1 Attachment 

Eric: 

 

Please see attached letter regarding the Pio Pico Energy Center project. 

 

Have a nice weekend!! 

 

Thank you, 

 

Pat 

Patrick J. Mock, PhD, CSE, CWB® 

Senior Project Manager / Principal Scientist 

Pio Pico Energy Center: Applicant Response to USFWS Letter Re: FWS-SDG-10B0661-

12TA0160 Consultation, Project No.: FWS-SDG-2010-B-0611 

Mock, Patrick 

to: 

Eric_Porter@fws.gov

02/24/2012 02:48 PM 

Cc: 

Gerardo Rios, "grchandler@apexpowergroup.com", David Jenkins, "Fitzgerald, Maggie" 

Hide Details 

From: "Mock, Patrick" <patrick.mock@urs.com>

To: "Eric_Porter@fws.gov" <Eric_Porter@fws.gov>

Cc: Gerardo Rios/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, "grchandler@apexpowergroup.com" 

<grchandler@apexpowergroup.com>, David Jenkins <davdjenk@gmail.com>, "Fitzgerald, 

Maggie" <maggie.fitzgerald@urs.com>

History: This message has been forwarded. 

Pio Pico Energy Center_FWS-MitOptionsAnalysisLetter_022312.pdf

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\grios\Local Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web3881.htm 2/28/2012
URS Corporation 

4225 Executive Square, Suite 1600 

La Jolla, CA 92037 

858-812-9292 x 1535 

619-888-6159 cell 

858-812-9293 fax 

patrick.mock@urs.com

 

This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you 

receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this 

information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies.

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\grios\Local Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web3881.htm 2/28/2012
URS Corporation 

4225 Executive Square, Suite 1600 

La Jolla, CA 92037 

Tel: 858.812.9292 

Fax: 858.812.9293 

www.urscorp.com

February 24, 2012 

Eric Porter 

Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

6010 Hidden Valley Road 

Carlsbad, CA 92011 

Subject: Pio Pico Energy Center 

Response to USFWS Letter Re: FWS-SDG-10B0661-12TA0160 

Consultation Project No.: FWS-SDG-2010-B-0611 

Dear Mr. Porter: 

Introduction 

The above-referenced United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) letter dated February 1, 

2012 to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (EPA) acknowledged USFWS 

receipt on December 27, 2011 of EPA’s request to initiate formal Section 7 Consultation under 

the Endangered Species Act for the Pio Pico Energy Center (“PPEC” or “Project”) located in San 

Diego County, California. Specifically, the USFWS letter stated: “The consultation will address 

the proposed construction and operation of the Pio Pico Energy Center ... and the potential 

effects of these actions on the federally endangered quino checkerspot butterfly, federally 

threatened California gnatcatcher and Otay tarplant and their respective designated critical 

habitats.” The USFWS letter continues with this request of the Applicant: “We understand the 

applicant’s commitment to minimize impacts to threatened or endangered species and their 

critical habitat through habitat preservation and/or active habitat management; however, the 

biological assessment did not provided sufficient detail for us to determine the effectiveness of 

the proposed measures. Although we have sufficient information to initiate formal consultation, 

we request that the applicant provide more specific details regarding how specific properties will 

be identified for preservation and/or habitat management as discussed at our January 11th

meeting. This information is needed for our analysis of project impacts and the associated 

avoidance and minimization measures.“ [Emphasis added.] 

As requested by USFWS, Applicant herein describes the process by which Applicant would 

identify specific properties for preservation and/or habitat management, aimed at offsetting 

potential impacts from the PPEC on the quino checkerspot butterfly, gnatcatcher and Otay 

tarplant, and their respective designated critical habitats. Descriptions of the process steps also 

contain information that identifies the current1 availability and viability of these options based 

on recent discussions with habitat management companies, conservation agencies and 

fund/endowment entities. This information includes a habitat map, private lands map, public 

lands map, local habitat contractors list, and conservation agency/entity list.

