North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration North Avenue Channel Protection Project

JULY 2013 LEAD AGENCY:

City of Oceanside 300 North Coast Highway Oceanside, CA 92054

PREPARED BY:

605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024

DRAFT

Mitigated Negative Declaration North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Prepared for:

City of Oceanside 300 North Coast Highway Oceanside, California 92054 Contact: Paul Pham

Prepared by:

605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Elizabeth Doalson

JULY 2013

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ...... 1-1 1.3 Other Agencies That May Use the MND and Initial Study ...... 1-1 1.4 Content and Format of the MND ...... 1-1 1.5 Public Review Process ...... 1-2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2-1 2.1 Project Location ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Description...... 2-1 2.2.1 Background ...... 2-1 2.2.2 Project Characteristics ...... 2-1 2.3 Project Construction...... 2-17 2.4 Standard Project Design Features ...... 2-17 2.5 Discretionary Actions ...... 2-17 3.0 FINDINGS ...... 3-1 4.0 INITIAL STUDY ...... 4-1 Aesthetics ...... 4-4 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...... 4-5 Air Quality ...... 4-6 Biological Resources ...... 4-11 Cultural Resources ...... 4-34 Geology and Soils ...... 4-37 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 4-40 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 4-42 Hydrology and Water quality...... 4-45 Land Use and Planning ...... 4-55 Mineral Resources ...... 4-56 Noise ...... 4-57 Population & Housing...... 4-59 Public Services...... 4-60 Recreation ...... 4-61 Transportation/Traffic ...... 4-62 Utilities and Service Systems...... 4-64 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 4-66

6965 TOC-i July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page No.

5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ...... 5-1 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 6-1 6.1 Lead Agency–City of Oceanside ...... 6-1 6.2 Project Consultants ...... 6-1 6.3 Technical Report Preparation ...... 6-1 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 7-1 FIGURES

2-1 Regional Map ...... 2-3 2-2 Vicinity Map ...... 2-5 2-3 Project Location Map ...... 2-7 2-4 Cross Sections ...... 2-9 2-5 Index Map ...... 2-11 2-6a Site Plan ...... 2-13 2-6b Site Plan ...... 2-15 4-1a Biological Resources Impacts ...... 4-15 4-1b Biological Resources Impacts...... 4-17 4-2 Proposed Mitigation ...... 4-23 4-3a Jurisdictional Delineation Impacts ...... 4-29 4-3b Jurisdictional Delineation Impacts ...... 4-31 TABLES

4-1 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ...... 4-9 4-2 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers ...... 4-20 4-3 Proposed Mitigation for Loss of Biological Functions from Impacts to 0.13 Acre of Non-Vegetated Channel ...... 4-22 4-4 Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Summary 4-5 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ...... 4-27 4-5 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ...... 4-41 APPENDICES A Air Quality Emissions B Biological Technical Report C Cultural Resources Inventory Letter Report D GHG Emissions

6965 TOC-ii July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction

The North Avenue Channel Protection Project (hereafter referred to as project) would consist of restoration and repair of the degraded banks of a portion of Loma Alta Creek by implementing a bio-engineered solution that would resolve existing creek/bank erosion issues and prevent future erosion. The project would entail re-grading portions of the creek banks that have been eroded in an effort to restore the original geometry of the vegetated slope and to stabilize portions of the bank that are susceptible to future erosion through the use of bio-engineered techniques, such as the installation of native vegetation and vegetative riprap.

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance

The City of Oceanside (hereafter referred to as City) is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is responsible for analyzing and approving the proposed North Avenue Channel Protection CEQA document. The City has determined that a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA. This finding is based on the initial study/environmental checklist (Section 4.0 of this MND). As provided for by CEQA Section 21064.5, an MND may be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when the project will not result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below significance.

This draft MND has been prepared by the City in conformance with Section 15070, subsection (a), of the CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of the MND and the initial study is to determine the potential significant impacts associated with the reconstruction of portions of the creek banks of the North Avenue Channel that have been eroded and incorporate mitigation measures into the project design, as necessary, to reduce or eliminate the significant or potentially significant effects of the project.

1.3 Other Agencies That May Use the MND and Initial Study

This MND is intended to be used by responsible and trustee agencies that may have review authority over the project. The City would obtain all permits as required by law. The City is the lead agency for this project.

6965 1-1 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

1.4 Content and Format of the MND

This MND includes the following:

Section 1.0 Introduction: Provides an introduction to the MND. Section 2.0 Project Description: Provides a detailed description of the proposed project evaluated in this MND. This section also includes project location, project characteristics, and construction. Section 3.0 Findings: Provides finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and the rationale supporting this finding. Section 4.0 Initial Study Environmental Checklist/Discussion of Environmental Impacts: Provides an analysis of the environmental issues and concerns surrounding the project. Section 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Provides a list of and responsibility assignments for all mitigation measures. This section also describes timing considerations for each mitigation measure. Section 6.0 List of Preparers: Provides a list of report preparation personnel. Section 7.0 References: Provides bibliographic information related to resources utilized during the document preparation.

1.5 Public Review Process In accordance with CEQA, a good faith effort has been made during the preparation of this MND to contact agencies, organizations, and persons who may have an interest in this project.

In reviewing the MND and initial study, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects on the project area are proposed to be avoided or mitigated.

Comments may be made on the MND in writing before the end of the comment period. Following the close of the public comment period, the City will consider this MND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed project.

6965 1-2 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Written comments on the MND should be sent to the following address by 5:00 p.m., August 16, 2013.

Paul Pham, Assistant Engineer City of Oceanside, Engineering Division 300 North Coast Highway Oceanside, California 92054 Phone: 760.435.5030 Fax: 760.435.6030

Approval and certification of this CEQA document will occur by the Oceanside City Council. Date and time of the City Council meeting where this document will be considered can be determined by contacting Nathan Mertz.

6965 1-3 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 1-4 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location

The proposed North Avenue Channel Protection Project (hereafter referred to as project) is located in the City of Oceanside (hereafter referred to as City) in Northern San Diego County, California, (Figure 2-1, Regional Map). The site is located within Loma Alta Creek between North Avenue and the North County Transit District SPRINTER rail line, west of Pacific Vista Drive, and east of College Boulevard (Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map).

The project site is located in the northern portion of the creek adjacent to North Avenue from the intersection of North Avenue and Season Road to the existing concrete trapezoidal creek section approximately 2,600 feet upstream (Figure 2-3, Project Location Map).

2.2 Project Description

2.2.1 Background

Loma Alta Creek is identified as Major Basin No. 4 in the City of Oceanside Drainage Master Plan. The creek spans approximately 7.8 miles from the Pacific Ocean outfall at South Pacific Street through the lower central part of the City across the City of Oceanside/City of Vista boarder near North Melrose Drive. Garrison Creek is a major tributary to Loma Alta Creek, which contributes runoff from a 456.2 acre watershed. Garrison Creek joins Loma Alta Creek near the intersection of Garrison Street and Industry Street. Approximately 6.5 miles of the creek parallels the North County Transit District SPRINTER rail line from South Oceanside Boulevard to North Melrose Drive. Approximately 6.7 miles of Alta Loma Creek is either an engineered drainage (engineered/reinforced banks with an earthen channel bottom) or a natural, free-flowing stream.

The project area consists of an engineered naturalized trapezoidal creek with an earthen bottom and side slopes, intermittent reinforced concrete grade control structures, and rock riprap. The channel supports native vegetation interspersed with concrete headwalls and drainage pipe infrastructure. Recent storm events have undermined existing concrete headwalls and caused significant erosion along the channel bank adjacent to North Avenue, threatening the stability of North Avenue and the adjacent chain link fence. Riprap was previously placed on the south end of the channel to temporarily protect and reduce erosion of the embankment.

2.2.2 Project Characteristics

The project would consist of restoration and repair of the degraded banks of a portion of Loma Alta Creek by implementing a bio-engineered solution that would resolve the creek/bank erosion

6965 2-1 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

issues and prevent future erosion. The channel within the project study area is approximately 10 feet wide at the bottom and 40 feet wide at the top with channel side slopes generally ranging from 3:1 to 1:1. The project would entail re-grading portions of the creek banks that have been eroded in an effort to bring back the original geometry of the vegetated slope and to stabilize those portions of the bank that are susceptible to future erosion through the use of bio-engineered techniques (e.g., the installation of native vegetation and vegetative riprap) (Figure 2-4, Cross Sections).

The existing slopes would be graded along two sections of the creek. Approximately 1,000 feet would be graded from Station 8+00.00 to Station 18+00.00 and approximately 475 feet from Station 24+50.00 to Station 29+25.00 (Figures 2-5, Index Map, and Figures 2-6a and 2-6b, Site Plan). The new slope grades would join the existing grades at the start and end station points. Due to the eroded conditions, the project would also entail removal and replacement of the existing fence footings, irrigation system laterals, and sprinkler heads within the proposed bank restoration areas. The project would further protect the existing grade control structures.

Once the slopes have been re-graded to mirror the original geometry, a geotextile filter fabric would be placed on the embankments. Approximately 643 cubic yards of engineered fill material would be utilized to create a 2:1 slope. Coconut fiber jute netting would be installed atop the engineered fill to provide a firm foundation for erosion control while still allowing water absorption and stability to foster plant growth.

The project area would be replanted with native wetland and upland vegetation to restore habitat functions and services, and to help provide erosion control protection. Bank protection would be achieved by using a combination of bio-engineered techniques, including vegetated slope armoring using native plantings, sections of vegetated riprap intermixed with riprap armoring, buried riprap, in combination with willow pole cuttings. The project would entail planting native wetland/riparian and upland species that are known to occur in the Loma Alta Creek watershed. In order to provide the required erosion resistance, plants with extensive rooting systems would be utilized. Plants for the immediate channel area would consist of wetland species such as mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), sandbar willow (Salix hindsiana), San Diego marsh elder (Iva hayesiana), and other native wetland and riparian species, planted from a combination of cuttings, container plantings, and seeding. Transitional upland species would also be utilized along the upper creek banks and within the transitional buffer zone areas adjacent to the creek channel margins. (See Appendix H of the Biological Technical Report (Appendix B to this MND) for additional revegetation details.)

6965 2-2 July 2013 Loma P Cherry edley Desert Hot Valley Riverside 62 Springs 60 Norco Moreno Beaumont Banning Valley 91 March 10 Woodcrest AFB Corona ers ide County Cathedral Thousand Cou City Nuevo 243 Palm Palms nty Perris San Springs Jacinto Rancho Palm 215 Idyllwild- East Mirage Desert Pine Cove Hemet Sun Hemet Indi City Winchester Indian 111 Wells Lake Rancho Elsinore La anta Margarita Quinta

Coto De Wildomar Caza 74 Trabuco Highlands 15 371 an o Temecula Orange San County mente San Diego Riverside County County Rainbow San Diego County

Fallbrook 79 76 Camp Pendleton North Bonsall Project Site Camp Pendleton Hidden Borrego South Valley Oceanside Meadows Springs Vista Center

San Marcos Escondido Carlsbad

78 Julian Encinitas Ramona San Diego Country Poway Estates

56 Pacific 67

805 Ocean San Diego Santee 52 Lakeside Alpine Pine 163 Harbison 8 Valley 274 Canyon El Cajon La Casa de 5 Mesa Oro-Mount Helix Rancho San Lemon Spring Diego Grove Valley Jamul 209 Coronado National Bonita City Boulevard Chula 75 Vista Campo 94 Imperial Beach 905 01510 5 MEXICO Miles

SOURCE: FIGURE 2-1 Regional Map 6965 North Avenue Channel Protection - MND DRAFT/FINAL Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\MND\Figure2-1_Regional.mxd North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 2-4 July 2013 Project Site

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

SOURCE: USGS topo 7.5-Minute Series San Luis Rey Quadrangle FIGURE 2-2 Vicinity Map 6965 MONTH 2009 North Avenue Channel Protection - MND DRAFT/FINAL Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\MND\Figure2-2_Vicinity.mxd North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 2-6 July 2013 Vista Pacific Dr

OCEANSIDE BL

Sprinter rail line NORTH AV

COLLEGE BL

SEASONS RD

Staging Area

Project Area

0 250 500 Feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

SOURCE: World Imagery FIGURE 2-3 Project Location Map 6965 JULY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - MND DRAFT/FINAL Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\MND\Figure2-3_SitePlan.mxd North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 2-8 July 2013 EXIST. 6' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE (REMOVE & REPLACE)

CONTAINER PLANT

EXIST. VEGETATED SLOPE HYDRO-SEEDING

DORMANT RIP-RAP GRADATION POLE DORMANT CUTTINGS WATTLING

1.5 1

EXISTING ERODED SLOPE

EXIST. 6' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE TYPICAL -VEGETATED SLOPE ARMORING DETAIL (REMOVE & REPLACE) N T S

CONTAINER PLANT RIP-RAP GRADATION EXIST. 6' HIGH EXIST. VEGETAT HYDRO-SEEDING CHAINLINK FENCE (REMOVE & REPLACE)

DORMANT POLE

ED SLOPE DORMANT CUTTINGS WATTLING

MIRAFI 1100N EXIST. VEGETATED SLOPE 1.5 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 1

EXISTING ERODED SLOPE

EXISTING ERODED 1.5 SLOPE 1

MIRAFI 1100N 1 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPICAL -VEGETATED RIP-RAP DETAIL 1.5 N T S

TYPICAL RIP-RAP BANK OF INVERT STABILIZATION DETAIL

SECTION A

SOURCE: DUDEK 2012 FIGURE 2-4 Cross Sections

6965 North Avenue Channel Protection - MND

Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 2-10 July 2013 Data Stations

Index Grid

Limits of Work

Rip-Rap Armoring

Buried Rip-Rap

Veg Rip-Rap Slope

Veg Slope Armoring

Staging 0 100 200 Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 2-5 Index Map 6965 JULY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - MND DRAFT/FINAL Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\MND\Figure2-3_SitePlan.mxd North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 2-12 July 2013 Data Stations

Limits of Work

Rip-Rap Armoring

Buried Rip-Rap

Veg Rip-Rap Slope

Veg Slope Armoring

Staging 0 50 100 Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 2-6a Site Plan 6965 JULY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - MND DRAFT/FINAL Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\MND\Figure2-3_SitePlan.mxd North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 2-14 July 2013 Data Stations

Limits of Work

Rip-Rap Armoring

Buried Rip-Rap

Veg Rip-Rap Slope

Veg Slope Armoring

Staging 0 50 100 Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 2-6b Site Plan 6965 JULY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - MND DRAFT/FINAL Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\MND\Figure2-3b_SitePlan.mxd North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 2-16 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Once constructed, the City’s maintenance activities would consist of annual inspection, clearing of the concrete spillways, maintenance of proposed riprap, and minor vegetation trimming.

2.3 Project Construction Construction is anticipated to commence in September 2014 and would last approximately 6 months. Preliminary construction activities would include surveying, staking, and establishing limits of construction fencing. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, perennial stream flows in the creek would be temporarily diverted outside the active construction zone through the use of diversion dams (either earthen or water bags) and a diversion pipeline system (size to be determined during final design) through the entire reach of the project area. Grading activities would be conducted by excavators operating at the top of the slope adjacent to North Avenue. Limited construction activity is anticipated within the creek bottom and would be conducted through the use of hand equipment. All planting would be completed by hand or lowered to the creek by a crane positioned alongside North Avenue.

The following equipment is anticipated during construction: a loader, excavator, water truck, dump truck, hydroseeder, pallet truck, and fork lift. Additional vehicles, including delivery trucks, portable generators, and other miscellaneous trucks and passenger vehicles would also be used. Construction staging would occur on an existing vacant dirt lot located north of the project site (refer to Figure 2-5, Index Map, and Figure 2-6b, Site Plan). Equipment may also be parked along the side of North Avenue. Traffic control along North Avenue would be conducted for the duration of the project. Access to the construction and staging areas would be provided from North Avenue. 2.4 Standard Project Design Features The City, through codes and standards and standard design and construction practices, has incorporated numerous design and construction features into the project that help to reduce the potential for environmental effects. Construction would be performed by qualified contractors, and contract documents, plans, and specifications would incorporate stipulations regarding standard City requirements and acceptable construction practices, including trenching, safety measures, seismic safety, erosion control, traffic control, public safety, and noise generation. Further, the project would be designed in accordance with State of California Building Code and City of Oceanside Code of Ordinance requirements. 2.5 Discretionary Actions The following discretionary actions are required for the proposed project:

• Certification of the MND by City Council • Approval of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program by the City.

6965 2-17 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Other Agency Approvals

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) would utilize this initial study (IS)/MND and supporting documentation in its decision to issue a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would use this IS/MND and supporting documentation in its decision to issue a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) would authorize the use of Nationwide Permit 13 (Bank Stabilization) pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act.

6965 2-18 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.0 FINDINGS

The City of Oceanside (hereafter referred to as the City) finds that the North Avenue Channel Protection Project (hereafter referred to as the project) would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment based on the result of the initial study environmental checklist and discussion of environmental impacts (see Section 4.0, Initial Study Environmental Checklist/Discussion of Environmental Impacts). Some potentially significant effects have been identified and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that these effects remain at less-than-significant levels. A mitigated negative declaration (MND) is therefore proposed to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.).

This conclusion is supported by the following:

1. Aesthetics: The project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site. See Section 4, item 14.1, Aesthetics, for additional information. 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources: As indicated by the San Diego County Important Farmland Map 2008, impacts to agricultural resources would not occur. See Section 4, item 14.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, for additional information. 3. Air Quality: The emissions calculated for the proposed project were below the significance thresholds for both construction and operational phases of the project. Impacts would be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.3, Air Quality, for additional information. 4. Biological Resources: The project would result in direct impacts to vegetation communities. Mitigation would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Potential indirect impacts to bird species may result during the construction phase of the project. Mitigation measures would reduce these potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Impacts to wildlife corridors or habitat conservation plans would be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.4, Biological Resources, for additional information. 5. Cultural Resources: The project site is located in Loma Alta Creek, and there is a potential for the presence of cultural resources. Mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. See Section 4, item 14.5, Cultural Resources, for additional information. 6. Geology and Soils: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to adverse risk associated with geologic or soil conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.6, Geology and Soils, for additional information.

6965 3-1 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The project would not result in a conflict with applicable regulations associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for additional information. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project would not introduce significant hazardous materials to people or the environment, and no previous hazardous reports have been listed for the project site. However, the potential to encounter buried hazards that have not been previously documented exists. Therefore, mitigation has been provided to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for additional information. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality: Restoration activities associated with implementation of the project have the potential to result in temporary construction-related impacts on water quality from erosion and sedimentation. However, mitigation has been provided to avoid impacts to creek water quality. See Section 4, item 14.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for more information. 10. Land Use and Planning: The project would be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the project vicinity. No change in land use is proposed. See Section 4, item 14.10, Land Use and Planning, for more information. 11. Mineral Resources: The project site does not contain important mineral deposits. Implementation of the proposed project would not preclude any plans for mineral recovery. See Section 4, item 14.11, Mineral Resources, for more information. 12. Noise: The construction and operational noise generated by the proposed project would comply with the City’s noise criteria. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.12, Noise, for more information. 13. Population and Housing: The project would not affect local housing availability or generate additional population. See Section 4, item 14.13, Population and Housing, for more information. 14. Public Services: The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to public services. See Section 4, item 14.14, Public Services, for more information. 15. Recreation: Implementation of the proposed project would not create additional demand for recreational facilities or increase the use of existing recreational facilities. No impacts to recreation would occur. See Section 4, item 14.15, Recreation, for more information.

6965 3-2 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

16. Transportation and Traffic: During construction, traffic would be generated by equipment delivery, material delivery/disposal, and construction worker transport. A traffic control plan would be prepared to reduce impacts during construction. Impacts would be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.16, Transportation/Traffic, for more information. 17. Utilities and Service Systems: The proposed project would not have a significant impact to utilities and service systems. In addition, the project would not generate the need for additional utilities and service systems. Impacts would be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.17, Utilities and Service Systems, for more information. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance: No long-term significant impacts are associated with the project, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. See Section 4, item 14.18, Mandatory Findings of Significance, for more information.

6965 3-3 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 3-4 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INITIAL STUDY City of Oceanside California

1. PROJECT: North Avenue Channel Protection Project 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Oceanside 3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: Paul Pham, 760.435.5030 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Loma Alta Creek, between North Avenue and the North County Transit District SPRINTER rail line, approximately 0.3 mile west of the intersection of North Avenue and Vista Pacific Drive and approximately 0.17 mile northeast of the North Avenue intersection with Esperanza Way. 5. APPLICANT: City of Oceanside Engineering Department 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate B Residential 7. ZONING: Residential Estate B 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would involve restoration and repair of the degraded banks of Loma Alta Creek by implementing a bio-engineered solution that would resolve the creek/bank erosion issues and prevent future erosion. The channel, within the project study area, is approximately 10 feet wide at the bottom and 40 feet wide at the top with channel side slopes generally ranging from 3:1 to 1:1. The project would entail regrading portions of the creek banks that have been eroded to bring back the original geometry of the vegetated slope and to stabilize portions of the bank that are susceptible to future erosion through the use of bio-engineered techniques (e.g., installation of native vegetation and vegetative riprap).

The existing slopes would be graded along two sections of the creek. Approximately 1,000 feet would be graded from Station 8+00.00 to Station 18+00.00 and approximately 475 feet from Station 24+50.00 to Station 29+25.00 (see Figures 2-5, Index Map, and Figures 2-6a and 2-6b, Site Plan). The new slope grades would join the existing grades at the start and end station points. Due to the eroded conditions, the project would also entail removal and replacement of the existing fence footings, irrigation system laterals, and sprinkler heads within the proposed bank restoration areas. The project would further protect the existing grade control structures.

Once the slopes have been re-graded to their original geometry, a geotextile filter fabric would be placed on the slope to increase stability. Approximately 643 cubic yards of engineered fill material would be utilized to create a 2:1 slope atop the new foundation.

6965 4-1 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Coconut fiber jute netting would be installed to provide a firm foundation for erosion control while allowing water absorption and providing stability for plant growth.

9. SURROUNDING LAND USE(S) & PROJECT SETTING: North County Transit District (NCTD) SPRINTER rail line and industrial uses to the north; the upstream portion of Loma Alta Creek, a vacant lot, industrial, and residential uses to the east; residential uses to the south; and the downstream portion of Loma Alta Creek, residential uses, industrial uses and the NCTD SPRINTER rail line to the south. 10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS: Permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 11. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None. 12. CONSULTATION: A. Federal, State, and Other Local Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The project would not affect any environmental factors resulting in a Potentially Significant Impact or Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. A summary of the environmental

6965 4-2 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

factors potentially affected by this project, consisting of a Potentially Significant Impact or Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated, include:

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology and Water Quality Materials Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance

14. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed project. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the project’s short-term impacts (construction- related), and its operational or day-to-day impacts. For each question, there are four possible responses. They include:

1. No Impact. Future development arising from the project’s implementation will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment and no additional analysis is required. 2. Less-Than-Significant Impact. The development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment; these impacts, however, will be less than the levels or thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required. 3. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the project’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. 4. Potentially Significant Impact. Future implementation will have impacts that are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

6965 4-3 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

ficant Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Signi Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock

outcroppings, and historic building along a State-designated scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its

surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or

nighttime views in the area?

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

No Impact. The City of Oceanside’s General Plan (City of Oceanside 2002) does not designate scenic vistas. Therefore, no impacts would result during the construction or operational phases of the proposed project. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No Impact. The project site is not located within a state scenic highway (California Department of Transportation 2012). In addition, no scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings are situated on site. Therefore, impacts are not anticipated. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project would involve restoration and repair of the degraded banks of a portion of Loma Alta Creek. During the construction phase, construction vehicles and equipment would temporarily reduce the visual quality of the site. However, once completed, the restored riparian/alluvial scrub vegetation would enhance the scenic and visual character of the Loma Alta Creek area. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

No Impact. No lighting or glare would be generated as part of the proposed project. All construction would occur during daytime hours, so temporary nighttime lighting would not be necessary. Therefore, no impacts would result.

6965 4-4 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources

Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

No Impact. According to the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation 2008), the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. In addition, there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance located within or adjacent to the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts would result to agricultural resources. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The project site is zoned for Residential Estate B (RE-B) on the City of Oceanside’s Zoning Map. The project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract (California Department of Conservation 2008); therefore, no conflict with a Williamson Act contract would occur.

6965 4-5 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

No Impact. The zoning designation for the project site is Residential Estate B. No forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas (as defined in the Public Resources Codes) are located within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the existing zoning for forestry uses, and no impacts would result. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. Refer to response to item 14.2.c above. No forest lands are located within the project vicinity; therefore, the project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. No impacts would result. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. The project would result in the restoration of the creek banks and the enhancement of the riparian areas to prevent future erosion of the banks. The project would not involve changes that would result in the conversion of farmlands or forest lands to non- farmland or non-forest lands. Therefore, no impacts would result.

ant Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Signific Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality

violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air

quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

6965 4-6 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is governed by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for ozone (O3). The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991 and is updated on a triennial basis (most recently in 2009). It relies on information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in San Diego County and cities in the county, to project future emissions and then determine the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by San Diego County and cities in the county as part of the development of their General Plans. A consistency determination is important in local agency project review, because it entails comparing local planning projects to the RAQS in several ways. Generally, new or amended General Plan Elements, Specific Plans, and projects that would be inconsistent with current land use designations and zoning need to undergo a consistency review since the RAQS is based on projections from local General Plans. Therefore, projects that are consistent with the local General Plan, such as the proposed project,and do not create significant air quality impacts are considered consistent with the air-quality-related regional plan. Project emissions associated with construction are generally consistent with the RAQS because the construction emission category is included in the underlying air basin emission inventory for the RAQS. The proposed restoration project would generate emissions during the construction phase; however, as discussed below, emissions generated from the proposed project would be minor. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan designation and would not change the existing use of the project site. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The SDAPCD has recommended screening thresholds to provide guidance to local governments regarding the various types/amounts of land uses that may exceed state or federal air quality standards and would, therefore, result in potentially significant air quality impacts. Two different screening significance thresholds are provided and include: 1) construction thresholds and 2) operation thresholds. The construction and operations significance thresholds, as applicable to the proposed project, are discussed below. If the use proposes development that results in air pollutant emissions in excess of the

6965 4-7 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration screening threshold, a significant air quality impact may occur and additional analysis is warranted to fully assess the significance of impacts.

Construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks hauling construction materials. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of operation. Therefore, such emission levels can only be approximately estimated with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts. Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions would primarily result from the use of construction equipment and motor vehicles. Fugitive dust emissions would primarily result from grading activities.

Emissions from the construction phase of the project were estimated through the use of emission factors from the URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4, land use and air emissions model (Jones & Stokes 2007). Since the SDAPCD is not an option in the URBEMIS emissions model, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) was utilized. The SCAQMD is typically used as a conservative surrogate; however, for the purposes of modeling construction emissions, the air district designated in the model does not factor into the emissions calculations. For the purposes of modeling, it was assumed that construction of the proposed project would commence in September 2014 and would include one phase. Equipment to be utilized would include a loader, excavator, water truck, dump truck, and forklift. Total construction is expected to take approximately 6 months and would include approximately 643 cubic yards of imported fill material. While some equipment would be used only for a week or two during this construction phase, it was conservatively assumed that all equipment would operate for the duration of project construction. A more detailed description of the construction schedule and equipment utilized is included in Appendix A of this report.

The equipment mix is meant to represent a reasonably conservative estimate of construction activity. For the analysis, it was generally assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site for approximately 8 hours per day, 5 days per week (22 days per month), during project construction. The proposed project is subject to SDAPCD Rule 55–Fugitive Dust Control. This requires that the project take steps to restrict visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit any fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) that may be generated during grading and construction activities. To account for dust control measures in the calculations, it was assumed that the active sites would be watered at least two times daily, resulting in an approximately 55% reduction of particulate matter.

6965 4-8 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Table 4-1, Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, shows the estimated maximum daily construction emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project. Complete details of the emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A of this document.

Table 4-1 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day)

VOC1 NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project Emissions Max Daily Emissions1 1.59 12.04 8.12 0.00 30.66 6.87 Max Daily Emissions2 1.59 12.04 8.12 0.00 14.16 3.43

Emission Threshold 137 250 550 250 100 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4. See Appendix A for complete results. 1 Emissions without fugitive dust control 2 Emissions with fugitive dust control to comply with SDAPCD Rule 55 VOC = Volatile organic compounds NOx = Oxides of nitrogen CO = Carbon monoxide SOx = Sulfur oxides PM10 = Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns PM2.5 = Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns Notes: 1 VOC threshold is based on the significance thresholds recommended by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for the North Central Coast Air Basin, which has similar federal and state attainment status as the SDAB for O3.

As shown, daily construction emissions would not exceed the SDAPCD’s significance thresholds

for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 without dust control measures. As such, construction of the proposed project would not violate air quality standards, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Long-term air quality impacts would not result from the proposed project. It is assumed that, once constructed, the City’s existing maintenance activities would not result in a noticeable change from the existing maintenance operations. As such, operation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality.

6965 4-9 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to responses 14.3.a and 14.3.b above. In analyzing cumulative impacts from the proposed project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. If the proposed project does not exceed thresholds and is determined to have less-than-significant project-specific impacts, it may still contribute to a significant cumulative impact on air quality if the emissions from the project, in combination with the emissions from other proposed or reasonably foreseeable future projects, are in excess of established thresholds. However, the project would be considered to have a significant cumulative impact only if the project’s contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative total emissions (i.e., it represents a “cumulatively considerable contribution” to the air quality impact).

The SDAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and a state nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated with construction generally result in near-field impacts. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the SDAB. As discussed in response 14.3.b above, the emissions of all criteria pollutants would be below the significance thresholds without mitigation, and in the case

of these nonattainment pollutants, including O3 precursors (VOC and NOx), the proposed project would result in emission reductions. The proposed project would be consistent, at a regional level, with the underlying growth forecasts in the RAQS. As a result, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional

O3, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions during construction would be diesel particulate emissions from heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks and the associated health impacts to sensitive receptors. The nearest residences are located approximately 100 feet south of the project site.

Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. The SDAPCD recommends an incremental cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million. “Incremental

6965 4-10 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 70-year lifetime would contract cancer based on the use of standard risk assessment methodology. During construction, the project would require minimal use of heavy-duty construction equipment, and would not involve extensive use of diesel trucks, which are subject to a CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure. Total construction of the proposed project would last for approximately 6 months, after which time project-related TAC emissions would cease. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70-year) source of TAC emissions.

The proposed project would not result in any concentrations of TACs. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions, Rule 51: Nuisance. This rule prohibits the discharge, from any source, of air contaminants or other materials that may adversely affect people and/or the public or cause damage to any business or property (SDAPCD 1969). The proposed project would not result in a discharge. As such, the exposure of project-related TAC emission impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. During the construction period, the potential odors associated with the proposed project would result from diesel and gas fumes from construction equipment. Due to the temporary nature of construction odors, these impacts are considered adverse but less than significant due to their temporary nature. The project would not result in odors detectable to sensitive receptors following construction. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless

14.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG1 or the USFWS? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS?

1 The CDFG changed its name to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in 2013; however, it will be referred to as the CDFG in this checklist to reflect significance criteria questions from the CEQA Guidelines.

6965 4-11 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as

tree preservation policy/ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Biological surveys were conducted on the project site from April 2011 to January 2012. A Biological Technical Report was prepared for the project by Dudek in July 2013 (Appendix B). As described in the July 2013 Biological Technical Report, special-status plant species either have a low potential to occur on the project site or are not expected to occur within the project area. In addition, no special-status plant species were observed within the project area during the biological surveys. Therefore, no impacts to special-status plant species would occur.

Focused surveys for two special-status wildlife species, federally listed endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), were conducted in 2011. The results of these surveys were negative. However, one special-status wildlife species, yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), was observed in southern willow scrub in the western portion of the project area. Other special-status species that have a moderate to high potential to occur include Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), and western bluebird (Siala mexicana).

As indicated in the July 2013 Dudek Biological Technical Report, since suitable habitat for the yellow warbler is limited to the western portion of the project area and occurs outside of the temporary and permanent impact areas (see Figures 4-1a and 4-1b), direct impacts to this species would be avoided. Based on the habitat and species’ range in relationship to the

6965 4-12 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

project area, Cooper’s hawk, yellow-breasted chat, and western bluebird have a moderate potential to occur in the southern willow scrub in the western portion of the study area. Since the proposed project would not result in impacts to southern willow scrub, no direct impacts to special-status species are anticipated.

Construction and restoration activities are scheduled to commence in September 2014 and would occur for approximately 6 months, and are planned outside of the bird breeding season (typically January 15 through August 31); therefore, no indirect impacts to breeding birds are anticipated. However, if construction activities, including revegetation, occur during the bird breading season, temporary indirect impacts to nesting birds resulting from construction noise and increased human presence would occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce this potential short-term, indirect impact to less than significant. In addition, the project may result in temporary short-term construction related impacts to nesting birds that are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce this potential short-term, direct, construction-related impact to nesting birds protected under the MBTA to less-than-significant levels.

6965 4-13 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 4-14 July 2013 dCSS

DEV DIST

DIST

DEV

DEV DIST

MFS-R

dCBS DEV Special Status Species Yellow Warbler Permanent Impact Rip-Rap Armoring & Vegetated Rip-Rap Slope NVC Temporary Impact Vegetated Slope Armoring SWS Limits of Work Staging Vegetation Community NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed NVC - Non-vegetated Channel CBS - Coyote Brush Scrub dCBS - disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub dCSS - disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub SWS - Southern Willow Scrub MFS-R - Mulefat Scrub-Restored DEV - Developed 0150 00 DIST - Disturbed Land Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 4-1a Biological Resources Impacts 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - MND DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\MND\Figure4-1a_BioResources_Impacts.mxd Path: North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 4-16 July 2013 DIST

CBS

NVC-DEV

DEV

DEV DIST

DIST

Permanent Impact Rip-Rap Armoring & Vegetated Rip-Rap Slope Temporary Impact DEV Vegetated Slope Armoring Limits of Work Staging Vegetation Community NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed NVC - Non-vegetated Channel CBS - Coyote Brush Scrub NVC dCBS - disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub dCSS - disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub SWS - Southern Willow Scrub MFS-R - Mulefat Scrub-Restored DEV - Developed 0150 00 DIST - Disturbed Land Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 4-1b Biological Resources Impacts 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - MND DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\MND\Figure4-1b_BioResources_Impacts.mxd Path: North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 4-18 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If construction activity would occur between January 15 and August 31, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 72 hours of construction activity. If active nests are detected, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest of a non-listed migratory bird (500 feet for raptors or listed migratory birds) shall be postponed or halted at the discretion of the biologist in consultation with CDFW, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the biologist. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to nests occur. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. According to the July 2013 Biological Technical Report, nine vegetation communities and land covers (including disturbed and restored forms) were mapped in the study area and include the following: disturbed habitat, urban/developed, restored mulefat scrub, non-vegetated channel, non-vegetated channel- developed, southern willow scrub, disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, coyote brush scrub, and disturbed coyote brush scrub.

Vegetation communities considered special status by the Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (Subarea Plan, City of Oceanside 2010) include those listed as Habitat Groups A through E. The proposed project contains vegetation communities that are listed as Habitat Group A (riparian habitats), Habitat Group C (coastal sage scrub communities), and Habitat Group F (other).

Direct Impacts

As summarized in Table 4-2, the proposed project would result in permanent and temporary direct impacts to non-vegetated channel and areas mapped as disturbed land or urban/developed land.

6965 4-19 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Table 4-2 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers

Permanent Impact Temporary Impact Total Impacts Vegetation Community or Land Cover (acres) (acres) (acres) Riparian Habitats Restored Mulefat Scrub1 — — — Southern Willow Scrub1 — — — Open Water, Natural Flood Channel, Disturbed Wetlands Non-Vegetated Channel1 0.1 0.4 0.5 Non-Vegetated Channel-Developed1 — <0.1 <0.1 Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub2 — — — Coyote Brush Scrub2 — — — Disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub2 — — — Other Disturbed Land3 0.2 0.9 1.1 Urban/Developed3 — 0.2 0.2 Total 0.3 1.5 1.8 Source: Dudek 2013. 1Designated as special-status Habitat Group A by the Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2010). 2 Designated as special-status Habitat Group C by the Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2010). 3 Designated as Habitat Group F (not special status) by the Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2010).

Direct Temporary Impacts

Direct temporary construction-related impacts to approximately 0.4 acre of non-vegetated channel associated with disturbance during construction would be restored to pre-project elevations and would continue to function similarly to pre-project conditions, this temporary impact to non-vegetated channel would be less than significant.

Temporary construction-related impacts associated with the project could occur from clearing, trampling, or grading of vegetation outside designated construction zones, which could damage vegetation communities and alter their ecosystems, creating gaps in vegetation that allow exotic, non-native plant species to become established. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: To prevent indirect impacts, a biologist shall be contracted to perform biological monitoring during all grading, clearing, grubbing, trenching, and construction activities to ensure disturbance does not occur outside the limits of grading. To prevent inadvertent disturbance to areas outside the limits of grading, an orange

6965 4-20 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

environmental fence shall be installed to delineate the limits of grading. In addition, the following shall be conducted:

1. The biologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting with the contractor and other key construction personnel prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading to reduce conflict between the timing and location of construction activities with other mitigation requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for nesting birds). 2. The biologist shall conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel, describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 3. The biologist shall discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction with the contractor and other key construction personnel prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 4. The biologist shall review and/or designate the construction area in the field with the contractor in accordance with the final grading plan prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 5. The biologist shall conduct a field review of the staking to be set by the surveyor, and the subsequent installation of orange environmental fencing designating the limits of all construction activity prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 6. The biologist shall be present during initial vegetation clearing, grubbing, and grading. 7. The biologist shall flush special-status species (e.g., avian or other mobile species) from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush-clearing and other ground- disturbing activities. 8. To address hydrology impacts, the biologist shall verify that grading plans include an Erosion Control Plan.

