MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

July 2014 

 Appendix A

Agency Correspondence
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

July 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Supplement to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

Appendix A - Agency Correspondence

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

July 2014 A-1 

APPENDIX A AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/

Supplement to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 

Appendix A - Agency Correspondence 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

A-2 July 2014 
 - 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

July 2014 

 Appendix B

Section 7 Consultation 

Biological Assessment
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

July 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 

Consultation 

Biological 

Assessment 

June 2014 

Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment 

June 2014 

Prepared by: 

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Table of Contents

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 i 

Table of Contents 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Species List ........................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Critical Habitat .................................................................................................... 1-5

1.3 Consultation to Date ........................................................................................... 1-5

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................ 2-1

2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Existing Site Conditions ...................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Study Area and Surrounding Land Uses ................................................ 2-1

2.2.2 Soils ........................................................................................................ 2-3

2.2.3 Terrain .................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.4 Vegetation Communities......................................................................... 2-5

2.2.5 Waters of the U.S. .................................................................................. 2-8

2.3 Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 2-8

2.4 Definition of Action Area ..................................................................................... 2-9

2.4.1 Alignment ................................................................................................ 2-9

2.4.2 Stations ................................................................................................. 2-15

2.4.3 Trolley Vehicle Fleet and Maintenance Facilities .................................. 2-16

2.4.4 Power System and Signaling ................................................................ 2-16

2.4.5 Operating Plan ...................................................................................... 2-18

3.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND THEIR HABITAT .............................................. 3-1

3.1 Coastal California Gnatcatcher .......................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Least Bell’s Vireo ..................................... 3-2

3.3 Light-footed Clapper Rail .................................................................................... 3-4

3.4 San Diego Fairy Shrimp ................................................................................... 3-19

3.5 Special-Status Plants ....................................................................................... 3-20

4.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Long-Term Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Construction Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-3

4.4 Summary of Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers .................. 4-7

4.5 Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S. ........................................................ 4-8

5.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Coastal California Gnatcatcher .......................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Long-term Impacts .................................................................................. 5-2

5.1.2 Construction (Short-term) Impacts .......................................................... 5-3

5.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................ 5-4

5.1.4 Determination of Effect ........................................................................... 5-6

5.2 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Least Bell’s Vireo ..................................... 5-7

5.2.1 Long-term Impacts .................................................................................. 5-7

5.2.2 Construction (Short-term) Impacts .......................................................... 5-7

5.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................ 5-8

5.2.4 Determination of Effect ........................................................................... 5-9

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

ii June 2014 

5.3 Light-footed Clapper Rail .................................................................................... 5-9

5.3.1 Long-term Impacts .................................................................................. 5-9

5.3.2 Construction (Short-term) Impacts ........................................................ 5-10

5.3.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures .............................. 5-10

5.3.4 Determination of Effect ......................................................................... 5-10

5.4 San Diego Fairy Shrimp ................................................................................... 5-11

5.4.1 Long-term Impacts ................................................................................ 5-11

5.4.2 Construction (Short-term) Impacts ........................................................ 5-11

5.4.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures .............................. 5-11

5.4.4 Determination of Effect ......................................................................... 5-12

6.0 RELEVANT REPORTS PREPARED ............................................................................ 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 7-1

List of Appendices 

A MID-COAST OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES ............................................................... A-1

B MID-COAST OBSERVED WILDLIFE SPECIES .......................................................... B-1

C SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES NOT OBSERVED AND WITH LOW POTENTIAL 

OR NOT EXPECTED TO OCCUR ON SITE ................................................................ C-1

D FOCUSED SURVEY REPORTS .................................................................................. D-1

List of Figures 

Figure 2-1. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project ..................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-2. Soils Map ............................................................................................................ 2-4

Figure 2-3. Topography ........................................................................................................ 2-6

Figure 2-4. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project ................. 2-11

Figure 2-5. Existing Traction Power Substation at a Street North of Santa Fe Depot ........ 2-16

Figure 2-6. Refined Build Alternative Opening Year Trolley Operating Plan ...................... 2-20

Figure 2-7. Refined Build Alternative 2030 Trolley Operating Plan .................................... 2-21

Figure 3-1. Federally Listed Species Locations, Habitat, and Proposed Impacts, 

Maps 1 through 8 ............................................................................................... 3-5

Figure 4-1. San Diego Fairy Shrimp Basin II Hydrology ....................................................... 4-5
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Table of Contents

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 iii 

List of Tables 

Table 2-1. Mapped Soil Series and Units in the Special-Status Plant Survey Area ............ 2-3

Table 2-2. Vegetation Communities and Land Covers ........................................................ 2-7

Table 2-3. Waters of the U.S. in the Study Area by Vegetation Community ....................... 2-8

Table 2-4. Traction Power Substations Locations ............................................................. 2-17

Table 2-5. Trolley Operating Plans .................................................................................... 2-18

Table 4-1. Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers ...................................... 4-8

Table 4-2. Impacts to Waters of the U.S. by Vegetation Type ............................................. 4-9
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

iv June 2014 

Abbreviations 

The following acronyms, initialisms, and short forms are used in this report. 

amsl above mean sea level 

C&S communications and signaling 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game (name changed to California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife on January 1, 2013) 

DARs direct-access ramps 

dBA A-weighted decibel 

EMP Environmental Mitigation Program 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

I- Interstate 

Leq equivalent sound level 

LOSSAN Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency 

LRVs light rail vehicles 

MHPA Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program 

MTS Metropolitan Transit System 

OTTC Old Town Transit Center 

quad quadrangle 

SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments 

SEIS/SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent 

Environmental Impact Report 

SR State Route 

study area biological resources study area 

TPSS traction power substation 

Trolley San Diego Trolley 

UCSD University of California, San Diego 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Table of Contents

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 v 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UTC University Towne Centre 

VA Veterans Administration 

 

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

vi June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 1-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this biological assessment is to review the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the proposed action may affect any 

threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species. This biological assessment 

was prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the 

federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 United States Code 1536 (c)). 

Sensitive biological resources present or potentially present in the study area were 

identified through a literature search using the following sources: the California Natural 

Diversity Database (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG], 2012a), the 

Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (California Native Plant Society, 2011), U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) data (USFWS, 2008), and USFWS Critical Habitat 

(USFWS, 2012). A nine-quadrangle (quad) search was performed for the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) quads in which the survey area is found, and the surrounding 

quads were searched: Del Mar, Del Mar OE1

 W, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, 

Imperial Beach OE W, La Jolla, La Jolla OE W, La Mesa, National City, Point Loma, 

Point Loma OE W, Poway, and Rancho Santa Fe. All federally listed species identified 

in the search are considered in this document. Vegetation mapping and jurisdictional 

delineation has been completed within the study area, and focused surveys have been 

conducted for special-status plants and wildlife. Refer to Appendix A and Appendix B for 

a complete list of plant and wildlife species observed during all surveys conducted for 

the project. 

1.1 Species List2

Federal Endangered Species 

 San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) 

 Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) 

 Coastal dunes milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. titi) 

 Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii) 

 Salt marsh bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum) 

 Orcutt’s spineflower (Chorizanthe orcuttiana) 

 San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) 

 Mexican flannelbush (Fremontodendron mexicanum) 

 Willowy monardella (Monardella viminea) 

 California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica) 

 

1

 “OE” is a map-naming convention that stands for “Over Edge,” meaning the quad for an area does not 

have a USGS quad number because the data are included on the adjoining map sheet. 2

 Species with an asterisk (*) are considered likely to occur in the study area and are discussed further in 

this document. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-2 June 2014 

 San Diego mesa mint (Pogogyne abramsii) 

 Otay Mesa mint (Pogogyne nudiuscula) 

 Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) 

 *Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) 

 *Light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) 

 California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) 

 *Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) 

 *San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) 

 Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) 

 Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) 

 Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) 

Federal Threatened Species 

 San Diego thornmint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) 

 Encinitas baccharis (Baccharis vanessae) 

 Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) 

 Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) 

 Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) 

 California red-legged frog (Rana draytoni) 

 Western snowy plover (coastal population) (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) 

 *Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) 

 Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) 

Federal Candidate Species 

 Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) 

Of the above-listed species, the following 26 species are considered unlikely to occur 

within the study area and are therefore not discussed further in this document: San 

Diego ambrosia, Del Mar manzanita, coastal dunes milk-vetch, Nevin’s barberry, salt 

marsh bird’s-beak, Orcutt’s spineflower, San Diego button-celery, Mexican flannelbush, 

willowy monardella, California Orcutt grass, San Diego mesa mint, Otay Mesa mint, San 

Diego thornmint, Encinitas baccharis, thread-leaved brodiaea, Otay tarplant, spreading 

navarretia, arroyo toad, California red-legged frog, California least tern, western snowy 

plover (coastal population), western yellow-billed cuckoo, pacific pocket mouse, vernal 

pool fairy shrimp, Riverside fairy shrimp, and quino checkerspot butterfly. No plant 

species listed or proposed as federally threatened or endangered were found during the 

focused surveys and none are expected to occur in the study area. A brief discussion is 

provided for each of these species below, with additional detail provided in Appendix C. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 1-3 

Plants

 San Diego ambrosia has a low potential to occur in the study area. Limited suitable 

clay soils occur within the study area; vernal pools are absent; and focused surveys 

were negative for this species. 

 Del Mar manzanita is not expected to occur in the study area. This species was not 

detected during focused surveys and this shrub is likely to have been detected. 

 Coastal dunes milk-vetch is not expected to occur in the study area. No suitable 

habitat exists for this species within the study area. 

 Nevin’s barberry is not expected to occur in the study area. The study area is 

outside the known elevation range for the species. 

 Salt marsh bird’s-beak is not expected to occur in the study area. No suitable habitat 

exists for this species within the study area. 

 Orcutt’s spineflower has a low potential to occur in the study area. This species is 

only recorded from 11 occurrences in San Diego County and the potentially suitable 

habitat—sandy sites and openings—in the study area are associated with 

disturbance. Additionally, this species was not observed during focused surveys. 

 San Diego button-celery is not expected to occur in the study area. Suitable (vernal 

pool) microhabitat is lacking. 

 Mexican flannelbush is not expected to occur in the study area. This shrub was not 

observed during focused surveys. 

 Willowy monardella is not expected to occur in the study area. The preferred 

microhabitat of rocky washes (Jepson, 2012) is marginal within the study area. In 

addition, focused surveys were negative. 

 California Orcutt grass is not expected to occur in the study area. No suitable vernal 

pool habitat occurs within the study area. 

 San Diego mesa mint is not expected to occur in the study area. No suitable vernal 

pool habitat occurs within the study area. 

 Otay Mesa mint is not expected to occur in the study area. No suitable vernal pool 

habitat occurs within the study area. 

 San Diego thornmint has a low potential to occur in the study area. Limited suitable 

clay soils occur within the study area; vernal pools are absent; and focused surveys 

were negative for this species. 

 Encinitas baccharis is not expected to occur in the study area. The study area is 

outside of the species known elevation range. 

 Thread-leaved brodiaea has a low potential to occur in the study area. Focused 

surveys targeted suitable habitat during peak blooming period; however, these 

survey results were negative. 

 Otay tarplant has a low potential to occur in the study area. There are limited 

suitable clay soils within the study area and this species was not detected during 

focused surveys. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-4 June 2014 

 Spreading navarretia has a low potential to occur in the study area due to the limited 

suitable freshwater marsh habitat present. 

Animals 

 Arroyo toad is not expected to occur in the study area. Although stream channels 

occur in the study area, the closest recorded location is approximately 14 miles to 

the southeast (CDFG, 2012a). In addition, the species is no longer known to occur 

within City of San Diego limits. 

 California red-legged frog is not expected to occur in the study area. Suitable habitat 

exists in the study area within wetland areas; however, the closest recorded location 

for this species is approximately 48 miles to the northeast in Riverside County 

(CDFG, 2012a). 

 California least tern has a low potential to occur in the study area, but is recorded in 

the general vicinity (CDFG, 2012a). This species has a moderate potential to breed 

at Mission Bay or San Diego Bay and may forage in shallow waters of Rose Creek, 

San Clemente Creek, Tecolote Creek, and San Diego River. No suitable nesting 

habitat occurs within the study area.

 Western snowy plover has a moderate potential to nest at Mission Bay and possibly 

use areas along the San Diego River. This species was recorded in the vicinity near 

San Diego Bay and north of the study area along the coast; however, these records 

are not recent (Unitt, 2004). No suitable nesting habitat occurs within the study area.

 Western yellow-billed cuckoo is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable 

large stands of riparian vegetation. This species was also not recorded in the 

vicinity (CDFG, 2012a). 

 Pacific pocket mouse has a very low potential to occur within the study area. This 

species was recorded historically in the vicinity, however, it is assumed to be 

extirpated in southern San Diego County. Currently, this species is only known to 

occur in northern San Diego County and southern Orange County coastal areas. 

 Vernal pool fairy shrimp is not expected to occur in the study area. Wet-season 

focused surveys conducted in 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2013-2014 were negative 

for this species. While suitable depressions were observed with evidence of clay 

soils and seasonal inundation, this species has not been recorded in the area. 

 Riverside fairy shrimp is not expected to occur in the study area. Wet-season 

focused surveys conducted in 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2013-2014 were negative 

for this species. While suitable depressions were observed with evidence of clay 

soils and seasonal inundation, this species has not been recorded in the area. 

 Quino checkerspot butterfly is not expected to occur in the study area. Although the 

species was likely historically present, the species is considered extirpated from this 

portion of its range by urban development.
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 1-5 

1.2 Critical Habitat 

No critical habitat for plant species listed as federally threatened or endangered occurs 

in the study area. In addition, no critical habitat for wildlife species listed as federally 

threatened or endangered, including coastal California gnatcatcher and San Diego fairy 

shrimp, occurs in the study area. 

1.3 Consultation to Date 

This document was prepared to support Section 7 consultation between the USFWS and 

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and its non-federal representative, the San 

Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project located in San Diego, California (Figure 2-1). A brief summary of the 

consultation history is provided as follows. 

25 February 2013—In cooperation with the FTA, SANDAG requested to initiate informal 

Section 7 consultation with the USFWS regarding the federally listed threatened coastal 

California gnatcatcher and the federally listed endangered least Bell’s vireo, 

southwestern willow flycatcher, and San Diego fairy shrimp. The request included 

pertinent project information and presented the basis for the preliminary finding made by 

the FTA and SANDAG that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the 

four species for which Section 7 consultation was originally requested. Upon receipt of 

the initial consultation request, Ms. Lauren Kershek was identified as the USFWS 

contact. 

20 March 2013—Ms. Kershek contacted SANDAG to request additional project-related 

information and subsequently indicated that the USFWS did not anticipate any difficulties 

in proceeding with the informal Section 7 consultation. At SANDAG’s request, Ms. 

Kershek agreed to keep the consultation open until the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

(SEIS/SEIR) (SANDAG, 2013a) was circulated for public review to ensure that any 

concerns regarding the project were adequately addressed. 

27 March 2013—SANDAG provided the requested project-related information to Ms. 

Kershek via e-mail and ftp transmittal. Information included the project description and 

documentation of the proposed off-site mitigation areas. 

17 May through 17 July, 2013—The Draft SEIS/SEIR and supporting technical reports 

were circulated for a 60-day public review and comment period. 

7 November 2013—SANDAG spoke with Ms. Kershek to provide information to the 

USFWS regarding the current status of the project. Topics addressed included the close 

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR comment period, incorporation of refinements to the project 

engineering design, ongoing efforts to respond to comments received, and efforts to 

update the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report

(SANDAG, 2013e). Ms. Kershek expressed support for the identified mitigation sites. At 

that time, Ms. Kershek indicated that the federally listed endangered light-footed clapper 

rail had been reported in the San Diego River and that the informal Section 7 

consultation should address potential impacts to this species. In addition, Ms. Kershek 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-6 June 2014 

also requested that two occurrences of special-status plant species recorded in the 

California Natural Diversity Database in the San Diego River be investigated if focused 

plant surveys had not already been conducted for them. The first dates from around the 

1930s and is for Brand’s phacelia (Phacelia stellaris). The next is also an older record 

for San Diego ambrosia. 

22 January 2014—At SANDAG’s request, Ms. Kershek provided a summary of the 

Section 7 consultation to date. Ms. Kershek provided an e-mail describing the activities 

listed above. Ms. Kershek also stated that she had confirmed that the San Diego 

ambrosia population that used to occur in the San Diego River has likely been 

extirpated. In addition, she stated that the USFWS has released a listing decision 

regarding Brand’s phacelia which determined that listing is not warranted; therefore, it is 

no longer a candidate species and does not need to be addressed in the Section 7 

consultation. The population that historically occurred in the San Diego River has also 

likely been extirpated. The e-mail indicated that an informal Section 7 consultation is 

appropriate, and that the FTA will need to request consultation in writing or designate 

SANDAG as their non-federal representative. 

30 April 2014—SANDAG and FTA Region IX held a conference call with Ms. Kershek to 

discuss the positive survey findings during the 2013-2014 San Diego fairy shrimp 

protocol surveys and the anticipated need for a formal Section 7 consultation. Ms. 

Kershek agreed that a formal consultation would be appropriate. 

6 May 2014—SANDAG and FTA Region IX participated in a field visit with Ms. Kershek 

and Ms. Susan Wynn of USFWS to review the San Diego fairy shrimp impact location 

and the proposed mitigation site. USFWS indicated approval of the proposed mitigation 

location, the Anderprizes Property in Otay Mesa, California. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 2-1 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

This chapter describes the location of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, including 

existing site conditions. The chapter concludes with an overview of the project, including 

the alignment, stations, vehicle and power requirements, and the operating plan. 

2.1 Project Location 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is located in San Diego, California. The MidCoast Corridor is the area centering on Interstate (I-) 5 and extending from Downtown 

San Diego on the south to University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and University 

City on the north. Located entirely within the City of San Diego, the corridor is bounded 

by the Pacific Ocean on the west and by I-805 and State Route (SR) 163 on the east. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project alignment is shown on Figure 2-1. 

2.2 Existing Site Conditions 

This section describes the existing site conditions within the study area for the biological 

resources analysis, including surrounding land uses, soils, terrain, vegetation 

communities, and Waters of the U.S. 

2.2.1 Study Area and Surrounding Land Uses 

The biological resources study area generally includes all areas within 500 feet of the 

project alignment from Old Town Transit Center (OTTC) north to University Towne 

Centre (UTC). For special-status plants and jurisdictional resources, the study area is 

limited to areas within 100 feet of the project alignment. The study area consists of the 

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) right-of-way; the I-5 right-of-way; public streets; and 

the UCSD campus; including disturbed and developed lands; and native and non-native 

upland, riparian, and wetland vegetation communities. Land uses within and adjacent to 

the study area include single- and multi-family residential, commercial, school, park 

(including designated open space park or preserve), and transportation uses, as 

described in more detail in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Land Use Impacts 

Technical Report (San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG], 2013d). 

The Mid-Coast Corridor is characterized by dense urban centers and an abundance of 

regional activity centers and other major trip generators. Dense population and 

employment centers currently anchor both the northern and southern ends of the MidCoast Corridor. The UCSD campus, the Westfield UTC shopping center, and regional 

hospitals are clustered in the north part of the corridor and represent the second most 

dense land uses in the county. At the south end of the corridor is the region’s only 

identified Metropolitan Center—Downtown San Diego—with the region’s densest land 

uses and high-rise development. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-2 June 2014 

Figure 2-1. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 2-3 

2.2.2 Soils 

Eighteen soil types representing 11 soil series occur in the study area (Bowman, 1973), 

and are depicted in Figure 2-2 and listed in Table 2-1. Huerhuero is the most common 

soil series in the study area. As indicated in Table 2-1, 7 of the 18 soil types have been 

identified as suitable substrates for special-status plant taxa (designated by an asterisk) 

in the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (AMEC et al., 2003), which covers North 

San Diego County cities, but is also applicable to this soil characterization for specialstatus plants in the study area. 

Table 2-1. Mapped Soil Series and Units in the Special-Status Plant Survey Area 

Soil Series Soil Unit

Altamont Altamont clay, 15% to 30% slopes, eroded*

Altamont clay, 30% to 50% slopes*

Carlsbad Carlsbad-Urban land complex, 2% to 9% slopes

Chesterton Chesterton fine sandy loam, 2% to 5% slopes*

Chesterton fine sandy loam, 5% to 9% slopes*

Chesterton-Urban land complex, 2% to 9% slopes

Corralitos Corralitos loamy sand, 0% to 5% slopes*

Gaviota Gaviota fine sandy loam, 30% to 50% slopes

Gaviota fine sandy loam, 9% to 30% slopes

Huerhuero Huerhuero loam, 15% to 30% slopes, eroded*

Huerhuero loam, 9% to 15% slopes, eroded*

Huerhuero-Urban land complex, 2% to 9% slopes

Huerhuero-Urban land complex, 9% to 30% slopes

Lagoon water Lagoon water

Made land Made land

Salinas Salinas clay loam, 2% to 9% slopes

Terrace escarpments Terrace escarpments

Urban land Urban land

Source: Bowman, 1973 

Note: *Soil types within the indicated soil series have been identified as substrate for special-status plant taxa 

(AMEC et al., 2003). 

2.2.3 Terrain 

The Mid-Coast Corridor is topographically diverse, with terrain ranging from coastal beaches 

and bays to inland areas containing steep hillsides and narrow canyons. The lowest 

elevations on site occur at the southern end of the study area where the San Diego 

River lies at approximately 9 feet above mean sea level. The highest elevations are at 

the north end of the study area in La Jolla, where elevations at UCSD and University 

City range from approximately 320 to 360 feet above mean sea level. In addition to the 

San Diego River, two other surface waters traverse the study area: Tecolote Creek, 

which empties into Mission Bay approximately 700 feet to the west of the project, and 

Rose Creek, which parallels a substantial portion of the project alignment from 

approximately Balboa Avenue north to La Jolla Colony Drive. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-4 June 2014 

Figure 2-2. Soils Map 

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010b; SANDAG, 2014; San Diego Geographic Information 

Source (SanGIS), 2011 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 2-5 

The southern portion of the study area is generally characterized by the moderate, 

west-facing slopes of Clairemont overlooking Mission Bay, with Mission Valley and the 

San Diego River located to the south (Figure 2-3). Rose Canyon is the most prominent 

natural feature in the northern portion of the study area. The upper portion of Rose 

Canyon near La Jolla Colony Drive generally trends in an east–west direction, while San 

Clemente Canyon to the south also runs east–west and includes the SR 52 corridor. 

2.2.4 Vegetation Communities 

Twenty-four vegetation communities and land covers (including disturbed forms) were 

mapped in the study area and include 20 native or naturalized vegetation types and 4 

non-native land covers, as described below and presented in Table 2-2. Native marsh, 

riparian, and wetland communities are associated with the San Diego River and Rose 

Creek, though small patches occur in relatively urbanized situations on the UCSD 

campus. Marsh, riparian, and wetland vegetation types include cismontane alkali marsh, 

coastal and valley freshwater marsh (including disturbed), herbaceous wetlands 

(including disturbed), southern riparian forest (including disturbed), southern coast live 

oak riparian forest, southern arroyo willow riparian forest, southern riparian scrub, 

mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub (including disturbed), Arundo-dominated riparian, 

and non-vegetated channel or floodway. Disturbed wetlands also occur throughout the 

study area, and primarily include concrete-lined portions of Rose Creek and Tecolote 

Creek. Native uplands consist primarily of coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal 

sage scrub. The majority of coastal sage scrub vegetation occurs on west-facing slopes 

above I-5 to the north and south of SR 52, with limited areas also occurring on the 

UCSD campus. The majority of disturbed coastal sage scrub occurs within or adjacent 

to the existing MTS right-of-way and consists of narrow, fragmented slivers of vegetation 

that are not contiguous with the larger habitat areas. Non-native grassland is present 

throughout the study area, primarily alongside the existing MTS right-of-way north of 

Garnet Avenue and in transitional areas adjacent to Rose Creek. Eucalyptus woodland 

also occurs throughout the study area along the existing MTS right-of-way south of 

Balboa Avenue, along the east side of I-5 north of La Jolla Colony Drive, and on the 

UCSD campus. Urban/Developed and associated Ornamental areas are the most 

common land cover types in the study area. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-6 June 2014 

Figure 2-3. Topography 

Sources: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2008; Esri, 2012 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 2-7 

Table 2-2. Vegetation Communities and Land Covers 

General Vegetation Community/Land 

Cover Category 

General Vegetation Type

(Holland/Oberbauer Code) Acres % of Site 

Disturbed and Developed Areas 

(10000) 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) 11.5 0.70% 

Disturbed Habitat (11300) 57.3 3.70% 

Ornamental (N/A) 117.9 7.50% 

Urban/Developed (12000) 1,092.20 69.90% 

Disturbed and Developed Areas Total 1,278.90 81.90%

Scrub and Chaparral (30000) Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500) 71.1 4.60% 

Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500) 36.4 2.30% 

Southern Mixed Chaparral (37120) 4.5 0.30% 

Scrub and Chaparral Total 112 7.20%

Grasslands, Vernal Pools, Meadows, 

and Other Herb Communities (40000) 

Non-Native Grassland (42200) 28.6 1.80% 

Grasslands, Vernal Pools, Meadows, and Other Herb Communities Total 28.6 1.80%

Bog and Marsh (50000) Cismontane Alkali Marsh (52310) 1.4 0.10% 

Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410) 0.5 <0.1% 

Disturbed Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh 

(52410) 

<0.01 <0.1% 

Herbaceous Wetland (52510) 0.3 <0.1% 

Disturbed Herbaceous Wetland (52510) 0.1 <0.1% 

Bog and Marsh Total 2.3 0.10%

Riparian and Bottomland Habitat 

(60000) 

Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 48 3.10% 

Disturbed Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 2 0.10% 

Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest 

(61310) 

2.9 0.20% 

Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest 

(61320) 

0.2 <0.1% 

Southern Riparian Scrub (63300) 1.4 0.10% 

Mulefat Scrub (63310) 1.2 0.10% 

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 8.8 0.60% 

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 7.7 0.50% 

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) 1.1 0.10% 

Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway (64200) 3 0.20% 

Riparian and Bottomland Habitat Total 76.3 4.90%

Woodland (70000) Eucalyptus Woodland (79100) 63.7 4.10% 

Woodland Total 63.7 4.10%

Total 1,561.80 100.00%

Sources: Holland, 1986; Oberbauer et al., 2008 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-8 June 2014 

2.2.5 Waters of the U.S. 

A wetland delineation was conducted by Dudek biologists in February and March 2011. 

The delineation included all areas within a 100-foot buffer of the alignment. Table 2-3 lists 

acreages for Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the study area and under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The results of the jurisdictional 

delineation are subject to confirmation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is 

expected to occur as part of the permitting process. Wetlands and non-wetland Waters of 

the U.S. in the San Diego River and Rose Creek include suitable riparian habitat for least 

Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. Wetlands and non-wetland Waters of the 

U.S. in the San Diego River include suitable riparian habitat for light-footed clapper rail. 

Table 2-3. Waters of the U.S. in the Study Area by Vegetation Community 

Waters of the U.S. Acres

Wetlands

Disturbed Wetland (11200) 6.58 

Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410) 0.10 

Disturbed Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410) 0.01 

Herbaceous Wetland (52510) 0.01 

Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 2.40 

Disturbed Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 0.01 

Mulefat Scrub (63310) 0.51 

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 2.65 

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 1.09 

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) 0.08 

Total Wetlands 13.45 

Non-Wetland Waters 

Unvegetated Waters 0.25

Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway (64200) 1.32

Total Non-Wetland Waters 1.57 

Total Wetland and Non-Wetland Waters 15.02 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

2.3 Proposed Action 

The project consists of extending the existing San Diego Trolley (Trolley) Blue Line from 

the Santa Fe Depot north via the existing Trolley tracks to the OTTC, and then north 

along new tracks to the UTC Transit Center in University City, with nine new stations at 

Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, UCSD West Campus, 

UCSD East Campus, Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center, Executive Drive, 

and the UTC Transit Center (Figure 2-1). Construction is assumed to begin in early 

2016, and revenue service is expected to start by the spring of 2019. This section 

describes the project, including minor modifications to bus services to improve access to 

stations and eliminate duplication of service with the extension of the Trolley Blue Line. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 2-9 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project provides for the extension of the Trolley Blue Line 

from the Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego to the UTC Transit Center in University 

City. With the extension of the Trolley Blue Line, construction of the project would provide 

for continuous service on the Trolley Blue Line from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the 

U.S.–Mexico International Border to University City. 

Figure 2-1 shows the project alignment and station locations. The project would use the 

existing Trolley tracks for approximately 3.5 miles, from the Santa Fe Depot to a point 

just north of the OTTC and south of the San Diego River. The Trolley Blue Line trains 

would share the tracks with the Trolley Green Line trains. North of this point, the project 

includes construction of 10.9 miles of new double track extending to the terminus at the 

UTC Transit Center in University City. 

In addition, the project includes upgrades to existing systems facilities between the Santa Fe 

Depot and the OTTC, and the acquisition of new Trolley vehicles for the extended project 

operation. 

2.4 Definition of Action Area 

The project action area can generally be described as the linear railway corridor with 

adjoining or adjacent areas for stations, park-and-ride facilities, and power system and 

signaling. The follow sections describe the project alignment, operation plans, and 

traction power substations (TPSS) in more detail. 

2.4.1 Alignment 

The project alignment would follow the Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail 

Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) tracks within the existing MTS and City of San Diego rightof-way from the Santa Fe Depot to approximately 3,500 feet south of the I-5/Gilman 

Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive interchange. The alignment would then leave the LOSSAN 

right-of-way, enter California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way, and 

parallel the east side of the I-5 corridor north to the I-5/Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony 

Drive interchange. North of the interchange, the alignment would parallel the I-5 

corridor, traveling partially within Caltrans right-of-way and partially on private property. 

At about 2,500 feet south of Nobel Drive, the alignment would transition to an aerial 

structure and cross over to the west side of I-5 south of Nobel Drive. From Nobel Drive, 

the alignment would continue north to the UCSD West Campus, then cross back over to 

the east side of I-5 along the south side of Voigt Drive and terminate on Genesee 

Avenue at the UTC Transit Center. The alignment’s total length from the south side of 

the San Diego River to the terminus at the UTC Transit Center is 10.9 miles. 

Figure 2-4 presents a conceptual plan and profile drawing of the project alignment, stations, and 

supporting facilities. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Property Acquisitions Technical 

Report (SANDAG, 2013b) identifies property acquisitions and structures to be demolished as 

part of the project. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical 

Report (SANDAG, 2013c) describes the construction methods, activities, and durations. 

North of the OTTC, the project alignment would be located primarily at grade within the 

existing MTS right-of-way, north to the vicinity of Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive. 

This railroad corridor is used by the COASTER commuter rail, Amtrak intercity rail, and 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-10 June 2014 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight rail. The project alignment would be located east of 

the existing LOSSAN tracks, from the OTTC to south of SR 52, with at-grade stations at 

Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa Avenue. 

The project alignment would use bridges to cross the San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, 

and Rose Creek, and would be grade separated over Friars Road and Balboa Avenue. 

South of SR 52, the alignment would transition to an aerial structure and would cross the 

existing LOSSAN tracks, continuing at grade west of the existing LOSSAN tracks. To 

accommodate the alignment along the westerly right-of-way, the existing LOSSAN 

tracks would be relocated east but would still be located within the MTS right-of-way. 

Just south of Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive, the alignment would leave the MTS 

right-of-way and enter the I-5 right-of-way. Along the I-5 corridor, the project alignment 

would be designed so as not to preclude the future widening of I-5. 

Upon entering the I-5 right-of-way north of SR 52, the project alignment would extend 

at grade along the east side of I-5, crossing under La Jolla Colony Drive in an 

approximately 200-foot-long cut-and-cover underpass. North of that underpass, the 

alignment would continue at grade along the east side of I-5, generally within or adjacent 

to the I-5 right-of-way to Charmant Drive. The alignment would then cross over two 

canyons along the east side of I-5 and west of Charmant Drive and transition to an aerial 

structure to cross to the west side of I-5, south of Nobel Drive. The aerial alignment 

would continue north along the west side of I-5 to an aerial station at La Jolla Village 

Square (Nobel Drive Station). 

Continuing north from the Nobel Drive Station, the project alignment would remain on an 

aerial structure, travel for approximately 160 feet along the southeast corner of the 

shopping center on the north side of Nobel Drive, then enter the I-5 right-of-way and 

travel along the west side of I-5 within the I-5 right-of-way. It would return to grade just 

north of the I-5/La Jolla Village Drive interchange. North of this interchange, the 

alignment would run at-grade for approximately 470 feet along the west side of I-5 and 

the east side of the VA Medical Center. An at-grade station would be located at the VA 

Medical Center. The station would be within the I-5 right-of-way, with access provided 

from the VA Medical Center property. 

South of Gilman Drive, the project alignment would transition back to an aerial structure 

and enter the UCSD West Campus, crossing Gilman Drive and the surface parking lot 

located north of Gilman Drive on the UCSD campus. The aerial alignment would then 

cross Pepper Canyon and continue to an aerial station on the UCSD West Campus. 

North of the UCSD West Station, the project alignment would turn east on an aerial 

structure on the UCSD campus and cross to the north side of Voigt Drive. The aerial 

alignment would then proceed east and cross back over Voigt Drive to the northeastern 

corner of Warren Field and across Gilman Drive along the south side of the future Voigt 

Drive bridge proposed as part of the Caltrans I-5 North Coast Corridor Project. 

The I-5 North Coast Corridor Project proposes to construct HOV direct access ramps 

that connect to the north side of Voigt Drive. Construction of the direct access ramps 

is scheduled for completion by 2020. No major modifications to I-5 would be required to 

accommodate the crossing. As part of the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project, Caltrans 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

Figure 2-4. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Pro

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-12 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

Figure 2-4. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project (c

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-14 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 2-15 

proposes to realign Voigt Drive to connect to Genesee Avenue and realign Campus 

Point Drive to connect to Voigt Drive. Voigt Drive is located on UCSD property. The 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project’s alignment would be located so as not to preclude 

the realignment of Voigt Drive and Campus Point Drive. 

After crossing I-5, the project alignment would continue east along the south side of 

Voigt Drive, and to the north of the existing UCSD baseball field. The aerial alignment 

would continue across the future realigned Campus Point Drive at Voigt Drive and 

across Voigt Drive to Genesee Avenue, where it would enter the street right-of-way. 

The UCSD East Station spans the future realigned Campus Point Drive. The aerial 

alignment would enter the Genesee Avenue right-of-way just west of Regents Road and 

continue south on an aerial structure in the median of Genesee Avenue, following the 

existing alignment of Genesee Avenue to a station at Executive Drive, and a terminal 

station at the UTC Transit Center. 

Under the project, the support columns generally would be located in the center of the 

Genesee Avenue median. The project would require two straddle bents along Genesee 

Avenue. The first straddle bent would be located west of Regents Road where the 

alignment would enter Genesee Avenue at an angle. The second one would be located 

on Genesee Avenue at the Executive Square intersection. The straddle bents would 

have support columns either in the median of Genesee Avenue, along the south side of 

Genesee Avenue, or in the median of Executive Square. The remaining support 

columns would be spaced at approximately 125 to 210 feet apart. Localized widening of 

Genesee Avenue would be required to accommodate the support columns with 

necessary clearances and to maintain the number of existing traffic lanes, as well as to 

accommodate the stations at Executive Drive and the UTC Transit Center.

2.4.2 Stations 

The project includes nine new stations for passenger access. All new stations would be 

side-platform stations with 360-foot-long platforms designed to accommodate up to fourcar trains. All platforms would be fully accessible and comply with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. Parking and bus transfer facilities would be provided at five stations. 

Lighting would be provided at all station platforms and parking areas. No public 

restrooms would be provided at any of the stations. 

The new project stations include both at-grade and aerial stations. The project 

segment along the MTS right-of-way between the San Diego River crossing and 

Gilman Drive would include three at-grade stations at Tecolote Road, Clairemont 

Drive, and Balboa Avenue. 

The project segment along the I-5 corridor between Gilman Drive and the alignment 

crossing of I-5 at Voigt Drive would include an aerial station at Nobel Drive, an at-grade 

station at the VA Medical Center, and an aerial station on the UCSD West Campus. 

The project segment east of I-5, along Voigt Drive, would include an aerial station on the 

UCSD East Campus west of Campus Point Drive, serving both the UCSD East Campus 

and Scripps Hospital. Along Genesee Avenue, the project would include aerial stations 

at Executive Drive and at the UTC Transit Center. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-16 June 2014 

2.4.3 Trolley Vehicle Fleet and Maintenance Facilities 

The Trolley Blue Line extension would require 36 new light rail vehicles (LRVs) to cover 

peak-period service with spares in 2030. In the opening year of revenue service, 25 of 

the 36 new LRVs would be required. 

