HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix C1 - Biological Technical Report for Shea Project 1
Biological Technical Report for the
Sierra Industrial Facility
September 30, 2022
Prepared for: T&B Planning
3200 El Camino Real, Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92602
Prepared by:
Alden Environmental, Inc. 3245 University Avenue, #1188
San Diego, CA 92104
i
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location and Site Description .................................................................1 1.2 Project Description ..............................................................................................1 2.0 REGIONAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT .......................................................2
2.1 Federal .................................................................................................................2 2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ..............................................................2 2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ........................................................................2 2.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .....................................................2 2.1.4 Clean Water Act (Section 404) .................................................................3
2.2 State of California ...............................................................................................3 2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ......................................................3 2.2.2 California Endangered Species .................................................................3 2.2.3 Native Plant Protection Act ......................................................................4 2.2.4 California Fish and Game Code ................................................................4
2.2.5 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 .................................4 2.3 City of Fontana ....................................................................................................4 3.0 METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS ............................................................5 3.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................5
3.2 Biological Surveys ..............................................................................................5 3.2.1 General Biological Survey ........................................................................6 3.2.2 Habitat Assessment ...................................................................................6 3.2.3 Sensitive Plant Surveys .............................................................................7 3.2.4 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Survey ......................................................7
3.2.5 Burrowing Owl Survey .............................................................................7 3.3 Survey Limitations ..............................................................................................8 3.4 Nomenclature ......................................................................................................8 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS ..................................................................................................8
4.1 Physical Characteristics .......................................................................................8 4.2 Vegetation Communities/Land Use ....................................................................8 4.3 Potential Jurisdictional Features ..........................................................................9 4.4 Plant Species Observed .......................................................................................9 4.5 Animal Species Observed or Detected ................................................................9
4.6 Sensitive Biological Resources ...........................................................................9 4.6.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities ..........................................................10 4.6.2 Potential Jurisdictional Features ...............................................................10
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
4.6.3 Sensitive Plant Species .............................................................................10
4.6.4 Sensitive Animal Species .........................................................................11 4.6.5 Sensitive Species Not Observed/Detected and Their Potential to Occur ...................................................................................12 4.6.6 Wildlife Corridors ....................................................................................13
5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS ...............................................................................................14 5.1 Criteria for Determining Impact Significance ...................................................14 5.2 Direct Impacts ...................................................................................................15 5.2.1 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities/Land Use ...........................15
5.2.2 Direct Impacts to Potential Jurisdictional Features ................................15
5.2.3 Direct Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species ...............................................15 5.2.4 Direct Impacts to Sensitive Animal Species ...........................................16 5.2.5 Direct Impacts to Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur ..................17 5.2.6 Nesting Birds ..........................................................................................19
5.2.7 Wildlife Corridors ...................................................................................19
5.2.8 Compliance with Local Policies or Ordinances, .....................................19 5.2.9 Compliance with the Provisions of a Conservation Plan ........................10 5.3 Indirect Impacts .................................................................................................20
6.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ...............................................................20
6.1 Mitigation for Impacts to Coast Horned Lizard and Coastal Whiptail 6.2 Mitigation for Impacts to Los Angeles Pocket Mouse ......................................20 6.3 Mitigation for Impacts to Avian Nesting ..........................................................20
7.0 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................21
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF FIGURES Follows
Number Title Page
1 Regional Location .......................................................................................................2
2 Project Location ..........................................................................................................2
3 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................2 LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 1 Survey Information .....................................................................................................6 2 Vegetation Communities/Land Use ............................................................................8 3 Sensitive Species Not Observed or Detected and Their Potential to Occur .............12
4 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities/Land Use .............................................15
LIST OF APPENDICES Letter Title A Plant Species Observed B Animal Species Observed or Detected C Representative Photographs D San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Habitat Assessment/Phase 1 Survey
E San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Study
F Burrowing Owl Survey Report
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes existing biological conditions on the Sierra Industrial Facility project site (project site), which is a component of the proposed Sierra Business Center. This report provides
the City of Fontana (City) with information necessary to assess impacts to biological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City, State, and federal regulations. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in the City in San Bernardino County, California generally north of Interstate 210 and east of Interstate 15 (Figure 1). The project site (APNs 0239-151-09 and -38) is approximately 11.88 acres including off-site improvements and is on the Devore U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute series topographic map in the northwest corner of Section 20 in Township 1 North, Range 5 West.
The project site is generally bordered on the north by undeveloped land (the remainder of the proposed Sierra Business Center), on the south by developed land, on the east by a Southern California Edison utility corridor, and on the west by Sierra Avenue and developed land (Figures 2 and 3).
The project site has largely been undisturbed over time; however, a single-family residence has been present in the southwestern corner of the project site, and it appears to have been constructed in the late 1950s/early 1960s (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 2022). There has been some soil dumping and fill placed at the south end of the site, and illegal
dumping is also present. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project would include the construction and operation of a single concrete tilt-up, dock-high
commerce center building, to be used primarily for the storage and distribution of dry goods, and office space. There would be 168 automobile parking stalls, a screened truck yard, trailer storage area, 34 docking positions, and 18 additional trailer stalls. Proposed landscaping would be ornamental in nature and would feature trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. Access to and from the facility would be provided from
two private driveways connecting to Sierra Avenue. The project would include improvements to Sierra Avenue including pavement infill, curb and gutter, two new driveway aprons, sidewalk, lane striping, and landscaping/irrigation (including approximately 11 new street trees), decorative streetlights, fire hydrants, and signage. Utility
improvements and connections would also be made. Project construction is estimated to last 13 months. It is assumed that the facility would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
2
2.0 REGIONAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT
2.1 FEDERAL
2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) designates threatened and endangered animals and plants and provides measures for their protection and recovery. “Take” of listed animal species
and of listed plant species in areas under federal jurisdiction is prohibited without obtaining a
federal permit. Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Harm includes any act that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, including significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife. Activities that damage
the habitat of (i.e., harm) listed wildlife species require approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) for terrestrial species The FESA also generally requires determination of Critical Habitat for listed species. If a project would involve a federal action potentially affecting Critical Habitat, the federal agency would be
required to consult with USFWS. While the entire project site has been designated as Critical
Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), the project would not involve a federal action (e.g., a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for impacts to wetlands); therefore, there is no federal nexus, and no consultation would be required.
2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S. Code Sections 703-711) includes provisions for protection of migratory birds, including the non-permitted take of migratory birds. The MBTA regulates or prohibits taking, killing, possession of, or harm to migratory bird species listed in
Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Section 10.13. Migratory birds include geese, ducks,
shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and many others. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a “take.” The MBTA is an international treaty for the conservation and management of bird species that migrate through more than one country, and is enforced in the United States by the
USFWS. The MBTA was amended in 1972 to include protection for migratory birds of prey
(raptors). Birds that are regulated by the MBTA were observed on the project site. 2.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) was first enacted in 1940 to prohibit take,
which includes to kill, wound, or disturb the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), except when permitted by the Secretary of Interior. In 1962, the act was amended to afford the same level of protection to the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). The USFWS Final Rule regarding Regulations for Eagle Incidental Take and Take of Eagle Nests (USFWS 2016) states, “The
Eagle Act [Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act] does not provide protection to eagle habitat,
except for nests themselves.” No bald or golden eagle nest was observed, nor is any expected to occur on the project site due to a lack of nesting habitat.
!"`$
!
Project Site
!"a$
I¿
%&h(
?z
AÆ
%&h(
%&g(
!"a$
?z
%&h(
%&g(
Figure 1
0 42Miles
²Regional Location
SIERRA INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
San BernardinoNational Forest
SierraLakesPk wyCitrus Ave!"a$
Casa Grande Dr
Summit Ave
Lytle
C
r
e
e
k
W
a
s
h
Sierra AveLocust AveRiv
e
r
s
i
d
e
A
v
eFONTANARIALTO
Figure 2
Project Location
SIERRA INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
Project Boundary
0 2,0001,000 Feet
²
1
3 2
4 FFFFSierra Ave87
Figure 3
0 15075Feet
²
Project BoundaryProject Impacts
FPhoto Location
VegetationCalifornia Buckwheat Scrub with Scattered Chamise ChaparralDisturbedDevelopedSpecial Status SpeciesBell's Sage Sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli)California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus)Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow(Aimophila ruficeps canescens)Parry's Spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi)
Biological Resources
SIERRA INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
3
2.1.4 Clean Water Act (Section 404)
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is
charged with regulating the discharge of dredge and fill materials into jurisdictional waters of the United States (WUS). The terms “WUS” and “jurisdictional waters” have a broad meaning that includes special aquatic sites, such as wetlands. WUS, as defined by regulation and refined by case law include: (1) the territorial seas; (2) coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers, and streams
that are navigable WUS, including their adjacent wetlands; (3) tributaries to navigable WUS,
including adjacent wetlands; and (4) interstate waters and their tributaries, including adjacent isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent and ephemeral streams, prairie potholes, and other waters that are not a part of a tributary system to interstate waters or navigable WUS, the degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce.
Section 401 of the CWA requires that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge to WUS must obtain a Water Quality Certification, or a waiver thereof, from the state in which the discharge originates. In California, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues Water Quality Certifications.
The entire project site is relatively level with no evidence of ponding water, flowing water, or drainage features of any kind on the site or along its boundaries. As such, no CWA permit would be required.
2.2 State of California
2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act Primary environmental legislation in California is found in the CEQA and its implementing
guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines), requiring that projects with potential adverse effects or
impacts on the environment undergo environmental review. Adverse impacts to the environment are typically mitigated as a result of the environmental review process in accordance with existing laws and regulations. The City is the Lead Agency under the CEQA for the project, and this report is part of that environmental review process.
2.2.2 California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) established that it is State policy to conserve,
protect, restore, and enhance State endangered species and their habitats. Under State law, plant
and animal species may be formally designated rare, threatened, or endangered by official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission. CESA authorizes private entities to “take” plant or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA and CESA, pursuant to a federal Incidental Take Permit if the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
certifies that the incidental take is consistent with CESA (Fish and Game Code Section
2080.1[a]). For State-only listed species, Section 2081 of the CESA authorizes the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit for State listed threatened and endangered species if specific criteria are met. No State-listed species was observed on the project site, and none is expected to occur (see Sections 4.6.3, 4.6.4, and 4.6.5 of this report).
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
4
2.2.3 Native Plant Protection Act
Sections 1900–1913 of the California Fish and Game Code (Native Plant Protection Act; NPPA) direct the CDFW to carry out the State Legislature’s intent to “…preserve, protect and enhance endangered or rare native plants of this state.” The NPPA gives the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare” and protect
endangered and rare plants from take. No “endangered” or “rare” plants were observed on the
project site, nor are any expected to occur (see Sections 4.6.3 and 4.6.5 of this report). 2.2.4 California Fish and Game Code
Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, it is unlawful to take, possess, or
needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Raptors and owls and their active nests are protected by California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird
unless authorized by the CDFW. Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any
migratory non-game bird as designated in the MBTA. These regulations could require that construction activities (particularly vegetation removal or construction near nests) be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle unless surveys by a qualified biologist demonstrate that nests, eggs, or nesting birds will not be disturbed, subject to approval by CDFW
and/or USFWS. Birds that are regulated by California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA were
observed on the project site. 2.2.5 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 grants the State Water Resource Control
Board (SWRCB) and its regional offices power to protect water quality and is the primary vehicle for implementation of the State’s responsibilities under Section 401 of the CWA. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, regulate waste disposal sites, and require
cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. Typically, the SWRCB and
RWQCB act in concert with the Corps under Section 401 of the CWA in relation to permitting fill of federal jurisdictional waters. There are no jurisdictional waters on the project site.
