HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 83-02; SEA PINES; ARCHAELOGICAL SURVEY; 1982-06-01c
RESULTS OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
OF
SEA PINES, CARLSBAD, CALL~ORNIA
prepared f.or:
Standard Pacific of San Dieg'o·
7290 Clairemont Blvd.
San Diego, California 921.11
Prepared by:
Archaeological Consulting and Technology
P.O. Box 400
El Cajon, Cali fo.rnia 9202.2
Stanley R. Berryman
June 1, 1982
-i-
Table of Contents
I, I'ntroduction
Aril Loca t ion. ,and Topographic Setting" .. . ' , 1
B. ' Soils I , , 'I' , ',. ',' , '. ',' • '" .. : t' 2,
C, Vegetation, , '" ',' , , '.' , ',' '.' , " " , • ' ; 2
D. Fauna " , '" " 3
II. Background
A, Previous Work in the. Area , "!'" " ", '. 7,
B~ Literature Survey 0' , " " 0 9 "
III, Fa.eldwork
A 'f' Survey Techniques t· .. 10
B'I", Findings ' , • • 11
C, Sig,nificance of Findings ., t, ,. • 12
IV, Impacts Resulting from Proposed Action t, t, :t. 0-f 13
V.' Mitigating Measures " , " " '.' " 13'
VI~ Source,s • ," t ' " " " 14,
...
I. INTRODUCTION
On May 5 and 21 1982, staff members from Archaeological
Con~ultin-g and Technology, Inc. (ACT,' Inc'.,) conducted a-survey of
a rectangularly shaped, eighty acre parcel known as Sea Pines'.
The: propertly is located fn the northeast one qua,rtet of Section
28; Townsbip 12 South, Range 4 West, San Be'rnardlno, Base and'
Me~idian (Figures 1 and 2). Although exact Site plans are hot
yeu~Qmpleted it is known that the projeCt will conaistof
residential dwelling uni ts and all the' necessary streets, fot
circulatlion.
Tne res.u.lts of the survey were positive. A, small srhell and
lithic' tool scatte'r was loc'ated as' well as evidence of rec~nt
farming acti vi ties. These results wi 11 be discuss,ed in Section
III ot tbis report.
A. LoC_tion and Topographic Se~ting,
Tbe subject property
City of Carlsbad, California.
is located within boundaries of the
It is situated approximat~ly Z,500
feet ea-st o~ the intersection of Poinsetria &ane and Interst~te 5
and one and one-half miles north of Batiquitos Lagoon., TpeSea
Pines property is bounded on the north and east by agricu11;ural
land on the south by a residential development and on the west Qy
relatively unaltered land.
Topographically the project is located on t.he west,ern ,slopes
-2-
o·f a generally north/south trending rfdg,e. The property. slop~:s
from east to west with elevations ranging from ~ high of 22m fe~~
above mean seal level (amsl) to a. low of 115 fee-t amsl. Sea-
Pines is heavily dissected by six east/west erosiori gullies.
The-se gull ies ~re generally wide, 100 .to 20:0 feet across, w-i 1;:h
. relatively ste~p sides.
~ou.twest. corner. The
Th~ greatest erosion actiVity is in'
pattern. of erosion. m~y have
the
been
facilitated by agricultura~ activities which took place' on the
property in the past.
B. Soils
soils on the Sea Pines property are made. up of two types;
the Che$-terton Series and the Rug:ged Broken Land Series (Figure
3). These are defined by Bowma-n (1973) as· fo.llows.:
Chest.erton Series: This soil consists ofmode.rate.ly well draine'd
sandy loams that have a sandy sub-soil. They have formed in
pl~ce by the weathering of the unde.rlying sandst·one. The color
ranges from brown (10YR 5/3 Munsell color) to very pale brown
(10YR 7/4).
Rugged Broken Land Series: This soil consist.s wel1-drained to
excessively drained, steep and very ateep land dissected by many
V-shaped valleys.
c. Vegetation
The flora noted during the study of the subject property
-3-
consists of plants typical of distu-rbe.d or disrupted are_a~ Th'e
vegetation is made up of primarily of thick s~ands of mustard.
(Bra-ssica sp.), dense grasses (Bromas sp.), and f.oxtails (Ho.rdeum
.sp)~ Sqme native vegetation is present around' the edges of the
gulli.es and in the southwest corner of th'e propert;y. The·se.
plants ,include sumac
fascicula~um), and chamise
the vegetation density
dense ..
b. Fauna
(Rhus sp.) , buckwhea't -(E r iogonum
(Adenstoma fasciculatum) • Genera.l~y
range from modeta·t-elydens·e-to· ve.ry
Apimals noted on the property included (Lepus .c~lif6rnicus),
Dove (Zena1.dura macroura}, quail (Lophortyr gamoeli), hawk. (Buteo
sp:.,) and coyote (Canis latrans).
..
l' n
•
--II -n.
o
(')
1ft
)It
Z
[;il'
AC
,&T,
s
u Jolh
1'.c"/c BeAcIt
. ..... ,
~.EA· ·PlNES
figure 1. COUNTY VICIN~TY MAp,
• 8."~Jo
V.".y
N:
, .~
.. ~
.\ \ .\ .. \
\:'
\
\ \
\'
, '. '. ,
'\ \. 1 '-
\ ..... '
\, '\ \ .'. -.. \
. ;, ,
\ J8 ' .. , \
\ ~ ; . t
o o o
\, \ ~ ~ I \ ,
; . .
\
\ ,.
_. ~ ... ---.. --:-.....
. "'" 'N ..
r-!
-5-
Figure 2. .•. . . U ,oS. C; .·S: .• : ~VIC'INITY. MAl?
Encinitas Quad'rangl.e
I ~\./'
'---'
LA
33 --/. ..
/ I:~;--u'" .. :. I ••• ~ /.. "'"
\
SEA.' PINES
;F.igure. ,3.' SOIL .T.y:E~E$
SEA PINES
-7-
II. BACKGROUND
A. P~~vious Work in the Area
Archaeo log lea 1 Consulting
dondUcted a recorded sites search
and
at
Techno.109Y,
the Cultural
Inc. :h.;l~
Resource
Management: Center, San Diego State Uh~versity and at the San
Dteg.o Museum of Man. Both institutions show numerous sites in:
. the p,rojecc area as well as a site locat;ed 0;0 the s~a Pines
property. These sites include the follo~ing:
Site Number
'W-B4
W-88
W;...8·9
. W-95
W-97
W-98
·W-lf3f3
SDl-6f31
W-lf3l
SDl-691
W-lf32
W-112
W-113
W;...115
W-l67f3
SDi-6867
Description
Slough terrade midden
Intermittent camp site
Slough terrace midden
Slough terrace midden
Slough shell midden
Slough shell midden
Slough shell midden
Slough terrace camp
Slough shell midden
Highland accretion midden
Highland winter camp
Highland winter camp
Shell midden
Cultural Affiliation
Sa 1'1 b i e-<j u ito I I
Li ctora.l I;t
Li tto'~al I:I
sa~ Diegtlito & Li~. II
Li ttoral 1:1
Littora II
Littoral II
San Di,egul,to II
Li ttoral. II
SD. tI, Lit. It, Yuman
Littora,l· II
Lit. tt, La Joila
not noted
W-1871
SDi-6067
W-1872
SDi--6749
W-1873
SDi,-:6750
W-1875
SDi-6752
W-1876
S01-6753
W-1877
SOi-6754
W-1878
SOi-6819
W-18:86
SO-i,..6826
W--1887
SOi"'6827
w-188'8
SOi-68i8
W-l"889
SOi-6829
W-2044
W-2045
W-2046
W-25-41
SDi-2l1
W-2544
SDi-600
-8-
Shell scatter hot noted.
Shell midden not. note_d
Shell scatter no-t noted
Shell and lithic scatter not noted
Shell, Ii thic and she-rds not noted
Shell scatter not po_ted
Campsite _ n.o t: noted
Shell midden w/lithics not noted
Shell scatter_ not~ noted
Trash pi t. Historic
Campsite not hoted
not noted not hoted'
not noted not', noted
not noted not; noted
Camp site not noted
Habitation site not noted
W-2!551
80i-690
W-2552
SDi-692
W~2553 .
SD'i-693
SDl-760 .
SDi-1014,
-9-
Slough midden site
Shell and lithic scatter
Shell midden
Shell and lithics
no available data
.B. Literature Survey
not not~q
n,ot noted
not no"t:ed
not noted
The literature seach at the Cultu.ral Resource Mahagement
Center" San Diego State University and San Diego MU'seum 6f Man
reveal.ed'f.ive CRM publications related to t'he study area.
These. in'clude the following, ti tles: "Draft Environtnen'tal
Impact Repo·rt for Prezone anq Annexation. San Diego: '(Recon
1975) ,"Archaeological and Historical Overview. -Enqina Wa:ter
Pollution Con~rol Facility Service Area, Carlsbad, Ca~" (Fink,
G •. , 1976), "Cultural Resources Survey Reporc for proposed San
M.rco$ Coun~y Water District Sewar rnterceptor Pipeline. San
Diego~ (Cupples S. A., 1978), ' "Regional Historic preservation
Study: pilot Area Survey Carlsbad Area, S~nDie90 CouQty"
. (Westec, 1980) , "An Archaeologic'al and Paleontological SL'!rvey
'Qft,he Occedental Land Inc., properties, Carlsbad" (Cha.ceP.,
1981) •
I I I., F'IELDWORK
A~ Survey Techniques
In May 1982 Stanley R. Berryman and M'ary Lou Heuett'of
Archaeological Consulting and Technology, Inc. -~opduct~d an
on-foot-'reconnaissance of th'e Sea Pines p~rc,e'l. The -parc,e1 was
walked by means of a series of cont~olled north/sout~ and
e~st/wesr transects (see Figure 4). The work was begun ih,ths
northwest corner of the parcel and comp1et-ed. -i,n the flo-r-tihwe,st
_ co'roer. Much of. the study was concen.t-rated on the non-er.oded·
portions of the Sea Pines project. Wi t.h the amount of-erosion
having. ta'ken place in the gullies it 1.s unl ike1¥ that. ¢xtant
~ultural resources would be fouhd there.
The survey was made difficult by, two factors; one the
vegetat:ion and, two the farming which had taken __ pla,ce in the
past., The visibili ty of the ground ranged f_rom fa!.r to poo·r.,
Artifacts and features could be noticeable -upon close
inspection. Plowing was evidenced, through the presence of
furrows·. Some of these measured ane foot to two feet wide and
one-half foot to nearly two feet deep.
A scatter of shell and stone was noted in t'he sou,theast . one
quater of the property. No cultural materials we're noted on the
rest of the parcel.
