APPENDIX D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SUPPORTING DATA AND TECHNICAL REPORTS Table of Contents Section 3.03 Biological Resources – Supporting Data D-1: Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area D-2: Wildlife Species Observed Within the Study Area D-3: Special-Status Plant Species and Their Potential for Occurrence within the Study Area D-4: Special-Status Wildlife Species and Their Potential for Occurrence within the Study Area Section 3.03 Biological Resources – Technical Reports D-5: Focused 2009 Special Status Plant Survey Report. D-6: Focused 2009 California Gnatcatcher Survey Report. D-7: Focused 2009 Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Report. D-8: 2009 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report, Los Angeles Mission College Project, Sylmar California.
Transcript
APPENDIX D
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SUPPORTING DATA AND TECHNICAL REPORTS
Table of Contents
Section 3.03 Biological Resources – Supporting Data
D-1: Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area
D-2: Wildlife Species Observed Within the Study Area
D-3: Special-Status Plant Species and Their Potential for Occurrence within the Study Area
D-4: Special-Status Wildlife Species and Their Potential for Occurrence within the Study Area
D-5: Focused 2009 Special Status Plant Survey Report.
D-6: Focused 2009 California Gnatcatcher Survey Report.
D-7: Focused 2009 Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Report.
D-8: 2009 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report, Los Angeles Mission College Project, Sylmar California.
1
APPENDIX D – SECTION 3.03 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES‐SUPPORTING DATA
APPENDIX D‐1
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Scientific Name Common Name GYMNOSPERMS
CUPRESSACEAE CYPRESS FAMILY
Juniperus sp.* juniper
ANGIOSPERMS (DICOTYLEDONS)
ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY
Malosma laurina laurel sumac
ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Anthemis cotula* mayweed
Artemisia californica California sagebrush
Artemisia douglasiana mugwort
Artemisia dracunculus tarragon
Baccharis pilularis coyote brush
Baccharis salicifolia mule fat
Centaurea melitensis* tocalote
Filago sp. fluffweed
Helianthus annuus common sunflower
Lepidospartum squamatum scale‐broom
Senecio flaccidus shrubby butterweed
Silybum marianum* milk thistle
Sonchus asper* prickly sow thistle
Taraxacum officinale* common dandelion
BIGNONIACEAE BIGNONIA FAMILY
Jacaranda mimosifolia* jacaranda
BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY
Amsinckia menziesii common fiddleneck
Cryptantha sp. cryptantha
Plagiobothrys sp. popcorn flower
BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY
Brassica nigra* black mustard
Brassica rapa* field mustard
Capsella bursa‐pastoris* shepherd's‐purse
Lobularia maritima* sweet‐alyssum
Sisymbrium irio* London rocket
Sisymbrium officinale* hedge mustard
CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY
Cylindropuntia ramosissima pencil cholla
Cylindropuntia sp. cholla
Opuntia littoralis coastal prickly pear
CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY
Sambucus mexicana Mexican elderberry
CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Chenopodium album* lamb's quarters
CRASSULACEAE STONECROP FAMILY
Crassula connata pygmy‐weed
2
Scientific Name Common Name CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY
Marah macrocarpus wild cucumber
EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY
Ricinus communis* castor‐bean
FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY
Lotus scoparius deerweed
Lupinus bicolor miniature lupine
Lupinus sp. lupine
Melilotus indica* sourclover
Melilotus officinalis* yellow sweetclover
GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY
Erodium botrys* broad‐lobed filaree
Erodium brachycarpum* long‐beaked filaree
Erodium cicutarium* red‐stemmed filaree
GROSSULARIACEAE GOOSEBERRY FAMILY
Ribes aureum golden currant
HYDROPHYLLACEAE WATERLEAF FAMILY
Eriodictyon sp. yerba santa
Phacelia sp. phacelia
LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY
Lamium amplexicaule* henbit
Marrubium vulgare* horehound
Salvia mellifera black sage
MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY
Malva parviflora* cheeseweed
MYRTACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY
Eucalyptus sp.* gum tree
OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY
Fraxinus sp. ash
ONAGRACEAE EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY
Camissonia sp. camissonia
PLATANACEAE SYCAMORE FAMILY
Platanus racemosa western sycamore
POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
Pterostegia drymarioides California thread‐stem
PRIMULACEAE PRIMROSE FAMILY
Anagallis arvensis* scarlet pimpernel
RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY
Ceanothus leucodermis chaparral whitethorn
ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY
Malus sp.* apple
SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY
Salix exigua narrow‐leaved willow
Salix gooddingii black willow
Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow
SIMAROUBACEAE QUASSIA FAMILY
Ailanthus altissima* tree of heaven
SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Datura wrightii jimson weed
Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco
3
Scientific Name Common Name Solanum sp. nightshade
URTICACEAE NETTLE FAMILY
Urtica urens* dwarf nettle
ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTYLEDONS)
LILIACEAE LILY FAMILY
Dichelostemma capitatum blue dicks
Yucca whipplei chaparral yucca
POACEAE GRASS FAMILY
Avena sp.* wild oat
Bromus diandrus* ripgut grass
Bromus hordeaceus* soft chess
Bromus sp. brome
Bromus tectorum* cheat grass
Hordeum murinum* glaucous foxtail barley
Leymus condensatus giant wild rye
Melica imperfecta coast range melic
Poa annua* annual bluegrass
Schismus barbatus* Mediterranean schismus
*indicates non‐native species
4
APPENDIX D‐2
WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Scientific Name Common Name CLASS INSECTA INSECTS
SPHINGIDAE SPHINX MOTHS
Hiles lineata white‐lined sphinx moth
NYMPHALIDAE BRUSHFOOTED BUTTERFLIES Vanessa cardui painted lady butterfly
CLASS AVES BIRDS
ACCIPITRIDAE ACCIPITER HAWKS
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
AEGITHALIDAE LONG TAILED TITS, BUSHTITS
Psaltriparus Minimus bushtit
ALAUDIDAE LARKS
Eremophila alpestris horned lark
ANATIDAE DUCKS, GEESE, SWANS
Anas Platyrhynchos mallard duck
Branta canadensis Canada goose
COLUMBIDAE PIGEONS
Zenaida macroura morning dove
CORVIDAE CROWS AND RAVENS
Corvus corax common raven
EMBERIZIDAE NEW WORLD SPARROWS
Pipilo maculates spotted towhee
Pipilo crissalis California towhee
Melospiza melodia song sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys white‐crowned sparrow
FALCONIDAE FALCONS
Falco sparverius American kestrel
FRINGILLIDAE FINCHES
Carpodacus mexicanus house finch
Carduelis tristis American goldfinch
Carduelis psaltria lesser goldfinch
MIMIDAE CATBIRDS, MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS
Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird
ODONTOPHORIDAE QUAILS
Callipepla californica California quail
Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher
PARULIDAE WOOD‐WARBLERS
Dendroica coronata yellow‐rumped warbler
Dendroica sp. unidentified warbler
Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat
5
Scientific Name Common Name Colaptes auratus northern flicker
REGULIDAE KINGLETS
Regulus calendula Ruby‐crowned kinglet
TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird
Archilochus alexandri black chinned hummingbird
TROGLODYTIDAE WRENS
Troglodytes aedon house wren
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren
CLASS MAMMALIA MAMMALS
CANIDAE DOGS AND OTHER CANIDS
Canis familiaris domestic dog
Canis latrans coyote
CRICETIDAE MICE, RATS AND RELATIVES
Neotoma sp. woodrat
FELIDAE CATS
Felis rufus bobcat
Felis catus domestic cat
LEPORIDAE RABBITS AND HARES
Sylvilagus bachmani cottontail brush rabbit
MUSTELIDAE WEASELS
Mephitis mephitis striped skunk
Procyon lotor raccoon
SCIURIDAE SQUIRRELS
Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Sciurus carolinensis gray squirrel
Thomomys bottae Botta's Pocket Gopher
Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum
6
APPENDIX D‐3
SPECIAL‐STATUS PLANT SPECIES AND THEIR POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Scientific Name/ Common Name
Habitat and Distribution Blooming Period
Status Designation
Potential for
Occurrence Berberis nevinii Nevin’s barberry
Evergreen shrub. Occurs in chaparral, coastal and riparian scrub communities and cismontane woodland, in gravelly soils. Associated with steep slopes and low‐grade sandy washes. From 950 to 5,170 feet in elevation.
March – August Fed : END State : END CNPS: List 1B.1
Moderate
Calochortus plummerae Plummer’s mariposa lily
Bulbiferous perennial herb. Occurs in coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland on alluvial or granitic, rocky or sandy soils. Often observed after fires. From 295 to 5,580 feet in elevation.
May – July Fed: None State: None CNPS: List 1B.2
Moderate
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina San Fernando Valley spineflower
Annual herb. Occurs within coastal scrub and chaparral on dry slopes and flats; sometimes at interface of 2 vegetation types, such as chaparral and oak woodland. Found on dry sandy soils. Up to 6,000 feet in elevation.
April – June Fed: None State: END CNPS: List 3.2
Low
Dodecahema leptoceras slender‐horned spineflower
Annual herb. Occurs within chaparral and coastal scrub (alluvial fan sage scrub). Found on flood‐deposited terraces and washes; associates include Encelia, Dalea, Lepidospartum, etc. From 660 to 2,500 feet in elevation.
April – June Fed : END State: END CNPS: List 1B.1
Low
Harpagonella palmeri Palmer’s grapplinghook
Annual herb. Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland on clay and cobbly soils in open grassy areas within shrublands and scrub oak woodlands. From 65 to 2,725 feet in elevation.
March – April Fed: None State: None CNPS: List 4.2
Moderate
Malacothamnus davidsonii Davidson’s bush‐mallow
Deciduous shrub. Occurs in coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, and chaparral, often in sandy washes. From 690 to 2,800 feet in elevation.
June – January Fed: None State: None CNPS: List 1B.2
Low
Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass
Annual grass. Grows in dried mud beds and needs deep pools to germinate. Associated with vernal pools. From 50 to 2,165 feet in elevation.
April – August Fed : END State: END CNPS: List 1B.1
Low
Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris’ popcorn flower
Annual herb. Found in Chaparral, coastal prairies, and coastal scrub habitats. From 50 to 330 feet in elevation.
