim would be required to obtain authorization through the section 10(a)(1)(B) or section 7 processes. A§riculture Like the Preferred Alternative, agricultural use of lands would not be directly impacted by this alternative. Lands currently in agricultural use would probably not have CSS or Shatcatchers, thus activities would not be constrained by the prohibitions of the ESA. Indirectly, there could be increased pressure for agricultural land conversion to accommodate development: that would have otherwise occurred on lands with CSS. A subregional lead/coordinating agency may consider agricultural lands to have long-term value for the subregional conservation plan, and may wish to restrict conversion or development of such land. However, there would be no interim strategy or mechanism that would allow the agency to confer protection to these lands based upon their association with CSS. Hence, under this alternative, there would be greater pressure for development of agricultural lands. Employment As in the Preferred Alternative, employment needs would continue to grow as the human population in the planning area grows. Development of projects thal: would affect the gnatcatcher, including employment centers would continue to be curtailed in the interim period; only once the NCCP was completed and approved could such development proceed as provided for in the NCCP plan. Only by obtaining the Service's approval through the section 7 or section 10(a)(1)(B) processes would projects be able to proceed during the interim pe=iod. Fire Protection This Alternative could result in conflicts between the need to protect human com~unities from wildfires and the federal prohibitions against take of the gnatcatcher. Necessary state or federal brush management programs that involve CSS habitat containing gnatcatchers would be prohibited until the necessary approvals were obtained, even in circumstances were a safety threat was perceived. This alternative would result in si~nificant potential impacts to the ability of a local Jurisdiction or other entity responsible for brush control and resetetlon manasement to protect asainst fire damase. C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Project Alternative, take of gnatcatchers would be prohibited under section 9 of the ESA. Development necessary to accommodate the burseoninS urban srowth anticipated, includinS residential, commercial and other projects necessary to support public infrastructure, or projects with brush manasement requirements in ~natcatcher habitat would have to obtain authorization through the Section 10(a)(1)(B) process, or Section 7 before proceedinS. These constraints on Srowth in t_he southern California needed to accommodate the si~nificant human population Srowth forecasted would have severe economic impacts in the resion. In addition, there would be conflict between local Jurisdiction's ordinances requiring brush manasement for fire control and Section 9 prohibitions asatnst take. 1. The Natural Environment. Coastal Sa~e Scrub Similar to the NCCP Prosram Alternative with No Interim Take Allowed, the No Project Alternative would result in further loss and fragmentation of habitat as projects continue to develop habitat in southern California. There would be less incentive for projects to participate in the NCCF Program, since they would still be required to obtain a Section 10(a) permit (or conduct a Section 7 consultation, as appropriate) for any action that might affect gnatcatchers. As development continues to occur in the Southern California area, coastal sase scrub would continue to be fragmented and lost. Coastal sase scrub impacts would continue to be addressed on a project by project basis. Research on coastal sage scrub manasement and restoration would probably not be initiated, since no one project could Justify such an expense. Biodiversity within the CSS ecosystem would incur substantial losses (CDFG et el, 1992). With no coordinated regional NCCP planninE process to preserve CSS, the survival of the ~natcatcher could be further Jeopardized and may require consideration by the Service for listinS as an endansered species. Other Natural Habitats Other habitat types would continue to diminish due to piecemeal losses from individual projects. The requirements of CEQA would continue to apply. The NCCP program would proceed but without beinS done in conjunction with other important environmental requirements (i.e. ESA take prohibitions). The 43 indirect protection provided to some other habitats that the NCCP effort offers would likely be less effective. Comprehensive, regional planning would receive less effort, diluting efforts that may conserve some other habitat types known to be associated with CSS. Coastal California Gnatcatchers The No Action Alternative would mean that the Service takes no action; the special rule would not be finalized. Take of coastal sage scrub and the coastal California gnatcatcher would be prohibitedby Section 9 of the ESA. Projects that needed to proceed with development plans that impacted CSS would be required to address the criteria included Section 10(a)(1)(B) or, if appropriate, initiate a Section 7 consultation with the Service. There would be no approval of take through a special rule process. As required under the 1991 MOU with CDFG, the Service would continue to support the NCCP Program, but not with federal law, through the ESA. Conservation programs would be disjointed, resulting in a diminished regional effort. A major concern to the long-term conservation of the gnatcatcher, regional habitat conservation planning, would be effected by this action. Less incentive would be available for regional efforts when each project would require separate take authority. Other Species of Plants and Wildlife Similar to the effects to other habitat types, other species of plants and wildlife would continue to be subject to piecemeal losses. With less incentive for regional conservation efforts, other species of plants and wildlife will continue to decline. Conservation of these species would be subject to CEQA requirements and any attending mitigation. 2. The Social Environment Housing The housing needs of the growing human population will continue to increase under the No Project Alternative. Residential and the accompanying infrastructure projects that would impact CSS habitat occupied by the gnatcatcher would have to go through the section 10(a)(1)(B) permitting process or section 7 consultation process, as appropriate. The capacity of existing housing and infrastructure would be saturated. This alternative would have significant economic impacts to the economy of the region. Transportation Construction and modification of needed transportation corridors would be restricted. Projects that would affect the gnatcatcher would have to obtain the Service's approval through either the section 10(a)(1)(B) or section 7 process in order to proceed with development. As the human population increases, more and more demands will be placed upon the existing 44 transportation systems, resultin§ in ever greater congestion. This would be a significant impact to the already congested southern California region. F. mployment Job decentralization is expected to increase with =he expanding population, placing demands on the transportation system and on new development to accommodate this growth. As discussed above, =he prohibitions of section 9 will restrict needed development for projects which impact the snatcatcher. This restriction would result in fewer Jobs within the NCCP planning area, and could result in Jobs leaving the area for places where endangered species restrictions would not curtail the ability to expand. This would result in si~nificant economic impacts. A~rtculture Under the No Project Alternative, lands currently in agricultural use and that did not have ~natcatchers would not be constrained by the prohibitions of the ESA. ~htle no direct impacts would result however, indirect effects on agricultural lands would occur. The trend of agricultural land conversion to other land uses seen over the past decade in the would probably increase as a result of the proposed action. With development constraints placed upon lands with gnatcatchers by the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, urban development would be steered towards lands used for agricultural or other related purposes. A significant amount of agricultural land could be indirectly lost under this alternative. Fire Protection This alternative would result in si~niftcant conflicts between brush management activities necessary for human safety or for protection of other resources. Under the No Action Alternative, brush management activities on lands that would involve take of the ~natcatcher would be prohibited. Brush management activities that would involve take of the ShatCatcher would have to receive authorization from the Service through the section 10(a)(1)(B) or section 7 processes. This could mean that an HCP would be required in order for a residential development project to implement a local Jurisdiction's fire protection ordinance. Public safety could be compromised by the delay in implementing a local brush management ordinance. 45 D. CUHULATIYE IHPACTS The Preferred Alternative is the only alternative in which incidental take of =he ~na=ca=cher would be au~horized during =he interim period in which a NCCP was being prepared. The action in =he Preferred Alternative considers =he impact of an unknown number of individual projects =ha= together would result in a cumulative impact of no more than 5% of ~he existing CSS habitat, and a limited take of &matcatchers. The proposed mitigation described under =he Preferred Alternative would adequately mitigate for =he proposed taking, as described in ~'hap=ers 2 and 4 of =his EA. 46 CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A. LIST OF PRIgPARERS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Cindy Barry Linda Dawes Nancy Gilbert Gail Koberich-- Larry Solata Peter Stine Tara Wood Richard Zembal Regional Soltcitor's Office: Lynn Cox California Department of Fish and Game: Larry Eng Dave Lawhead Martin Mucshinske Bill Tippetts and The Resources Agency: Carole Whiteside Michael Mantell Thomas Reid, consultant to the State B. LIST OF WHOM THE DRAFT EA WAS SENT The Draft EA was sent to Federal, State, and local agencies, and other interested parties as required under NEPA (40 CFR 1502.19). The list to whom the document was sent is included in Appendix G of this EA. C. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Resources Agency, State of California and the Service have involved a diverse group of participants in the NCCP Planning Process. Three public workshops were held (see ~hapter 1) to discuss the implications of the NCCP Process Guidelines and the conservation strategy outlined in the Conservation 47 Guidelines. These workshops also provided a forum for NCCP participants co provide input into ~he process. A Federal Resister notice was published July 20, 1993, no=ifytng =he public of reopeninS of ~he commen= period for =he proposed special rule, and announcing public hearinss =o be held Ausus= 9, 1993 inSan Dieso County, Ausus= 11 in Oranse CounTy and Ausus= 12 in San Diego CounTy. The Federal Regis=er no=ice also no=ified =he public of =he availabiliTy of =he draf= EA. CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES Armstrong, Scott. 1993. California: the first 'world state.'Christtan Science Monitor, v85, n98, April, 3, col 4, 8 col in. Bussard, P. & D. Murphy. August 1992 "SubreEionalization for Natural Community Conservation PlarulinE. California Department of Fish and Game. 1993a. Report on the status at the Natural Communities Conservation PlanninE ProEram 1991-1992. California Department of Fish and Game. 1993b. Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation PlanninE, Draft Conservation Guidelines. California Department of Fish and Game,et al. 1992. Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning Process Guidelines. California. Department of Finance. 1991. California Statistical Abstract. California. Legislature. Assembly. Science and Technology Advisory Council. 1971. California population problems and State policy: a report to the Assembly General Research Committee, California LeEislature/Assembly Science and Technology Advisory Council. ~J~p. California. Legislature. Senate. Select Committee on Planning for California's Growth. 1988. Growth management: s,,mmary report from the Joint interim hearing of the Senate Select Committee on PlanninE for California's Growth and the Senate Local Government Committee/California Legislature, Senate Select Committee on planning for California's Growth; Senate Committee on Local Government. Sacramento, CA:Joint Publications. 358 p. Crumpacker, D.W., S.W. Hodge, D. Friedley, and W.P. Gregg, Jr. 1988. A preliminary assessment of the status of major terrestrial and wetland ecosystems on federal and Indian lands in the United States. Conservation Biology. 2:103-115 Fulton, William. 1992. Guide to California Planning. Point Arena:Solano Press Books. Gorman, Tom. 1991. Desert bloom. (Bedroom communities of Temecula and Murrieta suffer from population explosion) Los Angeles Times, vl10, Nov, A3, co13, 36 col in. Hubler, Shawn. 1992. 6-million rise in southland population by 2010 forcast. LOs Angeles Times, vlll, 23 July 1992, A1, col 5, 23 col in. 49 Klopacek, J.H., R.J. Olson, C.J. Emerson, and J.L. Jones. 1979. Land-use conflicts with navural vegetation in ~he United States. Environmental Conservation, Vol. 6 (3): 191-199. Hurphy, D. 1992. An NCCP Special Report: The California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel: Ic's purpose and approach. NCCP/CSS Special Report No. I - February 1992. Hichael BrandmanAssociaces. 1991. Unpublished job report: rangewide assessment of the California snacca~cher (Poliop:ila californica). Prepared for the Building Industry Association of Southem Califomia. 22p. Ogden Environmental and Enery Services. 1992. Preliminary vege=ation map of the HulCtspecies Conservation Planning Area, San D£ego County. O'Leary J. ec el. O'Leary, D. Hurphy, P. Brussard, Hatch 1992. An NCCP Special Report: The Coastal Sage Scrubs Co--,unicy. Conservation Planning Region O'Leary, J.., D. Hurphy, and P. Brussard. 1992. An NCCP Special Report: The Coastal Sage Scrub Community Conservation Planning Region. Special Report No. 2. Prepared by the NCCP $cien:ific Review Panel. 5p. Pacific Southwest Biological Services. 1988. Vegetation map of Camp Pendeleon, San Diego County. (1:42,000 map). Regional Environmental Consulcan=s (RECON). 1991. Vegetation types in western Riverside County: distribution maps and acreage totals. (1:95,000 maps). · San Diego Association of Governments, Agenda Report BOD Regional Growth Forcas=s: Preliminary Forcase (1990-2010). San Diego, October 24, 1991, R~-25, lop. Southern California Association of GovernmenCs. 1989.Riverside County Board of Supervisors 1989 Annual Grow~ Report. Los Angeles. Sou=hern California Association of Governments. 1989. Regional Grow=h HanagemenC Plan. Los Angeles. Southern California Association of Governments. 1989. Regional Hobilicy Plan. Los Angeles. Times-Herald. 1993. Study forecasts poulaCion explosion for California. Weintraub, Daniel M. 1993. 'Report predtc=s 60 million in sca=e by 2040." Los Angeles Times,vii2, 14 April 1993, A3, col 2, 10 col. in. Westman, W. E. 1981. Diversity relations and succession in California coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62: 170-184. 5O APPENDIX A 1991 MEMO~ OF UNDERSTANDING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BET'WEEN THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AND THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGARDING COASTAL SAGE SCRUB NATURAL COMMUNITY;, CONSERVATION PLANNING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) implements a policy of coordination and cooperation by and between the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) regarding the development of conservation strategies for effective, long-term protection of the Coastal Sage Scrub natural community and its associated ser~sitive species in southern California. WHEREAS: Published estimates indicate that 85 to 90 percent of Coastal Sage Scrub in California has been lost as a result of urban and agricultural development. There are 13 species of animals and plants associated with Coastal Sage Scrub that are on either State or Federal lists of endangered, threatened or' rare species. The Service has proposed the coastal California gnatcatcher (Po/iopt//a ca//fornica californica) for Federal listing as an endangered species. Fifty-six additional species of animals and plants associated with Coastal Sage Scrub are considered to be sensitive, including over 30 species that are candidates for Federal listing. California's human population has soared and is expected to reach over 40 mirlion by early in the next century. The decade of the 1990s poses unprecedented challenges to Federal, State and local agencies responsible for conserving Coastal Sage Scrub in southern California. Ecologically sound conservation actions must be implemented in order to give long-term protection to the remaining Coastal Sage Scrub habitats in southern California. MOU: DFG/USFWS (NCCP) PAGE TWO Future conservation planning in California wiJl require protecting larger landscape units, taking into account the distribution and life history requirements of multiple species that require specific habitats. The Department has proposed a new approach to address the conservation of California's natural heritage -- NATURAL COMMUNI'TY CONSERVATION PLANNING (NCCP) -- which has been authorized by recent legislation. 10. The Del~artment has initiated a pilot NCCP effort for the Coastal Sage Scrub community in southern CalifOrnia. 11. The goal of NCCP is to conserve viable populations of California's nat',ive animals and plants, and their habitats. 12. The goal of NCCP for Coastal Sage Scrub is to identify a scientifically- justified system of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat areas to be managed 'l~or its ecological values and the long-term protection of multiple species of interest. 13. The NCCP Program shall be an innovative, community-level approach to the conservation of the Coastal Sage Scrub natural community and shall not be considered as abrogating current responsibilities of the State and Federal governments pursuant to the endangered species acts or for recovery actions or management which would otherwise be required pursuant to those acts. THE DEPARTMENT AND THE SERVICE SHALL IMPLEMENT AS FOLLOWS: The Department shall be responsible for developing the NCCP process and guidelines with Service review and concurrence. The agencies will work together to assure that NCCPs are designed ~o facilitate compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a) permit requirements and the California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 permit requirements. NCCPs so designed shall be sufficient to meet actions which otherwise may be required pursuant 1:o the State and Federal acts. There shall be public involvement in the development of the NCCP process and in the scoping and review of individual NCCP documents. MOU: DFG/USFWS {NCCP) PAGE THREE o A Scientific Review Panel (SRPJ, currently consisting of Drs. Peter Brussard, Michael Gilpin, Dennis Murphy, Reed Noss and John O'Leary has been established to recommend, appropriate survey methods, conservation biology techniques, and species and habitat protection needs for Coastal Sage Scrub and associated sensitive species. Information and analysis undertaken by the SRP shall be presumed to constitute the best information available until, and unless, further credible analysis and investigation show the contrary. All data and information relating to'Coastal Sage Scrub and associated sensitive species, including data used by the SRP in the preparation of its recommended survey methods and conservation guidelines shall be shared. Agencies shall jointly review the SRP's scope of work and recommended survey methods and conservation guidelines. AUTHORITY: Nothing in this MOU shall be construed as limiting or affecting in any way the authority of the parties to this MOU. LIMITATIONS AND AMENDMENTS: No alteration or variation of the terms of this MOU shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties to this MOU. In addition, no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated in this MOU shall be binding on either of the parties to this MOU. This MOU may be amended by either party upon consent, in writing, of both parties to this MOU. TERMINATION: This agreement shall remain in force and effect until termination by the Department or the Service. Such termination shall be effective upon 30 days' notice in writing. This MOU has been executed by and on behalf of the parties hereto as of the date last signed below: Date · Turner, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pete Bontadelli, Director California Department of Fish and Game Date Marvin L. Plenert, Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date APPENDIX B CONSERVATION GUIDELINES NATURAL SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA COASTAL SAGE SCRUB COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLANNING Draft Conservation Guidelines July 20, 1993 Published by: California Department of Fish and Game and California Resources Agency 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Larry Eng, PhD. Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program Manager Tel: 916-653-9767 Fax: g16-653-2588 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .............................................. ~.' 1 2. Foundation ................................................ 1 a. Premises on CSS ecology ................................. b. Premises on the conservation challenge ....................... 2 c. Premises on timing ...................................... 4 3. Conservation Planning Guidance ................................. 4 a. The interim strategy ..................................... 4 b. The research agenda .................................... 5 c. Management and restoration ............................... 7 d. Application to subregional planning .......................... 8 4. Implementing Interim Strategy ................................... 9 Determining Potential Long-term Conservation Value ................... 10 a. Ranking land for interim protection ........................... 10 b. Evaluation process ........................................ 11 c. Evaluation methods ......................................... 12 o Policy .................................................... 14 a. Pending approval of subregional NCCP ....................... 14 b. With approved subregional NCCP ........................... 14 c. In the absence of a subregional NCCP ........................ 14 Attachment A. Attachment B. Attachment C. Generalized Map of Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat ............. 15 Subregional Focus Areas ............................. 16 Evaluation Logic Flow Chart ........................... 17 7/20/93 DRAFT ~ONSERVATION GUIDEUN£$ P~ge I 1. Introduction This document presents draft Conservation Guidelines for the Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) process. The guidelines are published by the California Department of Fish and Game. The guidelines were prepared in coordination among the Department, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), and are based on technical review by and recommendations from the SRP. These guidelines are intended to be used along with the NCCP Process Guidelines also published by the California Department of Fish and Game. The SRP was commissioned by the Department and the Service to review available scientific information to assist in preparation of the Conservation Guidelines. The review addresses information available as of March 1993 and is described in "Scientific Review Panel Conservation Guidelines and Documentation,' which is available from the Department. 2. Foundation a. Premises on CSS ecology CSS vegetation is dominated by a characteristic suite of shrub species in southern California. The composition of coastal sage scrub vegetational subcommunities may vary substantially depending on physical circumstances and the successional status of the habitat. An explicit definition of CSS and a description of its constituent species has been recommended by the SRP. (See Special Report No. 2, March 1992.) A generalized map of CSS and a summary description is included in Attachment A. While a variety of species are characteristic of CSS, no single animal or plant species readily serves as a consistent and entirely reliable indicator of CSS conditions across the entirety of the distribution of the habitat in southern California. Rather, many species dependent on CSS are found in only certain subsets of the community, and, conversely, many nominal CSS species are widely distributed in non-CSS habitats. Nonetheless, a suite of "target" species has been identified by the SRP that are useful as a surrogate for planning purposes. Species other than target species that have been identified as deserving special consideration on account of possible rarity or endangermerit are referred to as species of concern. These are state or federal candidates for listing. (See SRP Survey Guidelines, February 1992.) Target species are three vertebrates that are among the community's most visible imperiled organisms: California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and orange- throated whiptail lizard. Their distributions embrace the majority of the geographic range of southern California CSS. 4. Many species that depend on coastal sage scrub exhibit transitory habitat occupancy, along with short lifetimes, high potential rates of reproduction, 7/20/93 , DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Page o limited home ranges, dramatic population fluctuations, and great susceptibility to local extirpation. Because of population fluctuations and routine local extirpation and recolonization events, a single point-in-time appraisal of the presence or absence of a species on an individual parcel of land does not reliably indicate the parcel's long-term potential value or importance as habitat. CSS may convert to chaparral or grassland, depending on slope, aspect, climate, fire history, and other physical factors and biological phenomena; conversely, chaparral or grassland areas may convert to CSS. CSS is a naturally patchy vegetation community. Over a scale of several miles, it is found in diverse habitat mosaics with other ecological communities. While there are species dependent on coastal sage scrub, these species do not always exhibit a clear tendency to occupy areas of continuous coastal sage scrub. Rather, vegetation components of coastal scrub habitat in mosaics with other habitat types may provide habitat for target species and other species of concern. b. Premises on the conservation challenge o The southern California CSS planning region has been severely degraded by past urbanization and agricultural land conversion. Certain subhabitats, such as those at low elevation, those close to the coast, and those with lesser slope, have been disproportionally affected and many have experienced local losses of some species. Threats to CSS habitat are more than losses of total habitat area alone. Threats also include losses of distinct CSS subtypes and losses of the special conditions needed to maintain the broad suite of CSS-resident species. (See discussion in Attachment A.) Conversion of natural land has also severed connections among remnant habitat patches resulting in their increased isolation. Connections among habitat patches are critical to the long-term survival of CSS species. Because CSS is found naturally admixed with other vegetation communities, the best conservation strategy for CSS is to protect large areas of native vegetation that include biologically significant patches of CSS. Under present conditions, few CSS-dominated lands are of sufficient extent to ,be self-sustaining. A status quo strategy of "benign neglect" management likely will result in substantial further losses of CSS biodiversity. Habitat areas large enough to be self-sustaining should not be significantly reduced in size and they should be actively managed in ways responsive to pertinent new information as it accrues. z/~o/~3 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Page o o 10. 11. 12. The CSS community is inherently dynamic and should be managed to retain fts capacity to support the broad range of CSS species over the long term. Under an adaptive management regime that provides for natural successional dynamics, a reserve system that consists of smaller habitat areas that are appropriately managed could have a greater likelihood of maintaining CSS biodiversity than a system of larger habitat areas that are unmanaged. The techniques associated with such a management regime, however, have not been fully developed. CSS conservation will require appropriate levels of participation by public agencies responsible for publicly owned land that contains CSS or that serves as linkages between reserves. State and local government can participate through the NCCP process and federal agency land owners can participate through federal programs coordinated with NCCPs. Although important to thE; integrity of regional conservation efforts, not enough CSS exists in public ownership for public land to be the sole basis of a reserve network. Within the southern California region as a whole, roughly a dozen biologically defined subregions, designed around extensive habitat areas can be identified based on geography, the ecological characteristics of CSS species, and patterns of past land use. Each subregion exhibits distinct local conditions that will affect the conservation approach to be used. Each subregion will need to meet explicit conservation objectives to promote ecosystem stability at both subregional and regional levels. Each subregion will need to provide for conservation of the three target species. Despite the extent of current threats, the majority of the species inhabiting the CSS do not appear to be in imminent danger of regional extinction. Some small amount of short-term habitat loss can be tolerated as long as it is ultimately counter-balanced by adequate long-term enhancement efforts. A few, small-scale efforts at CSS restoration and enhancement have been attempted; these examples indicate that net enhancement of habitat quality may be attainable. Furthermore, ecological studies of CSS show natural recovery from disturbance suggesting that active restorative projects may be successful. Information available to the SRP supports a conservative estimate of 5% habitat quality enhancement potential for existing CSS habitat. This potential for mitigation leads to a corresponding estimate of 5% short-term habitat loss that can be tolerated in any subregion. A level of enhancement beyond 5% may be possible and with adequate scientific information, improved prospects for enhancement can be the basis for allowing a greater than 5% loss of habitat. Land of high priority for inclusion in a reserve system can be identified based on a combination of size, location, and quality criteria. The impact' of an overall 5% loss of CSS habitat area can be further reduced by avoiding losses of higher priority habitat. 7/20/93 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Page 4 c. Premises on timing The southern California planning region is too large to be planned as a single unit. For conservation planning purposes, the region needs to be divided into subregions that are based on both biological and political considerations. The scale and focus of the subregions has been defined by the SRP (Subregional Planning Document, May 1992, revised August 1992). The focus area map is included as Attachment B. Subregional conservation planning will progress at different rates due to different local economic conditions. Some subregions are ready to initiate NCCP planning now; others may not participate for several years. Some subregions may break into subareas which may plan at different times. Scientific information available to the SRP does not support a conservation plan that would lead to significant losses of CSS habitat. Despite recent efforts to address this data shortfall, there is still a lack of scientific information on important aspects of CSS biology that may be necessary to formulate and implement a long-term plan. Land owners and local governments should initiate the subregional planning process and identify and begin to fill information needs specific to that subregion. The extent of additional information needed, hence the time and effort needed, depends on the extent of projected habitat losses within a subregion. The amount of additional data necessary for decision-making will be minimal where subregional habitat losses are expect-ed to be minimal or where adequate mitigation for losses can be demonstrated conclusively. Conversely, where greater habitat loss is proposed or where mitigation entails unproven technologies, data needs will be greater. Subregions are encouraged to formulate NCCPs for approval by CDFG and USFWS as early as possible. One element of a NCCP must be an assessment of the status of scientific information in the subregion. A NCCP can be approved for implementation in phases despite a need for scientific information. Implementation of each phase of the plan must be adequately supported by scientific information. 6. Short-term habitat conversion should not foreclose future long-term conservation planning options. 3. Conservation Planning Guidance a. The interim strategy O Short-term losses of habitat should be minimized so as to not foreclose future conservation planning options until such time as long-term enhancement programs are formulated. 7/20/93 DRAFT CONSE~VATiON ~UIDEUNES Page 5 0 Total intedm loss should be limited to 5% of CSS habitat in any individual subregion. O To the maximum degree practicable, the 5% loss should be limited to areas with smaller populations of target species. O To the maximum degree practicable, the 5% loss should not disproportionally impact specific subunits of the environmental gradient in each subregion (as defined by vegetation subcommunity, latitude, elevation, distance from coast, slope, aspect or soil type). During the interim period, subregional and subarea planning should strive to protect areas of higher long-term conservation value - defined by extent of CSS habitat, proximity of that habitat to other habitat, value as landscape linkages or corridors, or presence of target species or other species of concern - until a subregional plan can be put in place. Development pressure should be directed toward areas that have lower long- term conservation value. Such habitat areas are smaller in extent, are more isolated, have limited value as landscape linkages, and support comparatively fewer individuals of target species. O Planning should ensure that all interim habitat losses are adequately mitigated or should contribute to an interim subregional mitigation program that will be subsumed in the long-term subregional NCCP as specified in the Process Guidelines. b. The research agenda The following research program can resolve unanswered questions that bear on the conservation of target species that inhabit coastal sage scrub and the biodiversity associated with that community. The SRP recommends six interactive research tasks. Biogeography and Inventory of CSS. The basic extent and distribution of CSS vegetation and its constituent species should be adequately mapped for the region and each subregion. This information will be required to support any subregional plan. The comprehensive literature review of CSS initiated by the SRP should be expanded and kept current. For the southern California region, maps of the planning region should be provided at a scale of 1:100,000, with minimum mapping units of 100 ha (250 acres) and a minimum resolution of 100 m (330 feet). Ideally these maps would be GlS-based. Data layers should include vegetation, urban and agricultural land use, land ownership, topography, climate, distribution of target species, and available information on species of concern. 