Appendix C
Biological Resources Memorandum
March 13, 2023 14763
Chris Bennett
AOA San Marcos LLC
709 Randolph Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92626
SSubject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California Dear Chris Bennett:
This biological resources memorandum is intended to describe the existing conditions of biological resources within the approximately 12.06-acre biological study area (study area) for the Marcos Specific Plan Project within the City of San Marcos, California (Figure 1), evaluate impacts of the proposed project, discuss potential biological constraints associated with the study area as identified during the site visit conducted by Dudek on October 27, 2022, and recommend mitigation measures which would be necessary to reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level.
The primary focus of the site visit was to evaluate th e current conditions and potential biological resource constraints of the project area outside of the channel which bisects the study area. The study area was also reviewed for any potential ponded areas outside of the channel area which may support listed species associated with vernal pools. Because habitat within the channel is relevant to assessing potential indirect impacts of project activities which would occur outside of the channel area, updated vegetation mapping was conducted for the entire study area based on general physiognomy and species composition. Channel improvement work associated with the segment of Las Posas Creek within the study area, and the associated bridge over the channel, was previously permitted by the City of San Marcos, and the channel is currently subject to restoration maintenance activities following channel improvements within the permitted area (Conservation Area) (Figure 2). No focused surveys for special-status species were conducted for this biological assessment. 1 Location and Project Description
The study area is located at the corner of Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive (APNs 219-152-42, -44, -45, -51, - 61, -70, -74, -75, -76, -77, -78, -79) and is zoned fo r commercial uses. The study area is located in Section 10 within the San Marcos quadrangle, in Township 12 South and Range 3 West. The 12.06-acre biological study area boundary was determined using the boundaries of all involved parcels for the proposed project, and therefore included a 0.99-acre portion of Linda Vista Drive in addition to the 11.07-acre project site referenced below.
The proposed project would include the development of 64,000 square feet of commercial uses consisting of office, restaurant, creative spaces, patios, common open space ar ea, kiosks, and seven (7) live/work units; as well as development of 102 condominium units within 15 buildings, and associated amenities. Additions such as bollards may be added to the bridge over Las Posas Creek, and thus the bridge is included in the impact area. The proposed To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 2 MARCH 2023
Marcos Specific Plan Project (project) includes a reques t for a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Development Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map for a residential mixed-use development project on a 11.07- acre site. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The Specific Plan has been prepared with the intent to provide a comprehensive plan to ensure the efficient development of a new mixed-use residential community. The Specific Plan serves as both a policy document and a regulatory document for the systematic implementation of the policies and goals of the General Plan. The Site Development Plan wi ll configure the site for multi-family dwelling units, street configuration, infrastructure, recreational open space, and private open space. 2 Regulatory Context
2.1 Federal
2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), as amended, is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for most plant and animal species, and by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service for certain marine species. This legislation is intended to provide a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend, and provide programs for the conservation of those species, thus preventing extinction of plants and wildlife. The federal Endangered Species Act defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Under the federal Endangered Species Act, it is unlawful to take any listed species, and “take” is defined as, “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The federal Endangered Species Act allows for the issuance of incidental take permits for listed species under Section 7, which is generally available for projects that also require other federal agency permits or other approvals, and under Section 10, which provides for the approval of habitat conservation plans on private property without any other federal agency involvement. Upon development of a habitat conservation plan, USFWS can issue incidental take permits for listed species.
2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) was originally passed in 1918 as four bilateral treaties, or conventions, for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. The primary motivation for the international negotiations was to stop the “indiscriminate slaughter” of migratory birds by market hunters and others. Each of the treaties protects selected species of birds and provides for closed and open seasons for hunting game birds. The MBTA protects more than 800 species of birds and prohibits the take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird. Under the MBTA, “take” is defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing, collecting, or killing, or attempting to do so (16 USC 703 et seq.). Additionally, Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, requires that any project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory birds with the purpose of promoting conservation of migratory bird populations (66 FR 3853–3856). The executive To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 3 MARCH 2023
order requires federal agencies to work with USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding. USFWS reviews actions that might affect these species.
Two species of eagles that are native to the United States, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), were granted additional protection within the United States under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668–668d) to prevent the species from becoming extinct.
2.1.3 Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into “waters of the United States.” The term “wetlands” (a subset of waters of the United States) is defined in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 328.3(b), as “those 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.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and simi lar areas.” In the absence of wetlands, the limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as intermit tent streams, extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is defined in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 328.3(e).
2.2 State
2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), which prohibits the “take” of plant and animal species designated by the California Fish and Game Commission as endangered or threatened in California. Under CESA Section 86, take is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” CESA Section 2053 stipulates that state agencies may not approve projects that will “jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with conserving the species or its habitat which would prevent jeopardy.”
CESA defines an endangered species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.” CESA defines a threatened species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the [California Fish and Game] Commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985, is a threatened species.” A candidate species is defined as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the Commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the Commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.” CESA does not list invertebrate species.
CESA authorizes the taking of threatened, endangered, or candidate species if take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and if specific criteria are met. These provisions also require CDFW to coordinate consultations with To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 4 MARCH 2023
USFWS for actions involving federally listed species that are also state-listed species. In certain circumstances, CESA allows CDFW to adopt a CESA incidental take authorization as satisfactory for CEQA purposes based on finding that the federal permit adequately protects the species and is consistent with state law.
A CESA permit may not authorize the take of “fully protected” species that are protected in other provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, discussed further below.
2.2.2 California Fish and Game Code
Sections 3511 (Birds), 4700 (Mammals), 5050 (Reptiles and Amphibians), and 5515 (Fish) of the California Fish and Game Code provide that designated fully protected species may not be taken or possessed without a permit.
Incidental take of these species is not authorized by law.
Pursuant to Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey; or to take, possess, or destroy any nest or eggs of such birds. Birds of prey refer to species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes.
Nests of all other birds (except house sparrow [ Passer domesticus] and European starling [Sturnus vulgaris]) are protected under Sections 3503 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code.
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of an y river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife.
Diversion, obstruction, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife requires authorization from CD FW by means of entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.
2.2.3 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter–Cologne Act) protects water quality and the beneficial uses of water. It applies to surface water and groundwater. Under this law, the State Water Resources Control Board develops statewide water quality plans, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) develop regional basin plans that identify beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation plans. The RWQCBs have the primary responsibility to implement the provisions of statewide plans and basin plans. Waters regulated under the Porter–Cologne Act include isolated waters that are not regulated by USACE. RWQCBs regulate discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect a “water of the state” (California Water Code, Section 13260[a]). Waters of the state are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code, Section 13050[e]). Developments with impacts on jurisdictional waters must demonstrate compliance with the goals of the Porter–Cologne Act by developing Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans, and other measures to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification. If a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit is not required for a project, the RWQCB may still require a permit (i.e., Waste Discharge Requirement) for impacts to waters of the state under the Porter–Cologne Act.
To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 5 MARCH 2023
2.2.4 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) require identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that could avoid or reduce significant impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b)(1) defines endangered animals or plants as species or subspecies whose “survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors” (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A rare animal or plant is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b)(2) as a species that, although not currently threatened with extinction, exists “in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or … [t]he species is likely to become endang ered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered ‘threatened’ as that term is used in the federal Endangered Species Act.” Additionally, an animal or plant may be presumed to be endangered, rare, or threatened if it meets the criteria for listing, as defined further in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(c). CEQA also requires identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on riparian habitats (such as wetlands, bays, estuaries, and marshes) and other sensitive natural communities, including habitats occupied by endangered, rare, and threatened species.
In Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1.72 (14 CCR, Section 1.72), CDFW defines a “stream” (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” In 14 CCR 1.56, CDFW’s definition of “lake” includes “natural lakes or [human-built] reservoirs.” Diversion, obstruction, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife requires authorization from CDFW by means of entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.
CDFW recognizes that all plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1A, 1B, or 2, and some ranked 3, of the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California (CNPS 2022) may meet the criteria for listing as threatened or endangered and should be considered under CEQA. Some of the California Rare Plant Rank 3 and 4 plants meet the criteria for determination as “rare” or “endangered” as defined in Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act), Division 2, of the California Fish and Game Code, as well as Section 2062 and Section 2067, Chapter 1.5 (CESA), Division 3. Therefor e, consideration under CEQA for these California Rare Plant Rank 3 and 4 species is strongly recommended by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2022).
For purposes of this report, animals considered “rare” under CEQA include endangered or threatened species, Birds of Conservation Concern, California Species of Special Concern, and fully protected species.
Section IV, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) requires an evaluation of impacts to “any riparian habitat or other se nsitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”
2.2.5 California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act In 1991, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act was approved and the NCCP Coastal Sage Scrub program was initiated in Southern California . The 1991 NCCP Act was replaced by the NCCP Act of To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 6 MARCH 2023
2003, which has since been amended three times, in 2003, 2011, and most recently in 2012. California law (California Fish and Game Code Section 2800 et seq.) established the NCCP program “to provide for regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife divers ity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and growth.” The NCCP Act encourages preparation of plans that address habitat conservation and management on an ecosystem basis rather than one species or habitat at a time.
2.3 Local
2.3.1 North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program The North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) is a long-term regional conservation plan established to protect sensitive species and habitats in northern San Diego County. The MHCP is divided into seven Subarea Plans—one for each jurisdiction within the MHCP—that are permitted and implemented separately from one another.
The City of Carlsbad is the only city under the MHCP that has an approved and permitted Subarea Plan. The City of San Marcos Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (San Marcos Subarea Plan) has not been finalized or implemented, and the City is no longer an active participant in the Natural Community Conservation Plan program or the subregional MHCP conservation planning effort. However, it is the City’s policy to comply with the conservation policies identified in the draft San Marcos Subarea Plan, including an assessment of a designated Biological Core and Linkage Area or MHCP Focused Planning Area in the context of a proposed project and the preservation of sensitive biological resources.
2.3.2 San Marcos General Plan
The San Marcos General Plan Update (General Plan) includes a General Plan Existing Conditions Report. Chapter 5 of the Existing Conditions Report identifies and describes aspects of conservation and natural resources within the City of San Marcos, including biological resources within the Planning Area. The report includes the following goals and policies related to biological resources (City of San Marcos 2021):
GGoal COS-1: Identify, protect, and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within San Marcos and its adaptive Sphere of Influence.
x Policy 1.1: Support the protection of biological resource s through the establishment, restoration, and conservation of high-quality habitat areas.
x Policy 1.2: Ensure that new development, including Capital Improvement Projects, maintain the biotic habitat value of riparian areas, oak woodlands, habitat linkages, and other sensitive biological habitats. x Policy 1.3: Continue to work with other federal, State, regional, and local agencies.
Goal COS-2: The City is committed to conserving, protecting, and maintaining open space, agricultural, and limited resources for future generations. By working with property owners, local organizations, and State and federal agencies, the City can limit the conversion of resource lands to urban uses. x Policy 2.1: Provide and protect open space areas throughout the City for its recreational, agricultural, safety, and environmental value.
To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 7 MARCH 2023
x PPolicy 2.2: Limit, to the extent feasible, the conversion of open space to urban uses and place a high priority on acquiring and preserving open space lands for re creation, habitat protection and enhancement, flood hazard management, water and agricultural resources protection, and overall community benefit. x Policy 2.3: Protect existing agricultural areas, encourage farm to consum er, promote public health, and promote small-scale agriculture such as community gardens and the growing of organic produce. x Policy 2.6: Preserve healthy mature trees where feasible; where removal is necessary, trees shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1.
3 Methods
3.1 Reconnaissance Survey
A reconnaissance survey of the study area was conducted by Dudek biologist Olivia Koziel on October 27, 2022.
The entire study area was traversed on foot in meandering transects to ensure full coverage of the area. The focus of the reconnaissance survey was on identifying potential biological resource constraints outside of the channel area, and also on identifying any potential vernal pools present in the study area. Dudek also created a general map of the vegetation communities and land covers present within the study area, as well as documented plant and wildlife species observed or detected. A general habitat assessment was conducted concurrently for special-status species known to occur in the regional vicinity of the study area, including for potentially occurring sensitive resources that would not be apparent at the time of the survey (e.g., rare annual plants and special- status wildlife species).
3.1.1 Vegetation Mapping
Vegetation communities and land covers within the study area were mapped in the field based on general physiognomy and species composition. Data was recorded using the Field Maps mobile application over aerial base map imagery of the study area, and a geographic information system (GIS) coverage was created.
The vegetation community and land cover mapping follow the Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County (Oberbauer et. al. 2008), which is based on the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). Where vegetation observed in the field did not exactly match a community described within Oberbauer et. al. (2008), Dudek included additional descriptions to better represent the existing conditions observed (i.e., two vegetation communities combined to describe a mosaic of herbaceous wetland and southern willow scrub, and the addition of “disturbed” to describe the cover of non-native vegetation within the southern riparian woodland).
3.1.2 Identification of Flora and Fauna
Plant species encountered during the October 27th site visit were identified and recorded. Latin and common names for plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) follow the California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022). For plant species without a California Rare Plant Rank, Latin names follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized Plants of California (Jepson Flora Project 2022), and common names follow the United States Department of To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 8 MARCH 2023
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database (USDA 2022). A list of plant species observed within the study area is presented in Attachment A.
All wildlife species detected by sight, vocalizations, burrows, tracks, scat, and other signs were also recorded.
Binoculars (10×50) were used to aid in the identifica tion of observed wildlife. Latin and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this report follow Crother (2017) for amphibians and reptiles, Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals, and the American Ornithological Society Checklist of North and Middle American Birds (AOS 2022) for birds. A list of wildlife species observed within the study area is presented in Attachment B.
3.1.3 Survey Limitations
Limitations of the survey include seasonal constraints, a diurnal bias, and the absence of focused trapping for small mammals and reptiles. Low rainfall during the preceding spring may have limited the emergence, survival, and growth of some herbaceous plant species. No focused rare plant surveys, jurisdictional aquatic resource delineation, or focused or protocol-level surveys for specia l-status wildlife species were conducted during the site visit. However, due to the poor quality and disturbed condition of the habitat outside of the channel area, special- status plant and wildlife species are not expected to occur aside from species planted as a part of channel improvement work. Climatic conditions during the survey generally were favorable for the identification of wildlife.
Surveys were conducted during the daytime to maximize visibility for the detection of plants and most animals.
