HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 2020-0001; COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION; Biological Technical Report; 2015-03-26Biological Technical Report
College Boulevard -Reach A
and Basin BJ Project
March 26, 2015
Prepared for:
Bent West, LLC
5796 Armada Drive, Suite 300
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
Alden Environmental, Inc.
3245 University Avenue, #1188
San Diego, CA 92104
Greg Mason, Senior Biologist
FEB 1 ! 2020
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING Ql'flSlC)!'l
.ALDE-N
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
Section
College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ Project
Biological Technical Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project History ..................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Description .............................................................................................. 2
2.0 METHODS & SURVEY LIMITATIONS ................................................................ .4
2.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Biological Surveys .............................................................................................. 4
2.3 Nomenclature ...................................................................................................... 5
3.0 SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................................. 5
3 .1 Physical Characteristics ....................................................................................... 5
3 .2 Vegetation Communities/Wildlife Habitats ........................................................ 6
3 .2.1 Wetland/Riparian Communities/Habitats .................................................. 6
3.2.2 Upland Communities/Habitats .................................................................. 8
3.2.3 Other Areas ............................................................................................... 9
3.3 Plant Species Observed ..................................................................................... 11
3 .4 Animal Species Observed .................................................................................. 11
3.5 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters ................................................................... 12
3.5.1 Waters of the U.S .................................................................................... 12
3.5.2 Waters of the State .................................................................................. 13
3.6 Wildlife Corridors .............................................................................................. 14
4.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT .................................................................................... 15
4.1 Regulatory Issues .............................................................................................. 15
4.1.1 Federal. .................................................................................................... 15
4.1.2 State of California ................................................................................... 17
4.1.3 City of Carlsbad ...................................................................................... 19
5.0 SENSITIVE RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 18
5.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Wildlife Habitats ...................................... 20
5.2 Sensitive Species ............................................................................................... 20
5 .2.1 Sensitive Plant Species Observed .......................................................... .20
5.2.2 Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur ..................................... 21
5.2.3 Sensitive Animal Species Observed or Detected .................................... 22
5.2.4 Sensitive Animal Species with Potential to Occur ................................. 24
5.3 Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State ....................................................... 26
5 .4 Wildlife Corridors ............................................................................................. 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Title Page
6.0 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 27
6.1 Direct Impacts ................................................................................................... 28
6.1.1 Vegetation Communities/Wildlife Habitats ............................................ 28
6.1.2 Sensitive Plant Species ........................................................................... 30
6.1.3 Sensitive Animal Species ....................................................................... .30
6.1.4 Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State ............................................ .32
6.1.5 Wildlife Corridors ................................................................................... 33
6.2 Indirect Impacts ................................................................................................. 33
6.2.1 Fire Management .................................................................................... 34
6.2.2 Erosion Control ....................................................................................... 34
6.2.3 Landscaping Restrictions ........................................................................ 34
6.2.4 Fencing, Signs, and Lighting .................................................................. 35
6.2.5 Predator and Exotic Species Control ..................................................... .35
6.2.6 Noise ....................................................................................................... 36
6.2. 7 Dust ......................................................................................................... 36
6.2.8 Drainages and Toxics .............................................................................. 37
6.3 Cumulative lmpacts ........................................................................................... 37
7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................... 37
7.1 Standard Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... .38
7.1.1 Project Design Measures ......................................................................... 38
7.1.2 Pre-construction Measures ...................................................................... 38
7.1.3 Construction Measures ............................................................................ 39
7.2 Mitigation for Significant Direct Impacts ........................................................ .40
7.2.1 Sensitive Upland Vegetation Communities/Wildlife Habitats .............. .40
7.2.2 Sensitive Wetland/Riparian Habitats ..................................................... .43
7.2.3 Other Areas ............................................................................................. 44
7.2.4 Sensitive Animal Species ....................................................................... .44
7.3 Mitigation for Significant Indirect Impacts ...................................................... .46
7.3.1 Noise ....................................................................................................... 46
7.3.2 Non-native Plant Species ........................................................................ 46
7.3.3 Night Lighting ......................................................................................... 47
8.0 HMP CONSISTENCY FINDINGS .......................................................................... 47
9.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 58
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title
Follows
Page
1 Regional Location ....................................................................................................... 2
2 Project Location .......................................................................................................... 2
3 Vegetation Communities/Wildlife Habitats and Sensitive Species ............................ 6
4 Waters of the U.S ...................................................................................................... 12
5 Waters of the State .................................................................................................... 12
6 HMP Focused Planning Areas .................................................................................. 14
7 HMP Conservation Areas ......................................................................................... 18
8 CDFW Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 30
9 Corps Mitigation ....................................................................................................... 30
10 Seeding/Planting Areas ............................................................................................. 42
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title
1 Comparison of Vegetation Communities within the Project Impact Footprints ....... 10
2 Existing Vegetation Communities/Wildlife Habitats on the ECNS Proposed Parcels
A Through D ............................................................................................................. 11
3 Impacts to Waters of the U.S .................................................................................... 12
4 Impacts to Waters of the State .................................................................................. 14
5 Impacts to Vegetation Communities/Wildlife Habitats ............................................ 28
6 Proposed Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Wildlife
Habitats ..................................................................................................................... 42
LIST OF APPENDICES
Letter Title
A
B
C
Explanation of Listing or Status Codes for Plant and Animal Species
College Boulevard -Reach A Biological Resources Report (Merkel & Associates,
Inc. 2010)
Biological Resources Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR (98-02)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This biological technical report (BTR) presents an updated analysis of the biological effects
associated with development of the College Boulevard-Reach A (Reach A) and Detention
Basin BJ (Basin BJ) Project (Project). Since the previous approvals of these two Project
components in 2001 (Environmental Impact Report [EIR No. 98-02; SCH No. 99111082; Recon
2001 a]), revisions to the Project impact footprint have been made, primarily to satisfy current
storm water requirements. In addition, proposed mitigation for the impacts associated with
construction of those two components has been added to the Project as a third component and
would occur on the adjacent Equestrian Center North/South (ECNS) parcels. Furthermore, it
has been approximately five years since the last biological studies were conducted for the
Project. This BTR provides updated biological resources mapping and presents an analysis of the
impacts of the Project from the revised footprint and the addition of the Project mitigation.
Finally, it includes the mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to levels that would be
less than significant and demonstrates Project consistency with the Habitat Management Plan for
Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (City; HMP; 2004).
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located within unsectioned lands in Township 11 south, Range 4 west of the
United States (U.S.) Geological Survey 7.5' San Luis Rey, California Quadrangle. Specifically,
the Reach A and Basin BJ components are located within the northeast quadrant of the City
beginning at the terminus of College Boulevard approximately 1,000 feet north of El Camino
Real and extending northward to the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road
(Figures 1 and 2). The impact footprint of those Project components would encompass
approximately 27 acres and would pass through undeveloped lands. The Project mitigation
would be located on parcels of land (ECNS parcels) adjacent to the southern end of Reach A that
contain a former equestrian facility along Agua Hedionda Creek (Figure 2). The Mitigation Area
within the ECNS parcels shown on Figure 2 is identified as proposed Parcel C of MS 14-10 in
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration being prepared for implementation of the
Project mitigation (City 2015 in prep.). College Boulevard lies south of the Project; Cannon
Road lies north of the Project. Vacant agricultural land and the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home
Park lie west of the Project, and vacant agricultural land lies east of the Project. The Project is
not located within the Coastal Zone.
1.2 PROJECT HISTORY
In 2001, Reach A and Basin BJ were elements in the EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan
Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, & Detention Basins (EIR No. 98-02; SCH No.
99111082; Recon 2001). The EIR was certified by the City Council on January 14, 2002
(Planning Systems 2004 in Merkel & Associates, Inc. [Merkel] 2010a) and subsequently
received federal and State of California (State) permits for proposed impacts to wetlands and
non-wetland waters. These Project components were never constructed, and the permits expired.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 •ALDEN
This BTR presents an updated analysis of the biological effects associated with the Project as
currently proposed. Since the previous Project approvals in 2001 (i.e., the certified EIR),
revisions to the Project impact footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ have been made, primarily to
satisfy current storm water requirements; mitigation on the ECNS parcels was added to the
Project; and updated biological studies were conducted for the Project since it has been
approximately five years since the previous studies were done (by Merkel in 2009; [Merkel
2010a]). This BTR provides updated biological resources mapping (along with information from
prior studies, as listed below); presents an analysis of the impacts of the Project from the revised
footprint; and proposes mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant
levels. HMP consistency findings for the Reach A and Basin BJ components of the Project have
already been made, and those components are consistent with the HMP (Merkel 2010a). This
BTR includes those findings and incorporates HMP consistency findings for implementation of
the Project mitigation on the ECNS parcels (see Section 8.0).
Biological resources were previously analyzed in the following documents, and relevant
information from those documents has been incorporated into this BTR:
• College Boulevard -Reach A, Biological Resources Report, General Biological Survey
Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation, and Focused Surveys (Merkel 2010a)
• Biological Resources Report for the Dos Colinas Project (Merkel 2010b)
• Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, &
Detention Basins Certified Environmental Impact Report ( EIR 98-02; SCH No.
99111082; Recon 2001a)
• Revised Biological Technical Report for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge
and Thoroughfare District, and Detention Basins (Recon 2001 b)
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The currently proposed Project involves the construction of two public improvements: a
major arterial roadway (Reach A) and a regional flood control detention basin (Basin BJ).
Reach A is the remaining link of College Boulevard between existing Cannon Road and El
Camino Real and is approximately 3,000 feet in length. The Project also includes re-
establishment/creation and preservation/enhancement of wetland habitat with an upland
habitat buffer as mitigation for impacts from Reach A and Basin BJ construction. The
mitigation would occur within the proposed Parcel C Mitigation Area on the ECNS parcels
(Figure 2).
The ECNS parcels have been divided into proposed Parcels A through D (Figure 2).
Proposed Parcel A would not be affected by the Project. Proposed parcel B would be
impacted by the Reach A component of the project (including by a new bio-retention basin
that was added to the Project since its previous approval in 200 I in order to satisfy current
storm water requirements). Proposed Parcel C is the Mitigation Area for the Project. A
portion of proposed Parcel C would be temporarily impacted by approved Reach A
construction but subsequently restored to native habitat. The eastern portion of proposed
Parcel D would be impacted by approved Reach A construction but otherwise would
remain unaffected by the Project.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
2
\
Oceansidl
Carlsbad•
-Vista
ID
~min rProject Site
Mc:.CJeJl:tn
11:ir AtrpC>r1.L -X-8 f>,1•p:ir, Rd f:\JVJ~y
~ V
Stn Marcos
ALDEN
Miles ENVIRONMENTAL INC
.,
JJ
Powpy
La Mesa
VALL1Y
. . El CaJon
[e'f)On Grove.5 . pnng
Valley
Regional Location
COLLEGE BOULEY ARD -REACH A
AND BASIN BJ PROJECT
Source: USGS Quads (San Luis Rey) CopyrightC 2013
National Geographic Society, i-cubed
0 500 1,000
Feet
ALDEN
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
Equestrian Center North/South Parcels
Project Impacts
Mitigation Area (Parcel C)
Project Location
COLLEGE BOULEVARD -REACH A
AND BASIN BJ PROJECT
Reach A and Basin BJ are adopted City of Carlsbad General Plan Elements and are
considered necessary regional public improvements. Reach A is a City Circulation Element
major arterial roadway segment that will complete a north-south link between El Camino
Real and Cannon Road. The roadway link is planned as a divided, four-lane public
roadway. The road would be constructed at 82 feet in width (I 02-foot right-of-way) with an
18-foot wide landscaped median. Basin BJ is a City Drainage Master Plan facility and
would be constructed to provide storm water drainage protection for residential properties
downstream of the basin.
Transportation improvements provided by the construction of Reach A are needed because
there are insufficient north-south transportation corridor connections between Oceanside
and Highway 78 and southern Carlsbad. The projected future transportation demand
exceeds capacity of existing and/or alternative routes, and as a result, there is an increasing
strain on transportation infrastructure from population and economic growth. The current
transportation system (without Reach A) does not allow for efficient traffic movement and
does not provide the necessary north-south linkage described above. Additional traffic
congestion results and creates commute delays, higher accident rates, and general costs to
businesses, commuters, and residents of north San Diego County.
Basin BJ is a planned storm water control detention basin located at the northeast end of
Reach A. It is designed to hold 23 acre-feet of floodwaters in a 100-year storm event. The
basin encompasses approximately 5.5 acres in area. Basin BJ would be constructed by
pulling back the existing banks of a section of Little Encinas Creek (avoiding impacts to
the ordinary high water mark of the creek) and lowering the adjacent area grades to allow
for overbank flooding and peak flow storage. A 7.75-foot by 4-foot box culvert would be
placed under Reach A allowing water to flow from the basin, under Reach A, and
downstream in Little Encinas Creek.
Reach A improvements would necessitate the crossing of Agua Hedionda Creek; one
unnamed tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek; and a separate, mid Reach A streambed.
Reach A is designed to cross Agua Hedionda Creek via a bridge approximately 153 feet in
length and 120 feet in width. The bridge would sit approximately 15 feet above the creek's
flow line elevation. All bridge abutments would be placed outside of the creek's ordinary
high water mark, and no in-span bridge supports would be used. Slope armoring would be
placed under and across the span of the bridge. The unnamed tributary to Agua Hedionda
Creek and the separate, mid Reach A streambed would contain culverts where Reach A
would cross them.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ALDEN
3
2.0 METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
As stated in Section 1.2, biological resources were previously analyzed in other Project-related
documents. Those documents were reviewed for the field work conducted in 2014 for
preparation of this BTR. Additionally the City's I-IMP (City 2004) and Guidelines for Biological
Studies (Guidelines; City 2008) were reviewed for information regarding habitat and species,
regulations, and requirements.
2.2 BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
In order to assess the impacts to biological resource resulting from the currently proposed
Project, field work was conducted to update the vegetation mapping and jurisdictional
delineation that was last performed in 2009 (Merkel 2010a). The updated mapping and
delineation was conducted for the Reach A and Basin BJ impact footprint (plus a 100-foot
buffer), as well as on the ECNS parcels (collectively referred to as the study area). The updated
field work was conducted for Alden Environmental, Inc. by Lee Ripma on April 22, May 15,
May 27, and May 28, 2014.
Vegetation communities were mapped in the study area according to Holland (1986) or
Oberbauer et al. (2008) classifications. Mapping of the limits of wetland/riparian vegetation
communities on the ECNS parcels was conducted with the aid of surveyors in the field in order
to ensure mapping accuracy. Ms. Ripma met with a survey team and flagged the limits of the
communities. The data collected (including surveyor and collected GPS data) was overlain on
current topographic maps and aerial photography for the study area. The previous vegetation
mapping was then updated, as necessary, to accurately reflect the current conditions.
The jurisdictional delineation update was conducted by to determine the limits of
wetland/riparian features that would be considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and Regional Water
Quality Control Board (R WQCB). All areas with depressions or drainage channels were
evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional features. All of the previously mapped jurisdictional
areas also were inspected and updated, as necessary. Each area was inspected according to
federal and State wetland delineation guidelines. Presence of Corps jurisdictional features was
evaluated using the criteria described in the Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory 1987) and the Arid West Supplement (Corps 2008). Corps jurisdictional non-
wetland waters of the U.S. (WUS; e.g., ephemeral streambeds) were determined by the presence
of bed and bank within unvegetated drainage courses. CDFW jurisdiction (waters of the State;
WS) was determined by the presence of stream beds, channels, and wetland/riparian vegetation.
Representative photographs were taken at each area that was determined to be jurisdictional.
Due to the Project impact footprint largel y consisting of vacant agricultural land, the minor
changes in the conditions in the study area since the 2009 surveys, and the already-recorded
presence of sensitive plant and animal species during previous surveys (Merkel 201 0a, Recon
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ALDEN
4
..
2001 b ), new focused surveys for special status species were not conducted. It is assumed herein
that those species are still present. Previous surveys for the Project were conducted as follows.
General biological resources surveys were conducted in November and December 1999 and on
four dates in January 2000 by Recon (2001b). General biological resources surveys were also
conducted in December 2005 and September 2009 by Merkel (2010a).
Focused surveys for sensitive plant species were conducted in May 2006 and in May and June
2009 by Merkel (2010a).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol surveys for the federal listed threatened (HMP
Covered Species; Appendix A) coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
were conducted in November, December, and January 2000 by Recon (2001b) and in January
and February 2006 and 2009 by Merkel (2010a).
USFWS protocol surveys for the federal and State listed endangered (HMP Covered Species)
least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trail/ii
extimus) were conducted in 2000 by Recon (2001b) and in 2006 and 2009 by Merkel (2010a).
A burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; State Species of Special Concern [ Appendix A]) habitat
assessment and survey were conducted by Merkel in May and June 2009 (Merkel 2010a)
following the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (The California
Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993).
2.3 NOMENCLATURE
The scientific and common names utilized for the plant and animal resources herein were largely
taken from Merkel (2010a). Some species names and statuses in this document are also from the
California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2014), CDFW Natural Diversity Database (CDFW
2014), and the HMP (City 2004).
3.0 SURVEY RESULTS
3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The study area is located within the lower hydrologic unit of the Agua Hedionda Creek
Watershed approximately two miles upstream from Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Regionally, Agua
Hedionda Creek and its tributaries drain about 39 square miles from the mountains of the City of
San Marcos through the City of Vista and into the City of Carlsbad where it discharges into the
Pacific Ocean via Agua Hedionda Lagoon (KTU&A et al. 2001 in Merkel 2010a). The study
area ranges in elevation from approximately 50 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 200 feet
AMSL.
Underlying surficial geology is mapped as Upper Cretaceous Marine and Alluvium (Rogers 1962
in Merkel 2010a). Soils within the northern portion of the study area are mapped as Huerhuero
loam nine to 15 percent slopes, Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loam nine to 30 percent slopes,
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ALDEN
j It~ ~ I
5
Tujunga sand zero to five percent slopes, and Salinas clay loam two to nine percent slopes. Soils
the central portion of the study area are mapped as Olivenhain cobbly loam and Huerhuero loam
nine to 30 percent slopes. Soils the southern portion of the study area are mapped as Visalia
sandy loam two to five percent slopes, Huerhuero loam 15 to 30 percent slopes eroded,
Riverwash, Tujunga sand zero to five percent slopes, and Altamont clay nine to 15 percent
slopes (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]
2008 in Merkel 201 0a).
Soils on the ECNS parcels, specifically, are mapped as Huerhuero loam nine to 30 percent slopes
(the latter eroded), Riverwash, Salinas clay loam two to nine percent slopes, Tujunga sand zero
to five percent slopes, and Visalia sandy loam two to five percent slopes (USDA NRCS 2013).
