HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 260C; PALOMAR TRANSFER STATION; BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT AND IMPACT ANALYSIS; 2002-09-01I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BIOLOOICU. Rl:SOURCl:S Rl:PORT
AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
ror
PALO~ TRANSfl:R STATION
CITY Of CARLSBAD, CillfORNIA
Prepared for:
Allied Waste
1601 San Elijo Road
San Marcos, California 92078
Contact: Leslie Greve
(760) 591-4763
Prepared by:
&ASSOCIATES
A California Corporation
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Vipul] oshi
(760) 942-5147
RECEIVED
Sl:PTl:MBl:R 2002
SEP 3 0 2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Pl. fl ~-'~111,JG DEPT.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
TABLt Of CONTtNT5
Section Page
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................... iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1
2.0 METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS ............................ 1
2.1 Literature Review ............................................... 1
2.2 Field Reconnaissance ............................................ 1
2.2.1 Resource Mapping ........................................ 2
2.2.2 Flora .................................................... 2
2.2.3 Fauna ................................................... 2
2.2.4 Jurisdictional Waters ...................................... 3
2.2.5 Sensitive Biological Resources ............................... 3
3.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ..................................... 3
3.1 Site Description ................................................ 3
4.0 RESULTS OF SURVEY .............................................. 4
4.1 Botany -Plant Communities and Floral Diversity ..................... 4
4.1.1 Annual (Non-native) Grassland .............................. 4
4.1.2 Coastal Sage Scrub ........................................ 8
4.1.3 Herbaceous Wetlands ...................................... 8
4.1.4 Ornamental Plantings ..................................... 9
4.1.5 Disturbed Habitat ......................................... 9
4.1.6 Developed Land .......................................... 9
4.1.6 Floral Diversity ........................................... 9
4.2 Zoology-Wildlife Diversity ...................................... 9
4.3 Sensitive Biological Resources .................................... 10
4.3.1 Sensitive Plant Species .................................... 10
4.3.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species .................................. 13
4.3.3 Sensitive Habitats ........................................ 16
4.3.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages ...................... 16
4.4 Regional Resource Planning Context .............................. 16
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page i
Professim1al Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •:• Palomar Transfer Station
TABLr or CONT(NTS (Contlnuedj
Section Page
5.0 ANTICIPATED PROJECT IMPACTS ................................ 17
5.1 Direct Impacts ................................................ 19
5.1.1 Vegetation Communities .................................. 19
5.1.2 Sensitive Plant Species .................................... 19
5.1.3 Sensitive Wildlife Species .................................. 19
5.1.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages ...................... 20
5.2 Indirect Impacts ............................................... 20
5.2.1 Vegetation Communities .................................. 20
5.2.2 Sensitive Plant Species .................................... 20
5.2.3 Sensitive Wildlife Species .................................. 21
5.2.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages ...................... 21
6.0 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................... 21
6.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance ............................ 21
6.2 Vegetation Communities ....................................... 22
6.3 Sensitive Plant Species .......................................... 23
6.4 Sensitive Wildlife Species ........................................ 23
6.5 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages ........................... 23
7.0 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................. 23
8.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................ 24
9.0 LITERATURE CITED .............................................. 24
LIST Of APPtNDICtS
A. Vascular Plant Species Observed on the Project Site
B. Wildlife Species Observed or Detected on the Project Site
C. Species Sensitivity Categories
.?f •• T~J:Iurtg:r,~~ ----------------------------------------------2~90;;;;2·0-.1
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page ii
Professional Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •:• Palomar Transfer Station
T ABLt Of CONTtNT8
Page
LIST or fl6URl:8
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Regional Map .................................................. 5
Vicinity Map .................................................. 6
Biological Resources Map ........................................ 7
Biological Resources Map with Proposed Grading .................... 18
LIST Of TABLl:8
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Plant Community Acreages ....................................... 4
Sensitive Plant Species Potentially Occurring
in the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Sensitive Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring
in the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Existing, Impacted, and Preserved Habitat Acreage ................... 19
:l 2902-01
-l iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page iii
Professional Teams far Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Palomar Transfer Station project area consists of 11 acres in the central part of the City
of Carlsbad, in northwestern San Diego County, California. Biological surveys of the
property were conducted in April 2001 and February 2002 to assess existing biological
conditions.
Based on species composition and general physiognomy, six plant communities or land covers
were identified mapped within the project area. Plant communities and land covers
identified include annual (non-native) grassland (0.9 acre), coastal sage scrub (0.3 acre),
herbaceous wetlands (0 .1 acre), ornamental plantings (1.3 acres), disturbed habitat (1.2 acre) 1
developed land (7.2 acres). Floral diversity is generally low. The project area contains habitat
suitable for a variety of wildlife species typical of urban areas. No sensitive plant or wildlife
species were identified during biological surveys of the project site. Several sensitive wildlife
species may potentially use habitat onsite, none are considered to have a high potential of
using the site for breeding purposes. The site is not within a wildlife corridor or habitat
linkage.
The proposed expansion of the Palomar Transfer Station will occupy 3. 9 acres mainly within
developed land cover. The proposed impacts will also include 0.6 acre of annual grassland,
0.1 acre of herbaceous wetlands, and 0.4 acre of ornamental plantings. The loss of these plant
communities may result in direct impacts to sensitive wildlife species which potentially use
habitat onsite. No direct impacts to sensitive plants or to wildlife corridors and habitat
linkages are anticipated from the proposed project. Both short-and long-term indirect
impacts to plant communities, sensitive plants, sensitive wildlife, and wildlife
corridors/habitat linkages may occur; however, implementation of Best Management
Practices, including proper fencing and facility maintenance procedures, will limit these
impacts.
Direct impacts to plant communities are not considered significant because the plant
communities to be impacted or not considered to be sensitive. Impacts to 0.1 acre of
herbaceous wetlands will require permits and mitigation from the California Department of
Fish and Game and California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The reduction in
habitat for potentially occurring sensitive wildlife species is not considered significant because
of the small acreage of impact and remaining available suitable habitat in the project vicinity.
With implementation of short-and long-term Best Management Practices, indirect impacts
are not considered to be significant.
2902-01
---iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;;;;;;;;;
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page iv
Prnfessionul Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •:• Palomar Transfer Station
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Palomar Transfer Station project area consists of 11 acres in the central part of the City
of Carlsbad, in northwestern San Diego County, California. Biological surveys of the
property were conducted in April 2001 and February 2002 to assess existing biological
conditions. The purposes of this report are to describe the biological character of the site in
terms of vegetation, flora, wildlife, and regional resource planning; and analyze the biological
significance of the proposed site development in view of federal, state, and local laws and
policies.
2.0 METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS
Data regarding biological resources present on the project site were obtained through a review
of pertinent literature and through field reconnaissance; both are described in detail below.