-11-
B. Fir:ldings
A s~ngle archaeological site was located during the co~rse
of the project. It had previously had been recor'de,d as 8Di-675-0·.
a'nd W-1873. The si te is located in the southeast'ern portion of
the 8ea Pines property. It is situated on the side af a sm~ll
knoll ju:st north of the grave'l access roa'd. Ttie elevati.on is
app,roxlmat'ely 190 feet. The long axis measures apprQ}!:lmately 60,
• meter$ northeast/southwest and the transvers'e, ax'i.s ine,a'sures
appro'x-imc;ttely 20 meters northwest!southeas·t.. T,hese meaSure,ments
may well be erroneous, the result of smearing by long years 'o,f
plowing,. The pattern of plowing seems to have been pI? and down
the, ridges rather than across. This' coupled w,i th erosi.ori· through
iun-off:may have resulted in a displac::ement' of the su:rfac:e
manifestations of the site." It se,ems 11k.ely that t'he site' was
.~uch smaller in the past.
The soil on the site is a very pa,le brown sandy loam. Based
upon t'he exposure in the a~cess road cut it has a depth of about.
one-half to one meter~ If there had been a s~ained midden at
8D'i-6750 the color has leached out 'of the soil., The' vegetation
at' ,the site consists of primarily mustard. and s'ho,rc gr~asseS.,
The site is made up of a light scat.ter of chione and pect,in
shell along with approximately 10 fractured stone items. , The$e
stories appear to be fragments of manoS and flakes. 1he stone
does nota.ppear to be totally contiguous with the shell, in th'at
the s'hell has a wider areal 'distribution.
-12-
It is difficult to place cUltural affiliation on a site $uch
as SD i-6750. However, based upon previouse~per ience the si t-e is
tentatively designated as Early Archaic Stage, La Jolla Aspe:ct_ •.
C. Sighifi~ahce of the Findings
"The concept of significance like no· o'ther in conservation.
archaeology is a constant source of frustration and inspiration"
{Schiffe·r and Gummerman 1979:239l. Th.e conc~pt. of. si,gnif.icance
as appl.ied t·.O an archaeological si te ref~r$ to the assessment of
value the resource contains to cititens of th~ State of
California and of the United States~ Sites. tt i. '~enerally
appraised in terms of scientific and cultural values.
The. site located on the Sea Pines property a:ppea'r to ·be a·n
ephemerally used campsite. Cortsidering the numb~rs of shell
present it may have only been used once or twice. Thi$ is of.
c.ourse conjectu~e based soley upon surface evidence. The: sit~
may well be part a system of si tes which are 10cateQ t6 th·e
south, east and north. The scientific va.Iue of· the mater:i.als may
be diminished by their havinq been impacted by plowing~ Th~
field inspection of the site would tend to· place the level of
impacts as severe. This judgement may be modif.ied based upon any
future tes·ting program. At the pres~nt time and based upon the
evidence at hand SDi-6750 appears to· have the poten.tlal t·o answer
only limited scientific questions.
-13-
IV. IMPACTS RESULTING FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The construction of dwelling units and roads on the Sea
Pines property may result in the loss of the site SDi-6750 as
described in Section III.
V. MITIGATING MEASURES
There are two basic ways of mitigating impacts to a cultural
resource. These include preservation or data salvage. Due to
the heavily impacted condition of the site, these actions may not
be required, therefore we are recommending that the level of
disturbance be verified. The following actions are recommen~ed~
1) Determine the extend of the shell scatter.
2) Collect the shell and stone artifacts.
3) Excavate one 1.5 meter by 1.5 meter test unit.
4) Catalog all recovered materials.
6) Prepare an addendum to the survey report which describes the
findings.
-14-
VI, Sources
Chace, P
1981 An· Archaeological and Paleontologic'al Su-rvey of the
Oce':iden'tal Land Inc." properties. On file with the.
County 9f San Diego
Cupplesj S,
1978 ' Cul.tural Resources Survey Report for Proposed San Marco'$.
County water District Sewap Interceptor pipelinE;:!. On
file with the County of San Diego
Fink., G',
197'6 Archaeolog,ical and Historical Overview-'E.:ncina Wate:t;
Po,llution Control Facility Service Area. On file· with the
Cqunty of San Diego
RE.:CON
19.75 Excerpt from: "Draft-Environmental Impact Report' for Pr.e .... ·
'zone and Annexation. On file with County of San Diego.'
WE-5TEC
1980 Regional Historic Preservat.ion· S'tudy: .. Eilo,t Area .su:r~ey.
Carlsbad Area, San Diego .. Cotlnty. VI Cult).l~Q.l Reso:urce
Inventory and Assessment. On file with County' .01= San iJieg.o
Crew Member's:
St'anley R, Berryman
Mary Lou :aeuett
..
a'r chaeolog, is:t: , field dire~t:or
archae.ologist .
APPENDIX
..
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CENTER
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND LElTERS
SAN DIEGO SrATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-0377
(714) 265-6300 . 265-6520
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES RECORD SEARCH· PROJECT
Source' of Request:
Date of Request:
Archaeological Consulting & Technology
5/17/82.
Date Request Received: '5/21/82
Project Identification:Sea Pines
( ) The San Diego State Universfty fi les show rio retorded sites \'trtnih.
the. project area nor within one mile of' the project .boundari:e$ .•
(-XX) The .. San. Diego State University files show recorded site locations'
w.i'thin the project area and/or within one mile of the projeGt •
. Record .check by __ ~K~ay~eii....U.M.L.j lu1 ... e.L.r ___ _ Date --~5/t..4;2,.1i1o.4i(-l./8~2_-~------
'The San Di'ego State University fil.es. show that the follow.ing archaeological
reports have been published on projects within one·. mile.ot·your proposed,
project.. .
PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED SHEET
Archi ve check by _ .... D ..... aJ-yl ..... e-.wC....,be ..... e .... v ..... e ..... r _______ _
"
Larr.YL Leach, Di rector
Cultural Resource Management Center
Department of Anthropology
Da te ----'-'S-42 .... Sr...-Srou2 ...... ___________ ___
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGES
SAN DIEGO MUSEU~Jl OF MAN
h-"1I~lIIiollll1, lIo"./WoM ~o,port#io,,-fOIl;,JeJ ill 191', ~ol· .
I.di", for poslnil, tIIIIJ Jisplaying th. lif. aIIJ hislDrY. of inttn.
REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL.SITE FILES RECORD SEARcH
Source of Request: Archaeological Consulting & Technology -Stan Berryman
Date-of Reque~t: 17 May 1982
Date~equ~st ReceiTed: 19 May 1982
Name of Project: Sea Pines
The Record Search for the aboTe referenced project was cOinple.ted on
~O May 1982. The project area map is returned' herewith" along with
archaeological site forms for the-foliowing sites:
W-84
W-88
W-89
w.. 95
W-97 w-98
W-IOO
W-IOI.
w-102
W-112
W-113
W-115
w-1670
w-187L
w-1872
W-1873-
-w-1875
W-1876
w-1877·
w-;J.878.,
w-1886 r
w-1887
w-1888 .
w-1889~_ .'
W-2044
w-2045
Wi.2046
'W-2541
W-2544
W-255l
W-2;5g
W .. 2553
In. addition, bibliographic information is £qcluded for the foliowing
EnTironmental. Impact Studies in the project vicinity:
EIS-3l EIS-146 EI$-240 .
Record S~arch by: Grace Johnson ~~".,. . .
. . .
~---' 20 May 1982 Signed::
1350 EI Prado, 8alboa Park, San Diego, California 92101, T~lephon~ (714) 239·2G0:1
Allrchaeolog ical
Consulting 8(
Technology
P.O.BOX 400
-------..
~~ EL CAJON CALIFORNIA 92022
II ' "" ~~~' ~~~~ , l'
trt3 .. d~
-<J(r-ifJ d!:9 [
I ---oIIIIIIIIII
· .
6695 CONVOY COURT
INSTITUTE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
October 12, 1982
A.T.I. No: 2-9-10.67
Standard Pacific of San Diego
p 7230 Cialremont Blvd
RE: jjater Analysis -
Sea Pines
San Diego, CA 92111
ATTN: Robert Allen
An analysis of drainage waters sampled August 29,' 1982
flowing westward through a willow growth located at the
south end of an open' area in the above project"idicates
the analytes in parts per million' of sample taken and of
maximums allowed by the State ,Department of Health for
drinking water.
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Sodium
Zinc
MangEmese
Chloride
Nitrate
Phosphate
Sulfates
(Ortho)
Sample
145
.19
2.4
49
178
ND
ND
160.
10.1
1.1
345
Alkalinity (total) 20.0.
Alkalinity {Bi-Carb)2o.o.
Total Dissolved
Solids 1146
pH Value 6.3
Conductivity mmh0 8& 1.79
Coliform MPN/IDo.ml ~ 240.0.
(see Attached report)
Maximum
~-
1
0.3
5
0..0.5
50.0.
45
50.0.
100.0.
1.60.
,<2
• I Standard Pacific Page 2 2-9...,1067
REMARKS:
1.) This area presents severe health hazard due to
excessive Coliform numbers found in these drainage
waters
2.) Recreation with the willow area and passage through
this area must be curtailed due to the health hazard
. present.
3. ) Coliform comprises a group of bacteria normally fO"!.lnd···
in decaying insect and animal matter and in waste
material excreated by humans, animals and incects.
Should you have any further questions concerning this report
please feel free to call me.
FJK/db
.'
• 'e GEOCON . ... . ........ .
'I NCO R P 0 RAT E D ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS • CONSULTANTS IN THE APPLIED EARTH SCIENC~S
File No. D-2743-MOl
December 28, 1982
~ndard Pacific-of San Diego, Incorporated'
7290 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard
San Diego, California 9Z111
,Attention:
Subject:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Doug Ledsam
SEA PINES
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
CONSULTATION
.At your request, an engineering geologist from our firm visited the site on
December 27, 1982 for the purpose of observing a low bluff occupying the.
central portion of the site. The purpose of our -observations were t6 form. '
an opinion as to the nature of the geologic materials. making up the bl~ff
and to obtain a sample for testing in the laboratory. Our observations
indicate this near-vertical bluff is composed of a red-brown Pleistocene
terrace deposits which consists of moderately well-cemented, medium:-to
fine-grained sandstone. Laboratory tests indicate that this sandstone is
cemented primarily by clay minerals. Upon exposure to water, this 'material
rapidly disintegrates to form a slurry of fine clay particles, Silt, and
sand. It is therefore our opinion that erosion of this material during
heavy precipitation could result in siltation of nearby street or building
pad improvements.