Since the focus of the survey was on biological constrain ts outside of the channel area, the plant species list included as Attachment A may not include all species which were present within the channel area. 4 Results
Based on historic aerials and geotechnical investigations, the study area was graded and developed between 1964 and 1987 to its current configuration, and was previously almost entirely developed with pavement, buildings, and roads with the exception of the channel. Fill soil material is located over older alluvium throughout the proposed project area to a depth of 4 feet below surface (Geotek 2021). Until buildings and infrastructure were demolished and removed from the study area in recent years, the majority of the study area was developed with the exception of biological resources associated with Las Posas Creek. All structures were removed from the study area by 2018, however large areas of pavement remain. Furthermore, prior to channel improvement and restoration work, when the site was almost entirely developed, the channel bisecting the study area was narrow and supported a much lower level of biodiversity than it supports currently (NetrOnline 2022). Outside of the channel area, the study area is a mosaic of urban/developed and disturbed habitat which supports limited vegetation. The study area, in general, is relatively flat with little topographic variation aside from the channel. The majority of sensitive vegetation communities mapped within the study area are encompassed within the Conservation Area, or immediately adjacent to it in areas that would not be directly impact ed as a result of the proposed project. The Conservation Area is to remain under the City’s jurisdiction and is subject to maintenance and monitoring per the terms of the associated Long Term Management Plan (LTMP) (Dudek 2018). As stated in the LTMP, the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW have jurisdiction over the wetlands associated with the channel area, and the necessary permits were obtained for the channel improvement project impacts.
To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 9 MARCH 2023
4.1 Vegetation Mapping
Six vegetation communities/land covers were identified in the biological study area including disturbed habitat (3.26 acres); disturbed wetland (0.03 acre); urban/develo ped (7.98 acre); coastal and valley freshwater marsh (0.33 acre); herbaceous wetland/southern willow scrub (0.42 acre); and disturbed southern riparian woodland (0.04 acre). These vegetation communities/land covers are described below, their acreages are presented in Table 1, and their spatial distributions are presented in Figure 2.
Table 1. Vegetation Communities and Land Covers within the Study Area VVegetation CCommunity
oor Land Cover Type
Mapping Unit
Code1
Existing Acrees
Present Within
Conservation Area2
Existing Acrees
Present OOutside of
Conservation Area2
Total Acrees
Present Within
the SStudy Area
Disturbed Habitat 11000 0.04 3.22 3.26
Disturbed Wetland 11200 0.00 0.03 0.03
Urban/Developed 12000 0.14 7.84 7.98
Coastal and Valley
Freshwater Marsh
52410 0.31 0.02 0.33
Herbaceous Wetland/
Southern Willow Scrub
52510/63320 0.40 0.02 0.42
Southern Riparian
Woodland (Disturbed)
62500 0.00 0.04 0.04
Total Acres 0.889 111.17 122.06
Notes:
1 Numeric code assigned to the vegeta tion community or land cover type according to Oberbauer et. al (2008). 2 Conservation Area refers to the existing conservation area su rrounding the channel. Channel improvement work and maintenance activities have already been permitted and improvement work limits extended outside of the Conservation Area.
4.1.1 Disturbed Habitat (11000)
Disturbed habitats are areas that have been physically disturbed and are no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association (Oberbauer et. al. 2008). These areas may continue to retain soil substrate. If vegetation is present, it is almost entirely composed of non-native vegetation, such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species. Examples of these areas may include graded landscapes or areas, graded firebreaks, graded construction pads, temporary construction staging areas, off-road-vehicle trails, areas repeatedly cleared for fuel management, or areas that are repeatedly used in ways that prevent revegetation (e.g., parking lots, trails that have persisted for years). (Oberbauer et. al. 2008).
Within the study area, disturbed habitat is dominated by non-native weedy species such as Russian thistle (Salsola sp.) within areas of bare ground, and associated longbeak stork’s bill (Erodium botrys) and mowed invasive grasses such as red brome ( Bromus rubens ). Very few native plant individuals, such as desertbroom ( Baccharis sarothroides), are sprouting within these areas.
4.1.2 Disturbed Wetland (11200)
Disturbed wetland refers to areas that are permanently or periodically inundated by water that have been significantly modified by human activity. Disturbed wetl ands include concrete-lined channels, Arizona crossings, To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 10 MARCH 2023
detention basins, culverts, and ditches. Disturbed wetlands are often unvegetated, but can contain scattered native or non-native vegetation, such as giant reed (Arundo donax), tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), palms ( Phoenix spp.; Washingtonia spp.), Bermuda grass ( Cynodon dactylon), willows (Salix spp.), and cattails (Typha spp.) (Oberbauer et. al. 2008).
Within the study area, disturbed wetland refers to an area of rip rap within the channel at the outfall of a culvert under Grand Avenue. This area has relatively low vegetative cover.
4.1.3 Urban/Developed (12000)
Urban/developed refers to areas that have been constructed on or disturbed so severely that native vegetation is no longer supported. Developed land includes areas with permanent or semi-permanent structures, pavement or hardscape, landscaped areas, and areas with a large amount of debris or other materials (Oberbauer et. al. 2008).
In the study area, this land cover generally represents areas of concrete and asphalt from previous development and associated parking lots, with mostly invasive non-native plant species such as fountain grass ( Pennisetum setaceum) occupying cracks and gaps between pavements. The few native plants present in these areas include one Gooding’s willow (Salix gooddingii) which is mostly surrounded by concrete. This mapping unit also includes a small artificially constructed biofiltration basin located just north of the main channel. The basin is irrigated and is dominated by San Diego sagewort (Artemisia palmeri) and Douglas’ sagewort (Artemisia douglasiana).
4.1.4 Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410)
Coastal and valley freshwater marsh is a wetland habitat that is permanently flooded by freshwater lacking a significant current (Oberbauer et. al. 2008). Because it is permanently flooded by fresh water, there is an accumulation of deep, peaty soils. It is typically dominated by species such as cattail, sedge ( Carex spp.), yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.).
This vegetation community was used to map the lowest, wet part of the channel which is dominated by southern cattail (Typha domingensis) with associated scattered young willows (Salix sp.).
4.1.5 Herbaceous Wetland/Southern Willow Scrub (52510/63320) This combination of two vegetation communities is used to best describe the general current conditions on slopes adjacent to the channel as observed during the site visit. The composition and distribution of vegetation communities within the Conservation Area in and surrounding the channel may continue to evolve over time with continued implementation of maintenance and management activities.
Herbaceous wetlands are seasonal wetlands which may be found adjacent to drainages or in swales and typically contain primarily annual species. This vegetation comm unity usually does not support species which are more characteristic of freshwater marsh, including Typha, Scirpus, and Juncus (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Southern willow scrub is a dense, broad-leafed, winter-deciduous ripari an thicket dominated by several willow species, with scattered emergent Fremont cottonwood ( Populus fremontii ) and California sycamore ( Platanus racemosa ) (Oberbauer et. al. 2008).
Herbaceous wetland/southern willow scrub is mapped on channel slopes in the study area and is a generally dense mixture of several species including California mugwort, sweetscent (Pluchea odorata), some San Diego sagewort, To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 11 MARCH 2023
Canadian horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), young willows such as red willow ( Salix laevigata) and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis ), scattered planted lemonadeberry shrubs ( Rhus intergrifolia ), Hooker’s evening primrose (Oenothera elata ssp. hookeri), and a low cover of young California sycamore. Vegetation to the south of the channel is generally denser than to the north of the channel, although overall species composition is similar.