7/20/93 DRAFT CONSERVA 770N GUIDEDIVES l~age $ For each subregion, GIS-based maps (or accurate manually drawn maps based on similar data) should be provided at a scale of 1:24,000 with minimum mapping units of 10 ha (25 acres) and minimum resolution of 30 m (100 feet). Data layers should include those required for regional planning as well as specific conditions relevant to the subregion, with great emphasis on ground- truthing and verification of data. Trends in biodiversity. It is the intent of the NCCP to preserve a substantial representation of the biodiversity associated with CSS. Better information on the effect of reserve size and adjoining land uses on biodiversity would help planning decisions. Monitoring of select taxa is necessary to assess the ongoing success of CSS community conservation efforts. Indicator taxa (such as CSS dependent birds, small mammals, and butterflies) should be employed clue to time and funding constraints. The relationships between species richness/composition and habitat patch area and the effects of isolation should be investigated in sampling programs. These sampling programs will entail surveys for species richness and composition within a carefully selected series of CSS patches in each subregion. Dispersal characteristics and landscape corridor use. More information about dispersal limitations of CSS species would help planning for adequate linkages between reserves and reveal trade-offs between increasing reserve size and improving corridors. Dispersal information adequate to allow tests of sensitivity of metapopulation models to connectivity are required. Data from several locations within the planning region during both breeding and non- breeding seasons should be gathered on target species, mountain lions, coyotes, and representative small mammals and invertebrates. Demography and population viability analysis. One test of the potential effectiveness of reserve systems is population viability analysis. Time-series data on the two target species of birds should be gathered in at least half the subregions and from representative physical circumstances that span those found across the regional distributions of the species. Data should include territory size, time budgets, reproductive success, survivorship, emigration and immigration, with separate data obtained both for males and females where possible. Population viability analyses should be carried out for sample populations and metapopulations, and should consider connectivity and environmental effects. Surveys and autecological studies of sensitive animals and plants. Basic information on the location, abundance, distribution, and natural history of vertebrate and invertebrate candidate species for federal protection and CSS- associated plant species of special concern should be gathered from select sites throughout the planning region. Each subregional planning exercise should contribute to this regional effort. Genetic Studies. The maintenance of genetic variation is critical to the long- term viability of species inhabiting CSS and will be an important aspect of 7/20/93 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Page monitoring populations under a NCCP. Declining genetic variation will be one symptom of inadequate linkages between reserves and can signal a need for changes in reserve management. Baseline data for comparison with future conditions should be gathered at the earliest possible opportunity. Target species and several invertebrates should be sampled from several locations in each subregion. Most genetic data can be obtained with non-destructive sampling techniques in conjunction with other studies that require handling of individual animals. c. Management and restoration Management and restoration practices should be addressed as part of a we!l- coordinated research program. Management and restoration research will be valuable to subregional NCCP planning. Even after a NCCP is adopted, ongoing restoration research will be essential to adaptive management of coastal sage scrub habitat. The California Department of Fish and Game in collaboration with the US Fish and Wildlife Service will convene a committee of experienced practitioners in the management and restoration of coastal sage scrub habitats to develop guidelines for such activities. This committee should review pertinent documents and address the current state of knowledge in the following areas key to the management of coastal sage scrub: o Exotic species control, including both animals (in particular, cowbirds and ferai and domestic mesopredators such as house cats and introduced red foxes) and plants (weedy species, especially annual species of old wodd origin) o Recreational use of coastal sage scrub and other open space reserve areas, including identification of suitable low impact recreational pursuits consistent with preservation goals. o The role of fire in natural ecosystem dynamics and processes, including the application of control bums and the control of ignitions of accidental and vandal origin. Restoration considerations to be addressed in well-designed field experiments include: Identification of restoration unit sizes, including identification of maximum areas: that are restorable using current techniques. A focus on patch enlargement techniques is advised. Identification of coastal sage scrub responses to soil conditions in restoration efforts, with focus on soil structure, soil nutrient levels, organic matter content, water holding capacity, and soil compaction. Identification of appropriate seeding, outplanting, and irrigation techniques with focuses on proper mixes of seeds, seeding techniques, and timing of applications of seed and irrigation. Identification of techniques to encourage native herbaceous species and to discourage the establishment of exotic species. Establishment of realistic success criteria to evaluate restoration considering sage species diversity and cover, and use by target species. 7/'20/93 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUID£UNES Page The management and restoration committee will be expected to design multifactorial field experiments at appropriate spatial scales using explicit and repeatable scientific method to aid in differentiating among alternative techniques. Since treatments will in all likelihood vary with physical circumstances, local vegetation composition and structure, and other unique conditions, each subregional planning unit will be expected to contribute to the regional management and restoration research effort. d. Application to subregional planning The biogeography research task will provide mapping of physical features, land uses, and vegetation to portray the options for the design of a subregional reserve and corridor network. The other research tasks will assist planners in evaluating conservation planning options by documenting species distributions and relative abundances within each subregion, by identifying the sizes and configurations of habitat patches necessary to sustain stable demographic units of target species, and by assessing the physical characteristics of landscape corridor linkages required to facilitate dispersal, gone flow, and recolonization by species inhabiting the coastal sage scrub community. Based on this information, subregional NCCPs will designate a system of interconnected reserves designed to: 1) promote biodiversity, 2) provide for high likelihoods for persistence of target species in the subregion, and 3) provide for no net loss of habitat value from the present, taking into account management and enhancement. No net loss of habitat value means no net reduction in the ability of the subregion to maintain viable populations of target species over the long-term. The NCCP will need to establish a wide range of habitat management and enhancement tools and incorporate a monitoring program to provide guidance for ongoing management. With improved techniques for management and restoration, the goal of no net loss of habitat value may be attainable even if there is a net loss of habitat acreage. Several basic tenets of reserve design should be applied to each subregion: Conserve target species throughout the planning area: Species that are well-distributed across their native ranges are less susceptible to extinction than are species confined to small portions of their ranges. Larger reserves are better: Large blocks of habitat containing large populations of the target species are superior to small blocks of habitat containing small populations. 3. Keep reserve areas close: Blocks of habitat that are close to one another are better than blocks of habitat far apart. 4. Keep habitat contiguous: Habitat that occurs in less fragmented, contiguous blocks is preferable to habitat that is fragmented or isolated by urban lands. 7/20/93 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Pages 9 Unk reserves with corridors: Interconnected blocks of habitat serve conservation purposes better than do isolated blocks of habitat. Corridors or linkages function better when the habitat within them resembles habitat that is preferred by target species. 6. Reserves should be diverse: Blocks of habitat should contain a diverse representation of physical and environmental conditions. Protect reserves from encroachment: Blocks of habitat that are roadless otherwise inaccessible to human disturbance serve to better conserve target species than do accessible habitat blocks. 4. Implementing Interim Strategy The interim strategy can be implemented in steps as specified in the Process Guidelines. These are summarized below with comments: 1. Establish each subregional NCCP planning body according to process guidelines. Designate subregions. Focus areas have been designated by the SRP. Local jurisdictions are to draw the actual boundaries between focus areas to designate subregions for NCCP planning. Ideally, them should be one subregion for each focus area. However, subregional boundaries can be drawn for planning purposes according to convenient jurisdictional boundaries. Divisions along county boundaries are appropriate, and there is value to coordinating planning on a large scale. However, the 5% intedm area loss cap will apply to each biologically defined subregion. Large subregions must meet the objective of limiting short-term CSS losses on a biologically valid scale, and some further subdivision of a large planning subregion into appropriately sized biological subareas for the purpose of accounting for intedm habitat loss may be necessary. Inventory CSS habitat and species in subregion. As of winter 1993, basic inventory work on vegetation mapping has been completed. Species surveys, however, are largely incomplete, but comprehensive species surveys are not critical to intedm effort. The Planning Agreement establishing a subregion will specify what other species, if any, in addition to the target species will be explicitly addressed in planning for that subregion. Individual parcels that are considered for development will need to be surveyed for those species. e Determine long-term conservation value of lands in subregion. See evaluation process and evaluation methodology, below. All CSS habitat in the subregion is to be evaluated and mapped. Calculate CSS habitat area and compute 5% interim loss cap for each subregion. All CSS habitat in the subregion is to be counted to compute the basis for the 5% lntedm..Ioss, including all publicly and privately owned land. The most inclusive definition of CSS should be used. There is no minimum parcel size threshold for consideration, although the minimum mapping unit for the subregion (e.g. 25 acres), or 7,/'20/93 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDEUNES Page 10 some other threshold limit may be appropriate for determining habitat areas that are 'too small to count.' Where a planning subregion has been drawn on a scale larger than the focus areas identified by the SRP, the subregion may need to be divided into smaller subareas that are adequate to account for interim CSS losses. The baseline should reflect the extent of CSS as of March 25, 1993, the time the SRP conservation strategy recommendation was made and the USFWS listing of the CaJifomia gnatcatcher was published. Only those projects aJready approved by CDFG and USFWS and explicitly meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act should be excluded from the baseline. The baseline calculation and designation of subareas for accounting must be verified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the CaJifomia Department of Fish and Game. Establish an entity to serve as a central clearing house to account for cumulative habitat loss in each subregion. That entity will advise local land use jurisdictions. The entity could be the NCCP planning body, a council of governments, or a wildlife agency. Some provision will need to be made to coordinate and to account for state projects, or for utility or transportation projects that cross subregional boundaries. Identify interim mitigation requirements for all development on CSS habitat. This would best be done by the subregional NCCP planning body; it must be established in a subregional planning agreement or another written document requiring concurrence of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. The provisions for intedm mitigation measures will need to be applied by local jurisdictions and may include a requirement that the landowner receiving approval for interim CSS take will make an appropriate commitment to continue to participate in the overall subregional NCCP program. It is recognized that full mitigation may not be practical during the intedm pedod because reserve acquisition programs and enhancement techniques have not been established. However, an approved subregional NCCP will eventually mitigate intedm losses. In the intedm phase, adequate mitigation for losses of lower value habitat may range from payment of a fee to purchase or to set aside higher value habitat. Management and restoration efforts undertaken as mitigation dudng the intedm program w~l add to the overall ability of these conservation tools to be employed more successfully in the future. Identify and fill scientific information needs for long-term planning. Appropriate scientific research tasks will vary from subregion to subregion depending on the amount of information available, the amount of habitat conversion proposed, and the conservation strategies being considered. Scientific research must be coordinated with region-wide efforts. The timing and funding for subregional research may need to be phased with staged implementation of a plan. 9. Complete and implement subregional NCCP according to process guidelines. 5. Determining Potential Long-term Conservation Value a. Ranking land for interim protection CSS and some associated non-CSS natural lands need to be evaluated and ranked for interim protection. Interim protection should be afforded to lands that are likely to be important to long-term conservation planning options due to CSS patch size and density, location, and biologic components. 7,/20/93 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Page ? 1 Higher potential value: To determine areas of potential long-term conservation value, large, relatively dense areas of CSS must be identified. These are termed Higher Value Districts and are possible core areas for a reserve system.~ They need to be identified early in the planning process and protected from habitat loss and fragmentation while planning is under way. ~e methodology described below places 50% of the CSS in a subregion in the higher potential value category. Intermediate potential value: Lands that probably can not be managed as independent reserves, but which by virtue of high quality, or proximity or linkage to the Higher Value Districts should be treated as potentially significant for subregional conservation planning. Lower potential value: Land considered to have lower potential long-term conservation value will be that remaining after the higher potential value districts and the intermediate value areas have been identified. Small, isolated CSS patches (especially those surrounded by urban lands) with relatively small populations should be considered of low long-term potential value. Development of these lands could result in a take of small numbers of individuals of target species and would probably not affect the long-term viability of target species or other species of concern. Overall, an estimated 10% to 25% of the CSS in a subregion would fall into the lower potential value category. For the ranking approach to interim habitat loss to function, it is important that a significant amount of land be classed as lower value. The criteda for identifying higher and intermediate value land should be adapted to local conditions. b. Evaluation process Each subregion needs to show interim protection for higher potential value lands on a map. The step-down evaluation process is outlined here. Large, dense areas of CSS are the Higher potential value lands. Natural lands that occur in linkages, that are close to possible core CSS areas, or that have high species richness are considered Intermediate potential value lands. Remaining CSS is considered to have Lower potential value. The guideline policy for local government treatment of thE; Higher, Intermediate, and Lower potential value lands during the interim period is given in section 6. A flow chart illustrating the logic is included as Attachment C. Natural Land: Is natural vegetation present?. Yes: Check CSS presence (#2) No: Not relevant for reserve planning. e CSS: Is CSS present?. Yes: Check large size (#3) No: Check landscape linkages (#5) 7/'20/93 DRAFT CONSF_~VATION GUIDELINES Page 12 Large Size: Is CSS the most dense CSS in subregion? Yes: Land forms a Higher Value Distrfct No: Check proximity (#4) Proximity: Is land close to Higher Value District?. Yes: Land is Intermediate V, alue No: Check landscape linkages (#5) Landscape Linkages: !s land located in corridor between Higher Value Districts? Yes: Land is Intermediate Value No: Check species presence (#6) o Species Presence: Does land support high density of target species? Does land support significant populations of highly endemic species or rare sub-habitat types? Yes: Land is Intermediate Value No: Land is Lower Value c. Evaluation methods Natural Land: Natural land is land with a significant cover of natural vegetation. Natural vegetation in this context includes all native California natural communities and includes forestlands, shrublands, native and non-native grasslands, non-irrigated land, grazed land, and vacant or disturbed natural land. Natural land excludes lands subject to intensive agriculture and urban uses. Disturbed land or land recently cleared may still be restorable and should De included in the evaluation. The California Department of Conservation Farmlands Mapping and Monitoring Program is one way to identify natural lands: natural lands are areas classified as "grazing" or "other.' Generally, land not mapped by the Department of Conservation can be assumed to be natural in eastern portions of the study area and urban in western portions. Coastal Sage Scrub: CSS includes landscape areas supporting primary or secondary cover of characteristic CSS plant species dominants as defined by the SRP, Special Report No. 2, March 1992. A generalized map of CSS and a summary description is attached as Attachment A. 3. Large Size: The largest CSS patches in the subregion should be considered as possible core areas for future reserves. Because CSS distribution is naturally patchy, patch size needs to represent presence of CSS habitat at an intermediate spatial scale and needs to integrate over minor fragmentation and differences in vegetation mapping methodologies. Habitat patches should not be discounted as "too small" merely because they are mixed with other natural vegetation types. It is, however, appropriate to exclude landscape areas that are highly urbanizecl. 7/20/93 DRAFT OONSERVA TION GUIDEDIVES Page, 13 o The objective of the evaluation process is to identify larger patches of CSS in the subregion. These are the Higher Value Districts. The method of finding t~e larger patches can be adjusted to conditions present in each subregion. The SRP recommends determining the percent of CSS cover in a neighborhood around individual CSS patches. When the entire subregion is evaluated, those patches of CSS habitat with the highest percent CSS cover in the neighborhood, cumulatively representing 50% or more of all CSS cover within a subregion can be identified. Neighborhoods should have a radius of 1/2 to 1 mile. This spatial scale for planning reflects biological characteristics of CSS species and the need for agglomerations of CSS on a scale potentially suitable for incorporation into a reserve networks. The determination of the "core 50%" also takes into account the presence of urban and non-CSS natural !and. Proximity: CSS patches close to a core can be identified by measuring direct, straight-line distances. Appropriate spatial scale must be determined for each subregion and should be on the order of one-quarter to one-half mile. Landscape Linkages: Natural lands, and even lands in intensive agriculture, may contribute to reserve network connectivity. Corddom must be drawn such that each Higher Value District is connected to the closest adjacent districts. A geometric corddot between Higher Value Districts is defined by drawing two straight lines tangent to each district. Boundaries can be adjusted as necessary to reflect natural features such as riparian areas that may curve outside of a defined geometric corridor. Species Presence: A test must identify areas 1) that need special protection in the interim to reduce the likelihood of take of species and 2) that may have long-term value due to special conditions that support significant populations of highly endemic species, rare sub-habitat types, or vegetation subcommunities. What constitutes significant populations must be determined for each subregion. For target species, the SRP considers habitat that supports a portion of a Ioc~ population with five or more pairs of gnatcatcher or cactus wrens to be significant. For other species of plants or animals (including thosE; species listed or candidates for listing), the SRP considers habitat that support~s a portion of a local population representing more than 20% of the known population of the subregion to be significant. The species presence test specifically means that each parcel under consideration for development will be subject to a species clearance: a survey for target species and other rare plants and animals. The survey should use techniques specified by the SRP or equivalent methods. (See SRP Survey Guidelines.) Species presence dudrig a one-time survey is not a reliable measure of habitat value. Moreover, species survey work is also expensive and time consuming. For this reason, the basic methodology to identify potential reserves relies most heavily on less variant aspects of the landscape. 7/20/93 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Page 14 6. Policy a. Pending approval of subregional NCCP When formal planning is underway, the conservative intedm strategy seeks to minimize short-term loss of habitat and CSS species and to prevent foreclosure of options for long-term conservation planning by deferring development decisions on lands that may be important components of a final CSS community conservation plan. Potential Long-term Conservation Value Policy Higher Value Defer development decisions where possible. Determine actuaJ conservation suitability in NCCP. Allow development only where it can be proven that the loss will not foreclose reserve planning options. Special mitigation will be required. Intermediate Value Case-by-case decisions. Special mitigation may be warranted. Lower Value Allow' development with adequate mitigation. Cumulative CSS loss in any subregion or any subarea of a large subregion is limited to 5% during the interim period.. b. With approved subregional NCCP An approved subregional NCCP plan will supercede the interim designation of potential long-term conservation value and the interim 5% CSS loss limit will no longer apply. Implementation of an explicit subregional plan will allow long-term economic interests to be served. Inherent in the NCCP is resolution of technical and implementation issues to allow specification of long-term conservation programs. The final subregional NCCP may provide for development of lands initially designated as having potential long-term conservation value if it is later determined that actual long- term conservation value is lower. Conversely, lands originally thought to be of lower value may be determined to be valuable in final conservation plans. This consideration is one of many that support a conservative interim loss ceiling. c. in the absence of a subregional NCCP If total cumulative loss of ess habitat area is kept below 5%, public agencies can ur,.'lertake restoration independently of private lands to attempt to compensate for the 5% habitat area loss that was not directly mitigated by measures imposed on approvals on private land dudng the interim process. 7/20/93 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Page 15 Attachment A. Generalized Map of Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat LOS ANGELES ~,~, .~z _';~.~. E COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (CSS) UCSS as Reported to CDFG Natural Heritage Division. Coverage Incomplete. CSS as Mapped by UCSB Gap Program from Landsat Data. Primary CSS Coverage. · ...'./.~.~ Secondary ess Coverage. Characteristic species of coastal sage scrub include California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), several species of sage (Salvia mellifera, Salvia leucophylta, and Salvia apiana), California encelia (Encelia califomica), brittlebush ( Encelia farinosa), San Diego sunt,,,3wer (Viguieta lacinata), and buckwheats (in- cluding Eriogonum fasciculatum and Eriogonum cinereum). Evergreen sclemphyllous shrubs such as Malosrnc laurina, Rhus integtffolia, and Rhus ovata are often patchily distributed in stands of coastal sage scrub. k,~ Map: Thomas Reid Associates 7//20/93 RIVERS/DE 10 Miles I DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Page 16 Attachment B. Subregional Focus Areas ~ui:regionol CSS NCCP Ptonning Unit Focus Mop $ubrec)ional Focus Ateas CantAta tuncbomncJ biological units of high consef%,a'~on value. Generally snoulc~ be ptonnea as inOivick~31 NCCP suDrec~mnat plonnmC) units. but may Oe planfire9 anti im~)Jemefit~t~on. ~ first digit of the identity number sno~s the primary focus area ae~,qnatian on(~ me aam,nistratJve suaarasion of the area. $atefiite Ateas lslanas of suDstantial C~S nnO~tat value sJ~ouJd be plonnecl m ¢oncer~ w,tn one the focus areas. Mat~x Are~ Large at)an areas $t, Lrrotmdina. tocu.~ or satelhte areas mat/ ,neturic CSS I~aC)JtaL land wi~h vatue as carnaars ar haDitat buffer for ¢SS and may include natural cammunites ol conservation value. The focus ona satellite areas are bazea on evalu,~hon of coastal saqe ~ ~etoU~ comgonems aria aoes not refi~t d~ffibu~ion of ~M sg~es. ~is is noc a m~ of ~ hoOitat 0 ~ ~ ~f 7/'20/93 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Page 17 Attachment C. Evaluation Logic Flow Chart Refer to text section 5.c. Evaluation Methods for definitions. Yes Yes No Yes RESULT Not relevant for rase~e planning. Land forms a Higher Value District. Higher Potential Value For Long-term Conservation Defer development decisions where possible. Determine actual conservation suitability in NCCP. If developed, speciat mitigation will be required. Intermediate Potential Value For Long-term Conservation Case by case decisions. Special mitigation may be warranted. Lower Potential Value For Long-term Conservation Allow development. Adequate mitigation. 7//20/93 APPENDIX ¢ NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES NATURAL $ OUTHEWN CALIFORNIA COASTAL BAGE SCRUB COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PROCESS GUIDELINES PLANNING September 1, 1992 California Department of Fish and Game and California Resources Agency 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Larry Eng, Ph.D. Program Manager Natural Communities Conservation Planning Tel: 916-323-6201 Fax: 916-324-0475 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................... 1 1.1 Statutory Basis .................. 1 1.2 Program Purpose .................. 1.3 Southern California CSS Program .......... 1 1.4 CSS Planning Area ................. 2 1.5 Enrollment During Planning Period ......... 2 1.6 NCCP Planning Guidelines ............. 3 1.7 NCCP and Endangered Species Act .......... 3 2.0 CSS NCCP PLANNING ................... 4 3.2 Scientific Review Panel .............. 6 3.2.1 Role of SRP ............. 6 3.2.2 Biologioal survey G idehne ........ 7 3.2.3 Submission of Survey Data ......... 7 3.3 Program Enrollment ................ 8 3.3.1 Private Landowners ............ 8 3.3.2 Local Government Landowners ........ 9 3.3.3 Local Government Jurisdiction ....... 9 3.3.4 Enrollment Cancellation .......... 9 3.3.5 Enrollment Equivalents ........... 9 3.3.6 Status of Non-Enrolled Land ....... 10 3.4 Subregional NCCP Focus Areas ........... 10 3.5 Ongoing Multi-Species Plans ....... 11 egional Conservation and Planning G&i eii e ... 4.0 Subregional Planning .................. 13 4.1 Planning Agreement ................ 14 4.2 Plan Formulation ................. 14 4.3 Public and Agency Review ............. 14 4.4 Implementing Agreement and Formal NCCP Approval . 15 4.5 Environmental Documentation ............. 16 4.6 Public Participation ............... 16 4.7 Parallel Federal and State Permits ........ 17 5.0 Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 18 5 1 NCCPs Complete or Near Completion ~ ] ~ ~ ] ] ~ ] ~ ' 18 5.2 Areas Not Subject to a NCCP ............ 15 6.0 References ....................... 19 6.1 Glossary ..................... 19 6.2 Literature ..................... 19 Attachments Ae Coastal Sage Scrub Survey Guidelines (FINAL: February 1992) Model Enrollment Agreements (FINAL: March 1992) Subregionalization for Natural. Communities Conservation Planning (FINAL: August 1992) Mo~el Planning Agreement (IN PROCESS: 6/25/92) Southern Californi& Coast&l Sage Scrub Natural Communities Conservation Pla-ning Process Guidelines The Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Process Guidelines explain the roles of local, state, and federal government, and describe how the planning process will shift in focus from the regional to the subregional level. Background The program is established by state law, the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (Fish and Game Code Section 2800 et. seq.). The Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Program is the first such program under the law. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is the principal state agency and is working under the auspices of the office of the Secretary of the Resources Agency for this pilot program. The Regional Coastal Sage Scrub Planning Area is roughly 6000 square miles and affects parts of five counties: San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino, and numerous other jurisdictions and public and private landowners. Coastal sage scrub is an ecological community that supports a diverse assemblage of native California plants and animals. Human activity in this five-county area has reduced the extent of coastal sage scrub to the point where conservation action is crucial to prevent endangerment of many species. Regional Coordination, Subregional Pla--ing Generally, the conservation program and the biological issues need to be coordinated for the five-county region. However, because the area is so large and because specific biological and land planning considerations vary throughout the region, it is imperative that functional planning be conducted on a subregional scale. During an 18-month planning period, from May 1, 1992 to November 1, 1993, participants agree voluntarily to protect coastal sage scrub habitat on enrolled lands and lands within their jurisdiction. Through the regional phase under way in 1992, it is expected that some 10 to 20 functional subregional planning units will emerge. Roughly half of these areas are already in some stage of planning; the rest will initiate planning in the future. Regional Phase: ~he regional phase establishes the overall scientific and legal framework for subsequent subregional efforts. o Establish state and federal cooperation through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). o Convene Scientific Review Panel (SRP) of experts. o Collect scientific information from land owners and jurisdictions for use by the SRP. 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page o Identify subregional focus areas for subregional NCCPs. o Document ongoing multi-species conservation planning. o Provide interim habitat protection through landowner and jurisdiction enrollments and t~Lrough CDFG protection of non- enrolled land. o Establish interagency planning, public participation and review process. o Establish regional scientific framework for subregional planning, including survey guidelines, target species, and conservation guidelines.. Subregional Pl&nning Process The subregional phase is when actualj decisions regarding conservation and development are made ~hrough a collaborative process centered on local government and meshing with the conventional land planning and CEQA process. o Specific subregional NCCP begins with a Plan-ing Agreement between local jurisdictions, landowners, CDFG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as described in Section 2810). This Agreement sets forth the NCCP process as it applies to the specific planning area. Mandatory elements of the Planning Agreement include: - map of the planning boundary, - identification of a lead agency and other jurisdictions affected, - list of species of concern to be addressed in the NCCP, - identification of parallel permits, if any (e.g., Federal Section 10(a)), - CDFG cost reimbursement provisions, and - public participation and public notice of plan preparation. o Optional elements may include - extent of state and federal agency participation, - identification of land ownerships, - discussion of the specific extent of biologicall information, - specific survey methods to be used to fill data gaps, and - other aspects germane to the specific NCCP subregion. Collaborative planning commences under auspices of lead agency with CDFG and USFWS providing ongoing guidance and wi~% appropriate public participation. o Completed NCCP plan is published in Draft form along with CEQA compliance document (possibly program EIR). o CDFG and USFWS comment along with members of the interested public during a set time period. Because they have been involved throughout the planning process, it is expected that CDFG and USFWS will be able to accept the plan. If the}, cannot, however, they must identify specific changes to the plan that need to be made to meet requirements. 911/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page Lead agency finalizes plan. Lead agency, CDFG, USFWS and other parties as appropriate enter into an Implementing Agreement (also described in Section 2810). This agreement specifies all terms and conditions of activities under the NCCP plan. By signing the Implementing Agreement, CDFG and USFWS explicitly acknowledge approval of the Final NCCP plan. o Lead agency or other Implementing Agreement parties report activity under the plan routinely to CDFG demonstrating compliance. Federal Involvement an~ the Endangered Species Act The NCCP process does not supplant the endangered species protection of existing state or federal law. At present, the coastal sage scrub species are not formally listed as endangered under either state or federal endangered species acts. By taking a comprehensive ecosystem approach to conservation it is hoped that the NCCPs will forestall endangerment that would require formal listing of individual species. If species become listed, or if an already listed species is found in the NCCP area, the jurisdictions affected will still need the applicable federal Section 10(a) or state Section 2081 permit, however, the NCCP is meant to meet the requirements of both a state Management Agreement and a federal Habitat Conservation Plan to allow issuance of the appropriate permits. 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statutor~ Basis The Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program is authorized by California law: the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (AB 2172), set forth in Section 2800 et. seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. The Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) NCCP is the first such planning effort to be initiated under the Act. It is undertaken as a pilot project to develop a process for accelerated conservation planning at a regional scale which may serve as a model for other NCCPs elsewhere in the state. Because the CSS NCCP program is a pilot program for possible application elsewhere in California, it is sponsored jointly by the California Resources Agency and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Where these process guidelines refer to participation in agreements or other action by CDFG, it should be understood that for this program, this may mean both the Resources Agency and CDFG. Both state agencies are proceeding in cooperation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (12/4/91 MOU between CDFG and USFWS). 1.2 Program Purpose The purpose of the Natural Community Conservation Planning program, is to provide for regional protection and perpetuation ,of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and growth. These goals will be achieved through implementation of a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) . The NCCP process is designed to provide an alternative current "single species" conservation efforts by formulating regional, natural community-based habitat protection programs ~o protect the numerous species inhabiting each of the targeted natural communities. The shift in focus from single species to the natural community level will greatly enhance the effectiveness of ongoing species protection efforts. It is intended that NCCPs will result in land use plans and management programs for the long-term protection of designated habitats and their component species. The planning process will be carried out with the voluntary and collaborative participation of landowners, local governments, state and Federal agencies, and environmental organizations. 1.3 Southern California CSS Program This program, the first of the State's NCCP projects, provides the direction and collaborative support necessary to conduct research, planning, and habitat management efforts leading to long- term conservation and protection of species in the coastal sage scrub community of southern California. 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES According to the Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel (SRP), approximately 100 species (plants and animals) considered rare, sensitive, threatened, or endangered by Federal and state resource agencies are associated with coastal sage scrub. The array of sensitive species within the coastal sage scrub community that would potentially benefit from this initial NCCP process illustrates the rationale of the proposed shift in focus from species to the natural community. The SRP has identified three target species within the CSS (two birds: California gnatcatcher, cactuswren, and one lizard: orange-throated whiptail) for detailed study. Info~mation on these target species along with other natural community conservation guidelines will be used in planning individual subregional NCCPs. 1.4 eSS Planning Area The Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP pilot project creates a regional planning and management system designed to protect coastal sage scrub habitat and reconcile conflicts between habitat protection and new development within the Southern California study area. Although coastal sage scrub is found further north as well, the study area for the Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP project embraces portions of five counties: San Diego County; Orange County; Riverside County; San Bernardino County; and Los Angeles County (See SRP Special Report No. 2, "Conservation Planning Region"). The five-county study area will be divided into several large planning subregions in order to minimize the inherent problems related to addressing the entire region in a single planning effort. These subregions will be designated by participating local governments, subject to approval by CDFG and based on the analysis provided by the SRP. Designated planning subregions will consist of large areas where the cumulative impacts of development on coastal sage scrub can be analyzed. These subregions also will be large enough, in terms of the presence of sufficient coastal sage scrub and associated natural habitat acreage and species diversity, to constitute effective habitat planning units. All NCCPs will be prepared and submitted by landowners and/or local governments to CDFG on a subregional basis. 