Full Biological Resources Report Over TM 5236 RPL3, County ... · Full Biological Resources Report Over TM 5236 RPL3 County of San Diego, California [County of San Diego Log No. 00-15-004]

Full Biological Resources ReportOver TM 5236 RPL3,

County of San Diego, California[Environmental Log No. 00-15-004]

Prepared By:

Gretchen Cummings

Cummings and Associates

P.O. Box 1209Ramona, CA 92065

(760)440-0349

Revised 4 November 20091 October 2009

22 October 2008Job Number 1562.20D

Project Proponent:

Mr. Joe Simpkins9718 Follet DriveSantee, CA 92071

(619)851-8604

Prepared for:

The County of San DiegoDepartment of Planning and Land Use

5201 Ruffin Road, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123

Full Biological Resources ReportOver TM 5236 RPL3

County of San Diego, California[County of San Diego Log No. 00-15-004]

Prepared For:

The County of San DiegoDepartment of Planning and Land Use

5201 Ruffin Road, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123

Project Proponents:


(619)851-8604

Prepared By:

Gretchen Cummings


P.O. Box 1209Ramona, California 92065

(760)440-0349

Revised 4 November 2009

Revised 1 October 2009

22 October 2008

Job Number 1562.20D

Table of Contents

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.1 Purpose of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2 Project Location and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3 Survey Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.4 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.4.1 Regional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.4.2 Habitat Types/Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.4.3 Flora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.4.4 Fauna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.4.5 Sensitive Plant Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.4.6 Sensitive Wildlife Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1.4.7 Wetlands/Jurisdictional Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1.4.8 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1.5 Applicable Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.0 Project Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.0 Special Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.1 Guidelines for the Determination of Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2 Analysis of Project Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.4 Mitigation Measures and Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table of Contents

3.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.0 Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33





4.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.0 Jurisdictional Wetland ans Waterways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35





5.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

6.0 Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36





6.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

7.0 Local Policies, Ordinances, Adopted Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39


Table of Contents




7.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

8.0 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

9.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

10.0 List of Preparers and Persons and Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Attachments:

Figures:Figure 1 — Project Location on a Regional MapFigure 2 — Project Location on the 7½-minute U.S.G.S. Descanso Quadrangle MapFigure 3 — Project Location on a Thomas Brothers Map BaseFigure 4 — Vegetation Types Shown on the TMFigure 5 — Locations of Sensitive Animal Sightings Shown on an Aerial PhotoFigure 6 — Site Photographs: Montane Meadow in the Understory of the CottonwoodsFigure 7 — Site Photographs: Existing Equestrian Trail Adjacent to RPO WetlandsFigure 8 — Site Photographs: Pine Valley CreekFigure 9 — Site Photographs: Existing On-Site Horse Boarding FacilityFigure 10 — Site Photographs: Extensive Agriculture in the Northeastern Portion of Site

Technical Appendices/Attachments:Table 1 — Vascular Plant Species Observed on TM 5236Table 2 — Wildlife Species Observed on TM 5236Table 3 — Sensitive Plant Species Known from the RegionTable 4 — Sensitive Wildlife Species Known from the RegionTable 5 — Cumulative Analysis Summary of Projects for TM 5236Appendix A — Open Space Easement and Limited Building Zone Easement Map Appendix B — CNDDB FormsAppendix C — Arroyo Toad ReportAppendix D — Quino Checkerspot Report

Page 5 of 50

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

ACOE Army Corps of Engineers

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CWA Clean Water Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

FS United States Forest Service

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program

NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning

RPO The County of San Diego’s Resource Protection Act

TM Tentative Map

Page 6 of 50

SUMMARY

The 111.6-acre property in Pine Valley has been significantly redesigned since the iterativereview letter from the County was issued on April 8, 2003. As currently proposed, the projectwould subdivide the property into four lots. Lot 4 on the Tentative Map is anticipated to bedeeded to the water district. Lot 2 contains an existing residence and extensive horse facilities,including barns, training rings, paddocks, and other enclosures. Lots 1 and 3 are proposing asingle-family residence on each.

The following table summarizes the extent of the various vegetation types within the bounds ofthe project site and summarizes the anticipated effects of the project as proposed.

Vegetation Impact and Mitigation Summary1

VegetativeCommunity

AcreageOn-Site

AcresImpactedOn-Site

AcresImpact

Neutral2

MitigationRatio3

MitigationRequired

(acres)

Offered(Retained)

On-siteMitigation

TotalMitigation

(ActualRatio)

Urban/Developed 29.5 5.2 21.1 None None 3.2 0.0

Disturbed Habitat 13.7 5.2 3.3 None None 5.2 0.0

Extensive Agriculture 35.0 4.6 27.1 0.5:1 2.3 3.3 3.3(> 1.5:1)

Big Sagebrush Scrub 22.2 0.0 2.9 2:1 0.0 19.3 0.0

Montane Meadow 4.0 0.0 0.0 3:1 0.0 4.0 0.0

Southern Willow Scrub 7.2 0.0 0.0 3:1 0.0 7.2 0.0

Totals: 111.6 15.0 54.4 2.3-acresof

ExtensiveAgriculture

42.2 3.3-acres ofExtensive

AgricultureOn-Site

Calculated impacts include only those due to grading and fuel modification.1

Acreage considered impact neutral includes those lands outside of the open space that are not impacted from grading or fuel modification, or2

that already contain development (existing residence and horse facilities).Mitigation ratios are taken from Table 5 of the County of San Diego’s Guidelines for Determining Significance for Biological Resources. These3

ratios apply to impacts that occur outside of the approved MSCP plan.

Implementation of the project as proposed will have the following effects on existing biologicalresources. These anticipated effects are:

1. The loss of approximately 4.6-acres of Extensive Agriculture;

2. The loss of approximately 9.8-acres of Extensive Agriculture and DisturbedHabitat land utilized as raptor foraging habitat by the Turkey Vulture, Cooper’sHawk, and Barn Owl;

3. The placement of a residence in proximity to a small population of SouthwesternPond Turtle;

Page 7 of 50

4. The placement of a residence in proximity to a small population of Two-stripedGarter Snake;

5. A small reduction in Southern Mule Deer habitat;

6. The placement of a residence in proximity to a pair or two of Yellow Warblers;

7. The placement of a residence in proximity to a small population of WesternBluebirds;

8. The placement of a residence in proximity to a small population of San DiegoCoast Horned Lizards;

9. The placement of a residence in proximity to a small population of CoastalWestern Whiptail;

10. The placement of a residence in proximity to foraging habitat for the Lawrence’sGoldfinch;

11. The placement of two residences in upland areas adjacent to unoccupied, butpotential Arroyo Toad habitat.

Of these effects, all eleven can be considered potentially significant. However, throughimplementation of the following selected mitigation measures, all eleven can be reduced to alevel less than significant.

1. The mitigation requirements for the loss of 4.6-acres of Extensive Agriculture willbe mitigated on-site by the preservation of 3.3-acres of Extensive Agriculturewithin the open space easement (a > 1.5:1 mitigation ratio). See Appendix A forlocation of the open space easement;

2. The loss of 9.8-acres of Extensive Agriculture and Disturbed Habitat land utilizedas raptor foraging habitat will be mitigated on-site by the preservation of 27.8-acres of Extensive Agriculture, Disturbed Habitat, and Big Sagebrush Scrubwithin the open space easement (a > 3:1 mitigation ratio);

3. The placement of a residence in proximity to a small population of SouthwesternPond Turtle is anticipated to be mitigated through the preservation of the SouthernWillow Scrub within an open space easement. The Southern Willow Scrub is thecanopy vegetation over the flowing Pine Valley Creek within which theSouthwestern Pond Turtle is found.

Page 8 of 50

4. The placement of a residence in proximity to a small population of Two-stripedGarter Snake is anticipated to be mitigated through the preservation of theSouthern Willow Scrub within an open space easement.

5. The small reduction in Southern Mule Deer habitat is deemed to be mitigatedthrough the on-site designation of open space.

6. Grading, clearing and grubbing shall occur outside of the avian breeding season ofFebruary 15 to August 31.

7. During construction, no activity shall occur within 500-feet of active raptornesting territories, unless measures are implemented to minimize the noise anddisturbance to those adjacent habitat. Exceptions to the latter measure includecases where surveys confirm that adjacent habitat is not occupied or where noise

eqmeasurements confirm that construction noise levels are below 60 dBA hourly Lalong the edge of the adjacent habitat. If noise levels exceed this threshold, noise

eqbarriers shall be erected to reduce noise to below 60 dBA hourly L or the noise-generating activities should be suspended.

8. The placement of a residence in close proximity to small populations of SanDiego Coast Horned Lizards and Coastal Western Whiptails is deemed to bemitigated through the on-site preservation of Big Sagebrush Scrub within openspace.

9. The Lawrence’s Goldfinch is a nomadic bird species. It is often observed nearwater sources as was the case on-site with sightings along Pine Valley Creek.Since the habitat surrounding Pine Valley Creek will be preserved in open space,there will be no significant impact to the Lawrence’s Goldfinch.

10. The project will include signage around the perimeter of the open space. Suchsignage should be constructive in content and informative, as opposed to a simpleregulatory statement.

11. Although the federal protocol survey for the Arroyo Toad was negative (seeAppendix C), certain conservation measures must be implemented per the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that no impacts occur to any Arroyo Toadsthat should happen to appear within the project area during construction. The fiveconservation measures are as follows:

a. No construction activities will take place during the Arroyo Toad breedingseason (March 15-July 31) within suitable Arroyo Toad breeding habitat.

b. Arroyo Toad exclusion fencing will be installed around the perimeter of allwork areas within potential Arroyo Toad habitat prior to construction. The

Page 9 of 50

purpose of the fence is to exclude Arroyo Toads from the work sites. Suchfencing will consist of woven nylon netting approximately 2 feet in heightattached to wooden stakes. Prior to installing the fencing, a narrow trenchapproximately 1 to 2 inches in depth will be excavated and the fenceburied, to prevent burrowing beneath the fence. All fencing materials (i.e.,mesh, stakes, etc.) will be removed following construction. Ingress andegress of construction equipment and personnel will be kept to aminimum, but when necessary, equipment and personnel will use a singleaccess point to the site. This access point will be as narrow as possibleand will be closed off by exclusionary fencing when personnel are not onthe project site.

c. The applicant will ensure that the following conditions are implementedduring project construction:i. Employees will strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment,

and construction materials to the fenced project footprint;ii. To avoid attracting predators, the project site will be kept as clean

of debris as possible. All food related trash items will be enclosedin sealed containers and regularly removed from the site;

iii. Pets of project personnel will not be allowed on the project site;iv. Disposal or temporary placement of excess fill, brush or other

debris will not be allowed in waters of the United States or theirbanks;

v. All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil,coolant, or any other such activities will occur in designated areasoutside of waters of the United States within the fenced projectimpact limits. These designated areas will be located in previouslycompacted and disturbed areas to the maximum extent practicablein such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering waters ofthe United States, and will be shown on the construction plans.Fueling of equipment will take place within existing paved areas ordesignated fueling areas designed to contain fuel drips greater than100 feet from waters of the United States. Contractor equipmentwill be checked for leaks prior to operation and repaired asnecessary. “No-fueling zones” will be designated on constructionplans and/or within the stormwater pollution prevention plan.

d. Construction activities will be prohibited immediately followingsignificant rainfall events when the Arroyo Toad may be active in uplandareas.

e. A monitoring biologist approved by the Service shall be onsite at leastonce per week during project construction to ensure compliance with allconservation measures. The biologist must be knowledgeable of Arroyo

Page 10 of 50

Toad biology. The permittee shall submit the biologist's name, address,telephone number, and work schedule on the project to the Service prior toinitiating project impacts. The biologist shall perform the followingduties:I. Report any violation to the Service within 24 hours of its

occurrence.ii. The biological monitor shall also submit a final report to the

Service within 60 days of project completion that includes: as-builtconstruction drawings with an overlay of habitat that was impactedand preserved, photographs of areas to be preserved, and otherrelevant summary information documenting that authorizedimpacts were not exceeded and general compliance with allconservation measures.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Report

This biological assessment and associated field survey were focused specifically on determiningthe potential for the occurrence of endangered or otherwise sensitive plant and wildlife species.The purpose of this report is to document the biological resources on the project site; identifypotential biological resource impacts resulting from the proposed subdivision; and recommendmeasures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate significant impacts consistent with federal, stateand local rules and regulations, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), andthe County of San Diego’s Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO).

1.2 Project Location and Description

TM 5236 RPL3 is a 111.6-acre parcel located in Pine Valley, in unincorporated San DiegoCounty. The northern part of the site follows the edge of Pine Creek Road, and the southwesternproperty boundary follows Old Highway 80 (see Figures 1, 2, and 3).

County of San Diego Tract TM 5236 originally proposed the subdivision of the property intotwenty lots. The current proposed residential subdivision would create only four lots; threesingle-family detached lots, and one lot deeded to the water district. Vehicular access to Lot 1would be via Pine Creek Road (see Figure 4) Access to Lots 2 and 3 would be off of OldHighway 80, and access to the water district lot would be via Valley View Trail (see Figure 4).

1.3 Survey Methods

Previous biological surveys were conducted over the property by Tierra Environmental Servicesin 1998 and by Varanus Biological Services, Inc. in 2001 (see table on page 9 for details of thesurvey dates).

Page 11 of 50

Prior to the initiation of the field surveys over the Pine Valley property in 2008, a search of theCalifornia Native Plant Society’s on-line database was conducted. A “hit list” of possiblesensitive plant species was generated so that the observers could focus the survey efforts toidentify if those potential species occurred on-site. The generation of this list required an analysisof the underlying soils as mapped on the El Cajon 30 x 60 minute Geological Quadrangle Map(Todd, 2004 — see Figure 5) and on the Soil Survey of the San Diego Area (Bowman, 1973).

A pedestrian reconnaissance over the property was performed by the undersigned on 30September 2008 and 16 October 2008. After consultation with the County of San Diego and thewildlife agencies, federal protocol surveys for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and theSouthwestern Arroyo Toad were conducted in 2009, as well as, a spring survey for plants,specifically, the Vanishing Wild Buckwheat (Eriogonum evanidum).

The details of the twenty-eight total biological site visits to the Pine Valley property aresummarized in the following table.

111.6-Acre Pine Valley Property, TM 5236 RPL3

Date Purpose ofVisit

Timesof

survey

ObserverBeginning of Observational Period End of Observational Period

Cloudcover

Wind AirTemp

Humidity Cloudcover

Wind AirTemp

Humidity

20May1998

General bioand Arroyo

Toad Surveys

2040 to2240hours

C. Nordbyand A. Eng

(Tierra)

clear Low 44EF not taken clear Low 42EF not taken

21May1998


Toad Surveys

2040 to2300hours

C. Nordbyand A. Eng

(Tierra)

cloudy nottaken

43EF not taken cloudy not taken 42EF not taken

25May1998


Toad Surveys

2045 to2245hours

C. Nordbyand A. Eng

(Tierra)

fog Low 44EF not taken rain Low 43EF not taken

19May2001

LBVISurvey

1000 to1330hours

B.Mulrooney(Varanus)

25% 5 mph 80EF(max)

not taken nottaken

not taken nottaken

not taken

5June2001

LBVISurvey

1400 to1600hours


clear 10mph

80EF(max)

not taken nottaken

not taken nottaken

not taken

11June2001

LBVISurvey

0845 to1130hours


clear 0 mph 80EF(max)

not taken nottaken

not taken nottaken

not taken

18June2001

LBVISurvey

1000 to1200hours


clear 3 - 8mph

90EF(max)

not taken nottaken

not taken nottaken

not taken

25June2001

LBVISurvey

1830 to2000hours


60% 5 - 10mph

70EF(max)

not taken nottaken

not taken nottaken

not taken



Timesof

survey


Cloudcover

Wind AirTemp

Humidity Cloudcover

Wind AirTemp

Humidity

Page 12 of 50

5 July2001

LBVISurvey

0815 to1020hours


100% 0 - 3mph

65EF(max)

not taken nottaken

not taken nottaken

not taken

17July2001

LBVISurvey

0845 to1155hours


clear 0 - 5mph

75EF(max)

not taken nottaken

not taken nottaken

not taken

27July2001

LBVISurvey

0700 to0850hours


clear 0 - 5mph

65EF(max)

not taken nottaken

not taken nottaken

not taken

29May2001

SWWFSurvey

0700 to1030hours

W. Haas(Varanus)

25% 2 - 5mph

62EF(min)

not taken nottaken

not taken 80EF(max)

not taken

16June2001

SWWFSurvey

0630 to0930hours

W. Haas(Varanus)

clear 1 - 7mph

58EF(min)

not taken nottaken

not taken 78EF(max)

not taken

6July2001

SWWFSurvey

0600 to0930hours

W. Haas(Varanus)

clear 0 - 3mph

59EF(min)

not taken nottaken

not taken 79EF(max)

not taken

30Sept2008

General bio 1200 to1430hours

G.Cummings

50% 1.8 -11.0mph

97.7EF 18% 20% 1.7 - 3.6mph

89.4EF 21%

16Oct

2008

General bio 1245 to1615hours

G.Cummings

clear < 3mph

83.5EF 18% clear 1.8 - 2.9mph withgusts to6.8 mph

81.1EF 19%

26Feb

2009

Quino Survey 1430 to1630hours

G.Cummings

30% 2.9 -6.4

mph

66.4EF 32% 50% 1.0 - 3.4mph

65.3EF 32%

13Mar2009


G.Cummings

10% 2.1 -7.7

mphwithgusts

to 12.3mph

73.2EF 22% 30% < 2.2mph

70.7EF 26%

20Mar2009


G.Cummings

clear 0.3 -6.2

mph

71.4EF 25% clear 3.2 - 6.9mph

79.3EF 21%

31Mar2009


G.Cummings

clear 3.1 -6.0

mph

68.9EF 25% clear 2.7 - 5.1mph withgusts to9.9 mph

73.8EF 21%

2Apr

2009


G.Cummings

clear 2.8 -6.0

mph

71.4EF 37% clear 3.5 - 6.2mph

71.1EF 32%



Timesof

survey


Cloudcover

Wind AirTemp

Humidity Cloudcover

Wind AirTemp

Humidity

Page 13 of 50

13Apr

2009


G.Cummings

50% 3.1 -4.4

mphwithguststo 7.2mph

76.6EF 31% 60% 1.2 - 4.5mph withgusts to

13.0 mph

77.2EF 24%

22Apr

2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(daytime)

1700 to1800hours

G.Cummings

clear 4.5 -7.6

mph

75.4EF 24% clear 1.3 - 3.1mph

70.2EF 24%

22Apr

2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(nighttime)

2030 to2145hours

G.Cummings

clear < 1.5mph

54.1EF 30% clear calm 52.7EF 36%

30Apr

2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(nighttime)

2030 to2130hours

G.Cummings

clear < 1.2mph

56.8EF 51% clear < 1 mph 56.7EF 49%

1May2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(daytime)

1215 to1330hours

G.Cummings

100% 5.7 -11.3mph

85.3EF 27% 100% 2.1 - 5.3mph withgusts to

10.9 mph

84.4EF 23%

24May2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(nighttime)

2050 to2150hours

G.Cummings

clear calm 49.6EF 63% clear calm 49.1EF 52%

25May2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(daytime)

1030 to1130hours

G.Cummings

clear 2.4 -5.2

mphwithguststo 8.1mph

73.4EF 31% clear 1.9 - 6.1mph

73.9EF 31%

31May2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(daytime)

1745 to1845hours

G.Cummings

clear 0.5 -2.2

mph

73.8EF 45% clear 3.8 - 6.2mph

74.1EF 47%

31May2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(nighttime)

2050 to2150hours

G.Cummings

clear calm 58.3EF 65% clear calm 55.8EF 65%

17June2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(daytime)

1245 to1415hours

G.Cummings

50% 2.1 -6.4

mph

84.6EF 33% 40% 2.4 - 5.8mph

86.0EF 28%

17June2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(nighttime)

2115 to2215hours

G.Cummings

clear < 1mph

61.9EF 58% clear < 1 mph 56.1EF 69%

29June2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(daytime)

1015 to1130hours

G.Cummings

95% 0.4 -2.0

mph

79.7EF 63% 85% 1.0 - 4.1mph

88.3EF 40%



Timesof

survey


Cloudcover

Wind AirTemp

Humidity Cloudcover

Wind AirTemp

Humidity

Page 14 of 50

29June2009

Arroyo ToadSurvey

(nighttime)

2130 to2230hours

G.Cummings

30% calm 62.8EF 55% 70% < 1.6mph

58.8EF 70%

The general survey of the site was investigated by a series of stratified random pedestriantransects. The “transects” were placed so that all parts of the site could be visually inspected ascould all habitat types. Particular attention was placed on an effort to identify and examine eachof the micro-habitats on-site; habitats created by the micro-scale interplay of soil type andtopography.

During every visit, all sign (including track, scat, and others), direct observation, and auditoryinputs (such as songs and calls) were utilized to identify the species present. Standard namingreferences are cited in Section 9.0 of this report. Plant species were generally identified in thefield with some material being collected for laboratory identification.\

1.4 Environmental Setting

TM 5236 is located on the west side of Pine Valley. The site lies in a “valley” at the lowestelevations in Pine Valley (see Figure 2). Pine Valley Creek flows from east to west across thenorthern portion of the property (see Figure 8). Another drainage flows south from Pine ValleyCreek and runs roughly through the middle of Lots 1 and 4, and along the eastern edges of Lots 2and 3. Another drainage, also flowing south from Pine Valley Creek, runs along Old Highway 80and enters the property along the western edges of Lots 2 and 3 (see Figures 2 and 4).

Published geological mapping of the area (Todd, 2004) maps most of the property as “Youngalluvium” with just the eastern edges mapped as “Monzogranite of Pine Valley”. The largegranitic boulder outcrop in the northern portion of the site confirms this.

Surficial soils mapped on the property include the following (Bowman, et al., 1973):

# Mottsville loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (MvC) — This loamy sand is foundon alluvial fans and plains. On-site this soil historically occupied 95% of the property.However, in the southern part of the site where the Cottonwoods have been planted, thesoil is not sandy indicating possible the import of some fill material.

# Riverwash (Rm) — As the name implies, this soil type occurs in intermittent stream

channels. On-site it is found in the extreme northeast corner along Pine Valley Creek.

Page 15 of 50

As mentioned above, there are three drainages on-site; Pine Valley Creek and two smallerdrainages are tributary to Pine Valley Creek. All three drainages are jurisdictional to the ArmyCorps of Engineers (ACOE), and to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), aswell as considered RPO wetlands by the County of San Diego. No other definable wetlands wereidentified within the bounds of the subject property. No springs, seeps or other natural watersources were located during the course of the survey effort.

1.4.1 Regional Context

In California, there is a state-wide effort known as the Natural Community ConservationPlanning (NCCP) program established to preserve ecosystems, while at the same time allowingfor planned development. Locally, there are several jurisdictions that have established plans aspart of the NCCP program. The County of San Diego is a participant in the local MultipleSpecies Conservation Program (MSCP) with an approved Subarea Plan for portions of theCounty. The other eastern portions of the County are currently being reviewed for inclusion inthe East County MSCP Subarea Plan. There are a very few draft documents associated with thisEast County MSCP Subarea Plan at this time. There are no maps indicating whether or not anyportion of TM 5236 would be considered a “preserve” area.

1.4.2 Habitat Types/Vegetation Communities

The following discussion is specifically keyed to Holland (1986). The vegetation classificationscheme developed by Holland is widely used in the state at this time and is the one utilized by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game in the NCCP programs. A complete listing of all plantspecies observed has been included as Table 1. A vegetation map for the project is included asFigure 4. Like all classification schemes, there is always room for interpretation and there arealways situations in nature that do not exactly match what is conjured up by well intentionedbiologists. All community labels, therefore, should be taken as being fairly subjective (both intheir definition and their application).

The plant listings in Table 1 have been annotated as to the occurrence of the individual species.The reader’s attention is directed to that table for additional information on individual plants.

Big Sagebrush Scrub. The Big Sagebrush Scrub (Holland, 1986 as modified by Oberbauer,1996; Element Code 35210) on-site mainly occupies the banks along the edges of the Pine ValleyCreek and the other two drainages (see Figures 7 and 8). This habitat is dominated by BigSagebrush (Artemisia tridentata).