2.3 City of Fontana City of Fontana General Plan Chapter 7 of the City’s General Plan Update 2015-2035 (Conservation, Open Space, Parks, and
Trails; City 2017) addresses goals and policies for Conservation, Habitat, and Urban Forest. How
the goals and policies apply to the Sierra Industrial Facility is addressed below.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
5
GENERAL PLAN GOALS GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PROJECT APPLICABILITY Continue to preserve sensitive natural open space in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and
Jurupa Hills.
Consider permanent protection for all these lands through acquisition and deed restrictions.
The project site is not within or adjacent to the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains or Jurupa Hills.
Large city parks and open
spaces include plantings and
natural areas attractive to birds and other wildlife.
Use public open space to
support wildlife habitat as
appropriate.
The project site does not
contain a city park or public
open space.
Fontana has a healthy, drought-resistant urban forest, 25% tree canopy, and an urban forestry program.
Support tree conservation and planting that enhances shade and drought resistance.
Landscape plans for the project would be consistent with City requirements.
3.0 METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to conducting field investigations, Alden Environmental, Inc. (Alden) performed searches of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the USFWS database for reports of sensitive species potentially on the project site or within one mile of the project site.
The Web Soil Survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service)
as well as historical aerials (Nationwide Environmental Title, LLC 2022) also were reviewed for the site. 3.2 BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS
Biological surveys of the site included a general biological survey and habitat assessments for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (federal Endangered, State Candidate Endangered, and State Species of Special Concern) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; federal Bird of Conservation Concern and State Species of Special Concern). The biological surveys also
included focused surveys for sensitive plant species, the burrowing owl, and San Bernardino
kangaroo rat as described following Table 1.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
6
Table 1 SURVEY INFORMATION
Date Biologist Survey Purpose
1/14/22 Philippe Vergne San Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat
assessment/Phase 1 survey
1/25/22 Brian Leatherman General biological survey, burrowing owl habitat assessment 3/3/22 Brian & Sandy Leatherman Burrowing owl survey, sensitive plant survey
4/15/22 Brian & Sandy Leatherman, Taylor Beaulac Burrowing owl survey, sensitive plant survey
5/19/22 Brian & Sandy Leatherman Burrowing owl survey, sensitive plant survey 5/30/22 Philippe Vergne San Bernardino kangaroo rat trapping survey 5/31/22 Philippe Vergne San Bernardino kangaroo rat trapping survey 6/1/11 Philippe Vergne San Bernardino kangaroo rat trapping survey 6/2/22 Philippe Vergne San Bernardino kangaroo rat trapping survey
6/3/22 Philippe Vergne San Bernardino kangaroo rat trapping survey
6/4/22 Philippe Vergne San Bernardino kangaroo rat trapping survey
6/22/22 Brian Leatherman,
Emilee Brink Burrowing owl survey
3.2.1 General Biological Survey During the general biological survey on January 25, 2022, vegetation communities were mapped, and lists of plant and animal species observed or detected were compiled. Species were added to
the plant and animal lists, as encountered, during all subsequent surveys (Appendices A and B, respectively). An assessment of the habitat on the project site was made for potential to support sensitive species and to determine what, if any, focused surveys should be conducted. Furthermore, the project site was searched for the presence of ponding water, wetland vegetation, and potential
jurisdictional features (i.e., waters of the U.S. and/or State). Representative photographs of the project site were taken (Appendix C; Figure 3). 3.2.2 Habitat Assessment
Burrowing Owl A habitat assessment for the burrowing owl was conducted during the general biological survey on January 25, 2022. During the assessment, the suitability of the habitat (e.g., its openness) was determined; locations of burrows that could be utilized by burrowing owls were
recorded with the use of a Global Positioning System (GPS); and the project site was searched for perches that could be used by the burrowing owl. Due to the open nature of the habitat and the presence of California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows that could be utilized by burrowing owls, the project site was considered to have some potential for the burrowing owl to be present even though the species has not been reported to the CNDDB
within one mile of the project site. Therefore, a focused burrowing owl survey was conducted as explained in Section 3.2.5 of this report.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
7
A habitat assessment/Phase 1 survey was conducted for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as
described in Section 3.2.4 of this report.
3.2.3 Sensitive Plant Surveys Two sensitive plant species (Parry’s spineflower [Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi] and Parish’s
desert-thorn [Lycium parishii]) have been reported to the CNDDB within one mile of the
project site, and Parry’s spineflower has been observed adjacent to the project site. Therefore, 3 focused, sensitive plant species surveys were conducted on the project site during the blooming period for most annual species (March to May). The surveys were conducted by walking transects across the project site. Sensitive plants observed along the transects were
counted, and polygons were mapped (rather than individual plants) using a GPS because the
plants were generally spread out over large areas on the project site. 3.2.4 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Survey
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat has been reported to the CNDDB within one mile of the
project site, and kangaroo rat burrows were observed during the general biological survey. Therefore, a habitat assessment/Phase 1 survey was conducted on the project site on January 14, 2022, which included walking transects and more closely inspecting the habitat on site for kangaroo rat sign.
During the habitat assessment/Phase 1 survey, kangaroo rat sign (burrows, scat, and footprints/tail drags) was observed (ENVIRA 2022a; Appendix D); therefore, a presence/absence trapping survey was conducted on the project site (ENVIRA 2022b;
Appendix E). The trapping survey was conducted according to USFWS protocol established for
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Six nights of trapping were conducted from May 30 to June 4, 2022 in areas containing potential San Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat and small mammal sign. 3.2.5 Burrowing Owl Survey
A focused burrowing owl survey (4 total site visits) was initiated on March 3, 2022 according to the survey methods in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 2012; Appendix F). Line transects across the project site and
spaced approximately 10 meters apart were walked. At the start of each transect and at
approximately every 100 meters, the project site was scanned for burrowing owls using binoculars. Particular attention was paid to areas of California ground squirrel activity and potential burrowing owl perches, and the biologists looked not only for burrowing owls but also sign/evidence of burrowing owl such as, but not necessarily limited to, excavated soil, whitewash
(excrement), castings (pellets), and/or feathers.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
8
3.3 SURVEY LIMITATIONS Sensitive species surveys were conducted during appropriate times of year and covered the peak activity periods for most species. Noted animal species were identified by direct observation, vocalizations, or the observance of scat, tracks, or other sign. However, the lists of species identified in Appendices A and B are not necessarily a comprehensive account of all species that
may occur on the project site as species that are nocturnal, secretive, or seasonally restricted may not have been observed/detected. The species that are sensitive and have been reported within one mile of the project site to the CNDDB and/or USFWS but were not observed/detected during the site surveys are addressed in this report in Section 4.6.5.
3.4 NOMENCLATURE
Nomenclature used in this report is drawn from Holland (1986); Hickman, ed. (1993); California Native Plant Society (CNPS; 2022); Crother (2008); American Ornithological Society (2021); Jones, et al. (1992); and CDFW (2022a).
4.0 SURVEY RESULTS
4.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The soil on the site is mapped as Soboba stony loamy sand (2 to 9 percent slopes). Elevations range from approximately 1,763 to 1,784 feet above mean sea level. As stated in Section 1.1 of this report, the project site has largely been undisturbed over time;
however, a single-family residence has been present in the southwestern corner of the project site since the 1950s/early 1960s (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 2022), and there has been some illegal dumping. 4.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/LAND USE Vegetation communities and developed land (a land use, which is not a biological resource) on the project site are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figure 3. Each is described following Table 2.
Table 2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/LAND USE1
Vegetation Community/Land Use On Site Off Site2
California buckwheat scrub with scattered chamise chaparral 7.50 0.00 Disturbed 3.69 0.13
Developed 0.31 0.25
TOTAL 11.50 0.38
1In acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre 2Area of off-site improvements
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
9
California Buckwheat Scrub with Scattered Chamise Chaparral
This community may represent chamise chaparral that was once disturbed, became California buckwheat scrub, and is transitioning back to chamise chaparral. California buckwheat scrub is a near monoculture of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) that usually results from disturbance and that may transition (back) to coastal sage scrub or chaparral. Chamise chaparral is dominated by chamise (Adenostoma fasiculatum), and associated shrub species contribute little
vegetative cover. Disturbed
Disturbed is characterized by predominantly non-native species typically introduced and
established through human activity. Characteristic species of disturbed habitat include Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and non-native grasses (e.g., Avena and Bromus spp.).
Developed Developed land consisting of man-made features such as roadways and residential structures Developed on the project site includes Sierra Avenue and the old residential site.
4.3 POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES The entire project site is relatively level with no evidence of ponding water, flowing water, or drainage features of any kind on the site or along its boundaries. No potential jurisdictional features (i.e., waters of the U.S. and/or State) were observed.
4.4 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED Fifty-seven species of plants were observed on the project site. Fifteen of the plants are non-native species. A list of these plant species is presented in Appendix A.
4.5 ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED Thirty-three species of animals (2 reptile, 24 bird, and 7 mammal) were observed or detected on the project site (Appendix B).
4.6 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Sensitive biological resources include certain vegetation communities, jurisdictional resources, and certain plant and animal species as explained below.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
10
4.6.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Sensitive vegetation communities are those with State or Global ranks of 1 to 3 as included on the current list of California Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2022b). There are no sensitive vegetation communities on the project site. California buckwheat scrub
with scattered chamise chaparral is State and Global rank 5. Disturbed is not on the list of California Sensitive Natural Communities; therefore, it is not sensitive. Developed land is considered a land use; it is not a vegetation community. 4.6.2 Potential Jurisdictional Features
There are no potential jurisdictional features on the project site. 4.6.3 Sensitive Plant Species
Sensitive plant species are those that are considered federal, State, or CNPS rare, threatened, or
endangered and/or included in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2022). California Rare Plant Rank 1B includes plants that are rare, threatened or endangered in California. California Rare Plant Rank 2B includes plants that are rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. California Rare Plant Rank 3 includes plants that are
eligible for State listing, but more information is needed. California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants are
uncommon in California and of limited distribution; some are locally significant, but few, if any, are eligible for State listing. Sensitive plant status is often based on one or more of three distributional attributes: geographic
range, habitat specificity, and/or population size. A species that exhibits a small or restricted
geographic range (such as those endemic to the region) is geographically rare. A species may be more or less abundant but occur only in very specific habitats. Lastly, a species may be widespread but exists naturally in small populations.
One sensitive plant species, Parry’s spineflower, was observed on the project site as follows.
Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) Sensitivity: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1, which denotes a species that is rare, threatened,
or endangered in California and elsewhere. Its Threat Rank (i.e., 0.1) denotes a species
seriously threatened in California (i.e., more than 80 percent of occurrences are threatened and have a high degree and immediacy of threat). Distribution: Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties. Habitat(s): Sandy soil on flats and foothills in mixed grassland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral
communities. Presence: Eighty-seven individual plants were observed spread out in the northern portion of the site (Figure 3).
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
11
4.6.4 Sensitive Animal Species
Sensitive animal species are those that are considered federal or State threatened or endangered (or candidates for such listing); protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; and/or on the CDFW Special Animals List (CDFW 2022) as a State Species of Special Concern, State Watch List species, State Fully Protected species, or as a federal Bird of Conservation
Concern.
Generally, the principal reason an individual taxon (species or subspecies) is considered sensitive is the documented or perceived decline or limitations of its population size or geographical extent and/or distribution, resulting in most cases from habitat loss.