March – June Fed: None State: None CNPS: List 1B.2
Moderate
Symphyotrichum greatae Greata’s aster
Rhizomatous perennial herb. Occurs in meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grasslands, often in disturbed places. Up to 6,690 feet in elevation.
June – November
Fed: None CA: None CNPS: 1B.3
Moderate
Federal designations: Federal Endangered Species Act (USA, 1973), USFWS: END: Federal‐listed, endangered. THR: Federal‐listed, threatened. State designations: California Endangered Species Act (State of California, 1970), CDFG: END: State‐listed, endangered. THR: State‐listed, threatened.
7
Scientific Name/ Common Name
Habitat and Distribution Blooming Period
Status Designation
Potential for
Occurrence RARE: State‐listed as rare California Native Plant Society (CNPS) designations (CNPS, 2009): List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California. List 1B: Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range. List 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere in their range. List 3: Plants about which we need more information; a review list. List 4: Plants of limited distribution; a watch list. Threat Codes: .1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20‐80% occurrences threatened) .3 Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)
APPENDIX D‐4
SPECIAL‐STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Scientific Name/ Common Name
Habitat and Distribution ESA CESA Potential for Occurrence
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal western whiptail
Occurs in a variety of habitats including valley‐foothill hardwood, valley‐foothill hardwood‐conifer, valley‐foothill riparian, mixed conifer, pine‐juniper, chamise‐redshank chaparral, mixed chaparral, desert scrub, desert wash, alkali scrub, and annual grassland.
None None High
Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker
The Santa Ana sucker is currently restricted to three geographically separate populations in three different stream systems in southern California: (1) the lower and middle Santa Ana River; (2) East, West, and North forks of the San Gabriel River; and (3) the lower Big Tujunga Creek.
THR SSC Low
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow‐billed cuckoo
An uncommon to rare summer resident of valley foothill and desert riparian habitats in scattered locations in California. Densely foliaged, deciduous trees and shrubs, especially willows, required for roosting sites
None END Low
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
Solitary and roost primarily in foliage of both coniferous and deciduous trees, near the ends of branches, 3‐12 meters above the ground. They are highly associated with forested habitats in the west.
None None Low
Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher
Occurs in coastal sage scrub vegetation on mesas, arid hillsides, and in washes and nests almost exclusively in California sagebrush.
FT
None High
Rana muscosa Sierra Madre yellow‐legged frog
In southern California, populations are restricted to streams in ponderosa pine, montane hardwood‐conifer, and montane riparian habitats.
END None Absent
Spea hammondii western spadefoot
Grasslands and occasionally hardwood woodlands; requires vernal pools (persisting for at least three weeks) for breeding; burrows in loose soils during dry season. Occurs in the Central Valley and adjacent foothills, the non‐desert areas of southern California, and in Baja California.
None None Low
Vireo bellii pusilus least Bell’s vireo
Resides in low riparian areas close to water or dry river beds. Their nests are usually constructed in bushes or within the branches of willows, mule fat, and mesquite. They are usually found below an elevation of 2,000 feet.
FE SE High
Status Codes Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA): FE = Federally listed; Endangered FT = Federally listed; Threatened California Endangered Species Act (CESA): ST = State listed; Threatened SE = State listed; Endangered
8
9
Scientific Name/ Common Name
Habitat and Distribution ESA CESA Potential for Occurrence
CSC = California Species of Special Concern
July 8, 2009 Los Angeles Mission College Board of Trustees 13356 Eldridge Avenue Sylmar, CA 91342 Subject: Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan Focused 2009 Special Status
Plant Survey Results, Los Angeles County, California. In response to the existing and projected demand for access to higher education and recreational facilities serving the Sylmar area, Los Angeles Mission College (LAMC) is proposing to expand and enhance their existing facilities. Accordingly, a subsequent review and evaluation of those lands within the proposed LAMC expansion that could support special status plant species1 was performed. As such, focused special status plant surveys were conducted during the appropriate blooming periods2. For the purposes of this analysis, the “study area” is defined as the LAMC Facilitates Master Plan Project’s (hereafter referred to as the Master Plan) proposed physical ground disturbance footprint - plus a roughly 100-foot buffer to account for potential engineering modifications, where practical3 (Figure 1). Furthermore, the study area is bounded by El Cariso Golf Course to the west, the Sylmar Independent Baseball League Fields to the north, Pacoima Wash to the east, and Harding & Maclay Streets to the south. The study area is also located within the San Fernando United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map - Township 3 North, Range 15 West. The study area occurs at an elevation ranging from 1,295 to 1,330 feet above mean sea level, generally sloping to the southeast toward Pacoima Wash.
1 “Special-status species” include any species that has been afforded special recognition by federal, state, or local resources agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]) and/or resource conservation organizations (e.g., California Native Plant Society [CNPS]). 2 Appropriate blooming periods were derived from the California Native plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, 1994. 3 Where access to the entire study area was not possible as a result of private property, topographic relief, or physical barriers, observations were made from nearest appropriate vantage points with binoculars or via aerial photographic interpretation.
BACKGROUND Initial habitat surveys of the study area were conducted in March of 2009 during the daylight hours by URS Corporation (URS) botanists to assess biological resources4. Subsequent focused surveys were conducted from March through June 2009. Table 1 and Figure 2 below specifies the dates URS botanical staff visited the study area.
Table 1: Biological Survey Dates and Personnel
Date Persons March 10, 2009 Ken McDonald, Carol Thompson April 29, 2009 Ken McDonald, Greg Hoisington June 29, 2009 Ken McDonald, Greg Hoisington
In summary, the study area includes ten predominant vegetation communities/land types which are listed in Table 2. Descriptions of each community/land type are provided below as well. Community/land types were based on observed dominant vegetation composition and density. Vegetation classifications of plant communities and land types within the study area were derived from the criteria and definitions of Holland (1986).
Table 2: Vegetation Communities observed within the Study Area
Coastal Sage Scrub Coastal sage scrub communities are dominated by low, mostly soft-woody shrubs. Within the study area California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) were observed. These species typically grow together with Laural sumac (Malosma laurina) and white sage (Salvia apiana). Many species are drought-deciduous and are mostly active in winter and early spring. Willow riparian Willow Riparian forest is typically dominated by several species of willow trees. Within the study area, the willow riparian canopy consisted of black willow (Salix gooddingii) and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa). The understory was usually dominated by shrubby species such as sandbar willow (Salix exigua), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) and mule-fat (Baccharis salicifolia). Riversidean Alluvial Sage Scrub Alluvial scrub communities are generally associated with infrequently scoured areas on floodplains and outwash fans. Characteristic species observed within the study area were California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and California buckwheat (Eriogionum fasciculatum). Other species typically found in this 4 For the purposes of this analysis, “biological resources” include the terrestrial and aquatic plants, wildlife, and habitats that occur, or have the potential to occur, within the Project’s defined study area.
community within the study area included white sage (Salvia apiana), redberry (Rhamnus crocea), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), chaparral yucca (Yucca whipplei), California croton (Croton californicus), valley cholla (Cylindropuntia parryi), tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus), yerba santa (Eriodictyon spp.) and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia). Buckwheat Scrub Buckwheat scrub is a low scrub community dominated by monotypic stands of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) within the study area. Sandy Wash Sandy Wash is comprised of open, sandy areas adjacent to and within washes and drainages, with a sparse cover of riparian plant species (Holland, 1986). A small amount of sandy wash can be found along the Pacoima Wash portion of the study area. Ruderal Ruderal vegetation is present under conditions of severe or repeated mechanical disturbance of the soil, herbicide treatment, or vehicle traffic. Ruderal vegetation in the study area consists primarily of non-native weedy species such as red brome (Bromus madritensis var. rubens), slender wild oat (Avena barbata), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and red-stem stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium). Developed/Disturbed Developed areas occur throughout the study area and include roadways, parking lots, and other private / public infrastructure. No native habitat exists within these developed portions of the study area. Disturbed areas occur throughout the entire study area and can best be described as those areas that are either devoid of native vegetation (i.e., dirt roads) or areas dominated by a sparse cover of ruderal vegetation (e.g., non-native grasses and thistles). Disturbed areas also include those native communities which have been significantly degraded due to anthropogenic activity
METHODS Focused field surveys were conducted in accordance with the standardized guidelines issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2000), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG, 2000), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS, 2001). The surveys were intended to determine the presence/absence of special-status plant species within the study area. Furthermore, reference plant populations were surveyed within the Project’s floristic province in April of 2009 prior to initiating plant surveys. Field surveys were floristic in nature and were completed by walking parallel transects through each of the vegetation communities/land types that are identified in Table 2. Special status plant species identified in the 2009 LAMC Biological Resources Investigation report were targeted along with all other potential special status species (URS, 2009). During survey events, staff recorded plant observations on field data sheets to show deference to general vegetation types, species observed and approximate plant population sizes. During these surveys, ancillary plant and wildlife data was also recorded for all species detected within the study area – including, but not limited to, upland and riparian dependent wildlife species, raptors and so forth. Any special status plant species observed were documented. Plants of uncertain identity were collected and subsequently identified from keys, Hickman (1993), and Munz (1974). Plant nomenclature follows that of The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California (Hickman, 1993). A list of plant species observed during the surveys by segment is presented in Appendix A. RESULTS One (1) special statsus species - Davidson’s bush-mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonii), was observed during the surveys (Figure 3). No other special-status plant species were observed within the study area. CONCLUSIONS Portions of the study area include some high quality habitat for special status species. Nonetheless, Davidson’s bush-mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonii, [CNPS list 1b]) was the only special status plant species observed during the surveys. It should be noted that this species is not Federally or State Endangered Species Act protected. Consequently, there is no reasonable presumption of adverse impact to any state or federal Endangered Species Act protected plant species as a result of Project implementation.
REFERENCES CDFG. 2000. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare. Threatened, and
Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. Sacramento, CA: State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.
CNPS. 2001. Botanical Survey Guidelines of the California Native Plant Society. Hickman, J.C. (ed) 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley: University of California
Press. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (California
Department of Fish and Game The Resources Agency, ed), Sacramento, CA.
Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. URS. 2009. Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan– Biological Resources Investigation USGS. 1977. 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map San Fernando, California: USGS. USFWS. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories Federally Listed,
Proposed and Candidate Plants (U.S. Department of the Interior): USFWS.