2.1 Literature Review
Sensitive biological resources present or potentially present onsite were identified through
a literature search using the following sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2001),
California Department of Fish and Game (2000), California Native Plant Society's Inventory
of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants (CNPS 2001), Murphy (1990), and the vegetation and
sensitive species mapping performed for the North County Wildlife Forum Multiple Habitat
Conservation Program (SANDAG 1994). General information regarding wildlife species
present in the region was obtained from Unitt (1984) for birds, Bond (1977) for mammals,
Stebbins (1985) for reptiles and amphibians, and Emmel and Emmel (1973) for butterflies.
2.2 Field Reconnaissance
DUDEK biologists Vipul Joshi and Myloc Nguyen conducted a biological reconnaissance
survey of the project area on 27 April 2001. The survey included mapping of plant
communities, conspicuous sensitive plant and animal species, and determination of
jurisdictional waters in accordance with the guidelines of th~ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The survey was conducted
during the day (between 1030 and 1230) and under favorable weather conditions (62-68°F,
0-5 mph winds, and overcast skies).
: ~, -:: ;~• ':•~? \'i,:: t-..~~rz·r,;:r:t~ h~w:1
ill'',,,Jic-c• 11·'}•,a::'.t'-1[''•! 2902 01
:~.\· ,,, :c'---~:i! ~04&~:-.: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii· ..
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 1
Professional Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
A general wildlife assessment was conducted by DUDEK biologist Julie Vanderwier over the
entire project area on February 20, 2002. The survey included a general assessment of habitat
suitability for known local wildlife and recording of all detectable wildlife onsite during the
survey. The survey was conducted between 0930 and 10301 under mile weather conditions
(60°F, 0-5 mph winds1 and clear skies).
2.2.1 Resource Mapping
Plant community classifications follow Holland (1986)1 with modifications or additions to
accommodate the lack of conformity of the observed communities to those of Holland.
Locations of rare or sensitive plant and wildlife species also were mapped1 and the numbers
present were estimated.
Plant communities and sensitive species locations were mapped in the field directly onto a
1" = 200' scale false-color digital orthographic map of the property. These boundaries and
locations were digitized by DUDEK Global Information Systems (GIS) technician Tim Walsh
using the ArcCad.
2.2.2 Flora
All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified and recorded. Those
species that could not be identified immediately were brought into the laboratory for further
investigation. Latin and common names of plants follow The]epsonManual (Hickman 1993).
Where not listed in Hickman (1993\ common names are taken from Beauchamp (1986) or
Abrams (1923). A list of plant species observed on the property is presented in Appendix A.
2.2.3 Fauna
Latin and common names of animals follow Stebbins (1985) for reptiles and amphibians1
American Ornithologists' Union (1983, 1989) for birds1 Jones et al. (1992) for mammals, and
Emmel and Emmel (1973) for butterflies. A list of wildlife species observed on the property
during the general wildlife survey is presented in Appendix B.
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 2
Prafessionctl Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
2.2.4 Jurisdictional Waters
The ACOE jurisdictional wetland delineation was conducted in accordance with the 1987
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (TR Y-87-1); hydrology, vegetation,
and soils were examined at potential wetland sites. Munsell Soil Color Charts were used to
determine soil chroma and value and the indicator status of the plant species was determined
by using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands:
California (Region 0). Determination of waters of the State, i.e., areas under the jurisdiction
of the CDFG in accordance with the California Fish and Game Code, was based on presence
of one of the three wetland criteria listed above in association with a stream channel. In
general, wetlands as defined by the ACOE are also under the jurisdiction of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWOCB); however, there are instances where the RWOCB
may take jurisdiction and the ACOE does not. These instance are generally associated with
isolated wetlands with no connection to navigable waters.
2.2.5 Sensitive Biological Resources
Sensitive biological resources are those defined as follows: (1) species that have been given
special recognition by federal, state, or local conservation agencies and organizations due to
limited, declining, or threatened population sizes; (2) species and habitat types recognized by
local and regional resource agencies as sensitive; (3) habitat areas or plant communities that
are unique, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife; and 4)
wildlife corridors and habitat linkages. Regulated biological resources may or may not be
considered sensitive, but do meet jurisdictional determination criteria under any of several
local, state, and/or federal laws. Such resources may be species locations, habitat, or
topographic features such as drainage courses.
During the focused field surveys a special effort was made to examine more thoroughly those
areas suspected to support sensitive resources. Considerably more time was spent in coastal
sage scrub and wetlands.
3.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 Site Description
The project area occurs in the central portion of the City of Carlsbad approximately four
miles east of the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1). The site is located in the southeastern quadrant of
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 3
Professional Teams for Complc.\" Pro1ccts
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute San Luis Rey quadrangle (Range 4W, Township 11S)
(Figure 2). The site is located on a relatively flat area which is mostly developed but contains
some natural vegetation in the northeastern area.
According to Bowman (1973), the following soil types are present onsite: Las Flores loamy
fine sand (5-9% slopes, eroded) and Cieneba coarse sandy loam (30-65% slopes, eroded).
4.0 RESULTS OF SURVEY
4.1 Botany -Plant Communities and Floral Diversity
Based on species composition and general physiognomy, six plant communities or land covers
were identified mapped within the project area (Table 1). Figure 3 illustrates the distribution
of these communities on the project site.
TABLE 1
PLANT COMMUNITY ACREAGES
»t ,,,.,~, ~; -~ "~(\ ,""n w~ ,.
PLANt C0MMUIIIITY , ~" ::.: "': ,' :,,' 1::.,., .. : .. :::·, ,f,:, .. ACREAGE . , J
Annual Grassland 0.9
Coastal Sage Scrub 0.3
Herbaceous Wetlands 0.1
Ornamental Plantings 1.3
Disturbed Habitat 1.2
Developed Land 7.2
4.1.1 Annual (Non-native) Grassland
Annual grassland occurs in the northern portion of the study area and consists of a
predominance of non-native annual grasses and non-native forbs such as slender wild oat
(Avena barbata), rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus)1 soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), foxtail chess
(Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros)1 black mustard (Brassica nigra),
wild fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), wild barley (Hordeum sp.), star-thistle (Centaurea melitensis)1
Bermuda grass (Cynodon dacty!on). The annual grassland also contains broom baccharis
(Baccharis sarothroides) but few other native species.
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page4
Professional Teams for Complex Pro1ccts
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Orange
County
1" = 8 Miles
.,,,..
0
Camp
Pendleton
0
0
~
"J?
-z..