If 'you have any. questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to
give me a call at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
~~D
M~chael W. Hart
CEG 706
MWH:lm
(2) addressee
III 9530 DOWDY DRIVE • SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92126 • PHONE (714) 6.95~2880
, I
I I
•
SEA PINES
1. Analysis of existing relationship of Spinnaker Hill
lots as they relate to Sea Pines property
A. Spinnaker Hill grading plan
B. Outline of existing condition
2. Advantages and disadvantages of retaining willows
A. Defining potential advantages
B. Defining potential disadvantages
~
3. Objective: A site sensitive Sea Pines plan
A. In relationship to Spinnaker Hill
B. In relationship to Sea Pines
!
.'
'.\, .... ,/ .... • ANALYSIS OF EXISTING RELATIONSHIP OF SPINNAKER
.!!.!.b.!-LOTS WHICH BACK UP TO SEA P·INES
PROPERTY
,SPINNAKER HILL LOTS 1, 2t 3 2 4
1. These lots begin at Batiquitos Lane and run easterly on Daisy Avenue.
2. There are essentially no willows behind these lots.
3. Commercial traffic to Thompson Rose Nursery on temporary easement 20, to 100
feet north of rear yards. Traffic is fairly frequent and undesirable.
'4. Due to ease of access from Batiquitos Lane and easement, vaCant ground north
of rear yards is used,for illegal dumping by public. Some trash dumping over
6 foot rear Spinnaker Hill fences by some homeowners is obvious.
5. Rear property lines are approximately 5 feet south of existing fence.
6. Rear yards are lower than the top of existing fence(i.e."no view, from yard) -
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
14 'feet
9 feet
7 feet
7 feet
SPINNAKER HILL LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8 2 9, 10
i. Willows are approximately 60' to 120' north of rear fence.
2. Rear property lines are at bottom of rear 6'to 7 foot high slope. Rear
property lines are 6 to 12 feet south of rear fence.
3. Rear yards are very low in relationship to top of rear fence due t~ high bank
which is owned by Standard Pacific (i.e., no view from yard)
Lot 5 -12 feet lower
Lot 6 13 feet lower
Lot 7 13 feet lower
Lot 8 13 feet lower
Lot 9 13 feet lower
Lot 10 -12 feet lower
4. By walking the fence line behind the Spinnaker Hill lots, it would appear the
willows generally cannot be seen from the rear yards.
5. It also appears that two-story homes built approximately on existing grade in
Sea Pines typically could not be seen from Spinnaker Hill rear yards.
-2-
SPINNAKER HILL LOTS 11, 12 aild 13
1. v1i11ows have grown to within 10' to 15' of rear fence.
2. .Rear fence is within few feet of existing grade.
3. . ,OJ;le Spinnaker homeowner has cut willows back apparently due to fire hazard
they present.
4. If willows were. cut back to 50' from wood fe~ce, approximately half of the
willows in this area would be removed. Regrowth would be a problem.
5. Acacia. longifo1ia planted now on Standard Pacific's property north of fence
would achieve a 12-foot height within two years well in advanc~ of occupancy
of Sea Pines homes.
6. The willows are a fire hazard behind lots 11, 12 and 13. Acacia would not be.
7. During the last several years, the willows have often been used by illegal
aliens as a temporary campsite. It is probably not desirable to have an area
attractive to illega1s close to single-family residences. Numerous rat nests
are also evident in the willows.
i I'
" . ••
11-18-82
SEA PINES
YARDAGE COMPARISONS
. TOTAL .. TOTAL TOTAL C.Y.! C.Y.!
D .• U~'s ACRES C.Y. D.U. ACRE
Spinnaker Hill 307 +80 750,000 2,445 9,375 .
Quail Ridge 225. ·100.5 800,000 3,555 .7,960
~ea Pines -Old TM 460 83.15 625,000 '1,360 7,515
Sea Pines -New Map 580 83.15 450,000(7) 775 5,410
;II
II
WILLOWS
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANT4GES
ADVANTAGES
1. Visual buffer for Spinnaker homes (?)
(Review proposed Sea Pines plan and cross sections)
2.' Potential side benefit of active or passive recreation open space, area ,
for Sea Pines
DISADVANTAGES
1. Dave Thompson comments (adjacent nursery owner)
a. Tremendously messy ' airborne seeds
b. High maintenance problem, weak limbed
c. Illegal aliens
2. Not a natural environment
a. vli110ws are result of one greenhouse business:t are nonexistent in
other much'larger drainage courses and basins in ,the area
b. Water is polluted with coliform bacteria and other pollutants
(see report)
c. Water color is not natural looking
3. Practicality of providing for permanency of willows is' questi.on'ab1e
a. Willows are not drought resistant
b. Willows are flourishing due to da;i1y concentrated supply of fertilized
runoff water; would partially or fully die out if water supply is cut
back or terminated
c. Primary root systems are in sandstorre. Alluvial material is normally
associated with willows in natural drainag.e cours'es. A1;t.uv'ium holds
water, sandstone does not,
d. Willows are dependent on one greenhouse business for their wat~r.
e. Days are numbered for greenhouse businesses in area, many have gone out
of business
1. Escalating energy costs
2. Escalating labor costs
3. Escalating water costs
4. Competition from areas not impacted by local costs
-2-
4. Should homeowners association be required to maintain willows in present
condition(in spite of water conservation measures being adopted by govern-
ment agencies)if water supply is terminated? -
a. Will future water costs be prohibitively expensive?,
1. Current water requirement of willows is estimated at $4,700/year
2. City estimates 400% water cost.increase within eight years, i.e.,
to $20,000+ for willow irrigation
3. City estimates 1600% water cost increase within the following ten
years, i.e., to $80,000 for willow irrigation.
b. Would Sea Pines homeowners iesist a substantial increase in their fees
to water willows?
c. Would it be prac,tical for City to enforce a condition ,that Association
irrigate trees?
d. Would Sea pjnes homeowners want to pay for picking up trash and general
maintenance for an area more associated with Spinnaker Hill than Sea
Pine~?
'5. Attractive area or attractive nuisance?
a. Dense shrub like growth vs. more desirable oak and sycamore areas in
Carlsbad
b. With higher number of children in area dense growth ,could provide a
major supervision problem
c. Standing water creates potential liability for property owner
d. Trees very inviting to kids to cook out, dam up ~d play in water,
etc. -during dry season, trees WQuld be -fire hazard.
l
•
SEA PINES
SITE SENSITIVE ISSUES
AT SPINNAKER HILL BOUNDARY
Patip homes are compatible with Spinnaker. They are more compatible than
the duplexes proposed under the old tentative map. Townhomes are t9 be
located 'north of Poinsettia Lane and only patio homes will be south of
Poinsettia. This is done to provide a logical transition of housing types
in the neighborhood.
The proposed plan is sensitive to the existing topography adjacent to
Spinnaker. The street and lots are at daylight (see map) with the natural
terrain.
~ The plan is sensitive to the visual privacy of the Spinnaker homes because
the existing"-fence and slope which typically provide 100% visual privacy,
will remain.
The immediate planting. (within 30 days) of acacia trees behind the Spinnaker
fences will, by the time people move into the new Sea·Pines homes, provide
a better visual buffer and sense of privacy than the willows.
The plan proposes deep backyards for those patio homes abutting Spinnaker;
Hill, yards that are both deeper than the standard Sea Pines yard and the
typical abutting Spinnaker rear yard.
Standard Pacific plans to meet with Spinnaker homeowners prior to submi~tal
of the tentative map to the City in order to explain the development plan
for their immediate area and cross sections. Homeowners will be offered land
at no cost to them so that the rear property line can.be placed at the top of
slope.
All of these measures go beyond the commitment Standard Pacific made to our
Spinnaker Hill homeowners when we originally sold them their homes.
POOR
QUALITY
ORIGINAL S
) ~.' ,.
I.
j . I .~ / . r:: l. ...• c.,-o..~ {'y\;'..;;' '.-;" •
(
Update of the Sea Pines Archaeo.1ogica1 .
Study: Significance Testing on SDi-6749/SDMM~W~1813' ":
Prepared for:
Standard Pacific of S~.n Diego -
7290C.il.airemont Blvde
l
..
San Diego, California 92111 .
" .'
prepared by:
TerraMar I.nternationa1. ('TMI)
5312. Sanks St.
San Diego, California ·921'rO
May 1983
Stanley Ro BerrYman
.. "
tTl1-'-
ass@! 1f~'ei5 J
Table of Contents
I .. Introduction ", 1
...:
II. Background & 6
III. Fieldwork .' .' 7·
IV .. Site Recommendations • .. . 11
v. References 13
'. 1-'"
I
Ii. -:A_ ,_ • ~
"0
." n -"ft -n.
o
o
m
')I
~
"1. /11,,., •• "
t.. JoJ.
'. • "M"., ..
TM/Terra;Marinte~natl(Jna'.~R.;~~~
• S.t'rtJO
OcofilJ" Mel.
'N.
"
PROJECT AREA" MAP Figure 1
' .
.r
..
I. Introduction
The Sea Pines Parcel, an eighty acre parcel 'located in .the
City of Carlsbad (figure 1), was first studied in'May of 1982
by Archaeological Consulting and Technology (~CT) in orqer to
determine the presence/absence of cultural resource materials.
The results of this survey were positive in that one shell
and lithic scatter was noted in the southeast corner of
the property (Berryman 1982). Mitigating recommendations cited
in the 1982 report called out for some type of ,subsurface ..
testing. A significance test was conducted in May of 19:8:3
by staff members from TerraMar International, (TMI) and will
be detailed in this report. Results of the current studY indi.,..
cated that the site is no longer a viable resource and that no
further testing be required 0
A. Location and Topographic Setting
Sea Pines is an eighty acre parcel located in the northea~t
one-quarter of Section 28, Townsl:ip 12, South, 'Range 4 West" of '
the San Bernardino Base and Meridi~n Quadran~ (figure 21.
Site plans for the area callout for the building'of'r~~idential
dwellings and all related circulation streets.' Specially" ,the'
parcel is located 2,500 feet east of',th~ iriter~ecti6n of·'
Poinsettia Lane and" Int;erstate 5 and I 1/2 mile,s nor,th of
Batiquitos Lagoon. Sea Pines is bounded on' the north and east
by agricultural land, on the south by a'residential development,
and on the west by relatively unaltered. land. Farming .activit-ies
, . , have been carried out within the entire eighty acres; with
irrig,ation channels and plow furrows the main topographic
and man-made features evident.
--
i , .
0 0 0 .., -~ '.
N
...-f
TMI TerraMar Internatlo·nal·
.... VIC •• tNC.
-2-
Figur~ 2
.-"
; . . / '
~-..,. • I
....
~.
-~ . ... ---........ -' .'
",.,-"''-..-''
L:A
!,,-.' .... \ ;i "-\ " . ..-. .. .\ \ J'; '" .. ..; ~ . ,
'" . ~ ~ . .... .. . \ . "
SEA PINES
..