APPENDIX A
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Scientific Name Common Name GYMNOSPERMS
CUPRESSACEAE CYPRESS FAMILY Juniperus sp.* juniper PINACEAE PINE FAMILY Pinus sp.* pine
ANGIOSPERMS (DICOTYLEDONS) ACERACEAE MAPLE FAMILY Acer negundo California box-elder AMARANTHACEAE AMARANTH FAMILY Amaranthus blitoides prostrate amaranth ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY Malosma laurina laurel sumac Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper tree APIACEAE CARROT FAMILY Daucus pusillus rattlesnake weed APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY Nerium oleander* oleander ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia acanthicarpa annual bur-sage Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed Anthemis cotula* mayweed Artemisia californica California sagebrush Artemisia douglasiana mugwort Artemisia dracunculus tarragon Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Baccharis salicifolia mule fat Brickellia californica California brickellbush Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle Centaurea melitensis* tocalote Chaenactis glabriuscula yellow pincushion Chamomilla suaveolens* pineapple weed Cirsium occidentale var. californicum cobweb thistle Cirsium vulgare* bull thistle Conyza bonariensis* flax-leaved horseweed Conyza canadensis horseweed Encelia farinosa brittlebush Filago depressa herba impia Filago sp. fluffweed Gazania sp.* African daisy Gnaphalium californicum California everlasting Gnaphalium luteo-album* white cudweed Gutierrezia californica California matchweed
Scientific Name Common Name Hedypnois cretica* crete hedypnois Helianthus annuus common sunflower Hemizonia fasciculata fascicled tarweed Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed Hypochaeris glabra* smooth cat's-ear Isocoma menziesii coastal goldenbush Lactuca serriola* prickly lettuce Lasthenia californica coast goldfields Lepidospartum squamatum scale-broom Lessingia filaginifolia cudweed aster Senecio flaccidus shrubby butterweed Silybum marianum* milk thistle Sonchus asper* prickly sow thistle Sonchus oleraceus* common sow thistle Taraxacum officinale* common dandelion Xanthium strumarium cocklebur BIGNONIACEAE BIGNONIA FAMILY Jacaranda mimosifolia* jacaranda BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY Amsinckia menziesii common fiddleneck Cryptantha intermedia common forget-me-not Cryptantha microstachys cryptantha Cryptantha muricata prickly cryptantha Plagiobothrys canescens valley popcorn flower BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY Brassica nigra* black mustard Brassica rapa* field mustard Capsella bursa-pastoris* shepherd's-purse Guillenia lasiophylla California mustard Hirschfeldia incana* short-podded mustard Lobularia maritima* sweet-alyssum Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum water-cress Sisymbrium altissimum* tumble mustard Sisymbrium irio* London rocket Sisymbrium officinale* hedge mustard CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY Cylindropuntia californica California cholla Opuntia littoralis coastal prickly pear CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY Sambucus mexicana Mexican elderberry CARYOPHYLLACEAE PINK FAMILY Stellaria media* common chickweed CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY Chenopodium album* lamb's quarters Salsola tragus* Russian thistle CRASSULACEAE STONECROP FAMILY Crassula connata pygmy-weed
Scientific Name Common Name Dudleya lanceolata lance-leaved dudleya CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY Marah macrocarpus wild cucumber EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY Ricinus communis* castor-bean FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY Lotus purshianus Spanish clover Lotus scoparius deerweed Lupinus bicolor miniature lupine Lupinus hirsutissimus stinging lupine Lupinus sp. lupine Medicago polymorpha* bur clover Melilotus alba* white sweetclover Melilotus indica* sourclover Melilotus officinalis* yellow sweetclover GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY Erodium botrys* broad-lobed filaree Erodium brachycarpum* long-beaked filaree Erodium cicutarium* red-stemmed filaree GROSSULARIACEAE GOOSEBERRY FAMILY Ribes aureum golden currant HYDROPHYLLACEAE WATERLEAF FAMILY Eriodictyon crassifolium thick-leaved yerba santa Phacelia minor wild canterbury-bell Phacelia ramosissima branching phacelia Phacelia sp. phacelia LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY Lamium amplexicaule* henbit Marrubium vulgare* horehound Salvia columbariae chia Salvia mellifera black sage Stachys albens white hedge-nettle MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY Malacothamnus davidsonii Davidson's mallow Malva parviflora* cheeseweed MELIACEAE MAHOGANY FAMILY Melia azadarach* chinaberry tree MORACEAE MULBERRY FAMILY Ficus carica* edible fig MYRTACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY Eucalyptus sp.* gum tree NYCTAGINACEAE FOUR O'CLOCK FAMILY Mirabilis californica California wishbone bush OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY Fraxinus velutina velvet ash ONAGRACEAE EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY Camissonia californica California evening primrose
Scientific Name Common Name Camissonia hirtella suncup Epilobium ciliatum California cottonweed Onenothera elata evening primrose PAPAVERACEAE POPPY FAMILY Eschscholzia californica California poppy PLATANACEAE SYCAMORE FAMILY Platanus racemosa western sycamore POLEMONIACEAE PHLOX FAMILY Eriastrum filifolium lavender eriastrum Navarretia atractyloides holly-leaved navarretia POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Chorizanthe staticoides turkish rugging Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Eriogonum roseum wand buckwheat Pterostegia drymarioides California thread-stem Rumex crispus* curly dock PRIMULACEAE PRIMROSE FAMILY Anagallis arvensis* scarlet pimpernel RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY Ceanothus leucodermis chaparral whitethorn ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY Malus sp.* apple Rosa californica California wild rose Rubus ursinus California blackberry SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY Salix exigua narrow-leaved willow Salix gooddingii black willow Salix laevigata red willow Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow SCROPHULARIACEAE FIGWORT FAMILY Mimulus guttatus common monkey-flower Veronica anagallis-aquatica* water speedwell SIMAROUBACEAE QUASSIA FAMILY Ailanthus altissima* tree of heaven SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Datura wrightii jimson weed Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco Solanum douglasii Douglas' nightshade TAMARICACEAE TAMARISK FAMILY Tamarix ramosissima* Mediterranean tamarisk ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY Ulmus parvifolia* Chinese elm URTICACEAE NETTLE FAMILY Urtica dioica giant creek nettle Urtica urens* dwarf nettle ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTYLEDONS) ARECACEAE PALM FAMILY
Los Angeles Mission College Board of Trustees 13356 Eldridge Avenue Sylmar, CA 91342
Subject: Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan, 2009 California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Results, Los Angeles County, California.
In response to the existing and projected demand for access to higher education and recreational facilities serving the Sylmar area, Los Angeles Mission College (LAMC) is proposing to expand and enhance their existing facilities. Accordingly, subsequent review and evaluation of those lands within the proposed LAMC expansion that included suitable coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN, Polioptila californica californica) was obligatory. To that end, a CAGN United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) protocol survey (USFWS, 1997) was conducted within suitable habitat. This letter report details the findings of the April through June, 2009 CAGN protocol surveys for LAMC.
For the purposes of this analysis, the “study area” is defined as the LAMC Facilitates Master Plan Project’s (hereafter referred to as the Master Plan) proposed physical ground disturbance footprint - plus a roughly 500-foot buffer to account for potential engineering modifications, where practical1 (Figure 1). Furthermore, the study area is bounded by El Cariso Golf Course to the east, the Sylmar Independent Baseball League Fields to the north, Pacoima Wash to the east, and Harding Street & Maclay Street to the south.
1 Where access to the entire study area was not possible as a result of private property, topographic relief, or physical barriers, observations were made from nearest appropriate vantage points with binoculars or via aerial photographic interpretation.
BACKGROUND The CAGN is a federally-listed threatened species and a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) species of special concern. It is closely associated with CSS habitat; particularly in those areas dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). CAGNs typically occur below 950 feet in elevation and on slopes of less than a 40 percent (Braden et al. 1997). The species is threatened primarily by loss, degradation, and fragmentation of CSS habitat as well as brown-headed cowbird parasitism (Atwood, 1990).
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS The study area consists of a mosaic of native vegetation communities, in addition to developed and anthropogenically disturbed land uses as characterized by as characterized by illegal dumping, public use and off-road vehicle utilization. Vegetation communities and land uses observed within the study area are summarized below and in Table 1 and Figure 2.
Table 1. Vegetation Communities and Land Uses identified within the Study area Vegetation Community Acres
METHODS The focused surveys for the CAGN were conducted within the study area on the following dates:
• April 1st, 9th and 15th; • May 11th and 19th; and • June 10th, 2009.
Surveys were conducted by URS Corporation (URS) biologists Lincoln Hulse (LH) and Carol Thompson (CT). Mr. Hulse holds federal permit TE-134334-0 to conduct USFWS protocol surveys for CAGN and Ms. Thompson holds federal permit TE-207873-0 to conduct USFWS protocol surveys for CAGN. The aforementioned surveys were conducted following the currently accepted USFWS, Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) 1997 Presence/Absence Survey Protocol.
The surveys included six (6) distinct visits to the study area at approximately one-week intervals (Table 2). The study area included roughly 19-acres of marginal CSS habitat. The average territory size of the CAGN can be highly variable - correlated with distances from the Pacific Ocean, ranging from less than 2.5-acres to over 22-acres, (Braden et al. 1997). Areas of CSS vegetation within and adjacent to the study area were visited during each of the surveys.
Table 2. Survey Dates/Conditions for California Gnatcatcher Surveys
Date Personnel Temperature Wind Miles Per Hour (MPH) Sky
Taped gnatcatcher vocalizations were used frequently in order to elicit a response from species within the study area (if present). The tape was played approximately every 50-100 feet and if a CAGN had been detected, the playing of the tape would have been ceased in order to avoid harassment.
RESULTS No CAGN were detected within, or near the study area. Nonetheless, several least Bell’s vireos (LBVI, Vireo bellii pusillus,) were detected within and adjacent to the study area. LBVI is listed as Federally endangered and California State Endangered
CONCLUSIONS The survey results suggest that no CAGN are located within the study area. Furthermore, the CSS quality within the study area is marginal as a likely consequence of anthropogenic disturbances (illegal dumping, public use, etc.). Appendix A provides the list of bird species observed during the surveys.