The MTS maintenance plan for LRVs, including those for the project, centralizes all 

functions at the existing maintenance facilities located at 1255 Imperial Avenue in 

Downtown San Diego. No expansion of existing maintenance facilities would be 

required for the project. 

2.4.4 Power System and Signaling 

The LRVs would receive electrical power from overhead contact wires. Catenary support 

poles, approximately 25 feet high, would be located at approximately 150- to 180-foot 

intervals. The catenary poles generally would be located in the center of the project 

alignment. In some locations, the poles would be located on both sides of the Trolley 

tracks. The overhead electrical power lines would be suspended above the Trolley tracks. 

Electricity to power the LRVs would be provided by TPSSs. The TPSSs would be of similar size 

and design to the existing substations used on the Trolley Green Line. Typical TPSS 

dimensions would be a 40-foot by 15-foot unmanned equipment enclosure within a 45-foot by 

75-foot fenced site. Figure 2-5 shows an example of an existing TPSS. 

Figure 2-5. Existing Traction Power Substation at a Street North of Santa Fe Depot 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

The extension of the Trolley Blue Line service from Santa Fe Depot to the UTC Transit 

Center would require 16 TPSSs, consisting of 4 new or upgraded substations between 

Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC and 12 new substations north of the OTTC. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 2-17 

Between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, replacement or upgrades to two existing TPSS 

locations on Olive Street and on Bean Street and two new substations would be required 

because of the increased frequency of Trolley service and the higher power draw of the new 

vehicles. One of the new substations is a second substation to the existing site at Olive 

Street and the other is a new substation within the existing MTS Wright Street Yard south of 

the OTTC. The remaining 12 new substations would be located north of the OTTC. Table 

2-4 identifies the location of the existing substations and the proposed substation 

upgrades between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, and the proposed new substations 

north of the OTTC. 

Table 2-4. Traction Power Substations Locations 

No. Stationing Location

1 64+50 Replacement of an existing substation located along the east side of the right-of-way at Olive St 

2 64+50 Addition of a second new substation at Olive St 

3 101+36 Replacement of an existing substation at Bean St 

4 129+50 New substation at Wright St. Yard within existing MTS property 

5 199+50 New substation south of the San Diego River and north of I-8, in City of San Diego right-of-way 

6 241+00 New substation at Tecolote Rd Station along east side of tracks and south of Tecolote Creek 

7 313+25 New substation at Clairemont Dr. Station parking lot 

8 313+25 New substation at Clairemont Dr Station parking lot 

9 401+25 New substation north of Balboa Ave within City Yard 

10 456+00 New substation just north of Jutland Dr on undeveloped parcel east of MTS right-of-way 

11 550+00 New substation south of La Jolla Colony Dr on the east side of I-5 

12 612-10 New substation on the west side of I-5 in Caltrans right-of-way towards the southern end of the 

La Jolla Village Square shopping center 

13 645+50 New substation in Caltrans right-of-way next to VA Medical Center 

14 687+00 New substation on east side of I-5 and west of the UCSD baseball field 

15 731+10 New substation on SDG&E property located at the terminus of Fez St 

16 771+00 New substation on Westfield UTC property north of Nobel Dr 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Notes: Caltrans = California Department of Transportation; I - = Interstate; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System; 

SDG&E = San Diego Gas & Electric; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne 

Centre; VA = Veterans Administration 

Communications and signaling (C&S) buildings centralize train control and 

communications for Trolley operations at each station. Upgrades to the existing C&S 

system between the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC would be required as part of the 

project; however, this would not require additional C&S buildings. 

Other proposed physical improvements to the Trolley system south of the OTTC and 

north of Santa Fe Depot would include upgrades to existing systems, including the 

signaling system and the overhead catenary system to accommodate all-day 7.5-minute 

Trolley Blue Line service. These potential improvements would be located within the 

existing railroad and MTS right-of-way. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-18 June 2014 

2.4.5 Operating Plan 

Operating plans were developed using ridership forecasts. These operating plans were 

then used to develop the capital and operating cost estimates and to provide the basis 

for the analysis of potential project impacts. 

Table 2-5 presents the existing 2010 Trolley operating plan and the Trolley operating plans 

developed for the opening year and 2030 revenue service. The 2030 operating plan for the 

No-Build Alternative is included for comparative purposes. Currently, the Trolley Blue Line 

operates from approximately 4:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. the next day. Hours of service for 

the Trolley Blue Line under the Refined Build Alternative would be similar to existing 

service. 

Table 2-5. Trolley Operating Plans 

Route 

Peak Frequency 

(6:00 to 9:00 a.m.)

(3:00 to 6:00 p.m.)

Off-Peak Frequency 

(9:00 a.m. to 

3:00 p.m.) 

Vehicle 

Type 

Fare 

(each way) 

2010 Operating Plan (Existing Conditions)

Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to OTTC 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit Center to 

OTTC 

7.5 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 12th and 

Imperial Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

2010 Operating Plan (Refined Build Alternative)

Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to OTTC 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit Center to UTC 

Transit Center 

7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 12th and 

Imperial Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Opening Year Operating Plan* 

Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 12th and 

Imperial Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit Center to America 

Plaza 

7.5 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line America Plaza to UTC Transit Center 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to Santa Fe Depot 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

2030 Operating Plan (Refined Build Alternative)

Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 12th and 

Imperial Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro to UTC Transit Center 7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to America Plaza 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Notes: *The Trolley Blue Line would operate as a continuous run from the San Ysidro Transit Center to the UTC 

Transit Center. During peak periods in the opening year, alternating trains would turn back at America 

Plaza, resulting in 15-minute headways north of America Plaza and 7.5-minute headways south of America 

Plaza. 

OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 2-19 

At the startup of revenue operations, the project is expected to require 15-minute service 

during peak and off-peak periods. Figure 2-6 shows the operating plan for the opening 

year of service. 

The proposed Trolley operating plan for the Refined Build Alternative in 2030 presented in 

Table 2-5 includes the extension of the Trolley Blue Line to the UTC Transit Center. As 

shown in Figure 2-7, the Trolley Blue Line in 2030 would be operated as a single line with 

three-car trains from the existing San Ysidro Transit Center in the south to the UTC Transit 

Center in University City, with stops at all 29 intermediate stations. Weekday Trolley Blue 

Line service in 2030 would operate every 7.5 minutes during peak periods (i.e., 6:00 to 

9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and during the off-peak midday period (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 

3:00 p.m.). Service during the early morning and evening hours would be less frequent. 

With extension of Trolley Blue Line service to the UTC Transit Center, the service provided 

by bus Route 150 operating between Downtown San Diego and University City would 

duplicate the new Trolley services and therefore would be eliminated with implementation 

of the project, consistent with the 2030 RTP. In addition to this modification, minor 

changes would be made to several bus routes to improve access to the new Trolley 

stations proposed under the Refined Build Alternative. These modifications consist of 

rerouting of bus routes to connect to stations. The service frequency of the routes serving 

the stations would not change. No changes to other bus routes or the COASTER would 

be required. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-20 June 2014 

Figure 2-6. Refined Build Alternative Opening Year Trolley Operating Plan 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 2-21 

Figure 2-7. Refined Build Alternative 2030 Trolley Operating Plan 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 2.0 – Description of the Proposed Action 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-22 June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 3-1 

3.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND THEIR HABITAT 

This chapter provides a description of the federally listed species within the Mid-Coast 

Corridor, including an overview of their habitat. 

3.1 Coastal California Gnatcatcher 

Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) 

Federal Status: Threatened 

State Status: None 

The coastal California gnatcatcher occurs in coastal Southern California and Baja 

California year-round, where it depends on a variety of arid scrub habitats. The coastal 

California gnatcatcher occurs mainly on cismontane slopes (coastal side of the 

mountains) in Southern California, ranging from Ventura and northern Los Angeles 

counties south through the Palos Verdes Peninsula to Orange, Riverside, San 

Bernardino, and San Diego counties. The range for the species continues south to El 

Rosario, Mexico. Initially it was reported that 99 percent of all coastal California 

gnatcatcher locality records occurred at or below an elevation of 984 feet above mean 

sea level (amsl) (Atwood, 1990; Atwood and Bolsinger, 1992). The coastal California 

gnatcatcher typically occurs in or near coastal scrub vegetation which is composed of 

relatively low-growing, dry-season deciduous and succulent plants. The coastal 

California gnatcatcher also occurs in chaparral, grassland, and riparian vegetation 

communities where the coastal scrub community is close by (Bontrager, 1991). The use 

of these vegetation communities appears to be most frequent during late summer, 

autumn, and winter, with smaller numbers of birds using such areas during the breeding 

season. The coastal California gnatcatcher tends to occur most frequently within the 

California sagebrush-dominated stands on mesas, gently sloping areas, and along the 

lower slopes of the Coast Ranges (Atwood, 1990). The coastal California gnatcatcher 

occurs in high frequencies and densities in coastal scrub communities with an open or 

broken canopy, whereas it is absent from coastal scrub dominated by tall shrubs and 

occurs in low frequencies and densities in low coastal scrub with a closed canopy 

(Weaver, 1998). 

Focused surveys were conducted for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project in 2010 and 

2012, and are scheduled for spring/summer 2014. Survey reports for 2010 and 2012 

are included in Appendix D, and include additional details regarding methodology, 

survey personnel, and results. A cumulative list of wildlife species observed during 

surveys conducted for the project is provided in Appendix B. The coastal California 

gnatcatcher was observed in the study area during focused surveys conducted in 2010 

and 2012. Two coastal California gnatcatcher pairs were observed during the 2010 

focused survey, and a single male coastal California gnatcatcher, considered to 

represent a third coastal California gnatcatcher pair in the study area, was observed 

during the 2012 focused survey. A fourth coastal California gnatcatcher location is on 

the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) campus north of Voigt Drive and is 

presumed occupied based on previous observations of the species in nearby contiguous 

habitat during surveys conducted on behalf of UCSD in 2001 and 2004 (UCSD, 2004 

and Leonard, 2004). 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-2 June 2014 

During the 2010 survey, one pair was observed in suitable habitat northeast of the 

Interstate (I-) 5/State Route (SR) 52 interchange (Figure 3-1, Map 1). Coastal California 

gnatcatcher previously had been recorded south of this location west of I-5 in 1993 

(California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG], 2012a). A second pair was observed 

foraging in suitable habitat just south of Caminito Cassis Street, near the I-5/La Jolla 

Colony Drive exit (Figure 3-1, Map 2). Coastal California gnatcatcher previously had 

been recorded near this location in 2002 (CDFG, 2012a). 

During the 2012 focused survey, a single male coastal California gnatcatcher was 

observed at a location south of SR 52, foraging on the west-facing slope above and to 

the east of Rose Creek south of the terminus of Santa Fe Street (Figure 3-1, Map 3). 

Although only a single male coastal California gnatcatcher was observed over the 

course of the focused survey, suitable habitat in the area is assumed to be occupied, 

and thus this sighting is recorded as a third pair in the study area. Coastal California 

gnatcatcher had not been recorded in this area in the past (CDFG, 2012a). 

The 2010 focused survey did not identify coastal California gnatcatcher within the upper 

portion (i.e., within 500 feet of the alignment) of the finger canyon to the north of Voigt 

Drive on the UCSD campus (within the Ecological Reserve on West Campus), but the 

species was recorded in contiguous habitat immediately to the north during surveys in 

2001 and 2004 (UCSD, 2004 and Leonard, 2004). For purposes of this assessment, it is 

assumed that suitable coastal sage scrub habitat to the north of Voigt Drive is occupied 

by coastal California gnatcatcher (Figure 3-1, Map 4). 

As noted above, focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher will be conducted in 

all suitable habitat in spring/summer 2014. 

3.2 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Least Bell’s Vireo 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) 

Federal Status: Endangered 

State Status: Endangered 

Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) 

Federal Status: Endangered 

State Status: Endangered 

The willow flycatcher (E. traillii), consisting of four or five subspecies, is the most 

widely distributed of the Empidonax flycatchers. The southwestern willow flycatcher 

has a known United States breeding range in six states: Arizona, New Mexico, 

California, southwestern Colorado, extreme southern portions of Nevada and Utah, 

and, possibly, western Texas. In California, its breeding range extends from the 

Mexican border north and inland to the City of Independence in the Owens Valley east 

of the Sierra Nevada, to the South Fork Kern River in the San Joaquin Valley, and 

coastally to the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County (Craig and Williams, 1998). 

The southwestern willow flycatcher was formerly a common summer resident 

throughout California, but has been extirpated from most of its historic breeding range 

in California. In California the smallest regularly occurring breeding populations 

consist of approximately five pairs (occurrences of one or more pairs at several sites 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 3-3 

are reported annually; however, these may not persist) and the largest is 

approximately 50 pairs (W. Haas, n.d.). The number of southwestern willow 

flycatchers in California has been estimated at approximately 200, recorded at 22 

locations within 13 drainages (Finch et al., 2000). The southwestern willow flycatcher 

is a riparian-obligate species restricted to complex streamside vegetation. Four 

general habitat types are used by the southwestern willow flycatcher at its breeding 

sites: monotypic high-elevation willow; exotic monotypes (e.g., dense stands of 

tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) or Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolius), especially in the 

desert southwest; native broadleaf-dominated riparian forest; and mixed native/exotic 

forests (Sogge et al., 1997). Of these, native broadleaf-dominated and mixed 

native/exotic are the primary habitats used by southwestern willow flycatcher in 

California. 

The least Bell's vireo is one of four subspecies of the Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii); its 

breeding range includes coastal and inland southern California (including the western 

edge of southern California's southern deserts), a small area within California's Central 

Valley, and extreme northern Baja California, Mexico. Although the winter range of full 

species Bell's vireo is not well known, it generally appears to winter from southern Baja 

and southern Sonora, Mexico, south along the west coast of Mexico and Central 

America to Honduras and casually to northern Nicaragua. It is also reported from the 

eastern coast of Central America from Veracruz south to Honduras (County of Riverside, 

2008). Least Bell's vireos primarily occupy riverine riparian habitats along water, 

including dry portions of intermittent streams that typically provide dense cover within 

one to two meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) of the ground, often adjacent to a complex, stratified 

canopy. Least Bell's vireo nesting habitats in cismontane and coastal areas include 

southern willow scrub, mulefat scrub, arroyo willow riparian forest edge, wild blackberry 

thickets, and, more rarely, cottonwood forest, sycamore alluvial woodland, and southern 

coast live oak riparian forest. Along riparian corridors at desert locations, young willows 

(Salix spp.) are favored and, where absent, mesquite (Prosopsis spp.) and desert apricot 

(Prunus fremontii) are typically used. In interior regions, least Bell's vireo habitat is 

usually limited to the immediate vicinity of watercourses below approximately 457 meters 

(1,500 feet) amsl (51 FR 16474–16482; Small, 1994). In the coastal portions of its 

southern California range, the least Bell's vireo occurs in lower portions of canyons, 

typically below 600 meters (2,000 feet) amsl. 

Habitat suitable for the state- and federally-listed endangered least Bell’s vireo and the 

state- and federally-listed endangered southwestern willow flycatcher is present within the 

study area in the San Diego River and along Rose Creek, but focused surveys for these 

species were negative. Surveys were conducted concurrently from May through July, 

2010 and were in accordance with the current southwestern willow flycatcher and least 

Bell’s vireo protocols (Sogge et al., 1997; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2000; 

USFWS, 2001). 

As stated above, no least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher were observed 

during the protocol-level surveys conducted in 2010 (Appendix D). However, one 

individual male least Bell’s vireo was detected in 2014 during ongoing surveys; there is 

insufficient information at this time to determine whether the detection represents a 

breeding pair. The single male least Bell’s vireo was observed using riparian habitat to 

the east and west of the existing rail bridge and to the west of the existing Santa Fe 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-4 June 2014 

Street bridge over Rose Creek in April and early May; however, the individual was not 

seen in follow-up surveys conducted on May 22 or May 27. The area will be surveyed 

on 4 more occasions as part of the 8-visit protocol survey on June 6, June 16, July 1, 

and July 15. Riparian habitat at this location and potentially suitable riparian habitat 

present elsewhere in the study area occurs in highly urbanized areas. Least Bell’s vireo 

and southwestern willow flycatcher have not been recorded previously (prior to 2014) in 

the study area. The closest record of least Bell’s vireo is from Tecolote Canyon Natural 

Park and the San Diego River approximately 4 miles east of the study area (CDFG, 

2012a). The only records of southwestern willow flycatcher in south and central San 

Diego County are in the Escondido, Jamul Mountains, and El Cajon Mountains, 

California, U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles (quads) (CDFG, 2012a). Although 

southwestern willow flycatcher was not observed in the study area, and least Bell’s vireo 

may not be nesting in the area, potentially suitable riparian habitat in the study area 

could become occupied prior to construction. Suitable riparian habitat areas are shown 

on Figure 3-1, Maps 5-7. 

The San Diego Association of Governments is currently conducting updated focused 

surveys. Focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher were 

initiated in April 2014, and will be completed in July 2014. As noted above, a single 

male least Bell’s vireo was detected in 2014, and the location is shown on Figure 3-1, 

Map 6. The 2010 focused survey report submitted to the USFWS is included in 

Appendix D. A cumulative list of wildlife species observed during surveys conducted for 

the project is provided in Appendix B. 

3.3 Light-footed Clapper Rail 

Light-footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes)

Federal Status: Endangered 

State Status: Endangered 

Light-footed clapper rails are omnivorous and opportunistic foragers which rely mostly on 

salt marsh invertebrates. This species is typically resident in coastal marsh habitats and 

its current range in California extends from Ventura County in the north to the Mexican 

border in the south (USFWS, 2009). Distribution within the range of the light-footed 

clapper rail is discontinuous due to sporadically occurring salt marsh habitats along the 

coastline; however, it is believed that historically most of the coastal salt marshes 

supported clapper rails from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border (USFWS, 2009). 

Nesting usually begins in March and late nests hatch by August. Nests are placed to 

avoid flooding by tides yet in dense enough cover to be hidden from predators and 

support a large nest (Storey et al., 1988). 

Potentially suitable foraging and nesting habitat for light-footed clapper rail is present in 

the study area in the San Diego River, but it is of marginal quality (Figure 3-1, Map 4). 

Potentially suitable habitat is primarily to the west of the existing Los Angeles—San 

Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) bridge and includes 

cismontane alkali marsh and freshwater marsh to the north of the main flow channel, 

and open disturbed wetlands and non-vegetated channel or floodway to the south of the 

main flow channel. Although focused surveys for light-footed clapper rail have not been 

conducted for this project, the species was not observed during the 2010 focused 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 3-5 

Figure 3-1. Federally Listed Species Locations, Habitat, and Proposed Impacts, Map 1 

Source: SANDAG, 2014
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-6 June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 3-7 

Figure 3-1. Federally Listed Species Locations, Habitat, and Proposed Impacts, Map 2 

Source: SANDAG, 2014
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-8 June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 3-9 

Figure 3-1. Federally Listed Species Locations, Habitat, and Proposed Impacts, Map 3 

Source: SANDAG, 2014

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-10 June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 3-11 

Figure 3-1. Federally Listed Species Locations, Habitat, and Proposed Impacts, Map 4 

Source: SANDAG, 2014

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-12 June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 3-13 

Figure 3-1. Federally Listed Species Locations, Habitat, and Proposed Impacts, Map 5 

Source: SANDAG, 2014
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-14 June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 3-15 

Figure 3-1. Federally Listed Species Locations, Habitat, and Proposed Impacts, Map 6 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Impacts to DW and DW-C 

<0.01 acre permanent impact 

0.15 acre construction/shading impact 

0.23 acre construction impact 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-16 June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 3-17 

Figure 3-1. Federally Listed Species Locations, Habitat, and Proposed Impacts, Map 7 

Source: SANDAG, 2014
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-18 June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 3-19 

surveys conducted in the San Diego River for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow 

flycatcher, which involved eight visits to the study area between April and July. Wildlife 

species observed during the 2010 focused survey for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern 

willow flycatcher are listed in the survey report submitted to USFWS (Appendix D); a 

cumulative list of wildlife species observed in the study area is provided in Appendix B. 

Additionally, pre-construction surveys and focused surveys for light-footed clapper rail 

were conducted in the fall 2013 and spring 2014, respectively, in support of geotechnical 

activities for the LOSSAN project which crosses the San Diego River immediately to the 

west of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Those surveys were negative (Merkel & 

Associates, 2014). The closest record of light-footed clapper rail is from the San Diego 

River estuary to the west of I-5, approximately 1 mile from the study area (CDFG, 2012a, 

Zembal and Hoffman, 2012). Light-footed clapper rail is also known from upstream 

portions of the San Diego River approximately 13 miles inland at Lake Kumeyaay 

(Zembal and Hoffman, 2012). 

Therefore, this species is considered to have a low potential to nest within the study area 

in the San Diego River due to marginal quality of available marsh habitat and a 

moderate potential to forage in marginal quality habitats west of existing LOSSSAN 

bridge. 

3.4 San Diego Fairy Shrimp 

San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) 

Federal Status: Endangered 

State Status: None 

San Diego fairy shrimp is a small aquatic crustacean typically restricted to vernal pools 

and other non-vegetated ephemeral basins 2 to 12 inches in depth. The San Diego fairy 

shrimp occurs in the Great Central Valley and Coastal Mesa Systems (Eriksen and Belk, 

1999). The geographic range of the species extends from coastal Orange and San 

Diego Counties in southern California and in northwestern Baja California, Mexico 

(USFWS, 2007). This species is usually observed from January to March when 

seasonal rainfall fills vernal pools and initiates cyst (egg) hatching (USFWS, 2008). This 

species may also occasionally occur in ditches and road ruts. The shrimp hatch from 

cysts when cool water (5-20° C for hatching) fills the pool and are mature in 10-20 days 

in the field (Eriksen and Belk, 1999). At maturity, mating takes place and cysts are 

dropped. Water characteristics of pools where this species is found include moderate 

pH (6.5-8) and alkalinity (40-55 parts per million) and total dissolved solids (mean of 75 

parts per million, as measured by conductivity) are low (Eriksen and Belk, 1999). 

Wet-season focused surveys for listed species of fairy shrimp were conducted in 2010-

2011, 2011-2012, and 2013-2014. No listed fairy shrimp species were detected during 

the 2010-2011 survey. San Diego fairy shrimp was observed during wet-season focused 

surveys in 2011-2012 and in 2013-2014. During the 2011-2012 focused survey, San 

Diego fairy shrimp was observed in Basin BB (Figure 3-1, Map 8). This basin consists of 

a long, narrow area approximately 270 feet long and varying between 2 and 10 feet in 

width. The basin is located approximately 72 feet from the project alignment (centerline of 

the proposed southbound Trolley track), immediately adjacent to I-5 between I-5 and 

Morena Boulevard, south of Clairemont Drive and north of Tecolote Road. During the 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-20 June 2014 

2013-2014 focused survey, San Diego fairy shrimp was observed in Basin II (Figure 3-1, 

Map 8). Basin II is approximately 76 feet long and 5.5 feet wide, and is located 

approximately 25 feet to the east of the existing LOSSAN tracks. The maximum depth 

measured for Basin II during the 2013-2014 survey was 10 inches. 

The non-sensitive versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) was observed in several 

basins within the study area (i.e., Basins WW, XX, ZZ, H, I, J, and K; see Appendix D). 

The majority of the depressions sampled in the study area were widely scattered (i.e., 

not clustered in a particular area) in and adjacent to the MTS right-of-way. The 

depressions detected in the study area were either road ruts or ephemeral basins. Road 

ruts are depressions typically formed by vehicular traffic within or immediately adjacent 

to access roads, which generally lack aquatic vegetation and are heavily disturbed by 

vehicular traffic. Ephemeral basins are depressions that retain sufficient water to often 

support aquatic vegetation, and generally lack vehicle disturbance. Of the 42 

depressions sampled in 2010-2011, 27 were considered road ruts and 15 were 

considered ephemeral basins (12 of the ephemeral basins were heavily disturbed and 

did not support native vegetation). A total of 54 basins were observed during the 2011-

2012 survey, including 32 considered to be road ruts and 22 considered to be ephemeral 

basins. During the 2013-2014 surveys to date, the majority of basins present in 2010-

2011 and 2011-2012 have remained too dry to establish ponded conditions capable of 

supporting fairy shrimp. Eight basins were observed during the 2013-2014 survey. 

The 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 focused survey reports submitted to the USFWS are 

included in Appendix D. The 2013-2014 focused survey report will be submitted to 

USFWS upon completion of surveys. A cumulative list of wildlife species observed 

during surveys conducted for the project is provided in Appendix B. 

3.5 Special-Status Plants 

In 2009, a focused survey was conducted for special-status plant species in the 

approximately 141 acres of suitable habitat located in Rose Canyon and on portions of 

the UCSD campus north of Miramar Street and north of Voigt Drive within 500 feet of the 

project. In 2010, focused surveys were conducted for special-status plant species in 3 

separate passes in May, June, July, and August in approximately 91 acres of suitable 

habitat located within 100 feet of the project alignment. The different survey passes 

were timed to coincide with flowering periods when the target species are most 

detectable and identifiable. In 2011, an additional focused plant survey was conducted 

for San Diego sagewort (Artemisia palmeri) and selected other species beyond areas 

surveyed in 2010. Approximately 35 acres of suitable habitat were surveyed from the 

end of Santa Fe Street south to Balboa Avenue. No federally-listed species were 

recorded during any of the focused plant surveys. A cumulative list of plant species 

observed in the study area is provided in Appendix A. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 3-21 

Figure 3-1. Federally Listed Species Locations, Habitat, and Proposed Impacts, Map 8 

Source: SANDAG, 2014
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 3.0 – Federally Listed Species and Their Habitat 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-22 June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 4.0 – Summary of Effects

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 4-1 

4.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

The long-term (direct and indirect), construction (direct and indirect), and cumulative 

effects of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project on federally listed wildlife species, 

vegetation communities, and aquatic resources are described in this section. 

Potential habitat for federally listed species could be directly or indirectly affected by the 

construction of the project. Direct effects may include permanent and/or temporary 

construction-related impacts. Activities that may cause varying degrees of impact on 

listed species and/or their habitats include, but are not necessarily limited to: 

 Construction activities within potential habitat for listed species 

 Construction activities associated with dust, erosion, and runoff 

 Construction noise adversely impacting breeding listed bird species 

 Vegetation clearing, grading, and other construction activities 

 Long-term shading impacts to potential habitat for listed species 

4.1 Long-Term Impacts 

Long-term, direct impacts refer to the permanent loss of vegetation, land covers, and 

plant and animal species within a designated impact footprint as well as direct impacts to 

biological resources that would result from ongoing project operations. Direct impacts 

typically occur during vegetation clearing, grading, or excavation associated with project 

implementation. Direct impacts to plants can include complete or partial removal of the 

plants; crushing, trimming, or mowing; and compression of soil around roots. Direct 

impacts to wildlife refer to loss of habitat and/or loss of, or harm to, individuals that can 

be immediately attributed to the project. Loss of, or harm to, individuals may vary by 

wildlife species, but the result is a net loss of a portion of a species’ population. For 

example, equipment used for excavation or grading can cause direct wildlife mortality, or 

injure or entomb individuals, resulting in their eventual death. Vegetation clearing and/or 

grading can also result in destruction of birds' nests, resulting in the loss of eggs and 

young. Additionally, increased train traffic could also impact wildlife species directly 

through injury or mortality from collisions with trains. 

Direct impacts include areas within the footprint of permanent structures and facilities to 

be constructed as part of the project, as well as portions of the rail right-of-way that may 

not include permanent structures but that would be cleared and maintained as part of the 

long-term operation and maintenance of the project. Permanent structures and facilities 

include the double-track alignment from the Old Town Transit Center to the University 

Towne Centre Transit Center, overhead structures, bridges, stations, and associated 

facilities (e.g., parking facilities). Permanent structures also include several traction 

power substations located along the alignment. Refer to Section 2.4 for a description of 

project features. 

Long-term direct impacts associated with the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would 

generally include the loss of native riparian and upland vegetation communities. Direct 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 4.0 – Summary of Effects 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-2 June 2014 

impacts generally would occur within or immediately adjacent to the existing 

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) right-of-way and in existing developed areas. 

Long-term indirect impacts associated with the project include shading impacts to native 

riparian vegetation communities within or adjacent to the existing MTS right-of-way 

and/or on the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) campus. Indirect impacts to 

habitat linkages and wildlife corridors could result primarily from adverse edge effects, 

which typically occur along the development–preservation interface, including lighting, 

noise, and invasive species. The project would also introduce light rail transit train 

activity and add new tracks within the existing MTS right-of-way in areas already subject 

to potential adverse edge effects that may include noise and lighting associated with 

current rail service operations. Potential long-term indirect impacts may also include the 

degradation of habitat due to invasion by exotic plants and animals, exposure to urban 

pollutants (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, and other toxic materials), soil erosion, noise, and 

hydrological changes (e.g., runoff pattern changes, surface and ground water levels and 

quality). 

4.2 Construction Impacts 

During construction, establishing of construction access and staging areas, installing 

falsework, and completing ground improvements at bridge crossings and elevated 

portions of the alignment would require the removal of native riparian and upland 

vegetation communities, resulting in direct impacts. Coastal sage scrub areas that 

would be directly but temporarily affected during construction are located entirely within 

or along the existing MTS right-of-way or on the UCSD campus surrounded by 

developed land uses. Temporary impacts to coastal sage scrub occur within the 

Multi-Habitat Planning Area along Rose Creek to the north and south of State Route 

(SR) 52. The affected vegetation communities within the Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

would be confined to areas immediately adjacent to the existing MTS right-of-way and 

would result in a temporary loss of habitat for special-status wildlife species. As project 

construction is anticipated to occur over a 4.5-year period, the duration of temporal loss 

of habitat could be 4.5 years or longer depending on the length of time required to 

restore the vegetation to pre-construction conditions (typically around 3 to 5 years). 

Indirect construction impacts on adjacent biological resources located outside the limits 

of work typically include noise, vibration, dust, lighting, increased human activity (e.g., 

construction workers), erosion and sedimentation, pollutants, and chemical spills. These 

kinds of impacts can cause behavioral disruptions and stress in wildlife and degrade 

habitat adjacent to construction areas. 

During construction, noise levels depend on the number and type of equipment, their 

general condition, the amount of time each piece operates per day, and the presence of 

any noise attenuating features such as walls or natural topography. The impact of 

increased noise depends on the location of the construction activities relative to adjacent 

biological resources, like breeding birds, that would be potentially affected by 

construction noise. Project construction is expected to require the use of heavy earthmoving equipment, pneumatic tools, generators, concrete pumps, and similar 

equipment, all of which may contribute to increased noise levels within habitat areas 

near construction areas. During construction, ground-borne vibration associated with 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 4.0 – Summary of Effects

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 4-3 

ground improvement activities necessary at bridge crossings and elevated structures 

may affect biological resources in adjacent areas. Ground improvements are typically 

necessary where support structures such as piers (walls or columns) and abutments are 

proposed on unimproved lands, and can create vibration levels similar to pile driving. If 

construction is proposed at night, lighting within construction areas could spill into 

adjacent habitat areas and potentially affect wildlife species active primarily at night. 

4.3 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts are defined by the National Environmental Policy Act as “the impact 

on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts 

include the direct and indirect effects of a project and can result from individually minor, 

but collectively substantial, actions taking place over a period of time” (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations 1508.7). 

The timeframe for the cumulative impacts analysis included both past actions and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. The period of the past analysis was determined 

by the information available for the resources studied. In most cases, it considered the 

time since development of the corridor began. The time for future effect analysis 

extends from the present day to 2030, which is the horizon year for the 2030 San Diego 

Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (SANDAG, 2007). 

A majority of cumulative transportation and transit projects are located within or adjacent 

to existing developed rights-of-way in urbanized areas. The analysis assumes 

implementation of the planned transportation improvements committed to be 

implemented by 2030, as identified in the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: 

Pathways for the Future (SANDAG, 2007) under the Revenue Constrained Scenario. 

 Double tracking of the Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor 

Agency (LOSSAN) tracks and other rail improvements, with an increase in frequency 

of COASTER service to every 20 minutes during peak and to every 60 minutes 

during off-peak periods in both directions. 

 High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on Interstate (I-) 5 from I-8 north to Oceanside, 

with direct access ramps (DARs) at various locations, of which the DARs at Voigt 

Drive would be located within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The HOV lanes would be 

restricted to vehicles with two or more occupants. 

 Combination of HOV and Managed Lanes on I-805 from I-5 to South Bay, with DARs 

at Carroll Canyon Road and Nobel Drive. 

 San Diego Trolley (Trolley) low-floor system improvements to the Trolley Blue and 

Orange Lines, including station platform, power, and signaling improvements to allow 

extending the Trolley Green Line to the 12th and Imperial Avenue Transit Center and 

use of low-floor vehicles system-wide. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 4.0 – Summary of Effects 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-4 June 2014 

Regional growth and development is also expected to affect areas primarily within 

urbanized areas. The cumulative effects of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project and 

future projects on regional biological resources are expected to be limited. Where native 

habitats are present in areas affected by future projects, impacts could include the 

removal of native vegetation communities, the loss of aquatic resources, and the loss of 

habitat for special-status plant and wildlife species. Each of these projects, however, 

would undergo separate environmental review and would be permitted for construction 

consistent with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, plans, and policies. 

The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) was designed to compensate for 

the cumulative loss of biological resources throughout the region. Projects that conform 

with the MSCP, as specified by the Subarea Plan and implementing ordinances (i.e., 

San Diego Municipal Code Land Development Code—Biology Guidelines [City of San 

Diego, 2012]), are not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable impact for those 

biological resources adequately covered by the MSCP. These resources include the 

native vegetation communities and the MSCP Covered Species (including least Bell’s 

vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, southwestern willow flycatcher, and light-footed 

clapper rail). 

Although San Diego fairy shrimp was observed in the study area and is not covered by 

the MSCP, the impacted basin (Basin II) is located within the existing MTS right-of-way 

in an otherwise developed area with limited long-term conservation value for the 

species. This impacted basin is devoid of vernal pool vegetation and dependent upon 

hydrology solely from storm water runoff from the watershed area tributary 

(approximately 0.70 acres), which could be disrupted by ongoing routine maintenance 

within the railway corridor. Figure 4-1 presents the hydrology for Basin II. Because the 

location does not provide long-term conservation value for the species, impacts associated 

with the project would not have a cumulative impact on this resource within the corridor. 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

Figure 4-1. San Diego Fairy Shrimp Basin II Hydrology 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 4.0 – Summary of Effects 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-6 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 4.0 – Summary of Effects

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 4-7 

4.4 Summary of Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers 

Long-term direct and indirect (shading) and construction (short-term) impacts to 

vegetation communities and land covers resulting from implementing the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project are presented in Table 4-1. The vast majority (91 percent) of 

long-term direct impacts would occur within disturbed/developed lands and non-native 

vegetation communities, including developed and disturbed habitat, non-native 

grasslands, eucalyptus woodland, and ornamental plantings. Riparian communities 

would account for 1 percent of long-term impacts and include disturbed wetland, 

southern riparian forest, mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub (including disturbed), 

Arundo-dominated riparian, and non-vegetated floodway or channel. Impacts to native 

uplands include coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub communities, and 

would account for 6 percent of long-term impacts. 

A total of 14.54 acres of riparian and upland vegetation communities and land covers 

would be subject to potential long-term indirect impacts as a result of shading from 

elevated project structures. The majority of areas affected, approximately 13.30 acres, 

are disturbed/developed lands and/or consist of non-native vegetation, including 

disturbed habitat, urban/developed, ornamental, and eucalyptus woodland. A total of 

0.28 acre of coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) that would be affected by shading 

is located beneath the UCSD West Station. Of the 0.89 acre of riparian communities 

and land covers subject to potential shading effects, 0.10 acre comprises non-vegetated 

channel or floodway and the remaining 0.79 acre is comprised of riparian communities 

including mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub, disturbed southern willow scrub, 

disturbed wetland, and Arundo-dominated riparian. 