The current, City SanGIS land use designation for most of Reach A is Vacant and Undeveloped
Land. The northwestern portion of Reach A is Residential Recreation. The southern portion of
Reach A is Vacant and Undeveloped Land, Open Space Park or Preserve (i.e., Agua Hedionda
Creek and its unnamed tributary), Intensive Agriculture, and Road Right-of-Way. Basin BJ is
designated as Vacant and Undeveloped Land and Parking Lot-Surface. The ECNS parcels are
designated Intensive Agriculture, Open Space Park or Preserve (i.e., Agua Hedionda Creek), and
Spaced Rural Residential.
The Project spans from the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road through
vacant land north to the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Overall, the study
area is generally comprised ofrolling hills, Little Encinas Creek in the north, and Agua
Hedionda Creek (and an unnamed tributary to the creek) in the south. Vegetation in the study
area consists largely of vacant agriculture with remnant patches of native upland vegetation; the
creeks support wetland/riparian vegetation. The ECNS parcels support native wetland/riparian
vegetation in Agua Hedionda Creek; otherwise, they largely consist of disturbed lands associated
with the previous equestrian uses.
3.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/WILDLIFE HABITATS
Fifteen vegetation communities/wildlife habitats are present in the study area (Figure 3). Six are
wetland/riparian communities; four are upland communities; and five are other areas. Each is
described below.
3.2.1 Wetland/Riparian Communities/Habitats
Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marsh is associated with Little Encinas Creek. Little Encinas Creek supports year-
round surface flow, as well as additional ephemeral flow from adjacent upland drainages that
feed into the creek. Overall, the creek in the study area supports low-growing marsh species with
no riparian canopy. In addition, concrete/riprap has been placed along the creek's banks. The
drainage supports a mixture of native and non-native, low-growing, aquatic species including
Dombey's spike-rush (Eleocharis montevidensis), iris-leaf rush (Juncus xiphioides), celery
(Apium graveolens), and watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum) with inclusions of common
upland and mesic area plants such as English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), bristly ox-tongue
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ALDEN
6
0 100-lool Mapsq Butler
C> ProjeCI lmpacta
. • : E~ Center Nor1hlSoulh Parcell
Mitigation AIU (Pan:el C)
V&getaUon CommunltlaslWlldllfa Habitats
Welland/Riparian
-F-.ltrMnh
-~ (Mule Fat) Scrub Q Rlpallan (Soulhem WIiiow) Scrub
-Ripallan (Sycamore)~ Q Soulhem Cont Uve oak Riparian Forni
-Oilturbed .,,,__ (Arunclo)
Upland
~ Coal1a!SageSaub Q Coal1al Sage Scrub (Bacchlll11)
-Coal1al Sage Saub-Oilturbed
C)Non-nlltMIGrulland
OllwAreas
Q AQr1alllurlllL.andl
Q Eucalyptua Woodland
0 Oilturbed Landi
O Ornamental
Q> Dell91oped
Sensitive Species
C Cellfomill Adolphia (Adolph/a ca/lfomica)
• ~ Spiny Rutll (Juncus IICUIUS 111'· /eopoldli)
• Coopefa Hawk (Aocipiler cooperli)
• Sha,p.lhinned Hawk (Aoc/pller striatua)
0
•
Southern Celilomla R~ Spam,w
/A/mop/Ii/a n,flcepl canescensJ
Northern Harrier /Cwcus cyeneus)
o -tailed Kile /EJanus leucurus}
• Callfomill Homed Lari! /Elemophl/a a/peftrls aclla}
o Yellow-breasted Chat /lcterla vtrens)
• Nuttal"a Woodpecker (Picoides nuttalh)
o Yellow warbler /Se/opllaga petechlaJ
Leaat BeN"1 Vireo (Vint0 be/Iii pus/I/us)
Obaerved Ute Area
SoYtct"· Google 2013
wץ
E------3::::~~150:::::::::::::~ ••• ~ A L D E N 1:3600 ENVIRO'\MEI' AL tN(.
Vegetation Communities/
Wildlife Habitats and Sensitive Species
COLLEGE BOULEVARD · REACH A
AND BASIN BJ PROJECT
..
(Picris echioides), large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), as well as common non-native
grasses. Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii), a sensitive species, is also
located within this community.
Riparian (Mule Fat) Scrub
Riparian (mule fat) scrub is a depauperate, shrubby riparian scrub community dominated by
mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) and sometimes interspersed with small willows (Salix spp.). This
community occurs along intermittent stream channels with a fairly coarse substrate and moderate
depth to the water table. Riparian (mule fat) scrub is present in a streambed in the central portion
of the study area and in the northeastern portion of the study area.
Riparian (Southern Willow) Scrub
Riparian (southern willow scrub) consists of dense, broad-leaved, winter-deciduous stands of
trees dominated by shrubby willows often in association with mule fat. This community occurs
on loose, sandy, or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near stream channels during flood flows.
The dominant plant species in this community in the study area is arroyo willow (Salix
lasiolepis). Riparian (southern willow scrub) occurs along Agua Hedionda Creek in the study
area.
Riparian (Sycamore) Woodland
Riparian (sycamore) woodland in the study area is associated with Agua Hedionda Creek. This
community consists of a mature and relatively expansive tree canopy dominated by western
sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Arroyo willow is the primary tree species that makes up the
central layer of this multi-layered riparian woodland. Understory species present include
immature willows, mule fat, and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). The herbaceous cover is
relatively limited due to the narrowness of the drainage and abundant leaf litter. As a result, most
of the herbaceous species are limited to the banks of the creek and include poison oak
(Toxicodendron diversilobum), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and western ragweed
(Ambrosia psilostachya). Non-native species present throughout this community include tree
tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), dwarf nettle (Urtica urens), and castor bean (Ricinus communis).
Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
Southern coast live oak riparian forest is associated with Little Encinas Creek. This community
occurs within the upstream portion of the creek within the 100-foot mapping buffer but is not
within the Project impact footprint. Overall, the southern coast live oak riparian forest is
dominated by mature coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and arroyo willow intermixed with
western sycamore.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 t\ AL D E N
7
Disturbed Wetland (Arundo)
Disturbed wetland consists of area permanently or periodically inundated by water and that has
been significantly modified by human activity. Disturbed wetland in the study area is dominated
by non-native giant reed (Arundo donax) and is present as a single patch of this plant species
along Agua Hedionda Creek.
3.2.2 Upland Communities/Habitats
Coastal Sage Scrub (including-disturbed and Baccbaris)
Coastal sage scrub is one of the two major shrub types that occur in California. This community
occupies xeric sites characterized by shallow soils. Coastal sage scrub is dominated by subshrubs
whose leaves abscise during drought. This adaptation allows these species to better withstand the
prolonged dry period in the summer and fall. Coastal sage scrub species have relatively shallow
root systems and open canopies, which may allow for the occurrence of a substantial herbaceous
component.
Coastal sage scrub occurs in patches throughout the Reach A and Basin BJ portions of the study
area. It does not occur on the ECNS parcels. It contains a suite of plant species such as
California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonumfasiculatum),
California encelia (Encelia californica), broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides), lemonade
berry (Rhus integrifolia), and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). Coastal sage scrub-disturbed
contains many of the same shrub species as the undisturbed community in the study area but is
sparser and has a higher proportion of non-native, annual species such as tocalote ( Centaurea
melitensis) and oats (Avena spp).
Coastal sage scrub may be dominated by species of Baccharis (B. sarothroides [broom
baccharis] or B. pilularis [coyote brush]) and may also include typical coastal sage scrub species
such as coastal sagebrush, California buckwheat, and black sage (Salvia mellifera) but in lesser
amounts. Coastal sage scrub in the study area is dominated by broom baccharis with lesser
amounts of California buckwheat.
The coastal sage scrub (including -disturbed and Baccharis) in the study area was not found to
support the coastal California gnatcatcher.
Non-Native Grassland
Non-native grassland is dominated by non-native grasses, sometimes associated with species of
showy-flowered, native, annual forbs. Most of the annual, introduced species that comprise the
majority of species and biomass within non-native grassland originate from the Mediterranean
region, an area with a long history of agriculture and a climate similar to California. These two
factors, in addition to intensive grazing and agricultural practices in conjunction with severe
droughts, contribute to the successful invasion and establishment of these species and the
replacement of native grasses (Jackson 1985). These grasslands are common throughout San
Diego County and serve as valuable raptor foraging habitat.
Typical species in non-native grassland in the study area include oats and soft chess (Bromus
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
8
hordeaceus). Non-native grassland occurs on the slope above a streambed in the central portion
of the study area and in the southern portion of the study area.
3.2.3 Other Areas
Agricultural Lands
The study area is dominated by agriculture lands-lands that were used to grow crops but that
now are disced/mowed on a regular basis. Agricultural lands in the study area, when not freshly
disced/mowed support non-native, annual species including oats, soft chess, bromes (Bromus
spp.), and filaree (Erodium spp.). The value of such non-native or altered habitats is highly
dependent upon area, context, and level of disturbance. Agricultural lands in the study area
partially support a variety of fauna} species including foraging raptors and small-to medium-
sized mammals ( e.g., coyote [ Canis latrans ]).
Eucalyptus Woodland
Eucalyptus woodland is dominated by eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), an introduced genus that has
often been planted purposely for wind blocking, ornamental, or hardwood production purposes.
Most groves are monotypic with the most common species being either blue gum (Eucalyptus
gunnii) or red gum (E. camaldulensis ssp. obtusa). The understory within well-established
groves is usually very sparse due to the closed canopy and allelopathic nature of the abundant
leaf and bark litter. The sparse understory offers only limited wildlife habitat; however, as a
wildlife habitat, these woodlands provide excellent nesting sites for a variety of raptors including
red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). During winter migrations, a large variety of warblers may
be found feeding on the insects that are attracted to the eucalyptus flowers. Eucalyptus woodland
occurs along Encinas Creek and Agua Hedionda Creek.
Disturbed Lands
Disturbed lands include areas cleared of vegetation (e.g., dirt roads), land containing a
preponderance of non-native plant species, or land showing signs of past or present usage that
reduces its capability of providing viable wildlife habitat (e.g., a former equestrian facility).
Some of the non-native plant species of disturbed lands in the study area include castor bean, tree
tobacco, and Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata). Disturbed lands occur throughout the
study area.
Ornamental
Ornamental plantings consist of non-native plants that are usually grown for decorative purposes.
They may also be grown, however, to provide screening or shade, or for other reasons.
Ornamental plantings only occur in association with the former equestrian uses on the ECNS
parcels.
Developed
Developed land is where permanent structures and/or pavement have been placed, which
prevents the growth of vegetation. Developed land is present in the northern portion of the study
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 t.A L DEN
•',"
9
area and includes recreational space associated with the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park and
a recreational vehicle parking lot. It also occurs in the southern portion of the study area as the
paved intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road.
Table 1 presents a list of the vegetation communities/wildlife habitats and their respective
acreage totals within the Project impact footprint that was approved in the certified EIR and also
in the currently proposed Project impact footprint being analyzed in this BTR. The final column
in Table 1 presents the change in acreage between the EIR impacts and the current impacts.
Table 1 does not include impacts associated with the mitigation to be implemented on the ECNS
parcels since it was not part of the Project in the EIR; the existing acreages of the
communities/habitats on the ECNS parcels are described in Table 2.
The differences between the EIR 98-02 impacts and the current impacts listed in Table 1 are due
to revisions to the previously approved Project (Environmental Impact Report [EIR No. 98-02;
SCH No. 99111082; Recon 200la]) primarily to satisfy current storm water requirements.
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/WILDLIFE HABITATS
WITHIN THE PROJECT IMPACT FOOTPRINTS (Acres)1
VEGETATION COMMUNITY/ EIR98-02 CURRENT CHANGE2
WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPACTS IMPACTS
Wetland/Riparian
Freshwater marsh --0.09 +0.09
Riparian (mule fat) scrub --0.10 +0.10
Riparian (southern willow) scrub 0.30 0.36 +0.06
Riparian (sycamore) woodland 0.60 0.13 -0.47
Southern coast live oak riparian forest ----
Disturbed wetland (Arundo) --0.04 +0.04
Subtotal Wetland/Riparian 0.90 0.72 -0.18
Upland
Coastal sage (Baccharis) scrub --0.90 +0.90
Coastal sage scrub (including --disturbed) 1.60 1.71 +0.11
Non-native grassland 1.00 0.28 -0.72
Subtotal Upland 2.60 2.89 +0.29
Other Areas
Agricultural lands 8.40 15.71 +7.31
Eucalyptus woodland 0.50 1.50 +1.00
Disturbed lands 0.50 2.86 +2.36
Developed 4.70 3.45 -1.25
Subtotal Other Areas 14.10 23.52 +9.42
TOTAL 17.60 27.13 +9.53
1 The impact footprint includes Reach A and Basin BJ. It does not include the impacts of the mitigation on the ECNS
parcels since that was not a component of the Project in the EIR.
1 The differences between the EIR impacts and the current impacts listed in Table I are due to revisions to the previously
approved Project (Environmental Impact Report [EIR No. 98-02; SCH No. 99111082; Recon 200la]) primarily to satisfy current
storm water requirements.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
10
The ECNS parcels (17.44 acres combined) support a former equestrian facility. The
existing vegetation communities/wildlife habitats present in proposed Parcels A through D
on the ECNS parcels are presented in Table 2. The impacts to the vegetation
communities/wildlife habitats from implementing the Project mitigation in proposed Parcel
C are presented in Section 6.1.
TABLE2
EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/WILDLIFE HABITATS ON THE
ECNS PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS A THROUGH D (Acres)
VEGETATION COMMUNITY/ A B C D TOTAL WILDLIFE HABITAT
Wetland/Riparian
Freshwater marsh ----------
Riparian (mule fat) scrub ---------
Riparian (southern willow) scrub 0.72 0.72
Riparian (sycamore) woodland 1.17 1.17
Southern coast live oak riparian forest ---------
Disturbed wetland (Arundo) ----0.04 --0.04
Upland
Coastal sage (Baccharis) scrub ---------
Coastal sage scrub (including --disturbed) --0.01 0.05 --0.06
Non-native grassland ----0.12 --0.12
Other Areas
Agricultural lands 0.02 0.56 0.37 --0.9S
Eucalyptus woodland --0.53 0.68 0.01 1.22
Disturbed lands 0.98 0.02 5.57 6.07 12.64
Ornamental ----0.51 0.01 0.S2
Developed ---------
TOTAL 1.00 1.12 9.23 6.09 17.44
3.3 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
A complete list of all plant species observed during Merkel's 2006 and 2009 surveys for Reach
A and Basin BJ was compiled and can be found in the Merkel Biological Resources Report
(Merkel 2010a, Appendix B). No new species were identified during the 2014 vegetation
mapping update and jurisdictional delineation.
3.4 ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED
A complete list of all animal species observed during Merkel's 2006 and 2009 surveys was
compiled and can be found in the Merkel Biological Resources Report (Merkel 2010a, Appendix
B). No new species were identified during the 2014 vegetation mapping update and
jurisdictional delineation.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 .\ALDEN
11
3.5 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERS
Jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland waters are those areas that are subject to federal
regulation by the Corps pursuant to the Clean Water Act (i.e., WUS) and State regulation by
CDFW pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (i.e., WS). Often, federal and State
jurisdiction overlaps, such as is the case for the Project as described below.
Two named creeks (Agua Hedionda Creek [E] and Little Encinitas Creek [A]), one unnamed
tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek (D), and two unnamed streams (B and C) that have no clear
connection to any larger named creek or river are present in the study area (Figures 4 and 5).
3.5.1 Waters of the U.S.
A total of approximately 0.31 acre of WUS is present within the current Project impact footprint
for Reach A and Basin BJ (Figure 4). WUS are also present on the ECNS parcels; however, they
would be avoided during implementation of mitigation for the Project.
Wetlands
A total of approximately 0.19 acre of Corps jurisdictional wetland is present within the Project
impact footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ (Table 3; Figure 4). Wetland WUS, however, do not
occur on proposed Parcel B. It should be noted that this 0.19 acre overlaps with the 0.72 acre of
wetland WS addressed below.
Non-wetlands
A total of approximately 0.12 acre of Corps jurisdictional non-wetland WUS (ephemeral
streambed) is present within the Project impact footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ (Table 3;
Figure 4). It should be noted that this 0.12 acre overlaps with the 0.12 acre of non-wetland WS
addressed below.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 •ALDEN
12
o PIOjocl-.-~ e...-~-P-
Mlllgotlon ArN (P-1 C)
-croeaSec:lorw
A Oral-ID
_. Dl-olFlow
0 -i.-.
"'-..,---ofllloUS
----nd-ofllloUS, --· ---F-rM...i.
-Soulllom CON! U.1 OB Rlperton FOfNl o----Sy-• Woodland
Soutc.Gooo,.2013
.
wץ
' 150 300
E---3 iFNt
1;3e()O
ALDEN
L II
\ \ \ I
\
Waters of the U.S.
COLLEGE BOULEVARD -REACH A
AND BASIN BJ PROJECT
~-~-P■-!ftgolon-(P-1 C)
A Dnl,-10
_. 01-ofFlow
0 Photo 1.oc11on1
"-'s-
-Str-Wetlands ---F--h c:) MuloFIIS<rub
-Southern Coat Liv• Oek Ripenen Forest 0 Sou1hom VM>w S<:tub
-sy-•Woodlend
Soi.JrU: Google 2013
\ \
\
I
\ \ \ \ I
I
Waters of the State
COLLEGE BOULEVARD -REACH A
AND BASIN BJ PROJECT
..
TABLE3
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S.1
CORPS JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE IMPACT
(Acres [Linear Feetl)
Wetland WUS
Freshwater marsh 0.09 (319)
Riparian (sycamore) woodland 0.01 (--)
Riparian (southern willow) scrub 0.08 (152)
Disturbed wetland (Arundo) 0.01 (--)
Subtotal Wetland WUS 0.19 (471)
Non-Wetland WUS
Ephemeral streambed 0.12 (829)
Subtotal Non-Wetland WUS 0.12 (829)
TOTAL 0.31 (1,300) .. WUS are also present on the ECNS parcels, however, they would be avoided dunng 1mplementatton of m1t1gatton for
the Project on proposed Parcel C. WUS do not occur on proposed Parcel B where the new bio-retention basin
associated with Reach A would be constructed.
3.5.2 Waters of the State
A total of approximately 0.84 acre of WS is present within the Project impact footprint for Reach
A and Basin BJ (Figure 5). WS are also present on the ECNS parcels; however, they would be
avoided during implementation of mitigation for the Project (Figure 5). WS do not occur on
proposed Parcel B where the new bio-retention basin associated with Reach A would be
constructed.