Direct Permanent Impacts

While the placement of riprap armoring within 0.13 acre of the existing earthen/unlined portions of the channel is considered a permanent direct impact, the impact would be limited to a change from one Habitat Group A type (non-vegetated channel) to another Habitat Group A type (non-vegetated channel developed) and would not result in a loss of Habitat Group A acreage, as defined in Section 5.2.1 of the Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2010). However, this change would result in a net decrease in the biological function of the 0.13 acre of affected non-vegetated channel due to the placement of permanent riprap armoring in the existing earthen channel bottom. Permanent direct impacts to non-vegetated channel would constitute a significant impact; therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 is provided.

6965 4-21 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The direct permanent impact from decreasing biological functions by converting 0.13 acre of existing earthen channel (non-vegetated channel) to riprap armoring (non-vegetated channel-developed) shall be mitigated by implementing approximately 2.36 acres of on-site wetlands and uplands restoration and enhancement within the project area. Wetlands enhancement will include 0.44 acre of low growing freshwater marsh plants in the channel bottom, and 0.4 acre of transitional zone riparian planting on the channel side slopes. Uplands enhancement will include exotics removal within 0.78 acre of existing disturbed coastal sage scrub and 0.74 acre of coastal sage scrub restoration within existing disturbed lands. The proposed wetlands and uplands restoration and enhancement is shown on Figure 4-2 and is summarized in Table 4-3. Implementation of the proposed mitigation is ultimately expected to result in a net increase in the biological functions in the project area.

Table 4-3 Proposed Mitigation for the Loss of Biological Functions from Impacts to 0.13 Acre of Non-Vegetated Channel

Amount Impacted Post-Mitigation Vegetation Proposed Mitigation Existing Vegetation Type (acres) Type (acres) Riparian Enhancement Non-vegetated channel 0.13* Freshwater marsh 0.44 Disturbed habitat 0.0 Mulefat scrub or similar 0.40 Subtotal 0.84 Uplands Enhancement and Restoration Disturbed coastal sage scrub 0.0 Coastal sage scrub 0.78 Disturbed habitat 0.0 Coastal sage scrub 0.74

Subtotal 1.52 Total 2.36 Source: Dudek 2013. Note: * The 0.13-acre impact to non-vegetated channel is not the result of a net loss of Habitat Group A, but a permanent loss of biological function associated with the existing earthen channel.

As discussed below under item 14.4.f, the Oceanside Subarea Plan identifies the project site as being located within an off-site mitigation zone. The mitigation standards for impacts to open water, natural vegetation, or disturbed wetlands within an off-site mitigation zone consist of a 2:1 to a 1:1 replacement ratio. Therefore, the proposed wetlands enhancement plan will exceed the 2:1 mitigation requirement. The proposed wetlands and uplands enhancement and restoration areas would be installed within 12 months of completion of the proposed channel protection activities and would include a minimum 3-year maintenance and monitoring period with annual success standards.

6965 4-22 July 2013 Riparian Enhancement Vegetation Community Wetlands Enhancement - freshwater marsh plantings (0.44 acres) NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed Wetlands Enhancement - transitional zone riparian plantings (0.40 acres) NVC - Non-vegetated Channel Upland Enhancement CBS - Coyote Brush Scrub Upland Enhancement - exotics removal (0.78 acres) dCBS - disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub Upland Restoration - Coastal Sage Scrub revegetation (0.74 acres) dCSS - disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Permanent Impact SWS - Southern Willow Scrub Rip-Rap Armoring (0.16 acres) MFS-R - Mulefat Scrub-Restored Vegetated Rip-Rap (0.15 acres) DEV - Developed Temporary Impact DIST - Disturbed Land

02100 00 Vegetated Slope Armoring (0.42 acres) Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGUREFIGURE 4-1a 4-2 Proposed Mitigation 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\MND\Figure4-2_Proposed_Mitigation.mxd North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 4-24 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Wetlands enhancement areas will be revegetated using a combination of container plants and seed. Upland enhancement and restoration areas will be revegetated using seed treatments. All revegetation areas receiving container plants will be temporarily irrigated to ensure survival of the installed container plants and seed.

As detailed in Appendix H of the Biological Technical Report (Appendix B to this MND), the annual success standards are based on establishing minimum levels of native vegetation cover, and limiting the cover of invasive perennial species and non-native annual species. In wetlands enhancement areas, the Year 3 success standard would be to achieve 70% overall cover from seed, container plants, and/or volunteer native species. In uplands enhancement and restoration areas, the Year 3 success standard would be to achieve a 60% overall cover from seed, container plants, and/or volunteer native species. In all enhancement or restoration areas, 100% control of invasive perennial plant species and 90% control of non-native annual species would be required at the end of the 3-year maintenance and monitoring period.

Based on the wetlands and uplands vegetation communities proposed for enhancement and restoration, a 3-year maintenance and monitoring period is expected to be sufficient time for the mitigation areas to become adequately established and self-sustaining over the long term. In addition, the plant species proposed in the various mitigation treatments are relatively fast- growing species and a 3-year period is expected to be sufficient time to evaluate establishment success. However, if success criteria are not met at the end of the 3-year period, then additional maintenance and monitoring shall be performed until required standards are met. Maintenance of the enhancement and restoration areas will include a 120-day plant establishment maintenance period during which all planting areas will be monitored to ensure survival of installed container plants, ensure proper functioning of the irrigation systems, and verify successful germination in areas where seed mix is applied. Following the completion of the 120-day plant establishment maintenance period, the revegetation areas will be maintained for period of 3 years. General maintenance activities will focus on the survival and establishment of intended plantings, the replacement of dead plantings, weed control/removal, irrigation system adjustments, and trash and debris removal.

Qualitative assessments of the progress of the revegetation areas will be conducted during field monitoring visits conducted periodically over the duration of the 40-month monitoring period (i.e., 120 days, plus 3 years). Qualitative assessments would be based on annual success standards designed to ensure attainment of the desired conditions at the conclusion of the 3-year maintenance and monitoring period.

6965 4-25 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 (on-site enhancement and restoration of special-status wetland and upland vegetation communities) would reduce this direct permanent impact to less than significant.

It should be noted that, as agencies with jurisdiction over non-vegetated channel, the proposed mitigation for impacts to non-vegetated channel is subject to the approval of ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW, pursuant to Section 404/401 of the federal Clean Water Act and Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Direct permanent impacts could occur from the proposed long-term maintenance activities that are planned to occur as needed, but likely to be conducted no more than once per year. The proposed long-term maintenance activities would involve trimming and hand-pulling any vegetation that may become established within the riprap armoring areas (i.e., outside of vegetated riprap areas where vegetation would be planted to complement bank stabilization of proposed riprap), so they remain relatively void of vegetation in order to function in energy dissipation and long-term bank stabilization. Potential impacts from long-term maintenance activities within the proposed riprap area would be less than significant.

Indirect Impacts

Bank stabilization and riprap installation activities could result in short-term edge effects from dust, soil erosion, and runoff from dust control that could disrupt plant vitality. In addition, temporary dewatering activities could affect plant vitality. However, all project grading would be subject to the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and typical restrictions and requirements that address dust control, erosion, and runoff, including the federal Clean Water Act, Fish and Game Code, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. However, if herbicides or machinery are used during long- term maintenance activities, there could be indirect impacts to plants in adjacent areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce this indirect impact to less than significant. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project would involve restoration of the eroded banks of Loma Alta Creek. During construction, the steam flow would be temporarily diverted to reduce downstream sedimentation from construction activities.

6965 4-26 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

A jurisdictional wetlands delineation was performed by Dudek in 2012. Approximately 0.84 acre (2,927 linear feet) of jurisdictional wetlands and waters in Loma Alta Creek were mapped within the project area. Approximately 0.69 acres of ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional waters were mapped on site. An additional 0.15 acre of riparian habitat under the jurisdiction of CDFW was mapped on site (see Table 4-4 and Figures 4-3a and 4-3b).

Table 4-4 Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Summary

Temporary Impact Total Impacts Jurisdictional Wetlands/Water Permanent Impact (acres) (acres) Non-Wetland Waters–ACOE, RWQCB, CDFW Non-Vegetated Channel (concrete-lined) — 0.01 0.01 Non-Vegetated Channel 0.13 acre 0.35 0.48 (1,454 linear feet) Wetlands—CDFW only Southern Willow Scrub — — — Total 0.13 acre 0.36 0.49 (1,454 linear feet) Source: Dudek 2013

As shown in Table 4-4, Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Summary, the project would result in temporary impacts to 0.36 acre of non-vegetated channel and permanent impacts to 0.13 acre of non-vegetated channel under the jurisdiction of the ACOE, RWQCB as non-wetland waters of the United States, and CDFW as non-vegetated channel. In total, 2,127 linear feet of existing channel would be affected by the proposed project; including 1,454 linear feet of permanent impact (see Figures 4-3a and 4-3b). Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would reduce permanent and temporary direct impacts to non-vegetated channel to less than significant. There would be no direct impacts to jurisdictional wetlands.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To comply with the state and federal regulations for impacts to “waters of the United States and state,” the following agency permits are required, or verification that they are not required, shall be obtained prior to initiating construction activities. The following permit and agreement shall be obtained:

• A CWA, Section 401/404 permit issued by the California RWQCB and the ACOE for all project-related disturbances of waters of the United States and/or associated wetlands. • Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the CDFW for all project-related disturbance of any streambed.

6965 4-27 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Temporary indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters are similar to those described for vegetation communities. These include dust, soil erosion, runoff from dust control, and temporary reduction of flow from stream diversion activities. However, all project grading would be subject to the implementation of BMPs and typical restrictions and requirements that address dust control, erosion, and runoff, including the federal Clean Water Act, Fish and Game Code, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

Long-term indirect permanent effects from long-term maintenance activities are the same as those described above for vegetation communities. If any herbicides or machinery are used during the maintenance activities, there could be indirect impacts to water quality and jurisdictional areas. Indirect impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and/or waters outside of the impact area would be mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, impacts would be less than significant. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The majority of Loma Alta Creek is located in an urbanized area. Within the project area, Loma Alta Creek is fenced on both the north and south sides and is surrounded by North Avenue, the SPRINTER line, and residential, commercial and industrial development. In addition, a portion of Loma Alta Creek is an engineered naturalized creek, and the majority of the creek is unvegetated and provides little cover for large species movement. It is possible that some urban-adapted species, such as rabbits, raccoons, and occasionally coyotes, use the creek for movement. During construction, wildlife movement of these species may be disturbed; however, these impacts are considered temporary and short-term, resulting in less-than-significant impacts, since implementation of the project would not result in permanent direct impacts to wildlife movement. Once construction is completed, wildlife can continue to use the creek to aid in movement to other areas of biological value. Therefore, permanent direct impacts to wildlife corridors/habitat linkages would be less than significant.

During construction activities (e.g., bank stabilization and riprap installation activities), wildlife species, such as reptiles, rabbits, and birds, may be temporarily disturbed. These disturbances would be minimal, because the project site is in an already highly urbanized environment with noise from North Avenue and the adjacent rail line. Since construction activities would occur during the daytime, nocturnal species, such as raccoons, rodents, or coyotes, would be able to move through the area as usual. The proposed channel protection project would result in temporary disturbance during construction; however, long-term indirect impacts are not expected to occur.

6965 4-28 July 2013 DS-7 DS-8

Study Area NVC Data Stations Topo Contours Permanent Impact Rip-Rap Armoring & Vegetated Rip-Rap Slope DS-4 Temporary Impact DS-5 Vegetated Slope Armoring SWS DS-6 Limits of Work Staging SWS Jurisdictional Waters SWS ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB Jurisdictional Wetlands ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB CDFG Vegetation Community NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed NVC - Non-vegetated Channel 0150 00 SWS - Southern Willow Scrub Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 4-3a Jurisdictional Delineation Impacts 6965 JULY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - MND DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\MND\Figure4-3a_JD_Impacts.mxd North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 4-30 July 2013 OC-DEV

NVC-DEV

Study Area Topo Contours Permanent Impact Rip-Rap Armoring & Vegetated Rip-Rap Slope Temporary Impact Vegetated Slope Armoring Limits of Work Staging NVC Jurisdictional Waters ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB Jurisdictional Wetlands ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB CDFG Vegetation Community NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed NVC - Non-vegetated Channel 0150 00 SWS - Southern Willow Scrub Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 4-3b Jurisdictional Delineation Impacts 6965 JULY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - MND DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\MND\Figure4-3b_JD_Impacts.mxd North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 4-32 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. See response 4.14.f below for discussion regarding the project’s relationship to the Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2010). The City of Oceanside has a street-tree removal policy. However, no street trees are being removed as part of this proposed project. Impacts would, therefore, be less than significant. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The City of Oceanside is located within the North San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP). The MHCP encompasses the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. The program goals are to conserve approximately 19,000 acres of habitat, of which roughly 8,800 acres (46%) are already in public ownership and contribute toward the habitat preserve system for the protection of more than 80 rare, threatened, or endangered species (SANDAG 2003).

The MHCP Subreagional Plan and Final Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report were adopted and certified by the SANDAG Board of Directors on March 28, 2003. Subarea plans for the cities are being prepared and must be adopted by each city council, and implementing agreements with the CDFW and USFWS must be signed before incidental take permits can be issued. The City of Oceanside released the Oceanside Subarea Plan in 2010 (City of Oceanside 2010). The Oceanside Subarea Plan has yet to be finalized and approved by the City Council; incidental take authority has therefore not been transferred to the City from CDFW and USFWS. Although the City and project site are not located within an approved habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area, the project’s relationship to the City’s draft Subarea Plan is analyzed to ensure that approval of the project would not preclude adoption or implementation of a regional habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

Figure 4-1 of the Oceanside Subarea Plan identifies the areas within the city that are envisioned to provide natural community conservation or require special considerations for habitat modification due to preserve planning parameters (e.g., wildlife corridor establishment) envisioned by the subarea plan. According to Figure 4-1 of the Subarea Plan, the project site is not located within any of the pre-approved mitigation areas (i.e., areas that have significant resource value that qualify for on-site and off-site mitigation), softline preserve areas, hardline preserve areas, or biological core and linkage areas. However, the

6965 4-33 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

project site is located within an Off-Site Mitigation Zone (City of Oceanside 2010). Off-site mitigation zones include all parcels within the eastern half of the City that support natural vegetation outside of the wildlife corridor planning zone, agriculture exclusion zone, and coastal zone. Natural vegetation may be removed in the off-site mitigation zone subject to the Subarea Plan guidelines, which include off-site mitigation for upland habitats (within the wildlife corridor planning zone or within a pre-approved mitigation zone), on-site mitigation for wetland habitats (within the affected drainage and/or watershed), or off-site mitigation for wetlands habitats (if the mitigation site contributes to the City’s preserve design and has biological function and value). All wetland mitigation sites shall be designed as preserve, be protected by conservation easements, and be managed in perpetuity for their biological resources and value (City of Oceanside 2010).

The project would result in impacts to non-vegetated channel, but no impacts to upland habitats would result. According to Section 5.2.4 of the Subarea Plan, mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts should occur on site or within the affected drainage and/or watershed. As discussed above, permanent direct impacts to non-vegetated channel would not result in a net loss in acreage of Habitat Group A areas (wetland vegetation communities), but would result in a decrease in biological functions on site. The mitigation standards for impacts to open water, natural vegetation, or disturbed wetlands within an off-site mitigation zone range from a 2:1 to 1:1 replacement ratio. As shown in Table 4-3, implementation of the proposed mitigation exceeds the mitigation standard and is ultimately expected to result in a net increase in the biological functions in the project area. In addition, the proposed mitigation would occur within the drainage channel consistent with the Oceanside Subarea Plan wetland mitigation requirements. Management of the channel is funded through the City’s annual channel maintenance budget. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Subarea Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

mpact I Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as

defined in Section15064.5 of CEQA? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological

resource pursuant to Section15064.5 of CEQA? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique

geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

6965 4-34 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of CEQA?

No Impact. A Cultural Resources Inventory Letter Report for the project was prepared by Dudek in August 2012 (Appendix C). According to the records search from the South Coast Information Center no historical resources have been documented within the project site. No National Register properties, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, nor California State Historic Resources Inventory properties have been recorded. The field reconnaissance indicated that the entire creek channel has been heavily modified and channelized with some portions having been improved with concrete slopes and culverts. No portion of the concrete features appeared to be over 50 years, nor do they appear to meet any of the historic significance criteria under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no historically significant resources were identified as being located within the project area and no impact would occur. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. As described in the Dudek 2012 Cultural Resources Inventory Letter Report, a record search identified five previously recorded cultural resource sites more than a half mile from the project site. The resources are Sites CA-SDI-645, CA-SDI-4992, CA-SDI-6092, CA-SDI-10445, and CA-SDI-10446. All five cultural resource sites are prehistoric habitations consisting of relatively common artifacts. No National Register properties exist, and no significant California State Historic Resources Inventory properties have been recorded. A field reconnaissance program did not identify evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within the surveyed area.

Due to the lack of previously recorded cultural resources; the negative field reconnaissance of the project area; and that the project area has been previously modified for the channelization of Loma Alta Creek, it was determined that the project area has a low potential for the presence of cultural resources. However, due to the location of the project site within Loma Alta Creek, it is still possible that buried cultural deposits are present. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce this potential impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to any ground-disturbing activity on the project site, the contractor shall retain a certified archaeologist to monitor grading activities. The archaeologist shall be present during all initial ground disturbance activity to ensure the appropriate treatment of any inadvertent cultural resources discoveries.

6965 4-35 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project site, as well as the surrounding area, has been disturbed from previous urban development, including the channelization of Loma Alta Creek. These landform alteration activities most likely destroyed any resources within the project area, but it is still possible that buried paleontological deposits are present. Therefore, mitigation is incorporated to reduce potentially significant impacts from occurring during the construction phase of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2 would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measure CR-2: Prior to any ground-disturbing activity on the project site, the contractor shall retain a paleontologist to monitor grading activities. The paleontologist shall be present during all initial ground disturbances to ensure the appropriate treatment of any inadvertent cultural resources discoveries. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. There are no known human remains or formal cemeteries located within the project site. Although human remains are not anticipated to be encountered, the potential for additional cultural resources to be present within the project does exist. Therefore, impacts are considered potentially significant unless mitigated. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3, potential impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CR-3: In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner shall be immediately notified if any human remains are discovered. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant. With the permission of the City, the most likely descendant may inspect the site of the discovery. The most likely descendant may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

6965 4-36 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significan Unless Mit.Unless 14.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving (i.) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by

the State Geologist, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub. 42); (ii) strong seismic ground shaking; (iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or (iv) landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the 1994 Uniform

Building Code (UBC), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is located within seismically active Southern California, an area where several faults and fault zones are considered active by the California Division of Mines and Geology. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones have been established for the majority of these faults and fault zones. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones is to prohibit the location of structures on the traces of active faults, thereby mitigating potential damage due to fault surface rupture. According to the California Department of Conservation Geological Survey, the City of Oceanside is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Geological Survey 2007). Because there are no known active or potentially active faults within the City, the risk of the project being subjected to damage caused by rupture of an earthquake fault would be less than significant (City of Oceanside 2002).

6965 4-37 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

2) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. San Diego County is a region of known seismic activity and is, therefore, subject to moderate to severe ground shaking during earthquake activity. The project would comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, to ensure that the channel improvements would not expose people or structures to significant effects related to strong ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.

3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to responses 14.6.a(1) and 14.6.a(2). Liquefaction is the loss of strength of cohesionless soils when the pore water pressure in the soil becomes equal to the confining pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs as a “quicksand” type of ground failure caused by strong groundshaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of groundshaking. According to the City of Oceanside General Plan 2002, the project area is not located in a liquefaction zone. The above notwithstanding, the project site is located in a drainage environment where liquefaction typically occurs, so there is some element of risk; however, because liquefaction hazards are not known to occur in this area of Oceanside nor within the local geologic conditions, impacts would be less than significant.

4) Landslides?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. The City of Oceanside General Plan Public Safety Element Figure PS-3, Slope Stability, depicts the project site in an area that is susceptible to landslides. However, the purpose of the project is to stabilize the banks of Loma Alta Creek that have been subject to erosion and to restore the channel geometry, which would, in effect, stabilize the drainage and adjacent hillside system. Further, compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including the Standard Specification for Public Works Construction, and stabilization and soil compaction requirements required by the design parameters established by the California Building Code (CBC) and the City’s Seismic Hazard Mitigation Ordinance would reduce any potential impacts to less- than-significant levels.

6965 4-38 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. During construction, it is anticipated that the project would disturb approximately 1.52 acres. During the 6-month construction period, erosion may occur where the soils are temporarily exposed. An erosion and sediment control plan would be prepared, which would outline the methods that would be implemented to control erosion, including, but not limited to, gravel bags, silt fencing, fiber rolls, hydromulch, material handling and storage, and wheel washing (see Mitigation Measure HYD-3 in section 14.9.a). Therefore, project-related impacts to soils on site would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-3. Once construction is complete, the soils on site would not be exposed, because they would be secured with coconut fiber jute netting and newly planted riparian species. Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. See responses 14.6.a(3) and 14.6.a(4). The project would be located on a site that supports clayey soils. Given that the City of Oceanside is located within seismically active Southern California, seismically induced soil movement could occur. However, because all bank stabilization work would be designed in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, California Building Code, and City’s Seismic Hazard Mitigation Ordinance, all of which ensure that proper compaction and shoring occur to prevent detrimental effects of seismic movement, impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. See responses 14.6.a(3) and 14.6.a(4). On-site soils are clayey, which have a high expansion potential. Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations including the Standard Specification for Public Works Construction would ensure that the project does not cause ground failure issues to the project site or areas immediately surrounding the channel. Impacts would be less than significant.

6965 4-39 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No Impact. The proposed project does not include the implementation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no impact would result.

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a

significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of

reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be associated with the construction phase of the proposed project through the use of construction equipment and

vehicle trips. Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were estimated using the URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4, land use and air emissions model (Jones & Stokes 2007).

For the purposes of modeling, it was assumed that construction/restoration of the proposed project would commence in September 2014 and would involve one phase. Equipment to be utilized would include a loader, excavator, water truck, dump truck, and forklift. Total construction is expected to take approximately 6 months and would include approximately 643 cubic yards of imported fill material. While some equipment would be used only for a week or two during this construction phase, it was conservatively assumed that all equipment would operate for the duration of project construction. A more detailed description of the construction schedule and equipment utilized is included in Appendix D of this report.

Table 4-5, Estimated Construction GHG Emissions, shows the estimated annual GHG construction emissions associated with the proposed project.

6965 4-40 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Table 4-5

Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2e/year)

Construction Year GHG Emissions 2014 72 2015 35 Source: URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4. See Appendix D for complete results.

As mentioned previously, long-term emissions would not result from the proposed project. It is assumed that, once constructed, the City’s existing maintenance activities would not increase as a result of the proposed project.

Because the City of Oceanside has not established official thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, this project is analyzed per the City of San Diego’s guidance. The City of San Diego has adopted a screening threshold of 900 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent

(CO2e) per year based on the approach outlined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) report CEQA & Climate Change. The CAPCOA report references the 900 metric ton guideline as a conservative threshold for requiring further analysis and mitigation. This emission level is based on the amount of vehicle trips, the typical energy and water use, and other factors associated with projects.

Under this interim guidance, any project exceeding 900 metric tons CO2e per year would be required to demonstrate a 28.3% reduction in emissions from the “business as usual” scenario consistent with the goal of AB 32 to achieve 1990 statewide GHG emission levels by 2020. The City of San Diego requires that projects analyze emissions associated with both construction and operation, where construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year “project life” and then added to the operational emissions.

As indicated in Table 4-5 above, the proposed project would not exceed the 900 metric ton threshold established by the City of San Diego and utilized by the City of Oceanside. As such, impacts resulting from GHG emissions would be less than significant. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. As noted in response 14.7.a above, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant GHG emissions and would not result in a cumulative contribution to global climate change. The City of Oceanside has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. As a result, the proposed project is not likely to result in a conflict with an

6965 4-41 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,

substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a

safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. During construction, the project would necessitate the use of construction equipment. Use of equipment in a sensitive creek environment may result in exposure of the environment to petrochemicals. The construction effort would also result in limited grading to restore the channel geometry. The presence of exposed soil may result in increased turbidity if water comes into contact with the exposed soil. Due to the sensitivity of the creek environment, these impacts would be considered significant and mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure HYD-1 in Section 4.19.a).

6965 4-42 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

During initial project grading, construction crews may encounter buried hazards that have not been previously documented. In order to ensure that any unknown hazards are handled and potentially disposed of in a safe manner, mitigation is provided.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: If unknown or hazardous materials are unearthed during construction, the contractor shall immediately contact the City engineer to determine a course of action for determining the content/extent of the buried substance and how best to handle and/or dispose of the material. The City engineer shall notify the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health and other state and/or federal agencies as appropriate and shall follow appropriate procedures.

Once operational, the project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, post-construction impacts would not occur. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Given the drainage nature of the project site, encountering buried utilities or other systems during construction is not anticipated. However, in order to ensure that any unknown utilities or other systems are not encountered during construction, mitigation is provided. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would reduce the potential of an upset or accident condition to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to the start of construction, a “dig alert” shall be conducted, which would involve the engineer or contractor contracting with an entity that would release an announcement of the proposed digging operation to all local utility providers (e.g., water, wastewater, cable, fiber optic, and electrical). All utility providers would visit the proposed project site and mark the location and depth of any underground utilities to ensure that the project site would not impact these facilities. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact. No existing or proposed school facilities are located within a one-quarter mile radius of the project site. No impacts would result.

6965 4-43 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact. According to the State of California Department of Toxic Substance Control EnviroStor Database (DTSC 2007), the project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites and, therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and no impacts would result. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area and no impacts would result. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no impacts would result. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The City has designated evacuation routes in the event of an emergency, which includes main through streets and highways within the City as depicted on Figure PS-11 of the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element (City of Oceanside 2002). The nearest designated evacuation route is Oceanside Boulevard. North Avenue parallels Oceanside Boulevard and provides access to Oceanside Boulevard to the residential developments to the south. The construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary lane closure to the westbound route of North Avenue. However, the City proposes to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, a traffic control plan, which would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: The City shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan for use during construction. This plan shall outline procedures for notifying the Oceanside Police and Fire Departments of forthcoming lane or roadway closures. This will allow the police

6965 4-44 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

and fire departments to modify emergency response plans and notify other public service providers of closures. In addition, the Traffic Control Plan shall provide a detour route for the bike lane along North Avenue. The Traffic Control Plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a contract and be approved by the City Engineer. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is located in Loma Alta Creek and is surrounded by existing urban development. Restoration of the eroded creek banks would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site? e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood

Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect

flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving

flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Be at risk for inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

6965 4-45 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless k. Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters, considering water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and typical

stormwater pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)? l. Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or following

construction? m. Result in increased erosion downstream? n. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? o. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to

changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? p. Result in a tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? q. Result in a tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate

already existing sensitive conditions? r. Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either

marine, fresh, or wetland waters? s. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? t. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving

water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? u. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? v. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post construction? w. Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including

washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, or delivery areas, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? x. Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the

receiving waters? y. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of

stormwater runoff that cause environmental harm? z. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Construction activities associated with implementation of the project could result in temporary construction-related impacts to water quality from erosion and sedimentation, as well as storage of construction-related hazardous materials (e.g., fuels) on site.

6965 4-46 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

The proposed grading and construction of the site would increase the potential for temporary erosion and sediment transport of material both within and downstream of the project area. The downstream waters and associated wildlife habitats could potentially be subject to these impacts during the construction phase. In order to avoid potentially significant impacts to water quality, mitigation is provided.

Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prior to the start of construction, the contractor shall obtain permit coverage from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. All water discharge from dewatering shall comply with all requirements of the SWRCB.

Mitigation Measure HYD-2: An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared to include site- specific details on erosion and sediment control measures that will be implemented to minimize erosion during construction and prevent sediment transport from the site. Site- specific measures shall include best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., gravel bags, silt fences, fiber rolls, hydromulch, material handling, and storage wheel washing) to detain runoff from the construction site and prevent sedimentation to Loma Alta Creek. The contractor shall designate a qualified person to inspect and document compliance with the Erosion Control Plan. The designated person shall ensure that sedimentation is limited to within the construction area.

Mitigation Measure HYD-3: An erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared and submitted for review prior to the issuance of a contract. The plan shall outline methods that shall be implemented to control erosion from graded or cleared portions of the site (e.g., gravel bags, silt fence, fiber rolls, and hydromulch). The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the City’s Water Quality Ordinance, and the latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit and to the satisfaction of the City Water Quality Engineer.

Mitigation Measure HYD-4: During construction, the contractor shall:

• Temporarily divert the perennial stream flows in the creek to outside the active construction zone through the use of diversion dams (either earthen or water bags) and a diversion pipeline system. • Prior to rewatering of the creek area, any pooled water that has collected during construction must be tested and if evidence of high turbidity or other pollutants of concern are present, the water must be treated pursuant to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) standards prior to release downstream.

6965 4-47 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

• Prepare an Erosion Control Plan and implement best available control measures, such as requiring construction staff to cover or water daily on-site stockpiles, which would reduce project-related soil erosion. • Implement the use of erosion control measures, such as gravel bags, silt fencing, fiber rolls, and hydromulch to stabilize work areas. • All material handling and storage, wheel washing, etc. would occur in staging areas, which would be located outside of the channel area to reduce construction- related pollution. • Daily street sweeping of North Avenue to ensure that any soil that is tracked to the street from the project site is removed appropriately. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4 would avoid or reduce all construction-related erosion and sedimentation impacts to below a level of significance.

Once constructed, the enhanced/restored creek bed would reduce erosion and downstream sediment transport, thereby improving the water quality of the lower reach of Loma Alta Creek. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project would not result in an increase in impervious surface area. The stabilization of the creek area through the installation of bioengineered materials and native wetland plant species would help stabilize the local ecosystem, which would include maintaining, if not improving, the surface-groundwater balance. Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere with or deplete groundwater supplies. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. During construction, the creek would be slightly diverted to the base of the northern bank of the channel to reduce erosion and potential water quality impacts. Since temporary diversion would be limited to the construction phase and the diverted water would remain within the existing channel, this short-term temporary impact is

6965 4-48 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

considered less than significant. During the operational phase of the project, no changes would occur to the existing drainage patterns and the project features would reduce erosion and siltation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to response 14.9.c, above. During construction, a temporary diversion of the stream flows in the creek outside the active construction zone would occur. This diversion dam and diversion pipeline system would help reduce erosion and sedimentation downstream. The short-term temporary diversion would not result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site. During the operational phase of the project, no changes would occur to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Refer to responses 14.9.a and 14.9.d. During construction, the stream would be temporarily diverted through the use of a diversion dam and pipeline system. This diversion system would alter flows during construction, but all flows would continue to be conveyed downstream via the creek area, and therefore, the local stormwater system would be unaffected. The project would also implement best available control measures and an Erosion Control Plan to reduce project-related soil erosion on site and sediment transport downstream from the site (Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4). No impervious surfaces are proposed. The stabilization of the creek banks would be achieved by implementing a bio-engineered solution that would resolve the creek/bank erosion issues and prevent future erosion through the use of native vegetation and vegetative riprap. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Refer to response 14.9.a. No other elements of the proposed project are anticipated to degrade water quality. Therefore, with

6965 4-49 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4, impacts would be less than significant. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. The project does not involve the construction or relocation of housing. Therefore, the project would not result in placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area.

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project would restore the eroded banks of Loma Alta Creek and enhance the wetland vegetation to prevent future erosion. The project site is located on the Flood Insurance Rate Map panel for the City of Oceanside 06073C0759F. Loma Alta Creek currently has a composite special flood hazard floodplain designation as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The floodplains are designated as Zone-AE within the bank of the creek and Zone-X extending outside of the banks across North Avenue. The Zone-AE floodplain designation means that the creek was studied with detailed methods, and it was found that it would be expected to be inundated in a 100-year flood event to known/mapped limits and water surface elevations. The Zone-X designation indicates areas that may be subject to flooding in a 100-year event due to local storm drain deficiencies.

The project would not entail any long-term structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. While construction would occur within an area designated as Zone-AE, the perennial stream flows would be temporarily diverted outside the active construction zone through the use of diversion dams and a diversion pipeline system through the entire reach of the project area. These temporary devices would allow the stream to continue to flow while reducing sediment transport downstream. Once construction activities have ceased, the stream flow would return to its existing/normal location.

If a flood event occurred when the temporary dams are in place, the water would pool behind the dams but would quickly overtop the structure and flow downstream. The dams would not be designed to collect water in quantities that could result in upstream flooding. During a flood event, all work on the project would temporarily cease and equipment would be removed and stored in the staging area outside of the floodplain. Once floodwaters receded, the construction work would resume. Impacts would, therefore, be less than significant.

6965 4-50 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. During the construction period, the temporary diversion of the perennial stream flows in the creek would occur through diversion dams and a diversion pipeline system. Dams would be designed to hold the perennial stream flows, which would be diverted via a pipeline to the downstream release point. As indicated in 14.9.h, the temporary dams would be designed to allow floodwaters to overtop the structures, rather than causing any type of flood water back-up behind the dam. Similarly, because the dams are designed to hold a limited amount of perennial flow, if one of the dam structures accidentally ruptures, the amount of floodwaters would be minimal and could easily be contained within and dissipated by the existing channel. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Once the bio-engineered techniques (i.e., jute netting and planting native vegetation) have been implemented, the temporary diversion dam and diversion pipeline system would be removed, and the stream flow would be restored to its natural location. No impacts would result from the stabilization of the existing eroded banks of Loma Alta Creek during the operational phase of the project. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project is located approximately 6 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. According to the 2009 California Emergency Management Agency’s Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, the project site is not susceptible to inundation by a tsunami (California Department of Conservation 2009). The project area is susceptible to inundation by seiche due to its proximity to Loma Alta Creek; however, due to the shallowness and minimal flows of the Creek, the likelihood of significant impacts from a seiche is extremely low. The project would also be susceptible to mudflow due to the creek location coupled by the surrounding geologic formations. However, because of the short-term duration of construction coupled by the overall project purpose of restoring much of the natural function of the channel, impacts would be considered less than significant. k) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See response to item 14.9.a. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

6965 4-51 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration l) Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or following construction?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See response to item 14.9.a. Through implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4, construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Operation of the project would reduce the amount of sedimentation occurring downstream; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. m) Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. During construction, the creek would be temporarily diverted within the channel immediately north of the construction area to prevent additional erosion and sedimentation downstream. Once the stream is diverted from the construction area, filling and grading the slopes may result in additional sedimentation; however, this would be a minor temporary disturbance. During the operational phase of the project, the creek banks would be stabilized, resulting in a decrease in downstream erosion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. n) Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff?

No Impact. The project would not increase impervious surfaces. The two designed features of the project include recontouring the streambed to establish the original flow pattern and stabilizing the creek banks. All materials and slopes would be pervious to achieve these two objectives. Therefore, there would be no new impervious surfaces and runoff quantities would remain unaffected. o) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. See response to item 14.9.n above. The project does not include mass site grading or substantial changes in project site drainage that would alter drainage patterns or increase runoff flow rates or volumes. Impacts would be less than significant. p) Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. While Loma Alta Creek is not listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list (Regional Water Quality Control Board 2007), Loma Alta Creek is a tributary to Loma Alta Slough and the Pacific Ocean. Both the Loma Alta Slough and the Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Loma Alta HA are included on the 303(d) list. The pollutant at the

6965 4-52 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Pacific Ocean Shoreline is bacteria impairment (with a proposed total maximum daily load (TMDL) completion date of 2008). The pollutant at Loma Alta Slough is eutrophic (with a proposed TMDL completion date of 2019) and indicator bacteria (with a proposed TMDL completion date of 2008).

During construction, accidental introduction of petroleum-based products from the construction vehicles may occur; therefore, mitigation is provided (see response to item 14.9.a above). Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would reduce potential impacts from pollutants entering an impaired water body to less than significant.

Once construction has been completed, the creek would function much closer to a native wetland system, which would help reduce pollutant load to the downstream water bodies. q) Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See responses to 14.9.a, 14.9.l, and 14.9.p. The project is located within Loma Alta Creek, which is an environmentally sensitive freshwater creek and wetland area. The drainage pattern would be temporarily altered during construction to reduce potential water quality impacts associated with construction-related erosion. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4 would reduce erosion and sedimentation to less- than-significant levels. The operational phase of the project would reduce erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. r) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Loma Alta Creek discharges into Loma Alta Slough and the Pacific Ocean. Through implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD- 4, construction-related impacts on surface water quality would be less than significant. Once construction has been completed, less sediment would be transported downstream. In addition, the proposed plantings would serve as a natural filtration system; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. s) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See responses to items 14.9.a, 14.9.b, and 14.9.f. The project site does not involve excavation, drilling, or cuts that could intercept or affect groundwater and does not involve sub-surface fuel tanks or similar features that could affect groundwater. Through implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4,

6965 4-53 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

construction-related water quality impacts would be less than significant. Once construction has been completed, the restored stream would better mimic its natural function of high water level infiltration. The water recharging the groundwater would have a decreased pollutant load compared to the existing conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. t) Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The San Diego RWQCB does not designate water quality objectives for Loma Alta Creek (SDRWQCB 2007). The beneficial uses of the Loma Alta Hydrographic Area are contact water recreation, non-contact water recreation, municipal and domestic supply, warm freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat (SDRWQCB 2007). The project would reduce the amount of erosion occurring within a portion of the creek, resulting in a decrease in siltation deposited downstream.

