The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEIR 02-02; CANTARINI/HOLLY SPRINGS JOINT EIR; FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CANTARINI/HOLLY SPRINGS DEVELOPMENTS-TECHNICAL APPENDICES VOL 1 OF 4;; 2004-10-01■ ■ u ·-R.J ~ e-, -~d' -.._p ', t 'J. ~ ,$JU~.., ~---.Jn.... , ............ & ,,, ':>' ,-;, ■ ■ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CANTARINI/HOLLY SPRINGS DEVELOPMENTS Technical Appendices (Binder) Volumes 1 of 4 Prepared for: City of Carlsbad 1 63 5 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14 Prepared by: Mooney & Associates 9903 Businesspark Avenue San Diego, California 92 13 1 (858) 578-8964 October 2004 f /4 Table of Contents APPENDICES (Binder) Volume 1 A B Biological Resources Analysis C TransportatiodCirculation Analysis D Air Quality Analysis E Noise Analysis Notice of Preparation and Respon Responses Volume 2 - Parts 1 & 2 F Water Quality/Hydrology Analysis Volumes 3 & 4 G H Geology/Soils Analysis I Hazards Analysis J Archeological Resources Analysis Public Services and Utilities Analysis r e l N tice f Preparatic /Publi Scoping Meeting f- APPENDlX A Notice of Preparation and Responses to Notice of Preparation/Public Scoping Meeting Responses Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report r Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: Agency Name: City of Carlsbad, Planning Firm Name: Mooney & Associates Street Address: 1635 Faraday Avenue Street Address: 9903 Businesspark Ave City/State/Zip: Carlsbad, CA 92008 City/State/Zip: San Diego, CA 92131 Phone: (760) 602-4626 Phone: (858) 578-8964 Contact: Barbara Kennedy Con tact: Michael Page r The City of Carlsbad will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. This project description, location, and the poteniial environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is available from the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Due to the time limits mandated by State Law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Barbara Kennedy at the address shown above. We will need a contact person in your agency. Project Title and Number: CantarhiMolly Springs Joint EIR - EIR 02-02 Project Location: Northeast side of El Camino Real, east of the future extension of College Boulevard. Project Description (brief): Proposed residential subdivisions consisting of: 1) the Cantarini Ranch Subdivision of a 155 acre site to allow 105 single-family homes on 1/2 acre minimum lots and an 80-unit mixed-rate apartment project; and, 2) the Holly Springs Subdivision of a 99 acre site to allow 43 single-family custom homes on ?4 acre minimum lots. MICHAEL J. HOLZMLLH, Planning Director Date MICHAEL J. HOLZmLLm, Planning Director Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14, (CEQA Guidelines) section 15082(a), 15 103, 15375. Revised October 1989 PUBLIC NOTICE CANTARlNl RANCHIHOLLY SPRINGS JOINT EIR - EIR 02-02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING Faraday Community Development Building 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173-A Carlsbad, CA Wednesday, October 23,2002 6:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit written input on the effects this project may have on the environment so that the EIR consultant may finalize the list of issues which will be analyzed in the EIR. A presentation will be made that includes; an explanation of the purpose of a public scoping meeting; a description of the project; and an overview of the EIR process as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Following the presentation, questions will be taken and forms will be provided to solicit written input from the public on the effects this project may have on the environment. Proiect Location Northeast side of El Camino Real, east of the future extension of College Boulevard. 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.c'i.carlsbad.ca.us @ CANTARlNl RANCH - CT 00-181GPA 01-091ZC 00-051SDP 01-101HDP 00491 SUP 00-091LFMP 15C HOLLY SPRINGS - CT 00-211GPA 00-061ZC 00-091HDP 00-121SDP 00- 151LFMP 15C Brief Project Description: Proposed residential subdivisions consisting of: 1 ) the Cantarini Ranch Subdivision of a 155 acre site to allow 105 single-family homes on % acre minimum lots and an 80-unit mixed-rate apartment project; and, 2) the Holly Springs Subdivision of a 99 acre site to allow 43 single-family custom homes on W acre minimum lots. Coverage of the EIR This EIR will analyze anticipated impacts to: e e e e e e e e e e e e e Agricultural Resources Air Quality Archeological and Paleontological Resources Biological Resources Geolog y/Soils Hazards Land Use Compatibility Noise PopulationlHousing Public Services and Utilities Transportation/Circulation Visual AestheticdGrading Water Quality/Hydrology r San Diego County Wafer Authori 4677 Overland Avenue * Son Diego, California 92 123-1 233 www sdcwa org (858) 522-6600 FAX (858) 522-4568 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad, Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Notice of Preparation for Cantarini/Hollv Sprinqs Joint EIR - EIR 02-02 Dear Ms. Kennedy: The San Diego County Water Authority (Authority) received a copy of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) issued for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Cantarini/Holly Springs projects proposed to be developed in the City of Carlsbad. F As you maybe aware, the Authority is pursuing the development of the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project (Project), which consists of a seawater desalination facility at the Encina Power Station site and an associated distribution system that will convey the product water from the desalination facility into the local water supply system(s). In November of this year, the Authority Board approved a term sheet with Poseidon that provides the basis for a future detailed agreement that will be required to construct the desalination plant portion of the Project. The construction and operation of the distribution system, consisting of pipelines, pumping stations and other appurtenances, will be the sole responsibility of the Authority. An initial review of the Cantarini/Holly Springs projects shows that the proposed alignment for a segment of the delivery pipeline (a key component of the distribution system) from the desalination plant to the City of Carlsbad's Maerkle Reservoir appears to be in the right-of-way of the proposed "C" Street and Holly Springs Roads within Cantarini Ranch. As such, we would like to participate in the EIR review process to ensure that the product water delivery pipeline alignment is appropriately addressed and incorporated into the Cantarini/Holly Springs projects planning and design efforts. MEMBER AGENCIES . *- Notice of Preparation for Cantarini/Holly Springs Joint EIR - EIR 02-02 December 78, 2002 Page 2 Please include the Authority in your Draft EIR mailing list. We request that all pertinent documents and information be mailed to Mr. Bob Yamada at the Authority offices at 4677 Overland Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the NOP and if you have any questions related to the proposed pipeline alignment or the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project as a whole, please call Mr. Yarnada at (858) 522-6745. Ken Weinberg Director of Water Resources cc: Peter MacLaggan, Poseidon Resources Ernie Soczka, Cabrillo Power I, LLC Kwlfcl 1:\2002 desal. activities\Letters\NOPCantariniHollySprings.doc 0 PUBLIC SCOPINQ MEETING CANTARlNl RANCHIHOLLY SPRINQS JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL tMPACT REPORT - EIR 02-02 On the lines provided below, please lbt those ism or concerns you feel need to be addressed by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please be as speclfic 8s possible so that the EIR may address all of your concerns or Issues (eddaonal pages may be attached). Once completed, please submit to a City of Carisbad Representative at the Scoping Meeting or mail to: Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad Plannlng Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Cerlsbad, CA 92008 or FAX to (760) 602-8559 by EJovember 1- Submhted by . Business (it appropriate) - Sdood state zipcode G3449d c4 city 11/13/2002 12: 51 7607200486 d b Cantarini Development should have less density by at least 25%. Existing Sunny Creck specifk plan are currently 1 dwclling/5 acrcs. We feel the hi Cantarini Development is too extreme compared to existing residences. not do enough to “Promote a rural estate atmosphere or preserve the u resources of the arm.” As stated in Sunny Creek Specific Plan. We feel the Cantarini Ranch Project should resemble the Holly Springs Development i density. We realize the Holly Springs Property is more constrained of cnvironmental and slope restrictions but we still feel the more open space and less houses (at least 25% lcss) in order to conform with the that surround it. We feel Benteq is sincere about creating a quality project and has excellent vision an imagination toward development of the Sqyl Creck.Specific Plan. We are very en about their involvemcnt with the Cantarini Project. .We also reaIizeBenteq is respons the cost of infrastructure improvements such as in the project to make a profit. This is where - responsibility. City officials have stated that according to surveys taken “the citizens of Carlsbad less density and more open space.” The Sunny CI& Area is the last true Rural Es left in Carlsbad. Both the city and developers have a crucial responsibility to preserve environmental re~ources and rural atmosphere, Since the City receives revenues from the development of properties from permit they are in effect partners with developers. Therefore, the some of the responsibility for the cost of qmjor roads, if it environmentally friendly, less dense residenth proje&,with more open space. We feel the City of Carlsbad has an exceilent Oppdty to gct involved with the S Creek Projects and take the lead in prornotiig maximum open space with development. The City of Carlsbad buy open space lands for conservation areas, establishing a trail system, including trails, rehabibtating natural resources such as Sunny. wildlife habitats in the area. Just as in Prop C of the of Carlsbad has 70 miIlion dollars to spend on capital facilities, it nccds to priori of spending towad natural resources and open spac of Cantmini RanchlHolly Springs pay for College development with more open space and eque I. .,... 8 .. ‘ .. . .. ,. .. . ... .. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINO I -. CANTARlNl RANCIUHOLLY SPRINQS JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - EIR 0242 On the lines provided below, please list those issues w concerns you feel need to be addressed by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please be as sptclflc as possible so that the EIR may address all of your c~nwms or issues (addltional pages may be attached). Once completed, please submn to a City of Cartsbad Representative at the Scopkrg Meeting or mail to: Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, City of Carkbad Planntng Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008 or FAX to (760) 602-8559 by pJovember 13. Submitted by: Name (please print) Address city State Zip Code Ad 1 :#r& Business (if appropriate) *.< GusT~x?k=&t%BAo c44 fl/Bl@~ Date . d &tM Development should have less density by at least 25%. Existing properti Sunny Creek specific plan arc cmntly 1 dwclling/S acrcs. We feel the higher Cantarini Development is too extreme compared to existing residences. Furth not do enough to “Promote a rural estate atmosphere or preserve the unique envhonme resources of the area.” As stated in Smy Creek Specific Plan. We feel the Canmini Ranch Ptoject should resemble the Holly Springs Development density. We realize the Holly Springs Property is more constrained for development of environmental and slope restrictions but we still feel the Cantarini Project should more open space and less houses (at least 25% less) in order to conform with that surround it. We feel Bentcq is sincere about creating a quality project and has excellent imagination toward development of $IC Suqsy.CreekSpecific Plan. We are very cn about their involvement with the Cantarini Project. We also realize Benteq the cost of infrastructure improvements such as Coqege Blvd. and that in the project to make a profit. This is where wc feel the City of Carlsbad needs to responsibility. City officials have stated that according to surveys taken “the citizens of Carlsbad want less density and more open space.” The Sunny Creek &ea is the last true Rural Estate left in Carlsbad. Both the city and developers have a crucial responsibility to preserve environmental resources and rural atmosphere. , ‘ Since the City receives revenues fxom thc dcvclopment they are in effect partners with developers. Theqefo?, some of the responsibility fox the cost of major roads, ..*. . if it helps in th environmentally friendly, less dense residc~tial project,with more open space. We feel the City of Carlsbad has an excellent oppo&ity to get involved with the Creek Projects and take the lead in promoting maximum environmental conscrvatio open space with development. The City of Carlsbad needs ta prioritize funds when n buy open space lands for conservation areas, establishing a trail sys trails, rehabilitating natural resources such as Sur& Creek riparian wildlife habitats in the area. Just as in hop C of the November of Carlsbad has 70 million dollars to spend on capital facilities, it needs to prioritize of spending toward natural resources and open space. If this of Cantarini RanchlHolly Springs pay for College Blvd. so development with more open space and equestrian trails , . -1 .I .. . .. . November 14,2002 Barbara Kennedy Senior Planner City of Oceanside, Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject : Scoping Comments Holly Springs/Cantarini Ranch Dear Ms. Kennedy : These comments on the project scope are made on behalfof Preserve Calavera. Preserve Calavera is a grassroots organization of residents of Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista and users of the open space around Mount Calavera in northeastern Carlsbad The area is the largest remaining, contiguous native habitat in coastal North County. It is roughly bounded by Lake Blvd on the North, Palomar Airport Road on the south, El Camino Real on the east, and Melrose on the west. Its value as native habitat is enhanced by including several parcels that have been protected for many years- Buena Vista Park in Vista, the Dawson-Los Monos Reserve, Oak Riparian Park in Oceanside, and Calavera Heights and Calavera Highlands mitigation banks. While the city of Carlsbad intends to develop much of this existing open space, our goal is to protect andpreserve it. The size of the area, large number of distinct habitats contained within it, and the rich diversity ofplants and animals make it worth special consideration for preservation. Most of the area is classified as “Very High ” habitat value in the MHCP Study Area (Figure 2-3). But perhaps what is most unique about this area is its location right in the middle of extensive development- where thousands ofpeople have the opportunity to experience nature, learn to appreciate it, and to participate in its protection for future generations. r While much of this existing open space is technically “preservedn, it is preserved in name only. Off-road vehicle use continues, invasive plants are displacing native species, storm water protection violations occur throughout the industrial sites in the south, and documented cases of the destruction of small populations of endangeredplants are found in essentially every biological survey done in the area over the last ten years. The Cantarini RancWHolly Springs projects are located right in the heart of this core habitat area, They will have significant direct and indirect impacts on the functioning of the larger preserve area of which they are a criticalpart. We all want to make sure that the remaining preserve is viable and will continue to support the threatened/endangered species that depend upon this area for their survival. The following are our speciflc comments on this project. Land Use and Planning r ‘I L’ . ? The adjacent agricultural uses will continue indefinitely. This requires that the current preserve configuration be designed to function without including these parcels- but that there is a potential for future improvements. Let’s not preclude a better future configuration. Let’s try to optimize what can be done with current limitations- butplan for how this could be improved when these land uses change. Both current and future land use impacts need to be evaluated. Hydrology and Water Qualiw This project will require permanent post construction BMP’s. However, most BMP’s success is untested, especially in our local set of conditions. This is now the fourth project in a few thousand feet that impacts the Agua Hedionda watershed and our impaired lagoon. The Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan includes importunt background in formation and recommendations. Recent EIR’s have chosen to quote standards from the drafi MHCP and HMP, but have ignored the equally as critical watershed issues that are addressed in the Watershed Management Plan. The MHCP is a draji document that has not been certified by the city. There is no justification to reference one draji document, because it supports conclusions in an EIR, while ignoring the other that would refute them. All of these plans are the result ofyears of local eflort- and all should be considered in this analysis- for compliance with guidelines, and as part of cumulative impacts assessment. Biological Resources There are several concerns with biological resources: 1. Wetlands impacts Two areas of wetlands impacts were identified within the project boundaries- and both are associated with roadway crossings. The MHCP, HMP, and ACOE guidelines all specifi that frst wetlands impacts are to be avoided, and only ajier it is determined that they cannot be avoided are impacts minimized and mitkated The analysis needs to SpeciLfically identi3 how it has been determined that wetlands impacts could not be avoided. The MHCP includesprovisions for wetlands bujJers and planning zones to assure that wetlands resources and the associated watershed are not adversely effected The EIR needs to evaluate compliance with recommended buflers and planning zones. 2. Habitat fragmentation The proposed project design creates two’interior habitat fragments that are bordered by dmeiopmentYroadways. The analysis of edge effects from habitat fragmentation shown in the MHCP indicates that these parcels will retain little value as habitat for sensitive species, and will require management actions to retain any viabiliq. The EIR should discuss edge eflects on these fragments, and provide appropriate mitigation including wildlge crossings. This is 4 2 . \. .. I particularlyproblematic in a development like this where it is assumed there will be individual parcel ownership, and not an HOA. HOA ’s can include restrictions about invasive plants, fencing, etc. How will these issues be addressed with 148 individual owners? 3. WiZdl&ie corridor It appears that a major pinch point in the regional wildlife corridor is being created just outside theproject boundaries on the Mandanaprojectjust north of the extended loop road between Parcels A and D. A wildlge “corridor” is not being maintained ifa pinch point is created just outside the project boundaries- on a parcel that is identijied as a “Standards Area”. The interior roadways also need to be assessed for their impacts on wildlife movement. The pond area is a likely focus- but has roads on three sides. How is adequate wildlre movement assured throughout the hardline preserve area- particular the major regional wilditye corridor? 4. Habitat irnpactsfrom loop road This project design assumes a roadway configuration for the adjacent Mandana proper& Stubbing out the two loop ends at the project boundary will result in direct and indirect habitat impacts within the project boundaries- and on the adjacent sensitive habitat just outside the project boundaries. configuration is shown on the adjacent parcel. This is part of the regional context and cumulative impacts and is therefor required to be identified and assessed in this EIR. /I The public cannot assess these impacts unless this roadway 5. A brush management area is specified adjacent to the ‘%uture Lots.” and the hardline boundary line appears to include the lots, but exclude the brush management area. If these are not to be developed then the brush management area should remain part of the hardline preserve. The EIR needs to evaluate both alternatives- developing or not developing these parcels. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this drafi EIR It is clear to us that there are significant environmental issues with this project that need to be addressed We look forward to working with you to resolve them. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard On Behaif of Preserve Calaveru 3 I -- - ' 'VIXA rNVESTEMENT!!R,LC RANCHO MILAGRO - a- P.O. BOX 9177 LA JOUA. CA 92038 TEL. 858 454 2002 * FAX 858 1720 November 1 1,2002 Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad - Planning Department 1635 Faraday Carlsbad, California 92008 Copy sent by fax: 760 602 8559 Subject: Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs Joint EIR - EIR 02-02 - Scoping Meeting Response Dear Ms. Kennedy: As the owner of the adjacent property to the south east of the proposed development I would like to express two areas of concern that should be addressed in the environmental analysis for the above referenced development project. This first issue is circulation and access for surrounding properties. After reviewing the plans on file with the City, it is apparent that there are no direct provisions for coordinating access points for the future development of our property. Circulation and access to properties in this area has historically been .an issue when development proposals have been made. It should be addressed as a part of this environmental impact report. The second issue relates to water services. Our property and a portion of the subject property will receive potable water from the system north east of our properties. It is our understanding that there may be pressure zone issues in this area that could impact future development. It is requested that the City require an analysis of the water system in this area to insure that approval of the requested development would not adversely effect the future development of other properties in the area. I would appreciate being added to any notice list related to this project, including being notified as to when the draft E.I.R. becomes available for public review and comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Copies: Jack Henthorn, Jack Henthorn & Associates Frank Fitzpatrick, Manitou Engineering SAN LUIS REY BAND OF MISSION INDIANS ' Mal Vsrrton Cauncil Memm flwrnbrt 13, 2002 7tty of Carlabad, Planniug Iarlabad. CA 92008 bear barbarm Itmnnodyc lbir im in teaponse to your corrc8pondenre toparding Canratini bnch and flally Sptiapr. %ad you for contacting ua, we are very intcrarted in attend- lug the consultation acetinge between the devalopar and tbr ;an Luis Ray Band of Wfssioa 1ndl.nr. concerning cultural I8mOUIC.r. 635 FW8da7 AWv "el. l(wTZI45OS FAX MMS7.6749 kc to agricultural disturbances cultural depo8ito arm now sub- Burface and aitigrtion will ba arcarrary for culturally rtnitivt Itelm * he San Luis Rey Band of Hission Indians appreclata6 being consulted to dctefiriae rbe eigniflgance of the alter to be lapacted by the Cant~riai R&nch/Rolly Springe development- ife are 8 non-profit entity rad cannot afford the c%pea8c of purchasing the Environmental *act Report (EIR). contact 46 at 760-724-8505 or 760-586-4858 if we can obtain tbe CIR f& your office. Please Hark Mojado or €le- Contreras fro8 our Cultural Dep8rtlltut uillbe the rcprerentativer from our tribe carh~ to your offlo to roqulta tbe tu, Thdc you fat your conalderatha. Sinetrely, Carmu kbJ8dO Tribal Secretary 5 . f- Mandana Co.‘ P.O. Box 18197 Imine, California 92623 Telephone (949) 724-8770 / Facsimile (949) 724-8768 November 13,2002 Barbara Kennedy, AICP Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14 RECEIVED CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. Re: Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs Joint Environmental Impact Report - EIR 02-02 Dear Ms. Kennedy: Pursuant to the public scoping meeting on October 23,2002 on the above-mentioned project, I would like to bring the following issues to your attention. Based on information provided to us in the summer of 2000 by Cantarini’s project as to the location of their original access roads to Mandana’s property, Mandana designed its project and access roads and negotiated hard lines for its project and access roads with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Carlsbad. . /“ Agreements made on access points with Cantarini’s project and the hard lines negotiated by Mandana with the above-mentioned agencies were based on elimination of impacts to environmentally sensitive and wetlands areas. However, in the new Cantarini plans presented to us for the first time in the October 23, 2002 public scoping meeting, we were extremely surprised to see the realignment of the access roads to Mandana’s property. The original alignment of access roads to Mandana’s property and the corresponding “original hard lines” avoided all environmentally sensitive and wetlands areas in Cantarini’s and Mandana’s properties. However, the new proposed access roads and the corresponding “new hard lines” will have a major impact on environmentally sensitive and wetland areas on both Cantarini’s and Mandana’s properties. These major impacts will require substantial mitigation on both properties. It appears that Cantarini’s project would like to avoid fulfilling its responsibilities to comply with these mitigation requirements by proposing not to have to physically build this access road in Cantarini’s property, and merely make an offer of dedication for the road to the City of Carlsbad r Mandana Co. November 13,2002 Page 2 and leave all related issues for impacting environmentally sensitive and wetland areas on Cantarini’s property and its required mitigations, for Mandana to address in the future. Therefore, Mandana Co. requests that: 1. In order to avoid impact to environmentally sensitive and wetlands areas, alignment of access roads to Mandana’s property be returned to the original alignment based on the agreement of the summer of 2000 with Mandana, upon which Mandana negotiated its hard lines. . 2. The access roads be fully built to Mandana property line with all required utilities (water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, cable, etc.) at both points of access. 3. All impacts and required mitigations to environmentally sensitive and wetland areas related to the building of these access roads to Mandana’s property be addressed and resolved with the corresponding agencies and the City of Carlsbad. I greatly appreciate and thank you for giving us the opportunity to bring our concerns and requests to your attention. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Since ely yours, 4- Ali Shashani P.O. Box 18197 Irvine, California 92623 Telephone (949) 724-8770 / Facsimile (949) 724-8768 STATE OF CALIFORNI.~ Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse . Gray Davis GOVERNOR Tal Finnrs INTERIM DIRECTOR Memorandum Date: To: From: Re: October 22,2002, REVIEWING AGENCIES Becky Frank, Project Analyst SCH # 2002101081 CantariniLHolly Springs Joint EIR - EIR 02-02 The above referenced Notice of Preparation was sent out with the wrong cover letter. Please disregard the cover letter for SCH # 2002102057. The correct cover letter and Notice of Preparation for SCH # 2002101081 are now attached to this memorandum. Attachments cc: Lead Agency Gray Davis GOVERNOR October 16,2002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Notice of Preparation k ,.*.: Tal Finney INTERIM DIRECTOR To: Reviewing Agencies Re: .. ,q :L CantaridHolly Springs Joint EIR - EIR 02-02 smt! 2oM101081 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the CantariniEiolly Springs Joint EIR - EIR 02-02 draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 daw of receint of the NOP from the Lead Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with n reminder for you to comment in B timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all comspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, pkase call the Stare Clearingkousc at (916) 445-0613. Pmjbt Analyst, State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency 1400 TENTH SREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov YUC.UIII~II~ YWUIIU I &r).wm. State Clearinghouse Data use' r SCH# 2002101081 Project 77tie CantarinWolly Springs Joint EIR - EIR 02-02 Lead Agency Carlsbad, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description Proposed residential subdivisions consisting of: 1) the Cantarini Ranch Subdivision of a 155 acre site to allow 105 single-family homes on 1/2 acre minimum lots and an 80-unit mixed-rate apartment project; and, 2) the Holly Springs Subdivision of a 99 acre site to allow 43 single-family custom homes on 1/2 acre minimum lots. Lead Agency Contact Name Barbara Kennedy Phone 760 602-4626 FaX Agency City of Carlsbad emsii Address 1635 Faraday Avenue City Carisbad State CA Zip 92008-7314 Project Location County San Diego City Carisbad Region Cross Strwts Parcel No. Township Range Section College Boulevard, Cannon Road, Agua Hedionda Creek ~- Base r Proximity to: Higbways Railways Waterways Schools Land Use AifjJOHS Project Issues Landuse; PopulationlHousing Balance; GeologidSeismic; Water Quality; Water Supply; Air Quality; TrafficlCirculation; Biological Resources; Forest LandFire Hazard; Noise; AestheticNisual Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Agencies Fish and Game, Region 5; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission; Caltrans, District 11 ; Department of Housing and Community Development; California Highway Patrol; Air Resources Board, Major Industrial Projects; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9 ~ ~ ~~~ Date Received 1011 WOO2 Start of Review 10/16/2002 End of Review 11/14/2002 f- Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. Resources AQenCy Fish and Game Resources Agency Nadell Gayou 0 Dept of Boating &Waterwaya BWI Curry 0 California Coastal Commission Elizabeth A. Fuchs Dept. of Conservation Roseanne Taylor 0 Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protectlon Allen Robertson 0 Office of Hlstorlc Preservation Hans Kreutzberg Dept of Parks & Recreation B. Noah Tlghman Environmental Stewardshlp Section Pam Bruner Dev't. Comm. Steve McAdam I 4 0 Reclamation Board 0 S.F. Bay ConservaUon & 0 Dept. of Water Resources Resources Agency Nadell Gayou Health &Welfare 0 Health &Welfare Wayne Hubbard Dept of HealtMIrinklng Water Food & Aariculture a Food & Agriculture Steve Shaffer Dept. of Food and Agriculture 0 Dept. of Fish & Game 0 Dept. of Fish & Game 1 Scott Flint Environmental Senrices Division Donald Koch Region 1 Banky Curtis Region 2 Robert Floerke Region 3 0 Dept. of Flsh & Game 4 William Laudennilk Region 4 Dept. of Flsh & Game 6 Don Chadwick Region 5, Habitat Cansetvation Program Gabrina Oatchel Reglon 6, Habitat Consenratlon Program 0 Dept. of Flsh & Game 6 IBA Tammy Allen Region 6, inyo/Mono, Habitat Conservatlon Program Dept. of Fish & Game M Tom Nap011 Marine Region 0 Dept. of Flsh & Game 2 0 Dept. of Flsh & Game 3 a Dept. of Fish & Game 6 Independent Commissions 0 Califomla Energy Commission Environmental OMce Native American Heritage Camm. Debbie Treadway 0 Publlc ~tii~ties Commission Ken Lewis State Lands Commission Betty Sllva c1 Governor's omce of Planning b Research Slate Clearinghouse Planner 0 Colorado River Board Gerald R. fbnmerman 0 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Lyn Barnett 0 Office of Emergency Sewleer John Rowden, Manager 0 Delta Protection Commission Debby Eddy 0 Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Paul Edelman Dept. of Transmrtation 0 Dept. of Transpoftatlon 1 0 Dept of Transportation 2 0 Dept. of TransportatGn 3 0 Dept of Transportatlon 4 0 Dept. of Transportatlon I 0 Dept. of Transportation 6 0 Dept. of Transportation 7 0 Dept of Transportation 8 0 Dept. of Transportation B Mike Eagan Distrkt 1 Don Anderson Distrkt 2 Jeff Pulvennan District 3 Jean Ftnney District 4 David Murray District 5 Marc Bimbam District 6 Stephen J. Buswell District 7 Unda Grimes, Dlstrlct 8 Katy Walton District 9 rH a State Water Resources Conk1 u Dept. of Transportation 10 Tom Dumas District 10 0 Dept. of Transportatlon 11 01 ~ept of Transportation 12 Bill Flgge District 11 Bob Joseph District 12 Business. Trans & Housing Houslng & Community Dewlopment Cathy Creswell Housing Policy Division Sandy Hesnard California Hlghway Patrol Office d Speciel Projects Dept of Transportation Ron Helgeson Caltrans - Planning Robert Sieppy Environmental Services Section B 0 Caitrans - Dlvlsion of Aeronautics ' Lt. Julie Page 0 Dept of General Swlces Alr Resources Board AirportProjects Jim Lemer TransportatimPmjects Kurt Karperos 'Mike Tdlstrup lndwtrlal Projects U Cailfornia Integrated waste Management Board Sue O'Leary Board Diane Edwards DMsion of Clean Water Programs 0 State Water Resources Control Board Greg Frantz Division of Water Quality , 0 State Water ~esoum controi Board Mike Falkenstein Division of Water Rights CEQA Tracklng Center 0 Oept of Toxic Substances Con& Regional Water Quality Control Board tRWQCB1 0 RWQCB1 Cathleen Hudson North Coast Region (1) Environmental Document Coordinator Sen Franch Bay Region (2) Central Coast Region (3) Jonathan BIshop Los Angeies Region (4) Central Valley Reglon (5) 0 RWQCBSF 0 RWQCBP 0 RWQCBS 0 RWQCB4 0 RWQCB55 Central Valley Region (5) Fresno Branch Onke Central Valley Reg- 0 RWQCB5R ' Redding Branch Office 0 RWQCBI Lahontan Reglon (6) 0 RWQCB6V Lahantan R- (6) Victonrilie Branch Office RWQCB7 0 RWQCB8 plr Santa Ana Region (8) RWQCB 9 San Diego Region (9) Colorado River Basin Region (7) CANTARIN1 RANCH '- CT 00-1 8/GPA 01 -091ZC 00-051SDP 01 -I O/HDP 001091 SUP 00-091LFMP 15C HOLLY SPRINGS - CT 00-211GPA OO-O6/ZC OO-OWHDP 00-12/SDP 00- 1 SILFMP 15C Brief Project Description: Proposed residential subdivisions consisting of: 1) the Cantanni Ranch Subdivision of a 155 acre site to allow 105 single-family homes on % acre ' minimum lots and an 80-unit mixed-rate apartment project; and, 2) the Holly 'Springs Subdivision of a 99 acre site to allow 43 single-family custom homes on -. % acre minimum lots. Coverage of tho EIR This EIR will analyze anticipated impacts to: e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 Agricultural Resources Air Quality Archeological and Paleontological Resources Biological Resources G eolog y/S oil s Hazards Land Use Compatibility Noise PopulatiodHousing Public Services and Utilifles Transportation/Circulation Visual AestheticdGrading Water Quality/H ydrology AVW& Xehy phwFq 760-604-1793 5320 !VonRW mw c=~da9~ . ~ I \ ~ at.-I • • •• CANTARINI RANCH/HOLLY SPRINGS JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT-EIR 02-02 NAME (Please print) PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST October 23, 2002 ADDRESS :JJORA Vt?2E; L L/J 1/1 J4-Lf ff /) t1 z E-°t C..--11 Uv,·,1 Ban+l-e.v . · l.///3 lf1?<1Ad(11 AA v r/Jeq111))4 e_ J S::1r 's A (I?; Ul;D I A-W JI\ a Oc C !l k SI' 0 l!F ?J r:, S (... 7 'f-l/tJ Me:i ~ /1(£.,i Sf C (;6~r V{ ~ J 5 o Su N 1v1.,; (!_le Eel( Rd -<? 2. o o 'ir fTt 'L t;, 42 ri'i' ~ 9z ocJY 71J~ p~~ id loo _4W&7 '41 '?,{J Al\~ W(¼, QCJlON,~(µ, , (A error b J1'1a 7'114 v,y er-:e-ec/6 .rd (la0{7Jocec;f' Ytoo"y 5' _?OP .J) tf_,,.I ~l~tf/;)"-., c~ 7)-0{Jj>"' 46 co Gr~ W'~ Cf~~~ . q 2.. c ~ c, ~ . Et) ff 11 t/:?t1(tf/2---1J-?P rf /f.,1£ ~. J fi ~ C f1 p l!!91Z.L5 (JA,J) ~ _. /I,,, J ;J t, .Cf 4 4 Ds .J ~ {) i) 6 L(t O,c Wf< r_s 1:?1H? Jl~ (J c;- , • CANTARINI RANCH/HOLLY SPRINGS JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT-EIR 02-02 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST October 23, 2002 NAME (Please print) Dear) M-C4rphj ~:Af+! ADDRESS J/f 03 Mart1tJhan W()..y 8 02tAns,d~ CJ:205'~ ~ I \ \f1 \) \::I 1 W '" ~\],._\~cl, ~ ~L'S 12~ I Z'/7 l/-c=1tA. te{/G/ ~' t,Dc ,26~1:, I <f L 1 :;'I J._ tr !ff LC 4 ~ {!/RC t..,-, /:: I}-({ k,' (J;)-R,;> o~ ol/4 RJ Sm«Q,tq; Cct 9d6 0 1 6 u---,.,, # ~ (L(!__ q J-{}; 'l >-t!Z.~~...1.Lj;~~---1..:..~~~~~~~C":L.1.fir:.....:....'h-as 0 4--o~) ~V\J:1 ,, ,_ 'l, \ 4 I /p1) ~ ~ \ l \j \ :J1D11 ~ ~ <j''l..ga, --So~ ;J,7kJl-~.£/Lk Os ~ lf ~Lt r 4-kJ ~ C(Jvi.&i? »4 &Ju.>oP 3 06 y s~ ~N-qµo'fd ~ lj-;~ ~o;/ 0/2/tMti @ q;~ -, ,-, -I •.> ~ ,' 1//i ,n ,;' r, J' ,, ,-, A/ , , ~,_., _ _,, , ) r~~ __ ;;,,J,~ ,/'//'l' /,/,.#.., A ~,,/ J,"'.:,~,,_/ _ -J - . S.n Diego's Regional Planning A~~MY 401 6 Street, Suite BOO San Diego. CA 92 10 1 - 423 1 (6 I 9) 595-5300 Fax (6 19) 595-5305 , wwwsandag. org MEMBER AGENCIES Cities of Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Esmndido Imperial Beach La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside mway San Diego San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Vista and County of San Diego ADVISORY MEMBERS California Department of Transportation Metropolitan Transit Develooment Board North San Diego County Transit Development Board United Sfares Department of Defense San Diego Unified Port District r San Diego County Wafer Authority Baja CalifornialMexico October 24,2002 Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA, 92008-73 14 RE: Notice of EIR Preparation - CantariniMolly Springs Joint EIR Dear Ms. Kennedy: SANDAG would like the opportunity to comment on the above referenced project. As the Congestion Management Agency for the San Diego region, SANDAG is responsible for preparing and coordinating the implementation of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) for region. One of the requirements of the CMP is that local jurisdictions implement a CMP Land Use9 Analysis Program requiring enhanced CEQA reviews for large projects. A large project is defined as: a project that upon completion would be expected to generate either an equivalent of 2,400 or more average daily vehicle or 200 or more peak-hour trips Attached for your use are the most current CMP guidelines for implementing the Land Use Analysis Program, including the enhanced CEQA review. SANDAG would request that when preparing the EIR for the above referenced project, the City include the CMP requirements in the EIR scope. , Should you have any questions concerning our request or the CMP, please contact me at (619) 595-5369 or morOsandag.org. We look forward to reviewing a copy of the draft EIR upon completion. Sincr;@ ~ Project Manager MA'RIO R. OROPEZA Cc: Nan Valerio, SANDAG Yukio King, SANDAG MONWjdk Attachment: CMP Land Use Analysis Program Excerpt 1991 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) INCLUDING 1996 CMP UPDATE AND 1994 CMP/TlR GUIDELINES DECEMBER 1991 (Updated July 1998) San Diego ASSOCLAnrON OF GOVERNMENTS Wells Fargo Plaza 401 B Street. Suite 800 San Diego, CA 921 01 -4287 (61 9) 595-5300 .. This report was financed with federal funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, and state funds from the California Department of Transportation. Mf3ABER AGENCIES: Cities of Carisbad, Chula Vsta, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Nalional City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVlSORYfLIAlSON MEMBERS California Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, and lijuaMaja CalifomlalMexico. LAND USE ANAL= PROGRAM - This section includes a three-phased land use impact analysis program to improve the coordination between land use actions, transportation improvements, and air quality programs. The program draws to the maximum extent on the existing CalifoIzlia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project review process and has been designed to be compatible with and complement the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) and the air quality indirect source review progxam proposed in SANDAG's adopted Transportation Control Measures Plan. The three-phased pms includes 1) an enhanced CEQA review of large projects by the local jurisdictiodprojezt sponsor to insure traffic analysis and mitigation for project impacts to the regional transportation system including state highways, the regional arterial system, and tiansit mutes, 2) a regional cumulative analysis of all projects by SANDAG through the Regional Growth ForecastlRegional Transportation Plan process, and 3) the development in the 1992 CMP Update of specific project design guidelines that would support alternative travel modes. One of the major purposes of the land use analysis program is to reduce congestion through the attainment of traffic level of seMw and transit perfomance standards. Emphasis should be provided on those programs that can attain the Wic LOS standards by methods other than traditional roadway construction and widening. The project design and mitigation programs should maximize alternatives to the single occupant automobile by providing improved accessibility for pedestrians, ridesharing, transit, &d bicyclists. Transit oriented design should be emphasized where appropriate to reduce trip generation and congestion through such factors as increased densities around transit stations, mixed residential and employment centers, aggressive TDM trip reduction programs, and, site design and street layouts that promote pedestrian activities. The programs should also be consistent with and support the expeditious, implementation of the region's air quality mnsportation control measures (TCM's). - Enhanced CEQA Review Process for hrge Projects Prior to lod discretionary action(s) aU large projects are currently reviewed through the CEQA process to determine and-mitigate their impacts on the environment. This program element would be an enhancement of the trafEc analysis conducted through the CEQA process for large projects to insure appropriate analysis and mitigation for project impacts to the regional transportation system including the CMP system traffic level-of-service &OS) and transit performance standards. The process also provides for early project consultation initiated by the project applicant or lead public agency with those public agencies whose regional transportation facilities could be impacted by the projects. CMP Large Project Definition. The enhanced CEQA review process described in this section would apply to any large project that upon its completion would be expected to generate either an equivalent of 2,400 or more average daily vehicle trips 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips. The estimated traffic generation for the proposed project should be identified as part of the CEQA Initial Study process or at any other appropriate project development and approval stage. SNAG'S "Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic - Generation Rates foTihe San Diego Region" (Appendix kJ may be used by the 1- jurisdictiodpmject applicant to assist in estimating the weekday and peak-hour traffic generation of the proposed projtxt. In determining whether a proposed project meets the, large project traffic generation threshold, the 1ocaI jurisdictiodpmject applicant should also consider the application of reduced vehicle trip generation rates for mixed-use projects ~~nX>rating innovative transitlpedestrian oriented design featum. - The CMP large project definition as stated above reflects a project size whose traffic generation could have a noticeable influence on the traffic level of service of the designated CMP system. Currently, both CEQA guidelines and the "Memorandum of Understanding for NoWication of LaDd Use and Development Actions by County of San Diego and the Cities" identify significant or regiond projects that generate about 5,OOO or more average daily vehicle trips. While use of the recommended lower traffk generation threshold to define a CMP large project would result in project analysis and mitigations for more projects, it could also generate additional local agency analysis time and costs. The CMP large project defurition will need to be reviewed in future CMP Updates to determine whether it should be mvised to apply to more or fewer projects. Proje-& Requiring Enhanced CEQA Review. The enhanced CEQA pmcess will apply to any large project meeting the above definition that is subject to a leal discretionar~ action including those large projects that conform to adopted community plans except as provided in this paragraph. This includes large pmjects that may have already been reviewed under CEQA but require additional local discretionary actions. Any projects that have already been reviewed under CEQA do not requirk further review for CMP purposes unless they require additional local discretionary actions. The enhand CEQA review process shall not apply to any proposed developments specified in a development agreement entered into prior to July 10, 1989 [CGC 65089.61. Also, a large project meeting the above definition may be brought before a local jurisdiction on more than one occasion for a discretionary action. Once a large project is reviewed under the enhanced CEQA process it does not have to undergo further enhanced CEQA review as long as the project remains substantially unchanged. For example, if a large project has been reviewed as part of an overall master plan it would not necessarily require another enhanced CEQA review at a subsequent specific plan project approval stage if there have been no significant changes to the project since the earlier review. The local jurisdiction approving the project shall determine if a project requires a subsequent enhanced CEQA review or has been adequately reviewed under a prior action. In order to conform to the Congestion Management hrogram requirements, each local agency must adopt and implement a land use analysis program. The initial local agency confomity'determination with the CMP will be made in October 1992, as part of the 1992 CMP Update. This will allow up to a one year phase-in of the CMP land use analysis use analysis process. The phase-in period will also provide a transition time for "pipeline" projects now under development or review to meet the new Chlp land use analysis procedures. It will be up to each local agency to determine how best to handle any - program thereby providing local agencies with adequate time to adopt or revise their land 4 pipeline projects duriiiiig the phase-in period. The CMP hd use analysis prow should be fully implemented by October 1992. /- Jontent of Enhanced CEQA Review. Any projects meeting the above CMP lq-6 project deftnition shall include as part of the enhanced CEQA review the following infomation: a. b. C. d. A traffic analysis to determine the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. The regional transportation system includes all the state highway system (freeways and conventional state highways) and the regional arterial system identified in SANDAG’s most recent Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The regional transportation system includes all of the designated CMP system. The traffic analysis shall be made using the WLAN computer traffic model or any other computer traffic model approved by SANDAG for CMP Wic analysis purposes. The traftic analysis shall also use SANDAG’s most recent Regional Growth Forecasts as the basic population and land use database. The traffic analysis should acknowledge that standard trip generation estimates may be overstated when a project is designed using transitforiented development design principles. Trip genemtion reductions should be considered for factors such as: focused development intensity within walking distance to a transit station; introduction of residential units into employment centers; aggressive Transportation Demand Management programs, and site design and street layouts which promote pedestrian activities. The project analysis shalt include an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating the projec’t’s impacts to the regional transportation system. The estimate of any costs associated with the mitigation of interregional travel (both trip ends outside the county) shall not be attributed to the project. Credit shall be provided to the project for public and private contributions to improvements to the regional transportation system. The local jurisdiction shall be responsible for approving any such credit to be applied to a project. The credit may be in any manner approved by the local jurisdiction including donatddedicated right-of-way, interim or frnal construction, impact fee programs, and/or monetary contributions. Monetary contributions may include public transit/ridesharing/trip reduction program support and air quality transportation control measure funding support. Project Approval Process. As part of the project approval process the local jurisdiction shall consider the information provided through the enhanced CEQA review including the following considerations: F a. Prior to taking any discretionary project approval action(s) the local jurisdiction shall insure that the project includes all appropriate local planning and project mitigations to attempt to achieve the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) traffic level-of-service objective (LOS ”D”). The local jurisdiction may adjust the RGMS- ~0s objectives on specific roadways or intersections w'here appropriate mitigation measures have been applied to minimize impacts and/or ovemding sNia1 Or economic benefits can be identified. The CMP flit level-of-service standard &os jurisdiction may develop and adopt the state required CMP Deficiency Plan for individual CMP roadway sections that might fall below the CMp-Lx)S -IC Standard. Prior to taking any aiscretionary project approval action(s) the local jurisdiction shall insure that the project includes all appropriate locdl planning and project mitigations to attempt to achieve the RGMS and CMP transit performance standards including bus and rail transit service frequency and routing. "E") may not be lowered on any designated CMP system mute. However, a local - . b. Early Project Coordination. The local jurisdictionlpmject applicant shall provide early project consultation with SANDAG (Areawide Clearinghouse, Regional Transportation Planning Agency, Congestion Management Agency), the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD), and other affected public agencies as defined in this Section for the puxpose of obtaining infomation concerning the project's impact on the regional transportation system. Any adjacent jurisdiction(s) shall be consulted if the project site is located within five (5) miles of a regional arterial system mWe located within the adjacent jurisdiction. The MTDB andor NCTD shall be consulted if the project site is located within five (5) miles of a bus route, or within ten (10) des of a rail transit facility. CALmS shall be consulted if the project site is located within ten (10) miles of a freeway or other conventional state highway. SANDAG and any of the affected public agencies shall be provided with copies of environmental documents pertaining to the project. The CMP early project coordination applies to CMP "large projects" only. There is no prescribed or additional time for this review and the overall review the is set by each lead agency. -. SANDAG Regional Cumulative Traffic Analysis of all Projects SWAG shall undertake as part of the Regional Growth Forecasts/Regional Transportation Plan(RTP) development and update process a. regional cumulative traffic analysis of all projects. This analysis would determine the cumulative traffic impacts of all project approval actions on the regional transportation system and the CMP traffic level-of-service and transit performance standards. The analysis would be provided to local agencies to assist in the identification of needed CMP Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects and in the programming and funding of Regional Transportation Improvement Program (Rm) projects. a. As part of the Regional Growth Forecast development and update process, local jurisdictions shall provide SNAG with information concerning all project - approval actions necessary to update the Regional Growth Forecasts and regional transportation model database. That information shall be provided to SANDAG in the manner and form established as part of the Regional Growth Forecast update and review pmess for Id jurisdiction information. b. /c C. With each um?e of the Regional Transportation PlZh (RTP), SANDAG shall conduct a base year traffic analysis and bth ten- and twenty-year tmffic forecasts using the most recent Regional Growth Forecast information. That traffic analysis shall include the cumulative traffic impacts of the Regional Growth Forecasts on &e regional transportation system including the CMP traffic level-of-service and msit ' performance standards. SANDAG, local jurisdictions, and other affected public agencies shall use the cumulative traffic impact analysis provided through the Regional Transportation Plan process in the identifcation of needed regional transportation system improvements or revisions and in any subsequent project approval actions. The information can be used to deternine the need and tiining for the preparation of CMP Deficiency Plans. New Project Design Guidelines There are a number of efforts being undertaken in the region to help insure that major projects incorporate designs to support alternative travel modes to the single-occupant automobile. These efforts are largely based on the development of policies and project design requirements to provide improved accessibility for pedestrians, ridesharing, transit, and bicyclists. This program element would include the development of "model" new project design guidelines as part of the 1992 Congestion Management Program (CMP) update. The new project design guidelines will be developed in concert with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District's (APCD) Indirect Source Review program which is an element of the 1991 San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy. APCD's current schedule is to klease a proposed indirect source program in late 1992, with pmgram development and implementation completed by 1994. -c a. SANDAG shall develop for inclusion in the 1992 CMT Update "model" new project design guidelines to provide improved accessibility for pedestrians, ridesharing, transit, and bicyclists. The guidelines shall be prepared and reviewed through the Regional Growth Management Technical Committee and the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee. The recommended "model" guidelines shall consider as a minimum the following information and reports: - "Mode Enhancement Through Land Use Design" Report, County of San Diego "Transit Design Guidelines" currently under pqaration by the San Diego DP&LU, Land Guidance Program of the City of San Diego's Mobility Program, Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), "Working Together: Transit Planning for North County Project Development" and "Design Outlines for Bus Facilities", by the North County Transit District APCD's current Indirect Source Review program that includes development of a guidebook regarding land use planning techniques to reduce pollution and Save energy. - - (NCTD), - b. Each local jurisdiction shall Gonsider the "model" new project desip pidclincs as described above to determine compatibility with any similar design guidelines now in local General Plans. Local agencies shall be encouraged to adopt the ''model" ' new project design guidelines or similar guidelines as part of the General Plan CirculatiodTranspoxtatation Eiement or an Air Quality Element. - CMP DEFICIENCY PLANS The CMP statutes require that local jurisdictions conform to the Congestion Management Program including the traffic level of service (LOS) standards described in Chapter 1. The statutes also include a process whereby a local jurisdiction may designate individual segments or intersections on the CMP roadway system as Wing deficient if they do not meet the CMP level-of-service standards. Chapter 1 establishes the CMP level-of-service standard to apply to roadway sections usually containing more than one signalized intersection. By designating a roadway section as deficient and preparing and implementing a CMP deficiency plan that improves systemwide traffic level of service and air quality, a local jurisdiction would still conform to the CMP if the level-of-service on that designated section were to fall below the CMP standard. Prior to designating a CMP roadway section as deficient, a local jurisdiction must develop and adopt, at a noticed public hearing, a CMP Deficiency Plan including the elements its adopted deficiency plan to SANDAG as the CMA. Within 60 days of receiving any deficiency plan@), SNAG shall hold a noticed public hearing regarding adequacy of the deficiency plan. Following the hearing, SNAG shall either accept or Eject the deficiency plan in its entirety, but shall not modify the plan. If the deficiency plan is rejected, SANDAG shall notify the local jurisdiction of the reasons for that rejection. defined in the CMP statute [CGC 65089.3@)]. The local jurisdiction shall then forward - The CMP statutes make the cities and County responsible for the prepamtion and adoption of any required deficiency plans for those portions of the CMP system within the local jurisdiction's boundaries, including both state highways and CMP principal arterials. However, the development of the deficiency plan will require the consultation and coopexation of all affected agencies especially for state highway facilities. Any adjacent jurisdiction(s) whose actions are determined to be part of the cause of the deficiency must be involved in the deficiency plan devclopment process and share in correcting the deficiency or participate in any alternative improvement programs. CALTRANS, as the owner and operator of the state highway system, must be actively involved in the preparation of deficiency plans for state highway facilities and also share in correcting the deficiency or participating in alternative improvement programs. CALTRANS involvement is essential given both their state highway development responsibilities and their approval role for any state highway improvements. Also local jurisdictions are required to provide the San Diego Air Pollution Contml District (APCD) with copies of any deficiency plans for review and comment. San Diego County Archaeological Society . ,a: c--- r- pLk:;! ,,,: c \,p;..l;::!i’ - To: Ms. Barbara Kennedy CI’\ :. c C ;,: *Lb..h Planning Department i 163 5 Faraday Avenue t. City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California 92008 --_-- I Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report CantaridHolly springs Joint EIR EIR 02-02 Dear Ms. Kennedy: Thank you for the Notice of Preparation for the subject project, received by this Society last week. We are pleased to note the inclusion of cultural resources in the list of subject areas to be addressed in the DEIR, and look forward to reviewing it during the upcoming public comment period. To that end, please include us in the distribution of the DEIR, and also provide us with a copy of the cultural resources technical report(s). SDCAS appreciates being included in the City’s environmental review process for this .project. Sincerely, cc: SDCAS President File P.O. Box 81 106 . Son Diego. CA 92138-1106 . (619) 538-0935 /c Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project MrJnagement Fiscal Analysis November 11. 2002 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad, Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ..I * .&,'..."-- I, . c . -.__. - Re: Notice of Preparation for Cantarini/Holly Springs Joint EIR 02-02 Dear Barbara: Poseidon Resources and Cabrillo Power I. LLC wish to thank the City of Carlsbad for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) issued for an Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cantarini and Holly Springs projects proposed to be developed in the City of Carlsbad. Cabrillo Power 1. LLC and Poseidon Resources are proposing a SOMGD seawater desalination facility to be co-located at the Encina Power Station in Carlsbad, with the potential to expand to a 100 MGD facility. The seawater desalination facility would constitute a drought-resistant. cost- effective new source of water for the San Diego region that would reduce San Diego County's dependency on imported water sources. As such, the seawater desalination facility is recognized as a regionally significant project. The seawater desalination facility proposes a large diameter pipeline (up to 96 inch in diameter) that will carry desalinated seawater from the Encina Station to the Maerkle Reservoir located at the City's eastern border. The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) will most likely be the entity that ultimately constructs and manages this water line. Based on preliminary review of the Cantarini/Holly Springs projects relative to the proposed alignment for the water pipeline, it appears that the proposed desalinated water pipe alignment will be in the right-of-way of the proposed "C" Street and Holly Springs Roads within Cantarini Ranch before continuing off-site to the Maerkle Reservoir. Therefore, we believe that this planned pipeline alignment and related faciiities should be assumed by the EIR for Holly SpringKantarini Ranch project as a reasonably foreseeable future project. We believe that coordination is essential at this early stage so that the planned desalinated water pipeline and related facilities can be incorporated into the project's design. This will minimize the need for future design modifications to the Holly SpringdCantarini project. Out office \vould be glad to provide you with exhibits showing the proposed alignment of this proposed pipeline. We also strongly urge you to coordinate your efforts with the SDCWA regardins future plans and construction time frames for the desalinated water pipeline alignment and other related facilities. 5oGOPasteur CGUrt Suite 150 Carlsbad CA 92006 (760)438-1465 Fax: (760)438-2443 If you have any questions or need any additional information regarding the alignment. size or timing for the construction of the proposed pipeline. please fel free to contact tile at (700'1 333- 1465. Sincerely, 82 ,yir$,- Bill Hofman cc: Jim Elliott Michael Holtmiller Scott Donnell Lloyd Hubbs Bob Wojcik Karen Vaudreuil Mike Peterson Peter MacLaggan Ernie Soczka Ken Weinberg, SDCWA Hofman Planning A s s C: C. I a ? f jl November 4,2002 Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad, Planning 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ref: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Barbara, The Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation wishes to thank the City of Carlsbad for the opportunity to comment on the scope and content of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cantarini and Holly Springs projects. The Foundation is especially concerned about large-scale projects such as this, which are located in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon's watershed. The Foundation recommends that the EIR take close look at the erosion control measures that will be implemented to prevent runoff into the lagoon during the construction of this project, since this project is outside of the Coastal Zone and can be graded during the rainy season. The EIR should also address permanent storm water control measures that will be implemented after the future homes are occupied to reduce the amount of contaminants that will enter the nearby streams and eventually end up in the lagoon. We are hopeful that the proposed development plans are in conformance with the City's proposed Habitat Management Plan, which will' result in viable wildlife corridors between this site and the wetlands behind the Inner Lagoon. Again.we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report for this project and are looking forward to the'opportunity to review and comment on the draft EIR. We respectfully request that the Foundation be sent a copy of the draft EIR when it becomes available for public review. v Kent Bricker P US Fish and Wildlife Scrvicc Carlshad Fish and WiIdIife OfFcc 6010 Hidden Valley Rood Carlsbad, California 92009 (760) 431-9440 FAX (858) 4674235 Ch Dcpt. of I?sh Rr Gainc 4949 Viewridge Avenuc San Dicgo, California 92123-1662 (SSS) 4674201 In Reply Refer TO: WSSDG-2380. 1 NOV 15 2002 Ms. Barbara Kennedy 1635 Faraday Avcnue Carhbad, California 92008-73 14 City of carlsw Rc: Notice of Preparation for the CantainilHolly Springs Joint hft Environmental Impact Report, San Diego County, California (SCH# 2002101081) bar Ms, Kenndy: The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and U. S. Fish and Wildlifc Servicc (Scrvice) (collectively, “Wildlifo Agencies’? have revicwed the above-refcrcnccd Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft Environmcntal Impact Report (DEIR) for the Canhni and Holly Springs projects. - Thc Dqxutmcnt is a Trustee Agcncy and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Sections 15386 and 15381, rcspectivcly. The DcpartmMlt is rcsponsible for the conservation, protection, and management of tho state’s biological msourccs, including ram, threatcned, and cndangercd plant and animd species, pursuant lo the California Endangered Species Act. The Dcparlment also administcis the Natural Community Conservation Planning program (NCCP). The City is currently participating in the NCCP program through tho preparation of a Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Subarea Plan. The primary coim and mandate of thc Servicc is he protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Scrvicc has legal rcsponsibility for thc welfare or migratory bbirds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Scrvice is also responsiblc for adnlinistering the Endanpd Spccies Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C, I531 et seq.). The proposed Holly Springs project would include thc construction of approximatcly 43 single- family residcnces, an 80-unit affordablc housing spartmcnt complex, approximately 5,000 f’t of midential streets, and nssociate,d water and scwer facilities. The proposed project would also retain approximately 67 acres of opcn space. Native vegetation on thc project site includes southern willow scrub. mulefat scrub, ficshwatm marsh, cismontanc alkali mmh, southern coast live oak woodland, native grassland, southern mixed chaparral, and Dicgan coastal sage scrub. The Cantarini Ranch project includcs tho construction of 105 singlc-family homes, an 80-unit apartmenr cornplcx, approximately 10,000 feet of residcntial strccts, and associated watcr and scwcr Iacilitios, and thc retention of approximately 52 acres of open space consisting priinarily of annual grassland. r I m. Kesllnedy ~~-§DG2380.1) 2 The WdWe Agardes ofk our reccmmendadons and OOrmaRnfs in EncIosure 1 to assist the City of Carlsbad (sty) in developmat of the DEIR to dnhb and mitigate project impacts to biofogical resources, md to taswc that the project is consistent with ongoing r@od Wit consmation planning effbrts. We have the PbllOwiDg primeuy commentb about the proposed project as dcsaiid ia tbe NOP; 1) the DElR shwtd dcscribe a range of reasonable alterdves to the-projd; 2) thc DEIR should discuss bmeficial cffixts of bufb zoms adjacent to wetlands, and analp the adquq ofwetland buffixs in the proposed pmjcct; 3) the developrntatshouid be consistent with the adjq standards in the City of Caiisbad's Wat Ahnagemat Plan; 4) focused su~eys for should be conducted for Rnmrsl plant$; 5) The DEIR 6hould provide an analysis af the project's possible impscts on coastal Califbmia gnatcatcher (PoliopHla cuZi@mfa caZi@micu; gaatcatche+); 6) the DER should dyze potential for habitat dmcement on caatarini through deposition of topsoil &om impacted IWW of Holly SpriogS; 7) fbcused WUvByg should be conducted for least Bell's vireo (Yir.0 belliipruilhrs; Vireo); 8) in order to avoid take of rn- birds# d clearing, grubbing, grading, or other consinadon dviw in existing vegetation should avoid the bird breeding season (Febm 15 - 31); 9) the DEIR should discuss any uses proposed in the open space ami no tr& or roads should be crated in the open space or lead to the Deparrmep)cowncd Carlsbad €Q$hds; 10) the locktion of the fuel modification zone shout'd be clarified;. 11) the project &odd avoid mtm quality degradation, avoid chaages in natural hydrologic re- retain nawd dtainage as much as possiblq and comidaustrg pervious or saui-pwious sur@es: . - The WddW Agencies appreciate the oppod to corn.& on theNOP. We ~fc available to work with the City and their consultants ia propaption ofthe DEIRbr the pposcd projeut. Pleasc rantact Nancy Frost of the Department at (858) 637-55 11, of John lblkth of t4e Service at (760) 43 1-944q if YOU have my questions or CO~~tS COIlceLning this ht~, -. *, SusanE. Wynn ff- 1 Acting Assistant Field Supavisor anvirbnmtntalProgramManagcr U.S. Fish and WddW SesviCt CalifombDepartment 0fFhhandChme ! r ENCLOSURE 1 3 WILDLW, AGENCY COMMENTS AND WCOMMENDA'IIONS ON THE NOTICF, OF PREPARATION FOR THIT, CANTARIN1 RANCWHOLLY SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT KEPORT Specific Comments 1. The Wildlife Agcncics am particularly internsled in the DHR describing "a range of rcasonablc alternativcs LO the project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectlvcs of the project but would avoid or substantially lesscn any of the significant cflects of the project, and evduato the comparative rncrits of the altcmalives," as requircd by Section 15126.6 (a) of the CEQA Guidelincs (emphases added). Tho alternatives *arc lo include "alternativcs [that] would imp& to some clegcz the attainmcnt of thc projcct objectivcs, or would be morc costly" (Scction 15126.6 [b] of thc CEQA Guidelinc~). ""he rangc of fcasiblc altcrnatives shJ1 be selccted and disciissed in a manncr to foster meaningful public participation and inform$ decision making" (Section 15126.6 [fl of the CEQA Guidclines). Tlic Wildlifo Agencics will consider the allematives analyzed in the contoxt of thcir rclativc impacts on biological resources on both P local and mgional level. 2. Buffer zones around wetland areas protect wildlife habitat from disturbance, and help to maintain water quality. It is not clear that the pi-ojcct as proposed adequately buffers wctlands on the sitc. The wildlife agcncies rccommend that thc projcct incorporate 100-foot buffcrs belwccn the projccl footprint and on-site wetlands. 3. Becausc the proposed projcct will bo adjacent to existing hwdline consorvalion areas, the dcvelopment should be consistcnt with the adjaccncy standards in the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan. 4. Focuscd surveys should be conducted for San Diego thornmint (Acanfhominfha ikifolicr), thrcad-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaeaflilltfolia), chocolate lily (Fritilluria biflorri), Palmcr's grappling hook (Hurpagonella palmenl, San Diego goldenstar (MuiZZn cZcvelandii), Blochrnan's dudleya (DurZleyu bZochnmioe) and other nitlTOw eiadcmic or otherwisc sensitivo plant spccies that thcse surveys should bc included in the DEIR. The wildlifc agencics recoinmcnd that focuscd surveys for federally and statc Iisled spccies should be conducted within oiic ycar prior to permit application. detectable only during a particular scason, The itsulis of 5. The Wildlife Agcncies havc identificd the potcnlial for project-related impacts to thc fcdcrally and State listcd endangered coastal California gnatcatcher (Poliopliln cali/bmiciz culifornicu; gnatcatcher). The DElR should provide an analysis of the project's possible inipacts on this species, and should address minimiza~on measures and mitigalion for thc impacls. - - ENCLOSURE 1 4 61 The pmjcct description includcs revcgetation of porlions of the annual grassland proposed as open space on Cantarhi Ranch with coastal sage scnib, Successful rovegctaiion efforts may be facilitated by the deposition of cleared vcgetation, topsoil, and duff from impacted areas of coastal sage scrub from the HoIly Springs site onto ihc open spacc areas on ihc Cantnrini site. Application uf this mateiial would bo expccted to nccelcme the dcveloprnent of nalivc vcgctation on thesc areas, ttirough provision of plant propagules, nutrients, and fungal mycorhizae from the local ma Thc DEE should analyze thc potential €or cnhanccmcnt of rcvegetation efforts, or rcstoration of additional wildlife habitat in the Canlarini open space lhrough this technique. 7. Succossfully breeding least Bell's vireos are known to occur within approximately 1,000 fat of the project sib. Due to the presenco of suitable habitat on-sitc and rccords of occutrcncc in the immcdinte vicinity, wc recommend that protocol focuscd survcys be conductcd for vireos. The DER should provide an analysis of tho project's possible impacts on this specics, and should acldress minimization measures and mitigation for the impacts. 8. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take of any birds listcd under tho MBTA (most non-gamc, native birds). Ncsting birds and their young are su!ccpible to impacts from clearing, grubbing, or grading. Ncsting birds include thosc that have nesls with eggs, juvenilcs (nestlings), and dependent juvenilcs of limiled mobility (fledglings). In or&r to avoid take of migratory birds, a111 clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activity in existing vegctation should avoid tho bird breeding season (February 15 - August 3 I), 9. The DESR shourd include B dctniled discussion of any USCS to bc pemittcd in thc opcn space. All direct and Jndircct impacts to biological resources that may result from long-term use must bc included in any impact assessment. We rccomrnend that no trails or rods bc created in thc opcn space or lcad to the Ilcpartmcnt-owncd Carlsbad Highlands. The croation of new trails or roads and use of existing trails in tlw designated opcn spacc will result in direct habitat losses and indiwt effccts from pets or feral animals, human encroachment, and noise, which could disrupt pomtial coastal California gnatciltchcr breeding and habitat USC. 10. We quest clarification on rhe location of the fuel modification 7nnc. The Wildlifc Agencies consider thc fuel modification zonc LO bc part of the project's impacts, and should be included in thc calculation of the pmjcct irnpacicu to habitats and spies. It should not bc included in thc calculation of acres set aside to mitigate biological impacts. 11. The footprint of this project was identified in the City's Habitat Maiiagemcnt Plan ("IMP) [IS a proposed hardline conservation am. Thc development boundaries were designcd with input from wildlife agency personnel to conserve biological resources on-site and throughout the MHCP ma (Le., to allow for a wildlife movemcnt'corridor through both of thc properties). The DETR should discuss how Lhis project is consistent or inconsistent with the design and conditions provided in the HMP for this sitc. r mcLosuRE 1 5 12. The Wildlifc Agencics encourage and support programs that maintain high quality waters of the statc and prevcnt the degradation thereof caused by pollution and contamination. Thc Wildlire Agcncies arc conccmed about tho potcnti a1 for project-related contaminants to roach Agua Hedionda Cmek. The roads would be the soum of many pollutants lhat can htum lhe aquatic rcsourccs in the creek. Therefore, tho roads should divert runoff nway from the crcek, Adjacent to lhc opcn spacc area, the landscaping should not USC plants that rcquire intcnsive irrigation, fertilizers, or pesticides. Water runoff from landscaped amas should be di~wted away from the open space prescrve and contained and/or trcatcll within the residentia1 development footprint. II is inappropriate to rcly on the creek to T~UCC he impacts from the contaminatd suiface flows From the project sitc to a lcvcl less than significant, The beet managemcnt practices (BMYs) onsitc should fully mitigale for the project-related contaminants in the surfacc flows prior to their dischargc to Agua Hedionh cn?ek. The Wildlife Agencies have concerns about the potcntiol cffocts that project-related changcs in natud hydrologic regimes may have on Agua Hedionda Creck and its associated biological resources. In addition to modifications in peak flows, WB are conccmed about changes in the velocity, volume, duration, pollutant loads, and frequency of wet- and dry- weather flows and flows fom lcss than the 100-year cvents. The proposed project should not rely on the streams lo minimize the pbntial for any increased flood hazard. The projcci dcsign should mitigate for any increased potential for flooding. Wo recommend that natural drainage (i.e., pre-dcveloprnent hydrology) be retained as mmh as possible so that flows that once reached tho habitats downstream continuc to afkr dcvelopmcnt, subscquent to undergoing filtration and attcnuation from IBMPs, if such measurcs are usd. We mommend that a “natural” trcatment system (io., created buffor such as vegetated strips or grassy swales, using native plants) be intcpted into the sitc dcsign to attenuatc the inciwed velocitics of suiface flows und provide natuml fillration to the surface flows. ”be applicant should consider using pervious or semi-pervious surfaccs wherc possible (is., roadfi, hardcourts, and walkways) to redwc the increase in ihe velocity of peak flows, lncreascs in flows from impei-vious surfi’ies assmiatcd with urbanization can rcsult in: 1) stixam bed scouring and habitat degradation; 2) shoreline erosion and strcam bank widening; 3) loss of aquatic specics; and 4) decreased baseflow (USEPA 1999). General Comnmnts To enablc the Wildlife Agencies to adequatcly review and commcnt on ehc proposed projccr horn the standpoint of the protection of plants, Fish and wildlife, wc recommend the foollowing information be included in the DER: 1. r A complete discussion of the purpose, need for, and description of the proposcd projccl, including all staging areas and BCCCSS routcs, ENCLOSURE 1 - 6 2. A complete list and assessment of thc flora and fauna within and adjnccnt to the project ma, with particular eniphrtsis upon identifying State or fedctally listed raro, thrcmncd, cndangcred, or proposed candidate specics, California Species-of-Special Concern and/or State Piutccted or Fully Protectcd species, and any locally uniquc specics and scnsitivc habitats, SpeciRcdly, the DER should include: a, A thorough assessment of Rare Natural Cornmunitics on sitc and wilhin tho ma of impact, following the Department's Chidclines for Asscssing Impacts to Rm Plants and Ram Natural Communitics (Attachment I; rcviscd May S,2000), b. A current inventory of the biological resources associated with each habitat typc on sitc and within the area or impact, The Depsrhnent's California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should bo contacted at (916) 327-5960 to obtain current information OR any previously reportcd sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under ChaptM 12 of the Fish and Game Code, c. An invcntory of rim, threatemd, and cndangmd spccies on site and within the am of impact. Species to be addressed should include all those which meet tho CEQA definition (see CEQA Guidelincs, 6 15380). d Discussions regarding scasond variations in use by scnsilivt specits of the project sitc 4 as wcll os thc area of impact on those species, using acccptable spocics-specific survcy procedures as detcmined through consuItalion with the Wildlifc Agencies. Focuscd species-specific surveys, conducted in confoimance With established protocols at the appropriatc time of year and Lime of day when tho sensitivo species am active or otherwisc identifiable, arc required. 3. A thorough discussion or dimt, indirect, and cumulative impacts expeckd to adversely affcct biological iwourccs, All facets of the project should be included in this aascssmcnt. Specifically, the DlEIR should pmvidc: a, Specific acreage and descriptions of the types of wetlands and othcr sensitive habiuis that will or may be affected by the proposed project or project altmativa. Maps and tablcs should be used to summarizc such information. b. Discussions regarding the regional setting, pursuant to thc CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125(a), with special cmphasis on resources that are mrc or unique to the region that would be affr?cted by the project. This discussion is cdical to iu~ assessmcnt of cnvironmenld impacts. c, Dotailed discussions, including both qualitative and quantitative analyses, of the potentially affccted listed and sensitivc species (fish, wildlife, plants), and thcir habitat.. on the proposed project sitc, aw+a of impact, and altcrnalive sites, including inrormation pertaining to their local status and distribution. The anticipated or rwl impacts of tho project on these species and habitats should be fulIy addressed. r+ ENCLOSURE 1 7 d. Discussions rcgarding indircct project impacts on biological mources, including resources in nearby public lands, open spacc, adjacent natural habitats, riparian ccosystcms, and any designated and/or proposed NCCP i%servc lands. Impacts on, and maintenance of, wildlifc corridorlrnovement areas, including access to uiidisturbad habitats in adjacent areas, should bc fully evaluated and provided, A discussion of potonlial adversc impacts from noisc, human activity, and drainage. The lalter subjcct should address: projcct-related changes on dminage patterns on and downstream of the project sitc; the volumc, velocity, and frequency of existing and post-projcct surface flows; pollutcd runoff; soil erosion and/or sedimentation in slreams and watcr bodics; and post-project fate of runoff from the project site. e. An analysis of cumulative effects, as described under CEQA Buidclines, Section 15130, Gencral and specific plansr and past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed concerning their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habi tais. 4. The DER should address mitigRtion masum for adversc project-relatcd impacts on scnsitivc plants, animals, and habitats, including measurn to fully avoid and otherwise pmtcct Raic Natural Communities (Attachment 2) from project-Elated impacts, Thc Department considers these communities as threatcned habitrrts having both regional and local significance, Mitigation mcasures should crnphasize avoidance, and where avoidance is inreasible, reduction of project impacts, For unavoidablc impacts, off-site mitigation through acquisition and preservation in perpctuity of the dkcted habitats should bc addrcsscJ. ‘I’hc Wildlife Agencies generally do not support the use of i’clocation, salvagc, andor transplantation as mitigation for impacts on irure, thakncd, or cnbgcred spies. Studics have shown that these effoits are experimcnhl in naturc and largely Lmsucccssful. This discussion should include measums to perpetually protect the targeted habitat valucs wherc preservation and/or restoration is proposcd. The objoctivc should bo to oifsct thc project-induced qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Issues that should be addressed incliidc restrictions on access, proposed land dcdications, monitoring and management programs, control of illegal duniping, water pollation, incrcascd human intrusion, etc. Plans for restoration and rcvegetation should be prepared by persons with expertise in southern California ecosystems and native plant revcgetation techniques. Each plan should include, at a minimum: (a) the location of the mitigation site; (b) the plant spccies to be us&, (c) a schematic depicting the mitigation area; (d) timc or year that planting will occui; (c) a description of thc irrigation methodology, (9 mcasures to control cxotic vcgetation on sitc; (g) suwess criteria; (h) a dctailed monitoring program; (i) condngcncy mcasures should the succcss ciitcria not be met; and (j) idcntificalion of the entity(ies) that will gumtcc achicving the succcss criteria and provide for conservalion of the mitigation site in perpetuity. Mitigation mcasures to alleviate indirect project impacts on biological resolxma must bc included, including mewres to miniinizc changcss in thc hydidogic ngimcs on sitc, and ENCLOSURE 1 5. 6. 7. mcans to convey runoff without damaging biological i’osources, including thc morphology of on-site and downskam habitats. As discussed picviously, descriptions and andyscs of a range OF alternatives to cnsurc hac a1 ternalives to the propased project we fully considered and cvaluatcd. Tho anndyscs must includt alternatives that avoid or otherwise mducc impacts to sonsitivc biological resources. Specific oltcmativc locations should be evaluated in areas of lowcr resourcc sensitivity where appropriate. A jurisdictional delinearion of sbems and associated riparian habitais should be included in the DEIR, including a wctland dclineation pursuant to the UPS. Fish and Wildlifc Strvicc definition (Cowardin 1979) adopted by thc Deparbnent. Please notc that wctland and riparian habitats subject to the Dcpartmcnt’s suthoiity may cxtend beyond the jurisdictiona1 limits of the US. Amy Corps of Engineers, The proposed project may require a lake or Streambed Alteradon Agreement (SAA). Tho Dqnmcnl has direct authority under Dish and Game Code Scction 1600 et. seq. regarcling any proposed activity that would divert, obstruct, or affect thc natural flow or change thc bcd, channel, or bank of any rivcr, stream, or lakc. The IDcpartmcni’s issuance of n SAA for a project that is subject LO CEQA quires CEQA compliance actions by thc Departrncnt as consider the City’s (had Agency’s) CEQA docummmtion. To minimizc additional requirements by the Departmoni pwsuant to Section 1600 et seq, and/or undcr CEQA, thc documentation should fully identify thc potential impacts to the lake, swam or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issunncc of the agreement. A SAA notification form may be oblaincd by writing to the Department of Fish and Game, 4949 Viewridgc Avenuc, San Dicgo, ‘California 92123-1662, or by calling (858) 636-3160, or by accessing the Dcpartmcnt’s web site at www.dfg.ca.gov/l600. The Dcpartmcnt’s SAA Program holds rcgultlrly schedulod pre-project planninglcarly consultation mcctings. To make an appointment, plcasc call ow office d (858) 636-3160. a Rcsponsible Agency, As a Responsible Agency under CEQA, thc Department may - Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Ctrrtm, G. C. Oolet, and E, T. LaRoe. 1979. Classificalion of wetlands and dcepwatcr hubitats of thc Unitcd Statcs. Fish and Wlldlifc Service, U.S. U.S. Environmental Pimtcclion Agcncy. 1999. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Bast Management Practices. EPA-821-R-99-012. Pp. 4-24 APPENDIX B Biological Resources Analysis ADDENDA TO APPENDIX B OF THE PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED DRAFT EIR MAY 2004 UPDATED WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT FOR THE CANTARINI RANCH AND HOLLY SPRINGS STUDY AREA CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for BENTLEY-MONARCWSENTEQ CONTACT: DAVID BENTLEY PMB433 4729 EAST SUNRISE DRIVE TUCSON, AZ 857 18 Prepared by ASSOCIATE BIOLOGIST RECON NUMBER 304 1 B/3 140B MAY 11,2004 1927 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-2358 619 1 308-9333 fax 308-9334 Q This document printed on recycled paper r TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Findings Introduction Methods and Jurisdictions A. B. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers California Department of Fish and Game C. City of Carlsbad Results of Field Data A. Vegetation B. Hydrology C. Soils Wetland Delineation r A. USACE Jurisdiction B. CDFG Jurisdiction C. City of Carlsbad Jurisdiction Project Impacts Mitigation Measures References Cited FIGURES 1 : Regional Location 2: 3: 4: Vegetation Communities 5: 6: USACE Jurisdictional Resources 7: CDFG Jurisdictional Resources 9: Project Location on USGS Map Study Area Boundary and Property bwnership Soils in the Study Area r 8: Impacts to USACE Jurisdictional Resources Impacts to CDFG Jurisdictional Resources 1 1 4 4 10 10 10 10 17 17 20 23 23 24 24 27 29 2 3 5 11 18 21 22 25 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) TABLES 1: 2: Existing Jurisdictional Resources 3: Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources 4: Vegetation Communities on Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs Mitigation Required for Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources 12 20 27 28 PHOTOGRAPHS 1 : Seasonal Pond within Graded Road, April 2003 15 2: 15 3: Open Water Pond Ringed by Freshwater Marsh 16 4: 16 Seasonal Pond Mapped in Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, April 2003 Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest Adjacent to Streambed Upstream of Test Pit Number 14 ATTACHMENT 1 : Field Data Forms Summary of Findings In support of the submittal of wetland permit applications, RECON updated previous wetland delineations on the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs study area, which includes approximately 256 acres in the city of Carlsbad. Methods for delineating wetlands follow guidelines set forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; 1987). The jurisdictional determination described herein must be verified by the resource agencies. A total of 13.64 acres of USACE jurisdictional areas (11.98 acres of wetlands and 1.66 acres of non-wetland waters of the U.S.) were delineated on-site. Areas exempt from USACE jurisdiction include small isolated wetlands (which total 0.08 acre) and a few isolated non-wetland waters (which total 0.30 acre). Impacts to USACE jurisdictional resources associated with the project include 1.11 acres of wetlands and 1.11 acres of non-wetland waters of the U.S., which total 2.29 acres. P c California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional areas total 16.99 acres. CDFG jurisdiction is greater than USACE jurisdiction due to the presence of 2.97 acres of riparian habitat outside of the USACE jurisdictional boundary and 0.08 acre of isolated seasonal cismontane alkali marsh and seasonal ponds. CDFG will also take jurisdiction over the 0.30-acre of isolated non-wetland waters of the U.S. Total impacts to CDFG jurisdictional resources associated with the project are 2.85 acres and include 1.11 acres of streambed, 1.57 acres of wetlandriparian habitat, and 0.17 acre of isolated non- wetland waters of the U.S. The City of Carlsbad jurisdiction includes all USACE and CDFG jurisdictional areas (City of Carlsbad 1999). City of Carlsbad jurisdiction totals 16.99 acres. Total impacts to City of Carlsbad jurisdictional resources are 2.85 acres and include 1.11 acres of streambed, 1.57 acres of wetlandMparian habitat, and 0.17 acre of isolated non-wetland waters of the U.S. Impacts to these jurisdictional resources will require a 404 permit from USACE, a 401 water quality certificate from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. Given the extent of impacts to wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S., an individual permit will need to be obtained from USACE. Introduction The Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs study area is located in the city of Carlsbad, California (Figure 1) on the north side of El Camino Real (Figure 2). The site is bounded by El Camino Real to the south, by Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course and agricultural lands I f- f- to the west, and open space and residential housing to the east. Little Encinas Creek lies to the north (Figure 3). The future expansion of College Boulevard lies along the southwestern boundary of the study area. This report combines and updates wetland delineations conducted in 1998 and 1999 for the Cantarini RanchMolly Springs study area. This updated delineation report will be used for the submittal of wetland permit applications. The purpose of the delineation is to identify and map the location of jurisdictional waters to provide necessary background information for analysis by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and the City of Carlsbad. The biological technical reports for the Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs project sites contain additional biological resource information for the survey area (RECON 2003a and 2003b). Methods and Jurisdictions A routine wetland delineation, following the guidelines set forth by USACE (1987), was performed to gather field data at potential wetland sites in the study area. Originally, separate delineation reports were produced for the Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs projects. RECON biologists Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith delineated jurisdictional areas on the Cantarini Ranch property on August 14 and 31, 1998 (RECON 2003~). The wetland delineation for Holly Springs was conducted by RECON biologist Jennifer Hodge (MacAller) on August 4 and 18, 1999 (RECON 1999). In 2003, Jennifer MacAller verified the delineation of both sites and integrated the results into this document. Fieldwork to verify the 1998 and 1999 delineations was conducted on September 22 and October 9,2003. A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers According to the 1987 USACE manual, wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Wetlands are delineated using three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. According to US ACE, indicators for all three parameters must be present to qualify as a wetland. 