Wetlands
A total of approximately 0. 72 acre of CDFW jurisdictional wetland WS is present within the
Project impact footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ (Table 4; Figure 5). Wetland WS, however,
do not occur on proposed Parcel B.
Non-wetlands
A total of approximately 0.12 acre ofCDFW jurisdictional non-wetland WS (streambed) is
present within the Project impact footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ (Table 4; Figure 5).
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 t\A L DEN
13
TABLE4
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE STATE1
CDFW JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE IMPACT
(Acres)
Wetland WS
Freshwater marsh 0.09
Riparian (mule fat) scrub 0.10
Riparian (southern willow) scrub 0.36
Riparian (sycamore) woodland 0.13
Disturbed wetland (Arundo) 0.04
Subtotal Wetland WS 0.72
Non-wetland WS
Streambed 0.12
Subtotal Streambed WS 0.12
TOTAL 0.84 .. WS are also present on the ECNS parcels, however, they would be av01ded dunng 1mplementat1on of m1t1gat10n for
the Project on proposed Parcel C. WS do not occur on proposed Parcel B where the new bio-retention basin associated
with Reach A would be constructed.
3.6 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
The key concept in regional conservation efforts is landscape connectivity of core areas of
wildlife habitat. The North San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP)
defines a Biological Core and Linkage Area as an area that is biologically valuable that would
contribute to a viable preserve system and can be linked to form an interconnected preserve
(AMEC Earth & Environmental et al. 2003 in Merkel 2010a). The City, in its HMP (the City's
Subarea Plan to the MHCP; City 2004) defines a core as, "a component of the preserve system
established under the HMP, consisting of large blocks of conserved habitat capable of sustaining
species over time." A linkage in the HMP is defined as, "a component of the preserve system
established under the HMP consisting of conserved habitat that provides connectivity between
Cores and to natural communities within the region." The HMP defines a corridor as, "a defined
tract of land, usually linear, through which a species must travel to reach habitat suitable for
reproduction and other life-sustaining needs."
The Project's northeastern most edge (associated with Basin BJ) lies within HMP Core #3
(Figure 6). The area of the Project within Core #3 is very small (approximately one acre) and
supports 0. 75 acre of agricultural lands, 0.21 acre of developed, and 0.03 acre of coastal sage
scrub. The remainder of the study area does not lie within an identified linkage or core in the
HMP.
The HMP (page D-79), however, refers to Agua Hedionda Creek, which runs through the
southern portion of the study area, as a wildlife corridor, but the creek in the study area is not
within Core #3, nor is it within a linkage. Agua Hedionda Creek is within Core #5, however, but
outside and to the southeast of the study area (Figure 6). While the creek in the study area is not
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
14
..
..
CORE#3
N
W◊E
s
0 1,000 2,000 ALDEN
Feet ENVIRONMENTAL INC
C) Project Impacts 0 Equestrian Center North/South Parcels
Mitigation Area (Parcel C)
HMP Focused Planning Areas
HMP Focused Planning Areas
COLLEGE BOULEVARD -REACH A
AND BASIN BJ PROJECT
within a core or linkage area, the wetland/riparian habitats associated with Agua Hedionda Creek
and any native upland habitats which lie adjacent to the creek in the study area (that provide a
buffer to the creek habitat) may still provide some valuable habitat for wildlife and a minor
connection between habitat east of the study area and to the west toward Agua Hedionda
Lagoon. From the study area to the west, however, and particularly through the Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park to El Camino Real, the creek is highly constrained. In this location
it is narrow, channelized, immediately surrounded by mobile homes, and portions of the banks
are comprised of riprap. It may be for this reason that Agua Hedionda Creek from Core #5
westward to Link B and Core #4 was not designated as a core or linkage area in the HMP.
Similarly, Little Encinas Creek is a minor wildlife connection between Core #3, Link B, and
Core #4 (Figure 6). Upstream from the study area, Little Encinas Creek is comprised of a dense
canopy of riparian forest in Core #3, but through the study area and around the Rancho Carlsbad
Mobile Home Park to the west, the creek is channelized and highly constrained. In the study
area, Little Encinas Creek is not within an HMP core or linkage.
Overall, the study area's long-standing history of agricultural use coupled with urban
development to the west has eliminated much of the habitat that would allow for regional
wildlife movement across the study area. Where habitat remains in Agua Hedionda Creek and
Little Encinas Creek, it occurs as narrow ribbons through the study area and farther to the west.
Therefore, wildlife movement from upstream areas outside the study area along Agua Hedionda
Creek (Core #5) and Little Encinas Creek (Core #3) to the west (toward Agua Hedionda Lagoon
[Core #4]) is highly constrained. These narrow ribbons of habitat may be used for movement by
more development-tolerant species such as coyote but are not expected to provide suitable
conditions for movement of more sensitive species. While the corridor function is limited, this
continuity of habitat may still provide some benefit for population maintenance or recolonization
following local extirpations within remaining habitat fragments.
4.0 REGULA TORY CONTEXT
4.1 REGULATORY ISSUES
Biological resources in the study area are subject to regulatory administration by federal, State,
and City governments.
4.1.1 Federal
Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) designates threatened and endangered animals and
plants and provides measures for their protection and recovery. "Take" oflisted animal species
and of listed plant species in areas under federal jurisdiction is prohibited without obtaining a
federal permit. Take is defined as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." Harm includes any act that
actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, including significant habitat modification or degradation
that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife. Activities that damage
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 .ALDEN
15
the habitat of (i.e., harm) listed wildlife species require approval from the USFWS for terrestrial
species. The least Bell's vireo is a federal (and State) listed endangered species present in the
study area. The PESA also generally requires determination of Critical Habitat for listed species.
If a project would involve a federal action potentially affecting Critical Habitat, the federal
agency would be required to consult with USFWS. There is no designated Critical Habitat in the
Project impact footprint.
PESA Section 7 and Section 10 provide two pathways for obtaining authority to take listed
species. Under Section 7 of the PESA, a federal agency that authorizes, funds, or carries out a
project that "may affect" a listed species or its Critical Habitat must consult with USFWS. Under
Section 10 of the PESA, private parties with no federal nexus (i.e., no federal agency will
authorize, fund, or carry out the project) may obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) to harm
listed species incidental to the lawful operation of a project.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S. Code Sections 703-711) includes provisions for
protection of migratory birds, including the non-permitted take of migratory birds. The MBTA
regulates or prohibits taking, killing, possession of, or harm to migratory bird species listed in
Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Section 10.13. Migratory birds include geese, ducks,
shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and many others. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment
and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a
"take." The MBTA is an international treaty for the conservation and management of bird
species that migrate through more than one country, and is enforced in the U.S. by the USFWS.
The MBTA was amended in 1972 to include protection for migratory birds of prey (raptors ).
Clean Water Act
Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps is charged with regulating the discharge of dredge and
fill materials into jurisdictional WUS. The terms "WUS" and ''jurisdictional waters" have a
broad meaning that includes special aquatic sites, such as wetlands. WUS, as defined by
regulation and refined by case law include: (1) the territorial seas; (2) coastal and inland waters,
lakes, rivers, and streams that are navigable WUS, including their adjacent wetlands; (3)
tributaries to navigable WUS, including adjacent wetlands; and (4) interstate waters and their
tributaries, including adjacent isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent and ephemeral streams,
prairie potholes, and other waters that are not a part of a tributary system to interstate waters or
navigable WUS, the degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce.
Section 401 of the CWA requires that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any
activity that may result in a discharge to WUS must obtain a Water Quality Certification, or a
waiver thereof, from the state in which the discharge originates. In California, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues Water Quality Certifications.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
16
•
4.1.2 State of California
California Environmental Quality Act
Primary environmental legislation in California is found in the CEQA and its implementing
guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines), requiring that projects with potential adverse effects or
impacts on the environment undergo environmental review. Adverse impacts to the environment
are typically mitigated as a result of the environmental review process in accordance with
existing laws and regulations.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) established that it is State policy to conserve,
protect, restore, and enhance endangered species and their habitats. Under State law, plant and
animal species may be formally designated rare, threatened, or endangered by official listing by
the California Fish and Game Commission. CESA authorizes that private entities may "take"
plant or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA and CESA, pursuant
to a federal ITP if the CDFW certifies that the incidental take is consistent with the CESA (Fish
& Game Code Section 2080.l[a]). For State-only listed species, Section 2081 of the CESA
authorizes the CDFW to issue an ITP for a State listed threatened or endangered species if
specific criteria are met. The least Bell's vireo is a State (and federal) listed endangered species
present in the study area.
Native Plant Protection Act
Sections 1900-1913 of the CFGC (Native Plant Protection Act; NPPA) direct the CDFW to
carry out the Legislature's intent to " ... preserve, protect and enhance endangered or rare native
plants of this state." The NPPA gives the California Fish and Game Commission the power to
designate native plants as "endangered" or "rare" and protect endangered and rare plants from
take. No State listed endangered or rare plant species are present in the study area.
California Fish and Game Code
CFGC provides specific protection and listing for several types of biological resources. Section
1600 of CFGC requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for any activity that would
alter the flow, change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any perennial,
intermittent, or ephemeral river, stream, and/or lake. Typical activities that require a SAA
include excavation or fill placed within a channel, vegetation clearing, structures for diversion of
water, installation of culverts and bridge supports, cofferdams for construction dewatering, and
bank reinforcement. Notification is required prior to any such activities, and CDFW will issue an
SAA with any necessary mitigation to ensure protection of the State's fish and wildlife
resources.
Pursuant to CFGC Section 3503, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or
eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant
thereto. Raptors and owls and their active nests are protected by CFGC Section 3503.5, which
states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ltA L DEN
17
destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless authorized by the CDFW. Section 3513 states
that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory non-game bird as designated in the MBTA.
These regulations could require that construction activities (particularly vegetation removal or
construction near nests) be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle
unless surveys by a qualified biologist demonstrate that nests, eggs, or nesting birds will not be
disturbed, subject to approval by CDFW and/or USFWS.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 grants the State Water Resource Control
Board (SWRCB) and its regional offices power to protect water quality and is the primary
vehicle for implementation of the State's responsibilities under Section 401 of the CW A. The
Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies,
regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, regulate waste disposal sites, and require
cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. Typically, the SWRCB and
RWQCB act in concert with the Corps under Section 401 of the CWA in relation to permitting
fill ofWUS.
4.1.3 City of Carlsbad
The City maintains a list (i.e., List 1) of species for which an ITP has been issued by the USFWS
and CDFW under FESA and CESA (Exhibit A of City, California Department of Fish and
Game, and USFWS 2004). These species (HMP Covered Species) are considered "covered"
under the HMP because their long-term viability was determined to be adequately maintained in
the MHCP preserve system, which includes the City's portion of the preserve (HMP
Conservation Area). For certain other species, coverage is contingent upon other MHCP subarea
plans being approved or upon funding for management of conserved areas (Lists 2 and 3 in
Exhibit A of City, California Department of Fish and Game, and USFWS 2004). Individual ITPs
are not required for impacts to List 2 and 3 species as long as a project is consistent with the
requirements of the HMP and the other MHCP subarea plans are approved, or upon funding for
management of the conserved areas. No List 2 or 3 species were observed during surveys for the
Project.
All development projects in the City must comply with the Guidelines (City 2008) that provide
the biological standard for processing HMP permits. Specifically, a project's location with
respect to the HMP study area helps determine the regulations that apply to it. The Project is
inside the HMP Planning Area, and it is not exempt from the HMP. The Project lies outside the
Coastal Zone, and it is currently not within an Existing or Proposed Hardline Conservation Area
(i.e., the City's preserve system); however, the proposed Parcel C Mitigation Area is proposed to
be converted to Hardline Conservation Area as part of the Project (Figure 7).
The Project is located in Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 15. The approved Reach A
and Basin BJ components of the Project (Environmental Impact Report [EIR No. 98-02; SCH
No. 99111082; Recon 200la]) were within Standards Areas; however, HMP Consistency
Findings were made and received for those Project components (Merkel 201 0a; Shannon
Werneke, pers. comm. 2015), so they have been removed from Standards Areas (Figure 7). The
ECNS Parcels, however, are still located within Standards Areas; HMP Consistency Findings
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
18
..
N
W~E
s
0 500 1,000 ALDEN
Feet P,JVIRONME NTAL INC
0 Pr~ectlmpacts
0 Equestrian Center North/South Parcels
Mitigation Area (Parcel C)
Proposed HMP Conservation Areas
Existing Hardline
Proposed Hardline
Proposed
HMP Conservation Areas
COLLEGE BOULEVARD -REACH A
AND BASIN BJ PROJECT
must be made (and concurrence received from the USFWS and CDFW) in order to remove
proposed Parcel B from Standards Area (for the new bio-retention basin associated with Reach
A) and to convert proposed Parcel C to a Hardline Conservation Area (as shown on Figure 7).
Every project ( or in this case, Project component) within a Standards Area must comply with the
planning standards developed for the LFMZ in which it occurs. The following text addresses the
primary issues for LFMZ 15 for the Project as a whole, and HMP Consistency Findings for
proposed Parcels Band Care presented in Section 8.0.
The primary issues in LFMZ 15 involve preserving core and linkage habitats. The Project's
northeastern most edge (associated with Basin BJ) lies within Core #3 (Figure 6). Core #3
contains critical blocks of coastal sage scrub supporting the coastal California gnatcatcher and
other sensitive species. The area of the Project within Core #3, however, is very small
(approximately one acre) and primarily supports agricultural lands and developed area. The
Project's impacts to coastal sage scrub in Core #3 amount to a total of 0.03 acre, and it does not
support the coastal California gnatcatcher. The remainder of the study area does not lie within
an identified core or linkage in the HMP.
Within LFMZ 15, all riparian habitats need to be conserved, and fill or development within the
existing flood plain is prohibited except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage
Master Plan facilities, or other essential infrastructure. Reach A is a City approved Circulation
Element Road, and Basin BJ is a City approved Drainage Master Plan facility. The Project
mitigation on Parcel C of the ECNS parcels includes conserving all riparian habitat in the
Mitigation Area, and no fill or development of the existing floodplain would occur with
implementation of the mitigation.
Also within LFMZ 15, when conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed, all
development impacts must be set back at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats, and
habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas is required. The Project
mitigation includes wetland/riparian re-establishment/creation along Agua Hedionda Creek along
with a 100-foot buffer of created coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to it. A portion of the bio-
retention basin for Reach A would occur as a passive use within the buffer. However, allowable
uses in the buffer include essential roadway crossings, bridges, and culverts approved by the
City; essential stormwater control facilities; and approved habitat restoration projects (City
2010).
5.0 SENSITIVE RESOURCES
Sensitive resources are defined as habitats and species that are legally protected by State or
federal law, or that are otherwise considered sensitive by federal, State, or local resource
conservation agencies and organizations (City 2008).
According to CEQA (Article 13 §15206), sensitive wildlife habitats include, but are not limited
to, riparian lands, wetlands, bays, estuaries, and marshes and habitats of rare or endangered
species (as defined by CEQA Article 13 § 15380). The HMP also addresses sensitivity through
mitigation requirements. Any vegetation community/wildlife habitat (or species) for which
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 •ALDEN
•',••-
19
avoidance or mitigation is required by the HMP is considered sensitive herein. Therefore,
resources that meet one or more of the following criteria would be considered sensitive:
a) lands supporting species or subspecies listed as rare, endangered, or threatened
under Section 670.2 or 670.5, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, or the
Federal Endangered Species Act, Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 17
.11 or 17 .12, or candidate species under the California Code of Regulations;
b) riparian lands, wetlands, bays, estuaries, and marshes;
c) unique vegetation communities (associations of plant species that are rare or
substantially depleted, unusual, or limited in distribution);
d) HMP Habitat Groups A through F;
e) wildlife corridors;
f) species listed by the USFWS as threatened, endangered, or of concern;
g) species listed ( or that meet the standard for listing) by the CDFW as threatened,
endangered, rare, or on the list of Special Animals;
h) plant species included in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants; and
i) HMP Narrow Endemic and Covered Species.
5.1 SENSITIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/WILDIFE HABITATS
All vegetation communities/wildlife habitats, except ornamental and developed, in the study area
meet criteria a, b, c, and/or d, so they are sensitive.
5.2 SENSITIVE SPECIES
Based on surveys in the study area in 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006, and 2009 by Recon (2001b) or
Merkel (201 0a) and in 2014 by Lee Ripma for this BTR, two sensitive plant species are present
in the study area or within 200 feet of the study area (i.e., within 300 feet of the Project impacts;
Figure 3). Each is listed and described below. Each is considered sensitive under criterion h.
5.2.1 Sensitive Plant Species Observed
California adolphia (Adolphia californica)
Sensitivity: CNPS Rare Plant Rank 2B.1 (Appendix A)
Distribution: Below 1,000 feet AMSL in western San Diego County and northwestern Baja
California, Mexico.
Habitat(s): Clay soils in dry canyons and washes in coastal sage scrub and chaparral.
Presence in or near the study area: Fifty-eight individual California adolphia were observed in
or near the study area (Merkel 201 0a; Figure 3).
Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii)
Sensitivity: CNPS Rare Plant Rank 4.2 (Appendix A)
Distribution: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Ventura, and San Diego counties;
Baja California, Mexico.
Habitat(s): Moist, saline, or alkaline soils in coastal salt marshes and riparian marshes.
Presence in or near the study area: Thirty-two southwestern spiny rush plants were observed
in the study area (Merkel 2010a; Figure 3).
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 It.ALDEN
20
5.2.2 Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur
Merkel (2010a) and Recon (2001b) identified 23 sensitive plant species that have potential to
occur in the study area. These species are considered sensitive as they meet criteria f, g, h,
and/or i. Other than the two species that were found (California adolphia and southwestern spiny
rush), the other 21 species were either not found and/or were determined to have low potential to
occur due to limited or lacking potential habitat or disturbance of limited potential habitat.
The study area is dominated by agricultural land, which when not freshly disced/mowed,
supports non-native grasses and forbs that are tolerant of, or even benefit from, the regular
disturbance-unlike native species. While clay soils with potential to support a number of
sensitive plant species were identified in portions of the study area (USDA NRCS 2008 in
Merkel 2010a), the study area does not support mesic and/or vernally moist grasslands, mima
mound topography, or typical friable or broken soils, which are generally associated with many
of these sensitive species. As a result, the study area has low potential to support sensitive plants
species other than those already found. None of these species was found during multi-year and
multi-season surveys of the study area.
