The Knoll-Top. Several Other Small Structures Also Occur on the Lower Slopes in This Area

the knoll-top. Several other small structures also occur on the lower slopes in this area.

The property was in agricultural use in the past as a chicken farm. The remnants of one structure (a metal barn) used to house chickens is near the northwestern corner of the site; several terraced pads also occur on the northern and western portions of the property where other similar structures were formerly located. Open areas have since been disced and mowed on a regular basis for weed abatement and fire safety purposes.

One ephemeral drainage exists on the property, on the southern portion of the property, near its eastern boundary. It originates at the outflow of an 18” culvert that runs under the present access road. From the culvert exit it runs in an excavated straight ditch for approximately 100 feet. At this point there is no longer a distinct channel. When water is present, it likely sheet flows across a mowed area, south and east into a riparian woodland area. A channel runs generally south through the riparian woodland, and crosses the property boundary. It continues off-site through agricultural land to eventually enter the floodplain of the San Luis Rey River. The drainage is not noted as a continuous blue-line or broken blue-line on the USGS topo map (Figure 2).

A residential subdivision is west of the property, and a golf course is immediately north. Rural- residential development is adjacent to the south, and active agricultural fields are to the east across Wilshire Road.

To the northwest of the property is a large detention basin and riparian revegetation area which was previously established as mitigation for impacts resulting from development of the golf course to the north and residential development to the west. None of this habitat occurs within the subject property’s boundaries.

3. Methods and Survey Limitations

Affinis conducted an initial biological reconnaissance of the site in 2007. An updated survey was done by Affinis biologists Mike Busdosh and Marcia Adams on August 16, 2013. Kevin Clark of Clark Biological Services also participated in the survey to focus on avian species using the site. The weather was clear and warm, with slight variable breezes. Most of the site was traversed on foot. Additionally, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) was accessed to determine if any sensitive species had been reported from the project area.

It is the intent of this project to avoid significant impacts with project design. As noted, delineation of jurisdictional waters was done by Affinis’ Mike Busdosh. Survey and evaluation of least Bell’s vireo was done by Kevin Clark. As these resources are both largely associated with the riparian woodland area, they compared notes after each had done his field work. All of the project is to be west of the riparian woodland. To guide project design, these biologists together walked the length of the jurisdictional water and riparian woodland to delineate the western limits of jurisdictional waters and least Bell’s vireo potential foraging area. A single 2

delineation line was drawn using a hand-held GPS, to include the maximum area of both of these sensitive resources.

3. Results

a. Vegetation

The North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan has been adopted by SANDAG as the governing document for the Subregional Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP). The City’s SAP was prepared to be consistent with the MHCP. While the SAP does not define “disturbed lands” versus “nonnative (annual) grasslands” versus “Agricultural (including fallow) Land Appendix F of the MHCP provides the following:

“Annual (Nonnative) Grassland. Annual grassland is a mixture of annual grasses and broad-leaved, herbaceous species. Annual species comprise from 50 percent to more than 90 percent of the vegetative cover, and most annuals are non-native species. Nonnative grasses typically comprise at least 30 percent of the vegetation, although this number can be much higher in some years and lower in others, depending on land use and climatic conditions. Usually, the annual grasses are less than 1 m (3 ft) in height, and form a continuous or open cover. Emergent shrubs and trees may be present, but do not comprise more than 15 percent of the total vegetative cover. Characteristic annual grassland species include foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), wild oats (Avena spp.), fescues (Vulpia spp.), red-stem filaree (Erodium cicutariaum), mustards (Brassica spp.), lupines (Lupinus spp.), and goldfields (Lasthenia spp.), among others.”

“Disturbed Land. Disturbed land includes area in which the vegetative cover comprises less than 10 percent of the surface area (disregarding natural rock outcrops) and where there is evidence of soil disturbance and compaction (e.g., grading); or where the vegetative cover is greater than 10 percent, there is soil surface disturbance and compaction, and the presence of building foundations and debris (e.g., irrigation piping, fencing, old wells, abandoned farming or mining equipment) resulting from legal activities (as opposed to illegal dumping). Vegetation on disturbed land (if present) will have a high predominance of nonnative, weedy species such as Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), and sow-thistle (Sonchus oleraceus). Although nonnative grasses may be present on disturbed land, they do not dominate the vegetative cover. Examples of disturbed land include recently graded firebreaks, graded construction pads, construction staging areas, off-road vehicle trails, and old homesites.”

