Loading...
Appendices C - Biological Technical Report Espola Road Improvement Project Appendix C Biological Technical Report Prepared for: City of Poway March 2013 Summary Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report S-1 December 2010 Executive Summary Project Description, Purpose, and Need The project site is located within the City of Poway (City) in San Diego County, California. The proposed project would provide improvements to Espola Road between approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Espola Road/Titan Way 200 feet south of the crossing of Espola Road by Rattlesnake Creek. Improvements would consist of widening the two-lane road between the northern project terminus south of Titan Way and the intersection of Espola Road/Twin Peaks Road, as well as necessary traffic safety, drainage, pedestrian, and landscaping improvements. The City proposes improvements to Espola Road in order to accommodate projected traffic volumes (through year 2030) at acceptable levels of service. There are four build alternatives, as described below. Alternative 1 (Conventional Alignment) consists of widening along the current right-of-way alignment, and generally would follow both horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing roadway. Alternative 2 (Split-Grade Alignment) incorporates many elements of Alternative 1. However, the western (southbound) lanes would retain the existing grade and the eastern (northbound) lanes would be implemented at a higher grade, thereby minimizing cuts into slopes on the east side of the roadway. Alternative 3 (Westerly Alignment) also shares many elements with Alternative 1. Alternative 3 addresses the east side of Espola Road, just south of High Valley Road. In this area, impacts to residential properties in the east side of the roadway are minimized, and right-of-way take focuses on the west side of the roadway. Alternative 4 represents the proposed project, which would include widening the two-lane road to a three-lane facility. The proposed project generally would be superimposed on the existing road right-of-way, and would follow both the horizontal and vertical alignment of the current road. Under the No Build Alternative, Espola Road would not be improved, and the existing roadway would continue to be used as it currently exists. Action Impacts Table S-1 provides vegetation community impacts in acres for each of the four build alternatives, as well as the No Build Alternative. Included in the habitat impacts are those to federal and state jurisdictional areas, such as southern willow riparian forest and disturbed wetland. Impacts to southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, and disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub have been avoided. Summary Es p o l a R o a d I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t B i o l o g i c a l T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t S-2 De c e m b e r 2 0 1 0 Ta b l e S - 1 IM P A C T S T O V E G E T A T I O N C O MM U N I T I E S B Y A L T E R N A T I V E (a c r e [ s ] ) VE G E T A T I O N CO M M U N I T Y TO T A L ON SI T E AL T E R N A T I V E 1 2 3 4 ( P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t ) No Build Pe r m a n e n t T e m p o r a r y P e r m a n e n t T e m p o r a r y P e r m a n e n t T e m p o r a r y P e r m a n e n t T e m p o r a r y We t l a n d / R i p a r i a n – H i g h S e n s i t i v i t y So u t h e r n w i l l o w r i p a r i a n fo r e s t 1. 9 8 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 0. 1 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 So u t h e r n w i l l o w s c r u b 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 So u t h e r n w i l l o w s c r u b – di s t u r b e d 0. 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Fr e s h w a t e r m a r s h 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 St r e a m b e d 0 . 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 < 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 < 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Di s t u r b e d w e t l a n d 0 . 1 9 0 . 00 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Su b t o t a l 2 . 2 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 00 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Up l a n d – M o d e r a t e S e n s i t i v i t y Di e g a n c o a s t a l s a g e s c r u b 0 . 9 3 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 0. 1 0 0 . 0 0 0. 2 1 0 . 0 0 0. 0 4 0 . 0 0 0.00 Di e g a n c o a s t a l s a g e s c r u b – di s t u r b e d 0. 2 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0.00 0.00 Su b t o t a l 1. 1 6 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 0. 1 0 0 . 0 0 0. 2 1 0 . 0 0 0. 0 4 0 . 0 0 0.00 Up l a n d – L o w S e n s i t i v i t y So u t h e r n m i x e d c h a p a r r a l 2 . 4 6 0 . 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 So u t h e r n m i x e d c h a p a r r a l – di s t u r b e d 1. 1 1 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 0. 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 No n - n a t i v e g r a s s l a n d 1 . 6 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 11 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Su b t o t a l 5. 1 7 0 . 8 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 7 4 0 . 0 0 0. 8 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 3 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ot h e r Eu c a l y p t u s w o o d l a n d 2. 1 2 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 0. 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 No n - n a t i v e v e g e t a t i o n 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Di s t u r b e d 4 . 1 6 0 . 4 2 2 . 3 2 0 . 4 4 2 . 32 0 . 5 8 2 . 3 2 0 . 2 5 2 . 3 2 0 . 0 0 De v e l o p e d 6 8 . 3 9 1 3 . 8 0 0 . 0 3 1 4 . 1 4 0 . 03 1 3 . 8 2 0 . 0 3 1 1 . 6 8 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 Su b t o t a l 74 . 7 3 1 4 . 4 4 2 . 3 5 1 4 . 8 1 2 . 3 5 14 . 6 5 2 . 3 5 1 1 . 9 8 2 . 3 5 0 . 0 0 TO T A L 8 3 . 3 6 1 5 . 4 6 2 . 3 5 1 5 . 7 1 2 . 3 5 1 5 . 8 5 2 . 3 5 1 2 . 3 9 2 . 3 5 0 . 0 0 1 Im p a c t e q u a l s 2 3 . 5 s q u a r e f e e t 2 Im p a c t e q u a l s 8 6 . 2 s q u a r e f e e t Summary Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report S-3 December 2010 Compensatory Mitigation Anticipated mitigation for each Espola Road alternative is listed in Table S-2. Mitigation of adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources is based on the City’s Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), although wildlife agencies would require additional mitigation. All mitigation would occur prior to or concurrent with impacts. All mitigation would occur within the Rancho Jamul Mitigation Bank (or other location approved by the City and resource agencies) for wetland impacts and Van Dam cornerstone lands in the City for upland impacts. Cumulative Effects The proposed project would not result in adverse cumulative effects to biological resources. Summary Es p o l a R o a d I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t B i o l o g i c a l T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t S-4 De c e m b e r 2 0 1 0 Ta b l e S - 2 PR O P O S E D M I T I G A T I O N T O T A L S A N D M I T I G A T I O N S I T E L O C A T I O N S F O R I M P A C T S TO S E N S I T I V E H A B I T A T S (a c r e [ s ] ) Ve g e t a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Im p a c t e d Mi t i g a t i o n Ra t i o a n d Ty p e 1 Mi t i g a t i o n Lo c a t i o n Al t e r n a t i v e 1 Al t e r n a t i v e 2 Al t e r n a t i v e 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed Project) Im p a c t M i t i g a t i o n I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n We t l a n d / R i par i a n H a b i t a t s So u t h e r n w i l l o w ri p a r i a n f o r e s t 3: 1 i n - ki n d 2 Ra n c h o Ja m u l Mi t i g a t i o n Ba n k 0. 0 6 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 6 0 . 1 8 0 . 1 3 0 . 3 9 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 6 St r e a m b e d 1: 1 o u t - o f - ki n d 2 Ra n c h o Ja m u l Mi t i g a t i o n Ba n k <0 . 0 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 3 0.00 0.00 Na t i v e a n d N a t u r a l i z e d U pla n d H a b i t a t s Di e g a n c o a s t a l s a g e sc r u b 2: 1 i n - ki n d 4 Va n D a m Pe a k 0. 1 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 8 So u t h e r n m i x e d ch a p a r r a l 1: 1 5 i n - ki n d 6 Va n D a m Pe a k 0. 5 4 0 . 5 4 0 . 4 3 0 . 4 3 0 . 5 4 0 . 5 4 0 . 1 9 0 . 1 9 So u t h e r n m i x e d ch a p a r r a l – di s t u r b e d 1: 1 5 in - ki n d 6 Va n D a m Pe a k 0. 2 1 0 . 2 1 0 . 2 2 0 . 2 2 0 . 2 1 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 No n - n a t i v e gr a s s l a n d 1: 1 ou t - o f - ki n d 4 Va n D a m Pe a k 0. 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 TO T A L - - - - 1 . 0 2 1 . 2 4 0 . 9 2 1 . 1 4 1 . 2 0 1 . 6 7 0 . 4 1 0 . 4 9 1 Ba s e d o n t h e C i t y ’ s S u b a r e a H C P a n d m a y b e i n c r e a s e d b y t h e r e s o u r c e a g e n c i e s 2 Re p l a c e m e n t w i t h s o u t h e r n w i l l o w r i p a r i a n f o r e s t 3 I m p a c t e q u a l s 23 . 5 s q u a r e f e e t 4 Re p l a c e m e n t w i t h D i e g a n c o a s t a l s a g e s c r u b 5 Re p l a c e m e n t w i t h s o u t h e r n m i x e d c h a p a r r a l 6 A j u r i s d i c t i o n m a y r e q u i r e m i t i g a t i o n o r l e v y o f a n i n - l i e u m i t i ga t i o n f e e f o r i m p a c t s i f i t f i n d s t h a t s u c h a c t i o n s a r e n e c e s s ar y t o m e e t M S C P o r P o w a y S u b a r e a H C P go a l s . W h e n l i s t e d s p e c i e s o c c u r , r e p l a c e m e n t r a t i o b e c o m e s 2 : 1 Table of Contents Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report i December 2010 Table of Contents Summary ...................................................................................................................................... S-1 Chapter 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 1.1. Project History ...............................................................................................................1 1.2. Project Description .........................................................................................................1 1.2.1. Alternative 1 (Conventional Roadway) ...................................................................2 1.2.2. Alternative 2 (Split-Grade) ......................................................................................2 1.2.3. Alternative 3 (Westerly Alignment) ........................................................................2 1.2.4. Alternative 4 (Three-lane Proposed Project) ...........................................................3 1.2.5. No Build Alternative ................................................................................................3 Chapter 2. Study Methods .........................................................................................................5 2.1. Studies Required ............................................................................................................5 2.1.1. Biological Database Investigations ..........................................................................5 2.1.2. Vegetation Mapping .................................................................................................5 2.1.3. General Wildlife Surveys and Habitat Evaluations .................................................6 2.1.4. Rare Plant Surveys ...................................................................................................6 2.1.5. Jurisdictional Delineation ........................................................................................6 2.1.6. Focused Species Surveys .........................................................................................7 2.2. Personnel and Survey Dates...........................................................................................8 Chapter 3. Results: Environmental Setting...............................................................................9 3.1. Description of the Existing Biological and Physical Conditions ...................................9 3.1.1. Study Area ...............................................................................................................9 3.1.2. Physical Conditions .................................................................................................9 3.1.3. Biological Conditions in the Study Area .................................................................9 3.1.3.1. Vegetation Communities ................................................................................9 3.1.3.2. Plant Species .................................................................................................15 3.1.3.3. Animal Species .............................................................................................15 3.2. Regional Species and Habitats of Concern ..................................................................15 Chapter 4. Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation ...............21 4.1. Sensitive Species Potentially in the Study Area ..........................................................21 4.1.1. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly .................................................................................21 4.1.2. Least Bell’s Vireo ..................................................................................................22 4.1.3. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ...........................................................................23 4.1.4. Coastal California Gnatcatcher ..............................................................................23 4.2. Natural Communities of Special Concern ...................................................................24 4.2.1. Discussion of Natural Communities ......................................................................24 4.2.1.1. Survey Results ..............................................................................................24 4.2.1.2. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts ............................................................24 4.2.1.3. Project Impacts..............................................................................................24 4.2.1.4. Compensatory Mitigation .............................................................................26 4.2.1.5. Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................29 Table of Contents Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report ii December 2010 Table of Contents (cont.) Chapter 4. (cont.) 4.3. Special Status Plant Species.........................................................................................29 4.3.1. Discussion of Special Status Plant Species ............................................................29 4.3.1.1. Survey Results ..............................................................................................29 4.3.1.2. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts ............................................................30 4.3.1.3. Project Impacts..............................................................................................30 4.3.1.4. Compensatory Mitigation .............................................................................30 4.3.1.5. Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................30 4.4. Special Status Animal Species Occurrences ................................................................30 4.4.1. Discussion of Special Status Animal Species ........................................................30 4.4.1.1. Survey Results ..............................................................................................30 4.4.1.2. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts ............................................................30 4.4.1.3. Project Impacts..............................................................................................31 4.4.1.4. Compensatory Mitigation .............................................................................31 4.4.1.5. Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................31 4.5. Jurisdictional Areas ......................................................................................................31 4.5.1. Discussion of Natural Communities ......................................................................31 4.5.1.1. Survey Results ..............................................................................................32 4.5.1.2. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts ............................................................32 4.5.1.3. Project Impacts..............................................................................................33 4.5.1.4. Compensatory Mitigation .............................................................................34 4.5.1.5. Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................34 Chapter 5. Results: Permits and Technical Studies for Special Laws or Conditions .............35 5.1. Regulatory Requirements .............................................................................................35 5.1.1. Federal....................................................................................................................35 5.1.2. State of California ..................................................................................................35 5.1.3. City of Poway ........................................................................................................36 5.2. Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary ...........................................36 5.3. California Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary .......................................37 5.4. Wetlands and Other Waters Coordination Summary ...................................................38 5.5. City of Poway Habitat Conservation Plan ...................................................................38 5.6. Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ..............................................................................39 Chapter 6. References ..............................................................................................................40 Appendix A Agency Coordination and Professional Contacts Appendix B Plant and Animal Species Observed in the Study Area Appendix C Explanation of Status Codes for Plants and Animals Appendix D Federal Jurisdictional Definitions Appendix E State Jurisdictional Definitions Appendix F Study Area Wetland Sample Points and Data Sheets Table of Contents Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report iii December 2010 List of Figures No. Title Follows Page 1 Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................2 2 Project Location Map .....................................................................................................2 3 Study Area and Potential Project Footprint ...................................................................2 4a Vegetation and Sensitive Resources ............................................................................10 4b Vegetation and Sensitive Resources ............................................................................10 5a Alternative 1 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources ....................................24 5b Alternative 1 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources ....................................24 6a Alternative 2 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources ....................................26 6b Alternative 2 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources ....................................26 7a Alternative 3 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources ....................................26 7b Alternative 3 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources ....................................26 8a Alternative 4 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources ....................................26 8b Alternative 4 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources ....................................26 9 Proposed Upland and Mitigation .................................................................................26 10a Corps Jurisdictional Areas ...........................................................................................32 10b Corps Jurisdictional Areas ...........................................................................................32 10c CDFG Jurisdictional Areas ..........................................................................................32 10d CDFG Jurisdictional Areas ..........................................................................................32 List of Tables No. Title Page S-1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities by Alternative .................................................. S-2 S-2 Proposed Mitigation Totals and Mitigation Site Locations for Impacts to Sensitive Habitats ................................................................................................... S-4 1 Survey Information ........................................................................................................8 2 Existing Vegetation Communities within the Study Area ...........................................10 3 Regional Species of Concern .......................................................................................16 4 Listed Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project Area ............21 5 Impacts to Vegetation Communities by Alternative ....................................................27 6 Proposed Mitigation Totals and Mitigation Site Locations for Impacts to Sensitive Habitats ......................................................................................................28 7 Federal and State Jurisdictional Areas and Impacts ....................................................32 Table of Contents Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report iv December 2010 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 1 Introduction Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 1 December 2010 Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. Project History Espola Road serves as the major link between the City of Poway’s (City’s) northern, northeastern, and central residential areas. It provides the northernmost link between the City and Interstate 15 (I-15), and, as such, is an important east-west route in the northern portion of the City. It also provides the major link between the northern residential areas and central portions of the City, including the commercial/business areas. The segment between Twin Peaks Road and Poway Road serves as an important inter-city link and a regional link between I-15 and State Route 67 (SR-67). Views from Espola Road are notably scenic, and this value is recognized by its designation as a local scenic roadway. The City General Plan 2010 Master Plan Transportation Element calls for the Project portion of Espola Road to be widened between from a two-lane to a three-lane at buildout. 