Potential construction (short-term) impacts would result from establishing construction 

access and staging areas, installing falsework, and completing ground improvements at 

bridge crossings and elevated portions of the alignment. A total of 59.60 acres of 

riparian and upland vegetation communities and land covers would be subject to 

potential short-term impacts as a result of construction activities. The majority of the 

areas affected, 53.67 acres, are disturbed/developed lands and/or consist of non-native 

vegetation, including disturbed habitat, urban/developed, ornamental, eucalyptus 

woodland. A total of 2.57 acres of coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) would be 

directly removed by construction activities. Of the 3.21 acres of riparian communities 

and land covers subject to construction impacts, 0.29 acre comprise non-vegetated 

channel or floodways and the remaining 2.92 acres is comprised of riparian communities 

including disturbed wetland, disturbed herbaceous wetland, southern riparian forest, 

mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub (including disturbed), and Arundo-dominated 

riparian. The affected vegetation communities would be confined to areas immediately 

adjacent to the existing MTS right-of-way and on the UCSD campus and would 

represent a temporary loss of vegetation communities in the study area. As project 

construction is anticipated over a 4.5-year period, the duration of temporal loss of 

vegetation communities could be 4.5 years or longer depending on the length of time 

required to restore the vegetation to pre-construction conditions. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 4.0 – Summary of Effects 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-8 June 2014 

Table 4-1. Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers 

General Vegetation Type 

(Holland/Oberbauer Code) 

Existing 

(Acres) 

Impacts (Acres)

Remaining 

(Acres) 

LongTerm Construction/ 

Shading Construction Total 

Riparian Vegetation Communities 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) 11.5 0.07 0.32 0.98 1.38 10.12 

Disturbed Herbaceous Wetland 

(52510) 

0.01 — — 0.01 0.01 0 

Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 48.0 0.48 — 0.89 1.37 46.63 

Mulefat Scrub (63310) 1.2 <0.01 0.09 0.02 0.11 1.09 

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 8.8 0.16 0.16 0.66 0.98 7.82 

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub 

(63320) 

7.7 <0.01 0.11 0.27 0.39 7.31 

Arundo-Dominated Riparian 

(65100) 

1.1 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.88 

Non-Vegetated Channel or 

Floodway (64200) 

3.0 0.13 0.10 0.29 0.52 2.48 

Riparian Subtotal* 81.3 0.87 0.89 3.21 4.97 76.33

Upland Vegetation Communities

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 

(32500) 

71.1 1.73 0.15 1.92 3.81 67.29 

Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage 

Scrub (32500) 

36.4 4.25 0.12 0.65 5.03 31.37 

Non-Native Grassland (42200) 28.6 1.43 0.07 0.14 1.65 26.95 

Disturbed Habitat (11300) 57.3 23.67 0.56 5.06 29.29 28.01 

Urban/Developed (12000) 1,092.2 43.91 10.08 34.47 88.47 1,003.73 

Ornamental (N/A) 117.9 5.71 1.64 8.49 15.84 102.06 

Eucalyptus Woodland (79100) 63.7 10.83 1.02 5.65 17.50 46.20 

Uplands Subtotal* 1,467.2 91.53 13.64 56.38 161.59 1,305.61

Total* 1,548.5 92.42 14.54 59.60 166.55 1,381.95

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

Note: * Acreages do not total due to rounding. 

Impacts presented in this table represent the Refined Build Alternative, as approved by the SANDAG Board 

of Directors on November 15, 2013. The Refined Build Alternative alignment was amended on May 9, 2014 

in the vicinity of I-5 and Nobel Drive, and acreages will be updated once the plan set has been updated. 

The change will primarily affect impacts to disturbed habitat, urban/developed, eucalyptus woodland, and 

ornamental areas.

4.5 Summary of Impacts to Waters of the U.S. 

The project would result in 0.37 acre of long-term direct impacts to wetland and non-wetland 

Waters of the U.S. The majority of long-term impacts to Waters of the U.S. are 

associated with replacing an approximately 700-foot-long concrete-lined open channel 

portion of Rose Creek located at the SR 52 interchange with a narrower concrete-lined 

open channel and installing associated channel improvements immediately upstream 

and downstream. Long-term direct impacts are also associated with the concrete piers 

and abutments of the five bridge crossings (one over the San Diego River, one over 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 4.0 – Summary of Effects

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 4-9 

Tecolote Creek, and three over Rose Creek). Limited long-term impacts to Rose Creek 

north and south of SR 52 are associated with grading and/or retaining walls necessary to 

accommodate the proposed double-track light rail transit alignment alongside the 

existing main line within the MTS right-of-way. 

Shading from elevated project structures could have long-term indirect impacts to 0.72 

acre of wetland and non-wetland Waters of the U.S. (0.59 acre of wetlands and 0.13 acre 

of non-wetland) (Table 4-2). 

Table 4-2. Impacts to Waters of the U.S. by Vegetation Type 

Resource 

General Vegetation Type 

(Holland/Oberbauer Code) 

Long-Term

 (Acres) 

Short-term

Construction/ 

Indirect Shading

 (Acres) 

Short-term 

Construction 

(Acres) 

Total 

(Acres) 

Wetlands Disturbed Wetland (11200) 0.02 0.28 0.18 0.47 

Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 0.03 — 0.05 0.08 

Mulefat Scrub (63310) < 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.11 

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 0.12 0.06 0.38 0.56 

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub 

(63320)

< 0.01 0.11 0.27 0.39 

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) < 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 

Wetlands Subtotal* 0.17 0.59 0.92 1.68

Non-Wetland 

Waters 

Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway 

(64200)

0.13 0.10 0.29 0.52 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) – Concrete 

Lined

0.06 0.03 0.64 0.73 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) - Riprap — — 0.08 0.08 

Non-Wetland Waters Subtotal* 0.19 0.13 1.0 1.33

Wetland and Non-Wetland Total* 0.37 0.72 1.92 3.01

Source: City of San Diego, 1997; Oberbauer et al., 2008. 

Notes: *

Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

 USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Impacts presented in this table represent the Refined Build Alternative, as approved by the SANDAG Board 

of Directors on November 15, 2013. The Refined Build Alternative alignment was amended on May 9, 2014 

in the vicinity of I-5 and Nobel Drive, and acreages will be updated once the plan set has been updated. 

The change is not expected to affect impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources. 

During construction, temporary impacts to Waters of the U.S. would result from 

falsework installation, ground improvements, staging areas, and haul routes associated 

with bridge construction. A total of 2.64 acres of Waters of the U.S. (1.51 acres of 

wetland and 1.13 acres of non-wetland waters) would be temporarily impacted, including 

Arundo-dominated riparian, southern willow scrub (including disturbed), southern 

riparian forest, disturbed wetland, mulefat scrub, non-vegetated channel or floodway, 

and disturbed herbaceous wetland. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 4.0 – Summary of Effects 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-10 June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 5-1 

5.0 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES 

This chapter includes the analysis of the long-term (direct and indirect) and construction 

(short-term direct and indirect) impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project on the 

federally listed species. This section includes a discussion of avoidance and 

minimization measures and proposed mitigation. The determination of effect for each 

species is discussed in detail below and is based on the following U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) criteria: 

 “No effect” means there are absolutely no effects, positive or negative, to species or 

habitat from the proposed action. “No effect” does not mean a small effect or an 

effect that is unlikely to occur. If effects are insignificant (small in size) or 

discountable (extremely unlikely), a “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” 

determination is appropriate. A “no effect” determination does not require Section 7 

consultation with the USFWS. 

 “May affect, but not likely to adversely affect” means that all effects are 

beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous 

positive effects without any adverse effects on the species or habitat. Insignificant 

effects relate to the size of the impact and include those effects that are 

undetectable, not measurable, or cannot be evaluated and should never reach the 

scale where “take” occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to 

occur. Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, a person 

would not be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects, 

or expect discountable effects to occur. This determination requires written 

concurrence from the USFWS. 

 “May affect, and is likely to adversely affect” means that listed species or habitat 

are likely to be exposed to the action or its environmental consequences, and will 

respond in a negative manner to the exposure. This determination means that 

effects on species and habitat: (1) are not insignificant in size and avoidance of 

“take” cannot be guaranteed, and (2) effects are not discountable (extremely unlikely 

to occur). A combination of beneficial and adverse effects is still “likely to adversely 

affect,” even if the net effect is neutral or positive. This determination requires formal 

consultation with USFWS. 

The following analysis identifies the project features and/or activities that are anticipated 

to adversely impact the species and, when feasible, quantifies such impacts. 

5.1 Coastal California Gnatcatcher 

The project has the potential to affect coastal California gnatcatcher through long-term 

direct and indirect impacts stemming from loss and shading of suitable habitat; shortterm direct impacts from the temporary removal of suitable habitat during construction; 

and short-term construction-related noise that may affect occupied habitat areas 

adjacent to the project during the breeding season. 

As described in Section 3.1, three coastal California gnatcatcher pairs and a fourth 

location with presumed occupied habitat on the University of California, San Diego 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-2 June 2014 

(UCSD) campus occur in the study area. Figure 3-1, Maps 1-4 show the coastal 

California gnatcatcher locations and their distances from the project work limits. The 

coastal California gnatcatcher pair near the La Jolla Colony exit off Interstate (I-) 5 is 

approximately 2,030 feet away from the project work limits and is not expected to be 

directly or indirectly affected by the project and, therefore, is excluded from further 

discussion. Potential impacts on the two coastal California gnatcatcher pairs located to 

the north and south of State Route (SR) 52 and the presumed occupied habitat on the 

UCSD campus are discussed in further detail in the following sections. 

5.1.1 Long-term Impacts 

The project would result in the loss of 5.99 acres of coastal sage scrub from 

improvements within and adjacent to the existing Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) 

right-of-way associated with new track construction, track realignment, and the 

construction and maintenance of associated structures and facilities (Figure 3-1, Maps 

1-4). The affected areas consist primarily of disturbed coastal sage scrub located within or 

immediately adjacent to the existing MTS right-of-way or on the UCSD campus 

surrounded by developed land uses. The affected areas are not contiguous with habitat 

where coastal California gnatcatcher were observed; are substantially degraded; and are 

generally too small, degraded, and/or isolated to be considered suitable nesting habitat. 

Although the impacted coastal sage scrub areas may occasionally be used as foraging 

habitat, the long-term loss of these areas would not preclude the broader use of larger, 

intact suitable habitat in the area by coastal California gnatcatcher. 

The pair located just north of SR 52 was observed approximately 185 feet from the project 

work limits (Figure 3-1, Map 1). Proposed long-term direct impacts that may affect coastal 

California gnatcatcher at this location include the permanent loss of 0.90 acre of disturbed 

coastal sage scrub, including 0.06 acre within the Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) 

mapped within the existing MTS right-of-way. The MHPA is the City of San Diego’s “hard 

line” preserve system under the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program. 

The MHPA consists of biological core and linkage areas. Portions of the study area 

identified as biological cores and linkages include the area along Rose Creek near the 

SR 52 interchange and the San Diego River in the southern portion of the study area. 

The pair located on the west-facing slopes south of SR 52 was observed approximately 

450 feet from the project work limits, and presumed occupied habitat on the UCSD 

campus is located approximately 60 feet from the project work limits (Figure 3-1, Maps 3 

and 4). At both of these locations, long-term direct impacts associated with the project 

would not affect coastal California gnatcatcher because there would be no impacts to 

suitable habitat in the vicinity of these locations. Long-term shading (indirect) effects 

would be limited to unoccupied coastal sage scrub within the existing MTS right-of-way 

and on the UCSD campus, where potential indirect impacts to coastal California 

gnatcatcher are not expected to occur. In addition, shading of suitable habitat along the 

existing rail right-of-way is unlikely to adversely affect the broader use of existing coastal 

sage scrub within and adjacent to the study area as foraging or nesting habitat by 

coastal California gnatcatcher. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 5-3 

5.1.2 Construction (Short-term) Impacts 

Potential impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher also include the temporary loss of 

coastal sage scrub adjacent to the alignment associated with the realignment of an 

existing sewer line near Rose Creek (Figure 3-1, Map 1) and construction-related noise 

that may affect occupied habitat areas within 500 feet of project construction during the 

breeding season. 

Coastal sage scrub that would be subject to direct temporary impacts during 

construction is located primarily within or along the existing MTS right-of-way or on the 

UCSD campus surrounded by developed land uses. During construction, 2.57 acres of 

coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) would be removed, including 0.23 acre of 

coastal sage scrub within the MHPA along Rose Creek to the north and south of SR 52. 

Construction-related noise has the potential to disrupt occupied coastal California 

gnatcatcher habitat within 500 feet of the project during the breeding season (March 1 

through August 31). Construction-related noise can disrupt foraging, nesting, and other 

reproductive activities. The affected areas are generally linear and are located along the 

edges of the existing transportation corridor. 

In the vicinity of the coastal California gnatcatcher pair observed to the north of the 

SR 52 interchange, ambient noise levels at two long-term noise measurement locations 

(referred to as LT-8 and LT-9) at the top of the west-facing slopes above I-5 ranged from 

58 to 64 A-weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent sound level (Leq) (San Diego Association 

of Governments [SANDAG], 2014) (Figure 2-1). Additional measurements (referred to 

as ST-14 through ST-18) taken within occupied habitat downslope of and nearer to the 

freeway ranged between 59 and 64 dBA Leq. Ambient noise levels within occupied 

habitat areas are, therefore, expected to regularly meet or exceed the 60-dBA Leq

threshold commonly used to analyze potential noise impacts to coastal California 

gnatcatcher and other federally listed bird species (i.e., southwestern willow flycatcher, 

least Bell’s vireo, and light-footed clapper rail). Because of the existing high ambient 

noise levels measured in the vicinity, construction noise in excess of 60 dBA Leq in 

occupied habitat areas is unlikely to have an adverse indirect effect on coastal California 

gnatcatcher unless construction-related noise substantially increases ambient noise 

levels. 

Noise measurements taken near occupied habitat to the south of SR 52 and within 

presumed occupied habitat north of Voigt Drive on the UCSD campus suggest that existing 

ambient noise levels in these occupied habitat areas may be less than 60 dBA Leq. South of 

SR 52, a short-term noise measurement site (referred to as ST-13) located 

approximately 50 feet east of the existing tracks and down-slope of the southernmost 

coastal California gnatcatcher pair measured ambient noise levels at 57 dBA Leq over a 

1-hour period. Within the presumed occupied habitat on the UCSD campus (referred to as 

ST-22, 23 and ST-24), just north of Warren Field, daytime noise levels were recorded from 

48 to 51 dBA Leq. As a result, occupied habitat within 500 feet of the work limits along 

these portions of the project may be subject to construction-related noise that increases 

ambient noise levels, and that may result in ambient noise levels that exceed the 60 dBA 

Leq threshold during the breeding season. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-4 June 2014 

5.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 

This section describes the avoidance and minimization measures as well as mitigation. 

5.1.3.1 General Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 

During construction, vegetation clearing, grading, and other ground-disturbing activities 

in coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) in occupied habitat within the MHPA would 

occur outside of the breeding season (February 15 through August 31). 

The following general avoidance and minimization measures would reduce impacts to 

coastal California gnatcatcher: 

 During final design, the project’s construction footprint would be further reviewed 

and, where possible, the footprint would be minimized to reduce impacts to wetlands 

and vegetation. 

 Where construction occurs adjacent to sensitive biological resources, the limits of 

construction would be visibly delineated through brightly colored fencing or other 

highly visible means. Construction crews would be directed not to encroach beyond 

the limits of construction. 

 Best management practices would minimize dust, erosion, and runoff generated by 

construction activities. 

 During construction, a biological monitor would be present to assist in the avoidance 

of impacts to native vegetation, jurisdictional aquatic resources, special-status plants 

and wildlife, and nesting birds. The biological monitor would provide training to 

construction personnel to increase awareness of the possible presence of wildlife 

beneath vehicles and equipment and to use best judgment to avoid killing or injuring 

wildlife. A biological monitor would assist with decisions or aid with moving wildlife, if 

necessary. 

 To prevent the introduction of invasive plant species, construction vehicles and 

equipment would be washed prior to working in areas where sensitive vegetation 

communities are present adjacent to the project. 

Two general mitigation measures have been identified to avoid impacts to nesting birds; 

these measures would also apply to coastal California gnatcatcher: 

 Biologists would conduct nesting bird surveys not more than 72 hours prior to 

initiating construction-related ground-disturbing activities (i.e., grading or groundclearing activities) during the breeding season (February 15 through August 31 for 

most species, January 15 through August 31 for raptors, or as determined by a 

qualified biologist). Surveys would include the disturbance zone or areas within 300 

feet (500 feet for raptors) of the disturbance zone during the nesting/breeding season 

of native bird species potentially nesting on the site. If ground-disturbing activities 

are delayed, then additional pre-disturbance surveys would be conducted such that 

no more than 72 hours would have elapsed between the survey and the initiation of 

ground-disturbing activities.
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 5-5 

 If biologists find an active nest of a native bird species, then vegetation clearing, 

ground-disturbing activities, and construction equipment that generates high noise or 

vibration levels would cease and be postponed or halted at the discretion of the 

biologist in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This work 

cessation would be effective within a buffer area from the nest at a distance 

appropriate to the sensitivity of the species and the distribution of the surrounding 

habitat. Construction work would not resume until the biologist has determined that 

the nest is no longer active, the juveniles have fledged, and there is no evidence of a 

second attempt at nesting. Alternatively, a qualified biological monitor would be 

present full-time while construction is occurring within the buffer area to observe the 

nesting birds, and would have the authority to halt or redirect construction if the birds 

exhibit signs of distress. Limits of construction around active nests would be 

established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers, and 

construction personnel would be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The 

biologist would serve as a construction monitor during those periods when 

construction activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure that no 

inadvertent impacts to nesting birds occur. 

5.1.3.2 Mitigation for Impacts to Suitable Habitat 

In addition to the general measures identified above, specific mitigation measures have 

been identified to address impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher and suitable habitat 

(coastal sage scrub). Mitigation for long-term impacts to coastal sage scrub (including 

disturbed) would occur through SANDAG’s TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program 

(EMP), and may include on- or off-site mitigation or the purchase of mitigation credits, as 

described below. Off-site mitigation is proposed at the Sage Hill site, which has been 

approved by the USFWS for use in mitigating upland impacts associated with the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

 On-site Mitigation: To the extent feasible, disturbed lands within or adjacent to the 

existing MTS right-of-way would be revegetated. Revegetated areas would be 

maintained and monitored for approximately five years to ensure successful 

reestablishment of vegetation communities. 

 Off-site Mitigation: Where mitigation requirements cannot be accommodated within 

existing disturbed lands in the study area, impacts to sensitive vegetation 

communities would be mitigated elsewhere within the County of San Diego (e.g., 

Sage Hill site). Off-site mitigation may include creation (establishing native 

vegetation communities in areas that are currently disturbed, developed, or 

supporting non-native vegetation communities) or enhancement (improving the 

quality of existing areas of sensitive vegetation communities through removal of nonnative species, establishment of native species, restoration of prior impacts, and 

protection from future disturbance). 

 Mitigation Credits: In addition to on-site and off-site mitigation, impacts to sensitive 

vegetation communities may be mitigated through the purchase of mitigation credits. 

The purchase of mitigation credits could result in the long-term preservation of 

vegetation communities within established mitigation banks where these 

communities have been created and/or enhanced and are maintained in perpetuity. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-6 June 2014 

Mitigation ratios would depend on the location of the impact and mitigation sites, either 

inside or outside of the MHPA, and would range from 1:1 to 2:1. Therefore, the longterm loss of 5.99 acres of unoccupied coastal sage scrub habitat, and shading of 0.28 

acre of unoccupied coastal sage scrub habitat, would be offset through mitigation and is 

not expected to significantly affect coastal California gnatcatcher pairs. 

Mitigation for construction (short-term) impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher suitable 

habitat would occur through SANDAG’s TransNet EMP, and may include on-site 

mitigation, off-site mitigation, or the purchase of mitigation credits, as described above. 

Specific mitigation has been identified to address construction impacts to coastal sage 

scrub (including disturbed) through restoration of areas disturbed during construction 

and provision of additional compensatory mitigation, as described below. 

 For short-term construction impacts to coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) within 

the MHPA, mitigation is proposed at a 1:1 ratio if the mitigation occurs outside the 

MHPA, and at a 1:1 ratio if mitigation occurs within the MHPA. For short-term 

impacts to coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) outside the MHPA, mitigation is 

proposed at a 1.5:1 ratio if the mitigation occurs outside the MHPA, and at a 1:1 ratio 

if the mitigation occurs within the MHPA. 

Therefore, the temporary loss of 2.57 acres of coastal sage scrub is not expected to 

significantly affect coastal California gnatcatcher pairs. 

5.1.3.3 Mitigation for Indirect Construction Noise Impacts 

The following measure has been identified to minimize or avoid construction noise 

impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher during the breeding season. 

 Construction-related noise levels in coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat 

within 500 feet of construction activity would not exceed 60 dBA Leq (1 hour) or preconstruction ambient noise levels, whichever is greater, during the breeding season. 

Project construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat would occur outside of the 

breeding season if possible. If necessary, construction activities during the breeding 

season would be managed to limit noise levels in occupied habitat within 500 feet of 

the project, or noise attenuation measures, such as temporary sound walls, would be 

implemented to reduce noise levels below 60 dBA Leq (1 hour) or below existing 

ambient noise levels, whichever is greater. 

With the implementation of breeding season avoidance, noise minimization, and/or noise 

attenuation measures, potential short-term indirect construction noise impacts are not 

expected to significantly affect coastal California gnatcatcher pairs. 

5.1.4 Determination of Effect 

With implementation of the proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures 

described in the previous sections, potential adverse effects associated with the project 

are considered to be insignificant or discountable. As a result, the project “may affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect” the coastal California gnatcatcher. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 5-7 

5.2 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Least Bell’s Vireo 

Although previously-conducted focused surveys for these species were negative, 

potentially suitable riparian habitat occurs within the project impact area in the San 

Diego River, Rose Creek, and on UCSD campus. Additionally, a single male least Bell’s 

vireo has been detected during 2014 focused surveys, which are currently in progress. 

These species could move into the area prior to construction. If these species are 

present, potential impacts would include long-term direct and indirect impacts stemming 

from loss and shading of suitable habitat, short-term direct and indirect impacts from the 

temporary removal of suitable habitat during construction, and construction-related noise 

that may affect occupied habitat areas adjacent to the project during the breeding 

season. 

As described in Section 3.2, suitable habitat in the study area occurs in the San Diego 

River, in Rose Creek and on the UCSD campus. Figure 3-1, Maps 5-7 show the 

locations of suitable riparian habitat that would be impacted by the project and the 

location of the single least Bell’s vireo observed. 

5.2.1 Long-term Impacts 

Implementation of the project would result in 0.68 acre of long-term direct impacts to 

potentially suitable riparian habitat for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow 

flycatcher in the San Diego River, Rose Creek, and on the UCSD campus, including 

0.19 acre within the MHPA. Potentially suitable riparian habitat includes southern 

riparian forest and southern willow scrub (including disturbed), as well as contiguous 

areas of mulefat scrub, disturbed wetlands (including disturbed herbaceous wetland), 

and Arundo-dominated riparian. The majority of long-term direct impacts would occur to 

areas located within or adjacent to the existing MTS right-of-way. 

Shading of existing riparian habitat would occur at bridge crossings over the San Diego 

River and Rose Creek, and beneath a portion of elevated track along Voigt Drive to the 

east of I-5 on the UCSD campus. Long-term indirect impacts include shading effects on 

0.76 acre of riparian habitat in the San Diego River, Rose Creek, and on UCSD campus. 

If the single male least Bell’s vireo in Rose Creek establishes a nesting territory this 

year, then long-term direct impacts would include less than 0.01 acre of occupied habitat 

permanently displaced by bridge piers for the project. Long-term indirect impacts would 

include shading effects on 0.19 acre of occupied habitat in Rose Creek. However, due 

to the extent of contiguous habitat in downstream portions of the creek to the west of the 

existing rail bridge and Santa Fe Street bridge, these impacts would not result in the loss 

of a nesting territory. 

5.2.2 Construction (Short-term) Impacts 

If present, potential impacts to least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher 

would also include the temporary loss of riparian habitat associated with construction at 

bridge crossings. During construction, 2.13 acres of riparian habitat would be 

temporarily impacted, including 1.35 acres within the MHPA. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-8 June 2014 

If the single male least Bell’s vireo in Rose Creek establishes a nesting territory this 

year, then short-term construction impacts would include the temporary loss of 0.09 acre 

of occupied habitat in Rose Creek. 

If either species is present in the study area, construction-related noise that may exceed 

60 dBA Leq has the potential to disrupt occupied least Bell’s vireo and southwestern 

willow flycatcher habitat within 500 feet of the project during the breeding season (March 

1 through August 31), which can disrupt foraging, nesting, and other reproductive 

activities. The affected areas are generally linear and are located in adjacent suitable 

riparian habitat areas shown on Figure 3-1, Maps 5-7, along the edges of an existing 

transportation corridor. Suitable habitat within 500 feet of the work limits in the San 

Diego River and along Rose Creek may be subject to construction-related noise that 

substantially increases ambient noise levels. 

5.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 

This section describes the avoidance and minimization measures as well as mitigation. 

5.2.3.1 General Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 

The avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 5.1.3.1 would also 

reduce impacts to southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo. 

During construction, vegetation clearing, grading, and other ground-disturbing activities 

in occupied riparian habitat (including disturbed) in the MHPA would occur outside of the 

breeding season (March 1 through August 31) 

5.2.3.2 Mitigation for Impacts to Suitable Habitat 

Mitigation for long-term impacts to riparian habitat (including disturbed) would occur 

through SANDAG’s TransNet EMP. For impacts to riparian habitat in the San Diego 

River, off-site mitigation is proposed at the Mast Park Mitigation Site in the City of 

Santee, which has been approved by the USFWS for use in mitigating wetland impacts 

associated with another transportation project, or at another site identified during the 

permitting process. For impacts in the Rose Creek watershed, mitigation includes 

implementing a portion of the restoration and creation opportunities identified in the 

Rose Creek Watershed Wetland, Riparian and Water Quality Restoration Opportunities 

Analysis (San Diego Earthworks, 2012) in coordination with the Rose Creek Watershed 

Association. Additional mitigation sites may be identified through agency consultation 

and through the TransNet EMP. Mitigation for long-term impacts to riparian habitat is 

proposed at a 3:1 ratio, including a minimum 1:1 ratio of habitat creation to achieve no 

net loss. Therefore, the long-term loss of 0.68 acre of unoccupied riparian habitat, and 

shading of 0.76 acre of unoccupied riparian habitat, would be offset through mitigation 

and is not expected to significantly affect least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow 

flycatcher. If the single male least Bell’s vireo establishes a nesting territory this year, 

then 0.19 acre of indirect shading effects, 0.09 acre of temporary construction impacts, 

and the permanent loss of less than 0.01 acre of disturbed wetlands in Rose Creek 

would be considered impacts to occupied habitat. 

Mitigation for temporary impacts to riparian habitat (including disturbed) during 

construction would occur by restoring affected areas to pre-existing habitat conditions (or 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 5-9 

better) upon project completion. Furthermore, the two species have not been recorded 

breeding in this area. Therefore, the temporary loss of 2.13 acres of riparian habitat is 

not expected to significantly affect least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher. 

5.2.3.3 Mitigation for Indirect Construction Noise Impacts 

The following measure has been identified to minimize or avoid construction noise 

impacts to least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher during the breeding 

season. 

 To avoid potential adverse impacts to least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow 

flycatcher from construction-related noise, project construction within 500 feet of 

occupied habitat would be timed to occur outside of the breeding season if possible. 

If project construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat must occur during the 

breeding season, construction-related noise within the occupied habitat areas would 

not exceed 60 dBA Leq (1 hour) or pre-construction ambient noise levels, whichever 

is greater, during the breeding season. If necessary, construction activities during 

the breeding season would be managed to limit noise levels in occupied habitat 

within 500 feet of the project, or noise attenuation measures would be implemented 

to reduce noise levels below 60 dBA Leq (1 hour) or below existing ambient noise 

levels, whichever is greater. 

With the implementation of breeding season avoidance, noise minimization, and/or noise 

attenuation measures, potential short-term indirect construction noise impacts are not 

expected to significantly affect least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. 

5.2.4 Determination of Effect 

With implementation of the proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures 

described in the previous sections, potential adverse effects associated with the project are 

considered to be insignificant or discountable. As a result, the project “may affect, but is 

not likely to adversely affect” least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. 

5.3 Light-footed Clapper Rail 

Although a focused survey conducted in 2014 for light-footed clapper rail was negative, 

the species could forage and/or nest in marginal quality habitat in the San Diego River to 

the west of the existing Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor 

Agency bridge, and may move through the study area along the San Diego River main 

channel (Figure 3-1, Map 5). If light-footed clapper rail were to move into the area prior 

to construction, potential impacts would be limited to short-term indirect impacts from 

construction-related noise that may affect suitable habitat adjacent to the project during 

the breeding season. 

5.3.1 Long-term Impacts 

As suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat does not occur within the project impact area 

at the San Diego River, and because movement along the San Diego River main 

channel would not be affected by the San Diego River bridge for the project, no longterm impacts to light-footed clapper rail or suitable habitat would occur. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-10 June 2014 

5.3.2 Construction (Short-term) Impacts 

Implementation of the project would result in construction noise in adjacent suitable 

marsh habitat areas to the west of the existing Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis 

Obispo Rail Corridor Agency bridge which could disrupt foraging, nesting, and 

reproductive activities during the breeding season if this species is determined to be 

present prior to construction. Suitable habitat within 500 feet of the work limits in the 

San Diego River may be subject to construction-related noise that substantially 

increases ambient noise levels, and that may exceed the 60-dBA Leq threshold during 

the breeding season. As no equipment or work is proposed within the San Diego River 

main channel, movement of clapper rails through the study area would not be affected. 

5.3.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 

This section describes the avoidance and minimization measures as well as mitigation. 

5.3.3.1 General Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 

The avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 5.1.3.1 would also 

reduce impacts to light-footed clapper rail. 

5.3.3.2 Mitigation for Indirect Construction Noise Impacts 

The following measures have been identified to minimize or avoid construction impacts 

to light-footed clapper rail. 

 During construction, a movement corridor for light-footed clapper rail would be 

maintained along the San Diego River main channel to allow clapper rails to move 

through the construction area, if present. The movement corridor would include 

exclusionary fencing along the project limits on either side of the flow channel to 

prevent clapper rails from entering construction areas, if present. 

 To avoid potential adverse impacts to light-footed clapper rail from constructionrelated noise, project construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat would be timed 

to occur outside of the breeding season, if possible. If project construction within 500 

feet of occupied habitat must occur during the breeding season, construction-related 

noise within the occupied habitat areas would not exceed 60 dBA Leq (1-hour) or preconstruction ambient noise levels, whichever is greater, during the breeding season. 

If necessary, construction activities would be managed to limit noise levels in 

occupied habitat within 500 feet of the project or noise attenuation measures would 

be implemented to reduce noise levels below 60 dBA Leq (1-hour) or below existing 

ambient noise levels, whichever is greater. 

With the implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures, potential direct 

and indirect impacts associated with construction activities are not expected to 

significantly affect light-footed clapper rail. 

5.3.4 Determination of Effect 

With implementation of the proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures 

described in the previous sections, potential adverse effects associated with the project 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 5-11 

are considered to be insignificant or discountable. As a result, the project “may affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect” light-footed clapper rail. 

5.4 San Diego Fairy Shrimp 

The project has the potential to affect San Diego fairy shrimp through long-term direct 

impacts and short-term indirect impacts during construction. As described in Section 

3.4, San Diego fairy shrimp are present in two ephemeral basins in the study area. 

Figure 3-1, Map 8 shows the location of the two basins within the MTS right-of-way 

between Tecolote Road and Clairemont Drive. 

5.4.1 Long-term Impacts 

The project would result in the loss of an occupied basin from improvements within the 

existing MTS right-of-way associated with new track construction. Basin II is located to 

the east of the existing tracks, and measured approximately 76 feet long and 5.5 feet 

wide at the time San Diego fairy shrimp was observed, with an area of approximately 

425 square feet and a maximum depth of 10 inches. In addition to the basin area itself, 

the basin microwatershed would also be directly impacted by grading and other 

improvements associated with new track construction. 

A second occupied basin, Basin BB, is located within the MTS right-of-way to the west of 

the existing tracks but would be avoided by the project. Basin BB is located 

approximately 50 feet west of the project development footprint (72 feet from the project 

alignment), and is separated hydrologically from the study area by the existing tracks. No 

long-term impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp in Basin BB and/or the associated basin’s 

microwatershed would occur. 

5.4.2 Construction (Short-term) Impacts 

During construction, dust could indirectly impact San Diego fairy shrimp in Basin BB. 

Dust accumulating within the basin, either during the wet or dry season, could adversely 

affect the emergence of cysts during the wet season. During the wet season, dust 

settling in the basin could also increase turbidity of the pool and disrupt foraging and 

reproductive activities. Because Basin BB and its associated basin microwatershed are 

separated from the study area by the existing tracks, San Diego fairy shrimp at this 

location would not be affected by erosion and/or runoff during construction. 

5.4.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 

This section describes the avoidance and minimization measures as well as mitigation. 

5.4.3.1 General Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures 

The avoidance and minimization measures related to water quality, biological 

monitoring, and implementation of best management practices described in Section 

5.1.3.1 would also reduce impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp. 

5.4.3.2 Mitigation for Impacts to Occupied Areas 

In addition to the general avoidance and minimization measures, the following measure 

has been identified to avoid indirect impacts to the San Diego fairy shrimp in Basin BB. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 5.0 – Federally Listed Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-12 June 2014 

 Indirect construction impacts to the San Diego fairy shrimp in Basin BB, which is 

located outside of the project impact area, would be avoided through the designation 

of a buffer. The buffer would be established to prevent construction from indirectly 

affecting the pool and its associated watershed. 

Impacts to ephemeral basins occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp, including Basin II, are 

proposed to be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio through restoration and/or enhancement of vernal 

pools within west Otay Mesa on property purchased for vernal pool mitigation or within 

another approved mitigation area acceptable to the USFWS. Mitigation is proposed at a 

2:1 ratio for impacts to ephemeral basins supporting San Diego fairy shrimp, or as 

otherwise agreed to by the USFWS. Restoration would be conducted at a minimum 1:1 

ratio to achieve a no-net-loss of San Diego fairy shrimp habitat; a combination of 

restoration and enhancement would make up the remaining mitigation. 

SANDAG would restore/enhance vernal pools suitable to support San Diego fairy shrimp 

within the west Otay Mesa on the 40-acre Anderprizes parcel, which was previously 

acquired for future mitigation of vernal pools, and which has been approved by the 

USFWS for mitigation of impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp that would result from the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. SANDAG would develop a vernal pool restoration 

plan subject to approval by the USFWS prior to project construction. 

Additional mitigation locations may be identified through consultation with USFWS. 

Mitigation at other sites would include the implementation of a vernal pool restoration, 

enhancement, and/or preservation plan subject to the approval by USFWS prior to 

project construction. SANDAG would ensure that the mitigation areas would be 

conserved in perpetuity, including providing financial assurances and/or securing 

conservation easements, as necessary for USFWS approval. 

5.4.4 Determination of Effect 

Because implementation of the project would result in the loss of an occupied basin, 

implementation of the project “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” San 

Diego fairy shrimp. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 6.0 – Relevant Reports Prepared

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 6-1 

6.0 RELEVANT REPORTS PREPARED 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement/Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) (San Diego 

Association of Governments, 2013a) and supporting technical reports were circulated for 

a 60-day public review and comment period between May 17, 2013 and July 17, 2013. 

The administrative draft of the Final SEIS/SEIR has been completed and is currently 

under review by the Federal Transit Administration. Circulation of the Final SEIS/SEIR 

for public review is expected to occur in summer 2014. Focused survey reports for the 

coastal California gnatcatcher (September 22, 2010; October 4, 2012), San Diego fairy 

shrimp (September 15, 2011; October 4, 2012), and least Bell’s vireo and southwestern 

willow flycatcher (September 22, 2010, January 25, 2010) are included in Appendix D. 

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 6.0 – Relevant Reports Prepared 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

6-2 June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 7.0 – References

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 7-1 

7.0 REFERENCES 

AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Conservation Biology Institute, Onaka Planning & 

Economics, and the Rick Alexander Company. 2003. Final Multiple Habitat 

Conservation Program. Administered by SANDAG for the Cities of Carlsbad, 

Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. 

March 2003. 

Atwood, J.L. 1990. Status Review of the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). 

Manomet, Massachusetts: Manomet Bird Observatory. 

Atwood, J.L., and J.S. Bolsinger. 1992. “Elevational Distribution of California 

Gnatcatchers in the United States.” Journal of Field Ornithology 63:159–168. 

Bontrager, D.R. 1991. Habitat Requirements, Home Range, and Breeding Biology of the 

California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) in South Orange County, California. 

Prepared for Santa Margarita Co. Rancho Santa Margarita, California. April 

1991. 

