Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix B - Biological Resources Due Diligence and Tree Memorandum Appendix B Biological Resources Due Diligence Report and Tree Memorandum Rincon Consultants, Inc. 1980 Orange Tree Lane Suite 105 Redlands, California 92374 909 253 0705 OFFICE AND FAX info@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsultants.com E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s February 1, 2021 Project No: 20-10833 Rod Fermin, Vice President of Development & Construction Begonia Real Estate Development, Inc. 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 400 Irvine, California 92618 Via email: rod@begoniared.com Subject: Biological Due Diligence Memorandum for the Property Located at 15926 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California Dear Mr. Fermin: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is pleased to provide this Biological Due Diligence Memorandum for the property located at 15926 Foothill Blvd in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Under the direction of Rincon, ELMT Consulting (ELMT) was contracted to perform a habitat assessment/field investigation to document baseline conditions and determine the potential for special- status plant and wildlife species to occur at the subject property. Special attention was given to the property’s suitability to support Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis; DSF). Methodology Literature Review Prior to the habitat assessment/field investigation, a database search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California to identify sensitive biological resources that have been previously recorded in the vicinity of the property was conducted. Relevant resources such as topographic maps, soil surveys, historic and current aerial photography, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Designations for Threatened and Endangered Species, and the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory were also reviewed. Habitat Assessment/Field Investigation Following the literature review, ELMT inventoried and evaluated the condition of the habitat on the property on January 15, 2021. Site characteristics including soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, and the condition of on-site plant communities and land cover types was verified. Begonia Real Estate Development, Inc. 15926 Foothill Boulevard Page 2 Conclusions The subject property is underlain by Tujunga gravelly loamy sand (0 to 9 percent slopes). Delhi fine sand soils were not found on the project site. Soils on-site have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from previous anthropogenic disturbances (i.e., historic agricultural activities, weed abatement activities, and surrounding development. DSF is presumed absent from the project site. Due to existing and historical land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed on-site. The site supports non-native grassland and a disturbed land cover type. No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior, special-status plant or wildlife species known to occur in the general region of the subject property, or discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, or wetland features/obligate plant species that would be considered jurisdictional by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or California Department of Fish and Wildlife were observed within the proposed project site. Although heavily disturbed, the subject property has the potential to provide minimal foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that are adapted to disturbed areas and urban environments. Additionally, portions of the site have potential to support ground-nesting birds such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). The project site has a low potential to provide minimal foraging habitat for Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actua). The project site does not provide suitable nesting opportunities for either of these species. All remaining special-status plant and wildlife species are presumed to be absent from the project site due to lack of suitable habitat. With completion of a nesting bird clearance survey prior to project implementation, no impacts to year- round, seasonal, or special-status avian residents will occur. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, Rincon Consultants, Inc. Jared Reed Greg Ainsworth Senior Biologist/Project Manager Director Biologist Attachments ELMT Biological Due Diligence Memorandum 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com January 29, 2021 RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Contact: Jared Reed 1980 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 105 Redlands, California 92374 SUBJECT: Biological Due Diligence Memorandum for the Proposed Project Located at 15926 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California Introduction This report contains the findings of ELMT Consulting’s (ELMT) Biological Due Diligence Investigation for the proposed project located at 15926 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The field investigation for this project was conducted by ELMT biologist Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. on January 15, 2021 to document baseline conditions and to determine the potential for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur on the project site that could pose a constraint to implementation of the proposed project. Special attention was paid to the suitability of the project site to provide suitable habitat for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis). Project Location The project site is generally located south of State Route 210, west of Interstate 215, north of Interstate 10, and east of Interstate 15 in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The site is depicted on the Fontana quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute map series within section 1 of Township 1 South, Range 6 West. Specifically, the is located at 15926 