Southern Willow Scrub. Southern Willow Scrub is classified by Holland (1986) and Oberbauer(1996) as Element Code 63320. On-site, this riparian habitat occupies Pine Valley Creek andportions of the drainages flowing south from Pine Valley Creek (see Figures 7 and 8). TheSouthern Willow Scrub is dominated by the Red Willow (Salix laevigata).

Page 16 of 50

Montane Meadow. This habitat was quite difficult to classify. The area in the southern part ofthe property was historically used as a youth baseball field (Tierra Environmental Services,2001), and currently is planted with numerous Cottonwood (Populus fremontii). On the easternside of this planted area, closest to the drainage, the topography is lower, and there are anabundance of Mexican Rush (Juncus mexicana) in the understory (see Figure 6). The presence ofthis Rush could not be explained by irrigation, yet the area is higher in elevation than the bottomof the adjacent drainage (which was dry at the time of the survey). The only explanation for thepresence of the Rush was that at one time, prior to the adjacent drainage becoming incised, therewas a Montane Meadow on the edge of the drainage. Although the water table appears to havedropped since then, the Rush seems to be persisting as a result of the planted Cottonwoods thatprovide sufficient shade to retain moisture in the soil. For lack of a better term for this area, it hasbeen classified as a Montane Meadow (Holland, 1986 as modified by Oberbauer, 1996; ElementCode 45100). It occupies approximately 4.0-acres on-site, and will be retained in open space (seeFigure 4).

Disturbed Habitat. The Disturbed Habitat classification (Holland, 1986 as modified byOberbauer, 1996; Element Code 11300) describes several different areas of the property (seeFigure 4). The western section of the area planted with Cottonwoods in the southern part of thesite has harder soils and lacks the wetland indicator plant, Juncus mexicana that was found in theMontane Meadow. The understory in this part of the property appears more as a lawn than themeadow area to the east. Other areas on-site best classified as Disturbed Habitats include a smallleveled area just south of the Montane Meadow along the southern property boundary, a smallarea in the southwestern property corner adjacent to Old Highway 80, a section of ground alongthe eastern property boundary outside of the fenced pastureland that is heavily compacted, andthe majority of Lot 4 (see Figure 4). The area identified as Lot 4 is currently utilized by the waterdistrict. There are existing structures and a gravel driveway accessing this area via Valley ViewTrail. The soil is compacted and the areas around the existing structures appear to be mowedperiodically. The drainage in the eastern part of Lot 4 is an incised drainage with an OrdinaryHigh Water Mark indicative of sufficient hydrology to classify this drainage as an RPO wetland.The drainage has little to no vegetation due to the above aforementioned usage of the area by thewater district.

Extensive Agriculture. The northern portions of TM 5236 are occupied by what is bestcategorized as Extensive Agriculture (Holland, 1986 as modified by Oberbauer, 1996; ElementCode 18310). These areas are fenced in, and appear to be old pastureland. Some vegetation hasregrown (see Figure 10), and so mitigation was required for the impacts associated with thebuilding of the house pad on Lot 1. This habitat is dominated by Filarees (Erodium spp.).

Urban/Developed. The Urban/Developed classification (Holland, 1986 as modified byOberbauer, 1996; Element Code 12000) represents numerous areas on-site. The largest area isoccupied by a residence, barns, and other areas currently utilized as a horse boarding facility (seeFigure 9). On Figure 4, these facilities are found entirely on Lot 2. The only other areas classifiedas Urban/Developed were the portions of Pine Creek Road and Old Highway 80 that are part ofthe site, three disjunct areas utilized by the water district (one of these is Lot 4 which is

Page 17 of 50

anticipated to be deeded to the water district), and a small area along the eastern propertyboundary roughly near the middle of the site (see Figure 4).

1.4.3 Flora

Eighty-one plant species were identified on TM 5236 (please see the attached Table 1 for furtherinformation). The list was generated from the data collected by Tierra Environmental Services(2001), as well as, current data from Cummings and Associates (2008 and 2009). Generally,native plant species were located in the drainages on-site, and the non-native or planted speciestended to be in the uplands.

1.4.4 Fauna

Given the degree of human utilization of the surrounding properties, and the degree to which thesubject property is used for informal recreational activities (i.e. horseback riding), it is notsurprising that the suite of wildlife species present is represented mostly by birds. Mammals,reptiles and amphibians were also noted on the property, but definitely to a lesser extent than thebirds. During the course of the field surveys, an effort was made to assess all available sign(tracks, burrows, trails, scat, and the like) as a means of ascertaining the wildlife species presenton the property (please refer to Table 2 for a complete list of animals observed on TM 5236).

1.4.5 Sensitive Plant Species

One principal goal of the biological survey was the determination of the presence or absence ofsensitive plant species. Prior to initiation of the field work, therefore, a search was made of thelatest version of the California Native Plant Society Electronic Database (CNPS, 2008) todetermine those plant species considered sensitive and known to occur within an approximately10-mile radius of the subject property. This search produced a list of sixty-one species. This listof sixty-one plant species was then augmented with seven additional plant species generatedfrom a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). This new list of sixty-eightplant species is presented as Table 3 and the reader’s attention is directed to that Table foradditional information. Each entry in the Table has been annotated as to whether or not thespecies would be expected on the property given the unique habitats present within the site. Ofthe sixty-eight species on the list, only one, the San Bernardino Aster, was found. Based upon theelevation of the site, the specific soils present, and the habitats represented on the property, sixty-one of the sixty-eight are unlikely to be observed on-site (the reader’s attention is directed to theTable for additional information on this group of species). Of the remaining six “possible”species on the list, five are considered to have a low potential for occurrence on-site, and one isthought to have a high potential for occurrence on-site. The five, low potential species are:

Jacumba Milkvetch Astragalus douglasii var. perstrictusCalifornia Ayenia Ayenia compactaPayson’s Caulanthus Caulanthus simulansTecate Tarplant Deinandra floribunda

Page 18 of 50

Vanishing Wild Buckwheat Eriogonum evanidum

The one species classified as having a high potential for occurrence on the property is theSouthern Skullcap (Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana). The Southern Skullcap is aCounty List A species and a California Endemic.

The San Bernardino Aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) is not on the County of San DiegoSensitive Plant List (San Diego, County of, 2009). However, it is a List 1B species on the CNPSlist. On-site, this plant was found in patches beneath the planted Cottonwoods in the southernpart of the site (see Figure 6). (See also the CNDDB form in Appendix B for more information).

A diligent search was made for all of the species during the field work conducted within thebounds of the property. Given the disturbance that the site has been subject to for a number ofdecades, it is not surprising that only one sensitive species was found. Two of the six “possible”species are perennials and, had they been present within the bounds of the TM, would have beenreadily observed. There is a high degree of confidence that these perennials and shrubs are notpresent (at least within the development footprints of the two residences on Lots 1 and 3). Theremaining four species — Payson’s Caulanthus, Tecate Tarplant, Vanishing Wild Buckwheat,and Southern Skullcap — are essentially ephemeral annuals and their above ground expressionwould be observed during the springtime only. The 2009 spring survey yielded no observationsof these four annuals.

1.4.6 Sensitive Wildlife Species

Another goal of the biological survey effort was to identify any sensitive wildlife species thatoccur on, or in the immediate vicinity of, TM 5236. A list of thirty-six sensitive species known tooccur within a ten-mile radius of the subject property was generated from a search of theCNDDB. That list was then augmented with eight additional species from the County of SanDiego Sensitive Animal List found as Table 3 in the County of San Diego’s Guidelines forDetermining Significance for Biological Resources (San Diego, County of, 2009), and theSpecial Animals List (Fish and Game, 2009). Of the total forty-four sensitive species known tooccur within a ten-mile radius of the subject property (see the attached Table 4), twelve wereobserved during the survey efforts (see Figure 5 for specific locations). The twelve sensitivespecies included, the Southwestern Pond Turtle, Two-striped Garter Snake, San Diego CoastHorned Lizard, Coastal Western Whiptail, Southern Mule Deer, Cooper’s Hawk, TurkeyVulture, Lawrence’s Goldfinch, Black-chinned Sparrow, Common Barn Owl, Yellow Warblerand Western Bluebird. (See also the CNDDB forms in Appendix B for more information onthose species considered sensitive to either the federal or state governments).

Southwestern Pond Turtle. The Southwestern Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida) wasobserved by Varanus Biological Services Inc. during the 2001 surveys for the Least Bell’s Vireoand the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, no specifics were given (Tierra EnvironmentalServices, 2001). In 2009 during the federal protocol surveys for the Arroyo Toad, at least sixindividual pond turtles were observed in Pine Valley Creek (see Figure 5 for specific locations).

Page 19 of 50

This turtle is a Group 1 County species (San Diego, County of, 2009), and a California Species ofConcern (Fish and Game, 2009). It is also considered sensitive to the Forest Service (FS) and theBureau of Land Management (BLM).

Two-striped Garter Snake. The Two-striped Garter Snake (Thamnophis hammondii) is a Group1 County species (San Diego, County of, 2009), a California Species of Concern (Fish andGame, 2009), and a sensitive species to the FS and the BLM. Like the Southwestern Pond Turtle,this species was observed by Varanus Biological Services Inc. during the 2001 surveys for theLeast Bell’s Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, no specifics were given (TierraEnvironmental Services, 2001). Two individuals of this species were observed in 2009 during thefederal protocol surveys for the Arroyo Toad (see Figure 5 for locations).

San Diego Coast Horned Lizard. The Coast Horned Lizard’s primary prey species, harvesterants in the genera Messor sp. and Pogonomyrmex sp. were noted on the property in 2008. During2009, three individual San Diego Coast Horned Lizards (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii)were noted in the northern part of the site (see Figure 5 for locations). The Coast Horned Lizardis a Group 2 County species (San Diego, County of, 2009), a California Species of Concern (Fishand Game, 2009), and a sensitive species to the FS.

Coastal Western Whiptail. The Coastal Western Whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) holdsno federal or state status. However, the County has classified the Coastal Western Whiptail as aGroup 2 Sensitive Animal Species (San Diego, County of, 2009). Two individuals of thissubspecies were noted in the northeastern portion of the site and one was seen in thesouthwestern part of the property within Big Sagebrush Scrub habitat (see Figure 5 for locations).

Southern Mule Deer. The Southern Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) holds no federal or statestatus. However, the County has classified the Mule Deer as a Group 2 Sensitive Animal Species(San Diego, County of, 2009). During the 2008 and 2009 surveys, several deer tracks were notedin the northern portion of the site, and in the grazed field south of Pine Valley Creek (see Figure5 for location).

Cooper’s Hawk. The Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperi) is identified as a California Species ofConcern by the CDFG (Fish and Game, 2009), and as a Group 1 Sensitive Animal Species by theCounty Guidelines for Determining Significance (San Diego, County of, 2009). This species wasobserved by Tierra Environmental Services in 1998 (Tierra Environmental Services, 2001), nospecific location was given. A single Cooper’s Hawk was identified in 2008 within the plantedCottonwoods in the southern part of the site (see Figure 5 for location). Turkey Vulture. The Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) holds no federal or state status. However,the County has classified the Turkey Vulture as a Group 1 Sensitive Animal Species (San Diego,County of, 2009). This species was observed by Tierra Environmental Services in 1998 and byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. in 2001 (Tierra Environmental Services, 2001) with no specificlocations, other than “overhead”, given. Two additional sightings of this species were madeduring 2009 (see Figure 5 for locations).

Lawrence’s Goldfinch. The Lawrence’s Goldfinch is a federal bird of conservation concern(Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008). It holds no other federal or state status, and the County of San

Page 20 of 50

Diego has not included it on its Sensitive Animal Species List. This nomadic bird species wasobserved in 2008 and 2009 as large flocks within Pine Valley Creek (see Figure 5 for locations).

Black-chinned Sparrow. The Black-chinned Sparrow (Spizella atrogularis) is a federal bird ofconservation concern (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008). It holds no other federal or state status,and the County of San Diego has not included it on its Sensitive Animal Species List. Thisspecies was not seen on-site, but was heard off-site to the west of the property (see Figure 5 forlocations).

Common Barn Owl. The Common Barn Owl (Tyto alba) holds no federal or state status.However, the County has classified the Turkey Vulture as a Group 2 Sensitive Animal Species(San Diego, County of, 2009). This owl was heard during two of the nighttime surveys for theArroyo Toad in Pine Valley Creek (see Figure 5 for locations).

Yellow Warbler. The Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri) was observed by VaranusBiological Services Inc. during the 2001 surveys for the Least Bell’s Vireo and the SouthwesternWillow Flycatcher, no specifics were given (Tierra Environmental Services, 2001). This warbleris a County Group 2 species (San Diego, County of, 2009), and a California Species of Concern(Fish and Game, 2009). One individual was observed in 2009 within the riparian habitat in PineValley Creek (see Figure 5 for location).

Western Bluebird. The Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) holds no federal or state status.However, it is listed in Group 2 of the County of San Diego’s Sensitive Animal List (San Diego,County of, 2009). This species was observed by Tierra Environmental Services in 1998, byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. in 2001 (Tierra Environmental Services, 2001), and byCummings and Associates during the 2008 and 2009 surveys. During both 2008 site visits, thisspecies was heard overhead south of the Pine Valley Creek riparian habitat in the northern part ofthe property (see Figure 5 for location). During the 2009 visits, this species was seen repeatedlyalong the telephone wires in the northern part of the site, in the Cottonwoods in the southern partof the site, and nesting in the extreme southwest corner of the property (see Figure 5 forlocations). Of the remaining thirty-two species, fifteen are unlikely on-site given the types of habitats andsoils present, and seventeen are “possible” on the property with varying levels of potential. There are eight species with a “low” occurrence potential on the property. These species are theHarmonius Halictid Bee (Halictus harmonius), Arroyo Southwestern Toad (Bufo californicus),California Mountain Kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata pulchra), Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus),Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor),Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps ssp. canescens), and Loggerhead Shrike (Laniusludovicianus).

There are nine species with a “medium” potential for occurrence on TM5236. These nineinclude, Coast Range Newt (Taricha torosa torosa), Northern Red Diamond Rattlesnake(Crotalus exsul ruber), Coronado Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis), Rosy

Page 21 of 50

Boa (Lichanura trivarigata), Coast Patch-nosed Snake (Salvador hexalepis virgultea),Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), Western Red Bat (Lasiurusblossevillii), Southern Grasshopper Mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona), and American Badger(Taxidea taxus).

Although all four of the focused surveys for the Arroyo Southwestern Toad, Quino CheckerspotButterfly, Least Bell’s Vireo, and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher were negative, summaries ofthe results are listed in the following paragraphs.

Arroyo Southwestern Toad. The Arroyo Southwestern Toad was surveyed for in 1998 and2009 with negative results (please refer to Appendix C for the 2009 report). However, thisspecies has been identified in areas close to the property, specifically Pine Valley Creek to thenortheast of the site, and Scove Canyon to the southeast of the site. As such, certain mitigationmeasures will be taken to ensure that no new toads will be impacted during construction of thetwo new residences on Lots 1 and 3. In addition, all of the potential breeding habitat on-site willbe placed into open space and dedicated to the County of San Diego.

Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly was surveyed for during the2009 flight season with negative results (please refer to Appendix D for the 2009 report). Basedupon the facts that no larval host plants were observed on the property, and that the property islocated in a low spot (i.e. not conducive to “hilltopping” behavior by males), it is unlikely thatthis species will occur on the property.

Least Bell’s Vireo. In 2001, Varanus Biological Services, Inc. conducted a federal protocolsurvey for the Least Bell’s Vireo with negative results. Their survey consisted of eight site visitsto the riparian habitat along Pine Valley Creek. They observed sixty-one avian species (combinednumber with results of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher survey - see below), including twosensitive species, the Cooper’s Hawk, and the Yellow Warbler.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. In 2001, Varanus Biological Services, Inc. conducted afederal protocol survey for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher with negative results. Theirsurvey consisted of three site visits to the riparian habitat along Pine Valley Creek. Theyobserved sixty-one avian species (combined number with results of the Least Bell’s Vireo survey- see above), including two sensitive species, the Cooper’s Hawk, and the Yellow Warbler.

1.4.7 Wetlands/Jurisdictional Waters

For the purposes of federally regulatory programs, wetlands are defined as areas meeting all threeof the following criteria:

A. A predominance of hydrophytic vegetation (such “water loving” plant species are definedas either obligate hydrophytes or facultative hydrophytes and lists of such plants havebeen developed for each of the major regions of the country).

Page 22 of 50

B. Sufficient hydrology (or water flow) such that there is an anaerobic growing condition inthe soil for at least one week during the growing season.

C. A predominance of hydric soils (such soils are also defined and include “entisols.”Entisols are poorly developed “sands” that are typical of fast moving or highly erosiveenvironments, such as those found in the steep drainages on the subject property).

The California Department of Fish and Game also uses the same three criteria to define wetlands,however, for CDFG, the presence of one or more of the indicators is sufficient to define as areaas a “wetland.”

The County of San Diego amended the Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO) on 21 March 2007.With specific bearing on this particular drainage, the ordinance redefines what is and what is nota wetland:

“(1) Lands having one or more of the following attributes are ‘wetlands’:

(aa). At least periodically, the land supports a predominance of hydrophytes (plantswhose habitat is water or very wet places);

(bb). The substratum is predominantly undrained hydric soil; or

(cc). An ephemeral or perennial stream is present, whose substratum is predominatelynon-soil and such lands contribute substantially to the biological functions or values ofwetlands in the drainage system.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) above, the following shall not be considered ‘Wetlands’:

(aa) Lands which have attribute(s) specified in paragraph (1) solely due to man-madestructures (e.g. culverts, ditches, road crossings, or agricultural ponds), provided that theDirector of Planning and Land Use determines that they:

(I) Have negligible biological function or value as wetlands;

(ii) Are small and geographically isolated from other wetland systems;

(iii) Are not Vernal Pools; and

(iv) Do not have substantial or locally important populations of wetlanddependent sensitive species.

(bb) Lands that have been degraded by past legal land disturbance activities, to the pointthat they meet the following criteria as determined by the Director of Planning and LandUse:

Page 23 of 50

(i) Have negligible biological function or value as wetlands even if restored tothe extent feasible; and,

(ii) Do not have substantial or locally important populations of wetlanddependent sensitive species. ”

Since all of the “wetlands” (of any definition) have been avoided, a formal wetland delineationwas not necessary, and neither a 404-permit from ACOE or a 1602-Agreement from CDFG willbe needed. However, a 100-foot wetland buffer has been requested by the County of San Diego,and as such, the outer limits of the RPO wetlands needed to be defined. In most areas, this outerlimit coincides with the dripline of the riparian habitat. However, in areas where there was noriparian vegetation, the outer limit was taken to be the bottom of the incised bank along thedrainages.

1.4.8 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors

As mentioned in section 1.4.1 above, TM 5236 occurs within the East County MSCP, an NCCPprogram that is not yet approved. At this time, no corridors have been identified. As such, ananalysis of the topography and habitats on-site, as well as, the site visit results, were utilized todetermine if any wildlife corridors occur on the property. A wildlife corridor does exist alongPine Valley Creek, and possibly along the tributaries to Pine Valley Creek. These drainages areincised with riparian habitat along the floor, and high banks covered in upland vegetation. Thisconfiguration of habitats and topography facilitate travel for small and large animals. All of theseareas will be protected via an open space easement dedicated to the County of San Diego (seeAppendix A).

1.5 Applicable Regulations

There are several regulations that apply to TM 5236 in terms of biological resources. Theseregulations include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (federal), the Clean Water Act (federal), theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (state), the California Fish and Game Code (state), theNatural Community Conservation Planning Act (state), and the Resource Protection Ordinance(County).

2.0 Project Effects

The following table summarizes the extent of the various vegetation types within the bounds ofthe project site and summarizes the anticipated effects of the project as proposed.

Page 24 of 50


VegetativeCommunity

AcreageOn-Site


AcresImpact

Neutral2

MitigationRatio3

MitigationRequired

(acres)

Offered(Retained)

On-siteMitigation

TotalMitigation

(ActualRatio)





Montane Meadow 4.0 0.0 0.0 3:1 0.0 4.0 0.0


Totals: 111.6 15.0 54.4 2.3-acresof



AgricultureOn-Site













Page 25 of 50



10. The placement of a residence in proximity to foraging habitat for the Lawrence’sGoldfinch.









7. During construction, no activity shall occur within 500-feet of active raptornesting territories, unless measures are implemented to minimize the noise and

Page 26 of 50

disturbance to those adjacent habitat. Exceptions to the latter measure includecases where surveys confirm that adjacent habitat is not occupied or where noise








b. Arroyo Toad exclusion fencing will be installed around the perimeter of allwork areas within potential Arroyo Toad habitat prior to construction. Thepurpose of the fence is to exclude Arroyo Toads from the work sites. Suchfencing will consist of woven nylon netting approximately 2 feet in heightattached to wooden stakes. Prior to installing the fencing, a narrow trenchapproximately 1 to 2 inches in depth will be excavated and the fenceburied, to prevent burrowing beneath the fence. All fencing materials (i.e.,mesh, stakes, etc.) will be removed following construction. Ingress andegress of construction equipment and personnel will be kept to aminimum, but when necessary, equipment and personnel will use a singleaccess point to the site. This access point will be as narrow as possibleand will be closed off by exclusionary fencing when personnel are not onthe project site.

Page 27 of 50








e. A monitoring biologist approved by the Service shall be onsite at leastonce per week during project construction to ensure compliance with allconservation measures. The biologist must be knowledgeable of ArroyoToad biology. The permittee shall submit the biologist's name, address,telephone number, and work schedule on the project to the Service prior toinitiating project impacts. The biologist shall perform the followingduties:

I. Report any violation to the Service within 24 hours of itsoccurrence.

ii. The biological monitor shall also submit a final report to theService within 60 days of project completion that includes: as-builtconstruction drawings with an overlay of habitat that was impactedand preserved, photographs of areas to be preserved, and otherrelevant summary information documenting that authorized

Page 28 of 50

impacts were not exceeded and general compliance with allconservation measures.

3.0 Special Status Species

This section pertains to the determination of significant impacts, as a result of the project, tospecies 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 U.S. Fish andWildlife Service.

3.1 Guidelines for the Determination of Significance

Any of the following conditions would be considered significant:

A. The project would impact one or more individuals of a species listed as federally or stateendangered or threatened.

B. The project would impact the regional long-term survival of a County Group A or B plantspecies, or a County Group 1 animal species, or a species listed as a state Species ofSpecial Concern.

C. The project would impact the regional long-term survival of a County Group C or D plantspecies or a County Group 2 animal species.

D. The project may impact arroyo toad aestivation or breeding habitat.E. The project would impact golden eagle habitat.F. The project would result in a loss of functional foraging habitat for raptors.G. The project would increase noise and/or nighttime lighting to a level above ambient

proven to adversely affect sensitive species.H. The project would impact the viability of a core wildlife area, defined as a large block of

habitat (typically 500 acres or more not limited to project boundaries, though smallerareas with particularly valuable resources may also be considered a core wildlife area)that supports a viable population of a sensitive wildlife species or an area that supportsmultiple wildlife species.

I. The project would increase human access or predation or competition from domesticanimals, pests or exotic species to levels that would adversely affect sensitive species.

3.2 Analysis of Project Effects

There are several potentially significant effects to sensitive species per the Guidelines in Section3.1 above. In Section 3.1.D, the Arroyo Toad breeding and aestivating habitat within the drainageon-site is proposed to be placed into open space. However, there are other portions of the site thatmay be potential Arroyo Toad aestivating habitat that are not going to be placed into open space.Under Section 3.1.F, the proposed project will result in the loss of 9.8-acres of functional

Page 29 of 50

foraging habitat for raptors. The proposed project will not result in significant impacts tosensitive species under the remaining Guidelines in Section 3.1 for the Determination ofSignificance for the following reasons:

3.1.A There were no federal or state listed endangered or threatened species identified on-site.Although the federal protocol survey for the Arroyo Toad in 2009 was negative, certainmitigation measures will be taken to ensure that no aestivating toads that should come onto the property will be impacted by development of two residences on Lots 1 and 3.