Topographically, the project is located on the western slopes
of a generally north/south trending ridge. The prope~ty slopes
from east to west with elevation ranging from a high, of 220
feet above mean sea level (amsl) to a low of l15feet~. Sea··
Pines. is heavily dissected by at least six east/west erosion
gUllies. These gullies are approximately 100 t6 200f.eet a'¢ross"
with relatively steep sides. The greateste~osion activity is in
the southwest corner. The pattern of erosion may have been
facilitated by agricultural activities which tookplac~ on
the property in the paste
B. Soils
Recorded soils on the Sea Pines property are made up of two. types,:
the Chesterton Series and the Rugged Broken Land Series (figure 3) .•
These are defined by Bowman (1.973) as:'-' '.
Chesteron Series: soil consists of moderately well, drained
sandy loams that have a sandy sub-soil. They have-'
been formed in placed by the wea,thering of, und~:t;.lying·· .....
sandstonee Color ranges from ~rown. (lOYR 5/3) to·a '
very pale bro_wn {lOYR 7/4) _ . . . . -' ... ,. .... . ".
Rugged Broken Land Series: soil consists.of well-drained to'
excessively drained, steep and very s·teep land
dissected by mand v-shaped valleys.'
C. Vegetation
The flora noted during the 1982 survey consisted of plants'
typical of disturbed or disrupted atea .. Vegetatio~ patterns'
noted during the 1983 study were the same" wit-h ·thi.ck stands of
mustard. dense grasses and fQxtails. Some nati~e vegetatiOn·
is present around the edge~ of the gullies and in the southwest
corner of the property. These plants would include sumac
-3:-
(Rhus sp~), buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) I and small
stands of chamise (Adenstoma fasciculatum.).Genera].lyl' it
can be said that the vegetation is highly disturbed and varied
from extremely dense to moderately dense'. ' The level of weeds
(foxtails, grasses, e'tc.) on the parcel prohibited are-survey
of the parcel.
De Fauna
Fauna noted during the 1982 survey included jackrabbits
(Lepus californicus), doves (Zenaidura macroura), quail
(Lophortyr gambeli), hawk (Butea sp.) and a coyote (Canis
latrans), via scato No fauna was noted during ·the significance
testing of the property.
-4-
•• j.
•
SOILS MAP
T.rr ••• r Internatl.Qnal.SRYlc ••
Ille. 1MI Figure
3
-5-··
II. Background
As the 1982 report listed, a number of shell midden u small "
campsites and lithic scatters are recorded for the general
area around Batiquitos Lagoon. 'Most of these sites' corl:tain
some degree of shell and represent past use of the 'lagoon
resources. One site, W-1873, was recorded as being 'on
the Sea Pines property (see record search p appendix} .. , rrhis
site was described as a shell midden, located just north of
a di,rt road that connects the greenhouses and Batiqui tos , '
Drive. Approximate measurements were given as 75 x, 60 meters;,
with site size expanded via erosional activities_, It was
this site that was described within the 1982 ACT report.
The 1982 survey stated that W-1873: n was situated on the sj~de
of a small knoll just north of the gravel access road" (Berryman . ,
1982:ll).1t The site was described as being approxiInately 60
meters northeast/s'outhwest, by 20 meters northjlest!southea,st.'
These measurements were considered erroneous, because of
past site smearing (via farming) and erosic:>ncil activities.'"
The pattern of plowi~g noted'during the 1982 'study indicated
that furrows occured up and down the ridges, rather than across-'
thus increasing the overall, displacement of artifacts/shel.l.
Soils within the site matrix were described as :a.:very p~le
brown sandy loam, approximately 1/2 to' 01:le m'e'ter dee:p. "'S.ite,,
matrix consisted of a light scatter of chione, and pectin,
with approximately 5-10 fractured stone items~
-6-
'.
III. Fieldwork
A significance test was carried out on the Sea Pines Pr-operty
on May 20th, 1983. The testing 'program involved:
1) relocating the shell scattered
2) flagging areas of artifact/shell con'centration '.
3) surface inspection of the entire site area
4) excavation of a single 1 x 1 meter unit to sterile sub-
soil
5) excavation of radially placed post~ole series
6) analysis of recovered cultural materials
As 'stated in the introduction, this' testing program. was
carried· out to determine cultural integrity.and to' .define
vertical and hortizontal depth.
. _. ~
Twenty':'"'three posthole units were placed in areas of heavies·t
shell concentration. Each unit was manually excavated t~
the sterile sandstone base and tested for cultural ~aterials;
Posthole units placed within the s.i te area can be sununarized as!
(figure 4)
Posthole Unit
Al
A2
A3
A4
AS
A6
A7
AS
81
82
83
84
B5
Depth
26cm
22
23
23
18
21
28
17
27
23
22
22
19
Soil Coloration.
lOYR 7/4
"
II
" ... ..
" ..
lOYR 7/3
lOYR 7/4
It
If'
"
-7-
Artifact/ecofacts .
. she;U
It
"
11
I"
."
o
o
shell· ." . ..
"
" .-.....
..
Posthole Unit
C1
Depth
24cm
Artifact/ ~cofact,~
shell
C2 21
C3 16
'C4 22
01 25
02 28
03 30
04 19
05 19
, 06 21
11
" It
10YR
" 10YR
It
" II
7/3
7/4
II
II,
n
shell
' If '
If': '
n'
.. rr
II
','
Posthole units were placed on east/west and north/s,outh rays,
at 2 meter intervals (figure4)b Placement, of these units
were in areas of shell concentration' and what was considered
"minimUm I. agricultural disturbanceo All units were manually,
excavated to the sandstone base and ra~ged in depth between
16 amd 26cm. No lithic items were 'found in :tll.e' unit,s, altho~g'h
all but two contained some 'evidence'of shell.,' Soil coloration
was uniformly l~ght brown in ~olor'" ,with 'a yellowish-brown .'
sandstone found at the bot'tom. Inspec't'io~ of ,the topographic
features for the proper'ty indi,ca te, 'tha,t much of the top level
:" ....
of soils was removed or' pushed around during agricultural: '
activities. Many of the ,plow ridges' are'15~2?cm'high~ ieaving'
,only Scm of "undisturbed or natural": soils. Results of the',
excavated postholes indicate that no $ubsur.face·, depth remains
of the site.
A single one meter by 'one meter excavation u,hi.t ,was' place,d '.
,within an area of heavy surface she~l.,; '!'his unit was e~cavated
in' stratigraphic lOcm levels', wi.th all ,soi·ls, passed .thr~~gh
l/~f"" screen~ Results of the unit· .~J:;'e: ...
-8-,·
~
-., .
~ .
O-lOcm
lO-20cm
20-30cm
soils light brown in color, sandy loams;, level
highly disturbed via plowing
soils light brown in color f, sandy loams; level
highly disturbed via plowing
slight change in soil compaction, indurat~on,and
coloration. Numerous rodent run? are noted with~n
the floor of the unit-again indicating a, great
deal of soil disturbance and churnin'g' ,
A single stone flake was recovered in the 'lO-20cm level.
Ecofactual remains were limited to highly fractured sheil:
O-lOcm
10-20cm
20-30cm
Totals
chione
pecten'
unknown
chione
pecten
protothaca
unknown
chione
pecten
protothaca'
osyter
unknown
O-lOcm
10-20cm
20-30cm
, 1.'Sgm
4,.-2
'1.'2
3 ,,;: 3 grn:
4.8
0'0,5
1.'1 '
2.'9
3,.-1 '
1;0
0,.2"
l~'O
6,.9g~
9.7gm
8.2gm
21.8%
60.a
, 11.4 '
'34.1%'
49.S
5.,1
11 .. 3
35.4%
37.8
12.,2
2,.4
14.-2
The overall distribution of shellfiSh is evenly distributed'
thro~ghout the test ,unit, indicating"that mixi~g of the strata
is .likely. Chione and pec'ten were "~~e" ~o~~nan~' .. spe'cies ;: ',' " , : " '
with limited amounts of oyster and pro'tothaca 'st'ami'nea rec6vered~ ,:'
Inspection of the surrounding surface revealed no other ,lithic
-. . . ~ -,' . -. . ---~ " . ~.
. " , '
materials, ,expect for 2-3 fractured rock. These ,were ,taken back.': ,: .,;,
-9-
" .
for· laboratory inspection, and were later discarded because
they were non-artifactual in nature.
..
•
IV. Site Recommendations
The shell recorded as SDMM-W-1873 was evalu,ated 'using cri'teri-a .
set forth by the County of San Diego ',(Environmental Division) ..
These include integrity, regional aspect, variability of the
resource, ethnic value, site type represented,.' and research ,.'
potential (see appendix). Results of the 1982 and 1983 studies
" ' .. indicate that this resource has been badly damaged by farming
and erosional activities. Subsurface testing indicate a, very
limited subsurface smear of shellfish. Specific cr~teria
evaluations made for this site are listed as: '
1) integrity: site contains a light scatte,r of surface
and subsurface shell, with few artifactua1 evide~ce.,
Past f~rming has dissected the site severely and
has increased the, normal ,erosi~nal activity patt.eJ;'n. , ..
2) regional aspect: this site is located within the general
Batiquitos Lagoon exploitation area, an area well'
documented for prehistoric and historic use. This
particular site may represent one-time useage of ~
family or household in their daily 'foraging pattern.
Since no firehearths, areas of heavy lithic'or she11
scatters were noted within the matrix, no evidence "
of long term occupation was noted at ,W-1873.
3) variability: site represents a single comporient-a
shell smear
4) ethnic value: no diagnostic artifacts were ree:overed to ' '
determine cultural affiliation, time of useage or, ,
purpose of site. Questions Of who,' ~hat or 'wtieri 'can, "
not really be addressed with the limited base present
at W-187J
5) site type: 'site probably repr,ese,nts 'one::"time. Q,r short'
useage by-small househOld; no long term ,occupation was
varified.
-11-
, ,
,;
•
6) research potential: site represents a light scatter/
smear of seashell, maximum depth of 30cm, with
heavy damage from past farming and current erosional
activities. Questions of who, what or whe'n? are
difficult to address with the recovered materials.
Using the rating scale developed by the-County, this -site
--would have a rating of 0.5 (see appendix). Because o~ the
low potential of site integrity and n? research potential, it-
is recommended that no further testing be carr~ed out within
the Sea Pine Parcel.
-12-
V. .References Cited
Berryn:tan, S.
1982 Results of an Archaeological Surv~y .. ~f Sea Pin~s,
Carlsbad, California. On file with the City Qf.
Carlsbad; prepared for Standard ~acific of San Diego.