1 Current as of February 17, 2012. 
Mr. Eric Porter 

United States Fish and Wildlife Services 

February 24, 2012 

Page 2

Identification Process 

To determine how specific properties (or parcels) will be identified, the Applicant will follow the 

following steps: 

Step 1. Compile biological survey reports, literature source databases and other resources to 

determine where the protected species have been sighted and/or known to thrive. Then present 

these sighting locations and inhabited areas on an aerial map. 

Step 2. Using the habitat map produced in Step 1, overlay parcel lines of private properties that 

are located wholly or in part in the suitable habitat areas. This will reveal many, if not most, of 

the plausible parcels that might be acquirable. This is illustrated on Figure 1, Mitigation Parcel 

Search. 

Step 3. This step can be done concurrent with Step 2. Using the habitat map produced in Step 1, 

overlay various conservation agency, city and county jurisdictional lines, Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP) lines, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) refuge 

areas, USFWS refuge areas, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. This is also 

illustrated on Figure 1, Mitigation Parcel Search. 

Step 4. Since the map produced in Steps 2 and 3 contain the habitat information shown on the 

map from Step 1, the Applicant has a map from which to build options: that shows both privately 

held lands having suitable habitat and public lands having suitable habitat. There are three 

distinct options2, as presented below, that Applicant has investigated: 

A. Acquisition and deed transfer of 20-acres3 of local habitat-suitable land to a local 

conservation agency. This would create new conserved land through perpetuity. 

B. Weed abatement of non-native plant species on 50 acres for the 20-year life of the PPEC 

project of local, habitat-suitable land that is already in habitat conservation. 

C. Funding of an existing, or creation of a new conservation fund or trust that would either be 

used to purchase land or be used for weed management to meet PPEC’s mitigation 

requirements over the 20-year life of the PPEC project. 

2 On August 1, 2011 and October 31, 2011, Applicant provided details regarding Options B and 

C to CEC Staff. 

3 As discussed with FWS staff on January 11, 2012 
Mr. Eric Porter 

United States Fish and Wildlife Services 

February 24, 2012 

Page 3

Tier A Option Development: 

Tier A Options assume the that private land totaling 20-acres and having suitable habitat would 

be acquired and transferred to a local conservation agency or entity. This would create new 

conserved land through perpetuity. If a Tier A Option is ultimately pursued by the Applicant, 

then PPEC would either purchase 20 acres of private land and deed it to an agency or entity, or 

would provide funds to an agency/entity for the expressed purpose of purchase of private land. 

Either way, Figure 1, Mitigation Parcel Search from Step 2 would provide a suite of potential 

parcels.

Refer to the attached figure, Mitigation Parcel Search, which shows privately-owned parcels that 

are believed by the Applicant to meet the objectives of this mitigation process. 

Tier B Option Development: 

Tier B Options are based on weed abatement of non-native plant species on 50 acres for the 20-

year life of the PPEC project of local, habitat-suitable land that is already in habitat conservation. 

Such weed abatement would remove non-native plant species in suitable habitat areas for the life 

of the PPEC project. Removal of non-native plant species would promote further growth of 

plants that support the quino checkerspot butterfly, California gnatcatcher and the Otay tarplant.

Options within this tier can be executed either by the Applicant contracting directly with a 

habitat management company, or by funding an existing conservation agency or entity for the 

expressed use toward a weeding program for specific areas. By using the Public Lands Map from 

Step 2, the Applicant would engage agencies/entities responsible for habitat conservation for the 

areas shown on this map. 

There are several companies that perform habitat management services, specifically weeding 

programs, in the San Diego County. These include: 

D&D Wildlife Habitat Restorations, Inc. 

Habitat Restoration Sciences 

Habitat West, Inc. 

Recon Native Plants, Inc.