“Agricultural (including Fallow) land. Active agricultural land includes lands that are currently disturbed by cultivation or other agricultural activities involving crop 3

production practices (e.g., nurseries, orchards, field crops, improved pastures). Fallow agricultural land is land that has been previously disturbed by cultivation, but is currently out of production. Vegetation on fallow land is dependent, in part, on prior crops and crop culture practices. Depending on the type and intensity of disturbance, fallow fields may support either annual grassland or disturbed vegetative associations. Lands that are not currently in production but that are identified in a subarea plan as agriculture and have been cultivated in 3 of the last 5 years or according to accepted cultural practices (as defined by the County Agriculture Commission) will be considered fallow agriculture, regardless of species composition. Conversely, agricultural lands that have not been cultivated in 3 of the last 5 years, or that are proposed for conversion to non-agricultural land uses (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) shall be mapped and mitigated according to the actual vegetation type (e.g., annual grassland or disturbed land) based on vegetative characteristics, without regard to current or historic land uses.”

Based upon these guidelines, five vegetative associations/habitat types were mapped on-site (Figure 5). These include:

Urban/developed (9.6 acres). Areas supporting structures, landscaping, and paved areas were mapped as urban/developed land.

Disturbed land (1.3 acres). Areas that are largely devoid of vegetation were mapped as disturbed land. There are also remnants of old irrigation lines in some areas, especially near the riparian habitat.

Pasture (1.3 acre). This area is along the northeastern property boundary and consists of a small pad that was previously fenced and irrigated. It was last used for horse grazing in 2009.

Annual grassland (24.6 acres). Annual grassland, consisting primarily of Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) and bromes (Bromus spp.), is highly degraded and largely dominated by fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), and mustards (Brassica spp). As noted above, these areas are mowed and/or disced on a regular basis for weed abatement/fire safety purposes.

A few individual native plants such as goldenbush (Isocoma veneta), coyote brush (Baccharis piluaris), and deerweed (Lotus scoparius) were noted in some areas of the annual grassland, but no native scrub habitats are present on-site.

Riparian woodland (0.8 acres). A strip of riparian woodland is present along a portion of the eastern site boundary. It is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and black willow (S. gooddingii). Weedy tree species such as ornamental palms and tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) are present in some areas. The understory supports other weedy species such as castor bean (Ricinus communis) and bristly ox tongue (Picris echioides); as well as native mulefat (Baccharis sarothroides), coyote brush (B. pilularis), and bulrush (Scirpus spp.) in moister areas. No 4

standing or flowing water was present at the time of the survey. The riparian habitat is isolated and does not continue up or downstream due to ongoing agricultural activities and/or urban development off-site.

A complete list of plant species found on-site is included in Appendix 1.

b. Wildlife

Avifauna. Nineteen bird species were observed on-site (Appendix 2). Three raptors were noted flying over the site, including turkey vulture, red-tailed hawk, and American kestrel. Birds common to agricultural and urbanized areas were Eurasian collared dove, mourning dove, northern mockingbird, black phoebe, and California towhee. Additionally, common peafowl and domestic chickens freely roam much of the site.

Song sparrow and common yellowthroat were found in the on-site riparian woodland, as well as one sensitive species, least Bell’s vireo. The vireo was also detected in the off-site riparian to the northwest. Please refer to the discussion of sensitive species below.

Mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Three mammals and one reptile were detected on-site. Mammals included coyote (Canis latrans), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). Other common mammals such as skunks, raccoons, and rodents could also occur, but these were not observed during the survey due to their nocturnal habits. One reptile, western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) was seen. Common amphibians may utilize portions of the riparian area during the rainy season.

c. Sensitive Habitat

Table 5-2 of the City’s SAP assigns habitat groups on a scale from A to F, with A being the most sensitive and F the least sensitive.

Riparian woodland and jurisdictional waters. Riparian woodlands are classified as a Habitat Group A in the City’s SAP. Impacts to riparian woodlands within the Offsite Mitigation Zone require mitigation at a 3:1 ratio.