Foothill Boulevard. Refer to Exhibits 1-2 in Attachment A. Methodology Literature Review Prior to conducting the habitat assessment/field investigation, a literature review and records search was conducted for special-status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site. Previously recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species and their proximity to the project site were determined through a query of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) QuickView Tool in the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5, and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. All literature detailing the biological resources previously observed on or within the vicinity of the project January 29, 2021 Page 2 15926 Foothill Boulevard Biological Due Diligence Investigation site were reviewed to understand existing site conditions and note the extent of any disturbances that have occurred on the project site that would otherwise limit the distribution of special-status biological resources, as well as the following resources: • Google Earth Pro historic aerial imagery (1994-2019); • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil Survey1; • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat designations for Threatened and Endangered Species; and • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory. Habitat Assessment/Field Investigation Following the literature review, biologist Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. inventoried and evaluated the condition of the habitat within the project site on January 15, 2021. Plant communities and land cover types identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified by walking meandering transects throughout the project site. In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on-site plant communities and land cover types, and presence of potential jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were noted. Existing Site Conditions Elevation on the project site ranges from 1,294 to 1,310 feet above mean sea level, is generally flat with no areas of significant topographic relief, and slopes gently from north to south. Based on the NRCS USDA Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain by Tujunga gravelly loamy sand (0 to 9 percent slopes). Refer to Exhibit 3, Soils, in Attachment A. Soils onsite have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from previous anthropogenic disturbances (i.e., historic agricultural activities, weed abatement activities, and surrounding development). Due to existing and historical land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observe onsite. The site supports one plant community: non-native grassland, and one land- cover type that would be classified as disturbed. Refer to Attachment B, Site Photographs, for representative photographs of the project site. No native plant communities will be impacted from implementation of the proposed project. The non-native grassland community found on-site is dominated by non-native grasses, primarily brome grasses (Bromus spp.), and supports other weedy/early successional plant species. Plant species observed during the field investigation include telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarum), long beaked filaree (Erodium botrys), gum tree (Eucalyptus sp.), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), and short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Avian species observed during the field investigation include house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and rock pigeon (Columba liva). No reptile, fish, amphibian, or mammal species were observed during the field 1 A soil series is defined as a group of soils with similar profiles developed from similar parent materials under comparable climatic and vegetation conditions. These profiles include major horizons with similar thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics, which may promote favorable conditions for certain biological resources. January 29, 2021 Page 3 15926 Foothill Boulevard Biological Due Diligence Investigation investigation. The project site provides minimal foraging habitat for wildlife species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. Nesting Birds No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey. Although heavily disturbed, the project has the potential to provide minimal foraging and nesting habitat for year- round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that are adapted to disturbed areas and urban environments. Additionally, portions of the site have potential to support ground-nesting birds such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). If ground disturbing activities occur between February 1st and August 31st, a pre- construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. Migratory Corridors and Linkages The proposed project will be confined to existing disturbed land, that has removed natural plant communities from the project site. Further, the project site is surrounded by existing developments, which have eliminated connection to nearby wildlife movement corridors. As a result, implementation of the proposed project will not disrupt or have any adverse effects on any migratory corridors or linkages in the surrounding area. Jurisdictional Areas No discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, or wetland features/obligate plant species that would be considered jurisdictional by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), or CDFW were observed within the proposed project site. Based on the proposed site plan, project activities will not result in impacts to Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW jurisdictional areas and regulatory approvals will not be required. Special-Status Biological Resources The CNDDB Rarefind 5 and the CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California were queried for reported locations of special-status plant and wildlife species as well as special- status natural plant communities in