Bowman, R.H. 1973. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, Part 1. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. 104 pp. + appendices. 

California Department of Fish and Game. (CDFG). 2012a. RareFind database 

application. Version 4.1.0. Sacramento, California: California Natural Diversity 

Database (CNDDB), Biogeographic Data Branch. February 2012. 

California Native Plant Society. 2011. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online 

edition, v8-01a). Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. 

Accessed March 2011. http://www.cnps.org/inventory. 

City of San Diego. 1997. City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program 

Subarea Plan. March 1997. 

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/mscp/pdf/subareafullversion.pdf 

City of San Diego 2012. San Diego Municipal Code Land Development Code—Biology 

Guidelines. 

County of Riverside. 2008. “BIRDS.” Volume 2: The MSHCP Reference Document. 

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. County of 

Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency (TLMA). Accessed 

October 20, 2008. http://www.rctlma.org/mshcp/volume2/birds.html. 

Craig, D. and P.L. Williams. 1998. “Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii).” California 

Partners in Flight Riparian Bird Conservation Plan. Accessed February 8, 2008. 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html. 

Eriksen, C.H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California's puddles, pools, and 

playas. Mad River Press, Eureka, CA. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 7.0 – References 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

7-2 June 2014 

Finch, D.M., J.F. Kelly, and J-L.E. Cartron. 2000. “Migration and Winter Ecology.” In 

Status, Ecology, and Conservation of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, ed. 

D.M. Finch and S.H. Stoleson, chapter 7. U.S. Forest Service. General Technical 

Report. RMRS-GTR-60. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 

Jepson Flora Project. 2012. Jepson eFlora [v. 1.0]. Berkeley, California: University of 

California. Accessed April 2012. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html. 

Haas, W. n.d. “Results of a Ten-Year Study of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher along 

the Upper San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California.” Western Birds. 

Forthcoming. 

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of 

California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and 

Game. 156 pp. 

Leonard, D. 2004. “Year 2004 Protocol Gnatcatcher Survey Report for the University of 

California, San Diego Canyonview Aquatics Center Expansion.” Letter report 

from D. Leonard (HELIX Environmental Planning Inc.) to D. Marquez (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service). April 28, 2004. 

Merkel & Associates, Inc., 2014. “Re: 45-day Letter Report of Light-footed Clapper Rail 

Protocol Surveys for the Support of the San Diego River Bridge Double Track 

Project in the City of San Diego, San Diego County, California.” April 3. 

Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San 

Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural 

Communities of California.” Robert F. Holland, Ph.D. (October 1986). March 2008. 

San Diego Earthworks. 2012. Rose Creek Watershed Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality 

Restoration Opportunities Analysis, Final Report. Prepared by cbec, inc., ecoengineering, Trestles Environmental Corporation, and KTU+A. January 2012. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2007. 2030 San Diego Regional 

Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future.San Diego Association of 

Governments (SANDAG). 2013a. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Subsequent Environmental Impact 

Report (SEIS/SEIR) 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013b. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Property Acquisitions Technical Report 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013c. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Construction Impacts Technical Report 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013d. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Land Use Impacts Technical Report 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 7.0 – References

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 7-3 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013e. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Biological Resources Technical Report.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report. 

Small, A. 1994. California Birds: Their Status and Distribution. Vista, California: Ibis 

Publishing Company. 

Sogge, M.K., R.M. Marshall, S.J. Sferra, and T.J. Tibbitts. 1997. A Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol. National Park Service, 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Storey, A.E., W.A. Montevecchi, H.F. Andrews, and N. Sims. 1988. Constraints on nest 

site selection: A comparison of predator and flood avoidance in four species of 

marsh nesting birds (Genera: Catoptrophorus, Larus, Rallus, and Sterna). 

Journal of Comparative Psychology 102:14-20. 

Unitt, P. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego, California: San Diego 

Natural History Museum. 

University of California, San Diego. (UCSD). 2004. Long-Range Development Plan 

Environmental Impact Report. Final. SCH no. 2003081023. Prepared by PBSJ. 

September 2004. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010b. GIS data for regional soils. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS). 2000. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Protocol. Revision 2000. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS). 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines.

January 19, 2011. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS). 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the San Diego Fairy Shrimp 

(Branchinecta sandiegonensis). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS). 2008. Occurrence Information for Multiple 

Species within Jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO): 

FWS, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS). 2009. Light-footed clapper rail (Rallus 

longirostris levipes). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO): FWS, Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS). 2012. “U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Critical 

Habitat Portal.” Critical Habitat data in shapefile format. 

http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Chapter 7.0 – References 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

7-4 June 2014 

Weaver, K.L. 1998. “Coastal Sage Scrub Variations of San Diego County and Their 

Influence on the Distribution of the California Gnatcatcher.” Western Birds

29:392–405. 

Zembal, R., and S.M. Hoffman. 2012. Status and Distribution of the Light-footed 

Clapper Rail in California, 2012. California Department of Fish and Game, 

Wildlife Branch, Nongame Wildlife Program Report 2012-02, Sacramento, CA, 20 

pp. 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

Appendix A

Mid-Coast Observed

Plant Species
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix A - Mid-Coast Observed Plant Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 A-1 

APPENDIX A MID-COAST OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES 

VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES 

EPHEDRACEAE – EPHEDRA FAMILY 

Ephedra californica – desert tea 

PINACEAE – PINE FAMILY 

 Pinus sp. – pine

AIZOACEAE – FIG-MARIGOLD FAMILY 

* Aptenia cordifolia – baby sun rose 

* Carpobrotus edulis – Hottentot-fig 

* Mesembryanthemum crystallinum – crystalline iceplant 

* Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum – slender-leaved iceplant 

ANACARDIACEAE – SUMAC FAMILY 

Rhus integrifolia – lemonadeberry 

Rhus ovata – sugar bush 

* Schinus molle – Peruvian pepper tree 

* Schinus terebinthifolius – Brazilian pepper tree 

Toxicodendron diversilobum – western poison oak 

APIACEAE – CARROT FAMILY 

* Apium graveolens – celery 

* Conium maculatum – poison-hemlock 

Daucus pusillus – rattlesnake weed 

* Foeniculum vulgare – fennel 

Sanicula sp. – sanicle 

APOCYNACEAE – DOGBANE FAMILY 

* Vinca major – big periwinkle 

ASTERACEAE – SUNFLOWER FAMILY 

Achillea millefolium – yarrow, milfoil 

Ambrosia psilostachya – western ragweed 

Artemisia californica – California sagebrush 

Artemisia dracunculus – tarragon 

Artemisia palmeri – San Diego sagewort 

Baccharis pilularis – chaparral broom, coyote brush 

Baccharis salicifolia – mulefat, seep-willow, water-wally 

Baccharis sarothroides – broom baccharis 

* Bidens pilosa – common beggar-ticks, Spanish-needles 

* Carduus pycnocephalus – Italian thistle 

* Centaurea melitensis – tocalote 

* Matricaria matricarioides – pineapple weed, rayless chamomile 

* Glebionis coronaria – garland or crown daisy 

* Cirsium vulgare – bull thistle 

Cirsium sp. – thistle 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix A - Mid-Coast Observed Plant Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

A-2 June 2014

* Conyza bonariensis – flax-leaved fleabane 

Conyza canadensis – horseweed 

* Cynara cardunculus – artichoke thistle 

Deinandra [=Hemizonia] fasciculata – fascicled tarweed 

Encelia californica – California encelia 

Eriophyllum confertiflorum – long-stem golden yarrow 

Logfia filaginoides – California filago

Gnaphalium bicolor – bicolor cudweed 

Gnaphalium californicum – California everlasting 

Pseudognaphalium beneolens – white everlasting 

Pseudognaphalium microcephalum – fragrant everlasting 

* Gnaphalium luteoalbum – white-head cudweed 

Gnaphalium palustre – lowland cudweed 

 Grindelia hirsutula – gum plant 

* Hedypnois cretica – Crete hedypnois 

 Heterotheca grandiflora – telegraph weed 

* Hypochaeris glabra – smooth cat’s-ear 

Isocoma menziesii ssp. menziesii – spreading goldenbush 

 Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens – decumbent goldenbush 

Isocoma menziesii var. vernonioides – coastal goldenbush 

Iva hayesiana – San Diego marsh-elder 

* Lactuca serriola – prickly lettuce 

* Helminthotheca echioides – bristly ox-tongue 

* Picris echioides – bristly oxtongue 

 Rafinesquia californica – California chicory 

* Senecio vulgaris – common groundsel 

* Silybum marianum – milk thistle 

* Sonchus asper ssp. asper – prickly sow thistle 

* Sonchus oleraceus – common sow thistle 

 Stephanomeria sp. – wreath-plant 

Stephanomeria exigua ssp. deanei – small wreath-plant 

Sephanomeria virgata ssp. virgata – virgate wreath-plant 

Tetradymia comosa – cotton-thorn 

Xanthium strumarium – cocklebur 

BETULACEAE – BIRCH FAMILY 

Alnus rhombifolia – white alder 

BORAGINACEAE – BORAGE FAMILY

Heliotropium curassavicum – salt heliotrope 

BRASSICACEAE – MUSTARD FAMILY

* Brassica nigra – black mustard 

* Lepidium draba ssp. draba – hoary cress 

* Lepidium didymum – swine cress 

* Hirschfeldia incana – short-pod mustard 

Lepidium sp. – peppergrass 

* Lepidium latifolium – broadleaved pepperweed 

* Lobularia maritima – sweet alyssum 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix A - Mid-Coast Observed Plant Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 A-3 

* Raphanus sativus – radish

 Nasturtium officinale – water cress 

CACTACEAE – CACTUS FAMILY 

* Opuntia sp. – cactus 

Mammillaria dioica – fish-hook cactus 

Cylindropuntia californica – snake cholla 

Opuntia littoralis – coastal prickly-pear 

CAPRIFOLIACEAE – HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY 

Sambucus nigra – blue elderberry 

CARYOPHYLLACEAE – PINK FAMILY 

* Silene gallica – common catchfly 

* Spergularia bocconei – Boccone’s sand spurry 

CHENOPODIACEAE – GOOSEFOOT FAMILY 

Atriplex sp. – silverscale 

Atriplex canescens – four-wing saltbush/shadscale 

Atriplex nummularia – old man saltbush 

* Atriplex semibaccata – Australian saltbush 

* Chenopodium album – pigweed, lamb’s-quarters 

* Chenopodium murale – nettle-leaf goosefoot 

* Salsola tragus – Russian thistle, tumbleweed 

CLEOMACEAE – CLEOME FAMILY 

Isomeris arborea – bladderpod 

CONVOLVULACEAE – MORNING-GLORY FAMILY 

Calystegia macrostegia – morning-glory 

CRASSULACEAE – STONECROP FAMILY 

Crassula connata – pygmy-weed 

* Crassula ovata – jade tree 

Dudleya lanceolata – lanceleaf or coastal dudleya 

Dudleya pulverulenta – chalky live-forever 

Dudleya virens ssp. virens – bright green dudleya 

CUCURBITACEAE – GOURD FAMILY

Cucurbita palmata – coyote melon 

Marah macrocarpus var. macrocarpus – manroot, wild-cucumber 

CYPERACEAE – SEDGE FAMILY 

Bolboschoenus maritimus – tuberous bulrush 

Schoenoplectus californicus – California tule 

EUPHORBIACEAE – SPURGE FAMILY 

* Chamaesyce maculata – spotted spurge 

Croton setigerus – doveweed 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix A - Mid-Coast Observed Plant Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

A-4 June 2014

* Euphorbia lathyris – caper spurge, gopher plant 

* Euphorbia peplus – petty spurge 

Euphorbia sp. – spurge

* Ricinus communis – castor bean 

FABACEAE – PEA FAMILY 

* Acacia cyclops – western coastal wattle 

* Acacia longifolia – Sydney golden or golden wattle 

* Acacia redolens – desert carpet 

Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus – ocean locoweed 

Hoffmannseggia glauca – pig-nut, hog potato 

Acmispon americanus – Spanish-clover 

Acmispon glaber – deerweed 

* Cytisus striatus – striated broom 

* Lathyrus sp. – sweet pea 

Lupinus succulentus – arroyo lupine 

* Medicago polymorpha – California burclover 

* Melilotus albus – white sweetclover 

* Melilotus indica – sourclover 

* Robinia pseudoacacia – common locust 

* Vicia villosa – hairy vetch 

FAGACEAE – OAK FAMILY 

Quercus agrifolia – coast live oak, encina 

Quercus berberidifolia – scrub oak 

GERANIACEAE – GERANIUM FAMILY 

* Erodium botrys – long-beak filaree/storksbill 

* Erodium cicutarium – redstem filaree 

* Geranium carolinianum – Carolina geranium 

GROSSULARIACEAE – CURRANT FAMILY

Ribes speciosum – fuschia-flowered gooseberry 

IRIDACEAE – IRIS FAMILY

Sisyrinchium bellum – blue-eyed-grass 

LAMIACEAE – MINT FAMILY 

* Marrubium vulgare – horehound 

Salvia apiana - white sage 

Salvia mellifera – black sage 

Stachys ajugoides var. rigida – hillside hedge-nettle 

Trichostema lanceolatum – vinegar weed 

LYTHRACEAE – LOOSESTRIFE FAMILY 

* Lythrum hyssopifolia – grass poly 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix A - Mid-Coast Observed Plant Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 A-5 

MALVACEAE – MALLOW FAMILY 

Malacothamnus fasciculatus – chaparral bushmallow 

* Malva parviflora – cheeseweed, little mallow 

Sidalcea sparsifolia – checker-bloom 

Sidalcea neomexicana – salt spring checkerbloom 

MYRSINACEAE – MIRSINE FAMILY 

* Anagallis arvensis – poor man’s weatherglass, scarlet pimpernel 

MYRTACEAE – MYRTLE FAMILY 

* Eucalyptus spp. – eucalyptus 

* Eucalyptus globulus – blue gum 

* Melaleuca viminalis – weeping bottle brush 

OLEACEAE – OLIVE FAMILY 

* Olea europaea – olive 

ONAGRACEAE – EVENING-PRIMROSE FAMILY 

Camissonia sp. – camissonia 

 Clarkia purpurea ssp. quadrivulnera – four-spot 

 Epilobium ciliatum ssp. ciliatum – willow herb

 Oenothera elata ssp. hookeri – great marsh evening-primrose 

OXALIDACEAE – WOOD-SORREL FAMILY 

* Oxalis pes-caprae – Bermuda buttercup 

PHRYMACEAE – LOPSEED FAMILY 

Mimulus aurantiacus – coast monkey flower, bush monkey flower 

PLANTAGINACEAE – PLANTAIN FAMILY 

Antirrhinum nuttallianum ssp. nuttallianum – Nuttall's snapdragon 

PLATANACEAE – SYCAMORE FAMILY 

Platanus racemosa – western sycamore 

PLUMBAGINACEAE – LEADWORT FAMILY 

* Limonium perezii – Perez’s sea lavender 

* Limonium sp. – marsh-rosemary 

POLYGONACEAE – BUCKWHEAT FAMILY 

Eriogonum elongatum var. elongatum – tall buckwheat 

 Eriogonum fasciculatum – California buckwheat 

 Persicaria hydropiperoides – waterpepper 

* Rumex crispus – curly dock 

 Rumex salicifolius – willow dock 

PRIMULACEAE – PRIMROSE FAMILY 

Dodecatheon clevelandii ssp. clevelandii – Padre’s shooting star 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix A - Mid-Coast Observed Plant Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

A-6 June 2014

RHAMNACEAE – BUCKTHORN FAMILY 

Rhamnus crocea – spiny redberry 

ROSACEAE – ROSE FAMILY

Heteromeles arbutifolia – toyon, Christmas berry 

RUBIACEAE – MADDER FAMILY 

* Galium aparine – goose grass 

SALICACEAE – WILLOW FAMILY 

Populus fremontii – alamo or Fremont cottonwood 

Salix gooddingii – Goodding’s black willow 

Salix lasiolepis – arroyo willow 

 Salix laevigata – red willow 

SIMAROUBACEAE – QUASSIA FAMILY 

* Ailanthus altissima – tree of heaven 

SOLANACEAE – NIGHTSHADE FAMILY 

Datura wrightii – jimson weed 

* Nicotiana glauca – tree tobacco 

Solanum douglasii – Douglas’ nightshade 

* Solanum elaeagnifolium – silverleaf nightshade 

 Solanum parishii – Parish’s nightshade 

TAMARICACEAE – TAMARISK FAMILY 

* Tamarix spp. – tamarisk 

VERBENACEAE – VERVAIN FAMILY 

Verbena lasiostachys var. lasiostachys – western verbena 

ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTS) 

ARECACEAE – PALM FAMILY 

* Phoenix canariensis – Canary Island date palm 

* Washingtonia robusta – Mexican fan palm 

ASPHODELACEAE – ASPHODELINE FAMILY 

* Asphodelus fistulosus – hollow-stem aspodel 

CYPERACEAE – SEDGE FAMILY 

Carex sp. – sedge 

 Cyperus esculentus – yellow nutsedge 

* Cyperus involucratus – African umbrella plant 

 Eleocharis macrostachya – pale spike-sedge 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix A - Mid-Coast Observed Plant Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 A-7 

JUNCACEAE – RUSH FAMILY 

Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii – southwestern spiny rush 

Juncus bufonius var. bufonius – toad rush 

Juncus xiphioides – iris-leaf rush 

IRIDACEAE – IRIS FAMILY 

Iris sp. – iris 

POACEAE – GRASS FAMILY 

Achnatherum coronatum – giant stipa 

Agrostis pallens – small-leaf bent 

* Agrostis stolonifera – creeping bentgrass 

* Arundo donax – giant reed 

* Avena barbata – slender wild oat 

* Avena fatua – wild oat 

* Brachypodium distachyon – purple falsebrome 

* Bromus diandrus – ripgut grass 

* Bromus hordeaceus – soft chess 

* Bromus madritensis – foxtail chess 

* Cortaderia selloana – pampas grass 

* Crypsis schoenoides – swamp prickle grass 

* Cynodon dactylon – Bermuda grass 

Distichlis spicata – saltgrass 

* Echinochloa crus-galli – common barnyard grass 

* Gastridium ventricosum – nit grass 

* Hordeum murinum – barley 

Leymus condensatus – giant wild rye 

Leymus tritocoides – beardless wild ryegrass 

* Lolium multiflorum – Italian ryegrass 

* Lolium perenne – perennial ryegrass 

Melica imperfecta – coast range melic 

Nassella pulchra – purple needlegrass 

* Pennisetum clandestinum – kikuyugrass 

* Pennisetum setaceum – African fountain grass 

* Piptatherum miliaceum – smilograss 

* Phalaris sp. – Phalaris 

Poa secunda ssp. secunda – one-sided bluegrass 

* Polypogon monspeliensis – annual beard grass 

* Vulpia myuros – rattail fescue 

THEMIDACEAE – BROADIAEA FAMILY 

Brodiaea orcuttii – Orcutt’s brodiaea 

Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum – blue dicks 

TYPHACEAE – CATTAIL FAMILY 

Typha spp. – cattail 

 Typha domingensis – slender cattail 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix A - Mid-Coast Observed Plant Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

A-8 June 2014

URTICACEEAE – NETTLE FAMILY 

Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea – hoary nettle 

Note: * Signifies non-native species. 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

 Appendix B

Mid-Coast Observed 

Wildlife Species
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix B - Mid-Coast Observed Wildlife Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 B-1 

APPENDIX B MID-COAST OBSERVED WILDLIFE SPECIES 

WILDLIFE SPECIES – VERTEBRATES 

AMPHIBIANS 

PLETHODONTIDAE – LUNGLESS SALAMANDERS 

Batrachoseps major – garden slender salamander 

PIPIDAE – TONGUELESS FROGS 

* Xenopus laevis – African clawed frog 

BUFONIDAE – TRUE TOADS 

Anaxyrus boreas – western toad 

HYLIDAE – TREEFROGS 

Pseudacris hypochondriaca – Baja California treefrog 

REPTILES 

EMYDIDAE – BOX AND POND TURTLES 

* Pseudemys scripta – red-eared slider 

IGUANIDAE – IGUANID LIZARDS 

Sceloporus occidentalis – western fence lizard 

 Uta stansburiana – common side-blotched lizard 

COLUBRIDAE – COLUBRID SNAKES 

Pituophis cantifer – gopher snake 

VIPERIDAE – VIPERS 

Crotalus oreganus – western rattlesnake 

FISHES 

CYPRINIDAE – CARP 

* Cyprinidae sp. – carp 

BIRDS 

PODICIPEDIDAE – GREBES 

Podilymbus podiceps – pied-billed grebe 

PHALOCROCORACIDAE – CORMORANTS

Phalacrocorax auritus – double-crested cormorant 

 Phalacrocorax sp. – cormorant 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix B - Mid-Coast Observed Wildlife Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

B-2 June 2014

ARDEIDAE – HERONS 

 Ardea herodias – great blue heron 

 Butorides virescens – green heron

 Ardea alba – great egret 

Egretta thula – snowy egret 

Nycticorax nycticorax – black-crowned night-heron 

ANATIDAE – DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS 

Anas platyrhynchos – mallard 

ACCIPITRIDAE – HAWKS 

Accipiter cooperii – Cooper’s hawk 

Buteo jamaicensis – red-tailed hawk 

Buteo lineatus – red-shouldered hawk 

Elanus leucurus – white-tailed kite 

FALCONIDAE – CARACARAS AND FALCONS

Falco sparverius – American kestrel 

ODONTOPHORIDAE – NEW WORLD QUAILS

Callipepla california – California quail 

RALLIDAE – RAILS, GALLINULES, AND COOTS 

Fulica americana – American coot 

Gallinula chloropus – common moorhen 

Porzana carolina – sora 

CHARADRIIDAE – LAPWINGS AND PLOVERS 

Charadrius vociferus – killdeer 

SCOLOPACIDAE – SANDPIPERS, PHALAROPES, AND ALLIES 

Numenius americanus – long-billed curlew 

LARIDAE – GULLS, TERNS, AND SKIMMERS 

Larus sp. – gull 

Sterna sp. – tern 

COLUMBIDAE – PIGEONS AND DOVES 

* Columba livia – rock dove 

Zenaida macroura – mourning dove 

TYTONIDAE – BARN OWLS 

Tyto alba – barn owl 

APODIDAE – SWIFTS 

Aeronautes saxatalis – white-throated swift 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix B - Mid-Coast Observed Wildlife Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 B-3 

TROCHILIDAE – HUMMINGBIRDS 

Calypte anna – Anna’s hummingbird 

Calypte costae – Costa’s hummingbird 

ALCEDINIDAE – KINGFISHERS 

Ceryle alcyon – belted kingfisher 

PICIDAE – WOODPECKERS 

Colaptes auratus – northern flicker 

Melanerpes formicivorus – acorn woodpecker 

Picoides nuttallii – Nuttall’s woodpecker 

TYRANNIDAE – TYRANT FLYCATCHERS 

Contopus cooperi – olive-sided flycatcher 

Empidonax difficilis – Pacific-slope flycatcher 

Myiarchus cinerascens – ash-throated flycatcher 

Sayornis nigricans – black phoebe 

Tyrannus vociferans – Cassin’s kingbird 

Tyrannus verticalis – western kingbird 

HIRUNDINIDAE – SWALLOWS 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota – cliff swallow 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis – northern rough-winged swallow 

Tachycineta bicolor – tree swallow 

CORVIDAE – JAYS AND CROWS 

Aphelocoma californica – western scrub-jay 

Corvus brachyrhynchos – American crow 

Corvus corax – common raven 

PARIDAE – TITMICE 

Baeolophus inornatus – oak titmouse 

AEGITHALIDAE – BUSHTITS 

Psaltriparus minimus – bushtit 

TROGLODYTIDAE – WRENS 

Thryomanes bewickii – Bewick’s wren 

Troglodytes aedon – house wren 

REGULIDAE – KINGLETS 

Regulus calendula – ruby-crowned kinglet 

SYLVIIDAE– SYLVIID WARBLERS 

Chamaea fasciata – wrentit 

MIMIDAE – THRASHERS 

Mimus polyglottos – northern mockingbird 

Toxostoma redivivum – California thrasher 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix B - Mid-Coast Observed Wildlife Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

B-4 June 2014

STURNIDAE – STARLINGS 

* Sturnus vulgaris – European starling 

PARULIDAE – WOOD WARBLERS 

Dendroica coronata – yellow-rumped warbler 

Dendroica petechia – yellow warbler 

Dendroica towndsendi – Townsend’s warbler 

Geothlypis trichas – common yellowthroat 

Icteria virens – yellow-breasted chat 

Vermivora celata – orange-crowned warbler 

Wilsonia pusilla – Wilson’s warbler 

EMBERIZIDAE – BUNTINGS AND SPARROWS 

Junco oreganus – Oregon junco 

Melospiza melodia – song sparrow 

Pipilo crissalis – California towhee 

Pipilo maculatus – spotted towhee 

Spizella passerina – chipping sparrow 

Zonotrichia leucophrys – white-crowned sparrow 

CARDINALIDAE – CARDINALS AND ALLIES 

Pheucticus melanocephalus – black-headed grosbeak 

ICTERIDAE – BLACKBIRDS AND ORIOLES 

Agelaius phoeniceus – red-winged blackbird 

Euphagus cyanocephalus – Brewer’s blackbird 

 Icterus cucullatus – hooded oriole 

 Icterus bullockii – Bullock’s oriole 

Molothrus ater – brown-headed cowbird 

 Quiscalus mexicanus – great-tailed grackle 

POLIOPTILIDAE – GNATCATCHERS AND GNATWRENS 

Polioptila californica – coastal California gnatcatcher 

TURDIDAE – THRUSHES AND BABBLERS 

Sialia mexicana – western bluebird 

Turdus migratorius – American robin 

VIREONIDAE – VIREOS 

Vireo gilvus – warbling vireo 

Vireo huttoni – Hutton’s vireo 

THRAUPIDAE – TANAGERS 

Piranga ludoviciana – western tanager 

FRINGILLIDAE – FINCHES 

Carpodacus mexicanus – house finch 

Carduelis psaltria – lesser goldfinch 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix B - Mid-Coast Observed Wildlife Species

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 B-5 

Carduelis tristis – American goldfinch 

PSITTACIDAE – PARROTS 

* Amazona viridigenalis – red-crowned parrot 

MAMMALS 

DIDELPHIDAE – NEW WORLD OPOSSUMS 

Didelphis virginiana – Virginia opossum 

LEPORIDAE – HARES AND RABBITS 

Sylvilagus bachmani – brush rabbit 

SCIURIDAE – SQUIRRELS 

Spermophilus beecheyi – California ground squirrel 

GEOMYIDAE – POCKET GOPHERS 

Thomomys bottae – Botta’s pocket gopher 

MURIDAE – RATS AND MICE 

Microtus californicus – California vole 

 Neotoma sp. – woodrat 

* Rattus rattus – roof rat 

* Rattus norvegicus – brown rat 

CANIDAE – WOLVES AND FOXES 

* Canis lupus familiaris – domestic dog

 Canis latrans – coyote

PROCYONIDAE – RACCOONS AND RELATIVES 

Procyon lotor – common raccoon 

FELIDAE – CATS 

* Felis catus – domestic cat

 Lynx rufus – bobcat 

CERVIDAE – DEERS 

Odocoileus hemionus – mule deer 

WILDLIFE SPECIES – INVERTEBRATES 

BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS 

PAPILIONIDAE – SWALLOWTAILS 

Papilio rutulus – tiger swallowtail 

Papilio zelicaon – anise swallowtail 

PIERIDAE – WHITES AND SULFURS 

Pieris rapae – European cabbage butterfly 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix B - Mid-Coast Observed Wildlife Species 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

B-6 June 2014

Pontia protodice – checkered white 

LYCAENIDAE – BLUES, HAIRSTREAKS AND COPPERS 

Brephidium exile – western pygmy blue 

 Plebejus acmon – acmon blue 

NYMPHALIDAE – BRUSH-FOOTED BUTTERFLIES 

Adelpha bredowii – California sister

 Danaus gilippus – queen 

 Nymphalis antiopa – mourning cloak 

 Vanessa annabella – west coast lady 

CRUSTACEANS 

ASTACOIDEA – CRAYFISH 

* Procambarus clarkii – red swamp crayfish 

OTHER INVERTEBRATES 

ORDER ANOSTRACA 

Branchinecta lindahli – versatile fairy shrimp 

 Branchinecta sandiegonensis – San Diego fairy shrimp 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

Appendix C

Special-Status Species Not 

Observed and With

Low Potential or Not Expected to

Occur On Site
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 C-1 

APPENDIX C SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES NOT OBSERVED AND WITH 

LOW POTENTIAL OR NOT EXPECTED TO OCCUR ON SITE 

Table C-1. Special-Status Plants Not Observed and with Low Potential or not Expected to 

Occur On Site 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal/ 

State/Other 

Status 

CRPR 

List 

Primary Habitat 

Associations/Life 

Form/Blooming Period 

Status On Site or Potential 

to Occur 

Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia

San Diego 

thornmint 

FT/SE/ MSCP 

NE 

1B.1 Chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub, valley and foothill 

grassland, vernal pools, 

clays/annual herb/ 

April–June 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable clay soils on site; 

vernal pools absent; focused 

survey negative. 

Adolphia 

californica 

California 

adolphia 

None/ None/ 

None 

2.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, 

valley and foothill grassland, 

clays/ shrub/ December–April 

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

focused survey. 

Agave shawii Shaw’s agave None/ None/ 

MSCP 

2.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal 

sage scrub/ shrub/ May–July 

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

focused survey. 

Ambrosia 

chenopodiifolia

San Diego bursage None/ None/ 

None 

2.1 Coastal sage scrub/ shrub/ 

April–June 

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

focused survey. 

Ambrosia 

monogyra 

Single whorl 

burrobrush 

None/ None/ 

None 

2.2 Chaparral, Sonoran desert 

scrub; sandy/ shrub/ 

August-November 

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

focused survey. 

Ambrosia pumila San Diego 

ambrosia 

FE/None/ 

MSCP NE 

1B.1 Chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub, valley and foothill 

grassland, vernal pools, 

clays/ perennial herb/ 

June–September 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable clay soils on site; 

vernal pools absent; focused 

survey negative. 

Aphanisma 

blitoides

Aphanisma None/ None/ 

MSCP 

1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal 

sage scrub, sandy soils/ 

annual herb/ April–May 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable soils on site; not 

observed during focused 

surveys. 

Arctostaphylos 

glandulosa ssp. 

crassifolia

Del Mar 

manzanita 

FE/None/ 

MSCP 

1B.1 Southern maritime chaparral, 

sandy mesas and bluffs/ 

shrub/ December–April 

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

focused survey. 

Arctostaphylos

otayensis

Otay manzanita None/ None/ 

MSCP 

1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane 

woodland; metavolcanic/ 

evergreen shrub/ 

January-March/ 900–5600 

feet 

Not expected. Outside of 

known geographic and 

elevation range. 

Astragalus 

deanei

Dean’s milkvetch None/ None/ 

None 

1B.1 Chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub, riparian forest/ 

perennial herb/ March–May 

Not expected. Outside of 

known geographic and 

elevation range. 

Astragalus tener

var. titi

Coastal dunes 

milk-vetch 

FE/SE/ MSCP 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal 

dunes/ annual herb/ 

March-May 

Not expected. No suitable 

vegetation. 

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

C-2 June 2014

Table C-1. Special-Status Plants Not Observed and with Low Potential or not Expected to 

Occur On Site (continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal/ 

State/Other 

Status 

CRPR 

List 

Primary Habitat 

Associations/Life 

Form/Blooming Period 

Status On Site or Potential 

to Occur 

Atriplex coulteri Coulter’s 

saltbush 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal 

dunes, coastal sage scrub, 

valley and foothill grassland, 

alkaline or clay soils/ 

perennial herb/ 

March-October 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable soils on site; not 

observed during focused 

surveys. 

Atriplex pacifica South Coast 

saltscale 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal 

sage scrub, playas/ annual 

herb/ March–October 

Low potential. Distinctive 

plant, suitable habitat 

openings in scrub areas 

relatively disturbed; not 

observed during focused 

surveys. 

Atriplex 

serenana var. 

davidsonii

Davidson’s 

saltscale 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal 

sage scrub, alkaline soils/ 

annual herb/ April–October 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable soils on site; not 

observed during focused 

surveys. 

Berberis nevinii Nevin’s barberry FE/SE/ MSCP 

NE 

1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane 

woodland, coastal scrub, 

riparian scrub; sandy or 

gravelly/ shrub/ March–April/ 

900–2700 feet 

Not expected. Outside of 

known elevation range. 

Bergerocactus 

emoryi

Golden-spined 

cereus 

None/ None/ 

None 

2.2 Closed-cone conifer forest, 

chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub, sandy soils/ shrub/ 

May–June 

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

focused surveys. 

Baccharis 

vanessae 

Encinitas 

baccharis 

FT/SE/ MSCP 

NE 

1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane 

woodland; sandstone/ 

deciduous shrub/ 

August-November/ 200–2400 

feet 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable soils and habitat on 

site. Shrub likely to have 

been detected during 

focused surveys. 

Bloomeria 

clevelandii 

San Diego 

goldenstar 

None/ None/ 

MSCP 

1B.1 Chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub, valley and foothill 

grassland, vernal 

pools/perennial herb/ May 

Not expected. Likely to have 

been detected during 

surveys. 

Brodiaea filifolia Thread-leaved 

brodiaea 

FT/SE/ MSCP 

NE 

1B.1 Chaparral (openings) 

cismontane woodland, coastal 

scrub, playas, valley and 

foothill grassland, vernal pools; 

often clay /bulbiferous herb/ 

March–June/ 400–2800 feet. 

Low potential. Focused 

surveys targeted suitable 

habitat during peak blooming 

period. If present, species is 

readily detectable in years of 

at least average rainfall, but 

survey results negative. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 C-3 

Table C-1. Special-Status Plants Not Observed and with Low Potential or not Expected to 

Occur On Site (continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal/ 

State/Other 

Status 

CRPR 

List 

Primary Habitat 

Associations/Life 

Form/Blooming Period 

Status On Site or Potential 

to Occur 

Calochortus 

dunnii

Dunn’s mariposa 

lily 

None/SR/MSC

P NE 

1B.2 Closed-cone conifer forest, 

chaparral; gabbroic or 

metavolcanic/bulbiferous 

herb/ April–June/ 1250–6000 

feet 

Not expected. Outside of 

known elevation range. 

Camissonia 

lewisii

Lewis’s evening 

primrose 

None/ None/ 

None 

3 Coastal bluff scrub, 

cismontane woodland, 

coastal dunes, coastal sage 

scrub, valley and foothill 

grassland, sandy or clay 

soils/ annual herb/ 

March–June 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable soils and habitat on 

site. Not observed during 

focused surveys. 

Caulanthus 

stenocarpus 

Slender-pod 

jewelflower 

None/ None/ 

MSCP 

None Chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub/ annual herb, fire 

follower/ annual herb/ 

April–May 

Low potential, but not 

observed during focused 

surveys. 

Ceanothus 

cyaneus

Lakeside 

ceanothus 

None/ None/ 

MSCP NE 

1B.2 Closed-cone conifer forest, 

chaparral/ evergreen shrub/ 

April–June/ 770–2,500 feet 

Not expected; outside of 

known elevation range. 

Shrub would have been 

observed during surveys. 

Ceanothus 

verrucosus

Wart-stemmed 

ceanothus 

None/ None/ 

MSCP 

2.2 Chaparral/ shrub/ 

January-April 

Not expected. Limited 

suitable habitat on site. 

Shrub would have been 

observed during surveys. 

Centromadia 

parryi spp. 

australis

Southern 

tarplant 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.1 Marshes and swamps 

(margins), valley and foothill 

grassland (vernally mesic), 

vernal pools/ annual 

herb/May–November/ < 400 

feet 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable habitat on site. Not 

observed during focused 

surveys. 

Chaenactis 

glabriuscula var. 

orcuttiana

Orcutt’s 

pincushion 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.1 Coastal bluff and dune scrub/ 

annual herb/ January–August

Not expected. No suitable 

vegetation. 

Chloropyron 

maritimum 

ssp. maritimum

Salt marsh 

bird’s-beak 

FE/SE/ MSCP 1B.2 Coastal dunes, coastal 

saltwater marshes and 

swamps/ annual herb/ 

May-October 

Not expected. No suitable 

vegetation. 

Chorizanthe 

orcuttiana 

Orcutt’s 

spineflower 

FE/SE/ None 1B.1 Chaparral, closed-cone 

conifer forest, coastal sage 

scrub/ annual herb/ 

March–April 

Low potential, species only 

recorded from 11 

occurrences in County, 

suitable sandy sites and 

openings in study area 

associated with disturbance. 