The one source of stormwater runoff entering the property is from the intensive agriculture immediately to the east. The agriculture operation has constructed a series of stormwater runoff ditches on its property. These coalesce to an outlet onto the subject property. This outlet releases the stormwater runoff (and potentially nuisance flows) onto the property immediately north of the existing access road, where it then flows into the existing 18” culvert under the access road. Potential jurisdictional waters would begin at the outflow point of this culvert.

Four jurisdictions can have authority over activities affecting the water resources:

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (federal Clean Water Act Section 404).

• The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ( Clean Water Act Section 401).

• The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (state Streambed Alteration Agreement Resources Code Section 1602).

• The City of Oceanside (local land use agency).

Federal Clean Water Act.

Section 404. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for work placing fill within Waters of the United States. Waters of the United States potentially pertinent to this property include:

"All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds...: [33 CFR 328.3 (a)(3)]

Wetlands. The Army Corps has defined wetlands 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 similar areas." (42 Fed. Reg. 37, 125-26, 37128-29; July 19, 1977).

Under the federal methodology, an area is a jurisdictional wetland if it is under normal conditions and manifests all of the following: prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Clean Water Act permitting has abandoned the 1989 methodology, and has returned to the 1987 methodology --"Corps of Engineers Wetlands Manual" (Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1, January, 1987). It also uses definitions of 33 CFR 328.3(a).

Streams. Streams are a category parallel with wetlands -- both are types of Waters of the U.S. Streams are jurisdictional areas below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), defined at 33 CFR 328.3(e):

"The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line 6

7 impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and other debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas."

Jurisdictional waters on the site are the ephemeral stream running from the outlet of the culvert under the existing access road to the southern boundary of the property, including some associated wetlands in the riparian woodland. The jurisdictional water is composed of three very different segments:

 The stream is contained in a straight, excavated ditch for approximately 100 feet from outlet of the culvert (Figure 9, top photo). The western limit of this segment was mapped at the top of the western bank.

 The second segment is poorly-defined, largely level area that slopes slightly to the east and south, between the area of the single palm tree and the riparian woodland (Figure 9). The area has been mowed at different times over the years, and supports a mosaic of small areas with riparian species and small areas of upland species. This area corresponds to the area mapped as a pond on the USGS topo map (Figure 2). It would appear the pond silted in at some time in the past, leaving this level mosaic of vegetation. The western limit of this segment was mapped along the base of the slope, above which was obviously dominated by upland vegetation.

 The third segment is the riparian woodland (Figures 5, 7, 9, and 10). It contains the ephemeral stream and some associated wetlands, as well as the riparian species. The western limit of this segment was determined by the western edge of the dripline of the trees in the riparian woodland. This is the criterion used by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and includes the area of wetlands and stream within the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as used by the Army Corps.

Under normal circumstances, a riparian woodland would be found associated with perennial streams or intermittent streams that carried water for a significant portion of the year. This stream is obviously ephemeral upstream of the riparian woodland, as well as downstream of the riparian woodland. It would appear the riparian woodland developed when the pond was present, which would detain surface flows, and allow percolation into the substrate, supplying subsurface water for the trees. The riparian woodland was and still is down-slope of the intensive agriculture operation to the east, and is likely fed subsurface water from these fields.

Annual grassland. Annual grassland is a Group E Habitat per the SAP, which notes that impacts to these habitats within the Offsite Mitigation Zone require mitigation at a ratio of 0.5:1. It should be noted that the property is immediately adjacent to the Agricultural Exclusion Zone, which does not require mitigation, but notes that impacts “may be subject to a Habitat Development Fee.”

8 Disturbed land is a Group F habitat, and may also be subject to these fees, although there is currently no structure in place for payment of such fees to the City. No mitigation is required for impacts to urban/developed land.

d. Rare, Endangered or Sensitive Species

Plants. No rare, endangered or sensitive plant species were observed on-site. There is a low potential for the occurrence of thread-leaf Brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) in the grassland areas underlain by clay soils. This is a state-listed Endangered Species and is considered a “narrow endemic” under the City’s SAP. Focused surveys will be conducted at appropriate times of the year in 2014 (late winter for foliage, or late May-mid June for flowers) to determine presence or absence of this species. No other sensitive plant species are expected to occur due to the developed and/or highly disturbed nature of the property.