1.5 Enrollment During Pla--ing Period Planning for long-term management and protection of coastal sage scrub natural community will be initiated by participating landowners and local governments enrolled in the NCCP process. The purpose of enrollment is to: 1) protect "enrolled" coastal sage scrub habitat during the 18-month NCCP planning period from May 1, 1992 to October 31, 1993 and 2) to initiate the collaborative plan~ing process which will result in long-term habitat protection through an NCCP. Landowners and local governments enroll in the NCCP program by entering into voluntary agreements with CDFG. Separate "agreement" forms are used for landowners and for local governments participating on a jurisdictional, or planning basis. (See Attachment B: Model Agreements for "Landowner/Land Management Agency" and "Cities and Counties"). Local governments may 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 3 participate as both a landowner (in cases where they own/manage park land and other areas containing coastal sage scrub) and as a local planning and permitting authority. 1.6 NCCP Pl~--ing Guidelines Fish and Game Code Section 2825 authorizes the California Department of Fish and Game to prepare nonregulatory guidelines that will facilitate and expedite the preparation and implementation of natural community conservation plans statewide. The guidelines are intended to improve understanding of the NCCP program among potential private and public participants, thereby encouraging early participation in NCCP process, increasing the effectiveness of the program, and ensuring that proposed plans will ultimately gain approval. CDFG seeks to use the CSS pilot project to direct its future effort on the statewide NCCP guidelines. The CSS NCCP Process Guidelines published here explain how the regional coordination effort will lead to individual subregional NCCPs. The Process Guidelines are referenced by the enrollment agreements as a basis for 'voluntary participation. Upon publication of final Process Guidelines, enrollees have a 30-day period within which to modify or cancel enrollment (see section 3.3.4). The Process guidelines incorporate by reference other guidelines developed for the CSS program: 1) model enrollment agreements, 2) biological survey guidelines; 3) subregional focus areas, 4) planning and conservation guidelines, and 5) model planning agreement. The regional and subregional conservation guidelines are not included in this document because they will not be completed until the Scientific Review Panel receives and analyzes the 1991-92 winter and spring survey data collected by landowners and local governments and passes its recommendation to the Department of Fish and Game. 1.7 NCCP and Endangered Species Acts The NCCP process does not supplant the endangered species protection of existing state or federal law. At present, the coastal sage scrub species are not formally listed as endangered under either state or federal endangered species acts. By taking a natural community approach to conservation it is hoped that the NCCPs will forestall endangerment that would require formal listing of, individual species. If species become listed, or if an already listed species is found in the NCCP area, the jurisdictions affected will still need the applicable federal Section 10(a) or state Section 2081 permit.; however, the NCCP is meant to meet the requirements of both a state Management Agreement and a federal Habitat Conservation Plan to allow issuance of the appropriate permits. 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 4 2.0 CSS NCCP PLANNING MILESTONES Both conservation and development community interests will be well served by rapid progress on NCCPs. The overall program is intended to be substantially complete by November 1993 and incorporates the following NCCP planning milestones. It is recognized that local conditions will vary, and that not all jurisdictions or subregions will be able to respond fully within the suggested timeframes. While planning and implementation of the CSS NCCP program is expected to extend beyond the formal 18 month period, participants are encouraged to meet the targeted milestones for cited tasks and work products. Spring 1992 Final versions of the Landowners Enrollment Agreement and the Local Government Participation Agreement. -- Final SRP Survey Guidelines (See Attachment A) -- SRP Planning Region Description (Special Report No. 2). -- Complete winter field surveys Commence spring Guidelines field surveys pursuant to the Survey -- Preliminary version of the Process Guidelines May, 1992 -- Eighteen-month formal planning process begins. Enrollment of substantial coastal sage scrub acreage (primarily consisting of large private landowners and public agency ownerships) Public review of draft process guidelines and comment by USFWS and other agencies. SRP identifies focus and secondary habitat areas. CDFG delineates subregional focus areas and associated satellite and corridor areas. Summer, 1992 Final publication of the Process Guidelines and the commencement of the 30-day review period for landowners and local governments provided in the enrollment agreements. Enrollment becomes effective until October 31, 1993 unless a decision to withdraw from the NCCP process has been made within the 30-day review period. Preliminary designation of NCCP subregions and local lead agencies by local governments, and confirmation by CDFG by entering into NCCP Planning Agreements. 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINF~ Page 5 Report to Fish and Game Co~u~ission o landowner/land management agency enrollments o local government agreements to participate o Commission considers regulations for "proposed biological reserve areas" Completion of Spring field sul-veys consistent with SRP Sum~,ey Guidelines. Data submitted to SRP CDFG reports to the California Fish and Game Commission concerning NCCP program status, including: approved NCCP subregions and local lead agencies designations field surveys and data reporting extent of development approved and proposed within the study area during the 18-month NCCP tAmeframe progress on regional and subregional biological criteria Fall, 1992 SRP recommends criteria for conservation areas, reserves and corridors and submits advisory information to CDFG and USFWS CDFG in consultation with USFWS publishes Planning and Conservation Guidelines Subregional NCCPs complete Planning Agreements and continue work on conservation plans. Winter t~Lrough Summer, 1993 Periodic informational report by CDFG to the California Fish and Game Commission concerning NCCP program status. Subregional NCCPs progress. process is underway. Plans are published and CEQA -- Supplemental field studies may be undertaken as necessary. CDFG and USFWS enter into appropriate. Implementing Agreements as November, 1993 Initial enrollments expire and may be renewed by mutual agreement where continuing progress warrants. CDFG evaluates NCCP program status and considers options for areas without completed plans. o For areas under active plaru%ing, participation can be extended tbnrough the terms of the Planning Agreement. o For areas where no substantive progress is being made, the Resources Agency or CDFG may petition the California Fish and Geme Commission for appropriate action, including listing species under CESA. 9/~/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 6 3.0 REGIOLVAL PLANNING Coastal Sage Scrub habitat under study is scattered broadly over portions of a five-county area in southern California. While long term conservation will come about from specific subregional NCCPs, the scientific and procedural framework for the subregional plans will be established at a regional scale. 3.X State and Federal Wildlife Agency Coordination Because both state and federal wildlife agencies have clear legal mandates to protect endangered species, both agencies have an interest in. the natural community approach to conservation. The overall intent for state and federal coordination is expressed in the 12/4/91 MOU between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. State and federal coordination will occur throughout the process, but will focus on three phases: 1. Exchange of scientific information and cooperative review of recommendations from the Scientific Review Panel to assist CDFG in promulgating survey, subregion, conservation, and process guidelines that can be applied uniformly throughout the region and which will. be consistent with both state and federal policies. 2. Initiation of specific subregional NCCPs or acceptance of Ongoing Multi Species Plans (see section 3.5) to make clear what requirements the plan must meet. This includes joint effort to establish criteria for review and ultimate acceptance of a subregional plan. This will allow subregional planning efforts to prepare a single conservation plan that will meet both state and federal requirements. 3. Cooperative review of draft plans as published to coordinate requested modifications, requirements for monitoring, issuance of parallel permits (if any), and compliance with NEPA in a time frame matched to the local plan adoption process. 3.2 scientific Review Panel Under the direction of California Resources Agency, CDFG established a Scientific Review Panel (SRP) for the Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP. The CDFG and USFWS agreed in a MOU (12/4/91) that "information and analysis undertaken by the SRP shall be presumed to constitute the best scientific information available until, and unless, further credible analysis and 'investigations show the contrary". The SRP is described in NCCP Special Report No. 1. 3.2.1 Role of SRP The role of the SRP is to collect readily available data and to integrate the information into a region-wide scientific framework for conservation planning activities. The scientific framework is to be communicated via a series of recommendations regarding: scientific survey methods, appropriate focus areas for 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Mage , subregional planning, and region-wide conservation needs (SRP/CDFG contract scope of work.) The Scientific Review Panel will be devising conservation principles specific to the southern California CSS. The SRP recommendation is to be given to CDFG at the end of 1992. Within 45 days after the final SRP recommendations are received by CDFG and after review by the Resources Agency, CDFG, USFWS, enrollees, and the public, CDFG will formalizethe conservation principles for use by subregional NCCPs. 3.2.2 Biological Bu,~e~ Guidelines The SRP communicated a recommendation for a uniform eSs survey method which was published February 1992. The survey guidelines describe a method to provide quantitative information on three target vertebrate species, distribution information on sensitive plant species, and descriptive ecology of the CSS in general. The purpose of the survey guidelines is to ensure that information collected can be used 1) by the SRP in formulating conservation planning guidelines for CSS, and 2) by subregional efforts in producing actual NCCPs. The SRP survey guidelines are not an absolute requirement for NCCP participation. Actual survey methods will reflect local conditions, presence of other species or habitats of concern, financial limitations, and the format of prior scientific survey work in an area. However, it is strongly recommended that the guidelines be followed to the maximum degree practical in order to encourage the regional integration of subregional efforts through a uniform level of scientific survey information. In any case, the actual methods used must yield results comparable to those which would have resulted from the SRP survey methods. 3.2.3 Submission of Survey Data Landowners and local governments will conduct or cooperate with others conducting field surveys or provide prior research results to assist the SRP in compiling regional conservation guidelines. Pursuant to the enrollment agreements, t-he field surveys should be consistent with the Survey Guidelines prepared by the SRP or should employ an alternative survey methodology that is compatible with the SRP survey guidelines. It is impractical for the SRP to review individual work plans and results for consistency with the guidelines; rather, the SRP will review the information submitted as a whole and identify those areas where more information is needed. While it is expected that a substantial amcunt of data can be provided, additional field work may be necessary to support specific subregional NCCP planning efforts. For the SRP to make use of the information, the data existing should be submitted before the end of August 1992. Unless alternative arrangements have been approved by the Resources Agency, data for the SRP should be forwarded to the SRP in care of the California Department of Fish and Game: 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES California Department of Fish and Game Natural Heritage Division 1416 9th St, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Larry Eng, Ph.D. NCCP Program Manager Tel: (916) 323-6201 Fax: (916) 324-0475 Data which has been put in computer form, either as database or geographic information system, should be provided in electronic format compatible with the CDFG computer system (Consult with Tom Lupo, CDFG Natural Heritage Division, 916- 445-6264). Survey results should be provided in a tabular summary and mapped at 1:24,000 scale (1 in ~ 2000 ft) on USGS 7 1/2 minute quadrangles. Where the survey covers a large area, a s~mmary map at 1:250,000 (1 in ~ 4 mi) would be useful. At a minimum, data mapped should show all areas surveyed (even if no CSS target species were found), the distribution of CSS vegetation, and the distribution of CSS target species. Additional information on rare plants and other aspects of CSS ecology requested by the SRP survey guidelines would be of value in map form. Copies of field forms or other raw data will be needed by CDFG as archival back-up to the electronic record. Data should be accompanied by a discussion of methodology and qualifications of field personnel. Data which reflects work in progress and which is not ready for publication can be marked "Restricted Distribution: SRP Use Only" and sent directly to the SRP in care of Dr. Peter Brussard, Department of Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557. Because the SRP analysis must be based on the public record, this restriction can only be temporary; any restricted data for use by the SRP must be released by its owner not later than December 15, 1992. 3.3 Program Enrollment 3.3.1 Private Landowners The success of the NCCP program relies on enrollment of a high percentage of the currently remaining coastal sage scrub associated habitat. Participating landowners will enroll in the NCCP process by entering into an agreement with CDFG. (See attachment B.) Landowners will enroll coastal sage scrub lands that they are committing to protect from development during the NCCP planning period. Because enrollment is voluntary, a landowner would not be expected to enroll lands he intends to develop during t_he planning-~ timeframe. Lands that are not enrolled will be subject t0// 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PRocEss GUIDELINES Page 9 regulatory requirements of local governments that have enrolled the entire jurisdiction. 3.3.2 Local Government Landowners Local governments may own land for parks, transportation corridors, public works, or other purposes. The commitment by local government as a landowner is the same as by a private landowner and the same model enrollment form applies. (See attachment B.) 3.3.3 Local Government Jurisdiction Cities and counties are encouraged to participate in the NCCP process by entering into an agreement with CDFG, including commitments to the following standards for the duration of the collaborative planning period. Agreements may be modified to reflect special circumstances or individual needs upon approval by the Department. See model jurisdictional agreement form for cities and counties (Attachment B). Jurisdictional enrollment provides for a cooperative effort to initiate actual long term NCCP planning. This includes sharing survey data and generally heightening awareness of the NCCP program in the jurisdiction. The most significant additional interim protection comes from the higher level of CEQA treatment of CSS issues in development approvals: biological survey methodologies consistent with SRP guidelines, CEQA treatment of a wider range of projects, and CE:QA findings of significance. However, this level of interim protection does not apply to projects already past the CEQA process or to activities not subject to CEQA. Thus the protection afforded by jurisdiction enrollment is less comprehensive than the protection afforded by landowner/manager enrollment. The jurisdiction will monitor cumulative loss of CSS resulting from approved projects and report project approvals affecting CSS to CDFG on a quarterly' basis. 3.3.4 Enrollment Cancellation The NCCP Process Guidelines will be approved after the May 1, 1992 enrollment start-up date. Because landowners and governments are asked to enroll prior to preparation of the guidelines, enrollees have the option to withdraw from the NCCP process within 30 days after the designation of NCCP subregions and approval of process guidelines by the Department of Fish and Game if the guidelines or subregion designations are not acceptable to the enrollee. 3.3.5 Enrollment Equivalents Substantial CSS habitat occurs on state or federally owned land. Major examples are the Cleveland National Forest, Military facilities at NAS Miramar and Camp Pendleton, and the Chino Hills State Park. These public lands are governed by law that precludes 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES rage use of the same enrollment process that is available for local landowners and local government. However, most such public land has established an internal program of research and land use evaluation that fulfills the same objectives as the formal enrollment process: heightened protection of CSS, ongoing research, and progress toward long term conservation planning. For the state's purpose of limiting CSS loss during the planning period and establishing subregional coordination among major landowners, the availability of a state or federal CSS management program will be viewed as the functional equivalent of formal enrollment. 3.3.6 Status of Non-Enrolled Land Land not enrolled as either landowner or jurisdiction will still be subject to the requirements of CEQA. CEQA has a mandatory finding of significance wherever: "(a) The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, .." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15065) Technically, most CSS habitat in the NCCP Program area is sensitive and could trigger these CEQA findings. The Resources Agency is seeking explicit recognition of the sensitivity by asking the California Fish and Game Commission to establish a Coastal Sage Scrub Protection Area. Public testimony has been heard; the matter has not been scheduled for decision. The CSS Protection Area would make mandatory enhanced CEQA review of ~ropo~-d-p-r~&~-ts affecting CSS habitat greater than 1/2 acre which is not enrolled in the voluntary NCCP program. This enhanced CEQA review will extend protection to non-enrolled jurisdictions during the 18-month planning period. 3.4 Subregional NCCP Focus Areas The SRP reviewed information on distribution and made a preliminary recommendation of the large CSS habitat areas that should serve as focus areas for designation of subregional NCCPs. The draft focus area map and interpreting text was published in May 1992. The final report was published in August 1992 and a summary version is included with these guidelines as Attachment C. It is expected that subregional NCCPs will attempt to delineate planning areas that include large, manageable CSS habitat and suitable peripheral corridor and buffer habitat areas. Corridor and buffer areas are likely to consist of habitats other than CSS. Generally, a subregional planning area should include all of a focus area, but it is recognized that some subdivision of 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page focus areas may be needed to reflect jurisdictional and land ownership patterns. Regardless of how a NCCP subregion is drawn, the boundary will be approved by CDFG and USFWS in advance of actual planning when CDFG and USFWS enter into a Planning Agreement (see section 4.1). In the course of planning, the subregional plan will need to explicitly treat the need to integrate with CSS conservation needs outside of the immediate planning area by providing for corridors or other features that will improve region-wide habitat values.. The focus areas identified by the SRP are by no means the only areas of CSS and associated habitats of potential conservation value. It is intended that the subregional planning areas will be drawn broadly to encompass both large and small CSS habitat and areas which serve as corridors for interconnection between CSS habitats. With the possible exception of completely urbanized areas, the entire five-county CSS planning area will eventually be included in subregional CSS NCCPs. 3.5 Ongoing Multi-species Plans The CSS planning area has several active, large-scale conservation planning activities that have similar form and content to a NCCP. These so-called Ongoing Multi-Species Plans (OMSP) can be accepted into the CSS NCCP process with little or no change. It is easy to consider a prior conservation planning activity as equivalent to enrollment or a Planning Agreement as a NCCP; ultimately, all plans -- whether NCCPs or OMSPs -- must meet the same standards for protection of coastal sage scrub habitat. For a conservation plan to qualify as an OMSP and be accepted as an NCCP, all of the following must hold: 1. The planning effort was funded and was underway as documented by either a memorandum of understanding, an agreement, a statutory exemption, or other formal process at the time that the NCCP Act became effective (1/1/92). 2. The plan protects CSS habitat and/or contains an agreement for satisfactory mitigation for any CSS loss.approved by CDFG pursuant to a prior' planning effort, and the plan substantially achieves the objectives of the NCCP Act, meaning that the plan provides assurance that CSS habitat and named species will be protected to a degree substantially equivalent to an NCCP prepared under the guidelines. 3. California Department of Fish and Game approves the plan and the plan meets CESA Section 2081 Management Agreement requirements for named species of concern. 4. US Fish and Wildlife Service approves the plan and it provides the equivalent of federal ESA Section 10(a) habitat conservation plan requirements for named species of concern. 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Mage ~ Because an OMSP will have commenced before all NCCP guidelines were in place, an OMSP may differ in detail from the NCCP process described here. A qualifying OMSP may include, among other things: 5. Habitat and species in addition to CSS habitat and species. 6. Boundaries different from CSS subregions as long as the boundaries have been previously approved by CDFG and do not significantly impair the long-term opportunities for conserving CSS region-wide. Survey methodologies may differ from the SRP recommended guidelines as long as the methods used have been approved by CDFG. 8. Timing requirements may differ from the target milestones for the CSS NCCP. 9. The prior planning effort includes provision for CDFG participation in planning and reimbursement of CDFG expenses. 10. The prior planning effort may include provision for USFWS participation in planning. 3.6 Regional Conservation and Planning Guidelines A central element of the regional CSS NCCP coordination is promulgation of a set of planning and conservation guidelines. These guidelines will accelerate the planning process by providing subregions with a general set of scientific principles and preserve management tools. The Scientific Review Panel will be devising conservation principles specific to the southern California CSS. The SRP recommendation is to be given to CDFG at the end of 1992. Within 45 days after the final SRP recommendations are received by CDFG and after review by the Resources Agency, CDFG, USFWS, enrollees, and the public, CDFG will formalize the conservation principles for use by subregional NCCPs. 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 13 4.0 Subregional Planning The actual conservation planning will be conducted in a series of ten to twenty subregions. The NCCP process is intended to give flexibility to each subregional effort to reflect local conditions while adhering to fundamental regional conservation principles. To expedite completion of NCCPs the program is designed to: 0 encourage maximum cooperation between landowners, local governments and conservation interests during the preparation of NCCPs; and encourage local government participation by allowing local governments to adapt the NCCP process to their existing administrative processes relating to plan preparation, public participation, public hearing, and environmental review. The NCCP program does not impose new administrative or processing requirements on local governments. With these broad goals in mind, the local government process leading to preparation and approval of subregional NCCPs should be compatible with the following steps: 1. Local governments and landowners will cooperate in designating NCCP subregions of sufficient size and diversity to meet guidelines set by the SRP and CDFG and to be effective long- term habitat management units pursuant to Fish and Game Code (Section 2800 et. seq.). 2. Participating local governments and agencies will enter into a Plan-ing Agreement with CDFG and USFWS to establish a coordinated subregional NCCP preparation and decision-making process that effectively involves enrolled participants, and the public. Public participation shall be at least equivalent to that provided by existing ordinances, hearings public notice requirements and laws. 3. Landowners, conservation interests, and appropriate local government agencies, in consultation with the Resources Agency, CDFG, and USFWS, will formulate a conservation plan. This NCCP will satisfy all applicable requirements of the California ESA, the Federal ESA, CEQA and NEPA. Pursuant to the Planning Agreement, the principal affected local government agency will act as the initial lead agency for CEQA purposes, and for any actions necessary to assist USFWS compliance with NEPA. 4. After public and agency review, the plan will be finalized and serve as the basis for an Implementing Agreement between involved parties and CDFG and USFWS. 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 14 4.1 Planning Agreement Specific subregional NCCP begins with a Planning Agreement between local jurisdictions, landowners, CDFG and USFWS (as described in Section 2810). This Agreement sets forth the NCCP process as it applies to the specific planning area. Mandatory elements of the Planning Agreement include: o map of the planning boundary, o identification of a lead agency and other jurisdictions participating or affected but not participating, o list of target species that will be subject to intensive field surveys, o list of any other species of concern to be addressed in the NCCP, but which will be subject to less intensive field surveys as part of the NCCP, o identification of parallel permits, if any (eg., Federal Section 10(a) for a listed species), o identify affected state and federal land ownerships, o identify any other habitat conservation plans or multi-species conservation plans completed or underway in the area affected, o NCCP budget and funding plan including CDFG cost reimbursement provisions, o schedule for plan preparation, public review, and agency approval, o public participation and public notice of plan preparation. optional elements may include o extent of state and federal agency participation, o funding for plan preparation and for local government or public participation, o identification of land ownerships, o discussion of the specific extent of biological information, o specific survey methods to be used to fill data gaps, and o other aspects germane to the specific NCCP subregion. The Resources Agency is in the process of drafting a model Planning Agreement to show the form of document that may be used by local government, and by CDFG and USFWS to initiate formal NCCP preparation. (The model agreement is work in progress, Attachment E.) 4.2 Plan Formulation Collaborative planning commences under auspices of lead agency' with CDFG and USFWS providing ongoing guidance and with appropriate public, participation. 4.3 Public and Agency Review The local government lead agency will review the proposed NCCP existin local administrative / regulator%f in accordance with .g ' nt The procedures and with the provisions of the Plannlng Agr. eeme · lead agency then publishes the completed NCCP plan in Draft forth along with CEQA compliance document. 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 15 The review and approval of submitted draft NCCPs by the State and Federal agencies shall be coordinated by the Resources Agency in recognition of the pilot status of the program. In reviewing and approving the subregional NCCPs CDFG, in coordination with USFWS, will employ the SRP conservation principles concerning habitat needs, species distribution and abundances, and other biologic considerations. As an additional part of its review and approval, CDFG will apply the provisions of Fish and Game Code Section 2081 to determine whether the NCCP provides a level of protection for named species, whether formally listed or not. USFWS, in coordination with CDFG Will apply the provisions of Section 10(a) of the Federal ESA and make findings whether the draft subregional NCCP meets t/~e requirements for a Section 10(a) permit per the Federal ESA for any named species, whether formally listed or not. The California Department of Fish and Game will consult administratively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding acceptability of the draft NCCP. If CDFG and USFWS approve of the NCCP, the lead agency will be notified to submit the Implementing Agreement for action. Because the agencies have been involved in the planning, it is expected that the plan will be acceptable. If however CDFG and USFWS cannot accept the NCCP as drafted, the agencies shall prepare a written report outlining the reasons for rejecting the NCCP, and suggested modifications that would result in acceptance of the NCCP. This report will be submitted to the-local lead agency for review and action. Because CDFG and USFWS will generally be routinely consulted during NCCP preparation, rejection of a completed plan is likely only if the agencies advice was not followed. This process is anticipated to be completed within the 18- month planning period. If no agreement is signed/approved within the designated planning period, CDFG may consider a request by the lead agency and participants for extension of the planning period. 4.4 Implementing Agreement and Formal NCCP Approval Upon receipt of public comment and the results of CDFG and USFWS review, lead agency finalizes plan. The lead agency, CDFG, USFWS and other parties as appropriate enter into an Implementing Agreement (described in Section 2810).. Thi~ agreement specifies all terms and conditions of activities under the NCCP plan. By signing the Implementing Agreement, CDFG and USFWS explicitly acknowledge approval of the Final NCCP plan and declare that the NCCP meets the requirements of a state Management Agreement or a federal Habitat Conservation Plan, respectively, to allow issuance of appropriate permits for target: or other named species, should those species become listed. 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Page 16 The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act does not establish a specific permit process for NCCPs. The CDFG and USFWS participation in the Implementing Agreement is the only formal "approval" process. 4.5 Environmental Dooumentation Pursuant to the Planning Agreement entered into by local governments and CDFG, the environmental impact report (EIR) for a subregional NCCP will be prepared as a "Program EIR" in accordance to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. As provided in the CEQA Guidelines, the preparation of a Program EIR will avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations and ensure consideration of the cumulative effects of planned development and other actions provided in the subregional NCCP. Funding for preparation of the NCCP EIR will be the responsibility of the lead agency as is the case for any other EIR. At the start of a NCCP, the Planning Agreement will make explicit the extent of federal involvement and agency obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will be assessed. As appropriate, the NCCP lead agency will provide documentation to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in NEPA compliance. Both state and federal law allow for preparation of a joint state/federal environmental document. With careful planning, that can be done for an a NCCP. Once the Program EIR for a subregional NCCP is certified and becomes final and the NCCP is approved by local governments and CDFG, mitigation for impact on designated species from developments provided within the NCCP will be those specified in the NCCP and any subsequent Implementation Agreement. The limitation of mitigation measures is subject to the "unforeseen circumstances" provisions of the Planning Agreement and CEQA provisions. 4.6 Public Participation Public participation is essential to the ultimate success of both the Natural Community Conservation Planning process and the actual NCCPs that result from the process. The process seeks to ensure cooperation between landowners, public agencies, and other public/private interests to facilitate early coordination of planned habitat management efforts and to maximize efficient use and protection of habitat and economic resources. This participation will be established as appropriate to each subregion and could include noticed hearings, public workshops, formal advisory committees or other activities. The collaborative planning process envisioned as a part of the NCCP program relies on participation by a wide range of private citizens. Landowners. The NCCP process will require the broad-based support of private landowners. As described in the Enrollment Guidelines, participating landowners enter into agreements with the Resources Agency and Department of Fish and Game and are encouraged to cooperate with local governments to develop subregional NCCPs 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES ~age ~, for the jurisdiction or NCCP subregion in which the property is located. Conservation Organizations. Several statewide conservation organizations and numerous local environmental interest groups are involved in CSS species preservation efforts. While the exact role of conservation organizations will vary according to the needs of each subregional NCCP effort, it is important to recognize these organizations as a major constituency for conservation decisions as well as a significant source of scientific information and as a possible future land steward in plan implementation. Other Private Interests. The NCCP will potentially affect many other private interests, particularly those associated with the construction industry (builders and labor), agriculture, recreation, tourism, and public utilities. CDFG should be contacted by any concerned group to obtain the identity of the subregional NCCP lead agency for their area. 4.? Parallel Federal and State Permits A variety of state and federal laws may apply to the area subject to a subregional NCCP. Inasmuch as any other law affects land planning and conservation issues, it is desirable that the NCCP anticipate these requirements so as to minimize conflicting purposes. For example, if a NCCP planning area contains other sensitive habitats, such as riparian or vernal pool, ~he NCCP can provide for conservation of these other habitats, even though the other habitats are not elements of the southern California coastal sage scrub community and their conservation would not be required to meet the SRP guidelines for a CSS NCCP. Conservation of CSS habitats does not relieve society of its obligation to conserve other aspects of the environment. In particular, the NCCP process does not supplant the endangered species protection of existing state or federal law. If species become listed, or if an already listed species is found in the NCCP area, the jurisdictions affected will still need the applicable federal Section 10(a) or state Section 2081 permit. The Planning Agreement used to initiate a subregional NCCP will acknowledge that the conservation plan under preparation will be designed to meet the requirements of state and federal permits and when complete and accepted by CDFG and USFWS through an Implementing Agreement, will be the basis for issuance of relevant permits. 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES mage ~ 5.0 Monitoring and Evaluation In 1992, the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning process is focused on initiating a broad series of subregional activities. Eventually, the interim planning period will pass and the Resources Agency and CDFG will need to evaluate the status of regional/subregional planning efforts. The NCCP process outlined in these guidelines will lead to a series of subregional plans progressing at different rates. It is expected that substantial progress will be made within the 18-month planning period and that some plans will be complete. Monitoring will be different for areas that do not have NCCPs underway. 5.1 NCCPs Complete or Near Completion Each subregional NCCP will be implemented through an agreement that specifies monitoring, reporting and enforcement requirements. Regionwide monitoring and subregional reporting will enable the California Department of Fish and Game to assess the overall status of the CSS community and its constituent species. If conservation goals are not being achieved, this assessment will be the basis for CDFG action to enforce provisions of the Implementing Agreement or may be the basis to find that unforeseen circumstances warrant additional conservation actions. 5.2 Areas Not Subject to a NCCP In some areas no jurisdiction or landowner may be willing to come forward to initiate planning. Unfortunately, lack of adequate planning may jeopardize conservation activities elsewhere in the region. In these places, the Resources Agency an~ CDFG will appraise the ex~cent of threat to CSS and initiate long ter~ conservation actions for CSS and constituent species if warranted. This may include t_he Resources Agency requesting the Fish and Game Commission to list one or more CSS species as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. 