During construction, potential pollutant-laden runoff may occur. In order to avoid this potential increase in pollutant discharge to Loma Alta Creek and the sensitive environmental areas associated with this drainage, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure HYD-4, above). Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-4 would reduce this water quality impact to less than significant. u) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See response to Section 14.4.b of this document. v) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post construction?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See responses to items 14.9.a, 14.9.f, and 14.9.t. w) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, or delivery areas, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See responses to items 14.9.a and 14.9.f. x) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. See responses to items 14.9.t and 14.9.f.

6965 4-54 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration y) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The restoration of the eroded creek banks would not result in a significant change in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff that could cause environmental harm, nor indirectly contribute to such impacts as a result of project implementation. Impacts would be less than significant. z) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See response to item 14.9.m. The creek would be temporarily diverted immediately north of the construction area (within the channel) to prevent additional erosion and sedimentation during the construction phase of the project. Once the creek is diverted, filling and grading the slopes may result in additional sedimentation; however, this would be a minor temporary disturbance with implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4 proposed by the project and compliance with existing regulations. During the operational phase of the project, the creek banks would be stabilized, resulting in a decrease in erosion and downstream sedimentation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (e.g., General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program,

or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community

conservation plan?

a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The project would be contained within the Loma Alta Creek area; therefore, no change to the land use in the creek and surrounding areas would occur.

6965 4-55 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The City of Oceanside General Plan land use designation for the site is Estate B Residential. The Zoning designation for the project site is Residential Estate B. Repairs to the existing earthen storm water channel would not result in conflicts with the existing land use and zoning designations of the site. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. See response 14.4.f above.

nificant Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Sig Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value

to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site

delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact. The City of Oceanside’s General Plan identifies two areas within the City which contain mineral deposits: the San Luis Rey River Basin and the area northeast of El Camino Real and Oceanside Boulevard (City of Oceanside 2002, Figure ERM-5). As depicted on Figure ERM-5, the project site is not located in an area known to contain mineral resources that would be of value to the region. In addition, the project site currently consists of Loma Alta Creek and the proposed improvements to repair the creek banks would not result in impacts to mineral resources. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources would not occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

No Impact. Refer to response 14.11.a, above.

6965 4-56 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.12 NOISE. Would the project: a. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in

the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne

noise levels? c. Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project

vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the

project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the

project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people

residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

a) Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would be short-term and conducted in accordance with the City of Oceanside’s Noise Ordinance; which limits construction activities to daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Further, pursuant to the City’s Noise Ordinance, construction equipment shall not exceed a noise level of 85 decibels (dB) at a distance of 100 feet. Compliance with the City’s noise regulations would ensure that construction noise would result in a less-than-significant impact to surrounding receptors.

Maintenance would consist of an annual visit to the site for vegetation monitoring and invasive/problematic species removal. This activity may result in noise audible to nearby residents as a result of the presence of the work crew and their potential use of small hand tools. However, this activity would occur during the City’s construction hour limitation window and would be intermittent and temporary. Therefore, impacts related to operational noise would be less than significant.

6965 4-57 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

b) Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not require the use of blasting; therefore, nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to excessive ground-borne vibration or noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Maintenance would consist of an annual visit to the site for vegetation monitoring and invasive/problematic species removal. This activity may result in noise audible to nearby residents as a result of the presence of the work crew and their potential use of small hand tools. However, this activity would be contained within the City’s construction hour limitation window and would be intermittent and temporary. Therefore, impacts related to operational noise would be less than significant.

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. See response 14.12.a.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The proposed project is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, no impact would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

6965 4-58 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

nificant Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Sig Significant Unless Mit.Unless

14.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere?

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

No Impact. The project would involve repair of the degraded banks of an existing earthen storm water channel. No changes to the conveyance capacity of the channel would occur. The channel would continue serving the local drainage needs of the established land uses. Therefore, no growth inducing impacts would occur. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the removal of existing housing, and therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would result. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The project would not result in the displacement of people; therefore, no replacement housing would be required.

6965 4-59 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction

of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?

1) Fire protection?

No Impact. The project would entail repair of the eroded banks of an existing earthen storm water channel and would not result in any impacts associated with the provision of fire services. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

2) Police protection?

No Impact. The restoration of the eroded creek banks would not result in an increased need for police protection services. No impact would occur.

3) Schools?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in an increase in students or affect existing or proposed schools. Since the project would not include housing, impacts to existing schools or the need for additional schools would not occur.

4) Parks?

No Impact. The proposed project would not generate an increase in population and would, therefore, not result in an increase in use of existing parks. No impacts would result.

6965 4-60 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

5) Other public facilities?

No Impact. As stated previously, the proposed project would not generate an increase in population, and therefore, would not cause an increased demand on other public services. No additional public facilities would be impacted by the proposed project.

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.15 RECREATION. Would the project: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not generate an increase in population and would, therefore, not cause an increase in demand on existing public or private parks or other recreational facilities that would either result in or increase physical deterioration of the facility. Therefore, no impact would result. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact would result.

6965 4-61 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

than than Impact Impact Less No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass-transit and non-motorized travel, and

relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards

established by the county congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or

a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or

dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass-transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. During the construction phase of the project, traffic would be generated by construction crews and equipment traveling to and from the project site. Due to the size of the project, a relatively small number of vehicles would be required to construct the project. Therefore, increased traffic from the construction phase of the project would be short- term and less than significant. During the operational phase of the project, periodic maintenance of the creek would not result in a noticeable change from the existing traffic levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies measuring effectiveness of the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant.

6965 4-62 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Short-term limited construction-related traffic would not create a substantial impact on traffic volumes nor change traffic patterns in such a way as to affect the level of service or vehicle to congestion ratios on surrounding roadways. Long- term traffic associated with the maintenance of the creek would not change from the existing conditions and, therefore, would have a less-than-significant impact to area roadways. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The project would not entail any use that would result in a change in air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impacts would result. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project would include repair of the eroded banks of a portion of Loma Alta Creek. The project does not include the development or redesign of any roadways that would result in the introduction of a hazardous design feature. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. As discussed in item 14.8.g, the City would be required to implement a traffic control plan to reduce potential impacts to emergency access associated with construction activities along North Avenue (i.e., Mitigation Measure HAZ- 2). This traffic control plan would include pre-construction outreach to local emergency providers (e.g., fire, police and emergency medical) to ensure that each agency understands the project schedule, the extent of roadway impacts, and how the construction staging area would be secured during non-work hours. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would reduce impacts from inadequate emergency access to less than significant. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. A Class III bike trail is located along the north side of North Avenue. Class III bike facilities are shared with motor vehicles, with bicycle use

6965 4-63 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

as a secondary use. During construction, up to one lane of North Avenue would be utilized for construction staging. The closed lane would be appropriately roped off and a detour developed. The detour would include provision for safe passage for individuals utilizing non-motorized transportation. Therefore, due to the short construction schedule of approximately 6 months and the project’s incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 for the incorporation of a traffic control plan, the project would result in a short-term temporary impact to the existing bicycle facility. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water

Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing

entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the

project’s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid

waste?

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

No Impact. The project would entail restoration of the eroded banks of Loma Alta Creek and would not generate wastewater. Therefore, the project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. No impacts would result.

6965 4-64 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

No Impact. Refer to response to item 14.17.a above. The project would not generate wastewater or a demand for new water, and therefore, would not require or result in construction of a new or expansion of an existing wastewater treatment facility or water treatment facility. c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

No Impact. The project would not require or propose the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Enhancement of wetland communities are proposed to prevent future erosion of the creek banks and would not result in a new source of stormwater runoff.

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

No Impact. The project does not generate a demand for potable water. Irrigation is already provided along the creek; therefore, the project would not generate any new or increased demand for water or expanded entitlements.

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

No Impact. Refer to response 14.17.a. The project would not generate wastewater; therefore, impacts to existing wastewater services would not result.

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. A small amount of solid waste may be generated by the construction of the restoration of the creek banks, clearing of vegetation, and installation of the plants in areas to be revegetated. In compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the City would recycle as much of the waste generated during construction as possible. No solid waste would be generated during the operational phase of the project. Impacts would be less than significant.

6965 4-65 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to response 14.17.f above. Sediment and cleared vegetation may be generated as part of the proposed project. However, in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the City would recycle as much of the waste generated during construction as possible. Therefore, the project would comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Impact Less than No ImpactNo Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Significant Unless Mit.Unless 14.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or

animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of

long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (Cumulatively considerable means the project’s incremental effects are

considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse

effects on human beings, directly or indirectly?

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory?

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Based on the evaluation and discussions contained in this initial study, the proposed project would potentially result in significant impacts to the following unless mitigated: biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and transportation/traffic. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce potential significant impacts on all resources to below a level of significance.

6965 4-66 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

The proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts or no impacts to the following: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. The project site is located within Loma Alta Creek and would involve restoration and repair of the degraded banks of a portion of Loma Alta Creek. Therefore, impacts would either be mitigated to less-than-significant levels or have less-than-significant impacts and, in some cases, no impacts. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project would involve re-grading portions of the creek banks that have been eroded in an effort to restore the original geometry of the channel. The vegetated slope that is susceptible to future erosion would be stabilized by vegetative riprap and new vegetation. Over the long term, stabilization of the creek banks would prevent future erosion from undermining the stability of the road, preventing hazardous safety conditions. Therefore, the project would not achieve short-term goals at the disadvantage of long-term environmental improvements. c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable (cumulatively considerable means the project’s incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts, because it would resolve the existing creek/bank erosion issues and prevent future erosion, thereby improving water quality and soil stability. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

d) Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Based on the analysis above, the project would not have an adverse effect on human beings. The project would entail stabilization of the creek banks, which would prevent future erosion from undermining the stability of the road. The project would help improve safety conditions for the traveling public and improve channel function, including providing a benefit to storm water conveyance and downstream water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

6965 4-67 July 2013

North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 4-70 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Verification Frequency to Pre- During Post Reporting Date of Date of Mitigation Measure Planning Const. Const. Const. Agency Monitor Report Completion Verification Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If construction activity would occur x x City of between January 15 and August 31, a nesting bird survey shall Oceanside be conducted by a qualified biologist within 72 hours of construction activity. If active nests are detected, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest of a non-listed migratory bird (500 feet for raptors or listed migratory birds) shall be postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biologist in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the biologist. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to nests occur. Mitigation Measure BIO-2. To prevent indirect impacts, a x x City of biologist shall be contracted to perform biological monitoring Oceanside during all grading, clearing, grubbing, trenching, and construction activities to ensure disturbance does not occur outside of the limits of grading. To prevent inadvertent disturbance to areas outside the limits of grading, an orange environmental fence shall be installed to delineate the limits of grading. In addition, the following shall be conducted: 1. The biologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting with the contractor and other key construction personnel prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading to reduce conflict between the timing and location of

6965 5-1 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Verification Frequency to Pre- During Post Reporting Date of Date of Mitigation Measure Planning Const. Const. Const. Agency Monitor Report Completion Verification construction activities with other mitigation requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for nesting birds). 2. The biologist shall conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel, describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 3. The biologist shall discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction with the contractor and other key construction personnel prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 4. The biologist shall review and/or designate the construction area in the field with the contractor in accordance with the final grading plan prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 5. The biologist shall conduct a field review of the staking to be set by the surveyor, and the subsequent installation of orange environmental fencing designating the limits of all construction activity prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 6. The biologist shall be present during initial vegetation clearing, grubbing, and grading. 7. The biologist shall flush special-status species (i.e., avian or other mobile species) from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush-clearing and other ground- disturbing activities. 8. To address hydrology impacts, the biologist shall verify that grading plans include an Erosion Control Plan. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 The direct permanent impact from X City of decreasing biological functions by converting 0.13 acre of Oceanside existing earthen channel (non-vegetated channel) to riprap armoring (non-vegetated channel – developed) shall be

6965 5-2 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Verification Frequency to Pre- During Post Reporting Date of Date of Mitigation Measure Planning Const. Const. Const. Agency Monitor Report Completion Verification mitigated by implementing approximately 2.36 acres of on-site wetlands and uplands restoration and enhancement within the project area. Wetlands enhancement will include 0.44 acre of low-growing freshwater marsh plants in the channel bottom and 0.4 acre of transitional zone riparian planting on the channel side slopes. Uplands enhancement will include exotics removal within 0.78 acre of existing disturbed coastal sage scrub and 0.74 acre of coastal sage scrub restoration within existing disturbed lands. The proposed wetlands and uplands restoration and enhancement is shown on Figure 4-2 and is summarized in Table 4-3. Implementation of the proposed mitigation is ultimately expected to result in a net increase in the biological functions in the project area.

The proposed wetlands and uplands enhancement and restoration areas would be installed within 12 months of completion of the proposed channel protection activities, and would include a minimum 3-year maintenance and monitoring period with annual success standards. Wetlands enhancement areas will be revegetated using a combination of container plants and seed. Upland enhancement and restoration areas will be revegetated using seed treatments. All revegetation areas receiving container plants will be temporarily irrigated to ensure survival of the installed container plants and seed.

As detailed in Appendix H of the Biological Technical Report, the annual success standards are based on establishing minimum levels of native vegetation cover, and limiting the cover of invasive perennial species and non-native annual species. In wetlands enhancement areas, the Year 3 success standard would be to achieve 70% overall cover from seed, container plants, and/or volunteer native species. In uplands

6965 5-3 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Verification Frequency to Pre- During Post Reporting Date of Date of Mitigation Measure Planning Const. Const. Const. Agency Monitor Report Completion Verification enhancement and restoration areas, the Year 3 success standard would be to achieve a 60% overall cover from seed, container plants, and/or volunteer native species. In all enhancement or restoration areas, 100% control of invasive perennial plant species and 90% control of non-native annual species would be required at the end of the 3-year maintenance and monitoring period.

Based on the wetlands and uplands vegetation communities proposed for enhancement and restoration, a 3-year maintenance and monitoring period is expected to be sufficient time for the mitigation areas to become adequately established and self-sustaining over the long term. In addition, the plant species proposed in the various mitigation treatments are relatively fast-growing species and a 3-year period is expected to be sufficient time to evaluate establishment success. However, if success criteria are not met at the end of the 3-year period, then additional maintenance and monitoring shall be performed until required standards are met. Maintenance of the enhancement and restoration areas will include a 120-day plant establishment maintenance period during which all planting areas will be monitored to ensure survival of installed container plants, proper functioning of the irrigation systems, and to verify successful germination in areas where seed mix is applied. Following the completion of the 120- day plant establishment maintenance period, the revegetation areas will be maintained for period of 3 years. General maintenance activities will focus on the survival and establishment of intended plantings, the replacement of dead plantings, weed control/removal, irrigation system adjustments, and trash and debris removal. Qualitative assessments of the progress of the revegetation

6965 5-4 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Verification Frequency to Pre- During Post Reporting Date of Date of Mitigation Measure Planning Const. Const. Const. Agency Monitor Report Completion Verification areas will be conducted during field monitoring visits conducted periodically over the duration of the 40-month monitoring period (i.e., 120 days, plus 3 years). Qualitative assessments would be based on annual success standards designed to ensure attainment of the desired conditions at the conclusion of the 3- year maintenance and monitoring period.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To X City of comply with the state and federal regulations for impacts to Oceanside “waters of the United States and state,” the following agency permits are required, or verification that they are not required shall be obtained prior to initiating construction activities. The following permit and agreement shall be obtained: • A CWA, Section 401/404 permit issued by the California RWQCB and the ACOE for all project- related disturbances of waters of the United States and/or associated wetlands. • Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the CDFW for all project-related disturbance of any streambed. Mitigation Measure CR-1. Prior to any ground-disturbing activity on x x City of the project site, the contractor shall retain a certified archaeologist to Oceanside monitor grading activities. The archaeologist shall be present during all initial ground disturbances to ensure the appropriate treatment of any inadvertent cultural resources discoveries. Mitigation Measure CR-2. Prior to any ground-disturbing activity x x City of on the project site, the contractor shall retain a paleontologist to Oceanside monitor grading activities. The paleontologist shall be present during all initial ground disturbances to ensure the appropriate treatment of any inadvertent cultural resources discoveries. Mitigation Measure CR-3. In the unlikely event that human x City of

6965 5-5 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Verification Frequency to Pre- During Post Reporting Date of Date of Mitigation Measure Planning Const. Const. Const. Agency Monitor Report Completion Verification remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Oceanside Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner shall be immediately notified if any human remains are discovered. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant. With the permission of the City, the most likely descendant may inspect the site of the discovery. The most likely descendant may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: If unknown or hazardous materials x City of are unearthed during construction, the contractor shall Oceanside immediately contact the City engineer to determine a course of action for determining the content/extent of the buried substance and how best to handle and/or dispose of the material. The City engineer shall notify County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health and other state and/or federal agencies as appropriate and shall follow appropriate procedures. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to the start of construction, a X City of “dig alert” shall be conducted, which would involve the engineer Oceanside or contractor contracting with an entity that would release an announcement of the proposed digging operation to all local utility providers (e.g., water, wastewater, cable, fiber optic, and electrical). All utility providers would visit the proposed project site and mark the location and depth of any underground utilities to ensure that the project site would not impact these facilities.

6965 5-6 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Verification Frequency to Pre- During Post Reporting Date of Date of Mitigation Measure Planning Const. Const. Const. Agency Monitor Report Completion Verification Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: The City shall prepare a Traffic X City of Control Plan for use during construction. This plan shall outline Oceanside procedures for notifying the Oceanside Police and Fire Departments of forthcoming lane or roadway closures. This will allow the police and fire departments to modify emergency response plans and notify other public service providers of closures. In addition, the Traffic Control Plan shall provide a detour route for the bike lane along North Avenue. The Traffic Control Plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a contract and be approved by the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prior to the start of construction, X City of the contractor shall obtain permit coverage from the State Water Oceanside Resources Control Board (SWRCB) under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. All water discharge from dewatering shall comply with all requirements of the SWRCB. Mitigation Measure HYD-2: An Erosion Control Plan shall be X City of prepared to include site-specific details on erosion and Oceanside sediment control measures that will be implemented to minimize erosion during construction and prevent sediment transport from the site. Site-specific measures shall include best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., gravel bags, silt fences, fiber rolls, hydromulch, material handling, and storage wheel washing) to detain runoff from the construction site and prevent sedimentation to Loma Alta Creek. The contractor shall designate a qualified person to inspect and document compliance with the Erosion Control Plan. The designated person shall ensure that sedimentation is limited to within the construction area.

6965 5-7 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Verification Frequency to Pre- During Post Reporting Date of Date of Mitigation Measure Planning Const. Const. Const. Agency Monitor Report Completion Verification Mitigation Measure HYD-3: An erosion and sediment control X City of plan shall be prepared and submitted for review prior to the Oceanside issuance of a contract. The plan shall outline methods that shall be implemented to control erosion from graded or cleared portions of the site (e.g., gravel bags, silt fence, fiber rolls, and hydromulch). The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s Grading Ordinance, the City’s Water Quality Ordinance, and the latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit and to the satisfaction of the City Water Quality Engineer. Mitigation Measure HYD-4: During construction, the x City of contractor shall: Oceanside • Temporarily divert the perennial stream flows in the creek to outside the active construction zone through the use of diversion dams (either earthen or water bags) and a diversion pipeline system. • Prior to rewatering of the creek area, any pooled water that has collected during construction must be tested, and if evidence of high turbidity is present, the water must be treated pursuant to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) standards prior to release downstream. • Prepare an Erosion Control Plan and implement best available control measures, such as requiring construction staff to cover or water daily on-site stockpiles; which would reduce project- related soil erosion on site. • Implement the use of erosion control measures, such as gravel bags, silt fencing, fiber rolls, and hydromulch to stabilize work areas. • All material handling and storage, wheel washing, etc. would occur in staging areas, which would be located outside of the channel area to reduce construction- related pollution.

6965 5-8 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Verification Frequency to Pre- During Post Reporting Date of Date of Mitigation Measure Planning Const. Const. Const. Agency Monitor Report Completion Verification • Daily street sweeping of North Avenue to ensure that any soil that is tracked to the street from the project site is removed appropriately.

6965 5-9 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 5-10 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 6.1 Lead Agency–City of Oceanside

Marisa Lundstedt, City Planner Nathan Mertz, Parks Development Manager Paul Pham, Assistant Engineer

6.2 Project Consultants

Dudek

Chuck Greely, Project Manager Sarah Lozano, Senior Project Manager Elizabeth Doalson, Environmental Project Manager Brian Grover, Environmental Planner Lesley Terry, Graphics Tyler Friesen, Geographic Information System (GIS) Technician Holly Zynda, Publications Hannah Westwood, Publications

6.3 Technical Report Preparation

Biological Technical Report, Dudek

Kamarul Muri, Biologist Callie Ford, Biologist Mike Howard, Biologist

6965 6-1 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 6-2 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

7.0 REFERENCES

14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendix A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

California Geological Survey. 2007. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. Interim Revision. Special Publication 42. Sacramento, California: California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Accessed August 17, 2011. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/information/publications/database/Publications_index.asp

California Department of Conservation. 2008. “San Diego Important Farmland 2008” [map]. Sacramento, California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Accessed on October 28, 2011. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/ dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2008/sdg08_west.pdf.

California Department of Conservation. 2009.Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California, County of San Diego, Oceanside Quadrangle. June. Accessed March 18, 2013. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/ Inundation_Maps/SanDiego/Documents/ Tsunami_Inundation_OceansideSanLuisRey_Quads_SanDiego.pdf

California Department of Transportation. 2012. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Accessed on July 23, 2012. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/ index.htm.

California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended.

City of Oceanside. 2010. Final Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Prepared for the City of Oceanside Planning Department. San Diego, California: Ogden Environmental and Conservation Biology Institute.

City of Oceanside. 2002. Oceanside General Plan. Accessed October 31, 2011. http://www.ci.oceanside.ca.us/services/departments_divisions/planning/general_plan.asp.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2007. “DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site list–Site Cleanup (Cortese List).” Accessed on July 27, 2012. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm.

6965 7-1 July 2013 North Avenue Channel Protection Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Dudek. 2013. Biological Technical Report for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project. July 2013.

Jones & Stokes. 2007. Software User’s Guide: URBEMIS2007 for Windows; Emissions Estimation for Land Use Development Projects. Version 9.2.4. Prepared for the South Coast Air Quality Management District. November 2007. http://www.urbemis.com/ support/manual.html.

SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2003. Final MHCP Plan for the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. San Diego, California: SANDAG.

SDAPCD (San Diego Air Pollution Control District). 1969. “Regulation IV: Prohibitions, Rule 51: Nuisance.”

SDRWQCB (San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2007. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. Adopted September 8, 1994. Last amendment April 25, 2007. Accessed February 9, 2012. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/ programs/ basin_plan/.

6965 7-2 July 2013 APPENDIX A Air Quality Emissions

Page: 1 8/13/2012 4:32:44 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Users\bgrover\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\North Avenue Channel.urb924 Project Name: North Avenue Channel Protection Project Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 1.59 12.04 8.12 0.00 30.01 0.66 30.66 6.27 0.61 6.87

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 1.59 12.04 8.12 0.00 13.51 0.66 14.16 2.82 0.61 3.43

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 1.49 11.02 7.99 0.00 30.01 0.57 30.58 6.27 0.53 6.79

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 1.49 11.02 7.99 0.00 13.51 0.57 14.08 2.82 0.53 3.35

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Page: 2 8/13/2012 4:32:44 PM

Time Slice 9/2/2013-12/31/2013 1.59 12.04 8.12 0.00 30.01 0.66 30.66 6.27 0.61 6.87 Active Days: 87 Mass Grading 09/01/2013- 1.59 12.04 8.12 0.00 30.01 0.66 30.66 6.27 0.61 6.87 02/28/2014 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 6.27 0.00 6.27

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 1.56 11.88 7.23 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.60 0.60

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.05 0.84 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time Slice 1/1/2014-2/28/2014 1.49 11.02 7.99 0.00 30.01 0.57 30.58 6.27 0.53 6.79 Active Days: 43 Mass Grading 09/01/2013- 1.49 11.02 7.99 0.00 30.01 0.57 30.58 6.27 0.53 6.79 02/28/2014 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 6.27 0.00 6.27

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 1.46 10.88 7.17 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.52 0.52

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.79 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 9/1/2013 - 2/28/2014 - Site Grading Total Acres Disturbed: 1.5 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.5 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 4.91 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 3 8/13/2012 4:32:44 PM

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5

Time Slice 9/2/2013-12/31/2013 1.59 12.04 8.12 0.00 13.51 0.66 14.16 2.82 0.61 3.43 Active Days: 87 Mass Grading 09/01/2013- 1.59 12.04 8.12 0.00 13.51 0.66 14.16 2.82 0.61 3.43 02/28/2014 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.50 0.00 13.50 2.82 0.00 2.82

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 1.56 11.88 7.23 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.60 0.60

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.05 0.84 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time Slice 1/1/2014-2/28/2014 1.49 11.02 7.99 0.00 13.51 0.57 14.08 2.82 0.53 3.35 Active Days: 43 Mass Grading 09/01/2013- 1.49 11.02 7.99 0.00 13.51 0.57 14.08 2.82 0.53 3.35 02/28/2014 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.50 0.00 13.50 2.82 0.00 2.82

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 1.46 10.88 7.17 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.52 0.52

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.79 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 9/1/2013 - 2/28/2014 - Site Grading For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page: 4 8/13/2012 4:32:44 PM Page: 1 8/13/2012 4:32:34 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Users\bgrover\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\North Avenue Channel.urb924 Project Name: North Avenue Channel Protection Project Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 1.59 12.04 8.12 0.00 30.01 0.66 30.66 6.27 0.61 6.87

2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 1.59 12.04 8.12 0.00 13.51 0.66 14.16 2.82 0.61 3.43

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 1.49 11.02 7.99 0.00 30.01 0.57 30.58 6.27 0.53 6.79

2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 1.49 11.02 7.99 0.00 13.51 0.57 14.08 2.82 0.53 3.35

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Page: 2 8/13/2012 4:32:34 PM

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 1.56 11.88 7.23 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.60 0.60

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.05 0.84 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 1.46 10.88 7.17 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.52 0.52

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.79 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 1.56 11.88 7.23 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.60 0.60

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.05 0.84 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 1.46 10.88 7.17 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.52 0.52

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.79 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

J U LY 2 0 1 3 PREPARED FOR: City of Oceanside 300 North Coast Highway Oceanside, CA 92054 Attn: Paul Pham

PREPARED BY:

Dudek 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024

DRAFT

BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT for the THE NORTH AVENUE CHANNEL PROTECTION PROJECT

Prepared for:

The City of Oceanside 300 North Coast Highway Oceanside, California 92054 Contact: Paul Pham 760.435.5030

Prepared by:

605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Kam Muri 760.942.5147

JULY 2013

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Report...... 1 1.2 Location and Project Description...... 1 1.3 Regulatory Context ...... 9 1.3.1 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands ...... 12 1.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 15 2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ...... 17 2.1 Environmental Setting ...... 17 2.2 Topography ...... 17 2.3 Soils...... 17 2.4 Watersheds and Hydrology ...... 17 2.4.1 Functions and Values ...... 18 3.0 METHODS ...... 23 3.1 Literature Review...... 23 3.2 Vegetation Mapping...... 23 3.3 Jurisdictional Delineation ...... 24 3.3.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation ...... 24 3.3.2 Hydric Soils ...... 25 3.3.3 Hydrology ...... 25 3.4 Special-Status Plants ...... 26 3.5 Special-Status Wildlife ...... 27 3.5.1 Southern Willow Flycatcher and Least Bell’s Vireo ...... 27 3.6 Survey Limitations ...... 28 4.0 RESULTS ...... 29 4.1 Vegetation Communities, Land Covers, and Floral Diversity ...... 29 4.1.1 Riparian Habitats ...... 29 4.1.2 Coastal Sage Scrub ...... 30 4.1.3 Open Water, Natural Flood Channel, Disturbed Wetlands ...... 37 4.1.4 Disturbed Land...... 37 4.1.5 Floral Diversity ...... 38 4.2 Wildlife ...... 38 4.3 Special-Status/Regulated Resources ...... 38 4.3.1 Special-Status Plants ...... 38 4.3.2 Special-Status Wildlife ...... 39

6965 i July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page No.

4.3.3 Special-Status Vegetation Communities...... 40 4.3.4 Jurisdictional Waters ...... 40 4.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages ...... 41 4.5 Regional Resources Planning Context ...... 42 5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS ...... 51 5.1 Construction and Project Design Features ...... 51 5.2 Definition of Impacts ...... 51 5.3 Direct Impacts ...... 66 5.3.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 66 5.3.2 Special-Status Plant Species ...... 67 5.3.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species ...... 67 5.3.4 Jurisdictional Waters ...... 68 5.3.5 Wildlife Corridors/Habitat Linkages ...... 69 5.4 Indirect Impacts ...... 69 5.4.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 69 5.4.2 Special-Status Plant Species ...... 70 5.4.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species ...... 70 5.4.4 Jurisdictional Waters ...... 70 5.4.5 Wildlife Corridors/Habitat Linkages ...... 71 6.0 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 71 6.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance...... 71 6.2 Vegetation Communities ...... 72 6.3 Special-Status Plants ...... 72 6.4 Special-Status Wildlife ...... 72 6.5 Jurisdictional Waters ...... 73 6.6 Habitat Linkages/Wildlife Corridors ...... 73 7.0 MITIGATION ...... 75 7.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 75 7.2 Special-Status Plants ...... 82 7.3 Special-Status Wildlife ...... 82 7.4 Jurisdictional Waters ...... 83 7.5 Habitat Linkages/Wildlife Corridors ...... 83 8.0 REFERENCES ...... 85

6965 ii July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page No. FIGURES 1 Regional Map ...... 3 2 Vicinity Map ...... 5 3 Cross Sections ...... 7 4 Hydrologic Context ...... 19 5 Biological Resources Index Map ...... 31 5a Biological Resources Map ...... 33 5b Biological Resources Map ...... 35 6 Jurisdictional Delineation Index Map ...... 43 6a Jurisdictional Delineation ...... 45 6b Jurisdictional Delineation ...... 47 7 Biological Impacts Index Map ...... 53 7a Biological Resources Impacts ...... 55 7b Biological Resources Impacts ...... 57 8 Jurisdictional Delineation Index Map ...... 59 8a Jurisdictional Delineation Impacts ...... 61 8b Jurisdictional Delineation Impacts ...... 63 9 Proposed Mitigation ...... 79

TABLES

1 Schedule of Surveys ...... 23 2 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers ...... 29 3 Special-Status Wildlife Species Detected or with Moderate to High Potential to Occur on the Project Site ...... 39 4 Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation Summary ...... 41 5 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers ...... 66 6 Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands/Waters ...... 68 7 Proposed Mitigation for Permanent Impacts to Non-Vegetated Channel ...... 75

6965 iii July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

APPENDICES

A Plant Compendium B Wildlife Compendium C Special-Status Plant Species Not Expected to Occur on the Project Site D 2011 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project E Site Photos F Special-Status Wildlife Species Not Expected or with Low Potential to Occur in Project Area G Data Station Forms H Revegetation, Maintenance and Monitoring Guidelines for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project

6965 iv July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Report This biological technical report summarizes the results of biological studies conducted on the North Avenue Channel Protection project site to describe the existing conditions of the biological resources, including vegetation, wetlands, flora, wildlife, existing and potential special-status1 species, and wildlife movement. The biological significance of these resources and potential project impacts are evaluated, and measures are recommended to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts where feasible to less-than-significant levels. 1.2 Location and Project Description Location

The North Avenue Channel Protection project (proposed project) site is located in the City of Oceanside (City) in northern San Diego County, California (Figure 1). The site is located within Loma Alta Creek, between North Avenue and the North County Transit District Sprinter Rail Line, west of Pacific Vista Drive and east of College Boulevard (Figure 2). The project site is located in the northerly most portion of the creek adjacent to North Avenue from the intersection of North Avenue and Season Road to the existing concrete trapezoidal creek section approximately 2,600 feet upstream.

The site lies within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute map, San Luis Rey Quadrangle: Section 14 and 23, Township 11 South, Range 4 West. The study area includes a 100-foot buffer around the project site and staging area.

Project Description

The project site consists of an engineered naturalized trapezoidal creek cross section with an earthen bottom and side slopes, and intermittent reinforced concrete grade control structures and rock riprap sections. The channel is predominantly non-vegetated and supports concrete headwalls and drainage pipe infrastructure. Storm events have undermined existing concrete headwalls and caused significant erosion along the channel bank adjacent to North Avenue, threatening the stability of an existing chain-link fence and the long-term stability of the roadway (i.e., North Avenue). Some riprap was previously placed on the south end of the channel to protect and reduce the erosion of the embankment.

1 The term “special-status” is used in this report instead of “sensitive” with the exception of where it occurs in headings or text cited from Final Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (City of Oceanside 2009). However, herein, these terms are interchangeable and have the same meaning.

6965 1 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

The project proposes to restore and repair the degraded banks of an existing earthen stormwater channel (i.e., Loma Alta Creek) by implementing a bioengineered solution that will resolve the creek/bank erosion issues and prevent future erosion. The channel, within the project study area, is approximately 10 feet wide at the bottom and 40 feet wide at the top, with channel side slopes generally ranging from 3:1 to 1:1 in some areas.

The project proposes to re-grade portions of the creek banks that have been eroded, to bring back the original geometry of the vegetated slope, and to stabilize those portions of the bank that are susceptible to future erosion through the use of bioengineered techniques (native vegetation, vegetative riprap, etc.) (Figure 3).

The existing slopes will be graded along two sections of the creek. Approximately 1,000 feet will be graded from Station 8+00.00 to Station 18+00.00, and approximately 475 feet from Station 24+50.00 to Station 29+25.00. The new slope grades will join the existing grades at the start and end station points. Due to the eroded conditions, the project also proposes to remove and replace the existing fence footings and irrigation system laterals and sprinkler heads within the proposed bank restoration areas. The project will also protect the existing grade control structures in-place.

Once the slopes have been re-graded to reach the original geometry of the slope, a geotextile filter fabric will be placed on the slope. Then 643 cubic yards of engineered fill material will be placed on the slopes to obtain a 2:1 slope required for stability (as documented in Dudek 2012a). Coconut fiber jute netting will be installed to provide a firm foundation for erosion control, while allowing water absorption, providing stability for plant growth, and preventing erosion.

The project area would be replanted with native wetland and upland vegetation to restore habitat functions and services, and to help provide erosion control protection. Bank protection would be achieved by using a combination of bio-engineered techniques including vegetated slope armoring using native plantings, sections of vegetated rip-rap intermixed with rip-rap armoring, buried rip-rap, in combination with willow pole cuttings. The project would entail planting native wetland/riparian and upland species that are known to occur in the Loma Alta Creek watershed. In order to provide the required erosion resistance, plants with extensive rooting systems would be utilized. Plants for the immediate channel area would consist of wetland species such as mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), sandbar willow (Salix hindsiana), San Diego marsh elder (Iva hayesiana) and other native wetland andriparian species, planted from a combination of cuttings, container plantings and seeding. Transitional upland species would also be utilized along the upper creek banks and within the transitional buffer zone areas adjacent to the creek channel margins. (See Appendix H for additional guidelines for the revegetation effort.).

6965 2 July 2013 Loma P Cherry edley Desert Hot Valley Riverside 62 Springs 60 Norco Moreno Beaumont Banning Valley 91 March 10 Woodcrest AFB Corona ers ide County Cathedral Thousand Cou City Nuevo 243 Palm Palms nty Perris San Springs Jacinto Rancho Palm 215 Idyllwild- East Mirage Desert Pine Cove Hemet Sun Hemet Indi City Winchester Indian 111 Wells Lake Rancho Elsinore La anta Margarita Quinta

Coto De Wildomar Caza 74 Trabuco Highlands 15 371 an o Temecula Orange San County mente San Diego Riverside County County Rainbow San Diego County

Fallbrook 79 76 Camp Pendleton North Bonsall Project Site Camp Pendleton Hidden Borrego South Valley Oceanside Meadows Springs Vista Center

San Marcos Escondido Carlsbad

78 Julian Encinitas Ramona San Diego Country Poway Estates

56 Pacific 67

SOURCE: FIGURE 1 Regional Map 6965 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTR Figures\Figure1_Regional.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 4 July 2013 Project Site

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

SOURCE: USGS topo 7.5-Minute Series San Luis Rey Quadrangle FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map 6965 MONTH 2009 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTR Figures\Figure2_Vicinity.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 6 July 2013 EXIST. 6' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE (REMOVE & REPLACE)

CONTAINER PLANT

EXIST. VEGETATED SLOPE HYDRO-SEEDING

DORMANT RIP-RAP GRADATION POLE DORMANT CUTTINGS WATTLING

1.5 1

EXISTING ERODED SLOPE

EXIST. 6' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE TYPICAL -VEGETATED SLOPE ARMORING DETAIL (REMOVE & REPLACE) N T S

CONTAINER PLANT RIP-RAP GRADATION EXIST. 6' HIGH EXIST. VEGETATED SLOPE HYDRO-SEEDING CHAINLINK FENCE (REMOVE & REPLACE)

DORMANT POLE

DORMANT CUTTINGS WATTLING

MIRAFI 1100N EXIST. VEGETATED SLOPE 1.5 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 1

EXISTING ERODED SLOPE

EXISTING ERODED 1.5 SLOPE 1

MIRAFI 1100N 1 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPICAL -VEGETATED RIP-RAP DETAIL 1.5 N T S

TYPICAL RIP-RAP BANK OF INVERT STABILIZATION DETAIL

SECTION A

SOURCE: DUDEK 2012 FIGURE 3 Cross Sections

6965 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report

Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 8 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Prior to the commencement of grading activities, perennial stream flows in the creek will be temporarily diverted outside the active construction zone through the use of diversion dams (either earthen or water bags) and a diversion pipeline system (size to be determined during final design) through the entire reach of the project site. Grading activities will be conducted by excavators operating at the top of the slope adjacent to North Avenue. Limited activities are anticipated in the creek bottom, and those activities that do require access will be hand activities and not equipment based.