REFERENCES Atwood, J. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Manomet Bird
Observatory, Manomet, Mass.
Braden, G. T., R. L. McKernan, and S. M. Powell. 1997a. Association of within-territory vegetation characteristics and fitness components of California Gnatcatchers
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).1997. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Survey Guidelines. Carlsbad, CA.
Los Angeles Mission College Board of Trustees13356 Eldridge AvenueSylmar, CA 91342
Subject: Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan Focused 2009 Least Bell’s Vireo SurveyResults, Los Angeles County, California.
In response to the existing and projected demand for access to higher education and recreational facilitiesserving the Sylmar area, Los Angeles Mission College (LAMC) is proposing to expand and enhance theirexisting facilities. Accordingly, subsequent review and evaluation of those lands within the proposed LAMCexpansion that included suitable riparian habitat for the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus, [LBV]) wasobligatory. To that end, a LBV United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) protocol survey (USFWS, 2001) wasconducted within suitable habitat. This letter report details the findings of the April through July, 2009 LBVprotocol surveys for LAMC.
For the purposes of this analysis, the “study area” is defined as the LAMC Facilitates Master Plan Project’s(hereafter referred to as the Master Plan) proposed physical ground disturbance footprint - plus a roughly 500-foot buffer to account for potential engineering modifications, where practical1 (Figure 1). Furthermore, thestudy area is bounded by El Cariso Golf Course to the west, Sylmar Independent Baseball League Fields tothe north, Pacoima Wash to the east, and Harding Street & Maclay Street to the south.
1Where access to the entire study area was not possible as a result of private property, topographic relief, or physical barriers, observations weremade from nearest appropriate vantage points with binoculars or via aerial photographic interpretation.
LEAST BELL’S VIREO BACKGROUND INFORMATIONLBV is a spring and summer breeding resident of southern California - migrating south for fall and winter (Small1994). LBV have short rounded wings and straight bills. There is a faint white eye ring and their feathers aremostly gray above and pale below (USFWS 1986). LBV primarily occupy riverine riparian habitats that typicallyfeature dense cover within 6 to 12 feet of the ground with a dense stratified canopy. LBV inhabits low, denseriparian growth along waterways or along dry portions of intermittent streams.
Typically, LBV are associated with southern willow scrub, cottonwood forest, mule fat scrub, sycamore alluvialwoodland, arroyo willow riparian forest, wild blackberry, or mesquite in desert localities (USFWS 1986; andSmall 1994). LBV uses habitat that is limited to the immediate vicinity of water courses below 1,500 feet inelevation (USFWS 1986; and Small 1994). LBV requires a minimum suitable habitat patch size of 0.25 acres(0.10 hectares, USFWS. 1986) to support breeding pairs. Severe population declines have mainly been due tourban and agricultural development, habitat alteration and brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird(Molothrus ater) (Small 1994). These factors have contributed to the federal (1986) and state (1980) listing ofthe species as endangered (USFWS 1986; Small 1994).
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICSThe study area consists of a mosaic of native vegetation communities, in addition to developed andanthropogenically disturbed land uses - as characterized by illegal dumping, public use and off-road vehicleutilization. The dominant vegetation communities / land uses observed within the study area are summarizedin Table 1 and Figure 2.
Table 1. Vegetation Communities and Land Uses identified within the Study areaVegetation Community Acres
METHODSFocused surveys forLBV were conducted within the study area on the following dates: April 14 th; May 1st, 8 th,18th and 28 th; June 8 th and 17th; July 1 st and 2nd, 2009. Surveys were conducted by URS Corporation (URS)biologists Lincoln Hulse (LH) and Carol Thompson (CT). The aforementioned surveys were completedfollowing the currently accepted USFWS Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS, 2001). Surveys wereconducted during the morning hours to determine presence/absence of the aforementioned targeted riparianspecies at times when they were most likely to be active and readily identifiable.
Surveys were not conducted during periods of excessive or abnormal cold, heat, wind, rain or other inclementweather that would have decreased the likelihood of avian species detections. Furthermore, surveys wereconducted using systematic field techniques to ensure that areas of suitable riparian habitat within andadjacent to the study area were thoroughly evaluated. Upon initiating surveys, investigators approached eachhabitat patch within the study area and stood quietly for 5-10 minutes along the periphery of habitat locales tolisten for spontaneous avian singing. This period served to acclimate investigators to ambient noise levels, aswell as the songs and calls of both target and non-target riparian species.
Field surveys coincided with the appropriate breeding seasons of LBV. Eight (8) surveys were conducted todetermine the presence/absence of LBV on the dates presented in Table 2. If any LBV were detected withinthe study area during the eight (8) focused riparian surveys, their presence, behavior and breeding status weredocumented. Field data collection included the following:
Names of field investigator(s); Dates of field surveys; Weather conditions; Time spent performing surveys; Habitat types and avian behavior within the study area and on adjacent lands; Map and location data for any targeted riparian bird species encountered; Representative photographs (if possible) and disturbance regime/land use within the study area; Numbers and locations of all brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) detected within the study area’s
riparian habitats; CDFG California Natural Diversity Database forms for any LBV detected; and Any substantive deviation from the methods detailed herein.
As a consequence of unanticipated habitat modifications, unpaved road improvements and local vegetationmanagement activities within the study area, URS elected to complete an additional 9th survey event on July2nd, 2009.
Table 2. Survey Dates/Conditions for Least Bell’s VireoDate Personnel Temperature Wind Sky
01 May 09 CT, DM 61 o - 71o Fahrenheit 0-2 MPH Overcast
08 May 09 CT, DB 65 o - 85o Fahrenheit 1-3 MPH Clear Sunny
18 May 09 CT62 o - 72o Fahrenheit
0-2 MPHCloudy to
Sunny
28 May 09 CT 53 o - 73o Fahrenheit 0-2 MPH Overcast
8 June 09 CT 60 o - 65o Fahrenheit 1-3 MPH Overcast
17 June 09 CT, DM 57 o - 74o Fahrenheit 0-1 MPH Clear Sunny
01 July 09 CT70 o – 77 o
Fahrenheit 0-5 MPH Clear Sunny
02 July 09 LH, CT 67 o -72 o Fahrenheit 0-1 MPH Clear Sunny
1. Lincoln Hulse = LH; CT,= Carol Thompson; DB=David Barrackman; DM=Dennis Miller2. MPH = Miles per hour3. o F = degrees Fahrenheit4. oC = degrees Celsius
RESULTSFive (5) riparian areas were identified within or adjacent to the study area (Figure 3).
RiparianArea (1) is located north of Harding Street and adjacent to the El Cariso Golf Course, west ofthe Pacoima wash.
Riparian Area (2) is adjacent to Harding Street and east of Pacoima Wash. Riparian Area (3) is north of Riparian Area 2, east of Harding Street and the Pacoima Wash. Riparian Area (4) is located east of Maclay Street. Riparian Area (5) runs east of Maclay Street south of Harding Street.
LBVwas detected within the study area at all five riparian areas. Details regarding the LBV observationsare asfollows:
One LBV male was detected with a female utilizing Riparian Areas 1 and 3; One LBV male was detected with a female utilizing Riparian Area 2; One paired male LBV with fledglings was detected in Riparian Area 4; and One paired male LBV with fledglings was detected utilizing Riparian Area 5.
No brown-headed cowbirds, southwestern willow flycatchers or western yellow-billed cuckoos were detectedwithin or adjacent to the study area. Appendix A provides the list of all bird species observed during the 2009
focused surveys. It should be noted that a substantial portion of the habitat within Riparian Areas 4 and 5 weremodified with heavy equipment between the last June and first July survey events. It should also be illuminatedthat road improvements were completed along the unpaved access road the parallels Harding Streetimmediately adjacent to Riparian Area 1 between the June 8 th and 17th survey events. Additionally, vegetationclearing of non-riparian habitats occurred between the last June and first July survey events immediatelyadjacent to Riparian Areas 2 and 3.
CONCLUSIONSThe field evaluation indicate that LBV are currently utilizing the study area and that a substantial portion ofoccupied LBV habitat was affected during the breeding seasons as a result of vegetation management andunpaved road improvements.
REFERENCESSmall, A. 1994. California Birds, their status and distribution. Ibis Publishing Company, Verona, Italy.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1986. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination ofendangered status for the least Bell’s vireo. Final Rule. Federal Register 51: 16474-16482.
USFWS 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.Carlsbad, CA.