911/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES 6.0 References 6.1 G1ossar~ The following abbreviations are used in this document: CDFG California Department of Fish and Game. For the purposes of the Southern California CSS NCCP Program, Department is working in close coordination with Office of the Secretary of the Resources Agency. In these Process Guidelines, references to participation CDFG generally means joint participation with the Resources Agency. CSS Coastal Sage Scrub: plants and animals. A natural community comprising CEQA The California Environmental Quality Act: Sets requirements for environmental review (Environmental Impact Reports) by local and state government of a wid~e range of public and private projects. CESA California Endangered Species Act. ESA Federal Endangered Species Act. HCP Habitat Conservation Plan: A plan required in support of a federal Section 10(a) permit under the federal ESA. MOU Memorandum of Understanding: A common form of formal agreement between government agencies. NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan: Usage here is that the abbreviation NCCP generally refers to a subregional plan. The overall program is governed by the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. OMSP Ongoing Multi-Species Plan: A term applied to subregional conservation efforts already underway that will function as the equivalent of a NCCP if the NCCP standards are applied. Section 10(a): A section of the federal ESA that governs issuance of a permit to allow incidental take of a listed endangered species. Section 2081: A section of the state CESA that governs take of listed endangered species. Species of Concern: The Target Species and all other species to be addressed in the proposed NCCP. Information on species other than the specified Target Species will be as complete as possible but will usually be less inclusive and detailed. Target Species: Target Species are the California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, orange-throated whiptail lizard and 9/1/92 CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES wage zu any other species designated to be addressed in the NCCP as if they were currently listed as a threatened or endangered species. For these species, the final NCCP will be detailed and comprehensive enough to meet the standards of a Management Agreement for the purposes of a state section 2081 permit and a Habitat Conservation Plan for the purposes of a federal section 10(a) permit application. USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 6.2 Literature The following references are cited in the text or provide additional relevant information. Copies of any of these can be obtained from the Resources Agency or from the CDFG Coastal Sage Scrub Project Coordinator. California Fish and Game Code: Department of Fish and Game, Chapter 10. Natural Community Conservation Planning, 1991. California Fish and Game Commission, Notice of Proposal to Establish Coastal Sage Scrub Protection Area, Ronald J. Pelzman, June 19, 1992. Memorandum of Understanding By and Between The California Department of Fish and Game and The United States Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Coastal Sage ScrubNatural Community Conservation Planning in Southern California, December 4, 1991. 'Memorandum of Understanding by and Between The Irvine Company and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding the Advance Habitat Conservation Plan for The California Gnatcatcher, Cactus Wren, and Orange-Throated Whiptail Lizard, April 16, 1992. Natural Community Conservation Planning/Coastal Sage Scrub, An NCCP Special Report No. 1, Dennis Murphy, Acting Chair, Scientific Review Panel, February 1992. Natural Community Conservation Planning/Coastal Sage Scrub, An NCCP Special Report No. 2, John O'Leary, Dennis Murphy, and Peter Brussard, Scientific Review Panel, March 1992. United States Marine Corps Regarding: Proposed Regulations for Establishment of Habitat Protection Areas, Letter June 17, 1992. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Interim Conservation Planning Guidelines, July 30, 1990. National 9/1/92 APPENDIX D INTERIM TAKE APPROVAL PROCESS C$$ N¢¢P PRDCKS$ ~F~D~$ ~n~er~Take ~p~ova~ Process DRA~'T DR~FT Process for Securing Interim Take Approvals I. Subregional Activities: Ae A subregional planning process shall be established per NCCP Process Guidelines. This entails defining subregion boundaries, establishing a lead or coordinating agency, and executing a planning agreement among par~icipati.ng local governments, private landowners, ~he lead/coordinating agency, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (usFws). In accordance with theguidance in the Process Guidelines and the Conservation Guidelines, the subregional lead/coordinating agency shall: Establish the base n,~her of acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat in each subregion based on local maps from field surveys conducted according to the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) survey guidelines or on vegetation maps submitted di=ital form approved by CDFG/USFWS; in any case the base number of acres shall not be less than that which existed on March 25, 1993, the date ~e gnatcatcher was determined to be a threatened species. 2. Calculate 5% estimate for interim take. Using available information and the Conservation Guidelines, classify subregional CSS as hi~ intermediate or lower potential value for long tez~ conservation in order to determine areas most conducive to interim take approvals, and distribute this information to local jurisdictions within the subregion and obtain concurrence from CDFG and USFWS. Establish interim take mitigation guidelines, appropriate for the subregion. Mitigation guidelines shall be consistent with the standards of Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act. The guidelines should seek to minimize project impacts to CSS habitat. Mitigation must include one or more of the following: acquisition of habitat, dedication of land, off-site habitat set asides, management agreements, restoration payment of fees~, transfer of development rights, or any other agreement approved in writing by USFWS. Habitat July 20, 1993 DRAFT CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Interim Take Approvals DRAFT July 20, 1993 Page 2 acquisition and set asides should occur in areas with long term conservation potential. Keep a cumulative record of all approvals for "interim ~ake," including adjustments of totals if approvals expire, to assure the 5% interim take guideline is not exceeded in the subregion. Interim take approval status should be forwarded to t. he USFWS at least once a month. II. Process for Securing Interim Take Approvals Applications for interim take permits are limited to projects proposed to proceed with grading in the near term. Take permits may be conditioned on payment of applicable development fees, including any mitigation fees. Any interim take approval shall expire if substantial site work or other site development activities have not commenced within one year from the permit issuance. The agDlication for interim take must be submitted to the local 9urisdiction with entitlement responsibility for the associated proiect. ADDlications should .~nclude a mitigation plan which is 9ust.~fied as appropriate to the mroDosa]. Projects impacting intermediate and high value CSS habitat should involve USFWS early in planning stages to avoid unnecessary delays during the final approval process. Impacts in higher value areas must demonstrate that the loss will not foreclose future reserve planning options as stated in the Conservation Guidelines. Local agencies may determine specific application and process requirements, provided that interim take requests are integrated into the regular project entitlement process as much as possible and public notice and opportunity for public comment is provided according to law prior to the final decision by the local agency.. De California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, consistent with applicable requirements of state law, will be undertaken by the local agency to provide an appropriate level of analysis in order to make the required findings. (Section E) July 20, 1993 DRAFT CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES £nterim Take Approvals DRAFT July 20, 1993 Page 3 If the project proposed for interim take has already obtained final CEQA approval, the local government will determine whether the CEQAdocument addressed potential CSS impacts and potential impacts on gnatcatcher populations and minimized and mitigated the impacts to the gnatcatcher. If no CEQA review has previously been undertaken, then CEQA review shall be necessary, consistent with current law. To approve an interim take application, the local agency must make the following findings, based on t~e information obtained pursuant to Section I.B above and the applicable CEQA review: The proposed take is consistent with the inter~ loss criteria in the Conservation Guidelines and with any subregional process if established by t~.~e subregion. The take does not cumulatively exceed the 5% guideline The take will not preclude connectivit~ between areas of high habitat values. The take will not preclude or prevent the preparation and implementation of the sub- regional NCCPo The take has been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with the Conservation Guidelines, and with any guidelines adopted by the subregion and approved by the USFWS. The applicant has proved capacity for funding appropriate mitigation. (Mitigation must include one or more oft he following: acquisition of habitat, dedication of land, management agreements, restoration, payment of fees, transfer of development rights, or any other agreement approved in writing by the USFWS.) Additional mitigation referenced in I.B.4 guidelines are July 20, 1993 DRAFT CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Interim Take Approvals DRAFT July 20, 1993 Page 4 Because it is consistent with the Conservation Guidelines, the. take will not jeopardize the survival of the species. The take is incident~al to otherwise lawful activity. Projects meeting these criteria may be prioritized based on the likelihood of imminent development or which otherwise provide significant public benefit. The project and the draft findings for the interim take approval proposed by the local government shall be made available for comment to the subregional lead/coordinating agency, CDFG, USFWS, and the public at least 45 days prior to the local agency action on the proposed project and findings. III. Subregional Activities: Once a local agency has completed its review and approval, it shall notify the subregional lead/coordinating agency. The subregional lead/coordinating agency shall review the interim take approval to confirm that it does not exceed the 5 % take guideline or prejudice the preparation and implementation of the subregional NCCP. The subregional agency shall communicate its findings in writing to the appropriate local agencywithin 15 days after receipt of local agency notification. Within 5 days of receiving subregional agency confirmation, the local agency shall post public notice of its decision and notify CDFG and USFWS of its actions and findings, including the findings by the subregion. Notification of CDFG and the USFWS shall include project and biological information and delineate the location of the boundaries of the subject project on a 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map. USFWS shall review the project for consistency with the interim take guidelines. If, in its judgement, USFWS perceives a discrepancy between their findings and the NCCP biological strategies end the Section 4(d) rule, the California State Supervisor shall notify the local approving agency within 30 days. Once notification has been given to the local agency, final approval for the interim take application shall be given by the USFWS. If July 20, 1993 DRAFT CSS NCCP PROCESS GUIDELINES Interim Take Approvals DRAFT July 20, 1993 Page 5 no notification is provided by the USFWS within 30 days, the proposed take shall be deemed approved and may proceed as approved by the local agency. IV. Termination if Interim Period Upon the approval of an NCCP by the USFWS and CDFG, the interim period in the subregion shall terminate and the rules for interim take shall be replaced by the "Take Provisions" of the approved NCCP plan within the geographic area governed by the NCCP. July 20, 1993 DRAFT 16758 Federal ~ / Vol. 58, No. 59 / Tuesday, Mamh 30, 19~3 ." Proposed Rule~ ,,~ceivsd in response to the 5.africans proposal to list the ~natcatc::~er. detailed desc':ptions of be facets aflecJ. ng it~ c:nUnued existence, me ma~;ons why ~':Ucal heattat is not being .:::roposed. ~d '.he conservenon seasuits avafiabie to federally L/steal suecos. Secaon ~t{d} of ~e ^ct pn~vldes that whenever s species :s l/sted ~s a ,~.~atened species, such regulations deemed necessary and adv~:,~able to ~rovide for '..he conservenor, of the ~eces may be issued. 'l'~es,a r~,uletions may prohibit an',~ act prohibited for endangered seeores u~uder so.ion 9(eL These prch/biuons. m part. make it iile~al for any person subject to the lunsdicuon of the Unite<i States to ta~e (inc!udes hal"ass. harm, pursue, kant. shoot. wound. kiil, u~,~, or collect; cr to attempt any of these). :report or export. s~ip in interstate commerce in uh~ cours~ of commercial acsivity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed wddli i!~ spacues. It ~s also illegal to possess. seti, deliver, car'v, transport, or ship any such w'i18ti£e duet has be~n take~ illegally. Certain exceptions appiy to agents of the Earvice and State conservenon agent. Joe. The implementin8 re~ulauc, as for rometoned wildliie (50 C. FR I?.31] inca .rporate. for the most part. the ~rohi0itions for endangered wildlife '~-':'R 17,21}, except when a spec/al rule applies {50 CFR 17.3%(c)), In the case of the coastal California gnatcatcher, the Service found that the prohi0itions for endangered species were ~eneratly necessary and advisable for conservation of the spaones, 'However, pu.rsuant to section 4{d) of t,ne Act, as amended. and 50 CF'R 17.3~,~icl. the Service proposes to define conditions under which tak, of the coastal California gnatcatch~r resulting kern specified land-use scuvities resulatedL by state and local government would not violate secaon 9 of the Act. The Service racegrazes ~e significant efforts undertaken by '..he $~ate of California through the Natural C~mmunity Conservation F~anning Act of I991 {NCCP), as well as prego-ams as the Multiple £?ecues Conserved. on Program of San Diego County and the Multispecae~ Habitat Conservation Planmn~ after: by Riverside County, to approach'oh systematic evaluation and :,~storat/on ~abitat for the benefit of he~:dthy ecosystems, rather than s s?ecies-by- species approach. Such effc as encourage holistic management of listed spedes. like the coastal C. al Jornia gnatcatcher, end other sense:tire species, .~ a result. the Set-Ace is p~:'oposing a special rule that would defi~e the conditions under which ta~,~ associated DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Flsl~ and Wilefills $e~lce 50 CFR Part 1 ~' RIN 1018-AB56 EnCengered and Threatene~ Wildlife ancl Plants; Propoaacl Special Rule To Allow Take of tl~e Threatened Coastal California Gnatcaroller *G['~:Y: Fish and Wildlife Service. Interior. ~C"nON: Proposed special rule. SU~v: The lmplement:ng regulations for .,ha-eatened wildlife ~enerally inc~r~orete the section 9 prohibitions for e:~danl~ered wildlife. except when a erecol rule applies. In ~e case of the c~astal California gnatcatcher [Polioptila cafiiornica cahfornicaL ~e Fish and wiidlife Service [Service) found that the prohibitions for endangered species were generally necessary and advisable for conservation of the species. This finding is published m this same Federal Register separate part. However. pursuant to sec-aon 4(d) of the F_mdangered Species Act of 1973, as amended [Act), and the implementing regulations. the Service proposes to define the conditions essocoated with certain land-use activities under which take of the coastal Cali£omia gnatcatc.,~er would not be a violation of section 9. The Service seeks comments from the public on this proposed spaeel rule. oA~s: Comments from all interested par*des must be received by June 1, 1993. ,~aCaESSES: Comments and meterials concernin~ this proposal should be sent to rhe Field Supervisor, U.5. Fish and Wildlife Service. Carlsbad Field orrin. 2730 Loker Avenue West. Carlsbad. California 92008. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspec'aon. by appointment. dunng normal business hours at the above address F~R FURTHER INFOR&4~I'ION CONTACT: Mr. ~effrey D. Opalyoke, Field Supervisor. at the address listed above (telephone 519/431--94401. Ihckg~ound ~The final rule to list the coastal Cahfornia gnatcatcher (Polioptdlo califomica californico) as threatened. published in this same Federal Regi~er part. presents discussions describing the current range and status of the gnat~tcher, previous Federal actions on this species. a summa~ of the coremonto and recommendations -um csnam ~nd-u~e ac,dvit~e~ would ~h~ 5~ce wc, uld ~e~it t~e of~e ccas':,al ~fc~a ~at~t~er a~at~ wit:; ~,d-u~ a~a;uu~ cove~d by ~ a~::r~:ved pl~ pmp~d ~der ~e ma~: me approved pi~ m~ ~e :~uanca ~:ena of ~ in~d~ permit p~u~t ~ 5o ~ Mor,,~ver, wmle ~e NC~ plus ~ bem~ deveic~d. ~e s~ ~e wo~d ~m ~viu~ ~nduced in accar~ ~,m ~nse~a~on ~idelmes developed by :,he S~enUSc Renew P~el e~tabiished ,~der '~e N~ p~, pmv,~ded ~e '.~uce dete~m~ ~e ~;ancards. ~e Sereice believes ~at ~s ~=ec:~al ~le will =re*ida far habitat c~nse~stion ~d' m~a8ement to me mcove~,' of ~e gnat~t~er ~ ~ m~';~:~er consistent ~i~ ~e p~es of [L:'~ali~on of ~ sp~ial role is contm~en~ u~n sdopuon of ~e Saentific Review P~el's pinning ~ui~ehnes for ~e ~tal Sage ~b NC~ p~am by ~e ~lifomia Depa~ment of F[~ ~d ~me ~d ~e 5er~' ~ Nation~ ~vk~ental Po~ A~ The Fish and Wildlife ~ will compl7 with ~e Na~onal ~nv~nmental Poli~ A~ of 196~ (N~A) in implemen~ng ~e p~vi~ons of the p~po~ sp~al ~le. ~t to · e NC~ ~e~ G~de~nes adopt~ bv ~e ~lilomia Resou~ Agen~ ~d C~e ~'~ifomia ~ent of Fi~ ~d ~e, a joint State~e~l environmental d~ent ~11 ~ pmpa~ for ea~ N~ ply. At ~e start of a NC~ pl~m8 effort. a pl~mn8 a~ment ~11 establish ~e extent of F~eml involvement ~d ~ic:e obliga~o~ ~der ~A. ~ app:mpnate. ~e N~ t~d aSeU~ ~11 provide d~m~ta~on to ~ist ~e ~vice ~ ~A ~mpli~. Bo~ S~te ~d Federal law pro.de for pm~on cf'a ~oinr StateS'oral environmental I.L~{ of Sub}~u ~ ~0 ~ Pa~ 17 E:~d~gemd ~d ~aten~ ~po~, ~po~, ~po~g ~d ~rdk~pin8 ~rements, ~d Transpop.on, ~p~ R~a5oum p~mulgaHou Acco~in~y, it is hereby propo~ to amend p~ 17. ~apter B of ~apter I, role 50 of~e ~e of F~e~ R~ula~ons. as ~t fo~ ~1ow: Scientific name 59 / Tuesday,, M~_': ::~0, 1993 Vaneorate ~a~c~ where / Proposed RuJes 16759 Gnatca=net, coastat P,~ioOrM ¢aJif~rnica U.S.A. (C,,t), Mexx:i3 C~ifom~a. c,a/iforn,,caz E,m.e .......................T Status When NA 17.41(b) 3. It is proposed to amend § 17.43. by adding paraDraph [b) to read as follows: ,~ 17,41 ~ml ~) Coastal ~lifomla {Potm~uio coli[om~c: c~ii[omica}. (1; Except ~ noted in pam~aphs ~o}(2~ md (3l of ~is s<~ion, all pmh:bitmns of ~ 17.31 ~a} and ~] shall apply to ~e coastal ~Jifamia ~at~t~er. [2) Mcidenta] t~e of :~e coastal ~lifomZa gnat~t~er :s petitted if ~e t~e ~sul~ Dam ac::vities concluded acco~ce wi~ a Nat~al Comm~ity Con~mation PI~ for the prot~ian coastal ~ge s~b habitat, ~meided (i] The Natal ~mmumty Con~ma~on Pl~ has b~n pmp~d, approved, md implemented p~uant to ~hfomia Fish md ~me Code se~ions 280~2840: ~d (ii] ~e Fish md Wildlife Se~ice has i~ued ~tten con~gce that the Natural ~mmunity Consemation m~ts ~e st~d~ds ~t fo~ 17.32(b)(2} ~e Semics shall isle its co~cu~nce pamuant to the pravisio~ of ~e Memoryalum of Uncleintending dated ~cember 4, 1991, ~tw~n ~lifomia Depa~ment of Fish and ~me ~d ~e ~rvice ~garding coastal ~ge sc~b natu~l commumty consemotion pianning in southern California, (Copms of the Memorandum are available from U.S. Fish and Wilati,% Ser'v'ica, 2730 Loker Avenue West. Carlsbad, CA 920083 (3) During tho pemod that a Natural Community Cons~ration Plan referred to in paragraph (bi(2) of this section is being prepared. inc:dental take of the coastalcalifornia gnatcatcher is permitted if the take results from a~ivities condu~,ed pursuant to guidelines prepared by the Scientific Review Panel for this program and adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game pu,"suant to California Fish and Game Code semion provided t~ot: (i) The take oc. cu:~. ;.n an ~raa within a local governmental jurisdiction that is. enrolled in the natural community conservation planning process; (ii) The Fish and Wildlife Service has issued written concurrence that the guidelines meet the standards set forth in 50 CFR 17.32('b)[2L The Service shell issue its concurrence pursuant to the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding 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:. and (iii) The total loss of coastal sage scrub habitat resulting from ac:ivities covered by this paragraph does not exceed the res~,':.cuons defined by the Scientific Review Panel/California Department of Fish and Game guidelines. [4) If the Fish and Wildlite Service has concurred in the guidelines re[erred to in paragraph ('b)(3) of this sect. ion. the Service shall review the guidelines every six months to determine whether they continue to meet the standards set forth in 50 CFR l?.32fb){2L Iir the Service determines the guidelines no longer meet these standards. the Service shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Game pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 4, 1991, to seek appropriate modification of the guidelines, and shall revoke its concurrence under paragraph [b}(3) of this section if appropriate modification of the guidelines does not occur. Dated: March 19, 1993. Johz~ F. Turner, Director, U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doe. 93--7147 Filed 3-25--93; 11:25 am] B~)NG C~OE 4316,-M.~ SENsrl'TVE SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL SAGE SCRUB TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW PANEL ANIMALS: California horned lark (Eremphila alpestris actia) Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli bello Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronaturn blainvilIeO Coastal western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus) San Diego banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus abbottO Coronado sicink (Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis) Red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus tuber) Coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hca:alepis virgultea) Coastal rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata rosafusca) Southwestern pond turtle (Cierarays marinorata pallida) Western. spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondiO Arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus pacificus) Arroyo chub (Gila orcuttO Santa Aria sucker (Catostomus santaanae) San Diego black-tailed ,jackrabbit (Lepus caIifornicus benettiO San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensO Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona) Dutzura California pocket mouse (Perognathus californicus femoralis) Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Perognathus fallax fallax) Pallid San Diego pocket mouse (Perognathus fallax pallidus) Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonf) San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sp.) Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes) Coastal giant skipper (M. egathymus yuc,cae ssp.) Dun skipper (Euphyes vestris harbisonO Yucca moth (Tegeticula yuccasella) Ca n Escens) PLANTS: San Diego thorn mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) California adolphia (AdoIphia californica) Shaw's agave (Agave shawiO Munz's onion (Aliiurn frimbriatum var. munziO San Diego bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) Aphanisma (Aphanisrna blitoid~) San Diego sagewort (Arternisia palmfrO Braunton's milk vetch (Astragalus brauntoniO Dean's milk vetch (Astragalus deanez~ Plummer'sbaccharis (Baccharis lalumrnerae) Golden-spined cereus (Btrgerocactus emoryO Nevin's brickellia (Brickcilia neviniO Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae) Orange County mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii vat. intermedius) Payson:s jewelflower (Caulanthus simulans) Orcut't's spineflower (Chorizanthe orcuttiana) San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina) Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi vat. parryO Orcutt'sbird's-beak (Cordylanthus orcuttianus) Sea dahlia (Coreopsis maritima) San Diego sand aster (Corethrogynt filaginifolia vat. incana) De! Mar Mesa sand aster (Corethrogyne fiIaginifolia .vat. linifoIia) Western dichondra (Dichondra occidentalis) Slender-horned spineflower (Dodtcaherna leptoceras) Orcut't's dudleya (Dudleya attenuata ssp. orcuttiO Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. ovatifolia) Short-leaved dudleya (DudIeya brevifolia) Santa Monica Mtn.s. dudleya (Dudleya cymo. sa ssp. ovatifoIia) Many-ste~nmed dudleya (Dudleya muIticaulis) Conejo dudleya (Dudltya parva) Laguna Beach dudleya (DudIeya stolonifera) Variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegata) Verit'y's dudleya (Dudleya verityO Bright green dudleya (Dudleya virens) Sticky dudleya (Dudleya riscida) Santa Ana l~iver woollystar (Eriastrum densifotium sanctorum) Conejo buckwheat (Erigonum crocatum) Succulent walflower (Erysimum suffrutescens ssp. suffrutescens) Cliffspurge (Euphorbia misera) San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) Rush-like bristleweed (I-tapIopappus junceus) Palmer's haplopappus (Haplopappus palrneri ssp. pairnerO ?almer's grapplinghook (HarpagoneIla palmeri var. pa Imer Orcutt's hazardia (Hazardia orcutt£O Otay tarplant (Hernizonia conjugens) Santa Susana Mountains tarplant (Hemizonia minthorniO Davidsoh's bush mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonif). Nevin's barberry (Mahonia neviniO Willowy monardella (MonardeIla linoides viminea) Pringle's monardella (MonardelIa pringleO San Diego goldenstar (Muilla clevlandiO Snake cholla (Opuntia parryi vat. serpentina) Short-lobed broomrape (Orobanche parishii ssp. brachyloba) Pringle's yampah (Perideridia pringleO Greene's ground-cherry (Physalis greeneO Coulter's mantilija poppy (Romneya coulterO Small-leaved rose (Rosa minutifolia) Munz's sage (Salvia munziO Crown beard (Verbesina dissita) San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata) APPENDIX E PROPOSED SPECIAL RULE APPENDIX F SRP SENSITIVE SPECIES LIST APPENDIX G DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A,~tA AAAA AA NCCP ADVIS COMMITTEE MEETING NEW ADVISORY CMTE FULL ADVISORY COMMrI'TI~ File:NCCP-ALL., 256 Records 4/5/93 Rikki Alberson Bnldwin Company 11975 El Camino Real Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130 NCCPMAILING LIST City of San Marcos 57ORanchet~ Drive, Ste. I01 San Mar~os, CA 9206~ Rick Alexander Consultants CoLiaix~mive 570 Rancheros Drive, St,-. 20I San Marcos, CA 92069 Craig Adams Sierra Club 125 Arbor Delve San Diego, CA Jean Andrews Andrews and Associates 2445 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 310 San Diego, CA 92101 Carolyn Avalos EHL 605A Hygeia Avenue I.amcodia. CA 92024 .ferry Backoff Director - Platoming Division City of San Marcos 105 W. Rickmax Avenue San Marcos, CA 92069 Dangern~n and 172[ Ser. ond St. Suite 203 Sacramento, CA 95814 Peter Aylwaxd IME Investors I~s Montanas 5360 Jack.~n Drive Suite 212 La Mesa, CA 91942 Mary L~ ~L~Uco MSCP Coordinator .of San Di_ego B Street. ~u, te 2002 San Diego, CA 92101 Robert As~x County of San Diego - Planning Dept 5201Ruffm Road Suite B San Diego, CA 9217..3 Joe ~abb Environmental Mgmt Specialist Count~ of San D~ego - Dept. of P!atmmgand Land Use ~525 G~bs Drive, Ste. 1 San Diego, CA 92123 Helix Companies P.O. Box f5453 San Diego, CA 92175-5453 Barbara Barnberger City of Chula Vista 276 Forest Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Acting Director Cit~ of lm~.rinl Beach 8251~ B~ Blvd. I~ ~, CA 91932 Terry Con~dtants Collaborative 570 Raocbetos Drive, Suiu.- 201 San Matcos, CA 92069 Jim Barnes City of San Clemente 91OCalle Negocio San Clemente, CA 92672 George Basye ShellWestern E & P Inc. P.O. Box 11164 Bakersfield, CA 93389 Michel Beck EHL Box 841 Julian, CA 92036 phil Behrends Dudek & Associates 605 Third St. Encimtas, CA 92024 Craig Benevillc Eanii First! I000 Playsicad Sciences, #A46 Irvine, CA 92715 Scott Bie Lute Forward 1600 N. Broadway, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101 Glenn Black California Department of Fish & Game 330 Golden Shore Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 Attorney at Law Chicago Kent Law School 565 W. Actams Street ChJcago, IL 60661 Jerry Boggs Ecologist SW D~vision, Naval Fac. Eng. Command Coast 1220 Pacific_ Highway San Diego, CA 92132 Bill Boyd Howanf Ric~ 3 EmSa~ Center 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Marty BOhl Gray Cary 40i B Street SAn Diego, CA 92101 Carl Boyer Mayor City of Santa Clarim 23920 V~en~ Blvd., Suit~e 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RV: \C: \WSZ000\L I STXLSRLBL] Marina Brand County of San Di.e~_, OP_LU 5201Ruffm Road, Sram t~ San Diego, CA 92123 Ion Brind~ City of 201 N. ¥i~ lanaident - Planning Santa Marge..'la _~_~_ 30211 Av-enida D~ Lis ~ander~ Randno Santa Mm4,arit, CA 926 Eileen Brown Siemon Larsen & Marsh 19800 MacArthur Irvine, CA 92715 Laguna Greenbelt Inc. P.O. Box 860 4nive~ity of Nevada hutat of Biology Reno, NV 89557 Slader Buck MCB Camp Pendleton ENRNID-Bidg. 2276 MCB Camp Pendleton, CA 92055 Patti Bumsmy City Manager City of Rancho Palos Ve~l~s 30'040 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos V, CA 90274 Constance Byram McMillin Commtmlties 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 91950 Rod Cameron Baldwin Company 11975 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92127 Mark Cano P!amung Department City of E.sc~ndido 20IN. Broadway Escondido, CA 92O25 Jean Can' RECON 7460 Mission Valley Rd San Diego, CA 92108 Jim Carter Environmental I~nd Sol 7722 Faroi Place Carlsbad, CA 92009 Jim Carter Environmental Land Solutions 1094 Cudshy Place, tr324 San Diego, CA 92110 Supervisor Riverside County 4080 Le. ns~ Stre~ 14th Floor Riverside, CA 92502 Vin Horne Capital 707 Broadway, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 David Claycomb Helix Envimnmmtal 7777 Aivarado Road, Suim 615 I~ Mesa, CA 91941 Sandra Cleisz Associate Planner City of San Diego I010 Second Avenue Mail Stop 66O San Diego, CA 92101 Bill Cleves Mission Trails P.P. 647 i Norman I~ne San Diego, CA 92120 Tracy Cline County of San Dieg_o 5201 Ruffm Road. Sty. B San Diego, CA 92103 Susan Cochrane Chief California .Dept. of Fi:~ and Natural Heritage Division Resources Bldg, 1416, Nin S~cramenm, C-A 9581 $ W.A. Colton 1Ti Arvida ! Coto de Ca~ Drive Coto de C. az~, CA 92679 M~rla Cone 1375 Sunflower Costa Mesa, CA 92626 S~zn Couch Hunsaker & Associa~ 3 Hughes Lrvme, CA 92718 Lyn Creswell Dept. of Navy We~em Area Counsel Office Camp Penalelton, CA 92055 Dick Crowe Bm~au of I.~nd Management Public Affairs 6221 Box Springs Blvd. Riverside., CA 92506 Donna Damson Director, Govt. and Coremunit Zoological Society of :San Diegu P.O. I~x 551 San Diego, CA 921 I24}551 Brian Darnels P & D Environmental Services 1100 Town & Country Road, Suim 300 Orange, CA 92668 Tim Dav~ Clean Wster Program 401 B Street San Diego, CA 9210~ Linda Dawes US Fish & W'fldlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Cartsbad, CA 92OO8 RV:\C:\~S2000\LIST\LS~LBL3 Claim T. Dealrick 1559 Ninth ^venue Sammnento, CA 95818 National Audubon Society P.O. Box 967 Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678 Ma~: Dinon 2011 Paloma Aimoft R~i, Ste.305 ~, CA 920O9 Julie Dillon Roberts Dillon Development 416 University Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 BLLI Donshetty Buena Vista Audubon 2600 La Goiondrma Cartsl~, CA 92OO9 Jo~m City of Newpo~_ Beach 3300 NewpOrt Blvd. Jack Doyle Chairman, Board of Directors San Diego Association of Governments l-irst Interstate Plaza, Ste. 84X) 401 B Street San Diego, CA 92101 Bill Domka San Diego, CA 92110 T~rri ~m MBA 2530 Red Hill Avenue Santa Aria, CA 92705 Jeanne Eggenberger Sauls Company 742 Summit ' Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Robert E. ELkel Eikel & Co. 2363 N__,-~h-,v Road El C. ajon, CA 92020 Laura Eiseuber~ Transport. on Comdor Agencies 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Larry Eng California De0artment of Fish & G~me Environmental S~rvices Division 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Pain Engebretson Southwest Diversified 22.65 Fort Stockton Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Mict~l U. Evans Coun~ of San Diego - Planning Dept 8525 Gibbs Dr., $te 100 San Diego, CA 92103 Anne Ewing County Planning 5201Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 Janet Fairbanks SANDAG 401 B Street Suite San Diego, CA 92101 Julie Fisher 126 Villag~ Run West Encinitm, CA 92O26 Claudia FitzpatrickAgzures County Counsel 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 355 San Diego, CA 92101 R. David Flesh Semor Planner, Environmental Clean Wamr Prom. for Gr. San Diego First Intestate Plaza 401 B Street. Ste I000, M San Diego, CA 92101 Monica Flonan The Irvine Co_mpany 550 Nevqxmrt Center Drive Newport l~ach, CA 9265g-9204 Dan Fox City of Tustin 15222 Dei Arno Tu.stm, CA 92680 Kit Fox City of Da~u Point 33282 Golden Lantern //212 Dana Point, CA 92629 Ken Frank 5C{~of Laguna Beach Fore~ Avenue Laguna Bench, CA 92651 Leonard Frank Pardee Construction Company 10880 Wiishir~ Blvd. Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Richard Frank Attorney_ General's Office 1515 K Strut ~511 Sacramento, CA 95814 Allen Fmaz Marymoat Palos Vendes College PVP Land Conservancy Marymont Colle~ Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 9(rz74 Robert Frazee Assembly M. ember State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 R.icb~rd Fnesen BioDiversity Associa~s 144 Bnarw0od Irvine, CA ~14 Bill Fulton Califorma Planning & Der. Report 1275 Sunnycr~t Vennu~ CA 93003 RV:\C:\WS2000\LIST\LSRLSL3 Ma~ Gale Pub//¢ Affa/rs Officer California ~ of Fish & Gan~ 1416 Ninth Street 12th Sacramento, CA 95814 92024 T? Gemsran BIologi(-'al ,a- n rt S(a, vi~m 32~I ~ Avenu~ Los Ang~s, CA ~0039 Bill Geyer Geyer 1029 K Street, ,9'33 Sacramenw, CA 95814 Pt~n Gibson Cos~an/Stmvm l~'tne~ship 1920 Main Strict, Suit,- 560 Irvine, CA 92714 2730 Loker Avenu~ West C. arlsl~t, CA 92009 Dr. Michael Gilpin University of Ca., San Diego Biology De _pa~'tm~___t. C-016 San Dingo, CA 92037 Michad Goreelves 155 ! 4th Avenue, Suit~ 430 San Diego, CA 92101 Kim Could Wildlife Biologist S.C.a Edison P.O. Box 800 Rosemind, CA 9 I770 Keith Greet City of San Diego Planning 1010 2rid Avenue, Mail Stop 660 San Diego, CA 92101 Charlie Grimm City of Esc, ondido 20IN. Broadway Escondido, CA 92025 Chainbern G_r99g_, Iac. P.O. Box 57002 Irvine, CA 92619-7002 Caroline Haigh Resources Agericer 1416 9th Street, ~uite 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 I~uren Hall Celttans 2829 Juan Street San Diego, CA 92182 Wade Hall McMillen Commuaities 2727 Hoover Ave. National City, CA Dana Halle Siemon, ~ & Marsh 19800 McArthur Blvd. Suite 350 Irvine, CA 92715 Susan Hamilton City of San Di_e~o - CWP 401 B Strict, State I000 San Diego, CA 92101 Marcia Haminert PIA San Diego Iac. 12770 High Bluff Drive Suite 260 San Diego, CA 9213(} Tom Van Voorst Building Ind~t~try Ass~iation of Riverside County 4333 Orange Street. Suim 3600 Riverode, CA 92501 Carol Hmd~sou I~s Montama/LME lnvemorsW 5360 Jackson Drive Suite 212 La M~aa, CA 91942 Marie HeForandsou 3C(~40of Rancho Pal~ Vetdes Havnl)ome BI ~d. ~cho P~ V~, CA ~7~ Joan Hcrskowitz County of San Diego - Planning and Land Use Department 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B San Diego. CA 92123 PA.~i~p. Hins~aw · . Himhaw 3570 Camino del Rio//104 San Diego, CA 92108 Diana Hoard Baldwin Company 16811 Hale Irvine, CA 92714 Sandy Holder City of Oceanside 300N. Hill ~ide, CA 92054 Michael Hokmiller City of C~rlsl~l/Plamting Department 2075 Las Palmas Ddve ~s~, CA ~ Emily Howard County of San Diego - Planning and I.~d Us~ I~partm~t '. 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B San Diego, CA 92123 Gordon How,mi City of Chub Vista 276Fomnh Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Annet~ Hub~atl Office of Senator Dave Kelly 11440 W. Bernardo Com't San Diego, CA 9212'? RV:\C:\~S2000\LIST\LSRLBL3 U.S. Navy, NAS Miramar Code 1872.1 Staff Civil Engix!_eer NAS Miramar, CA 92145 Don Hunsaker The Envimnmemal Trust 1540 Savin Drive E1 Cajon, CA 92021 $mve lolmson 7~$ Minifast St., 3rd F!o~ San Francisco, CA 94013 Allen /ones Fenwn-Wesmm Pml~-x~s P.O. BOx64 San Diego, CA 92112 Barry- Jones oden $?~0 Morehouse Drive San Diego, CA Craig Iones City of Encimta$ 527 Encinitas Blvd. Encimms, CA 92024 Loren Kaye Cabinet ,%cre Governor's Office Sta~ Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 David Kelley MichneJ Brandon Assod. u~s 2530 Red Hill ^venuz Sant- Aria, CA 92705 Patrick Kelly UC Riverside 139 Highlander Hall Riverside, CA 92507 W. Allen Kelly. 4912 Via Areqmpa Carlsbad, CA 92008 Holman ~!anaing Association 2386 Faraday Ave. Suite 120 Carlsbad, CA 92008 L__~_ ICIipp~_ m 5an Bemadmo Sage Friends P.O. Box 2828 Beverly Hills, CA 90213 Gaff Koberich US Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA Adam Koltz PAC Southwest Biological Services P.O. Box 985 National City, CA 91951 David Kossack Friends of the Tecate Cypress 395. La Senda Laguna l~ach, CA 92677 Joan Kouns County of San Diego Supervisor Bailey's office 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego. CA 92101 ahen Kynas fornia Coasinl 245 West Broadwhy Long Beach, CA 9O8O2 Ron Lard Asst. Chief of Staff for Environment MCAS El Toro, CA 92709 Lois Knight Lame Save Our Coastline 2000 3136 Barkentine Road Rancho Pnlos V, CA 90274 Bob Leiter City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vis~ CA 91910 Steve Lettedy Mgr., Environmental In~ Transpo~o_n Comdor Agencies 345 Clinton :/treet Costa Mesa, CA 92626 lack Levy Development Biology Center 4205 Biological Science II UC Irvine Irvine, CA 92717 Claude A. I.