Once constructed, the City’s maintenance activities will consist of annual inspection and clearing of the concrete spillways.

1.3 Regulatory Context

California Endangered Species Act

The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFW) administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), which prohibits the “take” of plant and animal species designated as endangered or threatened in the state of 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 Commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985, is a threatened species.” Candidate species are 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.

6965 9 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

CESA authorizes the taking of threatened, endangered, or candidate species if take is incidental to otherwise lawful activity and if specific criteria are met. These provisions also require CDFW to coordinate consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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 California Environmental Quality Act (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 Fish and Game Code, discussed further below.

Federal Endangered Species Act

The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as amended, is administered by the USFWS for most plant and animal species, and by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) 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. FESA 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 FESA, 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.”

FESA 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 (HCPs) on private property without any other federal agency involvement. Upon development of an HCP, the USFWS can issue incidental take permits (ITPs) for listed species where the HCP specifies, at a minimum, the following:

• The level of impact that will result from the taking • Steps that will minimize and mitigate the impacts • Funding necessary to implement the HCP

6965 10 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

• Alternative actions to the taking considered by the applicant and the reasons why such alternatives were not chosen • Such other measures that the Secretary of the Interior may require as being necessary or appropriate for the HCP.

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 over 800 species of birds. Two species of eagles that are native to the United States, the 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 (BGEPA; 16 U.S.C. 668– 668d) to prevent the species from becoming extinct.

North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program

The North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) is a long-term regional conservation plan established to protect special-status species and habitats in northern San Diego County. The MHCP plan was adopted and certified by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) on March 28, 2003 (SANDAG 2003). Under the MHCP plan, 77 plant and wildlife species were analyzed for coverage; of these 77 species, 5 plants and 16 wildlife species are considered “Covered,” and 15 plant and 15 wildlife species are considered “Covered, subject to species-specific conditions.” Seven of the “Covered” species are currently, or were formerly, federally or state-listed as threatened or endangered, and four of the “Covered” wildlife species are considered “Fully Protected” species by the CDFW.

The MHCP plan is a framework document for the cities within northern San Diego County (Encinitas, Escondido, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marco, Solana Beach, and Oceanside) to prepare subarea plans and contribute to the regional natural communities conservation plan (NCCP) conservation goals. The subarea plans are implemented separately from one another. The entire North Avenue Channel Protection project site is within the final Oceanside Subarea HCP/NCCP (hereafter referred to as the Oceanside Subarea Plan) (City of Oceanside 2009).

The Oceanside Subarea Plan encompasses 41.2 square miles and is generally characterized by residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural areas, although a considerable amount of vacant, undeveloped land also occurs in the city (City of Oceanside 2009). There are 10 plant

6965 11 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

and 26 wildlife species that are proposed Covered Species for the Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009, Table 3-4). Coverage for these species is based on the criteria provided in the MHCP (SANDAG 2003).

1.3.1 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

1.3.1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into “waters of the United States.” The term “waters of the United States” (waters) is defined in ACOE regulations (33 CFR 328.3(a)) as:

1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; 3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect foreign commerce including any such waters: i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; 4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; 5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (4) of this section; 6. The territorial seas; 7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.

6965 12 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

The term “wetlands” (a subset of waters) is defined in 33 CFR 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 similar areas.”

In the absence of wetlands, the limits of ACOE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is defined in 33 CFR 328.3(e) as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.”

On June 5, 2007, the ACOE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released guidance (ACOE/EPA Guidance) on the geographic extent of jurisdiction under the federal CWA, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the CWA in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers, (2006) (ACOE and EPA 2007). The ACOE/EPA Guidance states that the ACOE will regulate traditional navigable waters (TNW), adjacent wetlands (directly abutting TNWs), and relatively permanent waters tributary to TNWs and adjacent wetlands. Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent nor are wetlands adjacent to such tributaries will be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they have a “significant nexus” to a TNW. A significant nexus occurs when waters, including adjacent wetlands, affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of TNWs. Factors considered during the significant nexus evaluation include:

1. Flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself in combination with the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary 2. Hydrologic characteristics, including but not limited to volume, duration, and frequency of flow; proximity to TNW; size of the watershed; average annual rainfall; and average annual winter snow pack 3. Ecological characteristics including but not limited to the ability of tributaries to carry pollutants and flood waters to TNWs, provide aquatic habitat that support TNW, trap and filter pollutants or store flood waters, and maintain water quality.

The discharge of dredge or fill material into waters, including wetlands, requires authorization from the ACOE prior to impacts.

6965 13 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

For impacts to wetlands or waters under ACOE jurisdiction, either an Individual Permit or a Nationwide Permit (NWP) would be required in accordance with Section 404 of the CWA. The NWP Program is issued for a variety of projects having minimal impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands. If it is determined that the project qualifies for use of the NWP Program, a Pre-construction Notification must be submitted to the ACOE that includes a project description, a purpose and need statement for the project, a description of efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas, and a conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan. Additional environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is not required for an NWP. As a result, once the ACOE has determined that the application is complete and the project meets the requirements of the NWP, authorization to use the NWP can be issued.

If a project fails to comply with the terms and regulations specified in the NWP guidelines, then an Individual Permit to the ACOE must be prepared. The application for the Individual Permit includes a project description, a purpose and need statement for the project, a description of efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas, and a conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan. The Individual Permit application also must include an alternatives analysis that would be completed to allow the ACOE to make findings in accordance with Section 404(b)(1). Once the application is determined to be complete and the ACOE accepts the 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis, the ACOE will issue a public notice for the Individual Permit. This public comment period is required by NEPA. The public comment period lasts for 45 days, and the application is sent to all responsible federal agencies and adjacent property owners. When the public comment period is closed, the applicant will have 30 days to respond to the comments received by the ACOE. Prior to issuance of the Individual Permit, the ACOE must complete an environmental assessment (EA) to comply with the requirements of NEPA. The EA and Finding of No Significant Impact is usually completed by the applicant’s consultant and finalized by ACOE staff. Following ACOE internal review of the EA, the ACOE will issue the permit.

1.3.1.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife.

In 14 CCR 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.”

6965 14 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

In 14 CCR 1.56, CDFW’s definition of “lake” includes “natural lakes or man-made 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 Fish and Game Code.

1.3.1.3 California Regional Water Quality Control Board

Pursuant to Section 401 of the federal CWA, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect a “water of the State” (Water Code, Section 13260(a)), pursuant to provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. A “water of the State” is defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (Water Code, Section 13050(e)). Before the ACOE will issue a CWA Section 404 permit, applicants must receive a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. If a CWA Section 404 permit is not required for the project, the RWQCB may still require a permit (i.e., Waste Discharge Requirement) under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

1.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act

1.3.2.1 CEQA Guidelines 15380

CEQA requires identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources and ways that such impacts can be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. The act also provides guidelines and thresholds for use by lead agencies for evaluating the significance of proposed impacts.

CEQA 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 15380(b)(1)). A rare animal or plant is defined by CEQA as a species that, although not presently 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 endangered 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” (14 CCR 15380(b)(2)). 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 Section 15380(c).

CDFW recognizes that all plants on Lists 1A, 1B, and 2, and some on List 3 of the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2001,

6965 15 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

2011) may meet the criteria for listing as threatened or endangered and should be considered under CEQA (CDFG 2012). Some of the plants on Lists 3 and 4 meet the criteria for determination as “rare” or “endangered” as defined in Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act), Division 2, of the Fish and Game Code of California, as well as Sections 2062 and 2067, Chapter 1.5 (CESA), Division 3. Therefore, consideration under CEQA for these CRPR 3 and 4 species is strongly recommended by CNPS (CNPS 2001).

1.3.2.2 Special-Status Plants and Wildlife

Endangered, rare, or threatened species, as defined in CEQA Guideline 15380(b) (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), are referred to as “special-status species” in this report and include (1) endangered or threatened species recognized in the context of CESA and FESA; (2) plant species with a CRPR 1 and 2 (CDFG 2012; CNPS 2011); (3) California Species of Special Concern (SSC) and Watch List (WL) species, as designated by the CDFW (2011a); (4) mammals and birds that are fully protected (FP) species, as described in Fish and Game Code, Sections 4700 and 3511; (5) Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), as designated by the USFWS (USFWS 2008); and (6) plant and wildlife species listed on the Sensitive Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in Oceanside (City of Oceanside 2009, Table 3-3) or the Proposed Covered Species for the Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009, Table 3-4).

1.3.2.3 Special-Status Vegetation Communities

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 sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” For purposes of this analysis, the definition of “riparian” is adopted from the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) 2002 publication, Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management:

Riparian areas are transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and are distinguished by gradients in biophysical conditions, ecological processes, and biota. They are areas through which surface and subsurface hydrology connect waterbodies with their adjacent uplands. They include those portions of terrestrial ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems (i.e., a zone of influence). Riparian areas are adjacent to perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, lakes, and estuarine-marine shorelines.

“Sensitive natural communities” are defined as those communities identified as Habitat Groups A through E by the Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009).

6965 16 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 Environmental Setting

The North Avenue Channel Protection project site occurs along Loma Alta Creek parallel to North Avenue from north of Esperanza Way to south of Vista Pacific Drive, in the eastern portion of the City of Oceanside, San Diego County, California (Figures 1 and 2). Land use in the project vicinity is primarily commercial development to the north and residential development south of the project site, as well as the North County Transit District Sprinter Rail Line which runs parallel to the project site along the north side. The project site extends 1,000 feet to the east from approximately Seasons Road and is fenced on both sides.

2.2 Topography

The project site generally has flat topography with an elevation of approximately 300 feet above mean sea level. The Loma Alta Creek is incised with bed and banks ranging from 1 to 4 feet on either side of the channel. The majority of the creek is an engineered, earthen channel and includes a number of concrete grade stabilization structures and storm drain outlets that receive runoff from adjacent areas. The upstream portion of the creek in the project site is concrete-lined. The downstream portion of the creek is a natural, earthen-bottom channel.

2.3 Soils

According to the Web Soil Survey by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS 2012), the soils within the study area include Corralitos loamy sand, 0% to 5% slopes; Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9% to 15% slopes, eroded; and Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9% to 30% slopes, eroded. Both of these soils are generally known to support special-status plants (Vanderwier 2002).

2.4 Watersheds and Hydrology

The project site is located within the northwest portion of the approximately 653-square-mile Carlsbad Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 18100202). Within the Carlsbad hydrologic unit is the approximately 23.3-square-mile Buena Vista Creek Hydrologic Area (HA 904.20). Within the Buena Vista Creek HA is the approximately 11.7-square-mile El Salto Hydrologic Subarea (HSA 904.21). All watersheds are located within the approximately 3,900-square-mile RWQCB San Diego Region (RWQCB Region 9) (Figure 4).

The hydrologic feature within the study area is Loma Alta Creek, which is a perennial creek identified as “Major Basin No. 4” in the City of Oceanside Drainage Master Plan. The creek spans approximately 7.8 miles from the Pacific Ocean outfall at South Pacific Street through the

6965 17 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

lower central part of the City of Oceanside across the City of Oceanside/City of Vista border near North Melrose Drive. Garrison Creek is a major tributary to the Loma Alta Creek which contributes runoff from a 456.2-acre watershed to the creek near the intersection of Garrison Street and Industry Street. Approximately 6.5 miles of the Loma Alta Creek, including 2,850 feet of the creek within the study area, parallels the North County Transit District Sprinter Rail Line from South Oceanside Boulevard to North Melrose Drive. Approximately 6.7 miles of Loma Alta Creek is either an engineered naturalized creek cross section with an earthen bottom (including 635 feet of the creek within the project site), or a natural stream cross section with no engineering improvements.

Loma Alta Creek is listed in the CWA 303(d) list requiring the development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) based on impairment due to selenium and toxicity levels (RWQCB 2010).

2.4.1 Functions and Values

The beneficial uses associated with Loma Alta Creek are listed in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Region 9) by the RWQCB (2011). These uses include potential municipal and domestic supply, water contact recreation, non-contact water recreation, warm freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. Waters and wetlands are an important part of an ecosystem based on the functions and values they can provide. These functions and values of waters and wetlands in the project site are characterized as having a low, moderate, or high potential to provide the following:

• Flood storage and flood flow modification • Nutrient retention and transformation • Groundwater recharge • Sediment trapping • Toxicant trapping • Wildlife habitat • Aquatic habitat • Public use.

6965 18 July 2013 SAN LUIS REY - Lower San Luis - Mission

CARLSBAD - Loma Alta - N/A

Project Site CARLSBAD - Buena Vista Creek - Vista

CARLSBAD - Buena Vista Creek - El Salto

National Hydrography Dataset ArtificialPath StreamRiver CARLSBAD - Hydrologic Unit - Area - Subarea FEMA Agua Hedionda 100 Year Floodway - Los Monos 100 Year Floodplain 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 500 Year Floodplain

SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute San Luis Rey Quadrangle, USGS NHD, FEMA FIGURE 4 Hydrologic Context 6965 MONTH 2009 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTR Figures\Figure4_HydrologicContext.mxd Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTR Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 20 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Flood storage and flood flow modification. Loma Alta Creek is a narrow, engineered trapezoidal channel with a regular bed and bank. Surface water is supplied through rainfall, urban runoff, and tributaries. The majority of the creek in the study area has a soft bottom and sides, though a small upstream portion is concrete-lined, and several concrete grade-control structures are located along the channel bottom. The majority of the creek is relatively unvegetated within the channel. Downstream portions of the creek support riparian scrub on the banks. Based on the moderately to deeply incised channel and minimal vegetation in the creek bed, the potential for flood storage is considered high, but the potential for flood flow modification in in the study area is considered low.

Nutrient retention and transformation. There are no agricultural uses in or around the project site that might otherwise be a source of nutrients in the creek; however, the watershed is in an urban environment surrounded by commercial, industrial, and residential uses that are potential sources of nutrients, such as fertilizers, herbicides, and chemical pollutants (e.g., oil and coolant) in runoff from residential and commercial areas. The creek receives urban runoff from irrigation, road, railroad, and commercial developments. As described above, the majority of the creek within the project site is predominantly unvegetated. Downstream of the project site, the creek widens as it transitions from an engineered earthen channel to a natural channel and includes dense southern willow scrub vegetation along the banks. Based on the characteristics of the creek, the potential for nutrient retention and transformation is considered low to moderate.

Groundwater recharge. The portion of Loma Alta Creek within the project site is mostly a soft-bottom engineered channel with perennial flow from urban runoff and/or rainfall; though the upstream portion of the creek is concrete-lined. Because most of the channel is earthen bottom with limited impervious surfaces, the channel has potential to contribute to groundwater recharge. However, the potential for recharge is limited by the small surface area of the approximately 10-foot wide channel bottom in which regular flow occurs. Based on the these factors, the portion of the creek in the study area likely has a moderate potential for groundwater recharge.

Sediment trapping. Sources for sediment in the creek include the portions of the creek with natural banks and soft bottoms, in addition to sediment that is carried into the creek through runoff from the road and nearby developments. Due to low rainfall throughout most of the year, the flow rates are relatively slow, which allows for sediment to settle out. Although the creek is primarily unvegetated, limited portions include scattered emergent vegetation that would enhance sediment trapping. In storm events, the engineered channel would offer limited flood flow modification and sediments are likely to be carried downstream. Considering these factors, the potential for sediment trapping is considered low.

6965 21 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Toxicant trapping. Potential toxicants in the project site would include urban runoff and herbicides from landscaping. The potential for toxicant trapping is expected to be the same as the potential for nutrient retention and transformation, as described above.

Wildlife habitat. Riparian habitat on the project site is limited to southern willow scrub located at the downstream end of the study area and is described in Section 4.3.4. The beneficial uses listed for Loma Alta Creek by the RWQCB (2011) include wildlife habitat. Within the project site, Loma Alta Creek is characterized by a predominantly non-vegetated engineered channel and a combination of native and non-native upland vegetation along the banks. The creek is located within a very urbanized environment, but provides habitat for common birds, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, urban-adapted rodents, and other small mammals. The southern willow scrub located at the western end (i.e., downstream portion) of the creek is dense and may also provide habitat for certain special-status riparian bird species.

Aquatic habitat. The beneficial uses listed for Loma Alta Creek by the RWQCB (2011) include warm freshwater habitat. Within the project site, Loma Alta Creek has a consistent bed and bank for confined water flow. It provides habitat for some aquatic species, such as certain fish, amphibians, and aquatic reptiles (e.g., turtles or tree frogs (Pseudacris spp.)).

Public use. Within the project site, the creek runs approximately parallel to and is located between North Avenue and railroad tracks, and it is fenced along both sides of the creek which limits public access. The beneficial uses listed for Loma Alta Creek by the RWQCB (2011) include contact and non-contact water recreation; it is exempt from the municipal-use designation.

The functions and values of the on-site portions of Loma Alta Creek are generally reflective of a highly modified channel in an urbanized setting. A review of historical imagery indicates that modifications to this portion of the creek began as early as 1953, when the natural meandering path of the creek was altered into a more linear and channelized condition in association with agricultural land uses in the area at the time (Historic Aerials 2013). By 1980, connectivity with upstream portions of the creek was interrupted with the introduction of residential land uses. The conversion of the creek into its current condition as an engineered, unlined earthen trapezoidal channel occurred as part of the Sunburst Homes residential project that was constructed prior to 1985 (RECON 1977). Photos depicting the current condition of the channel as well as historical photos showing the original conversion to an engineered channel are provided in Appendix E.

6965 22 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

3.0 METHODS

Biological surveys were conducted from April 2011 through January 2012, as shown in Table 1, Schedule of Surveys. Surveys included vegetation mapping, a jurisdictional wetlands delineation, surveys for special-status plant species, and focused surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus).

Table 1 Schedule of Surveys

Date Time Personnel Focus Conditions 4/27/11 1130–1345 CF VEG sunny; 2–3 mph winds; 80°F 5/6/11 0700–0830 KJM LBVI overcast; 0–2 mph winds; 59°F 5/16/11 0630–0800 BAO SWIFL/LBVI 10–60% cc; 0 mph winds; 52°F 5/25/11 0900–1000 KJM LBVI 70–30% cc; 0–3 mph winds; 65°F 6/3/11 1230–1405 KCD RP 0% cc; 0–3 mph winds; 67–66°F 6/6/11 0530–0730 BAO WIFL/LBVI 70% cc; 3–5 mph winds; 53–56°F 6/16/11 0600–0800 BAO WIFL/LBVI overcast; 3 mph winds; 61–63°F 6/16/11 0730–0845 KJM LBVI overcast; 0–2 mph winds; 62°F 6/27/11 0630–0830 BAO WIFL/LBVI overcast; 0–3 mph winds; 63–65°F 7/7/11 0600–0830 PML WIFL/LBVI sunny; 0–2 mph winds; 66–74°F 7/26/11 0830–0945 KJM LBVI 0–20% cc; 1–4 mph winds; 70°F 1/25/12 0900–1400 CJF, PCS JD 0% cc; 0–1 mph wind Personnel Key: CF: Callie Ford; KCD: Katie Dayton; KJM: Kamarul Muri; PCS: Patricia Schuyler; PML: Paul Lemons; BAO: Brock Ortega. Survey Designations: LBVI: Least Bell’s vireo; WIFL: willow flycatcher; RP: rare plant survey; VEG: vegetation mapping; JD: Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation 3.1 Literature Review

A review of existing biological resource information for the project site was conducted to provide baseline information regarding special-status biological resources potentially occurring on the site and in the surrounding area. The following sources were reviewed for pertinent information prior to conducting the baseline biological diversity surveys: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) information provided by the CDFW (2011b), and the CRPR Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants (CNPS 2011). 3.2 Vegetation Mapping

Vegetation mapping was conducted in the study area in April 2011 by Dudek Biologist Callie Ford (Table 1). Vegetation communities and land covers were mapped in the field directly onto 100-scale (1 inch = 100 feet) base maps of the study area using 2-foot resolution color aerial imagery from 2011 (Bing Maps). Vegetation surveys were conducted throughout the site on foot.

6965 23 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Following the completion of fieldwork, vegetation polygons were digitized using ArcGIS, and geographic information system (GIS) coverage was created. Acreage calculations of vegetation communities and land covers were determined using ArcGIS. Vegetation community classifications used in this report follow Holland (1986), as revised by Oberbauer et al. (2008). 3.3 Jurisdictional Delineation

Dudek Biologists Callie Ford and Patricia Schuyler performed a formal (routine) wetlands delineation within the 17.4-acre study area in January 2012 (Table 1). All areas identified as being potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the ACOE, RWQCB, or CDFW were field- verified and mapped.

The wetlands delineation was performed in accordance with the methods prescribed in the ACOE’s 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (TR Y-87-1) (ACOE 1987), the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (September 2008) (ACOE 2008), the ACOE/ EPA Rapanos Guidance (ACOE and EPA 2007), and Draft Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act (ACOE and EPA 2011). The ACOE and RWQCB wetlands delineation consists of the field identification of jurisdictional wetlands using the three parameters described in the ACOE manual: hydric soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. A predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, where associated with a stream channel, was used to determine CDFG-regulated wetlands. In some instances where isolated wetlands are present, the RWQCB may choose to take jurisdiction over these resources under the State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Hydrology, vegetation, and soils were assessed at five geographically distinct sampling locations throughout the study area to determine the presence or absence of wetland field indicators. The overall area was assessed for evidence of an OHWM, saturation, permanence of surface water, wetland vegetation, and nexus to traditional navigable waters of the United States . A more detailed description of the methods is provided in the following sections.

The location of sampling points and the limits of wetlands were collected in the field using a 60- scale (1 inch = 60 feet) aerial photograph, topographic base, and global positioning system (GPS) equipment with sub-meter accuracy. The jurisdictional extents were digitized in a GIS based on the GPS data and data collected directly onto field maps into a project-specific GIS using ArcGIS software.

3.3.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation

Seasonal changes in species composition, human land-use practices, wildfires, and other natural disturbances can adversely affect the wetlands vegetation determination. During the

6965 24 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

delineation, a data station point was considered positive for hydrophytic vegetation if it passed the basic dominance test (Indicator 1), meaning that more than 50% of the dominant species sampled were characterized as either obligate, facultative wetland, and/or facultative per the National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary. Because it is more recent, the 1996 National List was also consulted. However, the 1988 National List was given priority when making determinations as the 1996 National List is considered a draft update of the 1988 list, and it has not yet been officially adopted by the ACOE. In those cases where the dominance test failed but there were positive indicators of hydric soils and/or hydrology, the vegetation parameter was reevaluated using the prevalence index (Indicator 2), which takes into account all plant species in the community, not just dominants. The standard plot sampling technique was used to sample vegetation within a 5-foot radius for herbaceous vegetation and a 30-foot radius for trees, shrubs, and woody vines (ACOE 1987). All plant species observed during the surveys were identified and recorded. Where a plant identification could not be made in the field, a sample was taken and later identified in the laboratory.

3.3.2 Hydric Soils

According to the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS), hydric soils are “soils that are formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (USDA 1994). Soil pits were prepared using a “sharp shooter” shovel to determine if hydric soils were present. The presence of hydric soils was determined through consultations with the 1987 Manual as well as Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (USDA and NRCS 2010) and the ACOE’s Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (ACOE 2008). Munsell Soil Color Charts were used to determine soil chroma and value. Where feasible, soil pits were prepared to depths ranging from 10 to 12 inches. Dry soils were moistened to obtain the most accurate color. In general, soils from test pits were determined to be hydric if found to be of a chroma one, or a chroma two with mottles. Excavated soils were examined for evidence of hydric conditions, including low chroma values and mottling, vertical streaking, sulfidic odor, and high organic matter content in the upper horizon. Evidence of previous ponding or flooding was assessed along with the slope, slope shape, existing landform characteristics, soil material/composition, and hydrophytic vegetation to determine if hydric soils were present.

3.3.3 Hydrology

Per the guidelines prescribed in the Arid West Supplement (ACOE 2008), wetland hydrology indicators are separated into four major groups: A, B, C, and D. Group A indicators are based on

6965 25 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

direct observations of surface flow, ponding, and soil saturation/groundwater. Group B indicators consist of evidence that the site has been or is currently subjected to ponding including, but not limited to, water marks, drift deposits, and sediment deposits. Group C indicators include signs of previous and/or current saturation including oxidized rhizospheres surrounding living roots and the presence of reduced iron or sulfur, both of which are indicative of extended periods of soil saturation. Group D indicators consist of “vegetation and soil features that are indicative of current rather than historic wet conditions and include a shallow aquitard and results of the FAC- Neutral test.” Each group is subdivided into primary and secondary categories based on their frequency and reliability to occur in the arid west region.

3.4 Special-Status Plants

Special-status plant species considered in this report are described in Section 1.3.6.2. Special- status plant species present or potentially present in the study area were identified through a literature search using the following sources: CNDDB (CDFG 2011b) and the CRPR Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2011). The sources used to determine the current status of special-status plants includes the Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFG 2012) and the CRPR (CNPS 2011).

The rare plant survey was conducted in the summer of 2011 by walking meandering transects to detect special-status species. A GPS receiver with sub-meter accuracy was available to record the location of any special-status plant populations observed. The focused survey was conducted in early June to maximize the detection of the majority of potentially occurring special-status plant species.

All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified and recorded. Latin and common names for plant species with a CRPR follow the CNPS Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2012). For plant species without a CRPR, Latin names follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized Plants of California (Jepson Flora Project 2012), and common names follow the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database (NRCS 2011b). A cumulative list of plant species observed by Dudek during 2011 surveys is presented in Appendix A.

The potential for special-status plant species to occur on site was evaluated based on the elevation, soils, vegetation communities, and level of disturbance of the site, as well as their status and distribution in the vicinity of the project site, and the results of focused surveys.

6965 26 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

3.5 Special-Status Wildlife

Special-status wildlife species considered in this report are described in Section 1.3.6.2. Special- status wildlife species present or potentially present in the study area were identified through a literature search using CNDDB (CDFG 2011b). The source used to determine the current status of special-status wildlife species is the Special Animals List (CDFG 2011a).

All wildlife species detected during the field surveys by sight, vocalizations, burrows, tracks, scat, and other signs were recorded. Binoculars (10×40) were used to aid in the identification of observed wildlife. Latin and common names of animals follow Crother (2008) for reptiles and amphibians, American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) (2012) for birds, Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals, and North American Butterfly Association (NABA 2001) or the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM 2012) for butterflies. A cumulative list of wildlife species observed by Dudek during 2011 surveys is presented in Appendix B.

The potential for special-status wildlife species to occur on site was evaluated based on the elevation, vegetation communities, and level of disturbance of each site, as well as their status and distribution in the vicinity and the results of wildlife surveys conducted on site.

3.5.1 Southern Willow Flycatcher and Least Bell’s Vireo

Brock Ortega (TE-813545), Paul Lemons (TE-051248), and Kamarul Muri (KJM) conducted focused surveys for the federally listed endangered least Bell’s vireo, and the state- and federally listed endangered southwestern willow flycatcher within the study area. Focused surveys for these species were initiated on May 6, 2011, and continued through July 26, 2011. Surveys were conducted simultaneously for southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo. The study area was surveyed nine times and included all suitable habitat along Loma Alta Creek. There is approximately 500 linear feet of suitable habitat within the survey area. The entire linear length of the area surveyed was approximately 0.64 mile (1.0 kilometer) (Dudek 2012b).

For least Bell’s vireo, nine site visits were conducted with approximately 10-day intervals between visits, following the currently accepted USFWS protocol (USFWS 2001). The site visits are conducted 10 days apart to maximize the detection of early and late arrivals, females, non- vocal birds, and nesting pairs. Surveys were conducted between dawn and 11:00 a.m. and were not conducted during periods of excessive or abnormal cold, heat, wind, rain, or other inclement weather. Surveys were conducted between April 10 and July 31, as dictated in the protocol.

For the southwestern willow flycatcher, five surveys are required per the A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher issued by the USGS and U.S. Department of the Interior and approved by the USFWS (USGS 2010). For the 2010 protocol,

6965 27 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

five survey visits are required with one visit between May 15 and May 31, two visits between June 1 and June 24, and two visits between June 25 and July 17 (USGS 2010). Each survey visit was separated by at least 5 days. Because the habitat requirements for the two species overlap, surveys conducted between May 15 and July 17 include surveys for both species. A tape of recorded southwestern willow flycatcher vocalizations was used approximately every 50 to 100 feet within suitable habitat to induce southwestern willow flycatcher responses. When a southwestern willow flycatcher was detected, playing of the tape ceased to avoid harassment. Various subspecies of this species are not easily differentiated visually or by call or song in the field, and any resident willow flycatchers observed in the final survey period were assumed to be the “southwestern” subspecies. Nonresident willow flycatchers (those not observed during the third survey period) were assumed to be migrant willow flycatchers or to not breed within the study area.

The survey method consisted of slowly walking a systematic, meandering transect within and adjacent to all suitable habitat (i.e., southern willow scrub and mulefat scrub) in the study area on both the north and south sides of the creek channel. This route was arranged to cover all suitable habitat on site. A vegetation map (scale 1 inch = 200 feet) of the survey area was available to record any detected southwestern willow flycatcher or least Bell’s vireo. Binoculars (7×50; 10×42; 10×50) were used to aid in detecting and identifying wildlife species.

Weather conditions, time of day and season were appropriate for the detection of southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo (Table 1).

3.6 Survey Limitations

The vegetation mapping and special-status plant surveys were conducted during the spring and summer when many annuals would be detectable. The jurisdictional wetlands delineation was conducted during the winter when conditions represent the wetter season, thus capturing the hydrologic conditions of the creek. The focused special-status plant survey was conducted during the early summer season to coincide with the blooming period of potentially occurring special-status plant species and which resulted in detection and identification of most annual and perennial plant species that occur in the area. Due to the timing of the surveys, late summer/early fall blooming annual and cryptic perennials may not have been detectable. However, all special-status plant species with the potential to occur in the area would have been detected during the early summer focused survey. The focused least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher surveys were conducted during the breeding season for these species in order to maximize detection and followed the accepted survey protocols ’(USFWS 2001; USGS 2010). Daytime surveys typically capture birds and some mammals and reptiles. No nocturnal or trapping surveys for mammals or reptiles were conducted; however, no special-status mammals or reptiles are expected to occur.

6965 28 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Vegetation Communities, Land Covers, and Floral Diversity

Nine vegetation communities and land covers (including disturbed and restored forms) were mapped in the study area based on general physiognomy and species composition; these vegetation communities and land covers are included in four habitat groups from the Oceanside Subarea Plan (Table 2). Vegetation communities considered special-status by the Oceanside Subarea Plan include those listed in Habitat Groups A through E. Habitat Group A refers to riparian habitats; Habitat Group B refers to “rare upland” habitats (e.g., maritime succulent scrub); Habitat Group C refers to coastal sage scrub communities; Habitat Group D refers to chaparral habitats; and Habitat Group E refers to non-native (annual) grassland. Figures 5, 5a and 5b shows the distribution of vegetation communities and land covers on the study area.

Table 2 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers

Habitat Group Habitat Group Designation Acres on Site Riparian Habitats A 0.2 Open Water, Natural Flood Channel, Disturbed Wetlands A 0.9 Coastal Sage Scrub C 1.5 Other F 14.8 Total 17.4

4.1.1 Riparian Habitats

Mulefat Scrub

Mulefat scrub is a relatively low (2 to 3 meters or 7 to 10 feet), dense, shrubby plant community that occurs in riparian habitats, edges of catchment basins, and in canyons. It is dominated by mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and may contain a small number of arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis), upland shrubs, and facultative wetland herbs such as mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana). Mulefat scrub is within Habitat Group A of the Oceanside Subarea Plan, and mitigation is required for impacts to this habitat.

There is one relatively small patch of restored low-lying stands of mulefat scrub within the disturbed area in the western portion of the study area, to the north of the existing railroad tracks. This restoration area is not associated with the creek and, therefore, was not mapped under the jurisdiction of ACOE, CDFW, or RWQCB.

6965 29 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Southern Willow Scrub

Southern willow scrub is typically a broad-leafed, winter-deciduous riparian community dominated by willow (Salix ssp.) species, with scattered Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) in the canopy with a limited understory (Holland 1986). Due to the high density of the shrub canopy, the understory is often depauperate. This vegetation community occurs on loose, sandy, or fine gravelly alluvial soils along intermittent streams and creeks in Southern California (Holland 1986). Southern willow scrub is within Habitat Group A of the Oceanside Subarea Plan, and mitigation is required for impacts to this habitat.

Southern willow scrub occurs within the channel in the western portion of the site. Within the study area, this community is characterized by mixed strata including arroyo willow, castor bean (Ricinus communis), and broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia). The vegetation in this area is located along the banks of the channel above the OHWM; therefore, it is mapped under the jurisdiction of CDFW only.

4.1.2 Coastal Sage Scrub

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub

Coastal sage scrub is a native plant community composed of a variety of soft, low, aromatic shrubs, characteristically dominated by drought-deciduous species such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and sages (Salvia spp.); with scattered evergreen shrubs, including lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia). It typically develops on south-facing slopes and other xeric situations. Diegan coastal sage scrub is within Habitat Group C of the Oceanside Subarea Plan, and mitigation is required for impacts to this habitat. There is one area of disturbed coastal sage scrub found in the middle of the project site. The area is dominated by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and California sagebrush.

Coyote Brush Scrub

Coyote brush scrub is not recognized as a native plant community by Holland (1986). Nonetheless, it is a distinct vegetational association in Southern California, dominated by coyote brush and a few mostly soft-leaved subshrubs such as California sagebrush scrub, with occasional evergreen shrubs. Coyote brush scrub occurs mostly in uplands, but can occur along xeric drainages as well. It generally is regarded as a sub-community of coastal sage generally and as a post-disturbance habitat in a successional state, with the climax community most often being coastal sage scrub. Coyote brush scrub is within Habitat Group C of the Oceanside Subarea Plan, and mitigation is required for impacts to this habitat.

6965 30 July 2013 CBS NVC-DEV

FIGURE 5b

DIST

DEV DEV

DEV dCSS

FIGURE 5a

DEV DIST MFS-R

dCBS NVC SWS

Index Grid Vegetation Community NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed NVC - Non-vegetated Channel CBS - Coyote Brush Scrub dCBS - disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub dCSS - disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub SWS - Southern Willow Scrub MFS-R - Mulefat Scrub-Restored DEV - Developed 0 150 300 DIST - Disturbed Land Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 5 Biological Resources Index Map 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTRFigures\Figure5_BioResources_Index.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 32 July 2013 dCSS

DEV DIST

DIST

DEV

DEV DIST

MFS-R

dCBS DEV

NVC SWS Special Status Species Yellow Warbler Vegetation Community NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed NVC - Non-vegetated Channel CBS - Coyote Brush Scrub dCBS - disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub

Seasons Rd dCSS - disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub SWS - Southern Willow Scrub MFS-R - Mulefat Scrub-Restored DEV - Developed 0 50 100 DIST - Disturbed Land Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 5a Biological Resources Map 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTRFigures\Figure5a_BioResources.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 34 July 2013 DIST

CBS

NVC-DEV

DEV

DEV DIST

DIST

DEV

Vegetation Community NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed NVC - Non-vegetated Channel CBS - Coyote Brush Scrub NVC dCBS - disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub dCSS - disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub SWS - Southern Willow Scrub MFS-R - Mulefat Scrub-Restored DEV - Developed 0 50 100 DIST - Disturbed Land Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 5b Biological Resources Map 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTRFigures\Figure5b_BioResources.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 36 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Coyote brush scrub is an effective colonizer of disturbed sites. It can be found in xeric to seasonally mesic areas, heavily disturbed upland areas, and flat areas or canyons and drainages that receive low seasonal flow or urban runoff. Disturbed coyote brush scrub typically has a low cover of native species and large amounts of bare ground or annual grasses.

Disturbed coyote brush scrub is found in the center of the project site, and undisturbed coyote brush scrub is located directly adjacent to the northeastern boundary. The community is characterized by coyote brush, telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus).

4.1.3 Open Water, Natural Flood Channel, Disturbed Wetlands

Non-Vegetated Channel

Non-vegetated channel is not recognized by Holland (1986), but is recognized by Oberbauer et al. (2008). Non-vegetated channel refers to channels that are unvegetated on a relatively permanent basis due to varying water levels and scour from flow. Some vegetation may be present but is typically less than 10% (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Non-vegetated channels provide aquatic habitat for waterfowl, fish, invertebrates, and amphibians. It is also a source of water for various land animals and a source of fish for birds.

