The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About; ; Pacific Coast Shoreline Carlsbad Recon Report; 1994-01-01 (5)US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District RECONNAISSANCE REPORT PACIFIC COAST SHORELINE, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90053 January 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES 1 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 3 3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3 A. Marine Resources 3 B. Terrestrial Resources 3 C. Lagoon Resources 4 D. Coastal Barriers 6 3.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 7 3.3 WATER QUALITY 7 3.4 LITTORAL TRANSPORT 7 3.5 AMBIENT NOISE AND AIR QUALITY 8 3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 8 3.7 AESTHETICS 9 3.8 LAND USE AND RECREATION 9 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 9 1.i BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 9 A. Beachfill (Alternatives 1, 2, 2b, 5-7b, and 10) 9 B. Groins. Jetties, and Breakwaters (Alternatives 2-3, 5, 7-8, and 10) 10 C. Seawalls/Revetments (Alternatives 4, 9, and 11) 12 D. Other Alternatives 12 4.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 13 4.3 WATER QUALITY 13 A. Beachfill (Alternatives 1, 2, 2b, 5-7b, and 10) 13 B. Groins. Jetties and Breakwaters (Alternatives 2-3, 5, 7-8, and 10) 14 C. Seawa11s/Revetments (Alternatives 4, 9, and 11) 14 4.4 LITTORAL TRANSPORT 14 4.5 NOISE AND AIR QUALITY 15 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 15 4.7 AESTHETICS 15 4.8 LAND USE AND RECREATION 15 5.0 COORDINATION 16 6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 16 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY . 16 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 18 9.0 REFERENCES 18 FIGURES 1-2: CARLSBAD STUDY AREA FIGURES 3-10: PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES >•"*• APPENDIX A - ENDANGERED SPECIES: LISTS AND INFORMATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Carlsbad study area extends for approximately seven miles along the Pacific Coast, from Buena Vista Lagoon, south to Batiquitos Lagoon (see Figure 1). Public and private structures in the study area have incurred damage from storm and wave activity. Beaches that once provided a degree of natural protection have severely eroded because of a lack of sand replenishment. Beach erosion has led to increased damage to adjacent structures, and decreased recreational value. Almost every year, winter storms strip away the thin layer of sand deposited from the summer swells and sand transport, leaving a discontinuous layer of cobbles on the beach. These large cobbles deter recreational use of the beaches. The cobbles can be picked up by waves and thrown against adjacent bluffs or through windows of adjacent buildings. The narrowing shoreline no longer protects seacliffs, homes, businesses, or roads from wave damage, and the potential for coastal flooding has increased. The purpose of this reconnaissance study is to determine Federal interest in implementing storm-damage reduction and shoreline protection solutions in the Carlsbad study area. Because the burrowing organisms, grunion, and shorebirds lose their habitat, the biological environment is also affected by beach erosion. These resources, therefore, could also benefit from a Federal project that provides shoreline protection. Nesting, feeding, and resting areas of several species would be restored, at least temporarily, if a sandy beach is restored to the study area. Opportunities for habitat restoration at the area's lagoons may also be identified upon further coordination with resource agencies. 2.0 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES Potential structural and non-structural solutions to be studied include revetments, sea walls, offshore breakwaters, groins, and beach replenishment (including sand bypass systems). Kelp beds naturally reduce wave energy and sediment transport, but new beds would take years to establish, and have no guarantee of success. This potential solution, therefore, will not be studied at this time. Beachfill alternatives (with or without structures) would require periodic replenishment. Nourishment would not occur as frequently if groins were in place. A structural solution, therefore, would probably be pursued as the preferred alternative, if this progresses to a Feasibility study phase. Due to the length of the area involved, the diversity of the protective structures and the varying potential for storm damage, the study area was divided into five reaches (see Figure 2). The main report describes the relevant physical characteristics of the reaches. Potential Federal interest exists in protecting structures in Reaches 1-3. The following alternative strategies ""***" have been developed for the study area (see Figures 3-15): (1) beachfill in Reaches 1 and 2; (2) a groin system with beachfill in Reaches 1 and 2; (2b) an alternative beachfill and groin field design for Reaches 1 and 2; (3) an offshore breakwater system in Reaches 1 and 2; (4) a 600-foot long revetment in Reach 1; (5) beachfill in Reaches 1 and 2, and extension of the northernmost inlet jetty at Agua Hedionda Lagoon by approximately 400 feet; (6) beachfill in Reach 3; (7) a groin system with beachfill in Reach 3; (7b) beachfill with one T-groin in Reach 3; (8) an offshore breakwater system in Reach 3; (9) a 2,400-foot long seawall/revetment in Reach 3; (10) beachfill in Reaches 1-3, combined with extension of the inlet jetty and construction of two groins in Reach 3; and (11) a rubble-mound revetment in Reach 5. These alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A final, preferred alternative may contain features from several of those listed. For Alternatives 1, 2, 2b, 5, 6, 7, 7b, and 10, beachfill would be used to maintain a minimum width of 200 feet for the protective beach. The length of beachfill would be about 5,000 feet in Reaches 1 and 2, and/or 3,300 feet in Reach 3. Replenishment would occur every 3-5 years in the absence of stabilizing structures, or every 4-6 years with a groin system in place. The three groins in Alternative 2 would extend approximately 800 feet, to a water depth of -10 Mean Lower Low "*"*••• Water (MLLW), and would be placed about 2000 feet apart. The two 400-foot groins in Alternative 2b would be spaced 4000 feet apart. The two groins described in Alternative 7 would be 350 feet long and 900 feet apart. The single T-groin in Alternative 7b would also be 350 feet long, with a perpendicular extension on the seaward end. Offshore breakwaters would be located outside of the surf zone in a water depth of about -14.5 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). The three breakwaters in Alternative 3 would be 800 feet long and 800 feet apart. The three breakwaters in Alternative 8 would be 400 feet long and 400 feet apart. Initial economic analyses indicate that Alternatives 7 and 7b have a positive benefit/cost ratio. Several beach replenishment projects in or near the study area, are planned for the near-future. These include biannual dredging of Oceanside Harbor, with beach or nearshore disposal of about 200,000 cubic yards (cy) of sediment south of the Harbor, per year; and disposal of sediments dredged from the San Luis Rey River and Batiquitos Lagoon. Two to three million cy of material from the lagoon would be used for nourishment in Reach 5 (on Encinas Creek Beach and Batiquitos Beach). About 700,000 cy will be dredged from Oceanside Harbor in FY 1994, as part of the Harbor Modification/Maintenance Dredging Project, and placed south of the Harbor. In addition, the Marine Corps is planning to dredge 300,000 cy of sediment from the Santa Margarita River. .*»»,, The disposal location has not been identified. Approximately 150,000 cy is regularly dredged out of Agua Hedionda Lagoon every two years, and placed on the beach. These projects will temporarily improve baseline conditions. Structures may be necessary, however, to provide a permanent solution. 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A. Marine Resources - Marine vegetation that occurs in the study area includes surfgrass (Phyllospadix scouleri) and kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera). Eelgrass (Zostera marina) occurs in lagoons in the study area. Several species of marine algae are also present in the ocean and lagoons. The California Department of Fish and Game has constructed an artificial reef off of Batiquitos Lagoon that, with other natural reefs in the area, provides additional habitat for marine flora and fauna. Prominent fauna associated with kelp beds include gorgonian coral (Muricea californical and colonial ascidian (Euherdmania claviformis). A narrow shelf in the study area provides limited nearshore benthic habitat. Sandy marine habitat supports over 200 taxa of benthic invertebrates representing 14 phyla. Polychaetes, crustaceans, and molluscs are important prey items for fishes and shorebirds. This habitat provides the main source of food for surf fish and flatfish, both of which are important components of the food chain and comprise significant recreational fishing resources of the study area. In addition, walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon arqenteuro), barred surfperch (Amphistichus arqenteus), queenfish (Seriphus politus), and topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) are abundant in nearshore waters. Northern and deepbody anchovies (Engraulis mordax and Anchoa compressa) are important non-game fishes, due to their particularly high seasonal abundances in the winter months. These species serve as prey for shore and seabirds, marine mammals, and larger fishes. Emergent sand beaches provide a breeding area for the California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis). Spawning activity commences in the spring and summer when the grunion deposit their eggs in the sand on the high intertidal portions of the beach, during high tides. The eggs subsequently incubate in the sand, and hatch during the ascending series of high tide conditions before the following full or new moon. The study area is generally devoid of suitable sandy habitat, except when beach replenishment occurs. B. Terrestrial Resources - Vegetation on the shoreline is sparse, consisting primarily of landscaping plants such as palm trees and iceplant. Beachgrass, an invasive species, occurs in some locations. Coastal strand vegetation occurs near the lagoons, and possibly in other areas, as well. This vegetation includes Haplopappus venetus. Lotus scoparius. Camissonia cheiranthiflora. Frankenia arandiflora. sea rocket (Cakile maritima), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca). Much of the natural vegetation and wildlife habitat on the bluff tops and faces has been replaced by exotic species such as sea fig (Carpobrotus sp.), Arundo sp., and other landscape plants. Bluff erosion at Carlsbad State Beach has been exacerbated by an overabundance of native ground squirrels (Spermophilus beechevi). The large population is due to the artificial food sources provided by camping activities. The open sand beach provides an important feeding and resting habitat for shore and diving birds. These open areas are favored because the lack of nearby cover prevents predators from approaching undetected. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), plovers (C. semipalmatus), sanderlings (Calidris alba), western sandpiper (Calidris mauri) marbled godwits (Limosa fedoa), and willets (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) probe in the sand for crustaceans while others, such as the brown pelican fPelecanus occidentalis), terns (Sterna sp.), western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis). surfscoter (Melanitta perspicillata), common loon (Gavia immer), and cormorants (Phalacrocorax sp.), dive for fish offshore. Gulls, including Heermann's (Larus heermanni). California (L. californicus), western (L. occidentalism and ringbill (L. delawarensis), frequent the beaches. Common coastal invertebrates include polychaetes (Apoprionospio pyomaeus and Nemertea sp.), bean clams (Donax gouldii), and amphipods fMandibulophoxus uncirostratus1. Other wildlife observed in the study area includes a variety of sparrows, blackbirds, doves, pigeons, squirrels, and lizards. Burrowing animals find protection from elements and predators in unprotected bluffs and rip-rap slopes. C. Lagoon Resources - The salt and freshwater marshes in the area's three lagoons are ecologically important and productive habitats. Algae provide the basis for the food chain in the marsh. Herbivores, such as small crustaceans and snails, consume the algae; while birds eat algae, invertebrates, and fish. BUENA VISTA LAGOON - This 350 acre lagoon occurs at the northernmost edge of the study area. It is fed by runoff from a watershed extending 12 miles east. Buena Vista Lagoon comprises a unique low-salinity coastal habitat, because it is artificially maintained at 5.8 feet above mean sea level by a weir across the lagoon mouth. Salt and brackish marsh vegetation typical of nontidal lagoons of southern California covers 130 acres of the lagoon, and the other 220 acres are submerged. Mullet, mosquitofish, green sunfish, bluegill, black bullhead, catfish, bass, and crappie occur in the low-salinity waters of Buena Vista Lagoon. Over 50 species of marsh vegetation are present, including eelgrass, Virginia pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), bulrush (Juncus acutus), cattail (Tvpha latifolia), cordgrass (Spartina foliosal, arrowgrass (Triqlochin maritimum) , sea-blite, spiderbush, and saltgrass (Distichlus spicata). Riparian and marsh vegetation, along with an upland community of California sage scrub, border the lagoon. Buena Vista Lagoon also provides valuable habitat for migratory waterfowl. Coots (Fulica americanal, common moorhens (Gallinula chloropus), shovelers (Spatula clypeata), pintails (Anas acuta), and ruddy ducks (Oxyura jamaicensis) are among the most abundant species observed. Over 20 species of birds regularly utilize the lagoon, and nearly 200 species of birds have been known to occur in the area. Mammals known to inhabit the area include coyotes and voles. AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON - The Agua Hedionda Lagoon serves a multitude of uses. It provides cooling water for the adjacent San Diego Gas and Electric (S.D.G.& E.) Power Plant, and is used as a research area, for fishing, and as a feeding spot for wildlife. Small scale dredging by S.D.G.& E., with beach disposal, occurs regularly at Agua Hedionda Lagoon (approximately 150,000 cubic yards every two years). This lagoon's intake and outlet jetties are armored with rip-rap. In 1990, the Center for Marine Studies at San Diego State University was growing eelgrass and kelp in the lagoon, and both Occidental College and the National Marine Fisheries Service were involved in halibut studies. In addition, Sea Farms West, a private firm, was involved in the mariculture of mussels and clams. Previous storms, although damaging to the surrounding community, did not appear to damage the lagoon or the projects within it. Agua Hedionda Lagoon supports nearly 150 species of estuarine and marine invertebrates, as well as 65 species of marine fishes, 65 species of birds, and 46 species of other animals. Saltmarsh vegetation such as pickleweed, seablite, alkali heath (Frankenia qrandiflora), and jaumea (Juaroea carnosa) border the lagoon. Upland vegetation around the lagoon is comprised of characteristic California sage scrub, including grasses, California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), goldenbush and black mustard (Brassica nigra). BATIOUITOS LAGOON - This lagoon is an Ecological Reserve, managed by the California Department of Fish and Game. It provides high quality wildlife habitat and supports several endangered species. The following •*** bird species were identified in an October site visit: snowy egret (Egretta thulal, great blue heron (Ardea herodias). common loon, coot, cormorant, sea gull, killdeer, black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and hawk (Buteo sp.). Pickleweed is the dominant plant species near the mouth of the lagoon. Although the lagoon currently has substantial environmental value, its value has diminished due to sediment deposition and reduced tidal flushing. Human impacts to the lagoon have diminished the lagoon's ability to maintain an open outlet into the ocean. This has resulted in the loss of marine habitat, and the degradation of associated aquatic and benthic biota. The City of Carlsbad's plans for restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon include dredging and beach disposal of 2-3 million cubic yards of sediment, from three basins in the lagoon. Restoration will be financed by the Port of Los Angeles, as partial mitigation for its harbor expansion project. Nearly 400 acres in the 596 acre lagoon will be enhanced. The project involves the construction of a self-maintaining tidal inlet to restore tidal flushing. A new lagoon configuration will include salt marsh habitat, least tern nesting areas, woodlands, sand flats, and expanded tidal and subtidal areas. Plans also include replacement or ,-«*»,,. rehabilitation of the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge, and the construction of jetties on the adjacent shoreline. D. Coastal Barriers - A coastal barrier is a depositional feature subject to wave, tidal, and wind energies, which protects landward aquatic habitats including adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters. Coastal barriers can be threatened by extensive shoreline manipulation or stabilization, canal construction and maintenance, major dredging and disposal projects, and intensive development projects. Section 6 of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide to Congress maps identifying the boundaries of those undeveloped coastal barriers of the United States bordering the Pacific Ocean south of 49 degrees north latitude, that the Secretary and the appropriate Governor consider to be appropriate for inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Recommendations made by the Secretary will be advisory only; since any changes to the System require an act of Congress. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife has proposed the areas around Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos lagoons for inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources system. 3.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Upon request, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent an extensive list of Federally-listed Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate species that potentially occur in the study area. This list is included in Appendix A. The California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) and the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) nest and forage in the study area, especially near the three lagoons; and the light- footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes is known to occur at the Buena Vista lagoon. Tern nesting sites have historically been located at Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos lagoons. Snowy plovers did not nest at Carlsbad State Beach this year, possibly due to the loss of sand on the beach. The brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) does not breed in the study area, but roosts and forages in nearshore waters. The salt marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus) is an endangered plant that may occur in the area. The tidewater goby (Eucvclogobius newberryi - proposed for Endangered status) may occur in one or more of the lagoons. In addition, Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis belding), a Category 2 Candidate species, occurs at the Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda lagoons. The California brackishwater snail (Tyronia imitator. Category 2) is known to occur at the mouth of Batiquitos Lagoon. It lives subtidally in a variety of sediments and is able to withstand a wide range of salinity. Appendix A contains a more complete list of the Federally-listed species that may occur in the project area, as well as additional information on some of those species. 3.3 WATER QUALITY Marine and estuarine habitats in the study area include the Pacific Ocean and the lagoons. Possible contaminants in the study area could derive from Oceanside Harbor, polluting activities upstream of the lagoons, spills of oil and other products carried by ships offshore of the study area, wastewater treatment plants, local industries, and urban runoff. The Encina Sewer Plant, located between the Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos lagoons, treats sewage to the secondary level before discharging into the ocean. Water quality is probably diminished in the lagoons, particularly where tidal circulation is limited. This situation does not necessarily result in degraded habitat values, however, as evidenced by the number and diversity of species utilizing all three lagoons. 3.4 LITTORAL TRANSPORT Carlsbad is located in the central portion of the Oceanside littoral cell bounded by Dana Point in the north and Point La Jolla in the south. Waves and wind create the primary coastal currents that transport sediment. The net transport of littoral drift along the Carlsbad coastal area is from north to south, with a net transport rate o'f 100,000 to 250,000 cubic yards annually. The real transport may be less than the potential littoral transport because specific sections of beaches contain no sand cover. Sediment sources in the study area include local creeks, storm drains, and cliffs. The lagoons effect coastal processes through their tidal exchange across the littoral current. As well as being possible sources of sediment, they can act as sinks and disrupt the continuous longshore flow of sediment. Several elements have contributed to the decline in coastal sediments: groins and other ocean structures; dams and sediment basins; sand mining operations; land erosion control; stream channelization; low annual runoff; sand bars; winter wave activity; and submarine canyons. The natural process of weathering, erosion, and deposition of stream sediments into a marine environment has been altered. As a result, a continued reduction in available natural sources of beach nourishment is occurring. 