4.1.6 Disturbed Southern Riparian Woodland (62500)
Southern riparian woodland is moderate density riparian woodland that is dominated by small trees or shrubs and has scattered taller riparian trees. Southern riparian woodland occurs within major river systems where flood scour occurs and smaller major tributaries. Characteristic species that are typically found in southern riparian woodland include broom baccharis, western sycamore, western cottonwood ( Populus spp.), willows, and elderberry species (Sambucus spp.) (Oberbauer et. al. 2008).
Within the study area, this vegetation community is mapped in one area adjacent to the channel, and is mapped as disturbed southern riparian woodland due to the amou nt of non-native tree species cooccurring with native species. This area is dominated by larger willow trees, with associated eucalyptus and ornamental crimson bottlebrush (Melaleuca citrina).
4.2 Jurisdictional Resources
While the primary focus of this biological survey was on areas outside of the channel and a formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted as a part of this effort, vegetation communities observed in and adjacent to the channel area were mapped.
Vegetation communities, including those classified as potential wetlands, were mapped within the study area and may be regulated by local, state, and federal agencies. These include disturbed wetland, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, herbaceous wetland/southern willow scrub, and disturbed southern riparian woodland. Communities below the OHWM within the channel are likely regulated USACE, pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act; CDFW, pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code; and the RWQCB, pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. Communities located outside of the OHWM but adjacent to the channel, such as disturbed southern riparian woodland, may be regulated as riparian habitat by CDFW. Communities located above the OHWM up to the top of the channel bank may be regulated by both CDFW and RWQCB.
4.3 Floral Diversity
A total of 60 species of native or naturalized plants, 30 native (50%) and 30 non-native (50%), were recorded in the study area during the site visit (Attachment A). The majority of native plant cover occurs within the Conservation Area within and surrounding the channel. However, some native species occur scattered throughout the disturbed and developed areas, occupying a low (i.e. less than 10%) cover overall in those areas.
4.3.1 Special-Status Plant Species
Two plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) were observed during the survey: San Diego sagewort (CRPR 4.2), and San Diego marsh-elder (Iva hayesiana; CRPR 2B.2). Plant species with a CRPR of 4 (i.e., San Diego sagewort) are considered limited distribution or watchlist species and less sensitive/rare than plant species with a CRPR of 1 through 3 (CNPS 2022). San Diego sagewort cu rrently has a tentative global ranking of G3, which To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 12 MARCH 2023
corresponds to a moderate extinction risk “due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors” (CDFW 2022b).
These plant species are located primarily within in the existing Conservation Area associated with the channel, and were planted as part of the channel restoration work (Dudek 2011). No special-status plant species were observed during a previous biological reconnaissance survey of the channel area conducted by Dudek in December of 2008, prior to channel restoration work in the area (Dudek 2009). San Diego marsh elder is located within the Conservation Area adjacent to the channel. While the majority of San Diego sagewort present in the study area is located within the existing Conservation Area, some San Diego sagewort is located outside of the Conservation Area immediately to the southwest of the existing bridge near a storm drain, and within the small biofiltration basin to the east of the bridge on the northern side of the channel.
The study area was previously extensively graded for de velopment, and undocumented fill was likely deposited throughout the entire project area to a depth of four feet, as described in the geotechnical report (Geotek 2021).
Due to the disturbed, previously developed context of the study area supporting little to no appropriate habitat and suitable substrate, no special-status plant species other than those which were planted during channel restoration are expected to occur within the study area, and thus focused rare plant surveys are not necessary.
4.4 Wildlife Diversity
A total of 12 wildlife species were observed during the site visit, including 10 bird species, one mammal (California ground squirrel [Otospermophilus beecheyi]), and one reptile (western fence lizard [ Sceloporus occidentalis]). All wildlife species observed in the study area are relatively common, widely distributed, and adapted to living in close proximity to urban development. A list of wildlife species observed during the site visit is included as Attachment B.
4.4.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species and Nesting Birds While focused wildlife surveys were not conducted, no sp ecial-status wildlife species were observed during the 2022 reconnaissance survey. Due to the disturbed, previously developed context of the study area which is situated in a highly urbanized area, and the relatively limited extent of native habitat present, there is a low potential for special-status wildlife species to occur in the study area, especially outside of the Conservation Area.
Outside of the Conservation Area, the study area has limi ted potential to support nesting birds during the avian breeding season due to the disturbed nature of the majority of the area, lack of substantial vegetative cover, and surrounding development. Nesting in the study area would likely be limited to small, common bird species which are tolerant of disturbance from adjacent development and traffic. Vegetation within and adjacent to the channel provides denser cover for wildlife and primarily has the potential to support nesting of common, small riparian bird species such as common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), while disturbed and urban/developed open areas could support common species such as mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) which sometimes nest on the ground. Mature willows located in the disturbed southern riparian woodland and tall eucalyptus trees located mostly adjacent to the western side of the study area have the potential to support nesting of common bird species in addition to raptors that are adapted to urban environments, such as Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii).
Some scattered small mammal burrows, California ground squirrel and/or rabbit burrows are present in the study area where pavement isn’t present. Due to the highly disturbed condition of the study area and the fact that a large amount of the area is paved and was historically almost entirely developed, the level of habitat suitability for special- To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 13 MARCH 2023
status wildlife species such as burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is low, and there is a low potential for the study area to support special-status small mammals. No burrowing owl sign was observed within the study area during the survey.
The study area is not expected to support special-status listed riparian birds such as least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) or southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus) because the riparian areas on site are too small and isolated to support these species. The area of the channel east of the bridge is not expected to support special-status riparian birds since it is comprised mostly of cattails in the channel with scattered small willows. West of the existing bridge, there is a denser cover of riparian vegetation including willows in the channel area, but the potential for the habitat to support least Bell’s vireo is still low due to the urbanized status of the surrounding area and the relatively narrow and limited amount of mature native habitat present in the study area. Southwestern willow flycatcher occurrences are increasingly rare in southern California and would be expected in wider and more extensive riparian habitat than is present in and adjacent to the study area.
According to the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), tw o special-status wildlife occurrences with one mile accuracy overlap the study area: American badger (Taxidea taxus) from an unknown year and Townsend’s big- eared bat from 1930 (Corynorhinus townsendii) (CDFW 2022c). The study area does not contain suitable roosting or foraging habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bat, and American badger is not expected to occur due to the disturbed and urbanized context of the study area. No designated or proposed critical habitat for special-status wildlife species occurs in the study area (USFWS 2022).
4.4.2 Wildlife Movement
The study area includes an approximately 770-foot-long (0.15-mile) segment of Las Posas Creek (encompassed within the Conservation Area). The Las Posas Creek is a north to southwest–trending urbanized channel originating in the foothills of San Marcos and flowing south through an urban corridor of the city before reaching its confluence with San Marcos Creek, approximately 1 mile downstream of the study area. The ability for this reach to provide a dispersal corridor for terrestrial wildlife and avifauna is restricted by road crossings, culverts, fences, buildings and other manmade structures that restrict wildlife use, fragment habitat, and impede movement. Terrestrial movement upstream is limited by culverts under Grand Avenue, which forms the northern boundary of the study area, and State Route 78 beyond Grand Avenue, and the entire study area is fenced with chain link fencing. Terrestrial movement downstream is limited by culverts under Via Vera Cruz, approximately 550 feet west of the study area.