Non-vegetated channel is considered a riparian area and within Habitat Group A of the Oceanside Subarea Plan; mitigation is required for impacts to this habitat. Non-vegetated channel can be regulated by CDFW, pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code; and the RWQCB and the ACOE, pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act.

Non-vegetated channel refers to the Loma Alta Creek which is incised and receives regular flow from urban run-off. The channel may support some vegetation during the year; however, it is regularly scoured with flow and sediment. Non-vegetated channel is mapped below the ordinary high water mark of the channel. There is vegetation along the banks of the channel and on the slopes adjacent to the channel. Portions of the channel include concrete grade control structures and are mapped as non-vegetated channel-developed.

4.1.4 Disturbed Land

Disturbed land refers to undeveloped areas that lack vegetation, and generally are the result of severe or repeated mechanical perturbation. Disturbed land is a Habitat Group F vegetation community in the Oceanside Subarea Plan, indicating that it has limited habitat value. Disturbed land occurs throughout the majority of the project site and either lacks vegetation or is composed of ruderal, non-native species.

6965 37 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Urban/Developed Land

Developed land consists of buildings, structures, homes, parking lots, paved roads, and maintained areas. Developed areas do not support native vegetation. Urban/developed land is not included in a Habitat Group in the Oceanside Subarea Plan, indicating that it has little to no habitat value. Urban/developed land on site includes North Avenue, and also occurs to the north, south and east of the project site.

4.1.5 Floral Diversity

A total of 56 plant species was recorded in the study area, including 19 native species (34%) and 37 non-native species (66%) representing 18 plant families. The small number of plant species and families represented in the study area are indicative of the relatively low diversity of vegetation communities in the study area. The more common plant species in the study area were identified in the description of the vegetation communities in Section 4.1 above. A cumulative list of plant species observed in the study area is provided in Appendix A to this Biological Technical Report.

4.2 Wildlife

A total of 58 wildlife species was recorded in the study area (including 500 feet upstream and downstream of the study area), including 2 amphibians, 2 reptiles, 43 birds, 3 mammals, 6 invertebrates, and 2 fish. Common bird species were observed during the focused surveys, such as Bewick’s wrens (Thryomanes bewickii), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), and lesser goldfinches (Spinus psaltria). In addition, brown- headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) was observed along Loma Alta Creek. The wildlife species observed are relatively common for the vegetation communities in the study area. A cumulative list of wildlife species observed in the study area is provided in Appendix B to this Biological Technical Report.

4.3 Special-Status/Regulated Resources

4.3.1 Special-Status Plants

No special-status plant species were identified during focused surveys conducted for special-status plants on June 3, 2011. Because the study area has been graded in the past and is primarily composed of disturbed land, there is little potential for special-status plant species to occur on site.

Appendix C lists special-status plant species (CRPR List 1, 2 ) reported in the USGS 7.5 minute San Luis Rey quad and the surrounding seven topographic quadrangles (CDFG 2011b, CNPS

6965 38 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

2011), as well as species listed in Tables 3-3 and 3-4 of the Final Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (City of Oceanside 2009). This table also analyzes each of these special-status species’ potential to occur based on known range, habitat associations, preferred soil substrate, life form, elevation, and blooming period. No special-status plant species were observed or have moderate to high potential to occur based on the results of the rare plant survey and existing conditions on site. Appendix C lists the special- status plant species that are either not expected to occur or have a low potential to occur.

4.3.2 Special-Status Wildlife

Dudek conducted focused surveys for southern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo in the study area from May through July 2011. No least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher were observed during the focused surveys. One special-status species was observed: yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), a CDFW SSC (Figure 5a).

The results of the 2011 focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow are included in a separate report as Appendix D. Site photographs are included in Appendix E.

Table 3 and Appendix F list special-status wildlife species reported in the USGS 7.5 minute San Luis Rey quad and the surrounding seven topographic quadrangles (CDFG 2011b), as well as species listed in Tables 3-3 and 3-4 of the Final Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (City of Oceanside 2009). These tables also analyze each of these special-status species’ occurrence or potential to occur based on known range, habitat associations, and elevation. Table 3 lists the special-status species that were observed or have high or moderate potential to occur on site. Appendix F lists the special-status wildlife species that are either not expected to occur or have a low potential to occur. Where applicable, a distinction is made between foraging and breeding habitat available on site.

Table 3 Special-Status Wildlife Species Detected or with Moderate to High Potential to Occur on the Project Site

Status Primary Habitat Status on Site or Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/ Other1 Associations Potential to Occur Birds Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk None/WL/Covered/* Riparian and oak Moderate potential to (nesting) woodlands, montane nest in the southern canyons willow scrub located immediately west of the project site.

6965 39 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Table 3 Special-Status Wildlife Species Detected or with Moderate to High Potential to Occur on the Project Site

Status Primary Habitat Status on Site or Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/ Other1 Associations Potential to Occur Icteria virens Yellow-breasted None/SSC/Covered/* Dense, relatively wide High potential to occur in (nesting) chat riparian woodlands and the southern willow thickets of willows, vine scrub in the western tangles, and dense brush portion of the study area. Setophago petechia Yellow warbler BCC/SSC/None/* Nests in lowland and Observed on site. (nesting) foothill riparian woodlands There is suitable dominated by nesting habitat in the cottonwoods, alders, and southern willow scrub. willows; winters in a variety of habitats Siala mexicana Western bluebird None/None/Covered/* Open forests of deciduous, Moderate potential to coniferous, or mixed trees; occur in the southern savannah, edges of willow scrub in the riparian woodland western portion of the study area. List consists of all wildlife species on Tables 3-3 and 3-4 of the Final Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009) and additional special- status species in the San Luis Rey and surrounding USGS quadrangles (CDFG 2011a).

Federal Designations (August 2012): BCC U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Birds of Conservation Concern

State Designations: SSC California Species of Special Concern WL California Department of Fish and Game Watch List

Final Oceanside HCP/ NCCP 1Covered—Covered species under Final Subarea Plan. * Species included in Table 3-3 of the Final Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009).

4.3.3 Special-Status Vegetation Communities

As described in Section 4.1, special-status vegetation communities include those listed in Habitat Groups A through E by the Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009). In the study area, these include riparian habitats; open water, natural flood channel, and disturbed wetlands; and coastal sage scrub.

4.3.4 Jurisdictional Waters

Approximately 0.84 acre (2,927 linear feet) of jurisdictional wetlands and waters in Loma Alta Creek were mapped within the study area. Approximately 0.69 acre of ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional waters were mapped on site. An additional 0.15 acre of riparian habitat

6965 40 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

under the jurisdiction of the CDFW only was also mapped on site (Figures 6, 6a and 6b). Table 4 summarizes the results of the jurisdictional delineation.

Table 4 Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation Summary

Jurisdiction Acreage ACOE, RWQCB, CDFW –—Non-wetland Waters Non-vegetated channel (including developed) 0.69 Riparian Habitat Southern Willow Scrub 0.15 Grand Total 0.84

As described in Section 3.3, hydrology, vegetation, and soils were assessed at five sampling locations (Figure 6a) in and adjacent to Loma Alta Creek to determine the presence or absence of wetlands field indicators. Corralitos loamy sand, 0% to 5% slopes is the only soil mapping unit recorded within the study area that is listed on the National Hydric Soils List for the San Diego County, California, area (NRCS 2011a).

None of the areas sampled met all three of the wetland parameters to be considered an ACOE- jurisdictional wetland either because they occur above the OHWM, or they lack hydrophytic vegetation and/or hydrology indicators. The southern willow scrub located in the western portion of the study area is located above the OHWM and is under CDFW jurisdiction as riparian habitat based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in association with a stream channel.

Non-wetland waters were present in the study area and their jurisdictions were defined based on their significant nexus to a TNW. Loma Alta Creek discharges into the Pacific Ocean (a TNW) at Buccaneer Beach in Oceanside, approximately 8 miles west of the project site.

An discussion of wetlands functions and values is provided in Section 2.4.1. Site photos are provided in Appendix E, and Appendix G provides the wetland data forms completed during the routine determination.

4.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages

Wildlife movement typically occurs in wildlife corridors and habitat linkages that provide space and connectivity to other suitable habitat areas. Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the migration of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute to population viability by assuring continual exchange of genes between

6965 41 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

populations, providing access to adjacent habitat areas for foraging and mating, and providing routes for recolonization of habitat after local extirpation or ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires).

Habitat linkages are small patches that join larger blocks of habitat and help reduce the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation. Habitat linkages provide a potential route for gene flow and long-term dispersal of plants and animals and may also serve as primary habitat for smaller animals, such as reptiles and amphibians. Habitat linkages may be continuous habitat or discrete habitat islands that function as stepping stones for dispersal.

To function effectively, a wildlife corridor must link two or more patches of habitat for which connectivity is desired, and it must be suitable for the focal target species to achieve the desired demographic and genetic exchange between populations.

The 17.4-acre study area does not provide for considerable wildlife movement or serve as an important habitat linkage. The Loma Alta Creek is fenced on both the north and south sides of the channel. North Avenue occurs along the channel immediately to the south, and there are railroad tracks along the north side of the channel. The surrounding area is dominated by residential, commercial, and industrial development. The nearest area of natural open space is near the Vista Sports Park and Guajome Regional Park, located 1 mile northeast of the project site. These areas offer some open space use for wildlife, but there is limited physical connection to the project site due to roads and development. The largest area of open space near the project site is Camp Pendleton, located approximately 5 miles northwest of the project site. Loma Alta Creek is relatively narrow and incised and does not likely support movement for large mammals (i.e., mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)); however, it could serve as a local wildlife corridor and habitat linkage for urban-adapted species such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), coyote (Canis latrans), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani); and a variety of birds, including mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), great egret (Ardea alba), yellow warbler, and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas).

4.5 Regional Resources Planning Context

As described in Section 1.3.4, the project site is located within the ’Oceanside Subarea Plan, which is part of the North County MHCP. The purpose of the Oceanside Subarea Plan is to address how the City of Oceanside “will conserve natural biotic communities and sensitive plant and wildlife species pursuant to the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP Act) and the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA)” (City of Oceanside 2009). One of the functions of the Oceanside Subarea Plan is to allow the City to construct infrastructure projects dictated by the City’s Capital Improvement Program (City of Oceanside 2009).

6965 42 July 2013 OC-DEV

FIGURE 6b

NVC-DEV

FIGURE 6a

NVC SWS SWS SWS

Index Grid Study Area Jurisdictional Waters ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB Jurisdictional Wetlands ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB 0 150 300 CDFG Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 6 Jurisdictional Delineation Index Map 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTRFigures\Figure6_JD_Index.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 44 July 2013 DS-7 DS-8

DS-4

DS-5 NVC Study Area SWS DS-6 Data Stations SWS Topo Contours Vegetation Community SWS NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed NVC - Non-vegetated Channel SWS - Southern Willow Scrub Jurisdictional Waters ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB Jurisdictional Wetlands ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB 0 50 100 CDFG Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 6a Jurisdictional Delineation 6965 JULY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTR Figures\Figure6a_JD.mxd Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTR Path: Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 46 July 2013 OC-DEV

NVC-DEV

Study Area

Topo Contours

Vegetation Community NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed

NVC - Non-vegetated Channel

SWS - Southern Willow Scrub NVC Jurisdictional Waters ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB

Jurisdictional Wetlands ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB

0 50 100 CDFG Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 6b Jurisdictional Delineation 6965 JULY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTR Figures\Figure6b_JD.mxd Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTR Path: Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 48 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

The objectives to meet the goals of the Oceanside Subarea Plan include the following:

• Conserve 90% to 100% of all hardline conservation areas per the details of this Plan • Conserve a minimum of 2,511 acres of existing native habitats as biological Preserve in the City • Conserve a net 100% of aquatic and wetland habitats by 98% preservation and compensatory replacement of acreage, function, and values for an estimated 2% of wetlands impacts • Conserve a minimum of 95% of Rare and Narrow Endemic Species populations within the Preserve and a minimum of 80% throughout the City as a whole • Restore a minimum of 164 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat within the City, of which 145 acres will be within the Wildlife Corridor Planning Zone • Prepare a comprehensive open space monitoring and management plan for the City’s Preserve • Minimize the need for consultations with the Wildlife Agencies on a project-by-project approach for approval and mitigation requirements • The City will develop a tracking database and submit annual monitoring reports to the Wildlife Agencies that will document conservation of habitat is occurring in rough-step to development of habitat • Ensure that mitigation is directed to the Wildlife Corridor Planning Zone and Preapproved Mitigation Areas such that the high quality habitats and critical linkage areas become incorporated into the City’s Preserve, while allowing development in lower quality habitat areas • Implement local regulatory actions as specified in Section 5.3.3 in the MHCP Vol. I • Provide adequate funding for management and monitoring of the City’s Preserve, including Priority 1 lands acquired by the Wildlife Agencies and excluding Wildlife Agency-owned lands, according to MHCP standards.

The project site is located in the urban/developed part of the Oceanside Subarea Plan area (Figure 3-1, City of Oceanside 2009), and is not located within any of the pre-approved mitigation areas, softline preserve areas, or hardline preserve areas (Figure 4-1, City of Oceanside 2009). The project site is not located within any of the Biological Core and Linkage Areas identified in the North County MHCP (Figure 2-4, SANDAG 2003).

6965 49 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 50 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS 5.1 Construction and Project Design Features

Construction is anticipated to commence in September 2014 and will last approximately 6 months. Preliminary construction activities will include surveying and staking, and establishing limits of construction fencing. The following equipment is anticipated during construction: a loader, excavator, water truck, dump truck, hydroseeder, pallet truck, and forklift. Additional vehicles, including delivery trucks, portable generators, and other miscellaneous trucks and passenger vehicles are also anticipated to be present on site. Construction staging will occur on an existing vacant, dirt lot located to the east of the project site (Figures 7b). The construction of the project will not require a temporary easement, but traffic control along North Avenue will be required for the duration of the project. Access to the construction and staging areas will be provided from North Avenue

The City, through codes and standards, and through standard design and construction practices, has incorporated numerous project design and construction features into the project that help to reduce the potential for environmental effects. Construction will be performed by qualified contractors, and contract documents, plans, and specifications will incorporate stipulations regarding standard City requirements and acceptable construction practices, including, but not limited to trenching, safety measures, seismic safety, erosion control, traffic control, public safety, and noise generation. Further, the project will be designed in accordance with State of California Building Code and City of Oceanside Code of Ordinance requirements.

5.2 Definition of Impacts

This section defines the types of impacts considered in this report to analyze the proposed project’s potential effects on biological resources. Proposed impacts are shown on Figures 7, 7a, 7b, 8, 8a, and 8b, and are discussed in more detail as follows.

Direct Impacts are defined where project activities such as vegetation clearing, grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities would result in the loss or removal of existing biological resources. Direct impacts can be permanent or temporary. Direct permanent impacts typically refer to the loss of a biological resource wherever the existing vegetation or land cover is permanently affected. Direct impacts are defined as temporary where no permanent structures or other permanent disturbance would occur (such as routine maintenance, where frequently recurring activities would have a permanent effect on resources) that would preclude restoration of the affected areas to pre- project conditions.

6965 51 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Direct impacts to plants can include complete or partial removal of the plants; crushing, trimming, or mowing; and compression of soil around roots. Direct impacts to wildlife refer to loss of habitat and/or loss of or harm to individuals that can be immediately attributed to the project. Loss or harm to individuals may vary by wildlife species, but the result is a net loss of a portion of a species population. For example, equipment used for excavation or grading can cause direct wildlife mortality, or injure or entomb individuals, resulting in their eventual death. Vegetation clearing and/or grading can also result in destruction of birds’ nests, resulting in the loss of eggs and young. For purposes of this report, direct impacts are defined where bank stabilization, including riprap installation activities, is proposed. In order to stabilize the portions of the bank that are susceptible to future erosion, several bank stabilization techniques will be used, including riprap armoring, vegetated riprap slope, buried riprap, and vegetated slope armoring (Figure 3). Each of these bank stabilization techniques is defined as either a permanent or temporary impact, as follows:

• Permanent Impacts: Riprap armoring and vegetated riprap slope are considered permanent impacts because they involve the conversion of existing earthen (i.e., unlined) portions of the channel and side slopes to permanent hardscape materials and will not be revegetated or otherwise restored to their pre-existing condition. Long-term maintenance activities are planned on an annual basis. These activities are limited to maintaining the riprap armoring areas so they remain relatively void of vegetation in order to function in bank stabilization long term. • Temporary Impacts: Buried riprap and vegetated slope armoring are considered temporary impacts. Buried riprap will be placed at an angle vertically underneath a portion of the channel bed in order to provide further stabilization in some areas; the channel bed will be restored to pre-project elevations in these areas and continue to function similarly to pre-project conditions. The areas with vegetated slope armoring will be hydroseeded and planted with container plants. The temporary impact area also includes limits of work where general project-related activities will occur, such as dust abatement, best management practices (BMPs), revegetation activities, and localized staging. Localized staging may include placing construction material adjacent to the work area for the day; however, any placement or storage overnight will be limited to the staging area. The staging area refers to where trucks and other equipment used for construction are stored. Because all of these areas will be restored to pre-project conditions, they are considered temporary impacts.

6965 52 July 2013 CBS NVC-DEV

FIGURE 7b

DIST

DEV DEV

DEV dCSS

FIGURE 7a

DEV DIST MFS-R

dCBS NVC SWS

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 7 Biological Impacts Index Map 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTRFigures\Figure7_BioImpacts_Index.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 54 July 2013 dCSS

DEV DIST

DIST

DEV

DEV DIST

MFS-R

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 7a Biological Resources Impacts 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTRFigures\Figure7a_BioResources_Impacts.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 56 July 2013 DIST

CBS

NVC-DEV

DEV

DEV DIST

DIST

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 7b Biological Resources Impacts 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTRFigures\Figure7b_BioResources_Impacts.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 58 July 2013 OC-DEV

FIGURE 8b

NVC-DEV

FIGURE 8a

NVC SWS SWS SWS

Index Grid Study Area Permanent Impact Rip-Rap Armoring & Vegetated Rip-Rap Slope Temporary Impact Vegetated Slope Armoring Limits of Work Staging Jurisdictional Waters ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB Jurisdictional Wetlands ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB 0 150 300 CDFG Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 8 Jurisdictional Delineation Index Map 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTRFigures\Figure8_JDImpacts_Index.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 60 July 2013 DS-7 DS-8

Study Area Data Stations Topo Contours Permanent Impact Rip-Rap Armoring & Vegetated Rip-Rap Slope DS-4 Temporary Impact Vegetated Slope Armoring DS-5 NVC SWS DS-6 Limits of Work Staging SWS Jurisdictional Waters SWS ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB Jurisdictional Wetlands ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB CDFG Vegetation Community NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed NVC - Non-vegetated Channel 0 50 100 SWS - Southern Willow Scrub Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 8a Jurisdictional Delineation Impacts 6965 JULY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTRFigures\Figure8a_JD_Impacts.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 62 July 2013 OC-DEV

NVC-DEV

Study Area Topo Contours Permanent Impact Rip-Rap Armoring & Vegetated Rip-Rap Slope Temporary Impact Vegetated Slope Armoring Limits of Work Staging Jurisdictional Waters ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB Jurisdictional Wetlands ACOE/CDFG/RWQCB NVC CDFG Vegetation Community NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed NVC - Non-vegetated Channel 0 50 100 SWS - Southern Willow Scrub Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGURE 8b Jurisdictional Delineation Impacts 6965 JULY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection - Biological Technical Report DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTRFigures\Figure8b_JD_Impacts.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 64 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

The permanent impacts were quantified by overlaying the limits of permanent structures on the biological resources mapped in the study area. Temporary impacts were quantified by overlaying the limits of work on the biological resources mapped in the study area (Figures 7a, 7b, 8a, and 8b).

Indirect impacts are reasonably foreseeable effects caused by project implementation on remaining or adjacent biological resources outside the limits of work. Indirect impacts may affect areas within the defined project site but outside the limits of work, including non-impacted areas and areas outside the project site, such as downstream effects. Indirect impacts include short-term effects immediately related to construction activities and long-term or chronic effects related to long-term maintenance of riprap installation areas. 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.

Cumulative impacts refer to the combined environmental effects of the proposed project and other relevant projects. In some cases, the impact from a single project may not be significant, but when combined with other projects, the cumulative impact may be significant. It is anticipated that cumulative impacts to special-status biological resources could be mitigated on a project-by-project basis by revegetation efforts as well as by compliance with appropriate permit conditions determined by the CDFW, ACOE, and RWQCB. The proposed channel protection plan has avoidance and minimization features and mitigation measures that reduce project- specific impacts to below a level of significance, as well as the project’s contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts.

Part of the City’s participation in the North County MHCP is to avoid and minimize cumulative impacts to special-status biological resources throughout San Diego County. This planning effort provides a regional plan for preservation and mitigation of special-status biological resources within San Diego County. The program addresses cumulative biological effects on a jurisdictional and regional level for MHCP-covered species in the North County MHCP area. The implementation of mitigation measures to address site-specific impacts and the project’s consistency with the City of Oceanside’s Subarea Plan reduces cumulative impacts to biological resources to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, cumulative impacts are not discussed further in this report.

6965 65 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

5.3 Direct Impacts

5.3.1 Vegetation Communities

Under the proposed project, permanent and temporary direct impacts would occur to non- vegetated channel and areas mapped as disturbed land or urban/developed land. The acreages of permanent and temporary direct impacts are shown in Table 5. While the placement of riprap armoring within existing earthen (i.e., unlined) portions of the channel is considered a permanent direct, the impact would be limited to a change from one Habitat Group A type to another and would not result in a net loss of Habitat Group A acreage. However, the impact would result in a net decrease in the biological functions of the 0.13-acre of affected non-vegetated channel due to the replacement of existing earthen channel with permanent riprap armoring. Figures 7a and 7b depict the distribution of biological resources in the project study area and the locations where proposed impacts would occur.

Clearing, trampling, or grading of vegetation outside designated limits of work could occur in the absence of avoidance and mitigation measures. These potential effects could damage vegetation communities and alter their ecosystem, creating gaps in vegetation that allow exotic, non-native plant species to become established, thus increasing soil compaction and leading to soil erosion.

Long-term direct effects could occur from the long-term maintenance activities that are planned on an annual basis. These maintenance activities would involve removing any vegetation that may become established within the riprap areas through natural recruitment. Maintaining the riprap areas relatively void of vegetation is necessary in order to ensure effective long-term bank stabilization. Maintenance activities will occur on an as-needed basis and will likely be conducted no more than once per year. The activities will include trimming and hand-pulling vegetation that is growing within the riprap.

Vegetation communities considered to be special-status by the Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009) are listed in Habitat Groups A through E; these are denoted by an asterisk (*) in Table 5.

Table 5 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers

Permanent Impact Temporary Impact Total Impacts Vegetation Community or Land Cover (acres) (acres) (acres) Riparian Habitats Restored Mulefat Scrub* — — — Southern Willow Scrub* — — —

6965 66 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Table 5 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers

Permanent Impact Temporary Impact Total Impacts Vegetation Community or Land Cover (acres) (acres) (acres) Open Water, Natural Flood Channel, Disturbed Wetlands Non-vegetated Channel* 0.1** 0.4 0.5 Non-vegetated Channel-Developed* — <0.1 <0.1 Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub* — — — Coyote Brush Scrub* — — — Disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub* — — — Other Disturbed Land 0.2 0.9 1.1 Urban/Developed — 0.2 0.2 Total 0.3 1.5 1.8 *Designated as special-status by the Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009). **The 0.13 acre impact to non-vegetated channel would not result in a net loss of Habitat Group A area, but would result in the permanent loss of biological function associated with the exiting earthen channel.

5.3.2 Special-Status Plant Species

No direct impacts to special-status plants are expected to occur. No special-status plant species were observed during the focused survey, and based on the results of the focused survey, all special-status plant species analyzed as potentially occurring based on the literature review conducted prior the survey are either not expected to occur or have a low potential to occur (Appendix C). The majority of the species are not expected to occur or have a low potential to occur because the study area lacks suitable habitat and/or soils; the study area is outside of their known elevation range; or the species is conspicuous and would have been observed during surveys.

5.3.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species

One special-status wildlife species, yellow warbler, was observed in the southern willow scrub in the western portion of the study area during 2011 focused wildlife surveys. Because suitable habitat for yellow warbler is limited to the western portion of the study area and occurs outside of the temporary and permanent impact areas, direct impacts to this species would be avoided (Figures 7a and 7b). Based on the habitat and species’ range in relationship to the study area, Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; CDFW Watch List and Covered species), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens; CDFW SSC and Covered species), and western bluebird (Siala mexicana; Covered species) have at least a moderate potential to occur in the southern willow scrub in the

6965 67 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

western portion of the study area. There are no impacts to the southern willow scrub; therefore, no direct impacts to special-status species are anticipated.

Although special-status bird species are not expected to be affected by the project, if vegetation removal or other vegetation- or ground-disturbing activities associated with construction occur during the breeding season (typically March 1 through September 15), nesting birds protected under the MBTA could be directly impacted. Vegetation removal or other disturbances in suitable nesting habitat during the breeding season could cause direct injury or mortality, or the loss of nests, eggs, and fledglings of species protected under the MBTA.

5.3.4 Jurisdictional Waters

Implementation of the proposed project will result in temporary impacts to 0.36 acre of non- vegetated channel and permanent impacts to 0.13 acre of non-vegetated channel under the jurisdiction of ACOE, RWQCB as non-wetland waters of the United States, and under the jurisdiction of CDFW as unvegetated stream channel (Table 6). In total, 2,127 linear feet of the existing channel would be affected by the proposed project, including 1,454 linear feet of permanent impact (Figures 8a and 8b). There are no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands.

Table 6 Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands/Waters

Temporary Impact Total Impacts Jurisdictional Wetlands/Water Permanent Impact (acres) (acres) Non-Wetland Waters—ACOE, RWQCB, CDFW Non-vegetated Channel (concrete-lined) — 0.01 0.01 Non-vegetated Channel 0.13 acre 0.35 0.48 (1,454 linear feet) Wetlands—CDFW only Southern Willow Scrub — — — Total 0.13 acre 0.36 0.49 (1,454 linear feet)

Clearing, trampling, or grading of jurisdictional wetlands or waters outside designated construction zones could occur in the absence of avoidance and mitigation measures. These potential effects could damage vegetation within the jurisdictional wetlands and alter their ecosystem, creating gaps in vegetation that allow exotic, non-native plant species to become established, thus increasing soil compaction and leading to soil erosion.

6965 68 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Long-term direct effects could occur from the long-term maintenance activities that are planned on an annual basis. These activities are limited to maintaining the riprap areas so they remain relatively void of vegetation in order to function in bank stabilization long term. Maintenance activities will occur on an as-needed basis and will likely be conducted no more than once per year. The activities will include trimming and hand-pulling vegetation that is growing within the riprap.

5.3.5 Wildlife Corridors/Habitat Linkages

As described in Section 4.4, the project site is fenced on both the north and south sides and is surrounded by North Avenue, railroad tracks, and residential, commercial, and industrial development. The majority of Loma Alta Creek is located in an urbanized environment. In addition, a portion of Loma Alta Creek is an engineered naturalized creek, and much of the creek is unvegetated and provides little cover for larger species to move (i.e., mule deer). It is assumed that urban-adapted species such as rabbits, raccoons, and occasionally coyotes use the creek to move up and downstream.

Although wildlife movement may be disrupted during construction, these impacts are considered temporary in nature and implementation of the overall project will not result in permanent direct impacts to wildlife movement functions. Following construction, wildlife will continue to use the creek to aid in movement to other areas of biological value. Therefore, permanent direct impacts to wildlife corridors/habitat linkages are not anticipated.

5.4 Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts may result from (1) temporary, short-term effects due to construction activity and (2) long-term effects from annual maintenance activities.

5.4.1 Vegetation Communities

Indirect effects to vegetation communities would primarily result from adverse “edge effects.” During bank stabilization and riprap installation activities, short-term edge effects may include dust, soil erosion, and runoff from dust control that could disrupt plant vitality. In addition, temporary de-watering activities could affect plant vitality. However, all project grading will be subject to the implementation of BMPs and typical restrictions and requirements that address dust control, erosion, and runoff, including the federal CWA, Fish and Game Code, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

If any herbicides or machinery are used during the long-term maintenance activities, there could be indirect impacts to plants in adjacent areas.

6965 69 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

5.4.2 Special-Status Plant Species

No special-status plant species were observed within the study area during the 2011 rare plant surveys. In addition, no special-status species have moderate to high potential to occur on site (Appendix C). Potential habitat for special-status plants upstream and downstream of the study area is limited due to the disturbed nature and/or existing vegetation communities (i.e., dense southern willow scrub). No indirect impacts to special-status plants are anticipated.

5.4.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species

Potential temporary indirect impacts to wildlife species include dust, noise, lighting, and increased human presence.

Nesting birds can be significantly affected by short-term construction-related noise, resulting in decreased reproductive success or abandonment of an area as nesting habitat. Breeding passerine species likely utilize the various habitats on or adjacent to the site for nest construction and foraging. Yellow warbler, Cooper’s hawk and yellow-breasted chat have potential to nest in the southern willow scrub located to the west of (i.e., downstream) of the proposed limits of work. Western bluebird has potential to occur during the winter, but does not nest in this region. Indirect impacts from construction-related noise may occur to these special-status bird species if construction occurs during the typical breeding season (i.e., March 1 through September 15). Indirect impacts from dust are not expected to impact special-status species that have potential to occur (i.e., birds) because they are highly mobile. Artificial lighting is not expected because work will occur during the day.

5.4.4 Jurisdictional Waters

Temporary indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters are similar to those described above for vegetation communities. These include dust, soil erosion, runoff from dust control, and temporary reduction of flow from the stream diversion activities. However, all project grading will be subject to the implementation of BMPs and typical restrictions and requirements that address dust control, erosion, and runoff, including the federal CWA, Fish and Game Code, and NPDES.

Long-term, permanent indirect effects from the long-term maintenance activities are the same as those described above for vegetation communities. If any herbicides or machinery are used during the maintenance activities, there could be indirect impacts to water quality and jurisdictional areas.

6965 70 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

5.4.5 Wildlife Corridors/Habitat Linkages

Temporary indirect impacts to wildlife corridors/habitat linkages are similar to those described above for special-status wildlife. While bank stabilization and riprap installation activities are conducted, wildlife species such as reptiles, rabbits, and birds may be temporarily disturbed. These disturbances will be minimal because the project site is in an already highly urbanized environment with noise from the adjacent North Avenue traffic and railroad tracks. Because these activities will be conducted during the daytime, nocturnal species such as raccoons, rodents or coyotes will still be able to move through the area as usual.

The proposed activities are temporary in nature, and long-term indirect impacts are not expected to occur.

6.0 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE 6.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance Impacts to special-status vegetation communities, special-status plants, and special-status wildlife species must be quantified and analyzed to determine whether such impacts are significant under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) states that an ironclad definition of “significant” effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, however, does provide “examples of consequences which may be deemed to be a significant effect on the environment” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(e)). These effects include substantial effects on rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species. Guidelines Section 15065(a) is also helpful in defining whether a project may have “a significant effect on the environment.” Under that section, a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment if the project has the potential to: (1) substantially degrade the quality of the environment, (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, (3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or (6) eliminate important examples of a major period of California history or prehistory.

The evaluation of whether or not an impact to a particular biological resource is significant must consider both the resource itself and the role of that resource in a regional context. Substantial impacts are those that contribute to, or result in, permanent loss of an important resource, such as a population of a rare plant or animal. Impacts may be important locally because they result in an adverse alteration of existing site conditions, but considered not significant because they do not contribute substantially to the permanent loss of that resource regionally. The severity of an impact is the primary determinant of whether or not that impact can be mitigated to a level below significant.

6965 71 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

The following significance determinations were made based on the impacts from the proposed project. 6.2 Vegetation Communities The proposed project will result in direct permanent impacts to several vegetation communities and land cover types as summarized in Table 5 in Section 5.3.1.

Direct permanent impacts to 0.13 acre of non-vegetated channel, a special-status vegetation community listed in Habitat Group A (wetland vegetation communities) in the Oceanside Subarea Plan, would be considered a significant impact, absent mitigation. Specifically, the decrease in biological function that would result from the conversion of existing earthen channel to 0.13 acre of riprap armoring would be considered significant without mitigation (Impact BIO-1).

The change from one Habitat Group A type (non-vegetated channel) to another (non-vegetated channel-developed) would not result in a net loss of Habitat Group A area consistent with Section 5.2.4 of the Oceanside Subarea Plan and, therefore, would not be considered significant.

Direct temporary impacts to approximately 0.40 acre of non-vegetated channel associated with disturbances during construction would be restored to pre-project conditions. As the affected areas would be restored to pre-project elevations and would continue to function similarly to pre-project conditions, temporary impacts to non-vegetated channel would not be considered significant.

Clearing, trampling, or grading of vegetation outside designated limits of work could occur in the absence of avoidance and mitigation measures. These temporary direct impacts to non-vegetated channel would be considered a significant impact, absent mitigation (Impact BIO-2).

6.3 Special-Status Plants

Based on the results of the focused survey, no special-status plant species are present in the study area and, therefore, no impacts to special-status plant species are expected to occur.

6.4 Special-Status Wildlife

No direct impacts to special-status wildlife species that have been observed or have at least a moderate potential to occur in the study area (yellow warbler, Cooper’s hawk, yellow-breasted chat, and western bluebird) are anticipated due to the lack of suitable habitat within the proposed limits of work. Suitable habitat for these species is limited to the southern willow scrub habitat located to the west of (i.e., downstream) of the proposed limits of work and would not be affected by the proposed project.

6965 72 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

The proposed project is scheduled for September 2014 and will last for approximately 6 months. Because the construction activities are planned outside of the breeding season, which is typically March 1 through September 15, no indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species are anticipated. However, if the construction activities (including revegetation) occur during the breeding season, temporary indirect impacts to special-status nesting birds resulting from construction noise and increased human presence are considered significant, absent mitigation (Impact BIO-3).

Short-term, temporary, or construction-related impacts to migratory birds and active migratory bird nests and/or eggs protected under the MBTA are considered a significant impact, absent mitigation (Impact BIO-4).

Because the majority of the impacts are temporary and vegetation will be restored, no long-term indirect impacts are anticipated.

6.5 Jurisdictional Waters

The proposed project will result in direct impacts to jurisdictional waters as summarized in Table 6 in Section 5.3.4 This includes permanent and temporary impacts to non-vegetated channel under the jurisdiction of ACOE, RWQCB as non-wetland waters of the United States, and under the jurisdiction of CDFW as unvegetated stream channel. Impacts to jurisdictional waters would be considered significant (Impact BIO-5).

Potential temporary direct impacts to jurisdictional waters as a result of inadvertent disturbances outside of the limits of work would be significant (Impact BIO-6).

6.6 Habitat Linkages/Wildlife Corridors

Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to preclude the long-term use of habitat in or adjacent to the study area or hinder its suitability as a corridor for local wildlife movement or habitat linkage. Although increased human presence and noise during construction could temporarily affect the use of habitat areas adjacent to the study area, species that are expected to occur and move locally through the area, such as rabbits, raccoons, and occasionally coyotes, are primarily nocturnal, and their use of adjacent habitat areas during and after construction would not be substantially affected. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to habitat linkages or wildlife corridors as a result of the proposed project.

6965 73 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 74 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

7.0 MITIGATION

This section describes the measures that are proposed to mitigate for significant impacts to biological resources identified in Section 6.0.

7.1 Vegetation Communities

This section describes the mitigation measures proposed for impacts to special-status vegetation communities.

Impact BIO-1: (Impacts to special-status vegetation communities)

BIO-1: The decrease in biological functions from converting 0.13 acre of existing earthen channel (non-vegetated channel) to riprap armoring (non-vegetated channel-developed) would be mitigated by implementing approximately 2.36 acres of on-site wetlands and uplands restoration and enhancement within the project area. Wetlands enhancement will include 0.44 acre of low-growing freshwater marsh plantings in the channel bottom, and 0.40 acre of transitional zone riparian plantings on the channel side slopes. Uplands enhancement will include exotics removal within 0.78 acre of existing disturbed coastal sage scrub, and 0.74 acre of coastal sage scrub restoration within existing disturbed lands. The proposed wetlands and uplands restoration and enhancement is shown on Figure 9, and is summarized below in Table 7. Implementation of the proposed mitigation is ultimately expected to result in a net increase in the biological functions in the project area.

Table 7 Proposed Mitigation for the Loss of Biological Functions from Impacts to 0.13 acre of Non-Vegetated Channel

Proposed Mitigation Proposed Post-Mitigation Total Mitigation Treatment Mitigation Acreage Existing Vegetation Type Vegetation Type Acreage Riparian Enhancement Freshwater marsh Non-vegetated channel Freshwater marsh 0.44 plantings 0.84 Transitional zone Disturbed habitat Mulefat scrub or similar 0.40 riparian plantings Uplands Enhancement and Restoration Exotics removal 0.78 Disturbed coastal sage scrub Coastal sage scrub Coastal sage scrub Disturbed habitat Coastal sage scrub 1.52 0.74 revegetation

6965 75 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Wetlands and uplands enhancement and restoration areas would be installed within 12 months of completion of the proposed channel protection activities, and would include a minimum 3- year maintenance and monitoring period with annual success standards. Wetlands enhancement areas will be revegetated using a combination of container plants and seed. Upland enhancement and restoration areas will be revegetated using seed treatments. All revegetation areas receiving container plants will include temporary irrigation to ensure survival of the installed container plants and seed.