Fallbrook
LaJolla (j
\
San Die
Imperial
Beach
Riverside County
Valley
Center
Alpine
Palomar Transfer Station -Biological Resources Report
Regional Map
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1" =2000'
Palomar Transfer Station -Biological Resources Report I FIGURE I
Vicinity Map 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VEGETATION CO:MMUNITIES/LANDCOVER TYPES:
AGL
css
DEV
DH
ORN
-Annual Grassland
-Coastal Sage Scrub
-Developed Land
Disturbed Habitat
-Ornamental Plantings
CDFG/RWQCB JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS:
HW -Herbaceous Wetland
N Project Boundary (I'\
N Vegetation Boundary ~
BASE MAP SOURCE: URS, 9-26-01 1" = 150'
Palomar Transfer Station -Biological Resources Report
Vegetation Map
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •:• Palomar Transfer Station
4.1.2 Coastal Sage Scrub
Coastal sage scrub is a native plant community composed of a variety of soft, low, aromatic
shrubs, characteristically dominated by drought-deciduous species such as California
sagebrush (Artemisia californica), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and sages (Salvia
spp.), with scattered evergreen shrubs, including lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), laurel
sumac (Malosma laurina), and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia). It typically develops on south
facing slopes and other xeric situations.
Coastal sage scrub is mapped in the northwestern portion of the project site and contains a
moderate diversity of plant species. Dominant species include California sagebrush, deerweed
(Lotus scoparius), California buckwheat, and California burclover (Medicago polymorpha).
Other species present include native and non-natives such as star-thistle, broad-leaved lupine
(Lupinus latifolius), black sage (Salvia mellifera), California sunflower (Encelia californica),
common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), coastal goldenbush (lsocoma menziesii ssp. veneta),
California salt bush (Atriplex californica), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), black
mustard, blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), narrow-leaf filago (Fi/ago gal!ica), and
rattlesnake weed (Daucus pusillus).
Coastal sage scrub is recognized as a sensitive community by local, state, and federal resource
agencies. It supports a rich diversity of sensitive plants and animals, and it is estimated that
it has been reduced by 75-80% of its historical coverage throughout southern California. It
is the focus of the current State of California Natural Community Conservation Planning
(NCCP) program.
4.1.3 Herbaceous Wetlands
Herbaceous wetlands was mapped within a drainage area in the central portion of the project
area. Water flows through the channel from east to west. Although the channel occurs in
an area contains a canopy of non-native, largely planted species, herbaceous components are
naturally occurring and are predominately hydrophytic. Vegetation within the wetlands
community includes rush (Juncus sp.), spike-rush (Eleocharis sp.), Italian ryegrass (Lolium
multiflorum), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides) 1 tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), curly dock (Rumex
crispus), and cattail (Typha sp.). Soils within the herbaceous wetlands are readily
distinguishable from the adjacent uplands and are hydric. Herbaceous wetlands within the
project area are considered a wetlands community under the jurisdiction of the CDFG and
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 8
Professfoncd Teams for Complex Projec~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report-& Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
RWOCB. Because the drainage does not flow out of the site and is not tributary to waters
of the U.S., the drainage and the wetland community are not considered to be under the
jurisdiction of the ACOE.
4.1.4 Ornamental Plantings
Ornamental plantings is composed mainly of planted non-native species and some non-native
invasive species. In the study area, areas mapped as ornamental plantings are dominated by
eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.)1 myoporum (Myoporum laetum), and/or oleander (Oleander sp.).
Understory species include mainly non-native grasses.
4.1.5 Disturbed Habitat
Disturbed habitat refers to areas that lack vegetation entirely. These areas generally are the
result of severe or repeated mechanical perturbation. Within the project area1 disturbed
habitat occurs within a storage yard. Some non-native species do occur within this area1
however natural plant growth and reproduction is heavily affected by use of the area.
4.1.6 Developed Land
Developed land includes all areas which currently support buildings1 roads1 or other structures
which prevent natural vegetation growth. Developed land within the project site includes
the currently operating waste management facility and associated roadways.
4.1.6 Floral Diversity
A total of 42 species of vascular plants including 19 native species (45%) and 23 non-native
species (55%) was recorded from the site (Appendix A). The small portion of native species
can be attributed to the disturbance onsite.
4.2 Zoology -Wildlife Diversity
The Palomar Transfer Station project area contains habitat suitable for a variety of wildlife
species typical of urban areas. One amphibian1 one reptile, 15 bird species1 and two mammal
species were detected onsite during a general wildlife survey. Species detected onsite include
"'\'i
_ -.o....c,.,·~--'-'=---'::j ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.;;;;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.;;;;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.;;;;;;.;;;;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;29_02_-0_1
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 9
Pro(essioncd Teams {or Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla) 1 western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) 1 mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura) 1 Anna1s hummingbird (Calypte anna) 1 bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) 1
California towhee (Piplio crissalis) white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) 1 and
California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi).
The project area is located in an urbanized area, but is adjacent to a large canyon with native
vegetation. The grassland and ornamental plan tings provide potential foraging, roosting, and
nesting habitat for some raptors and typical urban bird species. Coastal sage scrub onsite is
small in size and therefore probably does not provide nesting habitat for most coastal sage
scrub bird species; however, due to its proximity to the large expanse of open space east of
the project area, it may provide foraging habitat for a variety of birds1 reptiles, and mammals
typical of coastal sage scrub. The disturbed habitat, grasslands, and ornamental areas within
the project site likely provide habitat for common mammals including California ground
squirrel and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis).
4.3 Sensitive Biological Resources
The following resources are discussed in this section: (1) plant and animal species present in
the project vicinity that are given special recognition by federal, state1 or local conservation
agencies and organizations owing to declining, limited, or threatened populations1 that are
the results, in most cases, of habitat reduction; and (2) habitat areas that are unique, are of
relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife. Sources used for
determination of sensitive biological resources are as follows: wildlife --U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS 2001), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 2001),
Remsen (1978), Everett (1979), McGurty (1980), and Murphy (1990); plants --USFWS
(2001), CDFG (2001), and CNPS (2001); and habitats --Holland (1986).
4.3.1 Sensitive Plant Species
No species of plant listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened or endangered by either
the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or the USFWS was detected onsite, and
none are expected based on the habitat types present. No sensitive species recognized by the
California Native Plant Society were identified onsite.
A number of other sensitive plant sp_ecies are known from this portion of the City of
Carlsbad (Table 2).
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 10
P1 o{i!ssioncd Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
TABLE2
SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING
IN THE PROJECT AREA
PRIMARY HABIT AT
STATUS AS SOCIA TIOIIIS/LIFE STATUS 01\lSITE OR
' '
COMMON FEDERAL/ CNPS FORM/BLOOMING POTENTIAL TO OCCUR '
SCIENTIFIC NAME NAME· STATE/OTHER ' , LIST, R-E-D PERIOD
Adolphia California None/None 2, 1-3-1 Chaparral, coastal sage Low potential; would
ca/ifornica adolphia scrub, Valley and have been detected
foothill grassland, during survey.
clays/shrub/December-
April
Arctostaphy/os Del Mar FE/None 1B, 3-3-2 Southern maritime Low potential; would
glandu/osa ssp. manzanita chaparral, sandy mesas have been detected
crassifo/ia and bluffs/shrub/ during survey.