Not observed during focused 

surveys. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

C-4 June 2014

Table C-1. Special-Status Plants Not Observed and with Low Potential or not Expected to 

Occur On Site (continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal/ 

State/Other 

Status 

CRPR 

List 

Primary Habitat 

Associations/Life 

Form/Blooming Period 

Status On Site or Potential 

to Occur 

Chorizanthe 

polygonoides 

var. longispina

Long-spined 

spineflower 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.2 Chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub, meadows and seeps, 

valley and foothill grassland, 

often clay/ annual 

herb/April-July 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable clay soil on site; not 

detected during focused 

surveys. 

Comarostaphylis 

diversifolia ssp. 

diversifolia

Summer-holly None/ None/ 

None 

1B.2 Chaparral shrub/ 

April–June 

Not expected. Limited 

suitable habitat on site. 

Shrub would have been 

observed during surveys. 

Corethrogyne 

filaginifolia var. 

incana 

San Diego sand 

aster 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.1 Coastal sage scrub/perennial 

herb/ June–August 

Not expected. Perennial 

herb would have been 

observed during surveys. 

Corethrogyne 

filaginifolia var. 

linifolia 

Del Mar Mesa 

sand aster 

None/ None/ 

MSCP 

1B.1 Chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub/ perennial herb/ 

July–September 

Not expected. Perennial 

herb would have been 

observed during surveys. 

Deinandra 

conjugens

Otay tarplant FT/SE/ MSCP 

NE 

1B.1 Coastal sage scrub, valley 

and foothill grassland, clays/ 

annual herb/ May–June 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable clay soil on site; not 

detected during focused 

surveys. 

Dicranostegia 

orcuttiana 

Orcutt’s bird’sbeak None/ None/ 

MSCP 

2.1 Coastal sage scrub/annual 

herb/ March–July 

Low potential. Would have 

been observed during 

surveys. 

Dudleya 

attenuata ssp. 

orcuttii

Orcutt’s dudleya None/ None/ 

None 

2.1 Coastal bluff scrub, 

chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub/perennial herb/ 

May–July 

Low potential. Outside of 

current known range (only 

known from Border Field 

State Park). 

Dudleya 

blochmaniae 

spp. 

blochmaniae

Blochman’s 

dudleya 

FSC/ None/ 

MSCP NE 

1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal 

sage scrub, valley and foothill 

grassland, rocky, often clay 

or serpentinite soil/ perennial 

herb/April–June 

Low potential. No suitable 

rocky soils. 

Dudleya

brevifolia

Short-leaved 

dudleya 

None/SE/ 

MSCP 

1B.1 Chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub; Torrey sandstone/ 

perennial herb/ April 

Not expected. No suitable 

Torrey sandstone soils. 

Dudleya 

variegata 

Variegated 

dudleya 

None/ None/ 

MSCP NE 

1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane 

woodland, coastal sage 

scrub, valley and foothill 

grassland, vernal 

pools/perennial herb/ 

May–June 

Low potential. Limited clay 

soil on site, few historical 

records of species in coastal 

areas. Not observed during 

focused surveys. 

Dudleya viscida Sticky dudleya None/ None/ 

MSCP 

1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, 

chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub, rocky areas/ perennial 

herb/May–June 

Low potential. No suitable 

rocky areas. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 C-5 

Table C-1. Special-Status Plants Not Observed and with Low Potential or not Expected to 

Occur On Site (continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal/ 

State/Other 

Status 

CRPR 

List 

Primary Habitat 

Associations/Life 

Form/Blooming Period 

Status On Site or Potential 

to Occur 

Ericameria 

palmeri ssp. 

palmeri

Palmer’s 

goldenbush 

None/ None/ 

MSCP NE 

2.2 Coastal sage scrub/ shrub/ 

September–November 

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

surveys. 

Eryngium 

aristulatum var. 

parishii 

San Diego 

button-celery 

FE/SE/ MSCP 

NE 

1B.1 Coastal sage scrub, valley 

and foothill grassland, vernal 

pools, mesic areas/ annualperennial herb/April–June 

Not expected. Suitable 

(vernal pool) microhabitat 

lacking. 

Erysimum 

ammophilum

Coast wallflower None/ None/ 

MSCP 

1B.2 Coastal dunes perennial 

herb/ February–June 

Not expected. No suitable 

coastal dune vegetation. 

Euphorbia 

misera

Cliff spurge None/ None/ 

None 

2.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal 

sage scrub, rocky areas/ 

shrub/ January–August 

Not expected. No suitable 

rocky areas. Shrub likely to 

have been detected during 

focused surveys. 

Ferocactus 

viridescens 

San Diego barrel 

cactus 

None/ None/ 

MSCP 

2.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, 

valley and foothill grassland, 

vernal pools/ shrub/ May–June

Not expected. Conspicuous 

cactus species likely to have 

been detected during 

surveys. 

Frankenia 

palmeri

Palmer’s 

frankenia 

None/ None/ 

None 

2.1 Coastal dunes, saltwater 

marsh and swamps, playas/ 

perennial herb/May–July 

Not expected. No suitable 

vegetation. 

Fremontodendro

n mexicanum

Mexican 

flannelbush 

FE/SR/ None 1B.1 Closed-cone conifer forest, 

chaparral, cismontane 

woodland, gabbroic or 

serpentinite soils/ shrub/ 

March–June 

Not expected. Shrub would 

have been observed during 

surveys. 

Geothallus 

tuberosus 

Campbell’s 

liverwort 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.1 Coastal scrub (mesic), vernal 

pools; soil/ ephemeral 

liverwort/ N/A 

Low potential. No suitable 

(mesic) microhabitat. 

Githopsis diffusa 

ssp. filicaulis

Mission Canyon 

bluecup 

None/ None/ 

None 

3.1 Chaparral (mesic, disturbed 

areas)/ annual herb/May/ 

1,476–2,297 feet 

Not expected. Outside of 

known elevation and 

geographical range. 

Hesperocyparis 

forbesii

Tecate cypress None/ None/ 

MSCP 

1B.1 Closed-cone conifer forest, 

chaparral/ evergreen tree/ 

NA/ 800–5900 feet 

Not expected. Outside of 

known elevation range. 

Heterotheca 

sessiliflora ssp.

sessiliflora 

Beach 

goldenaster 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.1 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, 

(coastal) chaparral/ annual 

herb 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable habitat on site. Not 

observed during focused 

surveys. 

Lasthenia 

glabrata ssp. 

coulteri

Coulter’s 

goldfields 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.1 Saltwater marsh and 

swamps, playas, vernal 

pools/ annual herb/ 

February–June 

Not expected. No suitable 

vegetation or microhabitat 

(vernal pools). 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

C-6 June 2014

Table C-1. Special-Status Plants Not Observed and with Low Potential or not Expected to 

Occur On Site (continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal/ 

State/Other 

Status 

CRPR 

List 

Primary Habitat 

Associations/Life 

Form/Blooming Period 

Status On Site or Potential 

to Occur 

Lepechinia 

ganderi

Gander’s pitcher 

sage 

None/ None/ 

MSCP NE 

1B.3 Closed-cone conifer forest, 

chaparral, coastal scrub, 

valley and foothill grassland; 

gabbroic or metvolcanic/ 

shrub/ June–July/ 

1,000–3,300 feet 

Not expected. Outside of 

known elevation range. 

Leptosyne 

maritima 

Sea dahlia None/ None/ 

None 

2.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal 

sage scrub/perennial herb/ 

March–May 

Low potential. Would have 

been observed during 

surveys. 

Lotus 

nuttallianus

Nuttall’s lotus None/ None/ 

MSCP 

1B.1 Coastal dunes, coastal sage 

scrub/ annual herb/ 

March–June 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable habitat on site. Not 

observed during focused 

surveys. 

Mobergia 

calculiformis 

Light gray lichen None/ None/ 

None 

— Coastal scrub?; abundant on 

cobbles/ lichen/ N/A 

Low potential to occur due to 

lack of suitable microhabitat.

Monardella 

hypoleuca ssp. 

lanata

Felt-leaved 

monardella 

None/ None/ 

MSCP NE 

1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane 

woodland/ rhizomatous herb/ 

June–August/ 1,000–3,600 

feet 

Not expected. Outside of 

known elevation range. 

Monardella 

viminea

Willowy 

monardella 

FE/SE/ MSCP 1B.1 Closed-cone conifer forest, 

chaparral, riparian forest, 

woodland, and scrub/ 

perennial herb/ June–August 

Not expected. Preferred 

microhabitat of rocky washes 

(Jepson Flora Project 2012) 

marginal on site; focused 

surveys negative. 

Navarretia 

prostrata 

Prostrate 

navarretia 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.1 Coastal scrub, meadows and 

seeps, valley and foothill 

grassland, vernal pools/ 

annual herb/ April–July 

Low potential, suitable 

alkaline or vernal pool micro 

habitat not present. Not 

observed during focused 

surveys. 

Myosurus 

minimus ssp. 

apus

Little mousetail None/ None/ 

None 

3.1 Vernal pools (alkaline)/ 

annual herb/ March–June 

Not expected. No suitable 

vernal pool microhabitat. 

Nama 

stenocarpum

Mud nama None/ None/ 

None 

2.2 Marsh and swamps, lake 

margins and riverbanks/ 

annual-perennial herb/ 

January–July 

Not expected. No suitable 

habitat. 

Navarretia 

fossalis

Spreading 

navarretia 

FT/None/ 

MSCP 

1B.1 Chenopod scrub, shallow 

freshwater marsh and 

swamps, vernal pools/ annual 

herb/ April–June 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable freshwater marsh 

vegetation. 

Nemacaulis 

denudata var. 

denudata 

Coast woollyheads None/ None/ 

None 

1B.2 Coastal dunes/ annual herb/ 

April–September 

Not expected. No suitable 

coastal dune habitat. 

Nemacaulis 

denudata var. 

gracilis

Slender 

woolly-heads 

None/ None/ 

None 

2.2 Coastal dunes, desert dunes, 

Sonoran Desert scrub/ 

annual herb/ March–May 

Not expected. No suitable 

habitat. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 C-7 

Table C-1. Special-Status Plants Not Observed and with Low Potential or not Expected to 

Occur On Site (continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal/ 

State/Other 

Status 

CRPR 

List 

Primary Habitat 

Associations/Life 

Form/Blooming Period 

Status On Site or Potential 

to Occur 

Nolina interrata Dehesa nolina None/SE/ 

MSCP 

1B.1 Chaparral; gabbroic, 

metavolcanic or serpentinite/ 

perennial herb/ June–July/ 

600–2800 feet 

Not expected. Outside of 

known elevation range. 

Opuntia 

californica var. 

californica [ 

Snake cholla None/ None/ 

MSCP NE 

1B.1 Chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub/ shrub/ April–May 

Not expected. Shrub would 

have been observed during 

surveys. 

Orcuttia 

californica

California Orcutt 

grass 

FE/SE/ MSCP 

NE 

1B.1 Vernal pools/ annual herb/ 

April–June 

Not expected. No suitable 

vernal pool habitat. 

Ornithostaphylos 

oppositifolia

Baja California 

birdbrush 

None/SE/ 

None 

2.1 Chaparral/ shrub/ 

January–April 

Not expected. Shrub would 

have been observed during 

surveys. 

Packera ganderi Gander’s 

ragwort 

None/SR/ 

MSCP 

1B.2 Chaparral (burns and 

gabbroic outcrops)/ perennial 

herb/ April–June/ 1300–4000 

feet 

Not expected. Outside of 

known elevation range. 

Phacelia stellaris Brand’s phacelia None/ None/ 

None 

1B.1 Coastal dunes, coastal sage 

scrub/annual herb/ 

March-June 

Low potential. Limited 

suitable habitat on site. Not 

observed during focused 

surveys. 

Pinus torreyana 

spp. torreyana

Torrey pine None/ None/ 

MSCP 

1B.2 Closed-cone conifer forest, 

chaparral, sandstone/ tree/ 

NA 

Not expected. Tree would 

have been observed during 

surveys. 

Pogogyne 

abramsii

San Diego mesa 

mint 

FE/SE/ MSCP 

NE 

1B.1 Vernal pools/ annual herb/ 

April–June 

Not expected. No suitable 

vernal pool habitat. 

Pogogyne 

nudiuscula

Otay Mesa mint FE/SE/ MSCP 

NE 

1B.1 Vernal pools/ annual herb/ 

May–June 

Not expected. No suitable 

vernal pool habitat. 

Quercus 

dumosa

Nuttall’s scrub 

oak 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.1 Chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub, sandy and clay loam 

soils/ shrub/ February–March

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

surveys. 

Ribes 

viburnifolium 

Santa Catalina 

Island currant 

None/ None/ 

None 

1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane 

woodland/evergreen shrub/ 

February–April 

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

surveys. 

Rosa minutifolia Small-leaved 

rose 

None/SE/ 

MSCP 

2.1 Chaparral/shrub/ 

January–June 

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

focused surveys. 

Satureja 

chandleri

San Miguel 

savory 

None/ None/ 

MSCP 

1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane 

woodland, coastal scrub, 

riparian woodland, valley and 

foothill grassland; rocky, 

gabbroic or metavolcanic/ 

shrub/ March–July/ 

400-3,550 feet 

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

focused surveys. 

Senecio 

aphanactis

Rayless ragwort None/ None/ 

None 

2.2 Cismontane woodland, 

coastal sage scrub, alkaline 

soils/ annual herb/ 

January–April 

Low potential. Alkaline soils 

limited on site. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

C-8 June 2014

Table C-1. Special-Status Plants Not Observed and with Low Potential or not Expected to 

Occur On Site (continued) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal/ 

State/Other 

Status 

CRPR 

List 

Primary Habitat 

Associations/Life 

Form/Blooming Period 

Status On Site or Potential 

to Occur 

Solanum 

tenuilobatum 

Narrow-leaved 

nightshade 

None/ None/ 

MSCP 

None Chaparral; dry open places/ 

herb or shrub/ March–April/ 

3,300–9,000 feet 

Not expected. Outside of 

known elevation range. 

Stemodia 

durantifolia

Purple stemodia None/ None/ 

None 

2.1 Sonoran desert scrub (often 

mesic, sandy)/ perennial 

herb/ January–December 

Not expected. No suitable 

Sonoran desert scrub. 

Stylocline 

citroleum 

Oil neststraw None/ None/ 

None 

1B.1 Chenopod scrub, coastal 

scrub, valley and foothill 

grassland; clay/ annual herb/ 

March–April 

Not expected. Thought to be 

extirpated in San Diego 

County. 

Suaeda esteroa Estuary seablite None/ None/ 

None 

1B.2 Saltmarsh/ perennial herb/ 

July–October 

Not expected. No suitable 

saltmarsh habitat. 

Tetracoccus 

dioicus

Parry’s 

tetracoccus 

None/ None/ 

MSCP 

1B.2 Chaparral, coastal sage 

scrub/ shrub/ April–May 

Not expected. Shrub likely 

to have been detected during 

surveys. 

Status Designations: 

FE: Federally listed as endangered 

FT: Federally listed as threatened 

SE: State-listed as endangered 

SR: State rare 

MSCP: Covered Species 

MSCP NE: Narrow endemic species 

CNPS CRPR: 

1A: Plants Presumed Extinct in California 

1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere 

2: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More 

Common Elsewhere 

3: Plants About Which We Need More Information–A Review List 

4: Plants of Limited Distribution—A Watch List 

Threat Ranks: 

0.1: Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat) 

0.2: Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat) 

0.3: Not very threatened in California (low degree/immediacy of threats or 

no current threats known) 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 C-9 

Table C-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Not Expected to Occur or Rarely Occurring in the Study Area 

Scientific Name 

Common 

Name 

Status

Federal/ 

State/Other

Primary Habitat 

Associations 

Status in or Potential to Occur 

in the Study Area 

Amphibians 

Anaxyrus 

californicus 

Arroyo toad FE/CSC/ 

MSCP 

Stream channels for 

breeding (typically 3rd 

order); adjacent stream 

terraces and uplands for 

foraging and wintering 

Not expected to occur. Although 

stream channels occur in the study 

area, the closest recorded location 

is approximately 14 miles to the 

southeast (CDFG, 2012a). 

Species is no longer known to 

occur within city limits. 

Ensatina klauberi Large-blotched 

salamander 

None/ 

CSC/ 

None 

Oak woodland, chaparral, 

coastal sage scrub, coastal 

dunes, conifer forest 

No potential. This species is 

found in the Peninsular Ranges of 

Southern California (Nafis, 2010) 

and does not occur in the 

study area. 

Rana draytoni California redlegged frog 

FT/CSC/ 

MSCP 

Lowland streams, wetlands, 

riparian woodlands, livestock 

ponds; dense, shrubby, or 

emergent vegetation 

associated with deep, still, or 

slow-moving water; uses 

adjacent uplands 

Not expected to occur. Suitable 

habitat exists in the study area 

within wetland areas; however, the 

closest recorded location for this 

species is approximately 48 miles 

to the northeast in Riverside 

County (CDFG, 2012a). 

Reptiles 

Emys marmorata Western pond 

turtle 

None/ 

CSC/ 

MSCP 

Slow-moving permanent or 

intermittent streams, ponds, 

small lakes, reservoirs with 

emergent basking sites; 

adjacent uplands used 

during winter 

Low potential to occur. Some 

suitable perennial water in the San 

Diego River; however, this species 

has not been documented in the 

vicinity. The non-native red-slider 

was observed, but western pond 

turtles were not. There is one 

record in the Escondido 

quadrangle approximately 13 miles 

northeast (date unknown) (CDFG, 

2012a). 

Salvadora 

hexalepis virgultea 

Coast patchnosed snake None/ 

CSC/ 

None 

Chaparral, washes, sandy 

flats, rocky areas 

Low potential to occur. Some 

patches of suitable habitat occur 

in the study area, but species is 

uncommon. 

Thamnophis sirtalis 

ssp. 

South coast 

garter snake 

None/ 

CSC/ 

None 

Marshes, meadows, 

sloughs, ponds, slow-moving 

water courses 

Low potential. Suitable habitat 

along San Diego River limited due 

to extent of disturbance; this 

species has not been documented 

within the CNDDB nine quad 

search (CDFG, 2012a). 

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

C-10 June 2014

Table C-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Not Expected to Occur or Rarely Occurring in the Study Area (continued) 

Scientific Name 

Common 

Name 

Status

Federal/ 

State/Other

Primary Habitat 

Associations 

Status in or Potential to Occur 

in the Study Area 

Birds 

Agelaius tricolor 

(nesting colony)

Tricolored 

blackbird 

BCC/ 

CSC/ 

ABC/ 

MSCP 

Nests near fresh water, 

emergent wetland with 

cattails or tules; forages in 

grasslands, woodland, 

agriculture 

Low potential to occur. Not 

observed during surveys; some 

suitable habitat in San Diego 

River, but habitat in study is too 

small and patchy and adjacent to 

human activities. Although not 

recorded in the vicinity, this 

species is known to breed in San 

Diego County and migrants or 

dispersers may occur near the 

study area in the San Diego River 

(Unitt, 2004). 

Aquila chrysaetos 

(nesting and 

wintering)

Golden eagle BCC/ 

WL, P/ 

MSCP 

Open country, especially 

hilly and mountainous 

regions; grassland, coastal 

sage scrub, chaparral, oak 

savannas, open coniferous 

forest 

Not expected to occur or very 

rarely (e.g., by a juvenile). The 

study area is too urbanized and 

not suitable for nesting; not 

recorded in nine quad search 

(CDFG, 2012a). 

Asio flammeus 

(nesting) 

Short-eared owl None/ 

CSC/ 

ABC 

Grassland, prairies, dunes, 

meadows, irrigated lands, 

saline and freshwater 

emergent wetlands 

Low potential to occur due to poor 

habitat quality and urbanized 

environment. Not recorded in nine 

quad search (CDFG, 2012a). 

Asio otus (nesting) Long-eared owl None/ 

CSC/ 

None 

Riparian, live oak thickets, 

other dense stands of trees, 

edges of coniferous forest 

Low potential to occur due to lack 

of suitable habitat and urbanized 

environment. Not recorded in nine 

quad search (CDFG, 2012a). 

Athene cunicularia 

(burrow sites) 

Burrowing owl BCC/ 

CSC/ 

MSCP 

Grassland, lowland scrub, 

agriculture, coastal dunes 

and other artificial open 

areas 

Low potential to occur. Some 

suitable habitat in the study area. 

This species was recorded on 

Fiesta Island in Mission Bay (date 

unknown); however, this location 

is probably extirpated (CDFG, 

2012a). 

Buteo regalis 

(wintering) 

Ferruginous 

hawk 

BCC/ 

WL/ None 

Open, dry country, 

grasslands, open fields, 

agriculture 

Low potential to occur. Does not 

nest in Southern California and 

study area too urbanized for this 

species. Not recorded in nine 

quad search (CDFG, 2012a). 

Buteo swainsoni 

(nesting) 

Swainson’s 

hawk 

BCC/ST/ 

ABC, MSCP 

Open grassland, shrublands, 

croplands 

Low potential to occur. Study 

area too urbanized for this 

species. Not recorded in nine 

quad search (CDFG, 2012a). 

Species may migrate through area 

on occasion but nesting in 

California is limited to Central 

Valley and Antelope Valley. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 C-11 

Table C-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Not Expected to Occur or Rarely Occurring in the Study Area (continued) 

Scientific Name 

Common 

Name 

Status

Federal/ 

State/Other

Primary Habitat 

Associations 

Status in or Potential to Occur 

in the Study Area 

Campylorhynchus 

brunneicapillus 

sandiegensis

San Diego 

cactus wren 

BCC/ 

CSC/ 

MSCP 

Southern cactus scrub, 

maritime succulent scrub, 

cactus thickets in coastal 

sage scrub 

Not expected to occur. Not 

detected within scrub areas during 

coastal California gnatcatcher 

surveys. No suitable patches of 

cactus were observed in the study 

area. 

Charadrius 

montanus

(wintering) 

Mountain plover PT, BCC/ 

CSC, ABC, 

MSCP 

Nests in open, shortgrass 

prairies or grasslands; 

winters in shortgrass plains, 

plowed fields, open 

sagebrush, and sandy 

deserts 

Low potential to occur due to lack 

of suitable habitat. Not recorded 

in nine quad search (CDFG, 

2012a). 

Chlidonias niger 

(nesting colony) 

Black tern None/ 

CSC/ 

None 

Freshwater lakes, marshes, 

ponds, coastal lagoons 

Low potential to occur. No 

suitable nesting areas and study 

area unlikely to support fish 

species for foraging. 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis 

(nesting) 

Western yellowbilled cuckoo FC, BCC/SE/ 

None 

Dense, wide riparian 

woodlands and forest with 

well-developed understories 

No expected to occur due to lack 

of suitable large stands of riparian 

vegetation. Not recorded in the 

vicinity (CDFG, 2012a). 

Falco mexicanus 

(nesting) 

Prairie falcon BCC/ 

WL/ 

None 

Grassland, savannas, 

rangeland, agriculture, 

desert scrub, alpine 

meadows; nest on cliffs or 

bluffs 

Low potential to occur in study 

area based on lack of open 

foraging habitat and suitable 

nesting habitat. Not recorded in 

nine quad search (CDFG, 2012a).

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

(nesting and 

wintering) 

Bald eagle (FD), BCC/ 

SE, P/ 

MSCP 

Seacoasts, rivers, swamps, 

large lakes; winters at large 

bodies of water in lowlands 

and mountains 

Not expected to occur due to lack 

of suitable roosting trees near 

open bodies of water in the study 

area. Not recorded in nine quad 

search (CDFG, 2012a). 

Ixobrychus exilis 

(nesting) 

Least bittern BCC/ 

CSC/ 

None 

Dense emergent wetland 

vegetation, sometimes 

interspersed with woody 

vegetation and open water 

Low potential to occur. Some 

potential marsh habitat near 

Mission Bay and San Diego River, 

but not recorded in the vicinity. 

Laterallus 

jamaicensis 

coturniculus 

California black 

rail 

BCC/ 

ST, P/ 

ABC 

Saline, brackish, and fresh 

emergent wetlands 

Very low potential to occur in the 

marsh habitat near Mission Bay 

and San Diego River. Observed 

approximately one mile north of 

the study area in 1952 (CDFG, 

2012a), but the last observed 

individual in the county was in 

1983. It is assumed to be 

extirpated in San Diego County 

(Unitt, 2004). 

Pandion haliaetus 

(nesting)

Osprey None/ 

WL/ 

None 

Large waters (lakes, 

reservoirs, rivers) supporting 

fish; usually near forest 

habitats, but widely 

Not recorded in the vicinity. Not 

expected to nest in the study area 

due to lack of roosting trees and 

highly urbanized environment. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

C-12 June 2014

Table C-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Not Expected to Occur or Rarely Occurring in the Study Area (continued) 

Scientific Name 

Common 

Name 

Status

Federal/ 

State/Other

Primary Habitat 

Associations 

Status in or Potential to Occur 

in the Study Area 

observed along the coast However it may forage 

occasionally along the more open 

waterways. 

Passerculus 

sandwichensis 

beldingi

Belding’s 

Savannah 

sparrow 

None/ 

SE/ 

MSCP 

Saltmarsh, pickleweed Low potential to occur. Surveys in 

2009 were negative and the 

saltmarsh habitat (0.5 acre) 

assessed was not large enough to 

support this species. 

Passerculus 

sandwichensis 

rostratus 

(wintering) 

Large-billed 

Savannah 

sparrow 

None/ 

CSC/ 

MSCP 

Saltmarsh, pickleweed Low potential to occur. Some 

suitable habitat near Mission Bay 

or San Diego River; however, it 

has not been recorded in the nine 

quad search (CDFG, 2012a). 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos 

(nesting colony) 

American white 

pelican 

None/ 

CSC/ 

None 

Open water, coastal bays, 

large inland lakes 

Not expected to occur in the study 

area due to lack of open water 

foraging or resting habitat. 

Pelecanus 

occidentalis 

californicus 

(nesting colony and 

communal roosts) 

California 

brown pelican 

(FD)/ 

(SD), P/ 

MSCP 

Open sea, large water 

bodies, coastal bays and 

harbors 

Not expected to occur in the study 

area due to lack of open water 

foraging or resting habitat. 

Piranga rubra 

(nesting) 

Summer 

tanager 

None/ 

CSC/ 

None 

Nests in riparian woodland; 

winter habitats include parks 

and residential areas 

Not expected to occur. Does not 

nest along coastal southern 

California. 

Sternula antillarum 

browni (nesting 

colony) 

California least 

tern 

FE/ 

SE, P/ 

ABC, MSCP 

Coastal waters, estuaries, 

large bays and harbors, 

mudflats; nests on sandy 

beaches 

Low potential to occur in the study 

area, but recorded in the general 

vicinity (CDFG, 2012a). Has a 

moderate potential to breed at 

Mission Bay or San Diego Bay 

and may forage in shallow waters 

of Rose Creek, San Clemente 

Creek, Tecolote Creek, and San 

Diego River. 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 C-13 

Table C-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Not Expected to Occur or Rarely Occurring in the Study Area (continued) 

Scientific Name 

Common 

Name 

Status

Federal/ 

State/Other

Primary Habitat 

Associations 

Status in or Potential to Occur 

in the Study Area 

Thalasseus 

elegans (nesting 

colony) 

Elegant tern None/ 

WL/ 

ABC, MSCP 

Coastal waters, estuaries, 

large bays and harbors, 

mudflats 

Low potential to forage in shallow 

waters of Rose Creek, San 

Clemente Creek, Tecolote Creek, 

and San Diego River. It has not 

been recorded in the vicinity 

(CDFG, 2012a). 

Mammals 

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat None/ 

CSC/ 

WBWG 

Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and 

crevices with access to open 

habitats for foraging 

Not expected to occur due to lack 

of roosting habitat nearby. 

Choeronycteris 

mexicana 

Mexican longtongued bat None/ 

CSC/ 

WBWG 

Desert and montane 

riparian, desert succulent 

scrub, desert scrub, and 

pinyon-juniper woodland. 

Roosts in caves, mines, and 

buildings 

Low potential to occur. Outside of 

suitable desert habitat for this 

species; however, it has been 

recorded in the vicinity. 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat 

None/ 

CSC/ 

WBWG 

Mesic habitats, gleans from 

brush or trees or feeds along 

habitat edges 

Low potential to occur. Some 

foraging habitat within the study 

area; but this species was not 

recorded in the nine quad search 

(CDFG, 2012a). 

Onychomys 

torridus ramona 

Southern 

grasshopper 

mouse 

None/ 

CSC/ 

None 

Grassland, sparse coastal 

sage scrub 

Low potential to occur in the study 

area. There is some suitable 

habitat in the study area, but this 

species is uncommon. The study 

area is highly urbanized and this 

species was not recorded in the 

nine quad search (CDFG, 2012a).

Perognathus 

longimembris 

pacificus

Pacific pocket 

mouse 

FE/CSC/ 

MSCP 

Grassland, coastal sage 

scrub with sandy soils; along 

immediate coast 

Very low potential to occur within 

the study area. Recorded 

historically in the vicinity, however, 

assumed to be extirpated in 

southern San Diego County. 

Currently only known to occur in 

northern San Diego County and 

southern Orange County coastal 

areas. 

Puma concolor Mountain lion None/ 

None/ 

MSCP 

Coastal sage scrub, 

chaparral, riparian, 

woodlands, forest; rests in 

rocky areas, and on cliffs 

and ledges that provide 

cover 

Not expected to occur or 

extremely rare due to urbanized 

setting. 

Taxidea taxus American 

badger 

None/ 

CSC/ 

MSCP 

Dry, open treeless areas, 

grasslands, coastal sage 

scrub 

Low potential to occur due to 

urbanization and habitat 

fragmentation. Some suitable 

habitat in Rose Canyon and along 

Rose Creek north of Santa Fe 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix C - Special-Status Species Not Observed and With 

Low Potential or Not Expected to Occur On Site 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

C-14 June 2014

Table C-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Not Expected to Occur or Rarely Occurring in the Study Area (continued) 

Scientific Name 

Common 

Name 

Status

Federal/ 

State/Other

Primary Habitat 

Associations 

Status in or Potential to Occur 

in the Study Area 

Street. Recorded in the vicinity 

(CDFG, 2012a). 

Invertebrates 

Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool 

fairy shrimp 

FT/ 

None/ 

None 

Vernal pools; cool-water 

pools with low to moderate 

dissolved solids 

Not expected to occur. Focused 

surveys in 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 

and 2013-2014 were negative. 

While suitable depressions were 

observed along the existing tracks 

in Rose Canyon, with evidence of 

clay soils and seasonal inundation, 

this species has not been recorded 

in the area. 

Euphydryas editha 

quino

Quino 

checkerspot 

butterfly 

FE/ 

None/ 

None 

Sparsely vegetated hilltops, 

ridgelines, occasionally 

rocky outcrops; host plant 

Plantago erecta and nectar 

plants must be present 

Not expected to occur, although it 

was likely historically present. 

The species is considered 

extirpated from this portion of its 

range by urban development. 

Streptocephalus 

woottoni

Riverside fairy 

shrimp 

FE/ 

None/ 

MSCP 

Deep, long-lived vernal 

pools, vernal pool-like 

seasonal ponds, stock 

ponds; warm water pools 

that have low to moderate 

dissolved solids 

Not expected to occur. Focused 

surveys in 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 

and 2013-2014 were negative. 

While suitable depressions were 

observed along the existing tracks 

in Rose Canyon, with evidence of 

clay soils and seasonal 

inundation, this species has not 

been recorded in the area. 

Sources: CDFG, 2012a; City of San Diego, 2004; Unitt, 2004; Nafis, 2010. 

Status Designations: 

Federal Designations: 

 BCC Fish and Wildlife Service: Birds of Conservation Concern 

 FC Federal candidate for listing 

 (FD) Federally delisted; monitored for 5years 

 PT Proposed for federal listing as threatened 

 FE Federally listed endangered 

 FT Federally listed as threatened 

State Designations: 

 CSC California Special Concern Species 

 P CDFW Protected and Fully Protected Species 

 SE State-listed as endangered 

 ST State-listed as threatened 

 WL CDFW Watch List 

Other Designations: 

 MSCP MSCP Covered Species 

 WBWG Western Bat Working Group High-Priority species 

 ABC American Bird Conservancy: United States Watch List of Birds of Conservation Concern (The United 

States WatchList is a joint project between the American Bird Conservancy and the National Audubon 

Society) 

CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014

 

Appendix D

Focused Survey Reports
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

2010 California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Results for the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, 

City of San Diego, California 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
September 22, 2010 6099-02 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Attn: Recovery Permit Coordinator 

6010 Hidden Valley Road 

Carlsbad, California 92011 

Subject: 2010 California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Results for the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, City of San Diego, California. 

Dear Recovery Permit Coordinator: 

This report documents the results of three protocol-level presence/absence surveys for the coastal 

California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; gnatcatcher) that were conducted 

within approximately 116-acre of suitable gnatcatcher habitat within the proposed project study 

area. Surveys were conducted in Spring of 2010. The surveys were conducted in all areas of 

suitable habitat, including coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, and southern mixed 

chaparral adjacent to coastal sage scrub habitat. 

The coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally listed threatened species and a California 

Department of Fish and Game species of Special Concern. It is closely associated with coastal 

sage scrub habitat and typically occurs below elevations of 950 feet above mean sea level (amsl) 

and on slopes less than 40%, but gnatcatchers have been observed at elevations greater than 

2,000 feet amsl. The species is threatened primarily by loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 

coastal sage scrub habitat and is also thought to be impacted by brown-headed cowbird 

(Molothrus ater) nest parasitism. 

LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project study area extends from Old Town Transit Center 

(OTTC) north to the University City in the western portion of the City of San Diego, San Diego 

County, California. The following communities are included in this area: University City, La 

Jolla, Clairemont Mesa, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, Linda Vista, and Old Town. The project 

study area is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the I-5 and I-805 junction to the north, I805 and SR-163 to the east, and OTTC and Mission Valley to the south (Figure 1). The proposed 

light rail transit (LRT) alternative alignments within the project study area generally run along I5 from just south of I-8 at OTTC north to Genesee Avenue in University City, situated on the 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2010 California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Results for the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project, City of San Diego, California. 

 6099-02 

 2 September 2010 

U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute Del Mar and La Jolla quadrangles, Township 15 South, 

Range 3 West, in Section 17 (Figure 2). 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 

Vegetation communities on site that are suitable for coastal California gnatcatcher include 

Diegan coastal sage scrub and disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub. 

According to Holland (1986), Diegan coastal sage scrub (coastal sage scrub) vegetation is 

composed of a variety of soft, low shrubs, characteristically dominated by drought-deciduous 

species such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum 

fasciculatum), and sages (Salvia spp.), with scattered evergreen shrubs, including lemonadeberry 

(Rhus integrifolia) and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). It typically develops on xeric slopes. 

Disturbed coastal sage scrub is characterized by a lower percent cover of native species such as 

California sagebrush and flat-top buckwheat, and a higher percent cover of non-native forbs 

and grasses. 

Coastal sage scrub subassociations include California sagebrush co-dominance with other seral 

sage scrub community species such as coyote bush scrub (Baccharis pilularis), broom baccharis 

(Baccharis sarothroides), or black sage (Salvia mellifera). These subassociations are considered 

suitable for gnatcatcher. The coastal sage scrub on site is dominated by California sagebrush, 

coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), and flat-top 

buckwheat with scattered black sage (Salvia mellifera). 

METHODS 

Suitable habitat within the project study area was surveyed three times by Dudek wildlife biologists 

Kamarul J. Muri (Permit # TE051250-3) and Paul M. Lemons (Permit # TE051248-4) according to the 

schedule provided in Table 1 (Figure 3). The surveys were conducted in conformance with the 

currently accepted protocol of the USFWS (1997). A map of the survey areas is provided in Figure 3. 

A tape of recorded California gnatcatcher vocalizations played approximately every 50–100 feet 

was used to induce responses from potentially present California gnatcatchers. If a California 

gnatcatcher was detected, tape-playback would be terminated to minimize potential for 

harassment. A 200-scale (1 inch = 200 feet) aerial map of the site was used to conduct focused 

California gnatcatcher surveys. Binoculars (8×42 and 10×50) were used to aid in detecting and 

identifying bird species. Weather conditions, time of day, and season were appropriate for the 

detection of California gnatcatchers. Survey routes were digitized by Dudek using ArcGIS. 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2010 California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Results for the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project, City of San Diego, California. 