As detailed in Appendix H, the annual success standards are based on establishing minimum levels of native vegetation cover, and limiting the cover of invasive perennial species and non- native annual species. In wetlands enhancement areas, the Year 3 success standard would be to achieve 70% overall cover from seed, container plants, and/or volunteer native species. In uplands enhancement and restoration areas, the Year 3 success standard would be to achieve a 60% overall cover from seed, container plants, and/or volunteer native species. In all enhancement or restoration areas, 100% control of invasive perennial plant species and 90% control of non-native annual species would be required at the end of the 3-year maintenance and monitoring period.

Based on the wetlands and uplands vegetation communities proposed for enhancement and restoration, a 3-year maintenance and monitoring period is expected to be sufficient time for the mitigation areas to become adequately established and self-sustaining over the long term. In addition, the plant species proposed in the various mitigation treatments are relatively fast- growing species and a 3-year period is expected to be sufficient time to evaluate establishment success. However, if success criteria are not met at the end of the 3-year period, then additional maintenance and monitoring shall be performed until required standards are met. Maintenance of the enhancement and restoration areas will include a 120-day plant establishment maintenance period during which all planting areas will be monitored to ensure survival of installed container plants, proper functioning of the irrigation systems, and to verify successful germination in areas where seed mix is applied. Following the completion of the 120-day plant establishment maintenance period, the revegetation areas will be maintained for period of 3 years. General maintenance activities will focus on the survival and establishment of intended plantings, the replacement of dead plantings, weed control/removal, irrigation system adjustments, and trash and debris removal.

6965 76 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Additional details regarding the proposed mitigation are provided in Appendix H, Draft Revegetation, Maintenance and Monitoring Guidelines for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project.

As agencies with jurisdiction over non-vegetated channel, the proposed mitigation for impacts to non-vegetated channel is subject to the approval of ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW, pursuant to Section 404/401 of the federal Clean Water Act, and Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, respectively.

On-site enhancement and restoration of special-status wetland and upland vegetation communities will reduce the impact to below significance.

6965 77 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 78 July 2013 Riparian Enhancement Vegetation Community Wetlands Enhancement - freshwater marsh plantings (0.44 acres) NVC-DEV - Non-vegetated Channel - Developed Wetlands Enhancement - transitional zone riparian plantings (0.40 acres) NVC - Non-vegetated Channel Upland Enhancement CBS - Coyote Brush Scrub Upland Enhancement - exotics removal (0.78 acres) dCBS - disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub Upland Restoration - Coastal Sage Scrub revegetation (0.74 acres) dCSS - disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Permanent Impact SWS - Southern Willow Scrub Rip-Rap Armoring (0.16 acres) MFS-R - Mulefat Scrub-Restored Vegetated Rip-Rap (0.15 acres) DEV - Developed Temporary Impact DIST - Disturbed Land

02100 00 Vegetated Slope Armoring (0.42 acres) Feet

SOURCE: Bing 2011 FIGUREFIGURE 4-1a 9 Proposed Mitigation 6965 FEBRUARY 2012 North Avenue Channel Protection DRAFT/FINAL Path: Z:\Projects\j696501\MAPDOC\MAPS\BTR Figures\Figure9_Proposed_Mitigation.mxd Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 80 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Impact BIO-2: (Impacts to special-status vegetation communities outside of impact area)

BIO-2: To prevent inadvertent disturbance to areas outside the limits of grading, orange environmental fencing shall be installed to delineate the limits of grading and all grading shall be monitored by a biologist. A biologist shall be contracted to perform biological monitoring during all grading, clearing, grubbing, trenching, and construction activities.

The following shall be conducted:

1. Attend the preconstruction meeting with the contractor and other key construction personnel prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading to reduce conflict between the timing and location of construction activities with other mitigation requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for nesting birds). 2. Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 3. Discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction with the contractor and other key construction personnel prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 4. Review and/or designate the construction area in the field with the contractor in accordance with the final grading plan prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 5. Conduct a field review of the staking to be set by the surveyor, and the subsequent installation of orange environmental fencing designating the limits of all construction activity prior to clearing, grubbing, or grading. 6. Be present during initial vegetation clearing, grubbing, and grading. 7. Flush special-status species (i.e., avian or other mobile species) from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush-clearing and other ground- disturbing activities. 8. To address hydrology impacts, the biologist shall verify that grading plans include an Erosion Control Plan.

6965 81 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

7.2 Special-Status Plants

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in direct impacts to any special-status plants; therefore, no mitigation is proposed.

7.3 Special-Status Wildlife

Direct impacts to yellow warbler, Cooper’s hawk, yellow-breasted chat, and western bluebird are not anticipated; therefore, no species-specific mitigation is proposed.

In the event that construction activities occur during the nesting season, the following mitigation measure is proposed.

Impact BIO-3: (Indirect impacts to nesting special-status birds)

BIO-3: Within 72 hours of ground-disturbing activities associated with construction activities during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically March 1 through September 15 in the project region, or as determined by a qualified biologist), the applicant shall have surveys conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the impact area or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the impact area.

If active nests are found, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors) shall be postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biologist in consultation with CDFW, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to these nests occur.

Impact BIO-4: (Direct impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA)

This impact will be mitigated through BIO-3 described above.

6965 82 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

7.4 Jurisdictional Waters

This section describes the mitigation measures proposed for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters.

Impact BIO-5: (Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters)

Permanent impacts to 0.13 acre of non-vegetated channel will be mitigated as described under BIO-1 above. In addition, the following mitigation measure is required.

BIO-5: To comply with the state and federal regulations for impacts to “waters of the United States and state,” the following agency permits are required, or verification that they are not required shall be obtained prior to initiating construction activities.

The following permit and agreement shall be obtained:

• A CWA, Section 401/404 permit issued by the California RWQCB and the ACOE for all project-related disturbances of waters of the United States and/or associated wetlands.

• A Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the CDFW for all project-related disturbances of any streambed.

Impact BIO-6: (Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and/or waters outside of impact area)

This impact will be mitigated through BIO-2 described above.

7.5 Habitat Linkages/Wildlife Corridors

No mitigation is proposed for direct impacts to habitat linkages/wildlife corridors because the proposed impacts are not considered significant.

6965 83 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 84 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

8.0 REFERENCES

ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Online ed. Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y- 87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. January 1987. Accessed September 1, 2010. http://www.fedcenter.gov/ Bookmarks/index.cfm?id=6403&pge_id=1606.

ACOE. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. September 2008. Accessed September 24, 2012. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ elpubs/pdf/trel08-28.pdf.

ACOE and EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. June 5, 2007. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/ upload/2008_12_3_wetlands_CWA_Jurisdiction_Following_Rapanos120208.pdf.

AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union). 2012. “Check-List of North American Birds: List of the 2,078 Bird Species Known From the AOU Check-list Area.” August 2012. http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/full.php.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game. 2011a. Special Animals List. California Natural Diversity Database. January 2011. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/ cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf.

CDFG. 2011b. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Rarefind. Version 3.1.0., Biogeographic Data Branch. January 2011.

CDFG. 2012. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. California Natural Diversity Database. January 2012. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/ cnddb/pdfs/SPPlants.pdf

City of Oceanside. 2009. Final Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Accessed January 2012. http://www.ci.oceanside.ca.us/gov/dev/planning/subarea.asp.

6965 85 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, convening ed. D.P. Tibor. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society.

CNPS. 2011. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Online ed. Version 7-10b. Sacramento, California: CNPS. Accessed March 2011. http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi- bin/inv/inventory.cgi.

Crother, B.I. 2008. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding. Herpetological Circular no. 37. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

Dudek. 2012a.Loma Alta Creek Bank Restoration – Feasibility Study.

Dudek. 2012b. 2011 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results. Prepared for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project, San Diego County, California: Dudek. January 19, 2012.

Historic Aerials. 2013. Historic Aerials by NETR Online. Accessed March 2013. http://www.historicaerials.com

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. 2012. Jepson eFlora. Version 1.0. Berkeley, California: University of California. Accessed August 2012. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html

NABA (North American Butterfly Association). 2001. “Checklist of North American Butterflies Occurring North of Mexico.” North American Butterfly Association (NABA) Checklist & English Names of North American Butterflies. 2nd ed. Morristown, New Jersey: NABA. Accessed June 9, 2009. http://www.naba.org/pubs/enames2.html.

NRCS. 2011a. “National Hydric Soils List by State (February 2011).” U.S. Department of Agriculture, NCRS. Accessed January 2012. http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/.

NRCS. 2011b. PLANTS Database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. http://plants.usda.gov/java/.

NRCS. 2012. Web Soil Survey [web application]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ app/HomePage.htm.

6965 86 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Accessed September 12, 2012. http://www.sdcanyonlands.org/canyon- groups/canyon-group-resources/canyon-enhancement-guide/189-canyon-enhancement- planning-guide-materials.

Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON), 1977. Final Environmental Impact Report for Sunburst Homes. August 18, 1977.

RWQCB (California Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2010. 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d)/305(b) Report): List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLS. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/ programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml.

RWQCB, San Diego Region (9). 2011. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. Adopted September 8, 1994 (with amendments effective on or before April 4, 2011).

SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2003. Final MHCP Plan. Prepared for the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. March 28, 2003. http://www.sandag.org/?projectid=97&fuseaction=projects.detail.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1994. “Hydric Soils.” Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/intro.html.

USDA and NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils. Version 7.0. 2010. ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Hydric_Soils/FieldIndicators_v7.pdf

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. Carlsbad, California: USFWS. January 19, 2001. http://www.fws.gov/ventura/species_information/ protocols_guidelines/docs/lbv/leastbellsvireo_survey-guidelines.pdf.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2010. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Techniques and Methods 2A-10. In Book 2, Collection of Environmental Data; Section A, Biological Science. Prepared by M.K. Sogge (USGS), D. Ahlers (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), and S.J. Sferra (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Reston, Virginia: USGS. Accessed November 29, 2011. http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm2a10/.

Vanderwier, J. 2002. Soil Substrates for Sensitive Plant Taxa—MHCP. Letter from Julie Vanderwier, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Sherri Miller, Dudek and Associates. 2002.

6965 87 July 2013 Biological Technical Report North Avenue Channel Protection Project

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.

6965 88 July 2013

APPENDIX A Plant Compendium

VASCULAR SPECIES

DICOTS

ANACARDIACEAE—SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY Rhus integrifolia—lemonade sumac

APIACEAE—CARROT FAMILY * Apium graveolens—wild celery * Foeniculum vulgare—sweet fennel

ASTERACEAE—SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia acanthicarpa—flatspine bur ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya—Cuman ragweed Artemisia californica—coastal sagebrush Baccharis pilularis—coyotebrush Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia—mule-fat * Carduus pycnocephalus ssp. pycnocephalus—Italian plumeless thistle * Cynara cardunculus—cardoon Encelia californica—California brittlebush * Glebionis coronaria—crowndaisy * Hedypnois cretica—Cretanweed * Helminthotheca echioides—bristly oxtongue Heterotheca grandiflora—telegraphweed Isocoma menziesii—Menzies’ goldenbush * Lactuca serriola—prickly lettuce Pseudognaphalium californicum—ladies’ tobacco * Sonchus oleraceus—common sowthistle

BRASSICACEAE—MUSTARD FAMILY * Brassica nigra—black mustard * Hirschfeldia incana—shortpod mustard Nasturtium officinale—watercress

CACTACEAE—CACTUS FAMILY Opuntia littoralis—coastal pricklypear

CHENOPODIACEAE—GOOSEFOOT FAMILY * Atriplex prostrata—triangle orache

6965 A-1 July 2013 APPENDIX A (Continued)

EUPHORBIACEAE—SPURGE FAMILY * Chamaesyce maculata—spotted sandmat * Euphorbia peplus—petty spurge * Ricinus communis—castorbean

FABACEAE—LEGUME FAMILY * Acacia sp.—wattle * Medicago polymorpha—burclover

MALVACEAE—MALLOW FAMILY * Malva parviflora—cheeseweed mallow

MYRSINACEAE—MYRSINE FAMILY * Anagallis arvensis—scarlet pimpernel

POLYGONACEAE—BUCKWHEAT FAMILY * Polygonum aviculare—prostrate knotweed * Rumex crispus—curly dock

SALICACEAE—WILLOW FAMILY Salix lasiolepis—arroyo willow

SOLANACEAE—NIGHTSHADE FAMILY * Nicotiana glauca—tree tobacco

TAMARICACEAE—TAMARISK FAMILY * Tamarix ramosissima—saltcedar

MONOCOTS

ARECACEAE—PALM FAMILY * Phoenix canariensis—Canary Island date palm Washingtonia filifera—California fan palm * Washingtonia robusta—Washington fan palm

CYPERACEAE—SEDGE FAMILY Cyperus eragrostis—tall flatsedge Eleocharis sp.—spikerush Schoenoplectus californicus—California bulrush

JUNCACEAE—RUSH FAMILY Juncus bufonius—toad rush

6965 A-2 July 2013 APPENDIX A (Continued)

POACEAE—GRASS FAMILY * Avena fatua—wild oat * Brachypodium distachyon—purple false brome * Bromus diandrus—ripgut brome * Bromus hordeaceus—soft brome * Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens—red brome * Cortaderia selloana—Uruguayan pampas grass Distichlis spicata—saltgrass * Festuca myuros—rat-tail fescue * Festuca perennis—Italian ryegrass * Gastridium phleoides—nit grass * Pennisetum setaceum—crimson fountaingrass * Polypogon interruptus—ditch rabbitsfoot grass * Polypogon monspeliensis—annual rabbitsfoot grass

* Signifies introduced (non-native) species.

6965 A-3 July 2013 APPENDIX A (Continued)

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 A-4 July 2013

APPENDIX B Wildlife Compendium

AMPHIBIAN

FROGS

HYLIDAE—TREEFROGS Pseudacris cadaverina—California treefrog

RANIDAE—TONGUELESS FROGS * Lithobates catesbeianus—American bullfrog

BIRD

BLACKBIRDS, ORIOLES, AND ALLIES

ICTERIDAE—BLACKBIRDS Agelaius phoeniceus—Red-winged blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus—Brewer’s blackbird Icterus bullockii—Bullock’s oriole * Molothrus ater—Brown-headed cowbird Quiscalus mexicanus—Great-tailed grackle

BUSHTITS

AEGITHALIDAE—LONG-TAILED TITS AND BUSHTITS Psaltriparus minimus—Bushtit

EMBERIZINES

EMBERIZIDAE—EMBERIZIDS Melospiza melodia—Song sparrow Melozone crissalis—California towhee Pipilo maculatus—Spotted towhee

FALCONS

FALCONIDAE—CARACARAS AND FALCONS Falco sparverius—American kestrel

6965 B-1 July 2013 APPENDIX B (Continued)

FINCHES

FRINGILLIDAE—FRINGILLINE AND CARDUELINE FINCHES AND ALLIES Carpodacus mexicanus—House finch Spinus psaltria—Lesser goldfinch Spinus tristis—American goldfinch

FLYCATCHERS

TYRANNIDAE—TYRANT FLYCATCHERS Sayornis nigricans—Black phoebe Tyrannus vociferans—Cassin’s kingbird Empidonax difficilis—Pacific-slope flycatcher

HAWKS

ACCIPITRIDAE—HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES, AND ALLIES Buteo jamaicensis—Red-tailed hawk Buteo lineatus—Red-shouldered hawk

HERONS AND BITTERNS

ARDEIDAE—HERONS, BITTERNS, AND ALLIES Ardea alba—Great egret Bubulcus ibis—Cattle egret Egretta thula—Snowy egret Nycticorax nycticorax—Black-crowned night-heron

HUMMINGBIRDS

TROCHILIDAE—HUMMINGBIRDS Calypte anna—Anna’s hummingbird

IBISES AND SPOONBILLS

THRESKIORNITHIDAE—IBISES AND SPOONBILLS Plegadis chihi—White-faced ibis

6965 B-2 July 2013 APPENDIX B (Continued)

JAYS, MAGPIES, AND CROWS

CORVIDAE—CROWS AND JAYS Aphelocoma californica—Western scrub-jay Corvus brachyrhynchos—American crow Corvus corax—Common raven

MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS

MIMIDAE—MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS Mimus polyglottos—Northern mockingbird

OLD WORLD SPARROWS

PASSERIDAE—OLD WORLD SPARROWS * Passer domesticus—House sparrow

PIGEONS AND DOVES

COLUMBIDAE—PIGEONS AND DOVES * Columba livia—Rock pigeon (rock dove) Zenaida macroura—Mourning dove

SHOREBIRDS

CHARADRIIDAE—LAPWINGS AND PLOVERS Charadrius vociferus—Killdeer

STARLINGS AND ALLIES

STURNIDAE—STARLINGS * Sturnus vulgaris—European starling

SWALLOWS

HIRUNDINIDAE—SWALLOWS Petrochelidon pyrrhonota—Cliff swallow

THRUSHES

TURDIDAE—THRUSHES Sialia mexicana—Western bluebird

6965 B-3 July 2013 APPENDIX B (Continued)

WATERFOWL

ANATIDAE—DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS Anas platyrhynchos—Mallard

WOOD WARBLERS AND ALLIES

PARULIDAE—WOOD-WARBLERS Geothlypis trichas—Common yellowthroat Setophaga coronata—Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga petechia—Yellow warbler

WOODPECKERS

PICIDAE—WOODPECKERS AND ALLIES Picoides nuttallii—Nuttall’s woodpecker

WRENS

TROGLODYTIDAE—WRENS Thryomanes bewickii—Bewick’s wren Troglodytes aedon—House wren

WRENTITS

TIMALIIDAE—BABBLERS Chamaea fasciata—Wrentit

FISH

OTHER BONY FISHES

CYPRINIDAE—MINNOW FAMILY * minnow

POECILIIDAE—POECILIIDS * Gambusia affinis—Mosquitofish

6965 B-4 July 2013 APPENDIX B (Continued)

INVERTEBRATE

BUTTERFLIES

NYMPHALIDAE—BRUSH-FOOTED BUTTERFLIES Nymphalis antiopa—Mourning cloak

PAPILIONIDAE—SWALLOWTAILS Papilio zelicaon—Anise swallowtail

PIERIDAE—WHITES AND SULFURS Anthocharis sara sara—Pacific sara orangetip Pieris rapae—Cabbage white Pontia protodice—Checkered white

CRAYFISH

CAMBARIDAE—FRESHWATER CRAYFISH Procambarus sp.—Crayfish

MAMMAL

CANIDS

CANIDAE—WOLVES AND FOXES Canis latrans—Coyote

HARES AND RABBITS

LEPORIDAE—HARES AND RABBITS Sylvilagus bachmani—Brush rabbit

SQUIRRELS

SCIURIDAE—SQUIRRELS Spermophilus(Otospermophilus) beecheyi—California ground squirrel

6965 B-5 July 2013 APPENDIX B (Continued)

REPTILE

LIZARDS

PHRYNOSOMATIDAE—IGUANID LIZARDS Sceloporus occidentalis—Western fence lizard

ANGUIDAE—ALLIGATOR LIZARDS Elgaria multicarinata—Southern alligator lizard

* Signifies introduced (non-native) species.

6965 B-6 July 2013

APPENDIX C Special-Status Plant Species Not Expected to Occur on the Project Site

Status Federal/State/Proposed Primary Habitat Associations/ Coverage under Final CRPR Life Form/Blooming Period/ Status on Site Scientific Name Common Name Oceanside HCP-NCCP* List Elevation Range or Potential to Occur Abronia villosa var. aurita Chaparral sand- None/None/None 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, desert dunes; Not expected to occur based on lack of verbena sandy/annual herb/January– suitable habitat and sandy soils in the study September/260–5,300 feet area; not observed during the focused survey. Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego thorn-mint FT/SE/Covered* 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and Low potential to occur based on lack of foothill grassland, vernal pools; suitable habitat and soils in the study area, clay/annual herb/April–June/30–3,150 and it was not observed during the focused feet survey. Adolphia californica California adolphia None/None/None* 2.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and Low potential to occur. Would have been foothill grassland; clay/deciduous observed during the focused survey. shrub/December–May/150–2,430 feet Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia FE/None/Covered* 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and Low potential to occur. There is some suitable foothill grassland, vernal pools; often habitat; however, it was not observed during disturbed, sometimes the the focused survey or other site visits. This alkaline/rhizomatous herb/May– species is conspicuous and surveys were October/60–1,360 feet conducted during its bloom period; therefore, it is not expected to occur. Aphanisma blitoides Aphanisma None/None/None* 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, Not expected to occur based on lack of coastal scrub; sandy/annual suitable habitat and sandy soils in the study herb/March–June/<1,000 feet area, and it was not observed during the focused survey. Arctostaphylos glandulosa Del Mar manzanita FE/None/Covered* 1B.1 Maritime chaparral; sandy/evergreen Not expected to occur. Would have been ssp. crassifolia shrub/December–June/<1,200 feet observed during the focused survey. Artemisia palmeri San Diego sagewort None/None/None 4.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian forest, Low potential to occur. Would have been scrub, and woodland; sandy, observed during the focused survey. mesic/deciduous shrub/May– September/50–3,000 feet Astragalus tener var. titi Coastal dunes milk- FE/SE/None 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal Not expected to occur based on lack of suitable vetch prairie; mesic, often vernally mesic/annual habitat in the study area, and it was not herb/March–May/<170 feet observed during the focused survey.

6965 C-1 July 2013 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Federal/State/Proposed Primary Habitat Associations/ Coverage under Final CRPR Life Form/Blooming Period/ Status on Site Scientific Name Common Name Oceanside HCP-NCCP* List Elevation Range or Potential to Occur Atriplex coulteri Coulter’s saltbush None/None/None 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, Low potential to occur based on lack of coastal scrub, valley and foothill suitable habitat and soils in the study area, grassland; alkaline or clay/perennial and it was not observed during the focused herb/March–October/10–1,500 feet survey. Atriplex pacifica South coast saltscale None/None/None 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, Low potential to occur based on lack of suitable coastal scrub, playas/annual habitat in the study area, and it was not herb/March–October/<500 feet observed during the focused survey. Atriplex serenana var. Davidson’s saltscale None/None/None 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub; Low potential to occur based on lack of suitable davidsonii alkaline/annual herb/April–October/30– habitat in the study area, and it was not 650 feet observed during the focused survey. Baccharis vanessae Encinitas baccharis FT/SE/Covered* 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland; Not expected to occur. Would have been sandstone/deciduous shrub/August– observed during the focused survey. November/200–2,400 feet Bloomeria (=Muilla) San Diego goldenstar None/None/None 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and Low potential to occur based on lack of clevelandii foothill grassland, vernal pools; suitable habitat and soils in the study area, clay/bulbiferous herb/April–May/160– and it was not observed during the focused 1,550 feet survey. Brodiaea filifolia Thread-leaved FT/SE/Covered* 1B.1 Chaparral (openings) cismontane Low potential to occur based on lack of brodiaea woodland, coastal scrub, playas, valley suitable habitat and soils in the study area, and foothill grassland, vernal pools; and it was not observed during the focused often clay/bulbiferous herb/March– survey. June/400–2,800 feet Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt’s brodiaea None/None/None* 1B.1 Closed–cone conifer forest, chaparral, Low potential to occur based on lack of cismontane woodland, meadows and suitable habitat and soils in the study area, seeps, valley and foothill grassland, and it was not observed during the focused vernal pools; mesic, clay, sometimes survey. serpentine/bulbiferous herb/May– July/100–5,550 feet Camissonia lewisii Lewis’s evening- None/None/None 3 Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane Low potential to occur based on lack of primrose woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, suitable habitat in the study area, and it valley and foothill grassland; sandy or was not observed during the focused clay/annual herb/March–May survey. (June)/<1,000 feet

6965 C-2 July 2013 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Federal/State/Proposed Primary Habitat Associations/ Coverage under Final CRPR Life Form/Blooming Period/ Status on Site Scientific Name Common Name Oceanside HCP-NCCP* List Elevation Range or Potential to Occur Ceanothus verrucosus Wart-stemmed None/None/Covered* 2.2 Chaparral/evergreen shrub/December– Low potential to occur. Would have been ceanothus May/<1,250 feet observed during the focused survey. Centromadia (=Hemizonia) Southern tarplant None/None/None 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (margins), valley Low potential to occur. There is some parryi spp. australis and foothill grassland (vernally mesic), suitable habitat; however, the study area is vernal pools/annual herb/May– disturbed, and it was not observed during November/<400 feet the focused survey. This species is conspicuous and surveys were conducted during its bloom period; therefore, it is not expected to occur. Centromadia (=Hemizonia) Smooth tarplant None/None/None 1B.1 Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, Low potential to occur. There is some pungens ssp. laevis playas, riparian woodland, valley and suitable habitat; however, the study area is foothill grassland; alkaline/annual disturbed, and it was not observed during the herb/April–September/<1,580 feet focused survey. This species is conspicuous and surveys were conducted during its bloom period; therefore, it is not expected to occur. Chaenactis glabriuscula var. Orcutt’s pincushion None/None/None 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes/ Low potential to occur based on lack of orcuttiana annual herb/January–August/10–330 suitable habitat in the study area, and it feet was not observed during the focused survey. Chorizanthe orcuttiana Orcutt’s spineflower FE/SE/Covered* 1B.1 Maritime chaparral, closed-cone conifer Low potential to occur based on lack of forest, coastal scrub/annual suitable habitat in the study area, and it herb/March–May/<400 feet was not observed during the focused survey. Chorizanthe polygonoides Long-spined None/None/None 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows and Low potential to occur. There is some var. longispina spineflower seeps, valley and foothill grassland; suitable habitat; however, the study area is often clay/annual herb/April–July/100– disturbed, and it was not observed during 5,000 feet the focused survey. This species is relatively conspicuous, and surveys were conducted during its bloom period; therefore, it is not expected to occur. Clarkia delicata Delicate clarkia None/None/None 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland/annual Not expected. Outside of known elevation herb/April–June/770–3,300 feet range.

6965 C-3 July 2013 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Federal/State/Proposed Primary Habitat Associations/ Coverage under Final CRPR Life Form/Blooming Period/ Status on Site Scientific Name Common Name Oceanside HCP-NCCP* List Elevation Range or Potential to Occur Comarostaphylis diversifolia Summer-holly None/None/Covered* 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane Low potential to occur based on lack of ssp. diversifolia woodland/evergreen shrub/April– suitable habitat in the study area, and it June/100–1,800 feet was not observed during the focused survey. Corethrogyne filaginifolia San Diego sand aster None/None/None 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal bluff scrub, coastal Low potential to occur. There is some var. incana scrub/perennial herb/June– suitable habitat; however, the study area is September/10–380 feet disturbed, and it was not observed during the focused survey. This species is conspicuous, and surveys were conducted during its bloom period; therefore, it is not expected to occur. Corethrogyne filaginifolia Del Mar Mesa sand None/None/Covered* 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, maritime chaparral Low potential to occur based on lack of var. linifolia aster (openings), coastal scrub; suitable habitat in the study area, and it sandy/perennial herb/May– was not observed during the focused September/10–380 feet survey. Dichondra occidentalis Western dichondra None/None/None* 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, Low potential to occur based on lack of coastal scrub, valley and foothill suitable habitat in the study area, and it grassland/rhizomatous herb/March– was not observed during the focused May/160–1,650 feet survey. Dudleya blochmaniae spp. Blochman’s dudleya None/None/Covered* 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal bluff scrub, coastal Low potential to occur based on lack of blochmaniae scrub, valley and foothill grassland, rocky; suitable habitat and soils in the study area, often clay or serpentinite/perennial and it was not observed during the focused herb/April–June/15–1,500 feet survey. Dudleya brevifolia Short-leaved dudleya None/SE/Covered* 1B.1 Maritime chaparral (openings), coastal Low potential to occur based on lack of scrub, Torrey sandstone/perennial suitable habitat and soils in the study area, herb/April/100–800 feet and it was not observed during the focused survey. Dudleya multicaulis Many-stemmed None/None/None 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and Low potential to occur based on lack of dudleya foothill grassland; often clay/perennial suitable habitat and soils in the study area, herb/April–July/50–2,600 feet and it was not observed during the focused survey.

6965 C-4 July 2013 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Federal/State/Proposed Primary Habitat Associations/ Coverage under Final CRPR Life Form/Blooming Period/ Status on Site Scientific Name Common Name Oceanside HCP-NCCP* List Elevation Range or Potential to Occur Dudleya variegata Variegated dudleya None/None/None* 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, Low potential to occur based on lack of coastal scrub, valley and foothill suitable habitat and soils in the study area, grassland, vernal pools; clay/perennial and it was not observed during the focused herb/April–June/<1,900 feet survey. Dudleya viscida Sticky dudleya None/None/Covered* 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal Low potential to occur based on lack of scrub; rocky/perennial herb/May– suitable rocky habitat in the study area, June/30–1,800 feet and it was not observed during the focused survey. Ericameria palmeri ssp. Palmer’s goldenbush None/None/None* 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub; perennial Low potential to occur. Would have been palmeri evergreen shrub/July– November/100– observed during the focused survey. 2,000 feet Eryngium aristulatum var. San Diego button- FE/SE/ Covered* 1B.1 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill Low potential to occur; habitat is marginal, parishii celery grassland, vernal pools, mesic/annual- and it was not observed during the focused perennial herb/April–June/60–2,000 feet survey. Eryngium pendletonense Pendleton button- None/None/None 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill Low potential to occur based on lack of celery grassland, vernal pools; clay, vernally suitable habitat and soils in the study area, mesic/perennial herb/April–June/50–360 and it was not observed during the focused feet survey. Erysimum ammophilum Sand-loving wallflower None/None/None 1B.2 Maritime chaparral, coastal dunes, Low potential to occur based on lack of coastal scrub; sandy, suitable habitat and sandy soils in the study openings/perennial herb/February– area, and it was not observed during the June/<200 feet focused survey. Euphorbia misera Cliff spurge None/None/Covered* 2.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, Low potential to occur. Would have been Mojavean desert scrub; observed during the focused survey. rocky/shrub/December–August/30– 1,650 feet Ferocactus viridescens San Diego barrel None/None/Covered* 2.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and Low potential to occur. Would have been cactus foothill grassland, vernal pools/perennial observed during the focused survey. stem succulent/May–June/<1,500 feet

6965 C-5 July 2013 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Federal/State/Proposed Primary Habitat Associations/ Coverage under Final CRPR Life Form/Blooming Period/ Status on Site Scientific Name Common Name Oceanside HCP-NCCP* List Elevation Range or Potential to Occur Harpagonella palmeri Palmer’s grapplinghook None/None/None* 4.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and Low potential to occur based on lack of foothill grassland; clay/annual suitable habitat and soils in the study area, herb/March–May/60–3,100 feet and it was not observed during the focused survey. Hazardia orcuttii Orcutt’s hazardia FC/ST/Covered* 1B.1 Maritime chaparral, coastal scrub; often Low potential to occur. Would have been clay/evergreen shrub/August– observed during the focused survey. October/250–280 feet Heterotheca sessiliflora ssp. Beach goldenaster None/None/None 1B.1 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, coastal Not expected. Outside of known elevation sessiliflora chaparral/annual herb/July– range. November/<35 feet Horkelia truncata Ramona horkelia None/None/None 1B.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, clay, Not expected. Outside of known elevation gabbroic/perennial herb/May– range. June/1,300–4,300 feet Isocoma menziesii var. Decumbent None/None/None 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub (sandy, often Low potential to occur. Would have been decumbens goldenbush disturbed areas)/shrub/April– observed during the focused survey. November/30–450 feet Iva hayesiana San Diego marsh-elder None/None/Covered* 2.2 Marshes and swamps, playas/perennial Low potential to occur. Conspicuous herb/April–November/30–1,650 feet perennial herb would have been observed during the focused survey if present. Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii Southwestern spiny None/None/None* 4.2 Coastal dunes (mesic), meadows and Low potential to occur. Would have been rush alkaline seeps, coastal saltwater observed during the focused survey. marshes and swamps/rhizomatous herb/May–June/<3,000 feet Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulter’s goldfields None/None/None 1B.1 Saltwater marsh and swamps, playas, Low potential to occur based on lack of coulteri vernal pools/annual herb/February– suitable saltwater marsh habitat in the June/<4,000 feet study area, and it was not observed during the focused survey. Lepechinia cardiophylla Heart-leaved pitcher None/None/None* 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, Not expected. Outside of known elevation sage closed-cone coniferous forest; perennial range. shrub/April–June/1,700–4,500 feet

6965 C-6 July 2013 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Federal/State/Proposed Primary Habitat Associations/ Coverage under Final CRPR Life Form/Blooming Period/ Status on Site Scientific Name Common Name Oceanside HCP-NCCP* List Elevation Range or Potential to Occur Lepidium virginicum var. Robinson’s pepper- None/None/None 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub/annual Low potential to occur based on marginal robinsonii grass herb/January–July/<2,900 feet habitat in the study area, and it was not observed during the focused survey. Leptosyne (=Coreopsis) Sea dahlia None/None/None 2.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal Low potential to occur based on lack of maritima scrub/perennial herb/March–May/15– suitable habitat and soils in the study area, 500 feet and it was not observed during the focused survey. Lotus nuttallianus Nuttall’s lotus None/None/Covered* 1B.1 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub; Low potential to occur based on lack of sandy/annual herb/March–June/<35 feet suitable habitat and soils in the study area, and it was not observed during the focused survey. Monardella hypoleuca ssp. Felt-leaved monardella None/None/None* 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane Not expected. Outside of known elevation lanata woodland/rhizomatous herb/June– range. August/1,000–3,600 feet Myosurus minimus ssp. Little mousetail None/None/Covered* 3.1 Vernal pools, valley and foothill Low potential to occur based on lack of apus grassland; alkaline/annual herb/March– suitable habitat and alkaline soils in the June/60–2,100 feet study area, and it was not observed during the focused survey. Nama stenocarpum Mud nama None/None/None 2.2 Marshes and swamps, lake margins, Low potential to occur. There is marginal riverbanks/annual-perennial habitat in the study area; however, it was herb/January–July/15–1,650 feet not observed during the focused survey. Navarretia fossalis Spreading navarretia FT/None/None 1B.1 Chenopod scrub, shallow freshwater Low potential to occur. There is some suitable marshes and swamps, playas, vernal habitat in the study area; however, it was not pools/annual herb/April–June/100–4,300 observed during the focused survey. This feet species is conspicuous, and surveys were conducted during its bloom period; therefore, it is not expected to occur. Navarretia prostrata Prostrate vernal pool None/None/None 1B.1 Coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, Low potential to occur. There is some suitable navarretia valley and foothill grassland, vernal habitat in the study area; however, it was not pools/annual herb/April–July/50–3,970 observed during the focused survey. This feet species is conspicuous, and surveys were conducted during its bloom period; therefore, it is not expected to occur.

6965 C-7 July 2013 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Federal/State/Proposed Primary Habitat Associations/ Coverage under Final CRPR Life Form/Blooming Period/ Status on Site Scientific Name Common Name Oceanside HCP-NCCP* List Elevation Range or Potential to Occur Nemacaulis denudata var. Coast woolly-heads None/None/None 1B.2 Coastal dunes/annual herb/April– Low potential to occur based on lack of denudata September/<330 feet suitable habitat and soils in the study area, and it was not observed during the focused survey. Nemacaulis denudata var. Slender cottonheads None/None/None 2.2 Coastal dunes, desert dunes, Sonoran Low potential to occur based on lack of gracilis desert scrub/annual herb/(March) April– suitable habitat and soils in the study area, May/160–1,300 feet and it was not observed during the focused survey. Nolina cistmontana Chaparral nolina None/None/None 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub; sandstone or Low potential to occur. Would have been gabbro/evergreen shrub/May–July/460– observed during the focused survey. 4,200 feet Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass FE/SE/Covered* 1B.1 Vernal pools/annual herb/April– Low potential to occur based on lack of August/50–2,200 feet suitable habitat in the study area, and it was not observed during the focused survey. Orobanche parishii ssp. Short-lobed broomrape None/None/None 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, Low potential to occur based on lack of brachyloba coastal scrub; sandy/perennial herb suitable habitat and soils in the study area, parasitic/April–October/<1,000 feet and it was not observed during the focused survey. Packera (=Senecio) ganderi Gander’s ragwort None/SR/None 1B.2 Chaparral (burns and gabbroic Not expected to occur based on lack of outcrops)/perennial herb/April– suitable habitat in the study area, and the June/1,300–4,000 feet project site is outside of its known elevation range. Phacelia stellaris Brand’s star phacelia FC/None/None 1B.1 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub/annual Low potential to occur based on lack of herb/March–June/<1,300 feet suitable habitat in the study area, and it was not observed during the focused survey. Pinus torreyana spp. Torrey pine None/None/Covered 1B.2 Closed-cone conifer forest, chaparral; Low potential to occur. Would have been torreyana sandstone/evergreen tree/NA/250–550 observed during the focused survey. feet

6965 C-8 July 2013 APPENDIX C (Continued)

Status Federal/State/Proposed Primary Habitat Associations/ Coverage under Final CRPR Life Form/Blooming Period/ Status on Site Scientific Name Common Name Oceanside HCP-NCCP* List Elevation Range or Potential to Occur Quercus dumosa Nuttall’s scrub oak None/None/Covered* 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, closed-cone Low potential to occur. Would have been coniferous forest; sandy, clay observed during the focused survey. loam/evergreen shrub/February–April/ 50–1,300 feet Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak None/None/None 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, Low potential to occur. Would have been riparian woodland, valley and foothill observed during the focused survey. grassland/deciduous tree/March– June/400–4,250 feet Selaginella cinerascens Ashy spike-moss None/None/None* 4.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub; perennial Low potential to occur based on lack of rhizomatous herb/65–2,100 feet suitable habitat in the study area, and it was not observed during the focused survey. Senecio ganderi Gander’s butterweed None/SR/None 1B.2 Chaparral; perennial herb/April– Not expected. Outside of known elevation June/1,312–3,837 feet range. Stemodia durantifolia Purple stemodia None/None/None 2.1 Sonoran desert scrub; often mesic, Not expected. Outside of known elevation sandy/perennial herb /January– range. December/600–1,000 feet Suaeda esteroa Estuary seablite None/None/None 1B.2 Coastal salt marshes and Not expected. Outside of known elevation swamps/perennial herb/May–October range. (Jan)/<20 feet Tetracoccus dioicus Parry’s tetracoccus None/None/None 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub/deciduous Not expected. Outside of known elevation shrub/April–May/550–3,300 feet range. Would have been observed during the focused survey. List consists of all plant species on Tables 3-3 and 3-4 of the Final Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009) and additional CRPR 1 and 2 species in Oceanside, San Luis Rey, and surrounding U.S. Geological Service (USGS) quadrangles.