the Guasti and Fontana USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. The literature search identified sixteen (16) special-status plant species, forty-seven (47) special-status wildlife species, and one (1) special-status plant community as having been recorded within the Guasti and Fontana USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. Special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the project site based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions. Species determined to have the potential to occur within the general vicinity of the project site are presented in the table, Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources, provided in Attachment C. No special-status plant or wildlife species, or special-status plant communities were observed on-site during January 29, 2021 Page 4 15926 Foothill Boulevard Biological Due Diligence Investigation the habitat assessment. The proposed project site consists of existing development and heavily disturbed areas that have been subject to a high level of anthropogenic disturbances. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on-site resulting in a majority of the site consisting of non-native, ruderal/weedy plant species. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitat, it was determined that the project site has a low potential to provide minimal foraging habitat for Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actua). The project site does not provide suitable nesting opportunities for either of the aforementioned species. All remaining special-status plant and wildlife species are presumed to be absent from the project site due to lack of suitable habitat. Neither of the aforementioned species are federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. In order to ensure Cooper’s hawk and California horned are not impacted from implementation of the proposed project, a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. Critical Habitat The project site is not located with federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 2.3 miles north of the project site for San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). Therefore, the loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat from site development will not occur and consultation with the USFWS for impacts to Critical Habitat will not be required for implementation of the proposed project. DSF Suitability Assessment In addition to the general habitat assessment, ELMT conducted a Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF) suitability assessment. The suitability assessment consisted of a visual and tactile inspection of all soils on the project site. Since portions of the project site are located within mapped Delhi Sand soils, the site was evaluated for the quality or purity of on-site soils and for its potential to support DSF. Areas were assigned one or more ratings ranging between 1 and 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat as described below: 1. Soils dominated by heavy deposits of alluvial material including coarse sands and gravels with little or no Delhi sand soils and evidence of soil compaction. Developed areas, non-Delhi sands soils with high clay, silt, and/or gravel content. Delhi sands extensively and deeply covered by dumping of exotic soils, rubble, trash or organic debris. Unsuitable. 2. Delhi sand soils are present, but the soil characteristics include a predominance of alluvial materials (Tujunga Soils and Hilmar loamy sand), or predominance of other foreign contamination. Sever and frequent disturbance (such as maintenance yard or high use roadbed). Very Low Quality. 3. Although not clean, sufficient Delhi sand soils are present to prevent soil compaction. Moderately contaminated Delhi sands. Delhi sands with moderate to high disturbance (such as annual disking). Sufficient Delhi sands are present to prevent soil compaction (related to contamination by foreign soils). Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity. Low Quality. January 29, 2021 Page 5 15926 Foothill Boulevard Biological Due Diligence Investigation 4. Abundant clean Delhi sand soils with little or no foreign soils (such as alluvial material, Tujunga soils or Hilmar loamy sand) present. Moderate abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. May represent high quality habitat with mild or superficial disturbance. Moderate Quality. 5. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi sand soils. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. Sand associated plant and arthropod species may be abundant. High Quality. The criteria discussed in detail above were used to rate the relative abundance of clean Delhi Sand soils verses the amount of Cieneba, Tujunga, or other alluvial soils, to rate the suitability of the habitat to support DSF. Soils high in gravel and alluvial materials, or high in fine materials such as silts and clays, were rated low, while soils that appear to be high in Aeolian deposited sands were rated high. This qualitative assessment of DSF habitat was further refined by considering the relative degree of soil compaction. Alluvial soils tend to solidify to a hard surface pavement, while Aeolian soils are easier to penetrate and provide good substrate for DSF. Background It has been generally acknowledged that DSF occur in Delhi Sand soils, particularly clean dune formations composed of Aeolian sands. Conversely, soils and sands deposited by fluvial processes from the surrounding alluvial fans do not support DSF. These alluvial soils are composed of course sands, cobble and gravel (Tujunga soils) or coarse sands, silts and clays (Cieneba soils). In this part of San Bernardino County, the separation of soil types has been lost due to the mixing and cross contamination from years of agricultural activities, development, and other man-made disturbances. Depending on the extent of mixing and contamination, some areas formally mapped in 1970 as Delhi Sand soils no longer have potential to support DSF populations. Conversely, some