Wildlife. As noted above, least Bell’s vireo was found both on- and off-site in riparian habitats. This is a state- and federal-listed Endangered species. One was heard calling in the on-site habitat at approximately 10:45 a.m., and shortly thereafter a male was seen and heard singing in the same area. This vireo foraged in the willows as well as the eucalyptus trees adjacent to the riparian habitat. No other vireos were seen, but they could have been quietly foraging in the dense willows. By August, least Bell’s vireos are typically not very vocal, and any fledglings would likely have dispersed by this point, so whether this area supported a breeding pair or bred successfully could not be determined (Clark, personal communication, 2013).

Another vireo was heard singing in the densely revegetated riparian off-site to the northwest. This habitat is in the preserve area associated with the Arrowood Golf Course. It is likely that this area supports several pairs of vireos. The 140-acre Morro Hills/Foss Lake Habitat Conservation Area was established with the development of the 1007-unit housing community and golf course project to the north and northwest of the property in 2001. It was endowed and is currently being managed by the Center for Natural Lands Management.

Other Potentially Occurring Sensitive Species. While the project is in the Offsite Mitigation Zone of the SAP, it is adjacent to the Agricultural Exclusion Zone (AEZ). The SAP requires that projects within the AEZ discuss the potential for the occurrence of two additional species. These include:

(a). Stephen’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi). The Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR) is a small fossorial, granivorous rodent endemic to southern California in Riverside and San Diego Counties. It inhabits open, sparse grassland and forb-land on soils that are neither too dense with clays nor too sandy for burrowing (USFWS 2010).

9 The closest SKR populations to the Bree property occur on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (Camp Pendleton) within the Juliet training area and on the adjacent Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, Detachment Fallbrook (Fallbrook NWS). The occupied SKR habitat on Camp Pendleton is approximately 4.5 miles from the Bree property, while the occupied habitat on the Fallbrook NWS is over 5 miles away. The longest dispersal distance found in studies of SKR movement was one instance where an individual moved one kilometer (0.6 miles; USFWS 2010). Average dispersal distances are usually less than 500 meters, and the species is considered highly sedentary (USFWS 2010).

SKR habitat at occupied sites is composed of extensive native and non-native grasslands with a limited shrub component, and abundant annual forbs. The Bree property consists of approximately 24.6 acres of partially developed and highly disturbed, mowed, non-native grassland. Surrounding land uses include actively tilled farmland, a developed golf course with dense riparian forests, and residential housing. These land uses are unsuitable for the species and would prohibit any movement from occupied areas over four miles away at Camp Pendleton. The small, disturbed nature of the site precludes the possibility of a population persisting among such unsuitable land uses.

(b.) Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus [syn. Bufo californicus]). The arroyo toad requires shallow flowing water for successful breeding. This must be present for at least 12 weeks starting with the breeding season, and going through the aquatic life of the tadpoles before they metamorphose into land adults. This ephemeral stream does not run for such an extended period. The substrate is fine silt, and the tadpoles require a sandy substrate, which they sift for food. The area is not suitable for arroyo toad breeding. The riparian woodland area is likely satisfactory for use by adult toads outside of the breeding season, but is too far from the river for such use. The arroyo toad is found in the San Luis Rey drainage, but has not been reported from the lower river for many years.

(c.) Burrowing owl (Athene curnicularia). The burrowing owl is listed as a Bird of Conservation Concern by the USFWS and a Species of Special Concern by the CDFW. This small, burrow-nesting, diurnally active owl requires open terrain for foraging, short vegetation height around nesting areas for predator vigilance, and a variety of burrows. At the request of the CDFW, protocol surveys were conducted to determine the presence/absence of this species on- site. The results of the surveys were negative. Please refer to Appendix 3 for the burrowing owl report.

4. Project Impacts and Mitigation Requirements

As shown in Figure 4, the project would impact almost all of the property. Table 1 gives a breakdown of project impacts.

Riparian Habitat. By design, the project will not result in impacts to jurisdictional waters. All development is to be to the west of the jurisdictional waters. The western boundary of the

10 maximum extent of jurisdictional waters under any permitting agency was used to set the buffer between jurisdictional waters and development to ensure no significant impacts would occur.