Legend (Status updated August 2012) Status: Federal FE: Federally listed as Endangered FT: Federally listed as Threatened State SE: State-listed as Endangered ST: State-listed as Threatened

6965 C-9 July 2013 APPENDIX C (Continued)

SR: State rare CRPR: California Rare Plant Rank 1A (formerly List 1A): Plants Presumed Extinct in California 1B (formerly List 1B): Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere 2 (formerly List 2): Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere 3 (formerly List 3): Plants About Which We Need More Information—A Review List 4 (formerly List 4): Plants of Limited Distribution—A Watch List 0.1: Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2: Fairly threatened in California (20%–80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 0.3: Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)

Final Oceanside HCP/NCCP Covered— Proposed Covered species under Final Subarea Plan. * Species included in Table 3-3 of the Final Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009).

6965 C-10 July 2013

APPENDIX D 2011 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project

January 19, 2012 6965-05

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attn: Recovery Permit Coordinator 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 100 Carlsbad, California 92011

Subject: 2011 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project, San Diego County, California

Dear Recovery Permit Coordinator:

This report documents the results of eight protocol-level presence/absence surveys for the state- and federally listed endangered least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; vireo), and the state- and federally listed endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; flycatcher). These focused surveys were conducted within approximately 16 acres of suitable habitat within a portion of the North Avenue Channel Protection Project study area along a 1,000-foot segment of Loma Alta Creek. The surveys were conducted in all areas of suitable vireo and flycatcher habitat located within 500 feet of the proposed channel protection project design alternatives.

The southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo are closely associated with riparian habitats, especially densely vegetated willow scrub and riparian forest vegetation. These species are threatened primarily by loss, degradation, and fragmentation of riparian habitats. They also are impacted by brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) nest parasitism.

LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

The North Avenue Channel Protection Project study area occurs along Loma Alta Creek parallel to North Avenue from north of Esperanza Way to south of Vista Pacific Drive, in the eastern portion of the City of Oceanside, San Diego County, California (Figure 1). The proposed project study area is situated on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute San Luis Rey quadrangle, Township 11 South, Range 4 West, in Sections 14 and 23 (Figure 2).

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

Based on project-specific vegetation community mapping conducted in 2011, the 16-acre survey area in the project study area contains two southern riparian vegetation communities: restored

6965-05 1 November 2011 Recovery Permit Coordinator Subject: 2011 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project, San Diego County, California mulefat scrub and southern willow scrub (Figure 3). Native uplands communities, disturbed habitat and development, disturbed freshwater marsh, and open channel also occur within the survey area. Suitable riparian vegetation communities occurring within the 16-acre survey area are described below.

Mulefat Scrub

Mule fat scrub is an herbaceous riparian scrub dominated by mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) that occurs along intermittent stream channels with generally coarse substrate and a moderate depth to the water table (Holland 1986). Frequent flooding and/or scouring apparently maintain this community in an early successional state. Characteristic plant species in this community include mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), Santa Barbara sedge (Carex barbarae), willow (Salix spp.), and giant stinging nettle (Urtica holosericea) (Holland 1986). On site, this community has been restored and occurs in a small area approximately 0.04 acre within the northwestern portion of the study area.

Southern Willow Scrub

According to Holland (1986), southern willow scrub has been described as a dense, broad-leafed, winter-deciduous riparian thicket dominated by several species of willow (Salix spp.), with scattered emergent Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Most stands are too dense to allow much understory development. This habitat is considered seral due to repeated disturbance/flooding and is therefore unable to develop into the taller southern cottonwood willow riparian forest (Holland 1986). There are 1.2 acres of southern willow scrub at the western end of the study area.

METHODS

Suitable habitat areas within the project study area were surveyed eight times (Table 1) by Dudek wildlife biologists Brock A. Ortega (BAO; Permit # TE 813545), Paul M. Lemons (PML, Permit # TE 051248), and Kamarul J. Muri (KJM) for vireo and flycatcher. Focused surveys for these species were initiated on May 16, 2011, and continued through July 26, 2011.

6965-05 2 January 2012 Recovery Permit Coordinator Subject: 2011 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project, San Diego County, California

Table 1 Survey Conditions

Date Hours Personnel Focus Conditions 5/16/11 0630–0800 BAO LBVI/SWFL 10–60% cc, 0 mph wind, 52°F 5/25/11 0900–1000 KJM LBVI 30%–70% cc, 0–3 mph wind, 65°F 6/6/11 0530–0730 BAO LBVI/SWFL 70% cc, 3–5 mph wind, 53°F–56ºF 6/16/11 0600–0800 BAO LBVI/SWFL 100% cc, 3 mph wind, 61°F–63ºF 6/16/11 0730–0845 KJM LBVI 100% cc, 0–2 mph wind, 62°F 6/27/11 0630–0830 BAO LBVI/SWFL 90–100% cc, 0–3 mph wind, 63°F–65°F 7/7/11 0600–0830 PML LBVI/SWFL 0% cc, 0–2 mph wind, 66°F–74°F 7/26/11 0830–0945 KJM LBVI 0%–20% cc, 1–4 mph wind, 70°F

Areas surveyed in 2011 included suitable habitat along the Loma Alta Creek, parallel to North Avenue (Figure 3). A total of approximately 500 linear feet of suitable habitat is within the survey area. The entire linear length of suitable habitat surveyed was approximately 1.0 kilometer.

Surveys for flycatcher were conducted concurrently with the vireo surveys. All surveys consisted of slowly walking a methodical, meandering transect within and adjacent to all riparian habitat on site. The perimeter also was surveyed. This route was arranged to cover all suitable habitat on site (depicted on Figure 3). A vegetation map (1 inch=100 feet) of the project site was available to record any detected vireo or flycatcher. Binoculars (7×50; 10×42; 10×50) were used to aid in detecting and identifying wildlife species.

The five surveys conducted for flycatcher followed the currently accepted protocol (Sogge et al., 1997 in conjunction with the 2000 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Protocol Revision issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)), which states that a minimum of five survey visits is needed to evaluate project effects on flycatchers. It is recommended that one survey is made during the period from May 15–31, one survey from June 1–21, and three surveys between June 22 and July 17. A tape of recorded flycatcher vocalizations was used, approximately every 50– 100 feet within suitable habitat, to induce flycatcher responses. If a flycatcher had been detected, playing of the tape would have ceased to avoid harassment.

A Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is not required to conduct presence/absence surveys for vireo. The eight surveys for vireo followed the currently accepted Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2001), which states that a minimum of eight survey visits should be made to all riparian areas and any other potential vireo habitats during the period from April 10 to July 31. The site visits are required to be conducted at least 10 days apart to maximize the detection of

6965-05 3 January 2012 Recovery Permit Coordinator Subject: 2011 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project, San Diego County, California early and late arrivals, females, non-vocal birds, and nesting pairs. Taped playback of vireo vocalizations were not used during the surveys. Surveys were conducted between dawn and 1200 and were not conducted during periods of excessive or abnormal cold, heat, wind, rain, or other inclement weather.

Weather conditions, time of day and season were appropriate for the detection of flycatcher and vireo (Table 1).

RESULTS

No least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher were observed during the focused surveys. One special-status species was observed: yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), a CDFG Species of Special Concern (Figure 3). In addition, brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) was observed along Loma Alta Creek.

Fifty-eight wildlife species were observed during the focused surveys. A full list of wildlife species observed during the survey is provided in Appendix A. Data forms (USFWS 2004) for willow flycatcher are included as Appendix B.

Please feel free to contact me at 760.479.4254 with questions or if you require additional information.

Sincerely,

______Brock A. Ortega Paul Lemons Kamarul Muri Senior Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Biologist

Att: Figures 1–3 Appendices A–B

6965-05 4 November 2011 Recovery Permit Coordinator Subject: 2011 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project, San Diego County, California

REFERENCES

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game.

Sogge, M.K., R.M. Marshall, S.J. Sferra, and T.J. Tibbitts. 1997. A southwestern willow flycatcher natural history summary and survey protocol. National Park Service. U.S. Department of Interior.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Protocol Revision 2000. July 11.

USFWS. 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. January 19.

USFWS. 2004. Willow Flycatcher Survey and Detection Form (revised). April.

6965-05 5 November 2011 g

San Juan 111 Temecula 195 1 Capistrano 371 Dana Orange Point San County Salton Clemente San Diego Riverside County Sea County Rainbow San Diego County

5 Fallbrook 15 79 76 Camp Pendleton North 86 Bonsall Project Site Camp Pendleton Hidden Borrego South Valley Oceanside Meadows Springs Vista Center

San Marcos Escondido Carlsbad

78 Julian Encinitas Ramona San Diego Country Poway Estates

San Diego County Diego San

56 County Imperial Pacific 67

805 Ocean San Diego Santee 52 Lakeside Alpine Pine 8 Valley 5 163 Harbison 274 Canyon El Cajon La Casa de 15 Mesa Oro-Mount Helix Rancho San Lemon Spring Diego 8 Grove Valley Jamul 209 Coronado National Bonita 98 Boulevard City Chula 75 Vista Campo Jacumba 94 Imperial Beach 905 01510 5 MEXICO Miles

FIGURE 1 Regional Map 6965-01 North Avenue Channel Protection Project - Least Bell s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report Study Area

78 0 1,000 2,000 Feet

SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series San Luis Rey Quadrangle. FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map 6965-01 North Avenue Channel Protection Project - Least Bell s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report CBS

OC-DEV

DIST

DEV

dCSS DEV

DEV DEV DIST MFS-R

dCBS Yellow Warbler

dFWM SurveyRoute Project Boundary Project Boundary 100ft. buffer SWS and 500ft. Upstream/Downstream Vegetation Communities CBS, Coyote Brush Scrub DEV, Developed DIST, Disturbed MFS-R, Mulefat Scrub-Restored OC-DEV, Open Channel-Developed SWS, Southern Willow Scrub dCBS, disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub dCSS, disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub dFWM, disturbed Freshwater Marsh 0 100 200 Feet

SOURCE: Bing Maps 2011 FIGURE 3 Survey Results 6965-01 North Avenue Channel Protection Project - Least Bell s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report

APPENDIX A Wildlife Species Observed in Study Area

WILDLIFE SPECIES -VERTEBRATES

AMPHIBIANS

HYLIDAE - TREEFROGS Pseudacris cadaverina or Hyla regilla - treefrog

RANIDAE - TRUE FROGS * Rana catesbeiana - bullfrog

REPTILES

IGUANIDAE - IGUANID LIZARDS Sceloporus occidentalis - western fence lizard

ANGUIDAE - ALLIGATOR LIZARDS Elgaria multicarinata - southern alligator lizard

BIRDS

ARDEIDAE – HERONS, BITTERNS, AND ALLIES Bubulcus ibis - cattle egret Ardea alba - great egret Egretta thula - snowy egret Nycticorax nycticorax - black-crowned night-heron

THRESKIORNITHIDAE – IBISES AND SPOONBILLS Plegadis chihi - white-faced ibis

ANATIDAE – DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS Anas platyrhynchos - mallard

ACCIPITRIDAE – HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES, AND ALLIES Buteo jamaicensis - red-tailed hawk Buteo lineatus - red-shouldered hawk

FALCONIDAE – CARACARAS AND FALCONS Falco sparverius - American kestrel

6965-05 A-1 November 2011 APPENDIX A (Continued)

COLUMBIDAE - PIGEONS AND DOVES * Columba livia - rock pigeon Zenaida macroura - mourning dove

TROCHILIDAE - HUMMINGBIRDS Calypte anna - Anna's hummingbird

PICIDAE – WOODPECKERS AND ALLIES Picoides nuttallii - Nuttall's woodpecker

TYRANNIDAE - TYRANT FLYCATCHERS Empidonax difficilis - Pacific-slope flycatcher

Sayornis nigricans - black phoebe

Tyrannus vociferans - Cassin's kingbird

HIRUNDINIDAE - SWALLOWS Petrochelidon pyrrhonota - cliff swallow

CORVIDAE – CROWS AND JAYS Aphelocoma californica - western scrub-jay Corvus brachyrhynchos - American crow Corvus corax - common raven

AEGITHALIDAE – LONG-TAILED TITS AND BUSHTITS Psaltriparus minimus - bushtit

TROGLODYTIDAE - WRENS Thryomanes bewickii - Bewick's wren Troglodytes aedon - house wren

TURDIDAE - THRUSHES Sialia mexicana - western bluebird

SYLVIIDAE – SYLVIID WARBLERS Chamaea fasciata - wrentit

MIMIDAE – MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS Mimus polyglottos - northern mockingbird

6965-05 A-2 November 2011 APPENDIX A (Continued)

STURNIDAE - STARLINGS * Sturnus vulgaris - European starling

PARULIDAE – WOOD-WARBLERS Dendroica coronata - yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica petechia - yellow warbler Geothlypis trichas - common yellowthroat

EMBERIZIDAE - EMBERIZIDS Melospiza melodia - song sparrow Melozone crissalis - California towhee Pipilo maculatus - spotted towhee

ICTERIDAE - BLACKBIRDS Agelaius phoeniceus - red-winged blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus - Brewer's blackbird Icterus bullockii - Bullock’s oriole Molothrus ater - brown-headed cowbird Quiscalus mexicanus - great-tailed grackle

FRINGILLIDAE – FRINGILLINE AND CARDUELINE FINCHES AND ALLIES Carpodacus mexicanus - house finch Spinus psaltria - lesser goldfinch Spinus tristis - American goldfinch

PASSERIDAE - OLD WORLD SPARROWS * Passer domesticus - house sparrow

MAMMALS

LEPORIDAE - HARES AND RABBITS Sylvilagus bachmani - brush rabbit

SCIURIDAE - SQUIRRELS Spermophilus beecheyi - California ground squirrel

CANIDAE - WOLVES AND FOXES Canis latrans - coyote

6965-05 A-3 November 2011 APPENDIX A (Continued)

FISH

CYPRINIDAE – MINNOW FAMILY * minnow

POECILIDAE – LIVE-BEARING FISH * Gambusia sp. – mosquitofish

WILDLIFE SPECIES - INVERTEBRATES

BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS

PAPILIONIDAE - SWALLOWTAILS Papilio zelicaon - anise swallowtail

PIERIDAE - WHITES AND SULFURS Anthocharis sara sara - Pacific sara orangetip Pieris rapae - cabbage white Pontia protodice - checkered white

NYMPHALIDAE - BRUSH-FOOTED BUTTERFLIES Nymphalis antiopa – mourning cloak

CRUSTACEANS

ASTACOIDEA – CRAYFISH * crayfish sp.

* signifies introduced (non-native) species

6965-05 A-4 November 2011

APPENDIX B Willow Flycatcher Data Forms

APPENDIX E Site Photos

1. View looking east (upstream) along newly constructed channel circa 1985 when areas south of North Avenue were developed for residential uses.

2. View looking east at concrete drop structure located at the upstream end of newly constructed channel circa 1985.

6965 E-1 July 2013 APPENDIX E (Continued)

3. View looking west (downstream) from above the concrete drop structure at the upstream end of the study area circa 1985.

4. View of channel bottom at transition from concrete drop structure to unlined channel circa 1985.

6965 E-2 July 2013 APPENDIX E (Continued)

5. View looking approximately southeast showing conditions in newly constructed channel circa 1985.

6. View looking west (downstream) of showing conditions on channel side slopes along newly constructed channel circa 1985.

6965 E-3 July 2013 APPENDIX E (Continued)

7. Channel looking east from middle portion of study area.

8. Channel looking east from downstream end of study area.

6965 E-4 July 2013 APPENDIX E (Continued)

9. Channel looking west from middle portion of study area.

10. Disturbed conditions along channel including invasive non-native species.

6965 E-5 July 2013 APPENDIX E (Continued)

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6965 E-6 July 2013

APPENDIX F Special-Status Wildlife Species Not Expected or with Low Potential to Occur in Project Area

Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/Other1 Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Amphibians Anaxyrus [=Bufo] californicus Arroyo toad FE/SSC/Covered/* Stream channels for breeding Not expected to occur. The stream channel (typically 3rd order); adjacent stream does not support sandy bars or banks terraces and uplands for foraging and suitable for arroyo toads. wintering Reptiles Aspidoscelis hyperythra Orange-throated whiptail None/SSC/Covered/* Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, Low potential to occur. The native habitat grassland, juniper and oak woodland on site is limited, disturbed, and isolated from off-site suitable habitat areas by urban development. Crotalus ruber Red-diamond None/SSC/None/* Variety of shrub habitats where there Low potential to occur. The native habitat rattlesnake is heavy brush, large rocks, or on site is limited, disturbed, and isolated boulders from off-site suitable habitat areas by urban development. Phrynosoma blainvilleii Blainville’s horned lizard None/SSC/None/* Coastal sage scrub, annual grassland, Low potential to occur. The native habitat chaparral, oak and riparian woodland, on site is limited, disturbed, and isolated coniferous forest from off-site suitable habitat areas by urban development. Plestiodon skiltonianus Coronado skink None/SSC/None/* Grassland, riparian and oak woodland; Low potential to occur. The native habitat interparietalis found in litter, rotting logs, under flat on site is limited, disturbed, and isolated stones from off-site suitable habitat areas by urban development. Salvadora hexalepis virgultea Coast patch-nosed None/SSC/None/* Chaparral, washes, sandy flats, rocky Low potential to occur. The native habitat snake areas on site is limited, disturbed, and isolated from off-site suitable habitat areas by urban development. Birds Accipiter striatus (nesting) Sharp-shinned hawk None/WL/None/* Nests in coniferous forests, ponderosa This species does not nest in San Diego pine, black oak, riparian deciduous, County. This species has potential to mixed conifer, Jeffrey pine; winters in forage in the project area during the non- lowland woodlands and other habitats breeding season.

6965 F-1 July 2013 APPENDIX F (Continued)

Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/Other1 Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Agelaius tricolor (nesting Tricolored blackbird BCC/SSC/None/* Nests near freshwater, emergent Not expected to occur. The freshwater colony) wetland with cattails or tules; forages marsh in the project area is very small and in grasslands, woodland, agriculture scours frequently. This species is not expected to nest on site. Aimophila ruficeps canescens Southern California None/WL/Covered/* Grass-covered hillsides, coastal sage Low potential to occur. The native habitat rufous-crowned sparrow scrub, chaparral with boulders and on site is limited, disturbed, and isolated outcrops from off-site suitable habitat areas by urban development. Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow None/SSC/None/* Open grassland and prairie, especially Low potential to occur. The native habitat (nesting) native grassland with a mix of grasses on site is limited, disturbed, and isolated and forbs from off-site suitable habitat areas by urban development. Amphispiza belli bell (nesting) Bell’s sage sparrow BCC/WL/Covered/* Coastal sage scrub and dry chaparral Low potential to occur. The native habitat along coastal lowlands and inland on site is limited, disturbed, and isolated valleys from off-site suitable habitat areas by urban development. This species usually occurs in large, contiguous habitat patches. Aquila chrysaetos (nesting and Golden eagle BCC/WL, P/Covered/* Open country, especially hilly and Not expected to occur. There is no suitable nonbreeding/wintering) mountainous regions; grassland, foraging or nesting habitat in the study coastal sage scrub, chaparral, oak area. The study area is highly urbanized. savannas, open coniferous forest Ardea herodias (nesting) Great blue heron None/SA/None/* Variety of habitats, but primarily Not expected to nest on site. The southern wetlands; lakes, rivers, marshes, willow scrub adjacent to the project site is mudflats, estuaries, saltmarsh, riparian dense and does not provide suitable habitats. nesting habitat. This species could occasionally forage on site. Asio flammeus (nesting) Short-eared owl None/SSC/None/* Grassland, prairies, dunes, meadows, Not expected to nest on site. The project irrigated lands, saline and freshwater area does not support suitable nesting emergent wetlands habitat and is in a very urbanized environment. Asio otus (nesting) Long-eared owl None/SSC/None/* Riparian, live oak thickets, other dense Not expected to nest on site. The project stands of trees, edges of coniferous area does not support suitable nesting forest habitat and is in a very urbanized environment.

6965 F-2 July 2013 APPENDIX F (Continued)

Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/Other1 Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Athene cunicularia (burrows Burrowing owl BCC/SSC/None/* Grassland, lowland scrub, agriculture, Low potential to occur. The project area and some wintering sites) coastal dunes and other artificial open supports a small amount of suitable scrub areas habitat and is highly urbanized. Buteo regalis (wintering) Ferruginous hawk BCC/WL/None/* Open, dry country, grasslands, open Low potential to occur. The project area is fields, agriculture in a very urbanized environment with very limited open area for foraging. Buteo swainsoni (nesting) Swainson’s hawk BCC/ST/None/* Open grassland, shrublands, No potential to nest. The project area is in croplands a very urbanized environment with very limited open area for foraging. Campylorhynchus Coastal cactus wren BCC/SSC/Covered/* Southern cactus scrub, maritime Not expected to occur due to lack of brunneicapillus sandiegensis succulent scrub, cactus thickets in suitable cactus thickets in the project area (San Diego and Orange coastal sage scrub and isolation from suitable off-site habitat Counties only) area by urban development. Charadrius alexandrinus Western snowy plover FT, BCC/SSC/Covered/* Nests primarily on coastal beaches, in Not expected to occur due to absence of nivosus (nesting) (coastal population) flat open areas, with sandy or saline suitable nesting habitat in project area. substrates; less commonly in salt pans, dredged spoil disposal sites, dry salt ponds and levees Charadrius montanus Mountain plover BCC, PFT/SSC/None/* Nests in open, shortgrass prairies or Low potential to occur. The project area is (Nonbreeding/wintering) grasslands; winters in shortgrass in a very urbanized environment with plains, plowed fields, open sagebrush, limited habitat. and sandy deserts Chlidonias niger (nesting Black tern None/SSC/None/* Freshwater lakes, marshes, ponds, Not expected to occur due to absence of colony) coastal lagoons nesting habitat. Circus cyaneus (nesting) Northern harrier None/SSC/None/* Open wetlands (nesting), pasture, old Low potential to forage in the scrub in the fields, dry uplands, grasslands, project area; no potential to nest. rangelands, coastal sage scrub Coccyzus americanus Western yellow-billed BCC, FC/SE/None/* Dense, wide riparian woodlands and Very low potential to nest in study area. occidentalis (nesting) cuckoo forest with well-developed There is limited habitat in the southern understories willow scrub adjacent to the project site. This species was not observed during focused protocol surveys for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher in the study area west of the project site.

6965 F-3 July 2013 APPENDIX F (Continued)

Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/Other1 Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Elanus leucurus (nesting) White-tailed kite None/P/None/* Open grasslands, savannah-like Low potential to nest in the southern willow habitats, agriculture, wetlands, oak scrub in the western portion of the project woodlands, riparian area. Moderate potential to occasionally forage over project area. Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern willow FE/SE/Covered/* Riparian woodlands along streams Not expected to occur. Focused protocol (nesting) flycatcher and rivers with mature, dense stands surveys in study area west of the project of willows or alders; may nest in site were negative. thickets dominated by tamarisk Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark None/WL/None/* Open habitats, grassland, rangeland, Not expected to occur due to lack of shortgrass prairie, montane meadows, suitable grassland habitat. coastal plains, fallow grain fields Falco mexicanus (nesting) Prairie falcon BCC/WL/None/* Grassland, savannahs, rangeland, No potential to nest on site due to an agriculture, desert scrub, alpine absence of cliff or bluff nesting habitat. meadows; nest on cliffs or bluffs Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine BCC, (FD)/(SD), Nests on cliffs, buildings, bridges; Very low potential to nest on site due to an (nesting) falcon P/Covered/* forages in wetlands, riparian, absence of cliffs or high structures. May meadows, croplands, especially where occasionally forage on site. waterfowl are present Ixobrychus exilis (nesting) Least bittern BCC/SSC/None/* Dense emergent wetland vegetation, Low potential to occur due to lack of dense sometimes interspersed with woody emergent wetland vegetation. There may vegetation and open water be some suitable patches of emergent vegetation in the southern willow scrub in the western portion of the study area west of the project site. Lanius ludovicianus (nesting) Loggerhead shrike BCC/SSC/None/* Open ground including grassland, Not expected to nest or forage on project coastal sage scrub, broken chaparral, site due to a lack of nesting habitat and agriculture, riparian, open woodland high level of urbanization around the site.

6965 F-4 July 2013 APPENDIX F (Continued)

Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/Other1 Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Larus californicus (nesting California gull None/WL/None/* Along the coast: sandy beaches, Not expected to occur. The project site colony) mudflats, rocky intertidal and pelagic does not support nesting habitat for this areas of marine and estuarine species. habitats, fresh and saline emergent wetlands Inland: lacustrine, riverine, and cropland habitats; landfill dumps; and open lawns in cities; nests in alkali and freshwater lacustrine habitats; adults roost along shorelines, landfills, pastures, and on islands Laterallus jamaicensis California black rail BCC/ST, P/None/* Saline, brackish, and fresh emergent Not expected to occur. The project site coturniculus wetlands does not support habitat for this species. Mycteria americana Wood stork None/SSC/None/* Shallow, relatively warm waters with Not expected to occur. The project site fish for prey; nests colonially does not support habitat for this species. Numenius americanus (nesting) Long-billed curlew BCC/WL/None/* Nests in upland shortgrass prairies Not expected to occur. The project site and wet meadows in northeast does not support nesting habitat for this California; winters in coastal estuaries, species. open grasslands, and croplands Nycticorax nycticorax (nesting Black-crowned night None/None/None/* Marshes, ponds, reservoirs, estuaries; Not expected to nest on site due to lack of colony) heron nests in dense-foliaged trees and suitable trees and emergent wetlands. This dense fresh or brackish emergent species was not observed during surveys, wetlands but could use the site for foraging or the southern willow scrub adjacent to the project site. Pandion haliaetus (nesting) Osprey None/WL/Covered/* Large waters (lakes, reservoirs, rivers) Not expected to occur due to a lack of supporting fish; usually near forest suitable foraging and nesting habitat. habitats, but widely observed along the coast Passerculus sandwichensis Belding’s savannah None/SE/Covered/* Saltmarsh, pickleweed Not expected to occur. The project site beldingi sparrow does not support habitat for this species. Passerculus sandwichensis Large-billed savannah None/SSC/Covered/* Saltmarsh, pickleweed Not expected to occur. The project site rostratus sparrow does not support habitat for this species. (nonbreeding/wintering)

6965 F-5 July 2013 APPENDIX F (Continued)

Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/Other1 Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican None/SSC/None/* Open water, coastal bays, large inland Not expected to occur. The project site (nesting colony) lakes; nests at large lakes in Klamath does not support habitat for this species. Basin; common migrant at Salton Sea and Colorado River, and rare during winter at Salton Sea, Morro Bay, San Diego Bay Pelecanus occidentalis California brown pelican (FD)/(SD), P/Covered/* Open sea, large water bodies, coastal Not expected to occur. The project site californicus (nesting colony and bays, and harbors does not support habitat for this species. communal roosts) Phalacrocorax auritus (nesting Double-crested None/WL/None/* Lakes, rivers, reservoirs, estuaries, Not expected to occur. The project site colony) cormorant ocean; nests in tall trees, rock ledges does not support habitat for this species. on cliffs, rugged slopes Piranga rubra (nesting) Summer tanager None/SSC/None/* Nests in riparian woodland; winter Not expected to occur on site. The project habitats include parks and residential area lacks suitable habitat for this species areas and is outside its known range in San Diego County. Plegadis chihi (rookery site) White-faced ibis None/WL/Covered/* Nests in marsh; winter foraging in Not expected to nest due to lack of suitable shallow lacustrine waters, muddy habitat. Moderate potential to forage in the ground of wet meadows, marshes, study area west of project site. ponds, lakes, rivers, flooded fields, and estuaries Polioptila californica californica Coastal California FT/SSC/Covered/* Coastal sage scrub, coastal sage Very low potential to occur to small amount gnatcatcher scrub–chaparral mix, coastal sage of coastal scrub on the project site. scrub–grassland ecotone, riparian in late summer Rallus longirostris levipes Light-footed clapper rail FE/SE, P/Covered/* Coastal saltmarsh Not expected to occur. The project site does not support habitat for this species. Riparia riparia (nesting) Bank swallow None/ST/None/* Nests in lowland country with soft Not expected to occur due to lack of banks or bluffs; open country and suitable habitat, and projected site is water during migration outside its breeding range. Rynchops niger (nesting colony) Black skimmer BCC/SSC/None/* Roosting takes place on sandy Not expected to occur. The project site beaches or gravel bars; rarely alights does not support habitat for this species. on water; visitor to coastal estuaries and river mouths

6965 F-6 July 2013 APPENDIX F (Continued)

Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/Other1 Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Sternula [=Sterna] antillarum California least tern FE/SE, P/Covered/* Coastal waters, estuaries, large bays Not expected to occur. The project site browni (nesting colony) and harbors, mudflats; nests on sandy does not support habitat for this species. beaches Thalasseus [=Sterna] elegans Elegant tern None/WL/Covered/* Coastal waters, estuaries, large bays Not expected to occur. The project site (nesting colony) and harbors, mudflats does not support habitat for this species. Vireo bellii pusillus (nesting) Least Bell’s vireo FE/SE/Covered/* Nests in southern willow scrub with Not expected to occur. Focused protocol dense cover within 1–2 meters (3–6 surveys in study area west of project site feet) of the ground; habitat includes were negative. willows, cottonwoods, baccharis, wild blackberry or mesquite on desert areas Mammals Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat None/SSC/WBWG:H, Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices No suitable roosting habitat in the study None/* with access to open habitats for area. Low potential to forage in study area. foraging Potential foraging habitat is present, but surrounding area highly urbanized and study area unlikely to be used by this species. Chaetodipus californicus Dulzura pocket mouse None/SSC/None/* Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, Low potential to occur. Some suitable femoralis riparian-scrub ecotone; more mesic habitat is present, but the habitat on site is areas limited in extent and isolated from other suitable areas by urban development. Chaetodipus fallax fallax Northwestern San Diego None/SSC/Covered/* Coastal sage scrub, grassland, sage Low potential to occur. Some suitable pocket mouse scrub–grassland ecotones, sparse habitat is present, but the habitat on site is chaparral; rocky substrates, loams and limited in extent and isolated from other sandy loams suitable areas by urban development. Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican long-tongued None/SSC/WBWG:H, Desert and montane riparian, desert No suitable roosting habitat in the study bat None/* succulent scrub, desert scrub, and area. Low potential to forage in study area. pinyon-juniper woodland; roosts in Potential foraging habitat is present, but caves, mines, and buildings surrounding area highly urbanized and study area unlikely to be used by this species.

6965 F-7 July 2013 APPENDIX F (Continued)

Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/Other1 Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s western big- None/SSC/WBWG:H, Mesic habitats, gleans from brush or No suitable roosting habitat in the study eared bat None/* trees, or feeds along habitat edges area. Low potential to forage in study area. Potential foraging habitat is present, but surrounding area highly urbanized and study area unlikely to be used by this species. Dipodomys stephensi Stephens’ kangaroo rat FE/ST/Covered/* Open habitat, grassland, sparse Not present in study area. Study area coastal sage scrub, sandy loam and supports very little suitable habitat and is loamy soils with low clay content; isolated from the nearest known gentle slopes (<30%) populations on MCB Camp Pendleton and in the Fallbrook area. Euderma maculatum Spotted bat None/SSC/WBWG:H, Arid deserts and grasslands through No suitable roosting habitat in the study None/* mixed conifer forests; roosts in cliffs, area. Low potential to forage in study area. feeds over water and along washes. Potential foraging habitat is present, but surrounding area highly urbanized and study area unlikely to be used by this species Eumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat None/SSC/WBWG:H, Roosts in small colonies in cracks and No suitable roosting habitat in the study None/* small holes, seeming to prefer man- area. Low potential to forage in study area. made structures Potential foraging habitat is present, but surrounding area highly urbanized and study area unlikely to be used by this species. Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat None/None/WBWG:M, Prefers open habitats or habitat No suitable roosting habitat in the study None mosaics with access to trees for cover area. Low potential to forage in study area. and open areas or habitat edges for Potential foraging habitat is present, but feeding surrounding area highly urbanized and study area unlikely to be used by this species. Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat None/SSC/WBWG:H, Desert and montane riparian, desert No suitable roosting habitat in the study None succulent scrub, desert scrub, and area. Low potential to forage in study area. pinyon-juniper woodland. Potential foraging habitat is present, but surrounding area highly urbanized and study area unlikely to be used by this species.

6965 F-8 July 2013 APPENDIX F (Continued)

Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/Other1 Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed None/SSC/Covered/* Arid habitats with open ground; Low potential to occur. Some suitable jackrabbit grasslands, coastal sage scrub, habitat is present, but the habitat on site is agriculture, disturbed areas, limited in extent and isolated from other rangelands suitable areas by urban development. Macrotus californicus California leaf-nosed bat None/SSC/WBWG:H, Desert riparian, desert wash, desert No suitable roosting habitat in the study None/* scrub, desert succulent shrub, alkali area. Low potential to forage in study area. desert scrub, and palm oasis Potential foraging habitat is present, but surrounding area highly urbanized and study area unlikely to be used by this species. This species may be extirpated from western San Diego County. Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis None/None/WBWG:LM, Closely tied to open water, which is No suitable roosting habitat in the study None used for foraging; open forests and area. Low potential to forage in study area. woodlands are optimal habitat Potential foraging habitat is present, but surrounding area highly urbanized and study area unlikely to be used by this species. Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert None/SSC/None/* Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, pinyon- Low potential to occur. Some suitable woodrat juniper woodland with rock outcrops, habitat is present, but the habitat on site is cactus thickets, dense undergrowth limited in extent and isolated from other suitable areas by urban development. Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed free-tailed bat None/SSC/WBWG:M, Rocky desert areas with high cliffs or No suitable roosting habitat in the study None rock outcrops area. Low potential to forage in study area. Potential foraging habitat is present, but surrounding area highly urbanized and study area unlikely to be used by this species. Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer None/None/Covered/* Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, Not expected to occur due to highly riparian, woodlands, forest; often urbanized environment and lack of browses in open areas adjacent to consistent cover throughout Loma Alta cover Creek.

6965 F-9 July 2013 APPENDIX F (Continued)

Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/Other1 Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Onychomys torridus ramona Southern grasshopper None/SSC/None/* Grassland, sparse coastal sage scrub Very low potential to occur. Some suitable mouse habitat is present, but the habitat on site is limited in extent and isolated from other suitable areas by urban development. Species is likely extirpated from urbanized coastal areas of southern California Perognathus longimembris Pacific pocket mouse FE/SSC/Covered/* Grassland, coastal sage scrub with Not present in study area. Site is located pacificus sandy soils; along immediate coast more than 6 miles from coast, which is beyond the range of the species; surrounding area is highly urbanized and isolated from the nearest known populations on MCB Camp Pendleton (Edson Range and Oscar 1). Puma concolor Mountain lion None/None/Covered/* Occupies a wide variety of habitats. Not expected to occur. The project area is in a highly urbanized environment and is not suitable for this species. Taxidea taxus American badger None/SSC/None/* Dry, open treeless areas, grasslands, Not expected to occur. Some suitable coastal sage scrub habitat is present, but the habitat on site is limited in extent and isolated from other suitable areas by urban development. Invertebrates Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp FE/None/Covered/* Small, shallow vernal pools, Not expected to occur. The project site occasionally ditches and road ruts does not support vernal pool habitat. Cicindela hirticollis gravida Sandy beach tiger beetle None/None/None/* Sandy areas adjacent to non-brackish Not expected to occur due to lack of sandy water along California coast; found in soil habitat. dry sand in upper zone Cicindela latesignata obliviosa Oblivious tiger beetle None/None/None/* Inhabited the Southern California Not expected to occur due to lack of coastline, from La Jolla north to the suitable mudflat habitat and known range. Orange Co. line; occupied mudflats in the lower zone Coelus globosus Globose dune beetle None/None/None/* Coastal dunes Not expected to occur due to lack of coastal dune habitat.