A formal wildlife movement study has not been conducted; however, with wetland and riparian vegetation, stream bed, and perennial water supply, the Conservation Area li kely facilitates limited wildlife movement. Because the channel at this location is earthen bottomed, vegetated, and supports perennial stream flow (due to urban runoff), it provides cover and aquatic resources for wildlife species in the area, and likely permits limited wildlife movement from Grand Avenue west to Via Vera Cruz, where the channel becomes contained within a closed channel conveyance system. Therefore, the study area likely provides resources primarily to birds. Other common urban wildlife such as coyote (Canis latrans), common raccoon (Procyon lotor), or striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) may also occasionally use the study area for foraging, but due to fencing as well as the culverts and roads surrounding and fragmenting available habitat, the study area likely does not facilitate substantial movement opportunities for terrestrial wildlife. This area has not been designated as a regional wildlife corridor in the City’s draft Subarea Plan to the MHCP and given the fragmented nature of Las Posas Creek, this area likely does not function as a regional wildlife corridor due to the constrained urban context of the study area and the fragmented nature of the channel.
To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 14 MARCH 2023
4.5 Vernal Pool Assessment
A property located immediately south of Linda Vista Drive across from the study area is a managed vernal pool mitigation site known to contain vernal pools and sensitive species which are associated with vernal pool habitats.
However, the study area has been graded and almost entirely developed with the exception of the channel, and extensively disturbed in the past, and no vernal pools were observed within the study area during the site visit.
Although the survey was conducted outside of the usual wet season, no evidence of vernal pools or depressions that could support ponding were observed. Additionally, as determined during the geotechnical study, fill soil material is located over older alluvium throughout the proposed project area to a depth of 4 feet below surface, and undocumented fill was likely deposited throughout the entire project area (Geotek 2021). The study area does not support vernal pools and therefore is not expected to support special-status plant or wildlife species associated with vernal pools, such as listed large branchiopods.
5 Impacts, Constraints, and Mitigation
5.1 Definition of Impacts
Direct impacts were quantified by overlaying the impact limits over the mapped biological resources. For this report, direct impacts are defined as those that result in the di rect removal of a biological resource through clearing, grubbing, and/or grading, and all impacts associated with the proposed project as shown in Figure 3 are assumed to be permanent.
Indirect impacts are reasonably foreseeable effects caused by implementation of the proposed project on remaining or adjacent biological resources outside the proposed limits of work. Indirect impacts may affect areas within the defined study area but outside the limits of grading, non-impacted areas, and areas outside the study area, such as downstream effects. Indirect impacts include short term effects immediately related to construction activities and long term or chronic effects related to trail use and development of the study area. In most cases, indirect effects are not quantified, but in some cases, quantification might be included, such as using a noise contour to quantify indirect impacts to nesting birds.
5.2 Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
The impact limits of the proposed project are shown in Figure 3 over the vegetation mapping. As shown, the limits of work overlap approximately 11.01 acres of non-sensitive land covers which do not require mitigation for direct impacts. Direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be completely avoided, and impacts would be limited to urban/developed and disturbed habitat land covers.
A summary of impacts to mapped vegetation communities and land covers and mitigation ratios typically required by the City of San Marcos in cooperation with regula tory agencies for impacts to the present vegetation communities are provided in Table 2. Mitigation ratios outlined below would ensure consistency with the MHCP and draft San Marcos Subarea Plan.
The proposed project would not impact the Conservation Area, and permanent fencing is to be installed around the Conservation Area. All mitigation ratios provided in Table 2 are for impacts outside of the Conservation Area.
To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 15 MARCH 2023
Table 2. Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers in the Study Area VVegetation Community
oor Land Cover Type
Existing Acres
in Study Area
Impacts
Proposed
(Acres)
Miitigation Ratio
Typically Required for
Impacts
Mitigation
Required
(Acres)
Disturbed Habitat 3.26 3.19 N/A 0.00
Disturbed Wetland 0.03 0.00 2:1 0.00
Urban/Developed 7.98 7.82 N/A 0.00
Coastal and Valley
Freshwater Marsh
0.33 0.00 2:1 0.00
Herbaceous Wetland/
Southern Willow Scrub
0.42 0.00 3:1 0.00
Southern Riparian
Woodland (Disturbed)
0.04 0.00 3:1 0.00
Total Acres 122.06 11.001 -—— 0.000
Short-term indirect impacts associated with dust and erosion, and short- and long-term indirect impacts associated with increased human presence, could occur as a result of project implementation. Such impacts could negatively affect viability of sensitive native vegetation adjacent to the project footprint through decreasing photosynthetic ability and degradation due to unauthorized access. Indirect impacts resulting from project implementation would be less than significant with implementation of MM-BIO-1.
5.3 Impacts to Potential Jurisdictional Resources
Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, are considered sensitive and thus are regulated by local, state, and federal agencies. The proposed project would not result in direct impacts to potential jurisdictional resources which are located within the Conservation Area, and thus no permits for impacts to jurisdictional resources are required.
Potential short- and long-term indirect impacts to potential jurisdictional resources located adjacent to the impact area, such as off-site transport of sediment and pollutants, would be avoided through implementation of measure MM-BIO-1 as described in section 5.5 below, and would be less than significant. As a part of the channel improvement project, native transitional species were pl anted along the widened channel slopes to serve as a native habitat buffer to the drainage channel to further protect riparian and wetland habitats beyond the permanent fencing which shall be installed around the Conservation Area.
5.4 Impacts to Special-Status Species and Nesting Birds
5.4.1 Special-Status Plants
Special-status plants observed in the study area during the site visit with a CRPR of 1 or 2 (San Diego marsh elder) are located entirely within the Conservation Area and would not be impacted by the proposed project. Plant species with a CRPR of 4 (i.e., San Diego sagewort) are consider ed limited distribution or watchlist species and less sensitive/rare than plant species with a CRPR of 1 through 3 (CNPS 2022). Some San Diego sagewort, a species which was not observed in the study area in 2008 but was planted during restoration activities (Dudek 2009; Dudek 2011), is located adjacent to, but outside of, the Conservation Area near a storm drain and within a small biofiltration basin and may be impacted by the proposed project.
To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 16 MARCH 2023
CNPS specifies that plants with a CRPR of 4 are species which warrant population monitoring in general, but currently seem to have a low level of vulnerability to threat of extinction statewide (CNPS 2020). Furthermore, CRPR 4 species “generally do not currently appear to meet the criteria for listing as threatened or endangered”, and thus typically are not required to have impacts assessed acco rding to CEQA guidelines (CNPS 2020). Certain CRPR 4 species under specific population and geographic range-related circumstances may meet CEQA Section 15380 definitions which would qualify the species for impact assessment, including if the species is included in sensitive species lists maintained by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USFWS, or U.S. Forest Service (USFS) (CNPS 2020). The San Diego sagewort present was planted as part of the recent restoration effort and thus does not represent a natural occurrence of the species within the study area, and the species is not included on BLM, USFWS, or USFS sensitive plant species lists (BLM 2023; USFS 2023; USFWS 2023).