P R E L I M I N A R Y J U R I S D I C T I O N A L D E T E R M I N A T I O N R E P O R T
LOS ANGELES MISSION COLLEGE PROJECT SYLMAR, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for Los Angeles Community College District
July 8, 2009
2020 East First Street, Suite 400 Santa Ana, California 92705 Project No. 29405396
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Cover Sheet Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................ii List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................ii List of Appendices ..........................................................................................................................................ii List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Summary of USACE Jurisdiction Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA....................... 1-2 1.2 Summary of RWQCB Jurisdiction Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and Porter-
Cologne......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Summary of CDFG Jurisdiction and Impacts Pursuant to Section 1600 (et seq.) of
the CFG Code ................................................................................................ 1-2 1.4 Required Permits............................................................................................. 1-2
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND LAND USE WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY......................2-1 2.1 Project Description........................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Location and Surrounding Land Use ................................................................... 2-1
3.0 REGULATORY OVERVIEW ............................................................................................3-1 3.1 Review of USACE Jurisdiction Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act........... 3-1 3.2 Review of RWQCB Jurisdiction Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and
Porter-Cologne ...............................................................................................3-2 3.3 Review of CDFG Jurisdiction Pursuant to Section 1600 (et seq.) of the California
Fish and Game Code .......................................................................................3-3
4.0 METHODS...................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Literature Review ............................................................................................4-1 4.2 CWA Specific Procedures and Data Collection Techniques .....................................4-1 4.3 CDFG-Specific Procedures and Data Collection Techniques....................................4-5 4.4 Analysis Parameters ........................................................................................4-5
5.0 RESULTS....................................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Watershed Analysis ......................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Surface Hydrology and Soils..............................................................................5-2 5.3 Determination of USACE Jurisdiction Subject to Section 404 of the CWA ...................5-2 5.4 Significant Nexus Analysis ................................................................................5-4 5.5 Determination of RWQCB Jurisdiction Subject to Section 401 of the CWA and
Porter-Cologne ...............................................................................................5-5 5.6 Determination of CDFG Jurisdiction Subject to Section 1600 (et seq.) of the CFG
7.0 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................................7-1
i 7/8/2009
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Wetland Indicator Status ............................................................................4-3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location Figure 2 Vicinity Map Figure 3 Regional Watershed Map Figure 4 CWA and CDFG Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Figure 5 FEMA 100 Year Floodplain Figure 6 Soils Figure 7 Stream Order
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix B Site Photographs
ii 7/8/2009
7/8/2009 iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CFG Code California Fish and Game Code CWA Clean Water Act CWC California Water Code EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System IWMC California Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee LACCD Los Angeles Community College District LAMC Los Angeles Mission College LSAA Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement msl Mean sea level NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark Project Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan Project Porter-Cologne Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Rapanos Decision John A. Rapanos v. United States; and June Carabell v. United States
Army Corps of Engineers RHA Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899 RPW Relatively Permanent Water RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board Study Area Proposed LAMC Facilities Master Plan Extension footprint and its
surrounding localized drainage area SWANCC Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. USACE SWRCB State Water Regional Control Board TNW Traditional Navigable Water USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USGS U.S. Geological Survey UTM Universal Transverse Mercator WDR Report of Waste Discharge WoUS Waters of the United States WoS Waters of the State WQC Water Quality Certification Program WQC
7/8/2009 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the findings of: (1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA); (2) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) legal authority in accordance with Section 401 of the CWA and as defined within Section 13050(e) (et seq.) of the California Water Code (CWC) via the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne); and (3) California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 (et seq.) of the California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code) for the Los Angeles Mission College (LAMC) Facilities Master Plan Project (hereafter referred to as the “Project”). The Project is located within Township 3 North and Range 15 West of the San Fernando, California United States Geographical Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map (USGS, 1988) (Figures 1 and 2). The intended use of this report is to disclose and evaluate any special aquatic resource areas1 within the Project’s “study area.” For the purposes of this document, the Project “study area” is defined as the area in which special aquatic resource area jurisdiction was assessed and quantified - which includes the proposed LAMC Facilities Master Plan Expansion Project footprint, as well as the surrounding localized drainage areas (Figures 3 and 4). This document presents URS Corporation’s (URS) best effort at estimating special aquatic resource area boundaries within the study area using the most up-to-date regulations, written policies, and guidance from the USACE, RWQCB and CDFG. Nevertheless, only the USACE, RWQCB and CDFG can make a final determination of special aquatic resource area boundaries and jurisdiction.
1 For the purposes of this document, special aquatic resource areas are being defined as the potential limits of: USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA; the RWQCB legal authority in accordance with Section 401 of the CWA and Porter-Cologne; and CDFG’s jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 (et seq.) of the California Fish and Game (CFG) Code.
7/8/2009 1-2
1.1 SUMMARY OF USACE JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 404 OF THE CWA The USACE regulates fills to Waters of the United States (WoUS2) through Section 404 of the CWA. The study area contains three (3) features - two of these contain an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and are considered Relatively Permanent Waters (RPW) indirectly connected to a Traditional Navigable Water (i.e., Features 1 and 2). Therefore, Features 1 and 2 are subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. 1.2 SUMMARY OF RWQCB JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 401 OF THE CWA AND
PORTER-COLOGNE The RWQCB regulates fills to WoUS and Waters of the State (WoS) through the CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Program and Porter-Cologne, respectively. Pursuant to CWA Section 401, the RWQCB’s legal authority within the Project’s study area is extended to those same features subject to the USACE’s CWA Section 404 jurisdiction (e.g., Features 1 and 2). Accordingly, Features 1 and 2 are subject to CWA Section 401 compliance. 1.3 SUMMARY OF CDFG JURISDICTION AND IMPACTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1600 (ET SEQ.)
OF THE CFG CODE Pursuant to Section 1600 (et seq.) of the CFG Code, the CDFG regulates diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. Features 1 and 2 contain a well-defined bed and bank within the Project’s defined study area and are therefore subject to CFG Code Section 1600 (et seq.) jurisdiction. 1.4 REQUIRED PERMITS Project implementation will likely require CWA Section 404 and 401 permits, and a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) for any impacts to Features 1 and 2 within the study area. Nonetheless, discretionary permitting could be avoided pending LAMC’s ability to implement specific programs to avoid, minimize and compensate for potential adverse Project-related impacts to special aquatic resource areas. Permitting recommendations are provided in Section 6.0 below.
2 The term WoUS is defined as follows (USACE, 2007b): (1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; (4)The territorial seas; and (5) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands).
7/8/2009 1-3
2.0 DE S C R I P T I O N O F PR O J E C T A N D LAND US E W I T H I N T H E PR O J E C T V IC IN ITY
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION In response to the existing and projected demand for access to higher education and recreational facilities serving the Sylmar area, Los Angeles Mission College (LAMC) is proposing to expand and enhance their existing facilities. Accordingly, subsequent review and evaluation of those lands within and adjacent to the proposed LAMC expansion footprint is required.
2.2 LOCATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USE The Project is located within Township 3 North and Range 15 West of the San Fernando, California United States Geographical Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map (Figure 1). The Project is located in the San Fernando Valley, southwest of the Angeles National Forest and approximately 20-miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. Regional access to the study area is provided via the Interstate 210 (Foothill) Freeway - located approximately one-mile southwest of the study area. The study area is bounded by El Cariso Golf Course to the west, the Sylmar Independent Baseball League Fields to the north, Pacoima Wash to the east, and Harding Street to the south (Figure 2). The study area occurs at an elevation range of 1,295 to 1,330 feet above mean sea level (msl). The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates within the study area are 370241 meters (m) Easting and 3797616 m Northing (Zone 11N). The study area is composed of open space and is bordered by residential, recreational, commercial, and public infrastructure facilities (Figure 2).
7/8/2009 2-1
3.0 RE G U L ATO RY OV E RV I E W 3.1 REVIEW OF USACE JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT 3.1.1 Waters of the United States The USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into WoUS pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. The USACE has authority to permit the discharge of dredged or fill material in WoUS under Section 404 of the CWA, and to permit work and the placement of structures in navigable WoUS under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). Ordinary High Water Mark In the absence of wetlands (discussed below), the limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters - including intermittent streams, extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (Lichvar and Wakely, 2004). In 2005, the USACE issued a Regulatory Guidance Letter (05-05) and added the following additional indicators of an OHWM: changes in plant communities, water staining, scour, wracking, bed and banks, and deposition. USACE-Defined Wetlands Wetlands are defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." The methodology set forth in the USACE Wetland Manual (EL, 1987) generally requires that in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area must exhibit minimal hydric characteristics. Although the manual provides great detail in methods and allows for varying special conditions, a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria:
(1) More than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands [Reed, 1988]);
(2) Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions). Such soils, known as “hydric soils,” have characteristics that indicate they were developed in conditions where soil oxygen is limited by the presence of saturated soil for long periods during the growing season; and
(3) Hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least 5 percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year (Note: for most of low-lying southern California, 5 percent of the growing season is equivalent to 18 days).
7/8/2009 3-1
3.1.2 USACE Terminology The following definitions are from the Rapanos Guidance Memoranda (USACE, 2007, 2007c, 2008): “Adjacent,” as defined in USACE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, means “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring.” Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are ‘adjacent wetlands.’ Wetlands that are not separated from a tributary by upland features, such as a berm or dike, are considered “abutting.”
A “tributary,” as defined in the Rapanos guidance memoranda, means a natural, man-altered, or man-made water body that carries flow directly or indirectly into traditional navigable waters. For purposes of determining “significant nexus” with a traditional navigable water, a “tributary” is the entire reach of the stream that is of the same order (i.e., from the point of confluence, where two lower order streams meet to form the tributary, downstream to the point where the tributary enters a higher order stream). A water body is considered to have a “significant nexus” with a TNW if its flow characteristics and functions in combination with the ecologic and hydrologic functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to such a tributary, affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a downstream TNW. A “TNW” includes all of the “navigable waters of the United States,” defined in 33 C.F.R. § 329 and by numerous decisions of the Federal courts, plus all other waters that are navigable-in-fact. In the context of CWA jurisdiction post-Rapanos, a water body is “relatively permanent” if its flow is year round or its flow is continuous at least “seasonally,” (e.g., typically 3 months). Wetlands adjacent to a “relatively permanent” tributary are also jurisdictional if those wetlands directly abut such a tributary (USACE, 2007). 3.2 REVIEW OF RWQCB JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
AND PORTER-COLOGNE The RWQCB regulates fills to WoUS under the Section 401 Water Quality Certification Program (WQC), which in most instances, mirrors CWA Section 404 jurisdiction. In the absence of CWA Section 404 jurisdiction over isolated waters or WoS - RWQCB jurisdiction over WoS is extended through Porter-Cologne. WoS are defined at Section 13050(e) of the CWC. Porter-Cologne provides a comprehensive framework to protect water quality in California. It requires that any entity who plans to discharge waste where it might adversely affect WoS must first notify the RWQCB, which may impose requirements to protect water quality.
7/8/2009 3-2
The Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) decision created “gaps” relating to isolated waters that are no longer subject to the CWA. In response, the State Water Regional Control Board (SWRCB) issued a 2004 Memorandum (SWRCB, 2004), stating that RWQCBs should consider setting a higher regulatory priority on discharges to “isolated waters” than to similar discharges to federally-protected waters of similar value. The 2004 Memorandum further stated that “dredging, filling, or excavation of “isolated” waters constitutes a discharge of waste to waters of the State, and prospective dischargers are required to submit a Report of Waste Discharge (WDR) to the RWQCB and comply with other requirements of Porter-Cologne. Among the procedures recommended in the Memorandum was that the RWQCB refer to the same regulatory considerations generally applied to the issuance of Section 401 permits when issuing a WDR (SWRCB, 2004). According to the SWRCB, the SWANCC decision did not affect the authority of the state to regulate discharges to isolated, non-navigable waters of the state, and had no impact upon the RWQCB’s authority to act under state law (SWRCB, 2001). Simply because RWQCBs often opted to regulate discharges in the past through Section 401 in lieu of, or in addition to, issuing WDRs does not preclude RWQCBs from issuing WDRs in the absence of Section 401 certification (SWRCB, 2001). The State’s position is that these general WDRs will continue to apply to certain discharges to non-federal waters. 3.3 REVIEW OF CDFG JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1600 (ET SEQ.) OF THE
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1602 et seq. of the, CDFG regulates any proposed activity that may substantially modify, divert, obstruct, or any activity that causes changes to the flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. According to to the CFG Code, a "stream" (including creeks and rivers) is defined as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." CDFG's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made reservoirs." CDFG jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based upon the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. For clarification, the CDFG Legal Advisor has prepared the following opinion (ESD-CDFG, 1994):
• Natural waterways that have been subsequently modified and which have the potential to contain fish, aquatic insects and riparian vegetation will be treated like natural waterways.