3.5 AMBIENT NOISE AND AIR QUALITY A. Ambient Noise - Sources of noise in the area include vehicular traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard, the San Diego Freeway, and other major highways; and trains on the Santa Fe Rail Line. Residential neighborhoods are among the sensitive noise receptors in the area. Land-generated noise sources in the vicinity of existing residences is not permitted to exceed the "State Noise Standards for Residential Uses," a maximum of 45 dBA outdoors for average daytime noise. B. Air Quality - Air quality is usually good, but it varies with seasonal and meteorological conditions; Federal and State standards for air pollutant levels are sometimes exceeded in the study area. Generally, air quality decreases during the summer, which is a period of high recreational use. Pollution sources include automotive exhaust and emissions from the S.D.G.& E. power plant. 3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeological studies to identify cultural resources within the proposed project area have not been conducted. A potential exists for historic and prehistoric sites that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places in both the land and underwater portions of the project area. Specifically, approximately six shipwrecks, and one World War II Japanese airplane, occur within or near the proposed project area. 3.7 AESTHETICS The view along Carlsbad Boulevard is of narrow sand and cobble beaches; beach-front homes, condominiums, and restaurants; and an expanse of the Pacific Ocean relatively unobstructed by the presence of man-made structures such as groins, breakwaters, and harbors. The main exceptions are intake and outlet jetties, and a groin, at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The lagoons, as well as being vital ecological resources, provide open space between developments. 3.8 LAND USE AND RECREATION Recreational uses of the study area include boating, fishing, sunbathing, surfing, and other water-related activities. Bird watching and other nature studies occur throughout the study area, particularly at the lagoons. The Audubon Society manages a nature center at the Buena Vista Lagoon. Much of the coastline has been developed for parking lots, business, and private homes. Many of these structures have been damaged or endangered from storm activity. Carlsbad Boulevard, which parallels the coastline, has also experienced storm damage due to the eroded beach. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Groins, breakwaters, beachfill, and seawalls/revetments would all have an impact on the environment. Most alternatives would, potentially, have both site-specific (local) and regional effects. Current information indicates that most impacts would be similar wherever the beachfill or structures are located, assuming the lagoons are avoided. Specific locations of rocky habitat, kelp beds, and other sensitive habitats have not been identified. Therefore, impacts will be addressed for each type of structure proposed (i.e. groins, breakwaters, etc.), rather than for each specific alternative. Modeling studies, and surveys of proposed construction areas, may be required during a Feasibility Study, to more accurately assess potential environmental impacts. 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A. Beachfill (Alternatives 1, 2, 2b, 5-7b, and 10) - With each beachfill alternative, replenishment would be required every several years, causing repeated large-scale disruption of marine habitats. Beach replenishment would be required more frequently in the absence of stabilizing structures, such as groins. The area covered by sandfill would be permanently lost as habitat for benthic infauna and fish feeding. Because this would be in an area that formerly comprised supralittoral beach, however, mitigation would not be required. Also, colonization of new beach areas by terrestrial invertebrates would be expected to occur soon after project completion. •***"• Routine beach replenishment may require dredging areas not currently maintained. One adverse effect of dredging is the entrainment of phytoplankton, zooplankton, free-floating pelagic fish eggs and fish larvae. This could result in a localized population reduction of marine fish species. This, in turn, could effect the foraging success of larger fish, marine mammals, and birds. Invertebrates in the dredge area would also be killed. Turbidity impacts are discussed in Section 4.2. Beach disposal of sediments would potentially affect the nesting areas of least terns and snowy plovers. This impact could be beneficial, if the project prevented erosion of existing nesting sites, or created additional areas. The wider beach would provide resting, feeding, and nesting areas for other shore birds, as well. The creation of a gently-sloping beach would also benefit the grunion. Spawning habitat would be increased by reestablishing a sandy intertidal area. Once suitable habitat is established, however, beach disposal should not occur during the grunion's spawning season (approximately March 15-September 15). If necessary, measures could be adopted that would allow disposal to continue during grunion season. These methods include nearshore disposal, diked disposal, or single point discharge. Increased public use of beaches could increase public use of the adjacent lagoon environments. These impacts may be vegetation trampling, soil compacting, trash and debris accumulation, encroachment of wildlife, loss of wildlife habitat, and a lowering of natural aesthetics. Sand replenishment, or changes in shoreline erosion patterns, could block lagoon mouths; changing the delicate balance of freshwater, seawater, and sedimentation. This could eventually lead to a change in population density and species diversity. Shoaling of sand at Agua Hedionda Lagoon could necessitate increased dredging near the inlet. Alternatives that disrupt or change the lagoon environments could have a detrimental impact on endangered species that use those habitats. Of particular concern is the light-footed clapper rail, which has very specific habitat requirements. Adverse impacts to the lagoons could be avoided through strategic placement of structures or beach sand. Opportunities for habitat restoration at the area's lagoons may be identified upon further coordination with resource agencies. Potential impacts to coastal barriers are discussed in the following sub-section. B. Groins, Jetties, and Breakwaters (Alternatives 2-3, 5, 7-8, and 10) - Structural solutions such as groins and breakwaters would replace a certain amount of benthic habitat with rocky habitat. This could cause a change in the present ^^ 10 community structure. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) often views this as an adverse impact, requiring mitigation. The Corps, in the past, has viewed this kind of project as self- mitigating. Assuming the base width of the groins would be 150 ft., the groin systems would cover about 2.4 to 8.3 acres of sandy-bottom habitat. Assuming the average breakwater base width would be 200 ft., those systems would modify 5.5 to 11.0 acres. The jetty extension would probably modify less than one acre. Placement of fill material (sediment or rocks) on the beach, or in intertidal or subtidal areas, would result in the loss of invertebrates in those areas. Breakwaters would probably have less of an impact on overall community structure, because they would affect only those species present at the -12 to -18 MSL depths. Groins would extend from supratidal through nearshore habitats. In the 1989 Oceanside Harbor Navigation Improvement Environmental Assessment, the Corps argued that groin and breakwater construction can actually benefit the local biological environment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) disagreed with the Corps' conclusion that these benefits completely outweigh the loss of soft-bottom habitat, and both agencies sighted different studies in support of their positions. According to the Corps' report, sediment-dwelling organisms are replaced by a more diverse community. The rocky structures act as an artificial reef, providing substrate for algal and invertebrate attachment. These invertebrates, in turn, are used as a forage base for a variety of fish and birds. Interstitial spaces provide protective habitat for a variety of marine life. Groins also provide relatively undisturbed roosting areas for sea birds, such as the brown pelican. Detached breakwaters are even more isolated from predators and most human encroachment. Rock structures could also provide haul-out areas for pinnipeds, such as seals and sea lions. The sea birds' open-water foraging area is reduced, but this could arguably be considered an insignificant impact. The USFWS and other resource agencies contend that the construction of groins and breakwaters result in an overall negative impact to the existing biological environment. Some fish species, such as California halibut and diamond turbot, are only associated with soft-bottom habitats. Construction of a solid rock structure would result in a net loss of habitat for those species. Also, such structures have a central area that has no contact with sea water and, therefore, provides no habitat value to aquatic organisms. The USFWS has supported the idea of a partially submerged, segmented, detached breakwater, at the -25 to -30 foot contour. A submerged structure would allow partial wave overtopping, be visually unobtrusive, and provide rocky subtidal marine habitat. As discussed in Section 4.3, the construction of breakwaters and groins can change the amount of sediment accretion and 11 erosion in some areas. If these patterns change in the vicinity of the lagoons, significant negative impacts to biological resources could result. Extension of the inlet jetty at Agua Hedionda Lagoon could benefit the environment by reducing the amount of sediment trapped in the lagoon, thereby reducing the frequency of dredging. Also, that area has already been disturbed to a certain extent by the several structures and activities present in the mouth of the lagoon. Structures and beachfill may be prohibited in any areas included in the Coastal Barrier Reef System. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 prohibits Federal expenditures on or financial assistance to new development of undeveloped coastal barriers included in the Barrier Reef System. This includes the carrying out of any project to prevent the erosion of, or to otherwise stabilize, any inlet, shoreline, or inshore area; except in cases where an emergency threatens life, land, and property immediately adjacent to that unit. Exceptions include nonstructural projects for shoreline stabilization that are designed to mimic, enhance, or restore a natural stabilization system. Structural solutions, or even major beach disposal projects, could be viewed as a potential impact to a coastal barrier, if portions of the study area were included in the system. Secondary impacts would occur from increased development in the project area. C. Seawalls/Revetments (Alternatives 4, 9, and 11) - The construction of seawalls or revetments would have no impact on benthic habitat. Although some public and private structures would be protected, the ongoing problem of beach erosion would not be solved. Bluff structures would not create or stabilize beaches and, therefore, would not benefit terrestrial resources. Seawalls or revetments would reduce or eliminate the bluffs' potential as a sand source, and as habitat for vegetation and wildlife. Adverse impacts to biological resources and water quality would probably be more site-specific than other alternatives, but permanent stabilization of a potential sand source could have regional effects. Reduction of freshwater influence to the bluff tops and faces, and vegetation with local native plant species, would benefit that resource. Bluff erosion would be reduced, but not completely eliminated, by the encouragement of natural bluff stabilization through vegetation. D. Other Alternatives - Kelp beds would provide protection, food, and attachment for a variety of fish and other marine species. If this becomes a viable solution in the future, it would probably be viewed as the most environmentally acceptable plan. A sand bypass system would also have minimal impacts on the marine environment. 12 4.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES At this time, it is not known whether any of the alternatives would directly impact endangered or threatened species. Construction schedules would likely avoid sensitive nesting periods of the least tern and snowy plover. Beach disposal, and construction of rock structures, would utilize methods to avoid adverse impacts to nesting areas, wintering plover populations, and grunion. Potential impacts to the lagoons would be analyzed, especially concerning resident clapper rails and other sensitive species. Endangered species may not be directly benefitted by wider beaches, if accretion occurs in areas where human activity precludes nesting. As the study progresses, if it becomes evident that impacts to endangered species may occur, a biological assessment would be prepared and formal consultation with the USFWS would be initiated. 4.3 WATER QUALITY A. Beachfill (Alternatives 1, 2, 2b, 5-7b, and 10) - Temporary, localized, physical and chemical changes in water quality characteristics may result due to resuspension of bottom sediments during construction. Any contaminants present could become ecologically active upon disturbance. Waters in the dredging area could experience temporary changes in pH, if anaerobic sediments are encountered. Two potential "borrow" areas have been identified (see Figures 16-17, Areas I and III). One or both of these areas may be considered during a Feasibility Study as a possible source of sediment for beachfill. Before dredging occurs, the areas would be evaluated for biological and cultural resources, as well as for compatibility of sediment with beach use. Chemical and mechanical analyses would be performed to identify contaminant levels and grain size (diameter). Preliminary testing indicates that the approximate grain size in both areas is 0.2 mm. This is acceptable for beachfill in this area. Chemical testing will not be done at this Reconnaissance stage. The results of future analyses would be used to evaluate dredging activities for consistency with the Clean Water Act. Additional impacts may include temporary increases in turbidity and suspended solids levels, along with associated decreases in dissolved oxygen. Increased turbidity through dredging, disposal, or other construction activities could contribute to a decrease in light penetration. This could cause a short term, local decline in aquatic primary productivity due to a temporary loss of phytoplankton populations. Any appreciable increase in suspended sediments may also cause clogging of respiratory and feeding apparatuses of fish and filter feeders, and the decrease in visibility would make feeding difficult. Course particles may cause abrasion of the body 13 surface. Temporary increases in turbidity could impact the foraging ability of sea birds such as the least tern and the "**°* brown pelican. Motile organisms may temporarily evacuate and avoid turbid areas. Turbidity can often be controlled by the use of silt curtains, limiting dredging to ebb tides, and the use of more efficient dredging equipment or methods. Adverse effects would be short term and insignificant. Long term, adverse impacts to water quality are not expected, as long as the tidal influence in the lagoons is not altered. Saltwater intrusion, or the loss of an existing freshwater and saltwater exchange, could alter the quality of the water to which the existing vegetation and wildlife has become adapted. B. Groins. Jetties and Breakwaters (Alternatives 2-3, 5, 7- 8, and 10) - Temporary, minor impacts to water quality would occur during the construction period. Transportation of construction materials to the site may involve minor leakage of fuel and other fluids into the water. Small amounts of soil adhering to the stone may become temporarily suspended in the water column. Impacts from suspended sediments would be similar to those discussed in the above section, but on a much smaller scale. Significant turbidity plumes are not generated by rock placement. C. Seawalls/Revetments (Alternatives 4, 9, and 11) - These -*•"•*>• structures would be located above the average high tide level, and would not significantly impact water quality. Debris and spills from construction activities, if left within the tide's reach, could have a minor impact. 4.4 LITTORAL TRANSPORT Beach replenishment projects would increase the amount of sediment available for transport in the littoral system, if the source is other than routine maintenance dredging. Seawalls and revetments would reduce this amount, by eliminating the potential for bluff erosion in those areas. Breakwaters, groins, and jetties can significantly effect sediment transport. Depending on length and location, jetties and groins can reduce or even block sediment flow on one side of the structure, and cause sediment accretion on the other side. Several breakwaters, groins, and jetties, from Oceanside Harbor to the San Luis Rey River, are responsible for retention of material upcoast of the study area. Structural measures to remedy beach erosion in the study area could precipitate increased shoreline erosion downcoast, by re-directing waves or blocking littoral transport. Cumulative impacts could result from the construction of jetties at Batiquitos Lagoon, planned as part of the Lagoon's restoration project, and the existing jetties and groin at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. At this time, it is assumed that none of the ^** 14 alternatives would result ill downcoast erosion. Beachfill would accompany all groin construction. Breakwaters would be designed so that salients, rather than tombolos, would form, and sediment transport would not be blocked. A more detailed evaluation should be conducted in the Feasibility Stage. 4.5 NOISE AND AIR QUALITY A. Noise Impacts - Noise levels would temporarily increase through the use of barges, cranes, and other construction equipment. Residential areas adjacent to haul routes or construction areas would be most impacted by noise and emissions. Increased recreational use of the beach would also affect the ambient noise levels in the study area. B. Air Quality - Emissions from construction equipment would temporarily lower air quality in the study area, in rock or sediment borrow areas, and along haul routes. These emissions would be regulated, however, to meet the standards of the Air Pollution Control District; which may issue a permit for certain construction activities. Barge aggregates exceeding 500 horsepower must obtain permits (for each configuration) to perform semi-stationary activities. Air quality would be further diminished by increased recreational use of the beach. 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES Until a literature study and an archeological survey of the entire project area are conducted, the effects on National Register listed or eligible properties are unknown. 4.7 AESTHETICS Wider, sandy beaches would be more aesthetically pleasing, to some, than narrow, cobble beaches. Structures such as groins and breakwaters would have a significant impact on the ocean view. Breakwaters would affect a wider viewshed than groins, but both structures would alter the current aesthetic environment. Impacts to the quality of the lagoons would probably reduce their aesthetic quality as well. 4.8 LAND USE AND RECREATION Increased protection afforded by an erosion control project may result in increased development of beach-front property. Recreational use of the beach would increase dramatically. Surfing could be impacted if structural solutions change wave patterns. Groins and breakwaters could also have the effect of increasing erosion down-shore, by re-directing waves or blocking littoral transport. Attached groins would probably be used for fishing. 15 5 . 0 COORDINATION The following agencies have been contacted regarding this study: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ; National Marine Fisheries Service; California Park Service; California State Office of Historic Preservation; California Department of Fish and Game; Water Quality Control Board; California Coastal Commission; Scripps Institute; and the Audubon Society. A Planning Aid Letter has been requested from the USFWS. Coordination with these agencies, and others, will continue throughout the course of the study. Other possible sources of information include: Air Pollution Control District; Southern California Edison; San Diego Gas and Electric; San Diego Colleges and Universities; and other knowledgeable agencies and organizations . Many resource agencies and private groups support non- structural solutions, such as beach nourishment or kelp bed establishment. The State Resources Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Coastal Commission, and the California Park Service have written policies or statements that support implementation of non- structural solutions, wherever feasible. 6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS A shoreline protection project must comply with all applicable environmental laws, executive orders, and policies, including (but not limited to) the following: 1. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 2. Clean Water Act 3. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 4. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 5. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 6. Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management 7. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands 8. California Coastal Act of 1976 9. Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 10. Clean Air Act 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Non-structural alternatives would be the environmentally- preferred solutions to the beach erosion problems in the study area. These alternatives, however, may not be viable or economically justified. Resources that could be significantly affected by structural solutions, such as groins or breakwaters, include: marine habitats, lagoons, coastal barriers, threatened and endangered species, water quality, cultural resources, 16 aesthetics, land use, and recreation. Most and possibly all impacts could be mitigated, however, to a level of non- significance. Impacts to recreation, the terrestrial biological environment, and grunion would be largely beneficial. A Feasibility Study would have to assess potential impacts to the environment of several project alternatives. Secondary impacts relating to changes in land use and sediment transport would also be addressed. A modeling study may be necessary to analyze the impacts of groins or breakwaters on surfing, littoral drift, downcoast erosion, and riptide formation. (This study would be funded through the Coastal Engineering Branch, and would not affect the Environmental cost estimate.) Additional biological studies, including surveys of the proposed construction areas, would be conducted by the Corps and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Dredged sediments should be tested for contaminants and beach compatibility, in accordance with the Clean Water Act. Monitoring of sensitive habitats, especially the lagoons, may be required during construction. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other wildlife agencies, would probably request mitigation for impacts to marine habitats, including benthic resources, kelp beds, and eelgrass. Impacts to existing eelgrass beds, through dredging, disposal, or rock placement, would require, at a minimum, 1:1 mitigation. Adverse impacts to endangered species, sand dunes, lagoons, coastal barriers, and existing rocky habitat would need to be avoided. Construction time windows would probably be set to avoid the nesting season of the least tern and the western snowy plover. Operations must also avoid disturbance to wintering populations of the plover. If bluff stabilization is considered in a Feasibility Study, then vegetation alternatives should be included. It has been decided that an Environmental Impact Statement would be prepared, should the study continue to the Feasibility stage. The construction of large groins or breakwaters would probably be viewed by many as a potentially significant impact on aesthetic and biological resources. Recreational activities such as surfing could also be affected. EA's were prepared for similar projects in Oceanside and Ventura harbors, but the shoreline in this study area has few existing structures. New construction would likely be viewed as a significant change. A 404(b)(l) Evaluation would be prepared, to assess impacts to water resources. A minimum of 8.5 months would be required to prepare a draft EIS and appendices, from the time preliminary alternatives have been developed. Detailed modeling studies and additional biological or cultural surveys may extend the process. Finalization of the EIS (including Division and Public Review) would take at least seven more months, after the draft is completed. 17 A literature study and, an archeological survey of both the land and underwater portions of the project would be required in the Feasibility stage. Results would be coordinated with the California State Historic Preservation Officer, in order to be in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Coordination with resource agencies would also include the preparation of a Consistency Determination by the Corps and concurrence by the California Coastal Commission; 401 Certification by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (or adoption of Waste Discharge Requirements); and formal or informal coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including the receipt of a Coordination Act Report. Costs of obtaining environmental data and preparing all necessary documentation during a Feasibility Study are expected to total approximately $152,000. This would include an estimated $42,000 to obtain biological baseline data (at two alternative structure sites and two borrow areas), $15,000 for a USFWS Coordination Act Report, $20,000 for a cultural resources survey, and $73,000 to research and prepare an Environmental Assessment. Mitigation measures, such as replacement or transplantation of eelgrass or kelp, would be an additional cost. Sensitive habitats (with the exception of soft-bottom habitat) would likely be avoided, so mitigation for these resources is not expected to be necessary. 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS This document was prepared by: Hayley Lovan, Environmental Coordinator and Ecologist Roderic McLean, Archeologist This document was reviewed by: Stephen Dibble, Senior Archeologist Nedenia Kennedy, Chief, Environmental Support Section Douglas Chitwood, Study Manager 9.0 REFERENCES Buena Vista Audubon Society Pamphlets The Audubon Society, December 1990. The Audubon Society Nature Guides - Pacific Coast. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. MEC Analytical Systems, Inc., April 1991. "Production and Valuation Study of an Artificial Reef off Southern California." Prepared for Port of Long Beach, Port of Los Angeles, and National Marine Fisheries Service. 18 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement, Batiq'uitos Lagoon Enhancement Project, San Diego County, California." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, February 1979. "San Diego County, Vicinity of Oceanside, California - Survey Report for Beach Erosion Control." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1980. "San Diego County, Vicinity of Oceanside, California - Survey Report for Beach Erosion Control." Main report, draft EIS, and appendices. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 1989. "Oceanside Harbor, San Diego County, California - Feasibility Report, Storm Damage Reduction and Navigation Improvements." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, February 1990. "Final Environmental Assessment, Oceanside Harbor Maintenance Dredging, Six Year Program, Sand Diego County, California." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 1990. "Section 103 Small Project, Carlsbad Beach Erosion Control Reconnaissance Study, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 1992. "Final Environmental Assessment, Ventura Harbor Detached Breakwater Repari, Ventura County, California." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, October 1992. "Final Environmental Assessment - Ballast Point Coast Guard Pier Renovations, San Diego Bay, San Diego County, California." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, January 1993. "Oceanside Harbor, San Diego County, California - Supplemental EA, Storm Damage Reduction and Navigation Improvements." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 1980. "Coordination Act Report on the Beach Erosion Control Project in San Diego County in the Vicinity of Oceanside, California." 19 APPENDIX A ENDANGERED SPECIES: LISTS AND INFORMATION IFIC COAST SHORELINE, CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA Agua Hedionda LagoonBuena Vista Lagoon Batiquitos Lagoon 2*0 60957304M £ytm FIGURE 2 CARLSBAD STUDY AREA Northern City Pin* Ave. Tamarack Ave. I I I 700 ft north of Cannon Rd. 400 ft north of Cerezo Dr. FIGURE 2 Five Reaches of Carlsbad Coastal Area FIGURE 3 ALTERNATIVE <ee eeg 1200 OWftflC SCALE i r • SOT *~-*«l rt««* o*«« • + Carlsbad FIGURE 4 ALTERNATIVE. 2 M 1 4- r -. -1 ^ h ^ H FIGURE 5 ALTERNATIVE 2b a r s a FIGURE 6 ALTERNATIVE + Carlsbad FIGURE 7 ALTERNATIVE\4E Carlsbad FIGURE 8 ALTERNATIVE^ V^— «"0 «->•' ~t~ Carlsbad FIGURE 9 ALTERNATIVE 6 FIGURE 10 ALTERNATIVE 7 <\00 FIGURE 11 ALTERNATIVE 7b CarIsbad FIGURE 12 ALTERNATIVE 8 Carlsbad FIGURE 13 ALTERNATIVE 9 C a \FIGURE 14 ALTERNATIVE 10 STRoCToP.eS \ , 2. > ?*- 3 ALTERNATIVE 11"' FIGURE 16 1721 / (M*)' I852» / 1675. IMF) SD-I /(MF) V ou/ •*•/ 33° 10' AREAlg — — ~ — - Boundary of borrow area • I72KMF) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers vibracare station Letters in parentheses denotesand suitability. 2 kilometers I nautical mile PREVIOUSLY roENTIFIED POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS, CARLSBAD/OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA Source: Osborne, et al., 1983. II7°20' — 33°05' SD-IH 1417.5(MF) -33° ||7°20 FIGURE 17 AREA3T 0 0.5 I 0.5 I nautical mile •~~~~~"~— Boundary of borrow area • I4351MF) US. Army Corps of Engineers vibracore station. Letters inparentheses denote sand suitability N SD-3Zll\ V I3€9(MF)« PPFVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Source: Osborne, et al., 1983. 8 .0"*°' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE "niswroon Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, California 90802-4213 TEL (310) 980-4000; FAX (310) 980-4018 JUL 2 9 1993 F/SWO31-.IVL Ms. Hayley Lovan U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Branch P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 Dear Ms. Lovan: Thank you for requesting information regarding the presence of any Federally listed threatened or endangered species that may be affected by your proposal to conduct a Reconnaissance Study along the coast between Buena Vista Lagoon and Batiquitos, San Diego County, to determine the Federal interest in implementing storm-damage reduction and shoreline protection solutions in this area. No species under the management authority of the National Marine Fisheries Service occur at the proposed project site. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should also be contacted regarding the presence of listed species that may be under its jurisdiction. If you have questions concerning these comments, please contact Ms. Irma Lagomarsino at (310) 980-4016, Sincerely, ^ Gary Matlock. Ph.D. Acting Regional Director TAKE' , United States Department of the Interior BBS', nSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 August 2, 1993 Ms. Hayley Lovan U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Branch P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 Re: Endangered Species Information for the Reconnaissance Study in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (1-6-93-SP-215) Dear Ms. Lovan: This is in response to your letter dated July 8, 1993, and received by us on July 14, 1993, requesting information on endangered, threatened and candidate species which may be present within the area of the referenced project in San Diego County, California. The Federal lead agency under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), has the responsibility to request a species list and to prepare a Biological Assessment if the project is a construction project which may require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)1 If a Biological Assessment is not required, the lead Federal agency still has the responsibility to review the proposed activities and determine whether listed species will be affected. During the assessment or review process, the lead Federal agency may engage in planning efforts but may not make any irreversible commitment of resources. Such a commitment could constitute a violation of Section 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act. If a listed species may be affected, the agency should request, in writing through our office, formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Act. A Federal agency is required to confer with the Service when the agency determines that its action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Conferences are informal discussions between the Service and Federal agency, designed to identify and resolve potential conflicts between an action and proposed species or proposed critical habitat at an early point in the decision making process. The Service makes recommendations, if any, on ways to minimize or avoid adverse effects of the action. These recommendations are advisory because the jeopardy prohibition of Section 7(a)(2) does not apply until the species is listed or the proposed critical habitat is designated. If the proposed species is listed or the proposed habitat designated, the Federal agency determines whether or not formal consultation is required. The conference process fills the need to alert Federal agencies of possible steps that an agency might take at an early stage to adjust its actions to avoid jeopardizing a .^yley Lovan . , •/ proposed species. Informal consultation may be used to exchange information and resolve conflicts with respect to listed species prior to a written request for formal consultation. It should be noted that candidate species have no protection under the Act. Therefore, the lead Federal agency is not required to preform a Biological Assessment for candidate species nor to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service should it be determined that the project may affect candidate species. They are included for the sole purpose of notifying Federal agencies in advance of possible proposals and listings which at some time in the future may have to be considered in planning Federal activities. If early evaluation of your project indicates that it is likely to adversely impact a candidate species, you may wish to request technical assistance from this office. Should you have any questions regarding the species listed on the following pages, or your responsibilities under the Act, please call Susan wynn of my staff at (619) 431-9440. Sincerely, Peter A. Stine Acting Field Supervisor •Construction Project" means andy Federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human environment designed primarily to result in the building or erection of man-made structures such as dams, buildings, roads, pipelines, channels, and the like. This "***' includes Federal actions such as permits, grants, licenses, or other forms of Federal authorizations or approval which may result in construction. *yley Lovan Listed, Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species That may occur in the Area of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (1-6-93-SP-215) LISTED SPECIES Common Name Birds Peregrine falcon Bald eagle Brown pelican Light-footed clapper rail California least tern Western snowy plover Plants Salt marsh bird's beak PROPOSED SPECIES ^ Fish Tidewater goby CANDIDATE SPECIES Scientific Name Falco peregrinus Hallaeetus leucocephalus Pelecanus occidentalis Rallus longirostris levipes Sterna antillarum browni Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus Eucvclogobius newfaerrvi Status E E E E E T PE Pacific little pocket mouse Southern marsh harvest mouse Birds Tricolored blackbird Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow Black Tern Reddish egret California horned lark Harlequin duck Western least bittern Loggerhead shrike Black rail fielding's savannah sparrow Large-billed savannah sparrow White-faced ibis Elegant tern Reptiles Southwestern pond turtle San Diego banded gecko Two-striped garter snake Perognathus longimembris pacificus Reithrodontomvs meealotis limicola 2 2 Agelaius tricolor Aimophila ruficeps canescens Chilodonias niger Egretta rufescens Eromophila alpestris actia Histrionicus histrionicus Ixobrvchus exilis hesoeris Lanius ludovic ianus Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus Passerculus sandwichens is belding Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus Plegadis chihi Sterna eleeans Clemmys marmorata pallida Coleonvx variegatus abbotti Thamnophis hammondii 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 ayley Lovan ' • Invertebrates Ca. brackish water snail Tyronia j.mitator 2 Oblivious tiger beetle Cicindela ]Latesignata obliviosa 2 Globose dune beetle Coelus globosus 2 Salt marsh skipper Panoquina errans 2 Wandering skipper Pseudocopaeodes eunus eunus 2 Plants Coastal dunes milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. titi 1 Coast wallflower Erysinum apmoph?]uni 2 Prostrate lotus Lotus nuttallianus 2 (E) - Endangered (T) - Threatened (PE) - Proposed for listing as endangered (1) - Category 1: Taxa for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened. (2) - Category 2: Taxa for which existing information indicates that listing may be warranted, but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatuirO Description: The peregrine falcon is larger than the American kestrel or sparrow hawk, having a wing span of more than three feet Females weigh up to 35 ounces, and are larger than males. The adult has slate-gray upper body feathers, narrow barring on the belly, breast and flanks, and black cap and cheek patches. The breast is spotted, and legs and feet are yellow. While in flight, peregrine falcons can be identified by their wing beats and pointed wings. These birds have extraordinary vision, aerial agility and great speed. Habitat and Range: The American peregrine falcon, one of three subspecies native to North America, was no longer breeding east of the Rocky Mountains as of 1977. Its numbers are severely reduced in the western states. Most breeding populations are confined to the mountainous areas of the western United States and Mexico. In California, peregrines occur seasonally throughout the state but are seen most commonly along the coast in the Central Valley and in surrounding mountains. In Arizona, breeding pairs are now well distributed throughout suitable habitat statewide, except the low elevation deserts. Peregrines in the Southwest and southern California may be nearly sedentary, occupying their breeding territories year-round. Others winter in South and Central America. A 1990 census estimated there were about 400 breeding pairs in the western U.S. However, their wintering and breeding habitat continue to be severely reduced. This bird inhabits areas with cliffs and steep terrain, preferably near water or woodlands where its prey concentrations are high. Feeding Habits: Peregrine falcons are hunters of birds. Sleek and agile, they dive down from above on doves, pigeons, shorebirds and waterfowl, as well as many other species. In their dives, they have been reported to fly at speeds up to 200 miles per hour. They are possibly the fastest creature alive. However, peregrines probably succeed in making kills only 10-40% of the time. To compensate for this, they need to travel extensively when hunting. A hunting range of 10 miles may be considered typical. Marshes and riparian zones are important hunting habitats since they serve to attract and concentrate prey. In some places, peregrine falcons prey heavily on bats. Breeding/Nesting Habits: Peregrines mate for life. They return each year to the same nest site, or eyrie, on a rocky cliff. They have also been known to occupy man-made structures. One nesting site in California is on Morro Rock, overlooking Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo county. Morro Rock has been declared an ecological reserve for the peregrine falcon, and the area has been prohibited to the public. Nesting activity begins there in early February and by April the female has laid 2-4 eggs. Peregrines do not build nests of sticks. They merely form a hollow called a "scrape" in the soil or sand substrate and deposit their eggs. The eggs hatch in 28-31 days, and the young fledge in 4 to 6 weeks. The adult male hunts and brings food to the female and young during incubation and early brooding, and later both adults forage for prey. Upon fledging, the young birds are closely attended by their parents, who teach them to hunt and care for themselves. Peregrines first breed when two years old, and usually live 6-8 years. The young experience high mortality, with only one out of four surviving their first year. Predators of the young include golden eagles and great horned owls, but the greatest cause of mortality is collision with twigs, limbs, and wire while in flight. \in,-lit tin i', i, ••line liil»ni\ i /1//!/'<•/ \n\fl Kliikt Federal status: Endangered. Latest listing: March 20, 1984. State status: CA; NV; UT: Endangered; AZ: Candidate. Areas of Concern: DDT-caused eggshell thinning remains a problem for the peregrine falcon. In addition, continued use of herbicides and pesticides contaminate the food chain and accumulate in peregrine fat. Housing developments along the coast and other human disturbances drive remaining falcons from the cliffs and reduce their prey. The birds die in collisions with power lines. Shootings caused half the known fatalities of peregrines in California. And finally, as late as the 1980's falconers illegally stole young birds from the nests to train or sell. (The Arctic peregrine falcon, which historically nested from Alaska to Greenland and winters in South and Central America, is paler overall, with white undcrparts. Immaturcs have a pale broxvn forehead and a thinner mustache on the side of the head. Its breeding populations ha\e been increasing, approaching llicir historic level. This subspecies might be removed from the list.) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Description: Except for the California condor, the bald eagle is the largest bird of prey in California, with a wing span of 6 and 1/2 ft to 8 ft. The female weighs 10-14 Ibs, outweighing the smaller, 8-10 Ib. male. A young eagle is brown with white underneath the wings, and its bill and eyes are dark. The eye and bill both eventually lighten to yellow, and the head and tail bleach with prolonged exposure to the sun. The adult has shorter flight feathers and a brownish-black body. A large, yellow, hooked beak, powerful feet and sharp black talons are used to secure the prey and tear flesh. Unlike the golden eagle, the bald eagle's legs are not feathered all the way to its feet. Feeding Habits: Fish is usually the preferred meal, but waterfowl, jackrabbits and other mammals may also be taken. Weakened, injured or slow animals are caught more often. Sometimes eagles will team up to catch healthy prey. A great deal of the eagle's time is spent perching, looking for prey. It searches for dead or dying fish, surface feeders and shallow water species. When a fish is sighted, the eagle descends quickly and smoothly, reaching a foot or both feet down to the surface to scoop it up. At times, they will rob other raptors, such as osprey. A large part of the diet, especially of immature birds, may consist of carrion. Eagles congregating to feed often roost communally. Breeding/Nesting Habits: Eagles tend to choose areas with the fewest people, within a reasonable distance of water. Areas where food is abundant or reliable are favored nesting sites. Tall trees or cliffs for nests and perches are needed (man-made structures are rarely used) for eagles will rarely nest on the ground. Birds in different geographic areas start nesting at different times of the year, and southern birds have a longer laying season than northern birds. In Arizona, courtship begins in late September, eggs are laid mid-January to early February, and young fledge between mid-May to mid-June. In Minnesota, breeding season is from February to October. Breeding eagles are territorial, defending an area around their nests from intrusion by other eagles. (Sometimes lone eagles are also territorial.) Pairing is a long- term relationship, possibly for life, although "divorces" do occur. The nest is a massive stick platform, often in trees 20-90 ft high, and is used year after year. The average nest is about 6 ft in diameter and 3 to 4 ft from top to bottom. Clutch size is usually 2-3 eggs, which hatch after about 35 days. Both parents brood, feed and provide for their young, keeping an almost constant guard against predators. Heat stress (especially among cliff-dwellers) and competition among siblings (leading to starvation) take a greater toll than do predators. Areas of Concern: Of course, humans have been most responsible for the endangered status of the bald eagle. DDT and other pesticides have poisoned eagles and led to a decrease in successful reproduction. Hunting, poisoned prey and bait, electrocution from power lines, and lead poisoning from shotgun-wounded ducks have also caused many deaths. Many eagles are hit by cars while feeding on road-killed carrion, and much of their habitat has been destroyed by urbanization. Finally, eagles are easily agitated by human intrusions, and they may abandon their nests if disturbed. -; ,i lt\>i ilnii \;»i/i.vi» .ll\l<:. i • BEST ORIGINAL Winter distribution of Bald Eagles in Nort/i America. Data are from the 1985 Christmas bird touiitf (American Birds Volume 40, igS6, pages 606-1012). Federal status: Endangered. Latest listing: February 14, 1978. State status: AZ; CA; UT: Endangered. NV: Protected. Habitat/Range: Found in many places throughout North America, they are very adaptable to various climates and habitats. They prefer areas with high trees or cliffs for perching and nesting, in areas with limited human disturbance. In California, most of the nesting sites are located in the north, but there are several popular wintering sites in the south, such as Lake San Antonio, Matthews Reservoir, Big Bear Lake,, and many other reservoirs and lakes. Although eagles are migratory in parts of their range where their habitat is inhospitable in winter, they move less, or more or less randomly, in areas where there is an adequate food supply year-round. California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) Description: The California brown pelican is a large grayish-brown coastal bird with a large pouched bill and short tail. It has a wingspread of 90 inches. Adults have white heads but the immatures are dark-headed. It flies with its head folded back on its neck and shoulders, alternately flapping its wings and sailing. It may weigh more than 8 pounds and is larger and darker than the eastern species. It is usually seen in flocks, flying in single file. Habitat and Range: This bird ranges along the Pacific Coast from Mexico to Canada in the summer. Some move as far north as British Columbia in summer and fall, but most of the birds remain in Mexico. It may be found as a transient in Arizona along the Colorado River and it is occasionally blown into central Arizona by storms. The large birds once nested in great numbers on the Channel Islands as well as on offshore rocks. There were once as many as 5000 breeding pairs on Anacapa Island alone. Due to several factors, including DDT contamination and a serious decline in the bird's food supply, by 1969 that colony was decimated. 1,125 nests produced only 4 fledglings. Due to federal protection of bird, its nesting sites and feeding areas, and to the banning of DDT, the Channel Islands' population was back to over 5000 pairs in 1989. Most nesting colonies can be found on coastal islands off Baja California and in the Sea of Cortez. After breeding, the pelicans disperse along the coast to San Francisco and beyond, and roost on breakwaters, jetties, and river mouth sandbars. Pelicans from Mexico begin to appear along the California coast in late June, congregating in bays and protected areas along the shore, or at good fishing sites. They seldom fly far inland and seldom range more than 15-20 miles out to sea in search of food. Feeding Habits: Hying low over the ocean, they search for schools of surface fish such as anchovies, sardines, and mackerel. When one is sighted, the pelican soars abruptly upwards, points its bill toward the water, folds its wings and plummets into the water. The fish are quickly flipped back into the pouch while the pelican goes after more prey. The northern anchovy comprises 92% of the bird's food during the breeding season when it is available. Breeding/nesting Habits: The location of nesting sites is discussed above. Breeding season begins as early as December in the southernmost colonies. Pelicans construct large stick platforms in which they lay 3-4 eggs. Both parents assist in caring for the young and spend many hours foraging for fish to feed their young. After 8-10 weeks, the young leave their nest and accompany their parents to nearby fishing areas or north along the Pacific Coast. Areas of Concern: Limited food availability, rather than DDT, is the major cause of pelican mortality. Especially since the decline of northern anchovy populations, pelicans are in competition with commercial fishermen for Pacific sardines. Disturbance of colonies by military helicopters and small private planes continues. Recreation and housing developments disturb pelican roosting sites. Finally, pelicans can be at risk from offshore oil development - a major spill could devastate a breeding colony. California bniwii pci'min (Fnvin ami !'<$&• Raiicri California brown [H-l'icans (Tupl\r .-*"«•/ BEST ORIGINAL Federal status: Endangered. Latest listing - February 4, 1985. State status: CA: Endangered. Light-footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) Description: The light-footed clapper rail is a shy, hen-like bird slightly smaller than a crow. It is a striking, tawny-chested bird with white striped flanks, back dappled in grays, cream, brown, and black, an orange and brown bill, and a patch of bright white under its constantly flicking tail Males are larger than females and slightly more colorful This sub-species is slightly darker than the other races and is the largest rail found within its range. Their presence may also be detected by their distinctive call, a series of loud clattering "kek notes. Long legs and splayed toes give them support when walking. They bob their heads and twitch their tails when they walk. Habitat and Range: It lives where flatlands meet the ocean in a few spots where people have preserved coastal marshes. Historically, this bird was a resident of coastal marshes from Santa Barbara to Baja California. Destruction and degradation of habitat led to alarmingly small and apparently isolated subpopulations. By the spring of 1989, the northern populations had been lost, and the total number of light-footed clapper rails in California was estimated at only 163 pairs. A goal of 400 nesting pairs has been set. Only 8 marshes were occupied by breeding populations, and perhaps only one of these is viable for future generations. These non-migratory birds require cordgrass or pickleweed for nesting and cover. Without some fresh water, cordgrass is stunted. Nests that are built in inadequate cover are susceptible to tidal wash and those easily accessible from adjacent uplands are more likely to be destroyed by predators. Frequently, during periods of high tide, this bird will be found roosting on driftwood and debris. Feeding Habits: The diet of the light-footed clapper rail consists of clams, crabs, marine snails, insects, fish, small mobile animals, tiny invertebrates, and sometimes plant foods. Predators: These include the non-native red fox, the coyote, feral cats, domestic dogs, striped skunks, raccoons, raptors and snakes. Breeding/Nesting Habits: This bird often nests around the high tide line, securing its nest by weaving it into surrounding live cordgrass. The rail also weaves a canopy of cordgrass to cover its nest while it is incubating eggs. The nest is a bowl of grasses in which 6-10 buff-colored, spotted eggs are laid. The incubation period is 23 days. The young rails are dependent upon the adults for several weeks. Both the adults and chicks can swim, but often die if forced to stay afloat very long. Areas of Concern: Biologists consider the light-footed clapper rail to be an "indicator species": its numbers indicate the health or impoverishment of the biological community in which it lives. More than 90% of the wetlands of the south coast have been drained, diked, or buried under dredge spoils, and this is reflected by the diminished rail population. With the concentration of remaining rails in a number of small habitats, predation has become a significant threat. Overshooting by hunters had some effect and DDT probably added eggshell thinning to the list of mortality factors. Light-footed clapper rail (B. 