areas formally mapped as Cieneba soils may now be composed of Delhi Sand soils and have potential to support DSF. Six DSF experts (Ken Osborne, Greg Ballmen, Rudy Matoni, Karen Cleary-Rose, Alison Anderson, and Tom McGill) used this criterion, the relative abundance of clean Delhi Sand soils verses the amount of Cienba or other alluvial soils, to rate the suitability of the habitat to support DSF (Michael Brandman Associates, 2003). Soils high in gravel and alluvial materials, or high in fine materials such as silts and clays, were rated low, while soils that appear to be high in Aeolian deposited sands were rated high. This qualitative assessment of DSF habitat was further refined by considering the relative degree of soil compaction. Alluvial soils have a tendency to solidify to a hard surface pavement, while Aeolian soils are easier to penetrate and provide good substrate for DSF. Although it has been common to attribute the presence of four common plant species California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California croton (Croton californicus), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), and telegraph weed as indicators of habitat suitability, for the assessment, vegetation composition was not given much weight in making this habitat evaluation. These dominant plant species, and plant species composition of habitats, may not be directly relevant to larval development (due to likely predatory or parasitic habitat January 29, 2021 Page 6 15926 Foothill Boulevard Biological Due Diligence Investigation of DSF larvae) (Osborne, et al. 2003). The known immature life histories of the nine asiloid fly families, including that to which the DSF is classified, are primarily predatory and/or parasitic on other invertebrate species (mainly insects) and the presence or absence of plant species appears not to be relevant to the life history of these flies. Land with suitable DSF habitat include only those areas with open, undisturbed Delhi Series soils that have not been permanently altered by residential, commercial, or industrial development, or other human actions. Areas known to contain Delhi Sand soils and/or to be occupied by DSF have been divided by USFWS into three recovery units (Colton, Jurupa, and Ontario Recovery Units (USFWS, 1997)). These recovery units are defined as large geographic areas based on geographic proximity, similarity of habitat, and potential genetic exchange. The project site is located north of the Ontario Recovery Unit, outside the areas protected under the conservation easements. Refer to Exhibit 4, DSF Recovery Units, in Attachment A. The Ontario Recovery Unit includes all areas of the Delhi Sand soils within the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Chino, and Fontana. It should be noted that the project site is located approximately 3.5 miles north of the closest mapped Delhi fine sand soils. Suitability Assessment According to the USDA NRCS Soil Survey, the site is underlain by Tujunga gravelly loamy sand soils (clay soils). Delhi fine sand soils are not mapped on the project site. This suitability assessment was conducted to verify the absence of Delhi fine sand soils from the project site. Although the surface soils have been heavily disturbed and compacted from routine weed abatement activities, there was no indication that clean, unconsolidated Delhi fine sand soils are present during the field investigation. In addition, the observed soils were strictly clay soils with no indication of mixing with Delhi fine sand soils. Therefore, all soils within the boundaries of the project site were rated as “unsuitable” with a DSF habitat quality rating of 1 and would not be expected to support DSF. DSF is presumed absent from the project site. No further actions or focused surveys are recommended. Conclusion Based on the proposed project footprint and existing site conditions discussed in this report, none of the special-status plant or wildlife species known to occur in the general region of the project site are expected to be directly or indirectly impacted from implementation of the proposed project. With completion of a nesting bird clearance survey prior to project implementation, no impacts to year-round, seasonal, or special-status avian residents will occur. Therefore, it was determined that implementation of the project will have “no effect” on federally or State listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the development of the project will not impact designated Critical Habitats or regional wildlife movement corridors/linkages. Please do not hesitate to contact Tom McGill at (951) 285-6014 or tmcgill@elmtconsulting.com or Travis McGill at (909) 816-1646 or travismcgill@elmtconsulting.com should you have any questions. January 29, 2021 Page 7 15926 Foothill Boulevard Biological Due Diligence Investigation Sincerely, Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. Travis J. McGill Managing Director Director Attachments: A. Project Exhibits B. Site Photographs C. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Attachment A Project Exhibits Regional Vicinity 15926 FOOTHILL BOULEVARDBIOLOGICAL DUE DILIGENCE Exhibit 1 O Source: USA Topographic Map, San Bernardino County SAN BERNARDINO RIVERSIDE ^_PROJECTLOCATION 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend Project Site Project Site 15926 FOOTHILL BOULEVARDBIOLOGICAL DUE DILIGENCE Exhibit 2 O Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, San Bernardino County 0 250 500125 Feet Legend Project Site Soils 15926 FOOTHILL BOULEVARDBIOLOGICAL DUE DILIGENCE Exhibit 3 O Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, Soil Survey Geographic Database, San Bernardino County 0 250 500125 Feet Legend Project Site Tujunga gravelly loamy sand (0 to 9 percent slopes) DSF Recovery Units 15926 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BIOLOGICAL DUE DILIGENCE Exhibit 4 O Source: World Topographic Map, San Bernardino County 0 1 20.5 Miles Legend Project Site Ontario Recovery Unit Mapped Delhi Sand Soils