The project will not result in direct or indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo or the on-site riparian habitat. The project incorporates a 100-foot wide buffer from the habitat in accordance with Appendix A of the SAP (Proposed Covered Species Conservation Analysis and Conditions of Coverage). The buffer has been measured from the outer edge of riparian vegetation, including an area of disturbed mulefat scrub that will be preserved and allowed to regenerate. The applicant will be required to identify and endow a third-party entity for long-term maintenance of the riparian area. The Center for Natural Lands Management would be a logical choice as they are already managing the off-site area to the north/northwest.

No impacts would occur to the off-site vireos within the current preserve area discussed above. The Army Corps Permit issued for the project (#992005100-SKB) required mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands, including preservation, restoration, and enhancement of habitats. The permit also stipulated creation of 13.5 acres of buffers, consisting of transitional riparian to upland habitat. As this project has provided the required mitigation, including the buffer to the occupied riparian habitat, potential direct and indirect impacts to vireo were previously mitigated in this area.

Upland Habitat. The project will result in the loss of 23.1 acres of highly degraded annual grassland. Per the mitigation standards established by Table 5-2, “Mitigation Standards for Impacts to Natural Vegetation and Habitat” of the SAP, the project would be required to provide 11.5 acres of annual grassland mitigation (0.5/1.0 x 23.1 acres = 11.55 acres). The property is wholly situated within the “Offsite Mitigation Zone,” and Section 5.3.4 (Offsite Mitigation Zone) of the SAP states that impacts within this zone must be mitigated within the Wildlife Corridor Planning Zone (WCPZ) or Pre-approved Mitigation Areas (PAMAs); but onsite mitigation credit may be allowed if the onsite mitigation will conserve a significant population of narrow, endemic species, or if on-site lands contain critical wetlands, gnatcatcher habitat, or habitat for other covered species, and if written approval from the Wildlife Agencies is obtained.

In order to mitigate the project’s direct impact to Upland Habitat, and more specifically, the impact to 23.1 acres of non-native grassland (NNG), the following mitigation is proposed:

Prior to issuance of the project’s grading permit, the applicant will fully mitigate the loss of the non-native grassland via one of the following options:

1. At the present time, the Oceanside Mesa Mitigation Bank is one PAMA with 14 acres of non-native grassland credits potentially available within the WCPZ. However, this mitigation bank has not yet been approved by the Wildlife Agencies. If the Wildlife Agencies approve this mitigation bank, and mitigation credits are still available when the project is approved and implemented (mass grading permit has been requested), the project would seek to negotiate the purchase of 11.55 credits, or any remaining credits available, from this mitigation bank. If this mitigation bank would not have sufficient credits available to satisfy the mitigation requirements of this project, the project would seek to

11 negotiate the purchase of the remaining available credits, and any additional credits at another authorized mitigation bank.

2. A new non-native grassland mitigation bank (The Highlands) is being proposed by the Audubon Society near Whelan Lake within the WCPZ, and upon approval by the Wildlife Agencies and establishment, would have credits available. If this bank has received Wildlife Agencies approval at the time the project is implemented, the required credits would be obtained at this location. If this mitigation bank would not have sufficient credits available to satisfy the mitigation requirements of this project, the project would seek to negotiate the purchase of the remaining available credits, and any additional credits at another authorized mitigation bank.

3. In lieu of providing the 11.55 acres of off-site mitigation within the WCPZ or a PAMA, the project would preserve 0.8 acres of occupied riparian habitat, allow 1.0 acre of disturbed land to recover to foraging habitat for the Least Bell’s vireo (LBV), and include an additional 1.5 acres of annual grassland within the 100-foot wide buffer. Figures 9 and 10 show these areas, which are currently included in the on-going mowing/discing program on-site.

Some areas within the project could be enhanced by planting transitional upland species such as elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) to provide additional foraging habitat. The on- site preserve could potentially increase breeding and foraging habitat for the vireo from 0.8 acres to 3.2 acres (an increase of 2.4 acres). This would be biologically superior to obtaining off-site annual grassland habitat as it would create more habitat for covered species and thus meet the exception criteria established by Section 5.3.4, “Offsite Mitigation Zone” of the SAP. Consultation with the Wildlife Agencies has been requested and they have indicated a willingness to meet with the City and applicant to further discuss this option.