The 21 species with low potential to occur in the study area include:
• San Diego thornmint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia)
• San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila)
• Palmer's sagewort (Artemisia palmeri)
• San Diego goldenstar (Bloomeria [Muilla] clevelandii)
• Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaeafilifolia)
• Orcutt's brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii)
• Long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina)
• Western dichondra (Dichondra occidentalis)
• California macrophylla (Erodium macrophyllum)
• San Diego sand aster (Corethrogynefilaginifolia var. incana)
• Del Mar Mesa sand aster (Corethrogynefilaginifolia var. linifolia)
• Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae)
• Variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegata)
• San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii)
• Cliff spurge (Euphorbia misera)
• Coast barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens)
• Palmer's grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri)
• Orcutt's hazardia (Hazardia orcuttii)
• Graceful tarplant (Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata)
• Ashy spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens)
• Parry's tetracoccus (Tetracoccus dioicus)
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ~ALDEN
21
5.2.3 Sensitive Animal Species Observed or Detected
Based on surveys in the study area in 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006, and 2009 by Recon (2001b) or
Merkel (2010a) and in 2014 by Lee Ripma for this BTR, 10 sensitive animal species have been
observed in the study area or within 200 feet of the study area (i.e., within 300 feet of the Project
impacts; Figure 3). Each is listed and described below. These species are considered sensitive
as they meet criteria f, g, and/or i.
It was noted that the coastal California gnatcatcher was observed at the intersection of College
Boulevard and El Camino Real immediately west of the southern portion of Reach A during a
survey conducted in 1999/2000 (Recon 2001b). However, this location was subsequently
developed and now contains a short extension of College Boulevard north of El Camino Real.
The coastal California gnatcatcher was not observed during surveys of the study area conducted
in 2006 and 2009 (Merkel 2010a). The subspecies is known to occur, however, to the east in
Core #3 (Figure 6).
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
Sensitivity: State Watch List; HMP Covered Species (Appendix A)
Distribution: The Cooper's hawk breeds throughout the contiguous 48 U.S., southern Canada,
and northern Mexico. Cooper's Hawks winter infrequently in all areas of the breeding range.
Habitat(s): The Cooper's hawk nests in deciduous, conifer, and mixed woodlands. In southern
California, it generally favors extensive riparian bottomlands. Unitt (2004) noted, however, that
in the 1980s Cooper's hawks began adapting to urban environments in San Diego County and
nesting in eucalyptus trees and other urban trees.
Presence in or near the study area: One individual Cooper's hawk was observed ( on several
occasions) in 2009 flying throughout the riparian habitat along Agua Hedionda Creek, as well as
throughout the adjacent agricultural lands (Merkel 2010a).
Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus)
Sensitivity: State Watch List (Appendix A)
Distribution: The sharp-shinned hawk is a winter visitor to San Diego County where it is found
evenly distributed over the coastal slope.
Habitat(s): Can be found in San Diego County in a wide variety of habitats, particularly those
with trees or tall shrubs and concentrations of flocks of small birds upon which it feeds.
Presence in or near the study area: This species was observed flying ( on one occasion)
between the study area and adjacent, undeveloped lands to the east in 2009 (Merkel 2010a).
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens)
Sensitivity: State Watch List; HMP Covered Species (Appendix A)
Distribution: The canescens subspecies of Aimophila ruficeps is a resident of southwest
California on the slopes of the Transverse and Coastal ranges from Los Angeles County south to
Baja California Norte. It is the only subspecies that occurs in San Diego County.
Habitat(s): This sparrow prefers coastal sage scrub but can also be found breeding in coastal
bluff scrub, low-growing serpentine chaparral, and along the edges of tall chaparral habitats, as
well as in open chaparral or coastal sage scrub and grasslands with scattered shrubs.
Presence in or near the study area: This sparrow was observed in coastal sage scrub outside
the northeastern portion of the study area (Recon 2001 b ).
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 .\ A L D E N
22
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Sensitivity: State Species of Special Concern (Appendix A)
Distribution: Northern harriers breed throughout most of Alaska, Canada, and the northern U.S.
They winter in the midwestem to southern U.S. and southward into Mexico.
Habitat(s): Northern harrier wintering habitat in California includes fresh and saltwater
wetlands, coastal dunes, grasslands, deserts, meadows, and crop lands. Breeding habitat includes
freshwater wetlands, coastal brackish wetlands, open wet meadows and grasslands, shrub-steppe
communities, desert sinks, areas along rivers and lakes, and agricultural fields.
Presence in or near the study area: The northern harrier was observed flying over the
agricultural lands in the central-eastern portion of the study area in 2009. No nesting is expected
in the study area due to the infrequent observations of the species during multiple species during
its nesting period (Merkel 2010a). This species constructs its nests on the ground within a marsh
or other dense vegetation (Unitt 2004), which is extremely limited in the study area.
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)
Sensitivity: State Fully Protected (Appendix A)
Distribution: Along the west coast of the U.S., this species occurs from southwestern
Washington south, mostly west of the deserts, to Baja California, Mexico. In San Diego County,
it primarily occurs throughout coastal slopes.
Habitat(s): Riparian woodlands and oak or sycamore groves adjacent to grassland.
Presence in or near the study area: This species was commonly observed flying through the
habitats along Agua Hedionda Creek and its unnamed tributary during the 2006 and 2009
surveys. A minimum of three individuals were determined to use the study area based on
observations made in 2009. No nests of this species were observed (Merkel 2010a). White-tailed
kites usually build their nests in the crowns of trees, particularly oak trees (Unitt 2004).
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)
Sensitivity: State Watch List (Appendix A)
Distribution: The California homed lark ranges from northern Baja California, Mexico north
through California in the Coast Range to Humboldt County and in the San Joaquin Valley,
except at its extreme southern end. This species can be observed year-round scattered
throughout San Diego County.
Habitat(s): Coastal strand, arid grasslands, and sandy desert floors. Nests on the ground.
Presence in or near the study area: At minimum of three individual larks were observed
foraging on a dirt road east of the study area (Merkel 2010a). With most of the lands in the study
area being agricultural and subject to discing/mowing, the potential for the California homed lark
to nest there is limited.
Yellow-breasted chat (Jcteria virens)
Sensitivity: State Species of Special Concern; HMP Covered Species (Appendix A)
Distribution: Occurs widely in San Diego County's coastal lowland where substantial habitat is
present.
Habitat(s): Mature riparian woodland.
Presence in or near the study area: A yellow-breasted chat was observed in the unnamed
tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek in the study area in 2009 (Merkel 2010a).
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 •ALDEN
23
Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii)
Sensitivity: Federal Bird of Conservation Concern (Appendix A)
Distribution: In San Diego County, this species is a common resident that inhabits almost the
entire coastal slope. It is most concentrated where coast live oak is numerous.
Habitat(s): Riparian, oak, and coniferous woodlands.
Presence in or near the study area: This species was "commonly heard" along Agua Hedionda
Creek and its tributary in 2009. In addition, a few individuals were heard within eucalyptus
woodland along Little Encinas Creek (Merkel 2010a).
Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia)
Sensitivity: Bird of Conservation Concern; State Species of Special Concern (Appendix A)
Distribution: Observed throughout California during the breeding season with rare sightings in
winter.
Habitat(s): Riparian woodland, Mojave riparian forest, mule fat scrub, and southern willow
scrub.
Presence in or near the study area: A minimum of two individuals were detected in riparian
woodland associated with Agua Hedionda Creek (Merkel 2010a).
Least Bell's vireo (Vireo be/Iii pusillus)
Listing or Sensitivity: Federal Listed Endangered; State Listed Endangered; HMP Covered
Species (Appendix A)
Distribution: Observed throughout coastal southern California in the breeding season, south of
Santa Barbara, but in smaller numbers in foothills and mountains.
Habitat(s): Mature riparian woodland, Mojave riparian forest, mule fat scrub, and southern
willow scrub.
Presence in or near the study area: Merkel (2010a) identified two least Bell's vireo use areas
within 300 feet of the Project impact footprint for Reach A. One was along Agua Hedionda
Creek; the other was along the unnamed tributary to the creek. A third use area was identified
farther east in the tributary. It is assumed herein that those use areas are nesting territories.
S.2.4 Sensitive Animal Species with Potential to Occur
Merkel (201 Ob) and Recon (2001 b) identified 42 sensitive animal species that have potential to
occur in the study area. These species are considered sensitive as they meet criteria f, g, and/or i.
Other than the 10 species that were found (See Section 5.2.3), 32 other species were included in
lists of species whose potential for occurrence was analyzed. These species are listed below.
Those that are underlined were determined to have moderate or high potential to occur in the
study area. The other species were either not expected to occur or were determined to have low
potential to occur due to limited or lacking potential habitat or disturbance of limited potential
habitat. None of these species was found during multi-year and multi-season surveys of the
study area.
• Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydras editha quino)
• Harbison's dun skipper (Euphyes vestris harbisoni)
• Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes)
• Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii)
• Southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pa/Iida)
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
24
• Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra)
• Belding's orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra)
• Red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber)
• San Diego ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus similis)
• Coast homed lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii)
• Coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea)
• Two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii)
• Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
• Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli)
• Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
• Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
• Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis)
• Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
• Coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi)
• Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)
• Merlin (Falco columbarius)
• Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)
• Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
• Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
• Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)
• Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)
• Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis)
• Pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus)
• San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii)
• Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax)
• San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia)
• American badger (Taxidea taxus)
For the four most highly sensitive species, this additional information regarding their potential
presence is provided:
• Quino checkerspot butterfly (federal listed endangered) populations are not known from
the Project area, and it is outside the USFWS recommended survey area for the
subspecies (USFWS 2014).
• A burrowing owl habitat assessment and survey were conducted in 2009 (Merkel 2010a);
the species was not found.
• USFWS protocol surveys for the southwestern willow flycatcher (federal and State listed
endangered; HMP Covered Species) were conducted in 2000 (Recon 2001b) and in 2006
and 2009 (Merkel 2010a); the subspecies was not found.
• USFWS protocol surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (federal listed threatened;
HMP Covered Species) were conducted in 2000 (Recon 2001b) and in 2006 and 2009
(Merkel 2010a); the subspecies was not found.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 It.ALDEN
25
Since the study area is dominated by agricultural land, the amount of habitat available to support
these 32 sensitive species is quite limited. And, the habitat that is present is either disturbed,
fragmented, or both, making it less likely than undisturbed blocks of habitat in nearby Cores #3,
4, and 5 to support them. Even if those species with moderate to high potential did occur in the
study area, none is federal or State listed, and their numbers are expected to be low and not
representative of significant populations.
5.3 WATERS OF THE U.S. AND WATERS OF THE STATE
Under Section 404 of the CWA, WUS, as defined by regulation and refined by case law include,
but are not limited to: (1) coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers, and streams that are navigable
WUS, including their adjacent wetlands; (2) tributaries to navigable WUS, including adjacent
wetlands; and (3) interstate waters and their tributaries, including adjacent isolated wetlands and
lakes, intermittent and ephemeral streams. WUS are considered sensitive resources because they
meet criteria a, b, c, and/or d, and they are regulated by the federal government. WUS in the
study area include freshwater marsh, riparian (southern willow) scrub, riparian (sycamore)
woodland, and disturbed wetland (Arundo) that are wetland WUS, as well as ephemeral
streambeds that are non-wetland WUS (Figure 4 ).
CFGC provides specific protection for WS when any activity would alter the flow or change or
use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral
river, stream, and/or lake. WS are considered sensitive resources because they meet criteria a, b,
c, and/or d, and they are regulated by the State. WS in the study area include wetland freshwater
marsh, riparian (mule fat) scrub, riparian (southern willow) scrub, riparian (sycamore) woodland,
disturbed wetland (Arundo), and non-wetland streambeds (Figure 5).
5.4 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
As stated in Section 3 .6, overall, the study area's long-standing history of agricultural use
coupled with urban development to the west has eliminated much of the habitat that would allow
for regional wildlife movement across the study area. Wildlife movement from upstream areas
outside the study area along Agua Hedionda Creek (Core #5) and Little Encinas Creek (Core #3)
to the west (toward Agua Hedionda Lagoon [Core #4]) is highly constrained. These narrow
ribbons of habitat may be used for movement by more development-tolerant species such as
coyote but are not expected to provide suitable conditions for movement of more sensitive
species. This continuity of habitat may still provide some benefit for population maintenance or
recolonization following local extirpations within remaining habitat fragments. Therefore, Agua
Hedionda Creek and Little Encinas Creek in the study area may be considered wildlife corridors,
and therefore, would be sensitive under criterion e; however, their function is quite limited.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ti, A L D E N
26
6.0 PROJECT IMP ACT ANALYSIS
This section analyzes the Project's impacts on biological resources. A significant impact is
defined as a "substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." State
CEQA Guidelines indicate that there may be a significant effect on biological resources if a
project would:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in the local or
regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?1
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
CDFW or USFWS.
3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands [ or non-wetland
waters of the U.S.] as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pools, riparian areas, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The only local policies related to biological
resources and applicable to the Project are those outlined in the HMP, which is an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (see Number 6).
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
The six criteria listed above were used to determine whether or not the Project would have a
significant impact on biological resources.
Impacts can be direct, indirect, permanent, or temporary. Direct impacts immediately alter
biological resources such that those resources are permanently eliminated, for example through
the removal of vegetation and its replacement with a roadway. The removal of vegetation can be
temporary, however, when it is revegetated in place following construction. Indirect impacts
include actions that affect the surrounding biological resources either as a secondary effect of the
direct impacts (e.g., excessive construction noise adversely affects nesting birds) or as the cause
of degradation of a biological resource over time ( e.g., non-native plant species from new
development invade preserved habitat).
1 Specifically for plant species, impacts would be significant for those that are State or federal listed and/or CNPS Rare Plant
Rank 1 or 2 species. Rare Plant Rank 3 is for species where more information is needed. Rare Plant Rank 4 is for species that
are being watched.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 t.A L DEN
27
6.1 DIRECT IMPACTS
For purposes of this analysis, all direct impacts from the Project are considered to be permanent.
6.1.1 Vegetation Communities/Wildlife Habitats
Approximately 33.99 acres of vegetation communities/wildlife habitats would be directly
impacted by the Project as it is currently proposed, which includes 6.86 acres of impacts from
implementing Project mitigation on the ECNS parcels (Table 5). The Mitigation Area (shown on
Figure 4) is identified as proposed Parcel C of MS 14-10 in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for implementation of Project mitigation (City 2015 in prep.).
TABLES
IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/WILDLIFE HABITATS (Acres)
VEGETATION COMMUNITY/ REACH A/ ECNS TOTAL WILDLIFE HABITAT BASIN BJ PARCELS
Wetland/Riparian Communities/Habitats
Freshwater marsh 0.09 --0.09
Riparian (mule fat) scrub 0.10 --0.10
Riparian (southern willow) scrub 0.36 --0.36
Riparian (sycamore) woodland 0.13 --0.13
Southern coast live oak riparian forest ------
Disturbed wetland (Arundo) 0.04 --0.04
Subtotal Wetland Riparian 0.72 --0.72
Upland Communities/Habitats
Coastal sage scrub 0.59 --0.59
Coastal sage scrub (Baccharis) 0.90 --0.90
Coastal sage scrub-disturbed 1.12 --1.12
Non-native grassland 0.28 0.03 0.31
Subtotal Upland 2.89 0.03 2.92
Other Areas
Agricultural lands 15.71 0.37 16.08
Eucalyptus woodland 1.50 0.67 2.17
Disturbed lands 2.86 5.28 8.14
Ornamental --0.51 0.51
Developed 3.45 --3.45
Subtotal Other Areas 23.52 6.83 30.35
TOTAL 27.13 6.86 33.99
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 -\JAL DEN
28
Wetland/Riparian Communities/Habitats
Approximately 0.72 acre of wetland/riparian vegetation communities/wildlife habitats would be
directly impacted through removal by the Project (i.e., Reach A and Basin BJ components; no
impacts from mitigation component).
Impacts to wetland/riparian vegetation communities/wildlife habitats would be significant
according to Significance Criteria 2 and 3 (as riparian habitats and federal and State wetlands)
and Significance Criterion 1 (as least Bells' vireo habitat; see Section 6.1.3). See Section 6.1.5
for wildlife corridor impacts. Mitigation would be required.
General HMP compliance requires that wetlands and riparian habitat be avoided to the maximum
extent possible, then minimized to the maximum extent possible, and then mitigated to ensure no
net loss of habitat value or function. Impacts resulting from construction of essential public
facilities where no feasible alternative exists are allowable. The Project has been designed to
avoid wetland/riparian habitat impacts to the maximum extent practicable via construction of a
bridge and culvert system. There would be no impacts to wetland/riparian habitats from
implementation of Project mitigation.
Planning Standards for LFMZ 15, specifically, require conservation of all riparian habitats and
prohibit fill or development within the existing floodplain except where required for Circulation
Element roads Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential infrastructure. The standards
also require a setback of 100 feet for development from existing wetland habitats when
conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed. Reach A is a Circulation Element
road, and Basin BJ is a Drainage Master Plan facility. Realignment of Reach A and avoidance of
wetland habitats at this point is infeasible; regardless, the Project is exempt from this prohibition
and setback requirement, and under general HMP compliance, the impacts are allowed, and the
Project has been designed to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Planning Standards for LFMZ 15 also require that when conversion of agricultural lands to other
uses is proposed, habitat restoration or enhancement occur in the riparian and buffer areas in the
100-foot setback. While the Project would not have a 100-foot setback from wetland/riparian
habitats since Reach A crosses those habitats, mitigation for Project impacts would re-
establish/create wetland/riparian habitat along Agua Hedionda Creek on the ECNS parcels and
would create a 100-foot buffer of native upland habitat around it. A portion of the bio-retention
basin for Reach A would occur as a passive use within the buffer, however (Figures 8 and 9).
Allowable uses in the buffer include essential roadway crossings, bridges, and culverts approved
by the City; essential stormwater control facilities; and approved habitat restoration projects
(City 2010).
Upland Communities/Habitats
Approximately 2.92 acres of upland vegetation communities/wildlife habitats would be directly
impacted by the Project as it is currently proposed (Table 5). Impacts to upland vegetation
communities/wildlife habitats would be significant according to Significance Criterion 1 (as
habitat for sensitive plant and animal species) and Significance Criterion 2 (as sensitive natural
communities). Mitigation would be required.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 .ALDEN
, .....
29
General HMP compliance requires that impacts to uplands be avoided and/or minimized to the
maximum extent possible. There are no LFMZ 15-specific requirements for uplands that apply
to the Project. Reach A and Basin BJ were elements in the EIR, which met the avoid/minimize
requirement. Since the previous Project approvals, revisions to the Project impact footprint for
Reach A and Basin BJ have been made, primarily to satisfy current storm water requirements,
and impacts to upland communities from implementation of Project mitigation (i.e., 0.03 acre of
non-native grassland) are minimized and would be mitigated (through payment of an in lieu
mitigation fee consistent with the HMP). Therefore, the Project still meets this general HMP
compliance requirement.