December-April
Artemisia palmed San Diego None/None 4, 1-2-1 Chaparral, coastal sage Low potential; would
sagewort scrub, riparian forest have been detected
and scrub, sandy soils/ during survey.
shrub/July-September
Brodiaea filifo/ia Thread-leaved HISE 1B, 3-3-3 Coastal sage scrub, Low potential; would
brodiaea cismontane woodland, have been detected
Valley and foothill during survey.
grassland, vernal pools,
clays/perennial herb/
March-June
Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt's FSC/None 18, 1-3-2 Closed-cone conifer Low potential; would
brodiaea forest, chaparral, have been detected
cismontane woodland, during survey.
meadows and seeps,
Valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools,
clays/perennial herb/
May-July
Ceanothus wart-stemmed FSC/None 2, 2-2-1 Chaparral/shrub/ Low potential; would
verrucosus ceanothus January-April have been detected
during survey.
".)10' :J r:,,,j 2902-01
.. ~ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 11
Professional Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
TABLE 2 ( continued)
PRIMARY HABITAT
STATUS ASSOCIATIONS/LIFE STATUS O1\lSITE OR
COMMON FEDERAL/ CI\IPS FORM/BLOOMING POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Dichondra Western None/None 4, 1-2-1 Chaparral, cismontane Low potential; would
occidenta/is dichondra woodland, coastal sage have been detected
scrub, Valley and during survey.
foothill grassland/
perennial herb/March-
May
Iva hayesiana San Diego FSC/None 2, 2-2-1 Playas, riparian, low potential; would
marsh-elder floodplain-upland have been detected
ecotone/perennial herb/ during survey.
April-September
Juncus acutus Southwestern None/None 4, 1-2-3 Coastal dunes, Low potential; would
spp. /eopo/dii spiny rush meadows and seeps have been detected
(alkaline), saltwater during survey.
marsh/perennial herb/
May-June
Mui/la c/evelandii San Diego FSC/None 1B, 2-3-2 Chaparral, coastal sage Low potential; would
goldenstar scrub, Valley and have been detected
foothil1 grassland, during survey.
vernal pools/perennial
herb/ May
Ouercus dumosa Nuttall's scrub FSC/None 1B, 2-3-2 Chaparral, coastal sage Low potential; would
oak scrub, sandy and clay have been detected
loam soils/shrub/ during survey.
February-March
legend
FE: Federally-listed as endangered
FSC: Federal species of concern
FT: Federally-listed as threatened
PFE: Proposed for federal listing as endangered
SCE: State candidate for listing as endangered
SE: State-listed as endangered
SR: State rare
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
4.3.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species
No sensitive wildlife species were detected onsite. Based on evaluation of the habitats onsite
and adjacent to the project site, the following list of species may potentially occur onsite
(Table 3).
TABLE3
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING
IN THE PROJECT AREA
Scaphiopus Western NonefCSC, P
hammondi spadefoot toad
Charina /Lichanura/ Coastal rosy boa FS, CNF[None
trivirgata
roseofusca
Cnemidophorus Coastal western NonefNone
tigris multiscutatus whiptail
Cnemidophorus Orange-throated NonefCSC, P
hyperythrus beldingi whiptail
Crota/us ruber ruber Northern red
diamond
rattlesnake
Phrynosoma San Diego
coronatum horned lizard
blainvillei
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk
Aimophila ruficeps So. Cal. rufous-
canescens crowned
sparrow
None/CSC
FS, CNF[CSC, P
PIF, SBNF/CSC
NonefCSC
Most common in grasslands, Low potential, no
coastal sage scrub near rain suitable breeding
pools or vernal pools; riparian habitat onsite.
habitats
Rocky chaparral, coastal sage Moderate potential to
scrub, oak woodlands, desert occur onsite.
and semi-desert scrub
Coastal sage scrub, chaparral Moderate potential to
occur onsite.
Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, Moderate potential to
grassland, juniper and oak occur onsite.
woodland
Variety of shrub habitats Moderate potential to
where there is heavy brush, occur onsite.
large rocks, or boulders
Coastal sage scrub, annual Moderate potential to
grassland, chaparral, oak and occur onsite.
riparian woodland, coniferous
forest
Riparian and oak woodlands, May use site for
montane canyons foraging, no breeding
habitat onsite.
Grass-covered hillsides, May use site for
coastal sage scrub, chaparral for aging, Ii mite d
with boulders and outcrops breeding habitat onsite.
2902-01 . ;.;;;;;;;_;;;_;;;_;;;_;;;_;;;_;;;_;;;_;;;_;;;_;;;_;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.;;;;;;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,_
&ASSOCIATES, INC. September2002 Page 13
Profcssioncd Teams /or Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
TABLE 3 (continued)
COMMON NAME STATUS PRIMARY HABITAT STATUS ONSITE OR
'.SCIENTIFIC NAME • FEDERAl/STATE1 . ASSOCIATIONS POTEIIITIAl TO OCCUR
Amphispiza be/Ii
be/Ii
Buteo /ineatus
Bell's sage
sparrow
Red-shouldered
hawk
PIF, SMC/CSC
None/None
Eremophila alpestris California horned None/CSC
actia
Falco mexicanus
Lanius /udovicianus
Polioptila caeuru/ea
Polioptila californica
Speotyto [Athene/
cunicu/aria
Chaetodipus fa/lax
fa/lax
Chaetodipus
californicus
femoralis
lark
Prairie falcon
Loggerhead
shrike
Blue-gray
gnatcatcher
California
gnatcatcher
Western
burrowing owl
PIF, SBNF/CSC
MNBMC/CSC
None/None
FT, CNF/CSC
BLM,
MNBMC/CSC
Northwestern None/CSC
San Diego pocket
mouse
Dulzura None/CSC
California pocket
mouse
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002
Professional Teams for Complex Projects
Coastal sage scrub and dry
chaparral along coastal
lowlands and inland valleys
May use site for
foraging, limited
breeding habitat onsite.
Riparian and woodland May use site for
habitats, eucalyptus foraging, no breeding
habitat onsite.
Open habitats, grassland, May use site for
rangeland, shortgrass prairie, foraging, Ii mite d
montane meadows, coastal breeding habitat onsite.
plains, fallow grain fields
Grassland, savannas,
rangeland, agriculture, desert
scrub, alpine meadows; nest
on cliffs or bluffs
Open ground including
grassland, coastal sage scrub,
broken chaparral, agriculture,
riparian, open woodland
Chaparral, brushland
Coastal sage scrub, coastal
May use site for
foraging, no breeding
habitat onsite.
May use site for
foraging, limited
breeding habitat onsite.
May use site for
foraging, limited
breeding habitat onsite.
May use site for
sage scrub-chaparral mix, for aging, Ii mite d
coastal sage scrub-grassland breeding habitat onsite.
ecotone, riparian in late
summer
Grassland, lowland scrub, May use site for
agriculture, coastal dunes and for aging, Ii mite d
other artificial open areas breeding habitat onsite.