1.2. Project Description The study area for the proposed project is located within the City (Figure 1). The proposed project would provide improvements to Espola Road between approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Espola Road/Titan Way to the intersection of Espola Road/Twin Peaks Road. Improvements would consist of widening the two-lane road between the northern project terminus south of Titan Way to the intersection of Espola Road/Twin Peaks Road, as well as necessary traffic safety, drainage, pedestrian, and landscaping improvements. Subsurface drainage improvements would continue to 200 feet south of the crossing of Espola Road by Rattlesnake Creek (Figure 2). The study area extends approximately 200 feet east and west from the center line of existing Espola Road. In one location, the study area boundary extends past the 200 feet west of the centerline of Espola Road. There, the study area boundary is located 600 feet west of the center line of Espola Road along Northcrest Lane and extends 200 feet north and south. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would widen the two-lane road to a four-lane major facility with two vehicle lanes in each direction between the northern project terminus south of Titan Way and the intersection of Espola Road/Twin Peaks Road. A striped or raised median would be included for the entire length of the roadway upgrade to four lanes, with the intent to preclude left turns across the roadway with the exception of signalized intersections. Width of the median would be approximately 14 feet. Alternative 4 (the proposed project) would include widening the two-lane road to a three-lane facility. The proposed project generally would be superimposed on the Chapter 1 Introduction Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 2 December 2010 existing road right-of-way, and would follow both the horizontal and vertical alignment of the current road. One traffic signal would be upgraded (at the intersection of Espola Road/High Valley Road/Del Poniente Road, and one new signal would be installed at the intersection of Espola Road/Golden Sunset/Durhullen Drive. At each of these intersections, the project would add one through lane in each direction and retain turn pockets for northbound and southbound traffic. The study area extends from approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Espola Road/Titan Way to 200 feet south of the crossing of Espola Road by Rattlesnake Creek. The proposed project would occur within the study area (Figure 3). Additional specifics related to the following alternative project designs are noted below. 1.2.1. Alternative 1 (Conventional Roadway) Alternative 1 would consist of widening the two-lane road to a four-lane major facility between the northern project terminus south of Titan Way to the intersection of Espola Road/Twin Peaks Road, as well as necessary traffic safety, drainage, pedestrian, and landscaping improvements. The widening generally would be “superimposed” along the current right-of-way alignment and generally would follow both horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing roadway. Driveway access to three properties south of High Valley Road would be realigned. 1.2.2. Alternative 2 (Split-Grade) Alternative 2, the split-grade alternative, would incorporate many elements of Alternative 1. From the vicinity of Golden Sunset Lane southerly, project elements would be identical to Alternative 1, including all drainage facilities and staging areas. Variations from Alternative 1 occur on the east side of Espola Road just south of High Valley Road and in the area approximately 250 feet south of the water tank. In these areas, the western (southbound) lanes would retain the existing grade and the eastern (northbound) lanes would be implemented at a higher grade, thereby minimizing cuts into slopes on the east side of the roadway. 1.2.3. Alternative 3 (Westerly Alignment) Alternative 3, the westerly alternative, also shares many elements with Alternative 1, and from approximately High Valley Road northerly and Golden Sunset Lane southerly is identical. Where it differs, the alternative addresses the east side of Espola Road, just south of High Valley Road. In this area, impacts to residential properties in the east side of the roadway would be minimized, and right-of-way take focuses on the west side of the roadway. A× Poway Oceanside Carlsbad Vista Escondido Otay Chula Vista Santee San Marcos Encinitas El Cajon La Mesa Coronado National City Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Solana Beach Del Mar San Diego Camp Pendleton Lake San Marcos Lake Hodges Lake Wohlford Lake Ramona Lake Poway Miramar Reservoir San Vicente Reservoir Lake Murray Sweetwater Reservoir Lake Jennings Otay Reservoir Pacific Ocean S a n D i e g o B a y Santee Lakes Sutherland Reservoir Lake Henshaw El Capitan Reservoir Loveland Reservoir Vail Lake O'Neill Lake Barrett Lake Tijuana U N I T E D S T A T E S M E X I C O Dulzura Julian Ramona Warner Springs RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Project Site San Diego AlpineLa Jolla Aª Aª WÛ WÛ WÙ AÒ A© A£ Fallbrook ?z A© ?z A¨ A©!"^$ 56 !"a$ ?z ?h %&s( !"^$AÛ AÀ !"_$Aù !"a$ !"_$ AÀ ?j !"^$ A× ?j %&s( Regional Location Map ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Figure 1 8084 Miles I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig1_Regional.mxd -RK Project Location Project Location Map ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig2_Location.mxd -RK Figure 2 2,00002,0001,000 Feet µ Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 Source: USGS 7.5' Quads; Escondido and Poway Titan Way Northcrest Lane Del Poniente Road Twin Peaks Road H i g h V a l l e y R o a d Mountain Road Es p o l a R o a d Study Area Boundary Ezra Lane Durhullen Drive Golden Sunset Lane Rattlesnake Creek Rattlesnake Creek End Project # Begin Project # # Twin Peaks Road Outfall Headwall Replacement Staging Area I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig3_StudyArea.mxd -RK Figure 3 ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Study Area and Potential Project Footprint Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 6000600300 Feet Potential Project Footprint Temporary Impacts Study Area Chapter 1 Introduction Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 3 December 2010 1.2.4. Alternative 4 (Three-lane Proposed Project) As noted above, Alternative 4 would widen the two-lane road to a three-lane facility with one 12-foot-wide vehicle lane in each direction between the northern project terminus south of Titan Way to the intersection of Espola Road/Twin Peaks Road, as well as a dedicated 12-foot-wide turn lane between them. Alternative 4 generally would be superimposed on the existing road right-of-way, and would follow both the horizontal and vertical alignment of the current road (Figure 1). Project improvements would result in ultimate road right-of-way being 72 to 96 feet in width. The three-lane design would be located within areas identified as impacted under one of the four-lane alternatives previously identified, and would result in fewer biological impacts overall. 1.2.5. No Build Alternative Under the No Build Alternative, Espola Road would not be improved, and the existing roadway would continue to be used as it currently exists. The City proposes improvements to Espola Road in order to accommodate projected traffic volumes (through year 2030) at acceptable levels of service. Traffic volumes resulted in unacceptable levels of service along some existing roadway segments by year 2000 based on City standards. Chapter 1 Introduction Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 4 December 2010 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 2 Study Methods Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 5 December 2010 Chapter 2. Study Methods This chapter of the Biological Technical Report discusses the methodology used to document general biological resources and to assess impacts to special status species and/or their habitats potentially occurring within the study area. 2.1. Studies Required The following types of biological studies were completed: vegetation mapping, general wildlife surveys, rare plant surveys, habitat evaluations for sensitive species, a jurisdictional delineation, and focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). During all surveys, incidental observations of plant and animal species were noted. 2.1.1. Biological Database Investigations Prior to conducting biological field surveys, a review of existing literature was conducted. A species list was requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) containing federal candidate, proposed, threatened, and endangered species potentially occurring in the study area (Appendix A). The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 1997, updated December 2002) was searched for sensitive species, habitats, and Significant Natural Areas reported for the U.S. Geographical Survey (USGS) Poway quadrangle map, within which the project occurs. The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) documents were reviewed for sensitive habitats, species, and biological core areas. The Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) also was reviewed for sensitive habitats, species, and biological core areas. 2.1.2. Vegetation Mapping Vegetation was mapped on a 1"=200' scale topographic map with the aid of a 1"=250' scale aerial photo taken in February 2002. Field vegetation maps were then digitized into a geographic information system (GIS) using ArcView 3.2. The created layer was then overlaid onto an ortho-rectified aerial photo base map of the study area. In addition to the mapping of vegetation communities, incidental observations of plant and animal species were noted during all surveys, lists for which are included as Appendix B. Vegetation mapping was updated on September 4, 2008. Chapter 2 Study Methods Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 6 December 2010 2.1.3. General Wildlife Surveys and Habitat Evaluations General wildlife surveys were conducted by walking on foot over the study area and using binoculars. Any sensitive species were mapped on a 1"=200' scale topographic map. Wildlife species in the study area were tallied using a checklist method, mentally noting potentially occurring species. On-site habitats and microhabitats previously mapped during vegetation mapping were analyzed. These data were later used in determination of focused species surveys required for the study area. 2.1.4. Rare Plant Surveys Rare plant surveys were conducted on May 5, 2003 during the blooming period for the San Diego thorn-mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia). The study area was surveyed on foot focusing on habitat areas most likely to support rare plants. 2.1.5. Jurisdictional Delineation Jurisdictional delineation fieldwork was conducted on October 16, 2002, and updated on September 4, 2008. Prior to conducting jurisdictional delineation fieldwork, topographical vegetation maps for the study area were used to determine potential jurisdictional areas in the study area. All potential wetlands/Waters of the U.S. areas were inspected according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps’) wetland delineation guidelines. If an area was suspected of being a wetland, vegetation and hydrology indicators were noted, and a soil pit was dug and described. The area was then determined to be a federal (Corps) wetland if it satisfied the three wetland criteria (vegetation, hydrology, and soil) described within the Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Two sample points were typically evaluated, one in the suspected wetland and one where the hydrology and/or the vegetation criteria were apparently not satisfied. In all, eight sample points were taken during the 2002 fieldwork, all of which (along with the wetland area boundaries) were mapped in the field on a topographic map with a 1"=200' scale. Three sample points were taken during the September 2008 fieldwork, which (along with the wetland area boundaries) were mapped in the field on a topographic map with a 1"=200' scale. During the 2008 fieldwork, Corps wetland boundaries were determined using the three criteria (vegetation, hydrology, and soils) established for wetland delineations, as described within the Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Arid West Supplement; Corps 2008). Chapter 2 Study Methods Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 7 December 2010 Areas were determined to be non-wetland Waters of the U.S. if there was evidence of regular surface flow (e.g., bed and bank), but the vegetation criterion was not met. Non-wetland areas encompassed by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) were measured and vegetation (if present) was noted. All non-wetland Waters of the U.S. were measured and mapped in the field. Factors particularly noted when determining the wetlands in the study area were wetland vegetation in the channel bottom and the presence of herbaceous obligate wetland plants. Boundaries of the jurisdictional wetlands were chosen based on the obvious limits of the wetland vegetation within areas of wetland hydrology. In addition to Corps jurisdictional areas, CDFG jurisdictional areas also were identified and mapped during the delineation. CDFG jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence of riparian vegetation or regular surface flow. Streambeds within CDFG jurisdiction were delineated based on the definition of streambed as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation” (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 1.72). This definition for CDFG jurisdictional habitat allows for a wide variety of habitat types to be jurisdictional, including some that do not include wetland species (e.g., oak woodland and alluvial fan sage scrub). The CDFG jurisdictional habitat includes all riparian shrub or tree canopy that may extend beyond the banks of a stream. Plants noted during the delineation were identified according to Hickman, ed. (1993), which was used as a reference for common names. Wetland affiliations of plant species are consistent with the USFWS Branch of Habitat Assessment (1996). Soils information was taken from Field Office Official List of Hydric Soils Map Units for San Diego Area, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1992) and Soil Survey for the San Diego Area (Bowman 1973). Soil chromas were identified according to Munsell’s Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation 1994). 2.1.6. Focused Species Surveys As requested by the USFWS, protocol surveys were conducted for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Five surveys were conducted according to the schedule provided in Section 2.2 below, exceeding the three surveys typically acceptable for projects occurring within a Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) planning area with an approved subarea plan. The surveys were conducted within Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) habitat, as well as southern mixed chaparral, and were conducted on foot with the aid of binoculars and periodically played taped gnatcatcher vocalizations. Approximately 5.3 acres of gnatcatcher Chapter 2 Study Methods Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 8 December 2010 habitat were surveyed in 2003 (Figure 2). An additional three protocol surveys for this species were conducted in 2010. 2.2. Personnel and Survey Dates Surveys within the study area, which are summarized in Table 1 below, were conducted between October 9, 2002 and April 2, 2010. Table 1 SURVEY INFORMATION Date Time of Survey/ Weather Conditions Personnel Purpose October 9, 2002 0730-1415, Overcast- partly cloudy Patrick McNicholas Vegetation mapping October 10, 2002 0745-1145, Partly cloudy Patrick McNicholas Vegetation mapping October 16, 2002 0730-1425 W. Larry Sward Patrick McNicholas Jurisdictional delineation Vegetation mapping November 13, 2002 N/A Scott Taylor Wildlife surveys May 30, 2003 June 6, 2003 June 13, 2003 June 20, 2003 June 27, 2003 0920-1006, Overcast 1100-1145 1030-1100, Clear 1115-1200, Overcast 940-1010, Clear Scott Taylor Debbie Leonard Debbie Leonard Debbie Leonard Debbie Leonard Coastal California gnatcatcher protocol surveys (1997) May 5, 2003 N/A W. Larry Sward Rare plant surveys September 4, 2008 N/A W. Larry Sward Jurisdictional delineation Vegetation mapping March 19, 2010 March 26, 2010 April 2, 2010 0900-0930, Clear 0900-0930, Clear 0930-1000, Clear Debbie Leonard Coastal California gnatcatcher protocol surveys (1997) Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 9 December 2010 Chapter 3. Results: Environmental Setting 3.1. Description of the Existing Biological and Physical Conditions 3.1.1. Study Area As noted above, the study area extends from approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Espola Road/Titan Way to 200 feet south of the crossing of Espola Road by Rattlesnake Creek. Alternatives 1 through 4 occur within the study area (Figure 3). Land use and zoning designations in the project area include: Planned Residential Development, Public Facility, Rural Residential, Residential Single-family and Open Space. Although not located in the study area, the Blue Sky Canyon Ecological Reserve and Lake Poway are located northeast of the study area and are designated as open space (Cotton/Beland Associates [CBA] 1991). 3.1.2. Physical Conditions The study area occurs in an urbanized valley situated between Twin Peaks Mountain to the west and Rattlesnake Canyon to the east. Elevations range from approximately 600 to 850 feet above mean sea level. Overall, elevations within the study area are higher in the north and lower in the south. Most of the study area has been developed and is occupied by residential and commercial development. Soils in the study area include Placentia sandy loam (0 to 9 percent slopes), Ramona sandy loam (0 to 2 percent slopes), Fallbrook sandy loam (5 to 30 percent slopes), and Visalia sandy loam (9 to 15 percent slopes; Bowman 1973). Poway lies in the foothills of San Diego County, and its climate includes warm, dry summers and mild winters. Annual precipitation is approximately 13 inches (Bowman 1973). 3.1.3. Biological Conditions in the Study Area 3.1.3.1. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Four wetland/riparian and four native or naturalized upland vegetation communities occur in the study area in addition to non-native vegetation, disturbed, and developed areas (Holland 1986; Table 2). Wetland/riparian habitats include southern willow riparian forest, southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, and disturbed wetland. Native or naturalized habitats include Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed), southern mixed chaparral (including disturbed), non- native grassland, and eucalyptus woodland (Figures 4a and 4b). In addition, areas supporting streambed occur within the study area as shown on Figures 4a and 4b. Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 10 December 2010 Table 2 EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Vegetation/Habitat Type Acre(s) Wetland/Riparian/Streambed Habitats Southern willow riparian forest 1.98 Southern willow scrub 0.05 Southern willow scrub – disturbed 0.02 Freshwater marsh 0.01 Streambed 0.05 Disturbed wetland 0.19 Subtotal2.30 Native and Naturalized Upland Habitats Diegan coastal sage scrub 0.93 Diegan coastal sage scrub – disturbed 0.23 Southern mixed chaparral 2.46 Southern mixed chaparral – disturbed 1.11 Non-native grassland 1.60 Eucalyptus woodland 2.12 Subtotal8.45 Other Uplands Non-native vegetation 0.06 Disturbed 4.16 Developed 68.39 Subtotal72.61 TOTAL83.36 Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern willow riparian forest is composed of tall, open, broad-leaved winter-deciduous trees dominated by several willow species such as arroyo willow (Salix lasioloepis) and Goodding’s black willow (S. gooddingii). Other species that may occur include western cottonwood (Populus fremontii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and white alder (Alnus rhombifolia). Approximately 1.98 acres of the habitat occur in several locations within the BSA between Willow Ranch Road and Ezra Lane. Southern willow riparian forest is considered sensitive by the USFWS, Corps, CDFG, and City, and mitigation would be required should impacts result from the proposed project. Figure 4a ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Vegetation and Sensitive Resources % % Study Area Boundary Del Poniente Road Northcrest Lane Titan Way E l d e n G r o v e Willow Ranch Road DEV SMC DH DH SWRF NNG SMC-D EUC NNG EUC NNG EUC EUC DCSS DCSS SWRF EUC DCSS EUC SWRF SMC-D DCSS-D SWRF DCSS DH SWRF EUC DCSS SMC-D DEV DCSS DH DH DH NNV DH NNG NNG NNV DW SWS-D FWM DCSS-D DCSS Match to Figure 4b I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig4a_Veg_SS.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Habitats Wetlands Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Southern Willow Scrub - Disturbed Freshwater Marsh Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Uplands Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern Mixed Chaparral - Disturbed Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Non-native Vegetation Disturbed Habitat Developed Sensitive Resources %Orange-throated Whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi) Open Space Easement SWRF SWS SWS-D FWM DW DCSS DCSS-D SMC SMC-D NNG EUC NNV DH DEV h Study Area Boundary Mountain Road Es p o l a R o a d Staging Area Twin Peaks Road Ezra Lane Los Nietos Avenue Mountain Road Segundo Court Rio Court El Dolora Way Alando Place El Topo Drive Durhullen Drive Golden Sunset Lane Jerome Drive Evergreen Lane Espola Road DEV DH Rattlesnake Creek DEV DH DH NNG SWRF SB SWS EUC DW EUC DEV DW Match to Figure 4aHabitats Wetlands Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Streambed Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Uplands Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Disturbed Habitat Developed Sensitive Resources h Raptor Nest Open Space Easement SWRF SWS SB DW NNG EUC DH DEV Figure 4b ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Vegetation and Sensitive ResourcesI:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig4b_Veg_SS.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 11 December 2010 Southern Willow Scrub (Including Disturbed) Southern willow scrub consists of dense, broad-leaved, winter-deciduous stands of trees dominated by shrubby willows (Salix spp.) often in association with mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia). This habitat occurs on loose, sandy or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near stream channels during flood flows. Approximately 0.07 acre of southern willow scrub (including 0.02 acre disturbed) occurs in two locations within the BSA: (1) south of Del Poniente Road and (2) just north of Ezra Lane within Rattlesnake Creek. Southern willow scrub is considered sensitive and declining by the USFWS, Corps, CDFG, and City. Southern willow scrub supports MSCP species and is regulated by the CDFG under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code and often by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Mitigation would be required for impacts to southern willow scrub should impacts result from the proposed project. Freshwater Marsh Freshwater marsh is dominated by perennial, emergent monocots, which reach heights of 12 to 15 feet. This vegetation type occurs along the coast and in coastal valleys near river mouths and around margins of lakes and springs. These are permanently flooded by fresh water yet lack significant current (Holland 1986). Dominant species in this plant community include broad- leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), spike-sedge (Eleocharis sp.), and tule (Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis). Approximately 0.01 acre of freshwater marsh occurs along the western side of Espola Road to the south of Del Poniente Road. As with southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh is considered sensitive and declining by the USFWS, Corps, CDFG, and City. Freshwater marsh supports MSCP species, and is regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA and by the CDFG under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. Mitigation would be required for impacts to freshwater marsh should impacts result from the proposed project. Streambed Streambed is defined as an unvegetated body of water that flows at least periodically through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. Streambed is considered sensitive by the Corps, USFWS, CDFG, and City. Mitigation would be required for impacts to streambed should impacts result from the proposed action. A portion of the streambed within the study area does not support any vegetation community due to periodic scouring. This area occurs within Rattlesnake Creek and reaches 10 feet wide in Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 12 December 2010 some areas. It has a sandy bottom and is without rooted or overhanging vegetation. The source of disturbance for this area is natural (i.e., occasional flooding); therefore, it does not meet the definition of disturbed habitat. Streambed covers 0.05 acre of the study area, including along either side of Northcrest Lane, north and south of Del Poniente Road, and at the southern terminus of the BSA along and near Rattlesnake Creek. Disturbed Wetland This community is dominated almost exclusively by exotic wetland species within areas that have undergone periodic disturbance. Characteristic species include cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), curly dock (Rumex crispis), broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothoides), and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.). Approximately 0.19 acre of disturbed wetland occurs within several locations in the BSA, including just north of Northcrest Lane and along either side of Espola Road near Rattlesnake Creek. Like all wetland habitats, disturbed wetland is considered sensitive and declining by the USFWS, Corps, CDFG, and City. It also may support MSCP species and is regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA and by the CDFG under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. Disturbed wetland is often what remains after habitats such as southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh have been altered. Mitigation would be required for impacts to disturbed wetland should impacts result from the proposed project. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (Including Disturbed) Coastal sage scrub is one of the two major shrub types that occur in California (the other is chaparral; see below). This habitat type occupies xeric sites characterized by shallow soils. Sage scrub is dominated by subshrubs whose leaves abscise during drought that occurs within this part of the county. This adaptation is well suited for the alternating periods of rainfall and prolonged drought. Sage scrub species have relatively shallow root systems and open canopies, allowing for a substantial herbaceous component. Diegan coastal sage scrub in the study area contains a variety of plant species, including California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), broom baccharis, and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). . Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub occurring within the study area is differentiated from Diegan coastal sage scrub by shrub cover and percent native species. Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub tends to have a lower percentage of shrub cover with a higher percentage of exotic species cover. Exotic plant species observed within on-site disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub included hottentot-fig (Carpobrotus edulis), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), mustard (Brassica sp.), castor-bean (Ricinus communis), golden wattle (Acacia longifolia), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and fountain Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 13 December 2010 grass (Pennisetum setaceum). Native species observed include laurel sumac, California sagebrush, coastal prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), white sage (Salvia apiana), and California buckwheat. Approximately 1.16 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (including 0.23 acre of disturbed) occur within the study area, including along either side of Espola Road from Willow Ranch Road to south of Del Poniente Road in very small patches Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) is considered a sensitive habitat by the USFWS, CDFG, and City and is given the highest inventory priority by the CNDDB. Diegan coastal sage scrub was listed as the third most extensive vegetation community in the County in 1965 (CDFG 1965); however, Oberbauer (1979), and Oberbauer and Vanderwier (1991) suggest that nearly 72 percent of the County’s original sage scrub habitat has been destroyed or modified, primarily due to urban expansion. Many species are dependent upon coastal sage scrub, including the coastal California gnatcatcher. Mitigation would be required for impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) should impacts result from the proposed project. Southern Mixed Chaparral (Including Disturbed) Southern mixed chaparral is composed of broad-leaved shrubs 5 to 10 feet tall that form moderately dense to dense, often nearly impenetrable vegetation dominated by chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.), lilac (Ceanothus sp.), and scrub oak (Quercus sp.). Plants are often deep-rooted, and there is usually little or no understory vegetation (Holland 1986). Disturbed southern mixed chaparral occurring within the study area is differentiated from southern mixed chaparral by its higher composition of early successional species that establish themselves following disturbance prior to late successional species such as manzanita, lilac, and scrub oak. Early successional or pioneering species observed included coyote brush, telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), deer weed (Lotus scoparius), and California buckwheat. Exotic species observed included hottentot-fig and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). Approximately 3.57 acres of southern mixed chaparral (including 1.11 acres of disturbed) occur within the BSA along the eastern side of Espola Road from Willow Ranch Road to High Valley Road. Southern mixed chaparral (including disturbed) is considered sensitive by the USFWS, CDFG, and City, and mitigation would be required for impacts to southern mixed chaparral (including disturbed) should impacts result from the proposed project. Non-native Grassland Non-native grassland areas may have supported native grassland in the past but have been overrun by exotic, introduced annuals. Grassland expansion in the region also may be a result of Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 14 December 2010 increased fire frequency. The flora of non-native grasslands includes a dense to sparse cover of introduced grasses and often numerous species of showy-flowered, native, annual forbs (Holland 1986). This habitat is often associated with deep, fine-textured soils. Introduction of exotic grasses in California due to grazing and agricultural practices, coupled with severe droughts, has contributed to the conversion of native grasslands to non-native grassland (Jackson 1985). Whereas native grasslands supported mostly perennials such as needlegrass (Nasella sp.), non- native grasslands (including those in the study area) support mostly annuals. Characteristic species of non-native grassland include oats (Avena sp.), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), ripgut (Bromus diandrus), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), and mustard. Approximately 1.60 acres of non-native grassland occur in several locations within the study area from Willow Ranch Road to Rattlesnake Creek. Directly and indirectly, non-native grasslands are key to the conservation of a large number of MSCP species, including a variety of narrow endemics. They provide foraging habitat for raptors and may be succeeded naturally by coastal sage scrub or other native habitats over time. Non-native grassland is considered sensitive by the USFWS, CDFG, and City, and mitigation would be required for impacts to this habitat should impacts result from the proposed project. Eucalyptus Woodland Eucalyptus woodland is dominated by eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), which are non-native. These species are often planted purposely but can spread under certain conditions. Approximately 2.12 acres of eucalyptus woodland occur in several locations throughout the study area from its northern terminus (north of Titan Way) to its southern terminus at Ezra Lane and Rattlesnake Creek. Eucalyptus is not a sensitive habitat unless it is used by raptors for nesting; therefore, impacts to eucalyptus woodland typically do not warrant mitigation except when associated with raptor nesting impacts. One unoccupied raptor nest was observed in a eucalyptus tree at the south end of the study area (Figure 4b). This area of eucalyptus woodland would be considered sensitive. Non-native Vegetation Non-native vegetation is the name attributed to cultivated plants such as hottentot-fig, Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), or other species that have become naturalized in native habitat areas or that are relics of previous cultivated land uses. Approximately 0.06 acre of non-native vegetation occurs in one location within the study area, just south of Del Poniente Road. Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 15 December 2010 Disturbed Habitat Disturbed habitat supports either no vegetation or a cover of non-native weedy species adapted to a regime of frequent disturbance. Many of the characteristic species of this habitat are also indicator species of annual grasslands, although disturbed areas are dominated by forbs rather than grasses. Characteristic species include mustard, tree tobacco, fennel, and Russian thistle. Approximately 4.16 acres of disturbed habitat occur within the study area between Northcrest Lane and Ezra Lane along either side of Espola Road. Disturbed land is not a sensitive vegetation community. Developed Land Developed land includes roads, concrete drainage channels, and residential/commercial existing development. Most of the study area consists of residential land uses. Approximately 68.39 acres of developed land occur throughout the study area. Developed land is not considered sensitive. 3.1.3.2. PLANT SPECIES Fifty-five plant species were observed during fieldwork (Appendix B). Thirty-eight percent of these (21 species) were non-native. 3.1.3.3. ANIMAL SPECIES Thirty animal species were observed/detected during wildlife surveys. Observed taxa include 2 butterfly species, 2 reptile species, 21 bird species, and 5 mammal species (Appendix B). 3.2. Regional Species and Habitats of Concern The study area occurs in an urbanized valley situated between Twin Peaks Mountain to the west and Rattlesnake Canyon to the east. Most of the study area has been developed and is occupied by residential and commercial development. Four wetland/riparian and four native or naturalized upland vegetation communities occur in the study area in addition to streambed, non-native vegetation, disturbed habitat, and developed land. The NCCP initiated by the State of California under the special 4(d) rule of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) focuses on conserving coastal sage scrub in order to avoid the need for future federal and state listing of coastal sage scrub dependent species. The study area is located within the City’s Subarea HCP planning area that is within the MSCP planning area. The MSCP is a multi-jurisdictional planning program designed to develop an ecosystem preserve within the City of San Diego and nearby areas, including the City of Poway. A preserve system has been designated a Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). Because of the highly developed setting, the study area is not Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 16 December 2010 located within any MHPA. As a result, it is not considered to contain important wildlife linkages or critical habitat for the regional species outlined below in Table 3. Table 3 REGIONAL SPECIES OF CONCERN SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PLANTS San Diego thorn-mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) FT/SE CNPS List 1B R-E-D 2-3-2 HCP Target Species Occurs on heavy clay soils near vernal pools and in grasslands, chaparral, and coastal sage scrub between 33 and 3,117 feet. California adolphia (Adolphia californica) --/-- CNPS List 2 R-E-D 1-3-1 Occurs on clay soils in chaparral and coastal sage scrub between 150 and 2,428 feet. San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) FE/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 3-3-2 HCP Target Species Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, and often in disturbed places between 66 and 1,360 feet. Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) FE/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 3-3-2 Occurs in maritime chaparral in sandy soil between 0 and 1,198 feet. South coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) --/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 3-2-2 Occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and playas between 0 to 459 feet. Encinitas baccharis (Baccharis vanessae) FT/SE CNPS List 1B R-E-D 2-3-3 HCP Target Species Occurs in maritime and mixed chaparrals on sandstone between 195 and 2,365 feet. Orcutt’s brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii) --/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 1-3-2 HCP Target Species Occurs in vernal pools and ephemeral streams and seeps on clay and sometimes serpentinite soils between 100 and 5,300 feet. Lakeside ceanothus (Ceanothus cyaneus) --/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 3-2-2 HCP Target Species Occurs in chaparral and closed-cone coniferous forest between 770 and 2,475 feet. Orcutt’s spineflower (Chorizanthe orcuttiana) FE/SE CNPS List 1B R-E-D 3-3-3 Occurs in chaparral (maritime), closed-cone coniferous forest, and coastal scrub on sandy spills in openings between 10 to 410 feet. Long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina) --/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 2-2-2 Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, grasslands, and often clay soils between 98 to 4,757 feet. Delicate clarkia (Clarkia delicata) --/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 2-2-2 Occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland between 771 and 3,280 feet. Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 17 December 2010 Table 3 (cont.) REGIONAL SPECIES AND HABITATS OF CONCERN SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PLANTS (cont.) Summer holly (Comarostaphylis diversifolia spp. diversifolia) --/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 2-2-2 HCP Target Species Occurs in north-facing slopes and drainages in chaparral between 100 and 1,800 feet. Variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegata) --/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 2-2-2 HCP Target Species Occurs in dry uplands of vernal pools and in arid, rocky outcrops in grassland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral between 10 and 1,804 feet. Palmer’s goldenbush (Ericameria palmeri ssp. palmeri) --/-- CNPS List 2 R-E-D 3-2-1 HCP Target Species Occurs in chaparral and coastal scrub/mesic areas between 100 and 1,970 feet. San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) FE/SE CNPS List 1B R-E-D 2-3-2 Occurs in coastal scrub, grasslands, and vernal pools/mesic areas between 66 and 2,034 feet. San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) --/-- CNPS List 2 R-E-D 1-3-1 HCP Target Species Occurs on dry slopes in coastal sage scrub between 10 and 1,476 feet. Campbell’s liverwort (Geothallus tuberosus) --/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 3-3-3 Occurs in coastal scrub (mesic) and vernal pools/soil between 33 to 1,969 feet. Mission Canyon bluecup (Githopsis diffusa ssp. filicaulis) --/-- CNPS List 3 R-E-D ?