a mee 09 999 leat Tt 49.113-422 Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit and Stewardship Project San Diego National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Region one, Portland, Oregon FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit and Stewardship Project of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit and Stewardship Project of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The Environmental Assessment describes the Service's proposal and the affected environment and evaluates the effects of establishing an approved Refuge and Stewardship Project boundary for four alternatives (including the no action alternative). The Land Protection Plan for the South San Diego Bay Unit and Conceptual Management Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge complement the Environmental Assessment by providing information on land acquisition priorities and management programs that could be implemented on the proposed Refuge unit. The Service analyzed four alternatives, including the no action alternative, in the Environmental Assessment. We did not select the no-action alternative because only the existing Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve would be formally managed and protected as habitat for endangered, threatened, and rare species. The remaining areas within South San Diego Bay would lack a coordinated management plan to recover listed species and conserve migratory birds. Under the no action alternative, habitat protection would be implemented through the existing regulatory programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Coastal Co nmission, local jurisdictions, and San Diego Unified Port District. The U.S. Navy and the Service could implement an existing agreement to cooperatively manage wildlife habitat at the Naval Radio Receiving Facility. Habitat and wildlife management implemented under individual regulatory actions may result in projects that are not consistent or coordinated with other habitat restoration projects and would not maximize benefits to wildlife in South San Diego Bay. Alternative A (5,000 acres) would protect the largest amount of habitat in South San Diego Bay. While the public and the environmental community support this alternative, there is inadequate support for it by the State of California, local elected officials, and the business community. If we were to establish the South San Diego Bay Unit without the support of the local elected officials and business community, relationships between the Service and affected communities would be damaged in the long term. We did not select Alternative A, for that reason. Alternative B (3,940 acres), the preferred alternative, represents an agreement between the Service, the State of California, local elected officials, environmental groups, and business groups. The preferred alternative would ensure that the State of California, local elected officials, business interests, and environmental and community groups would support and participate in the operation and management of the South San Diego Bay Refuge. Alte:native B protects the majority of the sensitive wildlife South San Diego Bay Unit and Stewardship Project Finding of No SignificIamnpatct San Diego National Wildlife Refuge l habitats found in South San Diego Bay (see table 5 of the Environmental Assessment). Given the similarity in environmenta! benefits between Alternatives A and B, and wider support for Alternative B, we selected the smaller sized project as the preferred alternative. We did not select Alternative C (2,200 acres) because key areas and habitats would not be protected and managed as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Under Alternative C, only 50 acres of eelgrass beds would be protected compared to 432 acres of eelgrass beds under the preferred alternative. Only 88 acres of beach, dunes, and created lands would be conserved compared to 515 acres under the preferred alternative, and only 22 acres of fallow agricultural land would be suitable for habitat restoration compared to 146 acres under the preferred alternative (see table 5 of the Environmental Assessment). We notified the public of our proposal early on and built public participation into the decision-making process. The Service distributed the Concept Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge to government agencies, Tribes, interested citizens, community groups, and landowners in August 1995. The Service held three public workshops in October 1995 to discuss the Refuge Concept Plan, and distributed Planning Updates in October 1995, March 1996, November 1996, November 1997, February 1998, and April 1998 to keep landowners, agencies, elected officials, and interested citizens informed on the progress of planning efforts for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. As part of the public notice and review process, the draft Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan for the Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit were available for a 90-day review and comment period starting in February 1998. We received more than 1,600 comments. The Service held three public workshops in February 1998 at Imperial Beach, Chula Vista, and Coronado to receive comments on the draft Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan. As a result of comments on the draft documents, we modified the preferred alternative, improved the analysis of the effects of the project alternatives, corrected minor errors of fact and omission, and completed the Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan. The preferred alternative would have no significant impact on any of the environmental issues identified by the public and the Service in