1. Regulatory Definition In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), USACE regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. The term “waters of the United States” is defined as: 4 I 0 All waters currently used, -or used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 0 All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds; the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect foreign commerce including any such waters: (1) which could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (2) from which fish or shellfish are, or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (3) which are used or could be used for industries in interstate commerce. 0 All other impoundments of waters otherwise as defined as waters of the United States under the definition; 0 Tributaries of waters identified above; 0 The territorial seas; and 0 Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in the paragraphs above 233 CF’R Part 328.3(a)]. a. Isolated Waters Federal regulatory authority only extends to activities that affect interstate commerce pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Prior to 1985, in accordance with the interstate commerce requirement, US ACE restricted their jurisdiction on isolated (intrastate) waters, such as ponds or vernal pools lacking connection to waters of the U.S. On September 12, 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a memorandum asserting USACE jurisdiction over isolated waters that are used or could be used by migratory birds or endangered species. This assertion became known as the “Migratory Bird Rule.” Consequently, the definition of “waters of the United States” in USACE regulations was modified to include isolated waters that qualified under the Migratory Bird Rule. On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision on Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County verses United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. (SWANCC) with respect to whether the use of an isolated, intrastate pond by migratory birds is sufficient interstate commerce to warrant US ACE jurisdiction over that pond pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. The Court held that the Migratory Bird Rule is not a fairly supported interpretation of the term “waters of the United States.” By 6 determining that Congress was not intended to regulate isolated wetlands under the CWA, the Supreme Court shifted the regulatory burden to states and local governments. However, the 2001 ruling did not refute the Court’s earlier decision in the United States versus Riverside Buyview Homes, Znc. that upheld US ACE jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to navigable waters or express any opinion on the authority of USACE to regulate wetlands that are not adjacent to bodies of open water above and beyond the migratory bird rule. b. VernalPools On November 25, 1997, USACE issued Regional General Condition #1: Vernal Pool Notification to address discharge of dredged or fill material into any vernal pool. In that special public notice, USACE defines vernal pools as “wetlands that seasonally pond in small depressions as a result of a shallow, relatively impermeable layer that restricts downward percolation of water. The dominant water source for vernal pools is precipitation with pools typically filling after fall and winter rains and evaporating during spring and summer. These seasonal ponds are fragile, easily disturbed ecosystems that provide habitat for indigenous specialized assemblages of flora and fauna, including several species which are either proposed or already federally listed as threatened or endangered.” 2, Wetland Parameters a. Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as “the sum total of macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content” (USACE 1987). The potential wetland areas were surveyed by walking the project site and making observations of those areas exhibiting characteristics of jurisdictional waters or wetlands. Vegetation within the potential jurisdictional areas was examined. The relative canopy cover of each species present was visually estimated. The dominant species were then recorded on a summary datasheet along With the associated wetland indicator status of those species. The wetland indicator status of each dominant species was determined by using the list of wetland plants for California provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1997). The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is considered fulfilled at a location if greater than 50 percent of all the dominant species present within the vegetation unit have a wetland indicator status of obligate (OBL), facultative-wet (FACW), or facultative (FAC) (USACE 1987). An OBL indicator status refers to plants that have a 99 percent probability of occurring in wetlands under natural conditions. A FACW indicator status refers to plants that occur in wetlands (67 to 99 percent probability) but are occasionally I 7 r found in non-wetlands. A FAC indicator status refers to plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34 to 66 percent). b. Wetland Hydrology Hydrologic information for the site was obtained by reviewing USGS topographic maps and by directly observing hydrology indicators in the field. Examples of wetland hydrology indicators may include, but are not limited to, inundation, watermarks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns. Evidence of flows, flooding, and ponding was recorded and the frequency and duration of these events were inferred. The wetland hydrology criterion is considered fulfilled at a location if, based upon the conclusions inferred from the field observations, an area has a high probability of being periodically inundated or has soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the surface soil environment, especially the root zone (USACE 1987). c. Hydric Soils A hydric soil is a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (USACE 1987). The hydric soil criterion is considered fulfilled at a location if soils in the area can be inferred to have a high groundwater table, evidence of prolonged soil saturation, or any indicators suggesting a long-term reducing environment in the upper 18 inches of the soil profile. Sample points were selected within potential wetland areas and where the apparent boundary between wetland and upland was inferred based on changes in the composition of the vegetation. Soil pits were dug to a depth of at least 18 inches or to a depth necessary to determine soil color, evidence of soil saturation, depth to groundwater, and indicators of a reducing soil environment (e.g., mottling, gleying, and sulfidic odor). Sandy soils may mask the presence of hydric soil indicators. Additional wetland indicators used to identify hydric sandy soils include high organic matter content in the surface horizon or at the depth of the water table and organic streaking. 3. Non-wetland Jurisdictional Waters The USACE also requires the delineation of non-wetland jurisdictional waters. These waters must have strong hydrology indicators such as the presence of seasonal flows and an ordinary high watermark. An ordinary high watermark is defined as: . . . that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as [a] clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, 8 destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas (33 CFR Part 328.3). Areas delineated as non-wetland jurisdictional waters may lack wetland vegetation or hydric soil characteristics. Hydric soil indicators may be missing because topographic position precludes ponding and subsequent development of hydric soils. Absence of wetland vegetation can result from frequent scouring due to rapid water flow. These types of jurisdictional waters are delineated by the lateral and upstream/downstream extent of the ordinary high watermark of the particular drainage or depression. 4. Atypical Situations The definition of a wetland includes the phrase “under normal circumstances” because there are situations in which the vegetation of a wetland has been removed or altered as a result of recent natural events or human activities (USACE 1987). To describe these conditions, USACE uses definitions for atypical situations and problem areas. They are as follows: Atypical situation:. . .refers to areas in which one or more parameters (vegetation, soil, and/or hydrology) have been sufficiently altered by recent human activities or natural events to preclude the presence of wetland indicators of the parameter (USACE 1987). Problem areas: . . . wetland types in which wetland indicators of one or more parameters may be periodically lacking due to normal seasonal or annual variations in environmental conditions that result from causes other than human activities or catastrophic natural events. Representative examples of problem areas include seasonal wetlands, wetlands on drumlins, prairie potholes, and vegetated flats (USACE 1987). Atypical situations and problem areas may lack one or more of the three criteria and still be considered wetlands if background information on the previous condition of the area and field observations indicate that the missing wetland criteria were present before the disturbance and would occur at the site under normal circumstances. Additional delineation procedures would be employed if normal circumstances did not occur on a site. Problem areas occur in the study area. During the 1999 delineation of the Holly Springs project site, seasonal cismontane alkali marshes were identified as wetlands. The verification of these areas during the 2003 surveys proved difficult due to less than average rainfall. In 2003, the hydrophytic vegetation, primarily iris-leaved rush (Juncus 1 1 9 f- r xiphioides) and pale spikerush (Eleocharis rnacrostachyu), was dry and less apparent than during the 1999 rain season. In 2003, the soils were dry and compacted and difficult to dig in, preventing verification of hydric soil conditions. However, remnant patches of hydrophytic vegetation were found and the 1999 mapping was considered accurate. In addition, two small seasonal ponds occur on the eastern boundary of the study area. These ponds were discovered in March 2003 after rains had filled the ponds. During the dry season, these ponds went unnoticed. The westernmost seasonal pool supports hydrophytic vegetation. The eastern pool is within a graded road and lacked vegetation. Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos) were observed on both ponds. Be California Department of Fish and Game Under sections 1600-1607 of the Fish and Game Code, the California Department of Fish and Game regulates activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. CDFG has jurisdiction over riparian habitats (e.g., southern willow scrub) associated with watercourses. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. Ce City of Carlsbad The City of Carlsbad takes jurisdiction over all USACE and CDFG jurisdictional areas (City of Carlsbad 1999). Results of Field Data A description of the major vegetation units observed, soil types encountered, and a discussion of the local hydrology in the project area are presented below. Copies of the field data forms summarizing information on vegetation, soils, and hydrology observed at each sample site are provided in Attachment 1. Ae Vegetation Fifteen vegetation communities and land cover types occur in the Cantarini RanchMolly Springs study area. The vegetation communities and land cover types on-site are summarized in Table 1 and shown on Figure 4. 10 TABLE 1 VEGETATION COMMUNmES ON CANTARINI RANCH AND HOLLY SPRINGS Vegetation Community Cantarini Ranch' Holly Springs' Total Wetland/Riparian Habitats Freshwater marsh 2.80 0.25 3.05 Cismontane alkali marsh (including seasonal 4.75 1.1 5.85 cismontane alkali marsh) Southern willow scrub 3.15 0.19 3.34 Mule fat scrub 0.05 0.07 0.12 Southern coast live oak riparian forest 2.65 0.3 1 2.96 Upland Habitats Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed coastal 8.51 72.94 8 1.45 sage scrub) Southem mixed chaparral 0.78 3.47 4.25 Native grassland 0.17 9.76 9.93 Non-native grassland 58.33 5.72 64.05 Other Areas Agriculture 70.30 4.58 74.88 Pond 0.85 -- 0.85 Disturbed 3.49 0.96 4.45 Developed 0.45 1.25 1.70 TOTAL 156.38 100.60 256.88 'Acreage includes the proposed Rancho Carlsbad Partners exchange parcel that would be added to the Cantarini Ranch property. The acreage does not include the southwest portion of Cantarini Ranch that would be deeded to Rancho Carlsbad Partners as a part of this exchange. 'Acreage includes a small portion (1.16 acres) of Holly Springs-Remainder Parcel A that will be added to the Holly Springs tentative map. 1. Areas with Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydrophytic vegetation was found in the tributaries leading to Agua Hedionda Creek and Little Encinas Creek. The types of hydrophytic vegetation observed on-site are described below. One community, coast live oak riparian forest, is dominated by upland plant species but is discussed below as a riparian community. a. Cismontane Alkali Marsh and Seasonal Cismontane Alkali Marsh Approximately 5.85 acres of cismontane alkali marsh and seasonal cismontane alkali marsh are present throughout the study area. Cismontane alkali marsh communities on the site contain salt grass (Distichlis spicata), ins-leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides), spiny rush (J. acutus ssp. leopoldii), pale spikerush, yerba mansa (Anernopsis californicu), and bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides). 12 The areas classified as seasonal cismontane alkali marsh contain dry hydrophytic vegetation. Due to a lack of rainfall prior to the survey, the hydrophytic vegetation was dry; however, its presence indicates seasonal ponding. The hydrophytic vegetation, namely rushes, is indicative of wetland habitat and is supported by saturated soils on-site during the wet season. Greater than 50 percent of the vegetation in the cismontane alkali marsh is FAC, FACW, or OBL. Obligate plant species found in cismontane alkali marsh include pale spikerush, yerba mansa, salt marsh fleabane (Plucheu odoruta), and iris-leaved rush. b. Freshwater Marsh A total of 3.05 acres of freshwater marsh occurs in the study area. The majority of freshwater marsh occurs around a pond on the southern, central boundary of the study area. The dominant species in the freshwater marsh include emergent monocots such as broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifaliu; OBL). Plant species near the edges of the marsh include pale spikerush, yerba mansa, iris-leaved rush, saltgrass, and spiny rush. Greater than 50 percent of the vegetation in the freshwater marsh is FAC, FACW, or OBL. Cattail, pale spikerush, yerba mansa, and iris-leaved rush are obligate plant species. Facultative-wet plant species include saltgrass and spiny rush. c. Southern Willow Scrub Southern willow scrub is present in several patches in the study area, primarily in the areas leading into Agua Hedionda Creek. The total acreage of southern willow scrub on- site is 3.34 acres. The habitat is dominated by arroyo willow (Sulix lusiolepis), which forms a canopy with variable density throughout the area. Understory species include those found in the freshwater and cismontane alkali marsh habitats described above. Arroyo willow, which dominates this plant community, is a FACW plant species. d. Mule Fat Scrub In addition to being a component of willow scrub communities, mule fat (Bucchuris sulicifoliu) can also form nearly pure stands. Mule fat communities develop after flooding or other disturbance and may eventually change through successional processes to willow-cottonwood or sycamore-dominated riparian forestlwoodland in the absence of disturbance. Three small patches of mule fat scrub, totaling 0.12 acre, occur in the study area. The dominant species is mule fat with a variable understory of herbaceous marsh species as described above. Mule fat is a FACW plant species. 4 e. Seasonal Pond r Two seasonal ponds occur on the northeastern boundary of the study area. Woolly-heads (Psilocarphus tenellus var. tenellus) and annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) are the dominant plant species occurring in the west seasonal pool. The east pool is within the graded access road and lacks vegetation. The seasonal ponds total less than 0.01 acre and are therefore included in the vegetation community acreage in which they occur (one is mapped within Diegan coastal sage scrub and one is within the developed 1 ands) . Woolly-heads is a FAC plant species and annual beard grass is a FACW+ plant species. The seasonal ponds are shown in Photographs 1 and 2 when they held water in April 2003. f. Pond Due to the presence of a dam, a small pond of 0.85 acre occurs in the center of Cantarini Ranch at the confluence of two drainages that flow into Agua Hedionda Creek. As shown in Photograph 3, this is an open water pond ringed by freshwater marsh. g. A total of 2.96 acres of southern coast live oak riparian forest occur on-site. The southern coast live oak riparian forest often intergrades on-site with southern willow scrub. The dominant tree is the coast live oak (Quercus agrifoliu) with a variable understory of freshwater marsh habitat, as described above, and other species including poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) and pale spikerush. Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest Coast live oak and poison oak are upland plant species, which may occur adjacent to streambeds. Pale spikerush is an obligate plant species and occurs in small patches beneath the tree canopy. Photograph 4 shows sparse cover of the southern coast live oak riparian forest near a dirt road upstream of test pit number 14. 2. Areas Lacking Hydrophytic Vegetation Vegetation communities that support a predominance of upland species include Diegan coastal sage scrub, disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, non- native grassland, and native grasslands. Disturbed habitats, developed lands, and agricultural fields also occur on-site. These communities are described in the biological technical document for this project (RECON 2003a, 2003b). 14 B. Hydrology Several drainages flow through the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs study area. Two large perennial streams flow south and southwest toward the south-central pond, which flows directly into Agua Hedionda Creek. Little Encinas Creek lies to the north of the study area. Several drainages on the northern boundary flow into Little Encinas Creek. A few narrow ephemeral finger drainages exist in the shallow canyons between the rolling hillsides on-site. These intermittent streams exhibit surface flow in times of high precipitation and subside to relatively dry streambeds with local standing pls or other small surface water areas, in drier times. Generally, water enters the stream system by direct precipitation and runoff from adjacent areas. Irrigation in the agricultural fields, primarily on the Cantarini Ranch property, supplies supplemental runoff. In addition to drainages, seasonal wetlands are found in localized ponded areas particularly on the sides of slopes where water is supplied by underground springs. Some areas of ponding occur where an impermeable clay soil lens traps water on the surface. Others occur in unnaturally compacted soils. In areas not disturbed by agriculture activities, unique alkaline meadows and freshwater marshes have formed. They are also an integral part of the Agua Hedionda watershed. c. soils Information on the soil types sampled in the study area is summarized from the following sources: Soil Survey for San Diego County (USDA 1973), Soil Taxonomy (USDA 1973, and the local hydric soil list obtained from the Soil Conservation Service. Figure 5 depicts the location of each soil series at it occurs on-site. 1. Alfisol soils have been in place long enough for the movement and accumulation of clays within the soil profile. They characteristically have a massive, hard surface layer and horizons of clay accumulation that have high base saturation. These soils are often enriched with aluminum and iron. Alfisol Soil Order (Huerhuero, Bonsall, and Olivenhain Series) Huerhuero loam is classified as Haplic Natrixeralfs. Soils found in the drainages have a surface layer formed from marine sediments with a clay subsoil. The matrix soil color is a grayish-dark brown (IOYR 3/2) with mottles being bright orange in color (5YR 618). Typically the soils are moderately well-draining loams with very slow permeability and slow runoff. 17 *!- Bonsall sandy loam soils on-site consist of 2 to 9 percent slopes. The effective rooting depth is 24 to 33 inches. Permeability is very slow and the runoff is slow to medium. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate. Soil color is generally brown to dark grayish brown to reddish brown in the top horizon (or “A” horizon) and light yellowish brown to dark brown below. The soil color of the Bonsall sandy loam on-site is 10 YR 3/1-2, which is considered a low-chroma soil color. Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes, soils have an effective rooting depth of 20 to 27 inches. Runoff is medium to rapid and the erosion hazard is moderate to high. Olivenhain soils are well-drained deep cobbly loams that have a cobbly clay subsoil. The A horizon ranges from brown or reddish brown to yellowish brown in color. 2. Entisol Soil Order (Cieneba and Cieneba Fallbrook Series) Entisol soils are relatively young soils that show little, if any, alteration of the parent material. One of the subgroups in this order is Typic Xerorthents, which includes the Cieneba series. Xerorthents form in climates with a warm dry season of more than 60 days and a moist season of more than 90 days. Cieneba soils are shallow and are similar to the decomposed granitic parent rock. The rates of erosion and weathering have reached an equilibrium in this soil type. The Cieneba series soils mapped on-site include Cieneba coarse sandy loam and Cieneba- Fallbrook rocky sandy loam. The Cieneba coarse sandy loam has 5 to 15 percent slopes and is eroded. Runoff is slow to medium and the erosion hazard slight to moderate. Permeability in this soil type is moderately rapid. The Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loam consists of 9 to 30 percent slopes and is eroded. This complex is approximately 55 percent Cieneba coarse sandy loam and 40 percent Fallbrook sandy loam. Fallbrook sandy loam is a well-drained soil with a moderately slow permeability. The A horizon is generally brown (10 YR 5/3) coarse sandy loam and dark brown (10 YR 3/2) moist. 3. Mollisol soils are characterized by a surface layer that is soft and high in organic matter with very dark colored horizons. One suborder of Mollisol soils, the Xeroll, was encountered in the study area. Xerolls are Mollisol soils which formed under a xeric or dry moisture regime. Visalia and Salinas are Xeroll soils. Mollisol Soil Order (Visalia and Salinas series) Visalia sandy loam soils encountered in the study area are classified as Pachic Haploxerolls. This soil type has a dark surface layer color (lOYR 21) with a very thick surface layer. The soils are moderately well-drained, moderately deep sandy loams 19 derived from granitic alluvium. Permeability of these soils is moderately rapid and runoff is very slow. The Salinas series consists of well-drained clay loam soils. Salinas clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, has a runoff of slow to medium and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate. Typically, the soil color of Salinas clay is dark grayish-brown (10 YR 4/2) and darker (10 YR 312). 4. Vertisol Soil Order (Altamont Series) Vertisols are deep clayey soils that shrink and swell in the upper layers with the seasons. There are two subgroups in the San Diego area, Typic Chromoxererts and Chromic Peloxererts. The Altamont series soils that occur in the study area are in the Typic Chromoxererts subgroup, which have a dark-colored surface horizon. The Altamont series consists of well-drained clay soils that form in material weathered from calcareous shale. The typical soil color in the surface of an Altamont clay is dark brown (10 YR 4/3). Altamont clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes, has a runoff capability of medium and a moderate erosion hazard. Wetland Delineation Figures 6 and 7 identify the locations of jurisdictional resources on the Cantarini RanchMolly Springs study area. Table 2 summarizes the acreage of jurisdictional areas according to USACE, CDFG, and City of Carlsbad. TABLE 2 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES (acres) Jurisdictional Resources Cantarini Ranch Holly Springs' Total USACE Jurisdiction Wetlands Non-wetland waters of the U.S. 10.71 1.54 12.25 1.27 0.12 1.39 US ACE Total Jurisdiction 11.98 1.66 13.64 CDFG Jurisdiction Streambed' 1.27 0.12 1.39 Riparian habitat3 13.37 1.85 15.22 Isolated wetland -- 0.08 0.08 Isolated non-wetland waters of the U.S. 0.25 0.05 0.30 CDFG/City of Carlsbad Total Jurisdiction 14.89 2.10 16.99 added to the Holly Springs tentative map. 'Acreage includes a small portion (1.16 ac.) of Holly Springs-Remainder Parcel A that will be 'Equals USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S. 'Equals USACE wetlands plus additional riparian habitat outside of the ordinary high watermark. 20 Am USACE Jurisdiction 1. Jurisdictional Areas USACE jurisdiction on-site includes 11.98 acres of wetlands and 1.66 acres of non- wetland waters of the US. a. Wetlands Wetlands on-site include the low-flow channel and the adjacent terraces where all three wetland parameters were observed (see Figure 6). The majority of the 11.98 acres of wetlands are located on the eastern half of the study area and are within the larger tributaries to Agua Hedionda Creek. b. Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Some drainage courses within the study area occur in disturbed, cultivated, or brush- covered areas dominated by mostly upland species. A portion of these drainages have well-defined banks indicating strong seasonal flows. However, the steep gradient and shallow soils of these drainage courses lead to rapid runoff such that hydric conditions do not persist for long enough durations to support hydrophytic vegetation. These areas display an ordinary high watermark and generally connect two wetland areas and are considered non-wetland jurisdictional waters. A total of 1.66 acres of non-wetland jurisdictional waters occur on-site (see Figure 6). 2. Exempt from Jurisdiction Isolated wetlands and non-wetland waters of the U.S. are not under the jurisdiction of USACE. Therefore, 0.08 acre of isolated wetlands and 0.30 acre of isolated non-wetland water that occur on-site are exempt from USACE jurisdiction (see Figure 6). The isolated wetlands include two seasonal ponds and an isolated seasonal cismontane alkali marsh. Bm CDFG Jurisdiction Total CDFG jurisdiction on-site is 16.99 acres, including all USACE jurisdictional areas and additional riparian habitat outside of the ordinary high watermark (totaling 16.61 acres on-site), isolated wetlands (0.08 acre), and isolated non-wetland waters of the U.S. (0.30 acres). The isolated non-wetland waters, as shown on Figure 7, become swales or disappear completely as they reach agricultural fields and roads and do not connect to other jurisdictional areas. 23 C. City of Carlsbad Jurisdiction City of Carlsbad jurisdiction includes all USACE and CDFG jurisdiction and totals 16.99 acres on-site. The City of Carlsbad jurisdiction is equal to the CDFG jurisdiction mapped on Figure 7. Project Impacts The proposed project consists of the residential development of Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs. Portions of the project have been redesigned based on discussions in the field with representatives from USACE, CDFG, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Included in the impact analysis are several ancillary components: (1) the construction of the Rancho Carlsbad Partners parcel that is adjacent to the northwest corner of Cantarini Ranch and will be deeded to Cantarini Ranch as part of the approval process; (2) the proposed removal of two dams along the central north-south drainage on Cantarini Ranch; and (3) the proposed redesign of detention basins. The proposed removal of two dams along the central north-south drainage on Cantarini Ranch became a part of the project in December 2003 after an on-site meeting with the project proponent, CDFG, USACE, and the RWQCB. The breaching of the dams will result in the loss of the open water pond located on Cantarini Ranch. The basin of the pond will be recontoured with a gentle slope to allow for the natural hydrology of the watershed to be reestablished. In addition, the proposed detention basins were removed from their original locations within the drainages on-site and a redesigned basin was placed above and adjacent to the drainage. This redesign was also made as a result of comments from USACE and the RWQCB regarding the need to avoid placement of detention basins in-line of natural drainages. The impacts for the College Boulevard extension adjacent to the property were approved as part of the Final EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, and Detention Basins (EIR No. 98-02, SCH No. 991 11082); therefore, these impacts are not addressed in this report. Figures 8 and 9 show impacts to USACE and CDFG jurisdictional resources and Table 3 presents the acreage of impacts. 24 TABLE 3 IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES Jurisdictional Resources Cantarini Ranch’ Holly Springs‘ Total ~~ US ACE Jurisdiction Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the US. 1.1 1 1.1 1 -- 1.11 _- 1.1 1 US ACE Total Jurisdiction 2.22 2.22 CDFG Jurisdiction S treambed3 1.1 1 -- 1.11 Riparian habitat4 1.57 -- 1.57 Isolated wetland _- -- -- Isolated non-wetland waters of the U.S. 0.17 -- 0.17 CDFG Total Jurisdiction 2.85 2.85 ’Impacts were calculated using the proposed tentative map boundaries. Cantarini Ranch acreage includes the impacts from development of the Rancho Carlsbad Partners exchange parcel and off-site grading of the multi-family housing parcel and the loop access road (“P” Street and “C” Street) that are on Holly Springs Property. ’Impacts include all grading and brush management on Holly Springs except those impacts included in the Cantarini Ranch impact analysis. ‘Equals USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S. 4Equals USACE wetlands and additional riparian habitat outside of the ordinary high watermark. 1. USACE Jurisdictional Impacts As shown in Table 3, the proposed project will impact a total of 2.22 acres of USACE jurisdictional resources, including 1.1 1 acres of wetlands and 1.1 1 acres of non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. 2. CDFGICity of Carlsbad Jurisdictional Impacts The proposed project will impact a total of 2.85 acres of CDFG and City of Carlsbad jurisdictional resources. This includes 1.1 I acres of streambed, 1.57 acres of wetlandriparian habitat, and 0.17 acre of isolated non-wetland waters. Mitigation Measures Due to a no-net-loss policy implemented by the resource agencies, the first consideration in project planning should be avoidance of jurisdictional resources. Multiple iterations of the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs project have been designed to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts. Mitigation is proposed for those impacts that could not be avoided to reduce the level of significance and ensure adherence to the no-net-loss policy. 27 Mitigation for wetland and non-wetland jurisdictional waters will be mitigated on-site to the greatest extent possible through creation, revegetation, and enhancement within the project open space. Mitigation ratios and acreage required are provided in Table 4. A revegetation plan will be submitted under separate cover and approved by the resource agencies prior to project implementation. Impacts to jurisdictional resources will require a 404 permit from USACE, a 401 water quality certificate from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. Given the extent of impacts to wetlands and non- wetland jurisdictional waters of the US., an individual permit will need to be obtained from USACE. TABLE 4 MITIGATION REQUIRED FOR IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES Jurisdictional Impacts Impact Mitigation Ratio Mitigation Required Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. (streambed)' 1.1 1 1: 1 1.11 Isolated wetland' -- -- -- Study Area Total 2.85 5.99 - Wetland and Riparian habitat' 1.57 3: 1 4.7 1 Isolated non-wetland waters of the U.S? 0.17 1:l 0.17 'Both USACE and CDFGKity of Carlsbad jurisdictional. Impact for Wetland and Riparian habitat includes 1.1 1 acres of USACE wetlands and an additional 0.46 acre of CDFG riparian habitat outside ordinary hjgh watermark. 'CDFG jurisdictional only. Exempt from USACE jurisdiction because they are isolated. 1. USACE Jurisdictional Impacts A total of 4.71 acres of wetland habitat will need to be created and/or enhanced to compensate for impacts to wetlands. This will include a minimum of 1.57 acres of habitat creation to adhere to the no-net-loss policy of the wetland regulatory agencies. The remaining 3.14 acres can consist of creation, revegetation, or enhancement of degraded wetlands. Impacts to non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are typically mitigated at a ratio of 1:l and may be completed by adding this acreage to the above wetland mitigation requirement. 2. A total of 5.99 acres of streambed and wetlandriparian habitat will need to be created, revegetated, or enhanced to mitigate for the loss of 2.85 acres of CDFG jurisdictional resources. CDFG Streambed and Associated Riparian Habitat 4 28 References Cited /- Carlsbad, City of 1999 Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. April. Addenda 2003. RECON 1999 Wetland Delineation for the Holly Springs Project Site, Carlsbad, California. October 8. 2003a Revised Biological Technical Report and Impact Analysis for the Cantarini Ranch Property, Carlsbad, California. February 7. 2003b Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Holly Springs Project, Carlsbad, California. February 8. 2003c Revised Wetland Delineation Report for the Cantarini Ranch Property, Carlsbad, California. February 10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, Department of the Army. January. U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973 Soil Survey, Sun Diego Area, California. Edited by Roy H. Bowman. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1975 Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. Agriculture Handbook No. 436. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1997 National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary. Ecology Section - National Wetlands Inventory. March 3, 1997. 29 ATTACHMENT 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION MlZHOD County: San Diego Investigator(s) : Gerry Scheid and Canie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes NNo (i needed, explain on revem or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: NNG Transect ID: Plot ID: 1 VEGETATION I Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Brassica nip H UPL 9. 2. Hemizouia fascirulata H UPL 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 0% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes No HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in PI: Depth to Saturated Soil: n/a (in.) - > 18 (in.) >18 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 inundated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water Marks 0 DriltLines 0 SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary lndcatos (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Roo! Channels in: c3 Upper 12' Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test @ Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" 0 13-18" ~ Observations and Remarks: Visible high water mark Slight to moderately CUI banks, drainage width 1-2 f't. 1 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes No 2. slope: 0 0-2%; or a 9% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; dd roots only; 0 new and old roots, none 4. Fiding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; 0 occasional, occuts on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: very brief, if (2 days; 151 brief, if 2-7 days, or 17 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes No Map Unit Name Drainage Class: MWD (Series and Phase): Bonsdl sandy loam Permeability: very slow Runoff slow Taxonomy (Subgroup): Hoplic Natrixeralfs Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Mor Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions. (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 l0YR 312 none lonmy clay Hydric soil Indicators: Histosol 0 Histic Epipedon 0 SulfidicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 Concretions 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer In Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Organic Streaking in sandy Soils Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: IXI Neutral: 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: [7 Irrigated; [7 Land leveled; [7 Ditch drained; Pumped: 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes 151 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes No Hydric Soils Present? 0 yes No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S. ? Yes No 2. Possibly exempt from CorpsEPA Regulation? 0 Yes No (If yes, check item&) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artiiically irrigated areas which would revet7 to upland if the inigation ceased. (c) Attificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collecf and retain wafer and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, inigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasom. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3fa)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRemarks: Visible high water mark Slight to moderately cut banks, drainage width 1-2 feet. .,- DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD f- ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator@): Geny Scheid and Carrie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Community ID: Alkaline Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Sltuation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No VEGETATION I Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Anemopsis califomico H OBL 9. I I I 12. I I I 13. I 7. I I I 15. I I 8. I 16. Percent of Dominant SDecies that are OBL. FACW. or FAC (excludina FAG) ioos HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Ti Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water. n/a (in.) Depth to Water in Pi: - 12 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indiitors: 0 Inundated 0 WaterMarks 0 DriftLines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 13-18" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Saturated in: 5 Upper 12" 13-18" Observations and Remarks: soil uniform in color. very moist but not saturated near the surface. 1. Filamentous or sheer forming algae present? Yes 0 No 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and old roots, ea none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possibk under unusual weather conditions; 2. slope: 002%; or a>2% [rl occasional, murs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 8 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if <2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or ea long, if 27 days 6. Site ponds water? 5 Yes 0 No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Bonsall Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Namxenlfs Drainage Class: MWD Permeability: very slow Runoff: slow Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions. (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 18 10 YR 2/l none loam clay Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol Concretions HisticEpipedon 0 SulfidicOdor 0 AqJc Moisture Regime @ Reducing Conditions m Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) b Obersetvations and Remarks: 1. Smll: 0 Neutral; Slighfly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated: Land leveled: 0 Ditch drained: Pumped: 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? @ Yes No Remarks: Occasional seep area 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from corPs/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes No No (If yes, check item&) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the itrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating antVor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating ador diking dry (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the Construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulring body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 392 Additional CommentdRemarks: Water flows hit flat platform areas and spreads out. Narrows at bottom and cuts channel then repeats down the drainage. ,.- DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSKE DETERMINATION METHOD Project/ Site: Cantarini Ranch ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? R Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No 0 Yes No (if needed, explain on revers8 or attach separate sheet.) County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: Freshwater marsh Transect ID: Plot.ID: 3 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Tbyho latiforia Herb OBL 9. 2. Scirpus sp. Herb OBL 10. 3. Juncus arums Hub FACW 11. 4. Ancmopsis californica Hcrb OBL 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) loot 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? HYDROLOGY 1- 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: - da (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: g (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated H Saturated in: Upper lY WaterMarks H DIM Lines 0 SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 13-18" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. stope: 0 @2%; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; f7 new and old roots, 4. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; H No ~2% none 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if 4 days; f7 brief, 12-7 days, or 6. Site ponds water? H Yes long, if >7 days No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Palexeralfs Olivenhaio cobbly loam Drainage Class: WD Permeability: slow Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations: ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-4 5 YR 2.511 clay loam 5-1 1 10YR3R 5 YRN4 modente I course Ssnd 12-18 5 YR 2.511 1.5 YR 410 thick I moderate clay lonm Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 HisticEpipedon CsI SuifidicOdor Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions Gley4 or LonChmma Colors 0 0 0 0 0 0 Concretions Hgh Organic Contenl in Surface Layer in Sandy Sdb Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remaks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 Irrigated; Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (9 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION WeUand Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 1. PossiWy water of the US.? Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes El NO (If yes, check itern@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Attifirally irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) Attifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Watetfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of Water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommenWRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes H No 0 Yes IXI No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION 4. I I 1 12. I I 5. I 13. 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) 0% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes No HYDROLOGY 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Inundated 0 Other . H No Recorded Data Available 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12' 0 Watertvkrks 0 DrM Lines 0 SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary indicators (2 or more required): 0 13-18" Depth of Surlace Water: n/a (in.) 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: 218 (in.) 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 13-18" Obsewations and Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed. 1. Filamentous or sheet fonning algae present? D Yes H No 2. Slope: 0 ~2%; or 0 >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and old roots, 4. Flooding: H none, flooding not probable; 0 fare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 0 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in none 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if (2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 long, if > 7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes No Map Unit Name Drainage Class: WD (Series and Phase): Ciemeba Fallbrook rocky sandy loam Perrneabili: medium-slow Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic xerorthents FieM Observations: Runoff medium ConfirmMappedType? 0 Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast StNdUreS, &C. 18 1oYR4n none loam clay Hydric Soil Indiitors: 0 Histosol n concrstions HisticEpipedon 0 SulfidiiOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sdls 0 Organic Streaking in &ndy Soils Listed on Lml Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Obersewations and Remarks: 7. Smell: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or Freshlyplowed field smell 2. Site: Irrigate$ 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 0 do (>30 days) during the growing season do not become frequentlyponded or saturated for bng (9 days) to very bng durations WETLAND DETERMINATION dric Soils Present? Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S. ? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes @ No No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) 0 Nmtidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifical/y irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small omamntal bodies of water created by excavating andlor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water forprimarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). ~ AddRional ComrnenWRemarks: Approved by HQUSACE 392 -\ DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQIBentley-Monarch Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes EJ NO Yes EJ NO (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Date: 8/14/98 - verified 9/03 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: Freshwater marsh Transect ID: Plot ID: 5 VEGETATION 7. I I I 15. I I 8. I 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 1009b I Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Depth of Surface water. !& (in.) Depth to Water in Pi: - n/a (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated p9 Saturated in: Upper 12" 13-18" 0 WaterMarks p9 Drift tines 0 SediintDeposis 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidizad Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data f3 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 3. Oxidized rhizosphees: new roots on&; 0 old roots on&; a new and old roots, a none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; f3 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 2. Slope: 0 0-2%; or H>2% 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: [7 very brief, if c2 days; 6. Site ponds water? a Yes brief, 82-7days. or 0 long, if>7days 0 No SOILS - I Map Unit Name Drainage Class: WD (Series and Phase): Olivenhain cobbly loam Permeability: slow I Run& slow-medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Wlexeralfs Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Mahix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance1 Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast StNChJreS, &C. 0-4 5 YR 231 none _-_-- clay lonm 5-1 1 IO YR 30 SYR4/4 moderate 12-18 5 YR 2.511 Hydric Soil Indicators: sand 7.5 YR 4m thick I moderate clay loam 0 Histosol 0 concretrons f3 HisticEpipedon IxI SulfidicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing CondHions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soits List 0 Listed on National Hydric Sails List 0 Other (Explain in Remah) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; f3 Slight& fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed fiem smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: a do a do not become frequently pond& or saturated for long ('7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydric Soils Present? IxI Yes 0 No Remrks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? B Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? f3 Yes 0 No No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage am irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Aftifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Arlilicial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) Aftifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). < Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional GommenWRemarks: ,- DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD -= ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch Investigator(s): Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes eS No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No Geny Scheid and Came Smith (i needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Date: 8/14/98 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: Disturbed Transect ID: Plot ID: 6 VEGETATION 3. I I I 11. I’ I 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 0% Remarks: HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake or lide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated 0 saturated in: 0 Upper 12“ WaterMarks 0 DriftLines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12” 0 Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Suwey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18” 0 13-18” Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Water in Pt - >18 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: >18 (in.) Observations arid Remarks: No hydrology indicators observed. 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and old roots. 4. Flooding: @ none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 2. slope: 0 0.2%; OT 0>2% none 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 0 frequent. occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if c2 days; 0 brief, if2-7 days, or 0 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes No Map Unit Name Drainage Class: WD (Series and Phase): Cienebr Fallbrook rocky sandy lorn Permeability: mediumslow _- r Runoff: medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Xerorthents Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? 0 Yes a No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 10YRm loam clay . Hydric Soil Indicators: Hitosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon 0 SuWidcOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Obemervations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slghtb fresh: or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 do 0 Irngated: 0 Land leveled: 0 Ditch drained; Pumped: Graded to drain via slope do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>? days} to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes IXI No Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes No Remarks: 7. Possibly water of the U.S.? 0 Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes No 2. Possib& exempt from COrpsrrPA Regulation? 0 Yes No (If yes, check item{s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically imgated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rim growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting boo)' of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3492 Additional CommenWRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Canie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 0 Yes No Community ID: DisturbedMule Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 0 No Is the area a potential Problem Area? f3 Yes No Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Baccharis salicijolio Shrub FACW 9. 2. Polpogon moriospeliemis Herb FACW+ 10. I 0 Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated soil: & (in.) - >18 (in.) >?B (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated f3 Saturated in: Upper 12” 0 WaterMarks Drift Lines SedimentDeposits f3 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18” 0 Upper 12“ 0 13-1V Observations and Remarks: me trash piles and fill have been dumped throughout the drainage. It appears the width of the dniage =7ft. I. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 yes 2. Slope: a 02%; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; c] old roots only; 0 new and old roots, 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; @ No >2% none 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or [XI frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: @ very brief, if CZ days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes [XI No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Huerhuem~ lorn Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixemlfs Drainage Class: MWD Permeability: slow Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations: ConfirmMappedType? 151 Yes 0 NO Profile Descrimon: Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 concretions 0 Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy soils D Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Obersetvations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: Irrigated; Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (27 days) to very long durations (30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETER M IN ATlON HydrnphyticVegetationPresent? 151 Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? 151 Yes Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Secondary channel to Agua Hedionda. Piles of trash in drainage (Le. concrete. old irrigation hoses) 1. Possibly water of the US. ? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from COrpdEPA Regulation? Yes 0 No (If yes. check itern(s) below.) 0 No (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Attificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andlor diking dry (e) 0 Watetfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such putposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fi/l, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting bo@y of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3fa)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 AddHional CommentdRemarks: Atypical situation due to disturbance - Piles of fill (Le. concrete, irrigation how$) prc!?ient Isolated drainage. Likely exempt from USACE jurisdiction due to isolation. F DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD r mal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes IxI No 0 Yes No (i needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION 7. I I 15. I 8. 1 16. I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) 83% HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs Other IXI NO Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) - n/a (in.) n/a (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: \nundated Saturated in: Upper 12" @ 13-18" WaterMarks B Driftlines 0 Sedimenthposits 0 Drainage Pattern in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 13-18" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: BO-,?%; or 0>2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; 0 new and old roots, none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable: 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, mors on an average of more than once in 2 yean. 5. Durafion: 0 very brief, if <2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or a long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? Yes No SOILS ): Vasalia Sandy Loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Pachic hoploxerolls MappedType? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-12 10 YR Zl none sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 HisticEpipedon a9 SutfidiiOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions Gleyed or LowChroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Obersewations and Remarks: Sulfidic odor 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Inigated; 0 Land leveled; Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via shpe 3. Soils: (>30 days) during the growing season do do not become frequentlyponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S. ? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CorpsEPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No 0 No (If yes. check item(s) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificalty irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) [7 Attjfical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusive& for such purposes as stock watering, im'gation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting be of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: Tributary to Agua Hcdionda Creek - drainage from pond -am. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD r ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch = c ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monah Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Canie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site signlficantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Dyes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No (it needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Date: 8/14/98 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: southern willow woodland Transect ID: Plot ID: 9 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Tvpha latifolio Herb OBL 2. Salk laevigata Tree FACW+ 3. Juncus arums Herb FACW 4. Scirpus anwricanus Herb OBL 5. Corex spissa Hab FAC 6. Quercus agrifolia Tree UPL 7. Juncus mexicams , Herb FACW 8. Toxicodendron diversilobum I Shrub I UPL Percent of Dominant SDecies that are OBL. FACW. or Rosa califomica 13. I I 14. 16. I I =AC (excluding FAG) 78% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Ti Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth io Water in Pit Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) 4 (in.) g (in.) Wetland Hydrdcgy Indicators: Primary Indicators: B hundated Saturated in: Upper 12” 181 WaterMarks Drifttines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 13-18” 0 Upper 12” 0 13-18“ Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and old roots. none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; a No 2. Slope: 0 0-2%; or 0>2% occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or H frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if c2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or long, if >7 days 6. Siteponds water? Yes No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Huehuerro loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Hriplix Nafriixeralfs Profile Description: Drainage Class: MWD Permeability: slow Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations: 1 ConfimMappedType? Pp Yes 0 No Matrix Color (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) 10 YR 3/2 - 3/1 Hydric Soil Indiitors: 0 Histosol c 0 Histic Epipedon c Pp Sulfidic Odor c Aquic Moisture Regime t Reducing Conditions t Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors c (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. large I abundant concretions High Organic Content in Sutface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: Sulfidic 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; [7 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: (>30 days) during the growing season do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations WETLAND DETERMINATION ric Soils Present? 1. Possibly water ofthe U.S.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from COrpsrrPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No No (If yes, check ifem(s) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Attifically irrigated areas which would reverf to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction aciivify and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, seftling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3@)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Addaional CommenWRemarks: Drainage approximately 8 feet wide. i DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator@): Geny Scheid and Canie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? @Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No (i needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Disturbed Transect ID: Plot ID: 10 ~ VEGETATION HYDROLOGY Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Inundated 0 Other 0 Saturated in: Upper 12" 0 13-18" 0 Water Marks 0 DriftLines 0 SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): No Recorded Data Available Depth of Surface Water. & (in.) 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) 0 Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Water in Pit: 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed. 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: 0 ~2%; or IxI=-2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots on&; 0 new and old roots. none 4. Flooding: No none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2years: or 0 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 6. Siteponds water? 0 yes very brief, if c2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 long, if >7 days No SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Huerhuem, loam I .- _. -. Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixenlfs Drainage Class: MWD Permeability: slow Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations ConfimMappedType? @ Yes 0 No It I 1 Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture. Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast stNChlr0S, etC. 0-12 10 YR 3/2 none lOam Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon SuHidicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or LowChroma Cdow 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Obersewations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 do Irrigated; Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope do not become frequently jxmded or saturated for long (27 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US. ? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from corps/EPA Regulation? Yes 0 No No (If yes, check itern(s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would reveri to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating ador diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). a - Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional ComrnenWRemarks: Test she is outside seep area. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecffSite: Cantarini Ranch ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQ03entley-Monarch Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith Do Noma1 Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Avpical Situation)? 0 Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No 0 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Date: 8/14/98 - verified 9/03 County: San Diego , State: CA 1 Community ID: Alkali Meadow Transect ID: Plot ID: 11 I VEGETATION 8. Ambrosia psilosrachya I Herb I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 88% Remarks: HYDROLOGY 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other 151 saturated in: IXI Upper 12" IXI 13-18" 0 WaterMarks 0 Driit Lines Sediment Deposits 151 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary lndiitors (2 or more required): No Recorded Data Available Depth of Surface Water: n/a (in.) 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" Depth to Saturated Soil: 3 (in.) 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Water in Pit: 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 2. Slope: c]o-2%; or E>2% new roots only; 0 old roots on&; 0 new and old roots, @ none 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years: or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: c] very brief, if c2 days; brief, if2-7 days, or 181 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 151 Yes 0 No SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Huerhuerro loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixeralfs Profile Descript~on: Drainage Class: MWD Permeability: slow Runoff: slow-medium Field Obsewations: ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No -Depth I (inches) Matrix Color Horizon (Munsell Moist) 10 YR 2/1 * (Munsdl Moist) Contrast StNdUWS, &C. Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol Concretions 0 HicEpipedon 0 SulfidicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) oberservations and Remarks: 7. Smell: 0 Neutral; Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long ('7 days) to very long durations 830 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 181 Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No Remarks: Isolated groundwater seep area 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? 181 Yes 2. Possibk exempt from CorpSrrPA Regulation? 0 Yes [7 No 0 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artifkally irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating ancVor diking dty land to collec! and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Atiifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Wateifilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activiiy and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, senling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. putpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(8)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Addionat ComrnentdRemarks: Isolated wetland, ground water seep area. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ,- r ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQIBentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Disturbed Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Dyes IXI No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Remarks: HYDROLOGY s. I Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other B No Recorded Data Available field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pi Depth to Saturated soil: n/a (in.) - n/a (in.) n/a (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated 0 Saturated in: Upper 12” 0 Water Marks D~iftLines SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Pattems in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18” 0 Upper 12” 0 13-18” Observations and Remarks: Defined ordinmy high water mark 7. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes 2. slope: OM%: or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; old roots only; 0 new and old roots. none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; B No occasional, DCCUW on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: very brief, if 4 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic xerorthents Cieneba nxky sandy loam Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes H No Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes HNO Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes HNO Drainage Class: ED Permeability: rapid Runow slow-medium Field Observations: ConfinMappedType? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Cdor Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture. Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. Profile Description: Depth Matrix Cdor Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture. Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-12 10 YR 3/2 none sandy loam 0-12 10 YR 3/2 none sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions HisticEpipedon 0 Suffidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Cdors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils ust 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 do 0 Irrigated; Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; Pumm; Graded to drain via slope do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>I days) to very long durations (90 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjedSite: Cantarini Ranch ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch Investigator(s): Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith IXI Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes IXI No 0 Yes No (i needed, explain on reverse ofattach separate sheet.) - Date: 8/14/98 - verified 10103 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: Southern Willow Scrub Transect ID: Plot ID: 13 VEGETATION 7. Scirpus amcricanus I Herb I OBL I 15. I I 8. I I I 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes No 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? - HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs tl Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: 12 (in.) - 0 (in.) 0 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated Saturated in: Upperl2" m WaterMarks IxI DriftLines e0 SedirnentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 13-18" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) H 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: Ho-296; or Ox?% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only,' 0 dd roots only; 0 new and old roots, IxI none 4. Flooding: a none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; H No occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if -2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 6. Sifeponds water? B Yes long, if >7 days 0 No c SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Huerhuem, loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixanlfs I Drainage Class: MWD Permeability: slow Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations: COnfimMappedType? e3 Yes 0 No r I [ profile Description: Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 HisticEpipedon SutfiiicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime f3 Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 Concretions 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via dope do (>30 days) during the growing season 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (a7 days) to very long durations WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydric Soils Present? Y- - Remarks: 1. Possibly water ofthe US.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CorpsEPA Regulation? 0 Yes B No No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dty land (b) Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) 0 Attificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating ador diking dry (e) 0 Waterfiled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, imgation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and unt17 the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommenWRemarks: Tributary to Agus Hedionda Creek. ,- DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch ApplicantlOwner: BENTEQDentley-Monarch Investigator(s): Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Gerry Scheid and Canie Smith Yes 0 No Is the site signifiintly distuhd (Atypical Situation)? Oy- "0 Is the area a potential Problem Area? OYes No (i needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Date: 8/14/98 - verified 10103 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: Freshwater Marsh Transect ID: Plot ID: 14 7. I 15. I I 8. I I I 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Primary Indicators: 0 Aerial Photographs hmdated 0 Other Saturated in: Upper 12" 13-18" Water Marks No Recorded Data Available DriftLines 0 SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water: 3-6 (in.) 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: Upper 12" Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) 0 Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Water in Pi: 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: IXI &,??A; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roofs only; 0 old roots oniy; 0 new and old roofs, none 4. Flooding: 0 none. flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 0 >2% 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if 4 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 6. Site ponds water? a Yes long, if >7 days 0 No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Pachic haploexaolls Visalia sandy loam J _. Drainage Class: WD Permeability: MR Runoff: slow Field Observations: ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist] Contrast Structures, etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 HisticEpipedon IXI SulfiiicOdor Aquic Moisture Regime c] Reducing Condlins p9 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Sols 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) ' Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; 0 Slight& fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 8 do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>? days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulatioo? 0 Yes IXI No 0 No (If yes, check itern(s) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifhlly irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) Arfifhl reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating aWor diking dry (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins. or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulling My of Water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Apprwed by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: Inlet drainage and pond. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Me Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No ti Yes IxI No (i needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) t Date: 8/14/98 - verified 10/03 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: Upland (disturbed) Transect ID: Plot ID: 15 VEGETATION 7. Hcliotropiwn curassmicum I 15. I I 0. Bromus hordaceus I Herb I FACU- I 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 50% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 0 Stream, Lake or Tie Gauge Primary Indicators: 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Inundated 0 Other 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 13-18" 0 Water Marks 0 DriftLines Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): IXI No Recorded Data Available 0 SedimentDepOSits Sutface Water: & (in.) 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" Depth to Water in Pit: 0 13-18" Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test Observations and Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed. 1. Filamentous or sheet fonning algae present? 0 Yes No 2. Slope: IxI 02%: or 0 >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 OM roots only; 0 new and old roots, a none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 0 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: IXI very brief, if 4 days; 0 brief, ir2-7days or 0 long, if >7 days 6. Sitepondswater? 0 Yes No SOILS (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Pachic Haploxerolls Field Observations: Visalia Sandy Loam ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast structures, etc. Depth 0-12 10 YR 313 none sandy lorn Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon 0 Suffidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Obwservations and Remarks: 7. Smell: Neutral; Slqhtly fresh; or Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; Ditch drained; 0 Pumped: 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 0 do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION h- - - I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes No Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? 0 Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? Yes a No No (If yes. check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artifically inigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating ancUor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Waterfiled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, im’gation. settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the Uniled States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). -c Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommenWRemarks: Bcnch adjacent to pond. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQlBentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator(s): Geny Scheid and Carrie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes @ NO p9 Yes No 0 Yes No (i needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Disturbed Transect ID: Plot ID: 16 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Bacchoris salicifolia Shrub FACW 9. 2. Ambrosin psilostach,yi Hat, FAC 10. 3. Brassica nigra Herb UPL 11. 4. Fwniculum vulgare Herb FACU- 12. 5. Bacrharis pilularis Shrub UPL 13. 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) 33% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes No HYDROLOGY i 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): l a Stream, Lake or Ti Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs I 0 Other i No Recorded Data Available I Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Water in Pi: Depth to Saturated soil: n/a (in.) >18 (in.) >18 (in.) I AL :--.. ""A D---d.e. &C"-rl I.4 ....a l."A, :" ..--. I.... a:"...A-a u~swrva~~or~ aiiu nuiim#ma. -111- ~h~l lyiu u.um yiwpii UUI WXUI-. 1. filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: 0 04%; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new mots on&; 0 OM roo& only; 0 new and old roots, none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable: 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 151>2% 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: vev brief, if e2 days; brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated 0 Saturated in: Upper 12" WaterMarks 0 Drifttines 0 SedimentDeposlts Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper lr 0 Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" 13-18" SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: WD (Series and Phase): Cieneba Fallbrook rocky sandy loam Permeability: medium-slow Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic xerothents Field Obselvations: Runoff dum ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions. 1 (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) contrast StNCtUreS. &C. 0-12 10 YR 3/6 none -- loam clay Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 HisticEpipedon 0 Sulfidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or LowChroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral: 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 ligated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 0 do E do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (A30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes No WetlandHydrology Present? 0 Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes NO Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S.7 Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? Yes 0 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) 0 No (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and i-ation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. , (c) 0 Altificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Waterfiled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activiw and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, seftling basins. or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommenWRemarks: Area disced regularly, drainage disturbed. Cement and landscape debris dumped in channel. Small secondary drainage, 3 feet average width. Likely exempt from USACE jurisdiction because it is an isolated water -empties into a disturbed area then the golf course. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicanffOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Canie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? rn Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? OYes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No (1 needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Freshwater MarshfPond Transect ID: Plot ID: 17 VEGETATION 3. HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs tl Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: >12 (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: - 0 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated a Saturated in: Upper 12" 0 WaterMarks 0 DriftLines 0 Sediment Deposlts 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Suwey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 13-18" 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: 02%; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 dd roots only; 0 new and old roots, 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely buf possible under unusual weather conditions; No 0 >2% none 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very Met if <2 dap; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 6. Site ponds water? Yes long, if >7 days 0 No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: MWD (Series and Phase): Huerhuem, loam Permeability: slow Runoff: slow-medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natridfs Field Observations: ConfirmMappedType? 0 Yes No Profile Description: Depth (inches) Horizon 0-12 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol 0 HisticEpipedon SuffidicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Matrix Color Contrast Structures, etc. 10 YR 2/1 D Concretions 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Sols 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List IXI Gleyed or LowChroma Colors 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Obenervations and Remarks: Site is a man-made impoundment (pond) 1. Smell: 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: H Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshlyplowed field smell H do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 1. Possibly water ofthe U.S.? Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from CopwEPA Regulation? 0 Yes No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Atiifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pods or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) I7 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidenfal to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulfing boc?v of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CornrnenWRemarks: Site is a man-made impoundment (pond) - actudly off-site property. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SI-TE DETERMINATION METHOD er: BENTE ircumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Community ID: Freshwater 0 Yes No 0 Yes NO Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? (i needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Dominant Planl Species Stratum Indicator Dominanl Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Typho latifolio Herb OBL 9. 2. Carex spissa Herb OBL 10. 3. Juncus mexiconus Herb FACW 11. 4. Boccbns salicifolio Shrub FACW 12. 5. Solix lasiolepis Shrubflhx FACW+ 13. 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) IOO% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? @ Yes 0 No HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs mer No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water. 12 (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: - > 12 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) I Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated Saturated in: Upper 12" 0 WaterMarks 0 OdftLines 0 SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: Upper lr 13-18" 0 13-18" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; old roots only; a new and old mots, 0 none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; B No 2. Slope: a@.?%; or 0>2% 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or a frequent occurs on an average of more ihan once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if e2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or long, if >7 &YS 6. Siteponds water? Yes 0 No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Huerhuenr, loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Nahixdfs Drainage Class: MWD Permeability: slow Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations: ConfitmMappedType? Yes No Profile Description: Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, Depth (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast ~tNdUP2S. aC. blue-gray 5YR 6lS common clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol HistkEpipedon SdfidicOdor Aquic Moisture Regime tXI Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Lied on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral: 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled: Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. soils: do (XW days) during the growing season 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations WETLAND DETERMINATION b - Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? IXI yes 0 No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.s.7 Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CorpsEPA Regulation? 0 Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? tXI Yes ON0 0 No No (If yes, check itern(s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artifically imgated areas which WWM revert to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to constmtion activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watenng, irrigation, setlIing basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primrily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 392 Additional CommenWRemarks: Sample point characterizes a series of small drainages below pond. 4 4 DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Investigator(s): J. MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes IXI No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: 19 VEGETATION 6. I 7. Percent of Dominant Species that are OB Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator FACU 9. FAC IO. FACU- 11. FAC W- 12. 13. 14. 15. I 16. I I -, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) 50parent Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes No- 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? Yes (XI No c I 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Ti Gauge Aerial Photographs Other H No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: & (in.) _. >18 (in.) >ls (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primaly Indicators: 0 Inundated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper lY 0 WaterMarks 0 Drill Lines 0 SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 13-18" Upper 12' 0 13-18" Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 7. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: H&?%; or CIA?% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new mots only; 0 old roots only; new and old roots, none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable: rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; 0 No occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 0 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 yean. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, H e2 days: @ brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 long, if =. 7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: moderately well drained (Series and Phase): Huerhuem loam. 9 to I5 % slopes Permeability: slow -: fl Runoff slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Hnplic Natrixcrdfs Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsdl Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 IOYR 3/2 - sandy lorn Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon 0 SuHidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sols 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils Lit 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 0 do (w30 days) during the growing season do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (27 days) to very long durations WETLAND DETERMINATION 7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes H No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes lxlh Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes HNo Remarks: 1. Possibty water of the US.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CorpSrrPA Regulation? Yes 0 No No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the imgatim ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating ador diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating aMor diking dry (e) 0 Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to constnrction activq and pits excavated in dry land for rhe exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irnwtion, settling basins, or nce growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRemarks: a large swale with few po16ons of cut banks. Connect two wetlands. Very hard compacted soil. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD VEGETATION 8. I I I 16. I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 66 percent Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes 0 No- 2. Rooted emergent vsesent? 0 Yes m No HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available I Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: n/a (in.) - >18 (in.) - 0 (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: , Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated Saturated in: H Upper 12" 151 WaterMarks 0 Drift Lines SediientDeposits 0 Drainage Pattern in Wetlands Secondary indicators (2 or more required): E Oxidized Root Channels in: Upper 12" 13-18" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data Other (Explain in Remarks) 13-18" 0 FAC-NeutralTeat Observations and Remarks: matted vegetation. appears to be groundwater driven. 