Because the Conservation Area would not be impacted, there would be no direct impacts to special-status plant species with a CRPR of 1 or 2, and therefore direct impact s to special-status plants as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Potential indirect impacts to special-status plants are similar to those described for sensitive vegetation communities and would be less than significant with implementation of MM-BIO-1.
5.4.2 Special-Status Wildlife and Nesting Birds
The highly disturbed condition of the majority of the stud y area, with limited vegetative cover and surrounded by development, is not suitable habitat for most special- status wildlife. However, th e study area and adjacent vegetation have the potential to support nesting birds. If clearing, grubbing, or other ground disturbance related to project construction occurs during the nesting bird season, any impacts to active nests or the young of nesting bird species would be significant.
Indirect impacts to protected nesting birds that have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the study area could result from construction activities. Potential temporary indirect impacts to nesting birds could occur as a result of excessive noise and increased human activity in close proximity to an active nest. Long-term indirect impacts could result from intense lighting adjacent to th e Conservation Area, which could limit suitability of the native habitat for nesting birds, increased human activity in the vicinity of the Conservation Area, and an increase in the number of domestic pets, i.e. cats which may hunt and kill native wildlife if allowed to roam outdoors, or off- leash dogs which can also harm or kill wildlife. Impacts to nesting birds shall be mitigated to less than significant through nesting bird surveys and establishment of appropriate nest buffers, as described in MM-BIO-2 provided in Section 5.5 below, and lighting, increased human activity, and domestic pet impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM-BIO-1.
To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 17 MARCH 2023
5.4.3 Vernal Pools
The study area does not support vernal pools and therefore is not expected to support special-status plant or wildlife species associated with vernal pools, such as listed large branchiopods. No impacts to vernal pools would occur as a result of the proposed project.
5.5 Mitigation and Impact Avoidance Measures
The following measures are recommended to ensure that the proposed project is implemented in accordance with the City's General Plan, CEQA, and other pertinent local, state, and federal guidelines and regulations.
While the proposed project would not result in direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, special-status plants with a CRPR of 1 or 2, or potential jurisdictional resources, these resources are present in the channel area which is located adjacent to the impact areas, and thus are subject to potential short and long-term indirect impacts as described 5.2 and 5.3 above. Indirect impacts would be avoided and would be less than significant with implementation of MM-BIO-1.
The California Fish and Game Code protects bird nests and the MBTA prohibits the intentional take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird. Construction-related ground-disturbing activities (clearing, grubbing, grading) or other activities that result in the removal of vegetation that occur during the nesting bird season, or any impacts to active nests or the young of nesting bird specie s, as well as impacts to raptors that could nest in the mature trees in or adjacent to the st udy area, would be significant. This impact shall be mitigated to less than significant through nesting bird surveys and establishment of appropriate buffers, as described in MM-BIO-2.
MM-BIO-1 Sensitive Vegetation and Resources Protection. Indirect impacts to sensitive riparian and wetland vegetation communities, sensitive habitat, and jurisdictional aquatic resources located within the existing Conservation Area, which will remain under the City’s jurisdiction, shall be avoided through implementation of the following measures. a. All proposed lighting systems associated with proposed future development shall comply with City standards for shielded low sodium, low wattage lighting designed to cut glare and light scatter and to direct light away from the Conservation Area. b. Signage shall be installed by the project applicant or its designee along the development/open space interface and/or shall be provided at existing buildings where determined appropriate by the City for the purpose of identifying sensitive habitats and educating visitors and residents of sensitive habitats and/or restoration efforts. Signage shall include information regarding the importance of not allowing pets to roam outdoors and off- leash, both for the safety of pets and to protect native wildlife. c. The Conservation Area shall be strategically fenced to ensure habitat protection and to minimize conflicts with adjacent neighborhoods. All necessary fencing shall be designed to allow for wildlife passage but deter human use of the Conservation Area. The Conservation Area shall be fenced using permanent chain-link fencing. d. The limits of work shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by a qualified biologist for consistency against the approved grading plan prior to initiation of project construction.
To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 18 MARCH 2023
e. All site preparation and construction activities shall incorporate standard erosional best management practices (BMPs) including, but not limited to, straw bales, gravel bags, sand bags, the periodic watering of bare areas, and the direction of construction area drainage to existing storm drain facilities.
f. All equipment maintenance, staging areas, and dispensing of fuel, oil, or other toxicants shall occur in designated upland areas at least 50 feet from the Conservation Area. g. Install silt fencing and other silt containment devices where necessary to prevent off-site transport of sediment and pollutants. Install oil and grease traps at any storm drain inlets which are adjacent to or within work areas.
h. Any post-construction BMPs shall be described in a Stormwater Management Plan to illustrate how runoff from proposed developments will be treated prior to its discharge into the drainage.
MM-BIO-2 Nesting Bird Surveys. Construction-related ground-disturbing activities (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading, and other intensive activities) that occur during the breeding season (February 15 through August 31 for most species, and from January 15 through August 31 for raptors,) shall require a one-time biological survey for nesting bird species to be conducted by a qualified biologist within the limits of work within 72 hours prior to construction. This survey is necessary to ensure avoidance of impacts to nesting raptors and/or birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503 and 3513. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans or a biological resources figure, and the information provided to the construction supervisor and any personnel working near the nest buffer. Active nests shall have “no work zone” buffers established around them (e.g., 250 feet for passerines to 500 feet for raptors) by the project biologist in the field with brightly colored flagging tape, conspicuous fencing, or other appropriate barriers or signage. The project biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to avoid inadvertent impacts to these nests. The project biologist may adjust the 250-foot or 500-foot setback at their discretion depending on the species and the location of the nest (e.g., if the nest is well protected in an area buffered by dense vegetation). However, if needed, additional qualified monitor(s) shall be provided in order to monitor active nest(s) or other project activities in order to ensure all of the project biologist’s duties are completed. Once the nest is no longer occupied for the season as determined by the project biologist, construction may proceed in the setback areas.
If construction activities, particularly clearing/grubbing, grading, and other intensive activities, stop for more than 3 days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted within the proposed impact area.
5.6 Consistency with Local and Regional Resource Planning The proposed project would be consistent with the goals of the MHCP as well as with the San Marcos General Plan’s goals and policies relating to natural resources included in section 2.3.2 above (City of San Marcos 2021). The study area is not within a designated Biological Core and Linkage Area or a MHCP Focused Planning Area. Sensitive biological resources in the study area, including potentia l jurisdictional aquatic resources, sensitive vegetation communities and habitat, and plants with a CRPR of 1 or 2, would be conserved. The Conservation Area contains To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 19 MARCH 2023
native habitat which has already been greatly enhanced through the recent restoration efforts, and sensitive habitat within the study area as well as any sensitive wildlife it supports would be protected through the measures of the proposed project, consistent with Goal COS-1 of the General Plan (City of San Marcos 2021). The proposed project would also be consistent with Policy 2.6 of Goal COS-2 of the General Plan, as project implementation would not be expected to result in the removal of healthy, mature trees (City of San Marcos 2021). Implementation of the project would introduce a landscape plan and more vegetation and trees than what currently exists in the study area, which would accomplish more than the 1:1 tree replacement rate required in the case that any trees within the study area are removed and are considered to be mature at the time clearing occurs for the proposed project. With implementation of proposed mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable plan related to biological resources.