the Environmental Assessment. A summary of the rationale used to conclude that the effects were not significant follows. Effects on Coastal Ecosystems: Service acquisition and management proposed under the preferred alternative would permit the Service to protect, enhance, or restore habitats in the acquisition boundary. Service management of the area would maintain or increase South Bay’s value as habitat for wintering waterfowl, migrating shorebirds, and nesting seabirds. Since the Federal action proposed is to establish a refuge unit boundary, and since habitats will remain essentially as they are now for the immediate future, establishment of the Unit will not result in significant impacts to coastal ecosystems. Management plans for the South San Diego Bay Unit would be prepared in the future. The plans would be subject to a separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process with a public review and comment period. South San Diego Bay Unit and Stewardship Project Finding of No Significant Impact San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 2 Effects on Federally Endangered or Threr*ened Species, and Belding’s savannah sparrow: The South San Diego Bay Unit and Stewardship Project would conserve important coastal habitats for several endangered, threatened, and rare species; sustain native biological diversity by conserving large contiguous blocks of wildlife habitats; and provide a contribution to the Multiple Species Conservation Program preserve system. Since the Federal action proposed is to establish a refuge unit boundary, and habitats will remain essentially as they are now for the immediate future, establishment of the Unit will not result in significant impacts to endangered and threatened species, native wildlife, and their habitats. Management plans for the South San Diego Bay Unit would be prepared in the future and would be subject to a separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance action with a public review and comment period. Effects on the Economic Environment: If the Service acquires Western Salt Company lands and phases out salt production activities over time, an estimated 25 jobs could be lost (Niehaus 1994). Annual losses of earnings and sales are projected at $670,000 and $4.9 million, respectively (ibid). Since this is the only viable area for salt production in the region, this activity would not be able to relocate to another site nearby. The Ghio/Fenton parcel and the portion of Pond 20 that is within the proposed boundary are not being used for salt production or any other economic activities. If the Service a quires the parcels, the owners would receive the same amount of reimbursement as if the parcels were sold to any other buyer, because the Service is required to pay the appraised market value. If the Service acquired and managed the parcels, development would not occur on areas that have development potential. Until the special study area process establishes otherwise, no development is permitted (City of San Diego, in conversation 1997). Because of the special study area zoning overlay, the amount of foregone development is unknown. None of these potential effects are significant given the magnitude of the greater San Diego area economy. Niehaus (1994) projected the net annual increase in visitors to the area that could be attributed to establishing the South San Diego Bay Unit, to be up to 80,000. The number of visitors to the San Diego area is projected to increase at about 3 percent annually even without the project (Alternative D), or by about 1.1 million additional visitors annually with increasing emphasis on the outdoor recreational experience. An increase of 80,000 visitors above and beyond the 1.1 million is not significant. It is about 1/4 of 1 percent (.25 percent) of the 35 million visitors a year that San Diego County receives (Niehaus 1994). The preferred alternative could result in an estimated increase in expenditures of as much as $7.5 million (in constant 1992 dollars). Indirect employment impacts also could be expected as these direct expenditures are translated into additional secondary spending and employment. The majority of these outlays are expected to be in the retail trade, and lodging and food service. Niehaus (1994) estimated that the preferred alternative could add up to 172 jobs with associated earnings increases of $4.5 million. Property tax collections for the local governments amounted to $1.3 billion in all jurisdictions within the County, exclusive of levies for voter-approved bonded indebtedness (Niehaus 1994). If the Service acquires fee-title to all private lands within the proposed boundary, the loss of property taxes would be slightly less than $30,000. Although the Federal government does not pay property taxes on its own South San Diego Bay Unit and Stewardship Project Finding of No Significant Impact San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 3 /il land, several factors offset the potential hardship for local governments from loss of property tax revenue. First, refuge lands and waters demand little in the way of expensive infrastructure or services. Second, when the Service acquires private land in fee, Congress allocates payments to counties under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act to partially compensate for the loss of property taxes. Third, refuge status typically results in larger numbers of visitors, and local governments benefit from increased sales and lodging taxes. According to Niehaus (1994), the annual net gains from sales and lodging taxes would total up to $147,400 for the largest proposal, not including Revenue Sharing Act funds. This increase is not a significant change. Effects on Quality