Coastal sage scrub, grassland, Moderate potential to
sage scrub-grass I an d occur onsite.
ecotones, sparse chaparral;
rocky substrates, loams and
sandy loams
Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, Moderate potential to
riparian-scrub ecotone; more occur onsite.
mesic areas
2902-01
Page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report..& Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Statip~
TABLE 3 (continued)
COMMON NAME STATUS PRIMARY HABITAT STATUS ONSITE OR
SCIENTIFIC NAME _ FEDERAL/STATE1, , ASSOCIATJOIUS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Oipodomys simulans Dulzura None/None Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, Moderate potential to
kangaroo rat grassland at elevation < occur onsite.
4,500 ft.
Lepus californicus San Diego black-None/CSC Arid habitats with open Moderate potential to
hennettii tailed jackrabbit ground; grasslands, coastal occur onsite.
sage scrub, agriculture,
disturbed areas, rangelands
Neotoma lepida San Diego desert None/CSC Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, Moderate potential to
intermedia woodrat pinyon-juniper woodland with occur onsite.
rock outcrops, cactus
thickets, dense undergrowth
Odocoi/eus Mule deer None/Regulated Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, Moderate potential to
hemionus riparian, woodlands, forest; occur onsite.
often browses in open areas
adjacent to cover
The federal and state status of species primarily is based on the Special Animals List (January 2000), California Department
of Fish and Game. It has been updated as needed. This version is dated November 17, 2000.
Federal Designations:
BLM
CNF
FE
FS
FT
MNBMC
PFT
PIF
SBNF
SMC
Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species
Cleveland National Forest Sensitive Species
Federally-listed Endangered
Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species
Federally-listed as Threatened
Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern
Proposed for listing as Federally Threatened
Partners in Flight Watch List
San Bernardino National Forest Sensitive
Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 Species of Management Concern
State Designations:
CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Sensitive Species
csc
p
R
California Special Concern Species
California Department of Fish and Game Protected and Fully Protected Species
California Rare Species
SE State-listed as Endangered
ST State-listed as Threatened
-mr:r;-C-;;:;~1lrJ1i;; 2902-01
:i '-'._;f ·} ~;I!;-, L,,,l' ~j iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiii~ u-•::..... .. .'_.,.~;"~~.....:"{;'$'.J ..... ':!:i
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 15
Professional Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
4.3.3 Sensitive Habitats
I Sensitive habitats are those that are considered rare within the region, support sensitive plant
and/or wildlife species, or function as corridors for wildlife movement. Coastal sage scrub I is the only sensitive habitat onsite.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
W1ldlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and
provide avenues for the immigration and emigration of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute
to population viability in several ways: (1) they assure the continual exchange of genes
between populations which helps maintain genetic diversity; (2) they provide access to
adjacent habitat areas representing additional territory for foraging and mating; (3) they
allow for a greater carrying capacity; and (4) they provide routes for colonization of habitat
lands following local populations extinctions or habitat recovery from ecological catastrophes
(e.g., fires).
Habitat linkages are patches of native habitat that function to join two larger patches of
habitat. They serve as connections between habitat patches and help reduce the adverse
effects of habitat fragmentation. Although individual animals may not move through a
habitat linkage, the linkage does represent a potential route for gene flow and long-term
dispersal. Habitat linkages may serve as both habitat and avenues of gene flow for small
animals such as reptiles and amphibians. Habitat linkages may be represented by continuous
patches of habitat or by nearby habitat 11islands11 that function as 11stepping stones11 for
dispersal.
The project area occurs adjacent to a large canyon with native vegetation; however,
developed land occurs southwest, west, and northwest of the project area. Because of the
lack of habitat onsite and the lack of habitat west of the project area, no wildlife movement
or habitat linkage function is provided by the habitat onsite.
4.4 Regional Resource Planning Context
In San Diego County, several conservation planning efforts currently are in progress with the
long-term goal of establishing a regional.reserve system that will protect native habitat lands
and their associated biota. The ultimate goal of these plans is the establishment of biological
?:Jl~ 2902-01
.~iiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iii----iiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiii &ASSOCIATES, INC. September2002 Page 16
Professional Teams for Comple:c Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
reserve areas in conformance with the State of California NCCP. The ongoing programs are
regulated by the 4(d) Rule pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act, which allows for
the interim loss of 5% of existing coastal sage scrub until the NCCP reserves are formalized.
The Palomar Transfer Station project area is within the northern San Diego County Multiple
Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) study area. As part of the MHCP, the City of Carlsbad
has prepared and adopted a Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is consistent with
the currently proposed MH CP. The HMP nor the MH CP have not been approved by wildlife
resource agencies.
The biological resources present do not contribute to overall habitat conservation goals of
MHCP because habitat onsite is small and not well connected with regional open space.
Also, diversity of plant and wildlife species onsite is low. The entire project area is outside
of any planned preserves or focused planning areas designated by the current City of Carlsbad
HMP.
5.0 ANTICIPATED PROJECT IMPACTS
This section addresses direct and indirect impacts to biological resources that would result
from implementation of the proposed project.
Direct impacts were quantified by overlaying the limits of project grading on the biological
resources map of the site (Figure 4). For the purposes of this assessment, all biological
resources within the limits of grading for the project were considered 100% lost.
Indirect Impacts are difficult to identify and quantify but are presumed to occur. They
primarily result from adverse "edge effects;" either short-term indirect impacts related to
construction or long-term, chronic indirect impacts associated with location of urban
development in proximity to biological resources within natural areas. During construction
of the project, short-term indirect impacts may include dust and noise which could disrupt
habitat and species vitality temporarily, and construction-related soil erosion and runoff.
Long-term indirect impacts may include intrusions by humans and domestic pets, noise,
lighting, invasion by exotic plant and wildlife species, effects of "toxic" substances, urban
runoff from developed areas, soil erosion, litter, fire, and hydrological changes.
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 17
Professional Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
__,~._
FARAD.A_y-. , ..
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/LANDCOVER TYPES:
AGL -Annual Grassland
CSS -Coastal Sage Scrub
DEV -Developed Land
DH -Disturbed Habitat
ORN -Ornamental Plantings
BASE MAP SOURCE: URS, 9-26-01
CDFG/RWQCB JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS:
HW -Herbaceous Wetland
N Project Boundary
N Vegetation Boundary
Limits of Grading
Palomar Transfer Station -Biological Resources Report
Vegetation Map with Limits of Grading
(l)
1" C, 150'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •:• Palomar Transfer Station
5.1 Direct Impacts
5.1.1 Vegetation Communities
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct and complete loss of the
vegetation community and land cover acreages presented in Table 4.