-3-3 HCP Target Species Occurs in chaparral (mesic, disturbed areas) between 1,475 and 2,300 feet. San Diego marsh-elder (Iva hayesiana) --/-- CNPS List 2 R-E-D 2-2-1 HCP Target Species Occurs in low-lying, moist, or alkaline places along the coast. Has been reported along intermittent streams between 33 and 1,640 feet. Willowy monardella (Monardella viminea) FE/SE CNPS List 1B R-E-D 3-3-3 HCP Target Species Occurs in rocky washes generally associated with coastal sage scrub and chaparral between 164 and 738 feet. San Diego goldenstar (Muilla clevelandii) --/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 2-3-2 HCP Target Species Occurs in clay soils on dry mesas and hillsides in coastal sage scrub or chaparral between 160 and 1,525 feet. Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) FT/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 2-3-2 Occurs in chenopod scrub, marshes and swamps, playas, and vernal pools between 98 and 4,265 feet. San Diego mesa mint (Pogogyne abramsii) FE/SE CNPS List 1B R-E-D 2-3-3 Occurs in vernal pools between 295 and 656 feet. Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 18 December 2010 Table 3 (cont.) REGIONAL SPECIES AND HABITATS OF CONCERN SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PLANTS (cont.) Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) --/-- CNPS List 1B R-E-D 2-3-2 Occurs in chaparraland coastal sage scrub with sandy or clay loam soils between 50 and 1,310 feet. Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii) --/-- CNPS List 4 R-E-D 1-2-2 Occurs in chaparral, cismontane and riparian woodlands, and grasslands between 394 and 4,265 feet. Rayless ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) --/-- CNPS List 2 R-E-D 3-2-1 Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and alkaline coastal scrub between 49 and 2,625 feet. WILDLIFE Invertebrates San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) FE/-- Inhabits vernal pools or basins capable of holding water. Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) FE/-- HCP Target Species Inhabits a wide range of habitats, including coastal sage scrub, vernal pools, and native grasslands. Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes) --/-- HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral using spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea) as a host. Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) FE/--Inhabits vernal pools or basins capable of holding water. Vertebrates Amphibians Arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo californicus) FE/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral near water (breeding). Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits aquatic and riparian habitats. Western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii) --/CSC Southern California habitats include coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland. Important habitat components include temporary pools (which form during winter and spring rains) for breeding and friable soils for burrowing. Reptiles Coastal whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus) --/CSC Inhabits open coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and woodlands. Frequently found along the edges of dirt roads traversing these habitats. Red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus exsul) --/CSC Favors rocky outcrops in open scrub communities. Coronado skink (Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis) --/CSC Preferred habitats include Diegan coastal sage scrub and areas with an open mixture of grasses and forbs. San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal sage scrub, chaparral, open oak woodlands, and open coniferous forests. Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 19 December 2010 Table 3 (cont.) REGIONAL SPECIES AND HABITATS OF CONCERN SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS WILDLIFE (cont.) Reptiles (cont.) Two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii) --/-- Found in or near permanent fresh water (highly aquatic), often along streams with rocky beds bordered by willows and other riparian vegetation. Granite night lizard (Xantusia henshawi henshawi) --/-- HCP Target Species Inhabits areas around granite boulders in chaparral and coastal sage scrub/chaparral. Birds Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits lowland riparian areas and oak woodlands in proximity to suitable foraging areas such as scrublands or fields. Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal sage scrub, where it occurs on rocky hillsides and in canyons but also may be found in open sage scrub/grassy areas of successional growth (e.g., after a fire). Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) --/-- HCP Target Species Inhabits grasslands. Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) BGEPA/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, cliffs (breeding), and near agricultural fields. San Diego cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) --/--Inhabits coastal sage scrub with tall Opuntia sp. capable of supporting nests. Occurs primarily on south-facing slopes or at the bases of hillsides near river valleys; also on hillsides in tributary canyons. Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits grassland, salt marsh, and agricultural fields. Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) FE/SE HCP Target Species Inhabits riparian woodlands. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) FT, BGEPA/SE HCP Target Species Inhabits areas near open water. Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal riparian scrub and woodland. Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) FT/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal sage scrub. Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana) --/-- HCP Target Species Inhabits oak woodland areas near grasslands. Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) FE/SE HCP Target Species Inhabits riparian woodlands and riparian forests. Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 20 December 2010 Table 3 (cont.) REGIONAL SPECIES AND HABITATS OF CONCERN SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS WILDLIFE (cont.) Mammals Dulzura California pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland. Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland. California mastiff-bat (Eumops perotis californicus) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits caves and crevices. Mountain lion (Felis concolor) --/Protected HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal sage scrub, chaparral, riparian woodland, and areas near open water. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) --/CSC Inhabits open habitats, including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands, croplands, and open, disturbed areas if some shrub cover is present. San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) --/CSC Inhabits shrubland and chaparral areas. Nests are usually observed if present but could escape view in thicker vegetated areas. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) --/Game Species HCP Target Species Inhabits coastal sage scrub, chaparral, riparian woodland, and areas near open water. Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus romona) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits sparse coastal sage scrub and grassland. Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits caves and crevices. American badger (Taxidea taxus) --/CSC HCP Target Species Inhabits grassland. *A listing and explanation of status codes is provided in Appendix C. Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 21 December 2010 Chapter 4. Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation 4.1. Sensitive Species Potentially in the Study Area Table 4 specifies the sensitive species that have potential to occur within the proposed study area. Table 4 LISTED SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING OR KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA Name Status* General Habitat Description Species Present/Absent Rationale San Diego thorn-mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) FT/SE Occurs on heavy clay soils near vernal pools and in grasslands, chaparral, and coastal sage scrub between 33 and 3,117 feet. Absent Although some suitable habitat occurs within the BSA, this species was not observed during rare plant surveys in 2003. Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) FT/CSC Inhabits coastal sage scrub. Absent Suitable habitat occurs within the BSA. Species not observed or detected during protocol surveys in 2003 or 2010. *See Appendix C for an explanation of status codes. Habitats within the study area were specifically evaluated for four sensitive animal species: Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and coastal California gnatcatcher. The results of this evaluation are discussed below. 4.1.1. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly The Quino checkerspot butterfly was once described as one of the most common butterflies in the San Diego County (Murphy 1990). Due to years of development and some extended drought Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 22 December 2010 periods (particularly in the 1980s), the Quino checkerspot butterfly is now restricted to a few colonies in southwestern Riverside County, southern San Diego County, and northern Baja California, Mexico. As a result, the Quino checkerspot butterfly is currently a federally listed endangered species and a City Subarea HCP Target Species. Recently, a recovery plan was adopted by the USFWS (USFWS 2003) that details as a long-term goal a plan to declassify the butterfly from endangered to threatened status. The Quino checkerspot butterfly is found in a variety of habitats, including coastal sage scrub, open chaparral, juniper woodland, and native grassland. Part of their habitat requirement is for there to be host plants on which eggs are laid and larvae develop. The primary host plant of this species in San Diego County is dot-seed plantain (Plantago erecta), but other primary host plants that have been used include white snapdragon (Antirrhinium coulterianum) and thread-leaved bird’s beak (Cordylanthus rigidus). A secondary host plant that has been documented is owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta). The Quino checkerspot butterfly also requires an abundance of nectaring plants on which to feed. The Recovery Plan for the Quino checkerspot butterfly identifies six recovery units, with four units occurring within San Diego County. None of these areas vital to the long-term recovery of the Quino checkerspot butterfly is located near the City. However, a potential future recovery unit includes habitat in eastern Poway and near Iron Mountain. The Recovery Plan defers to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Protocol Map for survey questions for areas outside of the planned and possible future recovery units. The study area does not support any host plants for the Quino checkerspot butterfly, as confirmed in the plant surveys of October 2002 and May 2003. The study area does not require Quino checkerspot butterfly protocol surveys because it is outside of the recovery units, possible future recovery units, and the recommended survey area depicted within the protocol. In addition, a species list provided in a letter from the USFWS dated April 28, 2003, did not request surveys for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Appendix A). 4.1.2. Least Bell’s Vireo The least Bell’s vireo is one of four subspecies of Bell’s vireo that reside in southern to central North America. The least Bell’s vireo was formerly common and widespread in central and southern California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico, but currently the populations are much more restricted and occur primarily in southern California in several of the major rivers and their tributaries. The least Bell’s vireo is restricted to riparian woodlands and is most frequent in areas that combine an understory of dense young willows or mule fat with a canopy of tall willows. While least Bell’s vireos generally nest in primarily willow-dominated areas, the types of nest plants present do not seem to be as important as the overall habitat condition. Two factors are important in least Bell’s vireo habitat: (1) dense cover within approximately 3 to 7 feet of the ground; and (2) a dense stratified canopy for foraging (Goldwasser 1981; Salata 1981 and 1983). Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 23 December 2010 The study area was evaluated for its potential to support the least Bell’s vireo. Riparian habitat occurs within an isolated strip along the south side Espola Road, but it was concluded that this habitat was too small and isolated to support the least Bell’s vireo. The habitat lacks many of the typical structural elements found in least Bell’s vireo habitat, such as multiple structuring. A letter from the USFWS and subsequent conversations with USFWS staff confirmed that there was not a need to conduct protocol surveys for the least Bell’s vireo within the study area. In addition, a species list provided in a letter from the USFWS dated April 28, 2003, did not request surveys for the least Bell’s vireo (Appendix A). 4.1.3. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher The southwestern willow flycatcher is the southwestern subspecies of the willow flycatcher complex. It historically occurs within southern California and eastward to the deserts, and into Arizona, New Mexico, and southern Utah. It is a spring and fall transient to much of southern California, breeding in a handful of isolate localities. It is not currently known to have any breeding populations near the City, and the nearest population areas are located north and east along the San Luis Rey River and to the west on Camp Pendleton. The southwestern willow flycatcher utilizes dense, high-canopied habitat with thick foliage in the lower strata. Generally, the southwestern willow flycatcher nest localities are positively associated with the presence of water bodies. The study area was evaluated for its potential to support the southwestern willow flycatcher. Riparian habitat within the study area is isolated and not dense enough or high enough to support the southwestern willow flycatcher, and does not contain surface water. In addition, a letter from the USFWS (Appendix A) and subsequent conversations with USFWS staff confirmed that there was not a need to conduct protocol surveys for the southwestern willow flycatcher within the study area. 4.1.4. Coastal California Gnatcatcher The coastal California gnatcatcher is federally listed threatened, as well as state and City sensitive. The habitat of this species is primarily coastal sage scrub, although it may sometimes use other habitats adjacent to coastal sage scrub. Atwood (1990 and 1992) estimated that approximately 1,811 to 2,291 pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers remain in southern California. Of these, 24 to 30 pairs occur in Los Angeles County, 224 to 294 pairs in Orange County, 724 to 916 pairs in Riverside County, and 837 to 1,061 pairs in San Diego County. Protocol surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted within the study area between May 30 and June 27, 2003 and between March 19 and April 2, 2010 (Table 1). No gnatcatchers were observed/detected within the study area during any of the surveys in 2003 or 2010. Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 24 December 2010 4.2. Natural Communities of Special Concern 4.2.1. Discussion of Natural Communities Sensitive habitats are subject to the CWA under the Corps, considered rare within the region or sensitive by CDFG (Holland 1986), listed as sensitive under the City’s Subarea HCP, and/or support sensitive plants or animals protected under the federal or California ESAs. A complete discussion of natural communities of special concern occurring within the study area is contained in Section 3.1.3. The following natural communities of special concern (federal, state, and/or Poway Subarea HCP) that occur within the study area include: Habitat Type Occurring within the Study Area Sensitivity Status Southern willow riparian forest USFWS, Corps, CDFG, Poway Subarea HCP Southern willow scrub USFWS, Corps, CDFG, Poway Subarea HCP Freshwater marsh USFWS, Corps, CDFG, Poway Subarea HCP Streambed USFWS, Corps, CDFG, Poway Subarea HCP Disturbed wetland USFWS, Corps, CDFG, Poway Subarea HCP Diegan coastal sage scrub USFWS, CDFG, Poway Subarea HCP Diegan coastal sage scrub – disturbed USFWS, CDFG, Poway Subarea HCP Southern mixed chaparral USFWS, CDFG, Poway Subarea HCP Southern mixed chaparral – disturbed USFWS, CDFG, Poway Subarea HCP Non-native grassland USFWS, CDFG, Poway Subarea HCP 4.2.1.1. SURVEY RESULTS Refer to Table 2 and Figures 5a through 8b for project effects on sensitive vegetation communities. 4.2.1.2. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION EFFORTS The project would directly impact minimal acres of natural vegetation community areas of special concern. Retaining walls are being considered where possible to reduce direct impacts to sensitive wetland and riparian habitat areas. Four alternatives (including the proposed project) are under analysis. These alternatives are described below. 4.2.1.3. PROJECT IMPACTS Alternative 1 (Conventional Roadway) Impacts Alternative 1 (Figures 5a and 5b) would permanently impact the following sensitive vegetation communities: southern willow riparian forest (0.3 acre), streambed (23.5 square feet), Diegan coastal sage scrub (0.10 acre), southern mixed chaparral (0.54 acre), disturbed southern mixed chaparral (0.21 acre), and non-native grassland (0.04 acre). Alternative 1 (Figures 5a and 5b) Figure 5a ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Alternative 1 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources % % Study Area Boundary Del Poniente Road Northcrest Lane Titan Way E l d e n G r o v e Willow Ranch Road DEV SMC DH DH SWRF NNG SMC-D EUC NNG EUC NNG EUC EUC DCSS DCSS SWRF EUC DCSS EUC SWRF SMC-D DCSS-D SWRF DCSS DH SWRF EUC DCSS SMC-D DEV DCSS DH DH DH NNV DH NNG NNG NNV DW SWS-D FWM DCSS-D DCSS Match to Figure 5b I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig5a_Alt_Impacts_1.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Habitats Wetlands Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Southern Willow Scrub - Disturbed Freshwater Marsh Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Uplands Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern Mixed Chaparral - Disturbed Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Non-native Vegetation Disturbed Habitat Developed Sensitive Resources %Orange-throated Whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi) Open Space Easement Alterntive 1 Impacts SWRF SWS SWS-D FWM DW DCSS DCSS-D SMC SMC-D NNG EUC NNV DH DEV h Study Area Boundary Mountain Road Es p o l a R o a d Staging Area Twin Peaks Road Ezra Lane Los Nietos Avenue Mountain Road Segundo Court Rio Court El Dolora Way Alando Place El Topo Drive Durhullen Drive Golden Sunset Lane Jerome Drive Evergreen Lane Espola Road DEV DH Rattlesnake Creek DEV DH DH NNG SWRF SB SWS EUC DW EUC DEV DW Match to Figure 5aHabitats Wetlands Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Streambed Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Uplands Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Disturbed Habitat Developed Sensitive Resources h Raptor Nest Open Space Easement Alterntive 1 Impacts SWRF SWS SB DW NNG EUC DH DEV Figure 5b ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Alternative 1 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive ResourcesI:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig5b_Alt_Impacts_1.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 25 December 2010 would temporarily impact the following sensitive vegetation communities: southern willow riparian forest (0.01 acre), disturbed wetland (0.02 acre), and non-native grassland (0.02 acre). Alternative 1 would also impact the following non-sensitive vegetation communities: disturbed habitat and eucalyptus woodland as well as developed land (Table 5). Included in the habitat impacts are those to federal (Corps) and state (CDFG) jurisdictional areas to include southern willow riparian forest and disturbed wetland as discussed in Section 5.4, below. Impacts to southern willow scrub, freshwater marsh, and disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, and agriculture have been avoided. Alternative 2 (Split Grade) Impacts Alternative 2 (Figures 6a and 6b) would have a small decrease in permanent impacts to southern mixed chaparral, and a slight increase in impacts to disturbed southern mixed chaparral compared to Alternative 1 (Table 5). Permanent and temporary impacts to all other sensitive vegetation communities are equivalent to Alternative 1; as a result, Alternative 2 would have the same impacts to southern willow riparian forest, disturbed wetland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, eucalyptus woodland, and disturbed habitat as Alternative 1 (Table 5). Impacts to southern willow riparian forest, streambed, disturbed wetland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, disturbed southern mixed chaparral, and non-native grassland would be significant due to these communities’ sensitivity. Alternative 3 (Westerly Alignment) Impacts Alternative 3 (Figures 7a and 7b) would have increased permanent impacts to southern willow riparian forest and Diegan coastal sage scrub, as compared to Alternative 1 (Table 5). Similar permanent impacts would occur to streambed, southern mixed chaparral (including disturbed), and non-native grassland compared to Alternative 1. Impacts to southern willow riparian forest, streambed, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral (including disturbed), and non- native grassland would be significant due to these communities’ sensitivity. Alternative 4 (Three-lane Proposed Project Impacts) Alternative 4 (Figures 8a and 8b) would have decreased permanent impacts to the following sensitive habitats compared to Alternative 1: southern willow riparian forest, streambed, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, and disturbed southern mixed chaparral (Table 5). Permanent impacts to non-native grassland would be the same as with Alternative 1. Impacts to southern willow riparian forest, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, disturbed southern mixed chaparral, and non-native grassland would be significant due to these communities’ sensitivity. Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 26 December 2010 No Build Alternative Impacts Under this alternative, there would be no impacts to any of the biological resources in the study area related to project implementation (Table 5). 4.2.1.4. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION Anticipated mitigation for each Espola Road alternative is listed in Table 6. Mitigation of adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources is based on the Poway Subarea HCP, although resource agencies may require additional mitigation. All mitigation would occur prior to or concurrent with impacts. Compensatory mitigation for upland vegetation community impacts to include Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral (including disturbed), and non-native grassland would be mitigated at Van Dam Peak located within the Van Dam Cornerstone property within the City’s Subarea HCP preserve area (Figure 9). The parcel was purchased by the City to protect the view and watershed of the mountain. The City parcel is located on the eastern side of Van Dam Peak near the western boundary of Poway in an area rated as very high habitat quality. Approximately 85 percent of the site supports Artemisia-dominated coastal sage scrub (18 to 20 acres) with most of the balance in chaparral. The adjoining coastal sage scrub is known to support approximately 16 coastal California gnatcatcher pairs. Orange-throated whiptails (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi) and San Diego horned lizards (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei) have also been observed there. Van Dam Peak represents a significant biological open space area, in part because it is relatively close to other open space areas and may be part of a “stepping stone linkage” in the Los Peñasquitos Canyon region and habitat areas west of the City. Coastal California gnatcatchers and other birds may disperse among Van Dam Peak, Twin Peaks, South Poway Planned Community, and the more continuous habitat areas in eastern Poway. Thus, although these parcels are partially isolated, they make a notable contribution to the preserve system because they support a significant population of gnatcatchers (and perhaps other target species) and occupy a strategic location in the regional preserve system (Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. [Ogden] 1996). Compensatory mitigation for impacts to southern willow riparian forest and streambed would be mitigated through the purchase of wetland credits at the Rancho Jamul Mitigation Bank or another location approved by the City and resource agencies. Southern willow riparian forest would be replaced at a 3:1 ratio (Table 6). Figure 6a ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Alternative 2 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources % % Study Area Boundary Del Poniente Road Northcrest Lane Titan Way E l d e n G r o v e Willow Ranch Road DEV SMC DH DH SWRF NNG SMC-D EUC NNG EUC NNG EUC EUC DCSS DCSS SWRF EUC DCSS EUC SWRF SMC-D DCSS-D SWRF DCSS DH SWRF EUC DCSS SMC-D DEV DCSS DH DH DH NNV DH NNG NNG NNV DW SWS-D FWM DCSS-D DCSS Match to Figure 6b I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig6a_Alt_Impacts_2.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Habitats Wetlands Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Southern Willow Scrub - Disturbed Freshwater Marsh Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Uplands Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern Mixed Chaparral - Disturbed Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Non-native Vegetation Disturbed Habitat Developed Sensitive Resources %Orange-throated Whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi) Open Space Easement Alterntive 2 Impacts SWRF SWS SWS-D FWM DW DCSS DCSS-D SMC SMC-D NNG EUC NNV DH DEV h Study Area Boundary Mountain Road Es p o l a R o a d Staging Area Twin Peaks Road Ezra Lane Los Nietos Avenue Mountain Road Segundo Court Rio Court El Dolora Way Alando Place El Topo Drive Durhullen Drive Golden Sunset Lane Jerome Drive Evergreen Lane Espola Road DEV DH Rattlesnake Creek DEV DH DH NNG SWRF SB SWS EUC DW EUC DEV DW Match to Figure 6aHabitats Wetlands Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Streambed Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Uplands Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Disturbed Habitat Developed Sensitive Resources h Raptor Nest Open Space Easement Alterntive 2 Impacts SWRF SWS SB DW NNG EUC DH DEV Figure 6b ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Alternative 2 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive ResourcesI:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig6b_Alt_Impacts_2.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Figure 7a ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Alternative 3 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources % % Study Area Boundary Del Poniente Road Northcrest Lane Titan Way E l d e n G r o v e Willow Ranch Road DEV SMC DH DH SWRF NNG SMC-D EUC NNG EUC NNG EUC EUC DCSS DCSS SWRF EUC DCSS EUC SWRF SMC-D DCSS-D SWRF DCSS DH SWRF EUC DCSS SMC-D DEV DCSS DH DH DH NNV DH NNG NNG NNV DW SWS-D FWM DCSS-D DCSS Match to Figure 7b I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig7a_Alt_Impacts_3.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Habitats Wetlands Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Southern Willow Scrub - Disturbed Freshwater Marsh Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Uplands Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern Mixed Chaparral - Disturbed Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Non-native Vegetation Disturbed Habitat Developed Sensitive Resources %Orange-throated Whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi) Open Space Easement Alterntive 3 Impacts SWRF SWS SWS-D FWM DW DCSS DCSS-D SMC SMC-D NNG EUC NNV DH DEV h Study Area Boundary Mountain Road Es p o l a R o a d Staging Area Twin Peaks Road Ezra Lane Los Nietos Avenue Mountain Road Segundo Court Rio Court El Dolora Way Alando Place El Topo Drive Durhullen Drive Golden Sunset Lane Jerome Drive Evergreen Lane Espola Road DEV DH Rattlesnake Creek DEV DH DH NNG SWRF SB SWS EUC DW EUC DEV DW Match to Figure 7aHabitats Wetlands Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Streambed Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Uplands Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Disturbed Habitat Developed Sensitive Resources h Raptor Nest Open Space Easement Alterntive 3 Impacts SWRF SWS SB DW NNG EUC DH DEV Figure 7b ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Alternative 3 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive ResourcesI:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig7b_Alt_Impacts_3.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Figure 8a ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Alternative 4 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive Resources % % Study Area Boundary Del Poniente Road Northcrest Lane Titan Way E l d e n G r o v e Willow Ranch Road DEV SMC DH DH SWRF NNG SMC-D EUC NNG EUC NNG EUC EUC DCSS DCSS SWRF EUC DCSS EUC SWRF SMC-D DCSS-D SWRF DCSS DH SWRF EUC DCSS SMC-D DEV DCSS DH DH DH NNV DH NNG NNG NNV DW SWS-D FWM DCSS-D DCSS Match to Figure 8b I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig8a_Alt_Impacts_4.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Habitats Wetlands Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Southern Willow Scrub - Disturbed Freshwater Marsh Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Uplands Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern Mixed Chaparral - Disturbed Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Non-native Vegetation Disturbed Habitat Developed Sensitive Resources %Orange-throated Whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi) Open Space Easement Alterntive 4 Impacts SWRF SWS SWS-D FWM DW DCSS DCSS-D SMC SMC-D NNG EUC NNV DH DEV h Study Area Boundary Mountain Road Es p o l a R o a d Staging Area Twin Peaks Road Ezra Lane Los Nietos Avenue Mountain Road Segundo Court Rio Court El Dolora Way Alando Place El Topo Drive Durhullen Drive Golden Sunset Lane Jerome Drive Evergreen Lane Espola Road DEV DH Rattlesnake Creek DEV DH DH NNG SWRF SB SWS EUC DW EUC DEV DW Match to Figure 8aHabitats Wetlands Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Streambed Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Uplands Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Disturbed Habitat Developed Sensitive Resources h Raptor Nest Open Space Easement SWRF SWS SB DW NNG EUC DH DEV Figure 8b ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Alternative 4 Impacts to Vegetation and Sensitive ResourcesI:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig8b_Alt_Impacts_4.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Up l a n d M i t i g a t i o n S i t e CITY OF POWAY COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF POWAY CITY OF SAN DIEGO Poway Road Community Road Midland Road Espola Road P o w ay R o ad C a m in o d el N orte Te d Williams Pa r k w a y Twin Peaks Road Pr o j e c t S t u d y A r e a Interstate 15 C a r m el M ountain Road Rattlesnake Creek Poway Creek Los P e nasquito s C a ny o n Creek VA N D A M CO R N E R S T O N E ES P O L A R O A D I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T Pr o p o s e d U p l a n d M i t i g a t i o n S i t e Figure 9 I: \ G i s \ B \ B A H - 0 1 E s p o l a R d \ M a p \ B T R \ F i g 9 _ M i t i g a t i o n S i t e. m x d - R K Jo b N o : B A H - 0 1 D a t e : 1 2 / 1 5 / 1 0 3, 0 0 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 1, 5 0 0 Fe e t Ch a p t e r 4 R e s u l t s : B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s , D i s c u s s i o n o f I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n Es p o l a R o a d I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t B i o l o g i c a l T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t 27 De c e m b e r 2 0 1 0 Ta b l e 5 IM P A C T S T O V E G E T A T I O N C O MM U N I T I E S B Y A L T E R N A T I V E (a c r e [ s ] ) VE G E T A T I O N CO M M U N I T Y TO T A L ON SI T E AL T E R N A T I V E 1 2 3 4 ( P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t ) No Build Pe r m a n e n t T e m p o r a r y P e r m a n e n t T e m p o r a r y P e r m a n e n t T e m p o r a r y P e r m a n e n t T e m p o r a r y We t l a n d / R i p a r i a n – H i g h S e n s i t i v i t y So u t h e r n w i l l o w r i p a r i a n f o r e s t 1 . 9 8 0 . 0 6 0. 0 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 So u t h e r n w i l l o w s c r u b 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 So u t h e r n w i l l o w s c r u b – d i s t u r be d 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Fr e s h w a t e r m a r s h 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 St r e a m b e d 0 . 0 5 < 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 < 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 < 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Di s t u r b e d w e t l a n d 0 . 1 9 0 . 00 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Su b t o t a l 2 . 2 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 00 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Up l a n d – M o d e r a t e S e n s i t i v i t y Di e g a n c o a s t a l s a g e s c r u b 0 . 9 3 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 0. 1 0 0 . 0 0 0. 2 1 0 . 0 0 0. 0 4 0 . 0 0 0.00 Di e g a n c o a s t a l s a g e s c r u b – d i s t u r b e d 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0. 0 0 0.000.00 Su b t o t a l 1. 1 6 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 0. 1 0 0 . 0 0 0. 2 1 0 . 0 0 0. 0 4 0 . 0 0 0.00 Up l a n d – L o w S e n s i t i v i t y So u t h e r n m i x e d c h a p a r r a l 2 . 4 6 0 . 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 So u t h e r n m i x e d c h a p a r r a l – d i s t u r be d 1 . 1 1 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 No n - n a t i v e g r a s s l a n d 1 . 6 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 11 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Su b t o t a l 5. 1 7 0 . 8 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 7 4 0 . 0 0 0. 8 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 3 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ot h e r Eu c a l y p t u s w o o d l a n d 2. 1 2 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 0. 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 No n - n a t i v e v e g e t a t i o n 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Di s t u r b e d 4 . 1 6 0 . 4 2 2 . 3 2 0 . 4 4 2 . 32 0 . 5 8 2 . 3 2 0 . 2 5 2 . 3 2 0 . 0 0 De v e l o p e d 6 8 . 3 9 1 3 . 8 0 0 . 0 3 1 4 . 1 4 0 . 03 1 3 . 8 2 0 . 0 3 1 1 . 6 8 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 Su b t o t a l 74 . 7 3 1 4 . 4 4 2 . 3 5 1 4 . 8 1 2 . 3 5 14 . 6 5 2 . 3 5 1 1 . 9 8 2 . 3 5 0 . 0 0 TO T A L 8 3 . 3 6 1 5 . 4 6 2 . 3 5 1 5 . 7 1 2 . 3 5 1 5 . 8 5 2 . 3 5 1 2 . 3 9 2 . 3 5 0 . 0 0 1 Im p a c t e q u a l s 2 3 . 5 s q u a r e f e e t 2 Im p a c t e q u a l s 8 6 . 2 s q u a r e f e e t Ch a p t e r 4 R e s u l t s : B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s , D i s c u s s i o n o f I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n Es p o l a R o a d I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t B i o l o g i c a l T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t 28 De c e m b e r 2 0 1 0 Ta b l e 6 PR O P O S E D M I T I G A T I O N T O T A L S A N D M I T I G A T I O N S I T E L O C A T I O N S F O R IM P A C T S T O S E N S I T I V E H A B I T A T S (acre[s]) Ve g e t a t i o n C o m m u n i t y Im p a c t e d Mi t i g a t i o n Ra t i o a n d Ty p e 1 Mi t i g a t i o n Lo c a t i o n Al t e r n a t i v e 1 A l t e r n a t i v e 2 Al t e r n a t i v e 3 Alternative 4 (Proposed Project) Im p a c t M i t i g a t i o n I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n We t l a n d / R i p a r i a n H a b i t a t s So u t h e r n w i l l o w r i p a r i a n fo r e s t 3: 1 i n - k i n d 2 R a n c h o J a m u l 0 . 0 6 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 6 0 . 1 8 0 . 1 3 0 . 3 9 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 6 St r e a m b e d 1 : 1 o u t - o f - k i n d 2 R a n c h o J a m u l < 0 . 0 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 3 < 0 . 0 0 3 0.00 0.00 Na t i v e a n d N a t u r a l i z e d U p l a n d H a b i t a t s Di e g a n c o a s t a l s a g e s c r u b 2: 1 i n - k i n d 4 Va n D a m P e a k 0 . 1 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 1 0 0 . 2 0 0 . 2 1 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 8 So u t h e r n m i x e d c h a p a r r a l 1 : 1 5 i n - k i n d 6 Va n D a m P e a k 0 . 5 4 0 . 5 4 0 . 4 3 0 . 4 3 0 . 5 4 0 . 5 4 0 . 1 9 0 . 1 9 So u t h e r n m i x e d c h a p a r r a l – di s t u r b e d 1: 1 5 i n - k i n d 6 Va n D a m P e a k 0 . 2 1 0 . 2 1 0 . 2 2 0 . 2 2 0 . 2 1 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 No n - n a t i v e g r a s s l a n d 1 : 1 o u t - o f - k i n d 4 Va n D a m P e a k 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 To t a l 1 . 0 2 1 . 2 4 0 . 9 2 1 . 1 4 1 . 2 0 1 . 6 7 0 . 4 1 0 . 4 9 1 Ba s e d o n t h e P o w a y S u b a r e a H C P a n d m a y be i n c r e a s e d b y t h e r e s o u r c e a g e n c i e s 2 Re p l a c e m e n t w i t h s o u t h e r n w i l l o w r i p a r i a n f o r e s t 3 I m p a c t a n d m i t i g a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t e q u a l s 2 3 . 5 s q u a r e f e e t 4 Re p l a c e m e n t w i t h D i e g a n c o a s t a l s a g e s c r u b 5 Re p l a c e m e n t w i t h s o u t he r n m i x e d c h a p a r r a l 6 A j u r i s d i c t i o n m a y r e q u i r e m i t i g a t i o n o r l e v y o f a n i n - l i e u m i t i g at i o n f e e f o r i m p a c t s i f i t f i n d s t h a t s u c h a c t i o n s a r e n e c e s s ar y t o m e e t M S C P o r P o w a y S u b a r ea H C P g o a l s . W h e n l i s t e d s p e c i e s oc c u r , r e p l a c e m e n t r a t i o b e c o m e s 2 : 1 . Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 29 December 2010 4.2.1.5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Ten reasonably foreseeable projects or recently constructed projects in relative proximity (within the City) of the study area were evaluated for cumulative impacts in association with the Espola Road Improvement project. Each of the projects listed below would be subject to their own environmental review and mitigation:  Tannin Drive Street Improvement – 0.46 acre of coastal sage scrub  Boca Raton Reservoir Storage Upgrade – 0.19 acre of coastal sage scrub  Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Parking Lot – 8.1 acre of non-native grassland  Fire Station III – 1.0 acre of non-native grassland; 1.0 acre of coastal sage scrub  Community Road Widening – less than 1.0 acre of riparian habitat  Malone’s Ranch – 2.0 acres of non-native grassland  Liguori Ranch – non-native grassland  Cheng Development – 8.0 acres of coastal sage scrub  Hillside Village Affordable Housing – 8.0 acres of non-native grassland  Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse – coastal sage scrub All of the projects listed above have or would provide mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed development. As a result, impacts to vegetation communities would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the Espola Road Improvement project. 4.3. Special Status Plant Species A focused rare plant survey was conducted on May 5, 2003 (Table 1). The study area was surveyed for sensitive plants with potential to occur within the study area (Table 3). No sensitive plants were observed in any suitable habitat areas identified during each of the surveys conducted. 4.3.1. Discussion of Special Status Plant Species The USFWS identified San Diego thorn-mint as potentially occurring in the study area in their letter dated April 28, 2003. A spring survey was conducted on May 5, 2003 (Table 1) to locate any potential populations; none was observed. 4.3.1.1. SURVEY RESULTS No sensitive plant species occur within the study area. A list of sensitive plant species with the potential to occur are listed in Table 3. Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 30 December 2010 4.3.1.2. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION EFFORTS As no sensitive plant species were located within the study area, no avoidance or minimization efforts would be necessary. 4.3.1.3. PROJECT IMPACTS No impacts to sensitive plant species would occur as a result of construction and operation of the proposed project. 4.3.1.4. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION As no sensitive plant species were located within the study area, no compensatory mitigation would be required. 4.3.1.5. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS As no sensitive plant species were located within the study area, no cumulative effects would occur. 4.4. Special Status Animal Species Occurrences 4.4.1. Discussion of Special Status Animal Species 4.4.1.1. SURVEY RESULTS One sensitive animal species was observed within the study area: orange-throated whiptail, a state species of special concern covered under the Poway Subarea HCP. This species prefers washes and other sandy areas with patches of brush and rocks for cover. This species is typically found in low elevation coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and valley-foothill hardwood forests. Two individuals were observed in Diegan coastal sage scrub within the study area on the west side of Espola Road just south of Del Poniente Road. In addition, an unoccupied raptor nest was detected within a eucalyptus tree located in the non-native grassland habitat at the southeastern study area boundary, near Rattlesnake Creek. 4.4.1.2. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION EFFORTS The proposed project would directly impact minimal acres of natural community areas of special concern. Retaining walls are being considered where possible to reduce direct impacts to sensitive wetland and riparian habitat areas. In addition, four alternatives have been analyzed. Vegetation community impacts of these alternatives are described in Section 4.2.1.3. Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 31 December 2010 Avoidance of Potential Significant Impacts to Raptor and Migratory Bird Nests Raptors and migratory birds have the potential to nest in vegetation within the project limits, including eucalyptus and other non-native woodlands. Potential impacts to active nests would be avoided by either (1) removal of vegetation including eucalyptus and other non-native trees outside of the breeding season for most migratory birds (February 15 through August 31) or (2) surveys by a qualified biologist prior to removal to ensure that no raptors or migratory birds are nesting. If nesting birds are identified, the tree(s) would remain in place until all chicks are fledged. Construction activities would be precluded within 300 feet of any active raptor nest. 4.4.1.3. PROJECT IMPACTS See discussion in Section 4.2.1.3 and Table 5 for a complete account of project impacts to coastal sage scrub (habitat for the orange-throated whiptail). 4.4.1.4. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION Anticipated mitigation for each Espola Road alternative is listed in Table 6. Mitigation of adverse impacts to habitat for the orange-throated whiptail (Diegan coastal sage scrub) is based on the Poway Subarea HCP. All mitigation would occur through preservation of Diegan coastal sage scrub at Van Dam Peak prior to or concurrent with project impacts. See Section 4.2.1.4 for a complete description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site for Diegan coastal sage scrub impacts. 4.4.1.5. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS All of the projects listed in Section 4.2.1.5 have or would provide mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed development. As a result, impacts to sensitive animal species and their habitats would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the Espola Road Improvement project. 4.5. Jurisdictional Areas A jurisdictional delineation was conducted in 2002 and updated in 2008. Federal and state jurisdictional habitats occur in the drainages and low-lying areas within the study area (Figures 10a through 10d). The delineation also revealed several drainage features that are not regarded as jurisdictional. These consist of trapezoidal channels usually lined with concrete. They occur in the southern part of the study area, primarily along the eastern side of Espola Road. 4.5.1. Discussion of Natural Communities Federal jurisdictional areas in the study area include wetlands (southern willow riparian forest, freshwater marsh, and disturbed wetlands) and non-wetland Waters of the U.S. State Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 32 December 2010 jurisdictional areas include the above federal jurisdictional areas, as well as southern willow scrub and additional areas of southern willow riparian forest that are beyond the limits of federal jurisdiction. An overview of the definitions of federal and state jurisdictional areas is presented in Appendices D and E, respectively. 4.5.1.1. SURVEY RESULTS Refer to Table 7 and Figures 10a through10d for project effects on jurisdictional areas. Table 7 FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONAL AREAS AND IMPACTS (acre[s]) VEGETATION TYPE/ HABITAT ON-SITE TOTALS IMPACTS Corps CDFG Corps CDFG Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Southern willow riparian forest 0.411.980.000.000.06 0.00 Freshwater marsh 0.010.010.000.000.00 0.00 Southern willow scrub 0.000.050.000.000.00 0.00 Southern willow scrub - disturbed 0.010.020.000.000.00 0.00 Disturbed wetland 0.020.190.000.000.00 0.00 Drainage/Streambed 0.140.09<0.00 1 0.000.00 2 0.00 Alternative 1 Total 0.592.34 <0.00 1 0.000.06 0.00 Southern willow riparian forest 0.411.980.000.00 0.06 0.00 Freshwater marsh 0.010.010.000.000.00 0.00 Southern willow scrub 0.000.050.000.000.00 0.00 Southern willow scrub - disturbed 0.010.020.000.000.00 0.00 Disturbed wetland 0.020.190.000.000.00 0.00 Drainage/Streambed 0.140.09<0.00 1 0.000.00 2 0.00 Alternative 2 Total 0.592.34<0.00 1 0.000.06 0.00 Southern willow riparian forest 0.411.980.000.000.13 0.00 Freshwater marsh 0.010.010.000.000.00 0.00 Southern willow scrub 0.000.050.000.000.00 0.00 Southern willow scrub - disturbed 0.010.020.000.000.00 0.00 Disturbed wetland 0.020.190.000.000.00 0.00 Drainage/Streambed 0.140.09<0.00 1 0.00<0.00 2 0.00 Alternative 3 Total 0.592.34<0.00 1 0.000.13 0.00 Southern willow riparian forest 0.411.980.000.000.02 0.00 Freshwater marsh 0.010.010.000.000.00 0.00 Southern willow scrub 0.000.050.000.000.00 0.00 Southern willow scrub - disturbed 0.010.020.000.000.00 0.00 Disturbed wetland 0.020.190.000.000.00 0.00 Drainage/Streambed 0.140.090.000.000.00 0.00 Alternative 4 Total 0.592.340.000.000.02 0.00 1 Impact equals 23.5 square feet 2 Impact equals 39.9 square feet 4.5.1.2. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION EFFORTS The proposed project would directly impact minimal acres of jurisdictional areas. Retaining walls are being considered where possible to reduce direct impacts to jurisdictional areas. In # # ## # # #5 #6 #7#8 Hi g h V all ey Ro a d Study Area Boundary 6' 3' 4' 4' #A-2 #A-3 SWRF SWS-D FWM Del Poniente Road H i g h V a ll e y R o a d E s p o l a R o a d Northcrest Lane Key Map ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Corps Jurisdictional Areas Figure 10a Freshwater Marsh Southern Willow Riparian Forest Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. (width shown in feet) FWM SWRF Sample Points Corps Jurisdictional Wetlands SWS-D Southern Willow Scrub - Disturbed Note: This map is based on site conditions as observed at the time of our field investigations. The information presented herein was developed by visual inspection and/or aerial photograph interpretation. Note that both site conditions and applicable regulatory requirements may change. I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig10a_Corps.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Detail Area ##1 # # ## # #1 #3 #2 Es p o l a R o a d #4 Non-wetland WUS DW DW 6' 2' #A-1 Staging Area Es p o l a R o a d Segundo Court Rio Court Los Nietos Avenue Alando Place El Dolora Way Roberto Rio R oad Mountain Road Kalapana Street Twin Peaks Road Ezra Lane Rattlesnake Creek Detail Area Key Map Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. (width shown in feet) DW Sample Points Corps Jurisdictional Wetlands ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Corps Jurisdictional Areas Figure 10b Note: This map is based on site conditions as observed at the time of our field investigations. The information presented herein was developed by visual inspection and/or aerial photograph interpretation. Note that both site conditions and applicable regulatory requirements may change. I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig10b_Corps.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet ##1 # # ## # # #5 #6 #7#8 Study Area Boundary 5' 6' 6' #A-2 #A-3 Del Poniente Road Via Molinero E s p o l a R o a d H i g h V a ll e y R o a d NorthcrestLane oad SWRF SWRF SWRF SWRF SWRF DW SWS-D FWM Key Map Freshwater Marsh Southern Willow Riparian Forest Streambed (width shown in feet) FWM SWRF Sample Points CDFG Jurisdictional Wetlands SWS-D Southern Willow Scrub - Disturbed DW Disturbed Wetland ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Figure 10c I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig10c_CDFG.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet Note: This map is based on site conditions as observed at the time of our field investigations. The information presented herein was developed by visual inspection and/or aerial photograph interpretation. Note that both site conditions and applicable regulatory requirements may change. Detail Area ##1 # # ## # #1 #3 #2 Ezra Lane #4 Rattlesnake Creek Streambed 3' Staging Area #A-1 SWRF DW SWS DW DW Ka lapana Street Twin Peaks Road Ro b e r t o R i o R o a d Rio Court Segundo Court Los Nietos Avenue Es p o l a R o a d El Dolora Way Alando Place Mountain Road Key Map Disturbed Wetland Streambed (width shown in feet) DW Sample Points CDFG Jurisdictional Wetlands SWS Southern Willow Scrub Southern Willow Riparian ForestSWRF Detail Area ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Figure 10d Note: This map is based on site conditions as observed at the time of our field investigations. The information presented herein was developed by visual inspection and/or aerial photograph interpretation. Note that both site conditions and applicable regulatory requirements may change. I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\BTR\Fig10d_CDFG.mxd -RK Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/15/10 3000300150 Feet ##1 Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 33 December 2010 addition, as noted above, four alternatives have been analyzed. The impacts of these alternatives are described below. 4.5.1.3. PROJECT IMPACTS Alternative 1 (Conventional Roadway) Impacts Alternative 1 would not result in any permanent impacts to wetlands under Corps jurisdiction, but would result in permanent impacts to 23.5 square feet of non-wetland Waters of the U.S (drainage; Table 7). Permanent impacts would occur to 0.06 acre of southern willow riparian forest and 39.9 square feet of streambed under CDFG jurisdiction. No temporary impacts to Corps or CDFG jurisdictional areas would occur upon implementation of Alternative 1. A Nationwide Permit 14 (Linear Transportation Crossings) would be required from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required from the CDFG for impacts to streambed. Alternative 2 (Split Grade) Impacts Alternative 2 would result in permanent impacts to Corps and CDFG jurisdictional area similar to those of Alternative 1 (Table 7). In addition, no temporary impacts to Corps or CDFG jurisdictional areas would occur under Alternative 2. Corps and CDFG permitting requirements would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 (Westerly Alignment) Impacts Alternative 3 would result in permanent impacts to non-wetland Waters of the U.S (drainage) similar to those of Alternative 1 (Table 7). Alternative 3 would result in permanent impacts to 0.13 acre of CDFG jurisdictional southern willow riparian forest and 39.9 square feet of streambed (Table 7). No temporary impacts to Corps or CDFG jurisdictional areas would occur under Alternative 3. Corps and CDFG permitting requirements would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 4 (Three-lane Proposed Project) Impacts Alternative 4 would not result in any permanent or temporary impacts to wetlands or non-wetland Waters of the U.S. (drainage) under Corps jurisdiction or temporary impacts to CDFG jurisdictional areas. Alternative 4 would result in permanent impacts to 0.02 acre of CDFG jurisdictional southern willow riparian forest (Table 7). CDFG permitting requirements would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 34 December 2010 No Build Alternative Impacts Under this alternative, there would be no impacts to any jurisdictional areas within the study area related to project implementation (Table 7). 4.5.1.4. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION Anticipated mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional areas (e.g., southern willow riparian forest and drainage/streambed) for each Espola Road alternative is included in mitigation for these same habitats as shown in Table 6. Mitigation of adverse impacts to jurisdictional areas is based on the Poway Subarea HCP, although resource agencies may require additional mitigation. All mitigation would occur prior to or concurrent with impacts. Compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional impacts would be mitigated through purchase of wetland credits at the Rancho Jamul Mitigation Bank or another bank acceptable to the City and resource agencies. Southern willow riparian forest would be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio (Table 6). 4.5.1.5. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS A discussion of cumulative effects to riparian areas, which included jurisdictional areas, can be found in Section 4.2.1.5, above. All of the projects listed above have or would provide mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed project. As a result, effects on jurisdictional areas would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the Espola Road Improvement project. Chapter 5 Results: Permits and Technical Studies for Special Laws or Conditions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 35 December 2010 Chapter 5. Results: Permits and Technical Studies for Special Laws or Conditions 5.1. Regulatory Requirements Biological resources within the study area are subject to regulatory administration by the federal government, State of California, and City. The federal government administers non-marine plant and wildlife related issues through the USFWS, while Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, are administered by the Corps. California law relating to wetland, water-related, and wildlife issues is administered by CDFG. The City is the lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review process, in accordance with state law and local ordinances. 5.1.1. Federal If adverse impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered species were to be assessed, formal consultation would occur with the USFWS, culminating in issuance of a biological opinion. It should be noted that no federally listed species have been observed within the study area; therefore, formal consultation with the USFWS has not been required. 5.1.2. State of California The State CEQA Guidelines have been developed by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to direction by the State Legislature. The State CEQA Guidelines consist of a set of mandatory and/or advisory regulations intended to provide guidance and interpretation for implementing the CEQA Statutes. The Environmental Checklist Form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines lists the following as potential CEQA issues: substantial adverse effects to a candidate, sensitive, or special status species of animal or plant; substantial adverse effects to riparian, wetland, or other sensitive natural communities; substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; and conflict with local policies or ordinances or the provisions of an adopted HCP. Under most circumstances, significant impacts under CEQA are assessed to any impact to wildlife species listed by federal or state agencies as threatened or endangered. Significant impacts to listed species could be direct (e.g., the loss of a species) or indirect (e.g., affecting the species’ habitat), with impacts to rare or uncommon (sensitive) habitats also considered adverse Chapter 5 Results: Permits and Technical Studies for Special Laws or Conditions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 36 December 2010 based on the level of sensitivity and magnitude of the projected impact. Mitigation is proposed for any impact assessed as significant under CEQA. 5.1.3. City of Poway The City uses Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines to determine adverse impacts with regard to biological issues. The City follows its own Subarea HCP for regulatory guidance for projects within City limits. The Poway Subarea HCP identifies sensitive biological resources and provides mitigation guidelines for impacts to those resources. The Poway Subarea HCP identifies both Biological Core and Linkage Areas and Focused Planning Areas (FPAs). According to the Poway Subarea HCP, mitigation is required for impacts to wetland/riparian areas. Specifically, the Poway Subarea HCP requires that impacts to wetlands be avoided or minimized where alternatives exist. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by replacement or enhancement at a minimum ratio of 3:1 for woodland types and 2:1 for shrub- dominated types. Mitigation for disturbed wetlands would generally be mitigated in-kind at no less than 1:1 ratio as determined on a case-by-case basis (Table 6). According to the Poway Subarea HCP, mitigation is required for impacts to coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and mixed sage scrub/chaparral and disturbed variations of these communities (Table 6). Non-native grassland also is considered sensitive and requires mitigation for impacts. These mitigation requirements apply to removal of natural vegetation or wildlife habitat within the City and subject to the Poway Subarea HCP, whether inside or outside of the FPA. 5.2. Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary The federal ESA, administered by the USFWS, provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) that are identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction. Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered a ‘take’ under the ESA. Section 9(a) of the ESA defines take as: “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” ‘Harm’ and ‘harass’ are further defined in federal regulations and case law to include actions that adversely impair or disrupt a listed species’ behavioral patterns. Sections 10(a) and 7 of the federal ESA regulate actions that could jeopardize endangered or threatened species. Section 10(a) allows issuance of permits for ‘incidental’ take of endangered or threatened species. The term ‘incidental’ applies if the taking of a listed species is incidental to and not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity. An HCP, demonstrating how the taking would be minimized and what steps taken would ensure the species’ survival, must be submitted for issuance of Section 10(a) permits. Section 7 describes a process of federal interagency Chapter 5 Results: Permits and Technical Studies for Special Laws or Conditions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 37 December 2010 consultation for use when federal actions would adversely affect listed species. A biological assessment is required for any major construction activity if it would affect listed species. In this case, take can be authorized via a letter of biological opinion, issued by the USFWS for non- marine related listed species issues. No significant impacts would occur to any federal listed species due to implementation of any of the alternatives. A formal Section 7 consultation would not be required. 5.3. California Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary Primary environmental legislation through the State of California is found in CEQA and its implementing guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines), which require projects that potentially have significant effects on the environment to be submitted for environmental review. Significant impacts to the environment are typically mitigated through the environmental review process, in accordance with existing laws and regulations. The California Fish and Game Code (Section 1602) regulates riparian and wetland habitats by requiring review and approval of impacts through issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement, which is required prior to impacts to any riparian habitat, including disturbed wetland. The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) enacted a process by which plants are listed as rare or endangered. NPPA regulates collection, transport, and commerce in plants that are listed. The California ESA followed and is similar to the NPPA in that it provides a process by which sensitive species are listed. It is a process by which plants and animals can be recognized as being endangered or threatened with extinction. (Plants listed as rare under the NPPA were designated threatened under the California ESA.) The California ESA Section 4(d) special rule for interim take of coastal California gnatcatchers was promulgated in response to California's NCCP Act of 1991 and the initiation of NCCP Plans targeting coastal sage scrub, the habitat of the gnatcatcher. The NCCP Act authorized the state to engage in regional multiple species conservation planning with local jurisdictions and property owners. NCCP Plans focus on conserving natural communities in linked regional preserve systems that protect target and other species that are either listed under the federal or state ESAs or which could become listed if populations continue to decline. Approval of NCCP subarea plans provides a jurisdiction with “take authorization” for all species covered by the plan and institutes mitigation measures that conform to the ESAs which are intended to guarantee the survival of the covered species in the areas covered by the plan. Chapter 5 Results: Permits and Technical Studies for Special Laws or Conditions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 38 December 2010 All projects within an NCCP-enrolled jurisdiction that occur in low-value habitat, as well as projects in medium-value habitat located outside identified preserve planning areas that cause the loss of less than 1.0 acre of coastal sage scrub habitat not occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher and would not otherwise preclude design of the reserve system, are considered de minimis and are exempt from the 4(d) rule approval process. Mitigation for de minimis impacts, however, is still required to conform with all underlying resource protection requirements of the local jurisdiction and/or the NCCP guidelines (USFWS and CDFG 1995). 