Avian species’ nesting is also sensitive as it is protected by the MBTA (see Section 2.1.2 of this report) and California Fish and Game Code (see Section 2.2.4 of this report). Four sensitive animal species were observed on the project site as described below and shown on
Figure 3. Bell’s sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli) Sensitivity: State Watch List (taxa that were previously designated as "Species of Special Concern" but no longer merit that status, or which do not yet meet Species of Special Concern
criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status). Distribution: Along the Coast Ranges of California and across the Sacramento Valley to the west slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains south to northwestern Baja California, Mexico. Habitat(s): Dry chaparral and coastal sage scrub, chamise chaparral, and big sagebrush. Less common in tall, dense chaparral.
Presence: The Bell’s sage sparrow was observed on the project site during the general biological survey. Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) Sensitivity: State Watch List (taxa that were previously designated as "Species of Special
Concern" but no longer merit that status, or which do not yet meet Species of Special Concern criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status). Distribution: Southwestern California (slopes of Transverse and Coastal ranges, north to Los Angeles County) and northwestern Baja California, Mexico. Habitat(s): Coastal sage scrub and open chaparral as well as shrubby grasslands.
Presence: The southern California rufous-crowned sparrow was observed on the project site during the general biological survey.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
12
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) Sensitivity: State Watch List (taxa that were previously designated as "Species of Special
Concern" but no longer merit that status, or which do not yet meet Species of Special Concern
criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status). Distribution: Northern Baja California, Mexico and northward through California in the Coast Range north to Humboldt County and in the San Joaquin Valley (except the extreme southern end of the valley).
Habitat(s): Coastal strand, arid grasslands, sandy desert floors, plowed fields, and open lands. Grasses, shrubs, forbs, rocks, litter, clods of soil, and other surface irregularities provide cover. Presence: The California horned lark was observed on the project site during the general biological survey.
Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) Sensitivity: State Species of Special Concern (declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction) Distribution: Rancho Cucamonga east to Morongo Valley and south to the San Diego County border.
Habitat(s): Lower elevation grasslands and coast sage scrub habitats in areas with soils
composed of fine sands. Presence: The Los Angeles pocket mouse was trapped 1 time on the project site (Appendix E). 4.6.5 Sensitive Species Not Observed/Detected and Their Potential to Occur
Sensitive plant and animal species that were not observed or detected but that were evaluated for their potential to occur based on nearby CNDDB or USFWS records (or observation on the
adjacent Sierra Business Center parcel) are listed in Table 3. The potential for these species to occur is considered low, or they are not expected to occur, with the exception of two species observed on the adjacent Sierra Business Center parcel. Table 3 SENSITIVE SPECIES NOT OBSERVED OR DETECTED AND THEIR POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
SPECIES SENSITIVITY1 POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Plants
Parish’s desert-thorn (Lycium parishii) 2B.3
Not expected. The CNDDB record is from 1885, and the plants at the reported location are considered extirpated. This perennial shrub occurs in coastal scrub and Sonoran desert
scrub and blooms from March to April. It was not observed during the 3 focused, sensitive plant species surveys on the project site, two of which occurred during its bloom period.
Reptiles
Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) SSC
Low. The species is “found in coastal sand dunes and a variety of interior habitats, including sandy washes and alluvial fans” and “occurs in moist warm loose soil with plant cover. Moisture is essential.” (CaliforniaHerps.com 2022). A lack of moisture is a limiting factor to the potential presence of this species on the project site.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
13
Table 3 (cont.) SENSITIVE SPECIES NOT OBSERVED OR DETECTED AND THEIR POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
SPECIES SENSITIVITY1 POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Reptiles
Coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri)
SSC High. Was observed just north of the project site in 2022.
Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) SSC High. Was observed just north of the project site in 2022.
Birds
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) BCC SSC
Low. No burrowing owl or sign/evidence of the burrowing owl was observed during the 2022 breeding season survey for the species (Appendix F).
Coastal California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica)
FT
SSC
Not expected. The species was not observed or detected during any of the project site surveys. While there are two
CNDDB records of the species near the project site; both are from the 1990s in Rialto. From 1990 to 1997 the species was recorded in 7 locations in San Bernardino County—all in Riversidean sage scrub or Riversidean alluvial fan-sage scrub (Davis, et al. 1998), which are not present on the project site. Mammals
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax
fallax)
SSC
Not expected. This species occupies habitat similar to the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat and was not trapped during the 2022 trapping surveys for that species (Appendix E).
San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
merriami parvus)
FE SCE, SSC
Not expected. Trapping surveys conducted in 2022 determined that this species is absent from the project site (Appendix E).
San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida
intermedia)
SSC
Low. Its shelters, which are typically visible, are constructed with twigs, sticks, cactus parts, rocks and
usually built against a rock crevice or at the base of creosote or cactus. No woodrat shelters were observed on the project site.
1 Rare Plant Rank 2B.3 = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California but common elsewhere.
FT = federal Threatened
BCC = federal Bird of Conservation Concern:
SCE = State candidate Endangered SSC = State Species of Special Concern
WL= State Watch List (taxa that were previously designated as State Species of Special Concern but no longer merit that status, or which do not yet meet Species of Special Concern criteria.
4.6.6 Wildlife Corridors There are two types of wildlife corridors: local and regional. Local corridors provide animals with access to resources such as food, water, and shelter for survival and reproduction. Regional corridors allow for animal movement between large areas of habitat that are regionally important
and allow for gene flow among populations of species. Regional corridors include major creeks
and rivers, ridges, valleys, and large swaths of undeveloped land.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
14
According to the City’s General Plan 2015-2035, “Most of the City’s natural habitat has been
changed by urbanization, and remaining natural habitat lies predominantly in the foothills at the
north and south of the City.” (City 2017) The project site is not located in the foothills at the north or south end of the City. The project site is zoned for industrial uses and is surrounded by existing residences to the east and north, planned residential uses to the west, and planned industrial uses to the south. Therefore, the project site is not within or adjacent to a wildlife
corridor.
5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS This section analyzes project effects on sensitive biological resources in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines (i.e., Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines).
5.1 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Significance Criteria), a project will have a significant impact if it would:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or USFWS;
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or USFWS; 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and/or
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
15
5.2 DIRECT IMPACTS Direct impacts immediately alter the affected biological resources such that those resources are eliminated temporarily or permanently. All direct impacts associated with the Sierra Industrial Facility would be permanent.
5.2.1 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities/Land Use
Construction of the project would result in the direct removal of 11.50 acres of vegetation
communities/land use on site and 0.38 acre off site (Table 4). Table 4 DIRECT IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/LAND USE1 Vegetation Community/Land Use On Site Off Site2
California buckwheat scrub with scattered chamise chaparral 7.50 0.00
Disturbed 3.69 0.13 Developed 0.31 0.25
TOTAL 11.50 0.38
1In acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre 2Area of off-site improvements
As explained in Section 4.6.1 of this report, California buckwheat scrub with scattered chamise chaparral is State and Global rank 5, so it is not sensitive; disturbed habitat is not on the list of California Sensitive Natural Communities, so it is not sensitive; and developed land is considered a land use and not a vegetation community. Therefore, all of the impacts to vegetation communities and developed would be less than significant. That is, there would be no
substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS (CEQA Significance Criterion 2). 5.2.2 Direct Impacts to Potential Jurisdictional Features There are no potential jurisdictional features present on the project site. Therefore, there would be no effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (CEQA Significance Criterion 3). 5.2.3 Direct Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species All plant species with a Rare Plant Rank of 1B meet the definitions of Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act), or Sections 2062 and 2067 (CESA) of California Fish and Game
Code and are eligible for State listing, which includes Parry’s spineflower. It is mandatory that such species be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA. Therefore, impacts to Parry’s spineflower are addressed below.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
16
A population of 87 individual Parry’s spineflower plants is present on the project site; all of which would be removed during project construction. Nearby (i.e., in the City of Fontana)
occurrences of Parry’s spineflower are included in 2 CNDDB records. One of the occurrence
records is from 1903 and is possibly extirpated. The precise location of this record is unknown but is described as “west of Jurupa Peak on the border of Riverside and San Bernardino counties.” The other occurrence record is from 2012 (with earlier dated observations), and the population is presumed extant. It is located in the “vicinity of Lytle Creek Wash, Sierra Ave, and
Riverside Ave; north of Fontana and southeast of Highway 15”. This record describes the plant
as “common in widely scattered patches in 1999, seen in 2003-2007, & 2010…” with 5,000+ plants seen in 2005 in one of the polygons; approximately 15,750 plants seen in 2010 in the other polygons; and 54 plants in the two southernmost polygons in 2012. Therefore, there appear to be approximately 20,750 plants extant at this location.
The range of Parry’s spineflower includes Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. There are only 150 total occurrences of the species in the CNDDB among the three counties, and
137 of the occurrences are presumed extant (CNPS 2022). Therefore, 13 of the 150 occurrences (or 9 percent) are possibly or presumed extirpated, and 91 percent are presumed extant.
Based on the occurrence records, there appear to be approximately 20,750 plants extant at the one location in the City (i.e., in the “vicinity of Lytle Creek Wash…”). Based upon this known record in the City, the project’s impacts to 87 individual plants out of approximately 20,750 plants would represent an impact to approximately 0.4 percent of the plants in the City, which
would be less than significant considering the range of the species and the number of extant occurrences within its range (CEQA Significance Criterion 1).
5.2.4 Direct Impacts to Sensitive Animal Species
Bell’s Sage Sparrow The Bell’s sage sparrow is a CDFW Watch List species, which means either it was previously
designated as a "Species of Special Concern" (it was) but no longer merits that more sensitive
status, or it does not yet meet Species of Special Concern criteria, but there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify its status. Therefore, this species is of lower sensitivity, and combined with its fairly wide range (along the Coast Ranges of California and across the Sacramento Valley to the west slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains south to northwestern Baja
California, Mexico), and the small area of total impact (11.88 acres; which would be less if
disturbed and developed are subtracted), the project’s impacts are unlikely to cause a substantial adverse effect on this species from habitat loss. Furthermore, the Bell’s sage sparrow would be expected to fly away from construction activity and, therefore, not be injured or killed during construction (CEQA Significance Criterion 1). See Section 5.2.6 of this report for potential
impacts to nesting sage sparrows.
Burrowing Owl No burrowing owl or sign/evidence of the burrowing owl was observed during the 2022 breeding
season survey for the species (Appendix F). Therefore, the species is considered to have low
potential to occur, and impacts to the species are not anticipated.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
17
California Horned Lark
The California horned lark is also a CDFW Watch List species that used to be a Species of
Special Concern. Therefore, this species is of lower sensitivity, and combined with its fairly wide range (Northern Baja California, Mexico and northward through California in the Coast Range north to Humboldt County and in the San Joaquin Valley [except the extreme southern end of the valley]), and the small area of total impact (11.88 acres, which would be less if disturbed and
developed are subtracted), the project’s impacts are unlikely to cause a substantial adverse effect
on this species from habitat loss. Furthermore, the California horned lark would be expected to fly away from construction activity and, therefore, not be injured or killed by construction (CEQA Significance Criterion 1). See Section 5.2.6 of this report for potential impacts to nesting horned larks.
Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow The southern California rufous-crowned sparrow is another CDFW Watch List species that used to be a Species of Special Concern. Therefore, this species is of lower sensitivity, and combined
with its fairly wide range (southwestern California [slopes of Transverse and Coastal ranges,
north to Los Angeles County] and northwestern Baja California, Mexico) and the small area of total impact 11.88 acres; which would be less if disturbed and developed are subtracted), the project’s impacts are unlikely to cause a substantial adverse effect on this species from habitat loss. Furthermore, the southern California rufous-crowned sparrow would be expected to fly
away from construction activity and, therefore, not be injured or killed by construction (CEQA
Significance Criterion 1). See Section 5.2.6 of this report for potential impacts to nesting sparrows. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
A USFWS protocol-level trapping survey for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat determined that the species is absent from the project site (Appendix F). Therefore, there would be no impacts to it from construction (CEQA Significance Criterion 1).
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse The Los Angeles pocket mouse is a Species of Special Concern that is present on the project site where it was trapped one time (Appendix E). Potential injury or mortality to this species could
occur, and habitat loss would occur. Since this pocket mouse is a Species of Special Concern, the impacts may cause a substantial adverse effect on this species through potential injury or mortality and habitat loss (CEQA Significance Criterion 1). Therefore, mitigation is proposed. 5.2.5 Direct Impacts to Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur
Table 3 presented a list of the sensitive species not observed and their potential to occur on site. Most of the species are either not expected to occur or have low potential to occur. Impacts to these species are not anticipated. Coast horned lizard and coastal whiptail have high potential to
occur; therefore, potential impacts to these species are addressed below.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
18
Coast Horned Lizard
Potential injury or mortality to individual coast horned lizards could occur, and habitat loss
would occur from construction. Therefore, the project has potential to cause substantial adverse effects on this sensitive species (CEQA Significance Criterion 1). Compensatory mitigation is proposed.
Coastal Whiptail
Potential injury or mortality to individual coastal whiptails could occur, and habitat loss would occur from construction. Therefore, the project has potential to cause substantial adverse effects on this sensitive species (CEQA Significance Criterion 1). Compensatory mitigation is proposed.
5.2.6 Nesting Birds Most avian species’ nesting in the U.S. is protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Thirty avian species were observed/detected during the project site surveys, some of
which could nest on site—including the Bell’s sage sparrow, southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow, and California horned lark. If construction was to occur during the general avian nesting season (generally February 1 through September 15), substantial adverse effects to avian nesting could occur that would not be
in compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code (CEQA Significance
Criterion 1). Therefore, mitigation is proposed. 5.2.7 Wildlife Corridors
The project site is not within or adjacent to a wildlife corridor; therefore, there would be no
interference with wildlife movement (Significance Criterion 4). 5.2.8 Compliance with Local Policies or Ordinances
The project site is not within or adjacent to the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains or Jurupa
Hills, so the City’s General Plan goal to preserve sensitive natural open space in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills does not apply.
The project site does not contain a city park or public open space, so the City’s General Plan’s
policy to use public open space to support wildlife habitat as appropriate does not apply. Lastly, landscape plans for the project would be required to be consistent with City requirements, so the landscape plans would be in compliance with the City’s General Plan policy of using
drought-resistant species and potentially enhancing shade through tree planting (CEQA
Significance Criterion 5). 5.2.9 Compliance with the Provisions of a Conservation Plan
The project site is not within the boundaries of a conservation plan; therefore, there would be no
conflict with any conservation plan provisions (CEQA Significance Criterion 6).
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
19
5.3 INDIRECT IMPACTS
Indirect impacts consist of secondary effects of a project that can occur during construction or
from a project once built. Potential indirect impacts may include those from human activity, fugitive dust, noise, invasive plant species, nuisance animals, and night lighting and may include indirect effects on water quality. Each of these indirect impacts may adversely affect natural communities and/or wildlife that occur adjacent to a project site.
The project site is bordered on the west by Sierra Avenue and new development west of Sierra Avenue. East of the project site is a north-south trending Southern California Edison utility corridor, which appears to support biological resources similar to the project site. The east side of the utility corridor has been developed into a large, residential area of tract homes. Most of the
rest of the utility corridor in the vicinity of the project site is also bordered by existing
development (Figure 2). The land to the south of the project site is developed (Figure 2). The land to the north of the project site is proposed for development as the other component of the Sierra Business Center,
and that parcel is expected to be under construction beginning in 2023 concurrent with
construction for the Sierra Industrial Facility. Indirect effects, therefore, have potential to occur on the land in the utility corridor because the rest of the surrounding lands are developed (or will be developed concurrent with the Sierra
Industrial Facility project). Indirect effects on natural communities and/or wildlife in the utility
corridor are expected to be less than significant for the following reasons. Human Activity. Construction limits would be defined/delineated so that human activity during construction would be confined to the project impact footprint. The facility, once built, would be
fenced and would have designated access points, thereby keeping project activity on site.
Fugitive Dust. Fugitive dust generated during construction would be controlled by implementation of best available dust control measures in accordance with the project’s permit from the South Coast Air Pollution Control District.
Noise. No noise-sensitive species (i.e., federal- or State-listed species, whose nesting can be affected by excessive noise, such as the federal-listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher) are expected to occur in the project site vicinity. No records for these species were returned in
the database searches of a one-mile radius around the project site. Therefore, project construction
and operation noise would not have substantial adverse effects on these species. Invasive Plant Species. The project’s proposed landscaping does not include invasive plant species, and nuisance animals (e.g., free-roaming domestic cats) that can prey upon native
species are not associated with industrial facilities. So, no impacts would occur from invasive
plant species or nuisance animals.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
20
Night Lighting. The project would include night lighting for safety and security that would be focused on the facility. Similarly, new street lights would illuminate the paved roadway. The
project’s lighting would be in conformance with Section 30-476(g)(5) of the City’s Municipal
Code which states, “All exterior lighting shall be adequately controlled and shielded to prevent glare and undesirable illumination to adjacent properties and streets.” Therefore, potential night lighting impacts on the adjacent natural area would be less than significant.
Water Quality. Project construction would be subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and the project must acquire approval of a Water Quality Management Plan that meets specified water quality standards set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan for The Santa Ana River Basin. Therefore, potentially adverse water quality impacts would be avoided or otherwise minimized to less-than-significant levels.
6.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES Successful implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in this section would reduce potential significant impacts coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, Los Angeles pocket mouse,
and avian nesting to less-than-significant levels.
6.1 MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO COAST HORNED LIZARD AND COASTAL WHIPTAIL
A qualified biologist shall monitor the project site during grubbing, clearing, and grading for
sensitive animal species including coast horned lizard and coastal whiptail and shall, if practicable, direct or move these animals out of harm’s way (i.e., to a location of suitable habitat outside the impact footprint).
6.2 MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO LOS ANGELES POCKET MOUSE
A qualified biologist shall monitor the project site during grubbing, clearing, and grading for sensitive animal species including the Los Angeles pocket mouse and shall, if practicable, direct or move these animals out of harm’s way (i.e., to a location of suitable habitat outside the impact
footprint). 6.3 MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO AVIAN NESTING In order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, the initial
clearing, grubbing, and grading of land on the project site shall occur outside of the nesting
season (i.e., outside of the period February 1 through September 15). If ground-disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist 3 days prior to the ground-disturbing activities. If birds are found to be nesting inside or within 250 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the impact area,
construction shall be postponed at the discretion of a qualified biologist, until it is determined
that the nest is no longer active.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
21
7.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithological Society: Chesser, R. T., S. M. Billerman, K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L.
Dunn, B. E. Hernández-Baños, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, N. A. Mason, P. C.
Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., D. F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2021. Check-list of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. http://checklist.aou.org/taxa CaliforniaHerps.com. 2022. San Diegan Legless Lizard—Anniella stebbinsi.
https://californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/a.stebbinsi.html
California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 17.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
2022a. Special Animals List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. July. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline 2022b. California Sensitive Natural Communities. July 5.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline
California Native Plant Society. 2022. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org
City of Fontana. 2017. Fontana Forward, General Plan Update 2015-2035. Chapter 7
Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26746/Chapter-7---Conservation-Open-Space-Parks-and-Trails
Davis, Liam H., Robert L. McKernan, and James S. Burns. 1998. History and Status of the
California Gnatcatcher in San Bernardino County, California. Western Birds 29:361-365. ENVIRA. 2022a. Field assessment for the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat on the Sierra Industrial Acacia project site and Shea project site in the City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County. March 20.
2022b. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Presence/Absence Trapping Study Sierra Business Center (Acacia Project [North Fontana Industrial Complex]) in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County.
Crother, B.I. 2008. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding. Sixth Edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular # 37. January.
Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp.
Biological Technical Report for the Sierra Industrial Facility—September 30, 2022
22
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. State of California, The Resources Agency. 156 pp.
Jones, J.K., D.C. Carter, H.H. Genoways, R.S. Hoffman and D.W. Rice. 1992. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum, Texas Tech University 80: 1-22.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 2022. Historic Aerials by NETRONLINE. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer
A-1
Appendix A PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED – SIERRA INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME EUDICOTS
ANACARDIACEAE - SUMAC FAMILY
Rhus aromatica skunkbush
Rhus trilobata squaw bush APOCYNACEAE - DOGBANE FAMILY Asclepias eriocarpa Indian milkweed
ASTERACEAE - SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Ambrosia acanthicarpa bur-sage
Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed Artemisia californica California sagebrush Centaurea melitensis1 tocalote
Cirsium occidentale cobweb thistle
Gutierrezia californica California matchweed
Helianthus annuus annual sunflower Hypochaeris glabra1 smooth cat's-ear Lepidospartum squamatum scale-broom
Tetradymia comosa cotton thorn
BORAGINACEAE - BORAGE FAMILY
Amsinckia menziesii rigid fiddleneck Cryptantha intermedia common cryptantha Pectocarya linearis ssp. ferocula slender pectocarya
Phacelia cicutaria caterpillar phacelia
BRASSICACEAE - MUSTARD FAMILY
Brassica nigra1 black mustard Hirschfeldia incana1 shortpod mustard Salsola tragus1 Russian thistle
Sisymbrium irio1 London rocket
CISTACEAE - ROCK-ROSE FAMILY
Crocanthemum scoparium Bisbee peak rush-rose CONVOLVULACEAE - MORNING-GLORY FAMILY Cuscuta californica chaparral dodder
CUCURBITACEAE - GOURD FAMILY
Marah macrocarpa wild cucumber
EUPHORBIACEAE - SPURGE FAMILY Chamaesyce albomarginata1 rattlesnake weed Croton californicus California croton
Croton setiger doveweed
Euphorbia nutans spurge
FABACEAE - LEGUME FAMILY Acmispon glaber coastal deerweed Lupinus truncatus truncate lupine
A-2
Appendix A (cont.) PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED – SIERRA BUSINESS CENTER
GERANIACEAE - GERANIUM FAMILY Eriodictyon trichocalyx yerba santa Erodium botrys1 long-beaked filaree
Erodium cicutarium1 red-stemmed filaree
Phacelia ramosissima branching phacelia LAMIACEAE - MINT FAMILY Marrubium vulgare1 common horehound Salvia apiana white sage
Salvia columbariae chia
Salvia mellifera black sage ONAGRACEAE - EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY Camissonia sp. (vegetative) suncup PLANTAGINACEAE - PLANTAIN FAMILY
Penstemon spectabilis royal penstemon
Navarretia hamata hooked navarretia POLYGONACEAE - BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi2 Parry's spineflower Eriogonum elongatum var. elongatum long-stemmed wild buckwheat
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
Eriogonum fasciculatum var. polifolium rosemary flat-topped buckwheat Eriogonum gracile graceful buckwheat Lastarriaea coriacea leather-spineflower ROSACEAE - ROSE FAMILY
Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise
Prunus ilicifolia holly-leaved cherry SOLANACEAE - NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Datura wrightii pale-flowered thorn-apple Nicotiana glauca1 tree tobacco
Solanum xanti chaparral nightshade
MONOCOTS POACEAE - GRASS FAMILY Avena barbata1 slender wild oat Bromus diandrus1 ripgut grass
Bromus rubens1 red brome
Schismus barbatus1 Mediterranean schismus THEMIDACEAE - BRODIAEA FAMILY Dipterostemon capitatus blue dicks 1Non-native species 2Sensitive species
Appendix B ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED SIERRA INDUSTRIAL FACILITY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Birds
Aimophila ruficeps canescens2 So. California rufous-crowned sparrow
Aphelocoma californica California scrub-jay
Artemisiospiza belli belli2 Bell’s sage sparrow Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Callipepla californica California quail
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird
Cathartes aura turkey vulture
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven Eremophila alpestris actia2 California horned lark
Falco sparverius American kestrel
Haemorhous mexicanus house finch
Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole Melozone crissalis California towhee Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird
Passer domesticus1 house sparrow
Sayornis nigricans black phoebe
Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren
Tyrannus verticaulis western kingbird
Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird
Zenaida macroura mourning dove Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow
Reptiles
Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard
Uta stansburiana common side-blotched lizard Mammals
Dipodomys simulans Dulzura kangaroo rat
Ostospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Perognathus longimembris brevinasus2 Los Angeles pocket mouse Peromyscus eremicus cactus mouse Peromyscus maniculatus deer mouse
Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail
Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher
1Non-native species 2Sensitive species
Appendix C
Sierra Photo Pages
Representative Photographs
Photo Point 1. View facing south-southwest.
Photo Point 2. View facing south-southeast.
Photo Point 3. View facing southeast.
Photo Point 4. View facing northwest.
Appendix D
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Habitat Assessment/Phase 1 Survey
ENVIRA
Aquaculture Fisheries Environmental
P.O. Box 2612, Ramona, California, USA 92065
Phone 619-885-0236 E-mail PHVERGNE@AOL.COM
Subject: Results of a field assessment for the federally endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus)-SBKR on two adjacent but separate parcels referred to Sierra
Industrial Acacia project site and Shea project site in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino
County (Figure 1).
Figure One Sierra Industrial Acacia and Shea Project Boundaries
Phase one surveys were conducted on the two sites on January 14, 2022. Transects were walked
in an east west direction over the two sites.
Several listed and sensitive small mammal species are listed as potentially occurring in the
project vicinity. They are:
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus)- SBKR is one of several kangaroo rat
species in its range. The Dulzura kangaroo rat (Dipodomys simulans), the Pacific kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys agilis) and the Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) occur in areas occupied by
the SBKR, but these other species have a wider habitat range. The habitat of the SBKR is confined to
primary and secondary alluvial fan scrub habitats, with sandy soils deposited by fluvial (water) rather
than aeolian (wind) processes. Burrows are dug in loose soil, usually near or beneath shrubs.
The SBKR is one of three subspecies of the Merriam’s kangaroo rat. The Merriam’s kangaroo rat is a
widespread species that can be found from the inland valleys to the deserts. The subspecies known as
the SBKR, however, is confined to inland valley scrub communities, and more particularly, to scrub
communities occurring along rivers, streams, and drainages. Most of these drainages have been
historically altered as a result of flood control efforts and the resulting increased use of river resources,
including mining, off-road vehicle use, and road and housing development. This increased use of river
resources has resulted in a reduction in both the amount and quality of habitat available for the SBKR.
The past habitat losses and potential future losses prompted the emergency listing of the SBKR as an
endangered species on January 27 of 1998 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a).
Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse
The NWSPM (Chaetodypus fallax palidus) prefers habitat similar to that preferred by the SBKR. The
NWSPM occurs in open, sandy areas in the valleys and foothills of southwestern California.
The range of this species extends from Orange County to San Diego County and includes Riverside
and San Bernardino counties. This mouse is a California Species of Special Concern (SSC) whose
historical range has been reduced first by agriculture, but also urban development.
SSC designation of species is based on a series of publications prepared by the CDFW on declining
species of mammals, birds, fishes, amphibians and reptiles. These publications were intended to focus
attention on declining wildlife in California, species that are not currently listed but may merit listing
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Some of the species identified in these
documents have been subsequently listed, or are provided protection under provisions in CESA. Others
have remained on the SSC list, and have not been elevated to a greater status of protection.
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
The LAPM is one of two pocket mice found in this area of San Bernardino County. Both the LAPM
and the NWSPM occupy similar habitats, but the NWSPM has a wider range, extending south into San
Diego County. The habitat of the LAPM is confined to lower elevation grasslands and coast sage scrub
habitats, in areas with soils composed of fine sands (Williams, 1986). The present known distribution
of this species extends from Rancho Cucamonga east to Morongo and south to the San Diego County
border.
LAPM forages in open ground and underneath shrubs. Generally, pocket mice dig burrows in loose
soil, although this has not been completely documented for this subspecies.
The LAPM is listed as a SSC by the CDFW.
San Diego Desert Woodrat
The San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida )NELE is a relatively wide-ranging species extending
along the coast of California from south of San Francisco through to the border with Baja California.
This species also occurs in the Central Valley and the deserts of southern California and extends along
the desert side of the Sierra Nevada into southeastern Oregon. The coastal species of desert woodrat,
the NELE, prefers scrub habitats such as coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and alluvial fan sage scrub. It
is more common in areas with rock piles and coarse sandy to rocky soils throughout coastal southern
California. The range of this species extends from just south of Sacramento and the San Francisco area
to the border with Baja California. The coastal subspecies (Neotoma lepida intermedia) is listed as a
SSC; however, the NELE is not listed.
Other species which occur on the site or its vicinity are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Sensitive or listed Species On or Near Proposed Projects
Vegetation on both sites is mature alluvial fan with chaparral components.
Acacia Site
The vegetation on the Acacia site is fairly undisturbed alluvial fan with chaparral components.
Soils are sandy with some areas having river rock. Open less vegetated areas occur within the
site.
Low density Kangaroo rat sign in the form of burrows, scat, and footprints/tail drags were
observed within the site. K-rat sign was found in trace to low quantities (less than 5 burrows per
acre).
Based on vegetation and burrow size it appears that the kangaroo rat species occurring on this
site is probably the Dulzura kangaroo rat (Dipodomys simulans). Although based on historical
occurrence, and the power easement open space to the east there is a small probability that the
endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) could also be present.
Open Vegetation on Acacia Site
Disturbed Open Sandy Areas on Acacia Site
Kangaroo rat burrow and scat on Acacia Site
Shea Site
The vegetation on the Shea site is mostly disturbed and impacted alluvial fan with remnant
chaparral components. Portions of the site have been grubbed in the past. Soils are sandy with
some areas having river rock.
Trace density Kangaroo rat sign in the form of burrows, scat, and footprints/tail drags were
observed within the site. K-rat sign was found in trace quantities (less than 1 burrows per acre).
Based on vegetation and burrow size it appears that the kangaroo rat species occurring on this
site is probably the Dulzura kangaroo rat (Dipodomys simulans). Although based on historical
occurrence, and the power easement open space to the east there is a small probability that the
endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) could also be present.
Grubbed and Disturbed Areas on Shea Site
K-rat Burrow Observed on Shea Site
Southern Border of Shea Site. House is NAP.
Conclusions
Based on the phase one surveys there appears to be a very low potential for the San Bernardino
Kangaroo rat to occur on site. There is a good potential for the Los Angeles pocket mouse and
the northwestern San Diego pocket mouse to also occur. The identity of the kangaroo rat on site
and the presence or absence of the other species can not be determined accurately without a
focused trapping survey.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present data and
information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This report was prepared in accordance with professional requirements and recommended
protocols for small mammal phase one studies.
Philippe Vergne Philippe Jean Vergne March 20, 2022
Appendix E
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Studies
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus)-SBKR Presence/Absence Trapping Studies Sierra Business Center (Acacia Project) in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, Ca
Acacia Project Site: North Fontana Industrial Complex Acreage: 19.0 APNs: 0239-151-19, -25, -26, and -36
Prepared by: ENVIRA P. O. Box 2612 Ramona, CA 92065 Phone 619-885-0236 E-mail phvergne@aol.com Trapping Surveys Conducted On: May 30 to June 4, 2022
Report Date: June 9, 2022
Prepared For :
Alden Environmental
This report was prepared in accordance with professional requirements and recommended protocols for small mammal trapping studies (USFWS Permit TE068072-4).
Philippe Vergne Philippe Jean Vergne, Field Biologist and Author
Table of Contents Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ S-1
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Site Location and Project Description .............................................................................................. 2
3.0 Methods............................................................................................................................................. 2
3.1 Literature Review and Records Check ....................................................................................... 2
3.2 Habitat Evaluation Surveys ........................................................................................................ 2
3.3 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Surveys ...................................................................... 2
4.0 Results ............................................................................................................................................... 2
4.1 Sensitive Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 2
4.1.1 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat .......................................................................................... 2
4.1.2 Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse ........................................................................... 2
4.1.3 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse ............................................................................................... 2
4.2 Soils and Topography ................................................................................................................. 2
4.3 Land Uses ................................................................................................................................... 2
4.4 Plant Communities ..................................................................................................................... 2
4.5 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 2
4.6. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Surveys ..................................................................... 2
4.6.1 Weather Conditions .......................................................................................................... 2
4.6.2 Trap Site Descriptions ....................................................................................................... 2
4.6.3 Trapping Survey Results ................................................................................................... 2
5.0 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 2
6.0 References ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Figures 1 Regional Location and Site Vicinity ................................................................................................ 2
2 Trap-lines.......................................................................................................................................... 7 3 SBKR Capture Locations ................................................................................................................. 2
Tables 1 Weather Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 6
2 Trapping Results ............................................................................................................................. 8 Appendices Appendix A - Plants and Animal Species Observed Appendix B- Site Photographs
Executive Summary
ENVIRA was contracted by Alden Environmental to conduct a live-trapping effort for the federally listed endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). The study was conducted on an 11.1-acre site located at the corner of Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1).
A literature review and records check was conducted for sensitive resources within the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition to the literature review, a general field survey of the project area was conducted. The field survey provided information on the existing conditions of the site and the potential
for sensitive resources to be present.
Four sensitive mammal species were identified as potentially present in the vicinity of the project site: the SBKR, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax),LAPM, and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia)-NELE. Focused trapping surveys are only required for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR). Since kangaroo rat burrows were found during the phase one site
survey (January 14, 2022) a focused trapping survey was scheduled by the Developer.
SBKR were previously captured adjacent and north of the site in an area that is now in houses (CNDDB) (Figure 2).
Trapping surveys for SBKR were conducted according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols established for SBKR. The current protocol calls for five nights of trapping. One trapping session was conducted from May 30 to June 4 of 2022. Focused trapping was conducted on the property
in areas containing potential SBKR habitat and small mammal sign.
SBKR were not captured during the current survey. The kangaroo rat species that occurs on site is the Dulzura kangaroo rat (Dipodomys simulans)-DKR
One other sensitive mammal species, the Los Angeles pocket mouse , was captured during the focused survey. Impacts to this species are probably not considered to be significantunder CEQA due to project size and location.
It should be noted that the USFWS considers small mammal trapping surveys as valid for one year from the date of the trapping.