If none of the above three options are available at the time of project implementation, mitigation credits could be purchased at a PAMA or mitigation bank outside of the City of Oceanside, such as the Daley Ranch Conservation Bank in the City of Escondido or other regional mitigation bank situated within the Final Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) planning area encompassing the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista). This regionally-significant bank is approved and fully endowed, but obtaining mitigation credits from this site as mitigation for the proposed project would require concurrence from the City of Oceanside and the Wildlife Agencies. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has indicated that it would support this approach.

4. A final option could consist of combinations of Options 1-4. This approach would require the approval and concurrence from the aforementioned agencies.

12 Additionally, the SAP requires that the following measures are incorporated into projects abutting occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat:

 The riparian woodland occurring on-site shall be placed within a conservation easement and remain undisturbed. (The off-site riparian was previously placed in a conservation easement as a condition of approval of a separate project).

 A 100-foot wide biological buffer has been established from the edge of the habitat and is reflected on the project’s TM. Disturbance within this buffer is not permitted. The buffer area will be separated from the project area by vinyl chain link fencing.

 No clearing, grading, or grubbing shall be allowed between March 15 and September 15 unless it can be demonstrated that construction noise levels at the riparian canopy’s edge are within acceptable levels. Please refer to Section 14.12 (Noise) of this Initial Study for the specifications on measurements and monitoring of noise levels.

Marcia Adams Mike Busdosh Biologist Biologist

MG:jm

Attachments

13 References

City of Oceanside 2012 Final Draft Subarea Plan. December.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to remove the Stephens’ kangaroo rat from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register 75: 51204–51223.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011 Stephens’ kangaroo rat 5-year review. http://www.fws.gov/Carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/5YR/20110719_5YR_SKR.pdf

Table 1. Project Impacts

Habitat Type Total Acres Acres Impacted Mitigation Acres Mitigation On-site Ratio Remaining Required Annual Grassland 24.6 23.1 0.5:1 1.5 11.5 Urban/Developed 9.6 9.0 -- 0.6 -- Disturbed 1.3 0.3 -- 1.0 Subject to fee* Pasture 1.3 1.3 -- 0.0 -- Riparian Woodland 0.8 0.0 3:1 0.8 -- TOTAL 37.60 33.7 3.9

*SAP notes that impacts to disturbed land may be subject to Habitat Development Fee, but no fee structure is currently in place.