• Artificial waterways that have acquired the physical attributes of natural stream courses and which have been viewed by the community as natural stream courses, should be treated by [CDFG] as natural waterways.
7/8/2009 3-3
7/8/2009
• Artificial waterways without the attributes of natural waterways should generally not be subject to Fish and Game Code provisions.
In general terms, CDFG jurisdictional limits often overlap with that of the USACE. Exceptions are CDFG’s addition of artificial stock ponds and irrigation ditches constructed within uplands, and the addition of adjacent riparian habitat supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the riparian area’s federal wetland status or its location beyond the defined bed, bank, or channel. The extent of CDFG jurisdictional streambeds was evaluated according to CDFG Code 1600 (et seq.) and guidance from ESD-CDFG (1994).
3-4
4.0 ME T H O D S This Section is organized into three subsections: literature review, procedures and field data collection techniques (pursuant to CWA and CDFG professional standards and publications), and analysis parameters (CWA, RWQCB and CDFG protocols for assessing potential jurisdictional limits). In some cases, features extending beyond the defined study area were characterized in order to accommodate local topography, drainage patterns and any subsequent design modifications which may extend beyond the LAMC Facilities Master Plan Extension footprint. 4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW Prior to conducting fieldwork, the following literature review supported the evaluation and analysis of all special aquatic resource areas within the study area. Resource databases, local resource management plans, aerial photos, topographic maps, and other readily available and relevant commercial data was reviewed to determine watershed characteristics and the locations/types of aquatic resources that may be present within study area limits. These resources include the following:
• San Fernando USGS topographic map; • 2008 color aerial photographs (Aerial Photo USA, 2008); • Google Earth version 4.3.7 (July 8, 2008); • Los Angeles County, California West San Fernando Valley Area Soil Survey. (USDA-NRCS, 2009); • California Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee [IWMC], 2004; • Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 1998; • National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS, 2009); • Review of ordinary high water mark indicators for delineating arid streams in the southwestern
United States. (Lichvar and Wakely, 2004); • Distribution of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Indicators and Their Reliability in Identifying the
Limits of “Waters of the United States” in Arid Southwestern Channels. (Lichvar et al., 2006); and • Investigation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands. Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan
and Public Recreation Improvement Plan (PCR, 2003). The intent of the above referenced evaluation was to determine the probability that special aquatic resources could occur within study area limits.
4.2 CWA SPECIFIC PROCEDURES AND DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES The study area was surveyed on April 1st, 9th, 15th, May 19th, June 11th, 15th, and 29th, 2009 in order to determine the presence/absence and boundaries of potential special aquatic resource areas. Data related 7/8/2009 4-1
7/8/2009 4-2
to USACE-defined WoUS, including wetlands, were recorded with hand-held GPS units, on aerial maps, field notebooks and wetland data sheets - where applicable (Appendix A). The evaluation process initially looked at vegetation, soils, and hydrology parameters – in that order, of suspected wetland and aquatic habitats within the study area using the methodology for routine determinations set forth in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Regional Supplement (EL, 1987; USACE, 2006). Features were also evaluated using the methodology set forth in the USACE and EPA CWA jurisdiction guidance documents following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States (USACE, 2007; USACE, 2007a; USACE, 2007c; USACE, 2008). Average width(s) for the OHWM within each feature were determined in the field with a tape measure and documented on aerial map imagery and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Identification and location of the OHWM follows guidance provided in Lichvar and Wakely (2004) and Lichvar et al. (2006). 4.2.1 Hydrology
Hydrology was evaluated in areas suspected of being seasonally inundated and/or saturated to the surface during the growing season3 provided the soil and vegetation parameters were met as defined in the Wetlands Delineation Manual (EL, 1987). Recent precipitation data was analyzed to evaluate the frequency and quantity of precipitation within the vicinity of the study area (NWS, 2009). Additional hydrological information for drainage features was determined by signatures on aerial photographs and/or presence of other field indicators such as surface scour marks, vegetation and debris deposits, sediment deposits, watermarks, and oxidized root channels in the soil samples. Any suspected jurisdictional features observed in the field were classified as perennial (i.e., continuous water flow for three months or longer), intermittent (i.e., water flows seasonally), ephemeral (i.e., water flows only during and immediately following rain events), relatively permanent water (i.e., flowing for greater than three months per year), or non-RPW (i.e., seasonal, flowing less than or equal to three months). These classifications were determined through field observations. 4.2.2 Vegetation
The prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation was recorded on Wetland Determination Data Forms (Arid West Region) (Appendix A). Plant species were determined based on the Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California (Hickman, 1993) and the wetland indicator status of plant species was based on the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, California Region 0 (Reed, 1988). Table 1 below summarizes wetland plant indicator status.
The wetland vegetation criterion was assumed to be met if the Dominance Test using the 50/20 rule was satisfied (e.g., more than 50 percent of the dominant plants were wetland indicators) (USACE, 2006, pg. 3 For the purposes of this analysis, the growing season is defined as the period of the year when soil temperature at 20 inches below the surface is roughly 5 degrees Celsius [°C].
7/8/2009 4-3
19). Absolute, rather than relative vegetation cover was used in determining dominant species. Areas supporting a prevalence of hydrophytes were further examined for indicators of hydric soils.
During the field delineation, plants were categorized according to their probability to occur in wetlands versus non-wetlands, pursuant to the following categories shown in Table 1 below (EL 1987; Reed 1988):
Table 1. Summary of Wetland Indicator Status Category Probability
Obligate Wetland (OBL) Almost always occur in wetlands (>99% probability). Facultative Wetland (FACW) Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99%). Facultative (FAC) Equally likely to occur in wetlands/non-wetlands (estimated probability 34 to
66%). Facultative Upland (FACU) Usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67-99%). Obligate Wetland (UPL) Almost always occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability >99%). No Indicator (NI) Wetland indicator status not assigned. Species is assumed to be upland.
4.2.3 Soils
Soil texture, matrix, redoximorphic features4 and the presence of subsoil layers impervious to water infiltration were documented from soil pits. Soils were examined for positive hydric soil indicators (i.e., low chroma, mottles and iron or manganese concretions), histic epipedons, organic layers, gleization and sulfidic odor. Soil color and characteristics were determined from moist soil peds using Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell Color, 2000). Soils were evaluated by digging pits to a depth of approximately 16 inches - where possible, and GPS position data was collected at each soil pit (Figure 4).
Paired upland and wetland pits were evaluated where wetland or waters boundaries were not abrupt and for any areas containing a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation and potential hydric soils. Specific pit depths, soil color and texture, and other soil data obtained at each soil sample location are provided in Appendix A. Hydric soil assessments were predominately based upon the guidance provided in the Arid West Supplement Wetland Delineation publication (WTI, 2007), the Pocket Guide to Hydric Soil Field Indicators (WTI, 2006), and the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (USDA-NRCS, 2006). Supplemental soil information for the study area was also evaluated within the soil survey for the Los Angeles County, California West San Fernando Valley Area (CA 676) USDA-NRCS (2009).
4.2.4 Interstate or Foreign Commerce Connection
Areas that were identified as wetlands or other WoUS were then further evaluated to determine if they have an Interstate or Foreign Commerce Connection. Areas that met the USACE’s three technical criteria for wetlands and that have an Interstate or Foreign Commerce Connection were determined to be WoUS subject to USACE jurisdiction (USACE, 2008).
4 Redoximorphic features are considered spots or blotches of different colors or shades of color interspersed within the dominant color in a soil layer - usually resulting from the presence of periodic reducing soil conditions.
Currently, the following are assumed to have an Interstate or Foreign Commerce Connection (USACE, 2007b):
• Navigable waters • Wetlands adjacent to navigable waters • Non-navigable tributaries of navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries
typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months) • Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries
4.2.5 Significant Nexus with a Traditional Navigable Water
The USACE will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water (USACE, 2008):
Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent Wetlands adjacent to, but that do not directly abut, a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary
In general, the USACE does not assert jurisdiction over the following features (USACE, 2007b):
Ditches. “Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water (greater than three months) generally are not jurisdictional under the CWA, because they are not tributaries or they do not have a significant nexus to TNWs.”
Swales. “Swales are generally shallow features in the landscape that may convey water across upland areas during and following storm events. Swales usually occur on relatively flat slopes and typically have grass or other low-lying vegetation throughout the swale. Swales are generally not waters of the U.S. because they are not tributaries or they do not have a significant nexus to TNWs.”
The USACE will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters. Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors.
The following system for determining stream order was also utilized - based on USACE (2007b) guidance. The lowest stream order in the study area’s specific watershed in which the characteristics of an OHWM were observed was mapped in the field on aerial maps with a number 1. Every time a unique drainage of equal order came together, the stream order increased one digit. For example, when a stream order of 1
7/8/2009 4-4
7/8/2009 4-5
entered another stream order of 1, it became a stream order of 2. If a stream order of 1 entered a stream order of 2, the stream order remained at 2. Accordingly, the entire length of the same stream order that directs flows through the study area (known as the “relative reach”) was evaluated for its potential to affect the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the nearest downstream, USACE-defined navigable waterway. The primary purpose of the stream order map was to identify the location and length of the relative reach for each feature. It is the relevant reach that was assessed for the purpose of the Significant Nexus Analysis relative to the first downstream TNW.