Other Areas
Approximately 30.35 acres of other areas would be directly impacted by the Project as it is
currently proposed, which includes impacts to 6.83 acres from implementing Project mitigation
on the ECNS parcels (Table 5). Impacts to agricultural lands, eucalyptus woodland, and
disturbed lands would be significant according to Significance Criterion 6 in that they would
require mitigation in accordance with the HMP. Impacts to developed land and ornamental
plantings do not meet any of the significance criteria; no mitigation is proposed for those
impacts.
6.1.2 Sensitive Plant Species
The Project would directly impact 13 individuals of California adolphia out of a total of 58
individuals in or near the study area. According to the City (2011 ), a population of more than
150 California adolphia plants is located west of the study area on the Dos Colinas Continuing
Care Retirement Community project site. The Dos Colinas project would impact 25 of those
California adolphia plants; the remaining 125 would be placed in open space. All of these plants
do not make up a regionally significant population of California adolphia. The Project's impacts
to 13 individuals (from Reach A and Basin BJ construction) would, therefore, not have a
substantial adverse effect on this sensitive (CNPS Rare Plant Rank 2B. l) species (Significance
Criterion I) as it would not substantially reduce the number of individuals present or
substantially affect a regionally significant population. Therefore, the impacts to this species
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
Direct impacts to four southwestern spiny rush ( out of 32 in or near the study area) from
construction of Reach A and Basin BJ would be less than significant because the impacts would
not meet any criteria for significance (this species has a Rare Plant Rank of 4, which means that
it is on a watch list; see footnote to Significance Criterion 1 ). No mitigation is proposed.
6.1.3 Sensitive Animal Species
Two locations where Nuttall's woodpecker was observed would be directly impacted by the
Project through habitat removal. That is, the eucalyptus woodland near Little Encinas Creek
where this species was detected would be replaced with Basin BJ, and the former eucalyptus
woodland (that is now agricultural land) where this species was detected north of Agua Hedionda
Creek would be replaced with Reach A. Given that this species: I) has a low level of sensitivity;
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
30
_ ,erall Mitigation Area (Parr;et C)
(.:) Colege Boulevard -Reach A
Upland Mitigation Area (5.6 acres)' 0 Wetland Mitigation Area (3.1 acres)
,.. '., 100-loot WoUand/Riparian Buffer 0 Existing Channel
@ Proposed Chamel
·, -.. .. ,
' ' ' Parcel C
, (Mitigation Areal
' ""·--.... ......... __ ~
COFW Mitigation (2.◄ acres Total)
-Re-establishmont/Cn,ation (0.84 ac.-o)
Surplus Re-establishment/Creation/Enhancement (0.7 acre Total) 9 Re-establishment/Creation (0.48 acre)
-Enhancement' (1.56 acres) -Enhanoement' (0.22 acn,)
1 R...,ed upland fflllip6on ill 5.22 ..,..., witl 0.38 acre ...,...
'Existing n-... ,.WWI l'ento tM pr ... rved to 91• extent~.
"~Q) WfTlAND MmGAI10N u« ,.,_...LINE
1~111'»
{DrtlTIHGOW•
. -~·
0 SO 100 1ALDEN
E---3 !Feet ,_. ;N"'I! "-
SECTIO\J
L JOO' -.,r-c• ~ .r ,
CDFW Mitigation
COLLEGE BOULEVARD -REACH A
ANO BASIN BJ PROJECT
Q Equestrian Conte, Nor1h/South Parcels 0 Overall Mitigation Area (Parcel C)
(..:) CoRege Boulevard -Reach A 0 Upland Mitigation Area (5.6 acres)'
0 Wetland Mitigation Area (3.1 acres)
,. \., 100-foot Wetland/Riparian Buffer
0 Existing Channel
@ Proposed Channel
... '-.... , '·,
', Parcel C
\ (Mitigation Area: ' ..... ...... .... __
Corps Mitigation (0.81 acre TotaO
-Re-establishment/Creation (0.31 acre)
-Enhancement' (0.50 acre)
Surplus Re-establishment/Creation/Enhancement (2.29 acres Total)
:, Re-establishment/Creation (1.00 acre)
-Enhancement' (1.29 acres)
1 R•red upland mitigation a 5.22 acru, wi1h 0,38 act• surplus. 2 Ex!Rng nMi'v• nparian ""' to be pr....-ved to lh• •in.nt pr~.
'-._ EXSTlNO 100 ............... V.B._ W£Tf.AND MtnG,U)()H Alt£t
PVJHUNE
CXJSrll«.
wץ .
0 50
E:::::3:
ZO" KJfT[lf
P-•· P£1t ,u,,
{Dr13TlHG 0W1
100 ~ALDEN
l_Feet E~ ·1~0NM£1'•.:''"'A-.. IN
100' 1/U'TC.II
Corps Mitigation
COLLEGE BOULEVARD· REACH A
AND BASIN BJ PROJECT
2) was "commonly heard" in the study area; 3) habitat for the species would still occur along
Agua Hedionda Creek; and 4) the Project would create additional habitat along the creek as
mitigation, the Project's impacts to this species would not be substantial (Significance Criterion
1) and, therefore, would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
A portion of one least Bell's vireo use area (assumed herein to be a nesting territory) along Agua
Hedionda Creek would be directly impacted by construction of Reach A through habitat
removal. For purposes of this analysis, all riparian habitat in Agua Hedionda Creek (including
on the proposed Parcel C Mitigation Area) and its tributary in the study area is considered
occupied by the least Bell's vireo. This subspecies is an HMP Covered Species due to 100
percent conservation of its habitats in the HMP preserve system (i.e., HMP Conservation Area)
and the no net loss of wetlands policies. Still, the HMP requires restrictions in vireo-occupied
habitat during its breeding season (March 15 to September 15), which includes a prohibition on
habitat clearing. Construction of the Project must adhere to this restriction or have a significant,
direct impact to the subspecies according to Significance Criteria 1 and 6. Mitigation to avoid
this impact would be required.
While locations where the yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat were observed would not be
directly impacted by the Project, these species could utilize riparian habitat in the impact
footprint for Reach A just like the least Bell's vireo. For purposes of this analysis, all riparian
habitat in Agua Hedionda Creek and its tributary in the study area (including on the proposed
Parcel C Mitigation Area) is considered utilized by the these species. Impacts to these species
would be significant if habitat removal (for Reach A) occurred during the breeding season
(February 15 to September 15) according to Significance Criterion 1 for both species and
Significance Criterion 6 for the chat. According to the HMP, human activities must be restricted
in yellow-breasted chat-occupied habitat during the breeding season for this HMP Covered
Species. Mitigation would be required.
Four sensitive species of raptors (Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, northern harrier, and
white-tailed kite) were observed during surveys for the Project. While none of the sensitive
species was observed in the Project impact footprint, each has potential to use the footprint as
foraging habitat, and the Cooper's hawk and white-tailed kite have potential to nest in woodland
habitat in the study area (including on the ECNS parcels); however, no nesting by these species
was observed in 2006 and 2009 (Merkel 2010a). Three other non-sensitive raptors were also
observed during surveys for the Project and include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-
shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). No burrowing owls
or evidence of burrowing owls were detected during the 2009 survey. In addition, no nesting or
wintering burrowing owls have been documented on in the study area or within the vicinity of
the study area (Unitt 2004 in Merkel 2010a).
Direct removal of wetland/riparian, upland, and agricultural land foraging habitat may have a
substantial effect on sensitive species of raptors and, therefore, would be significant according to
Significance Criterion 1, and mitigation would be required. Direct removal of potential raptor
nesting habitat (or active nest sites) would also be significant according to Significance Criterion
1, and mitigation would be required.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 •ALDEN
31
Potential direct impacts to nesting birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC could result if
clearing of vegetation or construction occurs during the breeding season (February 15 to
September 15). Clearing of vegetation or construction activities could cause destruction or
abandonment of active nests or mortality of adults, young, or eggs. Impacts to nesting birds
would be significant according to Significance Criterion 1, and mitigation would be required.
6.1.4 Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State
Direct impacts to WUS and WS would occur from the Project as described below. While WUS
and WS also occur on the ECNS parcels, they would be avoided during implementation of
mitigation for the Project.
Wetland Waters of the U.S.
A total of approximately 0.19 acre of Corps jurisdictional wetland is present within the Project
impact footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ and would be directly impacted by the Project (Table
3; Figure 4). Impacts to wetland WUS would be significant according to Significance Criteria 2
and 3; mitigation would be required, and permitting would be required. No impacts would occur
to wetland WUS from implementing Project mitigation.
Non-wetland Waters of the U.S.
A total of approximately 0.12 acre of Corps jurisdictional non-wetland WUS is present within
the Project impact footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ and would be directly impacted by the
Project (Table 3; Figure 4). Impacts to non-wetland WUS would be significant according to
Significance Criterion 3; mitigation would be required, and permitting would be required. No
impacts would occur to non-wetland WUS from implementing Project mitigation.
Wetland Waters of the State
A total of approximately 0.72 acre ofCDFW jurisdictional wetland WS are present within the
Project impact footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ and would be directly impacted by the Project
(Table 4; Figure 5). Impacts to wetland WS would be significant according to Significance
Criterion 2; mitigation would be required, and permitting would be required. No impacts would
occur to wetland WS from implementing Project mitigation.
Non-wetland Waters of the State
A total of approximately 0.12 acre of CDFW jurisdictional non-wetland WS are present within
the Project impact footprint for Reach A and Basin BJ and would be directly impacted by the
Project (Table 4; Figure 5). Impacts to non-wetland WS would be significant according to
Significance Criterion 2; mitigation would be required, and permitting would be required. No
impacts would occur to non-wetland WS from implementing Project mitigation.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
32
6.1.5 Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife movement from upstream areas outside the study area along Agua Hedionda Creek and
Little Encinas Creek to the west (toward Agua Hedionda Lagoon) is highly constrained. These
narrow ribbons of habitat may be used for movement by more development-tolerant species such
as coyote but are not expected to provide suitable conditions for movement of more sensitive
species. This continuity of habitat may still provide some benefit for population maintenance or
recolonization following local extirpations within remaining habitat fragments, but the corridor
function is quite limited.
Project mitigation on the ECNS parcels would widen the ribbon of riparian habitat along Agua
Hedionda Creek and would provide a 100-foot native upland buffer to the wetland/riparian
habitat, which would improve the conditions for wildlife movement along Agua Hedionda
Creek.
The Reach A and Basin BJ components of the Project have been designed to avoid
wetland/riparian habitat impacts to the maximum extent practicable via construction of a bridge
and culvert system. Reach A would cross Agua Hedionda Creek via a bridge approximately 153
feet in length and 120 feet in width. The bridge would sit approximately 15 feet above the creek's
flow line elevation. All bridge abutments would be placed outside of the creek's ordinary high
water mark, and no in-span bridge supports would be used. Slope armoring would be placed
under and across the span of the bridge. Where Reach A would cross Little Encinas Creek, a
7.75-foot by 4-foot box culvert that contains a I-foot by I-foot bench would be placed under
Reach A allowing water to flow from Basin BJ, under Reach A, and downstream in Little
Encinas Creek. The bench may facilitate potential wildlife movement.
Since the corridor functions are already quite limited, and the Project allows for some movement
via the bridge and culvert system, it is expected to have a less than significant impact on wildlife
movement (Significance Criterion 4), and no mitigation is proposed.
6.2 INDIRECT IMPACTS
In order to prevent negative effects of preserve lands on development and vice versa, HMP
Adjacency Standards must be addressed in the planning of any development/habitat interface.
The Project is adjacent to HMP Conservation Areas (Figure 7); therefore, the following
Adjacency Standards are addressed:
• Fire Management
• Erosion Control
• Landscaping Restrictions
• Fencing, Signs, and Lighting
• Predator and Exotic Species Control
There are other indirect impacts that may negatively affect sensitive habitats and species that are
adjacent to a property that is being, or has been, developed. For example, noise and dust from
construction could temporarily affect nearby nesting birds. Other potential indirect effects on
sensitive habitats and species could occur from drainage and toxics. These issues are also
addressed below.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 11,A L DEN
33
6.2.1 Fire Management
Biological resources goals recognize that fire is a natural process in ecosystems. Many sensitive
natural communities depend on a regular cycle of burning for maintaining a balance of species,
seed viability, and reproduction. The natural fire cycle may be affected by human activities, both
by increasing fire frequency in some locations and decreasing it in others through fire
prevention. The Project largely occurs on agricultural lands, disturbed lands, and in association
with wetland/riparian habitats (with lower potential to bum than scrub or chaparral
communities), and by its nature as a roadway, detention basin, and wetland/riparian/coastal sage
scrub mitigation is expected to have low potential to cause wildland fires that would substantially
affect sensitive species (Significance Criterion 1 ), sensitive natural communities (Significance
Criterion 2), or federal jurisdictional areas (Significance Criterion 3) in adjacent HMP
Conservation Areas (Figure 7). No mitigation is proposed.
6.2.2 Erosion Control
Erosion of soils can be aggravated by human disturbance, particularly during construction.
Potential erosion hazards to sensitive biological resources from the Project include sedimentation
and pollution of important water sources in Agua Hedionda Creek, its unnamed tributary, and
Little Encinas Creek (which are adjacent HMP Conservation Areas; Figure 7). This impact
would be potentially significant under Significance Criteria 1, 2, and 3. However, City
Municipal Code Section 15.16 (Grading and Erosion Control) requires that a permittee enter into
a secured grading and erosion control agreement with the City to guarantee performance of the
grading work in compliance with the grading permit. BMPs would be implemented according to
the City's HMP and/or according the Appendix B of the Final MHCP Subarea Plan, Volume II.
Therefore, the potential impacts from Project construction would be minimized to less than
significant levels. No mitigation is proposed.
6.2.3 Landscaping Restrictions
Landscaping (i.e., the introduction of native or non-native plant species around developed areas)
is often in direct conflict with biological objectives. Of particular concern are: 1) the introduction
of non-native, invasive plant species that can displace native species in natural communities; 2)
horticultural regimes (irrigation, fertilization, pest control, and pruning) that alter site conditions
in natural areas, thereby promoting shifts in species composition from a native to a non-native
flora; and 3) genetic contamination from the introduction of native cultivars not collected
directly from a project site or in close proximity to the site. Non-native plant species have few
natural predators or other ecological controls on their population sizes, and they thrive under
conditions created by humans. These species may aggressively out-compete native species or
otherwise harm sensitive species.
Since Reach A and Basin BJ are adjacent to HMP Conservation Areas (including the proposed
Parcel C Mitigation Area; Figure 7), those components of the Project have the potential to
substantially affect sensitive species (Significance Criterion 1 ), riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community (Significance Criterion 2), and wetlands (Significance Criterion 3) and to
conflict with the HMP (Significance Criterion 6) if Project landscaping includes such non-native
plants. Mitigation would be required. Only native species would be included in the plant palettes
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 f\A L DEN
34
for the Project mitigation, so impacts from non-native plants would not occur from that Project
component, and no mitigation would be required.
6.2.4 Fencing, Signs, and Lighting
Unauthorized public access into HMP Conservation Areas can result in impacts such as the
creation of trails or illegal dumping, which can be significant according to Significance Criteria
1, 2, and 3. The Reach A and Basin BJ components of the Project by their nature as a roadway
and detention basin (as opposed to a residential development, for example)are not expected to
promote public access to adjacent HMP Conservation Areas (Figure 7). No mitigation is
proposed.
In accordance with the Project's Mitigation Plan (Alden 2014 ), prior to and during
implementation of the Project mitigation, a temporary orange construction fence would be
installed around the proposed Parcel C Mitigation Area (proposed Hardline Preserve) to restrict
access. Permanent fences would be constructed along the boundaries between the Mitigation
Area and adjacent development preventing off-highway vehicle and pedestrian access. Steel
signs would be attached to the fences to provide notice, in both English and Spanish, that the
area is an ecological preserve and that trespassing is prohibited. Therefore, public access to the
proposed Parcel C Mitigation Area is not expected to be promoted, and no additional mitigation
is proposed.
Animals can be struck and injured or killed by moving vehicles on roadways; fencing can direct
wildlife to road undercrossings and minimize the potential for roadkill (this is not effective for
all wildlife such as avian species). Injury or death to sensitive species from roadkill would be
significant according to Significance Criterion I. Reach A crosses Agua Hedionda Creek and its
unnamed tributary as well as Little Encinas Creek, which have been identified as ribbons of
habitat with potential for non-sensitive wildlife movement. Both of these creeks provide minor
connections between valuable wildlife habitat to the east and Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the
west, but the connections are highly constrained. It is not anticipated that potential roadkill from
the Project would occur to sensitive species. Therefore, roadkill impacts, should they occur,
would be adverse but less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
Artificial night lighting exposes wildlife to an unnatural light regime that may adversely affect
foraging patterns, increase predation risk, cause biological clock disruptions, and result in a loss
of species diversity. Artificial night lighting adversely impacts habitat value of preserves,
particularly for nocturnal species. The Project has the potential to significantly impact sensitive
species in the HMP Conservation Areas (Figure 7) during construction and post-construction of
Reach A and Basin BJ (Significance Criterion I), and mitigation would be required. Night
lighting would not be used during implementation of Project mitigation on the ECNS parcels.
6.2.5 Predator and Exotic Species Control
Native animal species may be at a disadvantage after exotic species or predators ( e.g., domestic
cats) are introduced to an area. Since the Project does not include residential development or
related public facilities (e.g., a park), it is not anticipated that there would be any exotic species
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 tt, A L D E N
35
or predators introduced by the Project or impacts from predators. No mitigation would be
required.
6.2.6 Noise
Construction-related noise from such sources as clearing, grading, and construction vehicular
traffic could be a temporary impact to wildlife, particularly sensitive nesting birds, according to
Significance Criterion l. The only sensitive species suspected, or potentially suspected, of
nesting within potentially affected areas would be the least Bell's vireo, yellow-breasted chat,
and yellow warbler along Agua Hedionda Creek, although some potential exists for white-tailed
kite, Cooper's hawk, and Nuttall's woodpecker to nest there, as well. The Guidelines also
require a prohibition on construction activities within 300 feet of an active nest (500 feet for
listed species' active nests), which would include all species protected by the MBT A and CFGC
including the yellow warbler, white-tailed kite, Cooper's hawk, and Nuttall's woodpecker.
Construction of the Project must adhere to these restrictions or have a significant impact
according to Significance Criteria l and 6. Mitigation would be required.