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 3, Oxidked rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only: H new and old roots, 0 none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 2. Slope: 0-2%; or D>2% occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if e2 days; 0 brief, if2-7 days, or H long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? Yes 0 No Map Unit Name Drainage Class moderately well drained (Series and Phase): Hunhuero loam. 9 to 15 7% slopes Permeability: slow Runoff: slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixeralfs Field Observations: ConfirmMappedType? PP Yes 0 No 1 Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Moffle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast StrUCtUreS, &C. 0-18 10 YR 3/1 - sandy loam: large rocks Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions HsticEpipedon 0 SulfidicOdor Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 Neutral; fl Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (90 days) during the growing season - WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? w Yes 0 No WetlandHydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? yes 0 No Remarks: 1. Possibly wafer of the US.? B Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? Yes 0 No hQ No (If yes, check item(@ below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and im’ption ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would reveti to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artificial reflecting or swimming pods or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Water-filied depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusive& for such purposes as stuck watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CornmentdRemarks: Edge Of Seep. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator(s): J. MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? m Yes No 0 Yes No 0 Yes No (ii needed. explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available I Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: 21 VEGETATION 8. I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) o percent A Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 inundated 0 Saturated in: Upper 12" 0 WaterMarks 0 DriftLines 0 SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): fl Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water-stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 13-18" 0 13-18" 0 FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water. &(in.) Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: - >18 (in.) >18 (in.) Observations and Remarks: No wetland hydrology indieators observed. 1. Filamentous or sheet forming a/gae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: 0 0-2%; or M>2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roo& on& new and old roots, 4. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; IXI No none 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: very brief, if4 days; 0 brief, if2-7days, or long, if>7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: moderately well drained (Series and Phase): Huerhuero loam 9 to 15 96 slopes Pemeabilii: slow Runoff: slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Nattixeralfs Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Moltle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 IO YR 3l2 _- sandy loam; large rocks Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol 0 Histic Epipedon 0 0 Sulfidic Odor 0 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 0 Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Lowchroma Colors U Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 2. Site: 3. Soils: Neutral; Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 0 Imgated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 0 do do not become frequentlyponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes No WetlandHydrology Present? 0 Yes @ No Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? 0 Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artificial refkting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction actit@ and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation 13 abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments'Remarks: Test pit is a few feet upland of the seep area. l- r DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQ/Bentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator(s): J. MacAller Do Noma1 Circumstances exist on the site? E9 Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Dyes mN0 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: 22 VEGETATION 8. I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 1M)percent Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes 0 No- 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? 0 Yes m No HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs Other a No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: p9 Inundated H saturated in: Upper 12" [3 WaterMatks DriftLines 0 Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 13-18" 0 13-18" 0 FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: 1 (in.) - 0 (in.) 0 (in.) Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: El 02%; or 0 >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new mots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and old roots, none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequenf, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: very brief, if e2 days; brief, if 2-7 days, or long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 181 Yes No Map Unit Name ;Series and Phase): Huerhuero low 9 to 15 I slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixeralfs Profile Description: Drainage Class: moderately well dnined Runoff slow to medium Field Observations: Permeability: slow ConfimMappedType? Yes 0 No oem Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast StNdUmS, &C. D-18 10 YR 3/1 - sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions Histic Epipedon 0 Sulfidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Sols 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Sightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: do 0 do not become frequentlyponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? w Yes 0 No Remarks: 1. Possibw water of the U.S. 7 Yes 0 No i Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? w Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activiiy and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3fa)). - - - - Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRemarks: Pit is within a 3-foot-wide drainage entering the groundwater seep area. 4 4 DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicantlOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator(s): J. MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes E9 No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No (il needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Oak Riparian Transect ID: Plot ID: 23 VEGETATION Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) o percent Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? c] Yes No- 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? c] Yes m No P- HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Sulface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: n/a (in.) - s18 (in.) >18 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 hndated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 WaterMarks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper lY 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed. 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: 0 04%: or >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; new and old roots, 4. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions: No none 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 0 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 vety brief, if c2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes No Map Unit Name Drainage Class: moderately well drained (Series and Phase): Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 9% slopes Permeability: slow - Runoff: slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixcrdfs Field Observations: ConfirmMappedType? 151 Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Mor Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 10 YR 3R I sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon 0 SuffidicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slop 0 do do not become frequently ponded or saturafed for long (9 days) to very long durations (~30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes 151 No Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes "0 Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? 0 Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No 151 No (If yes, check ifem(s) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and inigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artificklly inigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). I Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRemarks: Knoll adjacent to seep with large oak tree. Considered CDFG riparian, not USACE jurisdictional (outside OHWM). DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes rn No Is the area a potential Problem Area? ayes rn No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Juncus scums s FACW 9. 2. Pluchea &rata H OBL 10. 3. Eleocharis macrostachva H OBL 11. 4. Polypgon monspdiensis H FACW 12. 6. I I 1 14. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) IWpercent Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes 0 No- 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? 0 Yes (x1 No .- - r" HYDROLOGY tr 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tie Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: &(in.) Depth to Water in Pit: - >18 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Wetland Hydrology indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated rn Saturated in: Upper 12" Waterhkarks Drifttines 0 SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): w Oxidized Root Channels in: w Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 13-18" 13-18" Observations and Remarks: Inundated soils approx. 3 feet away. 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: rn 04%; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; 0 old roots only; new and old roots, 0 none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 0>2% 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if (2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or long, if 17 days 6. Site ponds water? Yes No SOILS (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haptic Nouixeralfs Field Observations: Huduero lorn, 9 to 15 5% slopes slow to medium ConfirrnMappedType? N Yes 0 No Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Histic Epipedon 0 Sulidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions N Gleyed or LowChroma Colors 0 Concretions 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral: 2. site: 0 Irrigated; c] Pumped; c] Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 151 do 0 aturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations WETLAND DETERMINATION - - I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 151 Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? 151 Yes ONo Hydric Soils Present? Yes ONo r Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempl from Corps/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) c] Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) c] Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) c] Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, inigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CfR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: Edge of groundwater seep. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjectlSite: Cantarini Ranch Date: 10-9-03 ApplicantlOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator( s) : J. MacAller State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Byes ON0 Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: 25 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Junrus acurus s FACW 9. 2. Scirpus amenranus H OBL 10. 3. Eleocharis marrostachya H OBL 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. a. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100 percent Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes 0 No- HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Ti Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: p (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: - 6 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: p (in.) , Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 hdated B Saturated in: Upper 12“ 0 WaterMarks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): B Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data Pp FAC-Neuhal Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 13-18” Upper 12“ 13-18” ~ Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes 2. slope: Pp &z%; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 0 >2% new and old roots, 0 none 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: very brief, if 4 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? Yes 0 No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: moderately well drained (Series and Phase): Huerhuero loam 9 to 15 9% slopes Permeability: slow Runoff: slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixeralfs Field Observations: ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 10 YR 3/1 B bit of additional sandy loam &reying (10 YR ) Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 0 HisticEpipedon 0 Sulfidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors o Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 7. Smell: 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field &ell 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope do c] do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (~30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: I. Possibly water of the U.S.? Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from CorpdEPA Regulation? 0 Yes No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) c] Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating an&or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, se!tling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of watets of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.Wa)). P Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommenWRemarks: fit is within seep area. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch -. .. Date: 10-9-03 ApplicantlOwner: BENTEQIBentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator( s) : J. MacAller State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 0 No 0 Yes B No 0 Yes B No (i needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Upland Transect ID: Plot ID: 26 VEGETATION Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 25 percent Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes (XI No- HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit Depth to Saturated Soil: da (in.) 118 (in.) r Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water Marks 0 Drifttines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 13-18" 0 13-16' Observations and Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed. 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: 02%; or 0 A?% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; old roots only; 0 new and old roofs, 4. Flooding: No none none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or E frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if c2 days; a brief, if 2-7 days, or /ong, if>7 days 6. Site ponds water? Yes No SOILS moderately well drained slow to medium (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixemlfs Huerhuero loam 9 to 15 % slopes I I I I I I Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 0 HistiiEpipedon 0 0 SuifidicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 0 Reducing Condlions 0 Gleyed or Lowchroma Colors 0 1 Concretions ' High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) plowed field smell ed; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations WETLAND DETERMINATION Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? 0 Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CopsEPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would reveff to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Affificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating a#or diking dry (e) 0 Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRernarks: Pit is in the upland edge of seep. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator(s): J. Hodge-MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? @ Yes 0 No 0 Yes No 0 Yes w No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Seasonal CAM Transect ID: Plot ID: 27 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Baccharis salicifolia S FAC W 9. 2. Muhlenbevia rigens H FAC 10. 3. Asclepias fascicularis H FAC 11. 4. Quercus agrifolia T UPL 12. 5. Baccharis pilularis S UPL 13. 6. 14. 7. I I I 15. I I 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) 60 percent Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes No 2. Rooted emer 9 ent vegetation present? 0 Yes No HYDROLOGY I 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit Depth to Saturated Soil: - NIA (in.) - >18 (in.) - >18 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pnmaty Indicators: c] Inundated 0 Saturated in: c] Upper 12" 0 WaterMarks 0 Sediment Deposits c] Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oadlzed Root Channels in: Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" I Driftlines 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: 0 0.2%; or IxJ>2% 3. OxidiM rhizospheres: new roots only; 0 old roots only; new and old roofs, 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; @ No none 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if c2 days; 0 bnef, if 2-7days, or 6. Site ponds water? Yes long, if >7 days 0 No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Well drained to excessively drained (Series and Phase): Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loam Pemeabillty: Moderately slow to modemtely rapid Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Xerorthents Field Observations: I Runoff: Medium to rapid ConfinnMappedType? H Yes 0 No Profile Description: Structures, etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon 0 SulfidcOdor Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Condiins Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral: Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (w7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERM IN ATlON Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? IEP yes No Remarks: 7. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CorpsEPA Regulation? 0 Yes H No 0 No (If yes. check item(s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions creafed in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets fhe definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommenWRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD stances exist on the site? Yes c] NO Community ID: Seasonal CAM ntly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 WaterMarks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more mquired): Oxidized Root Channels in: Upper 12" 0 13-18" 0 13-18" Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturaied Soil: - N/A (in.) (in.) - >78 (in.) Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: a&?%; or 0.2% 3. Oxidized hizospheres: 0 new roots only; old roots only; 0 new and dd roots, 0 none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if <2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or long, if 27 days 6. Site ponds water? Yes 0 No Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Well Mined to excessively drained (Series and Phase): Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky mdy loam Permeability: Moderately slow to moderately rapid Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Xemrthents Field Observations: Runoff Medium to rapid Confirm Mapped Type? w Yes 0 No I Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-12 10 YR 3n 10 YR 4/6 cornoddistinct sandy clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol 0 Concretions 0 HisticEpipedon 0 SutfiiiOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colon 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Obeiservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: IXI Neutral; Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained: 0 Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (27 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION HydrophyticVegetationPresent? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? Ix) Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CopdEPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to col/ect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Atiifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfillled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dty land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation. settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain Water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Addiiional CommentslRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQ/Bentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator(s): J. Hodge-MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? @Yes 0 No Community ID: CAM Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? I3 yes H NO 0 Yes IIQ No Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Eleocharis mucrostachvu H OBL 9. 2. Picris echioides H FAC 10. 3. Polypogon monspeiiensis H FACW+ 11. 4. Frankenia sulina H FACW+ 12. 5. Juncus xiphioides H OBL 13. 6. 14. 7. I I I 15. I I 8. I 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100 percent Remarks: HYDROLOGY C] Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water. - NIA (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: - >18 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: - 6 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 inundated Saturated in: Upper 12" 0 Drift Lines 0 SedimentDeposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: m Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) H 13-18" I 0 Water Marks 13-18" 1 FAC-Neutral Test Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet fonning algae present? Yes 2, slope: 0 @2%; or H>2% 3. Oxidized hizaspheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; new and old roots, 0 none 4. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; No rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional. occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or eP frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: very brief, if <2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 6. Site ponds water? Yes long, if >7 days 0 No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Bonsall sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixeralfs Drainage Class: Moderately well drained Runoff: Slow to medium Field Observations: Permeability: very slow Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) 10 YR 311 (Munsell Moist) Contrast StrUdUreS, &C. 7.5 YR 46 few/distinct Clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 concretions 0 HsticEpipedon Sutfidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List I Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3.. Soils: IXI do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? IXI Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? Igl yes 0 No Rematks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Cop4EPA Regulation? 0 Yes No 0 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) 0 Atrificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and'or diking dry (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, imgation, settling basins. or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks ,- DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Investigator( s) : J. Hodge-MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? IXI Yes 0 No 0 Yes IXI No 0 Yes IXI No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: CAM Transect ID: Plot ID: 30 HYDROLOGY r Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: - WA (in.) ,18 (in.) - s18 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 WaterMarks 0 Drift Lines 0 SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 13-18" Upper 12" 13-18" [7 Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: &2%: or 0 S% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new mots only; 0 old roots only; 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; IXI No new and old roots, 0 none occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 vew brief, if e2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 6. Site ponds water? Yes 0 No long, if r7 days SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Moderately well drained (Series and Phase): Bonsall sandy loam Permeability: very slow Runoff Slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixeralfs Field Obseivations ConfirmMappedType? H Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Cdor Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 10 YR 311 7.5 YR 4l6 few/distinct clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol Concretions 0 Histi Epipedon 0 SuHidicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions a Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Obersetvations and Remarks: I, Smell: Neutral; Slightly fresh: or 0 Freshlyplowedfield smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: Irrigated; 0 Land levelee Ditch drain&: 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (27 days) to very long durations (230 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? IXI Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? e9 Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? IXI yes 0 No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? a Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artjfically imgated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating ancVor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Additional CommentdRemarks: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQA3entley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator(s): J. Hodge-MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? my= ON0 Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No (i needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: CAM Transect ID: Plot ID: 31 VEGETATION 5. I I I 13. I I 6. I 14. 7. I I I 15. I I 8. [ 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 1Wpercent HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: 0 Aerial Photographs f3 Inundated 0 Other f3 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 13-18" f3 WaterMarks 0 DriftLines (I Sediment Deposits f3 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Sutface Water: - N/A (in.) e9 Oxidized Root Channels in: e9 Upper 12" >18 (in.) 0 Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: - 0 Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Depth io Water in Pit: >18 (in.) 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; old roofs only; new and old roots, none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 2. Slope: 0-2% or 22% 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if e.? days; 0 brief, if2-7 days, or w long, if>7 days 6. Site ponds water? Yes No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Well drained to excessively drained (Series and Phase): Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loam Permeability: Moderately slow to moderately rapid Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Xmrthents Field Observations: Runoff Medium to rapid Confirm Mapped Type? H Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 10YR3/2 7.5 YR 46 cornoddistinct sandy clay Im Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosd 0 Histic Epipedon 0 0 Sulfidic Odor 0 0 Aquic Moisture Regime H Reducing Condiitions 0 0 Gleyed or Lowchroma Colors 0 Concretions Huh Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Obersewations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 0 Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh: or Freshly plowed field smell do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from corps/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes No 0 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CornrnentdRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator(s): J. Hodge-MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Community ID: Oak Riparian Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No Plot ID: 32 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Quercus agnyolia T UPL 9. 2. Toxicodendron diversiiobum s UPL 10. 3. Eleocharis macrostachya H OBL 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. I 1 I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) 33 percent 1 Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes No 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? Yes IX1 No 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other IX1 No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: - N/A (in.) >18 (in.) - >18 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12” WaterMarks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediint Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 13-18” Upper 12“ I 0 13-18” 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test & Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: 0 [r%; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots Only; H old roots on&; 0 new and old roots, 0 none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding noi probable; 0 rare, unlike& but possible under unusual weather conditions; No >2% occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 0 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if 4 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or long, if 27 days 6. Site ponds water? (XI Yes 0 No SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Bonsall sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haptic Natrixeralfs Drainage Class: Moderately well drained Runoff: Field Observations: Permeability: very slow Slow to medium ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No I Profile Description: (inches) Horizon I I 0-6 I 6- 18 Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 HistiiEpipedon 0 SuniicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, Contrast Structures, etc. (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) 10 YR 3R clay loom sandy loam 10 YR 3R 0 Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Gleyed or LowChroma Colors 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; e9 Slightly fresh; or Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 Irrigated; Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope do e9 do not become frequentlyponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (r30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION -- I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes No Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes "0 Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US. ? Yes No 2. Possibly exempt from COpdEPA Regulation? 0 Yes No (If yes. check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifkally irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Aftificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dty land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resutting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRemak Few oxidized rhizospheres on old roots. Small patch of obligate species indicates that the ground gets saturated. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Investigator(s): J. Hodge-MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Siation)? 0 Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 0 No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Seasonal CAM Transect ID: Plot ID: 33 VEGETATION 2. 10. 3. 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) io0 percent Remarks: HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in RemarRs): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs 0 Other eP No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: - WA (in.) >18 (in.) - s18 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: tnundated Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 WaterMarks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits Drainage Pattems in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: Seasonal wetland. Hydrology indicators not apparent in dry season - Groundwater driven. 7. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and old roots, H none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather mditbns; No 2. Slope: no-%; or W>2% occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 vety brief, if c2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 6. Site ponds water? Yes long, if >7 days 0 No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Xmhents Cieneba come sandy loam Drainage Class: Excessively drained Permeability: Rapid Runoff: Slow to medium Field Observations: ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast structures, etc. 0- 10 1OYR3l2 1OYR46 few, faint silty clay loam 10 + hard packed silty clay IOam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol 0 Concretions 0 HistiiEpipedon 0 SuHiiOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 7. Smell: Neutral; Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: B do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (90 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION > I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? H Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? @ Yes 0 No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CorpsEPA Regulation? H Yes 0 No No (If yes, check item&) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: Locations of seasonal wetlands were observed on-slte. Hydrology parameters are not apparent during dry season - groundwater driven seeps. Obligate vegetation and hydric soils are premt. lsolatd from other jurisdictional waters; therefore, likely exempt from USACE jurisdiction. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjectlSite: Holly Springs ApplicantlOwner: BENTEQ/Bentley-Monarch Investigator( s): J. MacAller Date: 10-9-03 County: San Diego State: CA r Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? H Yes 0 No Community ID: CSS Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: 34 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) I VEGETATION 4. I I I 12. I I 6. I I 71 4. I I 7. I 15. 8. I I I 16. I I Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes No- HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prirnary Indicators: 0 Inundated 0 Saturated in: Upper 12" 0 WaterMarks 0 DriftLines 0 SedimentDeposits [7 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-1 8" 0 13-18" FAC-Neutral Test Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: - nla (in.) - >18 (in.) - sl8 (in.) Observations and Remarks: OHWM -cut banks about 1 foot wide (wider upstream) 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new mots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and old roofs, 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 2. Slope: 0 62%; or El >2% none a occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes very brief, if Q days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or [7 long, if >7 days @ No SOILS - . I Map Unit Name Drainage Class: well dnined (Series and Phase): Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loam 9 Permeability: medium-slow to 30 96 slopes Runoff medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Xemthents ConfirmMappedType? w Yes II] No Field Observations: Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions II] HisticEpipedon 0 SuifidcOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or LowChroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils II] Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List II] Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 2. Site: 3. Soils: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; II] Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 0 do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (230 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes H No 1s this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes H No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes H No Hydric Soils Present? II] Yes H No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from CorpsEPA Regulation? Yes 0 No (If yes, check item&) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artificially irigated areas which would revert to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andlor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating ador diking dry (e) 0 Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation. settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 392 Additional ComrnenWRemarks: Non-wetland water along roadside. Connects as sheet flow over small dirt road to adjacent creek. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicantlOwner: BENTEQBentley-Monarch County: San Diego I nvestig at0 r( s) : J. MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? IXI Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: SWS Transect ID: Plot ID: 35 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Salix lasiolcpis S/T FACW 9. 2. Typha sp. H OBL 10. 3. Elcorharis macrostachya H OBL 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) io0 parent Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes No- HYDROLOGY a 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake or Ti Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other 8 No Recorded Data Available Field Obsewations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: p (in.) 0 (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: 9- (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated w Saturated in: Upper 12" 13-18" 0 WaterMarks 0 DMtLines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: Upper 12" IxI 13-18" 0 Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Suwey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: Groundwater driven seep 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: 02%; or Os??? 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; IXI new and old roo& 0 none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions: No 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or IXI frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5, Duration: 0 very brief, if <2 days; 0 brief, if2-7 days, or 6. Site ponds water? Yes long, if >7 days c] No SOILS I Map Unit Name Drainage Class: moderately well drained eroded Runoff: slow Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Nrthixmlfs Confirm Mapped Type? p9 Yes 0 No (Series and Phase): Bonsall sandy loam, 2 to 9 % slopes, Permeability: very slow Field Observations: Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 GI~ I 3m little bit of red sandy clay loam color Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol 0 concretions HisticEpipedon Pp SufidcOdor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or LowChroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Mher (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; Land leveled; Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 151 Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? e9 Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? 151 Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 No Remarks: 7. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from CorpdfPA Regulation? Yes B No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating ador diking dry (e) Water-filled depressions created in dfy land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3ta)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CotnrnentdRemarks: -. 1 I ,- DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQISentley-Monarch County: San Diego Investigator(s): J. MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes IXI No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: 36 VEGETATION 3. I I I 11. I 4. I 12. 5. I I I 13. I I 6. I 14. 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) mopercent Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes 0 No- HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other 1 No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: - da (in.) Depth to Water in Pit - >18 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: - 0 (in.) r Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated Saturated in: Upper 12” 13-18” 0 Water Marks 0 DrittLines 0 SedimentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: E Upper 12“ 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 13-18” Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: fl0-2%; or 0>2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new mots only; 0 old roots only; 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No new and old roots, 0 none occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2years; or fl frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if <2 days; 0 bnet if 2-7 days, or 151 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? Yes 0 No SOILS I9 Map Unit Name Drainage Class: moderately well drained (Series and Phase): Bonsrll sandy loam, 2 to 9 % slopes, Permeability: very slow eroded *- J Runoff: slow Field Observations: Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixenlfs ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No 1 Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 10 YR 3/2 LOYR3tl conmoddistinct sandy lorn Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon SulfidicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions H Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 Neutral: 0 Slightly fresh: or Freshly plowed field smell 0 lmgated: 0 Land leveled: 0 Ditch drained: 0 Pumped; Graded to drain via slope H do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (17 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? H Yes No ~ Remarks: ' 1. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 0 No 1 2. Possibly exempt from CorpSrrPA Regulation? 0 Yes ~ No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primaHly aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). 4 Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommenWRernak DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Investigator(s): J. MacAller Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 151 No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes 151 No (i needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: NNG Transect ID: Plot ID: 37 VEGETATION 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) o percent Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes No- HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Rematks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pi: Depth to Saturated Sol: n/a (in.) - >18 (in.) >18 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 WaterMarks 0 rift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Pattems in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed. 7. filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 3, Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; c] new and old roots, none 4. Flooding: No 2. Slope: Ho-2%; or 0>2% none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 0 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if Q days; 0 brief, 82-7 days, or 0 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): eroded Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixeralfs Profile Description: Bonsall sandy loam 2 to 9 46 slopes, Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: very slow Runoff slow Field Observations: ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No Depth Matrix Color (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) 10 YR 3/2 (Munsell Moist) contrast structures, etc. sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol 0 Concretions HisticEpipedon 0 SulfidicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Lowchroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Obsewatbns and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped: 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 0 do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (2-7 days) to very long durations (2-30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydric Soils Present? 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? 0 Yes 2, Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (e) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating ador diking dry (e) 0 Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins. or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: Upland boundary. REVISED CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE CANTARINI RANCH AND HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTIES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for BENTEQ/BENTLEY-MONARCH PMB433 4729 EAST SUNRISE DRIVE TUCSON, AZ 857 I8 CONTACT: DAVID BENTLEY Prepared by FRED S. EDWARDS ASSOCIATE BIOLOGIST RECON NUMBER 3041B MAY 11,2004 1927 Fifth Avenue Son Diego, CA 92101 -2358 P 619.308.9333 F 619.308.9334 # This document printed on recycled paper TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Summary Habitat Types Proposed to Be Impacted A. Wetlands B. Uplands Responsibilities A. OwnerProject Proponent B. Project Biologist C. Plant Supplier D. Seed Supplier E. Maintenance Contractor Habitat Creation and Enhancement A. Goals and Objectives B. Habitat Creation C. Habitat Enhancement D. Reporting Maintenance and Monitoring Program A. General Maintenance Procedures B, Monitoring C. Monitoring Reports D. Performance Standards E. Notification of Completion F. Contingency Measures G. Estimated Cost 1 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 12 17 20 20 21 22 23 23 25 25 25 References Cited 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) FIGURES 1: Regional Location 2: 3: 4: Project Location on USGS Map Overview of Habitat Creation and Enhancement Areas Habitat Creation and Enhancement Areas TABLES 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: Summary of Wetland/Jurisdictional Habitat Impacts and Mitigation Summary of Upland Impacts, Preservation and Mitigation Summary of Habitat Creation and Enhancement Wetland Creation Seed Mixes Upland Creation Area Seed Mixes Wetland Creation Plant Palette Upland Creation Plant Palette Five-Year Maintenance and Monitoring Schedule Five-Year Performance Standards 2 3 11 13 4 4 5 15 16 18 19 21 24 Project Summary r This conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan provides an evaluation of locations for habitat replacement, an implementation strategy, a maintenance regime, and monitoring goals for on-site mitigation for proposed impacts resulting from development on the Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs Ranch Parcel D (Holly Springs) properties. This plan includes both upland and wetland habitat creation and enhancement and incorporates the function-based performance standards for evaluating the success of riparian and emergent marsh mitigation sites developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] (Stein 1999). The Cantarini Ranch and Holly Spring Ranch Properties are located in the city of Carlsbad, California on the north side El Camino Real near the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real (Figures 1 and 2). The Cantarini Ranch property encompasses approximately 283 acres. Holly Springs Ranch is approximately 1 10 acres. The proposed project includes a combination of residential development, habitat preservation, habitat creation, and enhancement. Impacts to sensitive habitats include development over approximately 50 acres of Holly Springs Ranch and approximately 91 acres of Cantarini Ranch including access roads and a portion of the College Boulevard extension. As compensation for the wetland impacts summarized in Table 1, this plan proposes the creation of 4.71 acres of USACE and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) wetlands and jurisdictional habitat. Impacts to non-wetland jurisdictional watersKDFG streambed will be mitigated by the creation of 1.28 acres of mule fat scrub. As compensation for the upland habitat impacts summarized in Table 2, this plan proposes the preservation of 53.66 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and native grassland and creation of an additional 27.41 acres. The required wetland and upland mitigation will be fulfilled by a combination of habitat creation and enhancement performed on Cantarini Ranch. These acreages are summarized in Table 3. Habitat creation will be performed in areas mapped as non-native grassland, disturbed, and agricultural land. Habitat enhancement will be performed in areas that contain significant infestations of non-native species, including pampas grass (Cortuderiu sp.). Habitat enhancement will also include vegetating the pond area with freshwater marsh species following removal of the dam. In addition, habitat creation and enhancement of 4.0 acres on Holly Springs will occur once the current agricultural practices are abandoned and the proposed four future lots are developed. This restoration is not expected to be conducted concurrent with the restoration on Cantarini Ranch but rather in conjunction with the future development of the additional lots. 1 RECON Jlt Project location FIGURE 1 Regional Location M \(obr\304 I\y\mvegglon.opf\ fig1 (reg0 02 16/04 TABLE 1 SUMMARY WETLAND/JURISDICTIONAL HABITAT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION (acres) Mitigation Mitigation Ratio Required Impact Type Cantarit6 Ranch Holly Springs Total Freshwater marsh' 0.55 0 0.55 3:1 1.65 Southern willow scrub' 0.54 0 0.54 3: 1 1.62 Southern coast oak 0.43 0 0.43 3: 1 1.29 Mule fat scrub' 0.05 0 0.05 3:1 0.15 Subtotal WetlanddRiparian 1.57 0 1.57 4.71 Habitat riparian forest- USACE Non-wetland waters 1.28 0 1.28 1:l 1.28 TOTAL Jurisdictional Waters 2.85 0 2.85 5.99 and CDFG Streambed3 'Includes both CDFG and USACE jurisdiction. 'CDFG jurisdiction. 31ncludes 1.1 1 acres CDFG streambednon-wetland waters and 0. I7 acre isolated non-wetland waters. Impacts will be mitigated by the creation of 1.28 acres of mule fat scrub not required to meet USACE definition of wetlands. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF UPLAND IMPACTS, PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION (acres) Cantarini Ranch Holly Springs Total Reouired Preserved Created Reauired Preserved Created Habitat Habitat Type Mitigation Habitat Habitat Mitigation Habitat Habitat Creation Diegan coastal 11.80 5.64 6.16 2.44 43.70 8.74 14.90 sage scrub' Native grassland 4.62 0.07 4.55 12.1 I 4.3 7.96 12.51 TOTAL 16.42 5.7 1 10.71 63.65 47.9s 16.70 27.41 'Mitigation will include conversion of non-native grassland and enhancement of existing disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub present on Cantarini Ranch. 4 TABLE 3 SUMMARY HABITAT CREATION AND ENHANCEMENT (acres) Mitigation Habitat Habitat Additional Total On-site Vegetation Type Required Creation Enhancement' Creation' Mitigation' Freshwater marsh 1.65 0.55 2.20 -- 2.75 Southern willow scrub 1.62 0.54 2.16 -- 2.70 Southern coast live oak 1.29 1.29 ..- -- I .29 riparian forest Mule fat scrub 0.15 1.43 -- -- 1.43 Diegan coastal sage scrub 14.90 14.90 3.08 4.0 21.98 Native grassland 12.51 12.5 1 -- -- 12.51 TOTAL 32.12 3 1.22 7.44 4.0 42.66 'Enhancement of existing degraded wetlands will be completed at a 0.5: 1 ratio and will include revegetation of the former pond following dam removal using a freshwater marsh plant palette, and removal of exotic species in existing on-site wetlands. 'An additional 4.0 acres of agricultural fields and disturbed land on Holly Springs will be restored to Diegan coastal sage once the current agricultural activities are abandoned. 'Mitigation for impacts on both CantaM and Holly Springs Properties. For a complete discussion of the existing biological resources and project impacts, see the biotechnical and wetland delineation reports for each project property (RECON 1999, 2003a, 2003b, and 2003c, 2004% 2004b). This conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan provides guidelines, design criteria, construction methods, and monitoring strategy for habitat creation and enhancement of both the existing wetlands and uplands associated with development on Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs. Habitat Types Proposed to Be Impacted A. Wetlands Two wetland plant communities, both under USACE and CDFG jurisdiction, will be impacted by development on the Holly Springs and Cantarini Ranch properties: freshwater marsh and southern willow scrub. Two additional communities, southern coast live oak riparian forest and mule fat scrub, under CDFG jurisdiction (RECON 2004a), will be created on-site. These vegetation communities are discussed below. 1. Freshwater Marsh On the Holly Springs property approximately 0.25 acre of freshwater marsh is present within and around a natural spring on the southern, central boundary. Approximately half the area classified 'as freshwater marsh is a typical marsh containing open water and 5 emergent monocots such as broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), yerba mansa (Anemopsis califomicu), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), spiny rush (Juncus mutus ssp. leopoldii), and pale spikerush (Eleocharis mucrostachya). On Cantarini Ranch approximately 2.80 acres of freshwater marsh are present. This plant community is found along Agua Hedionda Creek and several smaller, unnamed drainages, and surrounding a pond on the property. The dominant plants in this community include cattails, rush (Juncus spp.), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), and annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). An additional area supported by a natural seep is present on the northeastern slope. This area supports cattail, bulrush, California loosestrife (Lythrum califomicum), grass poly (Lythrum hyssopifolium), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), salt grass, and salt heliotrope (Heliotropum curassivicum). 2. Southern Willow Scrub Approximately 0.19 acre of southern willow scrub is present in several small patches near the pond in the southern portion of the Holly Springs property. The habitat is dominated by arroyo willow (Salk lasiolepis), which forms a canopy with variable density throughout the site. Understory species include those found in the freshwater marsh habitat described previously. On Cantarini Ranch, approximately 3.15 acres of southern willow scrub is present along Agua Hedionda Creek, several other un-named drainages, and within the drainagehaturd seep system on the eastern boundary. The habitat is dominated by arroyo willow, Other associated trees include Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), mule fat (Bacchuris salicifolia), and palm trees ( Wushingtonia robusta). The understory includes fuchsia-flowered gooseberry (Ribes speciosum), California rose (Rosa califomica), nutsedge, rush, and California loosestrife. 3. On the Holly Springs property the southern coast live oak riparian forest intergrades with southern willow scrub. Approximately 0.31 acre of this habitat is located along the drainages on-site, and is generally found adjacent to the southern willow scrub habitat. Approximately 2.65 acres of this community is located on Cantarini Ranch. The dominant tree is the southern coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) with a variable understory composed of species present in the freshwater marsh and southern willow scrub habitats described below and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest 4. Mule Fat Scrub Three small patches of mule fat scrub, totaling 0.12 acre, occur in both the Cantarini and Holly Springs properties. The dominant species is mule fat with a variable understory of 6 herbaceous marsh species. Only one of these, located in an isolated drainage in the western portion of the Cantarini property, will be impacted. B. Uplands Two upland plant communities, Diegan coastal sage scrub and native grassland, will require on-site creation and enhancement as part of project mitigation and are discussed below. 1. The Holly Springs and Cantarini Ranch properties contain approximately 8 1.45 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub located primarily along the northern and eastern boundaries. This community is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fascicularum var. fascicularum). Black sage (Salvia mellifera), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), bladderpod (Isomeris arborea), and coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) are also present. Understory species included both native and non-native species such as slender stephanomeria (Stephanomeria wirgata), coast goldenbush (L~ocoma menziesii), filaree (Erodium sp.), golden-yarrow (Eriuphyllum confertflorum), wild oats (Avena sp.), and California broom (Lotus scoparius). This acreage includes a small amount of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub that is located in two areas of Cantarini Ranch: north of the southern willow scrub and alkali meadow on the northeast slope of Cantarini Ranch and on a small slope in the northwest corner. These areas have a few of the plants characteristic of Diegan coastal sage scrub; however, they are dominated by coast goldenbush and non-native grasses. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub 2. Native Grassland Native grasslands often have a large component of non-native grasses but are defined as native when native grass species cover is 10 percent or greater. On the Holly Springs property there are approximately 9.76 acres of native grassland dominated by purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra). Non-native annual grasses present in the native grassland include wild oats, smooth brome (Brornus horduceus), foxtail chess (B. madritensis ssp. rubens), and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multijlorum). Native herbs and bulbs, such as Johnny jump-up (Viola pedunculara), shooting star (Dodecutheon clevelandii), and blue dicks (Dichelostemma cupitatum), are also present. On Cantarini Ranch there are approximately 0.17 acre of native grassland. Two patches of native grassland are located within the non-native grassland on the northern edge of the site and one patch is located within the coastal sage scrub in the northwest. .7 Responsibilities A. Owner/Project _. Proponent Bentley-MonarcldBENTEQ shall provide detailed construction drawings, accurate timelines, and written project specifications in conformance with this plan. Bentley- MonarchlBENTEQ, or project owner, will be responsible for funding long-term maintenance, monitoring, and remedial actions as determined by the USFWS, CDFG, USACE, and the City of Carlsbad. The owner/project proponent shall be responsible for coordination between the grading contractor and project biologist to ensure plans will occur on the proper schedule. The owner/project proponent shall manage project activities in the best interest of the project goals. The owner/project proponent will be solely responsible for administration of project contracts. Decisions to stop work are the responsibility of the ownerlproject proponent and the designated project manager. The ownedproject proponent shall have sole authority in decisions to suspend payment or terminate such contracts. This includes all phases of project installation, long-term maintenance, and biological monitoring. The owner/project proponent may, with sole discretion at any time, replace any of these parties if necessary. B. Project Biologist The project biologist will be responsible for implementing the mitigation plan. The project biologist responsibilities shall include: Consulting with the contractor on any activities that may be disruptive to the mitigation. Attending pre-grading and pre-construction meetings to consult with the owner/project proponent and grading contractor and to educate the contractors on project goals and habitat sensitivity. Collecting seed, propagating plants, and installing plants, or approving and monitoring qualified subcontractors in execution of aspects of this plan. Implementing required long-term maintenance of the mitigation area as defined herein. 8 0 Overseeing and performing the required monitoring and reporting in accordance with the procedures established in this plan. C. Plant Supplier The native plant supplier will be a qualified native plant nursery or supplier. The plant supplier must have at least two years' experience in propagating native plants. The plant supplier will produce properly aged plants in the specified containers ready for outplanting. All plants will be produced from seed or cuttings collected on or adjacent to the site and inoculated native soil. D. Seed Supplier The seed supplier must have at least two years' experience collecting upland and wetland seeds for restoration projects. 0 Only species specified by the project biologist will be collected. 0 Whenever possible seed will be collected from the project site. The range of seed collection will be limited to within 10 miles of the project site. E. Maintenance Contractor The maintenance contractor shall have a minimum of two years' experience in upland and wetland habitat restoration. The maintenance contractor will be responsible for implementing the tasks outlined in this plan under the supervision of the project biologist. 0 Maintain site as outlined in this plan. 0 Perform remedial measures as prescribed by the project biologist and approved by the project ow nedproponen t . Habitat Creation and Enhancement Mitigation will include both habitat creation and habitat enhancement components. Figure 3 is an overview of the habitat creation and enhancement areas on Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs. 1 9 A. Goals and Objectives 1. Goal of Creation and Enhancement The purpose of the proposed creation and enhancement is to replace the functions and values of lower-quality habitat with improved hydrologic andor ecological functioning consistent with the target vegetation types. The quality of the created habitat will exceed that of the existing non-native grassland to be replaced. In the case of the wetland component of this project, the proposed enhancement and creation would provide for a net increase in wetland acreage thereby complying with no-net-loss wetland policy. 2. Four wetland and riparian plant communities (freshwater marsh, southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and southern coast live oak riparian forest) and two upland plant communities (native grassland, Diegan coastal sage scrub) will be created by converting non-native grassland, disturbed and former agricultural land on Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs. The location of these target vegetation communities was determined based the surrounding and adjacent vegetation types and potential to provide the appropriate hydrology. Qpes of Habitat to Be Created 3. Functions and Values of Habitat to Be Created Freshwater marsh and southern willow scrub are wetland communities considered sensitive habitat by both CDFG and USACE. These communities are expected to become self-sustaining vegetation communities, and are expected to achieve the three parameters that define USACE wetlands to comply with no-net loss of wetlands. The mule fat scrub and coast live oak riparian forest are not considered USACE wetlands but do meet the criteria for CDFG riparian habitat. The created habitat for these two communities may develop the three USACE wetland parameters but this will not be a requirement for final release. All created wetland, riparian and upland habitats are expected to increase the habitat value of preserved habitat on-site and to provide increased foraging and breeding opportunities for wildlife species. 4. TimeLapse Planting and seeding will be limited from October 15 to February 1 in order to coincide with the winter growing season. The time period provides the best opportunity for project success. Where temporary imgation is installed, the timing of planting and seeding may be altered under the direction of the project biologist. The creation of self-sustaining vegetation in each created habitat is expected to take approximately five years. Full maturity of the coast live oak riparian forest areas is expected to take significantly longer; 10 however, sufficient development is expected within five years to provide habitat and mitigation value. 5. Final Success Criteria The habitat creation areas will be monitored for five years. At the end of five years the habitat creation areas shall attain the performance standards described in the Maintenance and Monitoring section of this report. In the created USACE jurisdictional wetlands, a wetland delineation will be performed at the end of the fifth year. All created freshwater marsh and the southern willow scrub is expected to meet the vegetation and hydrology criteria for USACE wetlands. The development of hydric soils indicators may take longer than five years to develop, and as long as strong vegetation and hydrology indicators are present, a lack of hydric soils will not prevent final project approval. 6. Target Hydrological Regime Wetland creation is expected to increase water-holding capacity and slow storm water runoff velocity thereby improving water infiltration and energy dissipation during storms. Enhancement will replace the existing freshwater pond on Cantarini Ranch with additional freshwater marsh and improve vector control. Existing southern willow scrub and coast live oak riparian forest will be expanded by lowering the ground surface in an area with already shallow groundwater and directing surface runoff from the proposed development into wetland creation areas. 7. Existing Functions and Values The proposed habitat creation areas consist of non-native grassland, disturbed, and agricultural land. This habitat has a lower habitat function and value relative to the proposed habitat creation. Enhancement will occur in vegetation that contains a high proportion of non-native species typically associated with disturbance. B. Habitat Creation Habitat creation will use cuttings and seed collected from the vicinity, salvaged plants removed prior to grading, as well as nursery-grown container plants grown from locally collected seed and cuttings. Control of invasive exotic weeds will be important during both during establishment and the long-term maintenance period to achieving the final performance standards. Shown in Figure 4 are the habitat creation areas. 12 The native plants recommended for the container plant and seed palette in this plan were selected based on their value for developing an appropriate vegetation community structure and importance to wildlife species. 1. Site Preparation In the wetland creation areas, grading will be used to lower the existing topography to create a hydrologic regime that will mimic adjacent wetland areas. Prior to grading the project owner/proponent will consult with a hydrogeologist and project biologist to develop the appropriate construction grading plan that will create the desired hydrologic conditions. Prior to grading native plant material within the project impact area will be salvaged and transplanted as directed by the project biologist. Areas containing sensitive biological resources not authorized for impacts will be flagged, and monitored for avoidance during construction. 2. Erosion Control During and after construction appropriate best management practices (BMPs) will be used as needed to prevent sediment from entering Agua Hedionda Creek and its tributaries. These BMPs will be included in the grading plans and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. Rice straw is recommended over wheat straw because it is less likely to carry imported seed, which can grow and reproduce on temperate sites. Any temporary seed mixes used for erosion control will not contain any invasive or potentially invasive species listed by California Exotic Pest Plant Council (CalEPPC). 3. Seed Collection and Application Following grading and the installation of appropriate BMPs, all habitat creation areas will be hydroseeded using a hydraulic mulch and soil binder at the manufactures specifications. Plant species and application rates for the target vegetation types are presented in Tables 4 and 5. To the extent possible, all seed and plant materials used for this habitat creation project will be from the site or immediate vicinity. The seed source will be limited to within 10 miles. Seed collection should begin at least one year prior to the anticipated construction start date. 4. Container Plants Cuttings and seed used in the project will be collected from the project site or within 10 miles. Cuttings will be rooted in one-gallon containers prior to planting. Cuttings and 14 TABLE 4 WETLAND HABITAT CREATION AREA SEED MIXES Southern Coast Live AlkaWmshwater Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Oak Riparian Forest Common Name Scientific Name Marsh PoundslAcre Pounds/ Acre Poundsl Acre Pounds/ Acre Yerba mansa Anemopsis califomica 3.0 Spiny rush Pale spikerush Mugwort Saltmarsh fleabane Creeping wild rye San Diego sagewort Mule fat Evening primrose Tarragon Western ragweed Purple needlegrass California deergrass Blue-eyed grass Tarweed Hooked navarretia Osmadenia California broom California sagebrush Juiws acutus Eleocharis macrostachya Artemisia douglasiana Pluchea odorata Leymus tnticoides Artemisia palmeri Baccharis salicifolia Oenothera elata A rremisia dracunculus Ambrosia psilostach ya Nassella pulchra Muhlcnbergia rigens Sisyrinchium belluni Hemizonia fasciculatum Navarretia hamata Osinadenia tenella Lotus scoparius Artemisia californica 4.0 4.0 1 .o 1 .o 1 .o 1 .o 1 .o 1 .o 2.0 2.0 1.0 1 .o 2.0 2.0 1 .o 1 .o 1 .o 1 .o 2.0 1 .o 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 .o 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 .o 1.0 1 .o 1 .o 0.5 0.5 0.5 Bush monkeyflower Mimulirs aurantiacus 0.5 TOTAL 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 TABLE 5 UPLAND HABITAT CREATION SEED MIX Common Name Purple needlegrass Foothill needlegrass Nodding needlegrass California deergrass Giant wild rye Rancher’s fireweed Tarplant California melic Blue-eyed grass . Blue dicks Common goldenstar Lilac mariposa Purple owl’s clover Dot seed plantain Shooting star California sagebrush Bush monkeyflower California broom California buckwheat Golden yarrow Cudweed Goldfields Common encelia Black sage San Diego viguiera Coast eoldenbush Native Grassland Scientific Name PounddAcre Nassella pulchra 4.0 Nassella lepida 3.0 Nassella ceniua 2.0 Muhlenbergia rigens 2.0 Leymus condensatus 1 .o Amsinckia menziesii 0.5 Hemizonia fasciculntwn 0.5 Melica impe~ecta 1 .o Sisyrinchium bellum 1 .o Dichelostemma capitatum Bulb/3flbs acre Bloomeria crocea Bulb13 lbs acre Calochortus splendens BulbI3lbs acre Castilleja exserta 1 .o Plantago erecta I .o Dodecatheon clevelandii 0.5 A rtemisia calif0 mica Mimulus au ran riacus Lotus scoparius Eriogonum fasciculatum Erioph yllum coi?fert[jlorum Griaphalium bicolor Lasthema callfomica Encelia califoniica Salvia mellifera Viguiera lacinata Isocoma menziesii Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Pounds/ Acre 2.0 0.5 0.5 1 .o 1 .o Bulb/3/lbs acre Bulb/3 lbs acre 0.5 0.5 2.0 1 .o 0.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 .o 0.5 1 .o 0.5 Coyoti bush Baccharis pilularis 0.5 TOTAL 17.5 16.5 container plant densities for the wetland and upland vegetation types are presented in Tables 6 and 7. Installation of native plants will begin after grading of the wetland habitat creation area. Plant installation will be limited to the months of October 15 through February 1. Polygons which identify planting locations will be included in the landscape drawings for the project. Individual container plants will be distributed within the polygon in a manner that approximates the natural distribution of the target vegetation community. 5. Irrigation Timing of implementation is intended to take advantage of natural precipitation, but amounts of rainfall are highly variable from year to year and supplemental water may be needed. Planting holes will receive one gallon of water prior to planting and one gallon after planting. A temporary overhead spray irrigation system will be installed to improve the survival of plantings. This system will be removed two years following planting or as directed by the project biologist once the plants have become established. 6. Site Protection Perimeter barriers associated with the proposed development are expected to limit access to the habitat creation areas. Protective fencing, gates, and signage will be used to identify project areas and encourage pedestrians to stay on identified access trails. C. Habitat Enhancement Habitat enhancement proposed for mitigation of impacts to wetland and upland habitats is summarized in Table 3. A calculation of 0.5:l mitigation credit was used when habitat enhancement was chosen as the mitigation method. Areas proposed for habitat enhancement are indicated on Figure 4 and represent a larger acreage than is required based on mitigation ratios. Areas appropriate for enhancement will be identified by the project biologist before construction. The size and locations of all enhancement areas will be mapped using a global positioning system (GPS) prior to work and a determination will be made by the project biologist that sufficient area will be enhanced to meet the project mi tigation obligation. Enhancement of existing habitat will include the removal of non-native species and limited container planting and hand seeding as needed to prevent erosion problems and improve habitat quality. The seed mix and container plant palette to be used will be determined by the project biologist but will be consistent with the plant palette included in this plan. Enhancement will include an initial clearing of all non-native vegetation by hand. All non-native plant materials and debris will be removed from the enhancement areas and disposed in an approved landfill. Limited spot applications of an herbicide approved for use in and around wetlands may be used under the supervision of the project -4 1 17 TABLE 6 WETLAND HABITAT CREATION AREA PLANT PALETTE Common Name Yerba mansa Spiny rush Mexican rush Iris-leaved rush Pale spikerush Threesquare Tall flatsedge San Diego marsh elder Mule fat Black willow Fremont's cottonwood California blackberry Purple needlegrass California deergrass California rose Fuchsia-flowered gooseberry Arroyo willow Blue elderberry California sycamore Toyon Spiny redbeny Climbing penstemon Scientific Name Ariemopsis califomica Juiicus acuhs JUI~CUS mexicanus Jirncus xiphioides Eleocharis macrostachya Scirpus americanus Cyperus eragrostis Iva hayesiana Baccharis salicifolia Salk exigua Populus fremontii Rubus ursinus Nassella pulckra Muhlenbergia rigens Rosa californica Ribes speciosirrri Solix lasiolepis Snnibircus me.~icnnn Platatius mcemosa Heteromeles nrbutijiolin Rhamnus crocea Keckiella cordifolia ~~~ Southern Coast Live Freshwater Marsh Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Oak Riparian Forest Quantity/Size/Acre 2OOILiner 200/0ne Gallon 200Rjner 200niner 600ILiner 200Liner 200Liner 200/0ne gallon Quantity/Size/Acre Quanti t y/Size/Acre 200/0ne gallon 200/0ne gallon 600/0ne gallon lOO/One gallon 50/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 50/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 50/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 200/0ne gallon 100/One gallon 100/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 50/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 50/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon Coast IiVe'oak Quercus agrifolia 200/0ne gallon TOTAL 2,000 1,400 1,050 1,100 TABLE 7 UPLAND HABITAT PLANTING PALETTE Native Grassland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Common Name Scientific Name Quantit y/Size/Acre Quantity/Size/Acre Purple needlegrass Nassella pulchra 500/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon Lemonadeberry Coast live oak Toyon White sage Wishbone bush Black sage Laurel sumac Spiny redbeny Fuchsia -flowered gooseberry Blue elderberry California sagebrush Bush monkeyflower California buckwheat Common encelia Black sage Rhus inregrifolia Quercus agriyolia Heteromeles arbutifolia Salvia apiaria Mirabilis cal(fomica Salvia niellifera Malosnia laurina Rhamnus crocea Ribes speciosuni Sambucus niexicana Artemisia califomica Miniulus aurantiacus Eriogorrimm fascicirfarum Encelin cnl[fofontica Salvia nreli(fera SO/One gallon 1 OOIOne gallon 100 One gallon 300/0ne gallon 10010ne gallon 100/0ne gallon SO/One gallon 5O/One gallon 50/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 50/0ne gallon 200.0ne gallon 300/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon 1 OOlOne gallon 300/0ne gallon San Diego viguiera Viguicra lncinara 50/0ne gallon 100/0ne gallon TOTAL 1,050 1,750 biologist to control infestations of species that resprout, such as tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) and pampas grass. Enhancement of the pond area on Cantarini Ranch will begin following removal of the existing dam and recontouring of the area. If needed, the drained pond bottom will be configured to create a shallow basin that is expected to continue to support freshwater marsh vegetation that surrounds the pond now. Freshwater marsh and herbaceous wetland species mix will be planted and hand seeded into the exposed pond bottom. Follow-up maintenance (weeding) will be completed in both types of wetland enhancement on a quarterly basis for one year following the initial clearing. A record of all enhancement activities will be included in the first year annual report for the project. Approximately 3.0 acres of disturbed Diegan sage scrub will be included in the enhancement effort. Enhancement will include an initial dethatching by a qualified contractor under the supervision of the project biologist to remove all standing dead material produced by non-native annual grasses. This will be completed using line trimmers and raking by hand prior to the start of the winter growing season. Spot spraying using an herbicide will be completed on an as-needed basis during the following spring to control seedlings. If there is sufficient weed control, planting and seeding may be completed during the same growing season. If there is not adequate weed control as determined by the project biologist, planting and seeding will be completed the following growing season and a second season of weed control will be performed. A record of all enhancement activities will be included in the first year annual report for the project. If a second season of weeding is required a discussion of all maintenance activities will be included in the second year annual report for the project. D. Reporting Within 60 days of implementation completion, an as-built plan will be submitted for agency review. This plan will include implementation dates, plant numbers and locations, and any significant problems encountered, or if changes are needed to be made in the field during implementation of the final mitigation plan, to determine if the mitigation project has been built as proposed. Maintenance and Monitoring Program The objectives of the maintenance and monitoring program are to ensure successful habitat creation and development of an information base, which documents the maintenance and monitoring efforts during the reporting period. To achieve these 20 objectives, the project biologist will observe and direct implementation, maintenance, and monitoring activities. The long-term maintenance and monitoring period for all habitat creation areas will begin and will last for a period of five years as presented in Table 8. This site will be monitored monthly for the remainder of the first year then quarterly during the long-term maintenance period. The maintenance program will ensure that debris removal, weed control, replanting and reseeding, site protection, and other tasks are adequately performed. Maintenance activities will be supervised by the project biologist, as outlined below, for all creation and enhancement areas. TABLE 8 FIVE-YEAR MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING SCHEDULE Tasks Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Weeding As needed As needed Quarterly Biannually Biannually Trash removal Monthly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Qualitative monitoring Monthly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quantitative monitoring None Spring Spring Spring Spring A. General Maintenance Procedures 1. Weed Control Weed control will continue throughout the five-year monitoring period. Hand weeding or other weed control methods will be performed by maintenance workers familiar with and trained to distinguish weeds from native species. During the first two years, weeding will be performed as needed to keep weeds from producing seeds and to control weed competition during the establishment period of native plants. Weed control will continue quarterly for year three and at a minimum of twice a year, thereafter. Weeds will be killed or removed before they set seeds. Appropriate weed control measures will be implemented under the direction of the project biologist. Plant species also present on the California Exotic Pest Plant Council pest plant list (http:Nwww.caleppc.org) will be targeted for removal. In the event that additional invasive species are encountered, the project biologist shall refine control measures to address the problem. 21 2. Irrigation Irrigation during the maintenance period will be applied at the discretion of the project biologist. If a temporary irrigation system is installed, the project biologist will provide recommendations for system timing and duration. 3. Pruning of any native vegetation or removal of dead wood and leaf litter shall not be allowed in the revegetation area, unless required by fire department regulations or public safety concerns. Trash will be removed from the sites as outlined in the maintenance section of this report. Trash consists of all man-made materials, equipment, or debris left within the revegetation area that is not serving a function related to revegetation. Vegetation Clearing and I’rash Removal Monitoring To ensure that conditions of this plan are adhered to, all implementation activities will be monitored and recorded by the project biologist. The biologist will be available on-site during revegetation implementation to assist in making necessary plan modifications so the work may proceed. Records will include dates of translocation of salvaged species, container plantings, and seeding. These will be included in the as-built and annual reports. 1. Qualitative Monitoring Evaluation of plant health and identifying and correcting problems are necessary for ensuring successful vegetation establishment, The site will be monitored weekly during implementation, monthly for the first two years, and quarterly for the remainder of the project. The project biologist will review the project areas to examine transplant vigor, native annual and grass germination, and exotic plant encroachment. The biologist will document the findings and make recommendations for remedial actions, if necessary. A list of wildlife species observed on the project site will be compiled during each qualitative monitoring visit. A description of wildlife use will be included with each annual report. 2. Quantitative Monitoring Quantitative monitoring will be used to sample variables that measure ecosystem values (including percent cover and diversity) as well as ecosystems functions (seedling recruitment and wildlife activity). Quantitative monitoring will measure the development of vegetation in the project area and document achievement of success criteria as defined by the performance standards. Different monitoring techniques (using transects or 22 quadrats) may be employed for each revegetation type as needed to best assess the progress of each vegetation type within the project. Permanent vegetation sampling stations will be established to measure year-to-year changes in shrub cover, density, and diversity. Each sampling station will be used as a photodocumentation point to record the progress of mitigation over the monitoring period. Results will objectively determine if the project meets the performance standards. Depending on the vegetation type different sampling techniques may be appropriate and be used by the project biologist. If transects are used then a method similar to the California Native Plant Society field sampling protocol (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995) is recommended. A nearby reference site for each of the target vegetation types will be selected by the project biologist prior to the start of construction. The reference community will be chosen based on proximity to the project site and similarity, based on slope, aspect, and soils. The choice for a reference community will be limited to northern San Diego County. The reference site will be sampled using the same protocol used on the creation sites with enough sample replication to adequately capture species diversity. Percent vegetation cover and species diversity on the reference site will be compared to the created vegetation. If a suitable reference site cannot be found, then percent vegetation cover will be measured as an absolute value and the total number of species included in the seeding and planting palette will be considered 100 percent of the target vegetation diversity. 1 C. Monitoring Reports Annual reports summarizing monitoring results will be submitted to the permitting agencies no later than December 31 of each year. The quantitative report will include survey methods, data summary analysis, performance standards comparison, discussion, remedial action discussion, recommendations, and photodocumentation. Each annual report will compare findings of the current year with those in previous years. D. Performance Standards Habitat creation will be considered successful when the performance standards have been met. If the minimum levels of cover and species diversity shown in Table 9 are not achieved in any year, the project biologist will recommend remedial actions, such as replanting container stock, to reach the following year's expected levels. 23 TABLE 9 FNE-YJGtR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Transplant/ Total Density Cover from Container Plant Native Plant (Stems per acre) Recruited Year Survival Cover' Diversit9 sapling-scrub Seedlings4 1 80% -- -_ - 2 100% 50% 50% -- 3 100% 75% 60% - 4 100% 90% 70% -- 5 100% 90% 70% 50- loo -- 5% 5% 'Measured relative to an appropriate reference community in the project vicinity. 'Measured as the number of species in common with the reference site. Identifying a suitable nearby stand of vegetation to use as a reference site may be difficult. If a suitable reference site cannot be found, then the total number of species included in the seeding and planting palette may be considered 100 percent of the target vegetation diversity. ?his standard only applies to the southern willow scrub revegetation ma. ?he site must exhibit evidence of natural recruitment .of native wetland or riparian species. This will be shown as a minimum of five percent relative cover for recruited seedlings during the fourth and fifth year of the project: In order to meet the performance standards, the habitat must sustain itself for a minimum of one year (meeting the fifth year' performance Standards) in the absence of significant maintenance measures during the final year of monitoring. Significant maintenance includes replanting and eradication of weed infestations. Other maintenance measures, such as minor weed control, may continue until the end of the monitoring period. At the end of the five-year maintenance and monitoring period, a wetland delineation will be performed in the freshwater marsh and southern willow scrub, to determine if USACE wetland criteria for vegetation, soils, and hydrology have been achieved. The created freshwater marsh and the southern willow scrub is expected to meet the vegetation and hydrology, criteria for US ACE wetlands. The development of hydric soils indicators may take longer than five years to develop, and as long as strong vegetation and hydrology indicators are present, a lack of hydric soils will not prevent final project approval. The mule fat scrub and southern coast live oak woodland are being created as compensation for impacts to non-wetland waters of the U.S and associated with CDFG riparian habitat. These vegetation types will not be required to meet USACE criteria for wetlands. 24 1. Tolerance of Weeds The cover of non-native annual grasses and herbs, such as brome grass or filaree, as identified by the project biologist, will be no more than 5 percent. No invasive exotic perennials on the CalEPPC list will be permitted on the revegetation sites. 2. Remedial Measures If performance criteria are not achieved at the end of the fifth year, the project owner/proponent will consult with the permitting agencies to develop appropriate remedial measures. The project proponent understands that failure of any significant portion of the mitigation area may result in a requirement to replace or revegetate that portion of the site. E. Notification of Completion At the end of the fifth year, a final report will be submitted to the agencies evaluating the success of the mitigation. The report will make a determination of whether the requirements of the mitigation plan have been achieved. A site review will be scheduled for all resource agencies to review the sites. Upon confirmation of project success, the agencies shall release the owner/project proponent of all obligations and provide water quality and/or habitat credits for the project. E Contingency Measures Following construction of the project and the implementation phase of this mitigation plan, all habitat creation and enhancement areas will be inventoried using a GPS and a determination made whether or not the mitigation described in this plan have been met. This determination will be included in the as-built report for the project. If there is a shortfall, the project owner will be responsible for acquiring the additional mitigation in an off-site mitigation bank. Any off-site mitigation purchase will be subject to approval by the resource agencies. If there is surplus mitigation acreage the owner will be eligible to receive additional mitigation credit. G. Estimated Cost It is estimated that the total cost of implementation and five years of maintenance and monitoring for the entire 40.1 1-acre creation and enhancement project is approximately $1,400,000.00. This includes $105,000 for enhancement and !$1,295,OOO.OO for habitat creation. This estimate includes the necessary weed control, site preparation, installation of a temporary irrigation system, planting, seeding, follow-up maintenance, monitoring, and reporting by a qualified biologist. 25 References Cited RECON 1999 Wetland Delineation Report for the Holly Springs Project Carlsbad, California, October 8. 2003a Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Holly Springs Project Carlsbad, California. February 8. 2003b Revised Biological Technical Report and Impact Analysis for the Cantarini Ranch Property Carlsbad, California. February 7. 2003c Revised Wetland Delineation Report for the Cantarini Ranch Property Carlsbad, California. February 10. 