~-'wis Mayor City of Cadsbad I200 Cadsbad Village Drive Carlsbad. CA 92OO8 Brian Loew County of Riverside - Habitat Conservation Agency 4080 Lemon St., 12Rt Riverside, CA 92501 J'eff Lovich Burman of Land Management Palm Springs-So. Coast Pamource Arm 63-500 Game~ Avenu~ P.O. Box 2000 North Palm Spry, CA 92258 Ellen Mackey MWD of Southern California P.O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 Dick MacMillen Endangered Habitats Les~ South Laguna. CA 92677 Michael Mantell Undersecretary The Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street Suite 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 Lindeli Marsh Simeon. Larsen & Marsh 19800 McAtthur Boulevard Suite 350 Irvine, CA 92715 Barbara Massey Sierra Club 7107 Bridereek Road San Diego, CA RV:\C:\WS2000\LIST\LSRLaL3 'thomas Ma~hmv~ Director of Planning County of Ormge g. nvitoamental l~anagen~n~ Agency 12 Civic C~ PIm, R~ ~6 ~ ~, CA 92701 Amly Mc 1416-9th Street $m~ 1311 Sacran~mto, CA 95814 Micba~ McCollurn McCollam ~ ~x-i,re~ 7T22 Rio Bamo Way S~,-..-~m, CA 95831 Adelia McCord 30100 Town Centre' Drive 1~..339 ~ Niguel, CA 92677 Dan McCorquodale Serotar $m Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Mane McGow~ City of Escoodido 20! N. Broadway · :Escomtido, CA 92025; Larry McKenney U.S. Marine Corp/Western Area Counsel Office (Bldg #1254) Camp Pendleton, CA 92055 Mike McLmghiin San Di_ego Asseeiatiou of Oove 401 B Strmt. Suim 800 San Diego. CA 9210/ John McTaggart Mayor City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30~40 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos V, CA 90274 Rod Meade Meade Consulting 7910 Ivanhoe Ave., Ste. 40 L~ Jolla, CA 92037 Marty Meisler Metropolitan Water District Box 54153 ~ Angeles, CA 90054-0153 Cliff Mevers Commtm~ty Plans & Liaison Officer Mann Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA 92055 Frank Mickadmt Orange Co_unty .l~-gister 23811 Via Fabricante Mission Viejo, CA 92619 Robert D. Mickelson President Mickeison Platming Consultants 328 North Glasser Street P.O. Box 932 Change, CA 92666.-O932 Mark Middlebrook P~cific Cielo Development Inc. 9605 Scranton Road San Diego, CA 92122 Patrick Mock OGDEN Environmental 5510 Mo~ Drive San Diego, CA 92121 $ud Monroe Me_tro~_ lima Wamr District of So,them California 28831 Shady Plas:~ Laguna BeaCh, CA 92651 Chris Morrow PDC 701 B Street. Suite 800 San Diego, CA C2ms Morrow _p~ject Desi~ Cons. 701 B Street, Suite Dan Dido, CA ~101 Jess Morton PV/SB Audubon 787 Wes~ 4th Street San Pedro, CA 90731 Dennis Moser 4 S Ranch 10840 Thommint Road ~110 San Diego, CA 92127 Dr. Denms Murphy Chair, Scientific Review Panel 5taa~t of Biological Sciences ford Uaiversity Stanford. CA 94305 David Nagel County of San Diego - Planning Land Use DepamnL'nt 5201 Ruffm Road, Sui~ San Diego, CA 92123 David Naime San Mit,'uel Panners ,0'930 4~'50 La Joll~ Village Drive San Diego, CA 92122 Tim Neely Managex, Environmental Policy County of Orange Environmental ~_a3mge. ment Agency 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Aria, CA 92702 Jim Nessel City of Poway 13325 Civk: Center Deive Poway, CA 92064 Mary- Nichols Semor Staff AUomey Natural Resources l~fense Council 617 South Olive Street Los A.ugeles, CA 90014 Dr. Reed Noss 925 Northwest 31st Street Corv~lis, OR 97330 Ann Notthoff NRDC 71 Stevenson San Francisco, CA 94105 ~V:\C:\US2000\L!ST\LSRLBL3 Dr. John O'Leary San Diego State University _Depa~Lttn~a- t of Geography San Diego, CA 92182 Tom Olsen Thomas Olsen & Associat~ 2829 South State Street Hemet, CA 92543 Dudley Onderdonk City of Rancho Palos Vetdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos V, CA 90274 Pamela Parker Biodiversity Group Sierra Club 3543 Ottawa Ave San Diego, CA 92117 Thomas County of San D 5201 Ruffm Road. Suite ~--5 San Dingo, CA 92127 Southwest Diversified 19200 Yon Kin'man. Smt-= 400 L-viue, CA 92715 ]eft Opdycke Field Supervisor U.S. Fi~ and Wildlife Service Southern CA Field Station 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 John Palmer Southern California Edison Envimmnental Resources ]Division P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 Richard P?r~. California Budding Industry As~n I107-91h Street, Suite 1060 Sam'amento, CA 95814 C. amlyrm Petru City 0f P, ancbo Palos ventes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdm, CA 90274 Mark Pisano Executive Director Southern Califorma Association of Governments 818 W. Seventh Street Los Angeles, CA 9(3017 iego County Water Authority 3211 FifiJ~ Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Doug Reid City of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 91912 K~vm Pollson Canyn Co.m~_ y 32 Executive Suite 155 Irvine, CA 92714 Ann Rast CbJef of Special Operations County of.~a Diego County P~trks 5201 Ruffm Road, Ste. P San Diego, CA 92123 Tom Reid President Thomas Reid Associates 505 Hamilton Ave., Ste. 201 P.O. Box 872 Palo AJto, CA 94301 C.J. Postma Senior _Project Manager Home Capital Development 707 Broadway, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92116 Chambers Group Inc. 16700 Aston Street Irvine, CA 92714 {~M. Renak~' 1374 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 Cathere Rich Southern C. aliforma Association of Governments 818 W. Seventh Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Dave Riley Region 1, A~st. Regional Director US Fish and Wildlife Service Eastside Federal Complex 911 NE Iltb Avenue Portland, OR 97232 Stephen Rynas S,~pervisor, Regulation & Planning California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Ste. 380 P.O. BOx 1450 Long l~ch, CA 90802 Don Rideout City of C..arlshad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 920O9 Paul Ross Grove Engineering 8963 Complex Drive San Diego, CA 92109 Larry R. Sahta U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Building, Room 3106 24000 Avila Road laguna Nigel, CA 92656 John Riess ftof San Diego Attorney C Street, MS 3A Sen Diego, CA 92001 Gary Ruyle Rrian Mooney Associates 9903-B Buainess Pa~k Averam San Diego, CA 92131 Ed Sauis The Fieldstone Company, ~'o the Satds Compa~__y 742 Sunumt Drive, Suite I00 Lngu~ ne.,=tt, CA 926~I RV:\C:\tdS2000\LIST\LSRLBL3 Jacqueline E. Scbafer Assmant Sec,-m7 of the Navy. for Installation & Environment 2211 Jefferson Davis Highway Crystal Palace ~'5, Suite 266 W~,hington, DC 20360 Gina Schultz RECON 7460 Mission Valley Road San Diego, CA 92108 California _D~"pt. of Fish & Game 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento. CA 95814 Lucia Sippel Kelly Ranch 1287 Vera Cruz Oceanside. CA 92056 Glenn Smith 11485 Fuerta El Cajon. CA 92020 Wayne Spencer Michael Brandman Associat~ 7676 Ha~nl Center Drive Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92108 Bill Stewart Consultant 146 Barhaven Lane Fallbrook. CA 92028 Norma Sullivan Audubon SocietT, San Diego 5858 Scripps__ St. San Diego, CA 921~ Sat Tamaribuchl sh-Vine Co__mp~¥ trategi¢ Planning Dept., 6th Floor 550 Newlx~rt Center Drive Newport ~ear. h, CA 92660 Bob Unun McCutcheon, Boyle,Btow~ & Emerson 3 Emba.-cadem C.~nter ' San Francisco, CA 94111 RVt\C:\US2000\LIST\LSRLgL3 F.D. Schlesmger Program Ditect~ C:~ean Water Ptog. for Gr. San Diego First Internare Plaza 401 B $1~eet, Ste 1000, M San Diego, CA 92101 Transportanon Corridor Agn~ies 345 Clinton Strict Costa Me~a. CA 92026 Dan Silver 1499 N. Sweetzer Ave.. ]}401 Tony Skidmore Michaal Brandon Associatts 2530 Radhill Santa Ana, CA 92705 Trish Smith The Natu~ Comervancy 3142 lrvin~ Blvd. Irvine, CA 92720 Christine Sproul 1416-9th SIz~.t, ~oom 1311 Sacramento. CA 95g14 Terry Stewart 782I Orien Avenue La Mesa. CA 91941 Kenneth E. Sulzer San Diego Association of Governments First lnt~sta~ Plaza 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Stacy Thompson Gabrieltoo Tribal Council 133 Brooks Ave Claremont, CA 91711 I~ura Watt Nature Conservancy 785 Market Street 3rd Floor San Francisr. o, CA 941O3 ~ Schnitz USFWS 2730 ~ Aven~ Nortim C. adsb~ CA 92009 Mike Scott Miranat San Diego, CA 92145-5000 Dray Savere San Diego Uaion-Tn'bune 512 Via-]3~ ~ Valle )207 Solano l~ac.h. CA 9'2075 Tony Skidmore Michael Brandman Assoclat~ 2530 Redlfill Avenue Santa Ann, CA 92705 Trisha Smith The Natur~ Conservancy-lrvme Court .Opm S .pgc. e Preserve 3142 ?~'me Blvd. Irnne, CA 92'720 OGDEN 55 I0 Mornhome Drive: San Diego, CA 92121 John Sullivan Chief Deputy Director California ~t of Fish a Game 1416 Ninth Street. 12th Sacramento. CA 95814 Kevin Sweeaey. 327 1/2 San Elijo St. San Diego, CA 92106 W'dliam Toone Curator of Birds San Diego Wild Animal 15500 S~n _Pa.squal Valley Escondito, CA 92027.9614 Ten'y Watt Friends of Irvine Coast 1757 umon Street San Francin:o, CA 94t:D ¢Hi~S. Weinroth of Imp~. _'~ Beach 8;~lmpe~al Beach Boulevard I~al Beach, CA 91932 Harold W~Lr Dudek ~-~cia,~ 605 Third SU~e~ Eucimtas, CA 92024 Dolores Welty EHL 2076 Sheridan Road ~ -,w-~li-. CA 92024 James W3.alen Allianc~ for Habitat Conservahon 9404 Ocnes~e Ave. Suite 3a0 ta Jolla. CA 92037 Doug Whaler Th~ R~o~ Agency 1416 9th Street, Smt~ 13II Sacramento, CA 95814 Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street Suite 1311 Sacrameato, CA 95814 P.D. Williams Brigadier General, Cmdr M~me Corp. Manne Corps. Air Ba.s~, Western Ar~a Building 65, Manne Corp Air Station E1 Toro, CA 92709 ~ Wilson Environmental Plannex A/CS Installatiom MCAS El Tom Santa Aria, CA 92~709 Tara Wood US Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Coaage Way Sacrain. m, CA 95825 L~m Woods Chv of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 William Woolerr Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tom Wright U.S. Naw, NAS Miramar Code 187~. I Staff Civil Engineer NAS Mi~, CA 92145-5000 Elizabeth Yamaguchi Fallbrook Commumty Planning Group 1031 Hughes Lane Fallbrook, CA 92028 lnez Yoder EHL 7738 Madrilena Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dick Zerohal U.S. Fish and W'ddlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad. CA 920O8 Test Z. Zrecordformat High Muckv Muck ZZ"Z Bigg Company 123 Main Street P.O. Box 123 Mamstreetxa, CA 99999 ~V:\C:\~S2000\LIST\LSRLBL3 Friday December 10, 1993 L ='--'-= Part iV Department of the . Interior Fish and Wlldlife Service 5O CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Coastal California Gnatcatcher;, Rule and Proposed Rule - 65088 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 236 / Friday, December 10, 1993 /Ruies and Regulations DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR Rsh and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 FUN 1018-~BSa Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Special Rule Concerning Take of t~e Threatened Coastal California Gnatcatcher ~c~: FLsh and Wildli£e Service, Interior. A~t'tON: Fin~ rule. · JM~¥: The imptementL~g regulations for tJlrealened wildi~e under .F~tdaneemd $pe~es A~ of 1973, as amended (A~), generally incorporate th~ se(~on 9 prol~bitions for anciansered wildlife, except when special rule promulgated pursuant to section 4(d) applies. At the time the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptlla calif~rai~ califoraica} was listed as fin'eataned. the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) did not promulgate a section 4(dl special rule and. therefore, all of the section 9 prohibitions, including the "take" prohibition, .became applicable to the species. However, in rm:ognition of a State program that will provide for · conservation and management of the gl~tCatcher's ]~mhitat in a m~nner conH~ent with the purposes of the Act, the So,rice hereby defines, pursuant to section 4(d), the conditions under which take of the coastal c'_=tlfomia gnatcatcher would not be · violation of section 9. ~-~=CTIVE DATE: December 111. 1993. ADDRF. SSE~= The complete file for this ride is available for public inspection. by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Carlsbad Field Office, U.S. Fish and WildLife Service, 2730 Lokor Avenue West. CarLsbad, C~llforma 9ZO08. Peter A. Stine, Acting Field Supervisor, at the address listed above (telephone 619/431-g440). ~Jl~.~d!~l'i RY INFORMATION: Badqp'ound The final rule listing the coastal California gnatcatcher caliComica califoraicn} u a LIn-eatened species under the t~_nd.ngered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.] (Act), was published in the Federal Re~ister on March 311. 1993 (58 FR 18742], and contains · discussion of its status, previous Federal actions on this species, a summary of the comments and recommendations received in response to the Servica's proposal to list the gnatcatcher. detailmi descriptions of the factors affeczkug its continued existence, the resso~ why critical habitat was not designate(L and the conservation mo~tr~ awaita~te to consider~ tt~ cooed California gnatcatcher, hereinafter mfern~ to as gnatcatcher, likely to become endanger~t in the for~&ble thruughout ira historic range m southwestera Callferule and northwestern Baia C, alifomia. Mexico, due to wida~pnmd habitat dearruction, degradation. and fragmentation. and the inad~luacy of exiating regulatory m~hanl,maa to provide for it~ consm'vatien. C, ansorvation moasur~ available to ~pecies listed as endangered or ttn'~atened under the Act include r~cognition, r~covery actions. rmtuirsments'for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain activities. Section 4(d) of the Act provides that whenever a species is listed as a threatened species. the Service shall Jesus r~ulations deemed n~cessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the sp~:ies..Section re~i.o~idas that the Service may bY on prohibit any act prohibited for endangered species under set, on 9(a] of the Act, These prohibitions. in mP~'blect* make it iUegal for any person to the jurisdiction of the United States to t~ke (includes harass, harm. pursue. htmt, shoot. wound. kill, trap, or collect: or to attempt any of ~hese}, import or export. _,~ip in interstate . commerce in the couree of commexcial' activity, or sell or offer [or sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed wildlife species, It is also illegal to peerings, seii, deiiver. carry., wanspen. or ship any such wildlife that bas been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. The implementing regulations [or thnmtened wildlife (50 ~ 17.3I) incorporate. [or the most pan. the prohibitions [or endangered wildlife (50 ~ l?.21L except when a special rule applies (5O CFR 17.31(c)). At the time the gnatcatcher was lis~ed as ~reatened, the Service did not promulgate a special role [or the species, However. purs~_*a~t to section 4(d) of the Act and 50 CFR l?,31(cL the Service proposed to define the conditions under which incidental take of the gnatcatcher resulting from certain land-use activities regulated by State and local government would not violate section 9 o£ the Act. This was done in raco~nition of the signitS~nt conservation plarmin! efforts undertaken by the State of California and several aty and county governments pursuant to the Natural Commurlity Conservation plannirl§ ACt of 1991 (NC. CP) (California Fish and Game Code sec. 2800 et seq.). The NCCP prulp-am intends to provide [or the conservation of listed and other ' sensitive species at a regional or eco~-ystem scale. The Service 5nds that implementation of the NCCP program and the special rule will provide for conservation and management of the Ip3atcatcher's habitat in a mam3er con-<i~ent with the purposes of the Act. Under the special rule. incidental take of the goatcatcher by land-use activities addressed in an approved NCCiP plan will not be considered a violation of section g of the Act, provided the Service determines that such a plan meets the issuance criteria [or an "incidental take" permit pursuant: to section/0(a)(2l(B) of the Act and ~0 CFR 17.32(b)(2). Under the special role, a limited amount of incidental take o~ ' the gnatcatcher within $ubr~ions actively ensased in praparin8 a NCCP plan will also not be considered a violation of section g of the Act. provided the activities resulting in such take are conducIed in accord~ncs with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and Prace~____ Guidelines, which were fin~i~d by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in November 1993. The final role bas been modified to withdraw the requirement that the guidelines specifically adhere to the standards set forth under 50 CF'R 17.3~Co)(2). This was done in pan because the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and ~ Guidelines contain the essence of +.he sta.ndards delineated in 50 CF'R 17.32('o)(2). The Service, as a parmer in the NCCP pregzam, also is encoureging 1ongqerm NCCP efforts leading to the completion and implementation of regional conservation plans. The Service deems the level of habitat loss contemplated under the interim procedures of the ~idelines insigniHcent in view o[ the proposed long-term conservation efforts and short-term mitigation components of the NCCP prosram. In addition, this strategy was envisioned by the $tam's Scientific Review Panel ($RP) and is consistent with the $RP's recommended interim slzategy in the 8uideline~ The modification of the special rule affects only the interim plapning period. The requizement of the special rule that final NCCP plans meet the standards set £onh under 50 CFR 17.32~o)(2) has not been chan~ed. Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. Sunumu~ o£ Com,~ems and Recom,~ead~ons In ~e ~ 30, 1~3, pmpo~ ~at~ nonfiction, a~ intoted p~es were ~u~ to sub~t fatal m~ or ~agon ~t mi~t ~n~bute to ~e de~lopment ~. App~p~ate el~ offi~a~ (~du~g ~ con~o~ ~p~n~v~), F~ agen~, ~d 50 ~do~e~ ~d ~er pot~fi~y aff~ or ~t~ to ~menL A l~al no~ anno~g ~s pmpo~ a~on ~d ~ Son~ pubOc co~t on pm~ ~ p~li~ ~ ~er. ~v~ide ~t~. ~d ~e ~ Di~o U~on- Thee ~ April 5, 1993. ~e ~ held ~ pubic h~ on ~e pmpos~al of ~e pubic ~t ~o~ ~d av~i~ of a ~ ~~en~ ~~t (~1, ~ N~ N~ ~ G~de~ w~ p~ ~ ~ F~ ~ on l~y 20. 1993 [58 ~ 38736~ A ~ml public ~ent on ~e pmp~ ~ ~ ~ d~,m~ d~ ~ve ~r on ~y 1~ 1993; ~s ~v~ide ~~ ~ ~y 13, 1993; ~d · e ~ Di~o U~on-T~e on l~y 14, 1993. ~e ~ ~afion G~, ~ G~de~ were ~but~ on A~ 2, 1993, to · e ~v~or's Offi~, 2 S~m ~to~, 3 F~ ~d 3 S~m ~en~. ~d o~er ~te~ ~ ~ h~ were ~ndu~d ~ ~ ~ogo, ~f~a, on Aunt 9, 1~3: ~ ~ne, ~o~a, on Au~ 11,1993; ~d ~ ~v~, ~o~a. on A~ 13, 1993. A~ut 300 ~ple a~ ~e~ h~. A to~ oi 198 ~men~ w~ ~iv~ d~ ~o ~mm~t ~o~ ~m~ alm~ 4 m~ Mul~ple ~mmen~ wheat ~ ~ o~ ~mm~L Offs, 43 (~ ~t) ~p~ ~e s~ m~, ~ [32 ~nt) op~ ~d 91 (46 ~ nei~ ~p~d nor op~ ~ ~ 236 / Friday, December 10, 1993 / Rules and Regulations commentere nmther supported nor opposed the special rule; many of these respondents expressed var/ous concerns and recommendations for modifying the rule and ~-~ocmtad documents pt/or to their final/zation. The Service has reviewed all of the written and oral comments discussed above. Based on thi~ review, 24 relevant issues have been identified and are discussed below. These issues are representative of the com-,ents questioning or opposing the proposed special rule. Issue I: The special rule should be more expticit with respect to the criteria the Service will use to evaluate the adequacy ofa NCCP plan. Servfce Response: ~ discussed under the "Propored Rt~lations Promulgation" s~ction of the proposed special rule, the evaluation standards to be used by the Service are those set forth in 50 CFR 17~2(b)(2), which dafu~s the issuance criteria for obtainin8 a permit to incidentally take liaod wildlife species under section 10(a)(1)(B) o[the ~ These criteria are sixfold. 1. The taking will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities and not the purpose of such activities. In othex wbrds. any tabu8 allowed under the plan would have to occur inadvertently during normal development activities; it could not be deliberate and pm'posefi~L In order to define whet taking would be allowed under the program. the plan must carefully describe and delineate the £ollowin8 parameters: the conservation plan boundaries; currently proposed activities and all future actions reasonably carta~ to occur in the planning area that may result in incidentni take:. all extant biological information ragre-din8 the distribution. abundance. and ecology of the gnatcatcher. any other loderally listed species. and possibly other species o£ concern (proposed. candidate. State- listed speciesl occurring within the planning area; and whet impacts the taking would have on the gnatcatcher and other affected species. as appropriate. The plan must also include an analysis of alternatives that would not result in take and an explanation of why these are not being utilized. If existing biological data are nonexistent. vasue. or of poor quality, additional stucUea (such as those recommended by the SRP under the NCCP Conservation Guidelines) may be needed to support the conservation and other land-use decisions proposed under the plan. Din'in8 the plan preparation phase. the Service will provide technical assistance ~or determining the adequacy of the biological database. as weU as 65089 provide recommendations on additior~l studies that may be neeclod to provide an adequate data baseline from which to develop a plan. In general. biologicel data made available must be adequate to evaluate fully the Likely impacts of proposed activities on aU aff. e~cted speciea being addressed within the Typically, biological data need to be comsnsurata with the magnitude of proposed activities. 2. The plan will. to the maximum extent practicable, mlnirni~,~ and mitigate the impacts of the proposed incidental tAkA Compliance with this ~ Involves a plannln~ strategy that emphasizes avoidance of impacts to the g~stcat*-her (and potentially other sensitive spies that may become listed), provides measures to minimize, potential impacts by modifying proposed activities (e.~.. clustering urban development or siting such activities In low quality habitat), and details comparmation m~asurea to offset unavoidable impacts. In general, mitigation measures will be cemmen.surat8 with the magnitude of p~p~os~d .impacts under the. plan. 3. ins ptan must be adequately funded and collt~!n provisions to deal first. a detailS_ description of the fondin8 that will Ixt made available over the llfs of the plan to implement the prod mitigation program and other conservation measures. If full fundfLuS is not provided at the time the plan is approved but is Intended to be generated on a continuing basis, the plan must establish programs and legally-Sinding mechanisms to generatE, sufficient funds for its implementation. The plan should detail the collection. uuma~ment. and auditing of all funds, including p~nalties for fafittre to meal funding obligations by signatorF members. ,~d, 5e~ause circ~*m~tance9 and information may change over time and may result in unfores~n circumstances. the plan must detail tim procedures to deal with such cir~,ms**nces and. if neceasary, to modif~ the plan. Consequently, the plan should provide for an amendment procedure and any other necessary measures or assurances to deal with such circumstances (e.g., if funding is not ganmated at the predicted rate). 4. The **i~inS allowed under the plan ~ .nb~x~rPmr~'blY reduce the of survival end recovery of criterion is equivalent to the regulator7 definition of "jeopardy" under section ?(el(2) of the ,act and means to angaSe in an action that reasonably would be expectecL cLtrectly or indirectly, to 65O9O Federal lieglarer / Vol. 58, reduce appreciabiy the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher (or any other listed species) in the wild by reducin8 its reproduction, numbers, or distribution. In effect, this criterion requires e "non- ~eoperdy" ~ndlng as a condition for issuance of any incidental ta~ L~ennit. - 5. The plan will ensure that ot~er meesures that the Director of the Setvim may require as being necessary or appropriate will be pwvided. Such meesures, as needed, should be~me apparent during plan development thr~sh co~miination between the Service, tim State, and plan participants and signatories and will' likaiy include terms and conditions for monitoring implementsti.'on of the plan to ensure that its requir~nents and the requirements of the Act are met. 6. The Dir~or of the Servioa is assur~ that the plan will be implemented. The Service anticipates that this requirement will be satisfied through execution of an Implementin8 Agnmment [as discussed in detail in the NCCP ~ Guidelines), which legally binds all participants and signatories to implement the plan'as Fproved. The Service recognizes, owever, that the Implementin8 Agnmment c~nnot alter or usurp the existing authority of local government agencies. Rather, the agreement will, amen8 other thinga, detail the manner in which the local agencies will exercise their axisting authorities to effect land- use ill the manner set forth in the plan. Consequently, local government ' agencies will continue to exercise their duly constituted planning, zonin8, and pannittin8 powers under the plan. However, any actions that violate the implementing Agreement could invoke remedies for such violations provided under the agreement itself, and could also be a b~s!s for revocation of the Service's concurrence under subparegraph (b)(2)(ff] of the special rule. Issue 2: Mitigation requirements under the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines may not meet a "constitutionally required nexus." Serv/ce Response:The mitigation Ipddelinss established by each subregional plannin8 body will include a range of potential mitigation measures appropriate for the subregion. The appropriate level and nature of mitigation that may be requin~ for a paxticular activity will be determined by the authorizing jurisdiction on a project- by-project ~sis in conformance with the mitigation guidelines. The Service expects and intends that mitigation requJrmments will be reasonably related to the effects of the particular activity on No. 236 / Friday, December 10, 1993 / Rules and Regulations coastal sage scrub habitst and the /natcatcher. /~ue $: The spatial rule and the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines will effect a taking of private property. Service Response: Issuance of the special rule by the Secretary, and CDF(~'s finAli~tion of the NCi:~ Conservation and P _rotes___ Guidelines, Will not constitute a ta]~ing of priveta propert7. Neither the rule nor the NCCP Conservation or ~ C, uidelinee make a determination about the uses that can be made of private property. Under the spedal rule, procedures are available by which property owners can obtain case-by-case determinations of application of the rule and the NCCP Conservation and Process C,u/deEnes to their individual properties. Further, participation under the speda] rule is voluntary. A priveta entity seekin8 to develop private propert,/in a manner that may result in the incidental take of the gnatcatcher in the course of an otherwise legal activity may proceed under section ? of the Act ff there is Federal agency action involved, apply for an incidental take permit under .~'tion 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. or, if the private propert7 involved is within a 'p~'iediction enrolled and actively engaged in the preparation of a NCCP Ion, vt/li=e the ' ride. P Z~ue ~: The N~islm~pa and coaml sage scrub habitat acreeges prssent~d in the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and vaguely represanted to the public and participating organizafion~ Service Beepease: The NCCP planning area encompasses portions of five counties and aboul 3.8 million ac~s. As d~cribed in the draft EA, the data used to es'dmate existin8 habitat conditions in the NCCP planning area were provided by verious local government entities. Data for San Diego County were developed by several different local government agencies and provided to the Service by the San Diego Association of Governments. Data for Riverside County were developed for · e county in the course of previous co~rvation pJannlng efforL~. The data developed for Orange County are still being refined and compried. However, a prolimina.,'7 acreage estimate of extant coastal sage scrub habitat for Orange County has been provided to the Service by the county. Ralatively little coastal sage sczub habitat remains in San C~rrently, there er~ no lerga-scaie data on the distribution and abundance of this habitat type in these counties. These data represent the bes~ available i~formation on current habitst conditions. Nevertheless, it should be reco?i-~d that. because of the lerge area cevered by this mapping efton, the resulting maps have a relatively ~ minimum mapping unit (approximately 2 to $ scres) and the source data (primarily aerial photclp-aphy) ~ fairly sm~U in scale [1:24,000). The NCCP maps depicting the distribution of coastal sage scrub vegetation are meant to provide an overview and a biegeogrsphic perspective of large regions for planning purposes. Comparisons with ~ther mal~ping efforts era similer nature am likely to show some differences due to mapping techniques and the experience and ability of those doing the work. The Service finds that the data used in these analyses represent the best information available from local entities currently engaged in conservation planning end are adequate to serve the regional planning purposes of the NCCP program. /ssue $: The relationship between sactions 4('dJ, 7. and 10 o/the ' F. ndsngered 5peaes Act should be discu&sed with respect to the loss of coastal sage scrub habitat during the NCCP ~)lanning period. Serv/ce Response: Under the special rule, incidental take of the gnatcatcher within subregions actively enaas~i in preparing a NCCP plan will notbe considered a violation of section 9 of the Act. provided that activities resulting in such take are conduet~l in am~edance with the NfY~P Con.~wation ,nd Proceas G-idelines. These ~fidelines provide for a maximum 5 percent loss of primarily "low quality" coastal sage scrub in the interim per/od during which subregional NC~' plans are be/n8 prepared. provided long-term conservation planning options are not toreclosed ~nel c~.~ain other conditions are met as set forth in the ~uideiines. - =~'ne baseline against whic~ this loss is measured is the digital (i.e.. computerized) vegetation data provided by the local iurisdictions. updated as sppropriate to the date of the listing of the coastal California gnatcatcher on March 25, lg93. As coastal sage scrub habitat is lost within a NCCP subregion during the planning period by any means, including activities subiect to section 7 or section 10(a) of the Act,.it will be tallied in relation ta the S parce.nt lim_/t, 'Once die 5 percent limit is reached in any subregion, the provisions of the special rule concerning take of the gnete~teher would cease to apply for that subregion until a NCCP plan has been adopted for the subregion and acoapted by the Service under the special rule. Additional losses of coastal Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 236 / Friday, December 10, sage scrub habitat that result from activ/ties that may affect or result in the take of the gnatcatcher would be · evaluated on a case-by-case through normal regulatory procedures under section ? or section 10(a) of the Act as appropriate. Habitat losses 8reeter than 5 percent could potentially occur through section ? or section 10(a) proc~ses, dependin8 on the msults of the normal regulatory review process. provided the activity meets the standsrds set forth in sectiota? or section 10(a). The NCCP Conservation Guidelines and supporting documentation represent the best available information on the b/ology of "~e gnatcatcher. The Service. j~ends to ~ on the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and the supportin8 documentation to the max/mum extent permitted by law in reviewinS ~:tivities under section ? and section 10(a) of the Act ko ensure consi~ten~cy with completed or ongoin8 ~onal NCCPj pi,nmng etlorts and to prevent the / .f~osu~ o! tom, term pl*n~;ng_ op~on~ · ' ~ssue o: More clearly explain the relafitmshlp of the special rule to the section 10(a) and section 7 proc~ses undsr the Endangered Spades Act for ol~inlng author/zation to incidentally take the gnatcamber.. $erv/~//espo~r~: A~ a full cooperator in the NCCP pwgrem, the Service is comm!tted to accomplishing the obiectives of tbe program. All activities that tbe-Service evaluates under its existing authorities will be analyz~ to determln~ how they intaract with and affect the NCCP program. The Service will support activities contrfimtin~ to the completion of suhr~io~l NCCP plans primmed in accordanc~ with the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelin~ in ~o far es is legally allowable undsr the Service's mandates under the Endsng~m~i Species Act. Section ? and section 10(a) of the Act provide regnlatory mee. h*nisms for obt~inln~ authorization to incidentally take l/sted specie. The provisions of these sections of the Act. and tha/r impl~nenting mf~ulafions. apply to the gnatcatcher. With the promulgation of the special rule, another r~ulatory mechanism is provided to allow take of the gnatcatcher incidental to otherwise lawful activity. Under the special rule, incidental take oFthe gnatcatcher within enrolled jurisdictions actively engaged in the preparation of a NCCP phm will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act. provided such take occurs in accordanco with the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines, until the $ percent coastal seSe scrub habitat loss I~m~t is reschsd. At that point. and until a NC_,~~ plan is approved by the State and enrolled jurisdiction~ and accepted by the Serv/ce, the inddantal.take of gnatcatchers would be subject to the prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. Section ? and section I0(a) remain in place as options for reconciling actions involvin8 take of the gnatcatcher with the prohibitions against take contained in section 9 of the ~ As stated in the response to Issue 5, the Service consider~ the NCC1~ Consen, ation Guidel/nes and supporting 'documentation to rep~sent the best available information concernin~ the ~io!o~ tl~ds of the gnatcaWher ~d intends to rely on the NCCP -_Conservatio~ C. nid8ii~les and supporting ~_ntation to the maximud axte~ permitted by law in reviewing activities under section 10{a) and section ? "~ue Z: Identify/elaborate on what constitutes adequate mitigation durin8 the NCCP subr~jonal p!*~in8 p~riod. Service Response: The NCCP Process Guidelines, prepared by CDFG to describe how the NCCP p~mming process will be implamentech have incorporated specific guidance for securing interim ~Mta~ loss approval. These gnidsUnes include the foUowing elements that eddrese the issue o~ what constitutes edequata mitigation. Each NCCP subresional lead or coordinating agency is required to establish interim habitat loss mitigation guidelines appropriate for the subregion in order to authorize any loss of coastal must meet the minimum standards identified in the NCCP Process Guidelines and must be concurred with by CDFG and the Service prior to implementation. The mitigation standards include minimi~ug project impacts and mitigating those impacts with off-site acquisition of habitat, dedication of land on-site, restoration and enhancement of coastal sage scrub habitat, m~agement agreements, transfer of development rights, or other mitigation approved by the Service and CDFG. Mitigation may be concurred with on a case-by-case basis prior to adoption of the subregional guidelines. As stated in the NCCP Conservation Guidelines, full mitigation of interim habitat losses may be incorporated, in part, through completion and implementation of the subregional NCCP plnn.~. The subregional NCCP plans are intended to (1) promote the conservation ofbiodiversity: (2) provide for high likelihood of persistence of target species, including the gnatcatcher, and (3) provide for no net 1993 / Rules and Regulations 65091 loss of habitat value from present conditions. Issue 8: There is insuffident h~formation contained in the EA and the potential impacts are too ~ee~ to justif~ interim take of the ~natcatcher. Therefore, an Environmental'~npact Statement [EIS] is mqtfimd. Ser~ce Response: The Service finds that the EA cont~;n~: sufficient infornmtion to evaluate the potential impam to the ~atcatcher from the osed special rule. The Service also that those imp~-ts ~ill not be si~i~cant for the masons outlined below. ~ ?~Hmates of the acr~e and location o! potentially affected coastal sage scrub habitat and Shatcatcher pairs, based on existing vagetatio6 data provided by local jurisdictions and known locations of ~n~tcatchers, are described in detail, in the EA, Under the provisions of the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. up to 5 mbrcant of existing coastal sage scrub itat could be lost. and an estimate~! 66 to 116 pa~ o[~natcatchere could incidentally taken under the provisio;~ of the special rule durinS the plannin8 peri,o~, The 5 percent loss of existinS .c?st~ sage scrub habitat represents about 20.000 acres of slightly more th;n 400,000 acres of coastal sage scrub found w~th;n the antire NCCP planning area. Under the NCCP Conservation G-id~iines, lmss of cmla~al ~ habitat will occu~ lately in m~es of lower potantial co~ser~tion value within a subra~ien. Thio ~ largely small fragments .of habitat that occur on th~ rzinges of ~iating urban or agriodtuml development. The NCCP Conservation Guidelines conservatively estimate that anhancemant and restoration of existing coastal seg~ scrub habitat can compensate for a loss of up, to 5 percant of coral sage scrub habitat during this p~riod without compromising the conservation of the gnatcatcher or other coastal sage scrub dspedes. No loss of habitat would oco~: uring the planning period that would foreclose options for long-term conservation planning and implementation. and mitigation for thes~ losses must be provided in accordance with the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines. The estimated maximum of 66 to palm of gnatcatchers potantially affected by .activities during the interim plam~g perioa rapresent about ~ to S l~mant of the Unitad States popuhtion. Thes~ pairs will be fi'om ~ of relatively lo~t conservetio~velua, as defined by th~ NCI~ Conservation Guidelines, and the impacts to thes~ p~i~s will be mitigat~l Consmwation and Process Guidelines. 65092 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 236 / Friday, December 10, 1993 / Rules and Regulations ;the Service has conducted an internal consultation under section ? of the Act to evaluate the effects of the proposed special rule on the gnatcatcher during the interim planning period and has concluded that the rule is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of this species. Additional loss of coastal sage scrub habitat and incidental take of the gnatcatcher could occur under an approved subregional NCCP plan, but' only if the Service concurs that e~e plan meets the issuance criteria under 50 CFR l?.32{bRZ). Impacts to the gnatcatcher resulting from the approval of a NCCP plan will be addressed under separate National Environmental Policy Act review and section ? consultation procedums, · Based on its independent review of the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines and the analysis presented in the EA. the Service finds that the environmental impacts of the proposed special rule will not be significant and, therefore, preparation of an ELS is not required, The Service additionally finds that the rule is not likely to jeopardize the ___mminued existence of the gnatcatcher. long-term conservation oppommities will not be compromised by losses of coastal sage scrub during the NCCP subregional planning period; public works projects. agricultural activities, or leas of coastal sage scrub on parcels less than 5 acres in size, should be exempt from the take prohibitions under section 9 of the Act, as well as from the requirements of the NCCP program. Service Response: These suggested changes were not made because such exemptions are inconsistent with the obiectives of the ,act and its implementing regulations, and are inconsistent with the NCCP Conservetion and Process Guidelines. Issue I0: Public utility-related activities often occur in linear project areas that should be treated separately in the special rule and under · separate regional plan that is consistent with the NC_,(~ program. Setwee Response: The Service recognizes the unique circumstances associated with utility and other types of linear projects. The Service also recognizes that circumstances may occur in which a prnposed public utility project may cross · 'luriadiction that has declined to enroll within the NCIZP program. Therefore, in these unique cases. the .~,vice recognize, the fiex/bility in the section ,l(d) and NCCP ~ to allow utilities to be treated as subreg/ons for p]a~,i,,g purpose. The Service recognizes also that every linear project proponent r'~nnot be treated as a subregion and will allow this planning method on a case-by-case basis for regional entities such as electrical, gas. and water utilities. Linear projects that are 'located within a subre,ion or cross into adjacent subregions must be Luctuded within the plans for those subregions. Any habitat destroyed within a subregion or subarea duri_ngthe interim planning phase will be tallied against that subregion's or subarea's 5 percent interim habitat loss allocation. /ss-e 11: Some of the identified mitigation options listed in the NCCP Conservation Guidelines are either untried or unava/lable. One corementer stated that all parties need to acknowledge the highly experimental nature of restoration efforts in coastal sage scrub habitat and that successful restoration criteria should be established and successfully demonstrated before any further significant 1oss~ of habitat occur. Because of the speculative nature of enhancement/restoration. it should not be regarded at this t/me as an adequate means for compensating the loss of . moderate or high value coastal sage scrub habitat Service Response: The enho,,cement] restoration of coastal ~age scrub habitat is experimental. However, in spite of the uncertainty of su_~__~-s__ of enh~,ncemant/ restoration. its use as a mitigation measure in the interim process is appropriate based on the limited habitat impact that may occur during the interith process (5 percent) and the potential application value of these restoration/enhancement efforts in preparing and hnplementing NCCP plans. Based on the results of initial restoration efforts, the Service (in cooperation with CDFG and restoration specialists} will establish specific restoration success criteria that will be incorporated into NC, CP plans. · Issue 12: The research agenda outlined by the SRP in the NCCP Conservation Guidelines shculd be mandatory and should be prioritized. Sem,/ce Response: Additional scientific informat/on is needed to guide regional conservation planning efforts such as the NCCP program. However. the degree to which these data will be needed during the planning period wiIl generally be commensurate with the magnitude of impacts proposed under a NCCP plan. recommended by the SLIP, as discussed in the NCCP Conservation Guidelines, one {biogeography and inventory of coastal sage scrub) will be required to support any subregional plan. and two others {trends in biodiversity and genetic studies} will be necessary to evaluate the success of NCCP plans. Some of the research recommended by the Slop is already under way: the Marine Corps is funding an eoolegicaI study of the gnatcatcher and cactus wren ( Gampylorhynchus brunneicopillus coues~] at Camp Pendleton in northern San Diego County;, Southern California Edison is funding a similar type of research project in the San Joaquin Rigs of Orange County and at the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County; and the Metropolitan Water District of Southam California is funding long- term research on the gnatcatcher in western Riverside County. In addition. both the Service and CDFG are seeking additional funding to implement. in part, the SRP's research agenda. Additional research funds should be provided by subregional and subarea planning efforts. The Service and CDFG will also be establishing a committee (as racommended by the SRP) to develop more explicit research protocols for the general research tasks outlined in the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. In general. these protocols will vary from subreg/on to subregion, and will be determined by the size and types of data gaps. sceIe of the pJ~,nnlng effort. and a combination of priority and funding schedules will be tailored to the scope and timing of subregional planning Issue 13: Existing local land-use regulations must be modified to im~erv/celemant the NCCP program. Response: The Service agrees. As discussed previously under the response to Issue 1, local regulatory agencies are expected to commit formally to NCCP plan implementation thro,,gh the execution of an Implementing Agreement (as discussed in detail in the NCCP Process Guidelines}, which legally binds all participants and signatories to implement the plan as approved. The Service recognizes, however, that the Implementing Agreement must be consistent with State law governing local agency authority and must be legally anforceabla. The Implementing Agreement should detail the m~nner in which the local agencies will exercise their existing authorities to effect land- usa in the ,-~,,~-er set forth in the plan. /ss,,e 14: The SRP or an equivalent advisory committee should be e~U~bll-hed to further guide the regional conservation planning afrons under the NCCP program. permanent hail/tat --- --: sci · . pruserve are ,, r-aunt litera · sites w~t as and . . ture and i · · w-,.,~/,? low coasarvaUon vai ....--- Sfi.'enti~c Ra~ .......s_descr/bed m]iste,~ -- . d~,~,~_ve~ more appropriate/'or ~i~n~a[ Guidelines an~'°" ranel ,~...n_._servation ~:~v~; _~lf~,...es. A NCCP plan maa --~,upmant n, ....... ---- is ....:,_L, -- Documentation ,. ,.~.:--L radditional o......_ .y lso r---pvaea..'"Ln anal ' =vmiaOlO 11"0~1 , --~utau · °t"~S rovid the econo · · ys]s of · CDFG Th/s sect/on 10 a ' · P ed .=_ . .mic Unpacta of~,~.h includes tmnuhIi-~--~ ' . document o,,....~_ ( ) .criteria are me rr .... ues~gnations ,.,~,.:_ ----::"" d ....~ .... ~---"~'~ analyses ol.-~as are sub ......... ,t. _. . -,,.urn a I~L;CP I · ---~upea 13 $RP ~ ~,-,/u=-uy Uslecl as m~tuired/n the' · p an w~H be staff .. Y members and threatened or en env~ .... l.omt FederaL/Stat~ ~. during the nre ........ C:DFc the "1 ........ clanBored under the uulllllen~ - ~o . . r' l,,,uauon Olth8 ~, -u wOUI(1 su . n ...... (locument that te. ii! I.,.. riserration Guidel;.~ _ NCCp a ~ ........ .pport the ~ssuan the" · ---- l-~u, as ~ · /._~__ ,-.~.. j,. ~m.a royrow of · mosa · _ ..... ~axe permit . National En.- .... ; _ .scu.~sed m un-ub.-~.--. ~ published aria . . species barrino -~ .... or Act" ~-.:- . :-_-o'uaantal Polim, _~:r, -.~utru aata re~.~l;.. o~_ ... ~ u~torma- ..... o o.s~uzzcan! new -m. ~a. uun Ofthis r~e -; o[r. ae Coastal on --~°'T~"~5 cue oloIo~y ,.~._ .,--,~ or unloreseen interim ,,l::_..l~_eu m _o~cur in the ,_,,~u_ .~y the .~RP was not ~ull-. _~u.o.n. .5 percent L~te..~_ ~.~_u,.u. ac.oasis for the _,_ .. "-"~LLug period tWk, ...... ---,u me sinale d ........ ~ ,-umpued unda,-,k_ ,, ,u- nan]tat loss I/re' pan/s be' re , ,-,,= a at.~, abov . ~- ,,,.umua[ rotefenced ~- ,,,= ~nCC~ ~t by ,k,, ~ mO. P .p~ed) were eda,,,,,o~. , · untU October ~a,3 ..... orovia,,~ program should be proposed s*,,--"-, "'," ~ zo.r me ,,u,~:._~'~'"'~uu oeen previouah, aerv~ce ~e~Do~l.~b. '1"I._ . · l*,,~.~uruJe In ---,~m CD -'-' int ..... ,.u a ercen Ser~ce f, * the F-.A. the oy FG to the u ' * enm coastal P t _ _ °und that the nonu!o.__ 1992 as I%TCCp .a__. .P. blic during re ..... sage scrub loss fim.~, &tr~-,.~ , --~,.~a~4 4ur [lie l"Jvo.,,-~,._~_ '--',.,,~o~,~1. Otl~e .'~f'~tk f~-~ 'o' ,a alZ10~n* --4' L ~.. . ~a =~l~rna~e ~t · p annrag area w ~Y Conservati unity ~at that could · m~-~-~; .... ould o/nce ..~ on Plannino R=,, .... each subn~ ......... be lost in ....... ,opment on ioca~ ,,,;-T~ "auu ocruo," and opinion of th~ e~, .;P ~_~-u,~. m me ' ' °uomg/onalizatioa for l~.,,,~, would result ?~'.,,~-j.._m,e ~. pe?.ent limit ........ that ca, be ;kZ.,~J..=_v_e/o.t_aa?itat loss .... l~-~a[ea for by Ion//- · e__. Federal Retgster / Vol. 58, No. 236 / Friday, .December I0 . . ,..,.,~'~'~ce.R.esponse: The Se~,~ ~ , 1993 / Rules a~ o ...... . j t.~l"L. ana the .~ .... :'"~ elSroes, corn~.n~+;~. ~.~ . d '~':'e~ulaLloILs anou~ options ;--~-~. ng ., ....... Prohib~uons ,. reconstitu ~ on 9 o~ the A mmunitias tinff the $RP . . o£ the tca ct, on take Consarvatio . , c , estabhshin gna tcher c0ul . and the ' · n P · ~ saffe scrub" ,, S a adverse · .d result m . sc~enU/ic ub · · . __..lan~, °roanizing techni rocor.e? team, and co . .,s,o. ci. '__o-e~ oho. talc impacts, d ,.th. erem are avaii~b~e~· hcations c:tea ..... ca] team.. In foc ..... nstraults uu dev~-- ue to librari~ ul technical conserra./- ..... ,.uas[ai sage scrub ...'~-~_t~,~ or used b ...... %--- '"~, .asue 18'Ad .... ' . uon. unaer the ..... ~. ~tca[cllers. ~__ ' - 'ntua[e NCCP ,,].-_ · 4ssu . P~uv]slolls otth - ,~uaervin th ~',~ e I5: The affects a limit e special rule g e coastal o of the NCCP ed amount ofincide , COmmuni sa~e ~ ro~am n non. · · · the a . ntal take o ,, t7 cannot be ~ad ....... partic=patin~ gn tcatcher w~,h~,, -J-__ . f three t ..... ba.~ed solely on vwuez's W1 ' activ ~ auu oIl~ ."~5"~t S ' -- -- .... thin enrolled el an · ,.re~ . pacies. I _u,"~ctions shoul-~ ~ - . · nlan .~.~Z..,~ag.~. in Prepanne a Nr'r~ ,So_rye:co 8.~ponse: The $er~_~ o~__ ".'~ u.xpiamad ,-. , .-,,uza not oo co-,-~.~-~ ~'-" determi~a ,, .... subiecI t I'~--~-~P~, -; landowners are mate. on ofsec~on 9 ,~r,k_ ._. that Plan for,k~ .~ rvation efforts ) o ,, . ~ ,,a.~ lana-use · Provided th * · · ~""" ~, w '",~, mree e" · whether or regulaUons e ac~v~Ues . . ou[d form the · tar~ t species ..... not they are actiwk, take are r.~,,~ ...... resulting m such ~k .......... .basis for main~.~,.__ paring m the NCCP the NCC~ ccordance with sa ty of the rema/nin ~.~nsdi~un and i~ sub~,-.-.-- m~lled found .~.-- .?.r th~s reason. the ,Se.~-.[_mad distribution throuo~,-... o_~ c7,1sc:reti n. ...... ~,~.~ to a .,.urn u'Je mterila n.....~-:_ '.'?~ me coastal _~a~ ~.L e-,~ut mucll Ot o....~, ,.cuon 13 tha * * * ,special ru -,,-~,,mns olthe * · ~e" ~.~UD ~ * the landow. .....,, joy . t )unsdiction . le could resu~-* ..... wJthin tim ~Cr~p · umty Nrv.,., . -:*-y- .-~u oe subiect tn =.,.* ' some o! the exLm~-- -, ", ~u aue~atin~ sr~ ___ ~ pmm,iin area. ea utre Ac~- ~ clangered S ' iY of by the 1~-~ ---r~!--~ mencs established . . ,related cunsumms,,..~_. , pecies strate~rv und,.. ~k-Pa~.. °~fthe co"servation also h .... ~.:_o.e. ect_ land-use and wi'~l proceed with the Nr'r',, _,urnties to commu, i'~ k.;__u_m? a habxtat and . --,, ,uu oenetita o . - -.,.,r tannin . ~-~',,-w~ a dunn the n =,,,,=__ _ ~. th.e special rule -P__.r°~:e~ The ER ~ound ~ ,~..g~ . species are onI,, ,,,?P_ruach. T~.e target r -ma ueen a r ,-utU(:l not be · . -., uuaervattolL . property wi,k, .... Pp.roved, all ex~ect_ed to result from th ....... anticipates tha* ~-, .... The Service wi~k.J[,-.'"~"m. eptanOounda,.~,,. ~ ae J%ervice b...].- --~ ~-uuc.~. a.l rum. Soeei,. ,..., L' ""?nnation on l. ~ Silo OCt ~'~-' · .~ ~ r~vle -.7~-'~ '-~u u~ . 0~.. con,~;--- J - .to the terms and s,.peqal rule w~thin th ..... wed.the with N '_.~_ thered m con'un · · ~-uns Otthe ann .... -= _, n.x~..~.-- ~,-~ --- ~unmxt o! - C-~P'related n~_~...k _~_n. Jl .CUon a-'"-- nomic ironacts -r.. SUbstantial n,.--~-_ . _ettect on a con,',--- ',,- Y. otl~er species nr -uuns On not°----- -_-r-. ~-mese ..__j __ -- ~uoer O! SnlaJ! ,~.,.._ ,-~a. trio inCh,e;~_ _; .. $ . ~,--~u anected · u~.er the .-;'.'~"~ * will be . ---,~u oz or~er s · tha, t~, ecun * $e .r?.ce agrees d.~.~e ' ~, .~e tte~']c~l Uty A. ct. ,, p/ann/n, needs fboy, .c~o.?s,d. erat/oo of program and ,-,,ec/-'~u--,P~~s of the NCCP _'~_"'-J~.enta. t/on used by the cv.: the degree to whi-k ,._~_r me s.u.t)reo/on' a -r ,u rum must preparin th ,,.~.r m · '-- unusual , ddressed. The ',,,",-,, be ..... g · NCCP Conse----' .reqmrementa for" habitat Lm .... ~,~z' pro,am ..... ~maetmes w- ~ r/anon hah .... me species Promanted .k_ - Wlil ~ . ~s not ava/lek,- - -at-/~asad -- -- cuaxe , turou re review d · .,-,~um mr ubli . ur t · subre~onaI NrY,,~ l_,8a P paration of ,. . unng the comment -- · P! c planning unmlla~.,U~e spec/es-based · ...,...r pin. ns, re netvice ~e~ rloa. me as conserr ' Pursuant to and consiste'-? ...p~red sciontiff _/~onse: The $'~eu~ tools, and the antici ..... ~aUon NCCP Coasarv .... n~ w~th the _ c ann technical info .... status of the .... ~.,,uu reginatot7 .... auon and ~----- was ava/lable -- --- rmauon that ,".-, ~.,cuaelines. - ,~ss as OZMarch 1 · ~rtner s 'e · Each NCCP · , develo in · 993 m pec/ s are ad · to [dant/~ ...... plan ]s rotended P g Rs recommen-~- ~ NC,/~ p,..,.~ ...... dressed m the hah: .... . r ue lot nrOt----* - . i-va[lOn st:rat ...... In the k~,~.. -- ,,~uv~. ~ C[i~r'~ .... . -a[ ann wildlife .=.'-----F' -~, .u. on ot mco ...... ~, waica was _ ,,~,~z- rrocass G ...... allow; '~'em]IT, while _ ,~urate(l ulto r-n~-,~, _ sub,~..: ...... cuuemlas, a · mg coronatibia --~ Con ...... ,-~r~, s NCCP _ -,~uaai I~CCp m-'~ land develo r .. ~z.u appropriate . . ~ervauon Guidelines -~ Endangered ,,- . ~ meet Federal preen! m the sub~-,~- mzormation ,~,~ k.., ~ ae crit--' - apecies Act section .... --~,, ...... ~ ov me .~Po 'v-- una/or it to ko .... ~ulal .... ,a me published g?: ;~um to a Habitat Con ..... · -ma for inciderl--~ - - ~a~ mice o~ federally 65094 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 236 / Friday, December 10, 1993 / Rules and Regulations term management of coastal sage scrub habitat As e:xp!~!ned ~ the NC_.CP Conservation Guidelines and EA, loss of 5 percent of coastal sage scrub habitat ~n be sustained with no net loss o£ habitat value based on reasonable projections of long-term habitat e,~hancement and restoration oppommities provided for by the NCCP Pr~e 5 ~ercent fieure is not intended to be a NCCP standard for conse~ation of the coastal sage scrub community. In some subregions, more than a 5 percent interim habitat loss may be possible without significantly foreclosin8 planning options. However, the __~m'e__ptability of ~reater than a 5 percent interim lc, ss must be demonstrated by the results of additional mseamh. restoration. and management activities. Iss=e 20: The Service should explain why it is allowing for a 20 percent loss of habitat for the Federal endangered . Stephens' kanearoo rat (Dipodomys :. stepher~3 and only a 5 percent loss of coastal saee scrub under the NCCP prot~'am and the special male. Sew/ce Response: In the case of the Stephens' kensaroo rat, the 20 percent loss of habitat (authorized under an Incidental take permit pursuant to -'* ~ion 10(a)(1)(BJ of the ACt for certain ' :.portions of its range in western Rivers/ds County) reflects an analysis of ,. the best evailable scientific inform~tlo,~ -on the status and ecoleg7 of this species. This determination was made more than *. -' .-2 years after the listin8 of this species and after the preparation of an interim Habitat Conservation Plan. On the basis oi ~ ar=!ysis, the Service found that the Stephens* kangaroo rat can sustain a 20 percent habitat loss in these areas and still remain viable, pmvidsd that the Habitat Conservation Plan approved with the issuance of the "take" permit is fully implemented. In a sinnqar ,,~,~-er, an a-~lysis o~ the -- best available scientific information on the status and ecolegy of the coastal sage scrub community was recently completed by the SRP for the NCCP p ~r~m~ t~=is of this analysis, the SRP ... concluded that · 5 percent loss of relatively low value coastal saee scrub _. habitat would not foreclose long-term conservation p]~n,~n$ options under the NCCP prosram. Additional losses of coastal sage scrub habitat m~y occur under approved NCCP p~n~ provided they are consistent with the NCCP Conser~tion Guidshnes prepared by CDFG and provided they meet the issuance criteria under 50 CFR Issue ~1: Clearly define agency procedures for suspending or withdrawing the provisions of the special rule, and provide for public participation in this process. Service Response: Procedures for suspending or withdrawing the provisions of the special rule must be included in the Implementing Aereement prepared for each NCCP plan, as required by the NCCP Process Cuidelinas. The ImplementinS Ae~eement prepared by the plan proponent must be approved by the Service and CDFG andmust be signed by the NCCP plan participants and the Service prior to/ncidental take of listed species. To ensure that activities that occur durin~ the interim plannine per/od are consistent with the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines, the final rule has been modified to include Service review and monitorin8 of the implementation of the 8uidslines. Every 6 months durin8 the interim platrainS period, the Service will review the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and Process Guidelines and their application to ensure that activities are bein~ carried out in accordance with the and that regional and subraSinnel conservation objectives ar~ being met. If the Service detm'mlnes implementation efforts am not conformingto the 8uidslines, the Service will consult with CDFG to seek appropriate modifi~(ion of the f~idelines or their application as defined therein. If appropriate modification of the guidelines or their application, as defined therein, during the interim p]anniqg period do~ not occur, the Service may revoke the interim take provisions of this special rule on · subre~onal or subarea basis. The Service will publish the revocation findings in the Federal Register and provide for a 30-day public comment period prior to the effective date for revokinS the provisions of the special rule in a particular area. The Service emphasizes that the local 8ovemments under the NCCP program have the primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with the guidelines during this interim period. The Service intends that its semiannual evaluation of compliance with the ~uidelines and the regional and subregionsi conservation obiectives will not duplicate local enforcement on a parcel-by-percel basis* /esue 22: FundinS requi~ments and' sources must be identified for NCCP reseerch~ program implementation, and preserve acquisition. Service Response: Each NCCP plan presented to the Service will require an appropriate funding m~anism that ensures the plan will be fully implement~KL The sources and extent of fundinS provided for in a particular plan will depend on the specific provisions of the plan. The responsibility to idsnti/y and ensure funding commensurate with the conservation measures provided% the plan rests with the plan proponent. The Servics will carefully review each plan to ensure that the fundinS provided is adequate to cover all aspects of plan implementaUon. Potential components of a plan that will require fun~ng include preserve acquisition. preserve management, and habitat and species monitoring. Funding for reeemw. h may also be provided. The Service and CDFG intend to support some research efforts as well, particularly those kinds of research that are regional in ~cope. The Service does not propose to dictate the types of funding mechanisms plan proponents may choose or direct how the funds must be used to implement the plan. The Service is Interested in maintaining maximum flexibility in the procesa and will address the adequacy of funding mec. hzn, i.m~s in the context of the particular plan prasentec[ to the Service. Regional plans will ultimately have to comply with $0 ~ $?.32~D}{2}, which includes a demonstration of adequate funding m~'h~ni~rn$ for the pro.-am. Issue 23: The special rule inappropriatelyextends legal protection to coastal ease scrub habiteta thet ere not used by the gnatcatcher. Service .Response: The special rule defines the conditions under which activities involving take of the gnatcatcher will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act; that is the extent of its legal authority. The intent of the special rule is to assist local jurisdictions in conservin8 coastal sage scrub end the variety of species that inhabit this community through their partic/pation in the NCCP program. While participation in the NCCP proSram is voluntary, the special rule provides/ncentives for p .erticipetion by eUminatin8 the necessity and costs of procuring incidental take permits under section 10(a) of the Act on an individual proiect basis and facilitatin8 comprehensive planning for the conservation of the 8natcatcher and other coastal sa§e scrub species on e regionwide basis. Such regional planning is expected to afford sisnificant protection for the gnatcatcher and the entire coastal ease scrub ecosystem, thus reducing threats to other coastal sage scrub species and providing a significant measure of certainty for future deve)opment in the Federal aegistar / Vol. Issue 24: The planning timelines and ~iilhases for NCCP plans should be ed. illCluding what is expected the subtlehal and subarea levels. anticipates that the planning timelines for subregional NCCP plans~ll vary __,,o~__rding to the specific conditions wi*hln the local jurisdiction or subregion. As stated in the NCCP ~ Guidelines. the NCCP program is intended to give flexibility toeach subregional effort to reflea local conditions, while still m~ir,~inin8 a regional conservation perspective. plannlno may proceed on a subarea basis pr~or to the development of a subregional NCCP plan. provided the subanm NCCP plan contain. a section that describes in detail how the subarea plan integrates its preserve areas and su~0~q~ement across suba~a and resional boundaries. The subregional lead or coordinating egency must confirm that any subarea plan either is consistent with the subr~onal plan or does not preclude long-tarm coilsalvation planning options within th;,hS~bNt~Pffcp°n~cess G aide! ~n,s intand for local jurisdictions to adapt the NCCP p _~___~ to their existing administrative processes relating to plan preparation, public review, and environmental review. Each NCCP plan must undergo environmental review, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CF.~A) and the National Environmental Policy Act CNEPA). As noted in the Process Guidelines and in the NEPA section of this special rule. e joint State./ Federal environmental document will be prepared. In terms of a planning timeline, the Service anticipates that most NCCP plans will be prepared concurrent with the environmental documentation. In general, this process. including draft NC(~ plan preparation. environmental documentation, and public review, is estimated to take at least I year to complete. Once a final draft NCCP plan and the accompanying joint Environmental Impact R~port (EIRI/EA or Environmental Impact Statement (ELS), whichever is applicable, are prepared and submitted to the Service for final review and approval, the Service will allow for a maximum 120-<iay period to review draft NCCP plans. This timeline assumes that the Service is involved earty in the NCI[~iP planning process, as recommended'm the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines. Problems should be identified and resolved early in the' process, resulting in · final NCCPplan that is acceptable to all par~ies andis approved within the above timeframe. Cnce the NCCP plan No. 236 / Friday, December 10, 1993 / Rules and Regulations and joint ~vironmental document are approved, the Service will publish a Vmding of No Signiticam Impact (FONSI) or Retard of DecLvion (ROD), as applicable, in the Federal which signifies the completion of the NEPA process. The FONSI or ROD will be published as close to the close of the 120-day review period as possible. An internal section 7 consultation must be conducted by the Service for each NCCP plan. The results of the internal section ? consultation are usually included in the Final joint ~R/EA or EIR/E.5 and are always noted in, the FONSI or ROD. The 120-day review period assumes that the internal section ? consultation will be performed within this timeframe. The dm.~ NCX:P plan anti environmental documentation submitted to ~.e Service should alsu be accompanied by' a draft Implementing Agreement. ,An Implementing Agreement is a legally binding document thai. t~ut~ines 'the Implementing the conservation measures outli~ed in the NCCP plan. The signature of the Service indicates the Servica's ~n~t approval of the NCIiP plato Only ~er the Implementing Agreemen~ is signed by all parties, including the Sorvice~ c.m~ take of the gnatcatcher occ,ur, i~ acc'~rdance with th~ provisions of ~he NCC:P plan. The Service vaill at~:~rnpt to review and resolve any problems with the ImpIemenang Agreamen~ within the 120-day ~view period. However, given the legal, oran exu'amely derailed nature of Implementing Agreements, the Service carmot aq~a~antoo that it can re,new and fin~iu,.~ the Implementing Agreomen~ within this timeframe. The Service will m~'~ awry attempt to resolve Implem~.ntjng Ag~e~.ment issues as quickly as l~,sible, As provided by 5 U.S.& ~S~d}{~), the Service has determined that good cause exists to make this rule effective on the data of publication. Delay in implememation of the effective data would hinder c~nservation efforts for the gnatca~che~ ~md its habitat. National Environmental Policy ACt The Service i~as completed an EA pursuant to the National Environmental Policy ACt of 10§9. The EA analyzes the environmental offacts of activities conducted under the provisions of the special rule that involve the incidental take of the gnatcatcher during the NCCP p~anning period. The Service has dinermined that the special rule will not resuh in a significant impact to the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an EIS. 6~(t95 The Service wffi continue to comp][y with Nlra in implementing the provisions of the special role. Pursuant to the NCCP Process Guidelinen, a joint State/Federal environmental document tho! satisfies the requirements of and CEClA will be prepared for each NCCP plan. Executive Order 128G6 This special role has been reviewed under Exeo~ve Order 12868. The Department of the Intario~ has detarmlned that the spaciM role will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.$.C. §01 et seq.). Based upon in£m'mation discussed in this ride anti in the ~ it is not expected that s~gni~cant economic impacts will re~lt born implementing the provisions of special rule. Atso, no ~ costs, enforcement costs, or information collection or recordkeapin8 mquirementa are imposed on small entities by this rule. This action does not impose any recordkeapin8 Paperwo~ Reduction Act of 1980. List of Subjects in S0 CI~ P~rt 17 Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeepin8 requirements~ end Transportation. Regulation Promulgation A~cordingiy, part 17, subchapter B chapter I, title 50 o~ the Code o~ Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below: PART 17--[AMEND£D] 1. The authority citation for part 1~ continues to read as follows: ~ 16 U.$.C. 1361-1407; ~6 U.S.C. 153~-1543; 16 U.$.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99- 625. 100 Star. 3500. unless otherw~e note~h ~7.~(~! 2. ?~mend § 17.11(h), in the entry in the table under BIRDS for "Gnatcatcher. coastal ~]~fomia'*. in the lost column "Special rules*', by revisin8 "NA" to read 3. Amend § 17.41 by adding paragraph CO] to read as follows: § ~7.,t~ $pec~ mkm--btrcts. (b) Coastal California gnatcatcher (Pofiop~ilo c~iformco coli~bmico). ( ~ ) Except es noted in paragraphs CO)(2) (3) of this section. all prohibitions of 517.31 (a) and Co) shall apply to the coastal C, alifomia gnatcatcJ:ter. 65006 Federal Register / VoL 58, (2) Incidental take of ~e coastal California ~utcat~er wil] not be considered a violatica of section O of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), if it results from activities conducted pursuant to the State of c'-~llfomia's Natural Community Consmwation plsnning 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 Conservation and No. 236 / Frida, y. December 10, 1993 / Rules and Regulations '~Vildlife Serv~, C,~u~tsbad Field Office, Z730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad. CA '!':}2008.) The Servh:e shall monitor the :~mplementation of' the NCCP plan and :may revoke iti conc.:urmncs under this paragraph (b)(2)(iit if the NC,~ plan, as :implemented, fails to adhere to the standards set fort~ m 50 CFR ~. (3) Durin8 the period that a NCCP plan referred I:o in paragraph i'o)[2) of ~his section is be'ml~ prepared, incidental take of ~he cimstal California .~atcatcher will no~ be a violation of' section 9 of the Aa i[ such take occurs Process Guidelines. grovidecl t&at~:_. (i) The NC, CP planhas been p~pared. approved, and implemented pursuant to California Fish and Came Code sections within an aree under the jurisdiction of 2800-2840; and ~.a local governmere agency that is (ii) The Fish and Wildlife Service - ~ enrolled and actively engaged in the (Service) has issued written ,concurrence ~preparafion of such a plan and such take that the NCCP plan meets the standards ~esults from activities conducted in set forth in 50 CFR 17.32{b)(2). The .,,~ accordance with the NCCiP Conservation Service shaft issue its concurrence pursuant to the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). dated December 4, 1991. betw~n the California Department of Fish and Game a~d the Service regarding coastal sage ' scrub natural community conservation planning in southern California. (Copies of the State's NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines and the MOU a~ available from the U.S. Fish and ~Guidalines and 'Pr~.ss Guidelines. .... (4) The Service will ~onitor the .li.:mplementati~n of' t~he NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines as a whole, and will conduct a review ,.~ver~ 6 months to determine whether 'l:..ae guidelines, as implemented, are ~ffective in progressing toward or ';:aeeting regional and subregional conservation ebjecfives during the' interim planning period. If the Service determines that the ~idelines are not effec~in8 adequate progress toward or meeting regional and subregional conservation objectives, the Service will consult with the C~__!i fomia Department of Fish and Game pursuant to the MOU to seek appropriate modification of the Kuidelines or their application ah defined therein. If appropriate modificationof the gu/deline~ or their application as defined therein does not occur. the Service may revoke the interim take provisions of this special role on a subregional or subet~ea basis. The Service will publish the ~mdings for revocation in the Federal ~ 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 sat forth under 50 CFR l?.3~(a) end lb) in the affected NCCP Dated: November-23, ~993. Gee .r~e T. Pr~mpton Jr., Assistnnt Secretery der Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [F'R Dec. 93-3(1235 ¥il~d ~2 9 ~3; 8:45 aml United States Department of the Interior FL~ H AND W~DLI]:rE ,SERVICE Ecologica~ $ervlce~ Carlsbad F~eld Office 2730 L. oker Avenue West Ca£lsbad, C~hfornja 9200g October ! 8, 1996 Memorandum To: CaJifom/a State Supervisor Sacramento, CaliforNa ~'ietd Superr/sin, Carlsbad Field Ot Carlsbad, California ROUTING - REQUEST P;ease ~ READ To ~ ~ANDLE ~ APPaOV[ - and ~ FORWARD Subject: Reinitiation of Formal Consultureen on Implementat/on of the Special Rute for the Coastal CaliPerroe Onatcatcl:er (l-6-93-FW-37R1) This responds to your June 4, 1996, request on the subject action. T~s document represents the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion on the effects of implementing the special rule on the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Poliot~ttla callforntca californica; gnatcatcher) in accordance w"ith section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), This ;;iologicai opinion is based on the follow/ng information: (I) the original biological opinion, dated November 10, 1993, on the proposed action (1-6-93-FW.37); (2) biological 'cmd project in.formation collected by the Service regarding implementation of the special mle, dated December 10, 1993, wkich was issued under section 4(d) of the Act; (3) biological and project information collected by the Service on specific projects affecting the gnatcatcher, including those addressed under section 7 of the Act; (4) biological information collected for Subregional and Subarea Nam,rai Community Conservation Planning CNCCP) efforts, including the Multiple Species Conservation Program 0MSCP), Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (Jvfi-ICP), Orange County's Central Coastal NCCP and Southern NCCP, and Western. Riverside County Habitat ConsortJura's Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Phase I-Draft Report; (5) the Lake Mathews Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)/N'CCP; (6) the "Final Environmental A.qs¢ssmem of the Proposed Section 4(d) Rule to De. fine the Conditions Under Which Incidental Take of the Coastal California Croatcatcher Would Not Be a Violation of' Section 9 of the Act" (Service 1993; EA) and associated documents; (7)the final special rule for the gnatcatcher (58 FR 65088); (8) the final listing rule for the gnatcatcher (58 FR 16742); (9) the California Department of Fish and Game's "Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning Conservation Guidelines", dated November 1993; (10) the C&liforrua Department of'Fish and Gamc's amended "Southern Califoraia Coastal Sage Scrub Natur~,d Community Conservation Plannag Process Guidelines", dated November, 1993; and (l 1) other biological references (see "References and Literature Cited"). A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Service's Carlsbad Field Ofrice. CONSULTATION HISTOR. y The Service previously addressed this action in a biological opinion, dated November I 0, i 993. In that opinion the Service concluded that the proposed action would not jeopardize the continued existence of the gnatcatcher or destroy/adversely modify critical habitat. No critical habitat has been designaXed for the gnatcatcher. The Service also anticipated that the proposed action would result in the incidental take of up to 116 pairs of gnatcatchers in conjunction with the loss of up to 5 percent (20,920 acres of sage scrub) within the entire NCCP planning area during the period when NCCP plans were being prepared, prov/ded certa/n conditions were met. Reinitiation of formal consultation was requested in anticipation of reaching the projected incidental take of 116 pairs of gnatcatchers prior to completion of the NCCP planning period. DESCKtPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION At issue is the continued implementation of the interim habitat loss provisions of the special rule dunng the NCCP planning period within Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego Counties, California. Under the special rule, incidental take of the gnatcatcher as a result of land-use activities addressed in an approved NCCP plan would not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act, provided the Service determines that the plan meets the issuance criteria for a "take" permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 50 CFR 17.32(bX2), Limited incidental take of the gnatcatcher within subregions actively engaged in the preparation of a NCCP plan would also not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act under the rule, provided that such take resulted from activities conducted consistent with the State's NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines (Conservation Guidelines). Take of gnatcatchers during the plan preparation phase is authorized by local jurisdictions through habitat loss permits (HLPs). The Conservation Guidelines limit interim habitat loss to no more than 5 percent of existing coastal sage scrub habitat, The Conservation Guidelines do not address specific limits on the loss (take) of gnatcatchers during the interim planning period. The original biological opinion for this action contains a detailed project description and is attached for further information. As discussed 'below, the Service estimates that g0 pairs of gnatcaxehers within Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, in addition to the I 16 pairs anticipated in the 1993 biological opinion, and 17,688 acres of sage scrub within the entire timefrsane in Los Angeles, Orange, sad San D~ego Counties, and th~ 5 percent cap on interim habitat !ess throughout the entire NCCP planning area ~n sou~sm Ca/iforrfia. STATUS OF THE SPECIES The coastal Catiibraia gnatca, chef is a recogmz~ subspecies of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica ['Brewster]) and is endemic to coastal southern California arid northwestern Baja California, Mexico (American Ornithologists, Union 1983, 1989; At'wood 1980, 1988, 1990, 1991). It is a nonmigratory, resident species wh/ch is found on the coastal slopes of southern California, ranging from southern Ventura southward through Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counti~ into Baja California, Mexico to approximately 30 degrees North latitude near El Rosario (American Omitholog/sts' Union 1957; At-wood 1980, 1990; Jones and Ramirez 1995). Various aspects of gnatcatcher biology have received additional study since the species' listing as threatened in 1993, aj~_sourees of new information include additional fielcl surveys menboring, and ecological investigations pe.rf0rm~-~y both academic researchers and ~i;1ogicai consultants. The need to examine and compile current knowledge on the biology of the gnatcatcher prompted a symposium wkich was held at University of California at Riverside in the fall of 1995. Much of the following data and information accumulated since the 1993 listing has been drawn from the information pre e,$_~ed at this symposium., 1tabltat: The gnatcatcher typically occurs in or near sage scrub habitat, which is a broad category of vegetation that includes the following plant communities ~ classified by HoIland (I 986): Ventutah coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, Riversidean sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, and coastal age-chaparral scrub. Based upon dommat species, Sawyer and Keelcr-Wolf (1995) further divide these communities into series such as black sage, brittlebush, California buckwheat, California buckwheat/white sage, California encelia, California sagebrush, California sagebrush/black sage, California sagebrush/California buelcwheat, coast prickly-pear, mixed sage, purple sage, scalebroom, and white sage. The majority of plant species found in sage scrub habitat are low-growing, drought-deciduous shrubs and sub-shrubs. Generally speaking, most ty~s of sage scrub include Califomia sagebrush (,'lrtemtsia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonumfas¢iculatum), and sages (Salvia mellifcra, $. at&taria) i-Holland, 1986; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Other commonly occurring species include lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia) coast goldenbush (Isocoma menr. ie.