4.3 CDFG-SPECIFIC PROCEDURES AND DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES Suspected CDFG jurisdictional areas were assessed in the field for the presence of definable streambeds (bed, bank, and channel) and any associated riparian habitat. Streambeds and suspected riparian habitats were evaluated using the CFG Code (Section 1600 et seq.) and guidance described in A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements Sections 1600-1607 (ESD-CDFG, 1994). The width(s) across the active channel (top-of-bank to top-of-bank within the approximate 10-year storm event channel based on Lichvar et al, 2006 criterion) for each feature was determined in the field with a tape measure and the results were noted on an aerial map. If areas adjacent to a channel feature were vegetated with riparian species clearly associated with the drainage, then the feature and outermost extent of riparian drip line was mapped on aerials in the field and included as part of CDFG jurisdiction. Riparian species present within and adjacent to defined bed, bank or channel features were recorded based on Hickman (1993) and Holland (1986). 4.4 ANALYSIS PARAMETERS The Project figures depict current conditions (i.e., existing roadways, developments, etc.), existing special aquatic resource area limits and the proposed LAMC Facilities Master Plan Extension footprint boundaries. To determine temporary and permanent impact acreages to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFG jurisdictions -calculations of the quantity of permanent and temporary impacts will need to be generated by superimposing cut and fill limits over geo-referenced aerial map that detail special aquatic resource area limits within the study area.
5.0 RE S U LT S This section presents the results of the delineation of USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA; RWQCB legal authority in accordance with Section 401 of the CWA; and CDFG jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 (et seq.) of the CFG Code. A total of 3 features were detected within the study area (Figure 4) and are described in detail within Sections 5.3, 5.5 and 5.6. Wetland data sheets are included in Appendix A and site photographs are included in Appendix B. 5.1 WATERSHED ANALYSIS The study area occurs at an approximate elevation range between 1,295 to 1,330 feet above msl within slightly sloping topography - roughly 2 percent grade to the southeast. The largest watershed surrounding the study area is the Los Angeles River Hydrologic Unit, which drains a 533,603-acre regional drainage area (IWMC, 2004; Figure 3). Within the Los Angeles River Hydrologic Unit, the study area lies within the smaller San Fernando Hydrologic Area - which drains a 328,782-acre area comprised of dense urban and open space within the San Gabriel Mountains. The smallest localized drainage area containing the study area is the Sylmar Hydrologic Sub-Area, which drains a 29,185-acre area comprised mainly of undeveloped open space within the San Gabriel Mountains. Flows from the eastern portion of the Sylmar Hydrologic Sub-Area are believed to drain through Pacoima Wash - the prominent drainage within the study area. Upstream of the study area, the headwaters of Pacoima Wash originate in the San Gabriel Mountains and drains into the Pacoima Reservoir. Flows from the Pacoima Reservoir then enter Pacoima Wash and drain south through the study area before exiting under Harding Street into the Lopez Debris Basin. Flows continue to drain through Pacoima Wash for 7.0 miles to the Tujunga Wash. At the confluence of Pacoima Wash and Tujunga Wash, flows are directed south for 6.7 miles until entering the Los Angeles River. The Los Angeles River then directs flow 37.5 miles southeast before discharging into the Pacific Ocean, the nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW). Accordingly, the study area is located 51.2 miles upstream of the TNW (Figures 3 and 6). The study area lies within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year Floodplain (FEMA, 1998), which is depicted on Figure 5. Figure 5 illustrates the extent of FEMA’s 100 year floodplain, which envelops the vast majority of the study area. The study area contains 3 potential jurisdictional drainage features (Figure 4).
• Feature 1 - Pacoima Wash, is identified as a blue line drainage on the San Fernando USGS topographic map. Feature 1 comprises the largest drainage feature within the study area and drains the majority of the upstream Sylmar Hydrologic Sub-Area. Flows within Feature 1 appear to be primarily controlled by discharges from the upstream Pacoima Reservoir (LADPW, 2009), as well as localized seasonal storm runoff. Additional flow is also provided from Feature 2 - which contributes seasonal storm water and continuous water flow for three months out of the year or longer from the irrigation runoff at El Cariso Golf Course and surrounding residential / commercial developments.
7/8/2009 5-1
7/8/2009 5-2
• Feature 2 is an unnamed drainage, which appears to have been constructed to convey flows directly to Feature 1. Feature 2 directs surface water runoff (i.e., storm water and continuous water flow from the irrigation runoff at El Cariso Golf Course and the surrounding developments) east through the study area for approximately 400 feet before entering Feature 1.
• Feature 3 is a small earthen ditch that lacks a defined bed and bank or OHWM. This feature appears to have been constructed in uplands to drain surface water runoff only during and immediately following rain events. Feature 3 drains surface runoff from a discrete 3.3 acre upland area within the study area into Feature 1. Feature 3 lacks an obvious upstream hydrologic connection to the Los Angeles River Hydrologic Unit, San Fernando Hydrologic Area or the Sylmar Hydrologic Sub-Area.
5.2 SURFACE HYDROLOGY AND SOILS The regional climate within the vicinity of the study area consists of hot and dry summer months with relatively cool and wetter winters. Seasonal rainfall occurs predominantly in the winter and spring months (Nov-April) and was below average prior to the 2009 surveys. The following climate data for the Los Angeles, California region was utilized for this analysis:
• Seasonal precipitation (fall 2008 – spring 2009) prior to field work measured 11.47” (29.2 cm)5 • Average annual precipitation measures 16.48” (41.9 cm) (data from 1939-20066) • 2008’s highest temperature was 107.0°F, the lowest was 37.0°F, and the average was 65.7°F
Two soil types occur within the study area: • Sobobo gravelly sand loam 0 to 2 percent slopes; and • Conejo-Urban land complex 0 to 2 percent slopes (USDA-NRCS, 2009; Figure 6).
Sobobo gravelly sand loam includes the majority of soils within the study area. Sobobo gravelly sand loams are considered an excessively drained soil. Conejo-Urban land complex comprises a small percentage of area within the western portion of the study area. Conejo-Urban land complex is considered a well drained soil. 5.3 DETERMINATION OF USACE JURISDICTION SUBJECT TO SECTION 404 OF THE CWA 5.3.1 Feature 1 - Pacoima Wash Feature 1 is identified as a named blue line drainage (i.e., Pacoima Wash) on the San Fernando USGS topographic map and contains a well-defined OHWM with relatively permanent flow. Feature 1 had a 5 National Weather Service Burbank Weather Station #041194. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/ 6 Los Angeles Almanac – Burbank, CA Station. http://www.laalmanac.com
prevalence of non-hydrophytic vegetation during field surveys. Feature 1 is part of an alluvial channel - incised approximately 10’ deep that contains a large cobble/boulder substrate (Figure 4; Appendix B, photo 1). Feature 1 directs flows south through the study area for approximately 1,290 feet before passing beyond study area boundaries under the Harding Street Bridge. Flow within Feature 1 appears to be primarily controlled by the upstream reservoir discharges, as well as seasonal storm runoff that enter the Pacoima Wash downstream of the Pacoima Reservoir. Substantial flows were observed within Feature 1 on April 1st, 9th, 15th, May 19th, June 11th, 15th, and 29th 2009. Feature 1 contains a well-defined OHWM consisting of primary hydrological indicators including surface soil cracking, water marks, shelving, sediment and drift deposits. Vegetation within Feature 1 is sparse (e.g., ≤ 10% cover) and consists of a dominance of upland species. Dominant species include buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum; NI), scalebroome (Lepidospartum squamatum; NI), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia; FACW) and peppergrass (Lepidium lasiocarpum; NI) (Appendix A). Soils within this feature are classified as excessively drained (USDA-NRCS, 2009; Figure 6) and are non-hydric based on soil pit analysis (Appendix A; Figure 4). Consequently, no USACE-defined wetlands occur within Feature 1 and no wetland habitats are identified within this feature by the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS, 2009). Because Feature 1 contains a well-defined OHWM, relatively permanent flows, and is indirectly tributary to a TNW (i.e. Pacific Ocean). It is considered to be subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. 5.3.2 Feature 2
Feature 2 is an unnamed drainage which appears to have been constructed to convey flows directly to the Pacoima Wash (Figure 4; Appendix B, photos 2 and 3). Feature 2 directs surface water runoff (i.e., storm water and continuous water flow from the irrigation runoff at El Cariso Golf Course and the surrounding developments) east through the study area for approximately 400 feet before entering the Pacoima Wash. Feature 2 contained flowing water on April 1st, 9th, 15th, May 19th, June 11th, 15th, and 29th 2009. Feature 2 is not identified as a blue line drainage (USGS, 1988), but contains an OHWM identified by primary hydrological indicators (i.e., surface water, sediment and drift deposits). Vegetation within Feature 2 contains a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation including mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia; FACW), black willow (Salix gooddingii; OBL), arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis; FACW), sandbar willow (S. exigua; FACW), broadleaved cattail (Typha latifolia; OBL), and rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis; FACW). Analysis of soil pit data resulted in soils exhibiting physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation - low chroma (5Y 2.5/1). Primary hydric soil indicators within Feature 2 also included histic epipedon (USACE, 2006, pg. 33), as well as a thick dark organic layer (Appendix A). Consequently, Feature 2 meets the vegetation, soil, and hydrology criteria of a USACE-defined wetland. Nevertheless, no wetlands are identified in Feature 2 within the study area by the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS, 2009).
7/8/2009 5-3
Feature 2 contains a well-defined OHWM, relatively permanent flows, included USACE-defined wetland, and is tributary to Pacoima Wash - a RPW indirectly tributary to a TNW (i.e. Pacific Ocean). Therefore, Feature 2 is considered to be subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. 5.3.3 Feature 3 Feature 3 is an upland-vegetated earthen ditch that lacks a defined bed and bank or OHWM. Feature 3 was constructed wholly in, and drains only uplands. This feature appears to drain surface water runoff only during and immediately following rain events (Figure 4; Appendix B, photo 4). Feature 3 is not identified as a blue line drainage (USGS, 1988). Furthermore, it lacks an obvious upstream hydrologic connection to the Los Angeles River Hydrologic Unit, San Fernando Hydrologic Area or the Sylmar Hydrologic Sub-Areas. This feature may have historically collected surface water and irrigation runoff from portions of Harding Street, but it has now been functionally isolated from Harding Street due to the installation of a curb and gutter system. Surface water flows from Harding Street are now redirected through street gutters into Pacoima Wash south of Harding Street and only negligible surface runoff flows enter this upland ditch. Feature 3 is vegetated with upland species including buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum; NI), California sage (Artemesia californica; NI), and ripgut brome (Bromus madrietensis; NI). No dominance of hydrophytic vegetation occurs within this feature. Soils are classified as excessively drained (USDA-NRCS, 2009; Figure 6) and non-hydric based on soil pit analysis (Appendix A). These soils allow flows to rapidly percolate through the surface into the ground water table. Consequently, no USACE-defined wetlands are present within Feature 3. Because this ditch does not contain an OHWM and was constructed wholly in and drains only uplands - it is not subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA.