Appendix 1. Plant Species Observed, Bree Property, August, 2013

DICOTYLEDONES

AIZOACEAE - Carpet Weed Family

*Carpobrotus edulis (L. Bolus) Hottentot Fig

AMARANTHACEAE - Amaranth Family

*Atriplex semibaccata R. Br. Australian Saltbush

*Chenopodium sp. Goosefoot

*Salsola tragus L. Russian Thistle

APIACEAE - Carrot Family

*Foeniculum vulgare Miller Fennel

ASTERACEAE - Sunflower Family

Ambrosia psilostachya DC. Western Ragweed

Artemisia californica Less. California Sagebrush

Baccharis salicifolia (Ruiz Lopez & Pavon) Mule Fat

Baccharis pilularis D.C. Coyote Brush

Deinandra fasciculata Fascicled Tarweed

Isocoma menziesii (Hook. & Arn.) var. menziesii Goldenbush

*Picris echioides L. Bristly Ox-tongue

BORAGINACEAE - Borage Family

Heliotropium curassavicum L. Salt Heliotrope

BRASSICACEAE - Mustard Family

*Brassica sp. Mustard

CAPRIFOLIACEAE - Honeysuckle Family

Sambucus mexicana C. Presl. Blue Elderberry

EUPHORBIACEAE - Spurge Family

*Ricinus communis L. Castor Bean

LAMIACEAE - Mint Family

*Marrubium vulgare L. Horehound

MYRTACEAE - Myrtle Family

*Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus

OLEACEAE - Olive Family

*Olea europaea L. Olive

POLYGONACEAE - Buckwheat Family

*Rumex crispus L. Curly Dock

SALICACEAE - Willow Family

Salix gooddingii C. Ball Gooding's Black Willow

Salix lasiolepis Benth. Arroyo willow

SOLANACEAE - Nightshade Family

Datura wrightii Regel Jimsonweed

TAMARICACEAE - Tamarisk Family

*Tamarix sp. Tamarisk

ARECACEAE - Palm Family

*Washintonia robusta Mexican fan palm

CYPERACEAE - Sedge Family

Scirpus sp. Bulrush

POACEAE - Grass Family

*Avena sp. Wild Oat

*Bromus sp. Brome grass

*Cortaderia jubata (Lemoine) Stapf Pampas Grass

*Cynodon dactylon (L.)Pers. Bermuda Grass

* = Non-native taxa

Appendix 2. Avifauna Observed, Bree Property, August 2013

Turkey Vulture

Red-tailed Hawk

American Kestrel

Eurasian Collared-dove

Mourning Dove

Common Peafowl (and domestic chickens)

Anna’s Hummingbird

Allen’s Hummingbird

Black Phoebe

Cassin’s Kingbird

Bell’s Vireo

Northern Mockingbird

American Crow

Bushtit

Bewick’s Wren

Song Sparrow

California Towhee

Common Yellowthroat

House Finch

Appendix 3 Burrowing Owl Report Clark Biological Services

7558 Northrup Drive Phone: (858) 271-1669 San Diego, CA 92126 Fax: (858) 271-1669 [email protected]

July 29, 2014

Eric Hollenbeck Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Region (5) 3883 Ruffin Rd, San Diego, CA 92123

RE: Report on the results of Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) surveys at the Bree property in the City of Oceanside, San Diego County, CA.

Dear Mr. Hollenbeck,

This report is to notify you of the results of surveys conducted for the Burrowing Owl (Athene

cunicularia) at the Bree property in the City of Oceanside, San Diego County, CA (Figure 1).

The surveys were conducted on suitable habitat throughout the property. The surveys were

conducted in accordance with established protocols pursuant to my Scientific Collecting Permit

from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFG 2012, SCP-008832).

The Burrowing Owl is a small, burrow nesting, diurnally active owl found throughout the

Americas. Over the past several decades, Burrowing Owls have been declining throughout the

western U.S., including California (Klute et al. 2003). The owl is listed as a Bird of

Conservation Concern by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and a state Species of Special

Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Klute et al. 2003). Major habitat

features necessary for Burrowing Owls include open terrain for foraging, short vegetation height around nesting areas for predator vigilance, and a variety of burrows.

Grinnell (1898) stated the species was an “abundant resident on the lowlands and mesas” in the

Los Angeles basin, while Willett (1912) called it a “common resident from the coast to the base of the mountains.” Since then the species has drastically declined. Within Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, the total number of breeding pairs likely does not exceed twenty five

(Hamilton and Willick 1996, Unitt 2004). Populations are larger in western Riverside and San

Bernardino Counties, but rapid urbanization is eliminating suitable habitat at a high rate.

Within San Diego County, no recent records of breeding Burrowing Owls are known from the northwestern portions of the county, including Marin Corps Base Camp Pendleton and the

Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station, both of which are within a mile of the subject property

(Lincer and Bloom 2007, Unitt 2004).

The survey area consists of approximately 24 acres of disturbed non-native grassland on the

Bree Property (Figure 2). The elevation of the survey area is approximately 130-220 feet above mean sea level. The property also supports a single family residence with several buildings and ornamental vegetation. A small drainage with riparian vegetation occurs along the southeastern property boundary. The non-native grassland consists of many exotic and ruderal species such as filaree (Erodium spp.), mustards (Brassuca spp.), brome (Bromus spp.), wild oats (Avena sp.),

Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), dove weed

(Croton setigerus), heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare).

Figure 1. Project Location. The Bree property is located in an agricultural area just north of the San Luis Rey River and South of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Figure from Affinis 2013, page 14.

Methods

The surveys followed established protocols (CDFG 2012, Appendix D). As the site was relatively small, the entire site was surveyed for burrowing owls on each visit. Besides scanning for perched or flying owls, each burrow found on the property was checked for recent signs of occupancy by owls by looking for whitewash, feathers, rodent bones or other prey remains, or pellets. All avian species detected during the surveys were recorded. A complete list of avian species detected during surveys is in Table 1, which is attached at the end of this report.