5.4. Wetlands and Other Waters Coordination Summary Federal wetland regulation (non-marine issues) is guided by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the CWA. The Rivers and Harbors Act deals primarily with discharges into navigable waters, while the purpose of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all Waters of the U.S. Permitting for projects filling Waters of the U.S. is administered by the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA. Two permitting options are available: individual and nationwide permits. Individual permits are used based primarily on the type of project and area of fill. Individual permits typically result in longer processing because they include a public comment period. Nationwide permits are pre-approved if a project meets standard conditions, although the Corps often adds special conditions. Due to the limited extent and nature of the jurisdictional resources in the study area, it is currently assumed that a nationwide permit would be processed for the proposed project. The proposed project also would need to obtain State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Section 401 Certification prior to issuance of any Section 404 permit. 5.5. City of Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan The Poway Subarea HCP (Ogden 1996) addresses resource planning issues and provides incidental take authority for certain State and federal listed species and their habitats. The Poway Subarea HCP provides take authority for projects such as the Paguay Redevelopment Plan, City’s Capital Improvement Program, Scripps Poway Parkway Extension, and other public projects planned by the City or potentially proposed in the future. The proposed project is covered by the Poway Subarea HCP as a public project under “Projects Outside Mitigation Area.” As a result, the Espola Road Improvement project is consistent with the Poway Subarea HCP. As such, obtaining a take permit through the Section 10(a) process is not appropriate for the proposed project. In addition, as no significant impacts would occur to any state or federal listed species upon implementation of any of the alternatives, no listed species issues would occur. Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern willow riparian forest would likely occur as a result of the proposed project. Both of these habitats are considered sensitive. Diegan coastal Chapter 5 Results: Permits and Technical Studies for Special Laws or Conditions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 39 December 2010 sage scrub is known to be habitat for the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher. As a result, any take of habitat is regulated by the USFWS under the federal ESA. Southern willow riparian forest is typically associated with rivers, lakes, and streams that are regulated by the Corps, SWRCB, and CDFG. It is known habitat for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. The MSCP, which includes Poway, is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional planning program designed to develop an ecosystem preserve within the City of San Diego and nearby areas, including Poway. A preserve system has been designated an MHPA. Because a highly developed setting is present, the Espola Road Improvement project is not located within any MHPA. The City currently administers the CEQA biological regulations through the Poway Subarea HCP implementing guidelines and the City’s Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the City has implemented a tree replacement policy that requires native trees (oaks and sycamores) to be replaced at a 1:1 ratio where the replacement tree is up to a 72-inch box size. If the native tree removed exceeds that size, two 48-inch box specimens would be substituted. Mitigation would be required for the removal of any native trees (Chapter 12.32, Section II of the City’s Municipal Code, Subsection 130, Replacement of Trees; City 2002). 5.6. Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act Most bird species are protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). This law is generally protective of migratory birds but does not actually stipulate the type of protection required. In common practice, the MBTA is used to place restrictions on disturbances allowed near active raptor nests during the nesting season (generally February through August). Commonly, construction activities are precluded within 300 feet of an active raptor nest. Chapter 6 References Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 40 December 2010 Chapter 6. References Atwood, J.L. 1992. A maximum estimate of the California Gnatcatcher’s population size in the United States. Western Birds 23 (1): 1-9. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Unpublished technical report, Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. 79 pp. Bowman, R.H. 1973. Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California, Part I. U.S. Department of Agriculture. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1997. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Rare Find 2. Updated December 2002. 1965. California fish and wildlife plan. The Resources Agency Volume 3(c): 908. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2005. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Internet searchable database Version 6-05d. Available at: http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi- bin/inv/inventory.cgi. September 28. City of Poway (City). 2002. Municipal Code. Available at: http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/poway. Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. (CBA). 1991. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Poway General Plan Update. SCH No. 91051027. November. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. plus Appendices A through D. Goldwasser, S. 1981. Habitat Requirements of the Least Bell's Vireo. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Project E-W-4. Job Progress Report, Job IV-38.1 (July 1981). 16 pp. Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1400 pp. Holland R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 156 pp. Chapter 6 References Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 41 December 2010 Jackson, L. 1985. Ecological origins of California's Mediterranean grasses. Journal of Biogeography 12: 349-361. Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Revised edition. Baltimore, MD. Murphy, D.D. 1990. A report on the California butterflies listed as candidates for endangered status by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Draft report for California Department of Fish and Game, Contract No. C-1755, 60 pp. Oberbauer, T. 1979. Distribution and dynamics of San Diego County grasslands. Unpublished M.A. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Oberbauer, T. and J. Vanderwier. 1991. The vegetation and geologic substrate association and its effect on development in San Diego County. Environmental perils, San Diego region. Eds. P.L. Abbott and W.J. Elliott. San Diego Association of Geologists. October 20. pp. 203-212. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. (Ogden). 1996. Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. Volume 1: Plan. April. Salata, L.R. 1983. Status of the Least Bell’s Vireo at Camp Pendleton, California: Report on research done in 1983. Prepared under contract for the USFWS, Laguna Niguel, California. 1981. Least Bell’s Vireo research, Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, San Diego County California. Prepared under contract for the Natural Resources Office, Camp Pendleton. Unpublished report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service. 1992. Hydric Soil Lists. Field Office Official List of Hydric Soils Map Units for San Diego Area, California. Section II Field Office Technical Guide. Davis, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Oregon. Chapter 6 References Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report 42 December 2010 Branch of Habitat Assessment. 1996. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Available at: http://www.nwi.fws.gov/bha/ (in downloadable .pdf format). USFWS and CDFG. 1995. Letter Re: Specific Exemptions to and Recommended Format for Reviewing Request for Interim Habitat Loss Permits. Appendix A Agency Coordination and Professional Contacts % % SMC-D SWRF EUC DH EUC DCSS NNG DCSS SWRF DH SWS-D NNG SWRF DCSS NNG SWRF DCSS DW SWRF NNG DCSS DCSS DH SMC DEV EUC SMC-D DEV DEV DEV EUC DH Study Area Boundary Del Poniente Road H i g h V a l l e y R o a d Northcrest Lane Titan Way Espola Road Willow Ranch Road E d e n G r o v e DEV EUC EUC EUC NNG SMC-D EUC DH NNV NNV DCSS-D FWM No Access DH DCSS-D 4 Imagery Source: Eagle, 2006 Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/04/08-KF Note:This map is based on site conditions as observed at the time of our field investigations. The information presented herein was developed by visual inspection and/or aerial photograph interpretation. Note that both site conditions and applicable regulatory requirements may change. Match to Figure 3b Figure 3a Vegetation and Sensitive Resources ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\CAGN\Fig3a_Veg.mxd 3000300150 Feet Habitats FWM SWRF DCSS DCSS-D EUC NNG SMC DH DEV SMC-D LEGEND Wetlands Uplands Sensitive Resource Orange-throated Whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi) Open Space Easement % Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Southern Mixed Chaparral-Disturbed Developed Disturbed Habitat Southern Mixed Chaparral Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub-Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Willow Riparian Forest Freshwater Marsh Non-native VegetationNNV Southern Willow Scrub DisturbedSWS-D Disturbed WetlandDW Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Route Habitats SWS SWRF EUC DH DEV LEGEND Wetlands Uplands Sensitive Resource r Raptor Nest Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Developed Disturbed Habitat Eucalyptus Woodland Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Vegetation and Sensitive Resources Figure 3b Match to Figure A-2a Non-native GrasslandNNG StreambedSB Disturbed WetlandDW r SWS DH DW NNG SWS DH DEV DW NNG DEV Study Area Boundary Twin Peaks Road Ezra Lane Mountain Road Golden Sunset Es p o l a R o a d Rattlesnake Creek Lane 4 Imagery Source: Eagle, 2006 Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/05/08-KF Note:This map is based on site conditions as observed at the time of our field investigations. The information presented herein was developed by visual inspection and/or aerial photograph interpretation. Note that both site conditions and applicable regulatory requirements may change. Habitats SWS SWRF EUC DH DEV LEGEND Wetlands Uplands Sensitive Resource r Raptor Nest Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Developed Disturbed Habitat Eucalyptus Woodland Southern Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Match to Figure 3a Non-native GrasslandNNG StreambedSB Disturbed WetlandDW 3000300150 Feet Appendix B Plant and Animal Species Observed in the Study Area Appendix B Plant and Animal Species Observed in the Study Area Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report B-1 December 2010 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT‡ DICOTYLEDONES Aizoaceae Carpobrotus edulis* hottentot-fig DCSS-D, SMC-D Anacardiaceae Malosma laurina laurel sumac DCSS-D, SMC, SMC-D Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper tree SWRF Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree SWRF, EW, NNG Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare* fennel DCSS-D, NNG Asteraceae Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed DCSS-D, FWM, DCSS, EW, DH Artemisia californica California sagebrush DCSS-D, SMC, SMC-D Baccharis pilularis coyote brush DCSS-D, SMC, SMC-D Baccharis salicifolia mule fat DCSS-D, SWRF, SWS, EW Baccharis sarothroides broom baccharis DCSS-D, SWRF Conyza canadensis* horseweed SWRF, NNG Cynara cardunculus* cardoon DCSS-D Hazardia squarrosus var. grindelioides saw-toothed goldenbush DCSS-D, NNG Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed DCSS-D, NNG, SMC-D Sonchus asper* prickly sow thistle NNG Stephanomeria virgata virgate wreath-plant NNG,SMC-D Xanthium strumarium var. canadens* Eastern cocklebur DW Betulaceae Alnus rhombifolia white alder EW Brassicaceae Brassica sp.* mustard DCSS-D, EW, NNG Raphauus satiuus wild radish DH Cactaceae Opuntia littoralis coastal prickly pear DCSS-D Chenopodiaceae Salsola tragus* Russian thistle NNG, SMC-D Ericaceae Arctostaphylos sp. manzanita SMC, SMC-D Euphorbiaceae Eremocarpus setigerus dove weed DCSS-D, NNG Ricinus communis* castor-bean DCSS-D, SWRF, SWS, EW Fabaceae Acacia longifolia* golden wattle DCSS-D Lotus scoparius var. scoparius deer weed NNG, SMC, SMC-D Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia var. agrifolia coast live oak SWRF, SWS Lamiaceae Salvia apiana white sage DCSS-D, SMC, SMC-D Malvaceare Malva parviflora cheeseweed DH Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sp.* eucalyptus EW, DH Onagraceae Oenothera elata great marsh evening primrose DH Platanaceae Platanus racemosa western sycamore EW Polygonaceae Eriogonum fasciculatum ssp. fasciculatum California buckwheat DCSS-D, NNG SMC, SMC-D Rumex crispus curly dock DW Appendix B Plant and Animal Species Observed in the Study Area Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report B-2 December 2010 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (cont.) FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT‡ DICOTYLEDONES (cont.) Rosaceae Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise SMC, SMC-D Salicaceae Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii western sycamore SWRF Avena sp.* wild oats CSS, DH Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow SWRF, EW, SWS, DH Solanaceae Datura sp. jimsonweed DH Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco DCSS-D, SWRF, NNG Tamaricaceae Tamarix sp.* tamarisk EW MONOCOTYLEDONS Arecaceae Washingtonia sp. palm EW, SWRF, DH Cyperaceae Canex spissa San Diego sedge SWRF Cyperus eragrastis tall fatsedge SWRF Cyperus involucratus* umbrella plant SWRF, FWM Liliaceae Yucca schidigera Mohave yucca SWRF Yucca whipplei Our Lord’s candle SMC, SMC-D Poaceae Cortaderia jubata* pampas grass SWRF, FWM, DH Lolium multiflorum* Italian ryegrass DW Pennisetum setaceum* fountain grass DCSS-D, SMC-D Polypogon monspeliensis* rabbitfoot beardgrass DW Rumex sp. dock SWRF Salix gooddingii Goodding’s black willow SWRF Typhaceae Typha sp. cattail FWM *Non-native species ‡Habitat acronyms: DCSS=Diegan coastal sage scrub; DCSS-D=Diegan coastal sage scrub – disturbed; SMC=southern mixed chaparral; SMC-D=southern mixed chaparral – disturbed; NNG=non-native grassland; FWM=freshwater marsh; SWS=southern willow scrub; SWRF=southern willow riparian forest; EW=eucalyptus woodland; DH=disturbed habitat Appendix B Plant and Animal Species Observed in the Study Area Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report B-3 December 2010 ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED SCIENTIFIC NAME† COMMON NAME Butterflies Pieris rapae cabbage white butterfly Pontia protodice common white butterfly Reptiles Cnemidophorus hyperythrus† orange-throated whiptail Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard Birds Aphelocoma californica western scrub jay Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Carduelis psaltria lesser goldfinch Carpodacus mexicanus house finch Chamaea fasciata wrentit Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven Dendroica coronata yellow-rumped warbler Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Picoides nuttallii Nuttall’s woodpecker Pipilo crissalis California towhee Pipilo maculates spotted towhee Psaltriparus minimus bushtit Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Sturnus vulgaris European starling Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren Troglodytes aedon house wren Tyrannus sp. kingbird Zenaida macroura mourning dove Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow Mammals Didelphis virginiana opossum (tracks) Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail rabbit Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher Urocyon cinereoargenteus grey fox (tracks) †Sensitive species Appendix B Plant and Animal Species Observed in the Study Area Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report B-4 December 2010 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix C Explanation of Status Codes for Plants and Animals Appendix C Explanation of Status Codes for Plants and Animals Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report C-1 December 2010 EXPLANATION OF STATUS CODES FOR PLANTS AND ANIMALS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) FE Federally listed endangered FT Federally listed threatened BCC Birds of Conservation Concern BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) SE State listed endangered ST State listed threatened CSC California species of special concern WL Watch List Protected Protected species refer to all vertebrate and invertebrate taxa of concern to the Natural Diversity Data Base regardless of legal or protection status. These species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFG. Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Target Species Species known or potentially occurring in the Poway Subarea HCP region listed as threatened or endangered by federal or state agencies or are likely to be listed in the future. They are also non-sensitive species that are considered indicators of habitat quality or are otherwise important for preserve design. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Lists R-E-D Code 1A = Presumed extinct. 1B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Eligible for state listing. 2 = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. Eligible for state listing. 3 = Distribution, endangerment, and/or taxonomic information needed. 4 = A watch list for species of limited distribution. Needs monitoring for changes in population status. R (Rarity) 1 = Rare but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that potential for extinction is low at this time. 2 = Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population. 