1.0 Introduction
ENVIRA was contracted by Alden Environmental to conduct a live-trapping effort for the federally listed endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). The study was conducted on an 11.1-acre site located at the corner of Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1).
This report describes the existing conditions of the project site, the general biological resources observed on site, and the results of the trapping studies. The assessment and trapping work were required to determine the presence or absence of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) on the property.
2.0 Site Location and Project Description
The property is located to the east and adjacent to Sierra Avenue and to the south of Duncan Canyon Road (Figure 1).
The proposed project is for a commercial development.
Figure One Project Location.
3.0 Methods
A literature review and records check was conducted for sensitive resources within the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition to the literature review, a general field survey of the project area was conducted. The field survey provided information on the existing conditions of the site and the potential for sensitive resources to be present. Trapping surveys for SBKR were conducted in areas with potential
SBKR habitat and small mammal sign (scat, burrows, tail-drags, footprint, diggings and dust bath areas.
3.1 Literature Review and Records Check
The literature review and records check included a review of standard field guides and texts on sensitive and non-sensitive biological resources potentially onsite, as well as the following sources:
• List of sensitive biological resources provided by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB).
• The Status and Known Distribution of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). Field surveys conducted between 1987 and 1996 (McKernan 1997).
• Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat as Endangered; and Notice of Public Hearing (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
• Previous trapping reports for the area
3.2 Habitat Evaluation Surveys
Mr. Philippe Vergne, a certified kangaroo rat biologist holding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Permit No. TE831207-4 and current California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Memorandum of
Understanding, inventoried and evaluated the condition of the soils and plant communities on site in order to assess the potential trapping locations for SBKR or other sensitive species. Mr. Vergne took notes during the surveys of all plant and animal species observed.
SBKR were previously captured adjacent and north of the site in an area that is now in houses (CNDDB) (Figure 2).
Figure Two. CNDDB Results Acacia Site
An intensive search was conducted on the property and immediately adjacent areas for such diagnostic kangaroo rat sign as habitat, scat, tracks, dust bowls and burrows. All species identified by sight, call or
sign (burrows, scat, tracks, etc.) and visual observation were recorded.
In addition, site characteristics such as soils, topography, the condition of the plant communities, and evidence of human use of the site were noted. A list of plant and wildlife species observed during the
survey is included in Appendix A.
3.3 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Surveys
Trapping surveys for SBKR were conducted according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
protocols established for SBKR. The current protocol calls for five nights of trapping. One trapping session was conducted from May 30 to June 4, 2022.
Four trapping lines of 30 traps, set 12 meters apart, were set in trapping areas A through D (Figure 3) for the Acacia portion of the site. Traps were placed in areas containing sandy loam soils showing sign of small mammal use.
Each trap was baited with birdseed placed at the back of the traps. The traps were left in place each day. Each trap was set at dusk each night and inspected once during the night and at dawn each morning. All animals were identified and released at the point of capture.
Notes were taken on the habitat conditions where the traps were placed. Weather conditions at the time of the trapping were also noted.
4.0 Results
Four sensitive mammal species were identified as potentially present in the vicinity of the project site. They are the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), the Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and the San Diego desert
woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia).
Of the animal species potentially present, only the San Bernardino kangaroo rat requires specific survey protocols to establish presence or absence. These specific survey protocols are required for areas where impacts may occur to the sensitive species or their occupied habitat. The remaining species are usually identified through casual observation or as part of the overall trapping effort.
4.1 Sensitive Biological Resources
4.1.1 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat is primarily associated with a variety of sage scrub vegetation, where
the common elements are the presence of sandy soils and relatively open vegetation structure (McKernan 1997). Flood events break out of the main river channel in a complex pattern, resulting in a braided appearance to the flood plain. This dynamic nature to the habitat leads to a situation where not all the
alluvial scrub habitat is suitable for the kangaroo rat at any point in time.
The SBKR prefers open habitat characterized by a low stature open scrub canopy cover of less than 22 percent. Occupied SBKR habitat also typically exhibits a reduced herbaceous cover with a low abundance
of European grasses, such as brome species. This type of habitat is best described as early to intermediate phase alluvial sage scrub communities that are subject to frequent flooding/scouring. The open vegetation structure in these communities support the highest densities of SBKR.
Mature phase alluvial chaparral, which are usually located above the active channel or on higher benches are not usually occupied by SBKR, although individuals have been trapped in dense upland scrub adjacent to open habitat and SBKR populations (Vergne 2008).
4.1.2 Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse
The northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodippus fallax fallax) prefers habitat similar to that preferred by the SBKR. The northwestern San Diego pocket mouse occurs in open, sandy areas in the valleys and foothills of southwestern California.
The range of this species extends from Orange County to San Diego County, and includes Riverside and
San Bernardino counties. This mouse is a California Species of Concern (CSC) whose historical range has been reduced by urban development and agriculture.`
4.1.3 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
The Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) is one of two pocket mice found in this area of San Bernardino County. Both the Los Angeles pocket mouse and the San Diego pocket mouse occupy similar habitats, but the San Diego pocket mouse has a wider range extending south into
San Diego County. The habitat of the Los Angeles pocket mouse is described as being confined to lower elevation grasslands and coast sage scrub habitats, in areas with soils composed of fine sands (Williams, 1986). The present known distribution of this species extends from Rancho Cucamonga east to Morongo
Valley and south to the San Diego County border.
Los Angeles pocket mouse forages in open ground and underneath shrubs. Pocket mice dig burrows in loose soil, although this has not been completely documented for this subspecies.
The L.A. pocket mouse is listed as a California Species of Concern (CSC) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
4.1.4 San Diego Desert Woodrat
The desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida) is a relatively wide-ranging species extending along the coast of
California from south of San Francisco through to the border with Baja California. This species also
occurs in the Central Valley and the deserts of southern California and extends along the desert side of the
Sierra Nevada into southeastern Oregon.
The coastal race of the desert woodrat, the San Diego desert woodrat, prefers scrub habitats such as
coastal sage scrub, chaparral and alluvial fan sage scrub. It is more common in areas with rock piles and
coarse sandy to rocky soils throughout coastal southern California. The range of this species extends
from just south of Sacramento and the San Francisco area to the border with Baja California. The coastal
subspecies of the widespread Neotoma lepida is listed as a CSC; its historical range has been impacted by
the conversion of scrub habitats into residential, commercial and industrial use.
4.2 Soils and Topography
Soils on site are characterized as Soboba, and Tujunga loamy sand (Soil Survey Staff 2016). Cobbles are abundant on site. The topography is flat to gently sloping to the south.
4.3 Land Uses
The property is located adjacent and to the east of Sierra Avenue. It is bordered on the North by Duncan Canyon Road and a residential development. Open space and the Shea site is located to the south. A SCE power line easement is located on the eastern boundary.
4.4 Plant Communities
The vegetation on the Acacia site is fairly undisturbed alluvial fan with chaparral components. Soils are
sandy with some areas having river rock. Open less vegetated areas occur within the site.
Disturbed Open Sandy Areas on Acacia Site
Kangaroo rat burrow and scat on Acacia Site
4.5 Wildlife
Wildlife activity was low during the trapping surveys. One reptile species, the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) was observed. Bird species observed included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius).
A list of species observed is given in Appendix A.
4.6. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Surveys
4.6.1 Weather Conditions
Weather conditions during the trapping surveys included morning temperatures in the high sixties to low seventies degrees Fahrenheit, with clear to partly cloudy skies and winds of less than three miles per hour. The moon was new during the protocol survey. Daily weather conditions for each day are summarized
in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Weather Summary
Date Cloud Cover Morning
Temperatures (F)
Wind Speed
(miles per hour)
May 30 Clear 69 0
May 31 Clear 68 0
June 1 Clear 71 0
June 2 Clear 72 0-3
June 3 Clear 72 0-3
June 4 Clear 73 0-3
4.6.2 Trap Site Descriptions
Traps were set within open areas on sites that had small fossorial mammal sign or that were near undisturbed areas adjacent to the property.
4.6.3 Trapping Survey Results
Trapping success was low over the entire trapping period. A total of four small mammal species, were trapped during the survey period. Table 2 provides summary information on the species trapped per
trapping location.
Table 2. Trapping Results Sierra Business Center Acacia Portion
Dulzura Kangaroo Rat Cactus Mouse Deer Mouse Los Angeles Pocket
Mouse
Trap Site Number of Trap Nights
Dipodomys simulans Peromyscus eremicus Peromyscus maniculatus
Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
A 150 3 4 2 2
B 150 2 3 3 4
C 150 2 3 1 1
D 150 1 4 2 1
Totals 600 8 14 8 8
Figure 3. Sierra Business Center Trap Lines
5.0 Discussion
Based on the trapping survey the San Bernardino does not occur on the property. No impacts to SBKR will occur due to project implementation.
The LAPM a CDFW CSC occurs on the property. Regionally impact to this species due to project implementation might not be considered as significant under CEQA.
References
Burt, W. H., 1986. A Field Guide to the Mammals in North American North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cadre Environmental, 2002, Etiwanda TT16072 Trapping Report Garrett, K. and J. Dunn, 1981. Birds of Southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Society. The
Artisan Press, Los Angeles, California. Grinnell, J., 1933. Review of the Recent Mammal Fauna of California. University of California
Publications in Zoology, 40:71-234. Hall, E.R., 1981. The Mammals of North America, Volumes I and II. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, New York. Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of
California Press. Ingles, L.G., 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
California. Laudenslayer, Jr., W.F., W.E. Grenfell, Jr., and D.C. Zeiner, 1991. A Check-list of the
Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of California. California Fish and Game 77:109-141.
McKernan, R.L., 1997. The Status and Known Distribution of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus): Field surveys conducted between 1987 and 1996. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field Office.
McKernan, R.L. 1999. Biological Inventory of the Etiwanda Creek Flood Control Project, San Bernardino County. Report prepared for the San Bernardino County
Transportation/Flood Control Department, San Bernardino, California. Munz, P.A., 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California. NRA,2001, SBKR Trapping Report for highland golf course Project, Highland, California.
Remsen, Jr., J.V., 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. Non-game Wildlife Investigations. Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report No 78-1. Report
prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game. Soil Conservation Service, 1980. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part,
California.
Stebbins, R.C., 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. SJM Biological,2005. Results of live trapping survey for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat on Chiu
property, Chambers Group. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996. Review of plant and animal taxa for listing as endangered
or threatened species; notice of review. Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 40. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a. Emergency Rule to List the San Bernardino Kangaroo
Rat, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties in Southern California, as Endangered. Vol. 63, No. 17, pp. 3835 - 3843.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to List the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat as Endangered; and Notice of Public Hearing. Vol. 63, No. 17, pp. 3877 - 3878.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat as Endangered, Vol. 63, No. 185, pp.
51005 - 51017. Vergne, P., 2011,2013 Presence Absence SBKR Trapping Report for highland golf course
Project, Highland, California. Williams, D.F., 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. Wildlife
Management Division Administrative Report 86-1 prepared for The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game.
Appendix A - Plant and Animal Species Observed
* denotes non-native plant species
Plants
ANGIOSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONES DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Anacardiaceae Sumac family
Rhus trilobata Squaw bush
Asteraceae Sunflower family
Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed
Artemisia californica California sagebrush
Helianthus annuus Annual sunflower
Lepidospartum squamatum Scale-broom
Boraginaceae Borage family
Amsinckia menziesii Fiddleneck
Cryptantha intermedia Popcorn flower
Brassicaceae Mustard family
*Brassica nigra Black mustard
*Hirschfeldia incana Short-podded mustard
*Sisymbrium irio London rocket
Euphorbiaceae Spurge family
Chamaesyce albomarginata Rattlesnake weed
Croton californica Croton
Eremocarpus setigerus Doveweed
Euphorbia nutans Spurge
Geraniaceae Geranium family
*Erodium cicutarium Red-stemmed filaree
Eriodictyon trichocalyx Yerba santa
Phacelia ramosissima Branching phacelia
Lamiaceae Mint family
Salvia mellifera Black sage
Polygonaceae Buckwheat family
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
Eriogonum gracile Graceful buckwheat
ANGIOSPERMAE:MONOCOTYLEDONAE MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Poaceae Grass family
*Avena barbata Slender wild oats
*Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome
*Bromus madritensis Red brome
*Schismus barbatus Mediterranean grass
Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Hickman 1993 and Munz 1974.
Animals
REPTILIA REPTILES
Iguanidae Iguanas and their allies
Uta stansburiana Side-blotched lizard
AVES BIRDS
Cathartidae Vultures
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture
Accipitridae Kites, hawks and eagles
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk
Falconidae Caracaras and falcons
Falco sparverius American kestrel
Columbidae Pigeons and doves
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove
Tyrannidae Tyrant flycatchers
Tyrannus verticaulis Western kingbird
Corvidae Crows and ravens
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Mimidae Mimic thrushes
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird
MAMALIA MAMMALS
Leporidae Rabbits and hares
Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon’s cottontail
Sciuridae Squirrels, chipmunks and marmots
Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Geomyidae Pocket gophers
Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher
Heteromyidae Pocket mice and kangaroo rats
Dipodomys simulans Dulzura kangaroo rat
Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse
Cricetidae Cricetine mice and rats
Peromyscus eremicus Cactus mouse
Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse
Canidae Foxes, wolves and relatives
Canis latrans Coyote
Nomenclature follows Hall 1981, Laudenslayer et al. 1991, and Stebbins 1966.
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus)-SBKR Presence/Absence Trapping Studies
Sierra Business Center (Shea Project) in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, Ca
Shea Project: Sierra Industrial Facility
Acreage: 11.1
APNs: 0239-151-09 and -38
Prepared by: ENVIRA P. O. Box 2612 Ramona, CA 92065 Phone 619-885-0236 E-mail phvergne@aol.com Trapping Surveys Conducted On:
May 30 to June 4, 2022 Report Date: June 10, 2022
Prepared For :
Alden Environmental
This report was prepared in accordance with professional requirements and recommended protocols for
small mammal trapping studies (USFWS Permit TE068072-4). Philippe Vergne Philippe Jean Vergne, Field Biologist and Author
Table of Contents Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ S-1
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Site Location and Project Description .............................................................................................. 2
3.0 Methods............................................................................................................................................. 2
3.1 Literature Review and Records Check ....................................................................................... 2
3.2 Habitat Evaluation Surveys ........................................................................................................ 2
3.3 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Surveys ...................................................................... 2
4.0 Results ............................................................................................................................................... 2
4.1 Sensitive Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 2
4.1.1 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat .......................................................................................... 2
4.1.2 Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse ........................................................................... 2
4.1.3 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse ............................................................................................... 2
4.2 Soils and Topography ................................................................................................................. 2
4.3 Land Uses ................................................................................................................................... 2
4.4 Plant Communities ..................................................................................................................... 2
4.5 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 2
4.6. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Surveys ..................................................................... 2
4.6.1 Weather Conditions .......................................................................................................... 2
4.6.2 Trap Site Descriptions ....................................................................................................... 2
4.6.3 Trapping Survey Results ................................................................................................... 2
5.0 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 2
6.0 References ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Figures 1 Regional Location and Site Vicinity ................................................................................................ 2 2 Trap-lines.......................................................................................................................................... 7 Tables 1 Weather Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 6
2 Trapping Results ............................................................................................................................. 8
Appendices Appendix A - Plants and Animal Species Observed
Executive Summary
ENVIRA was contracted by Alden Environmental to conduct a live-trapping effort for the federally listed endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). The study was conducted on an 11.1-acre site located east of Sierra Avenue and south and adjacent to the Acacia Site Bernardino County, California (Figure 1).
A literature review and records check was conducted for sensitive resources within the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition to the literature review, a general field survey of the project area was conducted. The field survey provided information on the existing conditions of the site and the potential
for sensitive resources to be present.
Four sensitive mammal species were identified as potentially present in the vicinity of the project site: the SBKR, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax),LAPM, and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia)-NELE. Focused trapping surveys are only required for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR). Since kangaroo rat burrows were found during the phase one site
survey (January 14, 2022) a focused trapping survey was scheduled by the Developer.
SBKR were previously captured adjacent and north of the site in an area that is now in houses (CNDDB) (Figure 2).
Trapping surveys for SBKR were conducted according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols established for SBKR. The current protocol calls for five nights of trapping. One trapping session was conducted from May 30 to June 4 of 2022. Focused trapping was conducted on the property
in areas containing potential SBKR habitat and small mammal sign.
SBKR were not captured during the current survey. The kangaroo rat species that occurs on site is the Dulzura kangaroo rat (Dipodomys simulans)-DKR
One other sensitive mammal species, the Los Angeles pocket mouse , was captured during the focused survey. Impacts to this species are probably not considered to be significantunder CEQA due to project size and location.
It should be noted that the USFWS considers small mammal trapping surveys as valid for one year from the date of the trapping.
1.0 Introduction
ENVIRA was contracted by Alden Environmental to conduct a live-trapping effort for the federally listed endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). The study was conducted on an 11.1-acre site located at the corner of Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1).
This report describes the existing conditions of the project site, the general biological resources observed on site, and the results of the trapping studies. The assessment and trapping work were required to determine the presence or absence of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) on the property.
2.0 Site Location and Project Description
The property is located to the east and adjacent to Sierra Avenue and south of the Acacia Site which is bordered on the North by Duncan Canyon Road (Figure 1).
The proposed project is for a commercial development.
Figure One Project Location.
3.0 Methods
A literature review and records check was conducted for sensitive resources within the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition to the literature review, a general field survey of the project area was conducted. The field survey provided information on the existing conditions of the site and the potential for sensitive resources to be present. Trapping surveys for SBKR were conducted in areas with potential
SBKR habitat and small mammal sign (scat, burrows, tail-drags, footprint, diggings and dust bath areas.
3.1 Literature Review and Records Check
The literature review and records check included a review of standard field guides and texts on sensitive and non-sensitive biological resources potentially onsite, as well as the following sources:
• List of sensitive biological resources provided by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB).
• The Status and Known Distribution of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). Field surveys conducted between 1987 and 1996 (McKernan 1997).
• Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat as Endangered; and Notice of Public Hearing (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
• Previous trapping reports for the area
3.2 Habitat Evaluation Surveys
Mr. Philippe Vergne, a certified kangaroo rat biologist holding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Permit No. TE831207-4 and current California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Memorandum of
Understanding, inventoried and evaluated the condition of the soils and plant communities on site in order to assess the potential trapping locations for SBKR or other sensitive species. Mr. Vergne took notes during the surveys of all plant and animal species observed.
SBKR were previously captured adjacent and north of the site in an area that is now in houses (CNDDB) (Figure 2).
Figure Two. CNDDB Results Shea Site
An intensive search was conducted on the property and immediately adjacent areas for such diagnostic kangaroo rat sign as habitat, scat, tracks, dust bowls and burrows. All species identified by sight, call or
sign (burrows, scat, tracks, etc.) and visual observation were recorded.
In addition, site characteristics such as soils, topography, the condition of the plant communities, and evidence of human use of the site were noted. A list of plant and wildlife species observed during the
survey is included in Appendix A.
3.3 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Surveys
Trapping surveys for SBKR were conducted according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
protocols established for SBKR. The current protocol calls for five nights of trapping. One trapping session was conducted from May 30 to June 4, 2022.
Four trapping lines of 30 traps, set 12 meters apart, were set in trapping areas A through D (Figure 3) for the Shea portion of the site. Traps were placed in areas containing sandy loam soils showing sign of small mammal use.
Each trap was baited with birdseed placed at the back of the traps. The traps were left in place each day. Each trap was set at dusk each night and inspected once during the night and at dawn each morning. All animals were identified and released at the point of capture.
Notes were taken on the habitat conditions where the traps were placed. Weather conditions at the time of the trapping were also noted.
4.0 Results
Four sensitive mammal species were identified as potentially present in the vicinity of the project site. They are the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), the Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and the San Diego desert
woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia).
Of the animal species potentially present, only the San Bernardino kangaroo rat requires specific survey protocols to establish presence or absence. These specific survey protocols are required for areas where impacts may occur to the sensitive species or their occupied habitat. The remaining species are usually identified through casual observation or as part of the overall trapping effort.
4.1 Sensitive Biological Resources
4.1.1 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat is primarily associated with a variety of sage scrub vegetation, where
the common elements are the presence of sandy soils and relatively open vegetation structure (McKernan 1997). Flood events break out of the main river channel in a complex pattern, resulting in a braided appearance to the flood plain. This dynamic nature to the habitat leads to a situation where not all the
alluvial scrub habitat is suitable for the kangaroo rat at any point in time.
The SBKR prefers open habitat characterized by a low stature open scrub canopy cover of less than 22 percent. Occupied SBKR habitat also typically exhibits a reduced herbaceous cover with a low abundance
of European grasses, such as brome species. This type of habitat is best described as early to intermediate phase alluvial sage scrub communities that are subject to frequent flooding/scouring. The open vegetation structure in these communities support the highest densities of SBKR.
Mature phase alluvial chaparral, which are usually located above the active channel or on higher benches are not usually occupied by SBKR, although individuals have been trapped in dense upland scrub adjacent to open habitat and SBKR populations (Vergne 2008).
4.1.2 Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse
The northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodippus fallax fallax) prefers habitat similar to that preferred by the SBKR. The northwestern San Diego pocket mouse occurs in open, sandy areas in the valleys and foothills of southwestern California.
The range of this species extends from Orange County to San Diego County, and includes Riverside and
San Bernardino counties. This mouse is a California Species of Concern (CSC) whose historical range has been reduced by urban development and agriculture.`
4.1.3 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
The Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) is one of two pocket mice found in this area of San Bernardino County. Both the Los Angeles pocket mouse and the San Diego pocket mouse occupy similar habitats, but the San Diego pocket mouse has a wider range extending south into
San Diego County. The habitat of the Los Angeles pocket mouse is described as being confined to lower elevation grasslands and coast sage scrub habitats, in areas with soils composed of fine sands (Williams, 1986). The present known distribution of this species extends from Rancho Cucamonga east to Morongo
Valley and south to the San Diego County border.
Los Angeles pocket mouse forages in open ground and underneath shrubs. Pocket mice dig burrows in loose soil, although this has not been completely documented for this subspecies.
The L.A. pocket mouse is listed as a California Species of Concern (CSC) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
4.1.4 San Diego Desert Woodrat
The desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida) is a relatively wide-ranging species extending along the coast of
California from south of San Francisco through to the border with Baja California. This species also
occurs in the Central Valley and the deserts of southern California and extends along the desert side of the
Sierra Nevada into southeastern Oregon.
The coastal race of the desert woodrat, the San Diego desert woodrat, prefers scrub habitats such as
coastal sage scrub, chaparral and alluvial fan sage scrub. It is more common in areas with rock piles and
coarse sandy to rocky soils throughout coastal southern California. The range of this species extends
from just south of Sacramento and the San Francisco area to the border with Baja California. The coastal
subspecies of the widespread Neotoma lepida is listed as a CSC; its historical range has been impacted by
the conversion of scrub habitats into residential, commercial and industrial use.