Should you have any questions regarding this report and it s findings, please do not hesitate to contact me at 760.557.0545 or at [email protected].
Sincerely,
__________________________________
O
Olivia Koziel
Biologist, Dudek
Att.: Figure 1 – Project Location
Figure 2 – Biological Resources
Figure 3 – Impacts
A – Plant Compendium
B – Wildlife Compendium
cc: Vanessa Scheidel, Dudek
6 References
AOS. 2022. Check-List of North and Middle American Birds. Accessed from https://checklist.americanornithology.org/taxa/.
BLM. 2023. “BLM Special Status Plants”. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/programs-natural-resources- native-plants-california-special-status-plants-concise-list_1.pdf.
CDFW. 2022a. “Special Animals List.” California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento: CDFW, Biogeographic Branch. October 2022. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline.
CDFW. 2022b. “Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List.” California Natural Diversity Database.
Sacramento: CDFW, Biogeographic Branch. October 2022. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/ FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline.
To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 20 MARCH 2023
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2022c. RareFind, Version 5. California Natural Diversity Database (Commercial Subscription). Sacramento: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed October 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.
CDFW. 2022d. “California Natural Communities List.” Sacramento: CDFW. July 5, 2022. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.
City of San Marcos. 2021. San Marcos General Plan Update. October 2021. https://sanmarcos.generalplan.org/work-products.
CNPS. 2020. “Considerations for Including CRPR 4 Plant Taxa in CEQA Biological Resource Impact Analysis”.
Adopted by the CNPS Rare Plant Program Committee 21 January 2020. https://www.cnps.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/02/crpr4_technical_memo.pdf
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Accessed October 2022. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.
Crother, B.I. 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding, edited by J.J. Moriarty. 8th ed.
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR); Herpetological Circular No. 43.
Dudek. 2009. Biological Resources Letter Report and Impacts Analysis, Grand Avenue/ Las Posas Reach Flood Protection Project, San Marcos, California. August 28, 2009.
Dudek. 2011. Final Wetland Restoration and Monitoring Plan for the Grand Avenue Capital Improvements 317 Drainage/Road Improvements Project, San Marcos, California. May 2011.
Dudek. 2018. Long Term Management Plan for the Channel Widening at Grand Avenue, Capital Improvements Project No. 88214. Draft. June 2018.
Geotek, Inc. 2021. Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Commercial Development, Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive, San Marcos, California. Prepared for: AOA San Marcos, LLC. 709 Randolph Avenue, Costa Mesa, California, 92626
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame- Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October 1986.
Jepson Flora Project. 2022. Jepson eFlora. Berkeley, California: University of California. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/ interchange/index.html.
NetrOnline. 2022. Historic Aerials. Accessed October 2022. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California,” R.F. Holland, October 1986. March 2008.
To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum for the Marcos Specific Plan Project in San Marcos, California
14763 21 MARCH 2023
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2022. “California.” State PLANTS Checklist. https://plants.usda.gov/ home/stateSearch.
USFS. 2023. “Rare Plant Profiles”. Accessed June 2023. https://www.fs.usda.gov/wildflowers/Rare_Plants /profiles/list.shtml.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022. “Critical Habitat and Occurrence Data” [map]. USFWS Geospatial Services. Accessed October 2022. http://www.fws.gov/data.
USFWS. 2023. “Listed Plants”. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System. Accessed June 2023. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/pub/listedPlants.jsp.
Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. 78 LASOMBRA DR
POINSETTIAAVE
SLASPOSASRD
NTWINOAKSVALLEYRD
ALTURA
DR SAN
MARINO
DR
VIAPORTOLA
KNOLL RD
NLASPOSASRD
VI A LA VENTA
SANDYLN
SMILAX RD
RUS H DR
FIREBIRDLN
PLU
MOSAAVE
SRANCHOSANTAFERD
SPECIALTYDR
PI CO AVE
PAWNEE ST
NAVAJO ST
SANTABARBARADR
S
PACIFIC ST
S TWIN OAKS VALLEY RD
LAS FLORES DR
POPPY
RD
VIEWPOINTDR
SHENAN
DOAHAVE
LATIERRADR
S AN PABLODR
CAMINO
DEL
SOL BINGHAM DR
WINDY
W
AY
LANOCHE
DR
HOLLENCREST RD
01ST ST
SYCAMOREAVE
ACACIA
DR
CRAVEN
DR
BELESPRITCIR
PALOMARCOSAVE
APPLEWILDE DR
ALLEY
VIOLET
AVE
CASITA LN
DISCOVERY ST
GRANDON
AVE
CRAVEN RD
GRAND AVE
HONEYSUCKLE
DR
CANOPY DR
ECARMEL
ST
W
SAN
MARCOS
BLVD
MIMOSA
AVE
LAKERIDGEDR
09TH ST
ALLEY
DECISION
ST
VIAVERACRUZ
BI RCH
ST
QUAIL
HILL
DR
DESCANSO
AVE
AUTUMN
DR
W MISSION RD
TESOROAVE
COMMERCEWAY
BARHAM
DR
GLENDALE
AVE
HIL
LHAVENDR
W BORDEN RD
NPACIFICST
LOS
VALLECITOS
BLVD
DOGWOODWAY
CAPALINA RD
LACASADR
LAMIRADADR
COM
ETCIR
OLEANDER
AVE
CURRY CO MB DR
RICHMAR
AVE
S BENT AVE
LA COLUSA DR
S SANTAFEAVE
WESTLAKEDR
AVENIDAAZUL
BLUESAGE DR
PROGRESS
ST
MCMAHR RD
LABONITADR
HELMSDALE
RD
ASHST
TOYON
TER
GRAND AVE
TILLEY LN
TI G ER WAY
VIRGINIA PL
CAMPUS VI EW DR
JUNIPER LN
ARMORLITE DR
LINDA VISTA DR
ACTIVITYDR
SEQUOIA
ST
ECHO
LN
PIONEERAVE
LOMAALTADR
DELEONE RD
WINDRIDGE
CIR
F I R E
LN
Project Location
Marcos Specific Plan Project
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2022
Date: 2/27/2023 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1476301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Bio\Figure1-ProjectLocation.mxd 02 , 0 0 0 1,000
Feet
Study Area Boundary
FIGURE 1
Chula Vista
Solana Beach
Encinitas
San Diego
Carlsbad
Oceanside
La Mesa
El Cajon
Santee
Poway
San Marcos
Escondido
Vista
Imperial
Beach
Del Mar
Coronado
Riverside
County
Mexico
905
209
75 52
54 94
241
98 73
125
274
195
56 78
86 111
67 74
74 76 79
805
215
15 5
8 Project Site
Date: 2/27/2023 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1476301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Bio\Figure2-BiologicalResources.mxd DEV