'Moose" Peterson) BEST ORIGINAL Federal status: Endangered. Listed: October 13, 1970 State status: CA: Endangered. California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni) Description: As the name suggests, this bird is the smallest of the terns. It is nine inches long, has a white body, gray wings, black wing tips, a white forked tail and yellow legs. In breeding plumage, the white forehead contrasts with the black cap on the head and the bird's yellow bill has a black tip. These markings, the four-part call of the birds at the breeding colony and the rapid wing-beat distinguish it from other terns in California. Habitat and Range: From April to September the least tern can be found along the Pacific Coast from San Francisco Bay to central Baja California. They come from unknown wintering areas between western Mexico and Equador. Nesting sites are on white sand beaches or alkali fiats, most of them south of Santa Barbara. Terns tend to choose a sandy flat area with little or no vegetation. More than half of the breeding birds today nest on landfills or other man-made surfaces. In California, nesting areas are often within managed enclosures adjacent to millions of beach goers. In 1988 and 1989 there were about 1200 nesting pairs at 28 sites. Feeding Habits: California least terns eat small fish exclusively - anchovies, topsmelt, and even gnmion. Once a school is found, terns hover a moment and dive into the water, rising quickly with their prey. Between plunges, the fluttering birds can be butterflylike, but they can also streak with the wind. Terns prefer to forage in shallow, nearshore ocean waters. Adults tend to forage closer to the colony in bays, lagoons and rivers once chicks have hatched due to the demand for frequent feedings. Breeding/Nesting Habits: The adults arrive in California on their breeding grounds in April and breed in loose colonies. Courting males hold fish in their mouths while they strut in front of females. The nests are shallow depressions in the sand, near a lagoon or estuary that provides a small fish food supply. The birds lay 2 or 3 buff-colored eggs that are splotched with irregular shaped purplish and brownish markings blending with the sand. The eggs hatch after 20 to 25 days. When they are only 2 days old the chicks leave the nest and wander freely through the tern colony. Parents bring fish to the young even after they take to the air at about 3 weeks of age, and continue to feed them until they have migrated south again. The birds begin migrating to their wintering grounds by September. Areas of Concern: Most of the colonies were gone from the beaches of Los Angeles and Orange counties by 1940. Construction of the Pacific Coast Highway led to a proliferation of beachside homes and resorts and a steady procession of people, dogs, and cats along the shore. Coastal wetlands, which produce the fish terns feed upon, were filled or drained. Terns that nest on man-made surfaces are subject to risks from chemical contamination, airport and military operations, land development, off-road vehicles, and predation. Fenced nesting areas are mostly quite small, so non-native foxes and other predators have been able to take a heavy toll. B. ~MooM~ Pctcmon least tcni (lliumus Riitintnvl BEST ORIGINAL Federal status: Endangered. Latest listing: June 2, 1970. State status: CA: Endangered. Predators: Predators include cats, coyotes, foxes, skunks, kestrels, northern harriers, crows, ravens, gulls, and owls, among others. _ MAR-15-93 HON 17:21 US FHS FAX NO. 6194319624 P. 02 UL fe RSH tVflLDUFE SfflVICE - 911 HE lHh AVENUE PORTLAND. OREGON $72334181 HAWAI AND IHEPACflC HANDS BC-80-W-O-C 93-07 Kafer: David KUnger - 503/231-6121 <o.) 503/2A6-8146 <h.> 3, 1993 OP STHC ffE Q^f Iff/WTCO AB Tha U.S. Fi^i and Wtldllfa 8«rvic« hu listed th* Pooiflo cxMSt populcclon of the weacern «nowy plover «c a tbraaoKWd «p«etit< under the Act. The plover, • null. pale«ooCL0r«d diorablrd, !• known to OMC on sand «c 20 cites in California, six alcac In Otfttgoa, And faro In V«0hingtoD. ?***r t=b*n 1,500 bled* «** e«ctiMtod to c«m«ia In 1AM thM« *t*t««. A acpantM IntAclor populacton oC ofe»tetn cavwy plovar« te««dc in the nt«in «nd prairie ¥««t md 8onrf»eartij it la not Included in today f« *Th« ««&tinaln§ dx?1.iwi in nesting •<••« and breeding populAdonc «BV» Kb* for t&is ceblon," «tid IftOEvia Plourt, tbe Seaeviee'o V«nl£le xweLoocl SOMC «f tfa« broediac «rft*Ji «lvcod7 «r« protaoeaA, cuoh as «£MA «t y Kaetonal Wildlife K«£u«* ix» VaAiagton end on Coca Bay's Korth Splc in Oregon. In otibsx areas, conoervatlon. actir£tlo« will include season*! of «i»*x*fl axttas on portion* of lopal fae««b.oB. pintrtrg cicna that explain the ioportaooe of Ia«viag doe birds ttndl»turbed, and other ooftcecvadon Plover populationa ar« threatened by human 4iitaibcaee ac their nests, lose of scstlsc Ji*bita*tj fnfiTTff^iB^nf fff Bunqwan Vfar1itft'as0 oo Tttifl^rlHC ccoundsi and pxedation by pet dogs. er»nt ravens, red foxes, and other arrlanlK. Clover nevts COMlut: of snail dBpraulana In open sand. Dhftxe dM mg$g end birds easily blond In. Hover &Mt* fail «ben th« adult* are aocidmfmlly thASed from thair nesta •ceo aany dnea. or wben the eggs ax« accidentally crushed. BelatiYely simple *u*h *a fencing nesting ***•*, or seasonally closing oesc cites to people, and pets, could greatly alleviate nany of thft threaca. (ovet) BEST ORIGINAL !r!5-93 «ON 17:21 USFWS 793*8000 FAX NO. 6194319624US FlshAWlKHlfe P. 03 ©004 S3-07 - March S. 1993 -2- *Iba rich and Ulldlifa ferriee vac patitienad in 1986 by the National Audubon Society Co ILie tie Pacific co«a« poptxl«tlon of the wctcta «no*)y plover «s chr«ac«u«<{. Th« Cervlce published « pr»po««l to lint tb« bird on J«m««y 14. 1$92. Today'* llatlnfi of tie plows undfir the Endaagaxfed fipaeios Act raxjulrer Ptifcral aeenoiajc to «ucuz:e that ««civi.tiaa they »vthort»«, fund, or carxy out are not likely to Jeopardize the conCixiu^I cxlctance of tba apaciac. th« Act also prohibit* anyena from cakfag a plover, tfhich liifilndcc killing, boxning, or "harngqing the apeoiafi. A taaplac* daseriptia^ of thia aetdan will ba ptibliabadin tJw P««Ur«t Register on K»tcb 5, 1993. /HAH-15-93 HON 17:22 US FHS FAX NO. 6194319624 tOC- MUU003/02/93 16:11 O«« 231 2122 03 tasoikffiidiite P. 04 THREATENED SPECIESTOis Animal ta Protected UnfertileEndangered Species Act of 1978 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER (COASljiLPOPOLAIION) «lde ctf itft nod. beiJwf the 49*tfw oustal pqratdioa breed* aloac the TtdSc me* Awn mnicfli WwAuictOB to aaadwni DAMaiee. with tbe ivgaiiv of Unb faudor pqpuhUon. aat catnai^ a tfneatcocd •padca. iq)mbiUaQier tfates. «d(ai of oft nanbes totf nk pofldL OB JTNITT^T COld BfttL '^P'tllrf idte(;ape& atfltsaraaad iijrar BooOu ftoti •ficavaUd. shree otcu ace «nA CaaxnOaged cod cnreai^Juud ID Me CVCB «t dose M4tf>> Chida leave ibe oca d may cett Mrib( dtec ^HV AKB THCTB* TBOfPty , qnauiOB «f Enrepej* baadiavi oa land w nd dddei ne dfMfl fadufrfil Mectf l dj^ open •reuplo AfrOTtWOQ.fiB Along tbo sotin WWt W4 cwcfod mw er p)oKerBSfliB(«reM. Uteuaoaaaf beacfa luts decmscd end bo*ch<8 feeeoot ste^icr, aaldB£ to karder Her plov«it tofind good Destiny dies.JUtnralpreditoiiriso threaten plorefi. Qrowi, nvtoi, and Md fane ue the BOH tenons pMdaloaofaddK Uvu i OJIfisnri* BEST ORIGINAL HARrl5-93J_qN 17_:23_ JlfH2.,.zai FAX NO. 6194319624 P. 05 ^ndHfc fidt ffty ift them. HOWMAXrWE8IZRN SNOW nXTOtf ARE THERE AHB WHAT CAR *C BONE! Tv*« thtto 1^00 fcrto£a{ Uxds mala CM the Pacific co*ct. 60^28 eofea£cite(M*adfvflla •WiAingtoa, Oraeaa, ud G«Kfonw*;a dmaxtfc dacfnra foam the W fcaaro cfeK dnnimMtad before 1970. Today 2 dwd «t£ wed in o, 6 la Ortcpe, «ul 20 itGrffecsfe. cfan^U ndioai. «wfc « fncug vMtliftaobthnefy cfan^ ndoai. «w « nc •Ten, « voaoaal^dadoc \«* nte to vdridac. INH^B. aad pets eodd tfwfly redpet «fMts ia WHAT DOES THE ENDAHdOBED ACT DO? This Act ^vw tke Eccrctny cf Uic Interior, Mdat Unoofilb. tb« FUb aad Wttfflf* 8*evEoB, pomer w pnuamd oau&etve«Hfoian of «5UHfc' tfi.as one Uoi b ia dager af attincoaiiiOBaoso to rmage. A ^ol««tva«d* cpodofl is one that fa UM(y to become cMblo HOW DOES IT WOKST Tic Service b tfaco reqtdiedta pccpwrc e«d «ny ««tooMoy aalfflw ta r«ww the Ibced ^wcuc* pgp«ktiaa«obpo laager needs pcotectioavadcr Oie Act ud cao bo •* HOW CAI« HK* WOWJT PLOVERS? M Oeucr be»ehei nay nood l«ct ^n^OoBp«p«sKrfOMj«^»«^fg«r . w.^ W «ndic«*tt'to«ri«ttd «*••«««« ttfflBSSSSS=S5 -LE^"2^—^to MUKUBOCitOfcned 4y fwenoneot Ifw the exposed to weather or pr*daion. pronminntlfllffliiTTirrtrr""^""™-« w-*»««j--^ an poUUhod in ocwqupets h cwt «I*B «ba» t^OKMClciOOQV' . "~ pofeOe Oodudui^ private #enp «aa^iMyicriow«deonnneBtootterwe- .pSds«cii«a!ylastltaaia*>90 days. W«ft*«tc»fc*paWfajW.<lw.. ^fl ( ^ — ^igrpg <UM C CETMOM5 TOOgMAHOW ttfi. Fufa «d WidUb fierita flic proposed wk. -AflMti«ptit« %ili « date sjKm which piet4dian<rf the ^pccte b«como eltaetw*. As befor*. 6Uf« and fcxal interested ptfUUfi AM «oti&ed, V«rt«*Edd Office Ikutkad FWd Office Otynpla FWd O£&» BEST ORIGINAL cordvlanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus (Salt marsh bird«s-beak) Description; Salt marsh bird's-beak is an annual, branched plant, 8-16 inches tall, and is hemiparasitic (derives water and other nutrients through the roots of other plants). It has two distinct growth forms. In its northern range it is large and profusely branched, and its flowers have conspicuous, purple, 3-lobed floral bracts. In its southern range (from the Tijuana River Estuary, south) the plant is compact and scarcely branched, and its pale cream flowers have faint purple lines. Flower color also varies in marshes where there are isolated colonies. Its leaves are often purplish, with some predominantly light green. Bracts are finely haired. The capsule is 7-9 mm long. Flowering time:Northern range: May to October. Southern range: April to December. Habitat; This species is found in tidal wetlands. Populations are generally found in areas of lower salinity and light vegetative cover. Plants grow in the middle littoral zone, above the zone where vegetation is bathed by the twice daily high tide, and below the zone where the ground is covered only during very high, storm tides. It is found in association with pickleweed, salt-cedar, salt grass, alkali-heath, and sea-lavender. It is infrequently found growing beyond barrier dunes, on dunes, or on old oyster shell dredge spoils. Most sites are well-drained and well-aerated soils, drying out in summer. Distribution; In Upper Newport Bay, there is a maximum density of 172 plants per square meter. There were about 100-150 plants in Sweetwater Marsh, San Diego, in 1981. Storms and flooding in 1987 reduced the Tijuana River Estuary population by half, to 1,788 individuals. 1978 surveys also found the plant at Point Mugu, in Ventura County, and in northern Baja California, Mexico. Reasons for decline/vulnerability; The filling in of coastal salt marshes has reduced or eliminated this plant from much of its historical range, and 1978 plans to restore "natural" tidal flow to the marshes of Point Mugu Lagoon brought fears of eliminating an entire colony of the species. The shifting of sandy barriers at the mouths of estuaries periodically closes off specific marshes from tidal action, thereby creating unfavorable habitat for the plant. Fresh water changes the salinity of the marsh, supporting a different plant community. Human interference such as marina and industrial development, beach recreation, and housing have also caused a decline of this species. Water quality is degraded by agricultural, residential, and industrial run-off. Water has also been diverted for irrigation or municipal use, drying marshes. SUUB Mlddkto* 1VN10WO1S39 SALT MARSH BIRD'S BEAK Federal status: Endangered. Listed: September 28, 1978 State status: CA: Endangered.