Crew Members:
Stanley R. Berryman
Judy A. Berryman
Randy Hawkins
.-.
graphics
-13-
--
•
...
Appendix
,., .
'Criterion #1
Integrity·
AOCHAEOLCGICAL SITE EVAWATION CRITERIA
A site which is physically intact, in whole or part and is reasOnably similar
to the condition it was when last used by the aboriginal culture, . is sa~dto.
have maintained its optimum integrity. This also includes integrity of the
environmental setting of the area in the vicinity of the site •.
Ratings for Integrity Category
1 = lack of context of artifacts.
9 = no damage by human agency, but natural agency. may have caused damage.
10 = no disturbance; either by natural or human agency.
An Example
Pothunting obviously disturbs the physica~ integrity of a' s~te. To deal with.'
this, we have determined that if 10% of the defined surface midden area of a .
site has been pothunted, one point is lost on the integrity scaleiif 20% has
been pothunted, t....o points . are lost ( and so on). .
Criterion #:2
'~egional Aspects
A site which is unique to its physical setting as the only or one of the few
sites representative of a particular site type in a particular l¢a1e', or ~
area where site attrition is-high, an area where resource base is scarce, ..
or a site which does not fit into the generally accepted pattern ....ould be
recognized as sites which rate high on the geographical aspects scale as would
site systems. .
Ratings for Regional Aspects Category
l' = areas where there is a well established resource base, a·site which does
fit into the. general pattern, or an area where site attrition is. low. . ....
10 = areas where· there is a pearly established resource base, a site' which dbes
not fit into the general pattern, or an area where site attrition is high.
-2-I .j
Criterion #3
Variability of the Resource
'!his category is canp:::>sed of the following parts: variety, quantity, and depth" ,-
and also includes multi and single component sites. By variety, M? mean a sita .-
Which contains a full range of representative artifacts or features.. Quantity .--, ,
means that a site must p::lssess a range of frequency and density of cultural -
remains. Depth refers to a distinctive stratigraphic record which mos~ often
indicates a longer period of occupatione . ,
Ratings of Variability of the Resource Category
1 -10 = a site which bas no midden depth, a small quantity 6f artifacts, and
a harcgeneity of cultural debris to the complete opposi.te condition.
Criterion #4
Ethnic Value
A site or general area which has special significnace to a Native American group~_
'for whatever reason, is said to have ethnic valueo This will be evaluated by' ,
representatives frem the local Native American !=Opulation,. by special arrangeme..'1t .. , '
If for sane reason, Native Americans fail to respond, this category will have
to be evaluated by the consulting archaeologist,.
Ratings for Ethnic Value Category
Does the site have ethnic value? 0 = no 10 = yes; if II no " p].ease provide an "
explanation for your rationale: include Indian observer's statement~
Criterion #5
Site TyPe Represented
Certain s~tes,contain features which , may be,of interpretive and/or educational
value to the general public. A site with milling features, rock walled
structures, pictographs, petroglyphs, or a historical structure are examples
, of such sites. '!hese could be incorp::lrateq into outdoor museums and incotp::lrated
into open space parks for public use. A site .may also ,have aesthetic significance
according to the values of the individual citizen. . ,
Ratings for Site Type Represented Category .. ,: , ' ,
o = site possesses no features
10 = site poss~sses substantial features.
Criterion ~6
Research Potential (Based on Testing)
on the basis of surface artifacts and/or subsurface testing procedures, the
opportunity for scientifi,c study of a particular aspect of the culture precess
involves a site's research t::atentiaL Sites which represent new insights into
any number of research questions would rank higher on this scale. The following,
are suggested areaS in which t::atential studies Cgnbe 'rrade:
" «
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 integrity x
2 regional x
3 variability x
4 ethnic x
5 site type x ' ,
6 research x
7
8
I
8 -10 Testing/preserve or Maximum (40% excavation) Recovery . '
4 -7 Possible Preservation and/or Testing and Recovery
, ,
\
--
o -3 Data Recovery to the Satisfaction of the Environmental Analysis Div~sion
Consultant's Reccmmendation: ____ E_v_a_l_u_a_t __ i_o_n __ o_f __ O __ .S __ i __ S_i_g_n_i_f_~~·c_,a_n __ c_e ____ _
testing indicated no subsurface concentration,. No
lithic artifacts recovered, site: contains ,light smear
of chione, clam and mscl. shell. No further testing
is recommended for area.
.','
<,-
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
OF THE
SEA PINES SITE,
CARLSBAD
prepared for
~taQdacd Pacifkc of San Diego
7290 Clai";:-emont fvlesa Blvd., San Di-ego, Ca. 92111
prepared by
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.
835 E. 8th St., National City, Ca. 92050
20 May 1982
,
..
'.(.' .
INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Sea Pines property is located northeast of the corner of Po i nsett i a
Lane and Batlquitos Drive in Carlsbad (Figure 1). The property \'las recently
c I eared and has grow n to weedy vegetat Ion. Sma I I patches of scrub hab I tat
occur in a fe'l' locations, usually in association \'lith the remnant eroded 51,opes
on the property. The land Is generally flat to.gentry sloping, with the
E:xception of the slopes H1E:ntioned above, and higher terrain occurs immediatefy
to the \'lest am! east. Elevation ranges from approximately 110 to 230 feet, a
rei i e·f of 120 feet. Sha II ow dra; nage rav i nes occur across the property. D i"rt
roads occur in several locations.
The I and to the north and east is cu I ti"vated, \'l hi I e that to the south is
covered by a resioentlal development. To the west, a narrow strip of disturbed
scrub vegetation, followed by cultivated fields, separates the prop.erty from
Interstate 5. The Chesterton so; Is and eroded slope areas overl ie Eocene and
PI'eistocene marine terrace deposits of the site.
!4'IETHODS AND SURVEY L I 1",11 TAT IONS
A zoological survey of the property \'las conducted by Stephen J. Montgomery
on 27 Aprl I (1615-1920) and 4 May 1982 (1700-1800). ~/eaTh'er on 27 April"
consisted of scattered clouds and fog, a moderate breeze and an air temperature
of 70° F. at 1630. Weather on 4·r .. lay consisted of scattered clou·ds, a 51 ight·
breeze and an a I r temperature of 63 0 F. at 17 00. The ant i re prop'erty \'I"as
covered on-foot using 7x35 binoculars to aid in identification of o~served
species. Some unobserv~d species were detected by indireCT means.
The botan i cal i nvesti gati on of the 'property was made on 4 Nay 1982 by R.
ffJ'itchel Beauchamp •. The on-foot survey covered all naturally vegetated portions
of the prop Grty.
Nomenc I ature used in th i s report is f rom the follow i ng sources:
vegetation, Thorne (1976); flora, Munz (1974) or' more recent treatments;
amphibians and rapti les, Coil ins et al .(1978>; birds, A.O.U. (1957-76); and
mammals, .Jones et al (1975).
BOTANY
,
Rece~t vegetation clearing has destroyed mOST of the native vegetation on-
site. Onl.y steep slope areas which were avoided by brushing equipment sti 11
retain native plant cover (Figure 2). The site was previously examined by Mr.
Beauchamp In 1977 in conjunction with a Coastal Commission permit heariAg. At
that time the site was covered 'tilth Coast iHxed Chaparral and Coastal S·qge
Scrub. The observed flora of the site (Table 1) sti II refle~ts this"
vegetat Ion, but "a I so inc I udes m any non-nat i ve ann ua lsi n the c I eared areas.
Ru·noff from the adjacent eastern greenhouse operation is adequate to support
two areas of ri par I an growth on the property. ..
. The riparian vegetation on-site grO\'/s in response to chemical fertil izer-
contaminated irrigation runoff from the adjacent greenhouse facil Ity.Clearing
'of vegetati on j n prev i ous years inc I uded the area now occup ied by one of the
growths of \'I i Ilo\'ls (Sal ix lasiolepis). The second \'I i Ilow stand of three trees
does have cat-tails (TyphaQQw.lng.ueosis) associated \'lith j-!-. This stand is
also responding to irrigation runoff. Because of the recency of these aquatic-
< ••
\ 'I. " .
Paciflc Southwest
Biological Services
Figure 1. Vi ci n i ty I',lap of the Sea Pi nes Site, Car I sbad
(Source: USGS Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, Ca.)
'\ ':
. ~ .. -,"j"
" \
",', .
~ .... \
\ ,I' \ 21 ' '..' '\
'. ".
'; "
\ " , \
1 f .'~
j' : * ...
• ~ 1
Figure 2.
I burrow _,:':rge r.lamma
Vegetation
Significant
Features
#.
.-"b'lel '~arsh Hawk Nesting ,-'-I:::>SI I *
Ri pari an
- t I Sage Scrub ·;o.aS a
~oast IvJi xed' Chaparral
Disturbed
'. ;,Qotb liS vern;':cosus
o
v
and
~nldlife
(:)50'
Table 1. A Floral Checkl ist of the Sea Pines site
DICOTYLEDONEAE
AIZOACEAE .,. Carpet-IYeed Farni Iy
*GasQul crystall;nuDl (L.) Rotm. Crystal leeplant
ANA CARD I ACEAE -Sumac F aill i I Y
Ma I osma I aur i'na (Nutt.) Nutt ex Abrarns. Laure I Sumac
~ i ntegr j fol i &! U,jutt.) Benth & Hook. Lemonadeberry
AP I ACEAE ... Carrot F am i I Y
Daucus, pus j II us f;,J i chx. Ratt I esnake-Weed
Tausch; a qrguta-JT. & G.) i;Jcbr. Southern Tausch i a
ASTERACEAE -Sunflower Farni Iy
Ambrosia psjlostachya var. cal jfornica (Rydb.) Blake. ,Western Ragweed
Igrtemisia cal jfornjca Less. Coastal or Cal ifornia Sagebrush
Bacchar i s pi I u I ar j s ssp. coosang u i nea (DC.) C. B. \'10 If. Coyote-Bush,
*Centaur$a melitensis L. Tocalote or Star-Thistle
Chaengctjs glabrjuscula var. tenuit-ol ja (Nutt.) Hall'. San Diego Pincushion
Clrsjuw occjdentqle (Nutt.) Jeps. Cobweb Thistle
*Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Horseweed
~ coulteri Gray. Coulter's Fleabane
CorethroQyne t'jlaginjfolja var. vjrgata (Benth.) Gray. Virgate Cudweed-Aster
Encel fa cqlffocnica Nutt. Cal ifornia Encel ia
Ecjophyl lum confertiflorum (DC.) Gray var.' cOQfertjflorum.