2004a Updated Wetland Delineation Report for Cantarini and Holly Springs Study Area, Carlsbad, California. May. 2004b Revisions to Project Impacts and Update of Existing Conditions for Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs. May. Sawyer, John O., and Todd Keeler-Wolf (c' 1995 A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Stein, Eric 1999 Function Based Performance Standards for Evaluating the Success of Riparian and DepressionaVEmergent Marsh Mitigation Sites. PCR Services Corporation for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May. 26 4 1927 Fifth Avenue Son Diego, CA 92101-2358 P6193089333 F 6193089334 w recows corn May 12,2004 Mr. David Bentley Bentley-Monarch PMB433 4729 East Sunrise Drive Tucson, A2 85718 Reference: Revisions to Project Impacts and Update of Existing Conditions for Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs (RECON Number 3041B/3140B) Dear Mr. Bentley: On September 22 and October 9,2003, RECON biologists Wendy Loeffler and Jennifer MacAller conducted two site visits to update and verify the existing conditions of the biological and wetland resources presented in the technical reports previously prepared for both Cantarini Ranch (RECON 2003a) and Holly Springs (RECON 2003b). This was done at the request of Shannon Bryant of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in support of the wetland permit application submitted for these two projects. Wetland delineations are valid for a five-year period and it was necessary to provide USACE with an updated wetland delineation (RECON 2004a). RECON biologists also updated the surveys for sensitive plant and wildlife species on both properties in 2003. The results of these surveys were provided under separate cover (RECON 2003c, 2003d, 2003e) but are included here to provide a comprehensive update to the existing conditions. In addition to updating this information, RECON has reanalyzed the impacts to resources on Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs based on the latest CAD drawings provided to us in December of 2003 and January and February of 2004. This submittal includes the revised impact numbers and the composite maps showing impacts to the biological resources for both proposed projects. Lastly, the organization and analysis of the acreages have been revised to be consistent with the organization presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the CantariniMolly Springs Developments (City of Carlsbad 2003). The acreages of those areas in the original study area (see RECON 2003a) that are not a part of the proposed tentative tract maps have not been included. This includes the impacts that would result from the construction of College Boulevard as those impacts and mitigation were previously approved as part of the Final EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, and Detention Basins (EIR No. 98-02, SCH No. 99111082). REVISED EXISTING CONDITIONS The mapping of the plant communities and jurisdictional resources has been revised based on the recent site visits, primarily in the vicinity of the natural springs on the eastern side of Cantarini Ranch. These revisions represent a fine-tuning of the plant communities map and the wetland delineation completed in 1998 and 1999. The boundaries of several of the riparian communities were refined and a few patches of upland habitat were identified and mapped within the drainage and spring complex. Exhibits 1 and 2 illustrate the revised existing conditions. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the plant communities on both properties. The tentative tract map includes a proposed parcel exchange between Cantarini Ranch and the Rancho Carlsbad Partners. The acreages presented for Cantarini Ranch include the Rancho Carlsbad Partners (RCP) exchange parcel and excludes the acreage from the southwestern parcel that would be deeded to in return. This table is Mr. David Bentley Page 2 May 12,2004 equivalent to Table 4.3-1 in the EIR. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the existing jurisdictional waters delineated on both Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs. The mapping of sensitive species has also been updated based on surveys conducted in spring and summer of 2003. Focused surveys were conducted for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica calijornica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and rare plants. The gnatcatcher surveys were conducted in March and April, 2003 (RECON 2003c), the vireo and flycatcher surveys were conducted May through July, 2003 (RECON 2003e), and the rare plant surveys were conducted in April and June 2003 (RECON 2003d). The results of these surveys are illustrated on Exhibits 1 and 2. Table 3 updates the sensitive wildlife table presented in the original biological report for Cantarini Ranch (RECON 2003a:Table 6). , Several new sensitive species were detected on the properties during the updated focused surveys. These are discussed below. Sensitive Plants Western dichondra (Dichondra occidentulis). This perennial herb is a member of the Convolvulaceae, or morning-glory, family. Western dichondra is a CNPS List 4 plant. This species is usually found growing under brush or trees in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, or oak woodland areas. It grows primarily in dry sandy soils ranging from Orange County south into Baja California, Mexico. It blooms from March to May. The numbers of western dichondra are in a slow decline in southern California. A population of this species is located in the northwestern end of Holly Springs. Two additional locations that support individual plants are found along the boundary of Holly Springs and Cantarini Ranch. - Sensitive Wildlife Blue grosbeak (Guirucu cueruleu). The blue grosbeak has a nearly continuous distribution through the southern half of the continental U.S. and Mexico. In southern California, it is an uncommon to locally fairly common transient and summer visitor that inhabits riparian woodland edges and riparian-type vegetation around Ponds and lakes. For nesting, this species requires thick brush or dense weedy fields, usually near water. This species has experienced population declines due to agricultural development and brush removal that have deteriorated breeding and foraging habitat. Brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds has further impacted the population (Small 1994). Blue grosbeaks were detected in two locations within the riparian habitat on Cantarini Ranch. Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). The yellow warbler is a CDFG species of special concern. This migratory warbler is found during the summer breeding season throughout California, migrating to Central and South America for the winter where it spends nine months out of the year. The yellow warbler breeds exclusively in riparian woodland habitat (Unitt 1984), and prefers areas with tall trees. Yellow warblers feed primarily on insects. This species is declining due to the loss of riparian habitat and as a result of nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds. Yellow warbler was detected in one location within the central southern willow scrub on Cantarini Ranch. Yellow-breasted chat (Zcteriu virens). The yellow-breasted chat is a California species of special concern and a Habitat Management Plan covered species. This large warbler can be found throughout most of the breasted chat is a rare to very uncommon and local breeder (Small 1994). This species breeds in dense brush or scrub, usually along streams or marshy areas with dense riparian woodlands. Loss of riparian woodlands to development and other human activities, coupled with probable nest parasitism by brown-headed continental United States. In southern California, from Ventura County to San Diego County, the yellow- I r Mr. David Bentley Page 3 May 12,2004 cowbirds, have caused the population of the yellow-breasted chat to decline. Yellow-breasted chat was detected in one location within the riparian habitat along the southeastern border of Cantarini Ranch. REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS The impact analysis was also revised based on changes made to the tentative maps in December 2003 and January, February, and April 2004. The primary revision was the proposed removal of two dams along the central north-south drainage on Cantarini Ranch. The breaching of the dams will result in the loss of the open water pond located on Cantarini Ranch. The basin of the pond will be recontoured with a gentle slope to allow for the natural hydrology of the watershed to be reestablished. This project change was suggested and advocated by the state and federal wetland resource regulatory agencies and is viewed by these agencies as a net benefit to the natural resources on the site (S. Bryant, J. Haas, T. Spears, pers. comm. Sept. 23, 2003). In addition, the proposed detention basins were removed from their original locations within the drainages on-site and a redesigned basin was placed above and adjacent to the drainage. This redesign was also made as a result of comments from USACE and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding the placement of detention basins in-line of natural drainages. For the purposes of this analysis the boundaries of each property match the boundaries of the tentative maps. Cantarini Ranch includes the RCP exchange parcel, the multi-family housing site located partially on Holly Springs, and the portion of the loop access road (‘‘I?’’ Street and “C” Street) that is located on Holly Springs. Impacts to Holly Springs includes the remaining grading for pads and utilities and the associated brush management on the property outside of the off-site grading associated with Cantarini Ranch. Exhibits 3 and 4 illustrate the revised impact to the plant communities and jurisdictional resources. Table 4 provides the project impacts to plant communities for both projects. This table is equivalent to Table 4.3-2 in the EIR. Table 5 provides the breakdown of impacts to USACE and California Department of Fish and Game jurisdictional resources. Tables 6 and 7 provide the recommended mitigation for impacts from development of Cantarini and Holly Springs. The proposed project will impact USACE and CDFG jurisdictional wetlands, waters, and riparian habitats. Where possible, the project was designed to maximize the buffers between the development and these resources. In some areas along the north-south drainage on Cantarini Ranch, where the buffer narrows to approximately 25 feet, several design features have beem included in the proposed development to increase the size, value, and functionality of the buffer. The steep manufactured slopes adjacent to the drainage will be designed as plantable slopes so that there will be a landscape buffer between the edge of development and the edge of the drainage. Landscaping will be designed to include plants that could act as deterrents, such as cactus, yucca, or poison oak. Along with providing additional filtration, this particular plant selection coupled with the steep angle of the slope will serve as a deterrent to access into the natural drainage area. In addition, this portion of the project is designed with roads and backyards between homes and the landscaped wetland buffer area, which further decreases the likelihood of human intrusion into the resource. This design feature is also carried through to the rest of the project. Any location where a narrower buffer occurs is designed to prevent direct access into the resource by placing the brush management zones, roads, and backyards adjacent to the buffer rather than driveways and front yards. Surveyors for O’Day Consultants, Inc. conducted an oak tree survey on the southeast comer of Cantarini Ranch in February 2004 in order to identify the amount and size of coast live oak trees that would be impacted by the project. A total of 22 coast live oak trees were identified in the southeast comer of the site within two drainage channels. None of the oaks will be directly impacted from grading activities. Nine of them, ranging in trunk size from 10 to 36 inches, are located within the brush management zone. There is a potential that these trees would not need to be removed but simply trimmed to meet the City of Carlsbad’s Mr. David Bentley Page 4 May 12,2004 fuel modification standards. The remaining 13 trees are located within proposed open space and will not be impacted. The proposed development of Holly Springs and Cantarini will not significantly impact the new sensitive species identified during the 2003 focused surveys. The western dichondra and the habitat that supports the three new riparian bird species will be preserved in open space. The restoration plan was updated and submitted under separate cover (RECON 2004b). If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CLL Wendy Loeffler Senior Biologist WELsh cc: Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group Lucia Sippel, Holly Springs Ltd. Jim Harry, Mooney & Associates Barbara Kennedy, City of Carlsbad REFERENCES CITED Bryant, S., J. Haas, and T. Spears 2003 Personal Communication with Wendy Loeffler and Jennifer MacAller, RECON. September 23. Carlsbad, City of 2003 Draft Environmental Impact report for the CantarinVHolly Springs Developments. Prepared by Mooney & Associates. June. RECON 2003a Revised Biological Technical Report and Impact Analysis for the Cantarini Ranch Property, Carlsbad, California. February 7. 2003b Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Holly Springs Project, Carlsbad, California. February 8. 2003c Results of Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Surveys on the Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs Sites, Carlsbad, California. June 27. 2003d Rare Plant Surveys on Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs Property. August 13. 2003e Results of Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Surveys on the - Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs Sites, Carlsbad, California. September 2. r Mr. David Bentley Page 5 May 12,2004 2004a Updatec Wetlanc DC ineation for the Cantarini an Holly Springs Study Area, Carlsbad, California. May 11. 2004b Revised Conceptual Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Development on the Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs Properties, Carlsbad, California. May 11. Small, A. 1994 California Birds: Their Status and Distribution. Ibis Publishing, Vista, CA. Unitt, P. A. 1984 Birds ofSan Diego County. Memoir No. 13. San Diego Society of Natural History. TABLE 1 PLANT COMMUNITIES ON CANTARINI RANCH AND HOLLY SPRINGS (Revised May 10,2004) Plant Community Cantarini Ranch' Holly Springs' Total Wetland Habitats Freshwater marsh Cismontane alkali marsh (including seasonal cismontane alkali marsh) Southern willow scrub Mule fat scrub Southern coast live oak riparian forest Upland Habitats Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed coastal sage scrub) Southern mixed chaparral Native grassland Non-native grassland Other Areas Agriculture Pond Disturbed Develooed 2.80 4.75 3.15 0.05 2.65 8.5 1 0.78 0.17 58.33 70.30 0.85 3.49 0.45 0.25 1.1 0.19 0.07 0.31 72.94 3.47 9.76 5.72 4.58 0.96 1.25 3.05 5.85 3.34 0.12 2.96 8 1.45 4.25 9.93 64.05 74.88 0.85 4.45 1.70 ~~ TOTAL 156.28 100.60 256.88 'Boundary is based on the proposed tentative map boundary and includes the multi-family housing lot located within the Holly Springs ownership. Acreage also includes the proposed Rancho Carlsbad Partners exchange parcel that would be added to the Cantarini Ranch property. The acreage does not include the southwest portion of Cantarini Ranch that would be deeded to Rancho Carlsbad Partners as a part of this exchange. 'Acreage includes a small portion (1.16 acres) of Holly Springs-Remainder Parcel A that will be added to the Holly Springs tentative map. -\ 1 TABLE 2 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES (Revised May 10,2004) (acres) Jurisdictional Areas Cantarini Ranch Holly Springs' Total USACE Jurisdiction Wetlands 10.71 1.54 12.25 Non-wetland waters of the U.S. 1.27 0.12 1.39 USACE Total Jurisdiction 11.98 1.66 13.64 r CDFG Jurisdiction Streambed2 1.27 0.12 1.39 Riparian habitat3 13.37 1.85 15.22 Isolated wetland -- 0.08 0.08 Isolated non-wetland waters of the U.S. 0.25 0.05 0.30 CDFG/City of Carlsbad Total Jurisdiction 14.89 2.10 16.99 'Acreage includes a small portion (1.16 ac.) of Holly Springs-Remainder Parcel A that will be added to the Holly Springs tentative map. 'Equals USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S. 3Equals USACE wetlands plus additional riparian habitat outside of the ordinary high water mark. TABLE 3 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (Revised May 10,2004) Species ~ Status Habitat ~~ OccurrencdComrnents Invertebrates Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino AmDhibians (Nomenclature from Collins 1997) Western spadefoot Spea hammondii ReDtiles (Nomenclature from Collins 1997) Southwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida San Diego homed lizard Phtynosoma coronatum blainvillii Belding’s orangethroat whiptail Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea Red diamond rattlesnake Crotalus exsul (= C. ruber ruber) FE, MHCP CSC, MHCP CSC, FSS, MHCP CSC, MHCP, * csc, MHCP csc csc csc Open, dry areas in foothills, mesas, lake margins. Larval host plant Plantago erecta. Vernal pools, floodplains, and alkali flats within areas of open vegetation. Ponds, small lakes, marshes, slow- moving, sometimes brackish water. Chaparral, coastal sage scrub with fine, loose soil. Partially dependent on harvester ants for forage. Chaparral, coastal sage scrub with coarse sandy soils and scattered brush. Herbaceous layers with loose soil in coastal scrub, chaparral, and open riparian habitats. Prefers dunes and sandy washes near moist soil. Grasslands, chaparral, sagebrush, desert scrub. Found in sandy and rocky areas. Desert scrub and riparian habitats, coastal sage scrub, open chaparral, grassland, and agricultural fields. Adult emergence midJanuary through April. Not observed during focused surveys. Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to occur on-site. Moderate habitat present; low potential to occur on-site. Marginal habitat present; low potential to occur. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to occur on-site. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to occur on-site. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to occur on-site. Moderate habitat present; moderate potential to occur on-site. TABLE 3 SENSITIVE WEDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (Revised May 10,2004) (continued) Species status Habitat Occurrence/Comments - Birds (Nomenclature from American Ornithologists’ Union) White-tailed kite (nesting) Elanus leucurus Northern harrier (nesting) Circus cyaneus Cooper’s hawk (nesting) Accipiter cooperii Ferruginous hawk (wintering) Buteo regalis Golden eagle (nesting and wintering) Aquila chrysaetos CFP, * csc CSC, MHCP csc csc, Cm, BEPA, MHCP Merlin csc Falco columbarius Western yellow-billed cuckoo (breeding) SE Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western burrowing owl (burrow sites) Speoryto cunicularia hypugaea CSC, MHCP Nest in riparian woodland, oaks, sycamores. Forage in open, grassy areas. Year-round resident. Coastal lowland. marshes, grassland, agricultural fields. Migrant and winter resident, rare summer resident. Mature forest, open woodlands, wood edges, river groves. Parks and residential areas. Migrant and winter visitor. Require large foraging areas. Grasslands, agricultural fields. Uncommon winter resident. Require vast foraging areas in grassland, broken chaparral, or sage scrub. Nest in cliffs and boulders. Uncommon resident. Rare winter visitor. Grasslands, agricultural fields, occasionally mud flats. Large riparian woodlands. Summer resident. Very localized breeding. Grassland, agricultural land, coastal dunes. Require rodent burrows. Declining resident. Five individuals observed on-site; high potential to nest on-site. Observed foraging over site. Foraging habitat present; low potential to nest on-site. Observed foraging over site. Foraging habitat present; low potential to nest on-site. Foraging habitat present; potential to occur on-site in winter. Suitable foraging habitat present; potential to occur on-site, Suitable habitat present; potential to occur on-site No suitable habitat, not expected to occur. Suitable habitat present; low potential to occur on- site. TABLE 3 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECLES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (Revised May 10,2004) (continued) Species Status Habitat OccurrencdComments Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus California homed lark Eremophila alpestris actia Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynclius brunneicapillus couesi Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila calijornica californica Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Least Bell’s vireo (nesting) Vireo bellii pusillus Yellow warbler (nesting) Dendroica petechia brewsteri Yellow-breasted chat (nesting) lcteria virens Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila rujiceps canescens SE. E, FSS, MHCP csc CSC, MHCP, * Fr, csc, MHCP csc SE, FE, MHCP csc csc, MHCP CSC, MHCP Nesting restricted to willow thickets. Also occupies other woodlands. Rare spring and fall migrant, rare summer resident. Extremely localized breeding. Sandy shores, mesas, disturbed areas, grasslands, agricultural lands, sparse creosote bush scrub. Maritime succulent scrub, coastal sage scrub with Opuntia thickets. Rare localized resident. Coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub. Resident. Open foraging areas near scattered bushes and low trees. Willow riparian woodlands. Summer resident. Breeding restricted to riparian woodland. Spring and fall migrant, localized summer resident, rare winter visitor. Dense riparian woodland. Localized summer resident. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral. Resident. Not observed on-site during focused surveys. Observed on-site. Not observed on-site. No suitable habitat present.. Observed on-site. Suitable habitat present; high potential to occur on- site. Not observed on-site during focused surveys. Also not present on adjacent property (RECON 1999b). Observed on-site. Observed on-site. Observed on-site. TABLE 3 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (Revised May 10,2004) (continued) Species Status Habitat OccurrencdComments Bell’s sage sparrow Amphispiza belli belli Blue grosbeak (nesting) Guiraca caerulea Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CSC, MHCP * CSC, MHCP Mammals (Nomenclature from Jones et al. 1982) Townsend’s western big-eared bat Corynorfiinus townsendii townsendii CSC, MHCP Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis califomicus CSC, MHCP San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Pacific little pocket mouse csc, MHCP FE, csc, kpus califomicus bennettii Perognathus longimernbris pacificus MHCP Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax fallax CSC, MHCP San Diego desert woodrat Neotorna lepida intennedia csc Chaparral, coastal sage scrub. Localized resident. Riparian woodland edges, mule fat thickets. Summer resident, spring and fall migrant, winter visitor. Freshwater marshes, agricultural areas, lakeshores, parks. Localized resident. Caves, mines, buildings. Found in a variety of habitats, arid and mesic. Woodlands, rocky habitat, arid and semiarid lowlands, cliffs, crevices, buildings, tree hollows. Open areas of scrub, grasslands, agricul- tural fields. Open coastal sage scrub; fine, alluvial sands near ocean. San Diego County west of mountains in sparse, disturbed coastal sage scrub or grasslands with sandy soils. Coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Not observed on-site. Observed on-site. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to occur on-site. Individual or colonial. Extremely sensitive to disturbance; marginal roosting habitat present; not expected to occur. Audible echolocation signal; marginal roosting habitat present; potential to occur on-site. Observed on-site. No suitable soils; not expected to occur. Suitable habitat present; high potential to occur on- site. Suitable habitat present; high potential to occur on- site. TABLE 3 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (Revised May 10,2004) (continued) Status Codes ListedProposed FE = Listed as endangered by the federal government FT = Listed as threatened by the federal government SE = Listed as endangered by the state of California - Other BEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act CFP = California fully protected species CSC = California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern FC = Federal candidate for listing (taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals to list as endangered or threatened; development and publication of proposed rules for these taxa are anticipated) FSS = Federal (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service) sensitive species MHCP= Multiple Habitat Conservation Program target species list Taxa considered endangered or rare under Section 15380(d) of CEQA guidelines Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range Population(s) in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon’s range, but which are threatened with extirpation within California Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alarming rate (e.g., wetlands, riparian, old growth forests, desert aquatic systems, native grasslands) * = Taxa listed with an asterisk fall into one or more of the following categories: r TABLE 4 IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES ON CANTARINI RANCH AND HOLLY SPRINGS (Revised May 10,2004) Plant Community Cantarini Ranch’ Holly Springs2 Total Wetland Habitats Freshwater marsh Cismontane alkali marsh (including seasonal cismontane alkali marsh) Southern willow scrub Mule fat scrub Southern coast live oak riparian forest Upland Habitats Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed coastal sage scrub) Southern mixed chaparral Native grassland Non-native grassland ,f-- Other Areas Agriculture Pond Disturbed Developed 0.55 -- 0.54 0.05 0.43 5.90 0.19 1.54 3 1.57 66.45 0.85 1.98 0.09 26.22 -- 4.07 3.27 1.06 -- 0.16 _- 0.55 -- 0.54 0.05 0.43 32.12 0.19 5.61 34.84 67.51 0.85 2.14 0.09 TOTAL 110.14 34.78 144.92 ‘Impacts were calculated using the proposed tentative map boundaries. Cantarini Ranch acreage includes the impacts from development of the Rancho Carlsbad Partners exchange parcel and off-site grading of the multi-family housing parcel and the loop access road (“P’ Street and “C Street) located on Holly Springs Property. Ranch impact analysis. *Impacts include all grading and brush management on Holly Springs except those impacts included in the Cantarini TABLE 5 IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES ON CANTARINI RANCH AND HOLLY SPRINGS (Revised May 10,2004) -. Jurisdictional Resources Cantarini Ranch‘ Holly Springs2 Total ~ USACE Jurisdiction Wetland 1.11 -- 1.11 Non-wetland Waters of the US. 1.11 -- 1.11 US ACE Total Jurisdiction 2.22 2.22 CDFG Jurisdiction Streambed3 1.11 -- 1.11 Riparian habitat4 1.57 -- 1.57 Isolated wetland -- -- Isolated non-wetland waters of the U.S. 0.17 -- 0.17 CDFG Total Jurisdiction 2.85 2.85 ‘Impacts were calculated using the proposed tentative map boundaries. Cantarini Ranch acreage includes the impacts from development of the Rancho Carlsbad Partners exchange parcel and off-site grading of the multi-family housing - parcel and the loop access road (“P” Street and “C” Street) that are on Holly Springs Property. Ranch impact analysis. 21mpacts include all grading and brush management on Holly Springs except those impacts included in the Cantarini ’Equals USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S. 4Equals USACE wetlands and additional riparian habitat outside of the ordinary high water mark. TABLE 6 (Revised May 10,2004) PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND REQUIRED MITIGATION RATIOS AND ACREAGES - CANTARINI RANCH Total Recommended Mitigation Acreages Mitigation Mitigation Open Recommended Mitigation Under HMP Under CEQA Plant Community Impacted Ratio Required Space' Guidelines (HMP is not adopted) Wetland Habitats2 Freshwater marsh 0.55 3: 1 1.65 2.24 All wetland impacts are regulated by a no-net-loss policy. Mitigation should include on-site creation of habitat at a 1 : 1 ratio. The remaining mitigation should be accomplished through additional on-site creation or enhancement of degraded habitat. If suitable on-site areas are not available, off-site acquisition or payment into a mitigation bank may be accepted as an alternative. Cismontane alkali marsh -- 21 4.75 Southern willow scrub 0.54 3: 1 1.62 2.61 Mule fat scrub 0.05 3: 1 0.15 Southern coast live oak riparian forest -- 0.43 3: 1 1.29 2.23 Upland Habitats Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed coastal sage 5.90 21 11.80 5.64 scrub) On-Site: Preservation 5.64 acres as open space. Conversion of 6.16 acres of non-native grassland. Southern mixed chaparral' 0.19 1:l 0.19 0.59 On-Site: Preservation of 0.59 acre. Native grassland On-Site: Preservation of 0.07 acre. Conversion of 4.55 acres of non- native massland into native massland. 1.54 3: 1 4.62 0.07 Non-native grassland3 None required, however, project will preserve or 28.49 acres. On-Site: Preservation of 17.78 acres. Conversion of at least 10.71 am to other native communities. 3 1.57 0.5: 1 15.79 28.49 convert to native vegetation TABLE 6 (Revised May 10,2004) (continued) PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND REQUIRED MITIGATION RATIOS AND ACREAGES - CANTARINI RANCH Total Recommended Mitigation Acreages Mitigation Mitigation Open Recommended Mitigation Under HMP Under CEQA Plant Community Impacted Ratio Required Space' Guidelines (HMP is not adopted) Other Areas Agriculture3 66.45 -_ None required; however, project will preserve or convert to native vegetation 4.14 acres. Payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee as determined by the City of Carlsbad City Council. 4.14 Impacts to the pond from removal of the dam will be mitigated through restoration to native wetland habitat in situ consistent with recommendations for wetland habitats above and thus the acreage is included in the open space calculations. Pond2 0.85 1:l 0.85 0 -- -- 1.5 None required None required 1.98 Disturbed 0.4 None required None required 0.09 -- 0 Developed ~~ ~ These impacted areas are included within the designated open space. These areas will be used as restoration sites to mitigate for impacts to wetland and riparian habitats. Dam Removal and Wetland Mitigation Areas TOTAL 110.14 55.1 1 with the multi-family housing, the open space area between "C" Street and the Cantarini Ranch boundary, as shown on the Cantarini Ranch tentative map. This acreage also includes the open space lot on the Rancho Carlsbad Partners Exchange parcel, identified as a standards area. 2All wetland plant communities and water resources are regulated by the federal, state, and local governments by a no-net-loss policy. These impacts will have to be mitigated by habitat creation, enhancement, or preservation, as determined by a restoration specialist in consultation with the regulating agencies. Mitigation ratios provided are those typical required by regulatory agencies for impacts to these plant communities. 2.3 'Open Space includes the proposed hardline area set aside for protection as dedicated through the HMP and includes Lot G on Holly Springs which is the open space lot associated 31n the event the HMP is not approved by regulatory agencies or not adopted by the City of Carlsbad, mitigation for these impacts would not be required. "r TABLE 7 (Revfsed May 10,2004) PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND REQUIRED MITIGATION RATIOS AND ACREAGES - HOLLY SPRINGS Total Recommended Mitigation Acreages Mitigation Mitigation Open Recommended Mitigation Under HMP Under CEQA Plant Community Impncted Ratio Required' Space2 Guidelines (HMP is not adopted) Wetland Habitats Freshwater marsh -_ 3: 1 -- 0.25 Cismontane alkali marsh -_ 21 -- 1.09 All wetland impacts are regulated by a no-net-loss policy. Mitigation Southern willow scrub -- 3: 1 -- 0. I9 Mule fat scrub __ 3: 1 -- 0.07 should include on-site creation of habitat at a 1 : 1 ratio. The remaining mitigation should be accomplished through additional on-site creation or enhancement of degraded habitat. If suitable on-site areas are not available, off-site acquisition or payment into a mitigation bank may be accepted as an alternative. -- Southern coast live oak riparian forest 3: 1 _- 0.3 I Upland Habitats Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed coastal sage 26.22 2: 1 52.44 43.70 would be mitigated through off-site acquisition, off-site restoration or scrub) Southern mixed chapanal> -- 1:l -- 3.47 None required; however, 3.47 acres will be preserved as open space. On-site preservation of 43.7 acres as open space. Remaining 8.74 acres purchase of mitigation bank credits. On-site preservation of 4.25 acres as open space. Remaining 7.96 acres purchase of mitigation bank credits. On-site preservation of 0.74 acre. Payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee for remaining 0.90 acre as determined by the City of Carlsbad City Council. Native grassland 4.07 3: I 12.2 1 4.25 would be mitigated through off-site acquisition or restoration or None required, however, project will preserve 0.74 acre. Non-native grassland3 3.21 0.5:1 1.64 0.74 TABLE 7 (Revised May 10,2004) (continued) PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND REQUIRED MITIGATION RATIOS AND ACREAGES - HOLLY SPRINGS Total Recommended Mitigation Acreages Mitigation Mitigation Open Recommended Mitigation Under HMP Under CEQA Plant Community Impacted Ratio Required' Space2 Guidelines (HMP is not adopted) Other Areas Conversion of 3.23 acres to native habitat once the current agricultural practices are abandoned and the four future lots are developed. None required; however, project will preserve or convert to native vegetation 3.23 acres. Agriculture3 I .06 -- 3.23 Disturbed Conversion of 0.8 1 acre to native habitat once the current agricultural practices are abandoned and the four future lots are developed. None required 0.16 -- -- 0.81 1.3 None required None required __ 0 34.78 66.29 59.36 Developed TOTAL 'Total mitigation required is calculated by combining required mitigation for all impacts on Holly Springs except for those included in the proposed tentative tract map for 'Open Space is defined as the proposed hardline area set aside for protection as dedicated through the HMP as shown on the proposed tentative map and includes a small portion 'In the event the HMP is not approved by regulatory agencies or not adopted by the City of Carlsbad, mitigation for these impacts would not be required. Cantarini Ranch, including the multi-family housing and the loop access road. (1.16 acres) of the Holly Springs Remainder Parcel A. APPENDIX B OF THE PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED DRAFT EIR MAY 2004 REVISED BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT AND IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE CANTARINI RANCH PROPERTY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for BENTEQ PMB433 4740 EAST SUNRISE DRIVE TUCSON, AZ 857 I8 CONTACT: DAVID BENTLEY Prepared by WENDY E. LOEFFLER SENIOR BIOLOGIST RECON NUMBER 3041B FEBRUARY 7,2003 1927 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 921 01 -2358 61 9 I 308-9333 fax 308-9334 Q This document printed on recycled pap” TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Findings Introduction Survey Methods Existing Conditions A. Topography and Soils B. Botany c. zoology D. Sensitive Biological Resources E. F. Wildlife Movement Corridor USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Project Impacts A. Plant Communities B. Wildlife C. Sensitive Biological Resources D. E. Wildlife Movement Corridors USACE AND CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Mitigation Measures A. Sensitive Plant Communities B. Sensitive Plants C. Sensitive Wildlife D. USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas 1 1 5 6 6 7 16 20 37 37 40 40 43 43 45 45 45 48 51 51 52 References Cited 52 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) FIGURES 1 : 2: Project Vicinity 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: Regional Location of the Project Study Area Boundary and Property Ownership Vegetation Communities and Sensitive Species USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Sensitive Species Impacts to USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas TABLES 1 : Plant Communities on the Cantarini Ranch Study Area 2: Plant Species Observed on the Cantarini Ranch Study Area 3: Wildlife Species ObservecUDetected on the Cantarini Ranch Study Area 4: Sensitive Plant Species Observed or with the Potential for Occurrence 5: Sensitivity Codes 6: Sensitive Wildlife Species Known (or Potentially Occumng) on the 7: USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas on the Cantarini Ranch Study Area 8: Impacts to Plant Communities by Parcel 9: Impacts to USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas by Parcel 10: Required Mitigation Ratios and Acreage for Impacts 1 1 : Proposed Mitigation on the Cantarini Ranch Study Area Cantarini Ranch Study Area 2 3 4 9 38 41 46 8 10 17 23 25 29 39 42 47 49 50 ATTACHMENT 1 : Wetland Delineation Report for the Cantarini Ranch Property Summary of Findings r The Cantarini Ranch and surrounding areas are located in the city of Carlsbad, California. The study area includes Cantarini Ranch, a 100-foot area surrounding the property, and a portion of the proposed alignment for the College Boulevard extension. The study area encompasses approximately 283 acres. Four sensitive animals (coastal California gnatcatcher, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, white-tailed kite, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit) and two sensitive plants (California adolphia and Nuttall's scrub oak) were observed on-site. There is a potential for one species listed as threatened or endangered, least Bell's vireo, to be present on-site. The following sensitive plant communities are present on-site: freshwater marsh, cismontane alkali marsh, southern willow scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest, mule fat scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, southern coast live oak woodland, and native grassland. The property also contains jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Impacts to any of these sensitive resources would be significant and mitigation would be required. Introduction The Cantarini Ranch site is located in the city of Carlsbad, California (Figure 1), on the north side El Camino Real near the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real (Figure 2). The site is bounded by El Camino Real to the south, by the Rancho Carlsbad Partners property and Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course to the west, by the Holly Springs property to the north, and by the Mandana property to the east. The study area includes Cantarini Ranch, a 100-foot area surrounding the property, and a portion of the proposed alignment for the College Boulevard extension. The study area encompasses approximately 283 acres. The proposed project includes the residential development of Cantarini Ranch, a portion of the College Boulevard extension, and several access roads that connect the development on Cantarini Ranch with future developments on the Holly Springs and Mandana properties. In addition, there is a proposed exchange of parcels between Cantarini Ranch and Rancho Carlsbad Partners (RCP). The RCP parcel on the northwest comer of Cantarini Ranch would be exchanged with the southwest parcel of Cantarini Ranch that is located southwest of the College Boulevard extension. Figure 3 presents the property and ownership boundaries within the study area. The impacts to the College Boulevard extension included in this report were recently approved as part of the Final EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, and Detention Basins (EIR No. 98-02, SCH No. 991 11082). 1 4 2 MILES 0 FIGURE 1 Regional Location of the Project ::::~~~~.~.~:~.::~~~~:~~~~-~~:~~ a .......................... , ............................. ..+h 5.2. ,..A ..%... a<... . .... Map Source: U.S.G.S 7.5 minute topographic map, San Luis Rey quadrangle FIGURE 2 Project Vicinity 3 I.. ,.........,. .. .. :.:.:.:.:<.:.:.:.:.:.:.*:.:.w,:.:.:*,y<<gd .:.:.:.~..~. :.~.~.~,.:.:.?~~~~~...~~~.~, ~t~~~ " ,. ' ' ' ··" .. ·~ ' CUSD .•. •· ... ' .. · ·. ' .. . ' ... •· ·.. ' .. . .·· ~ ' .. •·· ~ ' .. . ' .. · ~ ' Rancho Carlsbad ~ , Partners _.! ' .· ' . I ' :· ' ~ ' I ' ', ~_/ ' -------_____ _!f ~lll:'. Springs ! CITY OF \; _. ._. ---•nr,-c A. ll..T .... . . -----==• ~~. ... . .. . . . . . . ... . . . --_ _ _ _ . SIDE ' ······················· ______ .:,. __ • I ' Rancho Carlsbad · , ', ~, Partners ' ..... ,. ....... . ' ~ I ' ' '' ""'-,' I ',, \ ' \ ' ,------' , Rancho Carlsbad , ·····-; Partners I I I . . . . . . . •. \ \ "-. ' ·. . ~ I <' . ~ , ~ L Exchange Parcel I 'FJ : • ' ' . . . . ~· I J:::: o· . . . '~/ ' I . CANTARINIRANCH I I I I I I J ,' j ,' I I I I I I I I I I , ! / , / / Lubliner : . I :... I --: : I ! ······· I I ----: i I ,. ... i Rancho Carlsbad \ ' --1 --..; -_ Canam . ' 1-• • --• 1 • • • •• Partners ·. ' · · ---: 1 . .. ~ . -... . ' : ••... '\ I • ;t : -... --: I "' ··•... / ·•.. 1 Lublmer : 0 • : --1 ... .. I -. . -. ... .. I ·-. ... . ... Q ·-.. ··.' : «t ; ... il/]a,.._ ·-.. . ... j ·• : t:rJ • ' ...._ ....._,J •· •• ._...., J / I •·..... f , .. . .. . ' ... . .. . ' ••• : I ••... • ' I •• • •• ' •••• I ··-•• ~ I ·•. ... ... ... I ·-. .. ., !@I . /// I '' I ' U -'tiinha\\lM.l~.......U:-..M\1 J:,et 1-'\ n,nc:,n,: , ~ .. , Study area boundary ~ Cantarini Ranch boundary • • · • • • •. •· • Property ownership boundary t O Feet 500 1000 FIGURE 3 Study Area Boundary and Property Ownership r r The discussion regarding this road extension remains in this document; however, the analysis presents the acreage of impacts separately from the development project. A general biological survey was conducted to map plant communities and to assess the presence or potential for presence of sensitive floral and faunal species. In addition, focused surveys were conducted for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptilu culifol-nica culifornicu) and quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas edirhu quino) according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol. This report provides biological data and background information required for environmental analysis under guideline provided in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, impacts were analyzed using information provided in the City of Carlsbad’s draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (City of Carlsbad 1999). This document is currently in the process of being approved by regulatory agencies and adopted by the City. If this document is not approved as currently published or is not adopted by the City, the extent of significant impacts and the required mitigation recommended in this document may have to be revised. In addition, a Section lO(a)(l)(A) permit or Section 7 consultation would be required by the regulatory agencies. Survey Methods A biological resources survey was conducted on July 1 and 2, 1998 by RECON biologist Wendy Loeffler. Plant communities were assessed and mapped. Animal species observed directly or detected from calls, tracks, scat, nests, or other sign were noted. All plant species observed on-site were also noted, and plants that could not be identified in the field were identified later using taxonomic keys. General and focused surveys of the Holly Springs Ranch and Mandana Property were conducted in the spring and summer of 1999 (RECON 1999a and 1999b). Data gathered from these adjacent parcels was used for the purposes of analyzing impacts from proposed off-site improvements. The wildlife surveys include focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatchers conducted by RECON biologist Wendy Loeffler (permit number TE-839084-2) according to the USFWS California gnatcatcher survey guidelines (USFWS 1997a). Surveys were conducted on July 30, August 7, and August 14, 1998, between the hours of 6:OO A.M. and 12:OO P.M. Survey conditions were optimal for detecting California gnatcatchers, with mild temperatures and winds of 0 to 5 miles per hour. A habitat assessment and adult flight season surveys for the federally endangered quino checkerspot butterfly were conducted by RECON biologists Wendy Loeffler (TE- 839084-2) and Jennifer Radtkey (TE-797665-5) during the 1999 field season. Surveys were conducted according to the survey protocols prepared by USFWS (1999) on March 5, 13, 1 8, and 23, April 10, 15, and 26, and May 2 and 6, 1 999. 5 A botanical survey was conducted to search for sensitive plants on July 1 and 2, 1998. The entire site was traversed by meandering transects in an effort to identify the locations of any sensitive species present on-site. A wetland delineation was performed by RECON biologists Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith according to the guidelines set forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1987) on August 14 and 31, 1998. A wetland delineation is used to identify and map the extent of wetlands and “waters of the U.S.” found on-site and provide information regarding jurisdictional issues. Limitations to the compilation of a comprehensive floral checklist were imposed by seasonal factors, such as blooming period and emergence of some annual species. The faunal surveys were also limited by seasonal as well as temporal factors. Nocturnal animals were not observed directly as all surveys were performed during the day. In addition, species that are only present within the area during the winter may not have been detected. Floral nomenclature follows Hickman (1993) for common plants and Skinner and Pavlik ( 1994) for sensitive species. Plant community classifications follow Holland (1986). Zoological nomenclature for birds is in accordance with the American Ornithologists’ Union Checklist (1998); for mammals, Jones et al. (1982); and for amphibians and reptiles, Collins (1 997). Assessments of the sensitivity of species and plant communities are based primarily on the City of Carlsbad (1999), Skinner and Pavlik (1994), State of California (1997a, 1997b, 1998), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1995a), and Holland (1 986). Existing Conditions A. Topography and Soils Elevation of the site ranges from approximately 80 to 420 feet above mean sea level (U.S. Geological Survey 1968). Agua Hedionda Creek runs through the southern portion of the study area. Several unnamed drainages flow south and southwest into the creek. Several rock outcrops are present on the hillslopes, primarily in the northeastern comer of Cantarini Ranch and on Holly Springs and Mandana properties. Twelve soil types are present on-site: Huerhuero loam 9-15 percent; Heurheuro loam, 15- 30 percent, eroded; Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky, sandy loam; Cieneba coarse sandy loam; Olivenhain cobbly loam; Salinas clay loam; Salinas clay; Riverwash; Visalia sandy loam; Tujunga sand; Bonsall sandy loam; and Altamont clay (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). 1 1 6 r ,- Huerhuero loam (9- I5 percent) and Heurheuro loam (15-30 percent, eroded) soils developed from sandy marine sediments and have a clay subsoil. They are characterized by medium to rapid runoff and moderate to high erosion. Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky, sandy loam (9-30 percent, eroded) and Cieneba coarse sandy loam (5-15 percent, eroded) soils consist of weathered granitic rock that are excessively drained. The Cieneba-Fallbrook soils are also characterized by the presence of rock outcrops and boulders over approximately 15 percent of the area. Olivenhain cobbly loam (9-30 percent) formed in old gravelly and cobbly alluvium on dissected marine terraces. Salinas clay loam (2-9 percent) and Salinas clay (2-5 percent) soils are found on floodplains and alluvial fans and are derived from sediments washed from several other soil series. Visalia sandy loam soils are derived from granitic alluvium and are found on alluvial fans and floodplains. Bonsall sandy loam (2-9 percent, eroded) soils are moderately well-drained soils that include a heavy clay loam subsoil. Altamont clay soils are derived from weathered calcareous shale and tends to be a well-drained soil. Tujunga sands are derived from granitic alluvium and are located in floodplains or alluvial fans. Riverwash soils are typically sandy, gravelly, or cobbly with sparse vegetation consisting of scattered sycamore or southern coast live oak trees and other shrubs or forbs occurring in patches (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). B. Botany Twelve plant communities and a pond were identified on the approximately 283-acre study area: freshwater marsh, cismontane alkali marsh, southern willow scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest, mule fat scrub, sycamore/eucalyptus riparian woodland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, southern coast live oak woodland, native grassland, and non-native grassland. These communities account for approximately 77 acres of the site. The rest of the site is developed or under agriculture. The entire site predominantly supports non-native grassland and agricultural fields. Table 1 lists the acres of each vegetation community present on Cantarini Ranch and on the off-site parcels within the study area. Figure 4 illustrates the locations of the plant communities within the study area. Vegetation from the adjacent properties are included for reference. A total of 91 plant species were identified on the site (Table 2). Of this total, 64 (70 percent) are species native to southern California and 27 (30 percent) are introduced species. 1. Freshwater Marsh Approximately 4.5 acres of freshwater marsh are present on Cantarini Ranch and 1.5 acres are present on the additional parcels within the study area. This plant community is found along Agua Hedionda Creek and several smaller, unnamed drainages, as well as surrounding the pond on-site. The dominant plants in this community include cattails (Typha spp.), rush (Juncus spp.), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), and annual beard grass 7 TABLE 1 PLANT COMMUNITIES ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA Cantarini Cantarini Exchange Rancho Carlsbad Additional Off- Plant Community Ranch Parcel Exchange Parcel Holly Springs' Site Parcels' Total Freshwater marsh Cismontane alkali marsh (including seasonal cismontane alkali marsh) Southern willow scrub Southern coast live oak riparian forest Mule fat scrub S ycamore/eucalyptus riparian woodland Pond Native grassland Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed coastal sage scrub) Southern mixed chaparral Southern coast live oak woodland Non-native grassland Agriculture Disturbed Developed 4.5 4.2 5.7 2.6 0.2 0.8 0.2 1.6 0.4 0.3 53.5 57.5 2.3 3.0 4.3 0.1 0.1 0.7 4.2 7.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 16.3 3.1 1.5 7.2 0.2 0.7 I .5 3.6 0.1 0.1 6.3 7.9 0.9 0.6 15.9 24. I 37.7 6.0 4.9 9.9 2.7 0.4 6.3 0.8 0.8 26.5 4.4 0.9 78.1 100.4 0.2 40.8 TOTAL 133.8 7.4 12.3 30.9 98.7 283.1 'Represents only to the portion of Holly Springs that is present within the Cantarini Ranch study area. *Represents the remaining off-site areas within the study area including portions of the following properties: Rancho Carlsbad Partners, Mandana, Richard Kelly, Canam, Lubliner, CUSD, Barlow, and City of Oceanside. ~[LijN •• . . . . .... ·• . • . . . • . . • ~ . . . . . . . . !@,~ J M.¾oi,s\ioi1~,t,0J fi&4 (-.a -1 02AlS/03 .-... ~ .. Study area boundary ,.,,,,...._,,,, Cantarini Ranch boundary Vegetation Communities ~-~ Diegan coastal sage scrub Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrob Southern mixed chaparral 'F===-.....i Mule fat scrub I===~ Native grassland !.=a===! Non-native grassland c=J Coast live oak woodland -Sycamore/Eucalyptus riparian woodland Coast live oak riparian forest Southern willow scrub • I Freshwater marsh 1 Cismontane alkali marsh Cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal) Pond Agriculture Disturbed .___ _ __, Developed t O Feet 500 ~ 1000 FIGURE 4 Vegetation Communities and Sensitive Species TABLE 2 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA ~~ ~~~ Origin Habitat Scientific Name Common Name Adolphia califomica Wats. California adolphia, spineshrub CSS,NNG Ambrosia psilostacliya DC. Antnranin coccinea Ruttb. Anisinckia eastwoodine J.F. Macbr. Anagallis arvensis L. Anemopsis califofonzica (Nutt.) Hook. & Am. Antheinis cotrrla L. Antirrhinum nlrttallianuni Benth. in DC. Aifemisia cnlifontica Less. A rteniisia douglasiana Arundo donax L. Avena sp. Baccharis pilularis DC. Bacckaris salicifolia (Ruiz Lopez & PavBn) Pers. Bothriochloa barbinodis (Lag.) Herter Brassica sp. Calockorh4s sp. Calystegia niacrostegia ssp. arida (E. Greene) Brum. Caniissonia sp. Centaurea melitensis L. Clilorogaluni pnn~(florum Wats. Conium niaculatum L. Conyza bonaricnsis (L.) Cronq. Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Coifaderia sellr~ann (Schultes) Asch. & Graebner Cynara cardunculus L. Cyiiodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Cyperus sp. Datura wrightii Regel Distichlis spicata (L.) E. Greene Dudleya lanceolata (Nutt.) Britt. & Rose Eleoclzai~s macrostnch.yu Britton Encelia califomica Nutt. Erernocarpus setigerus (Hook.) Benth. Eriogonurn fasciculatum Benth. var. fasciculatunr Eriopliylliint confert[flomm (DC.) A. Gray var. confertiflor-utn Western ragweed Valley red-stem Fiddleneck Scarlet pimpernel, poor-man's weatherglass Yerba mansa Mayweed, stinkweed, dog-fennel Snapdragon California sagebrush Mugwort Giant reed Wild oats Coyote bush Mule fat, seep-willow Cane bluestem Mustard M'ariposa lily Finger-leaf morning-glory Tocolote, star-thistle Amole, soap plant Poison hemlock Flax-leaf fleabane Horseweed Selloa pampas grass Cardoon Bermuda grass Nutsedge Jimson weed Saltgrass Live-for-ever Pale spikerush Common encelia Dove weed California buckwheat Golden-yarrow Sun cup NNG,DIST,CAM FWM css NNG CAM,FWM,RW NNG NNG CSS.NNG,MC RW,FWM.MF FWM NNG,NG,CSS MC,CSS,MF,RW MF NNG NNG,CSS,DIST NNG NNG CAM NNG,CSS,MF CSS ,NNG css NNG NNG css NNG.CSS NNG,RW RW NNG,CSS css,cAM NNG FWM,CAM NNG NNG CS S ,NNG css N N N N I N I N N N I I N N N I N N N I N I I N I I I N N N N N N N N N TABLE 2 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (continued) Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Origin Filaree, storksbill NNG.CSS Erodium sp. Eucalyptus spp. Foeriiculum vulgare Mill. Galiuiii nuttallii A. Gray Gastridium veri fi-icosum (Gouan) Schinz & Thell. Gitaphaliuni sp. Heliotropium curassavicum L. Hemizonia fasciculata (DC.) Torrey & A. Gray Herelwneles arburifolia (Lindley ) Roemer Isocoma menziesii (Hook. & Am.) G. Nesom Isomeris arborea Nutt. Juncus sp. Junciis acutus L. ssp. leopoldii (Parl.) Snog. Loriicela sirbspicata Hook. & Am. var. denudata Rehd. Lotus scoparius (Nutt. in Torrey & A. Gray) Ottley var. scoparius Lytkrunz califonticum Torrey & A. Gray Lytkrum hyssopifolium L. Malnsnza laurina (Nutt.) Abrams Mariubium wlgare L. Melilotus sp. Miinulus aurantiacus Curtis Muhferzbergia rigens (Benth.) A. Hitchc. Nassella pulchra (A. Hitchc.) Barkworth Navarretia hamata E. Greene Nicotiana glauca Grah. Opuntin lirtorulis (Engelm.) Cockerell. Opuritia pairyi Engelm. Osmaderiia tenella Nutt. Phoradendron sp. Platanus racemosa Nutt. Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. Populus,fremontii Wats. ssp. ji-emontii Quercus agrifolia Nee Qziercus dumosa Nutt. Raphartus sativus L. Eucalyptus Fennel Sail Diego bedstraw Nit grass Cudweed, everlasting Salt heliotrope Golden tarplant Toyon, Christmas berry Coast goldenbush Bladderpod Rush Spiny rush Wild honeysuckle Califoillia broom California loosestrife Grass poly Laurel sumac Horehound Sweet clover Bush monkeyflower Deergrass Purple needlegrass Hooked navarretia Tree tobacco Shore cactus Cane cholla, snake cholla Osmadenia Mistletoe Western sycamore Annual beard grass Fremont cottonwood, alamo Coast live oak, Encina Nuttall's scrub oak Radish MF,RW NNG NNG CSS, MFS CSS.NNG,DIST CAM,DIST.NNG CSS,NNG MC NNG css FWM RW,FWM MC NNG,CSS RW,CAM RW,CAM CSS , NNG NNG,DIST RW CSS,NNG,MC MF NG,NNG NNG css CSS,NNG css NNG RW RW NNG,FWM,CAM RW CLOW,RW,MC MC NNG I I I N I N N N N N N N N N N N N N I I N N N N I N N N N N I N N N I ) TABLE 2 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (continued) Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Origin Rhus iiitegrjfolio (Nutt.) Brewer & Watson Lemonadeberry CSS,MC,MF N Ribes speciosum Pursh. Fuchsia-flowered goosebeny RW N Ricinus cominuiiis L. Castor bean CSS,NNG I Rosa califomica C. & S. California rose RW N Rimex crispus L. Curly dock NNG,MF I Salix lasiolepis Benth. Arroyo willow RW N Solsola tragus L. Russian thistle, tumbleweed DIST I Salvia mell~fera E. Greene Black sage css N Sniiibiicus niexicaiza C. Pres1 Blue elderbeny css N Scirpus sp. Bulrush FWM N Selaginella ciiterascerts Maxon Ashy spike-moss NNG N Solarium americaiiunz Miller Nightshade NNG I Solaizum sariti A. Gray Purple nightshade NNG N Stephanonreria virgata (Benth.) ssp. virgota Slender stephanomeria CSS,NNG N Tamorix sp. Tamarisk css I Toxicodendron di\wsilobirin (Torrey & A. Gray) E. Greene Western poison oak CLOW,RW N T'pha sp. Cattail FWM.CAM.RW N Verbena losinstochys Link. Western vervain NNG N Vulpia niyuros (L.) var. kirsuro (Hackel.) Asch. & Graebr. Rattail fescue NNG I Washiiigtoiiia robiisto Wendl. Washington palm CLOW,RW I HABITATS CAM css DIS FWM MC MF NG NNG CLOW RW Cismontane alkali marsh Diegan coastal sage scrub Disturbed Freshwater marsh Southern mixed chaparral Mule fat scrub Native grasslands Non-native grassland Coast live oak woodland Riparian woodland OTHER TERMS N = Native to locality I = Introduced species from outside locality .- bush, California sagebrush, wild honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicafa var. denudura), and bush monkeyflower (Mirnulus auranriacus). The soils that underlie this community are primarily sandy loams. The site does not contain the sandstone soils required to support southern maritime chaparral (City of Carlsbad 1999). 10. Native Grassland Approximately 0.2 acre of native grassland is present on Cantarini Ranch. Two patches of native grassland are located within the non-native grassland on the northern edge of the site and one patch is located within the coastal sage scrub in the northwest. While these areas are dominated by non-native grasses, such as wild oats, each consists of approximately 10 percent native purple needlegrass (Nussella pulchru), which is the threshold used to distinguish native from non-native grasslands. Approximately 0.6 acre of native grassland is present on Holly Springs. 11. Southern Coast Live Oak Woodland A few small patches of southern coast live oak woodland are scattered throughout the site on more upland slopes and have an understory of non-native species. There is approximately 0.3 acre of oak woodland on Cantarini Ranch and 0.6 acre on the adjacent off-site parcels. 12. Non-Native Grassland A large portion of the study area, approximately 78.1 acres, is covered with non-native grassland. Approximately 56.5 acres of this community is located on Cantarini Ranch and the exchange parcel and 21.6 acres is present on the off-site parcels. This habitat alternates between areas dominated by non-native grasses such as wild oat and areas that are dominated by golden tarplant (Hernitor& fuscicnlafa). Other common species found in this habitat include slender stephanomeria, hooked navarretia (Novarretia hanznta), mustard (Brassica sp.), osmadenia (Osmadeniu tenella), cane bluestem (Borhriochloa barbinodis), tocolote (Centaurea melitensis), and cardoon (CW~~I-CI crr~-diriiculus). 12. Pond A small pond of 0.8 acre is present in the center of the Cantarini Ranch at the confluence of two drainages that flow into Agua Hedionda Creek. 13. Agriculture Several fields on Cantarini Ranch and the off-site parcels are currently under cultivation. These account for approximately 100.4 acres of the study area. Approximately 61.8 acres of this community is located on Cantarini Ranch and 38.6 acres are present on the off-site parcels. 15 14. Disturbed and Developed Approximately 0.2 acre of disturbed habitat is present on Holly Springs. Approximately 40.8 acres have been converted to housing or other structures on Cantarini Ranch and surrounding off-site parcels and are designated developed. Approximately 2.4 acres of this community is located on Cantarini Ranch and 38.4 acres are present on the off-site parcels. These areas contain some landscaping, including several palm trees, which are used as habitat by bird species. r c. Zoology Overall, the site is of moderate value for wildlife species. A large portion of the site is under cultivation and provided limited resources for wildlife. The variety of native habitats and the extent of open space on-site provide habitat for a variety of native wildlife species. In addition, there is high-quality coastal sage habitat contiguous to the northern and eastern boundary of the property. A complete list of the wildlife species detected is provided in Table 3. Sensitive species potentially occurring on-site are discussed in the Sensitive Biological Resources section. 1. Amphibians All amphibians require moisture for at least a portion of their life cycle, with many requiring a permanent water source for habitat and reproduction. Terrestrial amphibians have adapted to more arid conditions and are not completely dependent on a perennial or standing source of water. These species avoid desiccation by burrowing beneath the soil or leaf litter during the day and during the dry season. Pacific treefrogs (Hyla regilla) were heard within the creek located on the northwestern end of the property and bullfrogs (Rana cutesbeiarza) were heard in the freshwater marsh on the eastern boundary. 2. Reptiles The diversity and abundance of reptile species varies with habitat type. Many reptiles are restricted to certain plant communities and soil types although some of these species will also forage in adjacent communities. Other species are more ubiquitous using a variety of vegetation types for foraging and shelter. One California whipsnake (Mastocophis lateralis) was observed in the coastal sage scrub and several western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentafis) were identified in a variety of habitats on-site. 16 TABLE 3 WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVEDmETECTED ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Occuaied Habitat Evidence of Status Occurrence Butterflies (Nomenclature from Brown, Real, and Faulkner 1992) Behr's metalmark Cabbage white California ringlet Funereal duskywing Mourning cloak Pygmy blue Red admiral Southern blue West coast lady Western tiger swallowtail Anise swallowtail Common hairstreak Apodemia monno virgulti Pieris rape Coer ioiiynipha ca I$) in ia ca lifo in io Etytinis.fiineralis Nyniphalis antiopa aiitiopn Brepliidiuni exilis Varicssa atalanta nrbria Glaucopsyche lygdanrus australis Voriesso annabella Papilio rutulus Papilio zelicaon zelicaon Shyniotz inelinus Amahibians (Nomenclature from Collins 1997) Pacific treefrog Bullfrog ReDtiles (Nomenclature from Collins 1997) Chaparral whipsnake Western fence lizard Hyfa regilln Rana catesbeiana Masticophis lateralis lateralis Sceloponrs accidentalis Birds (Nomenclature from American Ornithologists' Union) Turkey vulture Cathartes aura White-tailed (= black-shouldered) kite Northern harrier Circus cyaneus hudsnniirs Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus elegans Red-tailed hawk Buteo jarnaicensis American kestrel Falco spat-verius I Elair us Ieucunis CSS,NNG,NG css CSS,NNG,NG css css css NNG css CSS,NNG css css css RW FWM CSS,CHAP CS S ,NNG,CH AP F CLOW,F,RW F F F F,O W ,R W NNG,CSS.DIST (nesting in palm tree) CFP, * CSC,MHCP. CSC,MHCP, HMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O,N TABLE 3 WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVEDmETECTED ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (continued) ~ ~~ Evidence of Common Name Scientific Name Occupied Habitat Status Occurrence California quail Ca llipqh~ ca I ifi? in ica ca lifhin ica CSS,NNG 0 Mourning dove Greater roadrunner White-throated swift Anna's hummingbird Northern flicker Black phoebe Cassin's kingbird Western kingbird California horned lark Northern rough-winged swallow Cliff swallow Western scrub-jay Coiiinion raven Bushtit Bewick's wren House wren Northern mockingbird California thrasher Wrentit Coastal California gnatcatcher Lesser goldfinch House finch Common yellowthroat Spotted towhee California towhee Southern California rufous-crowned Song sparrow Western meadowlark Red-winged blackbird sparrow Zcitoido inacmiro im-~rgiiiella Geoc0ccJJ.v cal~foi71iaitus Aeroitnutes saxata1i.y Calyptc milia Colaptes aulntus Sapo in is ii igikms win intra Tyromiis i+ociferaiu wc(feraiIs T\witnus iwticalis Erciimphih alpestris actia Ste1gidoptciT.v scrripnmis Hinriidn pyrrhortora tochirin Aphel~c~i?ta califoitiica Co nws co rax cla riort eiisis Psnltriparws riiirririius miiiirrtus Thyroinaites bewickii Tinglodytes aedoii pa rkniairii Miiiiirs polys lottos polyglottos Toxostoinn rediiivunr redivivum Chaniaca .fasciata heiishawi Polioptila califoniica cnljfomica Carduelis psaltria hesperophilus Caipodacus niexicariirs frontalis Geothhpis trichas Pipilo maculatus Pipilo crissalis Ainzophila ruficeps canesceris Mc1ospi:a nielodia Strrniella neglccta Agelaius phoeniceus NNG,CSS css F CSS,CHAP CSS.NNG,CHAF' DIST NNG,CSS CSS,CHAP,NNG AG F F css F NNG,CSS CSS,CHAP css CSS,NNG css css CSS,NNG css css CAM CSS,NNG,NG CSS,NNG,NG css CSS,NNG CSS,NNG FWM csc FT.CSC,MHCP, HMP CSC, HMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O,N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TABLE 3 WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED/DETECTED ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (continued) Evidence of Comnion Name Scientific Name Occupied Habitat Status Occurrence ~ Mammals (Nomenclature from Jones et al. 1982) California ground squirrel Spennophilus beeclieyi NNG,DIST.CSS 0 Southern pocket gopher Thonionrys rr11ib1.irius (= Dottae) NNG.CSS.NG B Woodrat Neotoriia spp. NNG.CSS D San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus califimicrrs beriiiettii CSS,NNG.NG csc 0 Cottontail rabbit Sylvilq~u nirdiibonii CSS.NNG.NG 0 Coyote Cali is la 1 rms CSS.NNG.NG S Raccoon Procyon lotor CSS. NNGCHAP. OW T Striped skunk Mephitis rneplz it is CSS. NNG, NG, CHAP, Scent ow Habitats CAM = CHAP = css = DIST = F - FWM = NG = NNG = ow = RW = sws = - Cismontane alkali marsh Southern mixed chaparral Diegan coastal sage scrub Disturbed Flying overhead Freshwater marsh Native grassland Nonnative grassland Coast live oak woodland Riparian woodland Southern willow scrub Evidence of Occurrence. V = Vocalization 0 = Observed S = Scat T = Tracks N = Nest CFP = California fully protected species CSC = California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern MHCP = Multiple Habitat Conservation Program HMP = Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad * = Taxa listed with an asterisk fall into one or more of the following categories: Taxa considered endangered or rare under Section 15380(d) of CEQA guidelines Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range Population(s) in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon's range, but which are threatened with extirpation within California Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alamung rate (e.g., wetlands, riparian, old growth forests. desert aquatic systems, native grasslands) 3. Birds ,- The diversity of bird species varies with respect to the character, quality, and diversity of plant communities. Coastal sage scrub and riparian communities typically support a higher diversity of bird species than non-native grasslands and cultivated fields. Non- native grassland provides foraging habitat for a variety of raptor species. Bird species observed on-site include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura marginella), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), cliff swallow (Hirundo pyrrhorzota tachiiza), bushtit (Psaltriparus mirzinzus minimus), California towhee (Piplio crissalis), and northern mockingbird (Minzus polyglottos polyglottos). A pair of house wrens (Troglodytes aedon parkmanii) was observed feeding young at a nest. Raptor species observed on-site include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jarnaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), American kestrel (Falco spawerius), and white-tailed kites (Elanus leucurus). A pair of American kestrels was observed feeding young at a nest within a palm tree near the pond in the center of the site. A family group of five white- tailed kites (E~~IZUS leucurus) was observed in several of the willow riparian and oak woodland habitats. 4. Mammals Coastal sage scrub, riparian communities, and non-native grasslands typically provide cover and foraging opportunities for a variety of mammal species. Most mammal species are nocturnal and must be detected during daytime surveys by observing their sign, such as tracks, scat, and burrows. Cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus califorrzicus bennettii), and California ground squirrel (Sperinophilus beecheyi) were observed on-site primarily within the coastal sage scrub and grassland habitats. In addition, woodrat nests were observed within the southern mixed chaparral. D. Sensitive Biological Resources Local, state, and federal agencies regulate sensitive species and require an assessment of their presence or potential presence to be conducted on-site prior to the approval of any proposed development on a property. For purposes of this report, species will be considered sensitive if they are (1)listed or proposed for listing by state or federal agencies as threatened or endangered; (2) on List 1 B (considered endangered throughout its range) or List 2 (considered endangered in California but more common elsewhere) of the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Znrzvenroty of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of Culifol-nia (Skinner and Pavlik 1994); (3) included on the City of Carlsbad draft HMP or Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) list of species 20 evaluated for coverage or list of narrow endemic plant species; or (4) considered rare, endangered, or threatened by the State of California (1997a, 1997b, 199Sa, 199Sb) or other local conservation organizations or specialists. Noteworthy plant species are considered to be those which are on List 3 (more information about the plant’s distribution and rarity needed) and List 4 (plants of limited distribution) of the CNPS Inventory. Sensitive habitat types are those identified by the HMP (City of Carlsbad 1999) or Holland ( 1986) or considered sensitive by other resource agencies. The MHCP is a habitat conservation plan currently being drafted for the northern subregion of San Diego County (San Diego Association of Governments 1998). The City of Carlsbad has drafted the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), a subarea plan of the MHCP (City of Carlsbad 1999). The HMP designates a natural habitat preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts and designating mitigation associated with proposed projects. The MHCP draft document identifies a series of focused planning areas within which some lands will be dedicated for preservation of native habitats. These areas contain both “hard line” areas which will be preserved as open space and “soft line” areas which will include both development and open space to be determined through the planning process. Mitigation requirements for impacts to the biological resources are provided in the HMP (City of Carlsbad 1999). This document is currently in the process of being approved by regulatory agencies and adopted by the City. If this document is not approved as currently published or is not adopted by the City, all projects with proposed impacts will need to conform to CEQA requirements. The proposed project will be required to enter into either the Section IO(a)( 1)(A) or Section 7 permit process to gain approval from the federal regulatory agencies for impacts to federally listed species. Determination of the potential occurrence for sensitive or noteworthy species are based upon known ranges and habitat preferences for the species (State of California 1990; Skinner and Pavlik 1994; Reiser 1994); species occurrence records from the NDDB (State of California 199Sa); and species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the project site. 1. Sensitive Plants a. Observed Two sensitive plants were observed on-site: California adolphia (Adolphiu culifornicu) and Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus durnosa). The locations of these plants are shown on Figure 4. Spiny rush (Jurzcus acutus ssp. feopofdii) was also observed on-site. This plant will be mapped during sensitive plant surveys planned for the spring of 2003. California adolphia (Adolphia californica). This spiny shrub is a CNPS List 2 species. California adolphia reaches heights of approximately three feet and occurs in Diegan 21 coastal sage scrub and chaparral edges, and is often associated with California buckwheat and California sagebrush. California adolphia ranges from San Diego County south into northern Baja California, Mexico (Reiser 1994). California adolphia was identified in several locations: on the south-facing slope above a drainage in the northwestern portion of the site, within the coastal sage scrub along the northern boundary of the property, and scattered among the non-native grassland in the upper northeast end of the site. It is a dominant component of much of the Diegan coastal sage scrub within the study area. Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa). Nuttall’s scrub oak is a CNPS List IB species. This plant is a large, evergreen shrub that grows in coastal areas of Santa Barbara, Orange, and San Diego Counties and northern Baja California, Mexico. This plant is typically found on north-facing slopes in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats. It produces clusters of tiny yellow-white flowers in late winter and early spring. This scrub oak is threatened by development of the coastal areas of southern California (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). A few Nuttall’s scrub oaks were identified in the southern mixed chaparral habitat in the northwestern portion of the study area. r Spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. Zeopoldii). Spiny rush is a CNPS List 4 species. It is a large bushy rush commonly found in marsh habitats in San Diego County. It can be found in a variety of soil types wherever ponded water or saturated soils are present. This species is fairly common in the freshwater marsh and in some of the cismontane alkali marsh areas. b. Not Observed Several other sensitive species were not observed but are known to occur in the vicinity of the project site and are considered as potentially occumng on-site based on plant communities identified. Table 4 summarizes the status, habitats, and results of the botanical survey for each of these potentially occurring species, with codes explained in Table 5. Many of these species, such as shrubs or large cactus, would have been easily observed on the site during the sensitive plant survey and are considered to be not present. San Diego thornmint (Acanthomintha ilicifoliu). San Diego thornmint is a member of the Lamiaceae. This annual is federally threatened, state-listed as endangered, and is a CNPS List 1B species (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). San Diego thornmint is an annual species restricted in distribution to San Diego County and Baja California, Mexico, where it occurs on friable clay soils on mesas and slopes, often associated with coastal sage 22 TABLE 4 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA Species StatelFederal CNPS CNPS Status List Code Typical Habitat/Comments Acatitliomintho ilicfolia San Diego thornmint A dolphin ca liforri icat California adolphia A rctostophylos g lntidrrlosa ssp . cra.ss~fili,lia Del Mar manzanita Arteniisia pnltiicri San Diego sa, WWOn Astrogalrrs drnriri Dean's milk vetch Brodiacri,fil@li,lia Thread-leaved hrodiaea Ccatiorhirs i~crriu~~i.su.s Wart-stemmed ceanothus Choriranrhc procutiibriis Prostrate spineflower Comarostai~h~~lis divers folia ssp. diverstfolia Sumnier holly Dichondra occidctitalis Western dichondra Erysimum ammophilum Coast wallflower IB 2 1B 2 1B IB 2 4 IB 4 1B 2-3-2 1-2- 1 3-3-2 2-2-1 3-3-3 3-3-3 1-2- I 1-2-2 2-2-2 1-2-1 2-2-3 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grasslandl clay soils; suitable soils present, not observed on-site Coastal sage scrub, chaparral; observed on-site Coastal chaparral; not observed on-site Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, riparian scrublsandy; not observed on-site Chaparral: not observed on-site Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools; not observed on- site Chaparral; not observed on-site Chaparral. pinyon and juniper woodland; not observed on-site Chaparral; not observed on-site Chaparral, cismontane wood- land, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland: not observed on-site Coastal dunes, sandy soils in chaparral openings; not observed on-site TABLE 4 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (continued) Species StateFederal CNPS CNPS Status List Code Typical HabitatlComments __ Euphorbia misera Cliff spurge Ferocactus viridesceiis Coast barrel cactus Harpagonella palmcri var. palnicri Palmer's grappling hook Jurrcus acutus ssp. leopoldiit Spiny rush r Lasing ia ,filaginifolia var. filaght(fi)licr (=Corcrhrogyne ,filaginifi,lia var. lirr @)lis ) Del Mar Mesa sand aster Qucrcus dirmosat Nuttall's scrub oak Viguiera laciniata San Diego County viguiera -- / -- 2 2-2- 1 Coastal sage scrubhocky: not observed on-site --/-- 2 1-3-1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland; not observed on-site --I-- 2 1-2- 1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub. valley and foothill grassland; not observed on-site --/-- 4 1-2- I Coastal dunes (mesic). meadows (alkaline), coastal salt marsh; not observed on-site --/-- IB 3-2-3 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub; not observed on-site --I-- 1B 2-3-2 Coastal chap'ural; observed on- site --/-- 4 1-2- I Chaparral. coastal sage scrub: not observed on-site NOTE: See Table 5 for explanation of sensitivity codes. TABLE 5 SENSITIVITY CODES FEDERAL CANDIDATES AND LISTED PLANTS FE = Federally listed, endangered IT = Federally listed, threatened FPE = Federally proposed endangered FPT = Federally proposed threatened CE CR CT 1A 1B 2 3 4 STATE LISTED PLANTS = State listed, endangered = State listed, rare = State listed, threatened CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY LISTS R-E-D CODES = Species presumed extinct. R (Rarity) = Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing. = Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California but which are more common elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing. = Species for which more infor- mation is needed. Distribution, endangerment, and/or taxonomic information is needed. = A watch list of species of limited distribution. These species need to be monitored for changes in the status of their populations. 1 = Rare. but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction is low at this time. 2 = Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population. 3 = Occurrence liniited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that it is seldoni reported. E (Endangerment) 1 = Not endangered 2 = Endangered in ;I portion of its range 3 = Endangered throughout its range D (Distribution) I = More or less widespread outside 2 = Rare outside California 3 = Endemic to California California scrub habitat. In San Diego County, it is known from Encinitas south to Otay (Beauchamp 1986). San Diego thornmint was not observed during the surveys conducted on-site. Suitable soils are present within the study area. 2. Sensitive Wildlife a. Observed One federally threatened species and several sensitive bird and raptor species and a sensitive mammal were observed on-site: California gnatcatcher, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, California homed lark, white-tailed kite, northern hamer, Cooper’s hawk, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polwptih californica californica). The coastal California gnatcatcher is federally listed as threatened and a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) species of special concern. This bird species is a resident species restricted to the coastal slopes of southern California, from Ventura County southward through Los Angeles County, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties into Baja California, Mexico. The coastal California gnatcatcher typically occurs in coastal sage scrub, although this bird also uses chaparral, grassland, and riparian woodland habitats where they occur adjacent to coastal sage scrub. Populations of this species have declined as a result of urban and agricultural development (Unitt 1984). Coastal California gnatcatchers were observed in the coastal sage scrub within the Holly Springs property along the northern boundary of Cantarini Ranch. A family group was also observed foraging between this coastal sage scrub and the adjacent non-native grassland on Cantarini Ranch. Two nesting temtories are estimated within the study area, primarily located within the Holly Springs property. Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophih rufieps canescens). The southern California rufous-crowned sparrow is a CDFG species of special concern. This localized resident species ranges throughout southern California, with resident populations occurring in steep, rocky areas of sage scrub and chaparral habitats. Southern California rufous-crowned sparrows are also known to inhabit grassland areas which have been created by fire and human disturbance when the grasslands are adjacent to sage scrub habitat (Unitt 1984). Widespread losses of sage scrub habitat as a result of agricultural and urban development has greatly decreased the amount of habitat suitable for rufous-crowned sparrows. 26 A single southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, a California species of special concern, was observed in the coastal sage scrub on the northwestern edge of the study area. California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). The California horned lark is a CDFG species of special concern. The range of this California subspecies is along the coastal slopes of California from Sonoma County to San Diego County and includes most of the San Joaquin Valley (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Horned larks which occur in coastal San Diego County during the breeding season are members of this subspecies, although other subspecies are found in San Diego County during the winter. In San Diego County, the California homed lark typically inhabits areas with sparse vegetation, including sandy shores, grasslands, mesas, and agricultural lands. Decline of this species is generally attributed to urbanization and human disturbance. A flock of California homed larks were observed in the fallow agricultural field on the western end of the study area in August, 1999 during surveys conducted on the adjacent property. This species is expected to breed on-site based on the presence of suitable habitat, the time of year of the observation, and the fact that California horned larks have been observed on an adjacent property during the early summer of 1999 by RECON biologists. White-tailed kite (EZunus leucurus). The white-tailed kite is a California fully protected species which occurs in coastal lowland areas from Oregon to northern Baja California, Mexico (National Geographic Society 1987). This resident bird nests in riparian woodlands, live oak woodlands, or sycamore groves, which border grassland or open fields (Unitt 1984). The white-tailed kite forages over open areas and grasslands feeding primarily on small rodents and insects (National Geographic Society 1987). This species is known to roost in large communal groups (Unitt 1984). White-tailed kite populations in southern California have declined due to the loss of nesting and foraging habitat. White-tailed kites were observed flying over the project site. Five kites were observed in and flying over the willow and oak trees on the northeast end of the property and in the willow and eucalyptus trees in the drainage on the northwest end of the property. These appeared to have been a family group with young and are expected to have nested on-site. Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). The northern harrier is a CDFG species of special concern. Northern harrier nesting sites are considered sensitive. This species ranges throughout most of the United States (National Geographic Society 1987). In San Diego County, the northern harrier is an uncommon to fairly common migrant and winter visitor and a rare summer resident (Unitt 1984). The northep harrier hovers close to the ground while foraging in grasslands, agricultural fields, and coastal marshes. The northern harrier most commonly nests on the ground at the edge of marshes, but will also nest on grasslands, fields, or in areas of sparse shrubs (State of California 1990). Northern 27 r r harriers have nested in San Diego County at the Tijuana River, Otay Mesa, Lake Hodges, and Camp Pendleton (Unitt 1984). The range of this species has been reduced due to urbanization and agricultural development. A northern harrier was observed foraging over the site in both March and August, 1999. There is a low potential for this species to nest on-site, but suitable foraging habitat is present . Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii). The Cooper's hawk is a CDFG species of special concern. The Cooper's hawk is a medium-sized raptor that ranges throughout most of the United States. It is considered an uncommon resident during the breeding season in southern California, with numbers increasing as additional Cooper's hawks winter in the region (Garrett and Dunn 1981). This hawk mainly breeds in oak and willow riparian woodlands but will also use eucalyptus trees (Unitt 1984). This hawk forages primarily on songbirds but is also known to eat small mammals. The decline of this species has been caused by urbanization and loss of habitat. Cooper's hawks were observed foraging over the site in March and August, 1999. This species is not expected to breed on-site based on the lack of extensive woodland habitat; however, there is suitable breeding habitat along Agua Hedionda Creek to the east of the site. Additional raptors. A pair of American kestrels nested in 1998 in a tall palm tree adjacent to the pond on Cantarini Ranch. A red-tailed hawk was also observed on-site. CDFG protects active nests of all raptors, including those with no sensitivity status. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus culijornicus bennettii). San Diego black- tailed jackrabbit is a CDFG species of special concern. The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit occupies open or semi-open habitats such as grasslands, coastal sage scrub, and open chaparral and ranges from near Mt. Pinos (at the Kern-Ventura County line) southward and west of the Peninsular Range into northwestern Baja California, Mexico (Hall I98 I ). The black-tailed jackrabbit is believed to be declining as a result of habitat loss resulting from urban and agricultural development. This species was observed in the Diegan coastal sage scrub within the study area. b. Not Observed Several other sensitive animals are either known to occur in the vicinity or have a potential to be present on-site. Of those potentially present, three are state and/or federally listed species: quino checkerspot butterfly, least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), and the southwestern willow flycatcher (Enzpidonax- truillii extinzus). These species are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. Table 6 lists the sensitive species observed on-site and those that could potentially occur on-site based on the ranges and 28 TABLE 6 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Comments Inveite brates Quino checkerspot butterfly Eiipliyiiyas editha qiiirio Amphibians (Nomenclature from Collins 1997) Western spadefoot Spa hanvnoiidii Reptiles (Nomenclature from Collins Southwestern pond turtle Clemnrys ma IMO 1-0 tu palIida San Diego homed lizard Pl~iynnsonia coroiiatiitii blairz\dllii Belding's orangethroat whiptail Cizemidophoriw hypeiyhnrs beldirigi Silvery legless lizard Aniiiella pukkru yukhra Coast patch-nosed snake Sahudora hexalepis virgitltea 997 ) FE, MHCP CSC, MHCP CSC, FSS. MHCP CSC, MHCP, -i* CSC. MHCP csc csc Open, dry areas in foothills, niesas, lake margins. Larval host plant Pkiritogo ercrta. occur. Adult emergence mid-January through April. Not observed diwing focused surveys. Not expected to Vernal pools. floodplains. and alkali flats within areas of open vegetation. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to occur on-site. Ponds, small lakes. marshes, slow- ntoving, sometimes brackish water. oa-site. Moderate habitat present; low potential to occur Chaparral. coastal sage scrub with fine, loose soil. Partially dependent on harvester ants for forage. Marginal habitat present; low potential to occur. Chaparral, coastal sage sciub with coarse sandy soils and scattered brush. Suitable habitat present: moderate potential to occur on-site. Herbaceous layers with loose soil in coastal scrub, chaparral, and open riparian habitats. Prefers dunes and sandy washes near moist soil. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to occur on-site. Grasslands. chaparral, sagebrush, desert scrub. Found in sandy and rocky areas. Suitable habitat present: moderate potential to occur on-site. TABLE 6 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (con tinued) Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Comments Red diamond rattlesnake Csotalus exsul(= C. i-uber ntber) csc Desert scrub and riparian habitats, coastal sage scrub, open chaparral. grassland, and agriciiltural fields. Moderate habitat present; moderate potential to occur on-site. - Birds (Nomenclature from Aniencan Ornithologists' Union) White-tailed kite (nesting) Elanus Ieircuius CFP, *' Nest in tipaiian woodland, oaks, sycamores. Forage in open, grassy areas. Year-round resident. Five individuals observed on-site; lugh potential to nest on-site. Northern harrier (nesting) Cisriis cynrieiis CSC. MHCP Coastal lowland, marshes, grassland. agricultural fields. Migrant and winter resident, rare summer resident. Observed foraging over site. Foraging habitat present; low potential to nest on-site. Cooper's hawk (nesting) Accipiter coopesii CSC. MHCP Mature forest, open woodlands, wood edges, river groves. Parks and residential areas. Migrant and winter visitor. Observed foraging over site. Foraging habitat present; low potential to nest on-site. Foraging habitat present; potential to occur on-site in winter. Ferniginous hawk (wintering) Buteo regnlis csc Require large foraging areas. Grasslands, agiicultural fields. Unconmion winter resident. Golden eagle (nesting and wintering) A qir iln ch rysaetos CSC, CFP, BEPA, MHCP Require vast foraging areas in grassland, broken chaparral. or sage scnib. Nest in cliffs and boulders. Unconunon resident. Suitable foraging habitat present: potential to occur on-site. Merlin Falco cohrmlmsius CSC Rare winter visitor. Grasslands. agricultural fields, occasionally mud flats. Suitable habitat present: potential to occur on-site TABLE 6 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (continued) Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Comments Western yellow-billed cuckoo (breeding) SE Coccyziis americaiiits occideiitalis Western burrowing owl (burrow sites) Speotyco cuninrlnrin hypugnen Southwestern willow flycatcher Ernpidonax trnillii cxtimus California horned lark Ereinopli iln nlpcstris act in Coastal cactus wren Car~zp~lor-l~yiichus bnriiizeicapilhs couesi Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioprila cnlifoniica cnlifomica Loggerhead shrike Lcriiius ludoviciancis Least Bell's vireo (nesting) Virco bcllii pusilhts CSC, MHCP SE, FE, FSS, MHCP csc CSC, MHCP, * Fr. csc, MHCP csc SE, E, MHCP Large riparian woodlands. Sununer resident. Very localized breeding. Grassland, agricultural land, coastal dunes. Require rodent burrows. Declining resident. Nesting restricted to willow thickets. Also occupies other woodlands. Rare spring and fall migrant, rare summer resident. Extremely localized breeding. Sandy shores, mesas, disturbed areas, grasslands, agricttltural lands. sparse creosote bush scrub. Maritime succulent scrub, coastal sage scrub with Opuntia thickets. Rare localized resident. Coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub. Resident. Open foraging areas near scattered bushes and low trees. Willow riparian woodlands. Sununer resident. No suitable habitat, not expected to occur. Suitable habitat present; low potential to occur on- site. Moderate habitat present: not present on adjacent property; low potential to breed on-site. Observed on-site. Not observed on-site. Observed on-site. Suitable habitat present; high potential to occur on- site. Moderate habitat present; not present on adjacent property (RECON 1999b); low potential to breed on-site. TABLE 6 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (continued) ~ OccurrenceKomments Species Status Habitat Yellow warbler (nesting) Dciidroica yetechin bluwtcri Yellow-breasted chat (nesting) Icterin virens Southeni California rufous-crowned SP~TOW Ainiophila rilficeps cnrzcscerfs Bell's sage spmow Arnphispi:n belli belli Tricolored blackbird Agelniiis tricolor Mammals (Nomenclature from Jones et al. 1982) Townsend's western big-eared bat Corynorliiriiis towriseridii touwsendii Western mastiff bat EUI?