3.1.B Although no County Group A or B plant species were identified on the property, there isone Group A plant species that has a high potential to occur on-site, the SouthernSkullcap. However, there is a high degree of confidence that if this species were present,it would likely be located within the areas proposed to be designated as open space. TheSouthwestern Pond Turtle and the Two-striped Garter Snake (both Group 1 species), andthe Yellow Warbler (a Group 2 County species, but a California Species of Concern)were identified on-site, but the long-term survival of these species will not be in jeopardysince the riparian habitat and a wetland buffer will be placed into open space. Cooper’sHawk and Turkey Vulture were two avian species on the County’s Group 1 sensitiveanimal list that were observed on-site. There are no suitable nest sites for the TurkeyVulture on-site, therefore, the long-term survival of that species will not be impacted.There are potential nest sites for the Cooper’s Hawk, and a mitigation measure to avoidany impacts to this species during the breeding season have been proposed. Also, thepotential foraging habitat for the Cooper’s Hawk will be mitigated through the habitatmitigation requirement. Therefore, the long-term survival of the Cooper’s Hawk will notbe impacted.

3.1.C The loss of habitat for the Mule Deer will not effect the long-term survival of this species,in that most of the sightings of this species were within an area that will be designated asopen space or will be “impact neutral”. The placement of residences in proximity to smallpopulations of Coast Horned Lizards, Coastal Western Whiptail, Western Bluebirds, andBarn Owls will not effect the long-term survival of these species.

3.1.E No Golden Eagles are on-site or within 4,000-feet of the site.3.1.G The project has proposed open space where the majority of the sensitive species were

sighted. Adjacent to this open space is a 100-foot limited building zone easement whichshould ensure that no spill light or noise will adversely affect sensitive species.

3.1.H The existing wildlife corridor that exists along Pine Valley Creek and the drainagestributary to Pine Valley Creek will be preserved in open space.

3.1.I There are already equestrian riding trails on TM 5236, and existing residences and horsefacilities. The addition of two single-family homes will not increase human access orpredation or competition from domestic animals, pests or exotic species to levels thatwould adversely affect sensitive species or that do not already exist.

Page 30 of 50

3.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis

The cumulative analysis included a records search (using the County of San Diego’s Kivadatabase) of the projects within a one-mile radius of the project site. Of the 850 parcels searched,a total of six discretionary projects were identified within the vicinity of TM 5236. One of the sixprojects was for a wireless phone tower, for which a Negative Declaration was prepared. One ofthe remaining five was an expired TM. The TM originally had an EIR prepared, but then due tonew information, focused surveys for the Arroyo Toad were conducted. The second surveyconducted in 2005 was positive and recommended minor redesigns of the project to avoidimpacts to the Arroyo Toad. However, these mitigation measures were never implementedbecause the TM expired. The remaining four projects are still in process. The delays with theseprojects is mostly due to groundwater survey requirements.

Based upon the information found during the discretionary project research, it appears as thoughthere will be no cumulative effects as long as TM 5236 complies with the RPO, providesappropriate habitat mitigation, and implements Arroyo Toad mitigation measures as outlined inthis report.

3.4 Mitigation Measures and Design Considerations

The following mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the potentially significantimpacts identified in Section 3.3 to a level of insignificance.

1. The loss of 9.8-acres of Extensive Agriculture and Disturbed Habitat utilized asraptor foraging habitat will also be mitigated on-site by the preservation of 27.8-acres of Extensive Agriculture, Disturbed Habitat, and Big Sagebrush Scrubwithin the open space easement (a > 3:1 mitigation ratio);





4. The placement of a residence in close proximity to small populations of SanDiego Coast Horned Lizards and Coastal Western Whiptails is deemed to be

Page 31 of 50

mitigated through the on-site preservation of Big Sagebrush Scrub within openspace.





b. Arroyo Toad exclusion fencing will be installed around the perimeter of allwork areas within potential Arroyo Toad habitat prior to construction. Thepurpose of the fence is to exclude Arroyo Toads from the work sites. Suchfencing will consist of woven nylon netting approximately 2 feet in heightattached to wooden stakes. Prior to installing the fencing, a narrow trenchapproximately 1 to 2 inches in depth will be excavated and the fenceburied, to prevent burrowing beneath the fence. All fencing materials (i.e.,mesh, stakes, etc.) will be removed following construction. Ingress andegress of construction equipment and personnel will be kept to aminimum, but when necessary, equipment and personnel will use a singleaccess point to the site. This access point will be as narrow as possibleand will be closed off by exclusionary fencing when personnel are not onthe project site.





Page 32 of 50




e. A monitoring biologist approved by the Service shall be onsite at leastonce per week during project construction to ensure compliance with allconservation measures. The biologist must be knowledgeable of ArroyoToad biology. The permittee shall submit the biologist's name, address,telephone number, and work schedule on the project to the Service prior toinitiating project impacts. The biologist shall perform the followingduties:I. Report any violation to the Service within 24 hours of its

occurrence.ii. The biological monitor shall also submit a final report to the

Service within 60 days of project completion that includes: as-builtconstruction drawings with an overlay of habitat that was impactedand preserved, photographs of areas to be preserved, and otherrelevant summary information documenting that authorizedimpacts were not exceeded and general compliance with allconservation measures.


Page 33 of 50



3.5 Conclusions

By implementing the ten mitigation measures outlined in Section 3.4 above, the potentiallysignificant impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.

4.0 Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Community

This section pertains to the determination of significant impacts, as a result of the project, toriparian habitat or a sensitive natural community. Jurisdictional wetlands are discussed in Section5.0 below.



A. Project-related construction, grading, clearing, or other activities would temporarily orpermanently remove sensitive native or naturalized habitat (as listed in Table 5 of theCounty Guidelines for Determining Significance) on or off the project site.

B. Any of the following will occur to or within jurisdictional wetlands and/or riparianhabitats as defined by ACOE, CDFG and the County of San Diego: removal ofvegetation; grading; obstruction or diversion of water flow; adverse change in velocity,siltation, volume of flow, or runoff rate; placement of fill; placement of structures;construction of a road crossing; placement of culverts or other underground piping; anydisturbance of the substratum; and/or any activity that may cause an adverse change innative species composition, diversity and abundance.

C. The project would draw down the groundwater table to the detriment of groundwater-dependent habitat, typically a drop of 3 feet or more from historical low groundwaterlevels.

D. The project would increase human access or competition from domestic animals, pests orexotic species to levels proven to adversely affect sensitive habitats.

E. The project does not include a wetland buffer adequate to protect the functions and valuesof existing wetlands.

Page 34 of 50


The only potentially significant effect to riparian or other sensitive habitat per the Guidelines inSection 4.1above is under Section 4.1.A. The proposed project will impact 4.6-acres of ExtensiveAgriculture.

TM 5236 will not result in significant impacts to sensitive habitats under the remainingGuidelines in Section 4.1 for the Determination of Significance for the following reasons:

4.1.B No direct or indirect impacts will occur to or within jurisdictional wetlands and/orriparian habitats as defined by ACOE, CDFG, or the County. The proposed project hasavoided the wetlands on-site.

4.1.C The project is not anticipated to draw down the groundwater table of 3 feet or more fromhistorical low groundwater levels.

4.1.D There are already equestrian trails throughout TM 5236. Construction of the two single-family homes will not increase human access or competition from domestic animals,pests or exotic species to levels that would adversely affect sensitive habitats or that donot already exist.

4.1.E. A wetland buffer of 100-feet is proposed from the edge of the RPO wetlands. Anadditional 100-foot Limited Building Zone Easement is proposed from the edge of thewetland buffer.


Please refer to Table 5 for the summary of the cumulative analysis study.

In that:# TM 5236 will be impacting 4.6-acres of Extensive Agriculture,# TM 5236 is proposing to preserve 3.3-acres of Extensive Agriculture for these

impacts,# the past, present and future projects, within the cumulative analysis area, that have

or will have impacts to Extensive Agriculture (or Non-Native Grassland withcomparable biological values) will be or have been mitigated for at a minimum ofa 0.5:1 mitigation ratio,

then the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact on Extensive Agricultural habitats will beless than cumulatively considerable.


The following mitigation measure will be implemented to mitigate the potentially significantimpacts to the Extensive Agriculture to a level of insignificance:

Page 35 of 50

Approximately 3.3-acres of Extensive Agriculture will be preserved on-site for the loss ofExtensive Agriculture habitats, thereby reducing the potentially significant impact to less thansignificant.

4.5 Conclusions

The potentially significant impacts resulting from the loss of 4.6-acres of Extensive Agriculturewill be mitigated to a level of insignificance by preserving 3.3-acres of Extensive Agriculture on-site. The 3.3-acres represent mitigation at a > 1.5:1 ratio which exceeds the required mitigationratios in Table 5 of the County of San Diego’s Guidelines for Determining Significance forBiological Resources.

5.0 Jurisdictional Wetland and Waterways

The three drainages on-site; Pine Valley Creek and the two drainages tributary to Pine ValleyCreek meet the criteria of a “wetland” as defined by the ACOE, the CDFG and by the CountyRPO.


The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as definedby Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, andcoastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means.


The wetlands on-site have been completely avoided through project design.


There are no direct or cumulative impacts to wetlands and waterways.


The project has been designed to avoid any impacts to wetlands and waterways. A 100-footwetland buffer is proposed from the edge of the RPO wetland. An additional 100-foot LimitedBuilding Zone Easement is proposed from the edge of the wetland buffer. Signs shall be placedaround the perimeter of the open space.

Page 36 of 50

5.5 Conclusions

Since the wetlands have been completely avoided through project design, there are no impactsand therefore, no cumulative effects. To ensure the wetlands are protected, they are proposed tobe placed into open space with a 100-foot wetland buffer (consistent with the RPO). In addition,a 100-foot Limited Building Zone Easement will be placed at the edge of the wetland buffer toensure that no future fuel modification will impact the buffer or the wetlands. Signs will beplaced around the perimeter of the open space to indicate its preserve status and to provideinformation about its resources.

6.0 Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites

This section pertains to the determination of significant impacts, as a result of the project, towildlife movement and nursery sites.



A. The project would prevent wildlife access to foraging habitat, breeding habitat, watersources, or other areas necessary for their reproduction.

B. The project would substantially interfere with connectivity between blocks of habitat, orwould potentially block or substantially interfere with a local or regional wildlife corridoror linkage.

C. The project would create artificial wildlife corridors that do not follow natural movementpatterns.

D. The project would increase noise and/or nighttime lighting in a wildlife corridor orlinkage to levels proven to affect the behavior of the animals identified in a site-specificanalysis of wildlife movement.

E. The project does not maintain an adequate width for an existing wildlife corridor orlinkage and/or would further constrain an already narrow corridor through activities suchas (but not limited to) reduction of corridor width, removal of available vegetative cover,placement of incompatible uses adjacent to it, and placement of barriers in the movementpath.

F. The project does not maintain adequate visual continuity (i.e. long lines-of-site) withinwildlife corridors or linkages.


The only potentially significant effects are impacts to the aestivating habitat of the Arroyo Toadunder section 6.1.A. TM 5236 will not result in significant impacts to wildlife movement ornursery sites under the remaining Guidelines in Section 6.1 for the Determination of Significancefor the following reasons:

Page 37 of 50

6.1.B The project will not interfere with connectivity between habitats because it will preservethe drainages on-site that cross the property like a “T”. Wildlife species are suspected ofmoving along these drainages either on to the site, or off of it. Essentially, the drainageson-site act as a corridor channeling wildlife species on to the site to Pine Valley Creek forwater, or channeling them off of the site to adjacent habitats, such as those within ForestService Lands to the northeast. These drainages will be preserved on-site via an openspace easement with an adjacent 100-foot limited building zone easement for additionalprotection of habitats.

6.1.C The preservation of the drainages with buffers on-site will allow the wildlife movementthrough the project site to continue to follow natural movement patterns through existingslopes and drainages.

6.1.D The project has proposed open space where the majority of the sensitive species weresighted. Adjacent to this open space is a 100-foot limited building zone easement whichshould ensure that no spill light or noise will adversely affect sensitive species movingthrough the drainage.

6.1.E TM 5236 is proposing to preserve the drainages on-site in addition to a 100-foot bufferand an additional 100-foot limited building zone easement. These areas encompass theexisting wildlife corridor and then some. Therefore, the project will maintain the anadequate width of the existing wildlife corridor.

6.1.F The project will maintain adequate visual continuity due to the location of the proposedareas to be preserved. The existing wildlife corridor along the drainages on-site areproposed to be preserved in their entirety.


This project and the others (see Table 5) in the area have been designed to avoid impacts toArroyo Toads. In addition, each project listed in Table 5 is required to mitigate its impacts tohabitat, which will result in preservation of areas that will provide resources necessary forsuccessful reproduction. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact on nurserysites and wildlife movement will be less than cumulatively considerable.


The project has been designed to conserve the site’s natural drainage areas which function as awildlife corridor. The species that remain in the riparian habitat throughout their lives aretherefore protected. However, Arroyo Toads can travel quite a distance from breeding areas toaestivate. Although the federal protocol survey for the Arroyo Toad was negative (see AppendixC), certain conservation measures must be implemented per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service toensure that no impacts occur to any Arroyo Toads that should happen to appear within the projectarea during construction. The five conservation measures are as follows:

Page 38 of 50

1. No construction activities will take place during the Arroyo Toad breeding season(March 15-July 31) within suitable Arroyo Toad breeding habitat.

2. Arroyo Toad exclusion fencing will be installed around the perimeter of all workareas within potential Arroyo Toad habitat prior to construction. The purpose ofthe fence is to exclude Arroyo Toads from the work sites. Such fencing willconsist of woven nylon netting approximately 2 feet in height attached to woodenstakes. Prior to installing the fencing, a narrow trench approximately 1 to 2 inchesin depth will be excavated and the fence buried, to prevent burrowing beneath thefence. All fencing materials (i.e., mesh, stakes, etc.) will be removed followingconstruction. Ingress and egress of construction equipment and personnel will bekept to a minimum, but when necessary, equipment and personnel will use asingle access point to the site. This access point will be as narrow as possible andwill be closed off by exclusionary fencing when personnel are not on the projectsite.

3. The applicant will ensure that the following conditions are implemented duringproject construction:

a. Employees will strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, andconstruction materials to the fenced project footprint;

b. To avoid attracting predators, the project site will be kept as clean ofdebris as possible. All food related trash items will be enclosed in sealedcontainers and regularly removed from the site;

c. Pets of project personnel will not be allowed on the project site;d. Disposal or temporary placement of excess fill, brush or other debris will

not be allowed in waters of the United States or their banks;e. All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant,

or any other such activities will occur in designated areas outside of watersof the United States within the fenced project impact limits. Thesedesignated areas will be located in previously compacted and disturbedareas to the maximum extent practicable in such a manner as to preventany runoff from entering waters of the United States, and will be shown onthe construction plans. Fueling of equipment will take place withinexisting paved areas or designated fueling areas designed to contain fueldrips greater than 100 feet from waters of the United States. Contractorequipment will be checked for leaks prior to operation and repaired asnecessary. “No-fueling zones” will be designated on construction plansand/or within the stormwater pollution prevention plan.

4. Construction activities will be prohibited immediately following significantrainfall events when the Arroyo Toad may be active in upland areas.

Page 39 of 50

5. A monitoring biologist approved by the Service shall be onsite at least once perweek during project construction to ensure compliance with all conservationmeasures. The biologist must be knowledgeable of Arroyo Toad biology. Thepermittee shall submit the biologist's name, address, telephone number, and workschedule on the project to the Service prior to initiating project impacts. Thebiologist shall perform the following duties:a. Report any violation to the Service within 24 hours of its occurrence.b. The biological monitor shall also submit a final report to the Service

within 60 days of project completion that includes: as-built constructiondrawings with an overlay of habitat that was impacted and preserved,photographs of areas to be preserved, and other relevant summaryinformation documenting that authorized impacts were not exceeded andgeneral compliance with all conservation measures.

The project also proposes signage around the periphery of the open space to ensure perpetualpreservation of the area.

6.5 Conclusions

TM 5236 has completely avoided impacts to the drainages on-site, and has proposed that they beplaced into open space. Through the project design avoidance and mitigation measures forpotential impacts to Arroyo Toads, no significant impacts to nursery sites and wildlife movementwill occur.

7.0 Local Policies, Ordinances, Adopted Plans

This section pertains to the determination of significant impacts, as a result of the project, withrespect to local policies, ordinances and adopted plans.



A. For lands outside of the MSCP, the project would impact coastal sage scrub (CSS)vegetation in excess of the County’s 5% habitat loss threshold as defined by the SouthernCalifornia Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Communities Conservation Planning Process(NCCP) Guidelines.

B. The project would preclude or prevent the preparation of the subregional NaturalCommunities Conservation Planning Process (NCCP). For example, the project proposeddevelopment within areas that have been identified by the County or resource agencies ascritical to future habitat preserves.

C. The project will impact any amount of sensitive habitat lands as outlined in the ResourceProtection Ordinance (RPO).

Page 40 of 50

D. The project would not minimize and/or mitigate coastal sage scrub habitat loss inaccordance with Section 4.3 of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Process(NCCP) Guidelines.

E. The project does not conform to the goals and requirements as outlined in any applicableHabitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Habitat Management Plan (HMP), Special AreaManagement Plan (SAMP), Watershed Plan, or similar regional planning effort.

F. For lands within the Multiple Species Conservation program (MSCP), the project wouldnot minimize impacts to Biological Resource Core Areas (BRCAs), as defined in theBiological Mitigation Ordinance (BMO).

G. The project would preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values, as definedby the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Communities ConservationPlanning Process (NCCP) Guidelines.

H. The project does not maintain existing movement corridors and/or habitat linkages asdefined by the Biological Mitigation Ordinance (BMO).

I. The project does not avoid impacts to MSCP narrow endemic species and would impactcore populations of narrow endemics.

J. The project would reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of listed species in thewild.

K. The project would result in the killing of migratory birds or destruction of activemigratory bird nests and/or eggs (Migratory Bird Treaty Act).

L. The project would result in the take of eagles, eagle eggs or any part of an eagle (Bald andGolden Eagle Protection Act).


The only potentially significant effect on local policies, ordinances or adopted plans per theGuidelines in Section 7.1above is under Section 7.1.K. The proposed project could result in thekilling of migratory birds or destruction of active migratory bird nests and/or eggs if the gradingfor the project occurred during the breeding bird season (February 15 through August 31).

TM 5236 will not result in significant impacts to local policies, ordinances or adopted plansunder the remaining Guidelines in Section 7.1 above for the Determination of Significance forthe following reasons:

7.1.A The project is not impacting Coastal Sage Scrub.7.1.B The project proposes to preserve all the areas designated as critical habitat for the Arroyo

Toad.7.1.C No sensitive habitats as defined in the RPO will be impacted.7.1.D The project is not impacting Coastal Sage Scrub.7.1.E The project does conform to the goals and requirements as outlined in any applicable

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Habitat Management Plan (HMP), Special AreaManagement Plan (SAMP), Watershed Plan, or similar regional planning effort because itcomplies with the RPO.

Page 41 of 50

7.1.F The project is not within the MSCP.7.1.G The project proposes to preserve all of the drainages on-site plus a 100-foot wetland

buffer.7.1.H The BMO does not apply, and in any case, the project proposes to preserve all of the

drainages on-site plus a 100-foot wetland buffer.7.1.I No MSCP narrow endemics were identified on-site.7.1.J The project proposes to preserve all the areas designated as critical habitat for the Arroyo

Toad. In addition, mitigation measures have been proposed for areas that may be potentialArroyo Toad aestivating habitat.

7.1.L There were no eagles identified on the property or within 4,000 feet of the property.


All development projects in the County that could impact migratory birds are conditioned suchthat any grading, clearing or grubbing activity shall occur outside of the avian breeding season.With this condition, there are no cumulative effects because there are no impacts to migratorybirds.


The following mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the potentially significanteffects on migratory birds to a level of insignificance:

1. Grading, clearing and grubbing shall occur outside of the avian breeding season ofFebruary 15 to August 31(the breeding season for some raptors can start as earlyas December or January).




7.5 Conclusions

By implementing the two mitigation measures outlined in Section 7.4 above, the potentiallysignificant impact to migratory birds will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.

Page 42 of 50

8.0 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation

The areas of vegetation by type within TM 5236 along with the areas of anticipated effect andmitigation requirements are summarized in the following table:


VegetativeCommunity

AcreageOn-Site


AcresImpact

Neutral2

MitigationRatio3

MitigationRequired

(acres)

Offered(Retained)

On-siteMitigation

TotalMitigation

(ActualRatio)





Montane Meadow 4.0 0.0 0.0 3:1 0.0 4.0 0.0


Totals: 111.6 15.0 54.4 2.3-acresof



AgricultureOn-Site











Page 43 of 50





10. The placement of a residence in proximity to foraging habitat for the Lawrence’sGoldfinch.








Page 44 of 50










b. Arroyo Toad exclusion fencing will be installed around the perimeter of allwork areas within potential Arroyo Toad habitat prior to construction. Thepurpose of the fence is to exclude Arroyo Toads from the work sites. Suchfencing will consist of woven nylon netting approximately 2 feet in heightattached to wooden stakes. Prior to installing the fencing, a narrow trenchapproximately 1 to 2 inches in depth will be excavated and the fenceburied, to prevent burrowing beneath the fence. All fencing materials (i.e.,mesh, stakes, etc.) will be removed following construction. Ingress andegress of construction equipment and personnel will be kept to a

Page 45 of 50

minimum, but when necessary, equipment and personnel will use a singleaccess point to the site. This access point will be as narrow as possibleand will be closed off by exclusionary fencing when personnel are not onthe project site.








e. A monitoring biologist approved by the Service shall be onsite at leastonce per week during project construction to ensure compliance with allconservation measures. The biologist must be knowledgeable of ArroyoToad biology. The permittee shall submit the biologist's name, address,telephone number, and work schedule on the project to the Service prior toinitiating project impacts. The biologist shall perform the followingduties:I. Report any violation to the Service within 24 hours of its

occurrence.

Page 46 of 50

ii. The biological monitor shall also submit a final report to theService within 60 days of project completion that includes: as-builtconstruction drawings with an overlay of habitat that was impactedand preserved, photographs of areas to be preserved, and otherrelevant summary information documenting that authorizedimpacts were not exceeded and general compliance with allconservation measures.

9.0 REFERENCES

Abrams, Leroy and R.S. Ferris. 1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States. Volume IV,Bignoniaceae to Compositae. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif., v + 732 pp.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7 Edition.th

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D. C., liv + 829 pp.

Bartlett, Richard D., and A. Tennant. 2000. Snakes of North America: Western Region. GulfPublishing Company, Houston, TX, xvi + 312 pp.

Beauchamp, R. Mitchel. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater RiverPress. National City, Calif. 241 pp.

Bond, Suzanne I.1977. An Annotated List of Mammals of San Diego County, CaliforniaTransactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History. 18(14): 229-248

Bostic, Dennis L. 1964. The Ecology and Behavior of Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi Cope(Sauria: Teiidae). Master's Thesis, San Diego State University. 112 pp.

Bowman, Roy H., et al. 1973. Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

Brattstrom, Bayard. 1990. (Professor, California State University, Fullerton). Presentation to theSan Diego County Biologists Association, December 3, 1990.

California Native Plant Society. 2008. On-line Electronic Inventory (of Rare and EndangeredVascular Plants of California) athttp://www.northcoast.com/~cnps/cgi-bin/cnps/sensinv.cgi. Accessed on 30 September,2008.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. TechnicalReport Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,Mississippi.

Page 47 of 50

Ernst, Carl H., and Evelyn M. Ernst. 2003. Snakes of the United States and Canada. SmithsonianInstitution Press. Washington, D.C. ix + 668 pp.

Fish and Game, California Department of. 2009. California Natural Diversity Data Base: SpecialAnimals. The Author, Sacramento, California, 59 pp. [available athttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/ biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf], edition of July 2009.

Fish and Game, California Department of. 2009. California Natural Diversity Data Base: Stateand Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. The Author,Sacramento, California, 16 pp., [available athttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/ TEPlants.pdf], edition of January 2009.

Fish and Game, California Department of. 2009. California Natural Diversity Data Base: SpecialVascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication, 70 pp. [available athttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPPlants.pdf], edition of January 2009.

Fish and Game, California Department of. 2009. California Natural Diversity Data Base: Stateand Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened Animals of California. The Author,Sacramento, California, 12 pp. [available athttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf], edition of February 2009.