Presently, there are several agencies that control public lands that contain suitable habitat in the 

close proximity to the PPEC project. These agencies include: 

USFWS 

CDFG

City of San Diego (MSCP) 

County of San Diego (MSCP)
Mr. Eric Porter 

United States Fish and Wildlife Services 

February 24, 2012 

Page 4

City of Chula Vista 

BLM

Lands that these agencies control are shown on the attached figure (Mitigation Parcel Search).

The Applicant has contacted each of these agencies to verify habitat suitability and land control 

for the targeted areas shown on the attached figure.

Tier C Option Development: 

Tier C Options are based PPEC funding of an existing, or creation of a new conservation fund or 

trust that would either be used to purchase land or be used for weed management to meet PPEC’s 

mitigation requirements over the 20-year life of the Project. The options in this tier are 

considered to generally be the least favored, mainly because known conservation areas are not 

located in close proximity to the PPEC site. However, a new conservation trust with suitable 

habitat could be established that target areas in close proximity. The following conservation 

trusts in San Diego County include:

San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Coastal sage and chaparral habitats. Adjacent to the 

Project site.). USFWS Foundation has accepted funds in the past for land acquisitions and 

weeding programs. 

Crestridge Conservation Bank (Non-native annual grassland and southern-mixed chaparral, 

coastal sage scrub. (Approximately 25 miles from the Project site.)

Deer Canyon Conservation Bank (Service area: Central coast, within MSCP. Southern 

maritime chaparral, coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitats. (Approximately 30 

miles from the Project site) 

The Center for Natural Lands Management 

Options Matrix 

Based on the process set forth herein, Applicant compiled examples of options available as of 

February 17, 2012 under each Tier. To summarize such examples, Applicant created an “Options 

Matrix,” which is set forth below. Applicant notes that the options contained in the Matrix are 

not an exhaustive list, but are intended to demonstrate that viable options currently exist for 

PPEC to meet any forthcoming mitigation requirements. The Options Matrix is presented on the 

following pages. 
Mr. Eric Porter 

United States Fish and Wildlife Services 

February 24, 2012 

Page 5

Options Matrix 

Option Summary Description Assumptions/Details/Notes 

Tier 1 

LAND ACQUISITION 

and DEED TRANSFER 

to conservation agency 

PPEC would purchase offset land that has the 

correct habitat for Quino Checkerspot butterfly, and 

to a lesser degree for the CA Gnatcatcher and 

Otay Tar Plant. Land acquired would be deeded to 

a suitable habitat conservation agency or 

foundation

20 acre offset area would suffice per FWS. 

FWS emphasized proximity to the project, 

but is amenable to something regionally. This 

land purchase/dedication option assumes 

that there are no additional demands on 

PPEC regarding potential N deposition 

mitigation.

1A Purchase offset land that is adjacent to BLM lands Deed to BLM. BLM would be responsible for 

conservation of the deeded lands 

1B Purchase offset land that is adjacent to City of San 

Diego MSCP conserved lands. 

Deed to the City of San Diego. The City 

would be responsible for conservation of the 

deeded lands 

1C Purchase offset land that is adjacent to City of 

Chula Vista MSCP conserved lands 

Deed to the City of Chula Vista. The City 

would be responsible for conservation of the 

deeded lands 

1D Purchase offset land that is adjacent to local FWS 

refuge lands.

Deed to FWS. FWS would be responsible for 

conservation of the deeded lands 

1E Purchase offset land that is adjacent to County of 

San Diego MSCP conserved lands. 

Deed to San Diego County. The County 

would be responsible for conservation of the 

deeded lands 

Tier 2 

WEED ABATEMENT on 

existing conservation 

land; funded by PPEC 

but managed by 

conservation agency

PPEC would fund weed abatement on 50 acres on 

land currently owned and conserved by a 

governmental agency, and that has the correct 

habitat for Quino Checkerspot butterfly, and to a 

lesser degree for the CA Gnatcatcher and Otay Tar 

Plant. [This is what was proposed to CEC.] 