6965 F-10 July 2013 APPENDIX F (Continued)

Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State/Other1 Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Euphydryas editha quino Quino checkerspot FE/None/Covered/* Sparsely vegetated hilltops, ridgelines, Not expected to occur due to lack of butterfly occasionally rocky outcrops; host plant suitable habitat; typical host and nectar Plantago erecta and nectar plants plants were not observed during rare plant must be present surveys. Euphyes vestris harbisoni Harbison’s dun skipper None/None/Covered/* Restricted to wetland, riparian, oak Not expected to occur due to lack of woodlands, and chaparral habitats suitable habitat; host plant Carex spissa supporting host plant Carex spissa. was not observed during rare plant surveys. Lycaena hermes Hermes copper None/None/None/* Coastal sage scrub, southern mixed Not expected to occur; the project area chaparral supporting at least 5% cover does not support any Rhamnus crocea. of host plant Rhamnus crocea Panoquina errans Wandering (= saltmarsh) None/None/Covered/* Salt marsh from Los Angeles to Baja, Not expected to occur; the project area skipper Mexico does not support any salt marsh species. Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp FE/None/Covered/* Deep, long-lived vernal pools, vernal Not expected to occur. The project site pool-like seasonal ponds, stock ponds; does not support vernal pool habitat. warm water pools that have low to moderate dissolved solids Fish Eucyclogobius newberryi Tidewater goby FE/SSC/AFS:EN, None/* Low-salinity waters in coastal wetlands Not expected to occur. This species occurs in brackish waters along the coast and its most southern limit of its range is 9.2 miles north of Agua Hedionda (USFWS 2007), which is located north of the project area. Gila orcutti Arroyo chub None/SSC/AFS:VU, Warm, fluctuating streams with slow- Not expected to occur. This species has None moving or backwater sections of warm not been recorded in the San Luis Rey to cool streams at depths > 40 quadrangle (CDFG 2011a). centimeters (~1 foot); substrates of sand or mud List consists of all wildlife species on Tables 3-3 and 3-4 of the Final Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009) and additional special-status species in Oceanside, San Luis Rey, and surrounding U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles (CDFG 2011a).

6965 F-11 July 2013 APPENDIX F (Continued)

Federal Designations (August 2012): BCC Fish and Wildlife Service: Birds of Conservation Concern FC Candidate for federal listing as threatened or endangered (FD) Federally delisted; monitored for 5 years FE Federally listed as Endangered FT Federally listed as Threatened PFT Proposed for listing as Federally Threatened

State Designations: P California Department of Fish and Game Protected and Fully Protected Species SA California Department of Fish and Game Special Animals List SC Candidate for state listing as threatened or endangered (SD) State delisted SE State listed as Endangered SSC California Species of Special Concern ST State listed as Threatened WL California Department of Fish and Game Watch List Other: AFS:E American Fisheries Society Endangered classification AFS:VU American Fisheries Society Vulnerable classification WBWG Western Bat Working Group High Priority species

Final Oceanside HCP/NCCP 1Covered—Covered species under Final Subarea Plan. * Species included in Table 3-3 of the Final Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2009).

6965 F-12 July 2013

APPENDIX G Data Station Forms

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region

Project/Site: North Avenue Channel Protection Project City/County:Oceanside, San Diego Sampling Date: 1.25.12 Applicant/Owner: City of Oceanside State:CA Sampling Point:4 Investigator(s):CJF, PCS Section, Township, Range: Section 23, Township 11 S, Range 4 W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace/channel Local relief (concave, convex, none):None Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR):C - Mediterranean California Lat:33°12'31.87" N Long:117°16'37.29" W Datum:NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Corralitos loamy sand NWI classification: Freshwater emergent wetl Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Data station is located in a wider area of the creek, outside of the main channel, but within the OHWM.

VEGETATION Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata:1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Total Cover: % That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0 % (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1.Typha sp. 80 Yes OBL Prevalence Index worksheet: 2.Baccharis pilularis 1 No Not Listed Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species 80 x 1 = 80 4. FACW species x 2 = 0 5. FAC species x 3 = 0 Total Cover: 81 % FACU species x 4 = 0 Herb Stratum UPL species 1 x 5 = 5 1. Column Totals: 81 (A) 85 (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.05 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Total Cover: % Woody Vine Stratum 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. 2. Total Cover: % Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %% % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Remarks: This is located within a small patch of Typha that is not regularly scoured by surface water flow.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006 SOIL Sampling Point: 4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture3 Remarks 0-10 Gley 1 2.5/N 20 Clay loam 0-10 Gley 1 4/10Y 80 7.5 YR 5/6 MC2 Clay loam

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. 3Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. 4 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Water Depth (inches):10 inches Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Some surface water present in the area.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0-2 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 2 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 2 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West - Version 11-1-2006 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region

Project/Site: North Avenue Channel Protection Project City/County:Oceanside, San Diego Sampling Date: 1.25.12 Applicant/Owner: City of Oceanside State:CA Sampling Point:5 Investigator(s):CJF, PCS Section, Township, Range: Section 23, Township 11 S, Range 4 W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): channel Local relief (concave, convex, none):None Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR):C - Mediterranean California Lat:33°12'31.80" N Long:117°16'37.29" W Datum:NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Corralitos loamy sand NWI classification: Freshwater emergent wetl Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Data station is located within the creek.

VEGETATION Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata:0 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Total Cover: % That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 % (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 0 4. FACW species x 2 = 0 5. FAC species x 3 = 0 Total Cover: % FACU species x 4 = 0 Herb Stratum UPL species x 5 = 0 1. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Total Cover: % Woody Vine Stratum 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. 2. Total Cover: % Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %% % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Remarks: There are patches of Typha sp. (10% cover) growing in the channel, but most of it is dead. The vegetation in the channel is regularly scoured by surface flow and scattered in distribution; therefore, it is not counted toward the hydrophytic vegetation.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006 SOIL Sampling Point: 5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture3 Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. 3Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. 4 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Water Depth (inches):0 inches Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Data station is within active channel. Hydric soils assumed.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0-20 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West - Version 11-1-2006 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region

Project/Site: North Avenue Channel Protection Project City/County:Oceanside, San Diego Sampling Date: 1.25.12 Applicant/Owner: City of Oceanside State:CA Sampling Point:6 Investigator(s):CJF, PCS Section, Township, Range: Section 23, Township 11 S, Range 4 W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): top of bank Local relief (concave, convex, none):None Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR):C - Mediterranean California Lat:33°12'31.69" N Long:117°16'37.22" W Datum:NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Corralitos loamy sand NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

VEGETATION Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata:0 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Total Cover: % That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 % (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 0 4. FACW species x 2 = 0 5. FAC species x 3 = 0 Total Cover: % FACU species x 4 = 0 Herb Stratum UPL species x 5 = 0 1. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Total Cover: % Woody Vine Stratum 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. 2. Total Cover: % Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %% % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Remarks: There is no vegetation at the top of the bank.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006 SOIL Sampling Point: 6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture3 Remarks 0-6 5Y 4/1 100 Clay loam 6-20 5Y 6/2 80 Sandy clay loam 6-20 5Y 4/1 20 Sandy clay loam

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. 3Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. 4 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: There are no redox features in the soil.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West - Version 11-1-2006 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region

Project/Site: North Avenue Channel Protection Project City/County:Oceanside, San Diego Sampling Date: 1.25.12 Applicant/Owner: City of Oceanside State:CA Sampling Point:7 Investigator(s):CJF, PCS Section, Township, Range: Section 23, Township 11 S, Range 4 W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): top of bank Local relief (concave, convex, none):None Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR):C - Mediterranean California Lat:33°12'33.40" N Long:117°16'29.62" W Datum:NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Las Flores loamy fine sand NWI classification: Freshwater emergent wetl Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Data station is above the OHWM.

VEGETATION Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1.Washingtonia filifera 5 No FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0 (A) 2. No FACW Salix lasiolepis 5 Total Number of Dominant 3.Tamarix ramosissima 1 No FAC Species Across All Strata:2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Total Cover: 11 % That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0 % (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1.Baccharis pilularis 15 Yes Not Listed Prevalence Index worksheet: 2.Washingtonia filifera sapling 5 No FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 0 4. FACW species15 x 2 = 30 5. FAC species 1 x 3 = 3 Total Cover: 20 % FACU species 20 x 4 = 80 Herb Stratum UPL species 15 x 5 = 75 1. foeniculum vulgare 20 Yes FACU Column Totals: 51 (A) 188 (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.69 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Total Cover: 20 % Woody Vine Stratum 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. 2. Total Cover: % Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %% % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Remarks: Located within a 50'x50' patch of Sal las, Was fil, Tam ram, Bac pil, and Foe vul. Too small to map out as a separate community.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006 SOIL Sampling Point: 7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture3 Remarks 0-6 5Y 4/1 100 Loam 6-16 5Y 5/2 83 2.5 Y 5/6 MC2 Sandy loam 6-16 5Y 4/1 15 Sandy 16-20 5Y 5/1 77.5 7.5 YR 5/8 MC2.5 Sandy loam 16-20 Gley 1 5/10Y 17.5 7.5 YR 6/8 MC2.5 Sandy loam

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. 3Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. 4 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: 4' from the OHWM.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: No signs of hydrology.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West - Version 11-1-2006 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region

Project/Site: North Avenue Channel Protection Project City/County:Oceanside, San Diego Sampling Date: 1.25.12 Applicant/Owner: City of Oceanside State:CA Sampling Point:8 Investigator(s):CJF, PCS Section, Township, Range: Section 23, Township 11 S, Range 4 W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): channel Local relief (concave, convex, none):None Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR):C - Mediterranean California Lat:33°12'33.32" N Long:117°16'29.57" W Datum:NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Las Flores loamy fine sand NWI classification: Freshwater emergent wetl Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Data station is the creek.

VEGETATION Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata:0 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species Total Cover: % That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 % (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 0 4. FACW species x 2 = 0 5. FAC species x 3 = 0 Total Cover: % FACU species x 4 = 0 Herb Stratum UPL species x 5 = 0 1. Column Totals: (A) 0 (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Total Cover: % Woody Vine Stratum 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. 2. Total Cover: % Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %% % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006 SOIL Sampling Point: 8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture3 Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. 3Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. 4 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 4Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Water Depth (inches):0 inches Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: The data station is within the creek; no soil pit; hydric soils assumed.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0-20 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:The channel is 5-8 feet wide.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West - Version 11-1-2006

APPENDIX H Revegetation, Maintenance and Monitoring Guidelines for the North Avenue Channel Protection Project

NORTH AVENUE CHANNEL PROTECTION RESTORATION/REVEGETATION GUIDELINES

The following guidelines are intended to outline the strategies for restoration and revegetation of portions of Loma Alta Creek affected by the North Avenue Channel Protection project, including channel bottoms, channel side slopes, and adjacent upland areas. Following the completion of the proposed channel protection improvements, all areas disturbed during construction shall be enhanced and/or restored through various revegetation methods, as outlined herein.

1.0 CHANNEL REVEGETATION GUIDELINES

The disturbed areas within the channel protection areas will be prepared for revegetation/planting through a combination of exotic/non-native species removals, soil preparation and finish grading, followed by planting from both container plants, as well as from seeding treatments. The site preparation will include the removal of any non-native invasive/exotic species and preparation of the soil for planting, based upon final soils analysis results. General soil amending will occur throughout all planting areas. Additional soil amending will also occur at the time of container planting, as part of the container planting backfill process. The intent is to correct any nutrient deficiencies in the soil and to provide a proper growing medium for the intended plant materials.

The channel areas will be revegetated with appropriate freshwater marsh and transitional wetland and upland species where appropriate and as shown on the final revegetation construction documents (i.e., plans, details and specifications). All earthen channel and creek bank areas shall receive a combination of container plants, as well as seed. The channel areas receiving rip-rap armoring only, as shown on the engineering plans, will be left open with no plantings installed, so that these areas can function properly for flood flow dispersal/protection. The areas shown to receive vegetated rip-rap treatments will be accomplished through pole cutting installation, in addition to hand seeding.

The revegetation design intent for the restored channel bottom areas is to provide lower growing freshwater marsh plantings that will not preclude adequate flood flow. This will allow the channel bottoms to reestablish with lower growing freshwater marsh species that can be left in place in perpetuity to allow for flood flow over the top of the plants. This will allow for adequate flood flow conveyance without having to remove the vegetation. In addition, riparian tree and shrub species will also be planted along the channel banks to help provide habitat improvement along the edges, which will allow a tree canopy with an understory shrub layer to develop in these areas. The future shading of the edges of the channel area by the riparian species will likely help limit the establishment of extensive freshwater marsh cattail growth. Initially the natural

6965 H-1 July 2013 APPENDIX H (Continued) recruitment of cattails will be allowed to occur, however it will need to be monitored and controlled within the channel bottom areas, during the initial maintenance period, to help encourage the establishment of the lower growing marsh species and to help reduce competition from the cattails. It should be noted that in some instances cattails have been known to block flood flows, causing sediment deposition and the backing-up of the flood waters. Cattails are not being included in the plant palette as they readily naturalize on their own if the conditions are satisfactory to their growth.

The remaining outer and upper transitional margins of the channel area will be seeded with transitional native upland species that can handle the drier conditions. These areas will not receive container plants.

Container plants to be planted within the channel bottom and side slope creek banks will be installed on a spacing of from 2 feet to 8 feet on center, depending upon the particular species and their intended ultimate mature size. The channel bottoms and slopes/creek banks would also be seeded with appropriate seed mixes. The intended plant palette species composition for the container plants and the various spacing on center for each species are shown on Tables 1 through 3. The intended seed mixes for the various restoration/revegetation areas are included in Table 4 through 6.

Table 1 Proposed Channel Bottom Container Plants (Wetland Enhancement Freshwater Marsh Areas)

Wetland Size Spacing Composition Botanical Name Common Name Status* (gallons) (on center feet) (%) Anemopsis californica Yerba Mansa OBL 1 2 feet 20 Eleocharis macrostachya pale spike sedge OBL 1 3 feet 20 Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii Southwestern spiny rush FACW 1 6 feet 10 outer creek bank edges Juncus dubious Mariposa rush FACW 1 4 feet 10 Juncus mexicanus Mexican rush FACW 1 3 feet 10 Schoenoplectus (Scirpus) California bulrush OBL 1 4 feet 10 californicus Schoenoplectus (Scirpus) three-square bulrush OBL 1 3 feet 20 pungens Total 100 * Wetland status refers to classification of plant species as listed in the National Wetlands Plant List, Arid West, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. (Lichvar, Robert W., October 2012)

6965 H-2 July 2013 APPENDIX H (Continued)

Table 2 Proposed Transitional Zone Creek Bank Container Plants (Wetland Enhancement Riparian Areas)

Wetland Size Spacing Composition Botanical Name Common Name Status* (gallons) (on center feet) (%) Artemisia Douglasiana Douglas mugwort FACW 1 2 10 upper margins Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat FACW 1 5 20 lower margins Iva hayesiana San Diego marsh Elder FACW 1 3 20 upper edges Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii Southwestern spiny rush FACW 1 6 10 lower margins Leymus triticoides Creeping wild rye FAC+ 1 2 5 upper margins Muhlenbergia rigens deer grass FACW 1 4 5 upper margins Salix hindsiana Sandbar willow FACW 1 8 30 lower margins Total 100 * Wetland status refers to classification of plant species as listed in the National Wetlands Plant List, Arid West, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. (Lichvar, Robert W., October 2012)

Table 3 Proposed Pole Cuttings for Vegetated Rip-Rap Areas

Spacing Wetland Size (on center Composition Botanical Name Common Name Status* (length) feet) (%) Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat FACW 4ft. 10 50 upper margins Salix hindsiana Sandbar willow FACW 4 ft. 5 50 lower margins Total 100 * Wetland status refers to classification of plant species as listed in the National Wetlands Plant List, Arid West, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. (Lichvar, Robert W., October 2012)

Table 4 Wetland Enhancement Area Hydroseed Mix “A” (Freshwater Marsh Areas and Vegetated Rip/Rap Areas)

Wetland Percent Live Seed Botanical Name Common Name Status* (PLS)2 Lbs. Per Acre Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed FAC 6 2.0 Anemopsis californica Yerba Mansa OBL 50 4.0

6965 H-3 July 2013 APPENDIX H (Continued)

Table 4 Wetland Enhancement Area Hydroseed Mix “A” (Freshwater Marsh Areas and Vegetated Rip/Rap Areas)

Wetland Percent Live Seed Botanical Name Common Name Status* (PLS)2 Lbs. Per Acre Carex spissa San Diego sedge FACW+ 70 3.0 Eleocharis macrostachya pale spike sedge FACW+ 60 3.0 Juncus bufonius toad rush FACW+ 60 3.0 Leymus triticoides 1 Creeping wild rye FAC+ 80 5.0 Total 20.0 * Wetland status refers to classification of plant species as listed in the National Wetlands Plant List, Arid West, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Developpment Center. (Lichvar, Robert W., October 2012) 1 denotes fast-growing annual species to provide quick erosion protection. 2 denotes minimum percent live seed (PLS). This is the minimum quality of the seed (per species) to be accepted for the project.

Table 5 Wetland Enhancement Area Hydroseed Mix “B” (Riparian Transition Areas)

Botanical Name Common Name Percent Live Seed (PLS) 2 Lbs. Per Acre Ambrosia psylostachya 1 Western ragweed 6 2.0 Artemesia douglasiana Douglas mugwort 10 3.0 Artemesia palmeri Palmer sagewort 10 3.0 Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat 3 5.0 Eschscholzia californica1 California poppy 85 1.0 Iva hayesiana San Diego Marsh elder 20 6.0 Lasthenia chrysostoma 1 Goldfields 50 0.5 Phacelia minor 1 Wild Canterbury bells 80 0.5 Pluchea odorata Marsh fleabane 15 2.0 Sisyrinchium bellum Blue-eyed grass 80 1.0 Total Pounds Per Acre 24.0 1 denotes fast-growing annual species to provide quick erosion protection. 2 denotes minimum percent live seed (PLS). This is the minimum quality of the seed (per species) to be accepted for the project.

Table 6 Upland Enhancement Area Hydroseed Mix “C” (Upland Enhancement and Restoration Areas)

Botanical Name Common Name Percent Live Seed (PLS) 2 Lbs. Per Acre Artemisia californica California sagebrush 10 3.0 Castilleja exserta1 Purple owl’s clover 25 0.5 Eriogonum fasciculatum Flat-topped buckwheat 10 6.0 Eschscholzia californica1 California poppy 85 1.0 Distichlis spicata Salt grass 70 2.0

6965 H-4 July 2013 APPENDIX H (Continued)

Table 6 Upland Enhancement Area Hydroseed Mix “C” (Upland Enhancement and Restoration Areas)

Botanical Name Common Name Percent Live Seed (PLS) 2 Lbs. Per Acre Encelia californica California encelia 25 6.0 Isocoma menziesii coast goldenbush 15 2.0 Lotus scoparius deerweed 85 2.0 Lupinus succulentus1 arroyo lupine 90 4.0 Plantago insularis1 Wooly plantain 90 5.0 Salvia melifera black sage 40 3.0 Total Lbs. Per Acre 34.5 Lbs.

Seed will be mixed uniformly in a slurry composed of water, virgin wood fiber mulch, binder and fertilizer at the following rates:

• Seed mixture at indicated pounds per acre. • Virgin wood cellulose fiber mulch at 2,500 pounds per acre. • ‘Az-tac’ binder at 100 pounds per acre (for incorporation into the hydroseed slurry mix only during the months of October through March). • A fertilizer and/or other soil amendments determined by the recommendations of the agricultural soil suitability analysis of site collected soil samples. Collected following soil rough grading.

All revegetation areas receiving container plants shall be temporarily irrigated to assure survival of the installed container plants and seed. If adequate soil moisture is present within the drainage channel, then supplemental irrigation will not be required. All necessary irrigation shall be connected to the adjacent water source. Additional irrigation circuits that might be needed for the revegetation areas shall be set-up to be independently controlled. Any recycled water irrigation systems shall be designed and approved per local County Department of Environmental Health requirements for recycled water irrigation use. All temporary irrigation systems shall be removed prior to the end of the designated maintenance period. The revegetation treatment areas are graphically shown on Figure 9 of the biological resources technical report for the project.

2.0 MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES

Once the revegetation areas are installed and the installation is certified as complete, a 120-day plant establishment maintenance period will begin. The maintenance contractor will maintain all planting areas during this initial 120-day period to assure survival of all container plants, adequate maintenance of the irrigation systems and to verify successful germination of the seed

6965 H-5 July 2013 APPENDIX H (Continued)

mix. At the successful completion of the 120-day period, an additional 3-year maintenance period will begin. The maintenance contractor, or other city designated maintenance crews, will maintain the revegetation areas for a period of 3 years from the time of successful completion of the installation and upon fulfillment of the 120-day plant establishment maintenance period. The contractor will maintain the area on behalf of the City of Oceanside, and will implement the maintenance recommendations provided by the biological monitor, in accordance with the maintenance guidelines outlined herein.

General maintenance work items to be completed during the designated maintenance period will focus on the survival and establishment of the intended wetland plantings, dead plant replacements, weed control/removal, irrigation system adjustments, and trash and debris removal. Weed species removals will focus on the commonly observed annual weeds such as: sour clover (Melilotus spp.), mustard (Brassica spp.), bristly ox-tongue (Soncus aster), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and non-native grasses. Non-native exotic species removals will focus on the commonly observed perennial species such as: palms (Washingtonia spp., Phoenix spp.), pampas grass (Cortedaria selloweana), caster bean (Ricinus communis), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus) and salt cedar (Tamarisk spp.).

The maintenance contractor should also be on the alert for any other highly invasive/exotic species such as, perennial pepper weed (Lepidium latifolium), which has been known to invade native wetland areas. Maintenance crews should watch for any potential occurrences of highly invasive species, per the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), California Invasive Plant Inventory, while conducting regular maintenance visits. If any highly invasive species are detected then specific control measures for the particular species to be controlled will need to be implemented.

The contractor shall watch for any sparsely vegetated areas. The irrigation systems should be evaluated/adjusted to ensure adequate coverage of the intended revegetation areas. All sparse areas that have not adequately germinated shall be re-seeded with the appropriate native seed mix, and the areas shall be fertilized with a general balanced fertilizer to enhance plant growth and establishment.

Weeds and non-native exotic species on all surrounding upland areas shall be controlled as necessary to help minimize the spread of weeds and exotics into the restoration/revegetation areas. The maintenance contractor for the wetland areas shall coordinate with the maintenance contractor for any adjacent ornamental areas to assure adequate weeding and exotics control.

Trash and debris removal shall be accomplished periodically within the restoration/revegetation areas, as necessary. Most of the trash and debris found on site will likely accumulate at the storm drain outfall locations and within rip-rap areas after storm events. All trash and debris should be removed on a regular basis at each regularly scheduled maintenance visit.

6965 H-6 July 2013 APPENDIX H (Continued)

Holes and gaps in any perimeter fencing should be mended as necessary to keep people out of the restoration/revegetation areas. Signage should be maintained and repaired as necessary.

Long-Term Maintenance and Site Protection

After completion of the 3-year maintenance program (i.e., 3 year period to start after completion of the initial 120-day plant establishment period) no ongoing maintenance work is anticipated. However, if vegetative growth becomes too thick in the channel precluding flood flow then periodic thinning of vegetation might be required. Outright removal of vegetation by the roots is not intended, only thinning and pruning would be allowed.

Future sediment removal is not anticipated unless some catastrophic storm event (i.e., Act of Nature) leads to additional sedimentation that the channel flow cannot tolerate. If additional sediment removal or vegetation removal becomes necessary, then the City shall contact the applicable resource agencies to secure approval and acquire any additional permits that might be required for the additional repair work and to negotiate any associated additional revegetation measures that might be required at that time.

The channel revegetation areas are to be protected in perpetuity as part of the channel open space area and shall not be disturbed by either mechanical/vehicular access or hand work unless so authorized by the applicable resource agencies.

3.0 MONITORING GUIDELINES

Monitoring Methods

Monitoring of the restoration/revegetation areas will consist of field monitoring visits conducted periodically over the monitoring period (i.e., over 40-month period, 120 days plus 3 years) to provide a general qualitative (i.e., visual) assessment of the progress of the revegetation area. Monitoring visits will include qualitative assessments of the revegetation area to document the status of the area and to address the following primary issues:

• Protection of the revegetation areas from unauthorized vehicular access • Assessments of vandalism • Assessments of unauthorized access by the public, via foot traffic from adjacent recreational areas • Status of any ornamental plant or non-native invasive species encroachment from adjacent areas or upstream sources • Status of signage and fencing

6965 H-7 July 2013 APPENDIX H (Continued)

• Trash and debris accumulation and removal • Maintenance of existing drainage facilities • Protection of existing revegetation areas • Removal of exotic/invasive plant species and weeds • Protection of sensitive habitats and species where applicable • Implementation of adaptive management strategies to address changing site conditions • Establishment of the desired native plant species.

Monitoring visits will be conducted at the following intervals: The project will be monitored once per month for the first 4 months (120-day period) and then once every 6 months (two visits per year) thereafter, for three years.

Conclusion of Maintenance and Monitoring Period

At successful conclusion of the three year monitoring period a final letter report shall be prepared to document the successful establishment of the restoration/revegetation areas. If all success criteria have been met at that time, then the project shall be deemed complete and final approval/acceptance shall be solicited from the applicable resource agencies.

Three Year Maintenance and Monitoring Period Success Standards

The following success standards (Tables 7 and 8) shall be achieved by the end of the 3-year period for the various revegetation areas, or the program shall continue until the standards are met.

Table 7 Success Standards and Recommended Remedial Measures for the Wetland Enhancement/Revegetation Areas

Standard Remedial Measure if Standards Not Met Year 1 50% overall cover from seed, container plants and/or volunteer Reseed/replant substitutions possible native species (assessed by visual estimates) (Note: assumes that 50% of the cover would be from bare ground). Establishment of all species planted from containers Reseed/replant substitutions possible 100% survival of healthy container plants Replace with same species/size for all dead plants 100% control of exotic/invasive perennial plant species Remove and treat exotic/invasive species to meet goal 90% control of non-native annual weed species Remove and treat non-native weed species to meet goal (10% tolerance allowed)

6965 H-8 July 2013 APPENDIX H (Continued)

Table 7 Success Standards and Recommended Remedial Measures for the Wetland Enhancement/Revegetation Areas

Standard Remedial Measure if Standards Not Met Year 2 60% overall cover from seed, container plants and/or volunteer Reseed/replant substitutions possible native species (assessed by visual estimates) (Note: assumes that 40% of the cover would be from bare ground). Establishment of all species planted from containers Reseed/replant substitutions possible 100% survival of healthy container plants Replace with same species/size for all dead plants 100% control of exotic/invasive perennial plant species Remove and treat exotic/invasive species to meet goal 90% control of non-native annual weed species Remove and treat non-native weed species to meet goal (10% tolerance allowed) Year 3 70% overall cover from seed, container plants and/or volunteer Reseed/replant substitutions possible native species (assessed by visual estimates) (Note: assumes that 30% of the cover would be from bare ground). Establishment of all species planted from containers Reseed/replant substitutions possible 100% survival of healthy container plants Replace with same species/size for all dead plants 100% control of exotic/invasive perennial plant species Remove and treat exotic/invasive species to meet goal 90% control of non-native annual weed species Remove and treat non-native weed species to meet goal (10% tolerance allowed)

Table 8 Success Standards and Recommended Remedial Measures for the Upland Enhancement/Revegetation Areas

Standard Remedial Measure if Standards Not Met Year 1 40% overall cover from seed and/or volunteer native species Reseed/ substitutions possible (assessed by visual estimates) (Note: assumes that 60% of the cover would be from bare ground). 100% control of exotic/invasive perennial plant species Remove and treat exotic/invasive species to meet goal 90% control of non-native annual weed species Remove and treat non-native weed species to meet goal (10% tolerance allowed) Year 2 50% overall cover from seed and/or volunteer native species Reseed/ substitutions possible (assessed by visual estimates) (Note: assumes that 50% of the cover would be from bare ground). 100% control of exotic/invasive perennial plant species Remove and treat exotic/invasive species to meet goal 90% control of non-native annual weed species Remove and treat non-native weed species to meet goal (10% tolerance allowed)

6965 H-9 July 2013 APPENDIX H (Continued)

Table 8 Success Standards and Recommended Remedial Measures for the Upland Enhancement/Revegetation Areas

Standard Remedial Measure if Standards Not Met Year 3 60% overall cover from seed and/or volunteer native species Reseed/ substitutions possible (assessed by visual estimates) (Note: assumes that 40% of the cover would be from bare ground). 100% control of exotic/invasive perennial plant species Remove and treat exotic/invasive species to meet goal 90% control of non-native annual weed species Remove and treat non-native weed species to meet goal (10% tolerance allowed)

6965 H-10 July 2013 APPENDIX C Cultural Resources Inventory Letter Report

August 7, 2012

Paul Pham City of Oceanside Public Works Department Engineering Division 300 North Coast Highway Oceanside, California 92054

Subject: Cultural Resources Inventory for the Oceanside North Avenue Channel Protection Project, City of Oceanside, California

Dear Mr. Pham:

This letter report documents the results of a cultural resources inventory and archaeological sensitivity assessment completed by Dudek for the City of Oceanside’s North Avenue Channel Protection Project. The project is located along Loma Alta Creek, between North Avenue and the North County Transit District Sprinter Rail Line, approximately 0.3 mile west of the intersection of North Avenue and Vista Pacific Drive, and approximately 0.17 mile northeast of the North Avenue intersection with Esperanza Way (Figure 1). The City of Oceanside is the reviewing agency for compliance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with federal permitting oversight provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The current study, completed to satisfy the requirements for cultural resources investigations under CEQA, included a records search for a one-mile radius around the project area completed at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), an intensive pedestrian survey of the project Area of Potential Effect (APE), and a records search requested of the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

While the results of the NAHC records search request are pending, no previously recorded cultural resources were identified in the records search and no new cultural resources were identified in the APE during the pedestrian survey. Additionally, numerous cultural resources investigations have been completed within and surrounding the current project area—each of these also reported negative results for cultural resources.

Records Search

Dudek requested a search of records on file at the SCIC, San Diego State University, for a one- mile radius around the project area (Appendix A). Just five previously recorded cultural resources were identified in the records search (CA-SDI-645, -4992, -6092, -10445, and -10446);

Mr. Pham Subject: Cultural Resources Inventory for the Oceanside North Avenue Channel Protection Project, City of Oceanside, California

each of these is more than a half-mile from the project area (see Appendix A). All five cultural resources are prehistoric habitations consisting of relatively common artifacts (i.e., lithic tools and debitage, and groundstone). The lack of cultural resources recorded in and around the project area is somewhat surprising, given that the project is located within a large drainage system that would have been attractive to wildlife and by assumption, aboriginal human occupation. The lack of resources is also surprising since there have been dozens of cultural resources investigations within one-mile of the project area, at least three that intersected the current project area (SHPO-ID-Gallegos50, -GuerreM06, and –Wade26; see Appendix A). One of these studies (SHPO-ID- GuerreM06) was a cultural resources evaluation for the construction of the light rail that borders the northern edge of the current project area (Guerrero et al. 2001), while another (SHPO-ID-Wade26) was a cultural resources inventory for the Loma Alta Creek Improvement Plan—the latter completely encompassed the current project area (Wade and Hector 1989) (see Appendix A). None of these studies identified cultural resources within or near to the current project area.

Dudek’s review of the previous cultural resources investigations indicates that the project area has a low potential for the presence of cultural resources that can be identified on the surface, based on the failure of previous directed surveys overlapping the current project area that did not identify cultural material on the surface. However, the project area, and the creek channel in particular, has been modified in the past, including the concrete channelization of Loma Alta Creek. These landform modifications most likely destroyed any cultural resources within the project area, but it is still possible that buried cultural deposits are present. For this reason, Dudek determined that an intensive pedestrian survey of the current project area was necessary since surface conditions may have changed since the last inventory by Wade and Hector (1989), and to provide a current perspective on the level of landform modification near the creek.

Pedestrian Survey

Dudek archaeologist Dr. Micah Hale conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the entire project area in July of 2012. Survey transects were oriented east-west, parallel to the creek channel. The narrow project corridor and dense vegetation meant that few parts of the project area had good visibility; much of the ground was obscured by vegetation. Nevertheless, forays into the dense brush were made to inspect rodent burrows and other exposures of soil. No cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian survey.

Observations made during the survey indicate that the entire creek channel has been heavily modified and channelized with some portions having been improved with concrete slopes and culverts. No portion of the concrete features appeared to be over 50 years in age and no historic-

2 August 2012 Mr. Pham Subject: Cultural Resources Inventory for the Oceanside North Avenue Channel Protection Project, City of Oceanside, California period refuse was identified. As such, Dudek assumes that these concrete features within the channel do not constitute a potential historic-period resource, even if portions may be over 50 years in age, because they do not appear to meet any of the historical significance criteria under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA guidelines.

NAHC Correspondence

Correspondence with the NAHC was initiated on August 3, 2012, and consisted of a letter sent to Dave Singleton of the NAHC requesting information on tribal cultural resources that may be recorded with the NAHC and located near or within the current project area, as well as a list of Native American individuals that may have information about tribal cultural resources. No response from the NAHC has been received to date.

Standards of Significance and Impacts Assessment

A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 15064.5 defines a historical resource as a site that meets the eligibility criteria for the California Register. Moreover, section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) defines a “unique” archaeological resource as a site that either contains information needed to answer important scientific questions, or it has a special quality such as being the oldest of its type, or it is associated with a scientifically recognized prehistoric event.

The significance of a cultural resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics that convey its significance. Impacts to archaeological resources/human remains most often occur as the result of excavation for construction of buildings or other built features, installation of utilities, landscaping, and/or road construction. Archaeological resources may also be subjected to indirect impacts as the result of project- related activities that increase erosion or accessibility. Increased access frequently leads to vandalism and unauthorized collection of cultural materials.

Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact if it would disturb human remains, including those interred within archaeological habitation areas. Sections 15064.5(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed under PRC Section 5097.98.

3 August 2012 Mr. Pham Subject: Cultural Resources Inventory for the Oceanside North Avenue Channel Protection Project, City of Oceanside, California

No historically significant or unique cultural resources or human remains were identified within or near to the current project area. A review of previous cultural resources investigations and the results of the current pedestrian survey indicate that the current project area has a low potential for the discovery of significant cultural resources or human remains during project implementation. Thus, implementation of the project will not impact known cultural resources.

Nevertheless, there is still a slight possibility of discovering cultural material during project implementation. To ensure the proper treatment of any such inadvertent discoveries, it is recommended that an archaeological monitor be present during initial ground disturbing activities. Should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work must stop until the discovery can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist for historical significance under CEQA, to determine the significance of impacts to the discovery, and to work with the City to determine adequate mitigation measures.

Summary

The current cultural resources investigation of the Oceanside North Avenue Channel Protection project did not result in the identification of cultural resources within or near to the project area. Results of NAHC correspondence are still pending. A review of previous cultural resources investigations within and surrounding the current project area indicates that there is a low probability of discovering significant cultural resources during project implementation. However, there is still the possibility that cultural resources will be identified during construction and it is recommended that a qualified archaeological monitor be present during all initial ground disturbances to ensure the appropriate treatment of any inadvertent cultural resources discoveries.

If you have any questions about this investigation, please contact me directly at 760.479.4276.

Respectfully Submitted,

______Micah J. Hale, Ph.D., RPA Senior Project Manager/Archaeologist

Att: Figure 1, Project vicinity map. Appendix A, South Coastal Information Center Records Search Results Appendix B, Native American Heritage Commission Correspondence

4 August 2012 0 1,000 2,000 Project Boundary Feet Meters Buffer - 1 Mile 0 500

SOURCE: USGS Topo 7.5 Minute Series - San Luis Rey Quadrangle FIGURE 1 Township 11S / Range 4W / Section 14 and Township 11S / Range 4W / Section 23 Project Vicinity North Avenue Channel Protection Project INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

APPENDIX A South Coastal Information Center Records Search Results

Confidential Appendix A on file at the City of Oceanside

APPENDIX B Native American Heritage Commission Correspondence

August 3, 2012

David Singleton Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: NAHC Records Search Request for the Oceanside North Channel Project, San Diego County, California

Dear Mr. Singleton,

This letter is a formal request for the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to conduct a search of files on hand related to the Oceanside North Channel project located in San Diego County, California (Figure 1). Legal information for the mapped location is provided in the legend on the attached location map. The project is located along North Avenue between Emerald Drive and Melrose Drive in the City of Oceanside, California. As shown on the attached map, I am requesting any information on tribal cultural resources recorded in your files within or near to this project to facilitate effective management and if necessary, avoidance measures. We will contact tribal individuals that you indicate in your response as directed by the City of Oceanside.

I appreciate your help and please call me at Dudek if you have questions.

Respectfully Submitted,

______Micah J. Hale, Ph.D., RPA Senior Project Manager/Archaeologist

Figure 1: Project location map in 1:24,000 scale showing the records search radius.

Cc: Elizabeth Doalson, Dudek

0 1,000 2,000 Project Boundary Feet Meters Buffer - 1 Mile 0 500

Page: 1 8/13/2012 4:33:01 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Users\bgrover\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\North Avenue Channel.urb924 Project Name: North Avenue Channel Protection Project Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

CO2

2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 71.75

2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 71.75

Percent Reduction 0.00

2014 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 35.46

2014 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 35.46

Percent Reduction 0.00

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

CO2 Page: 2 8/13/2012 4:33:01 PM

2013 71.75

Mass Grading 09/01/2013- 71.75 02/28/2014 Mass Grading Dust 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 65.44

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.90

Mass Grading Worker Trips 5.41

2014 35.46

Mass Grading 09/01/2013- 35.46 02/28/2014 Mass Grading Dust 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 32.34

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.45

Mass Grading Worker Trips 2.67

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated

CO2

2013 71.75

Mass Grading 09/01/2013- 71.75 02/28/2014 Mass Grading Dust 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 65.44

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.90

Mass Grading Worker Trips 5.41

2014 35.46

Mass Grading 09/01/2013- 35.46 02/28/2014 Mass Grading Dust 0.00

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 32.34

Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.45

Mass Grading Worker Trips 2.67