of Life: Issues include whether the YMCA’s Camp Surf would continue, and how the proposal could affect boating, the proposed golf course, the proposed Bayshore Bikeway Trail, and the potential uses for the railroad right-of-way. We also analyzed the effects of the proposed Refuge on overall desirability of living in the San Diego area. This desirability is often referred to as quality of life. The preferred alternative excludes the Silver Strand parcel, Camp Surf, and the railroad right-of- way and would not affect other proposed uses of these properties. The proposed Unit would add a combination of biodiversity and intrinsic values of up to $325 million per year (Niehaus 1994). These amounts would benefit the regional economy but would not be a significant change. This proposed Federal action to establish a refuge unit boundary would have no effect on boating. The Service will study the effects recreational boats, exceeding 5 miles per hour, have on waterfowl wintering in South Bay. The studies could result in the Service requesting that the Coast Guard promulgate a rule to seasonally restrict recreational boating in specific areas. We would not begin this process until more data are gathered on bird use, boat use, and interactions between the two. Minimal effect is expected on boats that observe the existing 5 miles per hour speed limit in South Bay. We would not propose additional boating restrictions until the public planning process, including a separate NEPA analysis, is complete. Officials from the City of Coronado are concerned that the presence of a refuge unit acquisition boundary on the Naval Radio Receiving Facility would prohibit a golf course development that City officials have proposed. The Navy has not determined whether it will lease land for the golf course, making the proposal speculative. The EA could not analyze the effects of each alternative on a speculative venture. However, to minimize the appearance of a conflict, we have proposed a stewardship project rather than a National Wildlife Refuge for the Naval Radio Receiving Facility. The proposed Stewardship Project would allow the Service and the Navy to collaborate on habitat protection and enhancement projects, and would not preclude the Navy’s option to lease part of the Naval Radio Receiving Facility for the golf course proposal. Effects on Public Access to the Bay: The final proposed boundary includes two small parcels that are not suitable for habitat that could provide new visitor access and parking in the City of Imperial Beach for access to the proposed Unit. The Service will conduct detailed planning with the public and the City of Imperial Beach. The existing Bay access point at Chula Vista would be unaffected. Based on my review and evaluation of the information contained in the supporting references, I have determined that establishing an approved Refuge and Stewardship Project boundary and protecting up South San Diego Bay Unit and Stewardship Project Finding of No Significant Impact San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 4 lV to 3,940 acres of land for the proposed South San Diego Bay Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the Service is not required to prepare an environmental impact statement. This Finding of No Significant Impact and supporting references are on file at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 2736 Loker Avenue West, Suite A, Carlsbad, California 92008 (telephone 760/930-0168) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge- Planning, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (telephone 800/662-8933). These documents can also be found on the Internet at http://www.r1.fws.gov/planning/plnhome.html. These documents are available for public inspection, and interested and affected parties are being notified of our decision. Citations Niehaus, Robert D. Inc. 1994. South San Diego Bay Habitat Protection Program Socioeconomic Study. Otay-Nestor Community Plan. City of San Diego Planning Department. 1997. Phone conversation RE open space and special study area overlay zoning with Ella Paris on November 5. Supporting References U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Concept Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. Southern California Ecoregion, Portland, Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Conceptual Management Plan for the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. Southern California Ecoregion, Portland, Oregon. US. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan for the South San Diego Bay Unit and Stewardship Project of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. Southern California Ecoregion, Portland, Oregon. p49 ff / Date California/N¢yada Operations Office South San Diego Bay Unit and Stewardship Project Finding of No Significant Impact San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and LAND PROTECTION PLAN South San Diego Bay Unit and Stewardship Project San Diego National Wildlife Refuge San Diego County, California March 1999 Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11™ Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 * This is the legacy I would like to leave behind: I would like to have stopped the ridicule about the conservation of snails, lichens, and fungi, and instead move the debate to which ecosystems are the most recoverable and how we can save them, making room for them and ourselves. Mollie H. Beattie, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993-1996 Cover: California least terns, Kendal Morris V ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ........c.ece. e.e c.ee .ee.e e.eee s | ER oes. shi obs dnasadebobeusetsekstehaeensbeedaeoneahas ! ee EE oo oa ns kis dae in neebnhietseeddsstbelh bbeehnasetne 1 1.3 Need for the Proposed Action ......cc.c cc.c c.ece. ee.ct .eet. ee .ee e.eee ee 2 1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action ......cc c.ece. ce.ce .cec.e e.e ee. ee e.eee ee 5 ST ih) pan) bs cibmeethonnessccennadahenshbannsebasssecnenne 5 Si ED. ccc eh ecn ees obgnedeecsoscevedenicséhesdge vesedbccenkanes 6 SD OUNCE svc cccebocccccsvasedbacensecedsenectebnestesbuaes 6 ID 9 ong ong nb shs ccc tune doeeeecceesgbbb6eenecsbuadbenes 8 1.8.1 Issue Identification ........ ccc cece cece cece cc ereeteccccscecs 8 1.8.2 Issues to be Addresisn eDedta il ........cc.c c.ec.e e.c e.ce .ee. ee es 8 1.8.2.1 Biological Issues ........ccc. ce.ce. ee. ce.ec.eee.eu:ee s 8 1.8.2.2 Economic and Social Issues ..........c.c c.ec.ee.ec.ec.es 9 1.8.3 Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis ......................0005 9 1.9 San Diege National Wildlife Refuge Planning Efforts ....................... 12 1.9.1 Conceptual Management and Land Protection Plans ....... wTivttec 12 1.9.2 Comprehensive Conservation Plan ......0..... cc.c c.ee .eee. ee ee 12 1.10 Other Related Agency Actions ....0.... ce.ce ce.ce e.e ee.e eee. ee.e ee ns 13 1.10.1 Otay Valley Regional Park ......c.cc .eee. ec .ec.e c.ec.e e.e ee es 13 1.10.2 Memorandum of Understanding between Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station, San Diego; Commander, Nava! Base San Diego; and United States Fish and Wildlife Service .................:ceeceeeeee 13 1.10.3 Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge ...................... 14 1.10.4 Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge ...................0005- 14 1.10.5 Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and Habitat Conservation . POPVETTT TTT Teri? rT) PTET TCL UREEERE TET tT 15 1.10.5.1 Multiple Species Conservation Program .................. 15 1.10.5.2 Other Habitat Conservation Plans ....................05. 16 1.11 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities ....................0005. 16 1.11.1 Guiding Principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System .......... 17 1.11.2 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System..................... 18 1.11.3 Purpose of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge System .......... 18 1.11.4 Interim Goals of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge System ..... 18 1.11.5 Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities and Compatible Refuge PWPPPIPT TITIiTT VThTa TteT eyI eTe IPEeTT Ee e 19 1.11.6 Implications of Refuge Designation on Neighboring Lands .......... 20 South San Diego Bay Unit Environmental Assessment San Diego NWR i Table of Contents / si Chapter 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........ 21 ee ee nn cic cbonseréeerceccnsedeebenesceegee 21 2.2 Actions Common to All Alternatives .......ccc. cec.e c.ece. ee.e e.ee. ee ns 21 2.3 Features Common to Alternatives A, B, and C, but Lacking in the No Action Alternative ..........cecceees PS CE Ne CTA Oni PTS 24 2.3.1 Land Protection and Acquisition Options .................0.eeeeeee 24 2.3.2 Management Under the Naticnal Wildlife Refuge System ............ 24 2.4 Alternatives for the Proposed South San Diego Bay Unit .................... 26 SD a i oe Re eed 26 2.4.2 Alternative B. (Preferred Alternative) ..........c.e.ce. .ce.ee s 27 i Me, .+ > spp nensccaekbcesbhsse60s0s00eesensbbnansone 29 2.4.4 Alternative D. No Action ......cec.e c.ece. cec.e e.e e.e ee. eee es 30 2.5 Comparative Summary of the Direct Actions and Effects of the Alternatives ..... 30 Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......cc.c e.ee .ces.s e.c ee. ee.eee.ee.eee s 34 DEED 0.00 ch00006sednsddladbbdosncdebsnsad 000500640000004600004 34 3.2 Biological Environment — Coastal Ecosystems ............e.ee. e.ee0eeee s 35 3.2.1 Submerged Lands Habitat and Wildlife Species..................... 35 3.2.2 Eelgrass Habitats and Wildlife Species ..........0.. c.ee. e.ee.ee e 38 3.2.3 Mudflats (Intertidal) Habitats and Wildlife Species .................. 39 3.2.4 Salt Marsh Habitats and Wildlife Species ..................0000e 39 3.2.5 Salt Pond Habitat and Wildlife Species ..........0.. c.ec.e .ee.ee e 40 3.2.6 Beaches, Dunes, and Coastal Created Lands and Wiidlife Species ...... 42 3.2.7 Fallow Agricultural Lands and Wildlife Species .................... 43 3.2.8 Riparian Habitats and Wildlife Species ............c.ec.e. ee.e.ee s 44 3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Belding’s Savannah Sparrow .......... 44 3.3.1 Summary of Species’ Uses of Study Area .........0.c e.e. c.e e.ee e 44 3.3.2 Recovery Plans for Threatened or Endangered Species with Components in SP MED 0.6 .0:60:6-000000000000000060000000000000600008008 45 3.4 Economic and Social Environment .......0.0. c.c c.ece. ce.e c.ec.e e.e ee ee 47 3.4.1 Population .......0..... .cec.e .ee e WTTTTT TiTT TTT iiTt 47 3.4.2 Ownership and Land Use ......c.ece. ee.e e.c ec.e e.ee. ee. eee es 48 3.4.3 Western Salt Company Operations ..........ce.ce. e.ee. ee.ee.ee s 51 3.4.4 Quality of Life and Popular Activities ........2.0.. cc. ec.e .ee.n s 51 EE 4 0'0:6'b00 :000h0000006000.0060000000008400000000800800000 8 52 3.4.6 South San Diego Bay Public Access Points ..................0000e: 54 Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....0.. cec.e ce.ce e.ee .ee.eeee ee 55 'i = PPT TTITITIT TTL ITT TTTITTTTiTiiir iri 55 4.2 Coastal Ecosystems . 0... ccc ccc cece cere c cn eseecesssescecsecceses 55 4.2.1 Effects on Submerged Lands .................0000000- reo peebere 57 4.2.2 Effects on Eelgrass .......... 0... ccc ccc cece cece teen ences 57 South San Diego Bay Unit Environmental Assessment San Diego NWR ii Table of Contents