Longstem Golden Yarrow
*F j I'ago ga I I j ca L. Narrow leaf F i I ago
Gnaphalium bicoloC Siolettl. Blcolor Cudweed .a... palusirenNutt. Lowland Cudweed
Haplopappus sQl:!&!rrosus ssp. grindel joides (DC.) I<eck! 'Sawtooth Goldenbush
Hemlzonia fasciculata (DC.) T. & G. Golden TaFweed ,
*H}/'PQchaeris glabr&! L. Smooth Catfs-Ear
Mjccoseris I loearifol ia (DC.) Sch.-Bip. Silver-puffs
*$oDchus aspru: (L.) Hill. Prickly SOI'i-Thlstle
Siephaoomerja vjrgata Benth. Virgate Wreath-Plant
BORAGINACEAE -Sorage Family
Crypiantha miccomeres (Gray) Greene. r'/tinui-e-flower Cryptantha
Plagiobothrys cal jfornjca (Gray) Greene var. cal jfornjcus.
Cal ifornia PopcornfloVier
BRASS ICACEAE -j',1ustard Fami Iy
~·8'rass i Co geo i cu lata Wesf.) J. Ba II. Short-pod r·lustard
*Raphanus saiivu~ L. Wild Radish
*Sisymbr;um .lclo' L. London-Rocket
CACTACEAE -Cact us F am i I Y ,
Qpunt i a: H ttara n 5 (Enge I rn.) Ck I I. var. I j ttora lis. Coasta I Prl cl, I y-Pear
CAPPARACEAE -Caper Farni Iy
CleOlla isomerjs Greene. Bladderpod
CAPRI FOLIACEAE ..., Honeysuckle Farni Iy
Sambucus m~xicana Presl. Elderberry
CARYOPHYLLACEAE ~ Pink Family
Gard·jonema ramosjssjmum Cl1einm.) Nels. (5. Macbr. Beach Sand-Mat
*Sjleoe gal I;ca L. Common Catchfly
*Spergu I a qrvens i 5 L. Corn Sp'urry
CHENOPODIACEAE -Goosefoot Farni Iy
*Atripl~ semjbaccqta R. 8r. Brected Saltbush
><-,CheoopQdi urn album L. Lamb I 5 Quarters
*~ ambrosjojde~ L. r·lexican-Tea
*~ mura I.sl L. Nettl e-I eaf Goosefoot
*Sals6ta jberiGa~ennen & Pau. Russian Thistle
CISTACEJ\E -Rock-Rose Farni Iy
Hel jantbemuft) scoparjum var. ~Idersonji (Greene) Nunz. Alderson's Rush-Rose
CRASSULACEAE -Stonecrop Family
.Qrassula ereGtQ (H. & A.> Berger. Dwarf Stonecrop
DUdleya lancBolata (Nutt.) Britt. & Rose. Lanceleaf Dudleya
CUCURBITACEAE -Gourd Farni Iy
('.-jarah rnQGroGarpus (Greene) Greene. 11 i I d Cucumber or Cucc;lmonga ~1an-Root
FABACEAE -Pea Family
Lotus sGoparius (Nutt.·~in T. & G.> Ottley ssp. sGoPQrjus. Broom Deerweed.
*tvleljlotus ;ndjcus (L.) All. Yellow Sweet-Clover
FAGACEAE -Beech Family
Quercu=l-,·dumosa Nutt. .Cal iforn i a Scrub~Oak
GENTIANACEAE -Gentian Family
Centaurium venustum (Gray) Rob. Canchalagua
GERAN I ACEAE -Geran I um Fam I I Y
*Erod j urn d cutar j urn (L.) L' Her. Red-stem F i I aree
Geranium Garoljnlaourn L. Carol Ina Geranium
HYDROPHYLLACEAE -i'later I eat F am i I Y
Eriodictyon Grassifol ium Benth. Thick-leaf Verba-Santa
Eucrypta Ghrysaothemifol ia (Banth.) Greene var. Ghrysanthemifolja~
Common Eucrypta
PhaGel ja grandjflora (Santh.) Gray. Large-flower Phacetfa.
LAl41ACEAE -141 nt Fami Ii
Salvia mel lifer~ Greene. Black Sage
Mi\LVACEAE -f,la II ow Fam i I Y
jQalacoThamnus fQsGiGulatus (Nutt.) Greene var. fasC;cu'latus.
r,lesa Shrub-·G I obemall 0\'/
NYCTAGINACEAE -Four O'Clock Family
f.1·jrabj I is cal ifornica Gray var. Gal ifocnica. Ca.1 ifornia ~1ishbone-Bush
ONAGRACEAE -Evening Primrose Family
Camissooia mjcqwtha (Hornem. ex Spreng.) Raven. Miniature Evening Primrose
POLH10N IACEAE -Phlox Fami Iy
Nayarretia hamata Greene. Hook Navarretia
POL YGOi'IACEA&: -Buckw heat F am i I Y
Chop i zoathe cor j acea Goodm. Sp i ne'Y lower
ErjQgooum-tasdculatum Benth. ssp. fascjculatum. Flattop Buckwheat
Rumex cr;spus. L. Curly Dock
.pR !i"jULACEAE -Pr imrose Faro I Iy
*Anagal tis aryensis L. Scarlet Pimpernel-
P-HM1NACEAE -Buckthorn F am i I Y
Ceanotbu'S verrucosus Nutt. in T. & G. Coast White-lilac
ROSACEAE -Rose Faroi Iy
Adenostoma tascjculatum H. & A. Chamise
Heteromeles arbutitol ;a (Ait.) M. Roem. Toyon
RUBIACEAE -Madder Fam i I Y
Gal I urn aparioe L. Annual Bedstraw
SALICACEAE -WI II ow Fam I I Y
Salix 'asiolepis var. brgcelinae 8all. Arroyo ~lil-Io\., -_
'!
SCRo.PHULARIACEAE -Flgwort Family
Ant1erhlnum nuttallianum Benth. In DC. Nuttall's Snapdragon
Corcjylahthus til Ifolius Nutt. ex 8enth. in DC. Narrowleaf Bird's-8eak
Llnarja.~canad§nsis var. texana (Scheele) Penn. Texas Toadflax
i"lImyl·us (Djplac;us) punjceus (Nutt. Steud. Red-bush Monkeyflower
SOLANACEAE -Nightshade Fami Iy
*N;cotjang glauca Grah. Tree Tobacco
.Solanum OQdifiorum Jacq. White Nightshade
b.. parish;; Heller. Parish's Nightshade
URTICACEAE -Nettle Family
*Urti~· ueens L. Dwarf Nettle
AGAVACEAE -Agave FamilV
IvJONOCOTYL EDONEAE
Yuccr;) sch;digera Roezl ex Ortiges. j,lojave Yucca
AI',iARYLLJDACEAE -Onion Farni Iy
Dichelostemmq 12ulchel lum (Sal isb.) Heller. Blue Dicks
IRWACEAE -I rl s Farn i Iy'
Sisyriochium .Q.sLli!.illl ~¥ats. Cal itornia Blue Eyed-Grass
JUNCACEAE -Rush F am i I Y
JuncY;i bufQaius L. Common Toad-Rush
k dub i us Engel m. l;lari posa Rush
ORCH IDACEAE -Orch i d Fam i I Y
H~benaria unalcischensis (Spreng.) Wats. Alaska Rein-Orchid
POACEAE -Grass Family
Agrostjs djegoensjs Vasey. Leafy Bent
*Arundo donax L. Giant Reed
*8romus mol I is L. Soft Chess
*.!h rubens _L. Red Brome, Foxta i I Chess
Distichlis spicata (L.) Greene var. spicata. Saltgrass
*.Lo·1 i um perenoe L. Eog I ish Ryegrass
PolYPPQon monspel jensjs (L.) Desf. Annual Beardgrass
Stipe coronata Thurb. in i'/ats. Giant Stipa
Vulpja myuros var. hjrsuta Hack. Foxtail Fescue
TYPHACEAE -Cat-ta i I Fam i Iy
*Typba dominguensi~ Pers. Tule Cat-tail
* -denotes non-native taxa
65 native species
27 non-native species
92 total plant taxa
associated \'Iillow stands, they are of low floral diversity.
The Coast Iviixed Chaparral is a low diversity growth, being mostly
Adenostoma fasci eu I atum, Quercus dUl1losa, Heterom~ arb ut j fo I j a, Er i ophy I I U11l
confertjflocum and Hel ianthem~m scoparium. Lacking are the less common
DendcomecQn cjajdg, Salyia cleyelandii, Cneorjdium du[(]osuw and Arctostaphylos"
g"-Iandulosg ssp: ccassjfol je. "
The Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation occurs mixed as patches wi"th Coast rHxed
Chap~rral, usually on the tops of steep"slope~ This association Is Composed
of Acteml.1il.g c;;al ifornic;a, ErjoQo!1!Jm fasc;kulatuio, Eriodic;tyon crassjfol jum,
Salvia mel I jfera, Diplacus puniceus, and Bac;c;;haris pl1ularis ssp. c;;onsaoQuine~
This latter taxon indicates the north, coastal location of the site in San
Diego, County.
ZOOLOGY -Arapb i b j ans .ruJil Rept i 19S
The com mon pac i f i c treet rog (.!:Lyl..g reg i I I a), s i de-b I otch 9"d liz ard t!.!..:ta
stansburjana) and western fence I Izard (Sc;;eloporus oc;;cidentaljs), \'Iere the only
herptiles observed during the survey. t\lthough a few additional species may
occur on-site, primari Iy in scrub or riparian vegetation, extensive c~ltivation
on-site and on surrounGing lands \'1ould reduce the speci'es diversity and number
of individuals expected on the property.
Birds
A tota I of 29 bird speci es \'I as observed on the pr"operty (Tab,1 e 2). All
species are common inhabitants 0)' the habitats existing on-site, except for the
infrequently encountered marsh hawk. Sage sparrow"s are obs'erved" sporadically
during' similar surveys of scrub vegetation, possibly because of their irregular
activity patterns rather than a scarCity of individuals or spotty distribution.
Those on the property occupy a small patch of coastal scrub vegetation.
Of primary importance on the property are two marsh hawks o~served
foraging on-site on both survey dates. One of these birds, an adult fem.ale,
was observed carrying sticks in her bill just off-site near the northeastern
corner of the property (Figure 2).' The zoologist's presence in this area"
el icited continuous intense alarm cal Is from this bird. The bird tended to
remain in this area and \'las 09served perching o"n the ground sever"aJ times on
both survey days. These behaviors indicate breeding in this animal, however, "a
nest area \'Ias not found; marsh hawk nests are often difficult to locate in high
grass. A second bird, apparent I y another femal e, \'las a J.so observed, in the same
area behaving in a similar aggressive manner toward the zoologist. ThTs courd
have been an off~pring of the adult female or an intrude~ An adult male was
not Observed, a)though it could have been foraging elsewhere d~ring the
surveys. If th i's sens i t i ve spec i es does breed on the property, it may do so
just off-site. And if not this year, its behavior suggests that it may nest in
the future. The 'marsh hawk is discussed in the Sensitive Anim~Js section.