Traffic on Reach A once it is built could pose a permanent source of noise that could adversely
impact sensitive wildlife, particularly sensitive nesting birds. The least Bell's vireo, yellow-
breasted chat, and Cooper's hawk, however, are HMP Covered Species for which the City has
take authorization because long-term viability of the species is adequately maintained in HMP
Conservation Area (aka the preserve). Therefore, potential noise impacts to these species may be
adverse but would be less than significant as the impact would not be substantial (Significance
Criterion l ). The Nuttall' s woodpecker and yellow warbler co-occur with these species and are
expected to be present in the preserve, as well (the woodpecker is also found in other woodland
habitats), so noise impacts to these species are also anticipated to be adverse but less than
significant. The white-tailed kite was not observed to be nesting in the Project study area and is
more likely to nest farther to the east (Merkel 201 0a) in Core #5 (Figure 6). No mitigation is
proposed for indirect noise impacts from traffic on Reach A.
6.2.7 Dust
Fugitive dust produced by construction could disperse onto adjacent native vegetation. A
continual cover of dust may reduce the overall vigor of individual plants by reducing their
photosynthetic capabilities and increasing their susceptibility to pests or disease. This, in tum,
could affect animals dependent on these plants (e.g., seed-eating rodents). Fugitive dust also
may make plants unsuitable as habitat for insects and birds and could adversely affect breeding.
Fugitive dust created during construction has the potential to be significant according to
Significance Criteria l, 2, and 3. All projects within the City, however, are subject to the City's
Grading Ordinance and must implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts
from fugitive dust. These BMPs include, but are not limited to, sprinkling water or other dust
control agents acceptable to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District during dust-generating
activities and covering trucks hauling dirt and debris to reduce windblown dust. With
implementation of required Grading Ordinance dust control measures, impacts from fugitive dust
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
36
6.2.8 Drainage and Toxics
Construction activities (e.g., maintenance of equipment) could result in the release of toxins,
chemicals, and petroleum products, for example, that might degrade or harm the natural
environment or ecosystems processes, particularly if they enter waterways such as Agua
Hedionda Creek, its unnamed tributary, and Little Encinas Creek. This potential impact could be
significant in accordance with Significance Criteria 1, 2, and 3. In order to reduce the risk of
contamination of storm water, the Project would be required to implement a construction Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan in compliance with City standards (Chapters 15.12 and 15.16 of
City Municipal Code [Grading and Erosion Control]), which would require implementation of
BMPs to prevent pollutants from entering storm water. Water quality protections for
construction would also be required with the Section 401 Certification that must be obtained for
the Project. Therefore, the potential construction-related impacts would be minimized to less
than significant levels, and no mitigation is proposed.
Additionally, traffic on Reach A could result in the release of toxins, chemicals, and petroleum
products from vehicles using the roadway. The Project would include three bio-retention basins
that would collect and treat runoff from Reach A before releasing it into the environment.
Additionally, post-construction water quality protections would also be required with the Section
401 Certification that must be obtained for the Project. Therefore, the potential post-
construction-related impacts from drainage and toxics would be minimized to less than
significant levels, and no mitigation is proposed.
Unauthorized public access into preserve areas can result in impacts such as the creation of trails
or illegal dumping, which can be significant according to Significance Criteria 1, 2, and 3. The
Project is not expected to promote public access to adjacent HMP Conservation Areas (Figure 7;
see Section 6.2.4 above). No mitigation is proposed.
6.3 CUMULATIVEIMPACTS
The MHCP was designed to compensate for the loss of biological resources throughout the
program's region; therefore, projects that conform to the MHCP, as specified by the City's HMP,
would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact for those biological resources adequately
covered by the program. The direct and indirect impacts resulting from the Project would not be
cumulatively considerable since the Project mitigation measures are in conformance with the
MHCP and HMP. No mitigation is proposed.
7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project would impact sensitive vegetation communities/wildlife habitats, sensitive animal
species, WUS, and WS. The following measures are proposed in conformance with the certified,
EIR, HMP, and Guidelines to mitigate for those direct and indirect impacts that were identified
as significant, or potentially significant, in Section 6.0. Appendix C presents biological resources
mitigation measures from the Final EIR (98-02). Successful implementation of the mitigation
measures in this section would reduce each of these impacts to a less than significant level.
Additionally, Standard Mitigation Measures (Appendix A of the Guidelines) are required for all
projects in the City. It is anticipated that some of the Standard Mitigation Measures will be
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
37
addressed in the grading and erosion control agreement (see Section 6.2.5), Storm Water
Pollution and Prevention Plan, and 401 Water Quality Certification (see Section 6.2.6).
7.1 STANDARD MITIGATION MEASURES
The following standard measures listed below (from Appendix A of the Guidelines) are
applicable to the Project and are required to be implemented.
7.1.1 Proiect Design Measures
A. The Project shall locate staging areas in disturbed habitat, to the degree feasible.
B. No-fueling zones shall be designated a minimum distance of 10 meters (33 feet) from all
drainages and away from fire-sensitive areas.
7 .1.2 Pre-construction Measures
A. A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all project personnel prior to
proposed activities. At a minimum, the training shall include: 1) a description of the
target species of concern and their habitats; 2) the general provisions of the Endangered
Species Act(s) and the HMP; 3) the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act(s) and the
HMP; 4) the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act(s); and 5) the
measures that are being implemented to conserve the target species of concern as they
relate to the Project, access routes, and Project site boundaries within which the Project
activities must be accomplished.
B. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible and shall
be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits shall be delineated with orange
fencing, which shall be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. All
employees shall be instructed that their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction
materials are restricted to the Project footprint, designated staging areas, and routes of
travel.
C. For Project areas that contain riparian habitat, the upstream and downstream limits of
Project disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be
clearly defined, marked in the field, and reviewed by the Project biologist prior to
initiation of work. Projects shall be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and
personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent
upland habitats used by target species of concern.
D. A water pollution and erosion control plan shall be developed that describes sediment and
hazardous materials control, dewatering or diversion structures, fueling and equipment
management practices, and other factors deemed necessary by reviewing agencies.
Erosion control measures shall be monitored on a regularly scheduled basis, particularly
during times of heavy rainfall. Corrective measures shall be implemented in the event
erosion control strategies are inadequate. Sediment/erosion control measures will be
continued at the Project site until such time as the any revegetation efforts are successful
at soil stabilization.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 It.ALDEN
38
7.1.3 Construction Measures
A. The qualified Project biologist shall review grading plans ( e.g., all access routes and
staging areas) and monitor construction activities throughout the duration of the Project
to ensure that all practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance
of habitat and any target species of concern outside the Project footprint.
B. Construction monitoring reports shall be completed and provided to the City
summarizing how the Project is in compliance with applicable conditions. The Project
biologist shall be empowered to halt work activity, if necessary, and to confer with City
staff to ensure the proper implementation of species and habitat protection measures.
C. Any habitat destroyed that is not in the identified Project footprint shall be disclosed
immediately to the City, USFWS, and CDFW and shall be compensated at a minimum
ratio of 5: 1.
D. Access to and from the Project shall be located along existing access routes or disturbed
areas to the greatest extent possible. All access routes outside of existing roads or
construction areas shall be clearly marked.
E. Construction employees shall limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction
materials to the fenced Project footprint.
F. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on disturbed upland sites
with minimal risk of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats, and at
least 100 feet from WUS. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to
prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. All necessary precautions shall be
taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. All
Project-related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to the City and shall be
cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.
G. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or
other methods requiring minimal in-stream impacts. Silt fencing or other sediment
trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to
minimize the transport of sediments off site. Settling ponds, where sediment is collected,
shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from re-entering the stream.
Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or
sediment from returning to the stream.
H. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or
other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its
banks.
I. Construction through sensitive areas shall be scheduled to minimize potential impacts to
biological resources. Construction adjacent to drainages should occur during periods of
minimum flow (i.e., summer through the first significant rain of fall) to avoid excessive
sedimentation and erosion and to avoid impacts to drainage-dependent species.
Construction near riparian areas or other sensitive habitats shall also be scheduled to
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 t\, A L D E N
39
avoid the breeding season (February 15 to September 15) and potential impacts to
breeding bird species.
J. If dead or injured listed species are located, initial notification must be made within three
working days, in writing, to the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance,
California and by telephone and in writing to the applicable jurisdiction, Carlsbad Field
Office of the USFWS, and CDFW.
K. The Project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food-related trash items
shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site. Pets of Project
personnel shall not be allowed on site.
L. The City shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects
including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with Project approval
conditions. The USFWS and CDFW may accompany City representatives during this
inspection.
7.2 MITIGATION FOR SIGNIFICANT DIRECT IMPACTS
Mitigation for significant, direct impacts of the Project is based on requirements of the EIR
(Appendix C) and/or HMP and the Guidelines. A Mitigation Plan (Alden 2014) also has been
prepared for impacts to jurisdictional features and uplands that would be mitigated on the ECNS
parcels. The Mitigation Area within the ECNS parcels is identified as proposed Parcel C of MS
14-10 in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for implementation of the Project
mitigation (City 2015 in prep.).
Per the HMP, Group A habitats are associated with wetlands, and mitigation must result in no net
loss. Streambed (a non-wetland) is not assigned to this, or any, habitat group. Group B habitats
are assumed to be included in the preserve system (none of this preserved habitat occurs in the
Project study area). Maximum avoidance of Group C habitat (coastal sage scrub occupied by the
coastal California gnatcatcher, which is not present in the Project study area) is encouraged.
Mitigation for Group D (in the case of the Project, unoccupied coastal sage scrub) and E (non-
native grassland) habitats is on-site mitigation or payment of an in lieu mitigation fee in an
amount to be determined by the City. Group F habitats (disturbed lands, eucalyptus woodland,
and agricultural lands) are mitigated through the in lieu mitigation fee.
7.2.1 Sensitive Upland Vegetation Communities/Wildlife Habitats
The Project would impact approximately 2.92 acres of sensitive upland vegetation
communities/wildlife habitats and would require 5.38 acres of mitigation proposed as habitat
creation, as well as payment of an in lieu mitigation fee, as presented in Table 6. Mitigation
ratios are usually based on the HMP Habitat Group each community is in. Mitigation for
impacts to 2.61 acres of coastal sage scrub that is not occupied by the coastal California
gnatcatcher (Habitat Group D), however, is proposed at a higher 2: 1 ratio consistent with the EIR
(the HMP only requires a 1: 1 ratio for Habitat Group D). This mitigation is proposed to occur
through creation of coastal sage scrub on proposed Parcel C on the ECNS parcels. The coastal
sage scrub creation ( 5 .22 acres) is proposed to occur in the protective habitat buffer for
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 •ALDEN
40
wetland/riparian communities/habitats described below and shown on Figures 8, 9, and 10. The
overall area for creation of coastal sage scrub creation is 5.6 acres allowing for a surplus of 0.38
acre of coastal sage scrub creation to help ensure overall mitigation success.
Mitigation for impacts to 0.31 acre of non-native grassland is proposed at a 0.5:1 ratio
( consistent with the EIR and the HMP for this Group E habitat) through payment of an in lieu
mitigation fee.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 .\ A L D E N
41
TABLE6
PROPOSED MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE VEGETATION
COMMUNITIES/WILDLIFE HABITATS (Acres)
VEGETATION COMMUNITY/ HABITAT PROJECT RATIO1 MITIGATION2
WILDLIFE HABITAT GROUP IMPACTS
Wetland/Riparian Communities/Habitats
Freshwater marsh A 0.09 3:1 0.27
Riparian (mule fat) scrub A 0.10 3:1 0.30
Riparian (southern willow) scrub A 0.36 3:1 1.08
Riparian (sycamore) woodland A 0.13 3:1 0.39
Disturbed wetland (Arundo) A 0.04 3:1 0.12
Subtotal Wetland Habitat --0.72 -2.16
Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State4
Stream bed --0.12 2:1 0.24
Subtotal Non-wetlands --0.12 --0.24
Total Wetland/Riparian 0.84 2.40
Upland Communities/Habitats
Coastal sage scrub D 0.59 2:1 1.18
Coastal sage scrub (Baccharis) D 0.90 2:1 1.80
Coastal sage scrub-disturbed D 1.12 2:1 2.24
Non-native grassland E 0.31 0.5:1 In lieu fee for 0.16
acre
Total Uplands --2.89 --5.22 (plus in lieu
fee for 0.16 acre)
Other Areas
Agricultural lands F 16.08
Eucalyptus woodland F 2.17 In lieu fee for Disturbed lands F 8.14 -26.39 acres
Total Other Areas --26.39
I .. . . M1ttgabon ratios for Group A Habitats are subJect to mod1ficat1on by the Corps and CDFW. The ratio mcluded m Table 6 for
coastal sage scrub is 2: I per the certified EIR; the HMP ratio for coastal sage scrub not occupied by the coastal California
gnatcatcher ( Group D habitat; as is the case for the Project) is I: I.
2 Mitigation proposed for impacts to wetland/riparian communities/habitats would occur on proposed Parcel C of the ECNS
parcels and meet the requirements for no net loss.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ~ A L D E N
42
::-~~-~s~.:. .. ,:.;, __ _
. . ., . .... ,. • .. -· " . .. ...
Q Equeslrian Center NOr1h/South Parcels 0 Overall Mitigation Area (Parcel C)
(_:) CoNege Boulevan:I -Reach A
C:::, Upland M~igation Area (5.6 acres)'
Q Wetland Mitigation Area (3.1 acres)
''., 100-foot Wetland/Riparian Buffer
C) Existing Corps/COFW Streambed
@ New Corps/COFW Streambed
'-\:: -::~:::::!i:~.,;;~~i:~: ~'&. . . \ .. '(Mii.i.9aiiori Aro ~~_,; ->~~Ju
\.'-.;.: .. ::. : :
Seed Mix/Container Stock Areas
<S:::$) WeUand 0 Oiegan Coastal Sage Scrub
1 R~ upland rmigation is S.22 acrH, with 0.38 acr• surplu11.
POUNDS/ACRE
.
·◊·
so
~
4
4 3
100
l Feel
WETLAND CONTAINER STOCK
'ALDEN
E~ 'IQ~N,_,E,...->, INC
TOTAL
NUMBER PER
ACRE
ioo
200
200
200
100
~
100
200
50
100
100
100
1.600
Number
P_e_r At'tt TQ:
10
Ts
300
100
100
440
Seeding/Planting Areas
COLLEGE BOULEY ARD· REACH A
AND BASIN BJ PROJECT
-
-
7 .2.2 Sensitive Wetland/Riparian Habitats
Mitigation ratios are usually based on the HMP Habitat Group each community is in. However,
wetland/riparian ratios are not identified in the HMP, although the mitigation must meet no net
loss policy requirements and are subject to potential modification by the Corps and CDFW.
Mitigation for wetland/riparian communities/habitats is proposed at a 3:1 ratio for wetland
habitat and 2: 1 for non-wetland riparian habitat (streambed). At least 1: 1 of this ratio would be
met through habitat re-establishment/creation (to maintain no net loss). The remaining
requirement would be met through preservation and enhancement of existing wetland/riparian
habitats present on proposed Parcel C on the ECNS parcels (Figures 8 and 9).
In total, the Project would provide 2.40 acres of wetland/riparian mitigation. This would include
0.84 acre of wetland habitat re-establishment/creation to meet the 1: 1 no-net loss requirement.
The remaining 1.56 acre requirement would be met through preservation and enhancement of
existing habitat. The wetland/riparian portion of the proposed Parcel C Mitigation Area (Figures
8 and 9) is approximately 3.1 acres in size, which will allow for surplus re-establishment/creation
and preservation/enhancement to help ensure overall mitigation success.
All of the habitat re-establishment/creation and preservation/enhancement on the ECNS
parcels (i.e., the proposed Parcel C Mitigation Area shown on Figures 8, 9, and 10) shall be
subject to a Mitigation Plan that is approved by the City, Corps, and CDFW. The wetland
habitat re-establishment/creation is proposed to be accomplished by expanding the width of
the existing Agua Hedionda Creek channel and creating a second channel to ensure
adequate spreading of water (Figures 8 and 9). The goal is to create a mosaic of site-
appropriate wetland/riparian habitats through the installation of a broad species mix. The
habitats to become established are anticipated to include freshwater marsh and riparian
scrub and forest. The preservation/enhancement portion of the mitigation would be to
preserve the existing creek streambed and remove trash, cement, and other materials that
have been dumped in and adjacent to the creek. Then, these areas would be planted with
site-appropriate wetland/riparian plant species.
The mitigation shall be maintained and monitored for five years after installation of created
habitat by an experienced, licensed Habitat Restoration Contractor, or until established
success criteria identified in the Mitigation Plan ( e.g., specified percent cover of native and
non-native species, species diversity, and species composition as compared with an
undisturbed reference site) are met. Due to the potential presence of sensitive animal
species (e.g., least Bell's vireo) and nesting birds, the timing or methods of the mitigation
may be restricted. This shall be addressed in the Mitigation Plan. Maintenance and
monitoring shall be conducted following a prescribed schedule to assess progress and
identify potential problems with the mitigation. Remedial action ( e.g., additional planting,
weeding, erosion control, use of container stock, supplemental watering, etc.) shall be taken
by the Habitat Restoration Contractor during the five-year maintenance and monitoring
period, if necessary, to ensure the success of the mitigation. If the mitigation fails to meet
the established success criteria by the end of year five, maintenance and monitoring shall
extend beyond five years until the criteria are met or until otherwise approved by the City,
Corps, and CDFW.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ~AL D E N
,","
43
As required by the HMP, a minimum 100-foot wide protective habitat buffer is proposed
around the re-established/created and preserved/enhanced wetland/riparian
communities/habitats on the ECNS parcels. The 100-foot wide buffer in the northeastern
portion of the proposed Parcel C Mitigation Area includes a portion of the planned bio-
retention basin on the west side of Reach A in proposed Parcel B (Figures 8, 9, and 10).
An essential stormwater control facility is an allowable use within the buffer (City 2010).
The buffer would be greater than 100 feet wide in the northwestern comer and would
connect with proposed preserved coastal sage scrub habitat on the adjacent Dos Colinas
Continuing Care Retirement Community site (Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10).
The Mitigation Area on the ECNS parcels shall be placed in a Conservation Easement, as
defined in California Civil Code Section 815 .1, and proof of recordation shall be provided
to the City prior to land disturbance for construction of the Project. Once the mitigation
has been accepted as meeting established success criteria by the City, Corps, and CDFW, it
will be managed in perpetuity by a City-approved land management entity through an
endowment provided by the Project applicant.
7 .2.3 Other Areas
The Project would impact approximately 26.39 acres of other areas and would require payment
of an in lieu mitigation fee (for 26.39 acres), as presented in Table 6.