 6099-02 

 3 September 2010 

Table 1 

California Gnatcatcher Survey Details and Conditions

Date 

Biologist's 

Initials Time Survey Conditions (skies, wind, temp) 

8/6/2010 Kam Muri 0730–1235 100–10% cloud cover (% cc), 0-6 mile per hour (mph) winds, 

65-70 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). 

8/13/2010 Kam Muri 0730–1235 100–30% cc, 1-8 mph winds, 66-72°F 

8/20/2010 Paul Lemons 0630–1330 0% cc, 0-5 mph winds with 6-10 mph gusts, 62-68°F 

RESULTS 

The survey area results are shown in Figure 4 to Figure 6. Two California gnatcatcher pairs were 

observed within the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project during focused surveys (Figures 5–6). 

As shown in Figure 6, on August 6, 2010, biologist Kamarul Muri observed an individual male 

gnatcatcher within suitable habitat northeast of the I-5 and SR-52 interchange. On August 13, 

2010, Mr. Muri observed a non-capped individual gnatcatcher within the same suitable habitat 

area as the previous visit’s individual male observation. Biologist Paul Lemons observed a 

gnatcatcher pair within this same area on August 20, 2010. It is, therefore, assumed that this area 

is occupied by a single gnatcatcher pair. 

A second gnatcatcher pair was observed in the north portion of the study area by Mr. Lemons on 

August 20, 2010. This pair was observed foraging within suitable habitat just south of Caminito 

Cassis Street, near the La Jolla Colony exit of I-5 (Figure 5).

Twenty-seven species of wildlife were observed during the surveys. A full list of wildlife species 

observed during the survey is provided in Appendix A. Please feel free to contact me at 

760.942.5147 with questions or if you require additional information. 

I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately 

represent my work. 

Sincerely, 

____________________ ____________________ 

Paul Lemons Kamarul Muri 

Permit # TE051248-4 Permit # TE051250-3 

Att: Figures 1–6 

 Appendix A, List of Wildlife Species Observed or Detected at the Project Site 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2010 California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Results for the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project, City of San Diego, California. 

 6099-02 

 4 September 2010 

REFERENCES CITED 

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of 

California. Nongame-Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Game. 

USFWS. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol. Provided by the USFWS 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office on July 28, 1997. 
Imperial

Beach

Chula

Vista

National

City

Bonita

Coronado

Lemon

Grove

La

Mesa

Poway

Encinitas

San Diego

Carlsbad

San

Marcos Escondido

Vista

Valley

Center

Camp Pendleton

South Hidden

Oceanside Meadows

Bonsall

Camp

Pendleton

North

Fallbrook

Rainbow

Jamul

Rancho San

Spring Diego

Valley

Casa de

Oro-Mount Helix

Alpine Harbison

Canyon

Lakeside Pine

Valley

El Cajon

Santee

Ramona San Diego

Country

Estates

Julian

San

Clemente

Dana

Point

San Juan

Capistrano

Laguna

Niguel

Aliso

Viejo

Laguna

Beach

Laguna

Hills Coto De

Caza

Rancho

Santa Margarita

Mission

Viejo

Trabuco

Highlands

El

Toro

El Toro

Station

Irvine

Tustin

Tustin

Foothills

Temecula

Wildomar

Lake

Elsinore

Winchester

Sun

City

IdyllwildPine Cove East

Hemet Hemet

R

M

y

Orange

County

San Diego

County

San Diego County

Riverside County

Pacific Ocean

Mexico

52 163

56

75

73

1

371

67

74

94

76

79

78

905

209

215

8

805

5

15

FIGURE 1

Regional Map

6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 CAGN Survey Report

SOURCE: SanGIS 2008.

Z:\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS

0 15 5 10

Miles

Proposed LRT Alternative

Alignments
Old Town

Transit

Center

UTC Transit Center

University of

California

San Diego

5

805

8

52

163

274

209

FIGURE 2

Vicinity Map

6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 CAGN Survey Report

SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series Del Mar, La Jolla

and Point Loma Quadrangles.

Z:\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS

0 5,500 2,750

Feet

CAGN Survey Area

LRT Alternative Alignments
Gilman

La Jolla Colony

Regents

La Jolla Village

Genesee

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 6

5 FIGURE 5

52

FIGURE 3

California Gnatcatcher Survey Area

6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 CAGN Survey Report

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2008; Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 2008; SANDAG 2007

Z:\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS

0 2,000 1,000

Feet

California Gnatcatcher Survey Area

LRT Alternatives 500’ buffer

Survey Result Index Grid
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Campus Point

Miramar

Med ci al Center At hena

5

FIGURE 4

California Gnatcatcher Survey Results

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 CAGN Survey Report

6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2008; Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 2008; SANDAG 2007

0 400 200

Feet

Z:\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS

CAGN Locations

CAGN Survey Routes

CAGN Survey Area

CAGN Use Areas
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
5

Pair - Non-capped - 8/20/10

FIGURE 5

California Gnatcatcher Survey Results

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 CAGN Survey Report

6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2008; Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 2008; SANDAG 2007

0 400 200

Feet

Z:\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS

CAGN Locations

CAGN Survey Routes

CAGN Survey Area

CAGN Use Areas
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
5

Male - 8/6/10

Pair - 8/20/10

Non-capped - 8/13/10

52

FIGURE 6

California Gnatcatcher Survey Results

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 CAGN Survey Report

6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2008; Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 2008; SANDAG 2007

0 400 200

Feet

Z:\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS

CAGN Locations

CAGN Survey Routes

CAGN Survey Area

CAGN Use Areas
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
APPENDIX A 

List of Wildlife Species 

Observed or Detected at the Project Site
APPENDIX A 

List of Wildlife Species Observed or Detected at the Project Site 

 6099-02 

 A-1 September 2010 

WILDLIFE SPECIES – VERTEBRATES 

REPTILES 

IGUANIDAE – IGUANID LIZARDS 

Sceloporus occidentalis – western fence lizard 

BIRDS 

ACCIPITRIDAE – HAWKS 

Buteo jamaicensis – red-tailed hawk 

COLUMBIDAE – PIGEONS AND DOVES 

* Columba livia – rock dove 

Zenaida macroura – mourning dove 

TROCHILIDAE – HUMMINGBIRDS 

Calypte anna – Anna's hummingbird 

TYRANNIDAE – TYRANT FLYCATCHERS 

Sayornis nigricans – black phoebe 

Sayornis saya – Say's phoebe 

Tyrannus vociferans – Cassin's kingbird 

CORVIDAE – JAYS AND CROWS 

Aphelocoma californica – western scrub-jay 

Corvus corax – common raven 

AEGITHALIDAE – BUSHTITS 

Psaltriparus minimus – bushtit 

TROGLODYTIDAE – WRENS 

Thryomanes bewickii – Bewick's wren 

Troglodytes aedon – house wren 

SYLVIIDAE – GNATCATCHERS 

Polioptila californica – California gnatcatcher 

TIMALIIDAE – LAUGHINGTHRUSH AND WRENTIT 

Chamaea fasciata – wrentit 
APPENDIX A (Continued) 

 6099-02 

 A-2 September 2010 

EMBERIZIDAE – BUNTINGS AND SPARROWS 

Melospiza melodia – song sparrow 

Pipilo crissalis – California towhee 

ICTERIDAE – BLACKBIRDS AND ORIOLES 

Molothrus ater – brown-headed cowbird 

FRINGILLIDAE – FINCHES 

Carpodacus mexicanus – house finch 

Carduelis psaltria – lesser goldfinch 

MAMMALS 

LEPORIDAE – HARES AND RABBITS 

Sylvilagus bachmani – brush rabbit 

SCIURIDAE – SQUIRRELS 

Spermophilus beecheyi – California ground squirrel 

GEOMYIDAE – POCKET GOPHERS 

Thomomys bottae – Botta's pocket gopher 

WILDLIFE SPECIES – INVERTEBRATES 

BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS 

PAPILIONIDAE – SWALLOWTAILS 

Papilio rutulus – tiger swallowtail 

PIERIDAE – WHITES AND SULFURS 

Pieris rapae rapae – cabbage butterfly

Pontia protodice – checkered white 

LYCAENIDAE – BLUES, HAIRSTREAKS, AND COPPERS 

Icaria acmon acmon – acmon blue 

* signifies introduced (non-native) species 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

2012 California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Results for the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, 

City of San Diego, California 

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
October 4, 2012 6099-03 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Attn: Recovery Permit Coordinator 

6010 Hidden Valley Road 

Carlsbad, California 92011 

Subject: 2012 California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Results for the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, City of San Diego, California 

Dear Recovery Permit Coordinator: 

This report documents the results of three protocol-level presence/absence surveys for the coastal 

California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; gnatcatcher) conducted within 

approximately 18 acres of suitable gnatcatcher habitat within a portion of the study area located 

south of State Route (SR) 52. The surveys were conducted in all areas of suitable habitat, 

including coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, and southern mixed chaparral adjacent 

to coastal sage scrub habitat. 

The coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally listed threatened species and a California 

Department of Fish and Game species of Special Concern. It is closely associated with coastal 

sage scrub habitat and typically occurs below elevations of 950 feet above mean sea level (amsl) 

and on slopes less than 40 percent, but gnatcatchers have been observed at elevations greater 

than 2,000 feet amsl. The species is threatened primarily by loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

of coastal sage scrub habitat and is thought to be affected by brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus 

ater) nest parasitism. 

LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 

The study area extends from the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC) north to University City in 

the western portion of the City of San Diego, San Diego County, California. The study area is 

generally bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Interstate (I-) 5/I-805 junction to the 

north, I-805 and State Route 163 to the east, and the OTTC and Mission Valley to the south 

(Figure 1). The proposed alignment of the Build Alternative within the study area generally runs 

along the east side of I-5 from just south of I-8 at the OTTC north to University City, through the 

University of California, San Diego campus, and along Genesee Avenue. The survey area, 

which is located just south of SR 52, is situated on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute La 

Jolla quadrangle, Township 15 South, Range 3 West, in Sections 30 and 31 (Figure 2). 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2012 California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Results for the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project, City of San Diego, California. 

6099-03 

2 October 2012 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 

Vegetation communities on site that are suitable for coastal California gnatcatcher include 

Diegan coastal sage scrub and disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub. 

According to Holland (1986), Diegan coastal sage scrub (coastal sage scrub) vegetation is 

composed of a variety of soft, low shrubs, characteristically dominated by drought-deciduous 

species such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum 

fasciculatum), and sages (Salvia spp.), with scattered evergreen shrubs, including lemonadeberry 

(Rhus integrifolia) and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). It typically develops on xeric slopes. 

Disturbed coastal sage scrub is characterized by a lower percent cover of native species such as 

California sagebrush and flat-top buckwheat, and a higher percent cover of non-native forbs 

and grasses. 

Coastal sage scrub subassociations include California sagebrush co-dominance with other seral 

sage scrub community species such as coyote bush scrub (Baccharis pilularis), broom baccharis 

(Baccharis sarothroides), or black sage (Salvia mellifera). These subassociations are considered 

suitable for gnatcatcher. The coastal sage scrub on site is dominated by California sagebrush, 

coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), and flat-top 

buckwheat with scattered black sage (Salvia mellifera). 

METHODS 

Approximately 18 acres of suitable habitat within the 2012 survey area was surveyed three times by 

Dudek wildlife biologist Kamarul J. Muri (Permit # TE051250-3) according to the schedule provided 

in Table 1. The survey area was limited to suitable habitat areas south of SR 52 within 500 feet of the 

project that were not included in the focused survey conducted for the project in 2010. The surveys 

were conducted in conformance with the currently accepted protocol of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) (1997). A map of the survey area is provided in Figure 3. 

A tape of recorded California gnatcatcher vocalizations played approximately every 50 to 100 

feet was used to induce responses from potentially present California gnatcatchers. If a 

California gnatcatcher was detected, tape-playback was terminated to minimize potential for 

harassment. A 200-scale (1 inch = 200 feet) aerial map of the site was used to conduct focused 

California gnatcatcher surveys. Binoculars (10×50) were used to aid in detecting and identifying 

bird species. Weather conditions, time of day, and season were appropriate for the detection of 

California gnatcatchers. Survey routes were digitized by Dudek using ArcGIS. 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2012 California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Results for the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project, City of San Diego, California. 

6099-03 

3 October 2012 

Table 1 

California Gnatcatcher Survey Details and Conditions

Date Biologist Time Survey Conditions (skies, wind, temp) 

5/10/2012 Kam Muri 0930-1200 90-100% cloud cover (% cc), 2-4 mile per hour (mph) winds, 

65-68 degrees Fahrenheit (qF). 

5/22/2012 Kam Muri 0645-0930 0-100% cc, 1-2 mph winds, 61-69qF 

06/15/2012 Kam Muri 0835-1145 100% cc, 1-2 mph winds, 61-65qF 

 Source: Dudek, 2012 

RESULTS 

The survey results are shown in Figure 3. A single male California gnatcatcher was observed 

during the visit on May 22, 2012; no other gnatcatcher observations were made during the other 

survey visits. The male was detected near the top of the slope to the east of Rose Creek in the 

southern portion of the survey area. The male appeared briefly in response to tape playback, then 

flew northeast into habitat areas outside of the survey area in the adjacent side canyon. Although 

a female gnatcatcher was not observed, the gnatcatcher detection likely indicates the presence of 

a gnatcatcher pair and is assumed to represent an occupied gnatcatcher territory. 

Thirty-six species of wildlife were observed during the surveys. A full list of wildlife species 

observed during the survey is provided in Appendix A. Please feel free to contact me at 

760.942.5147 with questions or if you require additional information. 

I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately 

represent my work. 

Sincerely, 

____________________ 

Kamarul Muri 

Permit # TE051250-3 

Att: Figures 1–3 

Appendix A, List of Wildlife Species Observed or Detected at the Project Site 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2010 California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Results for the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project, City of San Diego, California. 

6099-03 

4 October 2012 

REFERENCES CITED 

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of 

California. Nongame-Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Game. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol. Provided by the FWS 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office on July 28, 1997. 
Imperial

Beach

Chula

Vista

National

City

Bonita

Coronado

Lemon

Grove

La

Mesa

Poway

Encinitas

San Diego

Carlsbad

San

Marcos Escondido

Vista

Valley

Center

Camp Pendleton

South

Hidden

Oceanside Meadows

Bonsall

Camp

Pendleton

North

Fallbrook

Rainbow

Jamul

Rancho San

Spring Diego

Valley

Casa de

Oro-Mount Helix

Alpine Harbison

Canyon

Lakeside Pine

Valley

El Cajon

Santee

Ramona San Diego

Country

Estates

Julian

San

Clemente

Dana

Point

San Juan

Capistrano

Laguna

Niguel

Aliso

Viejo

Laguna

Beach

Laguna

Hills Coto De

Caza

Rancho

Santa Margarita

Mission

Viejo

Trabuco

Highlands

El

Toro

El Toro

Station Irvine

Tustin

Temecula

Wildomar

Lake

Elsinore

Winchester

Sun

City

IdyllwildPine Cove East

Hemet Hemet

y

ty

Orange

County

San Diego

County

San Diego County

Riverside County

MEXICO MEXICO

905

241

274

209

163

56

75

73

1

52

371

67

74

94

76

79

78

215

8

805

5

15

FIGURE 1

Regional Map

6099-3-3

AUGUST 2012 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2012 California Gnatcatcher Survey Report

Z:\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012_CAGN_Survey\Figure 1 Regional CAGN 2012.mxd

0 1 5 0

Miles

Build Alternative
?52

§ ̈¦5

FIGURE 2

Vicinity Map

6099-3-3

AUGUST 2012 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2012 California Gnatcatcher Survey Report

SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series La Jolla Quadrangle.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012_CAGN_Survey\Figure 2 Vicinity CAGN 2012.mxd

0 1,000 2,000

I Feet

California Gnatcatcher

Survey Area

Build Alternative
*#

S

a

nta

F

e

Stre

et

§ ̈¦5

?52

DEV

CSS

SRF

ORN

SRF

NNG

DEV

NVC

ORN

NNG

DH

DEV ORN

ORN

ORN

ORF

SRF

DH

ORN

EUC

DH ORF

DW-R

DW-C

SWS

FIGURE 3

California Gnatcatcher Survey Results

6099-3-3

AUGUST 2012 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2012 California Gnatcatcher Survey Report

SOURCE: Aerial PB 2010; Project Data PB 2012.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012_CAGN_Survey\Figure 3 CAGN Survey Results.mxd

0 200 400

I Feet

Build Alternative 500-foot buffer

California Gnatcatcher Survey Area

California Gnatcatcher Survey Route

Special-Status Wildlife

*# Male California Gnatcatcher

Vegetation Communities

DEV = Urban/Developed

DH = Disturbed Habitat

EUC = Eucalyptus Woodland

NVC = Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway

ORN = Ornamental

CSS = Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub

dCSS = disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub

DW = Disturbed Wetland

NNG = Non-Native Grassland

ORF = Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest

SRF = Southern Riparian Forest

SWS = Southern Willow Scrub
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
APPENDIX A 

List of Wildlife Species 

Observed or Detected at the Project Site
APPENDIX A 

List of Wildlife Species Observed or Detected at the Project Site 

6099-03 

A-1 October 2012 

WILDLIFE SPECIES – VERTEBRATES 

REPTILES 

PHRYNOSOMATIDAE– IGUANID LIZARDS 

Sceloporus occidentalis – western fence lizard 

BIRDS 

ACCIPITRIDAE – HAWKS

Buteo jamaicensis – red-tailed hawk 

CARDINALIDAE—CARDINALS & ALLIES

Pheucticus melanocephalus—black-headed grosbeak 

COLUMBIDAE – PIGEONS AND DOVES 

* Columba livia – rock dove 

Zenaida macroura – mourning dove 

STURNIDAE—STARLINGS

* Sturnus occidentalis – European starling 

TROCHILIDAE – HUMMINGBIRDS 

Calypte anna – Anna's hummingbird 

TYRANNIDAE – TYRANT FLYCATCHERS 

Sayornis nigricans – black phoebe 

Sayornis saya – Say's phoebe 

Tyrannus vociferans – Cassin's kingbird 

CORVIDAE – JAYS AND CROWS 

Aphelocoma californica – western scrub-jay 

Corvus corax – common raven 

AEGITHALIDAE – BUSHTITS 

Psaltriparus minimus – bushtit 

TROGLODYTIDAE – WRENS 

Thryomanes bewickii – Bewick's wren 

Troglodytes aedon – house wren 
APPENDIX A (Continued) 

6099-03 

A-2 October 2012 

SYLVIIDAE – GNATCATCHERS 

Polioptila californica – California gnatcatcher 

TIMALIIDAE – LAUGHINGTHRUSH AND WRENTIT 

Chamaea fasciata – wrentit 

EMBERIZIDAE – BUNTINGS AND SPARROWS 

Melospiza melodia – song sparrow 

Pipilo crissalis – California towhee 

Pipilo maculatus - spotted towhee 

HIRUNDINIDAE—SWALLOWS 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota - Cliff swallow 

ICTERIDAE – BLACKBIRDS AND ORIOLES 

Molothrus ater – brown-headed cowbird 

PARULIDAE—WOOD-WARBLERS

Geothlypis trichas — common yellowthroat 

Oreothlypis celata—orange-crowned warbler 

PICIDAE—WOODPECKERS & ALLIES

Picoides nuttallii—Nuttall's woodpecker 

FRINGILLIDAE – FINCHES 

Carpodacus mexicanus – house finch 

Carduelis psaltria – lesser goldfinch 

MAMMALS 

CANIDAE—WOLVES & FOXES 

Canis latrans — Coyote (scat) 

LEPORIDAE – HARES AND RABBITS 

Sylvilagus bachmani – brush rabbit 

SCIURIDAE – SQUIRRELS 

Spermophilus beecheyi – California ground squirrel 

GEOMYIDAE – POCKET GOPHERS 

Thomomys bottae – Botta's pocket gopher 
APPENDIX A (Continued) 

6099-03 

A-3 October 2012 

PROCYONIDAE—RACCOONS & RELATIVES 

Procyon lotor—raccoon (track)

WILDLIFE SPECIES – INVERTEBRATES 

BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS 

PAPILIONIDAE – SWALLOWTAILS 

Papilio rutulus – tiger swallowtail 

PIERIDAE – WHITES AND SULFURS 

Pieris rapae rapae – cabbage butterfly

Pontia protodice – checkered white 

LYCAENIDAE – BLUES, HAIRSTREAKS, AND COPPERS 

Icaria acmon acmon – acmon blue 

* signifies introduced (non-native) species 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

2010 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Focused Survey Results for the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, City of San Diego, 

California 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
 6099-02 

 1 September 2010 

September 22, 2010 6099-02 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Attn: Recovery Permit Coordinator 

6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 100 

Carlsbad, California 92011 

Subject: 2010 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused 

Survey Results for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, City of San 

Diego, California 

Dear Recovery Permit Coordinator: 

This report documents the results of eight protocol-level presence/absence surveys for the stateand federally listed endangered least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; vireo), and the state- and 

federally listed endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; 

flycatcher). These focused surveys were conducted within approximately 103 acres of suitable 

habitat within a portion of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project study area between the Old 

Town Transit Center (OTTC) in the south and La Jolla Colony Drive in the north. The surveys 

were conducted in all areas of suitable vireo and flycatcher habitat located within 500 feet of the 

proposed light rail transit (LRT) alternative alignments. 

The southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo are closely associated with riparian 

habitats, especially densely vegetated willow scrub and riparian forest vegetation. These species 

are threatened primarily by loss, degradation, and fragmentation of riparian habitats. They also 

are impacted by brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) nest parasitism. 

LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project study area extends from OTTC north to University City, 

in the western portion of the City of San Diego, San Diego County, California. The following 

communities are included in this area: University City, La Jolla, Clairemont Mesa, Pacific 

Beach, Mission Beach, Linda Vista, and Old Town. The project study area is bounded by the 

Pacific Ocean to the west, the I-5/I-805 junction to the north, I-805 and SR-163 to the east, and 

OTTC and Mission Valley to the south (Figure 1). The proposed LRT alternative alignments 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2010 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results 

for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, City of San Diego, California 

 6099-02 

 2 September 2010 

within the project study area generally run along I-5 from just south of I-8 at OTTC north to 

Genesee Avenue in University City, situated on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute Del Mar 

and La Jolla quadrangles, Township 15 South, Range 3 West, in Section 17 (Figure 2). 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 

Based on existing vegetation community data from the Multiple Species Conservation Program 

(MSCP) (SANGIS 2006), the 103-acre survey area in the project study area contains four 

southern riparian vegetation communities: southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, 

southern riparian forest, southern riparian scrub and southern sycamore-alder riparian 

woodland (Figure 3). Native uplands communities and disturbed habitat also occur throughout 

the survey area. Suitable riparian vegetation communities occurring within the 103-acre survey 

area are described below. 

Southern Cottonwood-willow Riparian Forest 

Southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest is a southern riparian forest community. This 

community is a tall, open, broad-leaved winter deciduous riparian forest dominated by Fremont’s 

cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and several different species of willow (Salix spp.) (Holland 

1986). It occurs in frequently overflowed lands along rivers and streams. This community is 

mapped along the San Diego River, northeast of the I-5/I-805 junction at the southernmost end of 

the project study area. Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest represents less than 10 acres 

of the total survey area. 

Southern Riparian Forest 

Southern riparian forest occurs in deep canyons and along stream and valley bottoms. This 

community type occurs where the water table is not far below the soil surface. Southern riparian 

forest is dominated by winter deciduous trees such as cottonwoods (Populus fremontii, P. 

trichocarpa) or arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), but can also be dominated by the evergreen 

coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Riparian vegetation provides important habitat for many 

wildlife species. Southern riparian forest occurs in Rose Canyon along La Jolla Colony Drive. 

Southern riparian forest is represented by less than 0.1 acres in the total survey area. 

Southern Riparian Scrub 

Southern riparian scrub occurs where the water table is not far below the soil surface in deep 

canyons and along stream and valley bottoms. Southern riparian scrub is dominated by mulefat 

(Baccharis salicifolia) or several willow species with scattered emergent Fremont’s cottonwood 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2010 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results 

for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, City of San Diego, California 

 6099-02 

 3 September 2010 

and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Riparian vegetation supports a wide array of 

wildlife species. Within the survey area, southern riparian scrub is dominated by willows and 

significant patches of giant reed (Arundo donax), and it occurs primarily along Rose Creek 

parallel to and east of I-5, south of SR-52 and north of Balboa Avenue. This community is also 

mapped in the project study area along the San Diego River. There is a total of 30.5 acres of 

southern riparian scrub within the project study area. 

Southern Sycamore–Alder Riparian Woodland 

Southern sycamore–alder riparian woodland is described by Holland (1986) as a tall, open, 

broadleafed, winter-deciduous streamside woodland dominated by well-spaced western 

sycamore and often also white alder (Alnus rhombifolia). Seldom forming closed canopy 

forests, these stands may appear as trees scattered in a shrubby thicket of sclerophyllous and 

deciduous species and are subject to seasonally high-intensity flooding. Characteristic species 

of this habitat type include California mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), coast live oak, 

California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), California laurel (Umbellularia californica), and giant

stinging nettle (Urtica holosericea). This community stretches along Rose Creek parallel to 

and east of I-5, near the I-5/SR-52 interchange. It is the most prominent riparian community in 

the survey area (63.7 acres). 

METHODS 

Suitable habitat areas within the project study area were surveyed eight times (Table 1) by 

Dudek wildlife biologists Brock A. Ortega (BAO; Permit # TE 813545), Paul M. Lemons (PML, 

Permit # TE 051248), Kamarul J. Muri (KJM), and Patricia C. Schuyler (PCS) for vireo and 

flycatcher. Focused surveys for these species were initiated on May 14, 2010, and continued 

through July 29, 2010. 

Table 1 

Survey Conditions

Survey 

Pass 

Survey 

Area Date Hours Personnel Focus Conditions 

1 North 5/14/10 0630–1000 PCS LBVI 80% cc, 0–5 mph wind, 55°F–65°F 

1 South 5/14/10 0745–1130 KJM LBVI 70%–10% cc, 1–5 mph wind, 62°F–66oF; 

2 North 5/24/10 0530–1100 BAO LBVI/SWFL 100% cc, 0 mph wind, 53°F–63oF 

2 South 5/24/10 0700–1040 PML LBVI/SWFL 0% cc, 0–4 mph wind, 57°F–72° 

3 North 6/4/10 0530–0915 BAO LBVI/SWFL 100%–20% cc, 0 mph wind, 62°F–, 67°F 

3 South 6/3/10 0715–1045 KJM LBVI 10%–100% cc, 1–7 mph wind, 68°F–66°F 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2010 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results 

for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, City of San Diego, California 

Table 1 (Continued) 

 6099-02 

 4 September 2010 

Survey 

Pass 

Survey 

Area Date Hours Personnel Focus Conditions 

4 South 6/14/10 0600–1000 BAO LBVI/SWFL 100% cc, 3 mph–0 mph wind, 63°F–66°F 

4 North 6/15/10 0700–1100 KJM LBVI 100%–20% cc, 1–5 mph wind, 66°F–68°F 

5 North 6/24/10 0500–1000 BAO LBVI/SWFL 100% cc, 0 mph wind, 60°F 

5 South 6/24/10 0600–1015 PML LBVI/SWFL 100%–10% cc, 2–5 mph wind, 61°F–71°F 

6 North 7/6/10 0545–1130 PML LBVI/SWFL 100% cc, 0–4 mph wind, 62°F–66°F 

6 South 7/6/10 0530–1030 BAO LBVI/SWFL 100% cc, 0-4 mph wind, 60°F–63°F 

7 North 7/16/10 0545–1100 BAO LBVI/SWFL 100%–70% cc, 0–3 mph wind, 66°F–70°F 

7 South 7/16/10 0700–1100 PML LBVI/SWFL 10%–5% cc, 0–4 mph wind, 63°F–83°F 

8 North 7/29/10 0630–1000 PCS LBVI 100% cc, 0–5 mph wind, 60°F–65°F 

8 South 7/29/10 0715–1200 KJM LBVI 100%–50% cc, 0–5 mph wind, 64°F–84°F 

Areas surveyed in 2010 included suitable habitat within the San Diego River, mainly to the east 

of I-5, and Rose Creek, approximately parallel to and east of I-5 from Balboa Avenue north to La 

Jolla Colony Drive (Figure 3). A total of 13,800 linear feet of suitable habitat is within the 

survey area. The entire linear length of suitable habitat surveyed was approximately 4.2 

kilometers. 

Surveys for flycatcher were conducted concurrently with the vireo surveys. All surveys consisted 

of slowly walking a methodical, meandering transect within and adjacent to all riparian habitat 

on site. The perimeter also was surveyed. This route was arranged to cover all suitable habitat on 

site (depicted on Figures 4–6). A vegetation map (1:2,400 scale; 1 inch=200 feet) of the project 

site was available to record any detected vireo or flycatcher. Binoculars (7×50; 10×42; 10×50) 

were used to aid in detecting and identifying wildlife species. 

The five surveys conducted for flycatcher followed the currently accepted protocol (Sogge et al., 

1997 in conjunction with the 2000 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Protocol Revision issued by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)), which states that a minimum of five survey visits 

is needed to evaluate project effects on flycatchers. It is recommended that one survey is made 

during the period from May 15–31, one survey from June 1–21, and three surveys between June 

22 and July 17. A tape of recorded flycatcher vocalizations was used, approximately every 50–

100 feet within suitable habitat, to induce flycatcher responses. If a flycatcher had been detected, 

playing of the tape would have ceased to avoid harassment. 

A Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is not required to conduct presence/absence surveys for vireo. The 

eight surveys for vireo followed the currently accepted Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2010 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results 

for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, City of San Diego, California 

 6099-02 

 5 September 2010 

(USFWS 2001), which states that a minimum of eight survey visits should be made to all 

riparian areas and any other potential vireo habitats during the period from April 10 to July 31. 

The site visits are required to be conducted at least 10 days apart to maximize the detection of 

early and late arrivals, females, non-vocal birds, and nesting pairs. Taped playback of vireo 

vocalizations were not used during the surveys. Surveys were conducted between dawn and 1200 

and were not conducted during periods of excessive or abnormal cold, heat, wind, rain, or other 

inclement weather. 

Weather conditions, time of day and season were appropriate for the detection of flycatcher and 

vireo (Table 1). 

RESULTS 

No least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher were observed during the focused 

surveys. Other sensitive species observed included coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

californica californica), a federally listed threatened species, yellow-breasted chat (Icteria 

virens), a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Species of Special Concern, yellow 

warbler (Dendroica petechia), a CDFG Species of Special Concern, and white-tailed kite 

(Elanus leucurus), a CDFG Fully Protected species (Figures 4–6). In addition, brown-headed 

cowbird (Molothrus ater) was observed in the San Diego River and along Rose Creek. 

Ninety-six wildlife species were observed during the focused surveys. A full list of wildlife 

species observed during the survey is provided in Appendix A. Data forms (USFWS 2004) for 

willow flycatcher are included as Appendix B. 

Please feel free to contact me at 760.479.4254 with questions or if you require additional 

information. 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2010 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results 

for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, City of San Diego, California 

 6099-02 

 6 September 2010 

I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately 

represent my work. 

Sincerely, 

______________________ 

Brock A. Ortega 

Senior Wildlife Biologist 

______________________ 

Paul Lemons 

Wildlife Biologist 

______________________ 

Kamarul Muri 

Wildlife Biologist 

______________________ 

Patricia Schuyler 

Wildlife Biologist 

Att: Figures 1–6 

 Appendices A–B 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2009 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Results 

for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, City of San Diego, California 

 6099-02 

 7 September 2010 

REFERENCES 

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of 

California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. 

SANGIS. 2006. Vegetation Information in the San Diego Region. Shapefile. Maintained by San 

Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use and updated from 1995 using aerial 

imagery and georeferenced bio-maps. 

Sogge, M.K., R.M. Marshall, S.J. Sferra, and T.J. Tibbitts. 1997. A southwestern willow 

flycatcher natural history summary and survey protocol. National Park Service. U.S. 

Department of Interior. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Protocol 

Revision 2000. July 11.

USFWS. 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. January 19. 

USFWS. 2004. Willow Flycatcher Survey and Detection Form (revised). April. 
Imperial

Beach

Chula

Vista

National

City

Bonita

Coronado

Lemon

Grove

La

Mesa

Poway

Encinitas

San Diego

Carlsbad

San

Marcos Escondido

Vista

Valley

Center

Camp Pendleton

South Hidden

Oceanside Meadows

Bonsall

Camp

Pendleton

North

Fallbrook

Rainbow

Jamul

Rancho San

Spring Diego

Valley

Casa de

Oro-Mount Helix

Alpine Harbison

Canyon

Lakeside Pine

Valley

El Cajon

Santee

Ramona San Diego

Country

Estates

Julian

San

Clemente

Dana

Point

San Juan

Capistrano

Laguna

Niguel

Aliso

Viejo

Laguna

Beach

Laguna

Hills Coto De

Caza

Rancho

Santa Margarita

Mission

Viejo

Trabuco

Highlands

El

Toro

El Toro

Station

Irvine

Tustin

Tustin

Foothills

Temecula

Wildomar

Lake

Elsinore

Winchester

Sun

City

IdyllwildPine Cove East

Hemet Hemet

R

M

y

Orange

County

San Diego

County

San Diego County

Riverside County

Pacific Ocean

Mexico

52 163

56

75

73

1

371

67

74

94

76

79

78

905

209

215

8

805

5

15

FIGURE 1

Regional Map

6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 LBVI and WIFL Survey Report

SOURCE: SanGIS 2008.

0 15 5 10

Miles

Proposed LRT Alternative

Alignments
209

274

163

52

8

805

5

Old Town

Transit

Center

UTC

Transit

Center

University of

California

San Diego

FIGURE 2

Vicinity Map

6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 LBVI and WIFL Survey Report

SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series Del Mar, La Jolla

and Point Loma Quadrangles.