A \1hite-tailed kite was o"bs"erved flying over the site and could be
expected. to -forage and perch on-site on occasion. This bird does not appear to
nest ~n-site but nests nearby to the southeas~ It is discussed in'the
Sensitive Animals section.
Mammals
Observat i on and i nd i rect ev i dence detected five mamma I spec i es on the
property, inc Iud i ng Botta's pocket gopher (:Ib..Q.m.Q~ bottae; burrows),
Cal iforni a ground squi rrel (Spermoph i I us beechey i; observed), \'Ioodrat CNeotoma. .
·sp.; nest), desert cottontail (Sylvllagus audubooil; observed) andcoy6te
(Canis latrans~ scat, possibly a burrow). All are common species in the area ..
Additional common species ar~ expected, primeri Iy in shrubby habitats. '.
A large mammal burrow, located near one of the steep slopes~ may belong to
e i thar a coyote or gray fox (UrocYQO c i nereoargeoteus), a I thougfl nei ther
species was observed there.
RESOURCE/HABITATvEVALUATlON
Recently cultivated fields, riparian woodland and scrub veg,et-ation are the
primary wildlife habitats on-site. Minor habitats include a fei'l small tree-
I ike plants and a smal I marshy are~
A large fI1pJority of the property consists of cultivated fields that have
grown back to. various weedy gra.sses and for:b.s, some of these reach.ing heighTS
of five to six feet. This vegetation forms cover for a fe\'/ small mammals and'
reptiles; however, in general the scarcity of shrub cover restricts the
divesity of non-avian species in these fields.· Raptors hunt over these fields
in more open vegetation. Two marsh hawks exhibiting possible breeding behavior,
\'IE~re observed in this habitat in tall grass. These birds were also seen
foraging over the entire property on t\W separate days.
A narrow wi 110\1/ stand, approximately 600 feet in length, occurs along the
southern property boundar~ Tree heights here r~ach 20 to 25 feet. This
riparian vegetation is known to be important breeding and feeding habitat for
numerous bird species, particularly for warblers. Although no .\'1arblers \I/'ere
observed there, an ear I y morn i ng survey \'iOU I d very like I y detect some of these
bfrds. The isolation and relatively short length of this \'iOodland w,ould tend
to reduce its use by riparian speclv~.
Scrub vegetation, consisting ,).' l-haparral and/or sage ,scrub associations,
0.;curs in a few locations on-site. In general, this vegetation remains \'Ihere
s-;--:lep S I opcs and ridges have impeded I and excavati on. , On th i s property, such
dense shrubby areas are refuges for a variety of reptiles, sma~l ma~mals and
scrub-associated birds which would otherwise be very scarce' or not present at','
a II. A I args burrow, poss i b Iy used by a coyote or fox, was found along the top
of a slope exhibiting this habitat type. '
The small marshy area on-site h,as developed as a result of run-off \'1ater
from the greenhouses to the east. This I'later will be used by numerous wildlife'
speei es, i ncl ud i ng any I arge mamma lsi n the area. A treefrogheard 'call i ng· in
this area illustrates its utility to the few amphibians expected on'the
property. The I arge tree-I ike sh rubs that occu r ina few I'ocat i cns on-s i te
receive concentrated use by perching and nesting birds.
In general, the i'l i I dl ife habitats on the property are of low qual ity due
to the removal of most native vegetation for cultiva+ion. The \d.llo\'l ,wood'iand
is relatively high qual ity breeding and foraging habitat for bird<s. The
portions ot the property that exhibit high~ dense grass growth are vall,lable ,as
Table 2. Birds Observed on the Sea Pines site (29 species)
CQmmQn W..!Il.§
~ih i te-ta i I ed I< i te
'I~ed-ta i led Ha\1k
i{(Drth·ern Harri er (f,:arsh Hawk)
Ai.1Sli can Kestrel
Ca./ ifornia Quai I
~ .. lourlli ng Dove
Costa's Humm i ngb i rd
Anna's Hum.m i ngb i rd
t.~utta I I's Woodpecker
~jlester.n f( i ngb i rd
Horned Lark
Rough-I" i nged Swa II O\ll
Of iff Swallow
Common Raven
Comrllon Crow
Bu·shtit
~'lrent i t
Hew i c1< f S \'/ren
Hockingbird
Cal' i torn i a Thrasher
PhaJnQpepla J
Loggerhead Shrike
Western l·j1eadQw I ar!,
Northern Oriole
House Finch
Rufous-sided Towhee
Brown Towhee
Sage Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Scientjfic ~
Elanus leucurus
Buteo jamajcensis
Circus cyaoeus
Fglco sparverius
Lopbortyx cal itornicus
Zenaida macrouca
CalypTe costae
Calypte .Q.O.lla
PjcQjdes /luttcl Ll
Tyrannus vectjcalis
Eremophlla alpesteis
Stelgidopteryx rufico'l r~
PetCQchel idoO pycrhooota
Corvus carax
CoCvus bcachyrhyocbos
Psaltrlpatus mlnimus
Cbamaea fascjata
Thryomanes bewickij
Mimus polyglottos
Toxostoma red j v I vut:1
Phainopepla njtens
Lanius ludoyicianus
Sturnel I~ neglecta .
Icterus glabula
Carpodacus mexicanus
PipilQ BcythrQphthalmus
Pipi 16 tuscus
Amphispiza bel I r
~elospiza melQdla
I n d i y i d u a I s·
·1
1
2
1
10
2.
2
3
1
4'
3
2
10
1
1
6
3
3·
1
2
1
1
2
4'
5
.5
10
2
5
nesti·ng habitat for the ralarsh hawks that I ive on the property. The presence of
a large mammal burrow adjacent to one of the shrubby slope areas suggests tha~
even when cultivated and surrounded by severely disturbed lands, this property
can be of considerable value to larger wildlife in the area.
SENS IT I VE PLANTS
Ceanothus yerrocQsus occurs on the site as two groups totaling four.
individuals spared from the brushing operation. More plants were present in
severa t locat ions on the property. Th i s shrub h as a Ca I i forn i a Nati ve PI ant
Society (CNPS) rating o-f 1-2-1-1 (Appendix I). Its presence on the property is
of no significance now due to the destruction of surround.ing habitat and the
Io.w numb·er of individuals involved.
Due to the presence of f I at-topped ridge areas, an' unsuccessfu.l searcn \'las
made for Dud I eya brevi fQ I j a (3-3-3-3) duri ng the present survey a'nd in 1977.
The recent discovery of a p I ant once bel i eved exti·nct in San D'r ego coastal
sites, Phol jsma arenarjum (1-1-1-1), on Chesterton soHs \'lith EriodictyoO host
material, suggested the potential for its presence on-site~ However, no aerial
remains were observed. Historically, the plani-Is knol'/n from La Costa
(Beauchamp, in prep.).
SENS ITIVE AN·I MALS
Table 3 contains a list of species which are co;nsidered sensitiVe'by a
variety of sources a~ explained in Appendix 2 • . ~
SENSITI'VE HABITATS
The l'Iil low woodland is the only officially sensitive habftat on the
property. It is dense but narrow on-s i te and lies i mmed i ate,1 y adj acent to a.
row of h'ouses. As ment i oned, the i sol ati on of th is hab i. tat from other si flii I ar
habitats, as well as its short length, reduce its util lty to most riparian
species. However, -rhis woodland does provide high qual ity habitat to a variety
of birds in an area that is otherwise sorely lacking in na~ive woodland
vegetation.
Long-term value of this riparian habitat to I'lildl i·fe is questionable due
i"o the uncertai nty of water f 10\'1 -ro the wood land from the adjacent greenhouse
operation. If the water supply is curtai led, the woodland \'1111 likely ·decrease
in density and overall structural diverSity. This wil" in turn, diminish its
use by wi I d I if e.
The smal I pptch of marsh and associated stream are important to. a 'number
of birqs and other animal groups. Due to its small size, however, this hab.itat
is of limited value to wildlife relative to larger similar habitats nearby.
EXPECTED BIOLOGICAL II;lPACTS
Development of the property for residental use\'lill ihvolveremoval of the
rem·nant native vegetation now present. Erosion now occurring will eventually
be abated by I andscap i ng and hydrol og i ca II y eng i neered structure.s to reduce
siltation now occurring in 8atiquitos Lagoon.
T~b18 3. Sensitive Animal Spocles of the Sea Pines sits
,Species
Northern Harrier-Marsh Hawk'
(Circus cyaneus)
f\m~r i can [(estral
(F~lco sparyerius
I'ill i 1'e-to I led Kite
(Elanus leucurus
CI iff Swallow
(P8trochelJdon pyrrhonota)
BE:\<! I ck' s i'irE:n
(Thryo[i'!f,loes bewicls i i
Loggerhead Shrike
(Lanius ludovlciaDus)
Status Q Authority
BIUG List
Sl.)NGIVS
Evere ...... -declloing
Hemsen-Iowest priority
l:31 ue Li st
CDF G-f u I I y protected
01 ue Li st
Blue List,
81 ue li st
-------------------"-------~-81 uo Li,st (Tatt;: 1980
CDFG (1977)
Evorett (1979)
Hell1sen (1 fJ77)
SDI'~G\'/S (1976)
S:l-Qtus.., i 0. Sao D I ego Cou,nty status Qn-Site
Uncommon breeding species, Hunts on property. 11'lay nest in
property has suffered serious popu-or Just east of NE
lation dec1 ine due to loss corner.
of forage and nesting habitat.
Common breeding species
relativery resistant to
disturbance.
Fairly caffinon in WOOdlands,
often near wetlands and
rivers; nests; forms comr.1Unal
winter roosts.
Common nester.
Common breeding SPecies;
resi dent.
R~latively common breeding
species.
Hunts but d00s not nest on
property.
Qccasional visitor for hunting
and possible rooting.
Common forafjer.
COlllroon in shrubby veget()tion.
Forages on property; may nest.
r'
Development of the project site wil I have the following impacts on
wildl ife:
1) The mammal burrow will be abandoned or, if not presently occupied, not
used in the futur&
2) The marsh hawks \'/ i I I be forced to I eave the i mmedi ate area and wi It
abandon any nest that is active at the time of developmen~
3) The number of species and individuals inhabiting the property wil I
decrease, especially if the remaining scrub and riparian habitats are removed
or disturbed. Preservation of the riparian vegetation would be only -short-term
at best due to use as a play area by ch i I dren of current and future res i dents
and by cessati on of runoff.
4) The f i el ds will be lost as forag i ng hab i tat for raptors and other f i e-' d
adapted spec I es.