~OIM perotis califotnicus San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit &pus cnlifoniiciis bertrietrii csc CSC, MHCP CSC, MHCP CSC, MHCP CSC, MHCP CSC, MHCP CSC, MHCP CSC, MHCP Breeding restricted to riparian woodland. Spring and fall migrant, localized summer resident, rare winter visitor. Dense riparian woodland. Localized sumnier resident. Coastal sage scrub, chapairal. Resident. Chaparral, coastal sage scrub. Localized resident. Freshwater inarshcs, agricultural areas, lakeshores, parks. Localized resident. Caves, mines, buildings. Found in a variety of habitats, arid and mesic. Woodlands, rocky habitat, arid and semiarid lowlands, cliffs, crevices, buildings, tree hollows. Open areas of scrub, grasslands, agricul- tural fields. Suitable habitat present: low potential to nest on- site. Suitable habitat present: low potential to nest on- site. Observed on-site. Not observed on-site. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to occur on-site. Individual or colonial. Extremely sensitive to disturbance; marginal roosting habitat present; not expected to occur. Audible echolocation signal; marginal roosting habitat present: potential to occur on-site. Observed on-site. TABLE 6 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA (continued 1 Species stat 11 s Habitat Occurrence/Comments Pacific little pocket mouse Perogiiathus lorzgimeiiil~ris pacifcirs MHCP sands near ocean. FE. CSC, Open coastal sage scnib: fine. alluvial No suitable soils; not expected to occur. Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Cliartodi~7~4s~ fallax fallas San Diego desert woodrat Neotonia Iepida iizrcimedia CSC, MHCP San Diego County west of mountains in sparse, disturbed coastal sage scrub or grasslands with sandy soils. Suitable habitat present; high potential to occur on- site. csc Coastal sage scrub and chapamal. Suitable habitat present; high potential to occur on- site. Status Codes Listedmrovosed FE = Listed as endangered by the federal governnient FT = Listed as threatened by the federal government SE = Listed as endangered by the state of California Other BEPA = CFP = csc = FC = FSS = MHCP= *- - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act California fully protected species California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern Federal candidate for listing (taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals to list as endangered or threatened; development and publication of proposed rules for these taxa are anticipated) Federal (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service) sensitive species Multiple Habitat Conservation Prograni target species list Taxa listed with an asterisk fall into one or more of the following categories: Taxa considered endangered or rare under Section 15380(d) of CEQA guidelines Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range Population(s) in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon's range, but which are threatened with extirpation within California Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alarming rate (e.g.. wetlands, riparian, old growth forests, desert aquatic systems, native grasslands) habitat requirements of these species and includes the likelihood of occurrence for these species, Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). The quino checkerspot butterfly, a federally listed endangered species, was historically found in scattered, localized colonies throughout foothills and coastal mesas of southern California and south into Baja California, Mexico and may have been one of the most abundant butterflies in its range. Currently, the species has lost 50-75 percent of former range as a result of habitat conversion and it is believed to be extinct in Orange County and may be near extinction in the rest of southern California. Currently it is only known from Riverside and San Diego Counties. The historic sighting closest to the site was in Vista in 1951, approximately 10 miles to the northeast (Mattoni et al. 1997). The closest current sighting was in Temecula in 1999, approximately 20 miles northeast. The requisite host plant for the larvae of this species is dot-seed plantain (Plantago erecta) located on cryptogramic crust in open spaces within coastal sage scrub. A few isolated patches of dot-seed plantain are scattered throughout the study area. No quino checkerspot butterflies were observed during focused surveys conducted in 1999 and Carlsbad was eliminated from the potential range of the species by USFWS in the 2000 survey protocol (USFWS 2000). This species is not expected to occur. Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Least Bell's vireo is a small, migratory songbird. Least Bell's vireo winters in Baja California. Mexico, arriving in California from mid-March to April and departing for Baja California in early September (Garrett and Dunn 1981; Franzreb 1989). These birds breed in dense riparian habitats with canopies of willows and an understory comprised of mule fat, wild rose, and other riparian species (Franzreb 1989). Least Bell's vireo is a state and federally listed endangered species. The population of least Bell's vireo has been on a steady increase since being listed as endangered. The population has risen from only 300 pairs in the mid- 1980s to over 1,500 in San Diego County today. Focused surveys have not been conducted as a part of this project. Surveys have been conducted by RECON biologists on adjacent properties in 1999 and 2000, including small areas of overlap with the Cantarini Ranch study area. No vireos were detected on the Mandana property located to the east of Cantarini but were detected along the drainage that crosses the extreme northwest tip of the study area. Given the presence of the species in suitable habitat on the adjacent sites, there is a potential for the species to be present within the Cantarini Ranch study area. Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonau truillii extimus). The southwestern willow flycatcher is federally and state listed as endangered. This migratory bird breeds in southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, extreme southern portions of Nevada and Utah, far western Texas, and extreme northwestern Baja California, Mexico (USFWS 34 1995b). The southwestern willow flycatcher is present in San Diego County in late spring and summer where it is known to breed in only a few locations (Unitt 1984). The only stable breeding populations in San Diego County are found in the Santa Margarita River, Camp Pendleton, and the San Luis Rey River (San Diego Natural History Museum 1995). This flycatcher requires mature willow thickets in riparian woodland habitat for breeding and nesting activities. Loss of such habitat as a result of urbanization, grazing, agriculture, channelization and mining of streams, and nest parasitism by the brown- headed cowbird (Maluthrus ater) have all contributed to the severe decline of this species (USFWS 1993). In San Diego County, portions of the Santa Margarita, San Luis Rey, San Dieguito, San Diego, and Tijuana Rivers have been designated as critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (USFWS 1997b). Focused surveys for the southwestern willow flycatcher have not been conducted as a part of this project. Surveys for this species were conducted concurrently with the least Bell's vireo surveys conducted by RECON biologists on adjacent properties in 1999 and 2O00. No nesting southwestern willow flycatchers were detected during either of the surveys and the nearest known nesting population is on the Santa Margarita River in Camp Pendleton. This species is not expected to nest on the Cantarini Ranch site. 3. Sensitive Plant Communities and Habitats The following communities identified on-site are considered sensitive by the City of Carlsbad ( 1999), Holland (1 986), and the State of California ( 1998a): freshwater marsh, cismontane alkali marsh, southern willow scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest, mule fat scrub, sycamore/eucalyptus woodland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, southern coast live oak woodland, and native grassland. a. Freshwater Marsh Freshwater marsh vegetation occurs in open bodies of fresh water with little current flow, such as ponds, and to a lesser extent around seeps and springs. This habitat is identified in Holland (1986) and NDDB (State of California 199th) as a sensitive habitat and is a wetland habitat considered sensitive by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and CDFG. All wetland habitats have been greatly reduced throughout their entire range and continue to decline as a result of urbanization and are considered sensitive by state and federal resource agencies. b. Cismontane Alkali Marsh Cismontane alkali marshes are typically low-lying areas with a high water table that have alkaline soils. Evaporation of ponded water often results in salts remaining on the surface. This habitat is identified in Holland (1986) and NDDB (State of California 1998a) as a sensitive habitat and is a wetland habitat considered sensitive by USACE and CDFG. All wetland habitats have been greatly reduced throughout their entire range and continue to 35 decline as a result of urbanization and are considered sensitive by state and federal resource agencies. c. Southern Willow Scrub, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, and Mule Fat Scrub Southern willow scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest, and mule fat scrub on-site are riparian communities and, as such, are considered sensitive by CDFG and USACE. All three habitats are found along rivers, streams, and intermittent drainages throughout southern California. Channelization of rivers, streams, and drainages for flood control and land development has resulted in cumulative losses of these habitat types throughout the state. The loss of riparian habitats in southern California has been estimated at greater 'than 95 percent (Faber et al. 1989). Southern willow scrub in particular potentially supports several endangered and otherwise sensitive wildlife species. d. Diegan coastal sage scrub, including disturbed coastal sage scrub, is restricted to the coastal areas of southern California and northern Baja California. Development and other human-related activities have seriously impacted this plant community and its associated plant and wildlife species. Estimates of loss range from 36 percent (Klopatek et al. 1979) to 85 percent (Westman 1981). These losses have accelerated rapidly in the last decade (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat is considered to be sensitive by the federal and state resource agencies, most southern California jurisdictions, and local conservation organizations. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub e. Southern Coast Live Oak Woodland Southern coast live oak woodlands are defined by having one primary tree, coast live oak, as the dominant species of the community. Southern coast live oak woodlands are typically found on north-facing slopes and shaded ravines on the coastal slopes of the southern California mountain ranges, generally below 4,000 feet (Holland 1986). f. Native Grassland Native grasslands are considered sensitive because of the extensive loss of this community throughout the state. Native grasslands are listed as sensitive by the City of Carlsbad (1999) and NDDB (State of California 1998a) and it is estimated that only 0.1 percent of the native grasslands in California remain (Barry 1972 as cited in Keeley 1990). The loss of native grasslands is attributed to development, agriculture, grazing, and invasion by non-native, annual grasses and other non-native plant species. The invasion of native grasslands by non-native species including brome grasses (Brunzus spp.), wild oats, and black mustard has degraded native grasslands to the extent that it is rare to find any that have not been invaded by these species. Grasslands that have 10 36 percent cover by native grasses such as purple needlegrass are classified here as perennial grass1 ands. E. USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Table 7 provides the acreage of USACE and CDFG jurisdictional areas present on the study area and Figure 5 illustrates the locations of these areas. 1. USACE Jurisdictional Waters Jurisdictional wetlands with hydrophytic plant communities such as cismontane alkali marsh, southern willow scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest, and freshwater marsh total approximately 26.3 acres within the study area. Non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S., (Le., drainages), total approximately 1.8 acres within project boundaries. The Cantarini Ranch wetland delineation report is provided in Attachment 1. The interpretation of the data in the delineation report and the conclusions drawn are subject to review by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) since the project would affect agriculture lands. The USACE would make final jurisdictional determination based on the recommendation of the NRCS. 2. CDFG has jurisdiction over streambeds and drainages and their associated riparian habitat as measured across the width of the canopy. The total CDFG jurisdictional areas is 32.8 acres, which includes the area of US ACE jurisdiction and additional riparian habitat. Cantarini Ranch supports 18.8 acres and the off-site parcels support the remaining 14.0 acres. CDFG Streambed and Associated Riparian Habitat F. Wildlife Movement Corridor Wildlife movement comdors are defined as areas that connect suitable wildlife habitat areas in a region otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Natural features such as canyon drainages, ridgelines, or areas with vegetation cover provide corridors for wildlife travel. Wildlife movement comdors are important because they provide access to mates, food, and water; allow the dispersal of individuals away from high population density areas; and facilitate the exchange of genetic traits between populations (Beier and Loe 1992). Wildlife movement comdors are considered sensitive by resource and conservation agencies. This site is bounded to the north, south, and southeast by private ranch lands. The three private ranches, Cantarini, Holly Spri>ngs, which is to the north of Cantarini Ranch, and 37 , , , , ◄, fL~N -(D ' ' ' , ' ~ , ' , , ' , ' , ~ , ' ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ' ' ,.. .... ', ' ' ~ "" " , ___________ _ \ \ ' ' ' "'!:.: ........................................ -, y "' ,, . 7 .. ' ' ' ···• ... .. ' ' ' I I ' I I ' I I I ' ' I I .. I I ··•· ... ·• .. ' ' ' ··· .... ·•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ,. I ' '' I ' ', I ... ... ' ' .._ '.._ I '" I ', -- I -------, I • I I I ., I I I • I ; ._ • ~ Study area boundary ,,-...._,,, Cantarini Ranch boundary USACE Jurisdictional Waters I l Non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. -Wetland CDFG Jurisdictional Areas [:=::::::::::::::::j Streambed and associated riparian t O Feet 500 1000 FIGURE 5 USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas TABLE 7 USACE AND CDFG JURSJDJCTIONAL AREAS ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA Cantariiu Cantarini Exchange Rancho Carlsbad Additional Off- Ranch Parcel Exchange Parcel Holly Springs' Site Parcels2 Total US ACE Jurisdictional Waters Wetland 16.6 1.3 8.4 26.3 I .8 Non-wetland waters of the U.S. - 0.7 - 0.2 0.1 - 0.8 - USACE Jurisdictional Waters Total 17.3 0.2 1.4 9.2 28. I CDFG Streambed and Associated Riparian 18.8 0.7 I .5 12.3 32.8 'Represents only the portion of Holly Springs that is present within the Cantarini Ranch study area. 'Represents the remaining off-site areas within the study area including portions of the following properties: Rancho Carlsbad Partners, Mandana, Richard Kelly, Canam, Lubliner, CUSD, Barlow, and City of Oceanside. Mandana, which is located to the east, form a corridor linking open space north of Holly Springs with several open space properties to the southeast. Project Impacts The proposed project consists of the residential development of Cantarini Ranch. Also included in the impact analysis are several other ancillary components: (1) the construction of a portion of the College Boulevard extension; (2) off-site access roads into the adjacent Holly Springs Ranch property; (3) the construction of the Rancho Carlsbad Partners parcel that is adjacent to the northwest corner of Cantarini Ranch; and (4) the construction of multi-family housing on a portion of the Holly Springs property. The impacts to the College Boulevard extension included in this report were recently approved as part of the Final EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, and Detention Basins (EIR No. 98-02, SCH No. 99 I 1 1082). The analysis presents the acreage of impacts separately from the development project. The biological impacts of the project were assessed according to guidelines set forth in the City of Carlsbad’s draft HMP (City of Carlsbad 1999) and CEQA. Mitigation is required for impacts that are considered significant under the HMP and CEQA guidelines. If the draft HMP is not adopted, only the impacts identified as significant by CEQA guidelines will be applicable. A. Plant Communities The proposed project will impact a total of approximately 105.5 acres within the study area. Figure 6 illustrates the proposed project impacts to the plant communities Table 8 presents the impacts to plant communities for each parcel. The College Boulevard impacts which were recently approved are also shown on Table 8 but are presented separately from the project development. A total of 9.3 acres of land will be impacted by the construction of this portion of the road extension. Plant community impacts on the Cantarini Ranch parcel total 82.5 acres and include impacts to 0.2 acre of southern coast live oak riparian forest, 0.6 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.2 acre of freshwater marsh, 0.1 acre of native grassland, 0.1 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.2 acre of southern coastal live oak woodland, 26.1 acres of non- native grassland, 53.2 acres of agricultural fields, and 1.8 acres of developed areas. There will be no impacts to the pond, mule fat scrub, and cismontane alkali marsh. -. Off-site improvements on the other parcels will impact an additional 23.0 acres of southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, cismontane alkali marsh, sycamore/eucalyptus 40 ~fm~ ~I t o Fu/ JOO M:'f<>i,ol314Cblgislbiolec.apMg6 f.,,.,.jw) 02Al6/03 CJ Project boundary o 7 Test pit ~" ' Holly Springs Project Impact Areas ~Grading [!]]I) Brush management Cantarini Ranch Project impact Areas tZZJ Grading USACE Jurisdictional Waters ... Wetland C, Non-wetland jurisdictional waters CDFG Jurisdictional Areas f::::::::::::I Streambed and associated riparian t; [ \ FIGURE6 Impacts to USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas TABLE 8 IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES BY PARCEL Total Cantarini Rancho Carlsbad Holly Project Plant Community Ranch' Partners Exchange Springs' Impacts Freshwater marsh 0.2 0.2 Cismontane alkali marsh Southern willow scrub 0.6 0.6 Southern coast live oak riparian forest 0.2 0.2 Mule fat scrub College Boulevard Grading Impacts3 S ycanioreleocalyptus riparian woodland Pond Native grassland 0.1 1.4 1.5 Diegan coastal sage scrub 0. I 0.2 . 5.5 5.8 Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub 0. I 0.1 Southern nixed chapaid 0.2 0.2 Southein coast live oak woodland 0.2 0.2 Non-native grassland 26.1 3.2 1.7 31.0 Agriculture 53.2 5.0 5.7 63.9 Developed 1.8 1.8 TOTAL 82.5 8.5 14.5 105.5 'Includes the brush management zone impacts. 'Includes the access road and niulti-family housing unit on Holly Springs. 'Includes all grading for College Boulevard. Impacts and mitigation for College Boulevard were approved as part of the Final EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, and Detention Basins (EIR No. 98-02, SCH No. 991 11082). Rancho Total Cantarini Cantarini Carlsbad Off-site College Ranch Exchange Exchange Extension Inipacts 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 1.1 1.7 0.9 2.5 5.1 1.8 1.8 ~~ 1.7 0.9 3.7 3 .O 9.3 riparian woodland, native grassland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, non-native grassland, developed, and agriculture (see Table 8). ---r Southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, freshwater marsh, cismontane alkali marsh, sycamore/eucalyptus riparian woodland, native grassland, southern coast live oak woodland, and Diegan coastal sage scrub are sensitive plant communities and impacts to these plant communities would be considered significant . Impacts to non-native grassland, southern mixed chaparral, agricultural fields, and developed areas, none of which are sensitive plant communities, are not considered significant by definition under CEQA. The City of Carlsbad (1999) does consider loss of southern mixed chaparral, non-native grassland and agricultural fields to be significant and requires mitigation for these impacts. B. Wildlife Some impacts to general wildlife associated with the project may occur. Birds have a high mobility and will most likely be displaced site during grading. Small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles with low mobility may be inadvertently killed during grading of the site. Impacts on general wildlife are considered less than significant. 4 Indirect impacts associated with project implementation include an increase in night lighting, traffic, domestic pets, and litter and pollutants into adjacent wildlife habitat. These impacts are not expected to reduce the wildlife populations of the area below self- sustaining levels and are thus considered less than significant. C. Sensitive Biological Resources 1. Sensitive Plant Communities Approximately 0.2 acre of southern coast live oak riparian forest will be impacted by the proposed project. Impacts to this plant community are considered adverse and significant. Approximately 0.6 acre of southern willow scrub will be impacted by the proposed project. Impacts to this plant community are considered adverse and significant. Approximately 0.2 acre of freshwater marsh will be impacted by the proposed project. Impacts to this plant community are considered adverse and significant. Approximately 1.5 acres of native grassland will be impacted by the proposed project. Impacts to this plant community are considered adverse and significant. ? 43 Approximately 0.2 acre of southern coast live oak woodland will be impacted. Impacts to this community are considered significant. e Approximately 5.9 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub will be impacted by the proposed project. This habitat is currently occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher. Impacts to coastal sage scrub are considered adverse and significant. Approximately 0.2 acre of southern mixed chaparral will be impacted by the proposed project. Impacts to this plant community are considered significant by the City of Carlsbad (1 999). Approximately 31.0 acres of non-native grassland will be impacted by the proposed project. Impacts to this plant community are considered significant by the City of Carlsbad ( 1999). Approximately 63.9 acres of agricultural lands will be impacted by the proposed project. Impacts to this resource are considered significant by the City of Carlsbad (1999). 2. Sensitive Plants /I Project implementation on Cantarini Ranch will not impact any sensitive plant species. Off-site improvements will impact approximately 0.7 acre of habitat for California adolphia primarily through the construction of the access roads on the Holly Springs property. This would be a significant impact. 3. Sensitive Wildlife Impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher could occur during removal of the Diegan coastal sage scrub. These impacts would be considered adverse and significant. Impacts to any active raptor nests would be considered significant under the Fish and Game Code. Impacts may potentially occur if trees containing active raptor nests are removed during the breeding season of March through September. Impacts to the southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, California horned lark, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit would be considered adverse but less than significant. Quino checkerspot butterflies were not detected during focused surveys and are not expected to occur. There will be no impacts to this species. r Impacts to nesting least Bell’s vireo, if they are present on-site, would be considered adverse and significant. D. USACE AND CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Figure 7 shows impacts to wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters and Table 9 presents the acreage of impacts. 1. USACE Jurisdictional Waters The project will impact a total of 1.3 acres of USACE jurisdictional waters including 0.8 acre of wetlands and 0.4 acre of non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on Cantarini Ranch and 0.1 acre of non-wetland jurisdictional waters on the off-site parcels. In addition, the project will impact greater than 500 linear feet of drainage. 2. The proposed project will impact a total of 1.5 acres of CDFG streambed and associated riparian habitat, including 1.4 acres from development on Cantarini Ranch and 0.1 acre from off-site development. CDFG Streambed and Associated Riparian Habitat E. Wildlife Movement Corridors The project has been designed to retain a 500-foot-wide movement comdor along the northeastern corner of the property. This will allow for the continued movement of wildlife between the open space areas to the north of Cantarini, such as Holly Springs and open space areas to the north and southeast. Mitigation Measures Mitigation is required for impacts that are considered significant, including impacts to listed species, sensitive plant communities and habitats, and wetlands. In addition, the City of Carlsbad (I 999) requires mitigation for impacts to non-native grassland, southern mixed chaparral, and agricultural fields because they provide resources for raptor foraging, may support sensitive plant species, and may serve as a habitat linkage. Mitigation is intended to reduce significant impacts to a level of less than significant. 45 ~t~~N [@ # , , , ~ , , . .,. , .,. , ' ,' ' , /I .,. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I " \ \ t -------~. I I I I I I I I . 1, ....__, t .-, . I I ,_ .., ..,. .-Study area boundary ,,,,,,-_,,,,, Cantarini Ranch boundary Cantarini Ranch Project Impact Areas r777J Cantarini Ranch grading •·······'·········I Cantarini Ranch brush management Off-Site Grading for Cantarini Ranch Project Rancho Carlsbad exchange parcel ll'"K~\"""'\-.Sl""' Holly Springs Grading for College Boulevard f /I/ J Cantarini Ranch [///A Cantarini exchange paiul Y///1 Rancho Carlsbad exchange parcel tZZZJ Off-site extension USACE Jurisdictional Waters l I Non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. -Wetland CDFG Jurisdictional Areas I:::;:::;:;:;:::;:) Streambed and associated riparian t O Feel 500 1000 FIGURE 7 Impacts to USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas TABLE 9 IMPACTS TO USACE AND CDFG JURISDICTIONAL AREAS BY PARCEL Cantarini Rancho Carlsbad Holly Plant Community Ranch' Partners Exchange Springs' US ACE Jurisdictional Waters Wetland 0.8 Non-wetland Jurisdictional Waters of 0.4 0. I the U.S. Total USACE Jurisdictional Waters 1.2 0. I Total CDFG Jurisdictional Areas habitat) (streambed and associated riparian 1.4 0.1 Total Project Impacts 0.8 0.5 1.3 1.5 College Boulevard Grading Impacts3 Cantarini Cantarini Rancho Carlsbad Off-site Ranch Exchange Exchange Extension 0.4 0.1 0. I 0.4 0. I 0.7 Total 1.2 0.6 1.8 2.3 I 'Includes the bnish management zone impacts. 21ncludes the access road and multi-family housing unit on Holly Springs. 'Includes all grading for College Boulevard. Impacts and mitigation for College Boulevard were approved as part of the Final EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11. Bridge and Thoroughfare Di.:trict No. 4, and Detention Basins (EIR No. 98-02. SCH NO. 99 11 1082). Mi tigation measures typically employed include resource avoidance, habitat replacement, or the off-site acquisition of habitat. The recommended mitigation ratios in this document are based on both the City of Carlsbad's HMP and CEQA guidelines. In the event the HMP is not adopted, the mitigation based on CEQA guidelines would be appropriate. In addition, the proposed project will be required to enter into either the Section lO(a)(l)(A) or Section 7 permit process to gain approval from the federal regulatory agencies for impacts to federally listed species. The proposed project includes within the design open space dedication, revegetation of manufactured slopes, and fire buffer areas. The fire buffer areas are located within the lot boundaries and will be dedicated as open space. These areas will be planted with a low- fuel, native plant palette to meet fuel modification requirements and provide a transitional zone between the native open space and the residential landscaping. A. Sensitive Plant Communities Table IO presents the required mitigation ratios and acreages for impacts on the entire project. Table 1 1 presents proposed mitigation options for each of the plant communities. Any impacts to wetland plant communities are regulated by the federal, state, and local governments by a no-net-loss policy. Mitigation must include habitat creation that is at a minimum equal to the acreage impacted, or a I : 1 mitigation ratio. The remainder of the required mitigation can be mitigated using various methods, including additional creation, enhancement, or preservation, as determined by a qualified restoration specialist in consultation with the regulating agencies. The mitigation ratios for wetland plant communities provided below are typically required by regulatory agencies. These are subject to the approval of USACE and CDFG. Impacts to 0.2 acre of southern coast live oak riparian forest will be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to 0.6 acre of southern willow scrub will be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to 0.2 acre of freshwater marsh will be mitigated at a 3: 1 ratio. Impacts to 1.5 acre of native grassland will be mitigated at a 3: 1 ratio by the on-site preservation of 0.1 acre and on-site conversion of 4.4 acres of non-native grassland to native grassland. Impacts to 5.9 acres of coastal California gnatcatcher occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub would be mitigated at a 2: 1 ratio. Mitigation will include on-site preservation of 3.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, revegetation of 1.2 acres of manufactured slopes, and conversion of 7.0 acres of non-native grassland. 48 TABLE 10 REQUIRED MITIGATION RATIOS AND ACREAGE FOR IMPACTS Rancho Carlsbad Cantaiini Ranch’ Partners Exchange Holly Spiings Total Mitigation Total Required Total Required Total Required Required Plant Community Ratio Impacted Mitigation Impacted Mitigation Impacted Mitigation Mitigation Freshwater marsh3 3: 1 0.2 0.6 0.6 Southern willow scrub’ 3: I 0.6 I .8 I .8 Southern coast live oak 3: I 0.2 0.6 0.6 riparian forest“ Mule fat scrub’ 3: I S ycaniore/eucal yptus 3: 1 ripaiian woodland’ Native grassland 3: I 0.1 0.3 I .4 4.1 4.5 Diegan coastal sage scrub 2: 1 0. I 0.2 0.3 0.6 5.5 11.0 11.8 Southern nuxecl chaparral I:lJ 0.2 0.2 0.2 (including disturbed coastal sage scrub) Southern coast live oak 3: 1 0.2 0.6 0.6 woodland Non-native grassland 0.5:lJ 26. I 13.1 3.2 1.6 I .7 0.9 15.6 Agiicul ture FeeJ 53.2 5.0 5.7 Fee3 TOTAL 80.7 17.1 8.5 2.2 14.5 16.3 35.7 ‘Total impacts include grading and blush management on Cantarini Ranch (see Figure 3). Colleg,e B1vd.- Total Impacted 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.4 1.1 5.1 7.5 ’The acreages provided represents all impacts resulting from the grading of College Boulevard. Mitigation for these impacts has already been approved as part of the Final EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, and Detention Basins (EIR No. 98-02, SCH No. 991 11082). All wetland plant communities are regulated by the federal, state. and local governments by a no-net-loss policy. A mininiuni I : 1 ratio of the mitigation will need to be creation to achieve no- 3 net-loss. The remaining impacts can be mitigated by habitat creation, enhancement. or preservation, as deteimined by a restoration specialist in consultation with the regulating agencies. Mitigation ratios provided are those typical required by regulatory agencies for impacts to these plant communities. ‘In the event the HMP is not approved by regulatory agencies or not adopted by the City of Carlsbad, nutigation for these inipacts would not be required. r r Impacts to 0.2 acre of southern coast live oak woodland will be mitigated at a 2:l ratio for a total of 0.4 acre. Mitigation will include the preservation of 0.1 acre and conversion of 0.3 acre of non-native grassland. Impacts to 3 1 .O acres of non-native grassland would be mitigated at a 0.5: 1 ratio, if the HMP is adopted, through on-site preservation of 15.6 acres. If the HMP is not adopted, the 36.2 acres of non-native grassland will still be preserved as open space based on the project design. In addition, at least 1 I .7 acres of non-native grassland will be converted to Diegan coastal sage scrub and native grassland. Any on-si te restoration, creation, or enhancement proposed for mitigation will require the creation of a conceptual restoration plan that would present the guidelines for site selection, site preparation, plant selection, installation, and five-year maintenance and monitoring programs. B. Sensitive Plants Impacts to California adolphia from will be mitigated by the preservation of 0.7 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub containing adolphia on the site. C. Sensitive Wildlife Impacts to active coastal California gnatcatcher nests can be avoided by removing the Diegan coastal sage scrub within the project area outside of the breeding season of February 15 to August 30. A qualified biologist should monitor all vegetation removal to ensure no direct impacts to individual birds. If the HMP is not approved, these impacts will require either a Section 10(a)( 1)(A) or Section 7 approval from the federal regulatory agencies. To avoid potential impacts to nesting raptors, it is recommended that trees be removed between September and January, outside of the breeding season of local raptor species. If tree removal must be conducted during the breeding season, a raptor nest survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any removal to determine if any raptor nests are present. If an active raptor nest is discovered, a buffer should be established around the tree until the young are independent of the nest site. The required buffer is typically 500 feet. To ensure that no direct impacts occur to least Bell's vireo, if present, all vegetation within southern willow scrub should be removed outside of the breeding season. The breeding season for the least Bell's vireo is March 15 to September 15. If the HMP is not approved, these impacts will require either a Section lO(a)(l)(A) or Section 7 approval from the federal regulatory agencies. 51 D. USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Impacts to wetland and riparian plant communities, as defined by USACE and CDFG, are subject to the mitigation ratios discussed above in the sensitive plant communities section. Mitigation for wetland and non-wetland jurisdictional waters will be mitigated on-site to the greatest extent possible through creation, revegetation, and enhancement within the project open space. Impacts to USACE jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the US. and CDFG jurisdictional wetlands will require a 404 permit from USACE, a 401 water quality certificate or waiver thereof from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. Impacts to non-wetland waters of the U.S. will require a mitigation ratio of 1 :I. Given the extent of impacts to wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S., an individual permit will need to be obtained from USACE. 1. USACE Jurisdictional Waters A total of 2.4 acres of wetland habitat will need to be created and/or enhanced for impacts to wetlands. This will include a minimum of 0.8 acre of habitat creation to achieve the no-net-loss policy of the wetland regulatory agencies. The remaining 2.2 acres can consist of creation, revegetation, or enhancement of degraded wetlands. Impacts to non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are typically mitigated at a ratio of 1 : 1. The impact of 0.5 acre would be mitigated by the creation of 0.5 acre of wetland habitat. 2. CDFG Streambed and Associated Riparian Habitat A total of 3.5 acres of riparian habitat will need to be created, revegetated, or enhanced to mitigate for the loss of 1.5 acres of CDFG jurisdictional area. This can include the 2.9 acres of mitigation proposed for impacts to USACE jurisdictional waters. References Cited American Ornithologists' Union 1998 Check-list of North American Birds. 7th ed. Washington, D.C. Beier, Paul, and Steven Loe I992 A Checklist for Evaluating Impacts to Wiidlife Movement Corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:434-440. 52 California, State of 1990 California's Wildlife: Birds. Department of Fish and Game. November. 1997a Special Plants List. Natural Diversity Data Base. Department of Fish and Game. April. 1997b State and Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Revised April 1. I998a Natural Diversity Data Base. Nongame-Heritage Program, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 1998b Special Animals. Natural Diversity Data Base. Department of Fish and Game. August. Carlsbad, City of 1999 Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. April. Collins, Joseph T. 1997 Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians and Reptiles. 4th ed. Herpetological Circular No. 25. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Department of Zoology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. Faber, P. M., E. Keller, A. Sands, and B. M. Massey 1989 The Ecology of Riparian Habitats of the Southern California Coastal Region: A Community Profile. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.27). Franzreb, K. E. 1989 Ecology and Corzsenution of the Endarigered Least Bell's Vireo. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 89( 1 ). Garrett, K., and J. Dunn I98 1 Birds of Southern Califontia. Artisan Press, Los Angeles. Grinnell, J., and A. Miller 1944 The Distribution of the Birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna 26:608. Hall, E. R. 1981 The Mammals of North America. 2nd ed. 2 vols. John Wiley & Sons, New Y ork. 53 Hickman, James C. (editor) 1993 The Jepsori Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Holland, Robert F. 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October. Jones, J. K., D. C. Carter, H. H. Genoways, R. S. Hoffman, and D. W. Rice Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Mirseum, Texas Tech University 80: 1-22. 1982 Keeley. J. E. 1990 The California Valley Grassland. In Endangered Plant Communities of Southern California. Southern California Botanists, Special Publication No. 3, edited by A. A. Schoenherr. Claremont, California. Klopatek, J. M., R. M. Olson, C. J. Emerson, and J. L. Jones Environmental Conservation 6: 19 1 - 199. 1979 Land Use Conflicts with Natural Vegetation of the United States. National Geographic Society 1987 Field Guide to the Birds of North America. 2nd ed. RECON 1999a Biological Resources Report for the Holly Springs Property. Prepared for Holly Springs, Ltd. September. 1999b Biological Resources Report for the Mandana Property. Prepared for Mandana Co. August. Reiser, C. H. 1994 Rare Plants of San Diego County. Aquafir Press, Imperial Beach, California. San Diego Association of Governments 1998 The Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Consultants' Working Draft. June. San Diego Natural History Museum 1995 Einpidonux truillii extimus in California: The Willow Flycatcher Workshop. November 17, 1 995. 54 Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf 1995 A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento. Skinner, Mark, and Bruce Pavlik 1994 lizveiztory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Plant Society Special Publication No. 1,5th ed. Sacramento. California Native U. S. Department of Agriculture I973 Soil Survey, Sun Diego Area, California. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Roy H. Bowman, ed. San Diego. December. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program, Technical Report Y-87-1. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) I993 Proposed Rule to List the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher as Endangered With Critical Habitat. Vol. 58, No. 140. 50 CFR Part 17. July 23. 1995a Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Review of Plant and Animal Taxa that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, Proposed Rule. Federal Register 61(40). February 28. 50 CFR 17. 1995b Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Determining Endangered Status for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher; Southern California, Southern Nevada, Southern Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Western Texas, Southwestern Colorado, and extreme Northwestern Mexico. Vol. 58, No.147. 50 CFR Part 17. February 27. 1 997 a Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila califom iccr ccr liforrt icu) Presence/ Absence Survey Guidelines. 1997b Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Determination of Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Vol. 62, No.140. 50 CFW Part 17. July 22. 1999 Survey Protocol for the Endangered Quino Checkerspot Butteffly (Euphydryas edithu quino) for the 1999 Field Season, dated January 25. 55 U.S. Geological Survey 1968 San Luis Rey quadrangle 7.5-minute topographic map. Photorevised 1975. Unitt, P. A. 1984 Birds of Sun Diego County. Memoir No. 13. San Diego Society of Natural History. Westman, W. E. 198 I Factors Influencing the Distribution of Species of Californian Coastal Sage Scrub. Ecology 62439-455. 56 ATTACHMENT 1 REVISED WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT FOR THE CANTARINI RANCH PROPERTY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for x BENTEQ PMB433 4740 EAST SUNRISE DRIVE TUCSON, AZ 857 18 CONTACT: DAVID BENTLEY Prepared by CARRIE SMITH BIOLOGIST WENDY E. LOEFFLER SENIOR BIOLOGIST RECON NUMBER 3041B FEBRUARY 10,2003 1927 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-2358 61 9 / 308-9333 faX 308-9334 This document printed on recycled paper RECON TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Findings Introduction Methodology A. Hydrophytic Vegetation B. Hydric Soils C. Wetland Hydrology D. Estimation of Other Jurisdictional Waters Results of Field Data A. Vegetation B. Soils C. Hydrology Wetland Delineation A. Areas Considered Wetlands B. Other Jurisdictional Waters C. Acreage of Wetlands and Non-wetland Jurisdictional Waters Wetland Regulations References Cited FIGURES 1 : 2 3: Project Location in County of San Diego Project Location on U.S.G.S. Topographic Map Waters of the U.S. Within the Cantarini Ranch Study Area TABLE 1 : USACE Jurisdictional Waters on the Cantarini Ranch Study Area 1 1 10 12 2 3 10 ATTACHMENT 1: Field Data Forms r Summary of Findings A wetland delineation and estimate of other jurisdictional waters of the U.S. was conducted on the Cantarini Ranch study area using the guidelines set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual ( 1987). Jurisdictional wetlands with hydrophytic vegetation communities total approximately 26.3 acres on-site. Non- wetland jurisdictional waters total approximately 1.8 acres within the study area. The interpretation of the data in the delineation report and the conclusions drawn are subject to review by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) since the project would affect agriculture lands. The US ACE would make final jurisdictional determina- tion based on the recommendation of the NRCS. Introduction The Cantarini study area is located in the city of Carlsbad, California (Figure I), on the north side El Camino Real near the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real (Figure 2). The site is bounded by El Camino Real to the south, by the Western Lands property and Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course to the east, by the Holly Springs property to the north, and by open space and agricultural lands to the west. The area surveyed includes the Cantarini Ranch with a 100-foot buffer and a portion of the proposed alignment for the College Boulevard extension. In compliance with section 404 of the Clean Water Act a delineation of jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters was conducted by RECON'S trained wetland delineators. The techniques used in the determination of wetlands are discussed below. Methodology The methodology for delineating wetlands used for this report follows guidelines set forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1987). Three criteria must be fulfilled in order to consider an area a jurisdictional wetland: (I) the presence of hydrophytic vegetation; (2) the presence of hydric soils; and (3) the presence of wetland hydrology. Atypical wetland areas (disturbed wetlands) and problem area wetlands (e.g., seasonal wetlands) may lack one or more of the three criteria but could still be considered wetlands if background information on the previous condition of the area and field observations indicate that the missing wetland criteria were present before the disturbance and would occur at the site under normal circumstances. The routine on-site wetland determination method (USACE 1987) was used to gather field data at potential wetland areas along the proposed project area. The delineation of 1 . ... ... :.:.:.: .:.:.:. .:+; .:.:.:. :.:.:< ....... FIGURE 2 ....... ....... ... Project Vicinity ::::: San Luis Rey quadrangle .... ....... ... ....... :.:.:.:.~<.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.X.:.:<.:.~-+>>S .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:+:.:.:.:.~.~...~.:&. .. r r r the boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands was conducted by Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith on August 14 and 31, 1998. Test pits were dug in the different types of vegetation units within the project area. Data gathered at each sample location within a vegetation unit included information on the dominant plant species, soils, and hydrology as described below. A. Hydrophytic Vegetation Vegetation units containing plants typically associated with wetlands and areas exhibiting characteristics of jurisdictional waters or wetlands were sampled. Hydrophytic vegetation, typically designated as OBL or FACW, usually exists in areas where soil saturation results from periodic inundation or saturation by surface or ground water. Soil must remain saturated long enough for anaerobic conditions to develop. When the dominant species in a plant community were adapted for life under periodic anaerobic conditions, hydrophytic vegetation was present (USACE 1987). The dominant plant species from each vegetation stratum (Le., tree, shrub, herb, and vine) was determined by visually estimating areal cover of each species within a stratum. If the combined wetland indicator status of the OBL, FACW, and FAC dominant species is greater than 50 percent, then hydrophytic vegetation is present. The wetland indicator status of each dominant species was determined by using the California list of wetland plants provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( 1997). B. Hydric Soils Sample points were selected within particular vegetation units where the apparent boundary between wetland and upland was inferred based on changes in vegetation composition. Soil pits were dug to a depth of approximately 18 inches to determine soil color, soil saturation, depth to groundwater, and indicators of reducing soil environment (i.e., mottling, gleying, sulfidic odor). A soil pit is not required if all dominants are OBL or FACW and the wetland boundary is abrupt (USACE 1987). Soil profiles exposed by these pits were compared to known profiles for soil types occurring in the region by referencing the local soil survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). The order, group, and series for the soils present on the site were recorded. The local hydric soils list, obtained from the Soil Conservation Service, is checked to determine if any on the sampled soils types are considered hydric. C. Wetland Hydrology Hydrology information for the Cantarini study area was obtained by locating “blue-line” streams on U.S. geological topographic maps and by observations in the field. Direct observations of hydrological indicators, including inundation, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and wetland drainage ‘patterns, were noted at each sample point. Evidence of flows, flooding, and ponding were recorded and the frequency and duration of these events were inferred. D. Estimation of Other Jurisdictional Waters Drainages, or portions thereof, that lack hydrophytic vegetation and/or hydric soils, but have distinct evidence of seasonal flows were considered unvegetated non-wetland jurisdictional waters. The extent of the observed ordinary high water mark, as defined by the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was used to estimate the limits of these jurisdictional waters. Results of Field Data A description of the major vegetation units observed, soil types encountered, discussion of the local hydrology in the project area are presented below. Copies and a of the field data forms summarizing information on vegetation, soils, and hydrology observed at each sample site are provided in Attachment I. 7 A. Vegetation Areas with hydrophytic vegetation and areas without hydrophytic vegetation were observed on the project site. Areas having hydrophytic vegetation, in general, were considered potential wetland sites. Areas without hydrophytic vegetation were consid- ered upland, unless evidence suggested that a wetland or other jurisdictional water might occur at the particular location. Refer to the biological technical report for Cantarhi Ranch Property (1998) for a detailed vegetation map. 1. Areas with Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydrophytic vegetation was found in the main drainages leading to Agua Hedionda Creek and some of the associated tributary drainages. Wetland species were also common around the large central pond area and in areas where an underground spring was present. The types of hydrophytic vegetation observed in each of these categories is described briefly below. a. Major Drainages Drainage courses within the study area support hydrophytic vegetation on portions of the channels. Plant communities supported along these drainages in the study area range from sycamore/eucalyptus woodland, southern coast live oak riparian forest, and southern 5 r willow scrub habitats. The most common hydrophytic plant species observed in the drainages of the study area include species of willow (Salix spp.) and sycamores (Platanus racemosa). b. Meadows and Marsh Areas Portions of the study area pond water either due to topographic features, impoundments, or the presence of underground springs. The pond areas support freshwater marsh species such as cattail (Typha spp.), rush (Jurzcus spp.), and bulrush (Scirpus spp.). Areas where surface water was supplied by underground springs contained freshwater marsh species as described above or alkaline meadow species such as salt grass (Distichlis spicata), spike rush (Eleocharis spp.), and yerba mansa (Anempopsis californica). In some areas freshwater marsh species intergrade with alkali marsh species. 2. Areas Lacking Hydrophytic Vegetation Plant communities that support a predominance of upland species include areas of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, non-native grassland, and cultivated fields. Coastal sage scrub areas were located on the slopes adjacent to the cultivated or urbanized areas. Coastal sage scrub habitat is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Et-iogonum fasciculaturn), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Agriculture areas are currently being cultivated by landowners. Non-native grassland occupied disturbed areas not under cultivation. Some drainage courses within the study area occur in disturbed, cultivated, or brush- covered areas dominated by mostly upland species. A portion of these drainages have well-defined banks indicating strong seasonal flows. However, the steep gradient and shallow soils of these drainage courses lead to rapid runoff such that hydric conditions do not persist for long enough durations to support hydrophytic vegetation. These areas display an ordinary high water mark and, therefore, were considered non-wetland jurisdictional waters. B. Soils Information on the soil types sampled in the study area is summarized from the following sources: Soil Survey for San Diego County (USDA 1973), Soil Taxonomy (USDA 1975), and the local hydric soil list obtained from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1. Alfisol Soil Order (Bonsall sandy loam, Huerhuerro loam; and Olivenhain cobbly loam) Alfisol soils have been in place long enough for the movement and accumulation of clays within the soil profile. They characteristically have a massive, hard surface layer and 6 horizons of clay accumulation that have high base saturation. These soils are often enriched with aluminum and iron. Huerhuerro loam on-site is classified as Haplic Natrixeralfs. Soils found in the drainages have a surface layer formed from marine sediments with a clay subsoil. The matrix soil color is a grayish-dark brown (lOYR 312) with mottles being bright orange in color (5YR 6/8). Typically the soils are moderately well-draining loams with very slow permeability and slow runoff. Also classified as Haplic Natrixeralfs is the Bonsall sandy loam encountered on-site. This soil has three distinct layers within the top 18 inches. The top and bottom layer is reddish brown in color (5YR 2.5/1), with reddish mottles (5YR 4/4) while the middle layer is a yellowish-brown sand with moderate reddish mottles. Generally, soils in this group are moderately well-draining and have a heavy clay loam subsoil with slow permeability. 2. Entisol Soil Order (Cieneba Fallbrook rocky sandy loam) Entisols are young soils that show little alteration of the parent material. Cieneba Fallbrook rocky sandy loam is classified as a Typic Xerorthents and the color, structure, and texture are similar to the decomposed granite parent rock. Typically, this soil group occurs on uplands with over five percent surface cover of large rock outcrops and boulders. The Typic Xerothents on-site have a deep brown matrix color (IOYR 3/2) with sandy loam soil texture. The soils are easily draining with slow to medium runoff and rapid permeability. 3. Mollisol Soil Order (Visalia Sandy Loam) Mollisol soils are characterized by a surface layer that is soft and high in organic matter with very dark colored horizons. One suborder of Mollisol soils, the Xeroll, was encountered in the study area. Xerolls are Mollisol soils which formed under a xeric or dry moisture regime. Visalia sandy loam soils encountered in the study area are classified as Pachic Haploxerolls. This soil type has a dark surface layer color (lOYR 211 ) with a very thick surface layer. The soils are moderately well-drained, moderately deep sandy loams derived from granitic alluvium. Permeability of these soils is moderately rapid and runoff is very slow. 7 C. Hydrology r Several drainages flow through the Cantarini Ranch study area. Two large perennial streams flow south and southwest toward the central pond. An outlet drainage continues south from the pond and leads to Agua Hedionda creek. A few narrow ephemeral finger drainages exist in the shallow canyons between the rolling hillsides. These intermittent streams exhibit surface flow in times of high precipitation and subside to relatively dry streambeds with local standing pools or other small surface water areas, in drier times. Generally, water enters the stream system by direct precipitation, runoff from adjacent areas. Most drainages on the Cantarini Ranch study area receive supplemental runoff from the agricultural fields. In addition to drainages, wetlands are found in localized, ponded areas particularly on the sides of slopes where water is supplied by underground springs. In areas not disturbed by agriculture activities, unique alkaline meadows and freshwater marshes have formed. They are also an integral part of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon watershed. Wetland Delineation Those locations in the study area which meet the three criteria for wetland designation are described in detail below. Areas considered non-wetland, but jurisdictional waters, are also discussed. Wetland areas were delineated if the location supported hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology based on the following guidelines: c Hydrophytic Vegetation: The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is considered fulfilled at a location if greater than 50 percent of all the dominant species present within the vegetation unit had a wetland indicator status of obligate (OBL), facultative-wet (FACW), or facultative (FAC) (USACE 1987). An OBL indicator status refers to plants that have a 99percent probability of occurring in wetlands under natural conditions. A FACW indicator status refers to plants that usually occur in wetlands (67-99 percent probability) but are occasionally found in non-wetlands. A FAC indicator status refers to plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34-66 percent). Hydric Soils: The hydric soil criterion is considered fulfilled at a location if soils in the area could be inferred to have a high groundwater table, evidence of prolonged soil saturation, or any indicators suggesting a long-term reducing environment in the root zone (upper 12 inches) of the soil profile. Wetland Hydrology: The wetland hydrology criterion is considered fulfilled at a location based upon the conclusions inferred from the field observations which indicate that an area has a high probability of being inundated or saturated (flooded or 8 ponded) long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the surface soil environment, especially the root zone (USACE 1987). A. Areas Considered Wetlands Based on information on soils, hydrology, and vegetation, observations made in the field, and data analysis, the locations of the wetlands in the study area are delineated. The wetland areas are shown on Figure 3. The wetland boundary lines are based on the observed extent of all three wetland criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) within vegetation units. The extent of these criteria correlated well with changes in vegetation, topography, distribution of observed hydric soils, and lateral extent of observed or inferred water movement (flooding or ponding limits). B. Other Jurisdictional Waters The location of areas considered jurisdictional waters, but not wetlands, is based on the observance of strong indicators of seasonal flows or ponding and the presence of an ordinary high water mark. These jurisdictional waters were delineated by the lateral and upstreaddownstream extent of the ordinary high water mark of the particular drainage or depression. T7 Areas exist in drainages within the study area where the vegetation is dominated by upland species, and/or the soils lack hydric characteristics, but strong indicators of seasonal flows are present (e.g., well-defined, deeply cut banks). The majority of these drainages are minor tributaries to major drainages, and they occur on the slopes surrounding the major low-lying drainages. Most of these areas have a combination of upland and facultative wetland indicator species and lack prolonged soil saturation. Drainages that possess a distinct ordinary high water mark were, therefore, considered jurisdictional waters by definition. The jurisdictional waters in the study area are shown on Figure 3. C. Acreage of Wetlands and Non-wetland Jurisdictional Waters Table 1 presents the acreage of jurisdictional waters. The total acreage of jurisdictional wetlands within the Cantarini Ranch study area is 26.3 acres. The total acreage of non- wetland waters of the U.S. is 1.8 acres. 9 TABLE 1 USACE JURSIDICTIONAL WATERS ON THE CANTARINI RANCH STUDY AREA ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Cantarini Rancho Carlsbad Holly Springs' Additional Off- Cantarini Ranch Exchange Parcel Exchange Parcel Site Parcels? Total US ACE Jurisdictional Waters Wetland 16.6 1.3 8.4 26.3 Non-wetland waters of the U.S. 0.7 0.2 0. I 0.8 1.8 USACE JURISDICTIONAL WATERS TOTAL 17.3 0.2 1.4 9.2 28. I 'Represents only the portion of Holly Springs that is present within the Cmtarini Ranch Study Area. *Represents the remaining off-site areas within the study area including portions of the following properties: Rancho Carlsbad Partners, Mandana. Richard Kelly, Canam. Lubliner, CUSD, Barlow, and City of Oceanside. Wetland Regulations The USACE has jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This wetland delineation is subject to review by USACE under advisement by the National Resource Conservation Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Any impact to lands designated as wetlands or non-wetland jurisdictional waters will require a permit from USACE. Conditions of the permit typically include specific mitigation requirements (i .e., creation, res torat ion, or enhancement of wetlands). In addition to federal regulations, the California Department of Fish and Game has authority to take jurisdiction over wetlands and other drainages under Section 1601-1603 of the CDFG Code (1991). A streambed alteration agreement must be obtained from CDFG prior to the commencement of any construction activity which may alter wetlands or streambeds of any kind. Mitigation requirements may also be specified as a condition of this agreement. References Cited California Department of Fish and Game. 1991 California Department of Fish and Game Code. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Corps of Eizgiizeers Wetlands Deliizeatiori Mwiml. Technical Report Y-87- 1, Department of the Army. January. U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973 Soil Survey, Sail Diego Area, Calfor-izitr. Edited by Roy H. Bowman. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1975 Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. Agriculture Handbook No. 436. US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1997 National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary. Ecology Section - National Wetlands Inventory. March 3, 1997. 12 ATTACHMENT 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecWte: Cantarini Ranch ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQ Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes N No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes N No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Date: 8/14/98 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: NNG Transect ID: Plot ID: 1 VEGETATION HYDROLOGY c I 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available I Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: n/a (in.) __ (in.) __ (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" Water Marks Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patiems in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Water-Stained Leaves D Local soil survey Data 0 FAG-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" 0 Upper 12" 0 13-18" Observalions and Remarks: 1. filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: 0 0-296; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old mots only; 0 new and old roots, 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; a No >z% none occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: very brief, if e2 days: H brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes NO Map Unit Name [Series and Phase): Bonsall sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixcralfs Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) I 18 IOYR 312 Drainage Class: MWD Permeability: very slow Runoff: slow Field Observations: ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. loamy clay Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions Histic Epipedon 0 Sulfidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: IXI Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 Irrigated; Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 0 do IXI do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (27 days) to very long durations (SO days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes ea No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes ea No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes No Remarks: Visible high water mark. Slight to moderately cut banks, drainage width 1-2 ft. 7. Possibly water of the US.? ixI Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from CopsEPA Regulation? 0 Yes No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilleddepressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or nce growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body 01 water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Rernarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? c] Yes No Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Anempsis ralifornica H OBL 9. 2. Elmcharis sp. H OBL 10. 8. I I I 16. I I Percent nf Dnminant SDecies that are OBL. FACW. or FAC fexcludina FAC-1 100% I 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: !l&L (in.) & (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: l2 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: c] Inundated 0 WaterMarks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Saturated in: Upper 12" 13-18" 13-18" Observations and Remarks: soil uniform in color, very moisl but not saturated near the surface. 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? E Yes 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and old roots, ea none 4. flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; 0 No 2. slope: 0 0-2%; or IXI >2% 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or IXI frequent, occurs on an avemge of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if (2 days; 6. Sifeponds water? Yes No brief. if2-7 days, or [7 long, if >7 days SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: MWD (Series and Phase): Bonsall Permeability: very slow Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixenlfs Field Observations: Runoff: slow Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 18 IO YR 21 none loam clay 1 Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 HisticEpipedon 0 Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List [7 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Obersewations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly fresh; or Freshly prowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope do (>30 days) during the growing season 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes No Remarks: Occasional seep area 1. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CorpwEPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No No (If yes. check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artitically imgated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). ~ Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional ComrnentdRemarks: repeats down the drainage. Water flows hit flat platform areas and spreads out. Narrows at bottom and cuts channel then r r DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQ Investigator(s): Do Normal Circumstances exisl on the site? Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith Yes .o No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No 0 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Date: 8/14/98 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: Freshwater marsh Transect ID: Plot ID: 3 VEGETATION 8. I I [ 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes No HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs 0 Inundated 0 Other Saturated in: Upper 12" 13-18" Water Marks a Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 No Recorded Data Available Depth of Sullace Water: & (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" Depth to Saturated Soil: & (in.) 0 water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Water in Pit: 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 7. Filamentws or sheer forming algae present? Yes 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roofs on/y; 0 old roots only: new md dd roots, none 4. Flooding: 0 none, f/&ing not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 2. Slope: 0 0-2%; or €IJ >2% 0 occasional, occuffi on an average of once or less in 2 years; or IX1 frequenf, occurs on an average of more fhan once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if 4 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 6. Siteponds wafer? Yes long, if >7 days No SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Palexeralfs Olivenhain cobbly loam Drainage Class: WD Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations: Permeability: slow Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-4 5 YR 2.511 clay loam 5-1 1 10 YR 312 5 YRM4 moderate I course sand 12-18 5 YR 231 7.5 YR 410 thick I moderate clay loam Hydric Soil Indcators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon Sulfidi Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Oberservations and Remarks: 7. Smell: 0 Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: IXI do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from CorpsEPA Regulation? 0 Yes No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and imgaiion ditches excavated on dty land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Alfifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating ador diking dty (e) 0 Watetfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pifs excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purpases as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch Date: 8/14/98 Applicant/Owner: BENTEQ County: San Diego Investigator@): Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 64 Yes c] No Community ID: Disturbed Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? c] Yes El No Plot ID: 4 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Brassira nigra Herb UPL 9. 2. Hemiwnia fasc.irulara Herb UPL 10. 3. 11. 5. I I I 13. I I 6. 1 14. 7. I I I 15. I I 8. 1 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 0% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes No HYDROLOGY c] Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Other Aerial Photographs No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: & (in.) - (in.) - (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated Saturated in: 0 Upper 12” 0 WaterMarks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) c] 13-18” 0 Upper 12“ 0 13-18” Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: 0 0-2%; or 0 22% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; old roots only; [7 new and dd roots, 0 none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; c] rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; a No [7 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 0 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: very brief, if c2 days; brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes 0 No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: WD (Series and Phase): Cieneba Fallbrook rocky sandy loam Permeability: medium-slow Runoff: medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Xerorthents Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No I Profile Description: Structures, etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon 0 Sulfidi Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) ~ H Obersewations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 0 do IXI do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes ea No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes No Hydric Soils Present? yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes IXI No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? 0 Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CorpsEPA Regulation? Yes No No (It yes, check item(s) below,) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically imgated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction acfivity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation. settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and unfil the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of fhe United Sfafes (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjectlSite: Cantarini Ranch Date: 8/14/98 ApplicantlOwner: BENTEQ County: San Diego Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No 0 Yes IXI No , (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Freshwater marsh Transect ID: Plot ID: 5 VEGETATION Remarks: HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: iXI Aerial Photographs 0 Inundated 0 Other Saturated in: Upper 12" 13-18" 0 Water Marks Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): [7 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test No Recorded Data Available 0 Upper 12" 0 13-18" Depth to Water in PR: Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: 0 ~2%; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; c) old roots only; 0 new and old roots, 0 none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; c) rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or IXI frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in No B S% 2 years. 5. Duration: very brief, if <2 days; brief, if 2-7 days, or long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? Yes 0 No SOILS Map Unit Name :Series and Phase): Olivenhain cobbly loam raxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Palexeralfs Drainage Class: WD Permeability: slow Runoff slow-medium Field Observations: Confin Mapped Type? h4 Yes 0 No ~ ~ Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Moffle Colors Moffle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-4 5 YR 23 1 none --_-__ clay loam 5-1 I 10 YR 312 5 YR414 moderate sand 12-18 5 YR 2.511 7.5 YR 4/0 thick I moderate clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histi Epipedon E Sulfidi odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer m Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Oberservations and Remarks: 7. Smell: 0 Neutral; 0 Sightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Imgated; 0 Land leveled; Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Sorls: (XI do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 deys) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION lm Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (XI Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 NO Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No yes No I Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from CorpdEPA Regulation? Yes No (It yes, check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) c] Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andfor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land lor the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CfR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CornmentslRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD @ Yes 0 No Community ID: Disturbed he site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No 0 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Brassica nigra Herb u PL 9. 2. Hunizonia&ciculata Herb UPL 10. 8. 1 I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 0% HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: Depth to Water in Pit: - (in.) __ (in.) n Netland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: c] inundated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water Marks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Paltems in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" Upper 12" 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 7. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: 00-2%; or 0>2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and dd roots. 4. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No none 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 0 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: . very brief. if 4 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 long, if >7 days ' 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes a No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cieneba Fallbrook rocky sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic xerorthents Profile Description: Drainage Class: WD Permeability: medium-slow Runoff: medium Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? 0 Yes No Depth Matrix Color (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) 18 IO YR 42 Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions. (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. loam clay Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors c] High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils c] Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List c] Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: ea Neutral; Slightly fresh: or c] Fresh@ p/owed fieldsmell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 0 do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for /ong (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growfng season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ea No Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes No Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes No Remarks: 1. Possiblywaterofthe U.S.? Yes 2. PossiWy exempt from CorpsEPA Regulation? 0 Yes c] No No (If yes, check item&) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of wafers of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). - Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch Applicant/Owner: BENTEQ Investigator(s): Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith c] Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed [Atypical Situation)? , Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No 0 Yes (x) No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Date: 8/14/98 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: DisturbedlMule fat scrub Transect ID: Plot ID: 7 VEGETATION 5. I I I 15. I I I 16. I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) IOO% 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Other Aerial Photographs (x) No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pi: Depth to Saturated Soil: & (in.) -(in.) - (in.) Observations and Remarks: Large trash piles and f have been dumped throughout the drainage. It appears the width of the drainage =7ft. 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: 02%; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: new mots on/y; old roofs only; new and old roots, 04 none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or No 0 >2% frequent, occurs on an average of mOre than once in 2 yean. 5. Duration: very brief, if -2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 lung, if >7 days 6. Site ponds wafer? 0 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12“ WaterMarks Drift Lines 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12” 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18” Sediment Deposits 13-18” SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Huerhuem loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixeralfs Drainage Class: MWD Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations: Permeability: slow Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 10 YR 42 none ---__- - silty sand 1 c Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon I7 suliiiic odor Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 0 do (>30 days) during the growing season ea do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? H Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? 0 yes No Remarks: Secondary channel to Agua Hedionda. Piles of trash in drainage (i.e. concrete, old irrigation hoses) 1. Possibly water of the U.S. ? Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from COrpsrrPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artifically irrigated arms which would revert to upland it the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pods or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United Slates (see 33 CFR 328.3{a)). Approved by HOUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: Secondary channel to Agua Hedionda. Piles of fill (Le. concrete, irrigation hoses) present. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD r r Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 1 Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? VEGETATION 7. I I I 15. I 1 8. I 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 83% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes c] No HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Mher Saturated in: Upper 12" 13-18" Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs Inundated WaterMarks Driit Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): No Recorded Data Available Surface Water: 5 (in.) 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 1. filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: U-2%; or 0 >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and dd roofs, none 4. Flooding: 0 none, f/ding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or ea frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 yeaw. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if <2 days; D brief, if 2-7 days, or long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? @ Yes 0 No SOILS e): Vasalia Sandy Loam Moderately npid raxonomy (Subgroup): Pachic haploxerolls MappedType? Yes 0 No Jrofile Description: Depth Matrix Cdor Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 1-12 10 YR 21 none sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon H SulfidicOdor Reducing Conditions 0 High Organic Content in Surlace Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Aquic Moisture Regime Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Obersetvations and Remarks: 1. Smell: (7 Neutral; Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain Via slope 3. Soils: do. (>30 days) during the growing season 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland Hydrology Present? ric Soils Present? Remarks: Tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek drainage from pond upstream. .1. Possibly water of the U.S.? Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt frm CorpSrrPA Regulation? (7 Yes No (If yes. check item(s) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically imgated areas which would revert to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Watertilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusive& for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). l ~ I Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentsIRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD , Project/Site: Cantarini Ranch Applicant/Owner: BENTEQ Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? rn Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes H No Is the area a potential Problem Area? [7 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Date: 8/14/98 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: southern willow woodland Transect ID: Plot ID: 9 8. Toxirodendrim diwr.d~iburn I Shrub I UPL 1 16. I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 78% HYDROLOGY I 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs [7 Other No Recorded Data Available Fieid Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) - n/a (in.) !& (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated rn Saturated in: Upper 12" Drifl Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 13-18" Water Marks 0 13-18" I 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 7. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: 0 02%; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots onl~ 0 old roots only; 0 new and dd roots. none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather condifions; No 0 >2% 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than Once in 2 years. 5. Duration: c] very brief, if e2 days; brief, if 2-7 days, or Ix] long, if >7 &p 6. Site ponds wafer? Yes 0 No SOILS se): Huerhuerro loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplix Natrixeralfs imMappedType? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance1 Texture, Concretions, Structures, etc. (Munsell Moist) Contrast (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) 0-12 IO YR 312 - 311 5 YR W8 large / abundant loam Hydric Soil Indicators: [7 Histosol 0 Concretions Histi Epipedon Sulfidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colos c] High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Obersewations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; Slight/y fresh; or Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: Imgated; Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slqoe 3. Soils: do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? IXI yes 0 No Remarks: Drainage approx. 8-ft wide. 1. Possibly water of the US.? Yes No 2. Possibly exempt from CorpSrrPA Regulation? Yes No (If yes, check itern@) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain wafer and which are used (d) 0 Atiifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stwk watering, irrigation, seftling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ant/Owner: BENTEQ County: San Diego Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith I I Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? IXI Yes 0 No 0 Yes No 0 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) HYDROLOGY 1 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Community ID: Disturbed Transect ID: Plot ID: 10 VEGETATION 7. I I 15. I I 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) 20% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes No 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? 0 Yes No ..pp.s 1 Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: >18 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: ~ (m.) Wetland Hydrology indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water Marks 0 Drift Lines [7 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: Outside seep area 1. Filamentous or sheet toming algae present? Yes 2. Slope: 0 o-z%; or IxI A?% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roofs only; old roots onw; 0 new and old roots, 4. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weafher conditions: No none 0 occasional, DCCOIS on an average of once or less in 2 years; or. trequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 6. Site ponds water? Yes very brief, if 4 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 long, if >7 days No hap Unit Name Drainage Class: MWD Series and Phase): Huerhuem loam Permeability: slow Runoff: slow-medium :axonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixeralfs Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? IXI Yes No 2rofile Description: Depth Matrix Color Moffle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 1-12 10 YR 312 none loam lydrii Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions [I] Histic Epipedon 0 Sulfidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or [7 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pwnped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: do do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (230 days) during the growing season iydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes IXI No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes IXI No Netland Hydrology Present? Yes IXI No iydric Soils Present? 0 yes No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? 0 Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CorpSrrPA Regulation? Yes No 0 No (Ifyes, check iiem(s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irngated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavafed in dry land for the exclusive/y for such purpases as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fi/l, sand, of gravel unless and until the constructbn or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQ Investigator(s): Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes H No 0 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Date: 8/14/98 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: Alkaline Meadow Transect ID: Plot ID: 11 VEGETATION 5. Cortrdrria jubata 6. Rosa rali/omica Shrub FAC+ I 14. I I 7. Elearharis marraszachya I Herb I OBL I 15. 8. Ambrosia psilosrachya I Herb I FAC I 16. I 1 Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAG (excluding FAC-) 88% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes II] No HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs 0 Inundated Other Saturated in: Upper 12" B 13-18" 0 Water Marks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): B No Recorded Data Available Depth of Surface Water: n/a (in.) 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" Depth to Saturated Soil: 3 (in.) 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Water in pit: D 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 7. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: Do-.?