TABLE4
EXISTING, IMPACTED, AND PRESERVED HABITAT ACREAGE
PROPOSED NON-IMPACTED ,
Annual Grassland 0.9 0.6 0.3
Coastal Sage Scrub 0.3 0.0 0.3
Herbaceous Wetlands 0.1 0.1 0.0
Ornamental Plantings 1.3 0.4 0.9
Disturbed Habitat 1.2 1.1 0.1
Developed Land 7.2 1.7 5.5
Total* 11.0 3.9 7.1
,•I=•-, ~ ', l , I,•-•-~-~-'-' ~••'•"''~'°= ;v_,,c~,;.~4,+h_,,,,"'''" M "'-' <;o;,~,s~\-~-, +•~" ~ ,,, ~• _,.,,,..,,,
* Numbers may not total precisely due to rounding.
5.1.2 Sensitive Plant Species
Implementation of the proposed project would result in no impacts to sensitive plant species.
5.1.3 Sensitive Wildlife Species
I The loss of 0.6 acre of annual grassland1 0.1 acre of herbaceous wetland1 and 0.4 acre of
ornamental plantings may potentially result in impacts to sensitive wildlife identified as I potentially occurring onsite in Section 4.3.2.
I
I
I
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002
Professioncd Teams for Complex Projects
2902-01
Page 19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
5.1.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
No wildlife corridor or habitat linkage was identified onsite and therefore no impacts are
expected.
5.2
5.2.1
Indirect Impacts
Vegetation Communities
Indirect impacts to vegetation communities primarily would result from adverse "edge
effects" as cited above. During construction of the project, edge effects may include dust
which could disrupt plant vitality in the short term or construction related soil erosion and
runoff. Because nearly all of the grading appears to be below existing slopes, runoff-related
indirect impacts are not anticipated. Potential short-term indirect impacts to vegetation
communities would be reduced through the implementation of Best Management Practices
(BMP's) during construction. BMP's would include, but are not limited to, placement of silt
fencing, haybales, and/or sandbags in potential drainage areas, periodic watering of the
grading area, and snow fencing of the limits of grading.
The most likely long-term indirect impacts on vegetation communities would be trash,
invasion by exotic species, and alteration of the natural fire regime through either suppression
or incendiary events. Potential long-term indirect impacts to vegetation communities would
be reduced through fencing of facility and maintenance of equipment and machinery onsite.
5.2.2 Sensitive Plant Species
Although no sensitive plant species was identified, most of the indirect impacts to vegetation
communities cited above also can affect sensitive plants. During construction of the project,
dust generated may disrupt plant vitality in the short-term. The potential for these activities
to indirect affect sensitive plants is limited by the slope to the be preserved in the
northeastern portion of the property which should effectively buffer the adjacent canyon
from onsite operations
Long-term edge effects could include intrusions by humans possible trampling of individual
plants (particularly seedlings), invasion of native habitats by exotic plant and wildlife species,
exposure to urban pollutants (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous
-, i<<: ?'(1:i.f ' El' ., 1 1-,:w; ,-: ,-,--, 1 q -,,., ,fl Li ,;-i rt~'tl, 2902 01
, 0-0·'.:. '. ;::.;:?. °sJi/;;,-k~~.;;,;ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii--~
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 20
Profl!ssioncd Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
materials), soil erosion, litter, and fire. Potential long-term indirect impacts to sensitive
plants would be reduced through fencing of facility and proper maintenance of equipment
and machinery onsite.
5.2.3 Sensitive Wildlife Species
Most of the indirect impacts to vegetation communities and sensitive plants cited above may
also affect sensitive wildlife. However, additional indirect impacts on wildlife are possible.
During construction of the project, indirect effects may include dust and noise which could
disrupt normal behaviors crucial for foraging and breeding. Potential short-term indirect
impacts to wildlife would be reduced through the implementation of BMP's as described
above.
Long-term edge effects could include intrusions by humans, possible trampling of wildlife
habitat, noise lighting, invasion by exotic plant and wildlife species, exposure to urban
pollutants (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials), soil erosion,
litter, and fire. Some sensitive wildlife species are believed to require large tracts of relatively
undisturbed habitat (i.e., "interior species") and populations may decrease or disappear along
the edges of habitat. Other species are nest-parasitized by the brown-headed cowbird, as
species that is more likely to occur along urban-wildlife habitat interfaces. Potential long
term indirect impacts to wildlife would be reduced through fencing of facility and proper
maintenance of equipment and machinery onsite. It should be noted that proposed
expansion of the transfer station should not dramatically increase noise levels within the
adjacent canyon east of the project area.
5.2.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
Indirect impacts to habitat linkages and wildlife corridors are the same as those for sensitive
wildlife as discussed above.
6.0 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
6.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance
Impacts to native habitats, sensitive plants, and sensitive wildlife species must be quantified
and analyzed to determine whether such impacts are significant under the California
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 21
Professional Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
Environmental Quality Act (CEOA). CEOA Guidelines section 15064(b) states that an
ironclad definition of "significant" effect is not possible because the significance of an activity
may vary with the setting. Appendix G of the Guidelines, however, does provide "examples
of consequences which may be deemed to be a significant effect on the environment"
(Guidelines section 15064(e)). These effects include substantial effects on rare or endangered
species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species. Guidelines section 15065(a) also is
helpful in defining whether a project may have "a significant effect on the environment."
Under that section, a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment if
the project has the potential to: (1) substantially degrade the quality of the environment; (2)
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (3) cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels; (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community; (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal; or (6) eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or
prehistory.
The evaluation of whether or not an impact to a particular biological resource is significant
must consider both the resource itself and the role of that resource in a regional context.
Substantial impacts are those that contribute to, or result in, permanent loss of an important
resource, such as a population of a rare plant or animal. Impacts may be important locally
because they result in an adverse alteration of existing site conditions, but considered not
significant because they do not contribute substantially to the permanent loss of that
resource regionally. The severity of an impact is the primary determinant of whether or not
that impact can be mitigated to a level below significant.
6.2 Vegetation Communities
For the purpose of analyzing the significance of impacts to vegetation communities, impacts
resulting from grading of the proposed project were considered as direct impacts.
As stated above, coastal sage scrub is the only sensitive habitat onsite. The proposed project
would avoid direct impacts to coastal sage scrub. Potential short-and long-term indirect
impacts to vegetation communities are not considered to be significant given implementation
of BMP's and fencing/maintenance of the facility.
It should be noted that although proposed direct impacts to 0.1 acre of herbaceous wetlands
is not considered significant, this area is.under the jurisdiction of the CDFG and RWOCB and
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 22
Professionrd Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
those agencies typically require permits and/or agreements before filling of jurisdictional
wetlands.
6.3 Sensitive Plant Species
Direct and indirect impacts to sensitive plant species are not regarded as significant. Based
on the available mapping1 there are no point localities of sensitive species which would be
affected directly or indirectly. In particular1 no state-or federally-listed species are identified
as potentially breeding onsite.
6.4 Sensitive Wildlife Species
The direct loss of 2.2 acre of non-native land cover is not expected to significantly reduce
wildlife usage of the project area. Likewise1 short-and long-term indirect impacts are not
expected to significantly increase from current levels and therefore are also not considered
significant.