Survey Schedule:

April 9, 2014: 0710 - 0830; start weather: partly cloudy, calm, 55oF; end: partly cloudy, calm, 60o

May 12, 2014: 0545 - 0650; start weather: clear, E. breeze 5 mph, 56o; end: clear, E. breeze 3 mph, 58o

June 12, 2014: 0630 - 0740; start weather: overcast, calm, 64o; end: partly cloudy, calm, 65o

July 10, 2014: 0615 - 0730; start weather: overcast, calm, 69o; end: overcast, calm, 70o

Figure 2. Vegetation communities on the Bree Property. The Burrowing Owl surveys were conducted in the annual grassland depicted in the orange color on the figure. Figure from Affinis 2013, page 18.

Results A substantial population of California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) exists on the property, supplying ample burrows to be occupied (Figures 3-4). However no owls, or any sign of recent occupancy by owls, were detected. A pair of Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), a potential predator of the owl, was regularly seen on the property. These results are consistent with the lack of recent reports of breeding owls through the northwestern San Diego County region.

If you have any questions about this report please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kevin B. Clark Clark Biological Services 7558 Northrup Drive San Diego, CA 92126-5115 ph/fx (858) 271-1669 [email protected] enclosures

References Affinis, Inc.. 2013. Biological Resources Letter Report, Bree Property. Affinis Job No. 2542. El Cajon, CA. October 29, 2013. 26 pp.

Barbour, M., T. Keeler-Wolf, and A.A. Schoenherr, eds. 2007. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. 3rd edition. University of California Press.

Barclay, J.H., K.W. Hunting, JH.L. Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T.A. Roberts (Eds.). 2007. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, November 2003. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA vii +197 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Published by the State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. March 7, 2012. 36 pp.

Coulombe, H.N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73: 162-176.

Green, G.A.and R.G. Anthony. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relationships of burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor 91: 347-354.

Grinnell, J. 1898. Birds of the Pacific Slope of Los Angeles County. Pasadena Academy of Sciences Pub. No. II. G.A. Swerdfiger Press, Pasadena CA.

Hamilton, R.A., and D.R. Willick. 1996. The Birds of Orange County California: Status and Distribution. Sea and Sage Audubon Press, Irvine, CA. 150 pp. + app.

Haug, E.A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 130. (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.; The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1400 pp.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game. 156 pp.

Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Shaffer, S.R. Sheffield, and T.S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Servcie,Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington, D.C.

Lincer, J.L. and P.H. Bloom. 2007. The Status of the Burrowing Owl in San Diego County, California. Pp 90-102 in Barclay, J.H., K.W. Hunting, JH.L. Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T.A. Roberts (Eds.). 2007. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, November 2003. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA vii +197 pp.

Rebman, J.P., and M.G. Simpson. 2006. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County, 4th Edition. San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, CA.

Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento.

Shuford, W.D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. National Audubon Society. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 545 pp.

Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport. The Condor 73: 177-192.

Unitt, P. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History, No 39, 31 Oct. 2004. Ibis Publishing Co. 645 pp.

Willett, G. 1912. Birds of the Pacific Slope of Southern California. Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 7. Cooper Ornithological Club. Hollywood, CA.

York, M.M., D.K. Rosenberg, and K.K. Sturm. 2002. Diet and food-niche breadth of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) in the Imperial Valley, California. Western North American Naturalist 62(3): 280-287.

Table 1. Avian species detected during Bree Property Burrowing Owl surveys April 9 – July 10, 2014. Species Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Common Peafowl Pavo cristatus Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis American kestrel Falco sparverius Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Eurasian Collared-Dove Streptopelia decaocto Allen’s Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin Anna’s Hummingbird Calypte anna Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya Black Phoebe Sayornis nigricans Cassin’s Kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Western Wood Pewee Contopus sordidulus American Crow Corvus brachyrhyncos Bell’s Vireo Vireo bellii Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis House Wren Troglodytes aedon Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia Wilson’s Warbler Cardellina pusilla Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas California Towhee Melozone crissalis Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea Hooded Oriole Icterus cucullatus Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Lesser Goldfinch Spinus psaltria

Figure 3. Typical non-native grassland habitat on the property. This photo is looking towards the south across the northeast section of the property. Photo taken July 10, 2014 by Kevin B. Clark.

Figure 4. Ground squirrel burrows are common throughout the property. This photo is looking towards the southwestern corner of the property. Photo taken July 10, 2014 by Kevin B. Clark.