7.2.4 Sensitive Animal Species
For purposes of this analysis, all wetland/riparian habitat in Agua Hedionda Creek and its
tributary in the study area (which includes the ECNS parcels) is considered utilized by the least
Bell's vireo, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat. Specifically, a portion of one least Bell's
vireo nesting territory along Agua Hedionda Creek would be directly impacted by construction
of Reach A through wetland/riparian habitat removal. Additionally, the Cooper's hawk and
white-tailed kite were observed flying through Agua Hedionda Creek and have potential to nest
there ( or along its tributary). Also, nesting birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC have
potential to be impacted during construction (including during mitigation implementation).
Specific measures for the least Bell's vireo include the following. Additional measures to protect
the vireo are included under general measures for sensitive animal species.
Least Bell's Vireo
A. The removal of native vegetation and habitat shall be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. Determination of adequate avoidance and minimization of
impacts shall be consistent with Section D-6 of the HMP. Deviations from these
guidelines shall require written concurrence ofUSFWS and CDFW. For any temporary
impacts, the work site shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetation with
appropriate native species. All revegetation for temporary and permanent impacts shall
occur at the ratios specified in applicable permits. Revegetation specifications shall
ensure creation and restoration of riparian woodland vegetation to vireo quality. All
revegetation plans shall be prepared and implemented consistent with Section F-2
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
44
..
(Habitat Restoration and Revegetation) and shall require written concurrence of USFWS
and CDFW. If written objections are not provided by the USFWS and CDFW within 30
days of receipt of written request for concurrence by the local jurisdiction, then the
deviation may proceed as approved by the local agency. The USFWS and CDFW shall
provide written comments specifying their concerns.
General measures for sensitive animal species include the following.
Sensitive Animal Species
A. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in or adjacent
to sensitive habitats shall be timed to ensure that habitat is removed prior to the initiation
of the breeding season (February 15 to September 15). Specifically, clearing, grubbing,
and tree removal shall be prohibited during the breeding season for HMP Covered
Species (e.g., least Bell's vireo, yellow-breasted chat, and Cooper's hawk). This
prohibition would also protect the yellow warbler, Nuttall's woodpecker, white-tailed
kite, and other MBT A and CFGC protected species.
B. All construction activities are prohibited within 300 feet of an active bird nest and within
500 feet of an active listed species' bird nest (e.g., least Bell's vireo), which would also
protect all species protected by the MBTA and CFGC.
C. To avoid any impacts to potentially active raptor nests, trees shall be removed outside the
breeding season (i.e., shall be removed from September 1 to January 31) of local raptor
species. If it is determined that trees must be removed during the breeding season
(February 1 to August 30), a raptor nest survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
prior to the removal of any trees to determine if raptor nests are present. If active nests
are discovered, a 500-foot minimum buffer shall be established around the tree until the
young are independent of the nest site. No construction activity shall be allowed to occur
within the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the fledglings are
independent of the nest.
D. Clearing and grubbing of all wetland/riparian and upland vegetation
communities/wildlife habitats shall be conducted outside the February 15 to September
15 breeding season. Clearing and grubbing of other areas ( e.g., agricultural lands) shall
be conducted outside the breeding season unless it is demonstrated that no avian nesting
is occurring in those other areas (or within 300 or 500 feet of those other areas).
E. For clearing and grubbing in other areas during the breeding season, a pre-construction
survey for avian nesting shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seven calendar
days prior to construction. The survey shall cover 300 feet beyond the impact footprint
and up to 500 feet beyond the footprint where sensitive species may occur (e.g., coastal
California gnatcatcher off site to the east in Core #3). It no nests are found, construction
may proceed. If nests are found, the biologist shall conspicuously mark the 300-or 500-
foot buffer so that construction does not encroach into the buff er until the nest is no
longer active (i.e., the nestlings fledge, the nest fails, or the nest is abandoned, as •
determined by the qualified biologist).
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 lt,A L DEN
45
Direct removal of wetland/riparian habitats, upland habitats, and agricultural lands may have a
potentially significant impact on sensitive species of raptors (Cooper's hawk, white-tailed kite,
sharp-shinned hawk, and northern harrier) through loss of foraging habitat.
A. The loss of raptor foraging habitat shall occur through the mitigation for impacts to
wetland/riparian habitats, upland habitats, and agricultural lands presented in Table 6.
7.3 MITIGATION FOR SIGNIFICANT INDIRECT IMPACTS
7.3.1 Noise
Construction-related noise from such sources as clearing, grading, and construction vehicular
traffic could be a temporary impact to wildlife, particularly sensitive nesting birds and those
protected by the MBTA and CFGC.
A. Construction activities shall be limited during the breeding season (February 15 to
September 15) to those that will not produce significant noise impacts (i.e., noise levels
greater than 60 dB Leg [ decibels, equivalent sound level]) at the edge of habitats of
concern. Habitats of concern in this case include those in Agua Hedionda Creek and its
tributary.
B. Noise levels inside the Conservation Areas (Figure 7) shall not exceed 60 dBA Leg
during the period February 15 to September 15. For the least Bell's vireo, specifically,
construction noise levels at the riparian canopy edge shall be kept below 60 dBA Leg
(Measured as Equivalent Sound Level) from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. during the peak nesting
period of March 15 to July 15. For the balance of the day/season, the noise levels shall
not exceed 60 decibels, averaged over a one-hour period on an A-weighted decibel (dBA;
i.e., one hour Leq/dBA). Noise levels shall be monitored and monitoring reports shall be
provided to the City, USFWS, and CDFW. Noise levels in excess of this threshold shall
require written concurrence from USFWS and CDFW and may require additional
minimization/mitigation measures.
7.3.2 Non-native Plant Species
Since portions of the Project are adjacent to HMP Conservation Areas (Figure 7), the Project
(i.e., Reach A and Basin BJ) has the potential to substantially affect sensitive species, riparian
habitat, or other sensitive natural communities and wetlands and to conflict with the HMP if
Project landscaping includes non-native plants.
A. The use of non-native or invasive plant species in landscaping adjacent to Conservation
Areas is prohibited. Irrigation runoff shall be prevented from entering into Conservation
Areas from adjacent landscaping to reduce nitrogen, pesticides, and excess moisture.
B. Only native or compatible, non-invasive, drought-tolerant plant species shall be used in
landscaping, and no species on the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) "Invasive
Plant Inventory" list shall be used in landscaping or any erosion control plan. None of
the species on the HMP's list of invasive plant species occurring, or potentially
occurring, in the City shall be included in landscaping or erosion control.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 •ALDEN
46
..
7.3.3 Night Lighting
The Project has the potential to significantly impact sensitive species in the HMP Conservation
Areas (Figure 7) during construction and post-construction of Reach A and Basin BJ from
artificial night lighting.
A. Lighting in or adjacent to Conservation Areas shall not be used except where essential for
roadway, facility use, and safety. If night time construction lights are necessary, all
lighting adjacent to natural habitat shall be shielded and/or directed away from habitat.
Post-construction lighting adjacent to Conservation Areas shall be reduced (low pressure
sodium lighting) and/or shielded.
8.0 UMP CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
The purpose of this section is to demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the City's HMP
and presents information in a fashion that best addresses the HMP Consistency Findings
requirements. Figure 6 illustrates the Project impacts and proposed mitigation in relation to
nearby HMP Focused Planning Areas. Figure 7 illustrates the Project impacts and proposed
mitigation in relation to HMP Conservation Areas proposed as part of the Project. The Reach A
and Basin BJ components of the Project have already been found consistent with the HMP
(Merkel 2010a; Shannon Wemeke, pers. comm. 2015). The discussion below incorporates those
findings and also includes findings for the mitigation component of the Project as well as
removal of proposed Parcel B from Standards Areas for construction of the new bio-retention
basin associated with Reach A.
HMP Consistency
The Project is located LFMZ 15 and would directly impact land in LFMZ 15 including 7.98
acres of Standards Areas (6.86 acres on proposed Parcel C and 1.12 acres on proposed Parcel B).
Applicable standards against which HMP consistency must be evaluated are discussed in the
sections below. Pursuant to Section E-3 of the HMP, a Minor Amendment to the City's HMP is
required to remove proposed Parcel B from Standards Areas and to convert proposed Parcel C to
Hardline Conservation Area. A Minor Amendment requires concurrence from the USFWS and
CDFW.
A. Section D.3.C -Planning Standards of Zone 15 (City HMP pg. D-79), the following
specific standards are required:
• Maintain and enhance a habitat linkage across Linkage Area C and adjoining
portions of Core Areas 3 and 5 that average between 500 and 1,000 feet wide, with a
minimum width of no less than 500 feet. Emphasis should be on improving
gnatcatcher habitat within the linkage.
This standard is not applicable to the Project since is not located within Linkage Area C. In
addition, no coastal California gnatcatchers were detected during protocol surveys for the Project
in 2000, 2006, and 2009.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 .\ALDEN
47
• Areas of upland habitat outside the designated Linkage Area C may be taken in
exchange for restoration and enhancement inside the linkage, as long as the result is
no net loss of coastal sage scrub and the associated gnatcatcher population within
the southern portion of the zone.
The Project is not located within Linkage Area C. A total of 2.61 acres of coastal sage scrub will
be impacted as a result of the Project outside of Linkage Area C. Compensatory mitigation
would consist of creation of coastal sage scrub on proposed Parcel C on the ECNS parcels at a
ratio of 2: 1 (Table 6). A 2: 1 ratio was prescribed in the certified EIR; the HMP ratio for coastal
sage scrub not occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher (as is the case for the Project) is
1 : 1, so the mitigation for coastal sage scrub impacts is greater than what the HMP requires. At a
2:1 ratio, mitigation for impacts to 2.61 acres of coastal sage scrub would require 5.22 acres of
coastal sage scrub creation. The impacts to coastal sage scrub are only from the Reach A and
Basin BJ components of the Project (including 0.01 acre of impact on proposed Parcel B);
Project mitigation would not impact coastal sage scrub. Impacts to 0.31 acre of non-native
grassland from the Project (0.28 acre from Reach A/Basin BJ and 0.03 acre from Project
mitigation) would be mitigated at a 0.5: 1 ratio through payment of an in lieu mitigation fee
(Table 6).
The ECNS parcels consist of 17.44 acres of a former equestrian facility that primarily support
disturbed lands. The Mitigation Area on the ECNS parcels (Figures 8, 9, and 10) would be
preserved as open space through the recordation of a biological conservation easement, which
would be funded through a non-wasting endowment in accordance with Section 21.210.050 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 21, Chapter 21.210). This action would convert the
Mitigation Area to a Hardline Conservation Area (Figure 7). Impacts to non-native grassland
(0.03 acre) and to 6.83 acres of other areas from implementing the Project mitigation would be
mitigated through payment an in lieu fee. There would be no impacts to coastal sage scrub from
implementing Project mitigation, and Project mitigation includes creating 5 .22 acres of coastal
sage scrub in the Mitigation Area (a 2:1 ratio for impacts).
While the ECNS parcels are not within Linkage Area C, the creation of 5.22 acres of coastal sage
scrub in the Mitigation Area would act as a buffer to existing wetland/riparian habitats associated
with Agua Hedionda Creek (and as a buffer to wetland/riparian habitats that would be created as
mitigation for the Project), improving wildlife habitat quality and quantity in the current
Standards Area (i.e., Proposed Hardline (Figure 7). In addition, the long-term preservation of
proposed Parcel C and its conversion to Hardline would reduce the linear separation between
HMP Core #5 to the southeast and the Mitigation Area. Further, the proposed Hardline would be
contiguous with the Proposed Hardline Dos Colinas Biological Conservation Easement (project
approved; easement has not recorded yet [City 2015 in prep.]; Figures 8 through 10), which
preserves coastal sage scrub and California adolphia (City 2011 ). Creation of coastal sage scrub
at a ratio of 2: 1 on proposed Parcel C for that impacted by the Project would result in no net loss
of coastal sage scrub in the southern portion of LFMZ 15, and there would be no net loss of
coastal California gnatcatchers in the southern portion of LFMZ 15 because no gnatcatchers
occur in the Project impact footprint or 300 feet from the footprint. The entire Project, therefore,
is consistent with this HMP finding.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 '-ALDEN
48
•
• Areas of upland habitat outside the designated Linkage Area C may be taken in
exchange for restoration and enhancement inside the linkage ... Creation of the
linkage (through restoration and enhancement within Linkage Area C) must utilize
patches of existing habitat within the identified linkage alignment.
As stated above, the ECNS parcels are not within Linkage Area C. However, the
preservation/enhancement and creation of 2.40 acres of wetland riparian habitats as mitigation on
the ECNS parcels (i.e., proposed Parcel C; Table 6) would tie together existing patches of
wetland/riparian vegetation that currently exist along Agua Hedionda Creek and create a more
cohesive riparian system (Figures 8 and 9). Additionally, the creation of 5.22 acres of coastal
sage scrub surrounding the wetland/riparian habitat (Figure 10) would not only protect the
wetland/riparian habitat but would also connect with coastal sage scrub in the Dos Colinas
Biological Conservation Easement to the north (Figure 8) that supports California adolphia, a
sensitive plant species (City 2011). It is asserted that while the mitigation would not occur in
Linkage Area C, it provides value to the important wetland/riparian system of Agua Hedionda
Creek and connects with a patch of conserved habitat to the north that is the Dos Colinas
Biological Conservation Easement.
• Maintain and enhance the wildlife movement potential between core areas using
sensitive design of any road or utility crossings of Linkage C.
The Project is not within Linkage C, but Core #5 lies southeast of the Project, and Core #3 lies
just northeast of the Project, and these two core areas are connected by Linkage C to the east
(Figure 6). As described in Section 3.6, the Project study area has a long-standing history of
agricultural use coupled with urban development to the west, which has eliminated much of the
habitat that would allow for regional wildlife movement across the study area. Where habitat
remains in Agua Hedionda Creek and Little Encinas Creek (Figure 3), it occurs as narrow
ribbons through the Project area and farther to the west. Therefore, wildlife movement from
upstream areas outside the Project area along Agua Hedionda Creek (Core #5) and Little Encinas
Creek (Core #3) to the west (toward Agua Hedionda Lagoon [Core #4]) is highly constrained.
These narrow ribbons of habitat may be used for movement by more development-tolerant
species such as coyote but are not expected to provide suitable conditions for movement of more
sensitive species. While the corridor function is limited, this continuity of habitat may still
provide some benefit for population maintenance or recolonization following local extirpations
within remaining habitat fragments. The preservation/enhancement and re-establishment/creation
of wetland/riparian habitats with a created coastal sage scrub protective buffer along Agua
Hedionda Creek on the ECNS parcels as Project mitigation would maintain and enhance this
habitat function and reduce the linear distance/gap between the Mitigation Area and the western
extent of Core #5.
• Conserve all riparian habitats on site and prohibit the fill or development within the
existing floodplain except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage
Master Plan facilities, or other essential infrastructure.
Reach A and Basin BJ are adopted City of Carlsbad General Plan Elements and are considered
necessary regional public improvements. Reach A is a City Circulation Element major arterial
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
49
roadway segment that will complete a north-south link between El Camino Real and Cannon
Road. Basin BJ is a City Drainage Master Plan facility and would be constructed to provide
storm water drainage protection for residential properties downstream of the basin. Realignment
of Reach A and avoidance of wetland habitats at this point is infeasible. Impacts to riparian
habitats, placement of fill, and development within the existing floodplains are required for this
Circulation Element road (including the new bio-retention basin in proposed Parcel B) and
Drainage Master Plan facility, but the impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable and would be mitigated, as follows.
Reach A improvements would necessitate the crossing of Agua Hedionda Creek; one unnamed
tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek; and a separate, mid Reach A streambed (Figures 4 and 5).
Reach A is designed to cross Agua Hedionda Creek via a bridge approximately 153 feet in length
and 120 feet in width (minimizing impacts to riparian habitat). The bridge would sit
approximately 15 feet above the creek's flow line elevation. All bridge abutments would be
placed outside of the creek's ordinary high water mark, and no in-span bridge supports would be
used (i.e., no fill). Slope armoring would be placed under and across the span of the bridge. The
unnamed tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek and the separate, mid Reach A streambed would
contain culverts where Reach A would cross them. No impacts would occur to wetland/riparian
habitats from construction of the bio-retention basin on proposed Parcel B.
Basin BJ would be constructed by pulling back the existing banks of a section of Little Encinas
Creek (avoiding impacts to the ordinary high water mark of the creek and riparian habitat) and
lowering the adjacent area grades to allow for overbank flooding and peak flow storage. A 7.75-
foot by 4-foot box culvert that contains a I-foot by I-foot bench would be placed under Reach A
allowing water to flow from the basin, under Reach A, and downstream in Little Encinas Creek.
The bench may facilitate potential wildlife movement.
Impacts to wetland/riparian habitats and non-wetland streambeds would be mitigated at a ratio of
3:1 for wetland/riparian habitats and 2:1 for non-wetland streambeds (to provide no net loss of
these federal and State jurisdictional features), as explained in Sections 7.2.1 and 7 .2.2. The
mitigation would occur on the ECNS parcels along Agua Hedionda Creek and would include
preservation and enhancement of existing wetland/riparian habitats as well as re-
establishment/creation of wetland/riparian habitats all surrounded by a protective upland buffer
of created coastal sage scrub. Implementation of Project mitigation would include conserving all
riparian habitats in the Mitigation Area, and no fill or development would be associated with the
mitigation.
• Conserve any narrow endemic plant populations identified during planning.
No narrow endemic plant populations were found during Project surveys. Merkel (2010a) and
Recon (2001 b) identified nine narrow endemic plant species that have potential to occur.
However, the Project area is dominated by agricultural land ( disturbed lands on the ECNS
parcels), which when not freshly disced/mowed, supports non-native grasses and forbs that are
tolerant of, or even benefit from, the regular disturbance-unlike native species. While clay soils
with potential to support a number of sensitive plant species were identified in portions of the
survey area (USDA NRCS 2008 in Merkel 2010a), it does not support mesic and/or vernally
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 t\,A L DEN
50
moist grasslands, mima mound topography, or typical friable or broken soils, which are generally
associated with many of these species. As a result, the Project area has low potential to support
sensitive plants species other than those already found (i.e., the non-narrow endemic species,
California adolphia and southwestern spiny rush) during multi-year and multi-season surveys.
The nine narrow endemic species identified by Merkel and Recon include:
• San Diego thornmint • Del Mar Mesa sand aster
• San Diego ambrosia • Blochman's dudleya
• San Diego goldenstar • San Diego button-celery
• Thread-leaved brodiaea • Orcutt's hazardia
• Orcutt's brodiaea
• When conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed, the proposed
development must set back all development impacts at least 100 feet from existing
wetland habitats and require habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian
and buff er areas.