RECO.f4f·1ENDAT IONS TO REDUCE B I OLOG' CAL IMPACTS
Mitigation of marsh hawk losses is not possible without curtailing--
developmenti however, the northeastern corner of the property shou) d not be
developed during the spring and early summer if a marsh ha\'1k nest is active. A
zoologist should be consulted to determine the status of any existing nest if a
spring development in this section is necessary. -
I
LITERATURE CITED
American Ornithologists Union 1957. Che~kl ist of North American Birds. Fifth
Edition. Artlerican Ornithologists Union. 691 pp.
1976. Thirty-third Supplement to the' A.O.U.
Check I i sf of North fVner i can Birds. A!.l.k 93: 875-379. .
8eauchamp, R. t~i. (in prep.). 'A Flora of San Diego County.
Cal i'fornip Department of Fish and Game 1977. Status Designation~ of Cal itornia
Plants and Animals •
. Coll ins, J.T., J.E. Huheey, J.L. Knight, H.M. Smith 1978. Common and Current
Scientific Names for North AmeriCan Amphibians and Reptiles. Society for
the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. N[sc. Publ. 'Herpetology 'Ctrcular
fl..
Everett, Inlliam T. 1979. Threatened, Declining and Sensitive B·i.rd Species in
,~an Diego County, Sketches, June 1979, pp. 2-3.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 1976.
The First ~;jeeti og of the Conf erence of the Parti es to -rhe Conventi on on
International Trade in Endangered Species of tJild Fauna and Flora, Berne,
S\'/itzer'la~d, 26 November 1976. fvlorges, Switzerland, 16 pp. IUCN.
Jones, J.I<. Jr., D.C. Cctrter tic H.H. Genoways 1975. Revised Checkl ist of Noth
American fvlamrnals North of tvlexico. Texas Tech. Unjv. i·'lus. Occas. Papers.
No. 28. 14 pp.
fJlunz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern Cal jfornia. University of Cal'Horn,i·a
Press, Berkeley. 1086 pp.
Remsen, J.V. 1977. Species of Special Concern List, iiluseum of Vertebrate
Zoology. University of Cal ifornia, Berkeley.
San Diego Non-Game ivildli-re Subcommittee 1976. Proposed List of Specles and
Habitats Requiring Special Protection and Study in San Diego County.
r-lernorandum to San Diego County Environmental Qual ity Division.
Tate, J. 1981. The Blue List for 1981, American Bird$, Vol. 35, No.1,
pp. 3-10.
Thorne, R. F. 1976. The Vascular Plant Communities of Cal ifornia l.o. J.
Latt'ing (ed.), Symposium proceedings: P'lant Communities of Southern
Cal ifornJa. Cal ifornia Native Plant Society, Spec. Publ·. No~ 2, 1,..31 pp.
, APPEND I X I
SENSITIVE PLANTS
Sensifive plants are so cal led because of their rarity, endangerment,
v i gar' of pop u I a t ion s, and lim its of dis t rib uti on. The rea r ,e th r e e
organizations which I ist sensitive plants in Cal ifornia: The Cat/fornia Native,
Plant Soctety (CNPS), Cal ifornia Fish and Game CommissioiJ of the Cal itornra
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the U.S. Fish and ~~ildl ife Service
(UsnIS). Listing of the latter two is based in large part on prior an,d, on-
gO'ing work of the former, non-profit organization.
The CNPS has the most complete listing of sensitive plants which appears
as the Society's Special Publ ication Number 1 (second'edition)lnventory.Q.f
B..ru:.e.?llli1 Endangered, Vascular Plants Qf California (Smith et 'al. 1980 and,
supp I ement 1981>. Th i s list i ng scheme uses the d i 9,i ts 1,' 2, and 3 to descr ibe,
a IO\,i to high level of rarity, endangerment, vigor, or distr'ibution for each
listed taxon. Therefore, a p I ant I lsted 3-3-3-3 is much more rare and
endangered than one listed 1-1-1-1. Further, there are fou~ named lists:,
"p I ants presumed ext i nct"; and lip I ants rare inCa I i forn i a, common e I se\'I here".
Tha first appendix includes "plants considered but not fncluOed". ",
The Fish and Game Commission (of the CDFG), as of 19 December 1979, had
listed 14 San D'iego County plants as "Rare" or "Endangered".
The Sacramento Endangered Spec i es Of f ice of th,eUSFW S. has pub I is,hed ,a
Draft notice of Revie\'/ o,f candidate "Endangered", "Threatened",' and"Sensitivell ,
plants as of 2 March 1980.
The" USFI1S has publ ished Endangered .arui Threatened Wi Idl'ite 1lIl4 Plants • .8.
Rev i ~1t .Qi P I ant l.Qxa i.Qr. List i ng .as. End angered _.QLThreatened,Spec i es by R.E.
Lamberton. Th i s document supercedes a I I other federal I i stJ ngs for p I ants
except notices wherein plants were,actually d'esignated Threatened or
Endangered. The intent of the Rev i ew is to I f st a II speci es that are be r ng
considered for listing as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species
Act of -1973. There are three level s: Category 1, wh i ch incl udes taxa for
which the USFWS has sufficient information on hand to support the biological
appropriateness of their being I isted as either Endangered or Threatene~
species; Category 2 includes taxa for which information now in possession of
the Serv ice i nd i cates the probab I e appropr i ateness of list i ng, but for \'1 hi ch
sufficient information is not presently available to biologically su.pport a·
proposed ru I e; Category 3 inc I udes taxa no longer bei ng cons i dered for I i sti ng
in three sub-categories because of (A) pervasive evidence of e'xtinction" {B}
names that do not meet the Endangered Species Act's definition of uspecieslt and
(e) taxa that have proven to be more abundant or \'I i despread than was previo,usly
believed and/or those that are not subject to any identifiab'le threat.
,~ .
APPENDIX II
SENS ITI VI AN U,JALS
Sensitive animals are described or protected by a variety of authorities
and documents as described below.
The U.S. Fish and ~1ildl ife Service (uSFWS) officially lists sensitive
speci es as ei ther "Threatened" or "Endangered". Some' as yet un listed speci es
are unofficially recognized as candidates for I isting. Listed species are
found periodically in the Endangered SpeCies Technical Sui letin and the Federal
Beg i ster. Other federal lists i ncl ude the Bal d Eagl e Act, rvlj gra,tory Bird Act,
and the f~lari ne Mammal Protecti on Act.
TheCaliforn'ia Fish and Game Commission of the California Department'of
Fish and Game (CDFG), officially I ists some sensitiv~ species as either'IIRarell
or "Endang,ered"j and these are found in the period,ically updated publlCerion .At
.lb.e Crossroads. The CDFG further c f ass if i es certai n ,sped es ' under' the
follow i ng categori es: "Fu II y Protected", nProtected Furbearer", "Protected
Amphibian", and "Protected Reptile". The designation "Pro+ected,II indicates
that a speci es may not be taken or possessed except under speci al permit from
the CD.fGj "Fully Protected" means a species can be taken only for scientific
purposes.
Non-governmental ~ ists are also important indicators of sensitive wtldl ife
species, as described below. '
The Audubon Blue L'lst is an annually updated I ist of birds consloered to'
be declining in the United States. Local' populations may differ in status from
the general ,Blue List status for the entire United States. '
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) is an international conservation organization that publ'ishes
lists of species considered to be declining throughout the world. The status
,of "depletedll indicates that a species is not currently threatened with
extin,ction but there are indications that it may become so.
The San Diego Non-Game Wildl ife Subcomm;'ttee (SDNGWS) is a group of local
biologists that formulated a list of animals that appear to be experiencing
reduced population numbers in the county. ' Thei.r use of the term "threatened"
in'dicates that a species, is considered to be rare, endangered, declining, or
depleted in San Diego County. The SDNGWS ts officially sanctioned by theCDFG •.
Th,e Species of Special Concern List by J.V. Remsen, Jr. is a I i,st of bird
species in Cal ifornia that are decl ining. It is publ ished by the Nuseum of
Vertebrate Zoology at the University of Cal ifornia at'Berkeley_ It excludes
birds, already on Federal or Cal ifornia Endangered, Threatened, or Rare lists,
those species historically much more common than at present but not in ,current
danger of extirpation, those species I'/ith very small ranges or pop,ulations in
the state but primarily associated with man-made habitats, and those species
for which cons~stent breeding has not been proven, only fluke occurrences.
Three categori es are recogn i zed. Highest pr i or i ty category birO's ,face
immediate extirpation if current trends continue. Second priority category
spa'cies are definitely on the decline but dan'ger or extirpation isno+
imliled i ate. Species in the lowest priority category have sufficiently small
, "
populations that make them vulnerable to extirpation should a threat
materi al ize.
The Survey and Status of Endangered and Threatened Species of Reptil.es
Natively Occurring in San Diego County is a report compiled by members of the
San Diego Herpetological Society (SDHS). This report I ists ~he societyts
determinations of the endangered or threatened status of rare and depteted
repti les occurring in the county. An endangered species is defined as one
whose po-pulation and habitat distribution have been reduced to such a
\vi despread extent that the spec i es is unab I e to reproduce at a norma I rate and
is imminently near extinction throughout the majority of ~ts remaining
distributio~ A threatened species is defined as one which h~s had Significant
population· depletion and/or habitat destruction and is potentiafly endangered
but presently reproducing at or near normal where it sti II occurs.
Threatened~ Decl ining and Sensitive Bird Species in San· D"iego County bY
Will iam T. Everett, publ ished in a 1979 issue of the Audubon Societyls
Sketches~ is a local "Blue List". The article is unlike the nat-tonEiI BLue Lfst
in that it is one ornithologist's opinion,' and 'uses different categori~s:
threatened~ for speci es sufferi ng dramati c~ long-term popul ation decl ines to.
the point w·here the situation has reached the critical level throughout the
range of the species; dec! ining, for species whose local populations have been
steadi Iy reduced; and sensitive, for species with undocumented decl ines but
which have a I imited distribution~ are sensitive to disturbance, an impending
loss of essential habitat~ or a lack of sufficient data on current and past
status.
--\
} i' f i
CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY
Th i s report VI as prepared by Pac i f I c Southwest Bioi og'i ca I Serv ices, I nc.,. of
Nati onal' Ci ty,. Ca I iforn i a.
I h ereb'l aft i rm th at, to the best of my kno'l' I edge and be I i ¢f, The
statements and i nformati on herei n contai ned are in all respects true and; correct
and that all known information concerning the potentlal,ly significant biological'
impacts of the project has been included and fully evaluated' in this repor~
'1?~~~~~:
R. r~ itchel Beauchamp t7
Principal ConSUltant
Consultant contributing to this report:
Steph en J. r-lontgomery, zoo 109 i st