5.4 SIGNIFICANT NEXUS ANALYSIS A Significant Nexus Analysis requires a Project-specific Stream Order Area evaluation - shown graphically on Figure 6. The volume, duration and frequency of flow within any non-relatively permanent tributary as well as its proximity to a TNW, relevant reach and local drainage area size were all considerations when evaluating the following three features potential significant nexus to a TNW.
• Feature 1 is identified as a named blue line drainage and appears to contain perennial flows. Therefore, Feature 1 is assumed to contain flow for at least three months out of the year and is considered a RPW indirectly tributary to a TNW (i.e. the Pacific Ocean). The TNW is located 51.2 miles downstream of the study area (Figure 6). Accordingly, Feature 1 is assumed to not require a significant nexus analysis to establish CWA jurisdiction because of its relatively permanent hydrological connection to a TNW (USACE, 2007; USACE, 2007a; USACE, 2007b; USACE, 2007c; and USACE, 2008).
7/8/2009 5-4
• Feature 2 is an unnamed drainage which appears to have been constructed to convey flows directly to the Pacoima Wash. Feature 2 directs surface water runoff (i.e., storm water and continuous water flow from the irrigation runoff at El Cariso Golf Course and the surrounding developments) east through the study area before entering the Pacoima Wash. Feature 2 contains an OHWM and is considered a RPW indirectly tributary to a TNW (i.e. the Pacific Ocean). Accordingly, Feature 2 does not require a significant nexus analysis to establish CWA jurisdiction because of its relatively permanent hydrological connection to a TNW (USACE, 2007; USACE, 2007a; USACE, 2007b; USACE, 2007c; and USACE, 2008).
• Feature 3 is an upland-vegetated earthen ditch that lacks a defined bed and bank or OHWM.
Feature 3 was constructed wholly in, and drains only uplands. This feature appears to drain surface water runoff only during and immediately following rain events. Feature 3 is has been functionally isolated from Harding Street due to the installation of a curb and gutter system. Surface water flows from Harding Street are now redirected through street gutters into Pacoima Wash south of Harding Street and only negligible surface runoff flows enter this upland ditch. Therefore, Feature 3 is not considered to be jurisdictional to the USACE and does not require a Significant Nexus Analysis.
5.5 DETERMINATION OF RWQCB JURISDICTION SUBJECT TO SECTION 401 OF THE CWA AND
PORTER-COLOGNE In this instance, RWQCB jurisdiction subject to Section 401 of the CWA mirrors USACE jurisdiction. Consequently, Features 1 and 2 are subject to the CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Program. Feature 3 is not considered to be subject to Section 404 or 401 of the CWA and also does not meet the criteria for a WoS as defined by Section 13050(e) of the CWC. Feature 3 does not possess an OHWM nor does it include a defined bed and bank. Feature 3 is has been functionally isolated from Harding Street due to the installation of a curb and gutter system. Any substantial surface water flows from the Los Angeles River Hydrologic Unit, San Fernando Hydrologic Area or the Sylmar Hydrologic Sub-Areas are now redirected through street gutters into Pacoima Wash south of Harding Street and only negligible runoff flows enter this upland ditch. Therefore, Feature 3 is not considered subject the RWQCB’s jurisdiction pursuant to Porter-Cologne. 5.6 DETERMINATION OF CDFG JURISDICTION SUBJECT TO SECTION 1600 (ET SEQ.) OF THE
CFG CODE 5.6.1 Feature 1 – Pacoima Wash Feature 1 is identified as a named blue line drainage (i.e., Pacoima Wash) on the San Fernando USGS topographic map and contains a well-defined bed and bank with relatively permanent flows. Feature 1
7/8/2009 5-5
7/8/2009 5-6
vegetation consists of a dominance of non-hydrophytic species including buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), scalebroome (Lepidospartum squamatum), and peppergrass (Lepidium lasiocarpum). Feature 1 also contains scattered and some what isolated mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) plants. Because Feature 1 is a natural watercourse that contains a well-defined bed and bank and supports habitat for biological resources, it is subject to CDFG jurisdiction. 5.6.2 Feature 2
Feature 2 is an unnamed drainage which appears to have been constructed to convey flows directly to the Pacoima Wash. Feature 2 directs surface water runoff (i.e., storm water and continuous water flow from the irrigation runoff at El Cariso Golf Course and the surrounding developments) to the Pacoima Wash within a well defined bed and bank. (Figure 4; Appendix B, photos 2 and 3). Vegetation within Feature 2 includes an upper canopy of riparian species including black willow (Salix gooddingii) and arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis). The corresponding understory is dominated by mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), sandbar willow (S. exigua), broadleaved cattail (Typha latifolia), and rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). Riparian vegetation within Feature 2 is confined within artificially-constructed berms. Because Feature 2 contains a well-defined bed and bank with associated riparian vegetation that support biological resources, it is subject to CDFG jurisdiction.
5.6.3 Feature 3 Feature 3 is an upland-vegetated earthen ditch that lacks a defined bed and bank. Feature 3 was constructed wholly in, and drains only uplands. This feature appears to drain surface water runoff only during and immediately following rain events (Figure 4; Appendix B, photo 4). Feature 3 is not identified as a blue line drainage (USGS, 1988). Furthermore, Feature 3 has been functionally isolated from Harding Street due to the installation of a curb and gutter system. Any substantial surface water flows from the Los Angeles River Hydrologic Unit, San Fernando Hydrologic Area or the Sylmar Hydrologic Sub-Areas are now redirected through street gutters into Pacoima Wash south of Harding Street and only negligible runoff flows enter this upland ditch. Feature 3 is vegetated with upland species including buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sage (Artemesia californica), and ripgut brome (Bromus madrietensis). Because Feature 3 is an artificially constructed water conveyance ditch without the attributes of a natural waterway (i.e., does not contain a defined bed or bank) it is not subject to CDFG jurisdiction.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following compliance implementation guidance is provided as a means of avoiding and minimizing adverse impacts to special aquatic resource areas that occur or have the potential to occur within the study area.
1. Prior to undertaking ground-disturbing activities within or immediately adjacent to any aquatic resource areas, LAMC should consult with the appropriate responsible resource agency (e.g., CDFG, USACE, and RWQCB) to verify delineation results and complete all obligatory discretionary permits / authorizations.
2. Develop an informal plan to offset or compensate for impacts to special aquatic resource areas to ensure rapid and favorable action during the discretionary permitting process.
7/8/2009 5-1
7.0 L I T E R AT U R E CI T E D
Aerial Photo USA. 2008. AirPhotoUSA’s Digital Aerial Photography, MapHandler and PhotoMapper Software, March 2008.
California Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee (IWMC). 2004. USGS 100K Quad Sheet. CalWater The Data- CalWater Version 2.2.1. <URL: http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/features/calwater/#Data>
Environmental Laboratory (EL). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Services Division, CDFG (ESD-CDFG). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code. Sacramento, California. January.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1998. Q3 Flood data 100-Year flood plain map. Hickman, J.C. (editor) 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (California
Department of Fish and Game The Resources Agency, ed). Sacramento, CA.
LACDPW. 2009. Hydrological Report for the Pacoima Reservoir. <URL: http://ladpw.org/wrd/report/0102/resv/summary.cfm
Lichvar, R.W. and J.S. Wakely. (Eds.). 2004. Review of ordinary high water mark indicators for delineating arid streams in the southwestern United States. ERDC TR-04-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. 127p. <URL: http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/ERDC-TR-04-1.pdf
Lichvar, R.W., Finnegan, D.C., Ericsson, M.P. and W. Ochs. 2006. Distribution of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Indicators and Their Reliability in Identifying the Limits of “Waters of the United States” in Arid Southwestern Channels. ERDC/CRREL Technical Report 06-5. 21p. <URL: http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/TR06-5.pdf >
Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Gretag Macbeth: New Windsor, New York. National Weather Service (NWS). 2009. Forecast Office, San Diego, CA. (website).
<URL: http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=sgx PCR. 2003. Investigation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands. Los Angeles Mission College Facilities
Master Plan and Public Recreation Improvement Plan. Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0). US Fish and
Wildlife Service Biology Report 88(26.10). 135p. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2001. Effect of SWANCC V. United States on the 401
Certification Program. Memorandum January 25, 2001.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Interim regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. J. S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble (Eds.). ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 123p.<URL: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/inte_aridwest_sup.pdf >
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USACE and EPA). 2007. Memorandum Re: CWA Jurisdiction Following U.S. Supreme Court discussion in Rapanos v. United States. 12p.<URL: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/rapanos_ guide_memo.pdf >
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination (JD) Form Instructional Guidebook. 60p. + Appendices A – H. <URL: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/jd_guidebook_051207final.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007c. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Questions and Answers for Rapanos and Carabell Decision. 21p. <URL: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/rapanos_qa_06-05-07.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USACE). 2008. Memorandum Re: CWA Jurisdiction Following U.S. Supreme Court discussion in Rapanos v. United States. 12p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 6.0. G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas (eds.). USDA,NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 47p. <URL: ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Hydric_Soils/FieldIndicators_v6_0.pdf >
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff (USDA-NRCS). 2009. Web Soil Survey. <URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ >
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geographic Survey (USGS). 1988. 7.5 minute San Fernando quadrangle map.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. National Wetlands Inventory- Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the Conterminous United States. Vector digital data: CONUS_wet_poly. Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, Washington, D.C. <URL: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/download.html >
Wetland Training Institute, Inc. (WTI). 2006. Pocket Guide to Hydric Soil Field Indicators. Based on: Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States v. 6.0
Wetland Training Institute, Inc. (WTI). 2007. Arid West Supplement Wetland Delineation April 13, 2007. Glenwood, NM 88039.