4.2 Soils and Topography
Soils on site are characterized as Soboba, and Tujunga loamy sand (Soil Survey Staff 2016). Cobbles are abundant on site. The topography is flat to gently sloping to the south.
4.3 Land Uses
The property is located adjacent and to the east of Sierra Avenue. A rural house and graded lot are located to the south. A SCE power line easement is located on the eastern boundary. Grubbing has occurred on portions of the site, probably for fire suppression.
4.4 Plant Communities
The vegetation on the Shea site is highly disturbed alluvial fan with chaparral components. Soils are
sandy with some areas having river rock. Open areas occur within the site due to grubbing.
Disturbed Grubbed Areas on Shea Site
Kangaroo rat burrow and scat on Shea Site
4.5 Wildlife
Wildlife activity was low during the trapping surveys. One reptile species, the side-blotched lizard (Uta
stansburiana) was observed. Bird species observed included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius).
A list of species observed is given in Appendix A.
4.6. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Surveys
4.6.1 Weather Conditions
Weather conditions during the trapping surveys included morning temperatures in the high sixties to low seventies degrees Fahrenheit, with clear to partly cloudy skies and winds of less than three miles per hour. The moon was new during the protocol survey. Daily weather conditions for each day are summarized
in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Weather Summary
Date Cloud Cover Morning
Temperatures (F)
Wind Speed
(miles per hour)
May 30 Clear 69 0
May 31 Clear 68 0
June 1 Clear 71 0
June 2 Clear 72 0-3
June 3 Clear 72 0-3
June 4 Clear 73 0-3
4.6.2 Trap Site Descriptions
Traps were set within open areas on sites that had small fossorial mammal sign or that were near undisturbed areas adjacent to the property.
4.6.3 Trapping Survey Results
Trapping success was low over the entire trapping period. A total of four small mammal species, were trapped during the survey period. Table 2 provides summary information on the species trapped per
trapping location.
Table 2. Trapping Results Sierra Business Center Shea Portion
Dulzura Kangaroo Rat Cactus Mouse Deer Mouse Los Angeles Pocket
Mouse
Trap Site Number of Trap Nights
Dipodomys simulans Peromyscus eremicus Peromyscus maniculatus
Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
E 150 3 4 1 1
F 150 2 3 0 0
G 150 0 4 2 0
Totals 450 5 11 3 1
Figure 3. Sierra Business Center Trap Lines
5.0 Discussion
Based on the trapping survey the San Bernardino does not occur on the property. No impacts to SBKR will occur due to project implementation.
The LAPM a CDFW CSC occurs on the property. Regionally impact to this species due to project
implementation might not be considered as significant under CEQA.
References Burt, W. H., 1986. A Field Guide to the Mammals in North American North of Mexico.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. Cadre Environmental, 2002, Etiwanda TT16072 Trapping Report
Garrett, K. and J. Dunn, 1981. Birds of Southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Society. The Artisan Press, Los Angeles, California.
Grinnell, J., 1933. Review of the Recent Mammal Fauna of California. University of California Publications in Zoology, 40:71-234.
Hall, E.R., 1981. The Mammals of North America, Volumes I and II. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.
Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.
Ingles, L.G., 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Laudenslayer, Jr., W.F., W.E. Grenfell, Jr., and D.C. Zeiner, 1991. A Check-list of the Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of California. California Fish and Game
77:109-141. McKernan, R.L., 1997. The Status and Known Distribution of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus): Field surveys conducted between 1987 and 1996. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field Office.
McKernan, R.L. 1999. Biological Inventory of the Etiwanda Creek Flood Control Project, San Bernardino County. Report prepared for the San Bernardino County Transportation/Flood Control Department, San Bernardino, California.
Munz, P.A., 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
NRA,2001, SBKR Trapping Report for highland golf course Project, Highland, California.
Remsen, Jr., J.V., 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. Non-game Wildlife Investigations. Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report No 78-1. Report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game.
Soil Conservation Service, 1980. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part, California.
Stebbins, R.C., 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
SJM Biological,2005. Results of live trapping survey for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat on Chiu property, Chambers Group.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996. Review of plant and animal taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species; notice of review. Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 40.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a. Emergency Rule to List the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties in Southern California, as Endangered. Vol. 63, No. 17, pp. 3835 - 3843.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to List the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat as Endangered; and Notice of
Public Hearing. Vol. 63, No. 17, pp. 3877 - 3878. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final
Rule to List the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat as Endangered, Vol. 63, No. 185, pp. 51005 - 51017.
Vergne, P., 2011,2013 Presence Absence SBKR Trapping Report for highland golf course Project, Highland, California.
Williams, D.F., 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report 86-1 prepared for The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game.
Appendix A - Plant and Animal Species Observed
* denotes non-native plant species
Plants
ANGIOSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONES DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Anacardiaceae Sumac family
Rhus trilobata Squaw bush
Asteraceae Sunflower family
Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed
Artemisia californica California sagebrush
Helianthus annuus Annual sunflower
Lepidospartum squamatum Scale-broom
Boraginaceae Borage family
Amsinckia menziesii Fiddleneck
Cryptantha intermedia Popcorn flower
Brassicaceae Mustard family
*Brassica nigra Black mustard
*Hirschfeldia incana Short-podded mustard
*Sisymbrium irio London rocket
Euphorbiaceae Spurge family
Chamaesyce albomarginata Rattlesnake weed
Croton californica Croton
Eremocarpus setigerus Doveweed
Euphorbia nutans Spurge
Geraniaceae Geranium family
*Erodium cicutarium Red-stemmed filaree
Eriodictyon trichocalyx Yerba santa
Phacelia ramosissima Branching phacelia
Lamiaceae Mint family
Salvia mellifera Black sage
Polygonaceae Buckwheat family
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
Eriogonum gracile Graceful buckwheat
ANGIOSPERMAE:MONOCOTYLEDONAE MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Poaceae Grass family
*Avena barbata Slender wild oats
*Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome
*Bromus madritensis Red brome
*Schismus barbatus Mediterranean grass
Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Hickman 1993 and Munz 1974.
Animals
REPTILIA REPTILES
Iguanidae Iguanas and their allies
Uta stansburiana Side-blotched lizard
AVES BIRDS
Cathartidae Vultures
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture
Accipitridae Kites, hawks and eagles
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk
Falconidae Caracaras and falcons
Falco sparverius American kestrel
Columbidae Pigeons and doves
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove
Tyrannidae Tyrant flycatchers
Tyrannus verticaulis Western kingbird
Corvidae Crows and ravens
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Mimidae Mimic thrushes
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird
Mamalia Mammals
Leporidae Rabbits and hares
Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon’s cottontail
Sciuridae Squirrels, chipmunks and marmots
Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Geomyidae Pocket gophers
Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher
Heteromyidae Pocket mice and kangaroo rats
Dipodomys simulans Dulzura kangaroo rat
Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse
Cricetidae Cricetine mice and rats
Peromyscus eremicus Cactus mouse
Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse
Canidae Foxes, wolves and relatives
Canis latrans Coyote
Nomenclature follows Hall 1981, Laudenslayer et al. 1991, and Stebbins 1966.
Appendix F
Burrowing Owl Survey Report
July 25, 2022
Ms. Tracy Zinn T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Ste.100 Irvine, CA 92602
Subject: Burrowing Owl Survey Report for the Sierra Business Center Project Site Dear Ms. Zinn:
This letter presents the results of the 2022 breeding season survey for the burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia) conducted on the approximately 30.1 combined-acre site known as the Sierra Business Center project site. LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The Sierra Business Center project site is in the City of Fontana in San Bernardino County. Sierra Avenue borders the site to the west. The site consists of two parcels: the Shea project site known as the Sierra Industrial Facility (11.1 acres; APNs 0239-151-09 and -38) and the Acacia project site known as the North Fontana Industrial Complex (19 acres; APNs: 0239-151-19, -25,
-26, and -36). The Sierra Business Center project site is on the Devore U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute series topographic map in the northwest corner of Section 20 in Township 1 North, Range 5 West. METHODS
A general site assessment for the burrowing owl was conducted by Leatherman BioConsulting, Inc. on January 25, 2022. During the assessment, vegetation was mapped; locations of burrows that could be utilized by burrowing owls were recorded with the use of a Global Positioning
System; and the site was searched for perches that could be used by the burrowing owl.
Due to the open nature of the habitat and the presence of California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows that could be utilized by burrowing owls, the site was considered to have some potential for the burrowing owl to be present. Therefore, a focused
burrowing owl survey (4 total site visits) was initiated on March 3, 2022 according to the
survey methods in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 2012; Table 1; Attachment A).
Table 1
Burrowing Owl Survey Information
Site Visit Number Date Biologist Time Weather Conditions1
(start/stop)
1 3/3/22 BL, SL 0615-0945 50%, 55°F, wind 0-1 mph/ 75%, 68°F, wind 2-4 mph
2 4/15/22 BL, TB, SL 0600-0930 clear, 46°F, 4-6 mph/ clear, 67°F, 2-4 mph
3 5/19/22 BL, SL 0615-1030 100%, 57°F, 0-1 mph/ clear, 64°F, 3-5 mph
4 6/22/22 BL, EB 0545-0900 60%, 75°F, 0-1 mph/ 50%, 81°F, 1-3 mph
1Temperature was taken on the ground in the shade. Percentages indicate cloud cover.
The Sierra Business Center project site was surveyed for the burrowing owl by walking line
transects spaced approximately 10 meters apart. At the start of each transect and at
approximately every 100 meters, the site was scanned for burrowing owls using binoculars. Particular attention was paid to areas of California ground squirrel activity, including the aforementioned squirrel burrows, and potential perches. Determination of owl presence is made by direct owl observation or by owl sign/evidence such as, but not necessarily limited to,
excavated soil, whitewash (excrement), castings (pellets), and/or feathers. SURVEY RESULTS
No burrowing owl or potential burrowing owl sign/evidence was observed during any of the site
visits. Based on the negative results of the 2022 field survey, the project site is not anticipated to be occupied by the burrowing owl. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Greg Mason Senior Biologist
Enclosures:
Figure 1 Regional Location Map Figure 2 Project Location Map Figure 3 Burrowing Owl Survey Results Attachment A Field Notes
Reference: California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 17.
!"`$
!
Project Site
!"a$
I¿
%&h(
?z
AÆ
%&h(
%&g(
!"a$
?z
%&h(
%&g(
Figure 1
0 42Miles
²Regional Location
SIERRA BUSINESS CENTER
San BernardinoNational Forest
Citrus Ave!"a$
Casa Grande Dr
Summit Ave
Lytle
C
r
e
e
k
W
a
s
h
Sierra AveLocust AveRiv
e
r
s
i
d
e
A
v
e
Figure 2
Project Location
SIERRA BUSINESS CENTER
Project BoundaryNorth Fontana Industrial Complex
Sierra Industrial Facility
0 2,0001,000 Feet
²
Duncan Canyon Rd Condor AveSierra IndustrialFacility
North FontanaIndustrial ComplexSierra AveFigure 3
0 14070Feet
²
Project BoundaryPotential Burrowing Owl BurrowVegetationHolly-leaved Cherry StandCalifornia Buckwheat ScrubDisturbed California Buckwheat ScrubCalifornia Buckwheat Scrub with Scattered Chamise ChaparralChamise ChaparralDisturbedDeveloped
Burrowing Owl Survey Results
SIERRA BUSINESS CENTER
Appendix A
Field Notes