DEV
DH
DH
DEV
DH
DEV
DEV
DW
FWM
dSRW
DH
HW/SWS
FWM
HW/SWS
DH
HW/SWS
78 GRAND AVE
VIA VERA CRUZ
BINGHAM DR
LINDA VISTA DR
S BENT AVE
LOS VALLECITOS BLVD
Biological Resources
Marcos Specific Plan Project
SOURCE: City of San Marocs 2022; SANGIS 2022
0 300 150
Feet
Special-Status Plant Observations
FIGURE 2
Study Area Boundary
Conservation Area
San Diego sagewort ( Artemisia palmeri) - CRPR 4.2
San Diego marsh-elder ( Iva hayesiana) - CRPR 2B.2
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
FWM - Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
HW/SWS - Herbaceous Wetland/Southern Willow Scrub
DW - Disturbed Wetland
dSRW - disturbed Southern Riparian Woodland
DH - Disturbed Habitat
DEV - Urban/Developed
Date: 2/27/2023 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1476301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Bio\Figure3-Impacts.mxd DEV
DEV
DH
DH
DEV
DH
DEV
DEV
DW
FWM
dSRW
DH
HW/SWS
FWM
HW/SWS
DH
HW/SWS
78 GRAND AVE
VIA VERA CRUZ
BINGHAM DR
LINDA VISTA DR
S BENT AVE
LOS VALLECITOS BLVD
Impacts
Marcos Specific Plan Project
SOURCE: Fuscoe 2022; City of San Marocs 2022; SANGIS 2022 0 300 150
Feet
Special-Status Plant Observations
FIGURE 3
Study Area Boundary
Proposed Development
Proposed Permanent Fence Location
Conservation Area
San Diego sagewort ( Artemisia palmeri) - CRPR 4
San Diego marsh-elder ( Iva hayesiana) - CRPR 2B.2
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
FWM - Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
HW/SWS - Herbaceous Wetland/Southern Willow Scrub
DW - Disturbed Wetland
dSRW - disturbed Southern Riparian Woodland
DH - Disturbed Habitat
DEV - Urban/Developed
Attachment A
Plant Compendium
ATTACHMENT A / PLANT COMPENDIUM
14763 A-1MARCH 2023
Vascular Species
Eudicots
AAMARANTHACEAE – AMARANTH FAMILY
Amaranthus albus – prostrate pigweed
ANACARDIACEAE – SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY
Malosma laurina – laurel sumac
Rhus integrifolia – lemonade berry
APIACEAE – CARROT FAMILY
Foeniculum vulgare – fennel
ASTERACEAE – SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Ambrosia psilostachya – western ragweed
Artemisia californica – California sagebrush
Artemisia douglasiana – Douglas’ sagewort
Artemisia palmeri – San Diego sagewort
Baccharis pilularis – coyote brush
Baccharis salicifolia – mulefat
Baccharis sarothroides – desertbroom
Centaurea melitensis – Maltese star-thistle
Dittrichia graveolens – stinkwort
Erigeron canadensis – Canadian horseweed
Heterotheca grandiflora – telegraphweed
Isocoma menziesii – Menzies’s golden bush
Iva hayesiana – San Diego marsh-elder
Lactuca serriola – prickly lettuce
Pluchea odorata – sweetscent
Stephanomeria diegensis – San Diego wirelettuce
BRASSICACEAE – MUSTARD FAMILY
Hirschfeldia incana – shortpod mustard
CACTACEAE – CACTUS FAMILY
Opuntia littoralis – coast prickly pear
CHENOPODIACEAE – GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Salsola australis – Russian thistle
Salsola tragus – prickly Russian thistle
ATTACHMENT A / PLANT COMPENDIUM
14763 A-2MARCH 2023
EEUPHORBIACEAE – SPURGE FAMILY
Euphorbia maculata – spotted sandmat
FABACEAE – LEGUME FAMILY
Acacia cyclops – coastal wattle
Melilotus albus – yellow sweetclover
Melilotus indicus – annual yellow sweetclover
Senna didymobotrya – African senna
GERANIACEAE – GERANIUM FAMIL
Erodium botrys – longbeak stork’s bill
LAMIACEAE – MINT FAMILY
Marrubium vulgare – horehound
MYRSINACEAE – MYRSINE FAMILY
Lysimachia arvensis – scarlet pimpernel
MYRTACEAE – MYRTLE FAMILY
Eucalyptus spp. – Eucalyptus
Melaleuca citrina – crimson bottlebrush
ONAGRACEAE – EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY
Epilobium brachycarpum – tall annual willowherb
Oenothera elata ssp. hookeri – Hooker’s evening primrose PLANTAGINACEAE – PLANTAIN FAMILY
Kickxia elatine – sharpleaf cancerwort
Plantago lanceolata – narrowleaf plantain
PLATANACEAE – PLANE TREE, SYCAMORE FAMILY
Platanus racemosa – California sycamore
POLYGONACEAE – BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Polygonum aviculare – prostrate knotweed
Rumex crispus – curly dock
ROSACEAE – ROSE FAMILY
Rosa californica – California rose
SALICACEAE – WILLOW FAMILY
Populus fremontii – Fremont cottonwood
Salix gooddingii – Goodding’s willow
Salix laevigata – red willow
ATTACHMENT A / PLANT COMPENDIUM
14763 A-3MARCH 2023
Salix lasiolepis – arroyo willow
SSOLANACEAE – NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Datura wrightii – sacred thorn-apple
Nicotiana glauca – tree tobacco
TAMARICACEAE – TAMARISK FAMILY
Tamarix ramosissima – tamarisk
Monocots
ARECACEAE – PALM FAMILY
Washingtonia robusta – Washington fan palm
CYPERACEAE – SEDGE FAMILY
Cyperus eragrostis – tall flatsedge
Schoenoplectus californicus – California bulrush
POACEAE – GRASS FAMILY
Bothriochloa barbinodis – cane bluestem
Bromus diandrus – ripgut brome
Bromus rubens – red brome
Cynodon dactylon – Bermudagrass
Muhlenbergia rigens – deer grass
Pennisetum setaceum – fountain grass
Schismus barbatus – common Mediterranean grass
TYPHACEAE – CATTAIL FAMILY
Typha domingensis – southern cattail
signifies introduced (non-native) species
ATTACHMENT A / PLANT COMPENDIUM
14763 A-4MARCH 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment B
Wildlife Compendium
ATTACHMENT B / WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
14763 B-1 DECEMBER 2022
Birds
Bushtits
AAEGITHALIDAE – LONG-TAILED TITS AND BUSHTITS
Psaltriparus minimus – bushtit
Flycatchers
TYRANNIDAE – TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Sayornis nigricans – black phoebe
Sayornis saya – Say’s phoebe
Tyrannus vociferans – Cassin’s kingbird
Hawks
ACCIPITRIDAE – HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES, AND ALLIES
Buteo jamaicensis – red-tailed hawk
Buteo lineatus – red-shouldered hawk
Jays, Magpies and Crows
CORVIDAE – CROWS AND JAYS
Corvus brachyrhynchos – American crow
Owls
TYTONIDAE – BARN OWLS
Tyto alba – barn owl
Pigeons and Doves
COLUMBIDAE – PIGEONS AND DOVES
Zenaida macroura – mourning dove
Wood Warblers and Allies
PARULIDAE – WOOD-WARBLERS
Geothlypis trichas – common yellowthroat
ATTACHMENT B / WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
14763 B-2 DECEMBER 2022
Mammals
Squirrels
SSCIURIDAE – SQUIRRELS
Otospermophilus beecheyi – California ground squirrel
Reptiles
Lizards
PHRYNOSOMATIDAE – IGUANID LIZARDS
Sceloporus occidentalis – western fence lizard
signifies introduced (non-native) species