6.5 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
No direct or indirect impacts to habitat linkages and wildlife corridors are anticipated and
therefore no significant impacts are anticipated.
7.0 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to biological
resource and therefore no mitigation measures are recommended. It should be noted that the
CD FG and R WOCB will require mitigation for impacts to O .1 acre of jurisdictional wetlands.
Mitigation of these impacts would be determined through consultation with the CDFG and
RWQCB pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Porter
Cologne Act1 respectively. Both agencies maintain a policy of no-net-loss of wetlands and
therefore mitigation for impacts to 0.1 acre of wetlands would likely include creation of at
least 0.3 acre of jurisdictional wetlands.
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 23
Professional Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
8.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by DUDEK biologist Vipul Joshi. Sherri Miller and Julie Vanderwier
provided report review. Graphics were provided by Tim Walsh; Elizabeth M. Spitler provided
word processing.
9.0 LITERATURE CITED
Abrams, L. 1923. Illustrated flora of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
California.
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. The Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition.
Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas.
American Ornithologists' Union. 1989. Thirty-seventh Supplement to the American
Ornithologists' Union Check-List of North American Birds. The Auk 106:532-538.
Beauchamp, R. M. 1986. A flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater Press, National
City, California. 241 pp.
Bond, S. I. 1977. An annotated list of the mammals of San Diego County, California. Trans. San
Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 18: 229-248.
Bowman, R. H. 1973. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, Part 1. United States
Department of the Agriculture. 104 pp. + appendices.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000 (January). California Natural
Diversity Database, Special Animals. The Resources Agency, Wildlife and Habitat
Data Analysis Branch.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of
California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor,
Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA x+388pp.
Emmel. T.C. andJ. F. Emmel. 1973. The butterflies of Southern California. Natural History
Musuem of Los Angeles County, Science Series 26: 1-148.
.i .. ,,;,. rt?1~0~:~·1rrit 2902-01 '..\/<:''"~.t~~J(,d,l~.·, • -• ' ---.~",:i{-.:,;i iiiiiii.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 24
Professione1l Teams for Complex ProJl!Cts
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
Everett, W. T. 1979. Sensitive, threatened and declining bird species of San Diego County. San
Diego Audubon Society Sketches 29:2-3.
Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. University of California
Press, Berkeley. 1400 pp.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.
Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. 156 pp.
Jones, C., R.S. Hoffmann, D.W. Rice, R.J. Baker, M.D. Engstrom, R.D. Bradley, D.J.
Schmidly, and C.A. Jones. 1997. Revised checklist of North American mammals north
of Mexico, 1997. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University, No. 173, 23
pp.
McGurty, B. M. 1980. Survey and status of endangered and threatened species of reptiles natively
occurring in San Diego, California. San Diego Herpetological Society.
Murphy, D. D. 1990. A report on the California butterflies listed as candidates for endangered
status by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Draft Report for California
Department of Fish and Game, Contract No. C-1755. 60 pp.
Remsen, J. V. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California: An annotated list of declining or
vulnerable bird species. Administrative Report No. 78-1. Nongame Wildlife
Investigations, Wildlife Management Branch, California Department of Fish and
Game.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 1994. Vegetation and sensitive species
maps prepared for the North County Wildlife Forum.
Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston, Mass.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Federally Listed and Candidate Species
that May Occur within the Jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Microsoft
Excel Spreadsheet. Provided by: Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. October 23.
Carlsbad, California.
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 25
Pro(essicm(ll Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
Unitt1 P. A. 1984. Birds of San Diego County. Memoir 131 San Diego Society of Natural
History. 287 pp.
2902-01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 26
Professional Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. -; ",, --' -~ -,·. ~ •. _.,_ . -: #·"'•~.--• ·"t'-"'I( ____ .;..._ ____ ··-·.'--· -·· _________ : ------_·:......,_/ __ ____,-,-·_,_:·_.,;_
APPl:NDICl:8
F,_ ,,
f
i'
I :-: _, _ ,_ .. ,,.;z,c· .,,,. ,-:<', .,_,.,,,, ..... , ; .7 ., ;:,; , -, .. 7, ,-;-":f'•"' "-' , ·:·• ~-{/'-,,;., .. -" ~-,,,,., . .-:•, .. _ -,, .. _,"n>"• •;tf,•-•;,-~~,-.... ,,·,-:Y;1,>'•c,:·k;-,--✓--,< ;,,<Aw,-., .. _,--,,,% "er,,,,.,, .. ,';;'.q> ,,:,, <,&.,tmJLW"•f '•' •,;>,:-"•'•I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
APPl:NDIXA
VASCUIAR PIANT SPECIES OBSERVED
ON THE PROJECT SITE
ANGIOSPERMAE (DICOTYLEDONES)
APIACEAE -CARROT FAMILY
*
Daucus pusil!us -rattlesnake weed
Foeniculum vulgare -sweet fennel
ASTERACEAE -SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Acourtia microcephala -sacapellote
Artemisia californica -coastal sagebrush
Baccharis pilularis -coyote brush
*
*
*
*
Baccharis salicifolia -mule fat
Centaurea melitensis -tocalote
Deninandra fasciculata -fascicled tarweed
Encelia californica -California bush sunflower
Fi/ago gallica -narrow-leaf filago
Isocoma menziesii ssp. veneta -coastal goldenbush
Picris echioides -bristly ox-tongue
Taraxacum officinale -common dandelion
Uropappus lindleyi -silver puffs
BRASSICACEAE -MUSTARD FAMILY
* Brassica nigra -black mustard
CAPPARACEAE -CAPER FAMILY
lsomeris arborea -bladderpod
CHENOPODIACEAE -GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
* Atriplex sp. -saltbush
• -~?-;' ":~-:~ im-v-:-1-~?~~ ~ ~i) },},~~J: &,: t~<t~ ---------------------------------------------------------------2-90_2-0_1
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 1
P1 ofcssional Teams {or Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
APPtNDIX A ( Continued)
FABACEAE -PEA FAMILY
Lotus scoparius -deerweed
Lupinus sp. -lupine
* Medicago polymorpha -California burclover
GERANIACEAE -GERANIUM FAMILY
* Erodium cicutarium -red-stemmed filaree
LAMIACEAE -MINT FAMILY
Salvia mellifera -black sage
MYOPORACEAE -MYOPORUM FAMILY
* Myoporum laetum -myoporum
MYRTACEAE -MYRTLE FAMILY
* Eucalyptus sp. -eucalyptus
PLANTAGINACEAE -PLANTAIN FAMILY
* Plantago lanceolata -English plantain
POLYGONACEAE-BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
*