0 5,500 2,750

Feet

LBVI/WIFL Survey Area

LRT Alternative Alignments
La J

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

5

8

805

52

274

163

209

FIGURE 3

Least Bell’s Vireo/Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Survey Area and Index Map 6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 LBVI and WIFL Survey Report

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2008; Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 2010; SANDAG 2007

0 4,000 2,000

Feet

LBVI/WIFL Survey Area

MSCP Vegetation

 Southern Cottonwood-willow Riparian Forest

 Southern Riparian Forest

 Southern Riparian Scrub

 Southern Sycamore-alder Riparian Woodland
5

8

209

FIGURE 4

Least Bell’s Vireo/Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Survey Results - San Diego River 6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 LBVI and WIFL Survey Report

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2008; Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 2010; SANDAG 2007

0 300 150

Feet

Survey Route

LBVI/WIFL Survey Area

Special-Status Species

California Gnatcatcher

White-tailed Kite

Yellow Warbler

Yellow-breasted Chat
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
5

FIGURE 5

Least Bell’s Vireo/Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Survey Results - Rose Creek South

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 LBVI and WIFL Survey Report

6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2008; Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 2010; SANDAG 2007

0 500 250

Feet

Survey Route

LBVI/WIFL Survey Area

Special-Status Species

California Gnatcatcher

White-tailed Kite

Yellow Warbler

Yellow-breasted Chat
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
5

FIGURE 6

Least Bell’s Vireo/Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Survey Results - Rose Creek North

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - 2010 LBVI and WIFL Survey Report

6099-01

SEPTEMBER 2010

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe 2008; Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 2010; SANDAG 2007

0 500 250

Feet

Survey Route

LBVI/WIFL Survey Area

Special-Status Species

California Gnatcatcher

White-tailed Kite

Yellow Warbler

Yellow-breasted Chat
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
APPENDIX A 

Wildlife Species Observed in Study Area 
APPENDIX A 

Wildlife Species Observed in Study Area 

 6099-02 

 A-1 September 2010 

WILDLIFE SPECIES – VERTEBRATES 

AMPHIBIANS 

PLETHODONTIDAE – LUNGLESS SALAMANDERS 

Batrachoseps pacificus – Channel Islands slender salamander 

PIPIDAE – TONGUELESS FROGS 

* Xenopus laevis – African clawed frog 

BUFONIDAE – TRUE TOADS 

Anaxyrus boreas – Western toad 

HYLIDAE – TREEFROGS 

Hyla regilla – Pacific treefrog 

REPTILES 

EMYDIDAE – BOX AND POND TURTLES 

* Pseudemys scripta – red-eared slider 

IGUANIDAE – IGUANID LIZARDS 

Sceloporus occidentalis – western fence lizard 

Uta stansburiana – common side-blotched lizard 

COLUBRIDAE – COLUBRID SNAKES 

Pituophis cantifer – gopher snake 

VIPERIDAE – VIPERS 

Crotalus virids helleri – southern pacific rattlesnake 

FISHES 

CYPRINIDAE – CARP 

* Cyprinidae sp. – carp 
APPENDIX A (Continued) 

 6099-02 

 A-2 September 2010 

BIRDS 

PODICIPEDIDAE – GREBES 

Podilymbus podiceps – pied-billed grebe 

PHALOCROCORACIDAE – CORMORANTS 

Phalacrocorax auritus – double-crested cormorant 

Phalacrocorax sp. – cormorant 

ARDEIDAE – HERONS 

Ardea herodias – great blue heron 

Butorides virescens – green heron 

Ardea alba – great egret 

Egretta thula – snowy egret 

Nycticorax nycticorax – black-crowned night-heron 

ANATIDAE – DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS 

Anas platyrhynchos – mallard 

ACCIPITRIDAE – HAWKS 

Buteo jamaicensis – red-tailed hawk 

Elanus leucurus – white-tailed kite 

FALCONIDAE – CARACARAS AND FALCONS 

Falco sparverius – American kestrel 

ODONTOPHORIDAE – NEW WORLD QUAILS 

 Callipepla california – California quail 

RALLIDAE – RAILS, GALLINULES AND COOTS 

Fulica americana – American coot 

Gallinula chloropus – common moorhen 

Porzana carolina – sora 

CHARADRIIDAE – LAPWINGS AND PLOVERS 

Charadrius vociferus – killdeer 

SCOLOPACIDAE – SANDPIPERS, PHALAROPES AND ALLIES 

Numenius americanus – long-billed curlew 
APPENDIX A (Continued) 

 6099-02 

 A-3 September 2010 

LARIDAE – GULLS, TERNS, AND SKIMMERS 

Larus sp. – gull 

Sterna sp. – tern 

COLUMBIDAE – PIGEONS AND DOVES 

Columba livia – rock pigeon 

Zenaida macroura – mourning dove 

TYTONIDAE – BARN OWLS 

Tyto alba – barn owl 

APODIDAE – SWIFTS 

Aeronautes saxatalis – white-throated swift 

TROCHILIDAE – HUMMINGBIRDS 

Calypte anna – Anna's hummingbird 

Calypte costae – Costa’s hummingbird 

ALCEDINIDAE – KINGFISHERS

Ceryle alcyon – belted kingfisher 

PICIDAE – WOODPECKERS 

Picoides nuttallii – Nuttall's woodpecker 

Picoides pubescens – downy woodpecker 

TYRANNIDAE – TYRANT FLYCATCHERS 

Empidonax difficilis – Pacific-slope flycatcher 

Myiarchus cinerascens – ash-throated flycatcher 

Sayornis nigricans – black phoebe 

Tyrannus vociferans – Cassin’s kingbird 

HIRUNDINIDAE – SWALLOWS 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota – cliff swallow 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis – northern rough-winged swallow 

CORVIDAE – JAYS AND CROWS 

Aphelocoma californica – western scrub-jay 

Corvus brachyrhynchos – American crow 

Corvus corax – common raven 
APPENDIX A (Continued) 

 6099-02 

 A-4 September 2010 

AEGITHALIDAE – BUSHTITS 

Psaltriparus minimus – bushtit 

TROGLODYTIDAE – WRENS 

Thryomanes bewickii – Bewick's wren 

Troglodytes aedon – house wren 

REGULIDAE – KINGLETS 

Regulus calendula – ruby-crowned kinglet 

SYLVIIDAE – SYLVIID WARBLERS 

Chamaea fasciata – wrentit 

MIMIDAE – MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS 

Mimus polyglottos – northern mockingbird 

STURNIDAE – STARLINGS 

* Sturnus vulgaris – European starling 

PARULIDAE – WOOD WARBLERS 

Dendroica petechia – yellow warbler 

Geothlypis trichas – common yellowthroat 

Icteria virens – yellow-breasted chat 

Oreothlypis celata – orange-crowned warbler 

EMBERIZIDAE – EMBERIZIDS 

Melospiza melodia – song sparrow 

Melozone crissalis – California towhee 

Pipilo maculatus – spotted towhee 

CARDINALIDAE – CARDINALS AND ALLIES 

Pheucticus melanocephalus – black-headed grosbeak 

ICTERIDAE – BLACKBIRDS 

Agelaius phoeniceus – red-winged blackbird 

Euphagus cyanocephalus – Brewer’s blackbird 

Icterus cucullatus – hooded oriole 

Icterus bullockii – Bullock’s oriole 

Molothrus ater – brown-headed cowbird 
APPENDIX A (Continued) 

 6099-02 

 A-5 September 2010 

FRINGILLIDAE – FINCHES 

Carpodacus mexicanus – house finch 

Spinus psaltria – lesser goldfinch 

Spinus tristis – American goldfinch 

PSITTACIDAE – PARROTS 

* Amazona viridigenalis – red-crowned parrot 

MAMMALS 

DIDELPHIDAE – NEW WORLD OPOSSUMS 

Didelphis virginiana – Virginia opossum 

LEPORIDAE – HARES AND RABBITS 

Sylvilagus bachmani – brush rabbit 

SCIURIDAE – SQUIRRELS 

Spermophilus beecheyi – California ground squirrel 

GEOMYIDAE – POCKET GOPHERS

Thomomys bottae – Botta’s pocket gopher 

MURIDAE – RATS AND MICE 

Microtus californicus – California vole 

Neotoma sp. – woodrat 

* Rattus rattus – roof rat 

* Rattus norvegicus – brown rat 

CANIDAE – WOLVES AND FOXES 

* Canis lupus familiaris – domestic dog 

 Canis latrans – coyote 

PROCYONIDAE – RACCOONS AND RELATIVES 

Procyon lotor – common raccoon 

FELIDAE – CATS 

* Felis catus – domestic cat 

Lynx rufus – bobcat 

PHOCIDAE – SEALS 

Phoca vitulina – harbor seal 
APPENDIX A (Continued) 

 6099-02 

 A-6 September 2010 

WILDLIFE SPECIES – INVERTEBRATES 

BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS 

PAPILIONIDAE – SWALLOWTAILS 

Papilio rutulus – tiger swallowtail 

PIERIDAE – WHITES AND SULFURS 

Pieris rapae – European cabbage butterfly 

LYCAENIDAE – BLUES, HAIRSTREAKS, AND COPPERS 

Brephidium exile – western pygmy blue 

Plebejus acmon – acmon blue 

NYMPHALIDAE – BRUSH-FOOTED BUTTERFLIES 

Adelpha bredowii – California sister 

 Danaus gilippus – queen 

Nymphalis antiopa – mourning cloak 

Vanessa annabella – west coast lady 

CRUSTACEANS 

ASTACOIDEA – CRAYFISH 

* Procambarus clarkii – red swamp crayfish 

* signifies introduced (non-native) species 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
APPENDIX B 

Willow Flycatcher Data Forms 




Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

2011 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool 

Branchiopods, 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, 

San Diego County, California

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
October 10, 2011 6099-3-3 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Attn: Recovery Permit Coordinator 

6010 Hidden Valley Road 

Carlsbad, California 92011

Subject: 2011 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County, California 

Dear Recovery Permit Coordinator: 

This report is intended to fulfill reporting requirements in accordance with the Section 10(a)(1)(A) 

permit and documents the results of a wet season presence/absence survey for vernal pool 

branchiopods conducted for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project (project), located in the City of 

San Diego, San Diego County, California. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) survey guidelines, a complete survey for vernal pool branchiopods consists of sampling 

for two full wet season surveys within a five-year period or two consecutive seasons of one wet 

season survey and one dry season survey. This report documents the first wet season survey for 

this project. 

The 2011 survey was performed by Dudek Biologist, Thomas S. Liddicoat (Permit # TE139634-2) 

between March 1 and June 6, 2011. The survey focused on the determination of the 

presence/absence of two federally listed endangered vernal pool branchiopod species: Riverside 

fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) and San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta 

sandiegonensis) according to the April 19, 1996, Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for 

Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal 

Pool Branchiopods. The survey consisted of an inspection of all potential suitable habitat within 

the proposed project study area (i.e., approximately 1,672 acres) and sampling of all water-filled 

depressions within the survey area. A total of 42 suitable depressions were identified and surveyed 

during this 2011 wet season survey. Of the 42 depressions sampled, 7 depressions were found to be 

occupied with vernal pool branchiopods and all branchiopod individuals observed were identified 

as versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli). No listed special-status vernal pool branchiopods 

were observed on site. 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2011 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

2 October 2011 

PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 

The 1,672-acre project study area (study area) is located in the western portion of the City of San 

Diego and extends from Old Town Transit Center (OTTC) north to the University City, San 

Diego County, California (Figure 1). The following communities are included in this area: 

University City, La Jolla, Clairemont Mesa, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, Linda Vista, and Old 

Town. The project study area is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the I-5 and I-805 

junction to the north, I-805 and SR-163 to the east, and OTTC and Mission Valley to the south. 

The proposed light rail transit (LRT) alternative alignments within the project study area 

generally run along I-5 from just south of I-8 at OTTC north to Genesee Avenue in University 

City, situated on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute Del Mar and La Jolla quadrangles, 

Township 15 South, Range 3 West, in Section 17 (Figure 2).

The study area consists of the existing railroad right-of-way (ROW); adjacent disturbed and 

developed lands; and native and non-native upland, riparian, and wetland vegetation communities. 

Soil series on site (Bowman 1973) include: Altamont, Carlsbad, Chesterton, Corralitos, Gaviota, 

Huerhuero, Lagoon water, Made land, Salinas, Terrace escarpments, and Urban land. Soils that 

are potentially suitable to support vernal pool type-scenarios (i.e., ephemeral ponding) are those 

series that predominantly contain clay particles and are not well draining such as: Altamont clay, 

Salinas clay loam, made land, and urban land complexes. 

Land uses within and adjacent to the study area include suburban residential, commercial 

development, educational, designated open space, the Rose Canyon bike trail, and roads. 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES, BASINS, AND LAND COVER TYPES

The study area supports twenty-four vegetation communities (twenty native/naturalized and four 

non-native) and was mapped by Dudek biologists in July through August 2010. These 

communities are characterized by Holland (1986) and Oberbauer et al. (2008) and include: 

disturbed wetland, disturbed habitat, ornamental, urban/developed, Diegan coastal sage scrub 

(including disturbed), southern mixed chaparral, non-native grassland, cismontane alkali marsh, 

coastal and valley freshwater marsh (including disturbed), herbaceous wetland, southern riparian 

forest (including disturbed), southern coast live oak riparian, southern arroyo willow riparian 

forest, southern riparian scrub, mulefat scrub (including disturbed), southern willow scrub 

(including disturbed), arundo-dominated riparian, non-vegetated channel/floodway, and 

eucalyptus woodland. 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2011 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

3 October 2011 

Potentially suitable habitats for vernal pool branchiopods in the study area include: dirt areas in 

the existing ROW, within relatively flat (less than 10%) vegetation areas adjacent to the ROW, 

and within the dirt roads/trails that traverse the area to provide vehicular access to utilities (e.g., 

railroad, electrical poles, and sewer/storm water manholes). Descriptions of the potentially 

suitable vernal pool habitats (i.e., developed disturbed land, disturbed wetland, herbaceous 

wetland, and grassland communities) are described below. 

Disturbed Land 

Disturbed land refers to areas that typically lack native vegetation, support non-native vegetation, 

often contains bare ground, and is generally the result of severe or repeated mechanical perturbation. 

Within the study area disturbed land occurs throughout the study area, is generally associated with 

the existing rail ROW, and includes dirt access roads/trails that traverse the study area. 

Disturbed Wetland 

Disturbed wetlands are areas permanently or periodically inundated by water that have been 

severely modified by human activity. Disturbed wetlands are often unvegetated, but may include 

some scattered non-native vegetation such as giant reed (Arundo donax), tamarisk (Tamarix 

spp.), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), palms (Phoenix spp., Washingtonia spp.), pampas grass 

(Cortaderia spp.), and Bermuda grass. Native wetland species, such as willow (Salix spp.) and 

cattails (Typha spp.) may also occur. Disturbed wetlands occur throughout the study area within 

and adjacent to the existing rail ROW. 

Herbaceous Wetland

Herbaceous wetland is not recognized by Holland (1986), but is included in Oberbauer et al. 

(2008). This community is a seasonal wetland that primarily supports annual species, such as seep 

monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus) and annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). Herbaceous 

wetlands occur in swale areas or along drainages. Herbaceous wetlands usually do not include 

species such as cattails, bulrushes, and rushes that constitute freshwater marsh. As a seasonal 

community in San Diego County, herbaceous wetland may only occur during wetter than average 

years. A few herbaceous wetlands occur in the study area adjacent to the existing rail ROW. 

Non-Native Grasslands 

According to Holland (1986), non-native grassland is characterized by a dense to sparse cover of 

annual grasses with flowering culms generally between 0.2 and 0.5 meter (0.7 and 1.6 feet) high, and 

sometimes up to 1 meter (3 feet) high. Some characteristic species include wild oat (Avena spp.), 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2011 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

4 October 2011 

bromes (Bromus diandrus, B. madritensis, B. hordeaceus), filaree (Erodium spp.), and fescue (Vulpia

spp.). In addition, non-native grassland is often associated with numerous species of wildflowers. 

Non-native grassland typically occurs on fine-textured clay soils that are moist to waterlogged during 

the winter rainy season and very dry during the summer and fall (Holland 1986). The majority of 

non-native grassland on site occurs in the northeastern portion of the study area along Rose Canyon. 

PREVIOUS BRANCHIOPOD STUDIES 

To our knowledge, no focused surveys for vernal pool branchiopods have been conducted within 

the proposed project study area prior to this 2011 wet season presence/absence branchiopod 

survey. A general habitat assessment to evaluate the potential for vernal pool branchiopods 

within the study area was conducted by Dudek in early February 2011, prior to conducting field 

surveys. No surveys were conducted during the initial habitat assessment due to the observed 

depressions not meeting the federal inundation requirement for implementing wet surveys (i.e., 

holding water at minimum 3 cm depth for at least two weeks). 

SURVEY METHODS 

The survey methodology consisted of an initial field reconnaissance survey (conducted February 

4, 2011) following rain events to detect areas of ponded water and follow-up traditional ground 

surveys. The entire project study area was surveyed on-foot to provide 100% visual coverage of 

the site (Figure 3). 

Onset of significant rain events (i.e., greater than 0.20 inch) for the 2010/11 wet season began 

during the end of December (i.e., 17th–29th) 2010. Although the initial pooling for the 2010/11 

wet season was not surveyed (depressions possibly inundated from the onset of rain events 

mentioned above), a reconnaissance field assessment to detect inundated depressions was 

performed on February 4, 2011, following the rains on January 31, 2011. During this initial field 

assessment all potentially suitable depressions were mapped and protocol level branchiopod 

sampling was performed where appropriate. Please note that no surveys were conducted during the 

initial assessment due to the observed depressions not meeting the federal inundation requirement 

for implementing wet surveys (i.e., holding water at minimum 3 cm depth for at least two weeks). 

Protocol-level sampling for the 2010/11 wet season was initiated approximately two weeks 

following the significant rain event on February 16th. The site was visited approximately every 

two weeks, until all unoccupied basins were observed to be dried on April 29, 2011. Subsequent 

rains in mid-May commenced ground surveys which were observed to be dry on June 6, 2011. 

During the survey period the site was surveyed 7 times. A schedule of the survey season and site 

conditions are presented in Table 1. 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2011 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

5 October 2011 

Table 1 

2010/11 Schedule of Surveys and Conditions 

Visit Number Date Avg. Air Temp (°C) Avg. Water Temp (°C)

1 March 1, 2011 18 22

2 March 18, 2011 19 23

3 April 1, 2011 24 25

4 April 15, 2011 25 28

5 April 29, 2011 NR NR

6 May 23,2011 19 23

7 June 6, 2011 NR NR

NR – not recorded 

The surveys were conducted by Dudek biologist, Thomas S. Liddicoat (Permit # TE139634-2).

All identified basins within the study area were evaluated during each site visit to determine 

inundation levels and sampling was performed where appropriate. When subsequent rains 

occurred during the survey season, all of the basin areas were re-evaluated and protocol sampling 

was implemented where appropriate. Daily precipitation, as recorded by Weather Underground, 

was recorded for Clairemont, California (i.e., N. Clairemont weather station KCASANDI106) 

and is attached as Appendix A to this report (Weather Underground, 2010–11).

Protocol-level sampling was performed within all basins that were deemed suitable for use by 

fairy shrimp and any depressions meeting the USFWS inundation requirement (ponding at least 

3 cm deep). The locations of detected basins sampled were recorded using a Global Positioning 

System (GPS) unit and were alphabetically labeled. GPS data was downloaded into an ArcGIS 

file and digitized by Dudek Geographic Information Specialist (GIS) Jeff Kubran. 

During each survey all depressions were inspected for inundation depth, surface area of water, 

air and water temperature, level of disturbance, and presence of aquatic wildlife. An aquarium 

net was passed through every basin that met the USFWS inundation requirement. Nearly all 

portions of ponded water were surveyed from the bottom to the surface. Mr. Liddicoat is not 

familiar with all aquatic invertebrates, but is able to identify fairy shrimp, some aquatic 

invertebrates, and tadpoles where present. 

All information was recorded in the field onto a data sheet as provided in the survey protocol with 

most pertinent information (e.g., inundation, fairy shrimp presence/absence, and species 

identification) recorded onto a spreadsheet Survey Log (Appendix B). Data sheets were completed 

for every depression which met the minimum inundation requirement at the time of sampling 

(Appendix C). Photographs of the basins sampled are attached to this report as Appendix D.
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2011 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

6 October 2011 

Samples were collected when needed using the aquarium net and a 40 milliliter glass vial. 

Specimens were stored in the vial with water collected from where the specimen was found. 

Specimens were taken into the laboratory within 24 hours of collection and placed in a 90% ethyl 

alcohol solution for preservation. Each specimen was inspected thoroughly using a microscope at 

3× magnification and the key found in Eriksen and Belk (1999). 

SURVEY RESULTS 

Basin Descriptions 

A total of 42 depressions were identified as suitable habitat for vernal pool branchiopods and 

sampled during the 2010/2011 wet survey season. The majority of depressions sampled were 

distributed randomly (i.e., not clustered in a particular area of the study site) in and adjacent to 

the existing railway ROW. The locations of the depressions are depicted on Figures 3a–j. The 

depressions detected on site were either: (1) road ruts: depressions that are typically formed by 

vehicular traffic within or immediately adjacent to roadways, generally lack aquatic vegetation, 

and are heavily disturbed by vehicular traffic; or (2) ephemeral basins: surface depressions that 

retain sufficient water level, support aquatic vegetation, and generally lack vehicle disturbance. 

Of the 42 depressions sampled, 27 were considered road ruts and 15 were considered ephemeral 

basins (12 of the ephemeral basins were heavily disturbed and did not support native vegetation). 

Fairy Shrimp Presence/Absence 

Seven of the forty-two depressions sampled in the study area were found to be occupied by 

vernal pool branchiopods and all individuals were identified as versatile fairy shrimp 

(Branchinecta lindahli). Specifically, the depressions with fairy shrimp include depressions: 

WW, XX, ZZ, H, I, J, and K. No special-status vernal pool branchiopods were detected during 

the surveys. A summary of the survey results is provided below in Table 2 and the full Survey 

Log is included to this report as Appendix B.

Table 2

2010/11 Vernal Pool Branchiopods Survey Results

Basin ID. Branchiopod Species Observed

AA None

BB None

CC None

DD None

EE None

FF None
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2011 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

7 October 2011 

Table 2

2010/11 Vernal Pool Branchiopods Survey Results

Basin ID. Branchiopod Species Observed

GG None

HH None

II None

JJ None

KK None

LL None

MM None

NN None

OO None

PP None

QQ None

RR None

SS None

TT None

UU None

VV None

WW Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 100’s

XX Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 10’s

YY None

ZZ Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 10’s

A None

B None

C None

D None

E None

F None

G None

H Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 100’s

I Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 10’s

J Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 100’s

K Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 10’s

L None

M None

N None

O None

P None
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2011 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

8 October 2011 

Protocol-level sampling for the 2010/11 wet season was initiated approximately two weeks 

following the significant rain event on February 16, 2011. During this first sampling effort 

(March 1, 2011) 41 depressions were detected suitable for sampling; of which 7 yielded positive 

results for branchiopods. Although a few minor rain events occurred between the first visit and 

the second visit (March 18, 2011), there was a drastic reduction in the number of inundated 

depressions and only 14 depressions were sampled of the 41 initially detected (not including the 

7 already determined positive from the first sampling visit) with no branchiopods detected. 

During the third sampling visit on April 1, 2011, a total of 7 depressions were sampled with no 

branchiopods detected. A few rain events occurred between the third and fourth visit (April 15, 

2011) resulting in 5 depressions sampled with no branchiopods detected. With the increase in air 

temperatures and continued lack of significant precipitation in the study area, all previously 

sampled depressions were dry during the fifth visit on April 29, 2011, consequently ending the 

surveys until subsequent precipitation events. 

Significant rain storms in mid-May commenced ground surveys in which 3 depressions were 

sampled during the sixth visit on May 23, 2011, with no branchiopods detected. A new road rut type 

of depression was detected during the sixth visit increasing the total of depressions in the study area 

to 42. All depressions were observed dry during the seventh and final visit on June 6, 2011. 

I certify that the information presented in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and 

accurately represents my work. 

Please feel free to contact Kam Muri or myself at 760.942.5147 if you have any questions 

regarding the contents of this report. 

Sincerely, 

___________________________

Thomas S. Liddicoat, Biologist 

Permit # TE139634-2

Att: Figure 1, Regional Map 

 Figure 2, Vicinity Map 

 Figure 3, Survey Area Index 

 Figures 3A–3J, Basin Locations 

 Appendix A – Precipitation Log 

 Appendix B – Survey Log 

 Appendix C – Survey Data Forms 

 Appendix D – Photo Exhibits 

cc: Kamarul Muri, Dudek 

 Brock Ortega, Dudek 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2011 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

9 October 2011 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bowman, R. H. 1973. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, Part 1. United States Department 

of the Agriculture. 104 pp. + appendices. 

Eriksen, Clyde and Denton Belk. 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Pools, and 

Playas. Eureka: Mad River Press, Inc.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of 

California. Nongame-Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Game. 

Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelley, and Jeremy Buegge. March 2008. Draft Vegetation 

Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial 

Natural Communities of California”, Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for 

Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the 

Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods. Sacramento, California: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Sacramento Field Office. April 19. 

Weather Underground, Inc. Website. Accessed data station KCASANDI106 periodically from 

11/20/2010 through 6/22/2011. Accessed at: http://wunderground.com. 
Imperial

Beach

Chula

Vista

National

City

Bonita

Coronado

Lemon

Grove

La

Mesa

Poway

Encinitas

San Diego

Carlsbad

San

Marcos Escondido

Vista

Valley

Center

Camp Pendleton

South Hidden

Oceanside Meadows

Bonsall

Camp

Pendleton

North

Fallbrook

Rainbow

Jamul

Rancho San

Spring Diego

Valley

Casa de

Oro-Mount Helix

Alpine Harbison

Canyon

Lakeside Pine

Valley

El Cajon

Santee

Ramona San Diego

Country

Estates

Julian

San

Clemente

Dana

Point

San Juan

Capistrano

Laguna

Niguel

Aliso

Viejo

Laguna

Beach

Laguna

Hills Coto De

Caza

Rancho

Santa Margarita

Mission

Viejo

Trabuco

Highlands

El

Toro

El Toro

Station

Irvine

Tustin

Temecula

Wildomar

Lake

Elsinore

Winchester

Sun

City

IdyllwildPine Cove East

Hemet Hemet

R

M

y

Orange

County

San Diego

County

San Diego County

Riverside County

Pacific Ocean

Mexico

52

163

56

75

73

1

371

67

74

94

76

79

78

905

241

209

215

805 8

5

15

FIGURE 1

Regional Map

6099-03-3 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

SOURCE: SanGIS 2008.

0 1 5 10 5

Miles

Proposed LRT Alternative

Alignments
209

274

163

52

8

805

5

Old Town

Transit

Center

UTC

Transit

Center

University of

California

San Diego

FIGURE 2

Vicinity Map

6099-03-3 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series Del Mar and La Jolla Quadrangles.

0 5 2,750 ,500

Feet

LRT Alternative Alignments
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
3A

3B

3C

3D

3E

3F

3G

3H

3I

3J

FIGURE 3

Survey Area

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods 6099-03-3

SOURCE: Bing Maps 2011.

0 1,000 2,000

Feet

Basin Location

Map Grid

Vegetation (See Map Book for Vegetation Data)

CSS = Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub

dCSS = disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub

DEV = Urban/Developed

dFWM = disturbed Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh

DH = Disturbed Habitat

dHW = disturbed Herbaceous Wetland

dSRF = disturbed Southern Riparian Forest

DW = Disturbed Wetland

EUC = Eucalyptus Woodland

NNG = Non-Native Grassland

NVC = Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway

ORF = Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest

ORN = Ornamental

SMX = Southern Mixed Chaparral

SRF = Southern Riparian Forest

SWS = Southern Willow Scrub
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ORN DH

EUC

DH

EUC

DEV

CC

AA

BB

DD

3A

FIGURE 3A

Basin Locations

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods 6099-03-3

AERIAL SOURCE: UCSD 2010.

0 50 100

Feet

Basin Location Map Grid Vegetation (See Index Map for Vegetation Codes)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ORN

DEV

DH

ORN

EUC

DEV

FF

II

JJ

EE

GG

HH

3B

FIGURE 3B

Basin Locations

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods 6099-03-3

AERIAL SOURCE: UCSD 2010.

0 50 100

Feet

Basin Location Map Grid Vegetation (See Index Map for Vegetation Codes)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ORN

DEV

DH

EUC

ORN

DEV

KK

LL

NN MM

OO

PP

UU

3C

3D

FIGURE 3C

Basin Locations

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods 6099-03-3

AERIAL SOURCE: UCSD 2010.

0 50 100

Feet

Basin Location Map Grid Vegetation (See Index Map for Vegetation Codes)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
ORN

DEV

DH

EUC

DH

EUC

DH

ORN

DEV

dFWM

PP

RR

UU

QQ

SS

TT

3C

3D

FIGURE 3D

Basin Locations

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods 6099-03-3

AERIAL SOURCE: UCSD 2010.

0 50 100

Feet

Basin Location Map Grid Vegetation (See Index Map for Vegetation Codes)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
SMX

DEV

DW

dCSS

DH

EUC

DH

DEV

DEV

DEV

VV

3E

FIGURE 3E

Basin Locations

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods 6099-03-3

AERIAL SOURCE: UCSD 2010.

0 50 100

Feet

Basin Location Map Grid Vegetation (See Index Map for Vegetation Codes)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
SRF

ORN

ORN

DEV

CSS

ORN

dCSS

DH

DH

CSS

A

ZZ

B

WW

XX

3F

FIGURE 3F

Basin Locations

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods 6099-03-3

AERIAL SOURCE: UCSD 2010.

0 50 100

Feet

Basin Location Map Grid Vegetation (See Index Map for Vegetation Codes)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
DH

CSS

DEV

EUC

ORN

CSS

DH

EUC

ORN

dCSS

DH

dCSS

NNG

ORN SWS

DW

SWS

dCSS

dHW

C

3G

FIGURE 3G

Basin Locations

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods 6099-03-3

AERIAL SOURCE: UCSD 2010.

0 50 100

Feet

Basin Location Map Grid Vegetation (See Index Map for Vegetation Codes)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
DH

SWS

NNG

DH

NNG

CSS

SRF

CSS

SRF

DEV

EUC

CSS

DH

dCSS

DH

DH

ORN

NVC

ORN

EUC

ORN

CSS

SRF

ORF

CSS

SRF

CSS

D

E

I

F

G

H

3I

3H

FIGURE 3H

Basin Locations

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods 6099-03-3

AERIAL SOURCE: UCSD 2010.

0 50 100

Feet

Basin Location Map Grid Vegetation (See Index Map for Vegetation Codes)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
SRF

DEV

DH

ORN

EUC

ORN

CSS

SRF

CSS

NNG

dCSS

CSS

DH

SRF

DH

CSS

dCSS

dCSS

dCSS

NNG

dCSS

dSRF

J

K

L

M

3H

3I

FIGURE 3I

Basin Locations

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods 6099-03-3

AERIAL SOURCE: UCSD 2010.

0 50 100

Feet

Basin Location Map Grid Vegetation (See Index Map for Vegetation Codes)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
DEV

DH

ORN

NNG

dCSS

SRF

DH

dCSS

NNG

CSS

NNG

NNG

dCSS

DW

dCSS

dCSS

dCSS

CSS

EUC

dCSS

N

O

P

3J

FIGURE 3J

Basin Locations

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project - Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods 6099-03-3

AERIAL SOURCE: UCSD 2010.

0 50 100

Feet

Basin Location Map Grid Vegetation (See Index Map for Vegetation Codes)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
APPENDIX A 

Precipitation Log 
2010 Precip (in)

Nov high avg low sum

1 72 64 58 0

2 86 74 65 0

3 90 78 67 0

4 97 80 65 0

5 88 72 62 0

6 73 61 53 0

7 67 61 57 0

8 64 56 49 0

9 65 56 48 0

10 66 57 50 0

11 69 61 52 0

12 74 60 51 0

13 74 60 51 0

14 78 60 53 0

15 70 57 49 0

16 65 56 55 0

17 64 57 52 0.01

18 63 57 55 0.01

19 59 58 57 0

20 59 56 55 0.23

21 58 53 50 0.22

22 58 53 48 0

23 60 52 43 0

24 58 51 44 0.05

25 60 49 40 0

26 65 50 38 0

27 62 51 40 0.08

28 56 53 43 0

29 60 48 37 0

30 63 50 38 0

2010 Precip (in)

Dec high avg low sum

1 66 53 42 0

2 73 56 46 0

3 70 54 45 0

4 64 54 46 0

5 73 57 46 0.01

6 62 55 51 0

7 68 56 46 0.01

8 73 56 45 0

9 67 55 44 0.01

10 59 52 46 0.01

11 71 59 47 0.01

12 83 68 58 0

2010/11 Wet Season FS Precipitation Log

Temp. (°F)

Temp. (°F)
2010 Precip (in)

Nov high avg low sum

2010/11 Wet Season FS Precipitation Log

Temp. (°F)

13 83 64 50 0

14 60 54 51 0

15 61 56 53 0

16 60 53 49 0.03

17 61 55 47 0.28

18 60 58 56 0.08

19 58 57 56 0.5

20 60 58 53 0.94

21 58 56 53 2.47

22 60 55 51 1.53

23 60 54 47 0.02

24 63 52 45 0.01

25 61 53 45 0.2

26 58 54 49 0.2

27 61 52 44 0

28 65 54 44 0.01

29 56 53 51 0.86

30 53 48 41 0

31 55 46 37 0

2011 Precip (in)

Jan high avg low sum

1 59 48 39 0

2 59 49 39 0.55

3 57 53 49 0.42

4 64 52 43 0.01

5 69 53 43 0

6 70 55 45 0

7 60 52 46 0

8 58 51 44 0.01

9 60 52 46 0

10 59 51 44 0

11 70 54 43 0

12 69 56 47 0

13 68 57 47 0

14 76 60 49 0

15 77 63 52 0

16 80 63 53 0

17 85 65 54 0

18 79 64 56 0

19 57 55 50 0

20 72 59 49 0

21 75 57 43 0

22 68 56 48 0

23 76 60 47 0

Temp. (°F)
2010 Precip (in)

Nov high avg low sum

2010/11 Wet Season FS Precipitation Log

Temp. (°F)

24 70 56 46 0

25 72 58 47 0

26 76 61 46 0

27 77 61 49 0

28 76 58 47 0

29 66 54 45 0

30 61 55 53 0.05

31 62 55 49 0.02

2011 Precip (in)

Feb high avg low sum

1 61 52 44 0.01

2 58 51 45 0

3 58 50 44 0

4 62 50 39 0

5 66 53 44 0

6 72 58 46 0.01

7 78 62 51 0

8 60 55 50 0

9 69 55 42 0

10 69 55 44 0

11 70 55 41 0

12 75 60 47 0

13 70 52 46 0

14 63 54 46 0

15 65 56 46 0

16 59 54 49 0.57

17 58 52 45 0

18 64 54 48 0.63

19 58 52 47 0.33

20 56 50 43 0

21 58 49 41 0

22 60 50 41 0

23 60 53 46 0

24 60 54 49 0

25 58 53 50 0

26 53 48 41 1.21

27 55 46 36 0.09

28 64 50 39 0

2011 Precip (in)

Mar high avg low sum

1 62 51 41 0

2 62 53 43 0

3 64 57 51 0

4 63 57 52 0

Temp. (°F)

Temp. (°F)
2010 Precip (in)

Nov high avg low sum

2010/11 Wet Season FS Precipitation Log

Temp. (°F)

5 77 62 51 0

6 63 54 50 0

7 57 53 50 0.2

8 63 54 46 0

9 76 61 48 0

10 75 60 51 0

11 69 57 47 0.01

12 63 56 52 0

13 63 57 52 0

14 61 57 54 0

15 71 58 50 0.01

16 69 57 50 0.01

17 65 56 50 0

18 64 54 45 0.01

19 63 54 46 0

20 59 55 50 0.82

21 60 52 48 0.29

22 58 52 47 0.02

23 64 52 42 0.26

24 61 53 46 0.01

25 61 53 48 0.16

26 60 53 46 0

27 64 56 52 0

28 60 55 50 0

29 63 56 51 0

30 74 60 49 0.01

31 83 68 55 0

2011 Precip (in)

Apr high avg low sum

1 87 64 46 0.18

2 68 60 57 0

3 67 59 52 0

4 69 60 51 0

5 68 59 54 0

6 65 59 56 0

7 60 56 52 0.02

8 57 51 45 0.04

9 57 50 41 0.1

10 64 54 43 0

11 64 56 48 0

12 65 57 50 0

13 62 56 51 0

14 66 57 47 0

15 76 63 51 0

Temp. (°F)
2010 Precip (in)

Nov high avg low sum

2010/11 Wet Season FS Precipitation Log

Temp. (°F)

16 84 68 55 0

17 68 60 55 0.01

18 65 59 56 0

19 64 58 56 0

20 62 59 56 0.01

21 66 60 56 0

22 66 59 54 0

23 66 60 54 0

24 69 59 55 0.03

25 65 59 51 0

26 59 58 56 0

29 66 60 55 0

30 71 61 50 0

2011 Precip (in)

May high avg low sum

1 78 66 51 0

2 87 71 56 0

3 90 71 56 0

4 83 68 55 0

5 75 62 55 0.01

6 69 61 55 0

7 66 60 56 0

8 64 58 54 0.02

9 63 57 54 0

10 67 58 49 0

11 66 59 52 0

12 66 61 56 0

13 70 59 55 0

14 65 59 55 0

15 63 58 54 0

16 62 57 51 0

17 62 56 53 0.31

18 61 57 51 0.38

Temp. (°F)
APPENDIX B 

Survey Log 
2010/11 Wet Season FS Survey Log -- Mid Coast Transit

Survey DateBasin ID Wet/Dry FS (N/Y)? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes AA Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

BB Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry CC Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry 

DD Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry 

EE Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

FF Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry 

GG Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

HH Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry 

II Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

JJ Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

KK Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

LL Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

MM Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

NN Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

OO Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

PP Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry 

QQ Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

RR Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry 

SS Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

TT Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

UU Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

VV Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

WW Wet FS! 100's; 7male, 1female; B. Lindahli Wet Present Dry Dry Dry 

XX Wet FS! 10's; 4male; B. Lindahli Wet Present Wet None Dry Dry 

YY Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

ZZ Wet FS! 10's; 2male; B. Lindahli Dry Dry Dry Dry 

A Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry 

B Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry 

C Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry Dry D Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry 

E Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry F Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

G Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

H Wet FS! 100's; 6male; B. Lindahli Dry Dry Dry Dry 

I Wet FS! 10's; no sample, assume B. Lindahli Dry Dry Dry Dry J Wet FS! 100's; 5male, 1female; B. Lindahli Dry Dry Dry Dry K Wet FS! 10's; 4male, 1 female; B. Lindahli Dry Dry Dry Dry L Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry 

M Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry 

N Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry 

O Wet None Dry Wet None Dry Dry P Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry 

3/1/2011 3/18/2011 4/1/2011 4/15/2011 4/29/2011 
APPENDIX C 

Survey Data Forms 
Survey Data Forms were provided to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service on October 10, 2011 and are 

available upon request 
APPENDIX D 

Photo Exhibits 
APPENDIX D 

Photo Exhibits 

6099-3-3 

1 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 1

Basin AA - Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 2

Basin BB – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

2 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 3

Basin CC – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 4

Basin DD – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

3 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 5

Basin EE – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 6

Basin FF – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

4 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 7

Basin GG – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 8

Basin HH – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

5 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 9

Basin II – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 10

Basin JJ – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

6 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 11

Basin KK – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 12

Basin LL – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

7 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 13

Basin MM – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 14

Basin NN – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

8 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 15

Basin OO – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 16

Basin PP – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

9 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 17

Basin QQ – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 18

Basin RR – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

10 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 19

Basins SS and TT – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 20

Basin UU - Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

11 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 21

Basin VV – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 22

Basins WW and XX – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

12 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 23

Basin YY – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 24

Basin ZZ – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

13 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 25

Basin A – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 26

Basin B – Photo taken 3/1/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

14 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 27

Basin C – Photo taken 3/1/11

Photo Exhibit 28

Basin D – Photo taken 3/3/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

15 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 29

Basin E – Photo taken 3/3/11

Photo Exhibit 30

Basin F – Photo taken 3/3/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

16 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 31

Basin G – Photo taken 3/3/11

Photo Exhibit 32

Basin H – Photo taken 3/3/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

17 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 33 

Basin I – Photo taken 3/3/11

Photo Exhibit 34

Basin J – Photo taken 3/3/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

18 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 35

Basin K – Photo taken 3/3/11

Photo Exhibit 36

Basin L – Photo taken 3/3/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

19 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 37

Basin M – Photo taken 3/3/11

Photo Exhibit 38

Basin N – Photo taken 3/3/11
Appendix D 

6099-3-3 

20 October 2011 

Photo Exhibit 39

Basin O – Photo taken 3/3/11

Photo Exhibit 40

Basin P – Photo taken 5/23/11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool 

Branchiopods, 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, 

San Diego County, California

 
Section 7 Consultation Biological Assessment

Appendix D - Focused Survey Reports 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

June 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
October 4, 2012 6099-3-3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Attn: Recovery Permit Coordinator 

6010 Hidden Valley Road 

Carlsbad, California 92011 

Subject: 2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County, California 

Dear Recovery Permit Coordinator: 

This report is intended to fulfill reporting requirements in accordance with the Section 

10(a)(1)(A) permit and documents the results of a wet season presence/absence survey for 

vernal pool branchiopods conducted for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project (project), 

located in the City of San Diego, San Diego County, California. According to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) survey guidelines, a complete survey for vernal pool 

branchiopods consists of sampling for two full wet season surveys within a five-year period 

or two consecutive seasons of one wet season survey and one dry season survey. This report 

documents the second wet season survey for this project. 