Fish and Game, California Department of. 2009. California Natural Diversity Database. RareFind 3 Commercial Version Updated 6 October 2009. Biogeographic Data Branch,Sacramento, CA.

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 2006. Flora of North America. Vol. 20.Oxford University Press, New York, N. Y., xxii + 666 pp.

Grinnell, Joseph and Alden H. Miller. 1944. The Distribution of the Birds of California. CooperOrnithological Club, Berkeley, California (1986 reprint), 617 pp.

Grismer, L. Lee. 2002. Amphibians and Reptiles of Baja California. Univ. of Calif. Press,Berkeley, Calif., xiii + 399 pp.

Hall, E. Raymond. 1981. The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press, New York. Secondedition, Volumes I and II, pp. xv + 1181.

Hickman, James C. ed. 1996. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, xvii + 1400 pp.

Hoffmeister, Donald F. 1986. The Mammals of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press.Arizona. xx + 602 pp.

Page 48 of 50

Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities ofCalifornia. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. iii + 155pp.

Jameson, E.W., Jr. and Hans J. Peeters. 2004. Mammals of California. University of CaliforniaPress. California Natural History Guide 66, revised edition, xi + 429 pp.

Kelly, Patrick A., and John T. Rotenberry. 1993. Buffer Zones for Ecological Reserves inCalifornia: Replacing Guesswork with Science. In: Keeley, Jon E., ed., Symposium onthe Interface Between Ecology and Land Development In California, Southern CaliforniaAcademy of Sciences, Los Angeles, Calif., pp. 85-92.

Lemm, Jeffrey M. 2006. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of the San Diego Region.University of California Press, Berkley, CA, xii + 326 pp.

Munz, Philip A. 2003. Introduction to California Mountain Wildflowers. California NaturalHistory Guides Series. University of California Press, L.A., CA. xi +247 pp.

Oberbauer, Thomas A. 1996. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities in San Diego County Based onHolland’s Descriptions. Unpublished manuscript, County of San Diego, Department ofPlanning and Land Use, 7 pp [copies available from the County of San Diego].

Peeters, Hans, and Pam Peeters. 2005. Raptors of California. University of California Press, LosAngeles, California. xi + 294 pp.

Pyle, Peter. 1997. Identification Guide to North American Birds. Part I. Slate Creek Press,Bolinas, Calif., xi + 732 pp.

Rebman, Jon P. and Michael G. Simpson. 2006. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San DiegoCounty, 4th ed. San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego,CA, 4th ed., xx+100 pp.

Rising, James D. And David D. Beadle. 1996. The Sparrows of the United States and Canada.Academic Press, San Diego, Calif., xiii + 365 pp.

Roberts, Jr., Fred M. 1995. The Oaks of the Southern Californian Floristic Province. F. M.Roberts Publications, Encinitas, Calif., 112 pp.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1990. Comprehensive Species ManagementPlan for the Least Bell's Vireo (draft). The Author, San Diego, California. xix + 244 pp.

San Diego County of. 2007. Resource Protection Ordinance (Ordinance Numbers 7968, 7739,7685, 7631, and 9842 (New Series)). Document available from the Department ofPlanning and Land Use, 18 pp.

Page 49 of 50

San Diego, County of. 2009. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance andReport Format and Contents for Biological Resources. Third Revision. Available fromthe County’s website athttp://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/Biological_Guidelines.pdf.

San Diego, County of. 2009. County of San Diego Report Format and Content Requirements forBiological Resources. Third Revision. Document available athttp://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/ dplu/docs/Biological_Report_Format.pdf.

San Diego Natural History Museum. n.d. Checklist of Mammal Species Recorded in San DiegoCounty. Manuscript available at: http://www.sdnhm.org/research/birds/sdmamm.html[copy downloaded 6 Nov 2006].

Shaw, Charles E. 1950. The Lizards of San Diego County with Descriptions and Key. Bulletinsof the Zoological Society of San Diego, No. 25

Smith, Hobart M. 1946. Handbook of Lizards. Comstock Publ. Assoc., Cornel Univ. Press,Ithaca, NY, xxxi + 557 pp.

Sedgwick, James A., and F. L. Knopf. 1992. Describing Willow Flycatcher habitats: ScalePerspectives and gender differences. The Condor 94(3):720-733.

Sherbrooke, Wade C. 2003. Horned Lizards of North America. University of California Press,Berkeley, xiii + 278 pp.

Sibley, David Allen. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY, 544 pp.

Stebbins, Robert C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd Ed.,Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass., xiii + 533 pp.

Sweet, S. S. 1992. Ecology and status of the arroyo toad ( Bufo microscaphus californicus) onthe Los Padres National Forest of southern California, with managementrecommendations. Report to United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, California. ii + 198 pp.

Sweet, S.S. 1993. Second Report on the Biology and Status of the Arroyo Toad (Bufomicroscaphus californicus) on the Los Padres National Forest of Southern California. Report to United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Los Padres NationalForest, Goleta, California. ii + 73 pp.

Tierra Environmental Services, 2001. Biological Resources Report for the Simpkins Pine ValleyProject. Report available from the author. iii + 37 pp.

Page 50 of 50

Todd, Victoria R. 2004. Preliminary Geologic Map of the El Cajon 30' x 60- Quadrangle,Southern California, Version 1.0. U. S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2004-1361[copies available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1361/ec1_map/pdf].

Unitt, P. 1987. Empidonax traillii extimus: An endangered subspecies. W. Birds 18:137-162.

Unitt, Philip. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego Natural History Museum, SanDiego, Calif. vii + 645 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; FinalDetermination of Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. FederalRegister 62(140):39129-39133.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo belliipusillus), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR, 139 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Arroyo southwestern toad ( Bufo microscaphuscalifornicus) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. vi + 119pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Update of Quino Survey Map. Available at:http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/Rules/QuinoDocuments/Quinopdfs/web-map20052.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; FinalDesignation of Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus); Final Rule.Federal Register 70(70):19561-19633.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United StatesDepartment of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory BirdManagement, Arlington, VA. 85 pp. [Online version available athttp://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/BCC2008.pdf].

Wilson, Don E. and Sue Ruff, eds. 1999. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals,Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., xxv + 750 pp.

10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS AND

ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED

Preparer:Gretchen CummingsCummings and AssociatesP.O. Box 1209Ramona, CA 92065(760)[email protected] Recovery Permit TE-031850-3 for the California Gnatcatcher and Quino Checkerspot

[:\1562-bio-rpt-rev-3rd.wpd]

CummingsandAssociates

Figure10

Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 19 October 2008 [:\1562-Fig-10.wpg]

The original of this graphic wasproduced in color. Additionalcolor copies may be obtained

from the author.

Site Photographs: View of the NortheasternPortion of the Site — Example of the

Extensive Agriculture Used for Pastureland


Figure1

Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 17 October 2008

N

Project Location in theRegional Context of San Diego County

PROJECTLOCATION

No Scale

[:\1562-Fig-1.wpg]

The original of this graphic was produced incolor. Additional color copies may be

obtained from the author.


Figure2

[:\1562-Fig-2.wpg]Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 13 October 2008

TM 5236 Shown on the U.S.G.S. 7½-minuteDescanso Quadrangle Map [Base Map Created with

TOPO!® ©2006 National Geographic; ©2005 TeleAtlas]

Scale: 1-inch = 2,000-feet


Figure3

Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 17 October 2008

TM 5236 RPL3 Shown on a Thomas Brother Map[Base Map © 2007 Rand McNally & Company]

No Scale

[:\1562-Fig-3.wpg]






Figure5

[:\1562-Fig-5-rev.wpg]Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 1 October 2009

Sensitive Species Locations on TM 5236Shown on an Aerial Photo

[Base Map ©2008 Digital Globe; ©2008 Europa Technologies;©2008 TeleAtlas]

Scale: 1-inch = 750-feetKEY

Parcel Boundaries Turkey Vulture Two-striped Garter Snake

Cooper’s Hawk Black-chinned Sparrow Southwestern Pond Turtle

Western Bluebird Common Barn Owl Coastal Western Whiptail

Lawrence’s Goldfinch San Diego Coast Horned Lizard Mule Deer

Yellow Warbler San Bernardino Aster

**

*

*

* *

13 Mar 09, 2 Apr 09 *

*

13 Apr 09(nesting)

17 Jun 09

13 Apr 09

*30 Sept 08, 16 Oct 08

2 Apr 09

*13 Apr 09

31 Mar 09

31 May 09, 29 Jun 09

*

16 Oct 08

*

13 Mar 09

*

*

25 May 09, 31 May 09,17 Jun 09

30 Sept 08,13 Mar 09

*26 Feb 09, 13 Mar 09,20 Mar 09, 2 Apr 09,13 Apr 09

20 Mar 09

17 Jun 09,29 Jun 09

31 Mar 09

25 May 09, 17 Jun 09

***

13 Apr 09

*31 Mar 09

20 Mar 09

*25 May 09

16 Oct 08

13 Apr 09 17 Jun 09

*31 May 09*

29 Jun 09

**

29 Jun 09


Figure6


Site Photographs: Example of the Montane Meadow in theUnderstory Beneath the Planted Cottonwood Trees in the

Southeastern Portion of the Site


from the author.


Figure7


Site Photographs: Existing Equestrian Trail Within a ProposedWetland Buffer Area — Note the Riparian Habitat (RPO

Wetland) and the Big Sagebrush Scrub to the Right of the Trail


from the author.


Figure8


Site Photographs: View of Pine Valley Creek Habitat — Photo Taken from the Southern Bank of the Creek

Facing Roughly Northwest


from the author.


Figure9


Site Photographs: View of the Northwestern Portion of theProperty Utilized as a Horse Boarding Facility


from the author.

Page 1 of 9

Table 1

VASCULAR PLANTS OBSERVEDON TM 5236RPL, PINE CREEK RANCH1

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

Scientific NameCommon Name

Native (N)or

Introduced (I)

Vegetative Community Occurrence On-site2

Achillea millefoliumYarrow

N Montane Meadow Infrequent, found scattered underneath theplanted Cottonwoods.

Ambrosia psilostachyaWestern Ragweed

N Big Sagebrush Scrub,Urban/Developed, Montane Meadow,

Disturbed Habitat, andExtensive Agriculture

A dominant throughout the site.

Amsinckia menziesii var. intermediaRancher’s Fireweed

N Unknown Observed by Tierra Environmental during aspring survey in 1998.

Anagallis arvensisScarlet Pimpernel

I Disturbed Habitat Infrequent, observed in the understory ofthe Cottonwoods in the southwest corner ofthe site.

Anemopsis californicaYerba Mansa

N Southern Willow Scrub Rare on-site, seen at scattered locationswithin Pine Valley Creek.


Native (N)or

Introduced (I)


Page 2 of 9

Arctostaphylos glaucaBig-berry Manzanita

N Big Sagebrush Scrub Rare on-site, one individual Manzanita wasobserved on a raised bank within thedrainage oriented north/south on theproperty.

Artemisia dracunculusTarragon

N Big Sagebrush Scrub andSouthern Willow Scrub

Frequent, localized in the understory ofCoffeeberry bushes and some willows.

Artemisia tridentataBig Sagebrush

N Big Sagebrush Scrub A dominant of the Big Sagebrush Scrubhabitat.

Avena barbataSlender Wild Oat

I Extensive Agriculture Infrequent, observed at scattered locations.

Baccharis salicifoliaMulefat

N Southern Willow Scrub Infrequent, a small component of theriparian habitat.

Brassica sp.Mustard

I Extensive Agriculture Dominant, occurs in large patchesthroughout the pastureland.

Bromus diandrusRipgut Grass

I Unknown Observed by Tierra Environmental during aspring survey in 1998.

Bromus hordeaceusSoft Chess


Bromus madritensis ssp. rubensRed Brome

I Extensive Agriculture Infrequent, seen at scattered locations in thepastureland.

Calandrinia ciliataRed Maids

N Extensive Agriculture andDisturbed Habitat

Infrequent, seen at scattered locations in thepastureland and in the extremesouthwestern part of the site.


Native (N)or

Introduced (I)


Page 3 of 9

Camissonia sp.Sun Cup

N Extensive Agriculture Infrequent, seen at scattered locations.

Centaurea melitensisTocalote


Cerastium sp.Chickweed


Conium maculatumPoison Hemlock

I Southern Willow Scrub Infrequent, but localized in a thicket alongPine Valley Creek.

Corethrogyne filaginifoliaCalifornia Aster

N Unknown Observed by Tierra Environmental during aspring survey in 1998. Possiblymisidentified.

Cryptantha sp.Cryptantha

N Big Sagebrush Scrub Infrequent, but localized in the sandy soilsin the Pine Valley creek bed.

Cynodon dactylonBermuda Grass

I Disturbed Habitat Infrequent, part of the understory of theplanted Cottonwoods.

Datura wrightiiJimsonweed

N Big Sagebrush Scrub Rare on-site, seen in the vicinity of theboulder outcrop.

Echinochloa sp.Barnyard Grass

I Urban/Developed Frequent, part of the yards within the horsefacility.

Eleocharis macrostachyaPale Spike-Rush

N Southern Willow Scrub Infrequent, seen in patches along PineValley Creek.


Native (N)or

Introduced (I)


Page 4 of 9

Epilobium canum ssp. latifoliumZauschneria

N Big Sagebrush Scrub Infrequent, observed among the bouldercracks in the large boulder outcrop in thenorthern portion of the site.

Eriastrum sapphirinumssp. sapphirinumSapphire Woolly-star

N Extensive Agriculture Rare on-site, a handful of individuals werenoted along the dirt access road in thenorthern part of the site off of Pine CreekRoad.

Eriogonum gracile var. gracileSlender Buckwheat

N Extensive Agriculture, Big Sagebrush Scrub, and

Disturbed Habitat

Infrequent, observed at scattered locations.

Eriogonum fasciculatumCalifornia Buckwheat

N Big Sagebrush Scrub Frequent, but localized to the sandy floorsof the drainages.

Eriophyllum confertiflorumGolden-yarrow


Erodium botrysLong-beak Filaree

I Extensive Agriculture Frequent, one of the species within thepastureland.

Erodium cicutariumRed-stem Filaree

I Extensive Agriculture and DisturbedHabitat

A dominant within the pastureland and inthe Disturbed Habitat in the extremesouthwest corner of the site.

Eschscholzia californicaCalifornia Poppy


Festuca sp.Fescue

? Unknown Observed by Tierra Environmental during aspring survey in 1998.


Native (N)or

Introduced (I)


Page 5 of 9

Gnaphalium californicumCalifornia Everlasting


Gutierrezia sarothraeBroom Matchweed

N Big Sagebrush Scrub Infrequent, noted on the banks of thedrainages.

Hazardia squarrosaSaw-toothed Goldenbush


Hemizonia fasciculataFascicled Tarweed


Heterotheca grandifloraTelegraph Weed


Hirschfeldia incanaShort-pod Mustard

I Extensive Agriculture A dominant in the pastureland.

Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum Hare Barley

I Extensive Agriculture Infrequent, observed at scattered locations.

Hypochaeris glabraSmooth Cat’s Ear


Juncus sp.Rush


Juncus mexicanaMexican Rush

N Montane Meadow Frequent in the understory of the plantedCottonwoods just in the extreme southeastcorner of the site.


Native (N)or

Introduced (I)


Page 6 of 9

Lamium amplexicauleHenbit

I Extensive Agriculture Dominant in the northern half of theproperty.

Lasthenia gracilisCommon Goldfields

N Disturbed Habitat Rare on-site, approximately a dozen plantswere seen in the southern part of the site bythe abandoned trailer.

Leymus triticoidesBeardless Wild-Rye


Linanthus sp.Linanthus


Lotus scopariusDeerweed


Lupinus bicolorMiniature Lupine


Lupinus concinnusBajada Lupine


Lupinus sp.Lupine


Malva parvifloraCheeseweed


Marrubium vulgareHorehound

I Extensive Agriculture andBig Sagebrush Scrub

Frequent, noted in large patches on thebenches within the north/south drainage,and along the edge of the pastureland.


Native (N)or

Introduced (I)


Page 7 of 9

Matricaria matricarioidesCommon Pineapple-weed

I Extensive Agriculture Frequent, seen at scattered locations inpastureland, some localized along dirtroads.

Muhlenbergia rigensDeergrass

N Southern Willow Scrub Frequent, on the banks of the smallerdrainages and on the floor of Pine ValleyCreek.

Nassella lepidaFoothill Needlegrass


Nemophila menziesiiBaby Blue-Eyes


Nicotiana glaucaTree Tobacco


Pennisetum setaceumAfrican Fountain Grass


Penstemon centranthifoliusScarlet Bugler


Pinus ponderosaPonderosa Pine

N Southern Willow Scrub andBig Sagebrush Scrub

One or two individuals were noted withinthe drainages on-site.

Plagiobothrys sp.Popcorn Flower

N Disturbed Habitat Infrequent, but localized in the extremesouthwestern portion of the site.

Populus fremontiiFremont’s Cottonwood

N Disturbed Habitat Dominant in the southern part of theproperty as a planted species.


Native (N)or

Introduced (I)


Page 8 of 9

Quercus agrifoliaCoast Live Oak

N Big Sagebrush Scrub andSouthern Willow Scrub

Rare on-site, a handful of individuals werenoted around the boulder outcrop in thenorthern part of the property, and as one ortwo scattered individuals on the bencheswithin the north/south drainage.

Raphanus sativusWild Radish


Rhamnus californicaCalifornia Coffeeberry

N Big Sagebrush Scrub andDisturbed Habitat

Frequent, seen at scattered locations, butheavily concentrated around the boulderoutcrop in the northern part of the site.

Rhus trilobataSkunkbrush

N Big Sagebrush Scrub Rare on-site, seen in the understory of thehandful of Coast Live Oaks near theboulder outcrop.

Rosa californicaCalifornia Rose

N Big Sagebrush Scrub Frequent, observed as clumps on thebenches or banks along the drainages on-site.

Rumex sp.Rumex

? Unknown Observed by Tierra Environmental during aspring survey in 1998.

Rumex crispusCurly Dock

I Southern Willow Scrub Rare on-site, a dozen or so individuals werenoted within Pine Valley Creek.

Salix gooddingiiBlack Willow

N Southern Willow Scrub Observed by Tierra Environmental during aspring survey in 1998.

Salix laevigataRed Willow

N Southern Willow Scrub A dominant in the riparian habitat along thedrainages.


Native (N)or

Introduced (I)


Page 9 of 9

Sisymbrium irioLondon Rocket

I Disturbed Habitat Infrequent, but localized in the southernpart of the site.

Solidago californicaCalifornia Goldenrod

N Montane Meadow andDisturbed Habitat

Frequent, scattered in the understory of theplanted Cottonwoods in the southern part ofthe property.

Spergularia arvensisStickwort


Symphyotrichum defoliatumSan Bernardino Aster

N Montane Meadow andDisturbed Habitat

Frequent, localized in patches beneath theplanted Cottonwoods in the southern part ofthe property. Keyed with the Flora of NorthAmerica (vol. 20). Pappi are white, not redor brown as in Corethrogyne filaginifolia.

Tamarix sp.Tamarisk

I Southern Willow Scrub Rare on-site (thankfully), only a handful ofindividuals were noted in the north/southdrainage on-site.

Taraxacum officinaleCommon Dandelion

I Urban/Developed Frequent, part of the lawn associated withthe horse facility.

Urtica dioica ssp. holosericeaHoary Nettle

N Southern Willow Scrub A dominant in the willow understory.

Verbascum sp.Mullein


Plant species observed by Tierra Environmental during the spring survey in 1998 and documented in the biological resources report (2001) were included in1

this list.

Holland Element Codes (1986) as modified by Oberbauer (1996) are as follows: Big Sagebrush Scrub (Element Code 35210); Extensive Agriculture (Element2

Code 18310); Southern Willow Scrub (Element Code 63320), Montane Meadow (Element Code 45100), Disturbed Habitat (Element Code 11300), and

Urban/Developed (Element Code 12000).

81 Species [:\1562PlantList-rev.wpd]

Page 1 of 13

Table 2

WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED1

ON TM 5236RPL, PINE CREEK RANCHCOUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

Common NameScientific Name

Vegetative Community in which the Species was Observed

Observations2

Fish

Three Spine SticklebackGasterosteus aculeatus

Open Water(Under canopy of Southern Willow Scrub)

Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001). Not the subspecies williamsoni.

Amphibians

California ToadBufo boreas halophilus

Urban/Developed Identified by Tierra Environmental (1998),and by Cummings and Associates (2009) off-site hopping across a road near Pine ValleyCreek.

California TreefrogHyla cadaverina

Southern Willow Scrub Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001), and by Cummings andAssociates off-site to the northwest in PineValley Creek.

Pacific Chorus FrogPseudacris regilla

Southern Willow Scrub Identified by Tierra Environmental (1998)and Cummings and Associated (2009) alongPine Valley Creek.



Observations2

Page 2 of 13

Reptiles

Southwestern Pond TurtleActinemys marmorata pallida

Southern Willow Scrub Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001) and by Cummings and Associatesin Pine Valley Creek (2009).

Coastal Western WhiptailAspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri

Big Sagebrush Scrub Individuals were observed in the northeasternand southwestern parts of the site.

Common KingsnakeLampropeltis getula

Big Sagebrush Scrub andExtensive Agriculture

One individual was seen in the northern partof the site along the top of the bank of PineValley Creek on the edge of the grazed field.

San Diego Coast Horned LizardPhrynosoma coronatum blainvillii

Extensive Agriculture andBig Sagebrush Scrub

Three individuals were seen in the northernpart of the site by Cummings and Associates(2009).

Western Fence LizardSceloporus occidentalis

Big Sagebrush Scrub Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001) and Cummings and Associates(2009).

Two-striped Garter SnakeThamnophis hammondii

Southern Willow Scrub Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001). In 2009, two individuals werenoted by Cummings and Associates in PineValley Creek.

California Side-blotched LizardUta stansburiana

Big Sagebrush Scrub Numerous individuals noted throughout theSagebrush and on its periphery. Alsoidentified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001).



Observations2

Page 3 of 13

Mammals

CoyoteCanis latrans

Big Sagebrush Scrub Identified by Tierra Environmental (1998).

Virginia OpossumDidelphis virginiana

Southern Willow Scrub Identified by Tierra Environmental (1998).

Dusky-footed WoodratNeotoma fuscipes

Southern Willow Scrub At least two nests indicative of this specieswere noted in the understory of the SouthernWillow Scrub. Also identified by VaranusBiological Services, Inc. (2001).

Mule DeerOdocoileus hemionus

Big Sagebrush Scrub Mule deer tracks were noted in the northernportion of the site.

California Ground SquirrelSpermophilus beecheyi

Extensive Agriculture andDisturbed Habitat

Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001), and by Cummings andAssociates (2009) in the southern part of thesite.

Audubon’s CottontailSylvilagus audubonii

Big Sagebrush Scrub andExtensive Agriculture

One Audubon’s Cottontail was observed nearthe boulder outcrop in the northern portion ofthe site. Numerous pellets assignable to thisgenus were also identified on-site. Alsoidentified by Tierra Environmental (1998).

Valley Pocket Gopher Thomomys bottae

Extensive Agriculture andUrban/Developed

Burrows assignable to this species were notedon-site. Also identified by TierraEnvironmental (1998).



Observations2

Page 4 of 13

Birds

Turkey VultureCathartes aura

Extensive Agriculture andUrban/Developed

Observed overhead by Tierra Environmental(1998). Noted again by Varanus BiologicalServices, Inc. (2001) and Cummings andAssociates (2009).

MallardAnas platyrhynchos

Open Water andSouthern Willow Scrub

Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001).

Cooper’s HawkAccipiter cooperii

Urban/Developed One Cooper’s Hawk was observed in thesouthern portion of the property in theCottonwood trees. Also identified by VaranusBiological Services, Inc. (2001).

Red-shouldered HawkButeo lineatus

Unknown Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001).

Red-tailed HawkButeo jamaicensis

Big Sagebrush Scrub A pair of Red-tails were seen circling off-siteto the west. This species was also observedoverhead by Tierra Environmental (1998).Noted again by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001).

American KestrelFalco sparverius


California QuailCallipepla californica

Big Sagebrush Scrub Observed in the Big Sagebrush Scrub byTierra Environmental (1998) and Cummingsand Associates (2009). Noted again byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001).



Observations2

Page 5 of 13

Common SnipeGallinago gallinago


Rock PigeonColumba livia


Band-tailed PigeonColumba fasciata


Mourning DoveZenaida macroura

Extensive Agriculture Observed in Agricultural lands by TierraEnvironmental (1998). Noted again byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001).

Barn OwlTyto alba

Southern Willow Scrub This species was heard in Pine Valley Creekduring two of the nighttime surveys for theArroyo Toad.

Common PoorwillPhalaenoptilus nuttallii

Big Sagebrush Scrub This species was heard south of Pine ValleyCreek on two occasions during the nighttimeportions of the Arroyo Toad survey.

Anna’s HummingbirdCalypte anna

Big Sagebrush Scrub andDisturbed Habitat

Observed in planted Cottonwoods by TierraEnvironmental (1998). Noted again byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001), andby Cummings and Associates (2009) alongthe drainages.

Costa’s HummingbirdCalypte costae

Southern Willow Scrub Observed in planted Cottonwoods by TierraEnvironmental (1998). Noted again byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001), andby Cummings and Associates (2009) in theriparian habitat along Pine Valley Creek.



Observations2

Page 6 of 13

Acorn WoodpeckerMelanerpes formicivorus

Disturbed Habitat Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001) and by Cummings and Associates(2009) in the southern part of the site.

Red-breasted SapsuckerSphyrapicus ruber

Disturbed Habitat Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001), and seen nesting by Cummingsand Associates (2009) in the Cottonwoods inthe southern part of the site.

Nuttall’s WoodpeckerPicoides nuttallii

Urban/Developed Heard in the Cottonwoods. Also identified byTierra Environmental (1998) and VaranusBiological Services, Inc. (2001).

Hairy WoodpeckerPicoides villosus

Big Sagebrush Scrub Seen in extreme southwestern portion of thesite.

Northern FlickerColaptes auratus

Urban/Developed Northern Flickers were observed in theCottonwoods. During the 20 March 2009visit, a pair was observed mating. Alsoidentified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001).

Western Wood-PeweeContopus sordidulus

Southern Willow Scrub Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001), and by Cummings andAssociates (2009) in the riparian habitatalong Pine Valley Creek.

Black PhoebeSayornis nigricans

Unknown Observed in planted Cottonwoods by TierraEnvironmental (1998). Noted again byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001).



Observations2

Page 7 of 13

Say’s PhoebeSayornis saya

Big Sagebrush Scrub Seen in the northern part of the site.

Ash-throated FlycatcherMyiarchus cinerascens


Western KingbirdTyrannus verticalis

Southern Willow Scrub andExtensive Agriculture

Observed in the Southern Willow Scrub byTierra Environmental (1998). Noted again byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001), andby Cummings and Associates (2009) on thetelephone lines in the northern part of thesite.

Yellow-throated VireoVireo flavifrons


Hutton’s VireoVireo huttoni


Steller’s JayCyanocitta stelleri

Southern Willow Scrub andDisturbed Habitat

Observed in Southern Willow Scrub byTierra Environmental (1998). Noted again byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001), andby Cummings and Associates (2009) in thesouthern part of the site.

Western Scrub JayAphelocoma californica

Urban/Developed andSouthern Willow Scrub

Heard around the horse facility by Cummingsand Associates. Also observed by VaranusBiological Services, Inc. (2001), and byTierra Environmental (1998) in the SouthernWillow Scrub.



Observations2

Page 8 of 13

American CrowCorvus brachyrhynchos

Extensive Agriculture Seen and heard as overflights in thenortheastern portion of the site. Alsoidentified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001).

Common RavenCorvus corax

Unknown Observed overhead by Tierra Environmental(1998). Noted again by Varanus BiologicalServices, Inc. (2001).

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina


Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001), and by Cummings andAssociates (2009) in the extremesouthwestern corner of the site perched on awillow, and as overflights.

Northern Rough-winged SwallowStelgidopteryx serripennis


Cliff SwallowPetrochelidon pyrrhonota


Mountain ChickadeePoecile gambeli


Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001) and by Cummings and Associates(2009) in the southern part of the site, and inthe Southern Willow Scrub along thetributary to Pine Valley Creek.

Oak TitmouseBaeolophus inornatus




Observations2

Page 9 of 13

BushtitPsaltriparus minimus

Urban/Developed Bushtits were observed in the southern part ofthe property by Cummings and Associates(2008 and 2009). Also identified by VaranusBiological Services, Inc. (2001).

White-breasted NuthatchSitta carolinensis


Bewick’s WrenThryomanes bewickii


House WrenTroglodytes aedon

Disturbed Habitat Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001), and Cummings and Associates(2009 in the southern part of the site.

Western BluebirdSialia mexicana

Big Sagebrush Scrub andUrban/Developed

This species was heard as overflights, seen inthe Cottonwoods in the southern part of thesite, and also seen in the northern part of thesite on the telephone wires. Also observed byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001), andby Tierra Environmental (1998) in the BigSagebrush Scrub.

American RobinTurdus migratorius

Disturbed Habitat Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001) and by Cummings and Associates(2009) in the southern part of the site.

California ThrasherToxostoma redivivum

Big Sagebrush Scrub Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001), and by Cummings andAssociates (2009) along the banks of thetributary to Pine Valley Creek.



Observations2

Page 10 of 13

European StarlingSturnus vulgaris

Urban/Developed Observed around the on-site horse trainingfacilities. Identified by Varanus BiologicalServices, Inc. (2001).

PhainopeplaPhainopepla nitens

Southern Willow Scrub One Phainopepla was heard in the willowsalong Pine Valley Creek. Also identified byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001).

Orange-crowned WarblerVermivora celata

Southern Willow Scrub One Orange-crowned Warbler was seen inthe willows in the drainage that is orientednorth/south through the property. Alsoidentified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001).

Yellow WarblerDendroica petechia

Southern Willow Scrub Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001), and seen by Cummings andAssociates (2009) in the riparian habitatalong Pine Valley Creek.

Yellow-rumped WarblerDendroica coronata

Urban/Developed Observed in planted Cottonwoods byCummings and Associates (2008 and 2009),and by Tierra Environmental (1998).

Common YellowthroatGeothlypis trichas

Southern Willow Scrub Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001), and seen by Cummings andAssociates (2009) in the riparian habitatalong Pine Valley Creek.

Western TanagerPiranga ludoviciana




Observations2

Page 11 of 13

Spotted TowheePipilo maculatus

Southern Willow Scrub Heard “mer-ah” call within the drainages.Also identified by Varanus BiologicalServices, Inc. (2001).

California TowheePipilo crissalis


Black-chinned SparrowSpizella atrogularis

Big Sagebrush Scrub Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001), and heard by Cummings andAssociates (2009) off-site to the west on thebanks of Pine Valley Creek and in theChaparral west of Old Highway 80.

Lark SparrowChondestes grammacus

Disturbed Habitat Identified by Varanus Biological Services,Inc. (2001) and Cummings and Associates(2009).

Song SparrowMelospiza melodia

Urban/Developed Observed in disturbed habitat by TierraEnvironmental (1998). Also noted byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001). Seen by Cummings and Associates in theSouthern Willow Scrub along Pine ValleyCreek and the unnamed tributary to PineValley Creek.

White-crowned SparrowZonotrichia leucophrys

Big Sagebrush Scrub andUrban/Developed

Heard singing at various locations throughoutthe property. Also observed in the BigSagebrush Scrub by Tierra Environmental(1998).

Dark-eyed JuncoJunco hyemalis

Disturbed Habitat Seen in the southwestern part of the site.



Observations2

Page 12 of 13

Black-headed GrosbeakPheucticus melanocephalus


Blue GrosbeakGuiraca caerulea


Lazuli BuntingPasserina amoena


Red-winged BlackbirdAgelaius phoeniceus

Unknown Observed in planted Cottonwoods by TierraEnvironmental (1998). Also noted byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001).

Brewer’s BlackbirdEuphagus cyanocephalus


Brown-headed CowbirdMolothrus ater

Urban/Developed Observed in planted Cottonwoods by TierraEnvironmental (1998). Also noted byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001).

Bullock’s OrioleIcterus bullockii


House FinchCarpodacus mexicanus

Southern Willow Scrub Seen in the willows along the drainageoriented north/south through the property.Also identified by Varanus BiologicalServices, Inc. (2001).



Observations2

Page 13 of 13

Pine SiskinCarduelis pinus

Disturbed Habitat Observed in Cottonwoods in southern part ofthe site.

Lesser GoldfinchCarduelis psaltria

Urban/Developed Observed in planted Cottonwoods by TierraEnvironmental (1998). Also noted byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001) andCummings and Associates (2009).

Lawrence’s GoldfinchCarduelis lawrencei

Southern Willow Scrub A flock of approximately 22 Lawrence’sGoldfinch were observed in the willowsalong Pine Valley Creek. Also identified byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001).

House SparrowPasser domesticus

Urban/Developed Observed in planted Cottonwoods by TierraEnvironmental (1998). Also noted byVaranus Biological Services, Inc. (2001).

For a complete list of the butterflies observed during the federal protocol Quino Checkerspot Butterfly survey in 2009, please refer to the Quino Report in the1

Appendices of this biological report. The wildlife sightings made during the 1998 survey by Tierra Environmental Services, and during the 2001 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow2

Flycatcher surveys by Varanus Biological Services, Inc. have been included in this table, in addition to the current sightings.

[:\1562WildlifeList-rev.wpd]

Page 1 of 20

Table 3

Sensitive Plant Species Known to Occur Within anApproximate 10-mile Radius of TM 5236RPL, Pine Creek Ranch1

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3

Habitat Preference Found

On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Acanthomintha ilicifolia

San Diego Thorn Mint

List A/List1B.1/S1.1/CE/FT Occurs on heavy clay

soils in a variety of

habitats. Known

elevations are 30 -

3,000 feet.

N U There are no clay soils mapped

on the property by Bowman

(1973).

Ambrosia pumila

San Diego Ambrosia

List A/List 1B.1/S1.1/-/FE Found in mesic open

areas, often adjacent

to drainages.

Elevations range from

60 - 1,370 feet.

N U The elevations on the subject

property are 2,240+feet above the

highest known elevation for the

species.

Arctostaphylos otayensis

Otay Manzanita

List A/List 1B.2/S2.1/-/-

CA-Endemic

Found in Chaparral

and Cismontane

Woodlands at

elevations ranging

from 900 - 5,600 feet.

Also, this species is

found on

metavolcanic soils.

N U There are no metavolcanic soils

mapped on the property by

Bowman (1973).

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 2 of 20

Artemisia palmeri

Palmer’s Sagewort

List D/List 4.2/S3.2/-/- Found primarily along

creeks and drainages

near the coast; inland

it may occur in mesic

Chaparral conditions.

Found in elevations

from 50 - 3,010 feet.

N U There are no Chaparral habitats

on the property.

Astragalus deanei

Deane’s Locoweed/Milkvetch


CA-Endemic

Known from

Chaparral, Coastal

Scrub and Riparian

Forest habitats at

elevations ranging

from 245 - 2,200 feet.

N U The highest known elevation for

the species is 1,410-feet below

the lowest elevation on the

subject property.

Astragalus douglasii var. perstrictus

Jacumba Milkvetch

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2/-/- Found in rocky areas

in a variety of habitats

at elevations of 2,960

- 4,510 feet.

N L The one CNDDB record for this

species within the Descanso quad

is a historic record from 1935.

Astragalus oocarpus

San Diego Milkvetch


CA-Endemic

Found in Chaparral

and Cismontane

Woodlands at

elevations ranging

from 1,000 - 4,950

feet.

N U There are no Chaparral or

Cismontane Woodland habitats

on-site.

Ayenia compacta

California Ayenia

List B/List 2.3/S3.3/-/- Rocky canyons and

desert arroyos are

preferred habitat.

Grows at elevations of

493 - 3,603 feet.

N L Although the drainages on-site

could arguable be considered a

“desert” arroyo, the CNDDB

does not have any records for the

Descanso quad.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 3 of 20

Berberis fremontii

Fremont Barberry

List C/List 3/S2/-/- Found in High Desert

Chaparral at

elevations of 2,763 -

6,087 feet.


on-site.

Boechera hirshbergiae

Hirshberg’s Rockcress


CA-Endemic

Only known location

is near Cuyamaca

Lake at 4,606 feet on

heavy clay soil

overlaid with pebbles.

N U The site is not located near

Cuyamaca Lake. Note: The genus

was changed from Arabis to

Boechera. According to Rebman

and Simpson (2006), this species

is a new find in San Diego

County and is endemic to San

Diego County.

Brodiaea orcuttii

Orcutt's Brodiaea

List A/List 1B.1/S3.1/-/- Found on heavy clay

soils at elevations that

range from 98 - 5,567

feet.



(1973).

Calliandra eriophylla

Pink Fairyduster

List B/List 2.3/S2.3/-/- Found on rocky

hillsides and bajadas

of Sonoran Desert

Scrub at elevations of

394 - 4,935 feet.

N U There are no Sonoran Desert

Scrub habitats on the property.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 4 of 20

Calochortus dunnii

Dunn’s Mariposa Lily

List A/List1B.2/S2.1/CR/- Found on

metavolcanic or

gabbroic soils in

openings in Chaparral

and Closed-Cone

Coniferous Forest

habitats. Known

elevations for this

species range from

1,250 - 6,000 feet.

N U There are no metavolcanic or

gabbroic soils mapped on the

property by Bowman (1973).

Caulanthus simulans

Payson’s Caulanthus

List D/List 4.2/S3.2/-/-

CA-Endemic

Found in Juniper

Woodland, Chaparral,

and Sage Scrub at an

elevation range of 296

- 7,238 feet.

N L The Big Sagebrush Scrub habitat

on-site is within the known

elevations for the species.

However, the CNDDB does not

have any records for the

Descanso quad.

Ceanothus cyaneus

Lakeside-Lilac

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2/-/- Found in Chaparral

and Cismontane

Woodlands at

elevations ranging

from 775 - 2,500 feet.



on-site.

Ceanothus verrucosus

Wart-Stem-Lilac

List B/List 2.2/S2.2/-/- Associated with

Chaparral habitats, it

is frequently an

indicator of Southern

Maritime Chaparral.

Known elevations


feet.


on-site, and the highest known

elevation for the species is 2,360-

feet lower than the lowest

elevation on the property.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 5 of 20

Chaenactis parishii

Parish’s Pincushion

List A/List 1B.3/S2.3/-/- Grows in Chaparral

on high mountainous

ridges overlooking the

desert. Known

elevations are 4,277 -

8,225 feet.


on-site.

Chorizanthe polygonoides

var. longispina

Knotweed Spineflower

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2/-/- Found on clay soils in

a variety of habitats.

Known elevations of

987 - 5,034 feet.



(1973).

Clarkia delicata

Delicate/Campo Clarkia


and Cismontane

Woodlands at

elevations ranging

from 775 - 3,300 feet.



on-site.

Cupressus forbesii

Tecate Cypress


and Cismontane

Woodlands at

elevations ranging

from 850 - 4,900 feet.



on-site. Note: The CNPS and the

CNDDB both list this genus as

Callitropsis rather than

Cupressus.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 6 of 20

Cupressus arizonica ssp. arizonica

Cuyamaca Cypress


CA-Endemic

Grows in Closed Cone

Coniferous Forests

and Montane

Chaparral at


5,610 feet.

N U There are no Closed Cone

Coniferous Forests or Montane

Chaparral habitats on-site. Note:

The CNPS and the CNDDB both

list this species as Callitropsis

stephensonii rather than

Cupressus arizonica ssp.

arizonica.

Deinandra floribunda

Tecate Tarplant

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2/-/- Found in sandy

washes in the high

desert at elevations of

230 - 4,014 feet.

Grows in broad, sandy

floodplain west of

Jacumba.

N L Although there are sandy washes

on-site within the known

elevations for the species, the

CNDDB does not have any

records within the Descanso

quad.

Delphinium hesperium

ssp. cuyamacae

Cuyamaca Larkspur

List A/List 1B.2/S2.1/CR/-

CA-Endemic

Found south of

Cuyamaca Lake in

relatively densely

vegetated Montane

Meadow with a

dominant presence of

Muhlenbergia rigens.


4,103 - 5,366 feet.

N U The subject property is not

located south of Cuyamaca Lake

in a Montane Meadow.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 7 of 20

Dieteria asteroides var. lagunensis

Laguna Mountain Aster

List B/List 2.1/S1.1/CR/- Found very locally

near the community of

Mt. Laguna and

Wooded Hill in the

Lower Montane

Coniferous Forest at


7,896 feet.

N U There are no Lower Montane

Coniferous Forests on the

property.

Downingia concolor var. brevior

Cuyamaca Lake Downingia

List A/List 1B.1/S1.1/CE/-

CA-Endemic

Known from 7

occurrences in the

Cuyamaca Lake area

in Montane Meadows


- 4,935 feet.

N U The subject property is not

located near Cuyamaca Lake in a

Montane Meadow.

Ericameria cuneata

var. macrocephala

Laguna Mountain Goldenbush


CA-Endemic

Known only from the

Laguna Mountains at

elevations from 3,931

- 6,087 feet in

Chaparral in granitic

soil.


mapped on the property.

Ericameria palmeri ssp. palmeri

Palmer’s Goldenbush

List B/List 2.2/S1.1/-/- Associated with mesic

soils in Chaparral and

Sage Scrub habitats.

Seasonally wet/moist

locales are strongly

preferred. Grows at

elevations of 98 -

1,974 feet.

N U The highest known elevation for

the species is approximately

1,630-feet lower than the lowest

elevation on the subject property.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 8 of 20

Eriogonum evanidum

Vanishing Wild Buckwheat

List A/List 1B.1/S1.1/-/- Associated with

Chaparral,

Cismontane

Woodland, Lower

Montane Coniferous

Forests, and Pinyon

and Juniper Woodland

habitats. Known

elevations are 3,619 -

7,320 feet.

N L There are no Chaparral,

Cismontane Woodland, Lower

Coniferous Forest or Pinyon and

Juniper Woodland habitats on-

site. However, there is a CNDDB

record of this species within the

Descanso quad, specifically in

Pine Valley (Fish and Game,

2009). Per the request of the

wildlife agencies, a directed

search for this species was made

during the spring of 2009 with

negative results. Note:

Eriogonum foliosum is a

synonym.

Fremontodendron mexicanum

Mexican Flannelbush

List A/List 1B.1/S2.1/CR/FE Found on gabbroic,

metavolcanic or

serpentine soils within

Chaparral,

Cismontane

Woodland and

Closed-Cone

Coniferous Forest

habitats. The entire

now known

population is

restricted to Otay

Mountain. Elevations


feet.

N U There are no gabbroic,

metavolcanic, or serpentine soils


Bowman (1973).

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 9 of 20

Gentiana fremontii

Fremont’s Gentian

-/List 2.3/S2.3/-/- Wet mountain

meadows.

N U Although the CNPS list has

Laguna Mountain as a location

for this species, Rebman and

Simpson (2006) do not list this

species or even this genus as

occurring in San Diego County.

Geraea viscida

Sticky Geraea

List B/List 2.3/S2.3?/-/- Found in High Desert

Chaparral openings

(often in disturbed

areas) at elevations of

1,480 - 5,593 feet.



Githopsis diffusa ssp. filicaulis

Mission Canyon Bluecup

List C/List 3.1/S1.1/-/-

CA-Endemic

Found in isolated,

sandy openings in

Chaparral habitats at


2,300 feet.



Grindelia hirsutula var. hallii

San Diego Gumplant


CA-Endemic

Grows in Montane

Meadows and Lower

Montane Coniferous

Forests with sunny

openings. Prefers

locales which are

quite wet in the early

spring. Known

elevations range from

608 - 5,742 feet.

N U There are no Montane Meadows

or Lower Montane Coniferous

Forests on the subject property.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 10 of 20

Harpagonella palmeri

Palmer’s Grappling Hook

List D/List 4.2/S3.2/-/- Found in clay

vertisols with open

grassy slopes or in

open Diegan Sage

Scrub. Diablo clays

are favored along the

coast. Elevations

range from 658 -

3,142 feet.



(1973).

Heuchera brevistaminea

Mount Laguna Alumroot


CA-Endemic

Grows in rocky

outcrops in Montane

Chaparral at


6,580 feet.



Heuchera rubescens var. veriscolor

San Diego Alumroot

List B/List 2.3/S1.3?/-/- Grows in rocky

outcrops in Montane

Chaparral at


13,160 feet.



Horkelia truncata

Ramona Horkelia


and Cismontane

Woodlands at

elevations ranging

from 1,300 - 4,270

feet.

N U There are no Chaparral, or


on-site.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 11 of 20

Hulsea californica

San Diego Hulsea


CA-Endemic

Found in Montane

Coniferous Forests

and lightly disturbed

Chaparral. This plant

is a “fire follower.”

Found at elevations of

3,010 - 9,591 feet.


Montane Coniferous Forest

habitats on-site.

Lepidium flavum var. felipense

Borrego Valley Peppergrass


CA-Endemic

Found in Pinyon and

Juniper Woodlands

and Sonoran Desert


1,496 - 2,764 feet.


Scrub or Pinyon and Juniper

Woodland habitats on-site.

Lepidium virginicum

var. robinsonii

Robinson’s Peppergrass

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2/-/- Found in Coastal

Scrub and Chaparral

habitats generally well

away from the coast in

foothill elevations. It

grows in relatively

dry, exposed locales at

elevations of 3 -2,912

feet.

N U Although there is Big Sagebrush

Scrub on-site, it is at elevations

700-feet higher than the highest

known elevation for the species.

Also, the CNDDB does not have

any records for the Descanso

quad.

Lewisia brachycalyx

Southwestern Bitterroot

List B/List 2.2/S3.2/-/- Grows in Montane

Seeps devoid of shrub

cover. Found in the

rocky meadows above

Cuyamaca lake and

Big Bear Valley.


4,507 - 7,567 feet.

N U There are no Montane seeps on-

site and the subject property is

not located near Cuyamaca Lake

or in Big Bear Valley.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 12 of 20

Lilium parryi

Lemon Lily

List A/List 1B.2/S2.1/-/- Nearly extirpated

from San Diego

County where it is

known from only a

few plants at Palomar

Mountain. Found at


9,032 feet.

N U The site is not located on Palomar

Mountain.

Limnanthes gracilis ssp. parishii

Parish’s Meadowfoam

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2/CE/-

CA-Endemic

Found in Montane

Meadows largely

devoid of shrubs with

a concentration of

annuals and

herbaceous perennials,

not grasses. Grows in

profusion at

Cuyamaca Lake.

Found at elevations

that range from 1,974

- 6,580 feet.

N U There are no Montane Meadows

on the subject property.

Linanthus orcuttii

Laguna/Orcutt’s Linanthus

List A/List 1B.3/S2.3/-/- Grows in Montane

Chaparral and Lower

Montane Coniferous

Forests at elevations

of 3,010 - 7,058 feet.

N U There are no Chaparral, or Lower

Montane Coniferous Forest

habitats on-site.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 13 of 20

Lupinus excubitus var. medius

Mountain Springs Bush Lupine

List A/List 1B.3/S2.3/-/- Found in Pinyon and

Juniper Woodlands

and Sonoran Desert

Scrub at higher

elevations. Grows in

the open,

unencumbered by

woodier shrubs.

Found at elevations of

1,398 - 4,507 feet.


Scrub, or Pinyon and Juniper


Mentzelia hirsutissima

Hairy Stick-Leaf

List B/List 2.3/S2S3/-/- Found growing in

Sonoran Desert Scrub

on rocky hillsides and

desert mesas at

elevations of 0 - 2,303

feet.


Scrub habitats on-site.

Monardella hypoleuca

ssp. lanata

Felt-Leaf Monardella


and Cismontane

Woodlands at

elevations ranging

from 980 - 3,900 feet.



on-site.

Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii

Hall’s Monardella


CA-Endemic

Grows in Lower

Montane Coniferous

Forests and Montane

Chaparral in rocky

rubble and boulders at


7,222 feet.


Lower Montane Coniferous

Forest habitats on-site.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 14 of 20

Monardella nana ssp. leptosiphon

San Felipe Monardella

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2/-/- Grows in Lower

Montane Coniferous

Forests in Crouch

coarse sandy loams at


6,103 feet.


Coniferous Forest habitats on-

site.

Navarretia peninsularis

Peninsular Navarretia

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2/-/- Reported from Lower

Montane Coniferous

Forests, the only

population in San

Diego County occurs

at Cuyamaca Lake.

Known to grow from

4,935 - 7,567 feet.



site.

Nolina cismontana

Peninsular Bear-Grass


CA-Endemic

Found in Chaparral

and Coastal Scrub

habitats on gabbroic

or sandstone soils.


460 - 4,195 feet.

N U There are no gabbroic or

sandstone soils mapped on the

property by Bowman (1973).

Nolina interrata

Dehesa Nolina

List A/List 1B.1/S1.2/CE/- Found in Chaparral

habitats on gabbroic,

metavolcanic or

serpentine soils.

Known at elevations

of 608 - 2,813 feet.

N U There are no gabbroic,

metavolcanic, or serpentine soils


Bowman (1973).

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 15 of 20

Orcuttia californica

California Orcutt’s Grass

List A/List 1B.1/S2.1/CE/FE A Vernal Pool

obligate. Grows at

elevations of 49 -

2,171 feet.

N U There are no vernal pools on or

adjacent to the property.

Packera ganderi

Gander’s/San Diego Butterweed

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2/CR/-

CA-Endemic

A species found in

Chaparral habitat on

gabbroic soils at


3,948 feet.

N U There are no gabbroic soils


Bowman (1973).

Poa atropurpurea

San Bernardino Bluegrass

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2/-/FE

CA-Endemic

Found in Montane

Meadow surrounded

by Coniferous Forest


- 8,077 feet. Known

from fewer than 20

occurrences in the

Laguna and San

Bernardino

Mountains.

N U There are no Montane Meadow

habitats on-site.

Ribes canthariforme

Moreno Currant


CA-Endemic

Associated with

Chaparral habitat at

elevations ranging

from 1,100 - 3,900

feet.


on-site.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 16 of 20

Rubus glaucifolius var. ganderi

Cuyamaca/Gander’s Raspberry


CA-Endemic

Grows in Lower

Montane Coniferous

Forest beneath dense

canopy in the shade at


5,511 feet.



site.

Scutellaria bolanderi

ssp. austromontana

Southern Skullcap

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2?/-/-

CA-Endemic

Grows on moist

embankments of

montane creeks at


6,580 feet.

N H Pine Valley Creek crosses the

property and there is a CNDDB

record for this species in Pine

Valley Creek just to the northeast

of the property.

Selaginella eremophila

Desert Spike-Moss

List B/List 2.2/S2.2?/-/- Grows in rocky terrain

amid Sonoran Desert


658 - 2,961 feet.



Senna covesii

Cove’s Cassia

List B/List 2.2/S2.2/-/- Found in Sonoran

Desert Scrub on

washes and plains. It

grows in relatively

open, low-growing

desert scrub cover in

unshaded full-day sun


- 3,521 feet.



Sibaropsis hammittii

Hammitt’s Clay-cress


CA-Endemic

Found on clay soils at

elevations starting at

2,300 feet.



(1973).

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 17 of 20

Sidalcea neomexicana

Salt Spring Checker-bloom

-/List 2.2/S2S3/-/- Found in alkaline

springs and marshes.

Recorded in San

Diego County from

Borrego Mountain

and Julian.

N U There are no alkaline springs or

marshes on-site, and the subject

property is not located on

Borrego Mountain or in Julian.

Note: According to Rebman and

Simpson (2006), this species is a

new find in San Diego County.

Sphenopholis obtusata

Prairie Wedgegrass

-/List 2.2/S2.2/-/- Found in wet

meadows. The only

San Diego County

occurrence is on the

Cuyamaca Peak

quadrangle.

N U There are no wet meadows on-

site, and the subject property is

not located near Cuyamaca Peak.

Note: According to Rebman and

Simpson (2006), this species is a

new find in San Diego County.

Streptanthus bernardinus

Laguna Mountain Jewelflower

List D/List 4.3/S3.3/-/-

CA-Endemic

Populations occur in

Lower Montane

Coniferous Forest

always in association

with conifers. While

typically in mesic

situations, it can

occupy drier

embankments in

granitic gravels and

sand. Found at


8,225 feet.



site.

Scientific Name

Common Name2

Sensitivity

Code and Status3


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site4

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 18 of 20

Streptanthus campestris

Southern Jewelflower

List A/List 1B.3/S2.3/-/- Found in Juniper

Woodland or High

Desert Transitional

Chaparral at


7,567 feet.

N U There are no Juniper Woodland

or Chaparral habitats on-site.

Symphyotrichum defoliatum

San Bernardino Aster

-/List 1B.2/S3.2/-/-

CA-Endemic

Found in a variety of

habitats near ditches,

streams or springs.

Known elevations


feet.

Y Observed Found in patches beneath the

planted Cottonwoods in the

southern part of the property.

Tetracoccus dioicus

Parry’s Tetracoccus

List A/List 1B.2/S2.2/-/- Found on gabbroic

soils, typically in

Chaparral habitats.


542 - 3,290 feet.

N U There are no gabbroic soils


Bowman (1973).

Thermopsis californica var. semota

Velvety False Lupine


CA-Endemic

Found in Lower

Montane Coniferous

Forest and Montane

Meadows. Common

in wet, open meadows

around Cuyamaca

Lake and Laguna

Meadows, but quite

uncommon elsewhere.


3,290 - 6,153 feet.


Coniferous Forest or Montane

Meadow habitats on-site.

This plant list was generated by the nine quad search function of the on-line California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventory and was updated through July 9,1

2008.

Page 19 of 20

The Common Names were taken from the Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County, 4 Edition. Rebman, Jon P. and Simpson, Michael G., 2006.2 th

San Diego Natural History Museum and San Diego State University, xx + 100 pp.

The first line in the “Sensitivity Code and Status” column shows the County List, the CNPS List with threat code extensions/the state ranking of the California3

Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) with the threat rank extension/the California state threatened and endangered status code/the federal threatened and

endangered status code. The second line in the “Sensitivity Code and Status” column identifies whether the species is a California Endemic as identified by the

CNPS or not (blank second line). Following is a key to the codes in the table.

Key to the County Lists

List A — Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere

List B — Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere

List C — Plants which may be quite rare, but need more information to determine their true rarity status

List D — Plants of limited distribution and are uncommon, but not presently rare or endangered

Key to the CNPS Lists

List 1A — Presumed extinct in California

List 1B — Plants threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere

List 2 — Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere

List 3 — Plants about which more information is needed; a watch list

List 4 — Limited distribution (a watch list)

Key to the CNPS List Threat Code Extensions

.1 — Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)

.2 — Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)

.3 — Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)

Key to the State Ranking of the CNDDB

S1 — Less than 6 element occurrences OR less than 1,000 individuals OR less than 2,000 acres*

S2 — 6 - 20 element occurrences OR 1,000 - 3,000 individuals OR 2,000 - 10,000 acres*

S3 — 21 - 80 element occurrences OR 3,000 - 10,000 individuals OR 10,000 - 50,000 acres*

S4 — Apparently secure within California, but factors do exist to cause some concern

S5 — Demonstrably secure in California

S? OR S2? OR S2S3 — Uncertainty about the rank of an element

SXC — All sites in California are extirpated, but the species exists in cultivation

Key to the Threat Rank Extensions of S1, S2 or S3 (if assigned)

.1 — very threatened

.2 — threatened

.3 — that no current threats are known

Page 20 of 20

State and Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Status Codes

CR — State of California listed as rare

CE — State of California listed as endangered

CT — State of California listed as threatened

PT — Proposed for Listing as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act

PE — Proposed for Listing as Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act

FC — Candidate for Listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act

FE — Designated Endangered under Federal Endangered Species Act

FT — Designated as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act

The “Potential On-site” column assesses the potential for the particular species to occur on the subject property given the known habitat preferences and4

distribution of that species. The codes used in this column are defined as follows:

Observed — Individuals of this species were found within the bounds of the site

H — The potential for occurrence is “high”. Habitats on-site are considered suitable for the species, and the species is known from the immediate

vicinity.

M — The potential for occurrence is “medium”. Habitats and conditions on-site are considered possible for the species.

L — The potential for occurrence is “low”. The habitats present on-site are marginal for the species and/or extremely limited in extent. In other words,

the species is not anticipated, but it’s occurrence can not be precluded.

U — The potential for occurrence is “unlikely”. The habitat requirements of the species are not present on the subject property.

[:\1562-Sensitive Plant List-rev.wpd]

Page 1 of 10

Table 4

Sensitive Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within anApproximate 10-mile Radius of TM 5236RPL, Pine Creek Ranch1

Scientific Name

Common Name

Sensitivity

Code and Status2


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site3

Factual Basis

for Potential

Insects

Euphydryas editha quino

Quino Checkerspot Butterfly

Group 1, FE/—/X-CI The Quino is found in a variety

of open canopy habitats where

the primary larval food plant,

Dot-seed Plantain (Plantago

erecta) is found. It is precluded

from closed canopy situations

and is a hilltopping species.

N U A federal protocol survey for the

Quino was conducted during the

2009 adult flight season with

negative results. No larval host

plants were noted within the

bounds of TM 5236, nor were any

larvae, or adults noted.

Halictus harmonius

Harmonius Halictid Bee

—, —/—/X-CI No habitats per se, but from the

one known location in San

Diego County, this bee was

collected from the flowers of

Chorizanthe procumbens,

Calochortus splendens, Lotus

scoparius, Eriophyllum

confertiflorum , Eriogonum

fasciculatum , and Adenostoma

fasciculatum .

N L Two of the plant species upon

which this bee has been found

were identified on-site: Lotus

scoparius and Eriophyllum

confertiflorum . Found mostly in

San Bernardino and Riverside

Counties. However, the one

CNDDB record for this species in

San Diego County is within the

Descanso quad.

Scientific Name

Common Name

Sensitivity

Code and Status2


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site3

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 2 of 10

Lycaena hermes

Hermes Copper Butterfly

Group 1, pFE/—/— Associated closely with the

larval food plant, Redberry

(Rhamnus crocea). Recent

studies indicate that the

butterfly prefers those

Redberry that are roughly 18-

years and older.

N U There were no Redberry bushes

noted on-site.

Gastropoda

Helminthoglypta milleri

Peak Shoulderband

—, —/—/— Found at Cuyamaca Peak in

rock piles.

N U The subject property is not located

at Cuyamaca Peak.

Amphibians

Bufo californicus

Arroyo Southwestern Toad

Group 1, FE/CSC/— Found primarily in the foothills

and mountains along stream

courses that afford open, sunny

sandbars.

N L A federal protocol Arroyo Toad

survey was conducted during the

2009 breeding season with

negative results. Although the

Arroyo Toad has been

documented near the project site

within Pine Valley Creek and

Scove Canyon, the habitat on-site

seems marginal at best for this

species.

Taricha torosa torosa

Coast Range Newt

Group 2, —/CSC/— Found in creeks surrounded by

Oak Woodland, Sage Scrub,

and Chaparral habitats.

N M Pine Valley Creek does cross the

property, and it is adjacent to Big

Sagebrush Scrub habitat.

However, the CNDDB does not

have any records within the

Descanso quad.

Scientific Name

Common Name

Sensitivity

Code and Status2


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site3

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 3 of 10

Reptiles

Actinemys marmorata pallida

Southwestern Pond Turtle

Group 1,—CSC/FS

and BLM Sensitive

Most often found in

environments where water

persists year-round. It has also

been found at two drainages in

the desert. It prefers lakes,

streams, ponds or other areas

with emergent or floating

vegetation and often basks on

rocks or protruding logs.

Y Observed The Southwestern Pond Turtle was

observed by Varanus Biological

Services, Inc. (2001), and again by

Cummings and Associates (2009)

in Pine Valley Creek during the

federal protocol Arroyo Toad

survey.

Aspidoscelis hyperythrus beldingi

Orange-throated Whiptail

Group 2, —/CSC/— Occupies scrub habitats on the

coastal plain and lower

foothills where Subterranean

Termites (Reticulitermes sp.),

the principal prey species, is

found. Shrub cover with

openings are required for

thermoregulation.

N U There were no Subterranean

Termites observed on-site.

Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri

Coastal Western Whiptail

Group 2, —/—/— Occupies scrub habitats on the

coastal plain and lower

foothills where shrub cover

with openings is required for

thermoregulation.

Y Observed Several individuals were seen

during the spring of 2009 by

Cummings and Associates.

Crotalus exsul ruber

Northern Red Diamond

Rattlesnake

Group 2, —/CSC/— In a variety of habitats,

although most frequently found

in Sage Scrub and Chaparral. It

is found throughout the County

except for the low desert.

N M Portions of the site are occupied

by Big Sagebrush Scrub.

Scientific Name

Common Name

Sensitivity

Code and Status2


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site3

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 4 of 10

Eumeces skiltonianus

interparietalis

Coronado Western Skink

Group 2,

—/CSC/BLM

Sensitive

In a variety of habitats ranging

from coastal scrub, to

Chaparral and forested slopes,

into the denser desert scrub and

Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands.



Lampropeltis zonata pulchra

California Mountain Kingsnake

Group 2, —/CSC/FS

Sensitive

Primarily found in rocky

situations within Montane

Coniferous Forest and Pinyon

and Juniper Woodlands.

However, it is also known from

riparian woodlands in

association with Sage Scrub

and Chaparral.

N L There are no Montane Coniferous

Forest or Pinyon and Juniper


However, portions of the site are

occupied by Big Sagebrush Scrub.

Lichanura trivarigata

Rosy Boa

Group 2, —/—/FS

and BLM Sensitive

A cryptic species found in a

variety of habitats, including

sage scrubs, Chaparrals and

Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands.



Phrynosoma coronatum

Coast Horned Lizard

Group 2, —/CSC/FS

Sensitive

Found throughout the County

(except the low deserts)

anywhere the primary prey

species, harvester ants

(Pogonomyrmex sp. and

Messor sp.) are found. It

requires some openings in

vegetation for

thermoregulation.

Y Observed During the 2009 federal protocol

survey for the Quino Checkerspot

Butterfly, a few individuals of this

species were noted in the northern

part of the site.

Salvadora hexalepis virgultea

Coast Patch-nosed Snake

Group 2, —/CSC/— Found in arid Sage Scrub and

Chaparral habitats.



Scientific Name

Common Name

Sensitivity

Code and Status2


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site3

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 5 of 10

Thamnophis hammondii

Two-striped Garter Snake

Group 1, —/CSC/FS

and BLM Sensitive

An aquatic snake found in

association with fluvial and

lacustrine environments, even

cattle tanks. Aestivating

individuals may be found some

distance from water sources.

Y Observed This species was observed by

Varanus Biological Services, Inc.

(2001), and again by Cummings

and Associates in 2009 during the

federal protocol Arroyo Toad

survey. Single individuals of this

species were observed during two

of the site visits.

Mammals

Antrozous pallidus

Pallid Bat

Group 2, —/CSC/FS

and BLM Sensitive;

WBWG High Priority

A bat that feeds on the ground

(Jerusalem Crickets and

scorpions are typical fare). This

species will roost in any cavity

(natural or man-made) that

affords a considerable

modicum of darkness.

N L The abandoned eighteen-wheel

trailers, or the large boulder

outcrop in the northern part of the

site may provide suitable roosting

sites on the property.

Chaetodipus californicus

femoralis

Dulzura Pocket Mouse

Group 2, —/CSC/— Frequent in arid Chaparral

habitats in the foothills and

lower mountain slopes of the

County.

N U There is no Chaparral habitat on-

site.

Chaetodipus fallax fallax

Northwestern San Diego Pocket

Mouse

Group 2, —/CSC/— Found in coastal sage scrub,

sage scrub/grassland ecotones

and chaparral communities.

Found in open, sandy areas.


by Big Sagebrush Scrub, and the

majority of the site is underlain by

sandy soils.

Chaetodipus fallax pallidus

Pallid San Diego Pocket Mouse

Group 2, —/CSC/— Found in more coastal

environments than the Dulzura

Pocket Mouse. This is a species

of Sage Scrub habitats on the

coastal plain and in the lower

foothills.

N U This site is at a relatively high

elevation, and is probably too far

inland to expect this species.

Scientific Name

Common Name

Sensitivity

Code and Status2


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site3

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 6 of 10

Corynorhinus townsendii

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Group 2,

—/CSC/BLM

Sensitive; FS

Sensitive; WBWG

High Priority

Associated with Desert Scrub

and Pinyon and Juniper

Woodlands. It roosts in caves

or man-made structures.

N L There are no caves on-site, but the

abandoned eighteen-wheel trailers,

or the large boulder outcrop in the

northern part of the site may

provide suitable roosting sites on

the property.

Dipodomys merriami collinus

Earthquake Merriam’s Kangaroo

Rat

—, —/—/— In San Diego County, this

subspecies occurs in areas of

sandy soils in San Felipe

Valley, La Puerta Valley, and

Oak Grove.

N U The subject property is not located

in San Felipe Valley, La Puerta

Valley, or Oak Grove.

Eumops perotis californicus

Greater Western Mastiff Bat

Group 2,

—/CSC/BLM

Sensitive; WBWG

High Priority

Frequently associated with

cliffs or abandoned buildings

that afford a considerable

vertical drop from the roost to

become airborne.

N U There are no suitable roosting sites

with a “considerable” vertical drop

on the property.

Lasiurus blossevillii

Western Red Bat

Group 2, —/CSC/FS

Sensitive; WBWG

High Priority

It is found in and near

deciduous trees, frequently in

orchards.

N M There are numerous planted

Cottonwoods on the property.

Myotis thysanodes

Fringed Myotis

Group 2, —/—/BLM

Sensitive; WBWG

High Priority

Found in coastal and montane

forests and about mountain

meadows.

N U There are no montane forests or

meadows on the property.

Odocoileus hemionus

Southern Mule Deer

Group 2, —/—/— Found in habitats with

sufficient vegetative cover.

Y Observed Mule Deer tracks were observed in

the northern portion of the

property along a dirt access road

parallel to the drainage in 2008

and 2009. Additional tracks and

pellets were observed south of the

creek in the eastern agricultural

field in 2009.

Scientific Name

Common Name

Sensitivity

Code and Status2


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site3

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 7 of 10

Onychomys torridus ramona

Southern Grasshopper Mouse

Group 2, —/SCS/— Found in a variety of habitats,

this carnivorous mouse eats

mostly insects and other mice.



Taxidea taxus

American Badger

Group 2, —/CSC/— A fossorial species of open

deserts and grassland habitats.

N M The majority of the site is

underlain by sandy soils.

However, the surrounding area

may be too developed to anticipate

this species.

Birds

Accipiter cooperii

Cooper’s Hawk (nesting)

Group 1, —/CSC/— Nesting Cooper’s generally use

taller trees, including a number

of horticultural species and

native Oaks.

Y Observed Observed by Cummings and

Associates (2008), and by Tierra

Environmental (1998).

Agelaius tricolor

Tricolored Blackbird

(nesting colonies only)

Group 1,

BCC/CSC/BLM

Sensitive

Breeding colonies are limited

to ponds with adjacent,

undisturbed foraging habitat.

N L There are pools of water within the

Pine Valley Creek bottom that

seem to persist year-round, but

they are fairly small (on the order

of < 200ft ).2

Aimophila ruficeps

ssp. canescens

Rufous-crowned Sparrow

Group 1, —/CSC/— This species nests in Sage

Scrub, open or burned

Chaparral, and in Non-Native

Grasslands with scattered

shrubs.

N L This species tends to be sensitive

to urbanization. The slopes

containing Sage Scrub and Non-

Native Grasslands on-site are

completely surrounded by

development.

Aquila chrysaetos

Golden Eagle (nesting and

wintering)

Group 1, BCC/Fully

Protected/BLM

Sensitive; WL

The Golden Eagle nests on cliff

ledges and forages in nearby

grassland, Sage Scrub or

Chaparral.

N U There are no suitable nest sites,

and there are no records in the

CNDDB for the Descanso quad.

Scientific Name

Common Name

Sensitivity

Code and Status2


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site3

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 8 of 10

Carduelis lawrencei

Lawrence’s Goldfinch (nesting)

—, BCC/—/— A nomadic species, generally

associated with water (creeks

and ponds) with adjacent fields

that provide seed, especially

plants in the family

Boraginaceae.

Y Observed A large flock of 22 Lawrence’s

Goldfinch were observed in Pine

Valley Creek by Cummings and

Associates (2008). Another large

flock was seen again in Pine

Valley Creek in 2009.

Cathartes aura

Turkey Vulture

Group 1, —/—/— This species nests in rock

crevices mainly in the

mountains of San Diego

County. However, non-

breeders assemble in

communal roosts elsewhere in

the County.

Y Observed Identified by Tierra Environmental

(1998), by Varanus Biological

Services, Inc. (2001), and by

Cummings and Associates in

2009.

Dendroica petechia brewsteri

Yellow Warbler

Group 2,

BCC/CSC/—

Breeding occurs in mature

riparian habitats, primarily

along the coastal slope.

Y Observed Identified by Varanus Biological

Services, Inc. (2001), and by

Cummings and Associates (2009).

Empidonax traillii extimus

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Group 1, FE/SE/WL An obligate inhabitant of

dense, fairly broad, riparian

woodlands.

N U The surveys for this endangered

bird conducted in 2001 by

Varanus Biological Services were

negative. Also, the riparian habitat

on-site is sparse and narrow, not

dense and broad.

Falco mexicanus

Prairie Falcon (nesting)

Group1, —/—/WL This falcon nests on cliff

ledges, and forages in open

desert or grassland.

N U The site does not contain

appropriate nesting habitat.

Icteria virens

Yellow-breasted Chat (nesting)

Group 1, —/CSC/— In San Diego County, this bird

is typically found in the coastal

lowland where riparian

woodlands occur.

N U The subject property is located in

Pine Valley (definitely not along

the coastal slope), and the riparian

habitats on-site are sparse, not

mature.

Scientific Name

Common Name

Sensitivity

Code and Status2


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site3

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 9 of 10

Lanius ludovicianus

Loggerhead Shrike

Group 1, —/—/— In San Diego County, the

Loggerhead Shrike is most

numerous in the desert, but it is

also known from Sage Scrub,

Chaparral, and Grassland

habitats.

N L Portions of the site are occupied


Polioptila californica

California Gnatcatcher

Group 1, FT/CSC/— An obligate inhabitant of Sage

Scrub or sometimes Chaparral

where the two habitats

intermix.

N U The elevations on-site are too high

to expect this species.

Sialia mexicana

Western Bluebird

Group 2, —/—/— Found in areas with a

combination of trees and open

ground.

Y Observed Heard as overflights by Cummings

and Associates in 2008, and seen

by Cummings and Associates in

2009. Also identified by Tierra

Environmental (1998), and by

Varanus Biological Services, Inc.

(2001).

Spizella atrogularis

Black-chinned Sparrow (nesting)

—, BCC/—/— Found on steep slopes

occupied by Chaparral.

Y Observed This species was heard in 2009

off-site to the west.

Tyto alba

Common Barn Owl

Group 2, —/—/— Found on the coastal slope of

SD County at low to moderate

elevations, occurring in

riparian and oak woodland as

well as in any open area where

trees, buildings, or other man-

made structures offer secure

sites for roosting and nesting.

Y Observed Individuals of this species were

heard during the nighttime surveys

for the Arroyo Toad on 25 May

2009, and 17 June 2009 by

Cummings and Associates.

Scientific Name

Common Name

Sensitivity

Code and Status2


On-site

(Y or N)

Potential

On-site3

Factual Basis

for Potential

Page 10 of 10

Vireo bellii pusillus

Least Bell’s Vireo

Group 1, FE/SE/— An obligate inhabitant of

dense, fairly broad, riparian

woodlands with adjacent

uplands that provide foraging

habitat.

N U The surveys for this endangered

bird conducted in 2001 by

Varanus Biological Services were

negative. The riparian habitat on-

site is sparse and narrow, not

dense and broad.

This sensitive wildlife list is based on a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the County of San Diego Sensitive Animal List taken1

from San Diego, County of. 2009. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Contents for Biological

Resources. Third Revision. Available from the County’s website at http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/Biological_Guidelines.pdf,

and Fish and Game, California Department of. 2009. California Natural Diversity Data Base: Special Animals. The Author, Sacramento, California, 59

pp. [available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf], edition of July 2009.

The status codes are given in the sequence “County Group, federal/state/other.” A “—“ indicates no status at that level. The codes used are defined as follows:2

FE — Federal Endangered

pFE — A petition for Federal Endangerment status has been submitted

FT — Federal Threatened

D — Delisted from the Endangered Species Act

BCC — Birds of Conservation Concern on the BCC 2008 list within BCR 32

SE — State Endangered

ST — State Threatened

CSC — California Special Concern species

WL — California Department of Fish and Game Watch List

AFS EN — defined as an endangered species by the American Fisheries Society

Fully Protected — A species for which special state legislation exists protecting the species

FS Sensitive — defined as a sensitive species by the USDA Forest Service

BLM Sensitive — defined as a sensitive species by the Bureau of Land Management

WBWG — priority status as defined by the multi-agency Western Bat Working Group

X-CI — Xerces Society, Critically Imperiled

The “Potential On-site” column assesses the potential for the particular species to occur on the subject property given the known habitat preferences and3

distribution of that species. The codes used in this column are defined as follows:

Observed — Individuals of this species were found within the bounds of the site.

H — The potential for occurrence is “high”. Habitats on-site are considered suitable for the species, and the species is known from the immediate

vicinity.

M — The potential for occurrence is “medium”. Habitats and conditions on-site are considered possible for the species.

L — The potential for occurrence is “low”. The habitats present on-site are marginal for the species and/or extremely limited in extent. In other words,

the species is not anticipated, but it’s occurrence can not be precluded.

U — The potential for occurrence is “unlikely”. The habitat and/or food requirements of the species are not present on the subject property.[:\1562SensitiveWildlifeTable-rev.wpd]

Table 5

Summary of Projects With Discretionary PermitsWithin a One Mile Radius of TM 5236

Assessor’s ParcelNumber

Project ReferenceNumber/

Project Name

CEQA Document Mitigation Other Notes Status

410-021-25-00 TPM 20857;ER 04-15-002/Kenyon MinorSubdivision

Bio report recommends exclusionfencing for Arroyo Toad duringgrading and shielding lighting to

prevent impacts to Arroyo Toads dueto nighttime lighting

3-lot subdivision with BigSagebrush Scrub, and Willow

riparian habitats

On hold until groundwaterbasin-wide study complete

410-030-23-00;410-030-24-00

ZAP 96-011;ZAP 96-020;Log No. 96-15-2;Log No. 96-15-5

Neg Dec dated10/18/96

none wireless phone tower Done

410-030-17-00 TPM 20951;ER 05-15-002/Top of the Pines

none proposed 4-lot subdivision withChaparral, Big Sagebrush Scruband Coast Live Oak Woodland

habitats

In Process

410-030-20-00;410-010-07-00

TPM 20765;ER 03-15-006/The Slope

none proposed 4-lot subdivision with Chaparraland coniferous forests

In Process - Last submittal wasOctober 18, 2007

410-060-31-00;410-120-19-00

TPM 5318;SP03-001;R03-005;GPAXX-42/Pine Valley ParkEstates

recommendedMND or possibly

an EIR

According to the bio report, the areaof disturbance is completely on

“disturbed habitat”, so no mitigation

Subdivision with clustering ofproposed homes and large openspace to include Big Sagebrush

Scrub and Non-NativeGrasslands

Additional groundwater surveyrequested in February of 2007

410-140-05-00;412-090-01-00

TM 4918-RPL2;Log No. 80-15-009A

EIR dated 5/26/92,but then County

requestedadditional

information due tonew information

since EIRapproved

Due to presence of Arroyo Toads, thereport by Varanus recommended

some minor design changes (movebridge location to existing crossing)to avoid impacts to Arroyo Toad -

none of the mitigation measures weretaken because the TM expired

Focused surveys for the ArroyoToad were conducted in 2004

by Tierra EnvironmentalServices (negative), and in 2005by Varanus Biological Services,

Inc. (positive)

TM expired

[:\1562-Cumulative Analysis Table.wpd]

Appendix A

Open Space Easement and Limited Building Zone Easement Map

Prepared By

Walsh Engineering & Surveying, Inc.October 2009

Appendix C

An Assessment of the Arroyo ToadAlong a Segment of Pine Valley Creek[County of San Diego TM 5236 RPL3]

Prepared ByCummings and Associates

September 2009

An Assessment of the Arroyo ToadAlong a Segment of Pine Valley Creek

County of San Diego, California[County of San Diego TM 5236 RPL3]

Prepared By:

Gretchen Cummings



(760)440-0349

30 September 2009Job Number 1562.20D

Prepared For:


(619)851-8604


An Assessment of theArroyo Toad Along a Segment of

Pine Valley CreekCounty of San Diego, California

[County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use TM5236]

SUMMARY

A federal protocol survey for the Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus) was conducted over anapproximately ¼-mile segment of Pine Valley Creek during the 2009 breeding season. The surveyarea is located north of Interstate 8, south of Pine Creek Road, and east of Old Highway 80 (seeFigure 1).

The requirement for the survey arose out of the processing of TM 5236 though the County of SanDiego Department of Planning and Land Use. TM 5236 proposes the subdivision of property intofour lots. Since this process is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the applicant was required to have a biologist analyze impacts to all sensitive speciesand/or habitats. Certain federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), such asthe endangered Arroyo Toad (Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994), require formal presence/absencefederal protocol surveys in order to assess impacts. Based on the results of the 2009 federal protocolsurvey, it appears that this particular segment of Pine Valley Creek is not occupied by the ArroyoToad.

PHYSICAL AND FLORAL ENVIRONMENT

A portion of Pine Valley Creek crosses through the northern part of TM 5236 from east to west (seeFigure 1). On-site, the creek occurs as a narrow flow way at the bottom of a large drainage with ±20-foot tall steep banks. The habitat immediately surrounding the flow way is best classified as SouthernWillow Scrub (Holland, 1986; Element Code 63320), and the vegetation adjacent to this riparianhabitat on the banks is described as Big Sagebrush Scrub (Holland, 1986; Element Code 35210).

Published geological mapping of the area (Todd, 2004) maps most of TM5236 as “Young alluvium”with just the eastern edges mapped as “Monzogranite of Pine Valley”. Surficial soils mapped on theproperty include the following (Bowman, et al., 1973):

# Mottsville loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (MvC) — This loamy sand is found onalluvial fans and plains. On-site this soil historically occupied 95% of the property.


channels. On-site it is found in the extreme northeast corner along Pine Valley Creek.

P.O. Box 1209, Ramona, CA 92065 • (619)233-5454 or (760)440-0349

Fax:(760)440-9173 • Email: [email protected]

Professional Environmental Services

Page 2 of 4Cummings and Associates Job #1562.20D — Assessment of the Arroyo Toad Along a Segment of Pine Valley Creek

METHODS

The survey was conducted to determine the presence or absence of the Arroyo Toad in accordancewith the current federal protocol (Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999). Specifically, six surveys wereconducted between 15 March and 1 July, each with a daytime and nighttime component. The dates,times of survey, and weather conditions for each of the six site visits were as follows:

Survey Date Beginning of Observation Period End of Observation Period

Time Cloud

Cover

(%)

Wind(mph)

Air

Temp

(EF)

Humidity

(%)

Time Cloud

Cover

(%)

Wind(mph)

Air

Temp

(EF)

Humidity

(%)

AT#1

Daytime

22

Apr

1700 Clear 4.5 -

7.6

75.4 24 1800 Clear 1.3 -

3.1

70.2 24

AT#1

Nighttime

22

Apr

2030 Clear < 1.5 54.1 30 2145 Clear Calm 52.7 36

AT#2

Daytime

1

May

1215 100 5.7 -

11.3

85.3 27 1330 100 2.1 -

5.3,

gusts

to

10.9

84.4 23

AT#2

Nighttime

30

Apr

2030 Clear < 1.2 56.8 51 2130 Clear < 1 56.7 49

AT#3

Daytime

25

May

1030 Clear 2.4 -

5.2,

gusts

to 8.1

73.4 31 1130 Clear 1.9 -

6.1

73.9 31

AT#3

Nighttime

24

May

2050 Clear Calm 49.6 63 2150 Clear Calm 49.1 52

AT#4

Daytime

31

May

1745 Clear 0.5 -

2.2

73.8 45 1845 Clear 3.8 -

6.2

74.1 47

AT#4

Nighttime

31

May

2050 Clear Calm 58.3 65 2150 Clear Calm 55.8 65

AT#5

Daytime

17

June

1245 50 2.1 -

6.4

84.6 33 1415 40 2.4 -

5.8

86.0 28

AT#5

Nighttime

17

June

2115 Clear < 1 61.9 58 2215 Clear < 1 56.1 69

AT#6

Daytime

29

June

1015 95 0.4 -

2.0

79.7 63 1130 85 1.0 -

4.1

88.3 40

AT#6

Nighttime

29

June

2130 30 Calm 62.8 55 2230 70 < 1.6 58.8 70


The daytime component of each of the surveys consisted of walking in or on the banks of the creekwithin the property boundaries. During the daytime visits, habitat suitability for the Arroyo Toad wasassessed, and the suitable habitat (even if marginal) was searched for the various life stages of theArroyo Toad (i.e. eggs, tadpoles, juveniles).

The nighttime component of each of the surveys entailed listening for approximately 15 minutes atfour stations; two on-site, and two off-site (see Figure 1). Due to the private property ownershipsurrounding TM 5236, no surveying beyond the limits of the property boundary were possible duringthe day. However, during the nighttime component of the surveys, two stations along public roadswere chosen off-site to listen for Arroyo Toads. The purpose of these off-site listening stations wasto determine if any Arroyo Toads could be heard within 1 kilometer to the north and 1 kilometer tothe south of the actual project site.

RESULTS

Overall, the survey area contained marginal habitat for the Arroyo Toad. Large portions of the surveyarea were heavily shaded with a closed canopy Willow- see top photo of Figure 2. Other portionscontained some of the necessary components of suitable Arroyo Toad habitat (i.e. slow-movingwater, shallow pools, sandy/gravelly substrates), but lacked other components, such as adjacentsandy terraces - see bottom photo of Figure 2.

Amphibian species heard and/or seen during the six surveys included:

California Tree Frog Hyla cadaverinaPacific Chorus Frog Pseudacris regillaWestern Toad Bufo boreas halophilus

No Arroyo Toad eggs, tadpoles, juveniles, or adults were heard or seen during the federal protocolsurvey. Other Wildlife (Non-Amphibian) Species. One mammal, five reptiles, one fish, and seventeenavian species were observed within the survey area for the project (only two of these species areconsidered “sensitive” by the federal government or by the state of California). The two sensitivespecies observed were the Southwestern Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida) and the Two-striped Garter Snake (Thamnophis hammondii) — see Figure 3. At least six Southwestern PondTurtles were seen just south of the pump station in a deep ponded area roughly near the middle ofthe on-site segment of Pine Valley Creek. Single Two-striped Garter Snakes were seen on 31 May2009 and 17 June 2009. The one mammalian species observed was the California Ground Squirrel(Spermophilus beecheyi).The one fish species seen near the deep ponded area could not be identifiedbeyond family (Cyprinidae). A few of the other non-sensitive bird species noted on-site included,Barn Owl, Common Poorwill, Mountain Chickadee, Blue Grosbeak, Lazuli Bunting, and Ash-throated Flycatcher to name a few.


CONCLUSIONS

A ¼-mile segment of Pine Valley Creek located within the bounds of TM 5236 was surveyed during2009 for the Arroyo Toad. In accordance with the federal protocol for the species, a total of six sitevisits were made to the property to determine the presence or absence of the toad. Based on theresults of the protocol survey, it appears that the site is not currently occupied by Arroyo Toads. Thisresult is not surprising given the marginal habitat available within the survey area.

SURVEYOR CERTIFICATION

I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accuratelyrepresents my work. Any errors or omissions are solely my responsibility.

9/30/09 Gretchen Cummings Date Principal/Consulting Biologist

Attachments 1. Figure 1 —Arroyo Toad Survey Areas Shown on the U.S.G.S. 7½-minute Descanso Quadrangle Map

2. Figure 2 — Site Photographs: Examples of Wetland Habitat on TM 52363. Figure 3 — Locations of Sensitive Species Sightings Made During the

Arroyo Toad Survey Shown on an Aerial Photo4. References Cited

[:\1562-AT-Assessment.wpd]




Figure1

[:\1562-AT-Fig-1.wpg]Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 28 September 2009

Arroyo Toad Survey Areas Shown on theU.S.G.S. 7½-min Descanso Quad Map [Base MapCreated with TOPO!® ©2006 National Geographic; ©2005 TeleAtlas]


**

*

KEY

Boundaries of TM 5236

Surveyed Segment of PineValley Creek on TM 5236

Nighttime Listening StationsBoth On and Off-Site*

*




Figure2

[:\1562-AT-Fig-2.wpg]Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 30 September 2009

Site Photographs: Examples ofWetland Habitat on TM 5236


Figure3

Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 28 September 2009

Locations of Sensitive Species Sightings Made During the Arroyo Toad SurveyShown on an Aerial Photo

[Base Image © 2009 DigitalGlobe; © 2008 GoogleTM]

Scale: 1-inch = 0.5-mile

[:\1562-AT-Fig-3.wpg]



KEY

Southwestern Pond Turtle

Two-striped Garter Snake

17 June 2009and

29 June 2009

31 May 2009

17 June 2009

17 June 2009

Page 1 of 2

References Cited and Bibliography


Davidson, C. 1995. Audio field guide to frog and toad calls of the Pacific Coast. CD/Cassette andbooklet. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Fish and Game, California Department of. 2009. California Natural Diversity Data Base: SpecialAnimals. The Author, Sacramento, California, 59 pp. [available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf], edition of July 2009.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination ofEndangered Status for the Arroyo Southwestern Toad. Federal Register 59(241):64859-64866.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) recoveryplan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. vi + 119 pp.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Survey Protocol for the Arroyo Toad. Unpublished manuscript, copiesavailable from the Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, Calif., 3 pp. [dated 19 May 1999]

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation ofCritical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus); Final Rule. Federal Register70(70):19561-19633.

Holland, D.C., and N.R. Sisk. 2000. Habitat use and population demographics of the arroyo toad (Bufocalifornicus) on MCB Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California 1998-2000. UnpublishedReport 43 pp.

Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. iii + 155 pp.

Jennings, Mark R. 1983. An annotated check list of the amphibians and reptiles of California. Calif. Fishand Game 69(3): 151-171.

Jennings, Mark R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern inCalifornia. California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, Calif., final report,Contract No. 8023, 255 pp.

Lemm, Jeffrey M., 2006. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of the San Diego Region. CaliforniaNatural History Guides, University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA. pp. xii + 326.

Mendelsohn, Mark B., M.C. Madden-Smith, and R.N. Fisher. 2005. Post-Cedar Fire Arroyo Toad (Bufocalifornicus) Monitoring Surveys at Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, 2004. San Diego FieldStation, USGS Western Ecological Research Center, Prepared for California State parks, 42 pp.

Page 2 of 2

References Cited and Bibliography (continued)

Sloan, Allan J. 1964. Amphibians of San Diego County. San Diego Society of Natural History,Occasional Paper No. 13.

Stebbins, Robert C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd Ed., HoughtonMifflin Company, Boston, Mass., xiii + 533 pp.

Sweet, Samuel S. 1992. Initial Report on the Ecology and Status of the Arroyo Toad (Bufo microscaphuscalifornicus) on the Los Padres National Forest of Southern California, with ManagementRecommendations. USDA Forest Service, Contract Report, Los Padres National Forest, Goleta,Calif., ii + 154 pp.

Sweet, Samuel S. 1993. Second Report on the Biology and Status of the Arroyo Toad (Bufomicroscaphus californicus) on the Los Padres National Forest of Southern California. USDAForest Service, Contract Report, Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, Calif., ii + 73 pp.

Todd, Victoria R. 2004. Preliminary Geologic Map of the El Cajon 30' x 60- Quadrangle, SouthernCalifornia, Version 1.0. U. S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2004-1361 [copies availableat http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1361/ec1_map/pdf].

[:\1562-AT-ref-cit.wpd]

Appendix D

Report of a Federal Protocol Survey for theQuino Checkerspot Butterfly Over the Simpkins Property,

TM 5236 RPL3

Prepared ByCummings and Associates

July 2009

Report of a Federal Protocol Survey for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly

Over the Simpkins Property,TM 5236 RPL3

County of San Diego, California

Prepared By:

Gretchen Cummings



(760)440-0349

31 July 2009Job Number 1562.20D

Prepared For:


(619)851-8604

Report of a Federal Protocol Surveyfor the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly

Over the Simpkins Property, TM 5236 RPL3County of San Diego, California

Prepared For


(619)851-8604

Prepared By

Cummings and AssociatesP.O. Box 1209

Ramona, CA 92065(760)440-0349

31 July 2009

Job Number 1562.20D

Page 2 of 7

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. Property Location and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

III. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

IV. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

V. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

VI. Surveyor Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Attachments

1. Figure 1 — TM 5236 on the U.S.G.S. 7½-minute Descanso Quadrangle Map2. Figure 2 — Quino Site Assessment Map for TM 52363. Figure 3 — Butterfly Species Observed On-site During the Quino Survey4. Figure 4 — Sensitive Species Locations Shown on an Aerial Photo5. Table 1 — Weather Summary

6. Table 2 — Butterflies Observed on the Simpkins Property 7. Reference Cited

Appendix A — Field Notes

Page 3 of 7Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D — Year 2009 Quino Survey over the Simpkins Property

Executive Summary

The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) is listed under the Federal EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA) as an endangered subspecies. Prior to development-related activities that mightadversely affect potentially occupied habitats, surveys are recommended so as to prevent a “take”of the species under the ESA. The Simpkins property is located within a recommended survey areaestablished by the Year 2002 Federal Survey Protocol for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Fish andWildlife Service, 2002) and per the Year 2005 Quino Survey Areas map (Fish and Wildlife Service,2005). Cummings and Associates was retained by the property owner to determine the presence orabsence of the species during the year 2009 season in anticipation of a subdivision of his property.

All Lepidoptera encountered during the course of the field survey are listed and discussed in detailin the following material. No adult or larval Quino were found during the survey effort. Similarly,no Dot-seed Plantain (Plantago erecta), the primary larval host plant, were observed during theprotocol survey, nor were any of the secondary larval host plants noted on the property, such asWoolly Plantain (Plantago patagonica), White Snapdragon (Antirrhinum coulterianum), Owl’sClover (Castilleja exserta), or Thread-leaved Bird’s Beak (Cordylanthus rigidus).

Given the fact that no Quino Checkerspots were observed during the protocol survey, and that therewere no larval host plants identified on-site, it is concluded that the property is not occupied by theQuino Checkerspot Butterfly. Also, given the fact that the site is not located within designatedcritical habitat for the subspecies (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009), the property is not critical to theconservation of the species. Therefore, subdivision of the property will not affect recovery of theQuino Checkerspot Butterfly. Absent any significant effect, no mitigation measures are required andnone are recommended.

I. Introduction

The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) is a small, spring flying butterfly listedunder the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) as an endangered subspecies. Thought to be extinctin 1995, a small population was found in Riverside County in 1996 and the subspecies was listedas endangered in 1997 (Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicemonitors known populations of the subspecies in San Diego County and Riverside County.

The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) is best thought of as a “two phase”animal. The larvae (or first “phase”) are obligate feeders on a limited variety of food plants: Dot-seedPlantain (Plantago erecta), Owl’s Clover (Castilleja exserta), Woolly Plantain (Plantagopatagonica), White Snapdragon (Antirrhinum coulterianum), and Thread-leaved Bird’s Beak(Cordylanthus rigidus). The presence or absence of these food plants is usually sufficient todetermine the presence or absence of the larvae on a given site. However, the second “phase” is theadult butterfly which is much more mobile. The males of the species exhibit what is referred to as“hilltopping” behavior. They fly to prominent topographical points where they inspect each butterflythat passes-by in the hopes of finding a receptive female Quino.


This federal protocol survey for the Quino focused on the “open”, non-developed areas within theSimpkins property. Since the site is located basically in a “valley” with higher areas to the north,south, east and west, there were no appropriate high points on-site upon which to focus surveyefforts. According to the current federal protocol (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002) portions of thisproperty that were not suitable (and therefore, were excluded from the survey effort) included theclosed canopy riparian habitat along Pine Valley Creek and portions of an unnamed tributary, andthe developed areas (including the existing residence, horse facilities, and water district buildings)— see Figure 2.

II. Property Location and Description

The Simpkins property (APNs 410-021-22, 410-021-26, 410-030-10, 410-030-22, and 410-060-26)is located in Pine Valley, an unincorporated community within San Diego County. Specifically, thesite is bounded by Pine Creek Road along its northern border, and by Old Highway 80 along itssouthwestern border (see Figure 1). Pine Valley Creek crosses the northern portion of the propertyfrom east to west, and two unnamed tributaries are located south of Pine Valley Creek (see Figure1). Currently, portions of the property are in use as a residence and horse facility. Another portionis in use by the water district, and the remaining areas are undeveloped. The proposed residentialsubdivision would create four lots; three single-family detached lots, and one lot deeded to the waterdistrict.

The geological formations underlying the site are mapped as “Young alluvium” and “ Monzograniteof Pine Valley” (Todd, 2004). The former category is mapped over most of the property. The latterformation is mapped just on the eastern edges of the site. The overlying surficial soils on the propertyare mapped as (Bowman, et al., 1973):

# Mottsville loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (MvC) — This loamy sand is found onalluvial fans and plains. On-site this soil historically occupied 95% of the property. However,in the southern part of the site where the Cottonwoods have been planted, the soil is notsandy indicating possibly the import of some fill material.


channels. On-site it is found in the extreme northeast corner along Pine Valley Creek. The vegetative communities found on-site can be classified into six types:

Big Sagebrush Scrub. The Big Sagebrush Scrub (Holland, 1986; Element Code 35210) on-sitemainly occupies the banks along the edges of the Pine Valley Creek and the other two drainages.This habitat is dominated by Big Sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata).

Montane Meadow. An area in the southern part of the property is currently planted with numerousCottonwood (Populus fremontii). On the eastern side of this planted area, closest to the drainage, thetopography is lower, and there is an abundance of Mexican Rush (Juncus mexicana) in the


understory. The presence of this Rush could not be explained by irrigation, yet the area is higher inelevation than the bottom of the adjacent drainage (which was dry at the time of the survey). Theonly explanation for the presence of the Rush was that at one time, prior to the adjacent drainagebecoming incised, there was a Montane Meadow on the edge of the drainage. Although the watertable appears to have dropped since then, the Rush seems to be persisting as a result of the plantedCottonwoods that provide sufficient shade to retain moisture in the soil. For lack of a better term forthis area, it has been classified as a Montane Meadow (Holland, 1986; Element Code 45100).

Southern Willow Scrub. Southern Willow Scrub is classified by Holland (1986) as Element Code63320. On-site, this riparian habitat occupies Pine Valley Creek and portions of the drainagesflowing into Pine Valley Creek. This habitat is dominated by the Red Willow (Salix laevigata).

Disturbed Habitat. The Disturbed Habitat classification (Holland, 1986; Element Code 11300)describes several different areas of the property. The western section of the area planted withCottonwoods in the southern part of the site has harder soils and lacks the wetland indicator plant,Juncus mexicana that was found in the Montane Meadow. The understory in this part of the propertyappears more as a lawn than the meadow area to the east. Other areas on-site best classified asDisturbed Habitats include a small leveled area just south of the Montane Meadow along thesouthern property boundary, a small area in the southwestern property corner adjacent to OldHighway 80, and a section of ground along the eastern property boundary outside of the fencedpastureland that is heavily compacted.

Extensive Agriculture. The northern portions of TM 5236 are occupied by what is best categorizedas Extensive Agriculture (Holland, 1986; Element Code 18310). These areas are fenced in, andappear to be old pastureland. Some vegetation has regrown, but this habitat is dominated by Filarees(Erodium spp.).

Urban/Developed. The Urban/Developed classification (Holland, 1986; Element Code 12000)represents numerous areas on-site. The largest area is occupied by a residence, barns, and other areascurrently utilized as a horse boarding facility. The only other areas classified as Urban/Developedwere the portions of Pine Creek Road and Old Highway 80 that are part of the site, three disjunctareas utilized by the water district, and a small area along the eastern property boundary roughly nearthe middle of the site. Although most of these areas were excluded from the Quino survey (seeFigure 2), the dirt trails were included.

III. Methods

Winter rains and cold temperatures in late February/early March delayed the onset of the Quinoseason until the middle of March at this property. The first adult Quino Checkerspots were observedon 16 March in Marron Valley (San Diego County). Due to warm weather in April, the season endedin late April/early May depending upon location. Per the Year 2002 Federal Quino CheckerspotSurvey Protocol, a site assessment was conducted on 26 February, prior to initiation of the firstofficial Quino survey, to determine if any larval food plants could be found. Five subsequent visits


were conducted comprising the federal protocol survey for the Quino. Weather conditions at thebeginning and ending of each survey period were recorded and are presented in Table 1.

Portions of the Simpkins property were excluded from the Quino survey based on closed canopysituations and the presence of developed areas (see Figure 2). These closed canopy riparian standsare not considered suitable for the Quino, especially the larvae, due to the latter’s thermoregulatoryrequirements. Typically, the larvae feed within a few inches of the ground and require direct sunlightto maintain sufficient body temperatures. A closed vegetative canopy blocks the sun and preventssolar access to all but the larger animals (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002). The remainder of theproperty that was included in the Quino survey was occupied by Big Sagebrush Scrub, MontaneMeadow, Disturbed Habitat, and Extensive Agriculture.

During all survey efforts for the Quino Checkerspot, the undersigned was equipped with a collapsibleinsect net (BioQuip), close focusing photographic gear, and close focusing binoculars (10x30). Thephotographic gear used this season consisted of a Nikon D300 body and a 70 - 300 mm Quantaraylens with a macro function. This equipment allowed a minimum working distance of approximatelyfourteen inches. During the six field dates, wind, air temperature, and humidity were taken with a“TurboMeter” and a “Thermo-Hygro” meter, respectively (both instruments available throughForestry Suppliers, Inc.). With these instruments it was possible to record wind speed to the nearest0.1 mph, temperature to the nearest 0.1E and humidity to the nearest 1 percent.

IV. Results

A total of six site visits were made to the Simpkins property for the purposes of conducting a federalprotocol survey for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. The first of the six, as mentioned above, wasa site assessment, conducted to locate any populations of larval host plants and to delineate theboundaries of the Quino survey area. The remaining five visits represented the actual surveys for theQuino Checkerspot. No larvae or adult Quino Checkerspot were observed on the Simpkins propertyduring any of the six site visits, nor were any larval host plants found on-site.

The following points highlight the results of the butterfly survey effort on the Simpkins property:

# A total of 12 butterfly species were observed (maybe 13 depending on which Pontia sp. itwas). These are detailed in Table 2.

# Only one butterfly species was observed during each of the six visits: the Painted Lady.

# Four butterfly species (Common Buckeye, Pale Swallowtail, Cabbage White, and SpringWhite) observations on-site consisted of a single individual.

A compilation of the butterflies observed during the protocol survey effort is presented as Table 2.The reader’s attention is directed to that table, to the attached Figures 3 and 4, and to the attachedField Notes for additional information and details on the results of the field effort.


During the course of the survey, a concerted effort was made to identify other plant and wildlifespecies that would be considered sensitive. While this part of the field effort does not constitute acomprehensive survey, any observations of interest must be reported per the requirements of thefederal protocol for the Quino. Only one sensitive wildlife species, the Coast Horned Lizard(Phrynosoma coronatum) was observed. A total of three individuals were noted in the northern partof the property (see Figure 4).

V. Recommendation

In that no larval host plants were identified on-site, and that neither larvae nor adults of the QuinoCheckerspot were identified during the protocol survey, it would appear that the proposedsubdivision of the Simpkins property will have no effect on the endangered Quino CheckerspotButterfly. Absent a demonstrable effect on the species, no mitigation measures are required, andnone are recommended.

VI. Surveyor Certification

I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accuratelyrepresents my work. Any errors or omissions are solely my responsibility.

7/31/09 Gretchen Cummings DatePrincipal/Consulting Biologist[TE-031850-3]

[:\1562Quino-report.wpd]




Figure1

[:\1562-Quino-Fig-1.wpg]Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 26 June 2009

TM 5236 Shown on the U.S.G.S. 7½-minuteDescanso Quadrangle Map [Base Map Created with

TOPO!® ©2006 National Geographic; ©2005 TeleAtlas]





Figure2

[:\1562-Quino-Fig-2.wpg]Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 26 June 2009

Quino Site Assessment Map for TM 5236[Base Map Created with TOPO!® ©2006 National Geographic;

©2005 TeleAtlas]


KEY

Property Boundaries

Areas Excluded From Quino Survey(closed canopy riparian habitat, developed areas)


Figure3

[:\1562Quino-Fig-3-rev.wpg]

Simpkins Property — Butterfly SpeciesObserved On-site During the

Quino Checkerspot Survey

Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 26 June 2009



Figure 3C —Acmon Blue (Plebejus acmon)This blue was seen during the last four Quino sitevisits. The larvae feed on Buckwheats (Eriogonumsp.), such as those found on-site in the Big SagebrushScrub and those scattered in the Disturbed Habitat inthe southwestern portion of the site.

Figure 3A — Painted Lady (Vanessa cardui)This species was seen during all six site visits. Somewere seen briefly as they migrated north across theproperty. Others were observed nectaring on Henbit(Lamium amplexicaule).

Figure 3D — Common White (Pontia protodice)The larvae of this species feed on a variety of

mustard family plant species, such as the Short-pod Mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) that was

common in the pastureland. This white was notobserved until the end of March and beginning of

April during the last three site visits.

Figure 3B — Sara’s Orangetip (Anthocharis sara)This species was observed during the last four of

the Quino site visits. The larvae feed on a variety ofmustard family plants which were prevalent in the

disturbed areas and the pastureland. Mountedspecimen from the RBRiggan and Associates’

reference collection.

Scale Line = 997-feet


Figure4

Cummings and Associates Job Number 1562.20D 31 July 2009

Sensitive Species Locations on the Simpkins Property Shown on an Aerial Photo -Observations Made During the 2009 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey

[Base Map ©2008 Digital Globe; ©2008 Europa Technologies; ©2008 TeleAtlas]

[:\1562-Quino-Fig-4.wpg]



*

Coast Horned Lizard(13 April)

**

Coast Horned Lizard(20 March)

Page 1 of 1

Table 1

Summary of Weather Conditions at theTime of the Individual Survey Dates

111.6-Acre Simpkins Property in Pine Valley, TM 5236

Survey Date Beginning of Observation Period End of Observation Period

Time CloudCover

Wind AirTemp

Humidity Time CloudCover

Wind AirTemp

Humidity

HabitatAssessment

26 Feb 1430 30% 2.9 - 6.4 mph 66.4EF 32% 1630 50% 1.0 - 3.4 mph 65.3EF 32%

Quino Survey #1 13 Mar 1400 10% 2.1 - 7.7 mphwith gusts to

12.3 mph

73.2EF 22% 1615 30% < 2.2 mph 70.7EF 26%

Quino Survey #2 20 Mar 1315 0% 0.3 - 6.2 mph 71.4EF 25% 1530 0% 3.2 - 6.9 mph 79.3EF 21%

Quino Survey #3 31 Mar 1130 0% 3.1 - 6.0 mph 68.9EF 25% 1400 0% 2.7 - 5.1 mphwith gusts to

9.9 mph

73.8EF 21%

Quino Survey #4 2 Apr 1445 0% 2.8 - 6.0 mph 71.4EF 37% 1645 0% 3.5 - 6.2 mph 71.1EF 32%

Quino Survey #5 13 Apr 1200 50% 3.1 - 4.4 mphwith gusts to

7.2 mph

76.6EF 31% 1430 60% 1.2 - 4.5 mphwith gusts to

13.0 mph

77.2EF 24%

[:\1562weather-tbl.wpd]

Table 2

Summary of the Butterfly Species Observed on the 111.6-Acre Simpkins Property in Pine Valley, TM 5236

County of San Diego, California

Scientific Name /1

Common Name26 Feb20092

13 Mar2009

20 Mar2009

31 Mar2009

2 Apr2009

13 Apr2009

Anthocharis sara (Sara Orangetip)

— — 3 1 1 4

Erynnis funeralis(Funereal Duskywing)

— — 6 — — —

Hesperia juba(Juba Skipper)

— — — 1 — 1

Junonia coenia(Common Buckeye)

— — — 1 — —

Papilio eurymedon(Pale Swallowtail)

— 1 — — — —

Pieris rapae(Cabbage White)

— — 1 — — —

Plebejus acmon(Acmon Blue)

— — 2 3 1 3

Pontia sp.(White)

— — 1 — — —

Pontia protodice (Common White)

— — — 5 1 9

Pontia sisymbrii(Spring White)

— — — — 1 —

Vanessa atalanta(Red Admiral)

— — 1 1 — —

Vanessa cardui (Painted Lady)

1 30 3 163 11 10

Undifferentiated Sulphur(Subfamily Coliadinae)

— — 2 2 — 2

Total Individuals/Total Species Observed

1/1

31/2

19/8

177/8

15/5

29/6

For a discussion of the identification and species observed, see text. Nomenclature taken from:1

Cassie, Brian, J. Glassberg, A. Swengel, and G. Tudor. 2001. North American Butterfly Association (NABA)

Checklist & English Names of North American Butterflies. Second Edition. North American Butterfly

Association, Inc., Morristown, NJ, 60 pp.

This site visit was considered the official “site assessment” according to the 2002 Protocol Survey for the Quino2

Checkerspot. [:\1562bug-tbl.wpd]

References Cited

Ballmer, G. R., D. C. Hawks, K. H. Osborne, and G. F. Pratt. 2000. The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly,Euphydryas editha quino. Unpublished manuscript, Univ. of Calif. at Riverside, 7 pp. plusattachments.

Beauchamp, R. Mitchel. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press. NationalCity, Calif. 241 pp.


Comstock, John Adams. 1927. Butterflies of California. Published by the Author, Los Angeles, Calif., 334pp. + 63 plates

Ehrlich, P.R. 1965. The Population Biology of the Butterfly, Euphydryas editha. II. The Structure of theJasper Ridge Colony. Evolution. 19: 327-336.

Ehrlich, Paul R. 1980. Extinction, Reduction, Stability and Increase: The Responses of the CheckerspotButterfly (Euphydryas) Populations to California Drought. Oecologia 46:101-105

Emmel, Thomas C., and John F. Emmel. 1973. The Butterflies of Southern California. Natural HistoryMuseum of Los Angeles County, Science Series 26, xi + 148 pp.

Emmel, Thomas C., ed.1998. Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press,Gainesville, Florida. Xviii + 878 pp.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to List theLaguna Mountains Skipper and Quino Checkerspot Butterflies as Endangered. Federal Register59(149): 39868-39878.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination ofEndangered Status for the Laguna Mountains Skipper and Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. FederalRegister 62(11):2313-2322.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Year 2002 SurveyProtocol. Unpublished manuscript, available from the Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, Calif., 6 pp+ attachments.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Year 2005 Quino Survey Areas Map. Available at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/Quino_Monitor.htm.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation ofCritical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino); Final Rule. FederalRegister 74(115):28775-28862.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas edithaquino). Portland, Oregon. x + 179 pp.

http://www.fws.gov/

References Cited (continued)

Hickman, James C. ed. 1996. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, xvii + 1400 pp.

Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. iii + 155 pp.

Launer, A. E., et al. 1993. Puddling behavior by Bay Checkerspot Butterflies (Euphydryas editha bayensis).J. of Research on the Lepidoptera 32:45-52.

Lincoln, D. E., T. S. Newton, P. R. Ehrlich and K. S. Williams. 1982. Coevolution of the CheckerspotButterfly Euphydryas chalcedona and its larval food plant Diplacus aurantiacus: Larval responseto protein and leaf resin. Oecologia 52:216-223.

MacKay, Duncan A. 1985. Prealighting search behavior and host plant selection by ovipositing Euphydryaseditha butterflies. Ecology 66(1):142-151.

Mattoni, Rudi, et al. 1995 (1997). The endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, Euphydryas editha quino(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J. of Research on the Lepidoptera 34(1-4):99-118.

Murphy, Dennis D., A. E. Launer, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1983. The role of adult feeding in egg production andpopulation dynamics of the Checkerspot Butterfly Euphydryas editha. Oecologia 56:257-263.

Murphy, Dennis D., and R. R. White. 1984. Rainfall, resources, and dispersal in southern populations ofEuphydryas editha (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 60(4):350-354.

Opler, Paul, and A. B. Wright. 1999. A Field Guide to Western Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston,xiv + 540 pp.

Parmesan, Camille. 1995. Traversing the Checkerboard of Euphydryas Identification. American Butterflies3(4):12-22.

Porter, Keith. 1982. Basking behavior in larvae of the butterfly Euphydryas aurinia. Oikos 38:308-312.

Scott, James A.1986. The Butterflies of North America. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif., xii + 583pp. [CD-ROM edition published by Hopkins Technology, LLC, 1997]

Sherbrooke, Wade C. 2003. Horned Lizards of North America. University of California Press, Berkeley, xiii+ 278 pp.

Todd, Victoria R. 2004. Preliminary Geologic Map of the El Cajon 30' x 60- Quadrangle, SouthernCalifornia, Version 1.0. U. S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2004-1361 [copies available at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1361/ec1_map/pdf].

Williams, K. S., D. E. Lincoln, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1983. The coevolution of Euphydryas chalcedonaButterflies and their larval host plants. I. Larval feeding behavior and host plant chemistry.Oecologia 56:323-329.

[:\1562Quino-ref-cit.wpd]

Appendix A

Field Notes

2009 Field Notes for the Quino Surveyover the 111.6-Acre Simpkins Property in Pine Valley

26 February 2009

This afternoon between 1430 and 1630 hours, I conducted the habitat assessment for the QuinoCheckerspot butterfly over the Simpkins property in Pine Valley (Cummings and Associates Job#1562.20D). At the onset of the survey, the sky was partly cloudy (approximately 30% cloudcover). At this time, the temperature was 66.4EF, and the humidity was 32%. Winds wereblowing from the north at speeds ranging from 2.9 to 6.4 mph. By 1630 hours, the temperaturehad decreased to 65.3EF, and the humidity remained the same at 32%. The sky was still partlycloudy (cloud cover had increased to approximately 50%). Winds were blowing from thenorthwest at speeds ranging from 1.0 - 3.4 mph. No larval host plants were found. Only onebutterfly species was observed during the visit, a single Painted Lady (Vanessa cardui). Birdsobserved during the visit included:

Western BluebirdWhite-crowned SparrowEuropean StarlingNorthern FlickerYellow-rumped WarblerSong SparrowDark-eyed JuncoCalifornia QuailAcorn WoodpeckerAmerican RobinMountain ChickadeeWestern Scrub JayBushtit

The only other observation of note is that the north-south drainage did not contain any water(running or pooled), but Pine Valley Creek across the northern part of the site was flowing well.The Pacific Chorus Frog (Pseudacris regilla) was heard calling at different sections of the PineValley Creek (in the western part and eastern part).

13 March 2009

This afternoon, I conducted the first of five required Quino surveys at the Simpkins property inPine Valley (Cummings and Associates Job #1562.20D). The survey occurred between 1400 and1615 hours. At the beginning of the visit, the temperature was measured at 73.2EF and thehumidity was recorded at 22%. The sky was partly cloudy (approximately 10% cloud cover) withwinds blowing from the west at speeds ranging from 2.1 - 7.7 mph with gusts up to 12.3 mph. At1615 hours, the winds had died down and were blowing from the southeast at speeds < 2.2 mph.

The cloud cover had increased to approximately 30%. The temperature had decreased to 70.7EF,and the humidity had increased to 26%. Butterflies observed during the survey included:

Vanessa cardui (30) - moving northPapilio eurymedon (1) - seen along Pine Valley Creek in the northern part of the property

Flowering plants included:

Lamium amplexicauleCalandrinia ciliata

Other observations included 1 Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), 1 Audubon’sCottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni), 1 Side-blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana), 3 CaliforniaGround Squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), and Mule Deer tracks (Odocoileus hemionus) in thenorthern part of the site along the dirt road paralleling Pine Valley Creek. Birds observed on-siteincluded, 2 Turkey Vultures (circling over the northern part of the site), 8 Western Bluebirds (5in northern part of site on telephone wires and 3 in southern part of site in the Cottonwoods),Yellow-rumped Warbler, Northern Flicker, Lark Sparrow, Mountain Chickadee, White-crownedSparrow, Pine Siskin, and House Finch.

20 March 2009

This afternoon between 1315 and 1530 hours, the second of five Quino surveys was conducted atthe Simpkins property in Pine Valley (Cummings and Associates Job #1562.20D). At 1315hours, the temperature was measured at 71.4EF and the humidity was recorded at 25%. Windswere blowing from the west at speeds ranging from 0.3 - 6.2 mph. By the end of the butterflysurvey, the temperature had risen to 79.3EF, and the humidity had dropped to 21%. Winds werenow blowing from the northwest at speeds ranging from 3.2 - 6.9 mph. The sky was sunny andclear throughout the site visit. Butterflies observed in the field included:

Anthocharis sara (3) - in southwestern part of sitePlebejus acmon (2) - in southwestern part of sitePontia sp. (1) - flying in the southern part of the site under the CottonwoodsVanessa cardui (3) - heading northUndifferentiated Sulphur (1) - flew very fast across the southern part of the propertyErynnis funeralis (6) - near middle of property in Sagebrush and heading westVanessa atalanta (1) - near middle of property Pieris rapae (1) - near middle of property

Flowers in bloom included:

Erodium cicutariumLamium amplexicauleCalandrinia ciliataPlagiobothrys sp.

Other observations included a Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum), Spotted Towhee,House Finch, Anna’s Hummingbird, Red-tailed Hawk, Stellar’s Jay, Northern Flicker (mating),Yellow-rumped Warbler, Lesser Goldfinch, Western Bluebird, Lark Sparrow, 2 Side-blotchedLizard (Uta stansburiana), and 2 California Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi).

31 March 2009

Today the third Quino survey was conducted over the Simpkins property in Pine Valley(Cummings and Associates Job #1562.20D). This third survey was supposed to occur last weekon Friday, March 27 , but it was too windy (up to 35 mph gusts). The high winds continuedth

through Saturday, Sunday and Monday, making today, Tuesday, the first available “make-up”day. The site visit occurred between 1130 and 1400 hours. The sky was sunny and clearthroughout the survey. At 1130 hours, the temperature was 68.9EF, and the humidity was 25%.Winds were blowing from the north at speeds ranging between 3.1 - 6.0 mph. By 1400 hours, thetemperature had risen to 73.8EF, and the humidity had dropped to 21%. The winds were nowblowing from the west at speeds ranging between 2.7 - 5.1 mph with gusts up to 9.9 mph.Butterflies observed during the Quino survey included:

Vanessa cardui (163) - seen flying north with a few seen nectaring on Lamiumamplexicaule

Anthocharis sara (1) - seen in north/south drainageVanessa atalanta (1) - seen flying northUndifferentiated Sulphur (2) - seen in the agricultural field in the northeastern part of the

site, south of Pine Valley CreekJunonia coenia (1) - seen in the agricultural field in the northeastern part of the site, south

of Pine Valley CreekPontia protodice (5) - seen throughout the sitePlebejus acmon (3) - seen nectaring on Erodium cicutarium in southwestern part of siteHesperia juba (1) - in montane meadow on the edge of the Cottonwoods in the southern

part of the property

Flowering plants in bloom included:

Taraxacum officinaleLamium amplexicauleErodium cicutariumMatricaria matricarioidesPlagiobothrys sp.

Other observations included Lesser Goldfinch, Say’s Phoebe, Common Yellowthroat, Stellar’sJay, House Wren, Red-breasted Sapsucker, White-crowned Sparrow, Anna’s Hummingbird,House Finch, European Starling, Red-tailed Hawk, Spotted Towhee, Turkey Vulture, a pair ofCalifornia Thrasher, 1 singing Black-chinned Sparrow west of the site in Chaparral, 3 WesternFence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), 1 Audubon’s Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), PocketGopher (Thomomys bottae) holes, 1 Tiger Whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), and 2California Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi).

2 April 2009

Today between 1445 and 1645, the fourth Quino survey was conducted over the Simpkinsproperty in Pine Valley (Cummings and Associates Job #1562.20D). Although the last visit wastwo days ago (a “make-up” visit), this fourth visit needed to occur today as cool weather and rainsprinkles are being predicted for tomorrow. While driving out to the site, I noted that the marinelayer was very deep extending past Alpine, and beginning to break at the Highway 79 exit off ofInterstate 8. At the site, the sky was sunny and clear throughout the observation period. At theonset of the visit at 1445, the temperature was measured at 71.4EF, and the humidity wasrecorded at 37%. Winds were blowing from the northwest at speeds ranging from 2.8 - 6.0 mph.At 1645 hours, the temperature was 71.1EF, and the humidity was 32%. Winds were stillblowing from the northwest at speeds ranging between 3.5 - 6.2 mph. Butterflies observed duringthe site visit included:

Vanessa cardui (11) - seen flying northPontia sisymbrii (1) - seen in southwestern corner of sitePlebejus acmon (1) - seen in southwestern corner of siteAnthocharis sara (1) - seen near north/south drainagePontia protodice (1) - seen in northern part of the site

Other observations included Mule Deer tracks (Odocoileus hemionus) in the agricultural field inthe northeast portion of the site that is south of Pine Valley Creek, a skinny snake track near thenorthwestern corrals, 7 Side-blotched Lizards (Uta stansburiana), Cassin’s Kingbird, PineSiskin, Lark Sparrow, Anna’s Hummingbird, Northern Flicker, Lesser Goldfinch, 6 WesternBluebirds (1 in Cottonwoods in the southern part of the site, 3 as overflights near the middle ofthe property, and 2 in the northeast corner of the property), White-crowned Sparrow, Dark-eyedJunco “Oregon”, 2 Audubon’s Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and 8 California GroundSquirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi).

13 April 2009

Today, I conducted the fifth and final Quino survey at the Simpkins property in Pine Valleybetween 1200 and 1430 hours (Cummings and Associates Job #1562.20D). At 1200 hours, thetemperature was measured at 76.6EF, and the humidity was recorded at 31%. The sky was partlycloudy with approximately 50% cloud cover of high, thin clouds. Winds were blowing from thenorthwest at speeds ranging from 3.1 to 4.4 mph with gusts to 7.2 mph. By 1430 hours, thetemperature had risen slightly to 77.2EF, and the humidity had dropped to 24%. The cloud coverhad increased to 60% of the high, thin clouds. Winds were blowing from the west at speedsranging from 1.2 to 4.5 mph with gusts to 13.0 mph. Butterflies observed during the site visitincluded:

Pontia protodice (9) - seen throughout the siteVanessa cardui (10) - heading northHesperia juba (1) - seen in northern part of the site

Anthocharis sara (4) - seen in the northeastern portion of the sitePlebejus acmon (3) - two seen in copulo in the agricultural field east of the north/south

drainage, and one flying solo in the same agricultural fieldUndifferentiated Sulphur (2) - one seen in the Pine Valley Creek bed, and the other was

seen in the southern part of the site

Other wildlife observations included, a pair of Red-breasted Sapsuckers nesting in a hole in oneof the planted Cottonwoods in the southern part of the site, Lesser Goldfinch, House Wren,Northern Flicker, Stellar’s Jay, Acorn Woodpecker, Hairy Woodpecker, 3 Western Bluebirds(male and female seen in the southern part of site, and a male seen going into a hole in a mostlydead Willow in the extreme southwestern portion of the site - it chased off the HairyWoodpecker), 1 Violet-green Swallow, 2 tiny Horned Lizards (Phrynosoma coronatum), Gopherholes (Thomomys bottae), 4 Side-blotched Lizards (Uta stansburiana), and 2 Western Whiptails(Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri).

Plants in bloom included:

Erodium cicutariumLamium amplexicauleMatricaria matricarioidesCalandrinia ciliataCamissonia sp.Cryptantha sp.Lupinus concinnus - in Pine Valley Creek bedLasthenia gracilis - about a dozen in the southern part of property by trailerSisymbrium irioPlagiobothrys sp.Eschscholzia californica

[:\1562Field Notes.wpd]