%; or IxJ>2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; old roofs only; 0 new and old roots, 0 none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare. unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if -4' days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or B long, if >7 days 6. Siteponds water? H Yes 0 No SOILS dap Unit Name Series and Phase): Huerhuerro loam raxonorny (Subgroup): Haplic Natn’xemlfs Drainage Class: MWD Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations: Permeability: slow Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 0 No ’rofile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) b18 10 YR U1 5 YR6/8 Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosd Concretions Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, Contrast Structures, etc. faint I large loam 0 Histic Epipedon 0 Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Cdors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; a Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshw plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (’7 days) to very long durations (30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION I Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? €3 yes 0 No Remarks: Isolated groundwater seep area 1. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CopdEPA Regulation? 0 Yes No 0 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifical/y irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land lo collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pods or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, setthng basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill. sand, or gravel unless and until the constwction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CfR 328.3(a)). Additional CommentdRemarks: Isolated wetland, ground water seep area. Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ant/Owner: BENTEQ County: San Diego Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith Do Nom1 Circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? a Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Other R Aerial Photographs 0 No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: n/a (in.) - n/a (in.) & (in.) I Community ID: Disturbed Transect ID: . Plot ID: 12 VEGETATION 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 0% R Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated Saturated in: Upper 12" 0 Water Marks 0 Driff Lines 0 Sediment Deposas 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" 13-18" Observafions and Remarks: Defined high water marks 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: 0 0-2%; or A?% 4. Hooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possiblp under unusual weather conditions; No ' 3. Oxidizedrbizospheres: 0 new roots onw dd roots only; 0 new and old roots, a none occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years: or 2 years. Irequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 5. Duration: very brief, if 4 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes No SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic xerorthents Cieneba rocky sandy loam Drainage Class: ED Permeability: rapid Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No H I 1 Profile Description: Structures, etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon 0 SuifiiOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: a Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Imgated; 0 Land leveled; Ditch drained: 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 0 do do nof become frequent& ponded or safurated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION egetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Defined high water mark-channel 10 feet tapering to 3A then joins creek below. 1. Possibly water of the U.S. ? @ Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CopsEPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No 0 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert Io upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land lo collect and retain water and which are used (d) Artifical reflecting or swimming pods or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating ador diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock wafering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operafion is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3fa)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentdRemarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMlNATlON METHOD OUnty: $an Diego Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? e4 Yes 0 No ommunlty ID: Southern Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 0 No 0 Yes H No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Typha farifdia Herb OBL 9. 2. Salix laevigara Tree FACW+ 10. 3. Barcharis salicifolia Shrub FACW 11. 4. Xanrhium srritmarium Herb FAC+ 12. 5. Pirris rrhioideJ Herb FAC 13. 6. Antbrosia psilristachya Herb FAC 14. 7. Scirpus anieriranits Herb OBL 15. 8. , 16. r w , Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) 100% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? ISI Yes 0 No 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? Yes [7 No HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge (XI Aerial Photographs 0 Other I No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: 2 (in.) - (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: - (in.) Observations and Remarks: illegal resident camp in understory 1. Filamentous or sheet forming afgae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: 02%; or >2% 3. Oxidized humpheres: 0 new roots only; old roots only; 0 new and old roots. (XI none H No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: @ Inundated a Saturated in: Upper 12" WaterMarks Drift Lines SedirnentDeposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water-Stained Leaves a Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) @ 13-18" 0 13-18" 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare. unlikely but pmible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than me in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if c2 days; [7 b&f, if 2-7 days, or a long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? a Yes No SOILS Map Unit Name [Series and Phase): Huerhuem loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixeralfs Drainage Class: MWD Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations: Permeability: slow Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-10 10 YR 21 none Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor E Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; €3 Slight& fresh; 01 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (230 days) during the gmjng season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? E Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? €3 yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? E Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from CorpdEPA Regulation? Yes 0 No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) [7 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dty land (b) 0 Artifice/& irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) [7 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land lo collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pods or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental lo constmction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain wafer for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentslRernarks: Tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek. .- DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch ApplicanffOwner: BENTEQ Investigator(s): Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith ~~ ~ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No c] Yes 5 No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Date: 8/14/98 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: Freshwater Marsh Transect ID: Plot ID: 14 VEGETATION 5. I I I 13. I I 6. 14. 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) IOO% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes 0 No Yes 0 No HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs c] Other N No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: 3-6 (in.) & (in.) n/a (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: ix] Inundated ix] Saturated in: Upper 12" Ix) Water Marks Ix) Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test c] Other (Explain in Remarks) 13-18" 0 Upper 12" 0 13-18" Obsewafions and Remarks: Inlet drainage and pond I. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? yes 2. slope: 0-2%; or 0 >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and old roots, none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions: 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or ix] frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 151 No 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if 4 days; brief, if 2-7 days, w 6. Site ponds water? a Yes long, if >7 days 0 No SOILS se): Visalia sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Pachic haploexerolls rrmMappedType? B Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Motlle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-12 IO YR 211 none Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 17 Concretions 0 HisticEpipedon Sulfidi Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions H Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshlyplowedfieldsrndl 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via s/ope 3. Sails: do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? a Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? yes 0 No Remarks: 7. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from CorpsEfA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No 0 No (/f yes, check item(s) below.) (a) a Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collecf and retain wafer and which are used (d) 0 Ariifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating aWor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in d!y land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the Artihlly irrigated areas which would reverl io upland if the imQation ceased. exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water tor primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fil/, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Additional Comments/Remarks: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD r' r ProjecVSite: Cantarini Ranch ApplicanVOwner: BENTEQ Investigator(s): Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith a Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes €3l No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: Upland (disturbed) Transect ID: Plot ID: 15 VEGETATION 7. Heiiorropium curmsavicum I Herb I UPL I 15. I 8. Bromus hordaceus Herb [ FACU- I 16. I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 50% 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes No 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs 0 Inundated Other 0 Saturated in: Upper 12" 0 13-18" 0 Water Marks 0 Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): No Recorded Data Available Depth of Surface Water: (in.) 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Water in Pit: 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: 0-2%; or 0 >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and old roots. none 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 0 frequent, occurs on an average of more lhan once in 2 yeaw. 5. Duration: very brief, if (2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 0 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes a No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Visalia Sandy Loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): F’achic Haplonerolls Profile Description: Drainage Class: Permeability: Runoff: Field Observations: ConfirmMappedType? Yes 0 No Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. sandy loam 0-12 10 YR 313 none Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon 0 Sulfidic Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime 0 Reducing Conditions 0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; Ditch drained; Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 0 do (>30 days) during the growing season ea do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes a No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes a No Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ISI No I Hydric Soils Present? 0 Yes B No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? 0 Yes 2. Possibly exempf from CorpsEPA Regulation? 0 Yes No 0 No (If yes, check rtem(s) below.) (a) c] Non-tidal dtainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land lo collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to consfruction acfiviiy and pits excavafed in dry land for fhe exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, imgation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meeis the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommentslRernarks: Bench adjacent to pond. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? @ Yes 0 No Community ID: Disturbed Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 0 No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes H No Plot ID: 16 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum 1. Earrharis salicflolia Shrub 2. Ambrosia psilostarhya Herb 3. Brossira nigra Herb 4. Frienirulum vulgare Herb 5. Bacrharis pilularis Shrub 6. 8. I Percent of Dominant Species that are OE Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator FACW 9. FAC 10. UPL 1 11. 1 I FACU- I 12. I I UPL I 13. ~ I 14. I I I 15. I 16. I I -, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG-) 3396 Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 0 Yes No HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge a Aerial Photographs Other @ No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primaly Indicators: 0 Inundated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 Water Marks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 13-18" Depth of Surface Water: n/a (in.) 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: Upper 12" Depth to Saturated Soil: a (in.) 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Depth to Water in Pit: - > 18 (in.) 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; dd roots only; 0 new and old rods. none 4. flooding: 0 none. flooding nof probable; 0 fare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather condifions; No 2. slope: 0-2%; or >2% 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: very brief, if c2 days; 0 brief, if2-7 days, or 0 long. if Z-7 days 6. Sire ponds water? 0 Yes No Nap Unit Name :Series and Phase): Cieneba Fallbrook rocky sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic xerothents Profile Description: Drainage Class: Permeability: medium-slow Runoff medium Field Observations: Confirm MappedType? @ Yes 0 No Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. D-12 IO YR 316 none -__-_ loam clay Hydrii Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Histic Epipedon 0 SulfidiOdor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 Concretions 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy sols 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; 0 Slightly fresh; or Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 3. Soils: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 0 do do not become trequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>3U ahys) during fhe growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 0 Yes H No Wetland Hydrology Present? 0 Yes Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Area disced regularly, drainage disturbed. Cement and landscape debris dumped in channel 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? H Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No 0 No (If yes, check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-fidal drainage and imgation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifical/y imgated areas which would revert to upland if the imgation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andlor diking dry land to cdleci and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry (e) WaterfNed depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land tor the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, imgation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water forprimarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3fa)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CommenWRemarks: Small secondary drainage, 3ft average width. DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD anVOwner: BENTEQ County: San Diego Gerry Scheid and Carrie Smith Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? @Yes UNO Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Siuation)? Yes 0 No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes H No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: Freshwater Mars h/Pond Transect ID: Plot ID: 17 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum lndiitor 1. Tvpha latifolio Herb OBL 9. 2. Srirpus amenranus Herb OBL 10. 4. I I I 12. I 5. I I I 13. I I 6. I 14. I ~ 7. I I I 15. I I 8. I 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) IC@% HYDROLOGY I 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge en Aerial Photographs 0 Other eP No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: ’12 (in.) - (in.) - (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated Saturated in: Upper 12” 0 Water Marks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 13-18” I 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12” I 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 13-18” 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: Illegal resident camp in understory 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. Slope: eP 0-2%; or 0 >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new mts only; 0 dd roots only; 0 new and old roots, 4. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; No none occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 yeats. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if <2 days; bhf, if 2-7 days, or a long, if 27 days 6. Sire ponds water? IXI Yes 0 No Map Unit Name Drainage Class: MWD ' (Series and Phase): Huerhuem loam Pemeability: slow Runoff slow-medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Narixenifs Field Observations: ConfimMappedType? 0 Yes No Profile Description: Structures, etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histii Epipedon e4 Sulfidi Odor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime a Reducing Conditions e4 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: Site is a man-made impoundment (pond) 1. Smell: 2. Site: 3. Soils: Neutral; Slight& fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell Irrigated; Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) io very long durations (30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US. ? Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No No (If yes. check item@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would reverl to upland it the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Arfificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land lo cdlect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Arfifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) 0 Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resurting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional CornrnentdRemarks: Site is a man-made impoundment (pond). /--- DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? LxI Yes 0 No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes LxI No Is the area a potential Problem Area? [7 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Date: 8/14/98 County: San Diego State: CA Community ID: Freshwater Seep Transect ID: Plot ID: 18 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Typha larifolia Herb OBL 9. 2. Carex spissa Herb OBL 10. 3. Juncus mexicanus Herb FACW 11. 4. Baccharis salicifolia Shrub FACW 12. 5. Salu laevigara Shrub FACW+ 13. 6. 14. ' 8. I I I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) 100% HYDROLOGY I 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs No Recorded Data Availabie Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: - > 12 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated saturated in: B Upper 12" 0 Water Marks Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 13-16" Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): H Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAC-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Upper 12" 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: Illegal resident camp in understory I. filamentous or sheet forming algae presenf? 0 Yes 2. SI*: @ 02%; or 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old mots m/y; 4. Flooding: [7 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; NO 0 >2% new and old roots. none 0 Occasional, occurs on an average ot once or less in 2 years; or frequent, occurs on an average of more than me in 2 years. 5. Duration: 0 very brief, if 4 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days. or /ong, if >7 days 6. Siteponds water? Yes No Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Huerhuem loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixeralfs Profile Description: Drainage Class: MWD Runoff: slow-medium Field Observations: Permeability: slow Confirm Mapped Type? Ix) Yes 0 No Structures, etc. Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon Ix) Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime rX1 Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streakng in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Oberservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly fresh; or 0 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (230 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION L Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? a Yes 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? a Yes 0 No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No Hydric Soils Present? IxI Yes 0 No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 2. PossiWy exempt from CopdEPA Regulation? Yes 0 No 0 No (If yes. check item@) below.) (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifically irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating anrYor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Artifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating anrYor diking dry (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, setfling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional ComrnentdRemarks: Sample point characterizes a series of small drainages below pond. -. - DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes No (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. /uncus mexicanus Herb FACW 9. 2. Scirpus amencanus Herb OBL 10. 3. Eleochuris macrosrachya Herb OBL 11. 4. Baccharis saliciJolia Shrub FACW 12. 8. I 1 I 16. I I Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG) 100% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes 0 No HYDROLOGY 0 Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): 0 Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 0 Other No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: n\a (in.) >12 (in.) >12 (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 hurtdated 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" ea Water Marks 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAG-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 13-18" 0 Upper 12" 0 13-18" Observations and Remarks: Ponded area behind dirt road dam 7. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 0 Yes 2. slope: 0-256; or 0 A?% 3. Oxidized humpheres: 0 new roots only; 0 old roots only; 0 new and old roots, 4. Flooding: 0 none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or No none frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: very brief, if c2 days; 0 brief, if 2-7 days, or 6. Site ponds water? ea Yes long, if >7 days 0 No SOILS se): Huerhuem loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Haplic Natrixexalfs inn MappedType? El Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-12 10 YR 312 5YR6/8 Common/ bright orange clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol 0 concretions 0 Histic Epipedon SuJfidicOdor 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Obecservations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; Slightly fresh; or Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: 0 Irrigated; 5 Land leveled; 0 Ditch drained; 0 Pumped; 0 Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: a do do not become trequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very /ong durations (a30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the US.? Yes 0 No 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EpA Regulation? 0 Yes 0 No (If yes, check itern@) below.) (a) 0 Non-tidal drainage and imption ditches excavated on dry land (b) 0 Artifical!y irrigated areas which would reveri to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) 0 Ariificial lakes or ponds created by excavating andor diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used (d) 0 Ariifical reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating andor diking dry (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to constmtion activity and pits excavated in dry lend for the exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. land to retain water for primarily aesthic reasons. purpose of obtaining fi/l, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definiiion of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 392 Additional CmmentdRemarks: Sampling point is a ponded area behind dirt road dam. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT AND IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for HOLLY SPRINGS LTD. 1287 VERA CRUZ OCEANSIDE, CA 92056 Prepared by WENDY E. LOEFFLER SENIOR BIOLOGIST RECON NUMBER 3 140B FEBRAURY 8,2003 /" 1927 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-2358 61 9 I 308-9333 fax 308-9334 a This document printed on recycled paper TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Findings Introduction Survey Methods Existing Conditions A. Topography and Soils B. Botany c. Zoology D. Sensitive Biological Resources E. F. Wildlife Movement Comdors USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Project Impacts A. Plant Communities B. Wildlife C. Sensitive Biological Resources D. E, Wildlife Movement Corridors USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Mitigation Measures A. Sensitive Plant Communities B. Sensitive Plants C. Sensitive Wildlife D. USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas 1 2 2 7 7 8 17 21 37 39 40 40 43 43 44 44 45 47 51 51 52 References Cited 52 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) FIGURES 1 : 2: Project Vicinity 3: 4: 5: Project Impacts 6: Regional Location of the Project Existing Vegetation and Sensitive Species USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Impacts to USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. TABLES 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: Focused Survey Dates and Conditions Vegetation Communities on the Holly Springs Property Plant Species Observed on the Holly Springs Property Wildlife Species ObservedDetected on the Holly Springs Property Sensitive Plant Species Observed or with the Potential for Occurrence Sensitivity Codes Sensitive Wildlife Species Known (or Potentially Occurring) on the Impacts to Plant Communities on the Holly Springs Property Impacts to USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas on Holly Springs Proposed Mitigation for Holly Springs Impacts Holly Springs Property 3 4 10 38 42 45 5 9 11 18 24 27 31 41 46 48 Summary of Findings The Holly Springs property is a ranch located in the city of Carlsbad, California. The property consists of several parcels. This report describes the biological resources on one of these parcels, Parcel D, which encompasses approximately 109.9 acres. The proposed project is the residential development of 49.2 acres of the site. Impacts to 14.5 acres of this total have been analyzed as part of the Cantarini Ranch project and has been included in the impact analysis for reference only. Mitigation recommendations are based on a total of 34.7 acres of impacts. The proposed project would result in impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and native grassland. Impacts to these sensitive plant communities will require mitigation. Mitigation will consist of a combination of preservation on Parcel D, dedication of open space on the other Holly Springs parcels, restoratiodconversion of plant communities from non-native to native, and creation and enhancement of wetland habitat. One listed bird (coastal California gnatcatcher), three sensitive birds (southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, California homed lark, and white-tailed kite j, one sensitive mammal (San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit), two sensitive plant species (Nuttall's scrub oak and California adolphia), and one noteworthy plant species (spiny rush) were observed on-site. Impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher, white-tailed kite, California adolphia, and Nuttall's scrub oak would be significant and require mitigation. The property contains 1.9 acres of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional areas. The project will impact 0.01 acre of USACE non-wetland jurisdictional waters and 0.01 acre of CDFG jurisdictional areas which will require mitigation. Mitigation measures include creation of wetland habitat and restoration of existing habitat either on Parcel D or the other parcels on Holly Springs. Impacts to wetlands and drainages also require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG, a 404 permit from USACE, and a 401 certificate from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project qualifies for USACE Nationwide Permit 39. The impact analysis and recommended mitigation ratios in this document are based on the City of Carlsbad's draft Habitat Management Plan, which is currently in the process of being approved by regulatory agencies and adopted by the City. If this document is not approved as currently published or is not adopted by the City, the required mitigation recommended in this document may have to be revised and a federal Endangered Species Act Section lO(a)(lj(A) pennit or Section 7 consultation would be required by the regulatory agencies. 1 Introduction The Holly Springs property is a ranch located in the city of Carlsbad, California (Figure I), north of El Camino Real (Figure 2). Holly Springs Ranch consists of several parcels. This report describes the biological resources on one of these parcels, Parcel D, which encompasses approximately 109.9 acres and extends north from the southern boundary of the property, adjacent to Cantarini Ranch. The remaining three parcels are located to the north of Parcel D. A general biological survey was conducted to map vegetation communities and to assess the presence or potential for presence of sensitive flora1 and faunal species. In addition, focused surveys were conducted for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Poliopfilu califonricu culifonzicu) and quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryus edithu quino) according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) survey guidelines. This report provides biological data and background information required for environmental analysis by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, impacts were analyzed using information provided in the City of Carlsbad’s draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (City of Carlsbad 1999). This document is currently in the process of being approved by regulatory agencies and adopted by the City. If this document is not approved as currently published or is not adopted by the City, the extent of significant impacts and the required mitigation recommended in this document may have to be revised and a federal Endangered Species Act Section lO(a)(l)(A) permit or Section 7 consultation would be required by the regulatory agencies. Survey Methods A general biological resources survey was conducted on August 4, 1999 by RECON biologists Wendy Loeffler and Jennifer Hodge. Vegetation communities were assessed and mapped. Animal species observed directly or detected from calls, tracks, scat, nests, or other sign were noted. All plant species observed on-site were also noted, and plants that could not be identified in the field were identified later using taxonomic keys. A portion of this study area was included within a biological study conducted for the Cantarini Ranch and College Boulevard Extension project (RECON 2001). Data collected during this previous study from the areas that overlap between these two projects are included in this report. The wildlife surveys include focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatchers conducted by RECON biologists Wendy Loeffler (permit number PRT-839084) and Jennifer Hodge (PRT-797665) according to the USFWS California gnatcatcher survey guidelines (USFWS 1997). Surveys were conducted on July 26 and August 4 and 18, 1999 between the hours of 6:OO A.M. and 1200 P.M. The specifics of survey dates, times, and weather conditions are provided in Table 1. Focused surveys for coastal California 2 RECON 0 MILES 2.2 4.4 FIGURE 1 Regional Location of the Project M:jobsUOQ la\graphicsbegl.cdr , RECON - - - Map Source: U.S.GS. 7.5 minute topographic map, San Luis Rey quadrangle FIGURE 2 90-00 4000 Project Vicinity i TABLE 1 FOCUSED SURVEY DATES AND CONDITIONS Species Date Surveyor( s) Surveyed Beginning Conditions Ending Conditions 3/3/99 W. Loeffler J. Radtkey 3/5/99 W. Loeffler 311 3/99 W. Loeffler 311 8/99 W. Loeffler 3/24/99 W. Loeffler 4110199 W. Loeffler 4/15/99 W. Loeffler 4/26/99 W. Loeffler 5/2/99 W. Loeffler 5/6/99 W. Loeffler 7/26/99 W. Loeffler J. Hodge 8/4/99 W. Loeffler J. Hodge 1 :oo P.M.; 69°F; 1-3 mph; 10% cover 12:30 P.M.; 68?, 3-5 mph; 90% cover 1 1 :30 A.M.; 68 ?, 1-3 mph; 0% cover 1290 P.M.; 66 "F; 1-5 mph; 0% cover 12:30 P.M.; 66 OF; 1-5 mph; 5% cover 1 :oo P.M.; 65 OF; 3-7 mph; 0% cover 3:OO P.M.; 66 F, 1-3 mph; 0% cover 12:00 P.M.; 67 "F; 1-3 mph; 15% cover 1 :oo P.M.; 67 OF; 1-5 mph; 90% cover 12:oo P.M.; 75 9, 1-3 mph; 0% cover 9:30 A.M.; 66 "F; 1-5 mph; 100% cover 9:15 A.M.; 71 "F; 0-1 mph; 100% cover 4:00 P.M.; 709;; 1-3 mph; 10% cover 2:45 P.M.; 65OF; 3-5 mph; 20% cover 3:30 P.M.; 689;; 1-5 mph; 0% cover 3:00 A.M.; 68T; 1-5 mph; 5 % cover 4100 P.M.; 63OF; 3-5 mph; 15% cover 4:OO P.M.; 68T; 1-5 mph; 0% cover 4:00 P.M.; 72°F; 0-1 mph; 0% cover 4:OO P.M.; 68P, 1-5 mph; 10% cover 4:00 P.M.; 67'F; 3-5 mph; 75% cover 4:00 P.M.; 74°F; 1-3 mph; 0% cover 1 1:OO A.M.; 70°F; 3-5 mph; 80% cover 10:45 A.M.; 76°F; 0-1 mph; 50% cover TABLE 1 FOCUSED SURVEY DATES AND CONDITIONS (continued) Species Date Surveyor(s) Surveyed Beginning Conditions Ending Conditions 8/18/99 W. beffler CAGN 7:OO A.M.; 66°F; 10:45 A.M.; 76V; J. Hodge 0-1 mph; 0% cover 0-3 mph; 0% cover QCB = quino checkerspot butterfly; CAGN = coastal California gnatcatcher F = Fahrenheit; mph = miles per hour gnatcatcher were also conducted on a portion of the site during 1998 for the Cantarini Ranch and College Boulevard Extension project (RECON 2001). Focused surveys for the quino checkerspot butterfly were conducted by RECON biologists Wendy Loeffler (PRT-839084) and Jennifer Radtkey (PRT-797665) according to USFWS quino checkerspot butterfly survey protocol (USFWS 1999). An initial habitat assessment and the first survey were performed on March 3, 1999. The remaining surveys were conducted on March 5, 13, 18, and 24, April 10, 15, and 26, and May 2 and 6. The specifics of survey dates, times, and weather conditions are provided in Table 1. Detailed results are provided in the post-survey report (RECON 1999). A wetland delineation was performed by RECON biologist Jennifer Hodge according to the guidelines set forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1987) on August 4 and 18, 1999. A wetland delineation is used to identify and map the extent of the wetlands and “waters of the U.S.” found within the proposed project boundary and provide information regarding both state and federal jurisdictional issues. Floral nomenclature for common plants follows Hickman (1993). Plant community classifications follow the California Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) (Holland 1986) and the Habitat Management Plan for the Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (City of Carlsbad 1999). Zoological nomenclature for birds is in accordance with the American Ornithologists‘ Union Checklist (1998); for mammals, Jones et al. (1982); for amphibians and reptiles, Collins (1997), and for butterflies, Brown et al. (1992). Assessments of the sensitivity of species and habitats are based primarily on Skinner and Pavlik (1994), State of California (1998, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c), Holland (1986), and the City of Carlsbad ( 1999). Existing Conditions A. Topography and Soils Elevation of the site ranges from approximately 50 to 435 feet above mean sea level (US. Geological Survey 1968). Several hills are present on-site, three peaks clustered on the west side of the site and one larger peak on the east side. There are a number of small drainages throughout the site. A natural spring is present on the southern edge of the property and a dry detention basin is present on the western edge. There are exposed granite boulders present throughout the slopes of the hills on-site. Four soil types are present on-site: Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky, sandy loam (CnE2); Cieneba coarse sandy loam (ClD2); Bonsall sandy loam (BlC2); Olivenhain cobbly loam (OhE) (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky, sandy loam (9-30 percent slopes, eroded) and Cieneba coarse sandy loam (5-15 percent slopes, eroded) soils consist of weathered granitic rock that are excessively drained. The Cieneba-Fallbrook soils are also characterized by the presence of rock outcrops and boulders over approximately 15 percent of the area. Bonsall sandy loam (2-9 percent slopes, eroded) soils are moderately well-drained soils that include a heavy clay loam subsoil slopes. Olivenhain cobbly loam (9-30 percent) formed in old gravelly and cobbly alluvium on dissected marine terraces (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). Botany Ten vegetation communities were identified within the survey area: Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, native grassland, non-native grassland, southern coast live oak woodland, freshwater marsh, cismontane alkali marsh, cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal), southern willow scrub, and mule fat scrub. These communities account for 89 percent of the site. The rest of the site is agriculture, disturbed, or developed. Table 2 summarizes the acres of each vegetation community. Figure 3 illustrates the locations of the plant communities on-site. A total of 1 I6 plant species were identified on the site (Table 3). Of this total, 81 (70 percent) are species native to southern California and 35 (30 percent) are introduced species. 1. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub The majority of the site, approximately 76.4 acres, consists of Diegan coastal sage scrub. The areas on the western half of the property consist of low shrubs in a fairly open configuration, dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia culifornicu) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fusciculatum). Other species present include coast goldenbush (Isocomu menziesii), California adolphia (Adofphia culifornicu), purple needlegrass (Nussellu pulchru), and slender stephanomeria (Stephanomeriu virgata). The coastal sage scrub on the eastern portion of the site is more densely vegetated and is dominated by black sage (Salvia mefliferu), lemonadeberry (Rhus inregrifolia), California sagebrush, bush monkeyflower (Mimufus aurantiacus), and chaparral mallow (Mulucothumnus fascicularus). Understory species include California broom (Lotus scoparius var. scoparius), purple needlegrass, and ashy spike-moss (Selaginella cineruscens). 2. Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern mixed chaparral is present on approximately 4.0 acres of the property along the north-facing slope of the canyon above the detention basin on the western edge of the site. The dominant species are coyote bush (Bacchuris pifuluris), California sagebrush, wild honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicatu var. denudutu), and bush monkeyflower. The soils that underlie this community are primarily rocky, sandy loam. The site does not contain the sandstone soils required to support southern maritime chaparral (Hogan et al. 1996). 8 TABLE 2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY Vegetation Type Acres (9% of site) r Diegan coastal sage scrub Southern mixed chaparral Native grassland Non-native grassland Southern coast live oak woodland Freshwater marsh Cismontane alkali marsh Cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal) Southern willow scrub Mule fat scrub Agriculture Disturbed Developed 76.4 (70%) 4.0 (4%) 9.8 (9%) 5.8 (5%) 0.2 (<I%) 0.3 (4%) 0.3 (4%) 0.8 (4%) 0.2 (< 1%) 0.1 (4%) 9.9 (9%) 0.8 (<I %) 1.3 (1%) TOTAL 109.9 J ., ~fmN c:J Project boundary [@ t o Feet 300 M:'fol,o\J l~ttplljgJ (wg_spp) 02m6/03 Vegetation Communities c=J Diegan coastal sage scrub -Southern mixed chaparral c=J Mule fat scrub CJ Native grassland c=J Non-native grassland C:J Coast live oak woodland ..--~ ' ! ,<r • -Southern willow scrub [=:] Freshwater marsh C=:J Cismontane alkali marsh -Cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal) (==:J Agriculture ~ Disturbed C:=J Developed Sensitive Species G Coastal California gnatcatcber S Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow ~ California adolphia (Adolphia californic.a) llIIIIIl Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) ., FIGURE3 Existing Vegetation and Sensitive Species !,i TABLE 3 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Origin Adolphia califoniica Wats. California adolphia, spineshrub CSS,NNG N Ambrosia psilostaclzya DC. Ammartia coccirtea Ruttb. Anisirickia eastwoodiae J.F. Macbr. Amgallis arvensis L. Aiieniopsis cal(fofoniica (Nutt.) Hook. & Am. Aritheinis cotiila L. Aritirrliinuni iiuttalliariuin Benth. in DC. Artemisia califor-rtica Less. Asclepias sp. Avena sp. Baccharis yihlaris DC. Baccharis salicqolia (Ruiz Lopez & Pav6n) Pers. Botltriockloa barbinodis (Lag.) Herter Brassica nigra L. Koch Bromus diandtus Roth. Bronzus kordaceus L. Byomus niadritensis L. ssp. rirbeiis (L.) Husnot Ccrlochortus spleridens Calystegia nicrcrostegia ssp. arida (E. Greene) Bnirn. Carditus pycnoceplzalus L. Crrstilleja exSerta (A.A. Heller) Chuang & Heckard Centaurea rneliteiisis L. Clzarnaesyce albomarginata (Torrey & A. Gray) Small Chlorogaluni panliflorum Wats. Conium maczrlahfnt L. Conyix bonarierisis (L.) Cronq. Coriyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Cortaderia selloarin (Schultes) Asch. & Graebner Crassicla corzizata (Ruiz Lopez & Pavon) A. Berger Cqytantha sp. Cyrtara carduncirlus L. Cyirodon dacrylofz (L.) Pers. Datura wrightii Regel Dirhelosteinma capitatum Alph. Wood Distichlis spicata (L.) E. Greene Western ragweed Valley red-stem Fiddleneck Scarlet pimpernel, poor-man’s weatherglass Yerba mansa Mayweed, stinkweed, dog-fennel Snapdragon California sagebrush Milkweed Wild oats Coyote bush Mule fat, seep-willow Cane bluestem Mustard Ripgut grass Smooth brorne Foxtail chess Lilac mariposa Finger-leaf morning-glory Italian thistle Purple owl’s clover Tocolote, star-thistle Rattlesnake weed Amole, soap plant Poison hemlock Flax-leaf fleabane Horseweed Selloa pampas grass Pygmy-weed Cryptantha Cardoon Bermuda grass Jimson weed Blue dicks Saltgrass NNG,DIST,CAM FWM css NNG CAM,FWM NNG NNG CSS,NNG,MC FWM NNG,NG,CSS MC.CSS,MF MF NNG NNG,CSS NG, NNG NNG, NG, CSS, DIS, DEV CSS, NNG, NG NNG,CSS,NG NNG NG. NNG CSS, NG NNG,CSS,MF MC CSS,NNG css NNG NNG CSS,FWM,SWS,MC css NNG,CSS NNG NNG,CSS css CSS,CAM,FWM N N N I N I N N N I N N N I I I I N N I N I N N I I N I N N I I N N N TABLE 3 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY (continued) Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Origin Shooting star CSS. NG N Dodecatheon clevelandii E. Greene ssp. clevelandii Dudleya Ianceolata (Nutt.) Biitt. & Rose Efeocharis macrostachy Britton Eiicelia calijioi7iica Nutt. Erernocarpits setigzrus (Hook.) Benth. El.iogonuni,fasciculatuni Benth. var. fasciculatum Eriopltyllum coitfertiJlonmt (DC.) A. Gray var. cortfert(florum Erodiiirii cicutan'unz (L.) L. Her. E~tca~~sj~tus spp. Foeniciiluni sulgare Mill. Gnlium nuttallii A. Gray Gastridium sentricoswn (Gouan) Schinz & Thell. Grtaphaliirrn bicolor Bioletti Griaphalium canescms DC. Gnaphnlium luteo-album L. Gnaphalium sp. Hnlardia squnrrosa (Hook. & Am.) E. Greene Heliotropium curassavicum L. Hemizonia fasciculata (DC.) Torrey & A. Gray Heteromeles ai-butifolia (Lindley) Roemer Zsocoma menziesii (Hook. & Am.) G. Nesom Isomeris arborea Nutt. Jirncus acutus L. ssp. Ieopoldii (Parl.) Snog. Juncus bufortius L. Jurtcus xiphioides Lnstheuin californica Lindley Lessingia filaginifolia (Hook. & Am.) M.A. Lane var. filagiri(fo1ia LpyNlus coridensatus (C. Presl) A. Love Lolium ntultijlorum Lam. Lorticera subspicata Hook. & Am. var. dertudata Rehd. Lotus scoparius (Nutt. in Torrey & A. Gray) Oltley var. scopurius hthyrus vestitus Nutt. var, alefeldii (White) Isely. Lythrum callfomicum Torrey & A. Gray Lythnrm hyssopifolium L. Malacothamnus fasciculatus (Torrey & A. Gray) E. Greene Live-for-ever Pale spikenish Common encelia Dove weed California buckwheat Golden-yarrow White-stemmed filaree Eucalyptus Fennel San Diego bedstraw Nit grass Bicolored cudweed White everlasting Everlasting Cudweed, everlasting Sawtoothed goldenbush Salt heliotrope Golden tarplant Toyon, Christmas berry Coast goldenbush Bladderpod Spiny rush Toad rush Iris-leaved rush Goldfields California-aster Giant ryegrass Italian ryegrass Wild honeysuckle California broom Wild sweet pea California loosestrife Grass poly Chaparral mallow NNG FWM,CAM NNG,CSS NNG CSS,NNG,MC css NNG,CSS MC.CSS,FWM NNG NNG css CSS, NNG CSS, NNG, DIS, OW css CSS,NNG,DIST css CAM,DIST,NNG CSS,NNG MC NNG css FWM FWM CAM css css OW, MC, FWM DIS, NG. NNG MC NNG,CSS css CAM CAM css N N N N N N I I I N I N N I N N N N N N N N N N NJ N N I N N N N N N TABLE 3 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY (continued) Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Origin MTosina lauiina (Nutt.) Abranis Malva panvj7or-a L. Marah inncrocarpus (E. Greene) E. Greene Marmbiuin iuilgare L. Mesernbr~a~it~?en?um cnwfalkhum L. Miniulus aurantiacus Curtis Nassella yukchra (A. Hitchc.) Barkworth Nmarretia hnntata E. Greene Nicotiana glauca Grah. Opuiztia iitforalis (Engelm.) Cockerell. Opuntia parry; Engelm. Osmadenia tenella Nutt. Pentagrainma triortguiaris (Kaulf.) G. Yatskievych, M.D. Windham Phoradendron sp. Picris echioides L. Plantago erecta Moms Pluclwa odomta (L.) Cass. Polypogon monspe1iensj.r (L.) Desf. Qiiercus agrifolia Nee Quercus duniosa Nutt. Rapharius sativus L. Rhus integr(fo1ia (Nutt.) Brewer & Watson Ribes speciosirni Pursh. Ricinus communis L. Ri4me.r crisps L. Salix lasiolepis Benth. Salsola tragus L. Salvia coluiribariae Benth. Salvia inellifera E. Greene Sanrbiicus mexicana C. Pres1 Scirpus anzericanus Pen. Selaginella cinerascens Maxon Sisyrnbrium irio L. Solanuni aniericanurn Miller & E. Wollenweber ssp. triangularis Laurel sumac Cheeseweed, little mallow Wild cucumber Horehound Crystalline ice plant Bush nionkeyflower Purple needlegrass Hooked navarretia Tree tobacco Shore cactus Cane cholla, snake cholla Osmadenia Goldenback fern Mistletoe Biistly ox-tongue Dot-seed plantdn Salt marsh fleabane Annual beard grass Coast live oak, Encina Nuttall's scrub oak Radish Lemonade berry Fuchsia-flowered gooseberry Castor bean Curly dock Arroyo willow Russian thistle, tumbleweed Chia Black sage Blue elderberry Three-square Ashy spike-moss London rocket Nightshade CSS,MC,OW DIS, NNG css NNG,DIST css CSS,NNG,MC NG,NNG,CSS NNG,CSS css CSS,NNG css NNG css ow DIS. NNG, OW css FWM NNG,FWM,CAM OW,MC MC NNGCSS CSS,MC,OW css CSS,NNG NNG,MF,CSS sws DIST,CSS css css css FWM NNG.CSS,NG CSS, NG, NNG NNG N I N I I N N N I N N N N N I N N I N N I N N I I N I N N N N N I I TABLE 3 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY (continued) Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Origin Solanuin xanti A. Gray Purple nightshade NNG N Stephanorneria virgata (Benth.) ssp. virgata Slender stephanomeria CSS,MC,NNG N Tarnarix sp. Tamarisk FWM I Toxicodendron disersilnbui?t (Torrey & A. Gray) E. Greene Western poison oak ow N T)pka spp. Cattail FWM N Verbena lasiostachys Link. Western vervain NNG N Viola pedunculata Torrey & A. Gray Johnny-jump-up CSS, NG N Vulpia nzyuros (L.) var. kirsuta (Hackel.) Asch. & Graebr. Rattail fescue NNG I Washingtonia robusta Wendl. Washington palm NG,OW,SWS, FWM I Y14cca schidigera K.E. Ortgies Mohave yucca css N Zigadenus venenosiis Wats. vas. venenosus Death-camas css N HABITATS OTHER TERMS CAM CSS DIS FWM MC MF NG NNG ow sws Cismontane alkali marsh Diegan coastal sage scrub Disturbed Freshwater marsh Southern mixed chaparral Mule fat scrub Native grasslands Non-native grassland Coast Live oak woodland Southern willow scrub N = Native to locality I = Introduced species from outside locality 3. Native Grassland Native grasslands are comprised of native perennial bunch grasses. This plant community has been mainly converted to non-native annual grasslands due to the invasion of exotic annual grasses. Native grasslands often have a large component of non-native grasses but are distinguished as native when the cover by native grass species is 10 percent or greater. The coastal sage scrub on-site intergrades into grassland throughout the site. Approxi- mately 9.8 acres of the property consists of at least 10 percent of purple needlegrass, a native grass species. Non-native grasses that have invaded the grassland include wild oats (Avena sp.), smooth brome (Bromus hordaceus), foxtail chess (B. rnadritensis ssp. rubens), and Italian ryegrass (Lolium rnultij7orum). Spring annuals, such as Johnny jump- up (Viola pendurzculata), shooting star (Dodecatheon clevelandii), and blue dicks (Dichelostemmu cupitatum), were observed. 4. Non-native Grassland Approximately 5.8 acres of the site is covered with non-native grassland. This plant community is dominated by non-native grasses such as wild oat, smooth brome, ripgut grass (Bromus dinndrus), and Italian ryegrass. Herbaceous species, such as dove weed (Eremopcarpus setigerus), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis nrvensis) were also common in these areas. 5. Approximately 0.2 acre of southern coast live oak woodland is located along a small drainage on the northern central border of the study area. The dominant tree is the coast live oak, with an understory of lemonadeberry, laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), pale spikerush (Eleocharis macrostuchya), and bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides). Southern Coast Live Oak Woodland 6. Freshwater Marsh Approximately 0.3 acre of freshwater marsh is present within and around a natural spring on the southern, central boundary. Approximately half the area classified as freshwater marsh is a typical marsh containing open water and emergent monocots such as broad- leaved cattail (Typha latifolia). Additional plant species identified include yerba mama (Anernopsis califorizica), saltgrass, and spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii). Patches of pale spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya) appear throughout the freshwater marsh community. 15 7. Cismontane Alkali Marsh and Cismontane Alkali Marsh (Seasonal) Approximately 0.3 acre of cismontane alkali marsh and 0.8 acre of seasonal cismontane alkali marsh are present throughout the site. Cismontane alkali marsh communities on the site contain salt grass (Distichlis spicutu), iris-leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides), spiny rush, pale spikerush, yerba mansa, and bristly ox-tongue. The seasonal marsh areas were distinguished by a lack of hydric soils; however, given the presence of the areas classified as seasonal cismontane alkali marsh contain emergent vegetation that is dry because of the time of year observed. The emergent vegetation, namely rushes, is indicative of wetland habitat and would be supported by saturated soils on-site during the wet season. 8. Southern Willow Scrub Approximately 0.2 acre of southern willow scrub is present in several small patches near the pond in the southern, central portion of the property. The habitat is dominated by arroyo willow (Sulk lusiolepis), which forms a canopy with variable density throughout the site. Understory species include those found in the freshwater and cismontane alkali marsh habitats described above. 9. Mule Fat Scrub Approximately 0.1 acre of mule fat scrub is present just above and below the detention basin on the northwestern corner of the site. The dominant species is mule fat (Bacchuris sulicifoliu) with a variable understory of herbaceous marsh species as described above. 10. Disturbed One disturbed area of 0.8 acre is present in the center of the property just west of the pond and freshwater marsh. This area includes an overgrown road that includes bristly ox- tongue, annual beard grass (Polypogoiz moizspelieizsis), and non-native grass species. 11. Agriculture Three agricultural fields are present on the property covering approximately 9.9 acres. One currently lies fallow while the other two are actively cultivated. 12. Developed Two compacted dirt access roads account for 1.3 acres. One road is located on the northwestern portion of the property adjacent to the detention basin and the other is the portion of the SDG&E access road that traverses the eastern boundary of the site. 16 C. Zoology Overall, the site is of high value for wildlife species. The majority of the site, as well as the parcels to the north, contains high-quality Diegan coastal sage scrub. A complete list of the wildlife species detected is provided in Table 4. Sensitive species potentially occurring on-site are discussed in the Sensitive Biological Resources section. 1. Amphibians Most amphibians require moisture for at least a portion of their life cycle, with many requiring a permanent water source for habitat and reproduction. Terrestrial amphibians have adapted to more arid conditions and are not completely dependent on a perennial or standing source of water. These species avoid desiccation by burrowing beneath the soil or leaf litter during the day and during the dry season. Bullfrogs (Ram caresbeinria) were heard in the freshwater marsh on the southern, central edge of the property. 2. Reptiles The diversity and abundance of reptile species varies with habitat type. Many reptiles are restricted to certain vegetation communities and soil types although some of these species will also forage in adjacent Communities. Other species are more ubiquitous using a variety of vegetation types for foraging and shelter. The western fence lizard (Sceloporus uccideiztalis) was observed on-site. Other reptiles expected to be present on-site include the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), granite spiny lizard (S. orcurtii), San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis carenifer annectens), and southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis helleri). 3. Birds The diversity of bird species varies with respect to the character, quality, and diversity of vegetation communities. Birds commonly observed within the Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral include California quail (Callipepla calijbrnica), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypre anna), Bewick’s wren (Thyromanes bewickii), wrentit (Chamaea fasciafa), California towhee (Pi@ crissalis), and spotted towhee (P. macularus). Mourning dove (Zenaida nzacroura marginella), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), and Cassin’s kingbird (T. vociferans vociferans) were commonly observed within the native and non-native grasslands. 17 TABLE 4 WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVEDiDETECTED ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY Common Name Scientific Name Evidence of Occupied Habitat Status Occurrence invertebrates (Nomenclature from Brown, Real, and Faulkner 1992) Behr's metalmark Cabbage white California ringlet Funereal duskywing Mourning cloak Pygmy blue Red admiral Southern blue West coast lady Western tiger swallowtail Honey bee Anise swallowtail Common hairstreak Apodeniia mormo virgulti Pieris rapae Coenonyriipka califoinia califoinia Eynnis fiineralis Nyinplzaiis antiopa aritiopa Breplzidiirm exilis Variessa atalanta ruhria Glaircopsyche lygdamus australis Vanessa niinnbella Papiiio rutulus Apis mellifera Papilio zelicaon zelicaori Strynion inelinus Amuhibians (Nomenclature from Collins 1997) Bullfrog Rarin catesbeinna Reutiles (Nomenclature from Collins 1997) Western fence lizard Sceloparus occidentalis Birds (Nomenclature from American Ornithologists' Union) Turkey vulture White-tailed (= black-shouldered) kite Northern harrier Cooper's hawk Red-shouldered hawk Red-tailed hawk American kestrel California quail Mourning dove Catlmrtes aura Elanus leucurus Circus cyaneus hudsonius Accipiter cooperii Buteo lineatus elegans Buteo jamaicensis Falco spanrrius Callipepla califoin ica califoni ica 2naida macroicra mat-ginella CSS,NNG,NG css css CSS,NNG,NG css css NNG css CSS,NNG css css css css FWM CSS,NNG,CHAP F CLOW,F F F F F,OW NNG,CSS CSS,NNG NNG,CSS,NG CFP, * CSC,MHCP CSC.MHCP, HMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TABLE 4 WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVEDDETECTED ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY (continued) Common Name Scientific Name Occupied Habitat Evidence of Status Occurrence Greater roadrunner Great homed owl White-throated swift Anna’s hummingbird Nuttall’s woodpecker Northem flicker Black phoebe Cassin’s kingbird Western kingbird California homed lark Northern rough-winged swallow Cliff swallow Western scrub-jay Common raven Bushtit Bewick‘s wren House wren Northern mockingbird California thrasher Wrentit Coastal California gnatcatcher Lesser goldfinch House finch Common yellowthroat Spotted towhee California towhee Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Song sparrow Western meadowlark Geococcyx califontianus Bubo virginiariiis Aeronautes saxatalis Calypte anna Dendrocopos riuttallii Colnptes auratus Say0 rn is ri ig ricans sen1 ia trn Tyrariri US voc*$erarts vociferarrs Tvrann~.~ verticalis Eremophila alpestris acria Stelgidoptenx serripennis Hillatdo pyrrhonota tachiim Aphelocorna califo mica Conw corax clnrionertsis Psabriparus niirtinrus ntininius Tltyomnnes bewickii Troglodytes nedoii parknianii Minim polyglottos polyglottos Toxosronia redivivirm rediviwni Clinriinsci,~i.~i.iata herishawi Polioptiln cnlifonrica califonlien Carduelis psaltria hcspcivpltilus Cclrp”dncus mc.ricartusfrpritnlis Geotltlypis trichns Pipilo niaculates Pipilo crissalis Akophila m$ceps cartescens Melospiza melodia Stumella neglecta css F F CSS,CHAP ow CSS,NNG,NG,CH AP DIST NNG,CSS CSS,CH AP,NNG AG F F css F NNG,CSS CSS,CHAP css CSS,NNG css css CSS,NNG css css CAM CSS,NNG,NG CSS,NNG,NG css CSS,NNG CSS,NNG,NG csc FT,CSC,MHCP, H MP CSC. HMP 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O,N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TABLE 4 WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVEDlDETECTED ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY (continued) Evidence of Common Name Scientific Name Occupied Habitat Status Occurrence Mammals (Nomenclature from Jones et al. 1982) California ground squirrel Spertttophilus beecheyi NNG,DIST,CSS 0 Southern pocket gopher Thomoiny umbririus (= bottae) NNG,CSS,NG B Woodrat Neotoma spp. NNG,CSS D San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus califonticus boznettii CSS,NNG,NG csc 0 Cottontail rabbit Sylvilagirs airdubonii CSS,NNG,NG 0 Coyote Canis latrans CSS,NNG,NG S Raccoon Procyon lotor CSS, NNG, NG, CHAP, T ow ow Skunk Mephitis sp. CSS, NNG, NG, CHAP, Scent Habitats CAM CHAP css DIST F FWM NG NNG ow sws Cismont'ane alkali marsh Southern mixed chaparral Diegan coastal sage scrub Disturbed Flying overhead Freshwater marsh Native grassland Non-native grassland Coast live oak woodland Southem willow scrub Evidence of Occurrence V = Vocalization 0 = Observed S = Scat T = Tracks CFP = California fully protected species CSC = California Departnient of Fish and Game species of special concern MHCP = Multiple Habitat Conservation Program HMP = Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad * = Taxa listed with an asterisk fall into one or more of the following categories: Taxa considered endangered or rare under Section 15380(d) of CEQA guidelines Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range Population(s) in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon's range, but which are threatened with extirpation within California Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alarming rate (e.g., wetlands, riparian, old growth forests, desert aquatic systems, native grasslands) The oak woodland and wetland areas on-site are small and isolated, and thus do not support the high number of bird species typically associated with these habitats. In general, the birds utilizing these habitats consisted of the birds commonly found in the adjacent plant communities. White-throated swift (Aeronautes smtalis), cliff swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonata), and northern rough-winged swallow (Srelgidopteryx serripennis) were observed flying over the site. A flock of California horned larks (Eremophila alpestris actia) was observed in the large agricultural field on the western edge of the site. An adult house wren (Troglodytes aedon parkmanii) was observed feeding young at its nest. Raptors regularly observed on-site include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Nesting habitat is present on-site for these species and other raptors in the oak woodland and southern willow scrub; however, these habitats are so small and isolated, it is more likely these species are nesting on adjacent properties. 4. Mammals Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and woodland communities typically provide cover and foraging opportunities for a variety of mammal species. Many mammal species are nocturnal and must be detected during daytime surveys by observing their sign, such as tracks, scat, and burrows. Cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), southern pocket gopher (Thomomys urnbrims), woodrat (Neotoma spp.), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus culifornicus berznettii), raccoon (Procyon Lotor), skunk (Mephitis sp.), and coyote (Canis latrans) were observed either directly or through sign. D. Sensitive Biological Resources Local, state, and federal agencies regulate sensitive species and require an assessment of their presence or potential presence to be conducted on-site prior to the approval of any proposed development on a property. For purposes of this report, species will be considered sensitive if they are (1) listed or proposed for listing by state or federal agencies as threatened or endangered; (2) on List 1B (considered endangered throughout its range) or List 2 (considered endangered in California but more common elsewhere) of the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Skinner and Pavlik 1994); (3) included in the draft HMP for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad or on the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) list of species to be evaluated for coverage or list of narrow endemic plant species ($an Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG] 1998; City of 21 Carlsbad 1999); or (4) considered sensitive, rare, endangered, or threatened by the State of California (2000a, 2000b, 2oooC, 2000d) or other local conservation organizations or specialists. Noteworthy plant species are considered to be those which are on List 3 (more information about the plant’s distribution and rarity needed) and List 4 (plants of limited distribution) of the CNPS Inventory. Sensitive habitat types are those identified by the HMP (City of Carlsbad 1999), NDDB (State of California 2000d), Holland (1986). and/or are considered sensitive by other resource agencies. The MHCP is a habitat conservation plan currently being drafted for the northern subregion of San Diego County (San Diego Association of Governments 1998). The City of Carlsbad has drafted the HMP, a subarea plan of the MHCP (City of Carlsbad 1999). The draft HMP designates a natural habitat preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts and designating mitigation associated with proposed projects. The MHCP draft document identifies a series of focused planning areas within which some lands will be dedicated for preservation of native habitats. These areas contain both “hard line” areas that will be preserved as open space and “soft line” areas that will include both development and open space to be determined through the planning process. Mitigation requirements for impacts to the biological resources are provided in the draft HMP (City of Carlsbad 1999). This document is currently in the process of being approved by regulatory agencies and adopted by the City. If this document is not approved as currently published or is not adopted by the City, all projects with proposed impacts will need to conform to CEQA requirements. The proposed project will be required to enter into either the federal Endangered Species Act Section IO(a)(l)(A) or Section 7 permit process to gain approval from the federal regulatory agencies for impacts to federally listed species. Determination of the potential occurrence for sensitive or noteworthy species are based upon known ranges and habitat preferences for the species (Zeiner et al. 1988a, 1988b, 1990; Skinner and Pavlik 1994; Reiser 1994); species occurrence records from the NDDB (State of California 2000d); and species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the project site. 1. Sensitive Plants Two sensitive and one noteworthy plant species are present on-site: Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus durnosa), California adolphia, and spiny rush. Figure 3 shows the locations of California adolphia. Nuttall‘s scrub oak and spiny rush were common within their respective habitats throughout the site and were not mapped. Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus durnosa). Nuttall’s scrub oak, a draft HMP covered species and a CNPS List IB species, is a coastal chaparral shrub that can occur with an 22 open canopy or in dense stands. This shrub was identified in the southern mixed chaparral habitat on the site. California adolphia (Adolphia culifornicu). This shrub is a CNPS List 2 species that occurs in Diegan coastal sage scrub, often associated with California buckwheat and California sagebrush. California adolphia is present and often a dominant species in several locations throughout the site within the Diegan coastal sage scrub. Spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. Zeopoldii). Spiny rush is a CNPS List 4 species. It is a large bushy rush commonly found in marsh habitats in San Diego County. It can be found in a variety of soil types wherever ponded water or saturated soils are present. This species is fairly common in the freshwater marsh and in some of the cismontane alkali marsh areas. Several other sensitive species are known to occur in the vicinity of the project site and are considered as potentially occurring on-site based on vegetation communities identified. Table 5 summarizes the status, habitats, and results of the botanical survey for each of these potentially occurring species, with codes explained in Table 6. Many of these species, such as shrubs or large cactus, would have been easily observed on the site during the sensitive plant survey. 2. Sensitive Wildlife Several sensitive bird and raptor species were observed on-site: coastal California gnatcatcher, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimuphila ruficeps cunescens), California homed lark, and white-tailed kite. Coastal California gnatcatcher (PolwptiZa californica culij'ornica). The coastal California gnatcatcher is federally listed as threatened, a CDFG species of special concern, and an MHCP covered species. This bird species is a resident species restricted to the coastal slopes of southern California, from Ventura County southward through Los Angeles County, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties into Baja California, Mexico (USFWS 1993). The coastal California gnatcatcher typically occurs in coastal sage scrub, although this bird also uses chaparral, grassland, and riparian woodland habitats where they occur adjacent to coastal sage scrub. Populations of this species have declined as a result of urban and agricultural development (Unitt 1984; Atwood 1992). Coastal California gnatcatchers were observed in two locations during focused surveys conducted on-site (see Figure 3). Gnatcatchers were heard on several occasions in the coastal sage scrub on the southeastern portion of the property and a pair of gnatcatchers was observed in the Diegan coastal sage scrub on the western half of the site. Coastal California gnatcatchers were observed within these same regions during focused surveys 23 TABLE 5 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Species ~~ ~ City of StatelFederal Carlsbad CNPS Status Status LisVCode Typical HabitarIComments Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego thornmint Adolphia califomica California adolphiat Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crass folia Del Mar manzanita Artemisia palmeri San Diego sagewort Astragalus deaiiei Dean's milk vetch Barcharis vanessae Encinitas coyote bush Brodiaea .fil[fiilia Thread-leaved brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt's brodiaea Ceanothus verrucos~.~ Wart-stemmed ceanothus Chorizanrhe orcuttiana Orcutt's spineflower CE/FT -1- -1- -/FE -1- -1- CElFT CE/FT -1- -I- CElFE NE, HMP - NE, HMP NE, HMP - - NE. HMP HMP HMP HMP NE, HMP 1 BE-3-2 2/1-2-1 1 BL3-2-2 1 B/3-3-2 ?/2-2- 1 Bl3-3-3 BIZ-3-3 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland clay soils. Not observed on-site. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral. Observed on-site. Creekbeds, seasonally dry drainages, floodplains. No suitable habitat. Not expected to occur. Southern maritime chaparral. No suitable habitat. Not observed on-site. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, riparian. Not observed on-site. Chapparal; not observed on- site. Chaparral. Not observed on-site. I B/3-3-3 1 B/ 1 -3-2 211 -2- 1 1BD-3-3 Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Not observed on-site. Closed-cone coniferous forest, meadows, cismontane wood- land, valley and foothill grass- land, vernal pools. Not observed on-site. Chaparral. Not observed on-site. Openings in coastal chamise chaparral. Only a few extant populations occur from Encinitas to Point Loma. Low potential to occur. -. TABLE 5 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE (continued) City of Statefiederal Carlsbad CNPS Species Status Status LisVCode Typical HabitatJComments Chnrizaanthe polygonoides var. longispina -I- Long-spined spineflower Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia Summer holly Coreopsis maritima Sea dahlia -1- -I- Dudleya biochntaniae ssp. blochmaniae -1- .P Blochman's dudleya Dudleya variegata Variegated dudleya Dudleya viscida Sticky-leaved liveforever Euphorbia misera Cliff spurge Ferocactus viridescens Coast barrel cactus -1- -1- -1- -1- Harpagoriella palmeri var. palmeri -1- Palmer's grappling hook Hazardia orcuttii Orcutt's hazardia 4- - HMP - NE, HMP NE, HMP HMP HMP HMP - NE, HMP 1 Bl2-2-2 lB/2-2-2 u2-2- 1 lBl2-2-2 1 Bll-2-2 1 Bl3-2-3 212-2-1 211-3-1 211-2-1 1 Bl3-3-2 Open chaparral, coastal sage scrub, montane meadows, valley and foothill grasslands; vernal poolslclay. Low potential to occur. Chaparral. Not observed on-site. Coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub. Not observed on-site. Coastal sage scrub. Not observed on-site. Openings in chaparral and coastal sage scrub; open, rocky grasslands. Not observed on-site. Coastal sage scrub; steep, north-facing slopes1 gabbroic soils. No suitable soils. Not expected to occur. Coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub. Not observed on-site. Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Not observed on-site. Chaparral. coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Not observed on-site. Open charnise chaparral. Only one U.S. population known from Encinitas. Not observed on-site. TABLE 5 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE (continued) City of Species Status Status ListlCode Typical Habitat/Comments StatelFederal Carlsbad CNPS Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii Spiny rush? Lessingia firaginifolia var. filaginifnlia (=CorcthrogyneJilaginifolia var. linifolia) Del Mar Mesa sand aster Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lanata Felt-leaved rock mint Muilla clevelandii San Diego goldenstar Navarretia fossalis Prostrate navarretia Quercus dumosa Nuttall’s scrub oak? -1- - -1- NE. HMP -1- - -1- NE, HMP -/FT NE, HMP -1- HMP 411-2-1 1 Bl2-2-2 1 Bl2-2-2 I BE-2-2 1 BE-3-2 1 BIZ-3-2 Coastal dunes (mesic) meadows (alkaline), coastal salt marsh. Observed on-site. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral. Not observed on-site. Chaparral understory. Not observed on-site. Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Not observed , on-site. Vernal pools. No suitable habitat present. Not observed on-si te. 1 Coastal chaparral. Observed on-site. NOTE: See Table 6 for explanation of sensitivity codes. FE Fr FPE FPT CE CR CT HMP NE 1A 1B 3 - 3 4 TABLE 6 SENSITIVITY CODES FEDERAL CANDIDATES AND LISTED PLANTS Federally listed, endangered Federally listed, threatened Federally proposed endangered Federally proposed threatened STATE LISTED PLANTS State listed, endangered State listed, rare State listed. threatened CITY OF CARLSBAD STATUS Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City o Narrow endemic species in HMP LISTS CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY Species presumed extinct. Species rare. threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing. Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California but which are more common elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing. Species for which more infor- mation is needed. Distribution, endangerment, andlor taxonomic information is needed. A watch list of species of limited distribution. These species need to be monitored for changes in the status of their populations. R-E-D CODES R (Rarity) I = Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction is low at this time. 2 = Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population. 3 = Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. E (Endangerment) 1 = Notendangered 2 = Endangered in a portion of its range 3 = Endangered throughout its range D (Distribution) 1 = More or less widespread outside 2 = Rare outside California 3 = Endemic to California California conducted in 1998 by RECON as a part of the Cantarini Ranch and College Boulevard Extension project (RECON 2001). Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Airnophila rujkeps cunescens). The southern California rufous-crowned sparrow is a CDFG species of special concern. This localized resident species ranges throughout southern California, with resident populations occurring in coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats. Southern California rufouscrowned sparrows are also known to inhabit grassland areas which have been created by fire and human disturbance when the grasslands are adjacent to sage scrub habitat (Unitt 1984). Widespread losses of sage scrub habitat as a result of agricultural and urban development has greatly decreased the amount of habitat suitable for rufous- crowned sparrows. One southern California rufous-crowned sparrow was observed within the Diegan coastal sage scrub on-site. California horned lark (Eremophila uZpes2ri.s aetia). The California homed lark is a CDFG species of special concern. The range of this California subspecies is along the coastal slopes of California from Sonoma County to San Diego County and includes most of the San Joaquin Valley (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Horned larks which occur in coastal San Diego County during the breeding season are members of this subspecies, although other subspecies are found in San Diego County during the winter. In San Diego County, the California homed lark typically inhabits areas with sparse vegetation, including sandy shores, grasslands, mesas, and agricultural lands. Decline of this species is generally attributed to urbanization and human disturbance. A flock of California homed larks were observed in the fallow agricultural field on the western end of the site during surveys in August. This species is expected to breed on-site based on the presence of suitable habitat, the time of year of the observation, and the fact that California homed larks have been observed on an adjacent property during the early summer of 1999 by RECON biologists. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). The white-tailed kite is a California fully protected species which occurs in coastal lowland areas from Oregon to northern Baja California, Mexico (National Geographic Society 1987). This resident bird nests in riparian woodlands, live oak woodlands, or sycamore groves, which border grassland or open fields (Unitt 1984). The white-tailed kite forages over open areas and grasslands feeding primarily on small rodents and insects (National Geographic Society 1987). This species is known to roost in large communal groups (Unitt 1984). White-tailed kite populations in southern California have declined due to the loss of nesting and foraging habitat. 28 A pair of white-tailed kites were observed foraging over the site. This species has been observed in groups of four to five on several of the adjacent properties. This species is known to breed on adjacent properties and there is a high potential for it to breed on-site. Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). The northern harrier is a CDFG species of special concern and will potentially be added as a draft HMP covered species. Northern harrier nesting sites are considered sensitive. This species ranges throughout most of the United States (National Geographic Society 1987). In San Diego County, the northern harrier is an uncommon to fairly common migrant and winter visitor and a rare summer resident (Unitt 1984). The northern harrier hovers close to the ground while foraging in grasslands, agricultural fields, and coastal marshes. The northern harrier most commonly nests on the ground at the edge of marshes, but will also nest on grasslands, fields, or in areas of sparse shrubs (Zeiner et al. 1990). Northern harriers have nested in San Diego County at the Tijuana River, Otay Mesa, Lake Hodges, and Camp Pendleton (Unitt 1984). The range of this species has been reduced due to urbanization and agricultural development. A northern harrier was observed foraging over the site in both March and August, 1999. There is a low potential for this species to nest on-site, but suitable foraging habitat is present. Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii). The Cooper's hawk is a CDFG species of special concern and a draft HMP covered species. The Cooper's hawk is a medium-sized raptor that ranges throughout most of the United States. It is considered an uncommon resident during the breeding season in southern California, with numbers increasing in winter (Garrett and Dunn 1981). This hawk mainly breeds in oak and willow riparian woodlands but will also use eucalyptus trees (Unitt 1984). This hawk forages primarily on songbirds but is also known to eat small mammals. The decline of this species has been caused by urbanization and loss of habitat. Cooper's hawks were observed foraging over the site in March and August. This species is not expected to breed on-site based on the lack of extensive woodland habitat; however, there is suitable breeding habitat just off-site. Additional raptor species. Red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture (Cuthurtes ' aura), and American kestrel (Fulco spurverius) were observed on-site. Both the federal and state governments protect active raptor nests. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennetfii). San Diego black- tailed jackrabbit is a CDFG species of special concern. The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit occupies open or semi-open habitats such as grasslands, coastal sage scrub, and open chaparral and ranges from near Mt. Pinos (at the Kern-Ventura County line) southward and west of the Peninsular Range into northwestern Baja California, Mexico 29 (Hall 1981). The black-tailed jackrabbit is believed to be declining as a result of habitat loss resulting from urban and agricultural development. This species was observed in the Diegan coastal sage scrub. b. Not Observed Several other sensitive animals are either known to occur in the vicinity or have a potential to be present on-site. Table 7 lists the sensitive species observed on-site and those that could potentially occur on-site based on the ranges and habitat requirements of these species with the likelihood of occurrence for these species. Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). Quino checkerspot butterfly is federally listed as endangered. The quino checkerspot butterfly is one of 12 subspecies of the Euphydryas editha checkerspot and was formerly known as E. e. wrightii. The quino checkerspot’s distribution is defined primarily by the distribution of its principal larval host plant, dot-seed plantain (Plantago erecta). Dot-seed plantain is usually most abundant in areas which have natural cryptogamic soil crusts that form on soils in arid environments and are composed of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria), lichens, and mosses, as well as fungi and bacteria (Mattoni et al. 1997). The flight period for the adult butterflies usually ranges from late February through April, although the timing of the flight period can vary considerably from year to year depending on rainfall and temperature patterns. No quino checkerspot butterflies were observed during focused surveys conducted on this property during the 1999 adult flight survey season (RECON 1999). In addition, the host plant for this species is present in very low and sparsely distributed numbers on-site. 3. Sensitive Plant Communities and Habitats The following communities identified on-site are considered sensitive by the City of Carlsbad (1999), Holland (1986), and the State of California (2000d): Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, native grassland, southern coast live oak woodland, freshwater marsh, cismontane alkali marsh, cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal), southern willow scrub, and mule fat scrub. a. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan coastal sage scrub is restricted to the coastal areas of southern California and northern Baja California. Development and other human-related activities have seriously impacted this plant community and its associated plant and wildlife species. It is estimated that 70-90 percent of the presettlement southern California coastal sage scrub has been destroyed, with the losses accelerating rapidly within the last decade (Noss et al. 1995; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat is considered to 30 TABLE 7 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY ~~ Species Status Habitat OccurrenceKomments Invertebrates (Nomenclature from Brown, Real, and Faulkner 1992) Quino checkerspot butterfly Eirphydryas editka qiririo Amphibians (Nonienclature from Collins 1997) Westem spadefoot Spea hantmondii Reptiles (Nomenclature from Collins 1997) Southwestern pond turtle Clcmiriys mannoratn pallida San Diego homed lizard Ph ryrzosorna roroimtimi blairivillii Belding's orangethroat whiptail Cnenzidophonrs liyperytlzrus beldirigi Silvery legless lizard Arirtiella pulchsa pulchsa Coast patch-nosed snake Salwdora hexalepis virgirltea E, MHCP CSC. MHCP CSC. FSS. MHCP CSC. MHCP, + csc, MHCP,HMP csc csc Open, dry areas in foothills, niesas, lake margins. Larval host plant Plaiztago erecta. Adult emergence midJanuary through April. Not observed during focused surveys in 1999. Vernal pools, floodplains, and alkali flats within areas of open vegetation. Moderate habitat present; low potential to occur on-site. Ponds, small lakes, marshes, slow- moving, sometimes brackish water. on-site. Moderate habitat present; low potential to occur Chaparral, coastal sage scrub with fine, loose soil. Partially dependent on harvester ants for forage. Suitable habitat present; moderate to high potential to occur on-site. Chaparral, coastal sage scrub with coarse sandy soils and scattered brush. Suitable habitat present: moderate to high potential to occur on-site. Herbaceous layers with loose soil in coastal scrub. chaparral, and open riparian habitats. Prefers dunes and sandy washes near moist soil. Suitable habitat present: moderate potential to occur on-site. Grasslands, chaparral, sagebrush. desert scrub. Found in sandy and rocky areas. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to occur on-site. TABLE 7 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY (continued) ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Species Status Habitat OccurrenceKonunents Red diamond rattlesnake Crotalus exsul (= C. nrber nrber) csc Desert scrub and riparian habitats, coastal sage scrub, open chaparral, grassland, and agricultural fields. Suitable habitat present; high potential to occur on- site. - Birds (Nomenclature from American Ornithologists' Union) White-tailed kite (nesting) Elanus leucurus CFP, * Nest in riparian woodland, oaks, sycamores. Forage in open, grassy areas. Year-round resident. Observed flying over site; known to nest on adjacent site. High potential to nest on-site. Northern harrier (nesting) Circus cyaiteus CSC, MHCP Coastal lowland, marshes, grassland, agricultural fields. Migrant and winter resident, rare summer resident. Observed flying over site. Foraging habitat present; low potential to nest on-site. Cooper's hawk (nesting) Accipiter cooperii csc, MHCP,HMP Mature forest, open woodlands, wood edges, river groves. Parks and residential areas. Migrant and winter visitor. Observed flying over site. Foraging habitat present; low potential to nest on-site. Ferruginous hawk (wintering) Buteo regalis csc Require large foraging areas. Grasslands, agricultural fields. Uncommon winter resident. Foraging habitat present; low potential to occur on- site. Golden eagle (nesting and wintering) csc, CFP, Aquila chrymefoos BEPA, MHCP Require vast foraging areas in grassland, broken chaparral, or sage scrub. Nest in cliffs and boulders. Uncommon resident. Suitable foraging habitat present; low potential to occur on-site. Prairie falcon (nesting) Falco mexicanus csc Grassland, agricultural fields, desert scrub. Uncommon winter resident. Rare breeding resident. Breeds on cliffs. Suitable foraging habitat present; low potential to occur on-site. No nesting habitat present. TABLE 7 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY (continued) Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Comments Western burrowing owl (burrow sites) Speotyto cun icula ria 11 ypugaea Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus California horned lark Eremophila alpestiis actia Coastal cactus wren Canipyllrlzyrtchus brunneicapillus couesi Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila culifo~nicu califontica Loggerhead shrike Larzius ludovicinrius Least Bell’s vireo (nesting) Vireo bellii piisillus Yellow warbler (nesting) Dendroica petechia breivsteri csc, MHCP,HMP SE, FE, FSS, MHCP,HMP csc CSC, MHCP, * Fr, csc. MHCP,HMP csc SE, E, MHCP,HMP csc Grassland, agricultural land, coastal dunes. Require rodent burrows. Declining resident. Nesting restricted to willow thickets. Also occupies other woodlands. Rare spring and fall migrant, rare summer resident. Extremely localized breeding. Sandy shores, mesas, disturbed areas, grasslands, agricultural lands, sparse creosote bush scrub. Maritime succulent scrub, coastal sage scrub with Opuntia thickets. Rare localized resident. Coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub. Resident. Open foraging areas near scattered bushes and low trees. Willow riparian woodlands. Summer resident. Breeding restricted to riparian woodland. Spring and fall migrant, localized summer resident, rare winter visitor. Marginal habitat present; low potential to occur on- site. Habitat not suitable; not expected to occur. Observed on-site. Marginal habitat present; few Opuntia thickets on- site. Not observed during surveys. Observed on-site. Suitable habitat present; low potential to occur on- site. Habitat not suitable; not expected to occur. Habitat not suitable: not expected to occur. TABLE 7 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY (continued) Species Status Occurrence/Comments Habitat not suitable; not expected to occur. Habitat Dense riparian woodland. Localized summer resident. Yellow-breasted chat (nesting) Icter-ia virem csc, MHCP,HMP Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aiinophila i-uficeps canescens csc, MHCP,HMP Coastal sage scrub, grassland. Resident. Observed on-site. Bell's sage sparrow Aniphispiza belli belli CSC, MHCP Chaparral, coastal sage scrub. Localized resident. Suitable habitat present; not observed during surveys. Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CSC, MHCP Freshwater marshes, agricultural areas, lakeshores, parks. Localized resident. Habitat not suitable; not expected to occur. Blue grosbeak (nesting) Guiraca caerulea Riparian woodland edges, mule fat thickets. Summer resident, spring and fall migrant, winter visitor. Habitat not suitable; not expected to occur. >p Mammals (Nomenclature from Jones et al. 1982) CSC. MHCP Caves. mines. buildings. Fouiid in a variety of habitats, and and mesic. Individual or colonial. Extremely sensitive to disturbance; marginal roosting habitat present; not expected to occur. Townsmd's western big-eared bat Coiyiiorhiiius townsetidii townscndii Audible echolocation signal; marginal roosting habitat present; potential to occur on-site. Western mastiff bat Eumops (Jerotis ca~ifonlirlrs CSC, MHCP Woodlands, rocky habitat, arid and semiarid lowlands, cliffs, crevices, buildings, tree hollows. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii CSC. MHCP Open areas of scrub, grasslands, agricul- tural fields. Observed on-site. FE, csc. MHCP Open coastal sage scrub; tine, alluvial sands near ocean. No suitable soils; not expected to occur. Pacific little pocket mouse Perognathus longimembr-is pacificus ,i TABLE 7 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING) ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY (continued) Species Status Habitat OccurrencelComments Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus falla.fallax CSC, MHCP San Diego County west of mountains in sparse, disturbed coastal sage scrub or grasslands with sandy soils. Moderate potential to occur. San Diego desert woodrat Ntwtonta lepidcl iritemiedia occur on-site. csc Coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to Status Codes Listedmroposed FE = Fr= SE = Other BEPA = CFP = csc = FC = FSS = MHCP= HMP = *- - Listed as endangered by the federal government Listed as threatened by the federal government Listed as endangered by the state of California Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act California fully protected species California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern Federal candidate for listing (taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals to list as endangered or threatened; development and publication of proposed rules for these taxa are anticipated) Federal (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service) sensitive species Multiple Habitat Conservation Program target species list Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad Taxa listed with an asterisk fall into one or more of the following categories: Taxa considered endangered or rare under Section 15380(d) of CEQA guidelines Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range Population(s) in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon's range, but which are threatened with extirpation within California Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alarming rate (e.g., wetlands, riparian, old growth forests, desert aquatic systems, native grasslands) be sensitive by federal and state resource agencies, most southern California jurisdictions, and local conservation organizations. b. Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern mixed chaparral is a community consisting of broad-leaved xeric shrubs dominated by scrub oak, laurel sumac, California buckwheat, and bush monkeyflower (Holland 1986). This habitat has been identified as a critically endangered ecosystem (defined as a greater than 98 percent decline) as a result of destruction, conversion to other land uses, or significant degradation since European settlement (Noss et al. 1995). c. Native Grassland Native grasslands are considered sensitive because of the extensive loss of this community throughout the state. Valley needlegrass grasslands are listed as sensitive by the City of Carlsbad (1999) and NDDB (State of California 2000d) and it is estimated that only 0.1 percent of the native grasslands in California remain (Keeley 1990). The loss of native grasslands is attributed to development, agriculture, grazing, and invasion by non-native, annual grasses and other non-native plant species. The invasion of native grasslands by non-native species including brome grasses (Bromus spp.), wild oats, and mustards has degraded native grasslands to the extent that it is rare to find any that have not been invaded by these species. Grasslands that have 10 percent cover by native grasses such as purple needlegrass are classified here as valley needlegrass grasslands as defined by resource agencies. Approximately 9.8 acres of native grasslands are present on-site. d. Southern Coast Live Oak Woodland Southern coast live oak woodlands are defined by having one primary tree, coast live oak, as the dominant species of the community. Southern coast live oak woodlands are typically found on north-facing slopes and shaded ravines on the coastal slopes of the southern California mountain ranges, generally below 4,000 feet (Holland 1986). e. Freshwater Marsh Freshwater marsh vegetation occurs in open bodies of fresh water with little current flow, such as ponds, and to a lesser extent around seeps and springs. This habitat is identified in Holland (1986), the City of Carlsbad (1999), and NDDB (State of California 2000d) as a sensitive habitat and is a wetland habitat considered sensitive by USACE and CDFG. All wetland habitats have been greatly reduced throughout their entire range and continue to decline as a result of urbanization and are considered sensitive by state and federal resource agencies. 1 36 r f. Cismontane alkali marshes are typically low-lying areas with a high water table that have alkaline soils. Evaporation of ponded water often results in salts remaining on the surface. This habitat is identified in Holland (1986), the City of Carlsbad (1999), and NDDB (State of California 2O0Od) as a sensitive habitat and is a wetland habitat considered sensitive by USACE and CDFG. All wetland habitats have been greatly reduced throughout their entire range and continue to decline as a result of urbanization and are considered sensitive by state and federal resource agencies. Cismontane Alkali Marsh and Cismontane Alkali Marsh (Seasonal) g. Southern willow scrub and mule fat scrub are riparian communities and, as such, are considered sensitive by CDFG and USACE. Both habitats are found along rivers, streams, and intermittent drainages throughout southern California. Channelization of rivers, streams, and drainages for flood control and land development has resulted in cumulative losses of these habitat types throughout the state. The loss of riparian habitats in southern California has been estimated at greater than 95 percent (Faber et al. 1989). Southern willow scrub, in particular, potentially supports several endangered and otherwise sensitive wildlife species. Southern Willow Scrub and Mule Fat Scrub E. USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas 1. Wetland habitats that fall under the jurisdiction of USACE are delineated when they meet the following three criteria: (1) the presence of hydrophytic vegetation; (2) the presence of hydric soils; and (3) the presence of wetland hydrology. Atypical wetland areas (disturbed wetlands) and problem area wetlands (e.g., seasonal wetlands) may lack one or more of the three criteria but could still be considered wetlands if background information on the previous condition of the area and field observations indicate that the missing wetland criteria were present before the disturbance and would occur at the site under normal circumstances. Drainages, or portions thereof, that lack hydrophytic vegetation andor hydric soils, but have distinct evidence of seasonal flows are also under USACE jurisdiction as non-wetland jurisdictional waters. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A total of 1.9 acres of USACE jurisdictional waters was delineated on Holly Springs. Jurisdictional wetlands are found within freshwater marsh, cismontane alkali marsh, cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal), southern willow scrub, and mule fat scrub and total approximately 1.7 acres on-site (Figure 4). 37 1 ,;::; ,. :t ' ~fmN ~~ F~t 300 ·-··-M:~l3 l~\gillloolec.ap\fil4 (iw) 0210&'03 ~ '.~. _,,;y ~-y« .. ,?..i ,_.,,..., ~t· IA . _/ p ~' CJ Project boundary o 7 Test pit USACE Jurisdictional Waters -Wetland \ • ... c=i Non-wetland jurisdictional waters 4 CDFG Jurisdictional Areas t<:<:J Streambed and associated riparian " ) I FIGURE4 USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Approximately 0.2 acre of non-wetland jurisdictional waters was delineated on the project site by the lateral and upstreiuddownstream extent of the ordinary high water mark of the particular drainage or depression. These were identified in areas with representative communities such as Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, native grassland, non-native grassland, southern coast live oak woodland, disturbed, and agriculture lands. The interpretation of the data in the delineation report and the conclusions drawn are subject to review by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) since the project would affect agriculture lands. The US ACE would make final jurisdictional determination based on the recommendation of the NRCS. The report detailing the results of the Holly Springs property wetland delineation is under separate cover. 2. Guidelines for delineating the boundaries of wetlands for the USACE may differ From those used by the CDFG. Under Sections 1600-1607 of the Fish and Game Code, CDFG regulates activities that would alter streams, rivers, or lakes and the associated riparian habitat (e.g., southern willow scrub and riparian woodland). Areas considered jurisdictional by CDFG are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. California Department of Fish and Game CDFG jurisdiction is equivalent to the USACE jurisdiction on this property and totals 1.9 acres. F. Wildlife Movement Corridors Wildlife movement corridors are defined as areas that connect suitable wildlife habitat areas in a region otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Natural features such as canyon drainages, ridgelines, or areas with vegetation cover provide corridors for wildlife travel. Wildlife movement corridors are important because they provide access to mates, food, and water; allow the dispersal of individuals away from high population density areas; and facilitate the exchange of genetic traits between populations (Beier and Loe 1992). Wildlife movement corridors are considered sensitive by resource and conservation agencies. This site is bounded to the east by a residential development and to the west, south, and southeast by private ranch lands that alternate cultivated and disturbed land with native vegetation. The northern boundary is adjacent to additional Holly Springs Ranch parcels, which consist of native habitat and are linked to large areas of dedicated open space, including the Bank of America mitigation bank. To the southeast of the property are several other open space areas, including County of San Diego open space and the 39 Dawson Los Monos Preserve. Holly Springs connects to these open space areas through currently undeveloped ranch lands to the south and east. This site does function as a wildlife movement corridor allowing travel between the areas of open space to the north and southeast by way of native habitats on-site and the areas of open space and native habitats on the adjacent ranch properties. Project Impacts The proposed project consists of the residential development of Holly Springs. Impacts from brush management requirements have also been included in the analysis. Four future development lots are located south and east of the main loop road connecting the site to other proposed developments to the south. These lots will not be graded as a part of the proposed project. These lots would be developed only after the current agricultural activities are abandoned. The biological impacts of the project were assessed according to guidelines set forth in the City of Carlsbad’s draft HMP (City of Carlsbad 1999) and CEQA. Mitigation is required for impacts that are considered significant under the draft HMP and CEQA guidelines. If the draft HMP is not adopted, only the impacts identified as significant by CEQA guidelines will be applicable. Approximately 14.5 acres of the proposed development was included in the most recent submittal to the City of Carlsbad for the Cantarini Ranch property which is currently being evaluated by City staff. This includes a multi-family housing development and the main arterial roads that connect Holly Springs with Cantarini Ranch. These impacts were analyzed for significance and mitigation has been proposed for the significant impacts in the Cantarini Ranch report. These impacts are included in this report for reference. A. Plant Communities The proposed project will impact a total of approximately 49.2 acres within the project boundary. Table 8 presents the impacts to each of the plant communities. Figure5 illustrates the proposed project impacts to the plant communities and sensitive biotic resources. Of the total, 14.5 acres of impacts have been analyzed as part of the Cantarini Ranch development (RECON 2003). Of the remaining 34.7 acres, the proposed project would impact 26.2 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 4.1 acres of native grassland, 3.4 acres of non-native grassland, and 1 .O acres of agricultural fields. Diegan coastal sage scrub, native grassland, southern coast live oak woodland, and cismontane alkali marsh are sensitive plant communities and impacts to these plant communities would be considered significant. 40 TABLE 8 IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES ON THE HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY Existing Grading Brush Total Preserved Additionfl Plant Community Acres Impact Management Impacted Acres Acres Impacts Diegan coastal sage scrub 76.4 21.7 4.5 26.2 44.7 5.5 Southern mixed chaparral 4.0 _- -- 0 3.8 0.2 Native grassland 9.8 3.8 0.3 4. I 4.3 1.4 Non-native grassland 5.8 3.0 0.4 3.4 0.7 1.7 Coast live oak woodland 0.2 -- -- 0 0.2 0 -_ -- Freshwater marsh 0.3 Southern willow scrub 0.2 __ __ Cismontane alkali marsh 1.1 (including seasonal cismontane alkali marsh) Mule fat scrub 0.1 Agriculture 9.9 0.5 0.5 Disturbed 0.8 -- -- DeveloDed I .3 _- -- -- __ -- __ 0 0.3 0 0 0.2 0 0 1.1 0 0 0.1 0 1 .O 3.2 5.7 0 0.8 0 0 1.3 0 TOTAL 109.9 29.0 5.7 34.7 60.7 14.5 'This includes lots that may be developed at a later date and will be tied to the abandonment of the small farming *These impacts have been analyzed as off-site grading impacts for the Cantarini Ranch development project. operation still active on the site. /\\ \ / ~fmN D Project boundary 1@1 t O Fret JOO M.'jobl\ll~gS (-._ YCL'PP) 02/06,'03 Holly Springs Project Impact Areas ~Grading [wTij Brush management Cantarini Ranch Project Impact Areas CZZJ Grading Vegetation Communities [:=J Diegan coastal sage scrub -Southern mixed chaparral CJ Mule fat scrub CJ Native grassland CJ Non-native grassland [:=J Coast live oak woodland .. Southern willow scrub c:==i Freshwater marsh ~ Cismontane alkali marsh .. Cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal) [=:J Agriculture ~ Disturbed [=:J Developed "' Sensitive Species G Coastal California gnatcatcber S Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow ~ California adolphia (Ado/phia califomica) llIIIl] Nuttalrs scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) FIGURES Project Impacts Impacts to non-native grassland, southern mixed chaparral, agricultural fields, disturbed lands, and developed areas, none of which are sensitive plant communities, are not considered significant by definition under CEQA. The City of Carlsbad (1999) does consider loss of non-native grassland, disturbed lands, and agricultural fields to be significant and requires mitigation for these impacts. B. Wildlife Some impacts to general wildlife associated with the project may occur. Birds have a high mobility and will most likely be displaced during grading. Small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles with low mobility may be inadvertently killed during grading of the site. Impacts on general wildlife are considered less than significant. Indirect impacts associated with project implementation include an increase in night lighting, traffic, domestic pets, and litter and pollutants into adjacent wildlife habitat. These impacts are not expected to reduce the wildlife populations of the area below self- sustaining levels and are thus considered less than significant. C. Sensitive Biological Resources 1. Sensitive Plant Communities Two sensitive plant communities will be impacted through project implementation on Holly Springs: Diegan coastal sage scrub, native grassland, and cismontane alkali marsh. Approximately 26.2 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be impacted by the proposed project. This habitat is currently occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher. Impacts to coastal sage scrub are considered adverse and significant. Approximately 44.7 acres of this plant community will be preserved on-site. Approximately 4.1 acres of native grassland will be impacted by the proposed project. Impacts to this plant community are considered adverse and significant. Approximately 4.3 acres of this plant community will be preserved on-site. 2. Sensitive Plants The proposed project will impact 26.2 acres of California adolphia that is present on-site. This impact would be considered adverse and significant. The proposed project will impact plant communities that support spiny rush. Impacts to this species would be adverse but not significant. 43 3. Sensitive Wildlife Impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher could occur during removal of the Diegan coastal sage scrub. These impacts would be considered significant. Impacts to any active raptor nests would be considered significant under the California Fish and Game Code and federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Impacts may potentially occur if trees containing active raptor nests are removed during the breeding season of March through September. Impacts to the southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, California homed lark, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit would be considered less than significant because the proposed project would not reduce the species to below a self-sustaining level. Quino checkerspot butterflies were not detected during focused surveys and are not expected to occur. There will be no impacts to this species. D. USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Impacts to wetlands or drainages are considered significant by the City of Carlsbad, USACE, and CDFG. Impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are shown in Figure 6 and detailed in Table 9. 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The project will impact 0.01 acre of non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on Holly Springs. The project will impact approximately 95 linear feet of streambed. 2. California Department of Fish and Game The proposed project will impact a total of 0.01 acre of streambed and associated riparian habitat that falls under CDFG jurisdiction. E. Wildlife Movement Corridors The project has been designed to retain a 600-foot-wide movement corridor along the eastern boundary of the property. This will allow for the continued movement of wildlife between the open space areas to the north, such as the Bank of America mitigation bank and open space areas to the south and southeast. 44 /"/">1/ ,:Y \ \ /" /,/ ,,,✓ ,// / / '\ ,, ' ' \ ) /' ~--------------------,.,.,,✓--I, ' \ \ ,~-\\ -\ t \ \ \ \ \\ . \' \ .\ ~ ,/ ,-' / ~fmN / /~ \ ,/\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ [@ t 0 Feet 300 c::J Project boundary o 7 Test pit M:'joos\3 l 40blgislbioltc.>pr.fig6 (~ jw) 02,~03 Holly Springs Project Impact Areas ESS)Grading [TI[ITij Brush management Cantarini Ranch Project Impact Areas [ZZJ Grading ' I USACE Jurisdictional Waters .. Wetland C7 Non-wetland jurisdictional waters ,., "' ~ ~"' .,,,. ~ '\~ "' CDFG Jurisdictional Areas :=::J Streambed and associated riparian I I I I ! " i ""'' l "'l, I " ------ I I J I / / /"\\ i '\ I ~' FIGURE6 Impacts to USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas TABLE 9 IMPACTS TO USACE AND CDFG JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ON HOLLY SPRINGS Grading Brush Total USACE Jurisdictional Areas Impact Management Impacted USACE 0 - 0.01 TOTAL USACE Impacts 0.01 0 0.01 TOTAL CDFG Impacts 0.0 1 0 0.0 1 Wetlands -- -- 0.01 -_ Non-wetland Waters of U.S. - Mitigation Measures Mitigation is required for impacts that are considered significant, including impacts to listed species, sensitive plant communities and habitats, and wetlands. Mitigation is intended to reduce significant impacts to a level of less than significant. Mitigation measures typically employed include resource avoidance, habitat replacement, or the off- site acquisition of habitat. The recommended mitigation ratios in this document are based on both the City of Carlsbad's draft HMP and CEQA guidelines. Because the Holly Springs property has been included in the draft HMP as a proposed hardline preserve area, the City of Carlsbad will not require any additional mitigation for significant impacts to plant communities beyond that which is proposed for preservation (City of Carlsbad 1999). In the event the draft HMP is not adopted, the mitigation based on CEQA guidelines would be appropriate. In addition, the proposed project will be required to enter into either the Section lO(a)(l)(A) or Section 7 permit process to gain approval from the federal regulatory agencies for impacts to federally listed species. As mentioned above, approximately 14.5 acres of the proposed development was included in the most recent submittal to the City of Carlsbad for the Cantarini Ranch property (RECON 2001). Because mitigation has been proposed for these impacts, this report does not include mitigation for these impacts. A. Sensitive Plant Communities Table 10 presents the recommended mitigation for impacts to upland plant communities as identified in the draft HMP (City of Carlsbad 1999). The impacts to 14.5 acres already mitigated for within the Cantarini Ranch development proposal have not been included here. Only the impacts requiring additional mitigation are discussed below. The federal, state, and local governments regulate any impacts to wetland plant communities by a no-net-loss policy. Mitigation must include habitat creation that is at a minimum equal to the acreage impacted. The remainder of the required mitigation can be mitigated using various methods, including additional creation, enhancement, or preservation, as determined by a qualified restoration specialist in consultation with the regulating agencies. Impacts to 26.2 acres of coastal California gnatcatcher-occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub on Holly Springs would be mitigated through on-site preservation of 44.7 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub. No additional mitigation would be required if the draft HMP is approved. If the draft HMP is not approved, the impacts would need to be mitigated at a 21 ratio for a total of 52.4 acres. The remaining 8.0 acres will be mitigated through the dedication of coastal sage scrub on the Holly Springs parcels to the north. 47 TABLE 10 PROPOSED MITIGATION FOR HOLLY SPRINGS IMPACTS Impacts Under CEQA (if HMP is Not Adopted) Under HMP Guidelines Required Existing Requiring Preserved (if HMP is approved) Mitigation Mitigation Plant Community Acres Mitigation' Acres Recommended Mitigation Ratio Acreage Recommended Mitigation Diegan coastal sage scrub 76.4 26.2 44.4 Preservation of 44.4 acres in Parcel D. Additional mitigation acreage would not be required by the City of Carlsbad since the project has been included in the draft HMP as a proposed hardline preserve area. will be preserved as open space. Southern mixed chaparral 4.0 0 3.8 None required; however, 3.8 acres Native grassland 9.8 4.1 4.3 Preservation of 4.3 acres in Parcel D. Additional mitigation acreage would not be required by the City of Carlsbad since the project has been included in the draft HMP as a proposed hardline preserve area. 2: 1 52.4 Preservation of 44.4 acres in Parcel D. Dedication as open space of 8.0 acres of coastal sage scrub on remaining Holly Springs parcels. N/A 0 None required: however, 3.8 acres will be preserved as open space. 3: 1 12.0 e e e Pi-eservation of 4.3 acres in Parcel D. Remaining 5.9 acres to be mitigated by either dedication as open space of native grassland or conver- sion of non-native grass- land on remaining Holly Springs parcels; or partici- pation in a mitigation bank. 1.8 acres (from impacts of development of future lots) will be mitigated by conversion of agricultural land once lots are developed. TABLE 10 PROPOSED MITIGATION FOR HOLLY SPRINGS IMPACTS (continued) Under CEQA (if HMP is Not Adopted) Impacts Under HMP Guidelines Required Existing Requiring Preserved (if HMP is approved) Mitigation Mitigation Plant Community Acres Mitigation’ Acres Recommended Mitigation Ratio Acreage Recommended Mitigation Non-native grassland 5.8 3.4 0.7 Preservation of 0.7 acre of non- native grassland on Parcel D. Additional mitigation acreage would not be required by the City of Carlsbad since the project has been included in the draft HMP as a proposed hardline preserve area. Coast live oak woodland 0.2 Freshwater marsh’ 0.3 Cismontane alkali marsh 1.1 (including seasonal cismontane alkali marsh) ’ Southern willow scrub’ 0.2 Mule fat scrub’ 0.1 Disturbed 0.8 0 0.2 0 0.3 All wetland impacts are regulated by 0 a no-net-loss policy. Mitigation should include on-site creation of habitat at a 1: I ratio. The remaining mitigation should be accomplished enhancement of degraded habitat. If suitable on-site areas are not available, off-site acquisition or payment into a mitigation bank may be accepted as an alternative. 0 0.2 through additional on-site creation or 0 O. N/A 0 None required; however 0.7 acre will be preserved as open space. 3: 1 3: 1 2: 1 3: I 3: 1 0 0.8 None required by the City of Fee Carlsbad since the project has been included in the draft HMP as a 0 0 All wetland impacts are regulated by a no-net-loss policy. Mitigation should include on-site creation of habitat at a 1: 1 ratio. The 0 remaining mitigation should be accomplished through 0 additional on-site creation or enhancement of degraded habitat. If suitable on-site areas are not available, off-site acquisition or payment into a mitigation bank may be accepted as an alternative. None required. TABLE 10 PROPOSED MITIGATION FOR HOLLY SPRINGS IMPACTS (continued) Under CEQA (if HMP is Not Adopted) Impacts Under HMP Guidelines Required Existing Requiring Preserved (if HMP is approved) Mitigation Mitigation Plant Community Acres Mitigation' Acres Recommended Mitigation Ratio Acreage Recommended Mitigation Agriculture ~ ~~~~ proposed hardline preserve area. 9.9 1 .o 3.2 None required by the City of Fee Carlshad since the project has been included in the draft HMP as a proposed hardline preserve area. None required. Developed 1.3 0 1.3 None required. None required. TOTAL 109.9 34.7 60.7 64.4 The most recent submittal for the Cantarini Ranch development project analyzed the impacts to 14.5 acres on the Holly Springs property and included proposed mitigation for these impacts. The impacts requiring mitigation do not include these 14.5 acres. 'All wetland plant communities are regulated by the federal, state, and local governments by a no-net-loss policy. These impacts will have to be mitigated by habitat creation, enhancement, or preservation, as determined by a restoration specialist in consultation with the regulating agencies. Mitigation ratios provided are those typical required by regulatory agencies for impacts to these plant communities. I Impacts to 0.2 acre of southern mixed chaparral on Holly Springs were assessed as part of the Cantarini Ranch project (RECON 2003). As this project has proposed mitigation for these impacts, no additional mitigation is recommended here. However, the Holly Springs project will preserve 3.8 acres of southern mixed chaparral on Parcel D. Impacts to 4.1 acres of native grassland on Holly Springs will be mitigated through the on-site preservation of 4.3 acres on Parcel D. If the draft HMP is approved, no additional mitigation is required. If the draft HMP is not approved, the impacts would be mitigated at a 3:l ratio. 5.9 acres of the remaining 7.7 acres will be mitigated by one of or a combination of the following options: dedication as open space of native grassland on the remaining Holly Springs parcels, if present; conversion of agricultural fields on Parcel D to native grassland; conversion of non-native grassland to native grassland on the remaining Holly Springs parcels; or payment into an off-site mitigation bank. The remaining 1.8 acres of required mitigation would be completed following the development of the four future lots. This would be accomplished by conversion of the current agricultural land to native grassland habitat or payment into an off-site mitigation bank. Impacts to 3.4 acres of non-native grassland on Holly Springs would be mitigated through on-site preservation of 0.7 acre. If the draft HMP is approved, no additional mitigation would be required. If the draft HMP is not adopted, this impact would not be considered significant and no mitigation would be required. Any on-site restoration, creation, or enhancement proposed for mitigation will require the creation of a conceptual restoration plan that would present the guidelines for site selection, site preparation, plant selection, installation, and five-year maintenance and monitoring programs. B. Sensitive Plants Impacts to California adolphia will be mitigated by the preservation of 3.1 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub with California adolphia that will be preserved as open space on Parcel D. C. Sensitive Wildlife Impacts to active coastal California gnatcatcher nests can be avoided by removing the Diegan coastal sage scrub within the project area outside of the breeding season of February 15 to August 30. If work must occur during the breeding season, a pre- construction clearance survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests are located in or within a 200-foot buffer around the proposed footprint. In addition, a biologist should monitor all vegetation removal to ensure no direct impacts to 51 individual birds. If a nest is discovered, work may need to be postponed until the young are independent from the nest. If the draft HMP is not approved, these impacts will require either a federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)( l)(A) or Section 7 approval from the federal regulatory agencies. To avoid potential impacts to nesting raptors, it is recommended that trees be removed between September and January, outside of the breeding season of local raptor species. If trees must be removed during the breeding season, a biologist should survey for raptor nests prior to any removal. If an active raptor nest is discovered, a buffer should be established around the tree and work postponed within that area until the young are independent of the nest site. The required buffer is typically 500 feet. D. USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas 1. Impacts to non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are typically mitigated at a ratio of 1 : I. The impact of 0.01 acre of non-wetland jurisdictional waters would be mitigated at a 1: 1 ratio by the creation of 0.01 acre of wetland habitat. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2. California Department of Fish and Game Mitigation for impacts to 0.01 acre of CDFG jurisdictional areas would be mitigated as described above for the USACE jurisdictional waters. 3. Permitting Requirements Impacts to USACE jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will require a 404 permit from USACE and a 401 water quality certificate or waiver from the Regional Water Quality Control Board in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act. The project likely qualifies for a USACE Nationwide Permit 39 because the impacts to wetlands are less than the maximum threshold of impacts to 0.5 acre of wetland and 300 linear feet of streambed. Impacts to CDFG jurisdictional drainages and associated riparian habitat will require a 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. References Cited American Ornithologists’ Union 1998 Check-list of North American Birds. 7th ed. Washington, D.C. 52 Atwood, J. L. 1992 A Maximum Estimate of the California Gnatcatcher’s Population Size in the United States. Wesrem Birds 23( 1): 1-9. Beier, P., and S. be 1992 A Checklist for Evaluating Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:434-440. Brown, J. W., H. G. Real, and D. K. Faulkner 1992 Butteflies of Baju California. Lepidoptera Research Foundation, Inc., Beverly Hills, CA. California, State of 2000a Special Animals. Natural Diversity Data Base. Department of Fish and Game. July. 2000b Special Plants List. Natural Diversity Data Base. Department of Fish and Game. July. 2000c State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. July. 2000d Natural Diversity Data Base. Nongame-Heritage Program, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Carlsbad, City of 1999 Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. December. Collins, J. T. 1997 Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians and Reptiles. 4th ed. Herpetological Circular No. 25. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Department of Zoology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. Faber, P. M., E. Keller, A. Sands, and B. M. Massey 1989 The Ecology of Riparian Habitats of the Southern California Coastal Region: A Community Profile. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.27). Garrett, K., and J. Dunn 198 I Birds of Southern California. Artisan Press, Los Angeles. 53 Grinnell, J., and A. Miller 1944 The Distribution of the Birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna 26:608. Hall, E. Raymond 1981 The Manzrnals of North America. 2nd ed. 2 vols. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Hickman, J. C. (editor) 1993 The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Hogan, D. C., J. 0. Sawyer, and C. Saunders 1996 Southern Maritime Chaparral. Fremontia 24(4):3-7 Holland, R. F. 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October. Jones, J. K., D. C. Carter, H. H. Genoways, R. S. Hoffman, and D. W. Rice Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum, Texas Tech University 80: 1-22. 1982 Keeley, J. E. 1990 The California Valley Grassland. In Endangered Plant Communities of Southern California. Southern California Botanists, Special Publication No. 3, edited by A. A. Schoenherr. Claremont, California. Mattoni, R., G. F. Pratt, T. R. Longcore, J. F. EmmeI, and J. N. George 1997 The Endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, Euphydryas editha quino Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 34: (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). 99-1 18. National Geographic Society 1987 Field Guide to the Birds of North America. 2nd ed. National Geographic Swiety, Washington, D.C. Ness, R. F., E. T. LaRoe, and J. M. Scott 1995 Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. United States Department of Interior, National Biological Survey, Washington, D.C. 54 rc- RECON 1999 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly might Survey Report for Holly Springs Ranch and Cantarini RanchKollege Boulevard Extension. Prepared for BENTEQ and Lucia Sipple. June. 2003 Revised Biological Technical Report and Impact Analysis for the Cantanni Ranch Property, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for BENTEQ. February. Reiser, C. H. 1994 Rare Plants of San Diego County. Aquafir Press, Imperial Beach, California. San Diego Association of Governments (SNAG) 1998 The Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Consultants' Working Draft. June. Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf 1995 A Maizual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento. Skinner, M., and B. Pavlik 1994 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Plant Society Special Publication No. 1 , 5th ed. Sacramento. California Native U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program, Technical Report Y-87- 1. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973 Soil Survey, Sun Diego Area, California. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Roy H. Bowman, ed. San Diego. December. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1993 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. Federal Register 58(59), March 30. 50 CFR 17. 1997 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/ Absence Survey Guidelines. U.S. Geological Survey 1968 San Luis Rey quadrangle 7.5-minute topographic map. Photorevised 1975. 55 Unitt, P. A. 1984 Birds of Sun Diego County, Memoir No. 13. San Diego Society of Natural History. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K. E. Mayer, eds. 1988a Amphibians and Reptiles. California’s Wildlife, vol. 1. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento. 1988b Mammals. California’s Wildlife, vol. 3. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 1990 Birds. California’s Wildlife, vol. 1. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. APPENDIX C Transportation/Circulation Analysis , I , WILLDAN w Serving Public Agencies November 28,2001 REVISED -January IO, 2003 Mr. David M. Bentley Bentley-Mon arch , LLC PMB ##433 4740 E. Sunrise Drive Tucson, AZ 8571 8 27042 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 270 Foothill Ranch, California 92610 949/470-8840 fax 949/770-9041 www.wil1dan.com SUBJECT: CANTARINI PROPERTY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Dear Mr. Bentley: /A This study provides a summary of traffic factors related to the proposed development of the Cantarini Property in the City of Carlsbad. The analyses contained in this study are based upon information provided by your representatives, our past work in the City, previously completed analyses for the study area, updated traffic information, and standard reference materia Is. . PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Cantarini project is located on the easterly side of a future section of College Boulevard, between El Camino Real (ECR) and Cannon Road (future). Accesses for the project are planned at (future) College Boulevard, with the northerly identified as “C” Street and the southerly as “A” Street. These roadways would also serve other properties to the north, south, and east of the site. Figure 7 illustrates the location of the project, while Figure 2 shows the project roadways. Wifldan Cantarini PropeHy Traffic Analysis City of Carlsbad #I2843 -1- lflDUJI0 DfSlGN GROUP, IWC. SUIT€ Mo CARLSARD, CA 92009 PHONE (760) 438-3181 FRX (7M) 438.01 73 703 RUW WORI ROAD . 4 .- -- .- ... . . -. . , JOB# 12843 WlLLB 1 PROJECT( 3CATION FIG1 IRF \ LEGEND - ORIGINAL HARDLINE - NEW HAROLINE SENSJTAVE HABITAT AREA 60' BRUSH UAN CEMENT WE1 L1001FICATklN CONSERVATION EASCL(ENl EXHIBIT A JOB# 12843 WILLDAN PROJECT SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 The Cantarhi project is planned to provide 105 single family dwelling units (SFDU) and 80 multi-family dwelling units (MFDU). The proposed project cannot be developed until the construction of College Boulevard occurs, adjacent to the project site, and extends to reach an existing arterial street. The project traffic would access College Boulevard via “A Street and “C” Street. These collector roads (“A” and ‘C”) are planned to have 40 foot curb-to- curb width . EXISTING CONDITIONS The typical existing conditions are not pertinent in this study area, since the majority of critical arterial roadways do not presently exist. The section of College Boulevard which would provide direct project access does not exist. In addition, the part of Cannon Road just northwest of the site is not yet constructed. Existing traffic conditions in the study area are subject to significant change as the additional arterial roadway connections (College Boulevard and Cannon Road) are completed. In addition, a “Zone 75, L oca/ Facilifies Management Plan Amendmenf”’ (“Zone 15, LFMPA”) for the terraces has been completed. (A new amendment to reflect current proposals will be processed.) This document serves as a basis to determine whether the currently proposed project and surrounding development are consistent with this existing Plan. ? TRAFFIC ANALYSES The Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces) provides specific mitigations for potential land uses - in several “Development Areas” of the overall Zone. These circulation mitigations address the roadway system that is required to support the planned development [assumed in the Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces)] and also provide a Financing Plan for the road improvements. “Zone 15, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment” (“Zone 15, LFMPA”) for the June 10, 1998. 1 terraces; Hofman Planning Associates, Maniton Engineering, Urban Systems Associates; 4 Willdan Cantarini Property Traffic Analysis City of Carlsbad #I 2843 -4- r A primary issue, therefore, is whether the currently proposed project is consistent (from a traffic viewpoint) with the land uses assumed in the Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces). In addition to this evaluation, there are other pertinent issues related to the current project, which are addressed in these analyses. The traffic factors evaluated are: 1. A comparison of the current project to the previously assumed use of the project sites. 2. An update of the current plans for development in the other portions of Zone 15 (other than Cantarhi), which are expected to change. All of these areas are now planned to have reduced development. 3. Review of buildout traffic conditions at the two adjacent key intersections based upon the updated traffic model runs recently completed by the Crty of Carlsbad (through SANDAG). r 4. Evaluation of the on-site (and adjacent to the site) roadways, “A” Street and “C” Street, to determine whether their proposed 40 foot, curb-to-curb width is adequate. 5. Analyses of the intersections of “A” and “C” Streets at College Boulevard to determine if added street width is required to serve the currently planned land uses. 1. Trip generation analyses were performed for the currently proposed Cantarhi project, then compared to the trip potential for the previously planned uses. The currently proposed project consists of 105 SFDU and 80 MFDU. The trip generation potential for the proposed project is shown in Table 7 and totals 1,900 daily trip ends, of which 150 (40 In, 11 0 Out) trip ends and 195 (135 In, 60 Out) trip ends would occur during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Proposed Proiect versus Previouslv Assumed Land Use Previously assumed land uses for the project sites were referenced from the Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces) [Exhibit 14, combined with review of the maps]. The previous land uses were assumed to provide 351 SFDU on the main portion of Canfarini. Trip r Willdan Canfarini Property Traffic Analysis #I2843 -5- Cify of Carlsbad TABLE I TRIP GENERATION Cantarini Project - Carlsbad Residential - Single Family per DU 12.0 Residential - Multi Family per DU 8.0 LAND USE 0.29 0.67 0.84 0.36 0.13 0.51 0.56 0.24 - Single Family (RLM-4A) - Single Family (RLM3A) 1s Assumed Land Use (’): 351 DU (’) 3,510 85 195 245 105 31 DU (2) 31 0 5 15 20 10 TOTAL - Previous Plan DU = Dwelling Units (I) (2) San Dieqo Traffic Generators; San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); updated July 1998. Referenced from the Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces). 3,820 90 21 0 265 115 -6- - Single Family 105 DU 1,260 30 - Multi Family 80 DU 640 10 TOTAL - Current Project 1,900 40 70 90 40 40 45 20 I IO 135 60 potential for these previously assumed developments is 3,820 daily trip ends, with 300 (90 In, 210 Out) AM peak hour trip ends and 380 (265 In, 115 Out) PM peak hour trip ends. It can be seen in Table 7 that the trip potential for the currently proposed project is significantly less than for the development that was previously assumed. The Cantarinisite is, therefore, anticipated to generate less traffic than allowed under the current Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces). 2. We were informed that some other areas within Zone 15 are anticipated to be developed at a less intensive level. Table 2 lists the other locations in Zone 15 where changes to the LFMPA assumptions are expected. It can be seen in Table 2 that a substantial reduction in residential units is expected based upon current development plans. Other Areas in Zone 15 with Revised DeveloDment Plans Table I, which was presented above, documented the anticipated reduction in trip generation for the Cantarini project. Trip generation analyses were also completed for the other areas of Zone 15, which are known to have reduced development plans. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 3. r Table 3 shows the daily trip generation potential would be reduced from I I ,I 50 trip ends [based upon the Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces) land use assumptions] to 2,110 trip ends. The peak hour totals would be reduced from 890 to 170 trip ends during the AM peak hour and 1 ,120 to 210 trip ends for the PM peak hour. 3. Updated Buildout Conditions Analvses The City of Carlsbad has been recently working with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to develop updated buildout traffic projections. The current projections (utilized in this study) are the result of significant efforts of the City and other professionals and should be representative of projections that will be formally adopted by the City. Willdan Cantarini Property Traffic Analysis #72843 -7- City of Carlsbad TABLE 2 2 & 29 - State of California & Tchang 3 - Cantarini (PROJECT) 23 - Western Land Exchange 4 8 12 - Costa Real M.W.D. and Holly Springs, Ltd. (Partial) 12 - Holly Springs, Ltd. (Partial) 23 - Western Land (Partial) LAND USE COMPARISON ZONE 15, LFMPA (FOR THE TERRACES) VS. EXPECTED DEVELOPMENT RLM-I 379 SFDU 0 RLM-4A & 351 SFDU 105 SFDU Portion of RLM-2 80 MFDU RLM-3A 31 SFDU 0 (Included with Cantarini Project) (Included with Cantarini Project) RLM-2 443 SFDU 0 RLM-2A 8( 134 SFDU 43 SFDU Portion of RLM-2 RLM-3 159 SFDU 159 SFDU Cantarini Project - Carlsbad TOTAL - Including Cantarini TOTAL - Excluding Cantarini LAND NUMBERtOWNER(’) 1,497 DU 387 DU 1,146 DU 202 DU SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Units (Residential) MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Units (Residential) Source: Based on information provided by the Ladwig Design Group, Inc. and the Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces) [including Exhibits 6, 7, 14 and the “LFMPA Constraints Maps”]. (I) (2) Zone 75, LFMPA (for the terraces); Exhibits 6 and 7. The 43 single family dwelling units (SFDU) consist of 39 SFDU and 4 future single family lots. -8- TABLE 3 2829 - SFDU 379 DU 4&12 - SFDU 443 DU 12 - SFDU 134 DU 23 - SFDU 159 DU PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED TOTAL TRIP GENERATION REDUCTIONS OTHER AREAS WITHIN ZONE 15 3,790 90 21 0 265 115 4,430 105 250 31 0 135 1,340 30 75 95 40 1,590 40 90 110 50 1 1,150 265 625 780 340 Cantarini Project - Carlsbad 2 & 29 - Open Space 0 4& 12 - (I) 0 12 - SFDU 43 DU 23 - SFDU 159 DU CURRENT ANTICIPATED TOTAL - - - _. - - - - - - 520 10 30 35 15 1,590 40 90 110 50 2,110 50 120 145 65 DU = Dwelling Units SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Units (1) Included with the proposed Cantarhi project. -9- A comparison was made of peak hour traffic volumes at the two adjacent, critical intersections [College Boulevard / El Camino Real (ECR) and College Boulevard / Cannon Road] for buildout conditions. The volumes utilized in this study from Appendix B were compared to those in the "Bridge and Thoroughfare Disfricf #" traffic study. Table 4 lists the values by movement for each source. Review of the data in Table 4 indicates no significant differences. These locations were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for the buildout traffic conditions. These analyses were conducted to verify that the updated projections do not result in any unanticipated, adverse conditions. The ICU methodology utilizes a comparison of intersection volumes to available intersection capacity, which results in an ICU value. The ICU value then relates to various Levels of Service (LOS), which range from "A (the best) to "F" (the worst). For the City of Carlsbad, LOS A through D are considered acceptable, while LOS E and F are considered over capacity. A more detailed explanation of ICU and its relationship to LOS is provided in Appendix A. 1 Table 5 provides the results of the ICU analyses at the two adjacent, critical intersections. The ICU analyses worksheets can be found in Appendix 5. It can be seen that both College / ECR and College / Cannon have acceptable operations (LOS D or better) for buildout conditions. This indicates that the updated model runs are not anticipated to result in adverse conditions and the Zone 15 LFMPA (for the terraces) conditions, which are presently in effect, should remain as applicable. It should also be remembered that the SANDAG buildout model runs would be based upon adopted land use information and would not include the current development objectives presented in this study. The intersection analyses, therefore, represent a "worst case" 2 "Carlsbad Bridge and Thoroughfare District #4"; Urban Systems Associates, lnc.; January 29, 2001; Figures 8-2 and 8-3 (2020). 1 TABLE 4 NT NR SL ST TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON SRlDGE f: THOROUGHFARE OllSTRlCT ff4 ! CANTARIN! 995 996 1545 1543 605 604 980 98 1 ao 80 50 49 2029 2029 970 97 1 Cantarini Project - Carlsbad SR EL COLLEGE BOULEVARD 8 EL CAMINO REAL (ECR) 150 147 90 91 725 72 5 310 31 0 21 5 21 2 585 585 I ET ER WL 305 304 650 652 170 170 175 173 730 730 535 534 WT 595 594 300 30 I WR 25 24 25 25 COLLEGE BOULEVARD & CANNON ROAD NL 1 IO 109 120 119 NT 760 758 81 5 ai 5 NR 365 363 550 547 SL 55 53 55 56 ST 640 640 745 744 SR 51 5 51 6 200 198 EL 205 205 350 349 I ET 390 389 840 839 ER 50 48 115 -1 14 WL 400 397 365 363 WT 81 5 81 4 475 474 i - WR 45 46 60 59 TABLE 5 College I Cannon College I “A” Street College / “Cy’ Street INTERSECTION ANALYSES SUMMARY FUTURE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS 0.64 i B 0.77 I C 0.50 I A 0.57 I A 0.43 /A 0.50 I A Cantarini Project - Carlsbad College (N-S) / ECR (E-W) College (N-S)/Cannon (E-W) College (N-S) /“A” Street (E-W) College (N-S) / “C” Street (E-W) INTERS EC TI0 N 2 2 I+ 2 2 0 I 3 I+ 13 I+ 1 2 I+ 1 21+1 21+1 21+ 1 2 I+ 1 2 I+ 1 101 1 0 1 2 1+ 1 2 I+ 1 101 1 0 College / El Carnino Real (ECR) 0.83 I D 0.71 IC I I I LANE GEOMETRI ASSUMPTIONS I+ - - Separate right turns operate, but a specific lane may not be striped. -12- r condition, since i€ was shown above that significant reductions in development and trip generation potential are anticipated. 4. The project is proposed to be served by two collector roads, presently identified as “A” Street and “C” Street. They are planned to have curb-to-curb widths of 40 feet and are representative of the critical sections of the internal collectors, as they would carry the highest volume of traffic. “A” and “C” Streets as 40 Foot Wide Collector Roads These roadways would not only serve the Cantarhi project, but also various adjacent parcels as well. The internal street system and the anticipated connections to the adjacent properties were shown earlier on Figure 2. Based upon the proposed road system, the land use information contained in the zone plan, and proposed development updates provided to us, the collectors were evaluated. /I It was necessary to determine the trip generation potential of the properties that are expected to have access through “A” Street and “C” Street. The most updated land use assumptions were referenced and trip generation analyses were completed. Table 6 provides a summary of the trip totals and also indicates the orientation of the traffic (to “A Street, “C” Street, or both). It was assumed that for the parcels which use both “A” and “C” Streets, the splits would be approximately 50 percent to each roadway. This results in a total daily traffic volume of 3,995 daily trip ends for “A Street and 2,615 daily trip ends for “C” Street. The City of Carlsbad “Sfreef Design Criteria” indicates daily traffic ranges of 1,200 to 10,000 for Collector Streets with 40 foot curb-to-curb widths. Access to adjacent property is indicated as “limited - subject to approvar‘. The projected volumes are near the lower end of the daily traffic range, with a maximum volume of 3,995. A few lots on both “A and “C” Streets would have direct vehicular access, which would require City approval. These Willda n Cantarini Propedy Traffic Analysis #12843 Cify of Carlsbad -1 3- TABLE 6 1 - SFDU 7,8,9,10&15 - SFDU 20 - SFDU TRIP GENERATION STREETS “A” AND “C” ANALYSES 12 DU 120 5 5 10 5 90 DU 900 20 50 65 25 88 DU 880 20 50 60 25 Cantarini Project - Carlsbad TOTAL 1,900 45 105 135 55 3 - SFDU (Cantarini) 3 - MFDU (Cantarini) 11 - SFDU 16 - SFDU DU = Dwelling Units SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Units MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Units 105 DU 1,260 30 70 90 40 80 DU 640 10 40 45 20 64 DU 640 15 35 45 20 165 DU 1,650 40 90 115 50 (1) (2) Included with the proposed Canfarini project. The 43 single family dwelling units (SFDU) consist of 39 SFDU and 4 future single family lots. TOTAL 4,190 95 -14- 235 295 130 4 & 12 - (I) 12 - SFDU - - - - - 0 43 DU 520 10 30 35 15 TOTAL 520 10 30 35 15 r lots are located some distance from College Boulevard and would have volumes less than the identified maximums. It can be seen that the projected 3,995 daily trip ends on “A Street and the daily volume of 2,615 trip ends on “C” Street are well below the theoretical roadway capacity of ‘I 0,000. The volume to capacity (VK) ratios for “A and “C” Streets are 0.40 and 0.26, respectively, which result in LOS A for both roadways. This indicates that the proposed roadway section (40 feet curb-to-curb) is adequate to serve the projected traffic volumes anticipated to utilize “A Street and “C” Street. 5. The two intersections which would serve as access to the proposed Cantarini project, as well as adjacent properties, were analyzed for the specific developments being considered. The SANDAG traffic model, through necessity, contains more generalized assumptions with regard to land uses. As noted in Section “4” above and detailed in Table 6, trip generation analyses were provided for the specific developments anticipated and the distribution of these trip ends was also considered. Analvses of “A” Street I Colleqe and “Cy’ Street / Coiieue /I The SANDAG model volumes entering and exiting ”A Street and “C” Street were, therefore, updated based upon the trip generations shown in Table 6. Intersection analyses (ICU methodology) were then performed for buildout (long range future) traffic conditions. The results are summarized in Table 5, which also identifies the lane geometric assumptions. The actual worksheets, which also contain the traffic volume and lane geometric assumptions, are provided in Appendix 6. Both of the access intersections have LOS A operations, which are well within the acceptable range. This indicates that the proposed roadways would provide acceptable operations at the study intersections, as well as for the roadway sections (as determined above in Section “4”). Willdan Canfarini Property Traffic Analysis #I2843 City of Carlsbad -15- SUMMARY This study has examined traffic factors related to the proposed Cantarini project to be located on the easterly side of a future section of College Boulevard, between El Camino Real (ECR) and Cannon Road (future), in the City of Carlsbad. This study was primarily conducted to determine if the proposed project is consistent (from a traffic viewpoint) with the land uses assumed in the Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces). Trip generation analyses were performed for the proposed project and compared to the trip generation of the previously assumed uses. Buildout traffic conditions were examined at four intersections related to the proposed project. The two planned accesses to the proposed project, "A Street and "C" Street, were also evaluated as a part of these traffic analyses. ' The following are the principal findings of this study. The proposed Canfarini project (1 05 SFDU and 80 MFDU) is estimated to generate a total of 1,900 daily trip ends, of which 150 (40 In, 1 10 Out) trip ends would occur during the AM peak hour and 195 (I 35 In, 60 Out) trip ends would occur during the 1 PM peak hour. When compared to the development that was previously assumed for the project sites in the Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces), the currently proposed Cantarini project is shown to have a significantly lower trip potential (Table I). The Cantarini project is anticipated to generate less traffic than allowed under the current Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces). . It was indicated that some of the other areas within Zone 15 are anticipated to be developed at a less intensive level. Based upon current development plans, a substantial reduction in residential units is expected (Table 2). Trip generation analyses were completed for the other areas in Zone 15 and it is shown that under the reduced development plans (currently expected), the trip generation potential would be reduced considerably from I 1,150 to 2,l IO daily trip ends, 890 to 170 AM peak hour trip ends, and 1,120 to 210 PM peak hour trip ends (Table 3). 4 Willdan Cantarini Property Traffic Analysis City of Carlsbad #I2843 -16- r 4) ICU analyses were conducted at the two intersections most critical to the proposed project for buildout traffic conditions. Both the intersections of College / ECR and College / Cannon would have acceptable operations (LOS D or better) under buildout traffic conditions (Table 5). These intersection analyses were based upon SANDAG buildout model runs, which do not include the current reduced development plans presented in this study; therefore, these intersection analyses represent a "worst case" condition. 5) The proposed designs of "A Street and "C" Street were reviewed from a traffic perspective. The 40 foot, curb-to-curb design is shown to provide adequate roadway capacity in order to serve the proposed project, as well as the other adjacent developments which would utilize these collectors. rc * * * * * * * 6) The intersections of College / "A Street and College / "C" Street were analyzed under buildout conditions with modifications to account for the specific projects that are anticipated to utilize these roadways. Both intersections were found to operate at LOS A, which is well within accepted standards. Willdan #I2843 -17- Willdan Cantarini Property Traffic Analysis #I2843 City of Carlsbad -17- Cantarini Property Traffic Analysis City of Carlsbad ? We trust that these analyses will be of assistance to you and the City of Carlsbad. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, W/f LDAN Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 Registered Professional Engineer State of California Number C48774 cc. Mr. Bob Ladwig WSP: RSB:CC #I 2843 Willdan Cantarini Property Traffic Analysis #I2843 City of Carlsbad -18- APPENDIX A N OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND f- LEVEL OF SERVICE APPENDIX A EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILI24 TION The capacity of a street is nearly always greater between intersections and less at intersections. The reason for this is that the traffic flows continuously between intersections and only part of the time at intersections. To study intersection capacity, a technique known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) has been developed. tCU analysis consists of (a) dete portion of signal time n s for the movements; For example, if for fl northbound traffic is 1,000 vehicles per hour, the southbound traffic is 800 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either approach is 2,000 vehicles per hour of green, then northbound traffic is critical and requires 1,0000/2,000 or 50 percent of the signaJ time. If for the east-west traffic, 40 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 40, or 90 percent. When lea-turn phases exist, they are incorporated in€o the analysis. As ICU's approach 100 percent, the quality of traffic service approaches Level of Service (LOS) E, as defined in the Highway Capacz-v Manual, Special Report 87, Highway Resear& Board, 1965. ' r Level of Service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level of Service D is typically the Level of Service for which an urban street is designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of tong duration. A description of the various Levels of Setvice appears on the following page. The ICU calculations assume that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed. It is possibie to have an ICU well below 1.0, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur because one or more movements is not getting enough time to satisfy its demand, with excess time existing on other moves. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized intersection is not necessarily valid, it can be performed with the presumption that a signal can be installed and the calculations show whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating the expected volumes. Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width. However, standard lane's have approximately the same capacity whether they are I1 foot or 14 foot lanes. Our data indicates that a typical lane, whether a through lane or a left-turn lane, has a capacity as high as approximately 2200 vehicles per lane per hour of green time. The f985 Hiahwav CaRacitvManualfound capacities of 1800 vehicles per lane per hour of green time. These studies show that values in the 1600 to 1700 range should result in a conservative r analysis. LEVEL OF SERVlCE DESCRIPTIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted by other vehicles; all vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during traffic periods; offen used as design standard in urban areas. signal cycles clear with no vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no O. 00-0.60 0.6 7 -0.70 traffic; between I I and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or 0.71-0.80 0.81-0.90 ~ Capacity; the maximum traffic volumes an intersection can accommodate; restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; sfoppages of long duration; frafic volume and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. 0.97-1.00 ~~t Meaningful (a) ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) at various Levels of Service versus Level of Service E for urban arterial streets. SOURCE: Hiahwav CaDacifv Manual; Special Report 87; Highway Research Board; 1965. NDIX INTERSECTION ANALYSES WORKSHEETS INTERSECTION CAPACrrY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MTERSBCTION CAPACITY UTJLtZATION ANAL.YSIS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MOVEMEN 1 I I NL I NT I NR I SL I ST I SR I EL I ET I ER I WL I WT I WR I =r-==P=*= PROJECT: CANTARIM PROPERTY - CARLSBAD WAVY DEMAND PROCEDURE) INTERVAL. PM PEAKHOUR INTERSECTION: COILEGEBLVD. 8 ELCAMINOREAL _- I I EXXSl"G PROPOSED I CAPACITY I CA-PACJTY I I =====---= 1 ==- I 3240 I t 4000 I 1 3240 1 I 4000 I I 1800 I 6000 I I 1800 1 I 1800 1 I 6000 I I 1800 I I 1800 I I 01 ICU SPREADSHEET FILE u4Me COL&ECR I N = NORTHBOUND, S = SOUTHBOUND E = EASTBOU#D, W = WESTBOUND N.S. =NOT SIGNALEED LOS = LEVEL OF SERVICE *DENOTES CRITICALMOVEMENTS L = LEFT, T = THROUGH, R=RIGHT CLEARANCE= ICU VALUE = LOS = INTERSECTION CAF'ACIR UTILaATION ANALYSIS -- PROJECT: CANTARWI PROPERTY - CARLSBAD WAVY DEMAND PROCEDURE) MTERva. AMPEAKHOUR INTERSECTION. COLLEGEBLVD. & CANNON -_ I I EXISTING 1 PROPOSED I CAPACITY 1 CAF'AClTY I I -- -- I I 1800 I I 4000 I I 1800 I I 4000 I 1800 I I 1800 I I 4000 I 1800 1 I 1800 I 4000 I I 1800 I --En==== I 1800 .. ICU SPREADSHEET PILENAME coL&cAN I N = NORTHBOUND, S = SOUTHBOuMJ E = EASTBOUND, W = WESTBOUND L = LEFT, T = THROUGH, R=RTGHT N.S. =NOT SIGNALIZED LOS = LEV& OF SERVICB *DENOTES CRmCALMOmN'l'S I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -. -- NORTWSOUI" CXTI'ICAL. SUMS = EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS = CLEARANCE = ICU VAtUE - MS 109 1 758 1 53 I 363 1 640 1 516 I 205 I 389 1 48 I 397 I 461 I I I I I I I I I I 814 ExISlwG v/c I* I II 11 II I* I I1 I* I 11 I1 I1 I* I II == =* I* I 0.06 1 * I II 0.19 I I II 0.20 1 1 II 0.03 \ I* I 0.16 1 * 1 I1 0.29 I 1 I* I 0.11 1 I II 0.10 I * I II 0.22 I * I I* I 0.20 1 1 E= == == I II 0.03 1 1 I1 0.03 I I INTERSECTION CAPAClTY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANaYSIS I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT: CANTWPROPERT?' - CARLSBAD (HUVYDEMAM) PROCEDURE) rNTERV&: AMPEAKHOUR INTERSECTION: COUEGEBLVD. & "A" ST. -- _- -- .. -- -. -_ -- I I I I I I I I MOVEMEN I I I NL. I NT I NR I SL I ST I SR I EL I E====--== EXIST LANES ==-E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROP I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I OTHER I BUILDOUT I EXfSTING LANES I CAPACITY I CAPACITY 1 VOLUIdE I VOLUME 1 VOLUME 1 VIC I I I I I I I I ?=====E= I800 4000 I800 1800 4000 1800 1800 ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME COUcA N = NORTHBOUND, S = SOWOUND E = EASTBOUND, w = '&%sl'BouM> N.S. =NOT SIGNALEED LOS -LEVEL OF SERVICE *DENOTES CRITICALMOVEMENTS L- LEFT, T = mOUG33, R=RIGET I I 01 I I 80 I i i 1111 \ I I 53 I I I 34 I I I 883 1 I I 15 I EASTiViEST CRllICAL SUMS = CLEARANCE = ICU VALUE = LOS = 11 01 195 I 31 30 I I- I I- I I- I I= I I- IA =P 0.00 I * I 0.22 I I 0.01 I I 0.29 I * I 0.02 I I 0.00 I * I II 0.11 I * I 0.02 I I II == I 0.29 I -- I 0.11 I I 0.10 I == I 0.50 I -- I I 0.04 I I 0.03 1 I -_ -= 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILJZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION CAPAClTY UTlLIZATION ANALYSIS I I I I I I I I I I I I -_ comc I 1800 I 1800 I 1800 I 4000 I 4000 I I800 I 1800 I 2ooo I 01 1800 I 2000 1 01 I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- -- NOR"/SOUTII CNTICAL SUMS = FASTAVEST CRlTICAL SLTlVls = CLBp;RANCE = ICU VALUE = LOS = 0.00 I * I 0.24 1 1 0.03 1 I 0.01 1 I 0.26 I * I 0.01 \ 1 0.02 I I 0.00 1 * 1 II 0.07 1 * 1 0.01 1 I II == I 0.26 I -- I 0.07 1 -- I 0.10 1 == 1 0.43 I I I -- =P = INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZAnON ANALYSIS I I I I I I I I I I I I ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME cpL&c N = NORTIBOUND, S = SOUTHBOUND E =EASTBOUND, W = WESTBOUND L = LEFT, T = THROUGH, R = RIGHT N.S. =NOT SIGNALIZED LO9 -LEVEL OF SERVICE * DENOTES CXUTICAL MOVEMENTS I 1800 1 I 4000 I I 1800 I I 1800 1 I 4000 I I 1800 \ I 1800 1 I 2000 I I 01 I 1800 I I 2000 I I 01 -_ -- I, I I I I I I I I 1 I -- I It I I 1387 1 I 160 1 I 892 I I 25 I I 66 I I 19 I I 21 I 11 I 70 I I 21 I 10 I I= __ I* I II II !I I+ I II I* I II I1 II I* I It IP I= I* I II II I1 I* I 11 I+ I II I1 I1 I* I II == == NORTH/SOZITH CIUTICAL SUMS - I 0.00 I 0.00 I EAST/WEST CRITICAL. SUMS = I 0.00 1 0.00 I -- __ ,-_ -. I I- I* I 0.01 I 1 II 0.09 1 I I* I 0.22 I I I* I 0.01 I I II 0.00 I + I II I1 I* I 0.01 I 1 I1 I I1 It 0.35 I * I II 0.01 I * 1 II 0.04 I 1 II 0.04 I * I == _= == WILLDAN w Serving Public Agencies 27042 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 270 Foothill Ranch, California 92610 9491470-0640 fax 949/770-9041 www.wi Ildan.com November 13,2000 REVISED -January IO, 2003 Mr. David M. Bentley Bentley-Monarch, LLC PMB #I433 4740 E. Sunrise Drive Tucson, AZ 8571 8 SUBJECT: HOLLY SPRINGS PROPERTY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Dear Mr. Bentley: r This study provides a summary of traffic factors related to the proposed development of . the Holly Springs Property in the City of Carlsbad. The analyses contained in this study are based upon information provided by your representatives, our past work in the City, previously completed analyses for the study area, updated traffic information, and standard reference materials. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Holly Springs project is generally located southerly of Cannon Road (future) and easterly of College Boulevard (future). Access to the project is planned at (future) College Boulevard via the proposed “C” Street. The future planned Holly Springs Road and “N” Street would provide internal project access. Figure 7 illustrates the location of the project, while Figure 2 shows a tentative map for the proposed project. The currently proposed Holly Springs project is planned to provide 39 single family dwelling units (SFDU) plus four future single family lots for a total of 43 SFDU, which would be - Willdan Holly Springs Property Traffic Analysis #I2857 City of Carlsbad -1- .. ... JOB# 12857 WILL hl PROJECT IOCATION FIGURE \ \ ) \ ,/;Jjj 1.!f!l-!/,1!/•.;/j .1 I 11 II .·~ II ~ 11 ~/,? II ~~ II ~~ fl~ Iii I 1111 · ;JJ/ll!W .ii ;J!IJ !l!l·i:J tsl\\H\LDC\l.-1011\T(~1\l!CT-02\l'Ul.lll'K-"'"'l•lf-Ot.OWCIO•o&•Ol08:"''' JOB# 12857 WILLDAN .YJJ -_j / jjj,J/f!},J)j \_.-' \ i Jll:J/11.l:1'•,I#' TENATIVE MAP ~ ~ ~ .;::::> /,Ill 1.!f!fa!ld!l•d!I ./flt Jif!l•!ld!I~ ---- 40 ,l/l/ Jifj,!}d!),J'/ \ - \ ~ CANNON . \ ~L--------i---77 \ PARCfl A ) t!t/J \ \\ }j./;J f}jj \ ~ I I I \ ~ -------\ ( /2P ~ :..lE""I ..:--i----i --~~:::::::,;.,p,__ tJ.1/t/.l;JJJJJ !It J)!fajj . PROJECT SITE PLAN I II I \\ \ 111/ I I jj:j,J/d!),!JJJ , , I I I ~ II 42 \\ LRl>WIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. 103PA.~fWJO\l'AOf'O 5Ull<Jm CM.SOm. CA wa:» l-10◄1 10/01/0l Pl-ONE (760) 0!,3132.fRX (160)438,0173 FIGURE 2 - located to the east of College Boulevard and directly north of the Cantarini development. It should be noted that the previously proposed multi-family dwelling units of the Holly Springs project are now included as a part of the Cantanni project development’. The proposed Holly Springs project cannot be developed until the construction of College Boulevard occurs, near the project site, and extends to reach an existing arterial street. The project traffic would access College Boulevard via “C” Street. This collector road (,C” Street) is planned to hgve a 40 foot curb-to-curb width. EXISTING CONDITIONS The typical existing conditions are not pertinent in this study area, since the majority of critical arterial roadways do not presently exist. The section of College Boulevard, near the proposed Holly Springs project site, which would provide project access does not exist. In addition, the part of Cannon Road, northerly of the project site is not yet constructed. Existing traffic conditions in the study area are subject to significant change as the additional arterial roadway connections (College Boulevard and Cannon Road) are completed. In addition, a “Zone 15, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendmentfa (“Zone 75, LFMPA”) for the terraces has been completed. (A new amendment to reflect current proposals will be processed.) This document serves as a basis to determine whether the currently proposed project and surrounding development are consistent with this existing Plan. - TRAFFIC ANALYSES The Zone 75, LFMPA (for the terraces) provides specific mitigations for potential land uses - in several “Development Areas” of the overall Zone. These circulation mitigations address the roadway system that is required to support the planned development Current land use information was referenced from the most recently completed traffic study for the study area: “Cantarini Property Traffic Analysis”; Willdan; November 28,2001 and REVISED - January 10,2003. “Zone 15, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment” (“Zone 15, LFMPA”) for the terraces; Hofman Planning Associates, Maniton Engineering, Urban Systems Associates; June IO, 1998. 1 2 Willdan Holly Springs Property Traffic Analysis #12857 -4- Cify of Carlsbad 7 [assumed in the Zone 75, LFMPA (for the terraces)] and also provide a Financing Plan for the road improvements. A primary issue, therefore, is whether the currently proposed project is consistent (from a traffic viewpoint) with the land uses assumed in the Zone 75, LFMPA (for the terraces). In addition to this evaluation, there are other pertinent issues related to the current project, which are addressed in these analyses. The traffic factors evaluated are: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. A comparison of the current project to the previously assumed uses of the project site. An update of the current plans for development in the other portions of Zone 15 (other than Holy Springs), which are expected to change, All of these areas are now planned to have reduced development. Review of buildout traffic conditions at two key intersections based upon the updated traffic model runs recently completed by the City of Carlsbad (through SANDAG). Evaluation of the proposed roadway adjacent to the project site, “C” Street (which would provide project access), to determine whether the proposed 40 foot curb-to-curb width is adequate. Analyses of the intersection of “C” Street at College Boulevard to determine if added street width is required to serve the currently planned land use. 1. Trip generation analyses were performed for the currently proposed Holly Springs project, then compared to the trip potential for the previously planned uses. The currently proposed project consists of 43 SFDU. The trip generation potential forthe proposed Holly Springs project is shown in Table 7 and totals 520 daily trip ends, of which 40 (10 In, 30 Out) trip ends and 50 (35 In, 15 Out) trip ends would occur during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. ProDosed Proiect versus Previouslv Assumed Land Uses Willdan #I2857 Holly Springs Property Traffic Analysis Cify of Carlsbad -5- TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION Holly Springs Project - Carlsbad Residential - Single Family LAND US€ per DU 12.0 0.29 0.67 0.84 0.36 11 TRIP GENERATION RATES ('I (Applied to the'Proposed Holly Springs Project): ll - Single Family (RLM-2) - Single Family (RLM-2A) 443 DU (2) 134 DU (') TOTAL - Previous Plan 4,430 105 250 310 135 1,340 30 75 95 40 5,770 135 325 405 175 /I - Single Family I 43 DU 520 10 TOTAL - Current Project 520 10 DU = Dwelling Units 30 35 15 30 35 15 (I) San Diego Traffic Generators; San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); updated July 1998. (2) (3) Referenced from the Zone 75, LFMPA (for the terraces). The 43 single family dwelling units (SFDU) consist of 39 SFDU and 4 future single family lots. -6- r' Previously assumed land uses for the project site were referenced from the Zone 75, LFMPA (for the terraces) [Exhibit 14, combined with review of the maps]. The previous land uses were assumed to provide 443 SFDU and 134 SFDU on the Holly Springs Properfy. Trip potential for these previously assumed developments is 5,770 daily trip ends, with 460 (I35 In, 325 Out) AM peak hour trip ends and 580 (405 In, 175 Out) PM peak hour trip ends. It can be seen in Table 7 that the trip potential for the currently proposed project is significantly less than for the development that was previously assumed. The Holly Springs site is, therefore, anticipated to generate less traffic than allowed under the current Zone 75, LFMPA (for the terraces). 2. We were informed that some other areas within Zone 15 are anticipated to be developed Other Areas in Zone 15 with Revised Development Plans at a less intensive level. Table 2 lists the other locations in Zone 15 where changes to the LFMPA assumptions are expected. It can be seen in Table 2 that a substantial reduction in residential units is expected based upon current development plans. r Table 7, which was presented above, documented the anticipated reduction in trip generation for the Hojrly Springs project. Trip generation analyses were also completed for the other areas of Zone 15, which are known to have reduced development plans. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 3. Table 3 shows that the daily trip generation potential would be reduced from 9,200 trip ends [based upon the Zone 75, LFMPA (for the terraces) land use assumptions] to 3,490 trip ends. The peak hour totals would be reduced from 730 to 280 trip ends during the AM peak hour and 920 to 355 trip ends for the PM peak hour. 3. Updated Buildout Conditions Analyses The City of Carlsbad has been recently working with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to develop updated buildout traffic projections. The current F Willdan Holly Springs Property Traffic Analysis #I2857 -7- City of Carlsbad TABLE 2 2 & 29 - State of California 8 Tchang 3 - Cantarini 23 - Western Land Exchange 4 & I2 - Costa Real M.W.D. and Holly Springs, Ltd. (Partial) (PROJECT) 12 - Holly Springs, Ltd. (Partial) (PROJECT) 23 - Western Land (Partial) LAND USE COMPARISON ZONE 15, LFMPA (FOR THE TERRACES) VS. EXPECTED DEVELOPMENT RLM-1 379 SFDU 0 RLM-4A & 351 SFDU 105 SFDU Portion of RLM-2 80 MFDU RLM-3A 31 SFDU 0 (Included With Cantarini Project) (Included With Cantarini Project) RLM-2 443 SFDU 0 RLM-2A & 134 SFDU 43 SFDU Portion of RLM-2 RLM-3 159 SFDU 159 SFDU Holly Springs Project - Carlsbad TOTAL - Including Holly Springs 1,497 DU 387 DU ~~ TOTAL - Excluding Holly Springs SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Units (Residential) MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Units (Residential) ~~~ 920 DU 344 DU Source: Based on information provided by the Ladwig Design Group, lnc. and the Zone -15, LFMPA (for the terraces) [including Exhibits 6, 7, 14, and the “LFMPA Constraints Maps”]. (1) (2) Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces); Exhibits 6 and 7. The 43 single family dwelling units (SFDU) consist of 39 SFDU and 4 future single family lots. -8- TABLE 3 2&29 - SFDU 3 - SFDU 23 - SFDU 23 * SFDU TRIP GENERATiON REDUCTIONS OTHER AREAS WITHIN ZONE 15 379 DU 3,790 90 21 0 265 115 351 DU 3,510 85 195 245 105 31 DU 31 0 5 15 20 10 159 DU 1,590 40 90 110 50 Holly Springs Project - Carlsbad PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED TOTAL 11 ZONE 15, LFMPA (for the terraces): 9,200 220 51 0 640 280 2&29 - Openspace 0 3 - SFDU 105 DU - MFDU 80 DU 23 - (I) 0 23 - SFDU 159 DU CURRENT ANTICIPATED TOTAL DU = Dwelling Units SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Units MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Units - - - - - 1,260 30 70 90 40 640 10 40 45 20 - - - - - 1,590 40 90 110 50 3,490 80 200 245 110 (I) Included with the proposed Canfarini project. -9- 7 projections (utilized in this study) are the result of significant efforts of the City and other professionals and should be representative of projections that will be formally adopted by the City. A comparison was made of peak hour traffic volumes at two critical intersections [College Boulevard / El Camino Real (ECR) and College Boulevard / Cannon Road] for buildout conditions. The volumes utilized in this study from Appendix B were compared to those in the “Bridge and Thoroughfare District #4“3 traffic study. Table 4 lists the values by movement for each source. Review of the data in Table 4 indicates no significant differences. These locations (College / ECR and College / Cannon) were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for the buildout traffic conditions. These analyses were conducted to verify that the updated projections do not result in any unanticipated adverse conditions. The ICU methodology utilizes a comparison of intersection volumes to available intersection capacity, which results in an ICU value. The ICU value then relates to various Levels of Service (LOS), which range from “A” (the best) to “F” (the worst). For the City of Carlsbad, LOS A through D are considered acceptable, while LOS E and F are considered over capacity. A more detailed explanation of ICU and its relationship to LOS is provided in Appendix A. Table 5 provides the results of the ICU analyses at the two critical study intersections. The ICU analyses worksheets can be found in Appendix B. It can be seen that both College / ECR and College / Cannon have acceptable operations (LOS D or better) for buildout conditions. This indicates that the updated model runs are not anticipated to result in adverse conditions and the Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces) conditions, which are presently in effect, should remain as applicable. “Carlsbad Bridge and Thoroughfare District #4”; Urban Systems Associates, Inc. ; I 3 January 29, 2001; Figures 8-2 and 8-3 (2020). Willdan Holly Springs Property Traffic Analysis #72857 -10- City of Carlsbad TABLE 4 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON BRlOGE & THGWOUGHFARE ClSTRlCT $4 I HOLLY SPRINGS 150 147 90 91 995 996 1545 1543 605 604 980 98 1 80 80 50 49 2029 2029 970 971 725 725 310 310 21 5 212 585 585 305 304 650 652 170 170 175 173 730 730 535 534 595 594 300 301 25 24 25 25 Holly Springs Project - Carlsbad NL 110 NT 760 NR 365 SL 55 ST 640 SR 515 EL 205 ET 390 ER 50 WL 400 MIT 81 5 WR 45 109 120 119 758 815 81 5 363 550 547 53 55 56 640 745 744 516 200 198 205 350 349 389 840 839 48 115 114 397 365 363 814 475 474 46 60 59 TABLE 5 College / El Camino Real (ECR) College / Cannon INTERSECTION ANALYSES SUMMARY FUTURE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS 0.83 I D 0.71 lC 0.64 1 B 0.77 1 C Holly Springs Project - Carlsbad College (N-S) I ECR (E-W) College(N-S)/Cannon(E-W) College (N-S) I “C” Street (E-W) IN TERSEC TlON 221+2201 3 I+ 1 3 I+ 1 2 I+ 1 2 I+ 1 2 1+ 1 2 I+ 1 2 1+ 1 2 I+ 1 101 1 0 0.50 1 A I 0.43 /A I LANE GEOMETRIC ASSUMPTIONS I+ - - Separate right turns operate, but a specific lane may not be striped. -12- It should also be remembered that the SANDAG buildout model runs would be based upon adopted land use information and would not include the current development objectives presented in this study. The intersection analyses, therefore, represent a “worst case” condition, since it was shown above that significant reductions in development and trip generation potential are anticipated. 4. The project is proposed to be served by one collector road, presently identified as “C” Street. It is planned to have a curb-to-curb width of 40 feet and is representative of the critical section of the internal collectors, as it would carry the highest volume of traffic. ‘Cy Street as a 40 Foot Wide Collector Road This roadway would not only serve the Holly Springs project, but also various adjacent parcels as well. Based upon the proposed road system, the land use information contained in the zone plan, and proposed development updates provided to us, the collector (“C” Street ) was evaluated. f- It was necessary to determine the trip generation potential of the properties that are expected to have access through “C” Street. The most updated land use assumptions were referenced and trip generation analyses were completed. Table 6 provides a summary of the trip totals of the traffic which is oriented to “C” Street. A review of Table 6 shows a total daily traffic volume of 3,380 daily trip ends for “C” Street. The City of Carlsbad, ‘‘Street Design Criteria” indicates daily traffic ranges of 1,200 to 10,000 for Collector Streets with 40 foot curb-to-curb widths. Access to adjacent property is indicated as “limited - subject to approval”. The projected volume on “C” Street is near the lower end of the daily traffic range, with a daily volume of 3,380. A few, individual, single family lots on “C” Street would have direct vehicular access, which would require City approval. These lots are located some distance from College Boulevard and would have volumes less than the identified maximum. Willdan Holy Springs Property Traffic Analysis #I2857 City of Carlsbad -1 3- TABLE 6 3 - SFDU”’ 105 DU 630 - MFDU (’’ 80 DU 640 - 4& 12 - (3) 0 12 - SFDU (Holly Springs) 43 DU (4) 520 23 - SFDU 159 DU 1,590 TOTAL 3,380 TRIP GENERATION “C” STREET ANALYSES 15 35 45 20 10 40 45 20 - - - - 10 30 35 15 40 90 110 50 75 195 235 105 Holly Springs Project - Carlsbad DU = Dwelling Units SFDU = Single Family Dwelling Units MFDU = Multi-Family Dwelling Units (1) In this study, only 50 percent of the single family development traffic from the Cantariniproject (#3) is utilized in these analyses, since the Cantarhisingle family development is assumed to use both the future “C” and “A” Streets. In this study, it is assumed that all of the Cantarhi multi-family residential traffic would utilize “C Street. Included with the proposed Cantarhi project. The 43 single family dwelling units (SFDU) consist of 39 SFDU and 4 future single family lots. (2) (3) (4) -1 4- f- It ca.n be seen that the projected daily volume of 3,380 trip ends on “C” Street is well below the theoretical roadway capacity of 10,000. The volume to capacity (V/C) ratio for “C” Street is 0.34, which results in a Level of Service (LOS) A for this roadway. This indicates that the proposed roadway section (40 feet curb-to-curb) is adequate to serve the projected traffic volumes anticipated to utilize “C” Street. 5. The one intersection (College / “C” Street) which would serve as access to the proposed Ho//y Springs project, as well as adjacent properties, was analyzed for the specific developments being considered. The SANDAG traffic model, through necessity, contains more generalized assumptions with regard to land uses. As noted in Section ”4” above and detailed in Table 6, trip generation analyses were provided for the specific devefopments anticipated and the distribution of these trip ends was also considered. Analvses of Colleae I “C” Street F The SANDAG model volumes entering and exiting “C” Street were previously updated in the Cantarini project study. Based upon the trip generations shown in Table 6, the intersection impacts would be further reduced by the Holly Springs project plans. The intersection analyses (ICU methodology) previously performed for buildout (long range future) traffic conditions were maintained in this study as a “worst case” evaluation. The results are summarized in Tab/e 5 (presented earlier in this study), which also identifies the lane geometric assumptions. The actual worksheets, which also contain the traffic volume and lane geometric assumptions, are provided in Appendix 8. The access intersection of College / “C” Street would have LOS A operations, which are well within the acceptable range. This indicates that the proposed roadway would provide acceptable operations at the study intersection, as well as for the roadway section (as determined above in Section “4”). Willda n #I2857 Holly Springs Propedy Traffic Analysis City of Carlsbad -15- SUMMARY This study has examined traffic factors related to the proposed Holly Springs project, which is planned to be located generally to the south of the future Cannon Road and to the east of a future section of College Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad. This study was primarily conducted to determine if the proposed project is consistent (from a traffic viewpoint) with the land uses assumed in the Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces). Trip generation analyses were performed for the proposed project and compared to the trip generation of the previously assumed uses. Buildout traffic conditions were examined at three intersections related to the proposed project. A planned access to the proposed project, “C Street, was also evaluated as a part of these traffic analyses. The following are the principal findings of this study. I) The proposed Holy Springs project [43 total SFDU (39 single family dwelling units plus four future single family lots)] is estimated to generate a total of 520 daily trip ends, of which 40 (IO In, 30 Out) trip ends would occur during the AM peak hour 4 and 50 (35 In, 15 Out) trip ends would occur during the PM peak hour. 2) When compared to the development that was previously assumed for the project site in the Zone 75, LFMPA (for the terraces), the currently proposed Hol/y Springs project is shown to have a significantly lower trip potential (Table 1). The Ho//y Sprjngs project is anticipated to generate less traffic than allowed under the current Zone 15, LFMPA (for the terraces). 3) It was indicated that some of the other areas within Zone 15 are anticipated to be developed at a less intensive level. Based upon current development plans, a substantial reduction in residential units is expected (Table 2). Trip generation analyses were completed for the other areas in Zone 95 and it is shown that under the reduced development plans (currently expected), the trip generation potential would be reduced considerably from 9,200 to 3,490 daily trip ends, 730 to 280 AM peak hour trip ends, and 920 to 355 PM peak hour trip ends (Table 3). Willdan Holly Springs Property Traffic Analysis #12857 City of Carlsbad -16- f“‘ 4) ICU analyses were conducted at the two intersections most critical to the proposed project for buildout traffic conditions. Both the intersections of College / ECR and College / Cannon would have acceptable operations (LOS D or better) under buildout traffic conditions (Table 5). These intersection analyses were based upon SANDAG buildout model runs, which do not include the current reduced development plans presented in this study; therefore, these intersection analyses represent a “worst case” condition. 5) The proposed design of “C” Street was reviewed from a traffic perspective. The 40 foot, curb-to-curb design is shown to provide adequate roadway capacity in order to serve the proposed project, as well as the other adjacent developments which would utilize this collector. 6) The intersection of College / “C” Street was analyzed under buildout conditions with modifications to account for the specific projects that are anticipated to utilize this roadway. This intersection was found to operate at LOS A, which is well within accepted st anda rd s . * * * * * * * Wil/dan Holy Springs Property Traffic Analysis #I2857 City of Carlsbad -1 7- - We trust that these analyses will be of assistance to you and the City of Carisbad. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WILLDAN Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 Registered Professional Engineer State of California Number C48774 cc. Mr. Bob Ladwig WSP:RSB:CC #I 2857 Willdan Holly Springs Property Traffic Analysjs #12857 City of Carlsbad -18- A ... .. INTERSEC’TION CAPACITY UTILIZATION r LEVEL OF SERVICE .. APPENDIX A EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILI24 TION The capacity of a street is nearly always greater between intersections and less at intersections. The reason for this is that the traffic flows continuously between intersections and onfy part of the time at intersections. To study intersection capaciw, a northbound traffic is 1,000 vehisfes per hour, the southbound traffic is 800 vehicles per haw, and the capacity of either approach is 2,000 vehicles per hour of green, then narthbound traffic: is crkal and requires 1 ,OOOO/~,~OO or 50 percent of the signaf’time. If for the east-west traffic, 40 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the JCU is 50 plus 46, or 90 percent. When left-turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. As ICU’s approach I Of3 pqcent, the quality of traffic service approaches Level of Service (LO$} E, as defined in the-Hi0hwa.v Capaclfv Manual, Special Report 87, .Highway Research Board, 1965. Level of Service is used to describe quality of trafic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level of Service D is typically the Level of Service for which an urban street is designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of mornentav duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of tong duration. A description of the various Levels of Service appears on the following page. s r The ICU calculations assume that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed. It is possibte to have an ICU well below 1.0, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur because one or more movements is not getting enough time to satisfy its demand, with excess time exisfing on other moves. Although calculating ICU for an unsignatized intersection is not necessarily valid, it can be performed with the presumption that a signal can be instaffed and the calculations show whether the geornetrics are capable of accommodating the expected volumes. Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width. However, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 foot or 14 foot lanes. Our data indicates that a typical lane, whether a through tane or a left-turn lane, has a capacity as high as approximately 2200 vehicles per lane per hour of green time. The 7985 Hiahwav CaDaciCv Manual found capacities of 1800 vehicles per lane per hour of green time. These studies show that values in the 1600 to 1700 range should result in a conservative analysis. r LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR INTERS€CTIONS B c D E F Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between one and fen percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Operating speeds and maneuverability closely lled by other tralfik; between I I and 30 percent of the signal have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. Capacity; the maximum traffic volumes an intersection can accommodate; restricted speeds; 71 to I00 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages of long duration; irah7e volume and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. I 0.00-0.60 0.61-0.70 0.71-0.80 - 0.81-0.90 0.91- I. 00 Not Meaningful (a) ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) at various Levels of Service versus Level of Service E for urban arterial streets. SOURCE: Hiuhwav Cmacitv Manual; Special Report 87; Highway Research Board; 1965. INTERSECT ANALYSES WORKSHEETS INTERSECTION CAPACrrY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UlTLIZATION ANALYSIS I I I I I 1 I I I I I I ICU SPREADSHEET FILE NAME I I I 3240 1 I I 585 [ I 4000 I I I 652 I I 1800 I I 1 173 1 N -NORTHBOUND, S p SOUTEBOUM) E=EASTBOUND,W=WTBOW L = LET, T = THROUGH, R-RI- N.S. = NOT SIGNALIZED LOS =LEVEL OF SERWCJ3 * DENOTES CNTICAL MOVEMENTS 3240 I 4000 I 01 1800 I 1800 I 6000 I 1800 1 6000 I 1800 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I __ .