The 2012 survey was performed by Dudek biologists Paul Lemons (Permit # TE051248) and 

Thomas Liddicoat (Permit # TE139634) between November 17, 2011 and July 23, 2012. The 

survey focused on the determination of the presence/absence of two federally listed endangered 

vernal pool branchiopod species, Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) and San Diego 

fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), and was conducted according to the Interim Survey 

Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods (FWS, 1996). The survey consisted of an 

inspection of all potential suitable habitat within the survey area, defined as the area within 

approximately 100 feet of the proposed project, and sampling of all water-filled depressions within 

the survey area. A total of 54 suitable depressions were identified and surveyed during this 2012 

wet season survey. Of the 54 depressions sampled, nine depressions were found to be occupied 

with vernal pool branchiopods. San Diego fairy shrimp were identified in one depression. Versatile 

fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) were identified in the eight other occupied depressions within 

the survey area. 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

2 October 2012

PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

The study area is located in the western portion of the City of San Diego and extends from the 

Old Town Transit Center (OTTC) north to University City, San Diego County, California 

(Figure 1). The study area is generally bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Interstate 

(I-) 5/I-805 junction to the north, I-805 and State Route 163 to the east, and the OTTC and 

Mission Valley to the south. The proposed alignment of the Build Alternative within the study 

area generally runs along the east side of I-5 from just south of I-8 at the OTTC north to 

University City, through the University of California, San Diego campus, and along Genesee 

Avenue (Figure 2). The survey area is situated on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute La Jolla 

quadrangle, Township 15 South, Range 3 West, in Sections 19, 30, and 31, and Township 16 

South, Range 3 West, in Sections 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 28. 

The survey area consists of the existing railroad right-of-way; adjacent disturbed and developed 

lands; and native and non-native upland, riparian, and wetland vegetation communities. Soil series 

on site (Bowman, 1973) include: Altamont, Carlsbad, Chesterton, Corralitos, Gaviota, 

Huerhuero, Lagoon water, Made land, Salinas, Terrace escarpments, and Urban land. Soils that 

are potentially suitable to support vernal pool type-scenarios (i.e., ephemeral ponding) are those 

series that predominantly contain clay particles and are not well draining such as: Altamont clay, 

Salinas clay loam, Made land, and Urban land complexes.

Land uses within and adjacent to the survey area include single-family and multifamily residential, 

commercial, light industrial, park, and transportation uses. 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES, BASINS, AND LAND COVER TYPES

The study area supports twenty-four vegetation communities (twenty native/naturalized and four 

non-native communities) and was mapped by Dudek biologists in July through August 2010.

These communities are characterized by Holland (1986) and Oberbauer et al. (2008) and include: 

disturbed wetland, disturbed habitat, ornamental, urban/developed, Diegan coastal sage scrub 

(including disturbed), southern mixed chaparral, non-native grassland, cismontane alkali marsh, 

coastal and valley freshwater marsh (including disturbed), herbaceous wetland, southern riparian 

forest (including disturbed), southern coast live oak riparian, southern arroyo willow riparian 

forest, southern riparian scrub, mulefat scrub (including disturbed), southern willow scrub 

(including disturbed), arundo-dominated riparian, non-vegetated channel/floodway, and 

eucalyptus woodland. 

Potentially suitable habitats for vernal pool branchiopods in the survey area include: dirt areas in 

the existing right-of-way, relatively flat (less than 10 percent slope) vegetation areas adjacent to 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

3 October 2012

the right-of-way, and dirt roads/trails that traverse the area to provide vehicular access to utilities 

(e.g., railroad, electrical poles, and sewer/storm water manholes). Descriptions of the potentially 

suitable vernal pool habitats (i.e., developed disturbed land, disturbed wetland, herbaceous 

wetland, and grassland communities) are described below. 

Disturbed Land

Disturbed land refers to areas that typically lack native vegetation, support non-native vegetation,

often contains bare ground, and is generally the result of severe or repeated mechanical perturbation.

Disturbed land occurs throughout the survey area, is generally associated with the existing rail rightof-way, and includes dirt access roads/trails that traverse the survey area.

Disturbed Wetland

Disturbed wetlands are areas permanently or periodically inundated by water that have been 

severely modified by human activity. Disturbed wetlands are often unvegetated, but may include 

some scattered non-native vegetation such as giant reed (Arundo donax), tamarisk (Tamarix 

spp.), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), palms (Phoenix spp., Washingtonia spp.), pampas grass 

(Cortaderia spp.), and Bermuda grass. Native wetland species, such as willow (Salix spp.) and 

cattails (Typha spp.) also may occur. Disturbed wetlands occur throughout the survey area within 

and adjacent to the existing rail right-of-way. 

Herbaceous Wetland

Herbaceous wetland is not recognized by Holland (1986), but is included in Oberbauer et al. 

(2008). This community is a seasonal wetland that primarily supports annual species, such as seep 

monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus) and annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). Herbaceous 

wetlands occur in swale areas or along drainages. Herbaceous wetlands usually do not include 

species such as cattails, bulrushes, and rushes that constitute freshwater marsh. As a seasonal 

community in San Diego County, herbaceous wetland may only occur during wetter than average 

years. A few herbaceous wetlands occur in the survey area adjacent to the existing rail right-ofway.

Non-Native Grasslands

According to Holland (1986), non-native grassland is characterized by a dense to sparse cover of 

annual grasses with flowering culms generally between 0.2 and 0.5 meter (0.7 and 1.6 feet) high, and 

sometimes up to 1 meter (3 feet) high. Some characteristic species include wild oat (Avena spp.), 

bromes (Bromus diandrus, B. madritensis, B. hordeaceus), filaree (Erodium spp.), and fescue (Vulpia
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

4 October 2012

spp.). In addition, non-native grassland is often associated with numerous species of wildflowers.

Non-native grassland typically occurs on fine-textured clay soils that are moist to waterlogged during 

the winter rainy season and very dry during the summer and fall (Holland, 1986). The majority of 

non-native grassland on site occurs in the northeastern portion of the survey area along Rose Canyon. 

PREVIOUS BRANCHIOPOD STUDIES

Dudek conducted wet season presence/absence surveys for vernal pool branchiopods within the 

survey area in early 2011. A general habitat assessment to evaluate the potential for vernal pool 

branchiopods within the survey area was conducted by Dudek in February 2011 prior to 

conducting protocol-level surveys. To our knowledge, no focused surveys for vernal pool 

branchiopods have been conducted within the survey area prior to the 2011 wet season survey.

SURVEY METHODS 

The entire survey area was evaluated on-foot to provide 100 percent visual coverage of the site

(Figure 3). Onset of significant rain events (i.e., greater than 0.20 inch) for the 2011/12 wet season 

began on November 12, 2011, thus wet season surveys commenced on November 17 and 18, 2011.

During this initial survey, all potentially suitable depressions were mapped (or confirmed from 

previous mapping) and protocol level branchiopod sampling was performed.

All inundated basins were surveyed at approximately 2-week intervals until basins dried up or 

until 120 days elapsed. Basins that dried up, then refilled were surveyed within 7 days of refilling 

and surveys were re-initiated. During the 2011/12 wet season survey, the project was surveyed 

21 times. A schedule of the survey season is presented in Table 1. 

Table 1

2011/12 Schedule of Surveys and Conditions

Survey Number Biologist Date

1 TSL November 17 and 18, 2011

2 TSL November 30 and December 1, 2011

3 PML December 14 and 19, 2011

4 PML December 28, 2011

5 PML January 11, 2012

6 PML January 19, 2012

7 PML January 27, 2012

8 PML February 10, 2012

9 PML February 22, 2012

10 PML March 5, 2012
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

5 October 2012

Table 1

2011/12 Schedule of Surveys and Conditions

Survey Number Biologist Date

11 PML March 16, 2012

12 PML March 26, 2012

13 TSL April 3, 2012 

14 PML April 20, 2012

15 PML May 2, 2012

16 PML May 16, 2012

17 PML May 30, 2012

18 PML June 12, 2012

19 PML June 26, 2012

20 PML July 9, 2012

21 PML July 23, 2012

Source: Dudek, 2012

The surveys were conducted by Dudek biologists Paul Lemons (PML; Permit # TE051248) and 

Thomas Liddicoat (TSL; Permit # TE139634). All identified basins within the survey area were

evaluated during each site visit to determine inundation levels and sampling was performed 

where appropriate. Daily precipitation was monitored for weather station KCASANDI106 in 

Clairemont, California (Weather Underground Inc., 2011-2012).

Protocol-level sampling was performed within all basins that were deemed suitable for use by 

fairy shrimp and any depressions meeting the FWS inundation requirement (ponding at least 3 

centimeters deep). The locations of detected basins sampled were recorded using a Global 

Positioning System (GPS) unit and were alphabetically labeled (Figure 3A to Figure 3I). GPS

data were downloaded into an ArcGIS file and digitized by Dudek Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) specialist Jeff Kubran. 

During each survey all depressions were inspected for depth, surface area of water, air and water 

temperature, level of disturbance, and presence of aquatic wildlife. An aquarium net was passed 

through every basin that met the FWS inundation requirement. All portions of ponded water 

were surveyed from the bottom to the surface. 

All information was recorded in the field onto a data sheet as provided in the survey protocol with 

the most pertinent information (e.g., inundation, fairy shrimp presence/absence, and species 

identification) recorded onto a spreadsheet Survey Log (Appendix A). Data sheets were completed 

for every depression that met the minimum FWS inundation requirement at the time of sampling

(Appendix B). Photographs of the basins sampled are attached to this report as Appendix C. 
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

6 October 2012

Samples were collected, when needed, using the aquarium net and a 40 milliliter glass vial.

Specimens were stored in the vial with water collected from where the specimen was found.

Specimens were taken to the laboratory within 24 hours of collection and placed in a 90 

percent ethyl alcohol solution for preservation. Each specimen was inspected thoroughly 

using a dissecting microscope. Eriksen and Belk (1999) was used to determine the species of 

each specimen collected. 

SURVEY RESULTS

Basin Descriptions

A total of 54 depressions were identified as suitable habitat for vernal pool branchiopods and 

sampled during the 2011/2012 wet survey season. The majority of depressions sampled were 

distributed randomly (i.e., not clustered in a particular area) in and adjacent to the existing 

railway right-of-way. The locations of the depressions are depicted in Figure 3A to Figure 3I. 

The depressions detected on site were either: (1) road ruts: depressions that are typically 

formed by vehicular traffic within or immediately adjacent to roadways, generally lack 

aquatic vegetation, and are heavily disturbed by vehicular traffic; or (2) ephemeral basins:

surface depressions that retain sufficient water level, support aquatic vegetation, and 

generally lack vehicle disturbance. Of the 54 depressions sampled, 32 were considered road 

ruts and 22 were considered ephemeral basins. 

Fairy Shrimp Presence/Absence

Nine of the 54 depressions sampled in the survey area were found to be occupied by vernal pool 

branchiopods. San Diego fairy shrimp were found in one depression (Pool BB, see Figure 3H).

All other fairy shrimps found on site were identified as versatile fairy shrimp. Depressions with 

versatile fairy shrimp include depressions: G, H, J, K, XX, ZZ, FFF, and GGG. A summary of 

the survey results is provided below in Table 2 and the full Survey Log is included in this report 

(Appendix A). 

Table 2

2011/12 Vernal Pool Branchiopods Survey Results 

Basin ID. Branchiopod Species Observed

AA None

BB Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta sandiegoensis. Magnitude of individuals = 2 males.

CC None

DD None

EE None
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

7 October 2012

Table 2

2011/12 Vernal Pool Branchiopods Survey Results 

Basin ID. Branchiopod Species Observed

FF None

GG None

HH None

II None

JJ None

KK None

LL None

MM None

NN None

OO None

PP None

QQ None

RR None

SS None

TT None

UU None

VV None

WW None

XX Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 100’s

YY None

ZZ Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 100’s

A None

B None

C None

D None

E None

F None

G Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 10’s

H Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 100’s

I None

J Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 100’s

K Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 100’s

L None

M None

N None

O None

P None

AAA None
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

8 October 2012

Table 2

2011/12 Vernal Pool Branchiopods Survey Results 

Basin ID. Branchiopod Species Observed

BBB None

CCC None

DDD None

EEE None

FFF Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 100’s

GGG Fairy Shrimp Present; Branchinecta lindahli. Magnitude of individuals = 10’s

HHH None

III None

JJJ None

KKK None

LLL None

All required data collection information per the survey guidelines (FWS, 1996) was recorded and 

is included as Appendices A through C of this report.

I certify that the information presented in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and

accurately represents my work. Please feel free to contact Kam Muri or Paul Lemons at 

760.942.5147 if you have any questions regarding the contents of this report. 

Sincerely,

__________________ __________________ 

Paul Lemons Thomas Liddicoat

TE051248 TE139634 

Att: Figure 1, Regional Map

Figure 2, Vicinity Map

Figure 3A, Survey Area Index

Figures 3B–3I, Basin Locations

Appendix A – Survey Log

Appendix B – Survey Data Forms

Appendix C – Photo Exhibits

cc: Kamarul Muri, Dudek
Recovery Permit Coordinator 

Subject: 2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, County of San Diego, California 

6099-3-3 

9 October 2012

REFERENCES CITED

Bowman, R. H. 1973. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, Part 1. United States Department 

of the Agriculture. 104 pp. + appendices. 

Eriksen, Clyde and Denton Belk. 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Pools, and 

Playas. Eureka: Mad River Press, Inc.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of 

California. Nongame-Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Game.

Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelley, and Jeremy Buegge. March 2008. Draft Vegetation 

Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial 

Natural Communities of California”, Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1996. Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for 

Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed 

Vernal Pool Branchiopods. Sacramento, California: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Sacramento Field Office. April 19. 

Weather Underground, Inc. 2011-2012. Weather Station KCASANDI106. Data accessed

periodically from November 2011 through July 2012. Accessed website at: 

http://wunderground.com. 
Imperial

Beach

Chula

Vista

National

City

Bonita

Coronado

Lemon

Grove

La

Mesa

Poway

Encinitas

San Diego

Carlsbad

San

Marcos Escondido

Vista

Valley

Center

Camp Pendleton

South

Hidden

Oceanside Meadows

Bonsall

Camp

Pendleton

North

Fallbrook

Rainbow

Jamul

Rancho San

Spring Diego

Valley

Casa de

Oro-Mount Helix

Alpine Harbison

Canyon

Lakeside Pine

Valley

El Cajon

Santee

Ramona San Diego

Country

Estates

Julian

San

Clemente

Dana

Point

San Juan

Capistrano

Laguna

Niguel

Aliso

Viejo

Laguna

Beach

Laguna

Hills Coto De

Caza

Rancho

Santa Margarita

Mission

Viejo

Trabuco

Highlands

El

Toro

El Toro

Station Irvine

Tustin

Temecula

Wildomar

Lake

Elsinore

Winchester

Sun

City

IdyllwildPine Cove East

Hemet Hemet

y

ty

Orange

County

San Diego

County

San Diego County

Riverside County

MEXICO MEXICO

905

241

274

209

163

56

75

73

1

52

371

67

74

94

76

79

78

215

8

805

5

15

FIGURE 1

Regional Map

6099-3-3

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County California OCTOBER 2012

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012 Fariy Shrimp\Survey Report\Figure 1 Regional.mxd

0 1 5 0

Miles

Survey Area
UTC Transit

Center

Executive

Drive

UCSD

East

UCSD

West

Nobel

Drive

Balboa

Avenue

Clairemont

Drive

Tecolote

Road

Old Town

Transit

Center

VA Medical

Center

FIGURE 2

Vicinity Map

6099-3-3

SEPTEMBER 2012

SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Del Mar, La Jolla, and Point Loma Quadrangles.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012 Fariy Shrimp\Survey Report\Figure 2 Vicinity.mxd

0 2 1

Miles

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County California

Fairy Shrimp Survey Area

Build Alternative

Transit Center

Future Trolley Station

Transit Center with a Future Trolley Station

Optional VA Medical Center Station
Gilman

Dr

La Jolla Colony

Regents

Rd

Morena Blvd

Balboa Ave

La Jolla Pkwy

Genesee A

ve

Garnet Ave

Friars Rd

Clairemont Rd

FIGURE 3B

FIGURE 3C

FIGURE 3D

FIGURE 3E

FIGURE 3F

FIGURE 3G

FIGURE 3H

FIGURE 3I

209

163

274

52

805

8

5

FIGURE 3A

Fairy Shrimp Survey - Index Map

6099-3-3

SEPTEMBER 2012

SOURCE: Digital Globe 2008.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012 Fariy Shrimp\Survey Report\Figure 3A Fairy Shrimp Index Map.mxd

0 2,500 5,000

Feet

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County California

Fairy Shrimp Survey Area

Map Series
5

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

H

GGG

ALLEY

ALLEY

CAMTO GANDARA CAMTO MODENA

ROSENDA CT

CA

MTO 

T

E

RVIS

O

PALMILLA DR

CAMTO CASSIS

CAMTO SONOMA

LA JOLLA COLONY DR

I-5 SB OFF RA I-5 NB ON RA

CAMTO FRANCHE

PORTE LA PAZ

Fairy Shrimp Basins Map Book

SOURCE: SanGIS 2012; UCSD 2010.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012 Fariy Shrimp\Survey Report\Figure 3B Fairy Shrimp Map Series.mxd

6099-3-3

SEPTEMBER 2012 0 100 200

Feet

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County California

Basin Location

Basin Location with Species

GGG = Versatile Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli), Magnitude of Individuals = 10’s

H = Versatile Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli), Magnitude of Individuals = 100’s

J = Versatile Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli), Magnitude of Individuals = 100’s

K = Versatile Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli), Magnitude of Individuals = 100’s

Limits of Work

FIGURE 3B

5

D

E

C

G

BLOCH ST

I-5 SB OFF RA

I-5 SB OFF RA

ANGELL AV

I-5 NB ON RA

LA JOLLA COLONY DR

I-5 SB ON RA

I-5 NB OFF RA

GILMAN CT

GILMAN DR

Fairy Shrimp Basins Map Book

SOURCE: SanGIS 2012; UCSD 2010.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012 Fariy Shrimp\Survey Report\Figure 3C Fairy Shrimp Map Series.mxd

6099-3-3

SEPTEMBER 2012

0 100 200

Feet

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County California

Basin Location

Basin Location with Species

G = Versatile Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli), Magnitude of Individuals = 10’s

Limits of Work

FIGURE 3C

52

52

A

ZZ

B

WW XX

YY

FFF

SR-52 EB ON RA

SR-52 WB OFF RA

I-5 SB OFF RA

I-5 NB 

ON 

RA

SANTA FE ST

I-5 NB OFF RA

I-5 NB 

OFF 

RA

MONONGAHELAST

MONONGAHELA ST

SR-52 WB OFF RA

I-5 NB OFF RA

I-5 SB ON RA

I-5 SB ON RA

5

Fairy Shrimp Basins Map Book

SOURCE: SanGIS 2012; UCSD 2010.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012 Fariy Shrimp\Survey Report\Figure 3D Fairy Shrimp Map Series.mxd

6099-3-3

SEPTEMBER 2012

0 100 200

Feet

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County California

Basin Location

Basin Location with Species

FFF = Versatile Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli), Magnitude of Individuals = 100’s

XX = Versatile Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli), Magnitude of Individuals = 100’s

ZZ = Versatile Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli), Magnitude of Individuals = 100’s

Limits of Work

FIGURE 3D

VV

SANTA FE ST MORENA BL

PRIVATE DY

JUTLAND DR JUTLAND DR

5

Fairy Shrimp Basins Map Book

SOURCE: SanGIS 2012; UCSD 2010.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012 Fariy Shrimp\Survey Report\Figure 3E Fairy Shrimp Map Series.mxd

6099-3-3

SEPTEMBER 2012 0 100 200

Feet

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County California

Basin Location

Limits of Work

FIGURE 3E

274 KKK LLL

MT LAURENCE DR

BALBOA AV

PRINCETON AV

BUNKER HILL ST

MORENA BL

PRIVATE RD

BRANDYWINE ST

ALLEY

SANTA FE ST

GARNET AV

REVERE AV

ETHAN ALLEN AV

ALLEY

DAMON AV

PAUL JONES AV

DEL REY ST

ALLEY

DE SOTO ST

CADDEN WY

MORENA BL RA

ALLEY

I-5 NB OFF RA

PRIVATE RD

PRIVATE RD

DAMON AV

DAMON AV

PRIVATE RD

MORENA BL RA

BUNKER HILL ST

I-5 SB ON RA

I-5 SB ON RA

MORENA 

BL RA

MORENA BL RA

MORENA BL RA

MORENA BL RA

ALLEY

5

Fairy Shrimp Basins Map Book

SOURCE: SanGIS 2012; UCSD 2010.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012 Fariy Shrimp\Survey Report\Figure 3F Fairy Shrimp Map Series.mxd

6099-3-3

SEPTEMBER 2012

0 100 200

Feet

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County California

Basin Location

Limits of Work

FIGURE 3F

5

II JJ KK LL

MM

NN

OO PP

RR

UU

HH QQ

SS

TT CCC

DDD

EEE

CLAIREMONT DR

I-5 RA

INGULF ST

JELLETT ST

EAST MISSION BAY DR

ALLEY

KANE ST

MILTON ST MILTON ST

GOLDFIELD ST NAPIER ST

DENVER ST

CHICAGO ST

ALLEY

DENVER ST

CHICAGO ST

ALLEY

ALLEY

I-5 SB OFF RA

MORENA BL

CHICAGO ST

ALLEY

DENVER ST

MAYO ST

ALLEY

I-5 NB OFF RA

I-5 SB ON RA

I-5 SB ON RA

I-5 SB OFF RA

I-5 SB OFF RA

PRIVATE RD

ALLEY

LISTER ST

CHICAGO ST

NAPIER ST

DENVER ST

ALLEY

LISTER ST

Fairy Shrimp Basins Map Book

SOURCE: SanGIS 2012; UCSD 2010.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012 Fariy Shrimp\Survey Report\Figure 3G Fairy Shrimp Map Series.mxd

6099-3-3

SEPTEMBER 2012

0 100 200

Feet

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County California

Basin Location

Limits of Work

FIGURE 3G

CC

FF

II

JJ

AA

BB

DD

EE

GG HH

NAPIER ST

LITTLEFIELD ST

TONOPAH AV

TONOPAH AV

PRIVATE RD

PRIVATE RD

ALLEY

ALLEY

PRIVATE RD

MAYO ST

ASHER ST

GOLDFIELD ST

CHICAGO ST

FRANKFORT ST

ALLEY

ASHTON ST

MORENA BL

ALLEY

FRANKFORT ST

GOLDFIELD ST

LIETA ST

ALLEY

MORENCI ST

EAST MISSION BAY DR

LIETA ST

MORENCI ST

ALLEY

PRIVATE RD

PRIVATE RD

PRIVATE RD

ALLEY

PRIVATE RD

PRIVATE RD

PRIVATE RD

ASHER ST

5

Fairy Shrimp Basins Map Book

SOURCE: SanGIS 2012; UCSD 2010.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012 Fariy Shrimp\Survey Report\Figure 3H Fairy Shrimp Map Series.mxd

6099-3-3

SEPTEMBER 2012

0 100 200

Feet

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County California

Basin Location

Basin Location with Species

BB = San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegoensis), Magnitude of Individuals = 2 Males

Limits of Work

FIGURE 3H

BBB

AAA

HHH III

JJJ

DORCAS ST

NAPLES PL

BUENOS AV

SAVANNAH ST

SEA 

WORLD 

DR

PACIFIC HY

TECOLOTE RD

NAPLES ST

KNOXVILLE ST

CUDAHY PL

VEGA ST

TECOLOTE RD

FRONTAGE RD

WEST MORENA BL

WEST MORENA BL

SAVANNAH ST

LOVELOCK ST

I-5 SB OFF RA

I-5 NB ON RA

I-5 SB OFF RA

EAST MISSION BAY DR

I-5 SB ON RA

I-5 NB OFF RA

5

Fairy Shrimp Basins Map Book

SOURCE: SanGIS 2012; UCSD 2010.

\\HQTR-DATA1\Gisdata\Projects\j609901\MAPDOC\MAPS\2012 Fariy Shrimp\Survey Report\Figure 3I Fairy Shrimp Map Series.mxd

6099-3-3

SEPTEMBER 2012

0 100 200

Feet

2012 Wet Season Presence/Absence Survey for Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, San Diego County California

Basin Location

Limits of Work

FIGURE 3I

APPENDIX A

Survey Log
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Pass #

Survey Dates

Basin ID Wet/Dry FS (N/Y)? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes

AA Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

BB Wet

FS!2males;B.

Sandiegonensis

positive,thusnomore

surveysatBB

CC Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

DD Wet None Dry Wet None Dry Dry Dry Wet None Dry

EE Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

FF Wet None Dry Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

GG Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

HH Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

II Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

JJ Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

KK Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

LL Wet None Dry Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

MM Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

NN Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

OO Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

PP Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

QQ Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

RR Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

SS Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

TT Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

UU Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

VV Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet None Wet None

WW Dry

areacoveredin

bark/mulch Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

XX Wet None

surrounded/coveredby

bark/mulch Wet None Wet None Wet None WetNone Wet None Wet None Wet FS

YY Dry

areacoveredin

bark/mulch Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

ZZ Wet

FS!100's;5males,

1female:B.

Lindahli

twosmallpoolsduring

survey Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry WetNone Dry

AWet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

B Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

CDry

evidenceofflood

controlmaintenance Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

DDry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

EWet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Wet None Dry

FDry Dry Dry Wet None Dry Dry Wet None Wet None

GWet None Wet

FS!10's;1

male:B.

Lindahli Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet None

HWet

FS!100's;7males:

B.Lindahli Dry Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

IDry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

JWet

FS!100's;5males,

1female:B.

Lindahli Wet

FS!100's;10

males,1

female:B.

Lindahli Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

KWet

FS!100's;6males:

B.Lilndahli Dry Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

LDry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

MDry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

NWet None muddy/mucky Dry Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet Wet None Wet None

OWet None connectedwithM Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None WetNone

P Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet Wet None Wet None

AAA* Wet None SeaWorldDrbridge Dry Wet None Dry Dry Dry Wet None Dry

BBB* Wet None SeaWorldDrbridge Dry Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

CCC* Wet None closesttoPP Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

DDD* Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

EEE* Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

FFF* Wet

FS!10's;4males:

B.Lindahli northofYY Dry Wet None Dry Dry Wet None Wet None Wet FS

GGG* Wet

FS!10's;only

femalesdetected,

thusnosample

nexttoM,onlyfemales

detected,nosample Wet

FS!10's;5

males:B.

Lindahli Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Dry Dry

HHH* Wet None

newbasin,watersofUS

WofArmstrongGC Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry Dry Wet None Wet None

III* Dry Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None

JJJ* Dry Wet None Dry Wet None Wet None Wet None

KKK* Dry Dry Dry Wet None Dry Dry

LLL* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

PoolsCCC,DDD,

andEEEallmerged

intoonepool

6

1/19/2012

7

1/27/2012

8

2/10/2012

1 2 3 4 5

11/17-18/2011 11/30-12/1/2011 12/14 & 12/19 12/28 & 12/29/11 1/11/2012

Pass #

Survey Dates

Basin ID Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes

AA Dry Dry Dry Dry

BB

CC Dry Dry Dry Dry

DD Dry Dry Dry Dry

EE Dry Dry Dry Dry

FF Dry Dry Dry Dry

GG Dry Dry Dry Dry

HH Dry Dry Dry Wet None

II Dry Dry Dry Dry

JJ Dry Dry Dry Dry

KK Dry Dry Dry Wet None

LL Dry Dry Dry Wet None

MM Dry Dry Dry Wet None

NN Dry Dry Dry Wet None

OO Dry Dry Dry Wet None

PP Dry Dry Dry Dry

QQ Dry Dry Dry Dry

RR Dry Dry Dry Dry

SS Dry Dry Dry Dry

TT Dry Dry Dry Dry

UU Dry Dry Dry Wet None

VV Dry Dry Dry Dry

WW Dry Dry Dry Dry

XX Wet

FSB.

lindahli 100's Wet

FSB.

lindahli 10's WetNone Wet None

YY Dry Dry Dry Dry

ZZ Dry Dry Dry Wet None

ADry Dry Dry Wet None

B Dry Dry Dry Dry

CDry Dry Dry Dry

DDry Dry Dry Dry

EDry Dry Dry Wet None

FDry Dry Dry Wet None

GDry Dry Dry Wet None

HDry Dry Dry Wet None

IDry Dry Dry Dry

JDry Dry Dry Wet None

KDry Dry Dry Wet None

LDry Dry Dry Wet None

MDry Dry Dry Dry

NWet None Wet None Wet None Wet None

OWetNone WetNone WetNone WetNone

P Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None

AAA* Wet None Dry Dry Wet None

BBB* Dry Dry Dry Wet None

CCC* Dry Dry Dry Dry

DDD* Dry Dry Dry Dry

EEE* Dry Dry Dry Dry

FFF* Wet

FSB.

lindahli 100's Wet

FSB.

lindahli 10's WetNone Wet None

GGG* Dry Dry Dry Dry

HHH* Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None

III* Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None

JJJ* Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None

KKK* Dry Dry Dry Dry

LLL* Dry Dry Dry Dry

12

3/26/2012

9

2/22/2012

10 11

3/5/2012 3/16/2012

Pass #

Survey Dates

Basin ID Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes

AA Dry Dry Dry Dry

BB

CC Dry Dry Dry Dry

DD Dry Dry Dry Dry

EE Dry Dry Dry Dry

FF Dry Dry Dry Dry

GG Dry Dry Dry Dry

HH Dry Dry Dry Dry

II Dry Dry Dry Dry

JJ Dry Dry Dry Dry

KK Dry Dry Dry Dry

LL Dry Dry Dry Dry

MM Dry Dry Dry Dry

NN Dry Dry Dry Dry

OO Dry Dry Dry Dry

PP WetNone WetNone WetNone WetNone

QQ Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None

RR Dry Dry Dry Dry

SS Dry Dry Dry Dry

TT Dry Dry Dry Dry

UU Dry Dry Dry Dry

VV Dry Dry Dry Dry

WW Dry Dry Dry Dry

XX Wet

FSB.

lindahli 100s Wet None Wet None Dry

YY Dry Dry Dry Dry

ZZ Dry Dry Dry Dry

ADry Dry Dry Dry

B Dry Dry Dry Dry

CDry Dry Dry Dry

DDry Dry Dry Dry

EWetNone WetNone WetNone Dry

FDry Dry Dry Dry

GDry Dry Dry Dry

HDry Dry Dry Dry

IDry Dry Dry Dry

JDry Dry Dry Dry

KDry Dry Dry Dry

LDry Dry Dry Dry

MDry Dry Dry Dry

NDry Wet None Wet None Dry

ODry Wet None Wet None 120days

P Wet None Wet None Wet None 120days

AAA* Dry Dry Dry Dry

BBB* Dry Dry Dry Dry

CCC* Dry Dry Dry Dry

DDD* Dry Dry Dry Dry

EEE* Dry Dry Dry Dry

FFF* Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry

GGG* Dry Dry Dry Dry

HHH* Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry

III* Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None

JJJ* Wet None Wet None Wet None Dry

KKK* Dry Dry Dry Dry

LLL* Dry Dry Dry Dry

15

5/2/2012

16

5/16/2012

13

4/3/2012

14

4/20/2012

Pass #

Survey Dates

Basin ID Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes Wet/Dry FS? Notes

AA Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

BB

CC Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

DD Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

EE Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

FF Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

GG Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

HH Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

II Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

JJ Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

KK Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

LL Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

MM Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

NN Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

OO Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

PP WetNone WetNone WetNone WetNone WetNone

QQ Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None Wet None

RR Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

SS Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

TT Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

UU Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

VV Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

WW Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

XX Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

YY Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

ZZ Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

ADry Dry Dry Dry Dry

B Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

CDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

DDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

EDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

FDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

GDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

HDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

IDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

JDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

KDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

LDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

MDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

NDry Dry Dry Dry Dry

O120days 120days 120days 120days 120days

P 120days 120days 120days 120days 120days

AAA* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

BBB* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

CCC* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

DDD* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

EEE* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

FFF* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

GGG* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

HHH* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

III 120days 120days 120days 120days 120days

JJJ* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

KKK* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

LLL* Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

17

5/30/2012

20

7/9/2012

21

7/23/2012

18

6/12/2012

19

6/26/2012

APPENDIX B

Survey Data Forms
Survey Data Forms were provided to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service on October 4, 2012 and are 

available upon request 
APPENDIX C

Representative Photos 
APPENDIX C 

Representative Photos

6099-3-3 

C-1 October 2012

Pool A (basin) Pool BB (basin) 

Pools AAA and BBB (road rut) Pool CC (basin) 
APPENDIX C (Continued)

6099-3-3 

C-2 October 2012

Pool DD (road rut) Pool E (road rut) 

Pool EE (road rut) Pools CCC, DDD, and EEE (basin) 
APPENDIX C (Continued)

6099-3-3 

C-3 October 2012

Pool FF (road rut) Pool G (basin) 

Pool GGG (road rut) Pool HH (basin) 
APPENDIX C (Continued)

6099-3-3 

C-4 October 2012

Pool HHH (basin) Pool III (basin) 

Pool J (road rut) Pool JJJ (basin) 
APPENDIX C (Continued)

6099-3-3 

C-5 October 2012

Pool L (road rut) Pool LL (road rut) 

Pool MM (road rut) Pool NN (basin) 
APPENDIX C (Continued)

6099-3-3 

C-6 October 2012

Pool O (basin) Pool OO (basin) 

Pool P (basin) Pool PP (basin) 
APPENDIX C (Continued)

6099-3-3 

C-7 October 2012

Pool QQ (basin) Pool XX (road rut) 

Pool YY (road rut) Pool ZZ (road rut) 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

July 2014 

 Appendix C

USFWS Notification 

Correspondence
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

July 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Supplement to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

Appendix C – USFWS Notification Correspondence 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

July 2014 C-1 

APPENDIX C USFWS NOTIFICATION CORRESPONDENCE 

 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/

Supplement to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

Appendix C – USFWS Notification Correspondence 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

C-2 July 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK