MSCP/MHCP Task Force

Mary H. Clarke

Co-Chair, NorthCounty

Sierra Club – San Diego Chapter
168 Elise Way

Oceanside, CA90237

(760-231-7362)

Dec. 11, 2013

Norm Pedersen

Associate Planner

Development Services Dept.

City of San Marcos

1 Civic Center Drive

San Marcos, CA92069-2918

RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration, San Marcos Highlands Project

P13-0009/SP 13-001/TSM 13-001/ND 13-010

Dear Mr. Pedersen:

I am writing on behalf of the North County MSCP/MHCP Task Force of the San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the San Marcos Highlands (Highlands) project. Our Task Force has been involved in the development of both the MHCP and the North County MSCP since the mid-1990s. We are committed to regional conservation planning, and we support the biological goals of the MHCP and NC MSCP, as stated in the MHCP, March 2003, p. 1-1:

Biological Goals: maintain the range of natural biological communities and species native to the region, and contribute to regional viability of endangered, threatened, and key sensitive species and their habitats, thereby preventing local extirpation or species extinction.

I have been representing the Sierra Club – San Diego Chapter on the North County MSCP (NC MSCP) for the last several years. My comments on the San Marcos Highlands (Highlands) MND will relate primarily to the NC MSCP. However, the Sierra Club – San Diego Chapter has opposed this project since the CEQA documents came out in the 1998 timeframe, and I have closely followed the progression of the Highlands project to the present time and am aware of its many negative environmental impacts.

DISCUSSION

In his letter of 16 October, 2013, William T. Everett of Everett and Associates reported on his reassessment of the biological resources on the Highlands project site. In the Conclusions section of his letter, he states, “The project remains in compliance with the North County Multiple Habitats Conservation Program (NCMHCP) and the draft North County Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP).” My comment letter deals with the project’s discrepancies with the NCMSCP. A comment letter dated December 2, 2013, from Diane Nygaard, Co-Chair, North County MSCP/MHCP Task Force, Sierra Club – San Diego Chapter addressed the lack of conformance of the project with the goals and objectives of the MHCP.

DISCREPANCIES WITH THE NCMSCP

1. First, the Preliminary Public Review Draft, Multiple Species Conservation Program, North County Plan, Volume I, Feb. 19, 2009, shows the County portion of the Highlands site as a core area (Figure 7-1). In addition, it is designated as a Pre-Approved Mitigation Area (PAMA) in the NCMSCP.

The County’s map of the NCMSCP study area entitled Sub Area Plan Working Draft PAMA Version 4.1 describes a PAMA as “…an area identified by the Wildlife Agencies for high biological value in which preservation will be encouraged. This will be done by providing mitigation ratios that favor developing outside of the PAMA and mitigating inside the PAMA. These areas are also targets for acquisition from willing sellers when funding is available.”

A Biological Opinion (BO) on the San Marcos Highlands Project was sent from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on April 8, 2005. On page 33, the BO states that the NC MSCP assumes 75 percent preservation of lands within the PAMA, including the project area. Additionally, “However, as proposed the San Marcos Highlands project will preserve less gnatcatcher habitat than that contemplated by the NC MSCP: therefore, because the project proposes to preserve approximately 120.8 acres of the 203 acres of vegetation on site (i.e., approximately 60 percent preservation), it is inconsistent with the NC MSCP.”

How does the Highlands project meet the objective of 75 percent conservation of lands within the PAMA? Please explain in detail.

2. The Highlands site is a recognized wildlife linkage between two large open space areas, to the southeast and northwest. The draft NC MSCP defines a linkage as an area of land which supports or contributes to the long-term movement of wildlife and genetic exchange by providing live-in habitat that connects to other habitat areas, including agricultural lands that contribute to wildlife movement. (p. 141) A corridor is defined as a specific route that is used for movement and migration of species. A corridor may be different from a linkage because it represents a smaller or narrower avenue for movement. (p. 139)

Most of the Highlands development will be in the County portion of the site. If the development is constructed as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), it will severely constrain the linkage between the two open space areas. The biological value of the open space area to the northwest of the Highlands site has already been recognized; the Buena Creek Gnatcatcher Site has been set aside for conservation. It is immediately adjacent to the Highlands site on the northwest side.

In addition, portions of the large open space area to the southeast of the Highlands site have been set aside for conservation. These are within the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program area and include the Rupe, Borden, OwenPeak, and Bel Esprit Preserves.

If the entire Highlands site cannot be set aside for conservation, then, at a minimum, the project design must allow for an adequate southeast to northwest linkage. The project design described in the MND provides for a 400-450 foot wildlife corridor on the north side, west of the creek, to link the two large open space areas. This is inadequate.

The BO, p. 44, states: “…corridors should be as wide as possible, but may vary in width; however, a corridor should be no less than 500 feet wide and a minimum width of 1,000 feet is recommended (Bond 2003; County of San Diego 2000: Torrey Pines State Reserve 1997). A corridor should include a minimum 250-foot buffer of native vegetation on either side to provide animals cover and to make human intrusion more difficult (Torrey Pines State Reserve 1997).”

It is clear that the 400-450 foot linkage proposed on the northern side of the Highlands project site, west of the creek, is inadequate. It is also clear that the constrained linkage proposed in the project design is intended to satisfy the developer’s need for the maximum number of housing units, not to adhere to the objectives of the NC MSCP.

3. The Highlands project design includes a road (Street A) across Agua Hedionda Creek. To allow for wildlife movement along the creek and under the road, a wildlife undercrossing is proposed. The MND, Initial Study, p. 3-50, describes the height of this undercrossing as 8 feet. This does not meet the standards set forth in the NC MSCP. Nor does it conform to the description of the undercrossing in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ Amendment to the Biological Opinion on the San Marcos Highlands Project dated Dec. 7, 2005.

The Amendment to the BO, p. 2, states, “The refined proposed project involves replacing the earthen dam in the Creek with a single arched culvert that is 10 feet high, 12 feet wide, and 159 feet long to allow for the flow of water and wildlife movement.”

Even a wildlife undercrossing of 10 feet in height would be insufficient for the use of mule deer, which inhabit this area, given the length of 159 feet and the width of 12 feet.

In the NC MSCP, Table 7-8, p. 93, gives minimization measures to facilitate wildlife movement across roadways. The standards for deer are listed on p. 94:

For deer, undercrossings should be at least 10 feet high. An openness index (height x width/length) of at least 2.0 should be maintained.

For an undercrossing 8 feet high by 12 feet wide, 159 feet long, the openness index is 0.60. For an undercrossing 10 feet high by 12 feet wide, 159 feet long, the openness index is 0.755. The main problem is the length of the undercrossing.

Failure to provide an adequate undercrossing of Street A for mule deer is a third major discrepancy with the NC MSCP.

There are other minimization measures to facilitate wildlife movement across roadways listed on pages 93 and 94 of the Preliminary Public Review Draft of the MSCP North County Plan. In particular, the developer should note that for large mammals, undercrossings should be kept as natural as possible. Where possible, natural surfaces should be retained and use of rip-rap should be avoided. Directional fencing should be installed in areas likely to be traveled by deer in order to minimize crossings over the roadway. Fencing should be a minimum of 8 feet high, depending on surrounding slopes, to be effective at blocking large mammal movement.

Please do not use rip-rap at the entrances to the wildlife undercrossing of Street A; do use directional fencing; and keep the undercrossing as natural as possible.

In summary, contrary to the statement in the Oct. 16, 2013, letter from William T. Everett reassessing the biological resources on the Highlands site, the proposed Highlands project does not comply with the NC MSCP in some major areas.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Marcos Highlands Project. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Mary H. Clarke

CC; Michael Beck, Endangered Habitats League

Kevin K. Johnson, Esq., Attorney at Law

David Mayer, California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

David Zoutendyk, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Janet Stuckrath, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service