PPEC, LLC would make a one-time payment 

to a conservation agency prior to 

commissioning of PPEC. This funding would 

support non-native species weeding on 50 

acres throughout the 20-year operations of 

the project.

2A PPEC would hire a consultant to perform weed 

abatement mitigation. Location of lands to be 

weeded to be determined. Potential consultants 

include: RECON Native Plant, Inc.; Habitat 

Restoration Sciences; Habitat West, Inc.; and D&D 

Wildlife Habitat Restoration, Inc. Competitive cost 

estimates to be obtained to determine actual cost 

to weed 50 acres. 

2B PPEC would fund a local agency willing to 

implement a weeding program on their conserved 

lands if provided the necessary funds to conduct 

the weeding. Potential agencies include Cities of 

San Diego, Chula Vista, County of San Diego, 

BLM, FWS, and a local conservancy [e.g., The 

Center for Natural Lands Management]. 

Tier 3

PPEC would FUND an 

established or new 

conservation fund

Establish a foundation or otherwise fund an 

existing foundation that conserves the three 

potentially impacted species. 

Assume that funding would mitigate potential 

N deposition impacts for the 20-year life of 

PPEC, not through perpetuity.
Mr. Eric Porter 

United States Fish and Wildlife Services 

February 24, 2012 

Page 6

Option Summary Description Assumptions/Details/Notes 

3A San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Coastal sage 

and chaparral habitats. Adjacent to the Project 

site.). FWS Foundation has accepted funds in the 

past for land acquisitions and weeding programs. 

Eric Porter noted that FWS does not want to 

be a “contractor” in these arrangements, that 

is, they don’t want to manage the funds and 

be responsible for results. 

3B Crestridge Conservation Bank (Non-native annual 

grassland and southern-mixed chaparral, coastal 

sage scrub. Approximately 25 miles from the 

Project site.) 

3C Deer Canyon Conservation Bank (Service area: 

Central coast, within MSCP. Southern maritime 

chaparral, coastal sage scrub and chamise 

chaparral habitats. Approximately 30 miles from the 

Project site.) 

3D The Center for Natural Lands Management 

Summary 

In summary, Applicant has provided a detailed process for the identification of properties for 

preservation and/or habitat management. Applicant believes that there are numerous 

plausible mitigation options available to meet any obligations related to the potential for nitrogen 

deposition impacts on the federally endangered quino checkerspot butterfly, federally threatened 

California gnatcatcher and Otay tarplant and their respective designated critical habitats from the 

Project.

Please contact me at (858) 812-9292 extension 1535 with questions. We appreciate your attention to 

this matter. 

Sincerely,

URS CORPORATION 

Patrick J. Mock, PhD, CSE, CWB ®

Principal Scientist 

4225 Executive Square, Suite 1600 

La Jolla, CA 92037 

cc:

Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9 David Jenkins, PPEC 

Gary Chandler, PPEC Maggie Fitzgerald, URS 
Project Site

Portions of this DERIVED PRODUCT contains geographic information copyrighted by SanGIS. All Rights Reserved.

CNDDB and USFWS data points shown here are derived from a polygonal dataset, and are

intended only as a guide to depict general presence of the identified species within the specified

area. Contact CNDDB and USFWS for further information.

Legend

Otay tarplant

coastal California gnatcatcher

quino checkerspot butterfly

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub

BLM Wilderness

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge

Privately Owned Parcels

SOURCES:

Sensitive Species (CNDDB, USFWS, MSCP, 2011)

Parcels, Vegetation (SanGIS, 2011)

Wildlife Refuge (BLM, USFWS, 2010)

Aerials (ESRI, 2011)

CHECKED BY PM

PM: PM PROJ. NO: 29874827.07000

FIG. NO:

SCALE: 1" = 2000' (1:24,000) 1

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet

SCALE CORRECT WHEN PRINTED AT 48X36

DATE: 2/22/2012