- NORTHSOUI" CIUTEAL SUMS = 534 \ II II II 301 I I* I I'I I* I 25 I II II II 49 1 I* I I* I I* I 971 I \I \I 11 310 I II II II 91 I II II II 1543 I I* I I* I I* I 981 I I1 II II I- l 0.00 1 0.00 I 0.00 1 I- PI =P =P _I -- __ -. -. 0.16 1 * 1 0.08 I 1 II 0.03 I * I 0.16 I I 0.17 \ 0.26 [ * I 0.55 I I E= 1 0.32 I I 0.05 I I -- 0.29 I -- I 0.10 I I 0.71 I -- I I E= =E - ... INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILTZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT CAEPIARINIPROPERTY - CARLSBAD (JB.AVYDEMAND~0CEDUB.E) INTERVATi AMPEAKHOUR INTERSECTION: COLLEGEBLVD. & CANNON 1800 I 4000 I 1800 I 4000 I 1800 I 1800 I 1800 I 1800 I 4000 I 1800 I 4000 I 1800 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .- .- NORTWSOWIB CRTl'ICAI, SUMS = EASTWEST CRl'kTCAL SUMS = ICU VALUE - LOS - 109 I 158 I 363 I 53 I 640 I 20s I 389 \ 48 I 397 I 814 I 46 I I= I I- I I- I I- I I- 516 1 t* I II I1 \I I* I I1 I* I II II II I* I II 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.10 I 0.10 I =s =f .. _. -. .- PP EIE ..- .- I I I -I 0.06 * 1 0.19 I 0.20 I 0.03 I 0.16 I * I 0.29 I I 0.11 I I 0.10 I * 1 0.22 I * 1 0.20 I I E= I 0.22 I I I-- I 0.03 1 1 0.03 I 1 -_ 0.3j I 0.q I I 0.64 I I I == *- IhTERSECTION CAPACrrY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTELTZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT CANTARNPROPERTY - CARISBAD (HEAVYDEMANDPROCEDURE) INTERVVAL: AMPEAKHOUR INTERSECTION. COLLEGEBLVD. & "C"ST. ICU SPREADSHEET FD.3 NAME COLdrC N =NORTHBOUND, 8 = SOUTHBOUND E =EASTBOUND, W = WESTBOUND L = LEFT, T =THROUGH R = RIGHT N.S. =NOT SIGNALIZED LOS =LEVEL OF SERVICE * DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS -- I I I ~fiCrrY I I I ===-c=-5 I 1800 I 1 PROPOSED 1 I 4000 I I 1800 1 I 4000 1 I 1800 I I 1800 1 I 1800 I I 2000 I I 01 I 1800 I 2000 I I 01 .- I ICU VALUE = LOS - -- I 0.10 I 0.10 I .- _- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTLIZATION ANALYSIS , . a APPENDIX D Air Quality Analysis Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 6 of 25 7 ISE Report #02-108 ?$ Ozone (Od: A strong smelling, pale blue, reactive toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is a product of the photochemical process involving the sun's energy. Ozone exists in the upper atmosphere ozone layer as well as at the earth's surface. Ozone at the earth's surface causes numerous adverse health effects and is a criteria air pollutant. It is a major component of smog. a PMio (Particulate Matter less than 10 microns): A major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles (10 microns or smaller, about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. PMlo - also causes visibility reduction and is a criteria air pollutant. @ Volatile Orclanic Compounds (VOC's. ReactiveRotal Oraanic Gasses, ROG): Hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOC's contribute to the formation of smog andlor may themselves be toxic. VOC's often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. The EPA (under the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, and amended in 1977) established ambient air quality standards for these pollutants. This standard is called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) subsequently established the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Both sets of standards are shown in Figure 5 below. Areas in California where ambient air concentrations of pollutants are higher than the state standard are considered to be in "non-attainment" status for that pollutant. c- e APPLICABLE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) establishes significance criteria for air quality emissions (Rules 20.1 et seq.), although they do not uniquely identify California Environmental Quality Act (or CEQA) standards for mobile emission sources (leaving each jurisdiction to create/adopt it's own set of consistent standards). The applicable standards are shown quantitatively in Table 1 below and are currently enforced by the County of San Diego and adopted by local jurisdictions such as the City of Carlsbad. These standards are compatible with those utilized elsewhere in the State (such as South Coast Air Quality Management District standards, etc.). The existing ambient conditions are compared for the with- and without project cases. If emissions exceed the allowable thresholds, additional analysis is conducted to determine whether the emissions would exceed an ambient air quality standard (Le., the CAAQS values shown in Figure 5). Determination of significance considers both localized impacts (such as CO hotspots) and cumulative impacts. In the event that any criteria pollutant exceeds the threshold levels, the proposed action's impact on air quality are considered significant and mitigation measures would be required. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 7 of 25 Fine Particulate 1- I ~~ Figure 5: Ambient Air Quality Standards Matrix (after CARBIEPA, updated 1997) Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 8 of 25 7 TABLE 1: Pollutant Threshold Levels per SDAPCD and U.S. EPA SDAPCD Ttrreshotds (Pounds per Ray) Clean Air Act de minimfs Levels (Tons per Year) Pollutant Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) 250 55'" Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Particulate Matter (PMlo) 250 100 100 100 50 50 100 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ Source: SDAPCD Rule 150II20.2(d)(2), 1995; EPA 40CFR93, 1993 (I): VOC thresholds based upon SCAQMD levels per SDAPCD requirements (9101). In addition, under the General Conformity Rule, the EPA has developed a set of de minimis thresholds for all proposed federal actions in a non-attainment area for evaluating the significance of air quality impacts. It shoutd be noted that the State (Le., SDAPCD) standards are equal or more stringent than, the Federal Clean Air standards (a fact that can be verified through multiplication of the SDPACD standards by 365 and dividing by 2,000). Development of the proposed Cantarini Ranch development would therefore fall under the stricter SDAPCD guidelines. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY /I The analysis criteria for air quality impacts is based upon the approach recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook. The handbook establishes aggregate emission calculations for determining the potential significance of a proposed action. In the event that the emissions exceed the established thresholds, air dispersion modeling may be conducted to assess whether the proposed action results in an exceedance of an air quality standard. This methodology has been adopted by SDAPCD. Ambient Air Quality Data Collection The California Air Resources Board monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air-monitoring stations across the state. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations 10 feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Ambient air pollutant concentrations in the San Diego Air Basin are measured at IO air quality-monitoring stations operated by the SDAPCD (refer to Figure 6). /c The nearest air quality monitoring stations in the vicinity of the proposed project site are located within the City of Oceanside (ARB Station ID 80134) approximately 5 miles distant, within the City of Escondido (ARB Station ID 801 15) at approximately 13 Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 9 of 25 miles distant, and within the City of Del Mar (ARB Station ID 80133) at approximately 14 miles away. No photographs were available for the Oceanside or Del Mar stations. Figure 6: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station Location Map (ISE 11 /02) Due to the type of equipment employed at each station, not every station is capable of recording the entire set of criteria pollutants identified in Table 1. Periodic audits are conducted of each station in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 40 CFR, Part 58, Appendix A protocol with all equipment traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards. The typical accuracy of the equipment is ±15% for gasses (such as CO, NOx, etc.) and ±10% for PM10. Given this, the Oceanside station currently records NO2, 03, outdoor temperature, wind direction, and horizontal wind speed. The Del Mar station records 03, wind direction, and horizontal wind speed. The Escondido station measures CO, NO2, 0 3, PM10, PM2_5, wet acid deposition, outdoor temperature, wind direction, and horizontal wind speed. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 10 of 25 IC ISE Report tcO2-108 r Construction Air Quality Modeling Construction vehicle pollutant emission generators would consist primarily of haul truck activities such as earthwork haulage, concrete delivery and other suppliers, graders and pavers, contractor vehicles, and ancillary operating equipment such as diesel-electric generators and lifts. The analysis methodology utilized in this report is based upon the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook guidelines for construction operations. Construction emissions were based upon the EPA AP-42 Report generation rates identified by SCAQMD for the various classes of diesel construction equipment. The generation rates are identified in Table 2 below. TABLE 2: Construction Equipment Pollutant Generation Levels 11 Generation Rates (pounds uer hour) Equipment Class co voc NOx sox PMio Fork Lift -50 HP Fork Lift - 175 HP Off Highway Trucks Tracked LoaderlExcavator Tracked Tractor/Dozer Scraper Roller Grader / Paver 0.180 0.520 1.800 0.201 0.350 1.250 0.300 0.1 51 0.053 0.441 0.170 1.540 0.190 4.1 70 0.095 0.830 0.120 1.260 0.270 3.840 0.065 0.870 0.039 0.713 0.450 0.076 0.140 0.460 0.067 0.086 0.031 0.093 0.260 0.059 0.112 0.410 0.050 0.061 Source: U.S. EPA AP-42 Tornpilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors”, 9/85 Fugitive dust generation from the proposed grading plan was analyzed using the methodology recommended in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook guidelines for calculating I O-micron Particulate Matter (PMlo) due to earthwork. The analysis assumed low-wind speeds and active wet suppression control. Aggregate levels of PMlo based upon the best available surface grading estimates were calculated in pounds per day and compared to the applicable significance criteria shown in Table 1. Aggregate Vehicle Air Quality Modeling Motor vehicles emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated by multiplying the appropriate emission factor (in grams per mile) times the estimated trip length and the total number of vehicles. Appropriate conversion factors were then applied to provide aggregate emission units of pounds per day. - Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 1 I of 25 CARB estimates on-road motor vehicle emissions by using a series of models called the Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory (MVEI) Models. Four computer models, which form the MVEl are CAttMFAC, WEIGHT, EMFAC, and BURDEN. The CALIMFAC model produces base emission rates for each model year when a vehicle is new and as it accumulates mileage and the emission controls deteriorate. The WEIGHT model calculates the relative weighting each model year should be given in the total inventory, and each model year's accumulated mileage. The EMFAC model uses these pieces of information, along with the correction factors and other data, to produce fleet composite emission factors. Finally, the BURDEN model combines the emission factors with county-specific activity data to produce to emission inventories. For the proposed project, the EMFAC 2007 Model v2.08 of the MVEI was run using input conditions specific to the SDAPCD region to predict vehicle emissions based upon worst-case (winter) year 2002 generation rates. The aggregate emission factors are provided as an attachment to this report. Fixed Source Emissions Modeling Fixed source emissions within the project site would consist of fireptace emissions from the residential dwellings and small residential uses (such as lawn mowers and barbeques) which would be classified as de minimis emission sources. These sources will be quantified (to the maximum extent possible) with impact potential assessed according I y. FINDINGS Existing Climate Conditions The climate of San Oiego County is characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters and is dominated by a semi-permanent high-pressure cell located over the Pacific Ocean. This high-pressure cell maintains clear skies over the air basin for much of the year (refer to Figure 7). It also drives the dominated onshore circulation and helps to create two types of temperature inversions, subsidence and radiation, that contribute to local air quality degradation. Subsidence inversions occur during the warmer months, as descending air associated with the Pacific high-pressure cell comes into contact with cool marine air. The boundary between the two layers of air represents a temperature inversion that traps pollutants below it. Radiation inversion typically develops on winter nights, when air near the ground cools by radiation, and the air aloft remains warm. A shallow inversion layer that can trap pollutants is formed between the two layers. T In the City of Carlsbad, the maximum and minimum average temperatures are 70' F and 58O F, respectively. Precipitation in Carlsbad averages 12 inches annually, 90 percent of which falls between November and April. The prevailing wind direction is from Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 12 of 25 the west-northwest, with an annual mean speed of 8 to 10 miles per hour (NOAA 2002). Sunshine is usually plentiful in the proposed project area but night and morning cloudiness is common during the spring and summer. Fog can occur occasionally during ·· the winter. Figure 7: Project Air Basin Perspective Map (30 Degree Horizontal View Angle) Existing Air Quality Levels Tables 3a through -c below provides a summary of the highest pollutant levels recorded at the closest identified monitoring stations for the last year available (1999/2001) based upon the latest data from SDAPCD. The project site is located in the Northwestern portion of the San Diego Air Basin. The Basin continues to have a "serious" nonattainment status of federal standards for Ozone (03). The Basin is in attainment of federal standards for CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and lead. San Diego County areas (including the City of Carlsbad) are also in attainment of state air quality standards for all pollutants with the exception of 03. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report M2-108 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 13 of 25 TABLE 3a: Ambient Air Quality Levels - Oceanside-Mission Ave Station: 1999 - 2001 No. Days No. Days 999 - 2o01 Exceeding Exceeding State Federal Maximum Standards Standards Averaging State Federal Time Standard Standard Pollutant Ozone 1 hr 9 PPhm 12 pphm 10.4 1 0 8hrs nia 8 PPhm 8.9 nta I Monoxide 8 hrs 9 PPm 9 PPm 2.01 d 0 Dioxide annual n/a 5 PPhm 1.6 n/a 0 Carbon lhr 20 PPm 35 PPm nla Ma n/a Nitrogen 1hr 25 pphm n/8 9.6 0 Ma Source: California Air Resources Board ADAM System - 7/02 AIRS Station Code #06-073-0005, Elevation +154 ft MSL nla indicates data is not available, pphrn = parts-per-hundred-million TABLE 3b: Ambient Air Quality Levels - Escondido-East Valley Pkwy Station: 1999 - 2001 No. Days No. Days lgg9 -2001 Exceeding Exceeding State Federal Maximum Standards Standards Averaging State Federal Time Standard Standard Pollutant Ozone 1 hr 8hrs Carbon lhr Monoxide 8 hrs Nitrogen lhr Dioxide annual PMio 24 hrs annual 9 PPhm nla 20 PPm 9 PPm 25 pphm n/a 50 pglm: 30 pg/m ~ 12 pphm 8 PPhm 35 PPm 9 PPm n/a 5 PPhm 150 pgl$ 50 pgfm 14.1 9.8 nla 5.11 8.8 2.0 74.0 29.0 4 1 nla 1 n/a n/a 0 0 0 n/a n/a 0 2 0 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board ADAM System - 7/02 AIRS Station Code #06-073-1002, Elevation +668 ft MSL n/a indicates data is not available, mhrn = Darts-per-hundred-million 1 Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 14 of 25 /I ISE Report #02-108 TABLE 3c: Ambient Air Quality Levels - Del Mar-Mira Costa College Station: 1999 - 2001 No. Days No. Days lSQg 2oo' Exceeding Exceeding State Federal Maximum Concentration Standards Standards Averaging State Federal Ti me Standard Standard Pollutant Ozone 1 hr 9 PPhm 12 pphm 9.4 0 0 8hrs nla 8 PPhm 7.6 nla 0 Source: California Air Resources Board ADAM System - 7/02 AIRS Station Code #06-073-1001, Elevation +i62 ft MSL n/a indicates data is not available, pphm = parts-per-hundred-million Factors affecting ground level pollutant concentrations include the rate at which pollutants are emitted to the atmosphere, the height from which they are released, and topographic and meteorological features. Given these factors, all stations (except Del Mar) reported exceedances of the State standards for Os. All other criteria pollutants were within both federal and state standards (with the minor exception of two days of exceedance of PMlo recorded at the Escondido Station). Monitoring for lead was discontinued entirely in 1998. Construction Air Quality Emission Levels - The estimated construction equipment exhaust emissions are provided below in Tables 4a through -c for the fotlowing typical construction scenarios identified at the project site: Rough Grading (i.e., clearing, grubbing, and general pad and road alignment formation), Underground Utility Construction (i.e., general trench-work, pipe laying with associated base material and cover, and ancillary earthwork required to facilitate placement of sewer lift stations and manholes, etc.), and Paving Activities (which would include export of any remaining material as well as necessary curb and gutter work, road base material placement and blacktop). Construction equipment would be primarily utilized in an incremental fashion within each planning area. These scenarios are based upon expected construction equipment utilization observed by ISE on similar projects (such as The Villages of La Costa, Robertson Ranch, Rios Canyon Ranch, San Elijo Hills, etc.). Based upon the findings, no significant air quality impacts were identified. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 15 of 25 TABLE 4a: Predicted Construction Emissions - Rough Grading Operations Aaareaafe Emissions in Pounds / Daw co voc NOx sox PMio Qty. Dutycycle Used (Hours I day) Equlpment ~ ~ -~ Bulldozer 2 8 5.60 1.92 20.16 2.24 1.79 Loader 2 8 3.21 1.52 13.28 1.21 0.95 Water Tank Truck 1 8 14.40 1.52 33.36 3.60 2.08 ScraDer 3 8 30.00 6.48 92.16 11.04 9.84 Total (c) = 53.21 11.44 158.96 18.09 14.68 Significance Threshold (SDAPCD) 550.00 55.00 250.00 250.00 100.00 TABLE 4b: Predicted Construction Emissions - Underground Utility Construction Aaareaate Emissions in Pounds / Da co voc Nor sox PMio Qty. Duty Cycle Used (Hours I day) Equipment Backhoe 3 8 8.40 2.88 30.24 3.36 2.69 Loader 2 8 3.22 1.52 13.28 1.22 0.95 Concrete Truck 6 0.5 5.40 0.57 12.51 1.35 0.78 Dump Truck 5 0.5 4.50 0.48 10.43 1 .I3 0.65 Total (Z) = 21.52 5.45 66.46 7.05 5.06 Sianificance Threshold (SDAPCD) 550.00 55.00 250.00 250.00 100.00 TABLE 4c: Predicted Construction Emission Levels - Surface Paving Activities I Aaareaate Emissions in Pounds /Day co voc NOx So, PMio Qty. Dutycycle Used lHours I dav) Equipment Dump/Haul Truck 25 0.5 22.50 2.38 52.13 5.63 3.25 Paver 1 8 1.21 0.31 5.70 0.69 0.49 Roller 2 8 4.80 1.04 13.92 1.07 0.80 Total 0 = 28.51 3.73 71.75 7.39 4.54 ~~ Significance Threshold (SDAPCD) 550.00 55.00 250.00 250.00 100.00 Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 16 of 25 7 ISE Report #02-108 Construction Surface Grading Fugitive Dust Levels (PM,,) Construction activities are also a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, but temporary, impact on local air quality. These emissions are typically associated with land clearing, excavating, and construction of a proposed action. Substantial dust emissions also occur when vehicles travel on paved and unpaved surfaces and haul trucks lose material. r Dust emissions and impacts vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operation being conducted, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Wet dust suppression techniques, such as watering and/or applying chemical stabilization, would be used during construction to suppress the fine dust particulates from leaving the ground surface and becoming airborne through the action of mechanical disturbance or wind motion. The Cantarini Ranch development site would have a total earthwork quantity of 838,590 cubic-yards of material (i.e., sand, dirt, and rock) moved over the course of the proposed project. Thus, the project would have an approximate working weight of, 2.6 tons cu bioyard Total Weight = 83 8,590 cubic-yards x = 2,180,334 tons or 2,180,334 tons of raw material. Out of that quantity, only roughly 60-percent of the working weight would be capable of generating PMlo (since the remaining quantity is assumed to be composed of rocky material not capable of being reducible to particles small enough to be of concern). Thus, for the purposes of analysis, the working weight of earthwork material capable of generating some amount of PMlo would be 0.6 x 2,180,334 tons or 1,308,200 tons. The proposed earthwork operations at the Cantarini Ranch project site would occur over an approximate 90 working days. Thus, the average earthwork movement per day would be 1,308,200 tons / 90 days or 14,535 tons/day. Following the analysis procedure identified in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook for PMio emissions from fugitive dust gives the following semi-empirical relationship for aggregate respirable dust generation, (WS / 5p3 * ET [ (sMc/ PM,, = 0.001 12* where, PMlo = Fugitive dust emissions in pounds, WS = Ambient wind speed, SMC = Soil Moisture Content, ET = Earthwork Tonnage moved per day, r Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carisbad CA ISE Report M2-108 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 17 of 25 It should be noted that surface wetting will be utilized during all phases of earthwork operations (Source: Mooney & Associates, 70/02), thus the SMC value would be 0.5. Substituting the above values and a maximum wind speed scenario of 12 MPH (WS = 12) gives the following result, PM,, = 0.001 12 * [ ~~~~~~1]*~,535 = 0.02434*14,535 = 353.79 or, a level of 354 pounds of PMlo generated per day. This level is above the 100 pounds per day threshold established by SDAPCD. Therefore, additional fugitive dust control measures would be required. These are outlined in the Conclusions section of this report. Vehicular Emission Levels Motor vehicles are the primary source of emissions associated with the proposed project area. Typically, uses such as the proposed Cantarini Ranch development do not directlv emit significant amount of air pollutants from onsite activities. Rather, vehicular trips to and from these land uses are the significant contributor. The project is expected to have a total worst-case net trip generation level of 1,900 ADT based upon the cumulative trip generation produced by the single- and multifamily residential uses (Source: Cantarini Property Traffic Analysis - Cadsbad CA, WPA Traffic Engineering, 51/03). Currently the site is unused (except for existing agricultural uses which produce no traffic) and has an effective starting ADT of zero (Le., no appreciable emission offsets are attainable for this project). The calculated emission levels are shown below in Table 5. An average trip distance of 10 miles was assumed based upon the proposed service area of the new development. A median speed of 45 mph was used consistent with average values observed. A two- percent medium duty truck (MDT) vehicle mix was used. Based upon the findings, no traffic generated air quality impacts were identified. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 18 of 25 r' TABLE 5: Predicted Trip Generated Emissions - Cantarini Ranch Development Amremate Trio Emissions in Pounds I Day - ADT co NOx SOX PMio ROG EMFAC 2001 Emission Rates (gramslmile Q 45 MPH) Automobiles 5.8370 0.8140 0.0050 0.0090 0.2950 Trucks 11.3790 2.1790 0.0110 0.0190 0.6120 EMFAC 2061 Emission Rates (Ibslmile Q 45 MPH) Automobiles 0.01287 0.00179 0.00001 0.00002 0.00065 Trucks 0.02509 0.00480 0.00002 0.00004 0.001 35 Aggregate Project Generation Q 7,520 ADT Automobiles: 1,862 239.6 33.4 0.2 0.4 12.1 Trucks: 38 9.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 Total (E) = 1,900 249.1 35.2 0.2 0.4 12.6 Significance Threshold (SDAP CD): 550.0 250.0 250.0 100.0 55.0 r - Notes: o o o Based upon EMFAC 2001 emission factors (SDAPCD, Scenario Year 2002). Autos and trucks = 6000 pounds or less. Wintertime conditions (50" F factors) Assumed average trip of IO miles. Median speed = 45 mph. Results rounded to nearest 1/10 of whole value. Residential Fixed Emission Impact Potential In 1988, the EPA adopted a New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for woodstoves and small wood burning devices based upon Particulate Emission levels (the largest emitted criteria pollutant). It was noted that fireplaces and woodstoves are not equivalent devices since a typical fireplace produces much more particulate matter (PMlo) per hour or in a typical evening's use than a typical woodstoves because of the fireplace's higher burn rate (amount of wood burned per hour). "Equivalence" between standards for fireplaces and woodstoves was found not to be possible. Thus, the EPAs NSPS does not apply to all fireplaces or other devices that do not meet the definition of "affected facility" in the NSPS. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 19 of 25 These fireplace units would consist of: 0 0 0 Traditional masonry fireplaces. These are the traditional site-built fireplaces constricted of masonry. Though normally built from bricks, several manufacturers now offer factory- made cast masonry core components around which a masonry fireplace can be constructed. Two such devices are the Frisch-Rosin and Buckley-Rumford fireplaces. Masonry fireplaces are extremely expensive and are generally found only in high-end new construction. In addition, they raise significant seismic concerns, which add to cost. Zeroclearance fireplaces. These are metal fireplaces designed to be installed into wood framing. They are sometimes called "factory-built fireplaces" or "builder boxes." They are open fireplaces and do not meet the EPA definition of woodstove because they have an air to fuel ratio greater than 35 to 1. They are cheap and extremely wmmon in new construction. Nationally, 80% of the 27 million U.S. fireplaces are zeroclearance fireplaces. Masonrv heaters. Masonry heaters are a traditional northern European means of heating using a small open firebox set in a massive masonry structure with horizontal and downward flues though which gases are channeled before reaching the chimney. Masonry heaters store the heat from intermittent rapid fires and radiate, it back to the building. Unlike the three categories above, masonry heaters may have relativety hi thermal efficiency and may be used for heating purposes rather than aesthetic or recreational purposes. There are two types of devices commonly called fireplaces that are subject to the woodstove NSPS or, in the case of some pellet-burning devices with air to fuel ratios greater than 35 to 1. which can meet the NSPS emission limits: R Certified fireplace inserts. These are woodstoves, including some pellet stoves, designed to be retrofitted into a traditional masonry fireplace. R Certified "PA fireplaces." These are woodstoves designed to be installed into wood framing in the same manner as a zero-clearance fireplace. Unlike a zero clearance fireplace, these devices meet the woodstove definition in the NSPS. In addition to the above wood-burning devices, there are two types of gas- burning devices that are called Yfireplaces." They are not subject to the NSPS: 0 Gas-burrina fireplaces. These are factory-built fireplaces that are available as inserts or zero-clearance models and with several different venting arrangements. 0 Gas loas. These are gas burners installed in a masonry or factory-built fireplace to replicate the look of a traditional wood-burning fireplace. According to EPA document AP-42, emission factors are used by local and state agencies in calculating emission inventories; The AP-42 particulate emission factor for wood-burning fireplaces is 17.3 grams per kilogram of wood burned. The EPA's emission factors are based on limited data. Table 6 sets forth results from the available fireplace studies, which can be used, consistent with the NSPS. Mr. Michael Page I Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 20 of 25 TABLE 6: Recorded Fireplace Emission Levels per AP42 and Others Study Average PM1o Emirslon Factor Average PMto Emiulon Rate (ma) (glhd Year Reitz 1993 Jaasma 1992 Colorado/Shelton 1987 Dasch 1982 EPA 1975 9 loto 13 15 8 10 80 32to44 53 33 76 Avenge Emlsslon Level: 53 Source: EPA AP-42, Varlous The maximum allowable PMlo emission levels (based upon SDAPCD Rule 1501, 20.2(d)(2), 1995 and EPA 40CFR93, 1993) for the Cantarini Ranch residential development due to combined fireplace operation within each of the 105 single-family residential and 80 multiamily units is 100 pounds per day. The average emission level (considered reasonable based upon the variation of wood types, material combustion rates, and end-user heating requirements) was found to be approximately 53 grams of PMlo per hour for a normal fireplace utilization rate. If all the wood-burning fireplaces within the development area were running simultaneously (a highly improbable, but worst-case condition), the pollution generation rate would be (105 + 80) homes x 53 gramdhour-home or 9,805 grams (9.8 kilograms) of PMlo per hour. This equates to 21.6 pounds per hour and would exceed the standard in a little over 4.6 hours. A more probable 25% utilization rate (46 homes) would generate 5.4 pounds of PMio per hour and would exceed the allowable threshold in roughly 18 to 19 hours, which would not be deemed impactive. Since this is a marginal case, it is therefore recommended that residential builders install gas-burning devices "fireplaces" which would not be subject to the NSPS. CONCLUSIONS I RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the analysis, project-related air quality exceedances were identified for the specific pollutant PMlo. The following mitigation measures / recommendations should be implemented per APCD requirements as part of the project design to the maximum practical extent possible. Implementation of these recommended measures should reduce impacts to below a level of significance as defined by CEQA. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page21 of25 Mitigation for Particulates (PM,,) - Fixed Sources o Install wherever possible, gas-burning devices "fireplaces" which woutd not be subject to the NSPS particulate emission requirements. Mitigation for Particulates (PM,,) - Grading Area Sources Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufactures' specification to all inactie construction areas (Le., previously graded areas inactive for ten (1 0) days or more). In disturbed areas, replace ground cover as quickly as possible. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders according to manufactures' specification to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) with 5% silt content. Water active sites twice daily. Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds exceed 25 mph. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 231 14. Mitigation for Particulates (PM,,) - Paved Construction Road Sources o Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommended water sweepers with reclaimed water). o Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the project site. Mitigation for Particulates (PM,,) - Unpaved Construction Road Sources o Apply water three times daily, non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufactures' specification to all unpaved roads, and parking or staging areas. P Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to be reduced to 15 mph or less. a Pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, 150 total daily trips for all vehicles. a Pave all construction access roads at least 100 feet on to the site from the main road. 4 Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development - Carlsbad CA May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 22 of 25 7 ISE Report #02-108 Should you have any questions regarding the above conclusions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (858) 451-3505. Sincerely, Rick Tavares, Ph.D. Project Principal Investigative Science. and Engineering, Inc. Cc: Jeremy Louden, ISE Attachments: EMFAC 2001 Emission Factor Tabulations - SDAPCD Air Basin r Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development-Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 23 of 25 EMFAC 2001 Emission Factor Tabulations Title San Diego County APCD Avg 2002 Winter Version Emfac2001 Draft V2.08 Oct 17 2001 Release Run Date 06/27/02 14:43:28 Seen Year: 2002 --Model Years: 1965 to 2002 Season Area Winter San Diego County APCD Dis ***************************************************************************************** APCD Year:2002 --Model Years 1965 to 2002 Inclusive --Winter Emfac2001 Draft Emission Factors: V2.08 Oct 17 2001 Release District Average District Average San Diego County Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile) Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases Speed MPH 5 25 35 ~. 45 55 65 LDA 1.579 0.307 0 0.383 LDT MDT 0.364 0.788 Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Speed MPH 45 rut 55 e 65 LDA LDT MDT 13 .961 18.783 HDT 0.610 HDT 6.352 9.432 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 40% UBUS 5. 671 2.84.7 0.921 MCY 6.888 4.488 3.509 3.290 3.699 4.987 ~- 8.065 ALL 1.765 0 .891 0.541 ~ '"- 0.392 0.339 0 .351 :g : 0 .436 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 40% UBUS 45.441 6 . 11. 523 MCY 51.897 45 .116 145.342 ALL 17.086 6 .638 8.554 Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 24 of 25 Pollutant Name: Oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 40% Speed MPH LOA 5 !!;Q''?t!':l!'!!),¼'1!~"'!it'..~3 15 25 65 0.994 LDT 1. 540 MDT · HOT 3.050 23.077 -13.924 2.858 25.876 Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Speed MPH 5 LOA LDT MDT HDT 1638.519 2038.412 UBUS MCY ALL 42 .777 1. 210 2.600 :2 . .\9 6' 1.313 1.942 'Y " 1. 425 1.628 1.662 1. 785 1. 773 46.864 1. 910 2 .261 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 40% UBUS MCY ALL 65 644 .403 1728.558 2536.451 98.334 Pollutant Name: Sulfur'Dioxide Speed MPH 15 ~°' 25 [ ,. 35 LDA LDT MDT 0.015 0.017 HDT Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity : 40% UBUS 0.222 MCY ALL 0.012 Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Cantarini Ranch Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-108 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 25 of 25 Pollutant Name: PMl0 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 40% Speed MPH LDA LDT -MDT HDT UBUS -MCY ALL 5 0.087 0.103 0 .983 1.069 -0 . 068 0.104 . .o - 0.044 0.055 0.035 35 ·0 .262 0.033 (g i3 45 0.217 0.037 55 0.207 0.050 0 .020 65 0.011 0.017 0.021 0.229 0.227 0.080 0.022 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Mr. Michael Page Mooney and Associates 9903 Businesspark Avenue, Suite B San Diego, CA 92131 RE: AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT Corporate Office 16486 Bernardo Center Drive, #124 San Diego, CA 92128 Phone/Fax: (858) 451-35051 (858) 451-0946 www.ise.us HOLLY SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT -CARLSBAD CA ISE REPORT #02-109 Dear Mr. Page: At the request of Mooney and Associates, Investigative Science and Engineering (ISE) have performed an air quality conformity assessment of the proposed Holly Springs Residential Development project located in Carlsbad, California. The results of that survey, as well as predicted future air quality levels at the project site, are presented in this letter report. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS Existing Site Characterization The Holly Springs and Cantarini Ranch subdivision project sites are located in northwestern San Diego County in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. The regional location and project vicinity maps are shown below in Figures 1 a and -b. The two proposed development sites are irregularly shaped parcels that lie adjacent to one another, with the Holly Springs site to the north bordering the Cantarini development area. Surrounding uses consist of single-family residential dwellings (both fixed and mobile home structures) and open space. Regional and local aerial photographs of the site are shown in Figures 2a and -b below. The site currently resides as disturbed open space with primarily agricultural uses (such as the cultivation of ornamental landscape species, flowers, and bananas). The topography of the combined properties consist of ridges and basins, most of which trend in a west/southwest direction. Elevations across the project area range from approximately 100 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to roughly 300 feet above MSL. An overview of the project area topography is shown in Figure 3. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 2 of 24 Figures 1 a and -b: Project Vicinity Maps (Thomas Guide Page 1107, Grid 06) Regional access to the proposed project site is provided by Interstate 5 (1-5) and State Route 78 (SR-78). Direct access to the project site is provided via El Camino Real, Tamarack Avenue, and ultimately Cannon Road to the south (upon full build out). The Holly Springs and Cantarini Ranch sites are located approximately 0.5 miles to the north of El Camino Real. The future alignment of College Avenue will provide the western boundary of the project site. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised} Page 3 of 24 Figures 2a and -b: Holly Springs Project Site Aerial Photographs (© AirPhoto USA -1 /01) Proposed Project Description The Holly Springs Tentative Map (TM) proposes development of 43 single-family units on the 39.48-acre property (refer to Figure 4 ). Certain facilities and lots shown on the Holly Springs TM would be developed in association with the separate Cantarini project. Lot 6 of the Holly Springs TM is proposed with multifamily uses as a part of the Cantarini project. The remaining 59.52 acres of the site would consist of natural open space. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised} Page 4 of 24 Figure 3: Project Site Topography (USGS 7.5-Arcminute Quadrangle, 1975) Grading for the site would involve 159,000 cubic yards of cut and 137,000 cubic yards of fill material with an export of approximately 22,000 cubic yards of material offsite. Grading activities are anticipated to extend over an approximate 90 working-day duration. Air Quality Definitions Air quality is defined by ambient . air concentrations of specific pollutants determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the public. The subject pollutants, which are monitored by the EPA, are Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), respirable 10-micron particulate matter (PM,0), sulfates, lead, Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), Volatile Organic Compounds (e.g., vinyl chloride, etc.), and visibility reducing particles. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 5 of 24 Figure 4: Holly Springs Proposed Lotting Plan (Ladwig Design Group, Inc., 10/02) Examples of sources and effects of these pollutants are identified below: ~ Carbon Monoxide (CO): Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, tasteless and toxic gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO interferes with the blood's ability to carry oxygen to the body's tissues and results in numerous adverse health effects. CO is a criteria air pollutant. ~ Oxides of Sulfur (SOJ: Typically strong smelling, colorless gases that are formed by the combustion of fossil fuels. SO2 and other sulfur oxides contribute to the problem of acid deposition. SO2 is a criteria pollutant. ~ Nitrogen Oxides (Oxides of Nitrogen, or NOJ: Nitrogen oxides (NOx) consist of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and are formed when nitrogen {N2) combines with oxygen (02). Their lifespan in the atmosphere ranges from one to seven days for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, to 170 years for nitrous oxide. Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes, and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition. NO2 is a criteria air pollutant, and may result in numerous adverse health effects; it absorbs blue light, resulting in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 6 of 24 (l) Ozone (03): A strong smelling, pale blue, reactive toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is a product of the photochemical process involving the sun's energy. Ozone exists in the upper atmosphere ozone layer as well as at the earth's surface. Ozone at the earth's surface causes numerous adverse health effects and is a criteria air pollutant. It is a major component of smog. (l) PM10 (Particulate Matter less than 10 microns): A major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles (10 microns or smaller, about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. PM.1Q also causes visibility reduction and is a criteria air pollutant. <!) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's, Reactive/Total Organic Gasses, ROG): Hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOC's contribute to the formation of smog and/or may themselves be toxic. VOC's often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. The EPA (under the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, and amended in 1977) established ambient air quality standards for these pollutants. This standard is called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) subsequently established the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Both sets of standards are shown in Figure 5 below. Areas in California where ambient air concentrations of pollutants are higher than the state standard are considered to be in "non-attainment" status for that pollutant. APPLICABLE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) establishes significance criteria for air quality emissions (Rules 20.1 et seq.), although they do not uniquely identify California Environmental Quality Act (or CEQA) standards for mobile emission sources (leaving each jurisdiction to create/adopt it's own set of consistent standards). The applicable standards are shown quantitatively in Table 1 below and are currently enforced by the County of San Diego and adopted by local jurisdictions such as the City of Carlsbad. These standards are compatible with those utilized elsewhere in the State (such as South Coast Air Quality Management District standards, etc.). The existing ambient conditions are compared for the with-and without project cases. If emissions exceed the allowable thresholds, additional analysis is conducted to determine whether the emissions would exceed an ambient air quality standard (i.e., the CAAQS values shown in Figure 5). Determination of significance considers both localized impacts (such as CO hotspots) and cumulative impacts. In the event that any criteria pollutant exceeds the threshold levels, the proposed action's impact on air quality are considered significant and mitigation measures would be required. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 7 of 24 Resplrable Particulate Matter (PM1J ·fine Particulate Matter (PMu) Sulfur Dioxide (SOJ Annual Geometric Man 24 Hour Annual Arithmetic Mean 24 Hour Annual Arillunclric Mean Annual Arilhmelri<: Mean 30 µ.g/m' Size Sclcctiv,: lnlc1 Sampler SOµg/m' ARB Method p (81'..2185) No Scpanue State Standard 24 Hout 0.04 ppm ( IOS µglm') · Fluorescence 3 Hour Sameu l50µgtm' Primary Standard 50µglm' 65 µglm' Same as JS µg/m' Primaty Slalldard 0.030 ppm (80 µgtm') 0.14 ppm (365 µglm') 0.5 ppm (1300 µg/m3) Figure 5: Ambient Air Quality Standards Matrix (after CARB/EPA, updated 1997) Inertial Separation and Gravimctic Analy,is lnenia1 Sepuratioa and Gravimetic Analysis Pamrosoaniline Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 8 of 24 TABLE 1: Pollutant Threshold Levels per SDAPCD and U.S. EPA Pollutant Carbon Monoxide (CO) Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Particulate Matter (PM10) SDAPCD Thresholds .. Clean Air Act de mirilmis Levels (Pounds per Day) (Tons per Year) 550 100 250 100 55111 50 2~ W 100 100 Source: SDAPCD Rule 1501, 20.2(d)(2), 1995; EPA 40CFR93, 1993 (1 ): voe thresholds based upon SCAQMD levels per SDAPCD requirements (9/01 ). In addition, under the General Conformity Rule, the EPA has developed a set of de minimis thresholds for all proposed federal actions in a non-attainment area for evaluating the significance of air quality impacts. It should be noted that the State (i.e., SDAPCD) standards are equal or more stringent than, the Federal Clean Air standards (a fact that can be verified through multiplication of the SDPACD standards by 365 and dividing by 2,000). Development of the proposed Holly Springs development would therefore fall under the stricter SDAPCD guidelines. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The analysis criteria for air quality impacts is based upon the approach recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook. The handbook establishes aggregate emission calculations for determining the potential significance of a proposed action. In the event that the emissions exceed the established thresholds, air dispersion modeling may be conducted to assess whether the proposed action results in an exceedance of an air quality standard. This methodology has been adopted by SDAPCD. Ambient Air Quality Data Collection The California Air Resources Board monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air-monitoring stations across the state. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations 10 feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Ambient air pollutant concentrations in the San Diego Air Basin are measured at 10 air quality-monitoring stations operated by the SDAPCD (refer to Figure 6). The nearest air quality monitoring stations in the vicinity of the proposed project site are located within the City of Oceanside (ARB Station ID 80134) approximately 5 miles distant, within the City of Escondido (ARB Station ID 80115) at approximately 13 Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 9 of 24 miles distant, and within the City of Del Mar (ARB Station ID-80133) at approximately 14 miles away. No photographs were available for the Oceanside or Del Mar stations. Figure 6: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station Location Map (ISE 11 /02) Due to the type of equipment employed at each station, not every station is capable of recording the entire set of criteria pollutants identified in Table 1. Periodic audits are conducted of each station iri accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 40 CFR, Part 58, Appendix A protocol with all equipment traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards. The typical accuracy of the equipment is ±15% for gasses (such as CO, NOx, etc.) and ±10% for PM10. Given this, the Oceanside station currently records NO2, 03, outdoor temperature, wind direction, and horizontal wind speed. The Del Mar station records 03, wind direction, and horizontal wind speed. The Escondido station measures CO, NO2, 0 3, PM10, PM2_5, wet acid deposition, outdoor temperature, wind direction, and horizontal wind speed. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 10 of 24 Construction Air Quality Modeling Construction vehicle pollutant emission generators would consist primarily of haul truck activities such as earthwork haulage, concrete delivery and other suppliers, graders and pavers, contractor vehicles, and ancillary operating equipment such as diesel-electric generators and lifts. The analysis methodology utilized in this report is based upon the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook guidelines for construction operations. Construction emissions were based upon the EPA AP-42 Report generation rates identified by SCAQMD for the various classes of diesel construction equipment. The generation rates are identified in Table 2 below. TABLE 2: Construction Equipment Pollutant Generation Levels by .Class II Generation Rates {pounds per hour) Equipment Class co voe NOx SOx PM10 Fork Lift -50 HP 0.180 0.053 0.441 0.031 Fork Lift-175 HP 0.520 0.170 1.540 0.093 Off Highway Trucks 1.800 0.190 4.170 0.450 0.260 Tracked Loader/Excavator 0.201 0.095 0.830 0.076 0.059 Tracked Tractor/Dozer 0.350 0.120 1.260 0.140 0.112 Scraper 1.250 0.270 3.840 0.460 0.410 Roller 0.300 0.065 0.870 0.067 0.050 Grader I Paver 0.151 0.039 0.713 0.086 0.061 Source: U.S. EPA AP-42 "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors", 9/85 Fugitive dust generation from the proposed grading plan was analyzed using the methodology recommended in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook guidelines for calculating 10-micron Particulate Matter (PM10) due to earthwork. The analysis assumed low-wind speeds and active wet suppression control. Aggregate levels of PM10 based upon the best available surface grading estimates were calculated in pounds per day and compared to the applicable significance criteria shown in Table 1. Aggregate Vehicle Air Quality Modeling Motor vehicles emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated by multiplying the appropriate emission factor (in grams per mile) times the estimated trip length and the total number of vehicles. Appropriate conversion factors were then applied to provide aggregate emission units of pounds per day. · Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 11 of 24 CARS estimates on-road motor vehicle emissions by using a series of models called the Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory (MVEI) Models. Four computer models, which form the MVEI are CALIMFAC, WEIGHT, EMF AC, and BURDEN. The CALIMFAC model produces base emission rates for each model year when a vehicle is new and as it accumulates mileage and the emission controls deteriorate. The WEIGHT model calculates the relative weighting each model year should be given in the total inventory, and each model year's accumulated mileage. The EMFAC model uses these pieces of information, along with the correction factors and other data, to produce fleet composite emission factors. Finally, the BURDEN model combines the emission factors with-county-specific activity data to produce to emission inventories. For the proposed project, the EMFAC 2001 Model v2.08 of the MVEI was run using input conditions specific to the SDAPCD region to predict vehicle emissions based upon worst-case (winter) year 2002 generation rates. The aggregate emission factors are provided as an attachment to this report. Fixed Source Emissions Modeling Fixed source emissions within the project site would consist of fireplace emissions from the residential dwellings and small residential uses (such as lawn mowers and barbeques) which would be classified as de minimis emission sources. These sources will be quantified (to the maximum extent possible) with impact potential assessed accordingly. FINDINGS Existing Climate Conditions The climate of San Diego County is characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters and is dominated by a semi-permanent high-pressure cell located over the Pacific Ocean. This high-pressure cell maintains clear skies over the air basin for much of the year (refer to Figure 7). It also drives the dominated onshore circulation and helps to create two types of temperature inversions, subsidence and radiation, that contribute to local air quality degradation. Subsidence inversions occur during the warmer months, as descending air associated with the Pacific high-pressure cell comes into contact with cool marine air. The boundary between the two layers of air represents a temperature inversion that traps pollutants below it. Radiation inversion typically develops on winter nights, when air near the ground cools by radiation, and the air aloft remains warm. A shallow inversion layer that can trap pollutants is formed between the two layers. In the City of Carlsbad , the maximum and minimum average temperatures are 70° F and 58° F, respectively. Precipitation in Carlsbad averages 12 inches annually, 90 percent of which falls between November and April. The prevailing wind direction is from Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 12 of 24 the west-northwest, with an annual mean speed of 8 to 10 miles per hour (NOAA 2002). Sunshine is usually plentiful in the proposed project area but night and morning cloudiness is common during the spring and summer. Fog can occur occasionally during the winter. Figure 7: Project Air Basin Perspective Map (30 Degree Horizontal View Angle) Existing Air Quality Levels Tables 3a through -c below provides a summary of the highest pollutant levels recorded at the closest identified monitoring stations for the last year available (1999/2001) based upon the latest data from SDAPCD. The project site is located in the Northwestern portion of the San Diego Air Basin. The Basin continues to have a "serious" nonattainment status of federal standards for Ozone (03). The Basin is in attainment of federal standards for CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and lead. San Diego County areas (including the City of Carlsbad) are also in attainment of state air quality standards for all pollutants with the exception of 0 3. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development - Carlsbad CA May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 13 of 24 ,- ISE Report #02-109 TABLE 3a: Ambient Air Quality Levels - Oceanside-Mission Ave Station: 1999 - 2001 No. Days No. Days - 2o01 Exceeding Exceeding State Federal Concentration Standards Standards Maximum Averaging State Federal Standard Standard Pollutant Time Ozone 1 hr 9 PPhm 12 pphm 10.4 1 0 8 hrs n/a 8 PPhm 8.9 nla 1 Carbon Ihr 20 PPm 35 PPm nla n/a n/a Monoxide 8 hrs 9 PPm 9 PPm 2.01 0 0 Nitrogen lhr 25 pphm n/a 9.6 0 da Dioxide annual n/a 5 PPhm I .6 n/a 0 Source: California Air Resources Board ADAM System - 7/02 AIRS Station Code #06-073-0005, Elevation +154 ft MSL n/a indicates data is not available, pphm = parts-per-hundred-million t TABLE 3b: Ambient Air Quality Levels - Escondido-East Valley Pkwy Station: 1999 - 2001 No. Days No. Days 1999 -2001 Exceeding Exceeding State Federal Maximum Concentration Standards Standards Averaging State Federal Time Standard Standard Pollutant Ozone I hr 9 PPhm 12 pphm 14.1 4 1 8 hrs nla 8 PPhm 9.8 n/a I Monoxide 8 hrs 9 PPm 9 PPm 5.1 1 0 0 Carbon Ihr 20 PPm 35 PPm nla n/a da Nitrogen Ihr 25 pphm n/a 8.8 0 n/a Dioxide annual n/a 5 PPhm 2.0 n/a 0 annual 30 pg/m3 50 pg/m 29.0 0 0 PMio 24 hrs 50 pg/m3 150 pg/$ 74.0 2 0 Source: California Air Resources Board ADAM System - 7/02 AIRS Station Code #06-073-1002. Elevation +668 ft MSL n/a indicates data is not available, pphm = parts-per-hundred-million Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 14 of 24 TABLE 3c: Ambient Air Quality Levels - Del Mar-Mira Costa College Station: 1999 - 2001 No. Days No. Days lgg9 Exceeding Exceeding State Federal Maximum Concentration Standards Standards Averaglng State Federal Time Standard Standard Pollutant Ozone I hr 9 PPhm 12 pphm 9.4 0 0 8 hrs nla 8 PPhm 7.6 nta 0 Source: California Air Resources Board ADAM System - 7/02 AIRS Station Code ##06-073-1001, Elevation +I62 ft MSL n/a indicates data is not available, pphm = partsdper-hundred-million Factors affecting ground level pollutant concentrations include the rate at which pollutants are emitted to the atmosphere, the height from which they are released, and topographic and meteorological features. Given these factors, ail stations (except Del Mar) reported exceedances of the State standards for 03. All other criteria pollutants were within both federal and state standards (with the minor exception of two days of discontinued entirely in 1998. exceedance of PMlo recorded at the Escondido Station). Monitoring for lead was - Construction Air Quality Emission Levels The estimated construction equipment exhaust emissions are provided below in Tables 4a through -c for the following typical construction scenarios identified at the project site: Rough Grading (Le., cleating, grubbing, and general pad and road alignment formation), Underground Utility Construction (i.e., general trench-work, pipe laying with associated base material and cover, and ancillary earthwork required to facilitate placement of sewer lift stations and manholes, etc.), and Paving Activities (which would include export of any remaining material as well as necessary curb and gutter work, road base material placement and blacktop). Construction equipment would be primarily utilized in an incremental fashion within each planning area. These scenarios are based upon expected construction equipment utilization observed by ISE on similar projects (such as The Villages of La Costa, Robertson Ranch, Rios Canyon Ranch, San Elijo Hills, etc.). Based upon the findings, no significant air quality impacts were identified. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 15 of 24 TABLE 4a: Predicted Construction Emissions - Rough Grading Operations Equipment Used (Hours I day) co voc Nox sox PMio Qty. Dutycycle Bulldozer 2 8 5.60 1.92 20.16 2.24 1.79 Loader 2 8 3.21 I .52 13.28 1.21 0.95 Water Tank Truck 1 8 14.40 1.52 33.36 3.60 2.08 Scraper 2 8 20.00 4.32 61.44 7.36 6.56 Total (C) = 43.21 9.28 128.24 ?4.41 11.38 Significance Threshold (SDAPCD) 550.00 55.00 250.00 250.00 iOO.00 TABLE 4b: Predicted Construction Emissions - Underground Utility Construction Ammaate Emissions in Pounds / Day Equipment Used (Hours I day1 co voc NO, sox PMio Qty. Dutycycle Backhoe 3 8 8.40 2.88 30.24 3.36 2.69 Loader 2 8 3.22 1.52 13.28 1.22 0.95 Concrete Truck 6 0.5 5.40 0.57 12.51 1.35 0.78 Dump Truck 5 0.5 4.50 0.48 10.43 1.13 0.65 Total (Z) = 21.52 5.45 66.46 7.05 5.06 Significance Threshold (S DAPCD) 550.00 55.00 250.00 250.00 700.00 TABLE 4c: Predicted Construction Emission Levels - Surface Paving Activities Equipment Used (Hours I day) co voc NOx So, PMio Qty. Duty Cycle Dump/Haul Truck 25 0.5 18.00 1.90 41.70 4.50 2.60 Paver 1 8 1.21 0.31 5.70 0.69 0.49 Roller 2 8 4.80 1.04 13.92 1.07 0.80 Total (C) = 24.01 3.25 61.32 6.26 3.89 Sianificance Threshold (SDAPCD) 550.00 55.00 250.00 250.00 700.00 Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 16 of 24 Construction Surface Grading Fugitive Dust Levels (PM,,) Construction activities are also a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, but temporary, impact on local air quality. These emissions are typically associated with land clearing, excavating, and construction of a proposed action. Substantial dust emissions also occur when vehicles travel on paved and unpaved surfaces and haul trucks lose material. Dust emissions and impacts vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operation being conducted, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Wet dust suppression techniques, such as watering andlor applying chemical stabilization, would be used during construction to suppress the fine dust particulates from leaving the ground surface and becoming airborne through the action of mechanical disturbance or wind motion. The Holly Springs development site would have a total earthwork quantity of 159,000 cubic-yards of material (Le., sand, dirt, and rock) moved over the course of the proposed project. Thus, the project would have an approximate working weight of, 2.6 tons cubic-yard Total Weight = 159,000 cubic-yards x = 413,400 tons or 413,400 tons of raw material. Out of that quantity, only roughly 60-percent of the working weight would be capable of generating PMlo (since the remaining quantity is assumed to be composed of rocky material not capable of being reducible to particles small enough to be of concern). Thus, for the purposes of analysis, the working weight of earthwork material capable of generating some amount of PMlo would be 0.6 x 413,400 tons or 248.040 tons. The proposed earthwork operations at the Holly Springs project site would occur over an approximate 90 working days. Thus, the average earthwork movement per day would be 248,040 tons I90 days or 2,756 tons/day. Following the analysis procedure identified in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook for PMlo emissions from fugitive dust gives the following semi-empirical relationship for aggregate respirable dust generation, (WS / 5y3 *ET PM,, =0.00112* [ ,,,,12,1.4] where, PMlo = Fugitive dust emissions in pounds, WS = Ambient wind speed, SMC = Soil Moisture Content, ET = Earthwork Tonnage moved per day, Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development - Carlsbad CA May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 17 of 24 r ISE Report #02-109 It should be noted that surface wetting will be utilized during all phases of earthwork operations (Source: Mooney & Associates, 10/02), thus the SMC value would be 0.5. Substituting the above values and a maximum wind speed scenario of 12 MPH (WS = 12) gives the following result, PM,, = 0.001 12" [ (' ' 5)''3 ] * 2,756 = 0.02434 * 2,756 = 67.08 (0.5 / 2p4 or, a level of 67 pounds of PMlo generated per day. This level is below the 100 pounds per day threshold established by SDAPCD. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected. Vehicular Emission Levels Motor vehicles are the primary source of emissions associated with the proposed project area. Typically, uses such as the proposed Holly Springs development do not directlv emit significant amount of air pollutants from onsite activities. Rather, vehicular trips to and from these land uses are the significant contributor. The project is expected to have a total worst-case net trip generation level of 520 ADT based upon the cumulative trip generation produced by the single- and multifamily residential uses (Source: Holy Springs Traffic Analysis - Carlsbad CA, WPA Traffic Engineering, 5/03). Currently the site is unused (except for existing agricultural uses which produce no traffic) and has an effective starting ADT of zero (Le., no appreciable emission offsets are attainable for this project). The calculated emission levels are shown below in Table 5. An average trip distance of 10 miles was assumed based upon the proposed service area of the new development. A median speed of 45 mph was used consistent with average values observed. A two- percent medium duty truck (MDT) vehicle mix was used. Based upon the findings, no traffic generated air quality impacts were identified. r Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 18 of 24 TABLE 5: Predicted Trip Generated Emissions - Holly Springs Development I Aaareaate Trlr, Emissions In Pounds I Day AD1 co NOx sox PMio ROG ~ EMFAC 2001 Emission Rates (gramslmile Q 45 MPH) Automobiles 5.8370 0.8140 0.0050 0.0090 0.2950 Trucks 11.3790 2.1790 0.0110 0.0190 0.6120 EMFAC 2001 Emission Rates (Ibslmile Q 45 MPH) Automobiles 0.01287 0.00179 0.00001 0.00002 0.00065 Trucks 0.02509 0.00480 0.00002 0.00004 0.00135 Aggregate Project Generation Q 1,100ADT Automobiles: 51 0 65.6 9.2 0.1 0.1 3.3 Trucks: 10 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total a) = 520 6%. 1 9.7 0.1 0.1 3.4 Significance Threshold (SDAPCD): 550.0 250.0 250.0 100.0 55.0 Notes: - o o o Based upon EMFAC 2001 emission fadors (SDAPCD, Scenario Year 2002). Autos and trucks = 6OOO pounds or less. Wintertime conditions (50" F factors) Assumed average trip of 10 miles. Median speed = 45 mph. Resulk rounded to nearest 1/10 of whole value. Residential Fixed Emission Impact Potential In 1988, the EPA adopted a New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for woodstoves and small wood burning devices based upon Particulate Emission levels (the largest emitted criteria pollutant). tt was noted that fireplaces and woodstoves are not equivalent devices since a typical fireplace produces much more particulate matter (PM,,,) per hour or in a typical evening's use than a typical woodstoves because of the fireplace's higher burn rate (amount of wood burned per hour). "Equivalence" between standards for fireplaces and woodstoves was found not to be possible. Thus, the EPAs NSPS does not apply to all fireplaces or other devices that do not meet the definition of "affected faci/ity in the NSPS. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development - Carlsbad CA May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 19 of 24 7 ISE Report #02-109 These fireplace units would consist of: P Traditional masonry fireplaces. These are the traditional site-built fireplaces constricted of masonry. Though normally built from bricks, several manufacturers now offer factory- made cast masonry core components around which a masonry fireplace can be constructed. Two such devices are the Frisch-Rosin and Buckley-Rumford fireplaces. Masonry fireplaces are extremely expensive and are generally found only in high-end new construction. In addition, they raise significant seismic concerns, which add to cost. 0 Zero-clearance fireolaces. These are metal fireplaces designed to be installed into wood framing. They are sometimes called "factory-built fireplaces" or "builder boxes." They are open fireplaces and do not meet the EPA definition of woodstove because they have an air to fuel ratio greater than 35 to 1. They are cheap and extremely common in new construction. Nationally, 80% of the 27 million U.S. fireplaces are zero-clearance fireplaces. 0 Masonrv heaters. Masonry heaters are a traditionat northern European means of heating using a small open firebox set in a massive masonry structure with horizontal and downward flues though which gases are channeled before reaching the chimney. Masonry heaters store the heat from intermittent rapid fires and radiate, it back to the building. Unlike the three categories above, masonry heaters may have relatively hi thermal efficiency and may be used for heating purposes rather than aesthetic or recreational purposes. There are two types of devices commonly called fireplaces that are subject to the woodstove NSPS or, in the case of some pellet-burning devices with air to fuel ratios greater than 35 to 1 , which can meet the NSPS emission limits: P Certified fireolace inserts. These are woodstoves, including some pellet stoves, designed to be retrofitted into a traditional masonry fireplace. R Certified "EPA fireolaces." These are woodstoves designed to be installed into wood framing in the same manner as a zero-clearance fireplace. Unlike a zero clearance fireplace, these devices meet the woodstove definition in the NSPS. In addition to the above wood-burning devices, there are two types of gas- burning devices that are called "fireplaces." They are not subject to the NSPS: 0 Gas-burrina fireplaces. These are factory-built fireplaces that are available as inserts or zero-clearance models and with several different venting arrangements. P Gas loas. These are gas burners installed in a masonry or factory-built fireplace to replicate the look of a traditional wood-burning fireplace. According to EPA document AP-42, emission factors are used by local and state agencies in calculating emission inventories; The AP-42 particulate emission factor for wood-burning fireplaces is 17.3 grams per kilogram of wood burned. The EPA's emission factors are based on limited data. Table 6 sets forth results from the available fireplace studies, which can be used, consistent with the NSPS. r Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development - Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 20 of 24 TABLE 6: Recorded Fireplace Emission Levels per AP-42 and Others Study Year Average PYIO Emisslon Factor Average PMlo Emissian Rate (ma (glhr) Rei& 1993 Jaasma 1992 ColoradolShelton 1987 Dasch 1982 €PA 1975 9 10 to 13 15 8 10 80 32 to 44 53 33 76 Average Emission Level: 53 Source: EPA AP42, Various The maximum allowable PMlo emission levels (based upon SDAPCD Rule 1501, 20.2(d)(2), 1995 and EPA 40CFR93, 1993) for the Holly Springs residential development due to combined fireplace operation within each of the 105 single-family residential and 80 multifamily units is 100 pounds per day. The average emission level (considered reasonable based upon the variation of wood types, material combustion rates, and end- user heating requirements) was found to be approximately 53 grams of PMlo per hour for a normal fireplace utilization rate. - If all the wood-burning fireplaces within the development area were running simultaneously (a highly improbable, but worst-case condition), the pollution generation rate would be 43 homes x 53 gramdhour-home or 2,279 grams (2.3 kilograms) of PM1o per hour. This equates to 5.02 pounds per hour and would exceed the allowable threshold in roughly 20 hours, which would not be deemed impactive. Therefore, no significant fixed source air quality impacts are expected. CONCLUSIONS I RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the analysis, no project-related air quality exceedances were identified for any of the identified criteria pollutants. No mitigation would be required as part of this project. Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development - Carlsbad CA May 27,2003 (Revised) Page 21 of 24 r ISE Report #02-109 Should you have any questions regarding the above conclusions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (858) 451-3505. Sincerely, Rick Tavares, Ph.D. Project Principal Investigative Science and Engineering, tnc. Cc: Jeremy Louden, ISE Attachments: EMFAC 2001 Emission Factor Tabulations - SDAPCD Air Basin Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 22 of 24 EMFAC 2001 Emission Factor Tabulations Title Version Run Date San Diego County APCD Avg 2002 Winter Emfac2001 Draft V2.08 Oct 17 2001 Release 06/27/02 14:43:28 Seen Year: 2002 --Model Years: 1965 to 2002 Season Area Winter San Diego County APCD Dis ***************************************************************************************** APCD Year:2002 --Model Years 1965 to 2002 Inclusive --Winter Emfac2001 Draft Emission Factors : V2.08 Oct 17 2001 Release District Average District Average San Diego County Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile) Pollutant Name: Total Organic Gases Speed MPH 5 65 LDA 1.579 0.383 LDT MDT 0.364 0 .788 Pollutant Name : Carbon Monoxide Speed MPH 65 LDA 6 .989 LDT MDT 18 .783 HDT 0 .610 HDT 9 .432 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 40% UBUS 1. 675 1.150 iO 0.920 0.855 0.921 MCY 6.888 3.699 ALL 1.765 0.339 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 40% UBUS MCY ALL 11.523 145.342 Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 23 of 24 Pollutant Name : Oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT-UBUS 5 1.389 2.242 42.777 , .,ll :'2 15 1 .066 1 .666 !20i -1 ~4 25 2.179 20.248 " • ·K,1 35 0.824 1. 238 2.106 13 .298 18 .710 r-~ ' ~ 1 :2 i6l ,g; 45 20.933 2.405 18.093 28.383 "2 S ~ 65 0.994 1.540 2 .858 25.876 46.864 50F - Pollutant Name: Carbon Dioxide Temperature: Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS 5 1638.519 2038.412 65 475 .709 1728.558 Relative Humidity: 40% MCY ALL 1.210 2. 60.0 :ll ,I; 1.313 1 .942 1.425 ' 1.628 1. 541 01 1. 662 1 .. 557 1.785 1. 773. 1.910 2.261 50F Relative Humidity: 40% MCY ALL 98 .334 Pollutant Name: Sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 40% Speed MPH 5 JV 35 r. 45 LDA 0.015 w--,-zw 55 65 LDT MDT HOT 0.150 UBUS 0 . 222 MCY ALL 0.005 Mr. Michael Page Air Quality Conformity Assessment Holly Springs Residential Development -Carlsbad CA ISE Report #02-109 May 27, 2003 (Revised) Page 24 of 24 Pollutant Name: PMl0 Temperature: 50F Relative Humidity: 40% Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0 .983 1.069 0.104 :0."117 ~O 15 0.027 0 .041 0.053 0 .618 0.582 ~ " 25 0 .016 0 .024 0.424 0.364 0 .262 0.025 0 .217 0.037 0.021 0.050 0.020 0 ,o 65 0 .011 0.017 0.021 0.229 0.227 0.080 0.022 APPENDIX E Noise Analysis PACIFIC NOISE CONTROL A 219 Woodland Drive Vista, CA 92083 (760) 758-1198 Fax (760) 758-4761 \ July 8,2001 Mr. David Bentley Bentley-Monarch LLC 7449 Magellan Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 PROJECT: Cantarini Property-Carlsbad, CA. RE: Environmental Noise Assessment Dear Mr. Bentley: Pacific Noise Control has completed this environmental noise assessment for the CanW Property project located in the City of'carlsbad. In summary, the hture noise level at several of the lots adjacent to College Boulevard would exceed the City's exterior noise criteria. Noise barriers five to six-feet in height would be required to mitigate the noise impact at these lots. An interior noise study will be required prior to issuance of building permits if two story or higher homes are located on Lots 1-15,68 and the multi-family lot to ensure that the interior CNEL would not exceed 45 dB. The residences on these lots would most likely require air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation to meet the City's interior noise standard. Sound-rated windows may also be required for some of the residences on these lots. 1.0 BACKGROUND Project Setting The Cantarini Property project site is located approximately, 1,400 feet northeast of the intersection of El Camino Real and Rancho Carlsbad Drive. The project would develop the site with approximately 105 single family lots and an 80 dwelling Unit multi-family lot. In the future, College. Boulevard would be extended and located along the western portion of the site. This noise analysis evaluates the exterior noise level resulting fiom tmfic along College Boulevard. The analysis is based on the tentative map (Buccola Engineering, June 14,2001). The site is currently located well beyond any existing major roads, and is located outside the influence area of McClellan-Palomar Airport and any other major noise sources. . RECEIVED City Noise Criteria JUL 1 0 2001 LADWIG DESIGN GR ow bO' /\ The City of Carlsbad requires that exterior noise levels shall not exceed a Community Noise D .. Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 60 dB at 20-feet from the rearhide of the structure, unless the reakde (4 yard is less than 20-feet deep. Where the useable readside yard is less than 20-feet deep, the location may be taken at the back of the useable rearhide yard, as may be approved by the Planning Director. Interior noise levels are not to exceed a CNEL of 45 dT3. All sound levels discussed in this report are A-weighted. Methodology , The noise analysis methodology is based on the City's noise assessment methodology documented in the City's Noise Guidelines Manual (City of Carlsbad, 1995). The future noise level along College Boulevard was determined using Caltrans' SOUND32 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (Caltrans, 1983) with California noise emission factors (Caltrans, 1987). The noise model is based on the Federal Highway Administration's traffic noise prediction model (FHWA, 1978). Input for the noise model included the future year 2020 traffic volume of 29,000 ADT (City of Carlsbad, 2001) with vehicle speeds of 45 mph. The truck mix used was 1.83 percent medium trucks and 0.28 percent heavy trucks. The trac mix is based on vehicle mix surveys conducted by the City. The lots would typically be located above College Boulevard, therefore, a hard site noise propagation factor was used. 2.0 ANALYSIS 2.1 Exterior Nohe College Boulevard would be the primary noise source in the future. Residences on Lots 1-1 5 and 68 adjacent to College Boulevard would be exposed to a future CNEL greater than 60 dB. The floor CNEL would range up to approximately 69 dB at these lots. The noise level would exceed the City's noise guideline by up to nine dB, and would result in a significant noise hipact unless mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The backyards of the remaining single faniily lots would be exposed to a future CNEL of 60 dB or less due to the proposed setback distance, and/or the topographic shielding associated with the grade elevation difference between the lots hd College Boulevard. The future first floor noise levels at the backyards of several representative lots are fl depicted in Figure 1. The composite tentative map indicates that a parking lot would be co&tructed between College Boulevard and outdoor usable space areas at the multi-family lot. This parking lot would provide a noise buffer and the resulting future noise level at the multi-family lot would be 60 dB or less at the outdoor usable space areas. This noise level would comply with the City's exterior noise criteria. 2.2 Intetiot Noise The City'requires that interior noise levels not exceed a CNEL 45 dl3. Typically, with the windows open, and using standard California construction materials and methods, the building shells provide (CI July 8,2001 1” = 400’ Base Map Source: Buccola Engineering, June 14,2001 FIGURE 1 Facific Noise Control Future CNEL Noise Levels Y approximately 15 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, residences exposed to an exterior CNEL greater than 60 dE3 could result in an interior CNEL greater than 45 dI3. The exterior noise level at Lots 1-1 5, 68 and the multi-family lot would exceed 60 dl3 CNEL at the first and/or second floor levels. 3.0 MITIGATION 3.1 Exterior Noise To mitigate the exterior noise impact at the single family residences would require noise barriers ranging in height from five to six-feet. The noise barriers should be constructed along the top of slope of the lots. The noise barrier heights and locations are depicted in Figure 2. The noise barriers may be constructed as a wall, berm or combination of both. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. The wall may be constructed of 5/8-inch Plexiglas, any masonry material or a combination of these materials. 3.2 . Interior Noise If two story or higher homes are located on Lots 1-15,68 and the multi-family lot, an interior noise of the noise barriers identified above in Section 3.1. The interior acoustical analysis will be required for the residences on these lots prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that the interior CNEL would not exceed 45 dB. To mitigate the interior noise impact, the residences on these lots would most likely requk air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation and possibly sound-rated windows. analysis will be required to comply with the City's interior noise criteria. This assumes incorporation - The mitigation measures are based on the tentative map. If changes are made to the proposed building pad elevations or lot setbacks as shown in the tentative map, a noise study will be required to' determine whether the proposed barrier heights and locations will mitigate the noise level. ------ This concludes OUT noise assessment. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, Mike Komula Acoustician cc: Robert Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group Pacific Noise Control July 8,2001 4 Base Map Source: Buccola Engineering, June 14,2001 Pacific Noise Control Noise Barrier Heights and Locations FIGURE 2 1” = 400 - REFERENCES California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), June 1983. User's Instructions for SOUND32 (FHWA/CA-83/06). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 1987. California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels, (FHKA/CA/TLL-8 7/03). Carlsbad, City of, September 1995. City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual. Carlsbad, City of, July 6,2001. Personal Communication with Traflc Engineering Department. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1978. FMA Highway Traflc Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Pacific Noise Control 6 July 8,2001 /- ATTACHMENT 1 DEFINITIONS /-- Term Ambient Noise Level A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA Dabon The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A- weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. . .. Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL is the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound exposure CNEL level for a 24-hour period with a ten dB adjustment added to sound levels occurring during nightthe hours (1 0 pm to 7 am) and a five dl3 adjustment added to the sound levels occurring during the evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm). A unit for measuring sound pressure level and is equal to 10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the measured sound pressure squared to a reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals. The sound level corresponding to a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. It is designed to average all of the loud and quiet sound levels occurring over a time period. Decibel, dB Time-Average Sound Level ATTACHMENT 2 TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING INPUT/OUTPUT Future ADT cars (%) Medium trucks (%) 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 ~ ~ ~ -~ Heavy trucks (%) Speed (mph) Angle of view (degrees) Road Elevation Lot Elevation Center line to Barrier 0.28 45 45 45 45 -80/80 -80170 -75175 -80180 105 113 113 102 133 154 149 123 110 135 125 100 0.28 Barrier Elevation Barrier Height CNEL (dB) 133 154 149 123 6' 5' 5' 6' 560 I; 60 560 I; 60 ~ Receiver to Barrier 10 I 10 I 10 I 10 1 PACIFIC NOISE CONTROL 219 Woodland Drive Vista, CA 92083 (760) 758-1198 Fax (760) 758-4761 November 2,2000 Mr. David Bentley BENTEQ 4740 East Simise Drive - Tucson, AZ 85718 PROJECT: Holly Springs-Carlsbad, CA ’ RE: Environmental Noise Assessment Dear Mr. Bentley: Pacific Noise Control has completed this environmental noise assessment for the Holly Springs project located in the City of Carlsbad. In summary, the future noise level at the multi-family lot adjacent to College Boulevard woJd exceed the City’s exterior noise criteria. A four-foot high noise barrier would mitigate the noise impact at the multi-family lot. The remaining lots would comply with the City’s exterior noise criteria. An interior noise study will be required prior to issuance of building permits for the multi-family lot to ensure that the interior CNEL would not exceed 45 dB. The units facing College Boulevard would most likely require air-conditioning andor mechanical ventilation to meet the City’s interior noise standard. Sound-rated windows may also be required for some of the units. 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Project Setting The Holly Springs project site is located approximately 3,000 feet northeast of the intersection of El Camino Real ;.ad Rancho Carlsbad Drive (Figure I). The project would develop the site with approximately 47 single family lots and one multi-family lot. The site is currently located well beyond any existing major roads, and is located outside the influence area of McClellan-Palomar Airport and any other major noise sources. hi the future, College Boulevard would be extended and located along the western portion of the site and would be the primary noise source at the site. Traffic noise would also be generated along the future local residential roads as well as distant traf5c College Boulevard. The analysis is based on the tentative map (O’Day Consultants, October 17, - from Cannon Road. This noise analysis evaluates the exterior noise level resulting from tr&c along 2000). b\ I .P/ RECE NED . / No Scale Base Map Source: O'Day Consultants, October 2000 I FIGURE 1 'acific Noise Contml Project Location Holly Springs-Carlsbad, CA Environmental Noise Assessment 3 November 2,2000 1.2 City Noise Criteria The City of Carlsbad requires that exterior noise levels shall not exceed a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 60 dB at 20-feet fiom the rearhide of the structure, unless the rearkide yard is less than 20-feet deep. Where the useable rearhide yard is less than 20-feet deep, the location may be taken at the back of the useable rearhide yard, as may be approved by the Planning Director. All sound levels discussed in this report are A-weighted. lnterior noise levels are not to exceed a CNEL of 45 dF+. 1.3 Methodology The noise analysis methodology is based on the City's noise assessment methodology documented in the City's Noise Guidelines Manual (City of Carlsbad, 1995). The hture noise level along College Boulevard was determined using the Federal Highway Administration's TNM Version 1.1 traffic noise prediction model (FHWA, 2000). Input for the noise model included the fbture year 2020 traffic volume of 29,000 ADT (City of Carlsbad, 2000) with vehicle speeds of 45 mph. The truck mix used was 1.83 percent medium trucks and 0.28 percent heavy trucks. The traffic mix is based on vehicle mix surveys conducted by 'the City. 2.0 ANALYSIS 2.1 Exterior Noise College Boulevard would be the primary noise source in the future, Residences located at the western portior, of the multi-family lot adjacent to College Boulevard would be exposed to a noise level greater than 60 dB CNEL. The first floor CNEL would range up to approximately 67 dB adjacent to College Boulevard. The noise level would exceed the City's noise guideline by up to seven dB, and would result in a significant noise impact unless mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The single family lots would be exposed to a future CNEL of less &an 60 dB. The noise level would be less at the single family lots due to the distances from the homes to College Boulevard and Cannon Road, as well shielding from intervening topography. The approximate distances to future first floor CNEL noise contours at the multi-family lot are depicted in Figure 2. 2.2 Interior Noise The City requires that interior noise levels not exceed a CNEL 45 dB. Typically, with the windows open, and using standard California construction materials and methods, the building shells provide approximately 15 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, residences exposed to an exterior CNEL greater than 60 dB could result in an interior CrUTEL greater than 45 dB. The exterior noise level at the . . . . . . . . . .... . --.. .. -. .. .. . , . . . . 1" = 160' Base Map Source: O'Oay Consultants, October 2000 I Pacific Noise Control Future CNEL Noise Contours FIGURE 2 Holly Springs-Carlsbad, CA 5 Environmental Noise Assessment November 2,2000 multi-family lot would exceed 60 dB CNEL. 3.0 MITIGATION 3.1 Exterior Noise To mitigate the exterior noise impact at the multi-family lot would require a four-foot high noise barrier located along the western portion of the lot. The noise barrier should be constructed along the top of slope of the lot. The noise barrier height and location is depicted in Figure 3. * The noise barrier may be constructed as a wall, berm or combination of both. The noise barrier must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks, The wall may be constructed of minimum 5/8-inch thick acrylic plastic material, 1/4-inch thick framed-in safety glass, any masonry material or a combination of these materials. 3.2 Interior Noise - To comply with the City's interior noise standard, an interior noise analysis will be required for the units at the multi-family lot. The interior acoustical analysis will be requbed prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that the interior CNEL would not exceed 45 dB. To mitigate the interior noise impact w Jdd most likely require air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation and possibly sound-rated windows for the units adjacent to College Boulevard. The mitigation measures are based on the tentative map. If changes are made to the proposed building pad elevations or lot setbacksas shown in the tentative map, a noise study will be required to determine whether the proposed barrier heights and locations will mitigate the noise level. This concludes our noise assessment. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, Mike Komula Acoustician cc: Robert Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group - Noise Barrier I” = 160’ Base Map Source: O’Day Consultants, October 2000 Rcific Noise Control Noise Barrier Height and Location FIGURE 3 Holly Springs-Carlsbad, CA '7 Environmental Noise Assessment November 2,2000 REFERENCES Carlsbad, City of, September 1995. City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual. Carlsbad, City of, October 26,2000. Personal Communication with Mr. Jim Gayle of the Traflc Engineering Department. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), September 2000. FKWA Trafic Noise Model Version 1.1 User's Guide Addendum (FHWA-RD-77-108). ' Federal Highway Administration (FFIWA), January 1998. FHWA Traflc Noise Model User's Guide (FHWA-PDt96-009). Term Ambient Noise Level A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Decibel, dB Time-Average Sound Level ATTACHMENT 1 DEFINITIONS Definition The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. CNEL is the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound exposure level for a 24-hour period with a ten dB adjustment added to sound levels occurring during nighttime hours (I 0 pm to 7 am) and a five dB adjustment added-to the sound levels occurring during the evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm). A unit for measuring sound pressure level and is equal to 10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the measured sound pressure squared to a reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals. The sound level corresponding to a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. It is designed to average all of the loud and quiet sound levels occurring over a time period. -1 50 15 111 304 497 497 304 111 15 -1 50 -101 -52 -25 31 89 131 73 17 -1 0 -59 81 89 93 99 103 103 99 93 89 81 Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average College El\ 24 pointl point2 point3 point4 point5 pointl 1 point10 point9 point8 point7 1 2 3 4 5 11 10 9 7 a College El\ 24 Receiverl ReceiveR' Receiver3" Receiver4' Receive@ , RecelverB" Receiver7' ReceiverB" Recelvefl' 1 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 0 58.6 0 54.9 0 51.2 0 , 59.7 0 57.3 0 78:1 0 74.2 0 72.6 0 48.1 60 56.6 10 - 60 54.9 10 -- 60 51.2 10 -- 60 59.7 10 -- 60 57.3 '10 - 60 78.1 10 Snd Lvl 60 74.2 10 Snd Lvl 60 72.6 10 Snd Lvl 60 48.1 10 - 56.6 54.9 51.2 59.7 57.3 74.2 72.6 48.1 78.1 8 -a 0 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 8 -8 a -8 6 -8 8 -a 3 College Blvd. Southbo point1 point2 point4 point5 College Blvd. Northba pOinll1 point1 0 point9 point8 point7 point3 1 1807 2 1807 3 1807 4 1807 5 11 1807 10 1807 9 1607 7 a la07 45 28 45 45 28 45 45 213 45 45 28 45 45 28 45 45 28 45 45 28 45 45 28 45 4 45 4 45 4 45 4 45 4 45 4 45 4 45 4 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 45 2 46 Receiver1 ReceiveR" Receiver3" Rece iver4" Receiver5" ReceiverG" Receiver7 Receivers" ReceiverS" 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 115 50 14 116 51 200 200 200 75 149 148 520 134 1'28 60 90 110 300 126.5 126.5 126.5 126 126 06 112 121 126.5 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8Y BY BY BY BY BY 8Y 8Y ay Bvru1 w 0 ogog 0 1 211 250 128 4 0 0 0 2 215 142 128 4 0 0 o 3 33 105 126 4 0 0 0 4 111 29s 126 4