As addressed above, Planning Standards for LFMZ 15 require conservation of all riparian
habitats and prohibit fill or development within the existing floodplain except where required for
Circulation Element roads Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential infrastructure. The
standards also require a setback of 100 feet for development from existing wetland habitats when
conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed. Reach A is a Circulation Element
road, and Basin BJ is a Drainage Master Plan facility. Realignment of Reach A and avoidance of
wetland habitats at this point is infeasible; regardless, the Project is exempt from this prohibition
and setback requirement, and under general HMP compliance, the impacts are allowed, and the
Project has been designed to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Planning Standards for LFMZ 15 also require that when conversion of agricultural lands to other
uses is proposed, habitat restoration or enhancement occur in the riparian and buffer areas in the
100-foot setback. While the Project would not have a 100-foot setback from wetland/riparian
habitats since Reach A crosses those habitats, mitigation for Project impacts would occur along
Agua Hedionda Creek on the ECNS parcels with a 100-foot buffer of native upland habitat
around it, as described above and in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2. A portion of the new bio-retention
basin for Reach A on proposed Parcel B would occur as a passive use within the buffer, however
(Figures 8, 9, and 10). Allowable uses in the buffer include essential roadway crossings, bridges,
and culverts approved by the City; essential stormwater control facilities; and approved habitat
restoration projects (City 2010), such as the proposed Project mitigation.
B. Section D6 of the HMP (pg. D-90), measures to minimize impact on HMP species and
mitigation requirements.
• Projects that affect wetlands must demonstrate that the impacts (pg. D-90):
o Cannot be avoided by a feasible alternative.
o Have been minimized to the maximum extent possible.
o Would be mitigated in ways that assure no net loss of habitat value and function.
A determination of consistency with the HMP's wetlands requirements would
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 /w A L D E N
51
require coordination and consultation between the Project proponent and the
City.
Reach A and Basin BJ are adopted City of Carlsbad General Plan Elements and are considered
necessary regional public improvements. Reach A is a City Circulation Element major arterial
roadway segment that will complete a north-south link between El Camino Real and Cannon
Road. Therefore, realignment of Reach A and avoidance of wetland habitats at this point is
infeasible. Basin BJ is a City Drainage Master Plan facility and would be constructed to provide
storm water drainage protection for residential properties downstream of the basin, and its
location is determined by the alignment of Reach A. Therefore, no feasible alternative exists for
this Project.
The Project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands to the maximum
extent practicable via construction of a bridge and culvert system as described above. No
wetlands would be impacted by construction of the bio-retention basin on proposed Parcel B or
by implementation of Project mitigation.
The Project would be mitigated in ways to assure no net loss of habitat value and function. That
is, mitigation would occur ratios of 3: 1 for wetland/riparian habitats and 2: 1 for non-wetland
streambeds (to provide no net loss of these federal and State jurisdictional features), as explained
in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2. The mitigation would occur on proposed Parcel Con the ECNS
parcels along Agua Hedionda Creek and would include preservation and enhancement of
existing wetland/riparian habitats as well as re-establishment/creation of wetland/riparian
habitats all surrounded by a 100-foot protective upland buffer of created coastal sage scrub.
• Narrow Endemic Species
No narrow endemic species were identified during surveys for the Project, so no measures to
minimize or mitigate impacts to narrow endemic species are applicable.
• All future projects, including public projects, shall mitigate impacts to habitat based
on mitigation requirements provided in Table 11 of the HMP.
Table 11 of the HMP requires no net loss of Group A habitats, which for the Project includes
freshwater marsh, riparian (mule fat) scrub, riparian (southern willow) scrub, riparian (sycamore)
woodland, and disturbed wetland (Arundo ). Impacts to these habitats are proposed to be
mitigated at a 3:1 ratio to ensure no net loss. That is, at least 1 :1 of the 3:1 would include habitat
creation, and the remaining 2: 1 would be addressed through wetland habitat preservation and
enhancement (Table 6). Therefore, mitigation for impacts to Group A habitats from the Project
are consistent with Table 11 of the HMP.
Table 11 of the HMP requires a 1: 1 ratio for impacts to coastal sage scrub that is not occupied by
the coastal California gnatcatcher (Group D habitat). Surveys for the Project found that the
coastal sage scrub in the Project impact area and 300 feet from the Project impacts does not
support the gnatcatcher. Consistent with the certified EIR for the Project (EIR No. 98-02; SCH
No. 99111082; Recon 2001a), however, mitigation for unoccupied coastal sage scrub would
occur at a 2:1 ratio (consistent with occupied coastal sage scrub, a Group C habitat; Table 6).
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
52
Therefore, the impacts to unoccupied coastal sage scrub will be mitigated at a higher ratio than
that required in Table 11 of the HMP.
Table 11 of the HMP requires 0.5:1 ratio for impacts to non-native grassland (Group E habitat).
Non-native grassland would be mitigated at a 0.5: 1 ratio via payment of an in lieu mitigation fee
(Table 6). The mitigation for impacts to non-native grassland, therefore, is consistent with Table
11 of the HMP.
Table 11 of the HMP also requires payment of an in lieu mitigation fee for impacts to Group F
habitats, which for the Project includes disturbed lands, eucalyptus woodland, and agricultural
lands. An in lieu mitigation fee would be paid for impacts to these habitats consistent with Table
11 of the HMP (Table 6).
• Sixty-seven percent of coastal sage scrub shall be conserved overall within the
Standards Areas, as well as 7S percent of gnatcatchers. Some zones may conserve
more or less than these percentages due to parcel size, location, resources, or long-
term conservation potential (Page D-73 of HMP).
The Project would impact 2.61 acres of coastal sage scrub, 0.06 of which occurs within current
Standards Areas on proposed Parcels B and C, and none of which supports the gnatcatcher. As
mitigation for impacts to 2.61 acres of coastal sage scrub, 5 .22 acres of coastal sage scrub would
be created in proposed Parcel C on the ECNS parcels (Table 6), which is presently in a Standards
Area but is proposed to be converted to Hardline Conservation Area (Proposed Hardline; Figure
7). The mitigation would result in an overall increase in coastal sage scrub in Standards Areas
by 4.3 acres. Surveys for the Project found that the coastal sage scrub in the Project impact area
and 300 feet from the Project impacts does not support the gnatcatcher.
• Species-specific measures will be required of any project that may impact habitat of
the least Bell's vireo. Refer to HMP pages D-91 and -92 for specific measures.
Specific mitigation measures are required for the Project to protect the least Bell's vireo from
direct and indirect construction impacts consistent with the HMP. These measures summarily
include timing restrictions on vegetation clearing, prohibitions on construction activities within
500 feet of a vireo nest, and noise level restrictions at the edge of riparian habitat during the peak
nesting period. Sections 7.2.3 and 7.3.1 include the text of these measures. Additionally,
mitigation for impacts to wetland/riparian habitats that would occur on the ECNS parcels along
Agua Hedionda Creek, where the vireo was observed, would benefit this species.
• Measures for HMP Covered Species
The Cooper's hawk, yellow-breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo were found within
wetland/riparian habitats during surveys for the Project. Since these species were all found in
wetland/riparian habitats, specific mitigation measures for the vireo would provide protection for
these species and mitigate for their habitats. As stated above, these measures summarily include
timing restrictions on vegetation clearing, prohibitions on construction activities within 500 feet
of a vireo nest (300 feet of any non-listed species' nest), and noise level restrictions. Again,
Sections 7.2.3 and 7.3.1 include the text of these measures. Also, as stated above, mitigation for
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ~ALDEN
53
impacts to wetland/riparian habitats that would occur on the ECNS parcels along Agua Hedionda
Creek, where these species were observed, would be of benefit to them.
C. Section F3 of the HMP (pg. F-16), Adjacency Standards
With implementation of appropriate measures to avoid indirect impacts to HMP Conservation
Areas, the Project is consistent with the HMP. Adjacency standards topics include: 1) fire
management; 2) erosion control; 3) landscaping restrictions; 4) fencing, signs, and lighting; and
5) predator and exotic species control. Details regarding this information can be found in Section
6.2. The sections below provide a brief discussion of each topic.
• Fire Management
The Project largely passes through agricultural lands and wetland/riparian habitats (with lower
potential to bum than scrub or chaparral communities), and by its nature as a roadway and
detention basin, is expected to have low potential to cause wildland fires that would substantially
affect sensitive species, sensitive natural communities, or jurisdictional areas in adjacent HMP
Conservation Areas.
• Erosion Control
Potential erosion hazards to sensitive biological resources from the Project include sedimentation
and pollution of important water sources in Agua Hedionda Creek, its unnamed tributary, and
Little Encinas Creek (which are adjacent HMP Conservation Areas; Figure 7). However, City
Municipal Code Section 15.16 (Grading and Erosion Control) requires that a permittee enter into
a secured grading and erosion control agreement with the City to guarantee performance of the
grading work in compliance with the grading permit. BMPs would be implemented according to
the City's HMP and/or according the Appendix B of the Final MHCP Subarea Plan, Volume II
to minimize potential erosion hazards on adjacent HMP Conservation Areas.
• Landscaping Restrictions
Landscaping (i.e., the introduction of native or non-native plant species around developed areas)
is often in direct conflict with biological objectives. These plant species may aggressively out-
compete native species or otherwise harm sensitive species. Since portions of the Project are
adjacent to HMP Conservation Areas (Figure 7), the Project has the potential to substantially
affect sensitive species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and wetlands and
to conflict with the HMP if Project landscaping includes such non-native plants. Therefore,
mitigation is required for this impact. The mitigation summarily includes prohibitions on plant
species, prevention of irrigation runoff, and requirements for species that are used. See Section
7.3.2 for the text of the mitigation measures.
• Fencing, Signs, and Lighting
Unauthorized public access into HMP Conservation Areas can result in impacts such as the
creation of trails or illegal dumping; however, the Project, by its nature as a roadway and
detention basin is not expected to promote public access to adjacent HMP Conservation Areas.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 • A L D E N
''
54
In accordance with the Project's Mitigation Plan (Alden 2014), prior to and during
implementation of the Project mitigation, a temporary orange construction fence would be
installed around the proposed Parcel C Mitigation Area (proposed Hardline Preserve) to restrict
access. Permanent fences would be constructed along the boundaries between the Mitigation
Area and adjacent development preventing off-highway vehicle and pedestrian access. Steel
signs would be attached to the fences to provide notice, in both English and Spanish, that the
area is an ecological preserve and that trespassing is prohibited. Therefore, public access to the
proposed Parcel C Mitigation Area is not expected to be promoted, and no additional mitigation
is proposed.
Animals can be struck and injured or killed by moving vehicles on roadways; fencing can direct
wildlife to road undercrossings and minimize the potential for roadkill. It is not anticipated that
potential roadkill from the Project would occur to sensitive species. See Section 6.2.4 for more
information.
Artificial night lighting exposes wildlife to an unnatural light regime that may adversely affect
foraging patterns, increase predation risk, cause biological clock disruptions, and result in a loss
of species diversity. Artificial night lighting adversely impacts habitat value of preserves,
particularly for nocturnal species. The Project has the potential to significantly impact sensitive
species in the HMP Conservation Areas (Figure 7) during construction and post-construction for
Reach A and Basin BJ. Mitigation is required for this impact. The mitigation summarily
includes prohibitions and/or restrictions on lighting. See Section 7.3.3 for the text of the
mitigation measure. No night lighting would be used during implementation of Project
mitigation.
• Predator and Exotic Species Control
Native animal species may be at a disadvantage after exotic species or predators (e.g., domestic
cats) are introduced to an area. Since the Project does not include residential development or
related public facilities ( e.g., a park), it is not anticipated that there would be any exotic species
or predators introduced by the Project or impacts from predators.
D. Additional LFMZ 15 recommendations (HMP pg. F-27) include:
• Manage preserve areas for habitat value for California gnatcatchers.
• Restore or enhance coastal sage scrub to improve connectivity and gnatcatcher
nesting habitat within Linkage Area C.
No gnatcatchers were found during surveys for the Project. Project mitigation does include,
however, creating 5.22 acres of coastal sage scrub on proposed Parcel Con the ECNS parcels
that would connect with coastal sage scrub off site in the Dos Colinas Biological Conservation
Easement to the north (proposed Hardline ). The proposed Parcel C Mitigation Area would be
converted to Hardline Conservation Area (Figure 7), the management of which would be for
coastal sage scrub that could potentially support the gnatcatcher. In addition, the proposed
Hardline for Parcel C would close the sensitive upland habitat gap between proposed Parcel C
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ~ALDEN
55
and Core #5 to the southeast. Neither the Project impacts nor the ECNS parcels, however, occur
within Linkage Area C.
• Remove exotic species, including eucalyptus trees and pampas grass, from within
natural habitat areas and linkages.
In addition to Project impacts from development of Reach A and Basin BJ that would remove
eucalyptus woodland, agricultural lands, and disturbed lands that support exotic plant species,
Project mitigation includes preserving/enhancing existing wetland/riparian habitats and re-
establishing/creating wetland/riparian habitats on the ECNS parcels, which support Agua
Hedionda Creek, a natural habitat area. As part of the habitat creation effort, eucalyptus
woodland and ornamental plantings would be removed, as would agricultural lands and disturbed
lands. As part of the habitat enhancement effort, non-native, invasive plant species would be
removed from the Mitigation Area. The Project and ECNS parcels are not in a linkage area.
D. An evaluation is also made relative to compliance with the newly developed Guidelines
for Riparian and Wetland Buffers (City 2010).
The purpose of the Guidelines for Riparian and Wetland Buffers is to provide information about
designing effective riparian buffers and identifying allowable land uses in a manner that is
consistent with the HMP.
Planning Standards for LFMZ 15 require conservation of all riparian habitats and prohibit fill or
development within the existing floodplain except where required for Circulation Element roads
Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential infrastructure. The standards also require a
setback of 100 feet for development from existing wetland habitats when conversion of
agricultural lands to other uses is proposed. Reach A is a Circulation Element road, and Basin
BJ is a Drainage Master Plan facility. Realignment of Reach A and avoidance of wetland
habitats at this point is infeasible; regardless, the Project is exempt from this prohibition and
setback requirement, and under general HMP compliance, the impacts are allowed, and the
Project has been designed to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Implementation
of Project mitigation would include conserving all riparian habitats in the Mitigation Area, and
no fill or development would be associated with the mitigation.
While the Project would not have a 100-foot setback from wetland/riparian habitats since Reach
A crosses those habitats, mitigation for Project impacts would create wetland/riparian habitat
along Agua Hedionda Creek on the ECNS parcels and would create a 100-foot buffer of native
upland habitat around it. A portion of the bio-retention basin for Reach A on proposed Parcel B
would occur as a passive use within the buffer, however (Figures 8, 9, and I 0). Allowable uses in
the buffer include essential stormwater control facilities and approved habitat restoration projects
(City 2010), such as the proposed Project mitigation.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Reach A and Basin BJ are adopted City of Carlsbad General Plan Elements and are considered
necessary regional public improvements for which there are allowed exceptions to certain HMP
requirements. Reach A and Basin BJ have been designed to avoid impacts to wetland/riparian
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 -\ALDEN
•
habitats to the maximum extent practicable via construction of a bridge and culvert system (and
the new bio-retention basin on proposed Parcel B would not impact wetland/riparian habitats).
Project mitigation would also not impact wetland/riparian habitats and would re-establish/create
these habitats, along with an upland habitat buffer, along Agua Hedionda Creek in a Proposed
Hardline Conservation Area. While the new bio-retention basin in proposed Parcel B would
occur within the buffer, the City (2010) allows this use.
The Project would be required to implement BMPs as well other measures to avoid, minimize,
and mitigate Project impacts to sensitive vegetation communities/wildlife habitats, jurisdictional
areas, and sensitive species. The Reach A and Basin BJ components of the Project have already
been found consistent with the HMP. It is, recommended that the addition of the new bio-
retention basin associated with Reach A and removal of proposed Parcel B from Standards Areas
be found consistent with the HMP. It is also recommended that implementation of the mitigation
component of the Project and conversion of proposed Parcel C to Hardline Conservation Area be
found consistent with the HMP.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 .\ A L D E N
57
9.0 REFERENCES
Alden. 2014. College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan. November 12.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. September 2014.
Special Animals List. Periodic publication. 52 pp.
California Native Plant Society. 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition,
v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org
Accessed June 12, 2014.
City of Carlsbad. 2015. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for College Boulevard
Mitigation; GPA 14-02, ZC 14-01, HOP 14-04, SUP 14-03, HMP 14-02, MS 14-10. In
prep.
2011. Planning Division. A Report to the Planning Commission. P.C. Agenda of
October 19.
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/Meta Viewer.php?view _ id=6&clip _ id=605&meta _ id=65 893
2010. Guidelines for Riparian and Wetland Buffers. Prepared by Technology Associates
for the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. April 9.
2008. Guidelines for Biological Studies. Prepared by Technology Associates for the City
of Carlsbad Planning Department. September 30.
2004. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad.
December 1999, as amended. Final approval November.
City of Carlsbad, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2004. Implementing Agreement by and among the City of Carlsbad, the California
Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Establish the
Habitat Management Plan for the Conservation of Threatened, Endangered, and Other
Species in the City of Carlsbad, California.
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24428
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. I 00 pp. with Appendices.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. State of California, The Resources Agency. 156 pp.
Jackson, L. 1985. Ecological origins of California's Mediterranean grasses. Journal of
Biogeography 12: 349-361.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard -Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 .\ A L D E N
58
' ...
Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2010a. College Boulevard-Reach A Biological Resources Report.
General Biological Survey, Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation, and Focused Surveys.
September 28, 2009, revised March 19, 2010.
20 l Ob. Biological Resources Report for the Dos Colinas Project. August 14, 2009,
revised March 23, 2010.
Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Vegetation Communities of San Diego County.
Based on "Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California," R.F. Holland, 1986. 73 pp.
Recon. 2001a. Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, &
Detention Basins Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-02; SCH No.
99111082). November.
2001 b. Revised Biological Technical Report for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II,
Bridge and Thoroughfare District, and Detention Basins. January 25.
The Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines. April.
Unitt, Philip. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. No. 39. Proceedings of the San Diego Society
of Natural History. October 31.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Eds. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar,
and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil
Survey. Accessed October 6, 2014.
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov .usda.gov / App/HomePage.htm
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Protocol. February
21.
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/tespecies/Documents/QuinoDocs/Quino _Protocol_ 2014 _FI
NAL_022114jrh.pdf
Werkene, Shannon. 2015. Personal ( e-mail) communication with City of Carlsbad Associate
Planner. March 30.
Biological Technical Report for College Boulevard-Reach A and Basin BJ -March 26, 2015 ~ALDEN
59