~ii), and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). Succulent species, such as boxthom (£ycium spp.), cliff spurge (Euphorbia mixera), jojoba ($imrnondsia ¢Mnensix), cacti (Opuntia littoralis, O. prolifera, Ferocactu.r viridescenx), and Dudleya spp., are represented in maritime succulent 4 Gnatcatchers also use chaparral, grassland, and riparian habitats where they occur adjacent to sage scrub. These non-sage scrub habitats are used for dispersal, but chtta on dispersal use are largely anecdotal (Bowler 1995; Campbell et al. 1995), Although existing quantitative data may reveal relatively little about gnatcatcher use of these other habitats, these areas may be critical during certain times of year for dispersal or as foraging areas during drought conditions. Breed/rig territories have also been documented in non-sage scrub habitat. Biology and Home Range: The gnatcatcher is primarily in~ctivorous and defends territories ranging in size from approximately 2 to 40 acres (Atwood 1990), Although grmteatehers use a diverse range of plant species within sage scrub (Braden and Love 1995), quantitative data on population densities relative to vegetation sub-association types within sage scrub habitam are lacking. Information suggests, however, that small-scale differences in plant composition and/or structure may help explain discontinuities in gnatcatcher occurrence ( Raabe 1995; Weaver 1995). Areal use requirement~ by gnatcatchers vary throughout the year with territorial behavior relaxing somewhat in the non-breeding season, allowing for an expansion in the size of the use area. These non-breeding areas are about 70 percent larger than breeding territories (Deeley 1995; Preston et aL 1996). Comprehensive studies by Atwood (1988, 1990, 1991) indicated that the gnatcatcher's breeding season extends from February through August, peaking in April. Clutch sizes range between three and five eggs, with the average being four. Juvenile birds associate with their parents for several weeks (sometimes months) ~fficr fiedging. Gnatcatch,rs are persistent nest buildera mad often attempt multiple broods, which is suggestive of a high reproductive potential. This is, however, typically offset by high rates of nest predation and brood parasitism. Gnatcatchers typically live for two to three years, although ages of up to five years have been recorded for some banded birds (Braden, MeKeman, and Powell 1995a), Multiple-year monitoring studies have provided preliminary data on local population dynamics. Pair numbers fluctuate significantly, even between consecutive years, and the magnitude of fluctuations can exceed 100 pement (Erickson .and Pluff 1995; Woehler et al. 1995). The underlying causes of these population fluctuations are complex and, as a result, not easily identified. Dramatic population changes documented since the end of the 1980s have been ar~buted to reproductive responses by gnatcatchers to variations in productivity of the sage scrub vegetation as mediated by climatic conditions, particularly rainfall {Woebier et al. 1995). Al~ough l~ely,~t~is theory has not been rigorously tested. Monitoring of gnatcatcher reproduction performed at the Irvine Ecological Preserve from 1991-1995 documented a progressive increase in reproduction that corresponded with the end of a prolonged drought (Woehler er al. 1995). Although the direct link between r~infall and reproductive output has yet to be strongly supported by long-term data, the observed increase was corroborated by monitoring. studies in other areas (Ogden 1993), Other local population increases correspond to spatial shifts following large-scale habitat loss or disturbance in surroundin~dseapes, suggesting refugial use (Woehle, r et aL 199:5). Despite the availability ofrefugia, tlxe mortality ~ resulting ~om catastroph/c events (such as fire) may be protracted as studies reveal these abrupt p.opulation increases to be ter.mporary~ indicat/ng an adjustment to c~'rying capacity. Mon/tor~ng studies have a~so collec£ed reproductive data, such as fledgling success, in Ioc~l gnatcatcher populat/ons. Productivity in terms o£ficdglings per breed/ng pah' ranged from 2.6 to 4.8 in four studies conductec~ in vazious areas between 1992 and 1995 (An&os and Schroeder 1995, Atwood et al. 1995, Brdden et aI. ! 995a, Galvin e! air. 1995). These numt:mr~ indicate that some of the local gnatcatcher populations produce offspring at numbers exceeding the size of the .,~ local breeding population in any given year (WoeMet er al 1995), however, nataltry must be considered relative to mortality, an~d mortality has not been adenrarely Morality in territorial adults can best be inferred by rates of replacement of known individuals (e.g., banded birds), assuming these birds to be sedentary irmated. $oorces of mortality fgr adults have not been well studied. Similar to other passerinc speci¢s,~natcatchcr mortality is highest for the yotmgcst age class, with much of this attributable to piedat. ion o£young in nests. !uvenile birds are also more susceptible to prcdation. Brad,m, McKems.n, and Powell (199fa) ¢s_tirriate annual adult mortality at 63 Percent and iuverdle mortality at 1~6 percent, based on re- sightings of color-banded birds in Riverside County. N~st mortality is 11k~l¥ increased by parasitism from brown-headed cowbirds. Decline in Population Numbers: Although observed declines in numtmrs and distribution of the gnatcatcher resulted from numerous factors, habitat destruction, fragmentation and adverse modification are the principal reasons for the gnatcatcher's current threatened status (58 FR. 16742). Up to 90 percent of coastal sage scrub vegetation has bea:n lost as a r~sult of development and land conversion (Westman 19._9~.81 a, 1981b; Barbour and Major 1977), and coastal sage scrub is considered to be one of the most~e'epletcd habitat types in the United States (Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1977; Axelrod 1978; I(1opat~k e! al. 1979, Westman 1987; O'Leary 1_9_99___0). In addition to agricultural use and urbanization, increases in fire frequency and the introduction of exotics have had an adverse impact on extant sage scrub habitat. Population Estimates: Oncc considered to be a locally common ape. cica (Grinnell and Miller ./1944), Atwood (1990) originally c~ma~-"~he maximum number of gnatcatcher pairs in the ->~-'~ United States to be beo,vecn .1,811 and :~,i~91. In the final rule for the gnatcatcher (USFWS 1993a), the Service estimated that up to 2,~62 gnatcatcher pairs occur in southern California (Table I). . ~:,~,.~, w~ aaaecl to the previousiest~mate~af 2,$62 patrOn"at ~e ~--~ ~r':~--- 7-~ ~natcatcher location ~d In~ ~-~ .... :~ ~ ...... ---~. ~,,~ o.,,~,~.~, __ ~ ~~ _ a_ .u · · ~' --'7 .-~a -uuiomlio~ lor projecm SUbject to ~c incfdcn~ ~c exemption ~ _. ~acr me spcclal role, pl~ ~e loss of gnatcatchers in conj~cfion ~ scc~on 7 consul~ons ~ '~ section.10(a)(l)~) incidcn~ ~e pc~ts were ~en sub,acted from ~s W~. Recog~ng :2~,: ~nconsistency ofs~ey ~ ~d ~avoidablc so~ccs of c~or, ~e Sg~i~'s ~cw population eaimae is bmcd on ~e n~ber of occ~nces, or siKhti~% of~ ~tcatchcr pairs ~d 6 iv, dividuaJs. For purposes of this analysis, the Service is usil~g thes~ oec-n'~nee.~ to indicate pairs oFhirds. Where recent survey it:formation obtained since March 31, 1993, overlapped with the existing database used in the administrative record for the listing of the gnatcatcher, that information was subtracted to avoid duplication, B~cd on data collected since the time of its 1istint as a threatened species, ~c Service's current estimate of the total number of gnatcatchers in the United States is 2,g99 pairs, after subiracting out all gnatcatcher pairs authorized for take under HLPs, approved NCCPs and HCPs, and tkrough section 7 consultations (Table Table 1. Estimated Number ofGnatcatghcr (CAGN'~ Pa~rs Based on Known Los ~eles Orange 757 Riverside 261 San Diego~ 1514 San Bernardino unknown Ventura tm.k. nown T~'AL ..........' 2562 908 344 2-I06 I0 2 3430 ?l 121 6 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 228 36 :? $9 672 22 268 41 1917 0 10 0 131 2899 ~ , .... ba~ed on update of original Service estimate of CAGN population at time oflisting using all survey data known since listing. ~ Take t~r O~ange County section 7~, excludes thg harassment of 3'7 pairs due to indLrect ef'fect~ o£ cowbird parasitism as a cowbird cona'ol program was included as a term and condition to minimize this impact. ' San Diego County estimate i~cludes extrapolation ofpaLrs in the Poway Subarea. Current available information on gnatcatcher locations indicates that the known population is greater than that assessed in the 1993 biological opinion. As more surveyat were conducted, additional gnatcatchers were identified. The increased nm'nber of gnatcatchers is believed to be a rcgult of surveys occttrring wit. h~ previously ~s~.rveyed areas and increased numbers o~ birds due to variations in productivity of sage scrub in response to climati~ conditions. This should not ~ construed to represent an increase in the overall gnatcatcher population. Overall[the amount o£ sage scrub available to gnatcatchers has aecreased during this period due to habitat }".ss resulting from permit issuance. The overall average gnatcatcher population r. hr-ugh time will probably be less with a decreased amount of habitat within which annual fluctuations of populations can occur. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELrNE Jurisdictions within Orange, San Diego, and Los Angeles Counties ~r¢ actively participating in within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties axe not utilizing this process, but have individually si~ned Mernorax~durrss of Underetax~/ing which commit them ~o prepere Subregional and Subarea NCCP/HCp plans, To date, five NCCP Subregional axed Subares piar~ have been com~)letcd. These/nclude the Poway Subarea Plan (which w/l] be one of the components of the MSCl~ in San Dicgo), San Diego Gu &: Rlegtr/c Company ($DG&R) Subregional NCCP, Ors. age County Central/Coastaj Subreglonal Plan, and two Metropolitan Water District/RCHCA Plans (7,ake Mathews MSHCP/NCCP and Southwest Riverside County MSHCP). These plans will restfit/n the preservation of 62,454 acres of habitat, includ/~g 30,83~2 acres of sage scrub. ~-~<~ ~.~ ~ ~ p Orange County. Orange County has been divided/nto thr~e approx/mately equal subregions for ~age scrvb conservation pian~ng purposes: the Matr/x (or Northern), Central/Coastal, and Southern. The Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP Subregional Plan was approved on $uly 17, 1996, and consists of the Central and Coastal Subarea plans. Vegetation mapping in 1992 showed a total of65,739 acr¢~ of sage .~c~b in Orange County. It shouJd bc noted, howcve--~", that vc§etation irl Orarlgc County was zff'.ec~ed by the following brtlzh fires that occurred since the listing of the gnatcatcher: (!) th(~/,,agtlrla fire in the CentroJ/Coazt, d Subregion wh/ch burned ~ 4,000 acres of :/age scrub; (2) the Anahc/m H/l]:~ ~re in the Ccntral/Coazta; ~ubregion which - burned 70 acres of sage scrub; and (3) the Ortega fire in the Sotrthcm Subleg/on wh/ch burned - ~,900 acres of sage scrub. As fixc is a natural ecological process to wh/ch sage scrub is adapted (.provided that the frequency is not increded beyond natural condit/ons), impacta to sage scrub are considered to bc short-term ~ nature. on data collected as part of field surveys eo~ductcd f~,m I987 m 1996, pre. ~d · :atehut umbers for e~ subr~ffio~ wgr~ ~a!~. Po,t.f~ ~tnatehcr ~,~ub~ w,m :ted by approximately I4 pem~nt. A consider~l, mo~t of new i~o~ation ~om public private pro~ ~o~out ~ge Co~ con~b~ed to ~e increded cst~nt~m 757 the time of listing, including acco~g for losses result~g ~om the ~ldf~es. Approximateiy 883 acres and 71 gnatcatcher pairs have been authorized for loss in Orange Ti]4~/), County throu~ issuance of HLPs in conjunction with implementation of the interim habitat loss erovisions of the special Me, mostly in the Central/Coastal .%b~egion (574 acres and 38 pairs). Mitigation for project/napacts includes 548 acres of on-site and off-site habitat preservation, 287 acres of sage scrub revegetation, 303 acres ofinva~.;ve plant ~pee;es removal, and over $4 for management and additional habitat acquisx,'ion 50,000 indirect 3 d Approximately 526 acre~ and 67 gnatcatcher pairs (excluding the harassment ~ xo ~ff'ects of cowbird parasitism mitigated thxou§h a cowbird control program) have been authorized for loss through section 7 consultations conducted for nine separate projects, including three transportation corridor projects: Eastern (ETC), Foothill (FTC), and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridors, Two of these projects accotinted for I/5 percent of the acreage loss and 76 percent of the gnatcatcher take, The northern and eastern legs of the ETC affected 250 acres o£sage scrub and 27 pairs ofgnatcatchers, wh/]e ~e FTC north (rio-.., 05o Parkway to ~se impacts includes 957 acres ,-,t~...~-:*--~- ~ruo .anc~ .~_p~irs ofgnatcatcher. Mitt at' cow l~g, and $3 450 nnn ~ ....... _pz non, :5_61 acres ofsa~e scrub reve etario anagement ~d habitat acquismon. ¥~:.~_ , ,r:. ,, cr.cs !~d 121. pairs of gnatcatcher) have be~n authorized fo~ c.~~:' ' u;cnu'a~'c:oastal NCCP/HCP The"c: ....... ~.. a managed preserve system The r,~,,+,.,,,,-,_' ..... ~.;_,~_~ were ~l~?t by the establishment of con::~ of 37,378 acres o£habitat, 18,527 acres of which is sage scrub containing an estimated '4s - · --,'~,,-,,~,.~uast. a~ I'~JP/HCP Subregion~ Plan Preserve $ys cm~-~ 366 gnatcatcher pair locations present in cxistin~ dedicated opexi spae~, on public ~roperty, or future phased dedications o£public opcu ~pace, Of this, 40:5 acres of sage scrub and 92 · ~ gnatcatcher pairs occur on Federal land as part of the El Toro Marine Co · ' '..~ · t' · ~,elensc ano into the or, serve w u trc~l~'_~r/ v.~th/n the urescrve a,,,,-,-,,';---,-..--, o ,',, ~ -- ,. g_mc proposcci take that would occur ~ ~ ,/b .... · .... ~. -.,.. ,.~'r~'.'."~,,,,,,,-,y ~ o,u ~ ~ acres oz sage scrub and 357 enatcatche,. f In addition, HCPs resulte-' :-' ..... .~ ~s-~ ~- ~ c_ ' u m mss o~o'{ acres oz sage scrub arid authorized incidental take of six pairs of gnatcatcher. Take associated with these projects will occur over the 50-year span of the permits. Mitigation for project impacts includes 64 acres o£habitat preservation, 61 acres of sage scrub revegetation, cowbird trapping, and $1.~5 million dollars for preserve management. San Diego Couuty: It is estimated that between 220,000 and 230,000 acres of sage scrub exists in San Diego County. Based on gnatcatcher surveys conducted from the early 1980s to I996, less permitted take, an estimated 1,917 gnatcatcher pairs occur in this county. A considerable amount of new information from Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, Naval Air Station, Miramax, and other public and private property thxoughout San Diego County contributed to the increased estimate from 1,514 pairs at the time of listing. Based on 1994 survey effort~ of Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base located in northwestern San Diego County, 384 gnatcatcher pairs were identified. This is 215 more pairs than the 169 pairs identified at the time of the gnatcatcher listing in 1993. Surveys conducted on Naval Air Station, Miramar, between 1994 and 1996 revealed 53 to 59 gnatcatcher pairs. Project information associated with HLP applications under the special rule in San Diego County identified an additional 82 gnatcatcher pairs. Project information available through section 7 consu{tatious and 10(a)(l)(B) incidental take permits revealed an additional 147 and 2(5 gnatcatcher pairs, respetaiveiy. InFormation on habitat loss in the County of San Diego is reported to the San Diego Association of Ooverrtments (SANDAO) which maintains a database of habitat losses by jurisdiction and forwards this information monthly to the Service and the CaJifornia Depm_,tment of Fish and Oarne (CDFO). In total, the Service has concurred with 67 [-tLPs in San Diego County. These permits resulted, or wi}l result, in the [o~s of 1,111 a~res of sage sorub and 57 pairs and 16 individual gnatcatcher~. Mitigation for these project impacts includes 3,175 acres of on-site and off-site habitat preservation (including 1,551 acres of sage scrub), 113 acres of sage scrub revegetatioo. and over $100,000 for habitat acquisition. The Service has completed 34 section 7 consultations for projects in San Diego County involving effects to the gnatcatcher. Projects evaluated under section 7 have resulted in the loss of' 68 acres of sage scrub and 41 pairs and 7 individual gnatcatchers. · ~ ~ ~ condztions for these projects, miti ation includ _ ,A_s re. qum:d by the terms and ~ g cd 1,100 ocz~ ofon.s,c~'~ off-site habitat ~rcscrwtiQn, 9I ocrcs of sage scrub habitat revereration, m,~uageme. nt and monitoring, and ' $500~000 for habitat ocqu/sition. One non-Subatca plan section 1 a' · r_.~ pertrot has been issued .... 0()(1)(B) incidental ta~e for the La Costa (formerly known a~ Fieldstone) project m the CiW o£ Carlsbad that will result in impacts to $06 acres of sage scrub and.30 pairs of gnatcatchers. Mitigation consists of 695 acres o£on-sitc I~bitat preservation (~9 acres of sage scrub) and 2,~0 acres o£off'-si~e habitat preservation and management. Titis project has I~cn platreed to be a component of the City o£Carlsbad Subarcs Plan under the MI-tCP Subr~gion*! Plan. Construction of this project will b~ phased, with the first phase coremencee about 1998. Two Subregional NCCP plans (Poway and $DO&E) have been approved in San Diego Counw. The Poway NCCP/HCI:' Subarea Plan was approved by the Service in July 1996 and will result in the loss of 1,73~ acres of sage scrub and an estimated $3 gnatcatcher pairs, Project mitigatio:~ consists of the preservation of 10,800 acres of habitat, including 5,$67 acres orsage scrub and i $7 gnatcatcher p.a~r..s. The $DO&E NCCP/HCP SubrcgionaI Plan will impact an esti to 400 acres of hab~tat. Mitigation will b~ provided throu..~, ,s...~_.,:__.: .......m? d · . , ~ , ~m u~ ~.~UliT, ittlOl['[ OlCer~lr]. r[ ht~-o[,, way a.s coredors for wfldhfe, lrlcludirig 800 actcs of fee-owried rights-of-way, 4,500 acrg~s of ¢.~chaustcd. P , creteits w~thin the 240.a~e r~tlgatio, area ate Los Ang¢le.~ County: It is ¢st~mate~ that approxJmatcly ~0 gnatcatcher pah'$ re,,z'..~fin in Los Angeles Count. Areas in Los Angeles County that con~n sage scrub include the Palo.~ Vetdes Perfinsula, Santa Monica Mountains, bluffs at Playa Del Rcy, Baldwin HflIs, eastern $~rr~ ~ £oothills o£the San Gabriel MountainS, Puente Hills, San $ose Hills, Pomona, and southern Santa $usana Mountains. Within Los Angeles County, one N¢¢P $ubatca Plan is being prepared by the City of Rancho PaIos V~rd¢~. At the time of listing, i~ was estimated that 1,050 acres of sage scrub and approximately 30 gnatcatcher pairs remained in the Los Angeles area (58 FR 16743), most of which were known__.. from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Using Atwood's 1 ~93 ve~etafiori data, the ~crvice estimates that :2,077 acres of sage scrub and grassland/scrub ecotone remain on the Pidos Vetdes Peninsula, with approximatoly 1,252 acres in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea. Since the time of listing, the gnatcatcher population at this locality has fluctuated fi'om 56 breeding pairs in 1994 to 26 pairs in 1995, a decrease 0£46 percent (Atwood er al. 1995)., The current estimate for the peninsula, based on 1~96 breeding season surveys, is 31 pairs (S. Tsai, pers. comm., I996) Fuel Support Point. This project affected 1.23 a~re$ of sage scrub and mitigation of 2,46 acres of ~ge scrub revegetat~on was required. One paff ofgnatcatcher$ may be t~ken as a result of t~'ds project, ~ crside Couaty: It is estimated that 166,000 acres of Riversidean and alluvial fan sage scrub exists in Riverside County ('PSB$1995). Based on a compilation ofgnatcatchet surveys from the ½980s to 1996, the total number ofgna~atcher pairs in Riverside County is e~timated m be 26g, Because Riverside County has opted no! :o utilize the interim provisions of the special rule, no HLPs have bcen issued in this county, Riverside County is not using the intcrim take provisions ,a~d it is not required to track loss of sage scab habitats not occupied by ~.na~eatchers.. As a result, information on the total loss orsage scrub to date in Riverside is not readily available. The Metropolitan Water District etro o i d Ri ' e ' . ~, .....~,,,, ....... (M . p. 1 am) an vemd County Habitat Conservation f,-~=u~.:), ~.~x~n~..~,} nave Joinuy completed two Subarea NCCP plans- the Lake Mathew S ec'e , r, . , . s Multiple .O~ ('~ p ~ s HCP ./NC,..P and Southwe~em Riverside Coun'-, ~.ao:_,_ o___. ~' ~'~u~ula~ elegies l'la. Dltal ~ol'~erVaTlorl (c~"~/Plan' Tbesc plans wili result in thc loss of 2,199 aeres of sage scrub habitat and u to54 gnatcatcher pairs. As mitigation, more than 14,000 acres of' I,,~,~ i.~ h,,.. e4Lnserv~d and.~-~"u°& m~aged for multiple species purposes, including 7,25ff~cre~ ofsa· seru~ habi . . million has bee e .... g tat Over $15 -- research ~ ar~.ar~ea. pr n.on-wmtmg endowments to manage these reservv, s, conduct ~.~_. _ .'~:_~.~ac.qmre nazitat. No other non-Subarea plan ~ection I0(a) permit~ ha~,e been O': :SoSnU~eu~t~.rongnsa~avteChr::~!~edRivers,de County. In addition. to the Subarea plato, six section ? · , or are antic?ated to result, in the loss of 22 gnatcatcher p~irs and 757 acres ellage scrub habitat. Mitig~tion £or these projetta Ires resulted in the conservation of 1,350 ac, res of grassland~d)sage scrub b-abitats and up to $82,000 in fees marked for additional acquisition o£0ccupied gnatcatcher habitat~ '~csvo v~..~,.e.~ O_,C~r'50~ q Saa Bernardino County: There are approximately 23,000 acres of scrub habitat in San Bernardino County consisting of approximately 8,000 acres of alluvial fan sage scrub and 15,000 acres of sage scrub (F. Roberts~ pers. cotam,, 1996). At the time of listing, the status of gnatcatchers in San Bernardino County was unknown. Since the listing of the gnatcatcher, approximately 10 pairs of gnatcatchers have been observed in the Gounty. Fire~ in 1996 may hav~ ',tffccred six of these pairs. No incidental take of gnatcatchers has been authorized in San Bernardino pursuant to the Act. Ventura County~ Several thousand acres of sage scrub habitat occur in Ventura County and .,~. 'e~ since its listing, two ~atcatcher pairs havi been obse~e.d in the vicinity of Moorpark. No _~L,~ Sub~cgional and Subarea pl~m~ are underway, and no ~nc~dental take of 'marcher has been authorized m Ventura County pursuant to the Act. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION Interim NCCP Program Habitat Loss/Take of Gnatcatchers: Th~ 1993 biolo§ical opinion states: "The loss of a maximum of 20,920 acres of coastal sage scrub, and a maximum of 116 pair (232 individual bh'ds) of an cstitnated 2,562 gn~c. atcher pairs within the NCCP pierming area, should not prevent the establishment of viable rest, yes for the coastal California gna~atcher." The acreage threshold was generated ia response to the NCC? Scientific Review Panel, who advised the: Service and the State of California that a $ percent loss of total sage scrub habitat (20,920 acres of 416,724 acres) would not adversely affect the ability to plan and implement NCCP Subregional and Subarea plans. Based on more recent vegetation mapping, the total acreage of sage scrub habitat within the NCCP planning area is estimated at 453,991 acres (see Table 2 appended to this opinion), To determine the maximum amount of habitat that would be afroted during the balance of the interim period, the acreage of sage scrub within the boundaries of the approved NCCP Subregional and Subarcs plans was subtracted from this estimate, leaving 406,108 acres. Acreage of sage scrub within approved NCCP Subregional and Subarea plans was subtracted because the cap of five petemat habitat loss is an interim measure that only i~r~plie.~ to area{ that are actively tt~-velooinlz a NCCP plan. After a NCCP plan ia approved, the amount and location of the incidental take arid habitat loss within its geographical boundaries are subject to the terms and conditions of that plan rather than the interim habitat loss process, and are addressed under a separate s~ction 7 consultation on the Services' concurrence that the platt meets the issuance criteria for a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit as required under the special rule and for any other listed species ad&¢ssed under the plan for which incidental take aa~orizatiort is being requested. Since the listing of the gnatcatcher, 4,532 acres of sa£e scrub have been approved for loss through HLPs issued in conjunction with implementation of the special rule, section '/consultations, and section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits (excluding projected impacts from approved NCCP PI_J.~. Of this amount, the following losses were authorizext: Orango County - 1,473 acres; Diego County - 2,298 acres; and Los Angeles County. 4 acres. In Riverside County, 757 acres have been lost, however, this represents only the loss of sage scrub occupied by gnatcatchers. A total of 1,996 acres of sage scrub have been authorized for loss through the special rule interim habitat loss process. All of these impacts were analyzed by the parti¢ipating jttrisdiction and found to be consistent with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. The California Department of Fish and ~CGrO, n.$~_~¢.~aame and the Service concurred with the jurisdictions' findings of consistency with ~e NC,CP 't)..~_n~,O_~!d.,~line,$. ;The, s¢ gro~y.cts were found to not preclude th ab~f the Jurisdiction to k;~.~?n~ ~:a.o.~c'$..u°r. eeonal.pl.an,.anct .unpact,s to sage scrub Were ade~luatelv mitigated. The sage · uo toss aumonzect througt~ tee mtenm habttat loss process (1,996 acres) was rn~t]gated through the preservation of 4,395 acres of habitat contributing to the implementation of the regional plans that will provide for the long-term conservation of the species. Mitigation xor the Ioss of 4,532 acres of sage scrub authorized by I-ILPs, Section 7, and Section 10 resulted in the enhancement, projects includcd'~eas~---~to avoid, - m]mmize, or mitigat~ impa~ sage scrub habitat.. Although HLPs issued to date account for the loss of 1,996 acres of sage scrub, the amount of' habitat that has actually been removed is less duc to the £act that the Service's estimated habitat loss inuludes not only sage scrub that has already been removed through grading, but also sage scrub that will be eliminated within one year based on the issuanc¢ 6fa HLP. These additional losses will only be allowed if the project applicant applies for a grading permit within one year ofH. LP issuance, and the jurisdiction has sufficient acreage remainir~g within the allowed five l~erc~nt allocation of sage scrub. Based on the provisions of the special rule, 17,688 acres of sage scrub (5 pcrcerlt of 406, I08 acres minus 2,618 acres already permiRed for loss, See Table 2) may be lost within the entire NCCP planning &rea during remainder of the interim period while NCCP plans are being developed. The SRP concluded that this should not preclude the development of viable preserves, provided the loss is in accordance with the NCCP conservation guidelines. The Environmental Assessment for the special role (Service 1993b) anticipated an incidental take of up to 116 paizs of the estimated 2,562 gnatcatcher pairs in the United States during the interim NCCP planning period, After subtracting the amount of take permitted through the section 4, 7, and l0 processes, the eument estimate of known gnatcatcher pairs is 2,899 (see Table l), As sage scrub habitat and gnatcatchers within approved Subregion and Subarea plan boundaries are no longer subject to the interim provisions of the special rule, the cstim_~te of gnatcatcbors on which to base future loss under the interim special rule is 2,624 gnatcatcher pairs (Table 3). Mc~ ~, ,...,a_ ,.o4-. Projects that have received HLPs under the interim provisions of the special rule will result iv. a to'~al take to date of 89 gnatcatcher pairs (see Table .3 which is appended to this opinion). An additionaJ 47 gnatcatcher pairs were authorized for take under HLP provisions within areas of subsequently approved NCCP Subregional anct Subarea plans (for a total of 136 l~airs~; see Table 1). Otr these ] 36 pairs, on]y 117 have actually been taken to date because som~ grading permits have not yet been issued by the local jurisdiction. In addition to take of g, ateat.:h,_.os associated with the special rule, incidental take of.36 gnatcatcher pairs has been aumorized through issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits, 131 airs through section. 7 consultations, and 228 pairs through final NCCP pla~s (see Table 1). It s o~uld be laoted that the incidental take anticipated in the 1993 biological opinion for the special rule was only to address the Iosses associated with the interim process and was not intended to include take ~so¢iated with section 7 or 10(a)(1)(B) permits, or final While 4 percent (136 of 3430) of the known gnat:archer pairs have been taken or approved to be taken through the special rule imerim habitat loss process, only 1 percent of the sage scrub witahin the NCCP area has been lost (including HLPs, section 7 consultations, and 10(a)(l)(B) interim ~;' permits). Up to 17,68~ ae~es of sage scrub may be lo~t before the 5 percent threshold is ~eaehed throughout the entire NCCP plan,':fing area in southern California. The dispar/l propoat on of habit at lost and number of gnatgat hers taken likely r¢su/ts from which incl.ude an o.verest~mat¢ of the number oi~ tcat several factors amount of~mpacts In more ~,,,~1 ...... ~_.. ...g~. ~chcrs aatually taken and a disproportionate he,.,,,~ pupu,ama tiararat. These factors ~re dls;ussed below. Overestimste in the number o£~atcatche~s "ereally tsken: The loss ofsa through HLPs to date has lik¢l res · . . ge scrub authorized Y uked, or will result, m the incidental r,~ke of an estimated I36 gnatcatcher pairs (including HLPs issued within areas of subsequently approved NCCP Subregional and Subarea plans involving the take of 4? gnatca, chef pairs) through harm and harassment. Harassment includes activilies where permanem loss of the ~natcatoher territory is not expected to occur (c.g., temporary construction disturbances · . .. . habits0. The analysis m the 1993 bio '..-, __:~ue ~ no,se and. activilies adjacem to occupied ~ ty~p~ es .o~f~ake b~ut rather assumes that ai~'~cltPc7e~nt~c~°.w_e_v.,er._' ~o~, not septate out these ~lifferent 5~I...,te~.m.l°.ri.~s.~__Th. erefore, ,.~.¢ .estlma,ed take of 136 t,,tcatcher hairs kEvidcnc¢ indicates in ,'-rt~, ',.~-.[""~' "' u,~ _p.~rmanem.ioss or abandonment of k~rritories. -- ....... ~ruumsmnces tha~ gnaIcatctiers can contint~ to occupy, or reoccupy, the same general territory area £ollowi~g temporal impacts (e.g., San Diego County Water Authorit). pipeline vroj,~e0. Impacts in more heavily populated ~abitat: As s~ted in the EA prepared for the proposed special ~e, ~e ~t~cipate~ ~atca~het ~e w~ b~ed on ~s~p~o~at ~e majo~ o~ habitat 1o~ ~dcr ~c inte~ procad,cs would o~ in ~bitat cOn~nin~ low densities of gnatcatchers. However, ~e c~nt ~gsis ~ dc~ned ~at ~Ps have ~cn is~ed in _con~i~ng higher densities of g~tchers ~ e~cte~ ~s is likely due to ~c fact ~at ~a~atchcr densities were ~gher ~ expected ~ isolated habi~t ~a~ents, ~d sage scrub habitat loss occ~cd ~t~n intc~ediate ~d ~gh qu~iw ~bi~t at ~ghcr ~ ~cipat~ levels. None of · c habitat lost, however, resulted in sig~fic~t ~cts to habitat ~at ~p~ns core pop~ations of gnatcatchers. ~ ~ _~ ~g ~ ~~ ~' One of~e ~s~ptions used in dete~ng ~c odgin~ level of ~ticipatcd ~ for C~ifo~a gnatcatch=rs ~ discussed in ~e EA is ~at "...birds ~e less likely to c~ently ~ fo~d on sm~l, fragmented, dis~: patches ofco~l sage scrub." ~s ~s~ption is in ac~r~cc wi~ ~ NCCP Consedation Guidelines' ~bimt eval~fion pro~d~c for co~ sage scab ~at cmph~izcs · e prcse~a~on cringe, contiguous h~imt blocks ~d concen~atcs habitat loss in ~e~ ~at have already bccn bagmented. ~s ap~ach is b~ed on ~c ~eo~ ~t !~gc habi~t patches hav~ more !ong-tc~ biological v~ue ~ do stoalief patches. Habi~t ba~en~ion is consid~cd a sig~fic~t ~cat to gnatcatchers. Fragmented habitat gcner~ly ~ less v~uc for consolation bcca~c smaller habitat ~e~ con~n fewer ~ecics, have proponion~ly l~ger pc~mctcrs (m~ng · cm more ~lnerable m edge effect), ~d ~e more susceptibie to ~vers~ ~oeh~tic even~. Sm~l rescues ~e ~so faced ~ ~ inked likelihood of species extrarich duc to reduced population sizes. A primaT negative effect of fragmentation is exposure to incompatibl,- adjacent land ~z~cs. Habitats _}~ ~ T ad~o,nmg ct~v~loprn~nts may Lave reduced value for wi/d~if~ due to th~ adverse ~ffects 01"~0i$~, air ~14 pollution, predaters, habitat modification, ¢ompet/tion from non-native species, etc. Numerous ne.,;t predaters such as opossums, raccoons, siam.ks, coyotes, California ground squirrels, and var/ous coryida commonly occta- a! habitat edges and may make use of the additional food and water sources provided by residential and goI£course development within and adjacent to cxistlng occupied habitat. Brood parasitism by brown-headed rowbirds may also be exacerbated by edge effect~ and the creation of cowbird foraging habitat associated with golfroursc development, ott, er turf a~eas, and domestic animal facilities, The largest remaining blocks of sage scrub habitat are now found more than 10 miles from the coast and support moderate to low gnatcatcher densities. Within 10 miles of the coast, Iarge, contiguous blocks (greater than 100 acres) of sage scrub are uncommon and generally disjunct. Exclusive of Riverside County, preliminary research from banded bird studies depicts a coast to inland gradient of increasing gnatcatcher territory size. A regression line of 267 territory sizes with respect to distance from coast (taken from various studies in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Countie-~) accounts for approximately 63 percent of the variation in territory size (Mock, pars. comm., 1996). This gradient rtms counter to the histor/cal gradient ofanthropogen/c habitat loss, which has left rclativcly little sage scrub near the ~ng the interim planning period, numerous fragments of coastal habitat that supported unexpectedly higher densities of gnatcatchers were approved for loss. Based on the factors described above, the Service believes that the continued loss of these fragrncnted areas will not preclude the ability to [establish ~ vlahle p~c designShat will provide for the long*term cor~ervation of the gnatcatcher but will result in a higher than originally estimated loss of gnatcatcher pairs. Estimated Future Interim NCCP Program Habitat Loss/Take of Gnatcatchers ~'~e interim -revisions of the s e ' p p ¢ial rule are intended to be short term and to remain in effect oat _',e~--~ during the preparation of long-term regional NCCP plans, The Service will continue to monitor y req~'~'~able progress~owards completion of NCCP plans every six months. To date, five NCCP Subregional agtd Subarea plans have been completed and-approved by the Service and the CDFG. These include the City of Poway (which vd]l become a component of the San Diego MSCP when i! is approved), SDG&E, Orange County Central/Coasts/, and the Metropolitan Water District/RCHCA (Lake Mathews MSHCP/NCCP and Southwest Riverside County MSHCP) NCCP plans. The Service anticipates approval of the remaining long-term regional NCCP Plans within 1 g months. Future projects will undoubtedly be proposed during th~s Time frame that will likely result in the loss of additional sage scrub habitat and/or take of gnatca~:ehers. _The Service is awa~e of 8 5 . proposed pro,'~cts~(in Orange and San Diego Cotmiles, and in the Rancho Palos Verdes area of Los Angeles County) that may affect sage scrub habitat, but for which no HLP for the loss of sage scrub has been received. These pending projects provide the best information regarding potential future impacts to sage scrub and gnatcatchers. Although much of the biologic. a/in. formation fror :he$ · 15 pending projects is incomplete, ~hc Service estimates that up to 1,224 acres o£ sage scrub may be lost. The dam base does not, however,/ndicate the nurnbcr ofgnatcatchers with/n this impact area.. To stimate the number ofgnatcatchers that could be taken by projects anticipated to occur dur/ng the balance of the interim NCCP planning pc'~iod/n Orange and San Diego Counti~, and in the Rancho P~1os Vetdes area of Los Angeles County, the Service used a density-based approach. Th/s method deterre/ned the maximum number of territot/es that arc likely to occur within the anticipated impact acreage. Average gnatcatcher breeding territories have been estimated at g acres (Atwood er al. 1994), 8 to-16 acres ('~raden, l~rs. comm., 1994), and 13 to 39 acres (Ogden 1992). To calculate the estimate of affected gnatcatcher pairs for purposes of this consultation within areas subject to active NCCP planning, an average territory size of 20.$ acres was used. This figur~ represents the mid-range of known territory si~s and, as such, 1,224 acres of sage scrub habitat could support up to 60 gnatcatcher pairs at carrying capacity. The Service, therefog, estimates that 60 gnatcatcher pairs could bc taken a~ a result of anticipated impacts associated with future projects, in addition to the 116 pairs addressed in the original 1993 biological opiaion and 20 pairs addressed in HLPs, concurred w~th prior to this re-analysis. This is a rough estimate tincause: (1) territory ~ may vary between coastal and inland area~ (Mock, pets. comrn., 1996); (2) lgnding project development is uncertain; and (3) there is insufficient information regarding gnau:atcher occupation of sage scrub proposed for loss. Even so, the Service believes this estimate is masonable for the purpose of cvaluatLng the effects of the action, and monitoring will occur to ensure that this number is not exceeded The anticipated loss of g0gnateatoher pairs in addition to the 116 pairs antioipated in the 1993 biological opirdon is not expected to adversely affect the viabilRy of the .gnatcamher population prov!ded the take is dispersed across the_active NCCP planvlno areas,, pnmaril.y. from areas . -,-,,, ,,, -: ._~a~mng me long-term wabfl~ty of the population. The Service shall require strict .a, cumr~,n~.~ to the Con_serra?on Ouidclincs., including minimization and mitigation of impacts, torough mc continued implcmentation of the HLP process on a case by case basis to ensure compliancg with this standard. Long-Term NCCP Subregional and Subarea Plans The Service will continue to work cooperatively with the CDFG and juriesdictions actively d~veloping Subregional and Subarea plans to ensure that thcy are consistent with the provisions of the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. The ultimate development and implementation of'these plans will provide for the long-term conservation of gnatcatchers in a viable preserve configuration. Losses ofgnatcatchers and sage scrub habitat that occur as a result of the approval of such plans should occur in lower quality habitat that is fragmented, exists in smaller patches, and does not support core populations of gnatcatchers. These axeas would not be exp¢c*ed to retain viable populations of gnatcatchers over the !ong-tcr:rn R. ema~izi,~g planning efforts in progress include the M$CP and MHCP in San Diego County, Ora.nge Cotmty's Southern Subregion Plea, and the Rancho Palos Vetdes of Los Angeles County The M-~CP is nearing completion, with the $ervice's decision on the section 10(a)(1)('8) permit applicatiou expected in late 1996. This plan proposes to conserve approxirnateJy 171,917 acres habitat including 73,619 actca o£sa~e scrub. The MHCP and Orange County's Southern $ubregio/~ Plan propose to have Completed plans by the end o£ 1997. The NCCP plan for Rancho Palos Verdes in LOs Angeles Cottory is still in the early planning stage. CUMIJLATIVH EFFECTS Cumulative effects include those of future Fedea-al, state, local, or private actions that are reasonably, certain to Occur in th~ action area considered in th/s biological opiuJon, Future Federa/actions that ~e unrelated to the proposed action are not considered because they rex]u/re separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The majority of activities anticipated to affect this Species within the foreseeable fUture i~ Orange, San D/ego, and Los Angeles Count/es are local projects within participating NCCP jurisdictions subject to the special rule. Most of the sage scrub in Orange and San Diego Counties is with/n the boundaries of NCCP Subregions that are addressing potential impacts consistent with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines or section 10 ofthe Act. However, pending approval of NCCPs and HCPs which will incorporate substantive impact avoidance and compensation measures, habitat destruction, and indirect impacts resulting from a variety otindividual projects will ttlrther fi'agment /he distribution e~f gnatc~t. chc~ ~ throughout their historic rang~. The majority of projects affecting the thatcatcher in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties will likely have no direct Federal involvement, however, they will be subject to the prohibitions of section 9 of'the Act, arid any take of the gnatcatchers would require perllzittillg pursuant to section 10 of the Act. These projecls could result, over time, in sigrgficant cumulative effects to the gnatcatcher, however, impacts will be mimmized and mitigated to the maximum extent practioable, as required by the Act. Additionally, the 8ervi~e will analyze these projects under section 10 and Will take into consideration their effects on long-term regional conservation planning efforts. CONCLUSION After reviewing the current status of the gnatcatcher, the environmental baseline, the effects ofthe proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the continued implementation of the interim habitat loss provisions under the special rule is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gnatcatcher. Critical habitat for the gnatcatcher has not been designated, therefore, none will be adversely modified or de~troyed. The Service reached this corlclusion by considering the following: I. 17 The interim provision to allow 5 percent of the remain/up sage scrub habitat (17,688 acres) to be lost through development within the entire NCCP plaan/ag area in southern Califorma not preclude the ability °fparticipatingjurlsdictions to develop and implement NCCP plans that provide for viable preserve contiguratio~, provided the loss occurs primarily in areas o1~' _low long-term conservation value and does not significantly aiiect core grotcatcher populations or impede habitat linkages. 2. ~/The anticipated loss o£ 80 gnatcatcher paks (in Oran e, and San D' ./ Rau,':ho Palos Verdes FL..~ A.o~, ...... g ... ~ego Counties, and in the ~. . . . area o ..... --~,.~c~ t, ounty) m acicliti · . V.~ the on.~nal 1993 biological opin/on will not adversel __ o.u to ,the, ! 16 pairs addressed m ~'~, ~?~a~ pol~ulal,on based on the followimz nrovi~;~,-o. ~'~. y,azl'ect thee viab~lity ortho gnatcatchcr ~,~.~e~-, u~cur pnmaniy in areas COnsidered to have. low long-term conservation \~'~ ~' b. individuals talcca are not critical to maintain the long-term viability of the population; ...,~3~.~.c/~7 c. tak ~ will be fully minimized and mitigated con.sLsteat with the Conservation o ~u:dcIines; and d. take will be d~spers~.:i ~ross the active NCCP planning area. ~. The 1ong-tcrm provision to authorize incidental take, if it is in accordance with approved ~ N'CCP Subregional and Subarea plans, will. nco~ctevelopment of !aris L'~_~F' / ' the long-term conservation of the ~'natcatcl~er ---' '- ......... P that pro,ado for - ' o ~nu ]~s naoltat m a _waole oreseryc ~"/ ;or° :z~?rarca~sOorl.~, hi~h plans will reduce habitat fragmentation and l~mvid~ lror conservation g 'tat that are managed for the gnatcatcher. INCIDENTAL TAK~ STATEMENT Section 9 of the Act prohibits take (de. fined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, woua::t, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) o£1Lsted speci~ ofiSsh or wildlife without a special exemption. Harm is further defined to include ~igaificant habitat modecarlo. or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defi~ed as actions that c~ea:e the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an c'xtent a.t to significantly disrupt normal behavior paterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is any take of listed animal species which results from, but i~ not the purpose of, can!dng out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or the applicant. Under the tcrrn~ o£ac~;t. lons 7('0)(4) and 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to, and not intended as pa~ of, the agency action is not considered a prohibited taking provided that such taking is ia comphance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement. Based on the preceding effects analysis, the Service anticipates that the following incidental take of ~xY' the gnatcatcher could occur as a result ofcontiau~ implementation of the interim habitat loss r~. provisions of the special rule' y, ~ or abandonment of gnatcatcher tergtofies. c.c.A~ previously state~i in the Conclusion section of this opinion, the Service has determined that this level of anticipated[ take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse ~',~ modification of critic~ habitat. ~e Service believes the follov,,mg reasonable and prodent measures are necessary to minimize take o£ the gnatcatcher: . A maximum of ! 7,688 acres cffsage scrub habitat may be lost dur/ng the balance of the interim provisions of the special rule, $¢ctioI~ 7 collsultations, and section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits throughout the entire NCCP planning area in southern California. A maximum of g0 pairs of gnatcatchers, in addition to the 116 pairs addressed in the incidental take statement of the original 1993 biological opinion, may be taken through permanent loss.or abandonment of territories, injury, or denill as a result of issuance of HLPs under the interim provisions of the special rule in Orange and San Diego Counties, and in the Rancho Palos Verd¢s area of Los Angeles County. }~kW'~..~ An tindetermined number of gnatcatchers may be temporarily harassed as a result of issuance of HLPs provided the limit of 17,61/8 acres of sage scrub is not exceeded, the NCCP Conservation Guidelines are followed, and the level of harassment is not likely to result in the permanent loss To monitor sage scrub habitat loss and gnatcatcher take, the Service shall track the issuance of HLPs in conjunction with implementing the special rule, in addition to tracking the incidental take of the gnatcatchers associated with section 7 consultations and section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits, To the maximum extent permitted by law and regulation, the S-'mice s~l ensure that projects ~sessed under section 7, or permitted under section 10 of the Act will not preclude or signifkantly adversely affect the ability of jurisdictions participating in the NCCP program to develop and implement a Subregional or Subarea plan that provides for a viable preserve design. o The Service shall ensure tha~ projetta permitted under the interim habitat loss provisions cf',he special rule are biologieally sound and comply with the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines. Terms aad Conditiont 19 To bc exempt from the prohibitions of' section 9 of the Act, the Service must comply with the following terms and conditions which implement the reasonable a~d prudent maasurea described above. These terms and conditions are aoa-discretionaxy. ]. The Service shall implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure ] through the following terms conditions: a. The Service sha~l_r...euuest that all participating local jurisdictions provide ,, ,-,,.,- of all with required conaiUons ..... ~.~ , to the Servmc w~h~n one month o£permit issuance. The . so p ovid a copy of .o. ca.o. o habi permit is issued). The monthly tally of sage scrub habitat loss by Co0unt g g jurisdictions shall include a copy of the notification of habitat loss. y and other The Service shall tally the incidental take o£gnatcatchers for each I-~P t~t is likely to result in the permanent loss, or abaodonment, o£a teni:ozy. ~+- ~ ~. ' c. W~thin 30 days of the 6nalization of this biological up,on, the Service shall reques. t that the participating jurisdictions not. Lf-y the Service of any issued I-ILl:' permits that have expired or have bccn withdrawn. The Service shall u'ack sage scrub habitat loss and gnatcatcher take resulting from projects · that receive incidental take ,,uthorizatioa pursuant to section 7 consultations and incidental take permits issued under section 10 of the Act. Itabitat loss resulting from projects approved or permitted through .section 7 or 10 will cotrot against the $ percent habitat loss by subregion, as specified by the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and the special rule. Section 7 consultations and section 10(a)(l)(B) permits authorize take through their own bacidental take statements, and therefore the gnatcatcher loss resulting from projects authorizcd trader sections 7 or I 0 will not accrue toward the take allowed under this iacideetal take statement e. The Service shall require notification 30 days prior to the commencement of'grading as a term and condition on all. section 7 consultatioos, and section 10(a)(l)("B) incidental take permits for the gnatcatcher within the NCC? area. This notification will allow the Service to track actual losses before they actually occur and to notit), jurisdictions of habitat loss resulting from activities addressed under sections 7 or 10. The Service shall provide participating jurisdictions with a copy of this notification. The Service shall implement Keasonable a~d Prudent Measure 2 through t~e following terms and conditions: The Service shall rely on the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and the supporting documentation to the maximum extent permitted by law and regulation in reviewing actN~ties 20 under sections ? and I0 o£~c Act to ensure consi_~teacy with completed or ongoing Subregional and Subarea NCCP planning eft'ohs and to prevent the foreclosure oflong-tem~ planning options. In analyzing projects under sections ? and 10, the Service will take leto consideration the proposed projects effect~ on long term regional conservation planning efforts, in detennlning whether the project is likely to appreciably reduce the tarrival and recovery of any listed specie's, or species oroposed for listing, ihst wo. ld have benefitted from the plannin~ efforts. The Service shifll ensure that jurisdictio~ enrolled in the tenm habitat loss prog~rarn are " actively purming development o£1ong-term regional HCCP Plans. Progress shall be monitored at least every six mot~ths to verify that preparatitm of'these plans is proceeding in ;~ timely manner, The Service shall implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 3 through the following terms and conditions: Consistent 'with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines, the Servic~ shall erasure through the special rule interim project review process that_sage scrub imoa~U authorized during the interim planning period will be limited to areas that have low long-term conservation value to the maximum extent practicable by eraurine the following: (1) noFpermaneaOoss or abandonment ofgnatcatcher territories occurs within core ?~_tcaloher populatior~ areas or important habitat linkage areas; however, if'such loss is unavoidable im~-,~- .~,-. ~,- qualifying as an integral component of a viable regional ecosystem foi:'ihe g~atcatcher shall occur; and (3) gnatcatcher density or demonstrated pe, r~tence. in ~dditioa to ~a entation patterns, shall be fully considered m determining a properry's long-term conservation value. For issuance of incidental take exemptions pursuit to the special rule, the Service shall require that clearing and grabbing activities in sage scrub occur only outside o£$natcatcher breeding scion ('February through August), or that other measures, as al~'eed upon by the Service, are used to rnimmJze ~.!l~a_._ct~.._t0 gnatcatchers during the breeding season, CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS Section 7(a)(l) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservatio~ programs for the benefit of endmagered and threatened sp~ Conservation recomrr~ndations are discretmnary agency activities to minim;~e 6r avoid adverse effects of a proposed act/on on listed speoies or ~rifical habitat, to help implement ,e:.overy plans, or to develop information Th= Service recommends that the following conse~ atz~ ~ measure be implemented: The Service continues to recommend the three the attached 1 !a93 biological opinion: conservation measures as previously listed Tla¢ Service, in consultation with other Federa/agencies, work;,,_g groups, or recovery team members, should assess the efficacy of'various mcasures for minimizing project- related direct or indirect/rapacts to ~natcatchers and the ecosystem upon which they depend. ]'he Service should actively pursue the reduction and/or removal of activities on Federal landS-that' reduce the quality of sage scrub or hinder movement of native species associated with the sage scrub corem_unity across the landscape. ¢. The Service' should assist other Federal agencies in identifying opportunities for forwarding t}le intent of the Act. Such measures include active discussions with Federal zg_encies that provide financial backin~I for devedo-m~.n ....... - F'. - ~ orole~;ts ann the proactive development o£appropriate mitigatio~;umpensatioa measures'that wo assist in the formation of--'-'-' ...... · uld ,,~,-uie reserves Ior sage scmo species. The Service should initiate a coordinated range wide survey of the 8aatc~tcher to provide an accurate populalion estimate, ILEINITIATION NOTICE This concludes formal consultation on the proposed action ofcontlnued impiernentatioa of the special rule for the gnatcatcher. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiatio= off formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extem of incidental take reaches 70 pairs; (2) new information revezls effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a matter or to an extent not considered in this biological opinion; (3) the agency actioll is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this biological opinion; or (4) a new species not covered by this opinion is listed or critical habitat designated that may bc affected by this action. In instances where L'.,¢ ;~slount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take should cease pending re, initiation. The Service wiU consider r¢initiation of this biological opinion ff and whe.~ the take ofgnatcatchers reaches 70 pairs. If you have any questions concerning this biological opinion, please contact the Field Supervisor of the Scrvice's Carlsbad Field Office at (619) 431-9440 . .. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Checklist of North American birds. Ornithologists' Union, 'Washington, D.C. 5th ed. American 22 . 1983~ Checldist of North American birds. 6th ed. American Omi~hologi~t~, Union. Allen. Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pages. - , t989, Thirty-seventh supplm~ent to the Amerlca. a Ornithologists' Union chccklbt of North American birds. ~ 106 0): 532-538. Anderson, E.R. 1991. Habitat preferences of the California gnatcatcher in San Diego County. UnpubL M.A_ thesis, San Diego State Univ., San Diego, Ca. lif. Andros, M. snd M. Schroeder. 1995. Breeding success of the California Crnatcatcher (?olioptilo callformica) in fragmented habitat surround Bonita Reservoir.. Paper delivered at the Symposium on the Biology of the California Gnatcatcher held 15-16 September, 1995, University of California, Riverside. Atwood, I. 1980. The United States distribution of the California black-tailed gnatcatcher Western ~ird.~ l 1:65.-78 1988 Speciation and geograplac variation in black-tailed gnatcatchers. Ornithological Monographs No. 42. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. ' · _. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher OUol~optiltt calOrornica). Mancruet Bird Observatory, Mahomet, Mass. ! 991. Subspecies limits and geographic patterns of morphological variation in California gnatcatchers (Poiioptila californtca). Bulletin Southern California Academy of'Sciences 90 (3):1 I8-133. Atwood, J.L., M.R.. Fugali, and N. Nicolai. 1994 California Gnatcatcher, Cactus Wren, and conservation of coastal sage scrub on the Palos Verde. s Peninsula; Progress Report # 1 (1993). 52 pp 4. append. Atwood, J., M. Figagli, C. Reynolds, and J. LuttrelL 1995.. Distribution, dispersal, - ...... and population dynamics of Callromic Gnatcatchers on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, 1993- 1995. Paper d~livcrcd at the Symposium on the Biology ofthe California Croatcatcher held 15.16 September, 1995, University of Califom/a, Riverside. Axelrod, D 1978. The origin of coastal sage vegetation, Alta and Bajd California, American Journal of Botany 65 (10)I 11%1131 Barbour, M., a~d 1. Major. York, New York. 1977. Terrestrial vegetation of California. 23 Iohn Wiley and Sons, New Bent, A.C. 1949. Life histones of North American thrushes, kinglets, and their allies. United $tate:~ Nat. Mu$, Bull. 196:1-411. Bloom, P.H. 1995. Results of' California gnatcatcher (Pollaprils ccdifornica callf arnica) and arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo microscaptm$ californtcus) surveys in Orange and San Diego Counties, Cali£ Unpubl. azmual rep, submitted to the U.S. Fish and W'ddlife Service pursuant to recovery permit (PRT-787376), Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, Calif. Bontrager, D. 1994. First annual progreis report, 199.; CalLComa gnatcatcher research activity in U~e Superpal'k Area of Orange County, Calitbma. Unpubl. rep. prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Management Authority, Fairfax, Virginia. Innusry, 1994. Bowler, p. 1990. Coastal sage scrub restoration. I: The challenge ofmitigatioia. J~estoration and Management Notes 8(2 ):78 -82. 1994 Personal communication regarding roads a~ barriers to gnatcatcher movement. 1995. California gnatcatcher use: o£mulcfat and coastal sage scrub restorations as a wetlands margin dispersal corridor. Paper' delivered at the Symposium on the Biology of the California Gnatcatcher held 15-16 September, 1995, University of California, Riverside. Braden, G. 1992. Personal coxm'nunication pertaining to the incidence of'cowbird parasitism at Riverside County study areas, California, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California. 1993. Personal communication pertaining to the incidence of cowbird parasitism at Riverside County study areas, California, U.$, Fiih and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California. 1994. Personal communication regarding gnatcatcher fledgling disp,rsal, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California. Braden, O. and S. Love. 1995. Habitat use versus availability for Polioptila californica callf arnica (coastal California gnatcatcher} in western Riverside County during the 1992- 1994 breeding seasons. Paper delivered at:the Symposium on the Biology of the California Gnatcatcher held 15-16 September, 1995, University of'California, Riverside Bradea, O., tL McKeman,/red S Powell. 1995a. Life History ofPolioptila californica callf arnica in western Riverside County.~ CA. Paper delivered at the Symposium on the Biology of the California Gnatcatcher held 15-16 September, 1995, University of California, Riverside. , 1995b. Consequences of nest parasitism of P°li°lvtil~ californic~'californica (coastal CaJifomia goatcatcher) by Molothrus ater (brow~- headed cowbird) in western Riverside County, CA. Paper delivered at the Symposium on the Biology of the California C-matcatchcr held 15-16 September, 1995, University of Californ/a~ Riverside. Brown, B.T. 1993. "Beli's Vireo." I,: Poole A., P. Stetteaheim, and F. Gill ~ds,). ~c Bir~ of~orth ~mer/ca, No. 35. P~ladelp~a: The A~emy of Namr~ Sciences; Wash., D.C., ~er. O~th.U~on. Burke, R.L. 199I. Relocations, rcpatfiatiom, and traaslocatio~ ofamphibia~s a~d reptiles: taJdng a broader view. tterpetologica 47(3):350-357. California Department of'Fish and Game. 199o. 1989 An-_ual Report on the status of Califomia's listed threatened and endangered piaats and anima/s. Sacramento, Calif. . 1993a. Southern California coastal sage scrub natural commull/ty conservation planni~l process guidei/nes.. Amended November, 1993 Sacramento, Ca/if · California Natural Diversity Data Base [CNDDB]. 1995. Rarefind Report. Calif. Dept. of Fish a~d Game, Natural Heritage Div., Sacramento, Calif.. . . 1996. Rarefred Report. Ca/if, Dept. of - Fish ~u'ld Game, Natural'I2ie~tage D/v.., Sacramento, Cali~. Campbell, K., R. Erickson, and M. Patten. 1995. Saving the habitat and losing the birds: adjacent habitats, management, and natural history of the California gnatcatcher, Paper delivered at the Symposium on the Biology of the California Gnatcatcher held 15-16 September, 1995, University of California, Riverside. · County of Orange. 1994. Letter regarding consistency of the ETC with the County's NCCP Process. On file at the USFWS Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, Cali£ County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, 1995a. Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan, County of Orange Central · nd Coastal Subregion. Porto I a~d II NCCP/I-ICP; Part 12~ Joint Programmatic EIR/EIS. Prepared by R.J. Meade Consulting, Inc, San Diego, Calif., dated December 7. · 1995b. [mplememation Agreement for the Orange Count~ Central and consial Subregion Natural Community Conse~tion Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan. 25 - · 1996a. Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation PlaxL County of Orange Central smt Coastal Subregion, Mitigation and Implementation Agreement Monitoring Program, dated March 28. · 1996b. Iointpr0grammatic Environmental Impact Report/~viroamental Impact Sate, meat response to comments, Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/I-Iabitat Conservation Plan, County of Orange. DeeIcy, IL 1995. Home range size in the California gnatcatcher: d~erminants and its effect on reproductive success. Paper delivered at the Symposium on the Biology of the California C"aatcatcher held 15,16 September, 1995, University of California, Riverside. E~iich, P,R., D.$. Dobkin, and O. Wheye 1988. The birder's handbook: a field guide to the natural kistoty o£North American birds. Simon and Schuster, New York, New York. Erickson, tL And K. Pluff. 1995. Fours years of synchronous California gnatcatcher population fluctuations at two locations in coastal Orango County, CA_ Paper delivered at the Symposium on the Biology of'the California Gnatcatcher held 15-I6 September, 1995, University of California, Riverside. Fleaman, E. and D.D. Murphy. 1993. Areview of the biology ofcoastal sage scrub. Dra,q outline In: Southern California coastal sage scrub natural communities conservation plan, scientific review panel conservation guidelines and documentation. Unpubl. rep. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, Calif. Friedman~ I-I. 1934. Birds victimized by the cowbird. Wilson Bull. 46:25-36.. Galvin, J.p., M. Anckos, and ,l, Schroeder. 1995. The breeding biology of the California gnatcatcher at Siphon Reservoir. Paper delivered at the Symposium on the Biology' of the California Croatcatcher held 15-16 September, 1995, University of California, Riverside. Garrett, I~., and J. Dunn. 1981~ Birds of'southern California, statua a.ud distribution, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Los A. ageles, Calif,, 408pp. Gary, J.T. ] 983. Competition for light and a dynamic boundary between chaparral and coastal sage scrub. ~drad~,ono 30:43-49. G/lpin, M.E. 1987. Spatial structure and population vulnerability. In: Viable P0~lati0ns for Conservation. M.E $oule ('Ed). Cambridge Press, New York, New York. Pp 125-140. Griffith, B., $.M. Scott, J.W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 11989. Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477~480. Grkmell, J. 1915. A distributional list of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna 11-1-217 1926, A criticaJ imspection of the gnatcatchers of California. Pro¢. Calif. Aced. Sci. 16:493-500. 1928. A distributional summation of the onaithology of Lower California. Uzdv. ca~ Publ. Zooi, 32:1o300. ·axtd A.H. Miller 1944. The distribution of the birds of California, Pacific Coast Avi~a~na No. :!7. Arternesia Press. Lee Vining, Calif.., 615pp. Hanna, W.C 1934. The black-tailed gnatcatcher and the dwarf'cowbird. Condor 34:89. Hickman, I.C. (Ed.). 1993. The $epson manual; bigbeg plants of California. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, Calif. Hillyard, D. and M. Black.. 1987. Coastal sage scrub revegetation at Crystal Cove State Park Orange County, California: 1987 update. Proceedings of the Second 3lattve Plant Revegetation $ympaslum. Society for Ecological R&storation and Management. Madison, Wisconsin. Holland, R. 1996, A Description of the Te~estrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of'Fish and Game, October. Sones, C. A, and 1K, Ramirez. 1995 Sighting of California Gnatcatcher in Ventura County. Poster presented at the Symposium on the Biology of the California Gnatcatcher held 15-16 September, 1995, Umver$ity of California, Riverside. Keeley, J.E. and S.C. Keeley. 1984. Postfire recovery of California coastal sage scrub. America Midland Naturalist 111:105, t t 7 Keeley, S,C,, I.E. Keeley, S.M. Hutchinson, and A.W. Johnson. 1981. Postfire succession of'the herbaceous flora in southern California chaparral. Ecology 62:1608,1621. Kelly, P.A., and I.T. Kotenberry. 1993. Buffer zones for ecological reserves in California: replacing guesswork with science, In: I.E. Keeley (Ed.). Interfere between ecology and land development in California. S. Calif. Aca. of Sci., Los Angeles, Calif. Pages 1-8 26 Kirkpatrick, 1., and C. Hutchinson. 1977. scrub. Vegetation 35:21.33. The corninfinity composhion of California coastal sage 27 1980. The envh'onmental relationships of Californiaz~ coastal sage scrub and some of'its component communities and species. Soureal of' Biogeography 7:23-28. Klopatek, ,l., R. Oson, C. Emerson, and $. Jlones. 1979. Land use conflicts with natural vegetation in the Unked States. Bnvironmen~al Conservation: 6:191-199. MacMillea~ tC, E. WoMer, and J. Norman. 1991. Status Report on a population of the California gnatc~tcher inhabiting the open space preserve on the rampus of the Universlq~ of California, Lrvine. Unpubl. rep. Department ofF, cology and l~volufionary Biology, University of California, Irvine. 6 pages. Marsh, K.G. 1992. South Laguna biological resources inventory. UnpubL tep. prepared for the City of Laguna Beach, Cali£ Matson, R.H, 1978a. Winter bird-population study, Undisturbed coastal sage scrub, Amer, Birds 32:38-39. 32:106-1~)7. 1978b. Breeding birds census Undisturbed coastal ~age scrub. Amer. Birds McCaskie, tL G., and E.A. Pugh, Field Notes 18: 5~a~-536. 1964. Nesting scasoa. Southern Pacitc coast region, Audubon Minnich, R, 1990. Unpublished veg~atio~a map of western Riverside County. Map prepared by Regional Environmental Consultants IRECON], San Diego, Calif. Mock, P. 1996. Biolog/st. Ogden Environmental, personal communication with $. Lovio, USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office, August Munz, P.A. 1970. A California flora. Univ. of'Calif. Press. Berkeley, Calif. .... _ 1974, A flora of southcrn California. Univ. of Calif.. Press. Berkeley, Call[ Noss. R,.F. 1992. Edge effects, roads, and connectivity~ U~apubl. firaft sections, in Scieutific Review Panel Conservation Guidelines and Documentation, August 1993. Nossaman, Gunther, Knox and Elliott, 1996 Implementation agreement regarding the Natural Conmaunity Con-~ervation Plan for the Cer~tra/Coastal Sage Somb Natural Community Conservation Program. final draft, Dated April 24, 1996. Ogden £aviromnental and Energy Services Company, Inc. 1992. Population viabUity analysis for the California gnatcatcher within the MSCP study area. Unpublished draft report prepared for the Clean Water Program, City of San Diego, California. O'Leaxy, $. 1990. Californian coastal sage scrub: general characteristics and considerations for biologioal conservation~ In:' Endangered Plant Communiti~ of' Southern California. Schoenhen- (Ed.). Southern California Botanists Special Publication Number 3, Pp 24-41. O'Leaz3,, $., D. Murphy and P, Btussard. 1992 An NCCP special report: the ooa~tal ~age scrub community conservation planning region. Special Report No. 2. California Department of Resources, Sacramento, California Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. (PSBS) 1995. Western Riverside County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan Phase !, Information Collection and Evaluation. Prepaxed lot Western Riverside County Habitat Comortium, Riverside, (2alE, dated February 1995~ 162 ?a.Imer, RS. 1988. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 4. Yale Univ. Press. New Haven, Corm, Peterson, R.Z 196 ;t. A field guide to western birds. HougJatoa Mi~ia Co., Boston, P~m~n, S. 1991~ The balance of Nature Univ. of'ChicagoPress. Preston, K, M. Grishhaver, p. Mock, E. Bailey, and D. King. 1995. California gnatcatcher territorial and vocalization behavior at Rancho San Diego and vicinity, Paper delivered at the Symposium on the Biology of the California Cnmteatcher held 15-16 September, 1995, University of California, Riverside, Pyle, R.L., and A. Small. I961, ~aamotated field list, birds of southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Society, Los Angeles, Raabe, E. 1995. Habitat preferences of the Califbmia gnatcatcher in San Diego CounTy, Paper delivered at the Symposium on the Biology ofthe California Gnatcatcher held 15-16 September, 1995, University of California, Riverside, R., 1. Kotenberry, A. McCollurn, and T. Scott. 1995. Insect and plant ~ assembages of coastal sage scrub as indicators of habitat utilization by coastal California gnatcatchers. Paper delivered at the Symposium on the Biology oft he California Gnatcatcher held 15-16 September, 1995,, LTniversi .ty of California, Riverside. Rcrnsen, J.V. 1978. Bird Species of'Special Concern in Califom/a. C~lif.. Dcpt. o£Fish and Game, Sacranaento, CaJif. 54pp. Roberts, F. 1996. Botanist, U.S. Fish ~d Wildlife Service, persona/com~',un/cation. Root, T. 1988. Atlas o£w~ntcring North An~crican birds. An analysis of Christmas bird count data. Univ. o£Chicago Press, Clficago, Ill/nois. Rotenberry, and D. Murphy, regarding c/taft Central NCCP reserve design issues and impacts by the Eastern Transportation Corridor..luly. S~ata, L 1991. A status review otthe Ca/florins gnatcatcher. Unpubl. rpt. U.S. l~hh and Wildlife Service, Laguna NigueL Ca/LE. [Available from the C~lsbad, Sawyer, J. and T. Keeler~Wolf. 1995. AManual of C~/fornia Vegetation. Cal/fomiaNafive Plant Society. Schmidt, M.S. 1980. Growing California Native ?lares. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, C~lif. , a~d B.M. Pavlik, 1994. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants. Cal~ Native P/ant got., Sacramento, Calif. Small, A. 1994. California birds: their status ~d distribution. Ibis Publishing Company, Vista, Calif. 342 pp. Soule, M.E., D.T. Bolger, A.C. Alberts, 1. Wright, M. Sourice, and S. ltill. 1981/. Reconatru~ed dynamics of chaparral requinng birc/s in urban habitat lands. Conservation BioloRy 2: 75-92, Steinhart, p. 1990. California's wild heritage: threatened and endangered animals in the golden state. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, Calif. Swarth, H.S. 1902. Winter plumage of the black-tailed gnatcatchers. Condor 4:g6-7, Taylor, W.K. 1966. Additional records of black-tailed gnatcatchers para~itizecl by the dwarf brown-headed cowbird. Amer. Midi. Natur 76:242-243. The Irvine Company [TIC]. 1995. Draft range management plan, Parcels 1, 2, 2a, 3 and 3a, Irvine, California. Prepared by NativeScape, Mitchell Perdue, CRAM, 25915 lesmond Den¢ Road, Escondido, Calif. T~oege~-, A.R. 1982. Microcommunity patterns in corral sage scrub. In: Proceedings ofthe Symposium on Dynamics and Managenaent of Mediterranean-ty?e EcosystemS T~ai, $ 3¸0 and W.C. Oechel (technical coordinators). Pacific $outhwes~ Forest and Range Experimenb~l · iradon Gcneral Technical Report PSW-58, Berkeley, Cal~ 1966. Mahomet Bird Observatory. Person:d communication with M. Woulfe, USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office. UNOCAL. ! 993. Coyote FIilt~ East Habitat Co~er,,ation Pla~ in Support of Section 10a Permit Application. UNOCAL La~d and Developmeat Company 0.JNOCAL), Brea, Calif.., dated July I $, 1991t. 93 pp. + appendices. United 8tatcs Fish and WildliFe Service 1993a. Threatened ¢oashd California 8natcatcher; final rule and proposed special rule. Federal Register 58, number 59. -- 1993b. Firlal eaviroturieataI assessment of the proposccl section 4(d) rule to define conditions under which incidental take of the coastal California ~atcatcher would not be a violation o£secfion 9 of the Act. On file, USFWS Carlsbad l~ield Office, Carlsbad, California. November 1993. . 1994a. Biolotical opinion on the ~t'ects oft. he San Joaquin Hills :Transportation C0-rrido~on the coastal California 8na~catcher and coastal cactus wren. On file, USFWS Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, California. - _ . _. 1994b Final special rule conccrning take of the thrcatencd coastal CaJi£ornia gnatcatcher. Federal Register 58, l~umber 236. , 1994c~ Biological opinion on the effects of the Eastern Tra~portation Comdor (t~TC) ori the coastal California g~atcatcher, and cotfference report on the Braunton's' milk'vetch, Orange County, California. On file, USFW$ Carlsbad Filed Office, Carlsbad, California. Umtt, P. 1984. The birds of San Diego County San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. Memoirs 13: 1-276. vanRossen~ A.J. correction. 1931 a. Concerning some west:era races of Pofioptila melanura. Condor 33:35-36. ! 93 lb. The black-tailed gnatcatcher of middle lower California: a Proc, Biol. Soc. Wash. 44:99, Weaver, K. 1995. Distribution of the Cahfomia gnatcatcher within coastal sage scrub. Paper delivered at the Symposium on the Biology of the California Gnatcatcher held 15-16 Scptcmbcr, 1995, mversity of California, Riveraide. U ' ' Westma~ W. 19~ I a. Divers~ relations ~d succession/n Calff'ornia coastal saSc scrub. Ecolo~j 62:I70-184. 198 lb. Factors influencing the distribution o£species of Cal/fom/a coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62:439-4~$. · 1982, Coastal sage s~rub succession./,: 'Proceedings ofthe Symposium on Dyneales and Management of Mediterranean-type lgcosystems. C.15. Conrad and W C. Oechel (technical coordinators). Pacific Southwest Forest and Range I/xpedmental Station General Tech,;cal Report PSW-58, Berkeley, Calif, Westman, W.E. and J.F, O'Leary. 1986. Measures ofredIience; the reaponse of coastal sage scrub to fire. Vcgetat/on 65: 179-189. Westman, W.E. 1987, Implications for ecological theory for rare plant conservation in coastal sage scrub. In: Rare and Endangered Plants: A California Conference on Their Conservation and Management. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Woebier, E., M. Schroeder, T. Stecher, J'. Simonsen, and J. Ezovsld. 1995. Dynamics of a population of California gnatcatchers, 1991-1995. Paper dehvered at the Symposium on the Biology ofthe CaJifornia Gnatcatcher held 15-16 September, 1995, University of California, Riverside. Woods, R.S. 1921. Home life of the black-tailed gnatcatcher. Condor 23'173-178. I928. Nesting of the black-tailed gnatcatcher. Condor 30:139-143. Zedler, P.H. 1981. Vegetatiou cha-~ges in chaparral and desert communities in San Diego County, California. IN: Forest Succession: Coace4~ts and Applications, D.C. West. H.H. Shugart, and D. Betkin, (editors). Springer-Verlag, New York. Pp. 406-430. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.I~. Mayer, a~d M White (Eds.) 1990 (November), California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship Systems. State of Calif., The Resources Agency, Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento., Calif.