Eriogonum fasciculatum -California buckwheat
Rumex crispus -curly dock
PRIMULACEAE -PRIMROSE FAMILY
* Anagallis arvensis -scarlet pimpernel
SALICACEAE -WILLOW FAMILY
Salix lasiolepis var. bracelinae -arroyo willow
TAMARICACEAE -TAMARISK FAMILY
* Tamarix sp. -tamarisk
:.;-,-,.r-~ ---------------------------------------------------------------------2~90_2-0~1
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 2
Professiomd Teams for Complex PToject:.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •:• Palomar Transfer Station
APPtNDIX A ( Contlnuedj
ANGIOSPERMAE (MONOCOTYLEDONES)
CYPERACEAE -SEDGE FAMILY
Eleocharis macrostachya -pale spike-rush
IRIDACEAE-IRIS FAMILY
Sisyrinchium bellum -blue-eyed grass
JUNCACEAE -RUSH FAMILY
Juncus dubius -mariposa rush
POACEAE -GRASS FAMILY
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Avena barbata -slender oat
Bromus diandrus -ripgut grass
Bromus hordeaceus -soft chess
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens -foxtail chess
Cynodon dactylon -Bermuda grass
Hordeum sp. -barley
Lolium multiflorum -English ryegrass
Vulpia myuros -rattail fescue
TYPHACEAE -CATTAIL FAMILY
Typha sp. -narrow-leaved cattail
* signifies introduced (non-native) species
. .<r;t _.,,,,:,._·..,, ::;;;,_,_·. .. lJ,:;,I iiiii-iiiiiiii-iiiiiiii-iiiiiiii-iiiiiiii-iii.iiiiiiiiiiiii-iii.iiiiiiiiiiiii-iii.iiiiiiii.iiiiiiii.iiiiiiiiiiiii-iii.iiiiiiiiiiiii-iii.iiiiiiiiiiiii-iii.iiiiiiiiiiiii-iii.iiiiiiiiiiiii-iii.iiiiiiii.iiiiiiii2iiiiiii90iiiiiii2-0_1
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 3
Profi:ssional Teams for Complex Prorects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
APPtNDIXB
WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED OR
DETECTED ON THE PROJECT SITE
WILDLIFE SPECIES -VERTEBRATES
AMPHIBIANS
HYLIDAE -TREEFROGS
Hy/a regilla -Pacific treefrog
REPTILES
IGUANIDAE -IGUANID
Sceloporus occidentalis -western fence lizard
CHARADRIIDAE -PLOVERS
Charadrius vociferus -killdeer
BIRDS
COLUMBIDAE -PIGEONS & DOVES
Zenaida macroura -mourning dove
CUCULIDAE -CUCKOOS & ROADRUNNERS
Geococcyx californianus -greater roadrunner
TROCHILIDAE -HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte anna -Anna's hummingbird
Calypte costae -Costa's hummingbird
TYRANNIDAE-TYRANTFLYCATCHERS
Sayornis nigricans -black phoebe
--·-·•·"B:_·=--,~ L);fl Uf l r)tJ
,-.Y• S<o. ,,, ~,._1•:n.:---.....,
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002
ProfeSStonrd Teams for Complex Projects
2902-01
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
APP~NDIX B ( Contlnuedj
CORVIDAE -JAYS & CROWS
Aphelocoma coerulescens -scrub jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos -American crow
AEGITHALIDAE -BUSHTITS
Psa!triparus minimus -bushtit
TROGLODYTIDAE -WRENS
Thryomanes bewickii -Bewick's wren
MIMIDAE-THRASHERS
Mimus polyglottos -northern mockingbird
STURNIDAE -STARLINGS
* Sturnus vulgaris -European starling
EMBERIZIDAE -WOOD WARBLERS, TANAGERS, BUNTINGS & BLACKBIRDS
Euphagus cyanocephalus -Brewer's blackbird
Pipilo crissa/is -California towhee
Zonotrichia leucophrys -white-crowned sparrow
MAMMALS
SCIURIDAE -SQUIRRELS
Spermophi/us beecheyi -California ground squirrel
GEOMYIDAE -POCKET GOPHERS
Thomomys bottae -Botta's pocket gopher
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002
Professional Teams for Complex Projects
2902-01
Page 2
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
APP~NDIXC
SPECIES SENSITIVITY CATEGORIES
Federal (1993)
Endangered. Taxa threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their range.
Threatened. T axa likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
Category 1. T axa for which the USFWS currently has on file substantial information on
biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support the appropriateness of
proposing to list them as endangered or threatened species.
Category 2. Taxa for which information now in possession of the USFWS indicates that
proposing to list them as endangered or threatened is appropriate but for
which substantial data on biological vulnerability and threat(s) are not known
or on file to support the immediate preparation of rules.
Category 3. T axa that were once considered for listing as endangered or threatened, but are
currently not receiving such consideration. These taxa are included in one of
the following three subcategories.
Subcategory SA:
Subcategory 3B:
Subcategory 3C:
T axa presumed to be extinct.
Taxa whose names do not meet the Endangered Species
Act's legal definition of species.
T axa now considered to be more widespread that
originally thought.
Note: The USFWS has abandoned the use of candidate species, however. Their former
status is useful in determining relative levels of sensitivity for conservation planning
purposes. The taxa in Categories 1 and 2 are candidates for possible addition to the
list of endangered and threatened species.
•~ t ·:1\J 11ifi~:Te~ iiiiiii.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .. 2 .. 90 .. 2-_01
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002 Page 1
P1 ofessioncd Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
APPtNDIX C ( Continued)
State of California (1990)
Endangered. T axa which are in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a
significant portion, of their range due to one or more causes including loss of
habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation, predation, competition, or disease
(Section 2062 of the Fish and Game Code).
Threatened. T axa which1 although not presently threatened with extinction1 are likely to
become endangered species in the foreseeable future (Section 2067 of the Fish
and Game Code).
Rare. T axa which, although not presently threatened with extinction, are present in
such small numbers throughout their range that they may become endangered
if the present environment worsens (Section 1901 of the Fish and Game Code).
Candidate. T axa which the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being
under review by the Department in addition to the list of threatened and
endangered species.
California Native Plant Society (1994)
1A: Presumed Extinct in California
1B: Rare or Endangered in California and Elsewhere
2: Rare or Endangered in California1 More Common Elsewhere
3: Need More Information
4: Plants of Limited Distribution
Note: Plants on CNPS list 1B meet California Department of Fish and Game Criteria for
Rare or Endangered listing.
2902-01
&ASSOCIATES, INC. September2002 Page2
Professioncd Teams for Complex Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources Report & Impact Analysis •!• Palomar Transfer Station
APPtNDIX C ( Contlnuedj
R-E-D code
R (Rarity)
1-Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the
potential for extinction or extirpation is low at this time.
2-Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population.
3-Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such
small numbers that it is seldom reported.
E (Endangerment)
1-Not endangered
2-Endangered in a portion of its range
3-Endangered throughout its range
D (Distribution)
1-More or less widespread outside of California
2-Rare outside California
3-Endemic to California
& ASSOCIATES, INC. September 2002
Professioncd Teams for Complex Projects
2902-01
Page 3