3 = Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. E (Endangerment) 1 = Not endangered 2 = Endangered in a portion of its range 3 = Endangered throughout its range D (Distribution) 1 = More or less widespread outside California 2 = Rare outside California 3 = Endemic to California Appendix C Explanation of Status Codes for Plants and Animals Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report C-2 December 2010 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix D Federal Jurisdictional Definitions Appendix D Federal Jurisdictional Definitions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report D-1 December 2010 FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL DEFINITIONS Wetlands and “Waters of the U.S.” Definitions The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps; Federal Register 1982) and the Environmental Protection Agency (Federal Register 1980) jointly define wetlands as “[t]hose areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The official definition of “Waters of the U.S.” and their limits of jurisdiction (as they may apply) are defined by the Corps’ Regulatory Program Regulations (Section 328.3, paragraphs [a] 1-3 and [e], and Section 328.4, paragraphs [c] 1 and 2) as follows: All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; all waters including interstate wetlands, all other waters such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams [including intermittent streams], mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce including any such water, which are or could be used by interstate travelers for recreation or other purposes; or from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate commerce; or which are or could be used for industries in interstate commerce; or wetlands adjacent to waters [other than waters that are themselves wetlands]. Non-tidal Waters of the U.S. The limits of jurisdiction in non-tidal waters: In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark, or when adjacent wetlands are present, the jurisdiction extends to the limit of the adjacent wetlands. The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation (scouring), the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Waters of the U.S. must exhibit an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or other evidence of surface flow created by hydrologic physical changes. These physical changes include (Riley 2005):  Natural line impressed on the bank  Leaf litter disturbed or washed away  Shelving  Scour  Changes in the character of soil  Deposition  Destruction of terrestrial vegetation  Multiple observed flow events  Presence of litter and debris  Bed and banks  Wracking  Water staining  Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent  Change in plant community  Sediment sorting Jurisdictional areas also must be connected to Waters of the U.S. (Guzy and Anderson 2001; U.S. Supreme Court 2001). Appendix D Federal Jurisdictional Definitions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report D-2 December 2010 As a consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States, a memorandum was developed regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction (Grumbles and Woodley 2007). The memorandum states that the EPA and the Corps will assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters (TNW), wetlands adjacent to TNW, tributaries to TNWs that are a relatively permanent water body (RPW), and wetlands adjacent to TNW. An RPW has year round flow or continuous seasonal flow (i.e., typically for three months or longer). Jurisdiction over other waters (i.e., non TNW and RPW) will be based on a fact specific analysis to determine if they have a significant nexus to a TNW. Pursuant to the Corps Instructional Guidebook (Corps and EPA 2007), the significant nexus evaluation will cover the subject reach of the stream (upstream and downstream) as well as its adjacent wetlands (Illustrations 2 through 6, Corps and EPA 2007). The evaluation will include the flow characteristics, annual precipitation, ability to provide habitat for aquatic species, ability to retain floodwaters and filter pollutants, proximity of the subject reach to a TNW, drainage area, and the watershed. Wetland Criteria Wetland boundaries are determined using three mandatory criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil) established for wetland delineations and described within the Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Corps 2006). Following is a brief discussion of the three criteria and how they are evaluated. Vegetation “Hydrophytic vegetation is defined herein as the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The wetland indicator status (obligate upland, facultative upland, facultative, facultative wetland, obligate wetland, or no indicator status) of the dominant plant species of all vegetative layers is determined. Species considered to be hydrophytic include the classifications of facultative, facultative wetland, and obligate wetland as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1988; Table A-1). The percent of dominant wetland plant species is calculated. The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is considered to be met if it meets the “Dominance Test,” “Prevalence Index,” or the vegetation has morphological adaptations for prolonged inundation. Table A-1 DEFINITIONS OF PLANT INDICATOR CATEGORIES Indicator Categories Abbreviation Probability of Occurring in Wetlands Obligate wetland OBL Occur almost exclusively in wetlands Facultative wetland FACW Usually found in wetlands (66 to 99 percent probability) but occasionally in uplands Facultative FAC Equally likely to occur in wetland (34 to 66 percent probability) or non-wetland Facultative upland FACU Usually occur in non-wetlands but occasionally found in wetlands Obligate upland UPL Occur almost exclusively in non-wetlands No indicator NI Inconclusive status Appendix D Federal Jurisdictional Definitions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report D-3 December 2010 Hydrology “The term ‘wetland hydrology’ encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic reducing conditions, respectively” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least 5 percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year (approximately 18 days for most of low-lying southern California). Hydrology criteria are evaluated based on the characteristics listed below (Corps 2006). Where positive indicators of wetland hydrology are present, the limit of the OHWM (or the limit of adjacent wetlands) is noted and mapped. Evidence of wetland hydrology is met by the presence of a single primary indicator or two secondary indicators. Primary Primary (cont.)  surface water (A1)  presence of reduced iron (C4)  high water table (A2)  recent iron reduction in plowed soils (C8)  saturation (A3)  water marks (B1; non-riverine) Secondary  sediment deposits (B2; non-riverine)  watermarks (B1; riverine)  drift deposits (B3; non-riverine)  sediment deposits (B2; riverine)  surface soil cracks (B6)  drift deposits (B3; riverine)  inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7)  drainage patterns (B10)  water-stained leaves (B9)  dry-season water table (C2)  salt crust (B11)  thin muck surface (C7)  biotic crust (B12)  crayfish burrows (C8)  aquatic invertebrates (B13)  saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9)  hydrogen sulfide odor (C1)  shallow aquitard (D3)  oxidized rhizospheres along living roots (C3)  FAC-neutral test (D5) In the absence of all other hydrologic indicators and in the absence of significant modifications of an area’s hydrologic function, positive hydric soil characteristics are assumed to indicate positive wetland hydrology. This assumption applies unless the site visit was done during the wet season of a normal or wetter-than-normal year. Under those circumstances, wetland hydrology would not be present. Soils “A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] 2004). Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation. Soil matrix and mottle colors are identified at each sampling plot using a Munsell soil color chart (Kollmorgen 1994). Generally, an 18-inch or deeper pit is excavated with a shovel at each sampling plot unless refusal occurs above 18 inches. Appendix D Federal Jurisdictional Definitions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report D-4 December 2010 Soils in each area are closely examined for hydric soil indicators, including the characteristics listed below. Hydric soil indicators are presented in three groups. Indicators for “All Soils” (A) are used in any soil regardless of texture, indicators for “Sandy Soils” (S) area used in soil layers with USDA textures of loamy fine sand or coarser, and indicators for “Loamy and Clayey Soils” (F) are used with soil layers of loamy very fine sand and finer (Corps 2006).  histosols (A1)  histic epipedons (A2)  black histic (A3)  sulfidic odor (A4)  stratified layers (A5)  1 cm muck (A9)  depleted below dark surface (A11)  thick dark surface (A12)  sandy mucky mineral (S1)  sandy gleyed matrix (S4)  sandy redox (S5)  stripped matrix (S6)  loamy mucky mineral (F1)  loamy gleyed matrix (F2)  depleted matrix (F3)  redox dark surface (F6)  depleted dark surface (F7)  redox depressions (F8)  vernal pools (F9)  2 cm muck (A10)  reduced vertic (F18)  red parent material (TF2; indicator is currently being tested by NRCS) Hydric soils may be assumed to be present in plant communities that have complete dominance of obligate or facultative wetland species. In some cases, there is only inundation during the growing season and determination must be made by direct observation during that season, recorded hydrologic data, testimony of reliable persons, and/or indication on aerial photographs. Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. The non-wetland Waters of the U.S. designation is met when an area has periodic surface flows but lacks sufficient indicators to meet the hydrophytic vegetation and/or hydric soils criteria. For purposes of delineation and jurisdictional designation, the non-wetland Waters of the U.S. boundary in non-tidal areas is the OHWM as described in the Section 404 regulations (33 CFR Part 328). USGS Mapping The USGS Quad maps are one of the resources used to aid in the identification and mapping of jurisdictional areas. Their primary uses include understanding the subregional landscape position of a site, major topographical features, and a project’s position in the watershed. In our experience the designation of watercourse as a blue-line stream (intermittent or perennial) on USGS maps has been unreliable and typically overstates the hydrology of most streams. This has also Appendix D Federal Jurisdictional Definitions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report D-5 December 2010 been the experience of others, including the late Luna Leopold. Leopold was a hydrologist with USGS from 1952 to 1972, Professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics, and Department of Landscape Architecture, University of California, Berkeley from 1972 to 1986, and Professor Emeritus from 1987 until his death in 2006. In regard to stream mapping on USGS maps, Dr. Leopold opined that “. . . blue lines on a map are drawn by nonprofessional, low-salaried personnel. In actual fact, they are drawn to fit a rather personalized aesthetic.” REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. with Appendices. Grumbles, B.H. and J.P. Woodley, Jr. 2007. Memorandum: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States. June 5. 12 pp. Guzy, G.S. and R.M. Anderson. 2001. Memorandum: Supreme Court Ruling Concerning CWA Jurisdiction Over Isolated Waters. U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts, revised edition. Baltimore, MD. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2004. Hydric Soils of the U.S. Internet web site. Available at: http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/mlra02/abouthyd.html. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. 88 (26.10). 135 pp. Riley, D.T. 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark. RGL No. 05-05. 4 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 30. 60 pp. 2006. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Eds. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS; U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Supreme Court. 2001. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178 (SWANCC). January 9. Appendix D Federal Jurisdictional Definitions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report D-6 December 2010 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix E State Jurisdictional Definitions Appendix E State Jurisdictional Definitions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report E-1 December 2010 STATE JURISDICTIONAL DEFINITIONS California Department of Fish and Game Regulations The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG; Department) regulates alterations or impacts to streambeds or lakes (wetlands) under Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616 for any private, state, or local government or public utility-initiated projects. The Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires any entity to notify the Department before beginning any activity that will do one or more of the following: (1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake. Fish and Game Code Section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers and streams as well as lakes in the state. In order to notify the Department, a person, state, or local governmental agency or public utility must submit a complete notification package and fee to the Department regional office that serves the county where the activity will take place. A fee schedule is included in the notification package materials. Under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Sections 65920 et seq.), the Department has 30 days to determine whether the package is complete. If the requestor is not notified within 30 days, the application is automatically deemed to be complete. Once the notification package is deemed to be complete, the Department will determine whether the applicant will need a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for the activity, which will be required if the activity could substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource. If an SAA is required, the Department will conduct an on-site inspection, if necessary, and submit a draft SAA that will include measures to protect fish and wildlife resources while conducting the project. If the applicant is applying for a regular SAA (less than five years), the Department will submit a draft SAA within 60 calendar days after notification is deemed complete. The 60-day time period does not apply to notifications for long-term SAAs (greater than five years). After the applicant receives the SAA, the applicant has 30 calendar days to notify the Department whether the measures in the draft SAA are acceptable. If the applicant agrees with the measures included in the draft SAA, the applicant will need to sign the SAA and submit it to the Department. If the applicant disagrees with any measures in the draft SAA, the applicant must notify the Department in writing and specify the measures that are not acceptable. Upon written request, the Department will meet with the applicant within 14 calendar days of receiving the request to resolve the disagreement. If the applicant fails to respond in writing within 90 calendar days of receiving the draft SAA, the Department may withdraw that SAA. The time periods described above may be extended at any time by mutual agreement. After the Department receives the signed draft SAA, the Department will make it final by signing the SAA; however, the Department will not sign the SAA until it both receives the notification fee and ensures that the SAA complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). After the applicant receives the final agreement, the applicant may begin the project the agreement covers, provided that the applicant has obtained any other necessary federal, state and/or local authorizations. Appendix E State Jurisdictional Definitions Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report E-2 December 2010 Water Resource Control Board Regulations Section 401 Water Quality Certification Whenever a project requires a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit or a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit, it must first obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the 401 Certification program. Federal CWA Section 401 requires that every applicant for a Section 404 permit must request a Water Quality Certification that the proposed activity will not violate state and federal water quality standards. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCB regulate the discharge of waste to waters of the State via the 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) as described in the California Water Code (SWRCB 2008). The California Water Code is the State’s version of the Federal CWA. Waste, according to the California Water Code, includes sewage and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, or radioactive, associated with human habitation, or of human or animal origin, or from any producing, manufacturing, or processing operation, including waste placed within containers of whatever nature prior to, and for purposes of, disposal. State waters that are not federal waters may be regulated under Porter-Cologne. A Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB for projects that result in discharge of waste into waters of the State. The RWQCB will issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or a waiver. The WDRs are the Porter-Cologne version of a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification. REFERENCES California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. 2002. Guide to Watershed Project Permitting for the State of California. Available at: http://www.carcd.org/permitting/pguide.pdf. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616. Date unknown. Streambed/Lake Alteration Notification Guidelines. Appendix F Study Area Wetland Sample Points and Data Sheets Appendix F Study Area Wetland Sample Points and Data Sheets Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report F-1 December 2010 STUDY AREA WETLAND SAMPLE POINTS – 2002 SURVEY Sample Point 1. This sample point was taken on the east side of Espola Road in the southernmost portion of the proposed project site in a drainage ditch tributary to Rattlesnake Creek. Vegetation was dominated by two native wetland species: western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) and great marsh evening primrose (Oenothera elata). The sample point occurs in a low area fed by drainage from the north along the road. Based on the presence of drift lines (a primary wetland hydrology indicator), this area carries drainage during the rainy season and also receives urban runoff. A secondary wetland hydrology indicator, the FAC-neutral test, also was present. A pit was dug to 18 inches, revealing a wetland soil indicator (low chroma) in the upper layer. This point, although in a man-made feature, was in both U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional habitat. Runoff from Espola Road has created new existing conditions in an area contiguous and immediately adjacent to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (i.e., Rattlesnake Creek). Sample Point 2. This sample point was taken as the upland counterpart to Sample Point 1. Vegetation at this location consisted of upland exotic grasses (e.g., foxtail chess [Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens]). No wetland hydrology or hydric soil indicators were observed; this point is located in an upland. Sample Point 3. This sample point was located in Rattlesnake Creek, which at this location is a trapezoidal channel that may be cleared periodically. Vegetation at this point was dominated by herbaceous species, including three wetland indicator species. The wetland hydrology criterion was met by drift lines. A soil pit dug 14 inches revealed wetland soil chromas in both layers. This point was in both Corps and CDFG jurisdictional habitat. All Corps jurisdictional non-wetland Waters of the U.S. also are CDFG jurisdictional streambeds. Sample Point 4. This sample point was taken as the upland counterpart to Sample Point 3. This is a problem area because recent clearing has left the area devoid of vegetation. No wetland hydrology or hydric soil indicators were observed; this point is located in an upland. Sample Point 5. This sample point was located in an impoundment of a natural drainage on the west side of Espola Road. Vegetation in this area was dense, consisted of southern willow riparian forest, and dominated by black willow (Salix gooddingii). This area is dominated by an obligate wetland plant and meets the wetland vegetation criterion. The wetland hydrology criterion was met by sediment deposits, a primary wetland indicator. A soil pit dug to 18.9 inches revealed salt clay hydric soils evidenced by low chromas. This point was in both Corps and CDFG jurisdictional habitat. Sample Point 6. This sample point was taken as the upland counterpart to Sample Point 5. Vegetation in this area was dominated by upland shrubs. No wetland hydrology or hydric soil indicators were observed; this point is located in an upland. Sample Point 7. This sample point was located in a natural drainage that supports southern willow riparian forest dominated by black and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and western cottonwood (Populus fremontii), all of which are wetland species; therefore, the wetland vegetation criterion is met in this area. The wetland hydrology criterion was met by the presence of drift lines, FAC-neutral test, and bed and bank topography. A soil pit dug to 14 inches revealed hydric soil chromas in the bottom layer. This point was in both Corps and CDFG jurisdictional habitat. Sample Point 8. This sample point was taken as the upland counterpart to Sample Point 7. Vegetation at this area was dominated by eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.), mustard (Brassica sp.), and western ragweed. Only one of these three species is a wetland species (i.e., ragweed), which does not satisfy the wetland vegetation criterion. No wetland hydrology or hydric soil indicators were observed; this point is located in an upland. Appendix F Study Area Wetland Sample Points and Data Sheets Espola Road Improvement Project Biological Technical Report F-2 December 2010 STUDY AREA WETLAND SAMPLE POINTS – 2008 SURVEY Sample Point 1. This point was located in Rattlesnake Creek, in disturbed wetland. Three wetland species (arroyo willow [Salix lasiolepis], Mexican tea [Dysphania ambrosioides], and cocklebur [Xanthium strumarium]) were dominant, which met the wetland vegetation criterion. The sample point had two secondary wetland hydrology indicators (drainage patterns [B10] and FAC-neutral test [D5]). A soil pit dug to 16 inches revealed a hydric soil indicator (redox dark surface [F6]). This area is Corps wetland because it met all three wetland parameters. It is also CDFG jurisdiction habitat. Sample Point 2. This point was located in an unnamed tributary that lies west of Espola Road. The sampled area is within an impoundment supporting southern willow riparian forest. Two wetland species (arroyo willow [Salix lasiolepis], black willow [Salix gooddingii]) were dominant, which met the wetland vegetation criterion. The sample point had one primary wetland hydrology indicator (water-stained leaves [B9]) and one secondary wetland hydrology indicator (FAC-neutral test). A soil pit dug to 16 inches revealed a hydric soil indicator (redox dark surface [F6]). This area is Corps wetland because it met all three wetland parameters. It is also CDFG jurisdiction habitat. Sample Point 3. This sample point was located in the same tributary as Sample Point 2, but upstream and north of Del Poniente Road. The sampled area is southern willow riparian forest. Three of the five dominant plant species observed were wetland species (black willow, mule fat [Baccharis salicifolia], and willow herb [Epilobium ciliatum]). The sample point had two secondary wetland hydrology indicator (drift deposits [B3, riverine] and FAC-neutral test), which met the wetland hydrology criterion. A soil pit dug to 19 inches did not reveal any hydric soil indicators. This area is not a Corps wetland, but is CDFG jurisdictional habitat.