OntarioRecoveryUnit JurupaRecoveryUnit ColtonRecoveryUnit Attachment B Site Photographs Attachment B – Site Photographs 15926 Foothill Boulevard Biological Due Diligence Photograph 1: From the northeast corner of the project site looking southwest. Photograph 2: From the southeast portion of the project site looking north. Attachment B – Site Photographs 15926 Foothill Boulevard Biological Due Diligence Photograph 3: From the middle of the project site looking southwest. Photograph 4: From the middle of the southern boundary of the project site looking north. Attachment B – Site Photographs 15926 Foothill Boulevard Biological Due Diligence Photograph 5: From the southwest portion of the project site looking north. Photograph 6: From the southwest corner of the project site looking east. Attachment B – Site Photographs 15926 Foothill Boulevard Biological Due Diligence Photograph 7: Rocky soils that have been dumped onsite. Photograph 8: Heavily mixed Tujunga soils. Attachment C Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Attachment C - Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological ResourcesScientific Name Common Name FederalStatusStateStatusCDFWListingCNPS RarePlant RankPotentialto OccurAccipiter cooperiiCooper's hawk None None WL -LowAccipiter striatussharp-shinned hawk None None WL -Presumed AbsentAgelaius tricolortricolored blackbird None THR SSC -Presumed AbsentAimophila ruficeps canescenssouthern California rufous-crowned sparrow None None WL -Presumed AbsentAnniella pulchraNorthern California legless lizard None None SSC -Presumed AbsentAnniella stebbinsiSouthern California legless lizard None None SSC -Presumed AbsentAquila chrysaetosgolden eagle None None FP ; WL -Presumed AbsentArdea herodiasgreat blue heron None None - -Presumed AbsentArizona elegans occidentalisCalifornia glossy snake None None SSC -Presumed AbsentArtemisiospiza belli belliBell's sage sparrow None None WL -Presumed AbsentAspidoscelis hyperythraorange-throated whiptail None None WL -Presumed AbsentAspidoscelis tigris stejnegericoastal whiptail None None SSC -Presumed AbsentAthene cuniculariaburrowing owl None None SSC -Presumed AbsentBombus crotchiiCrotch bumble bee None CE - -Presumed AbsentButeo swainsoniSwainson's hawk None THR - -Presumed AbsentCalypte costaeCosta's hummingbird None None - -Presumed AbsentCatostomus santaanaeSanta Ana sucker THR None - -Presumed AbsentChaetodipus fallax fallaxnorthwestern San Diego pocket mouse None None SSC -Presumed AbsentCicindela tranquebarica viridissimagreenest tiger beetle None None - -Presumed AbsentCircus hudsoniusnorthern harrier None None SSC -Presumed AbsentColeonyx variegatus abbottiSan Diego banded gecko None None SSC -Presumed AbsentContopus cooperiolive-sided flycatcher None None SSC -Presumed AbsentCrotalus ruberred-diamond rattlesnake None None SSC -Presumed AbsentDiadophis punctatus modestusSan Bernardino ringneck snake None None - -Presumed AbsentDipodomys merriami parvusSan Bernardino kangaroo rat END CE SSC -Presumed AbsentDipodomys simulansDulzura kangaroo rat None None - -Presumed AbsentElanus leucuruswhite-tailed kite None None FP -Presumed AbsentEmpidonax trailliiwillow flycatcher None END - -Presumed AbsentEremophila alpestris actiaCalifornia horned lark None None WL -LowEumops perotis californicuswestern mastiff bat None None SSC -Presumed AbsentFalco columbariusmerlin None None WL -Presumed AbsentGila orcuttiiarroyo chub None None SSC -Presumed AbsentIcteria virensyellow-breasted chat None None SSC -Presumed AbsentLanius ludovicianusloggerhead shrike None None SSC -Presumed AbsentLasiurus xanthinuswestern yellow bat None None SSC -Presumed AbsentLepus californicus bennettiiSan Diego black-tailed jackrabbit None None SSC -Presumed AbsentNeolarra albawhite cuckoo bee None None - -Presumed AbsentNyctinomops femorosaccuspocketed free-tailed bat None None SSC -Presumed AbsentOncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10steelhead - southern California DPS END None - -Presumed AbsentPandion haliaetusosprey None None WL -Presumed AbsentSpecial-Status Wildlife SpeciesBiological Due Diligence Investigation Attachment C - Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological ResourcesPerognathus longimembris pacificusPacific pocket mouse END None SSC -Presumed AbsentPhrynosoma blainvilliicoast horned lizard None None SSC -Presumed AbsentPolioptila californica californicacoastal California gnatcatcher THR None SSC -Presumed AbsentRhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalisDelhi Sands flower-loving fly END None - -Presumed AbsentSetophaga petechiayellow warbler None None SSC -Presumed AbsentTaxidea taxusAmerican badger None None SSC -Presumed AbsentVireo bellii pusillusleast Bell's vireo END END - -Presumed AbsentArenaria paludicolamarsh sandwortEND END - 1B.1Presumed AbsentBerberis neviniiNevin's barberry FE CE - 1B.1Presumed AbsentCalochortus plummeraePlummer's mariposa-lilyNone None - 4.2Presumed AbsentChloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimumsalt marsh bird's-beakEND END - 1B.2Presumed AbsentChorizanthe parryi var. parryiParry's spineflowerNone None - 1B.1Presumed AbsentDeinandra paniculatapaniculate tarplant None None - 4.2Presumed AbsentEriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorumSanta Ana River woollystar END END - 1B.1Presumed AbsentHorkelia cuneata var. puberulamesa horkeliaNone None - 1B.1Presumed AbsentJuglans californicasouthern California black walnut None None - 4.2Presumed AbsentLepidium virginicum var. robinsoniiRobinson's pepper-grass None None - 4.3Presumed AbsentLycium parishiiParish's desert-thorn None None - 2B.3Presumed AbsentMalacothamnus parishiiParish's bush-mallow None None - 1APresumed AbsentMonardella pringleiPringle's monardella None None - 1APresumed AbsentSenecio aphanactischaparral ragwort None None - 2B.2Presumed AbsentSphenopholis obtusataprairie wedge grass None None - 2B.2Presumed AbsentSymphyotrichum defoliatumSan Bernardino aster None None - 1B.2Presumed AbsentRiversidian Alluvial Fan Sage ScrubNone None - -AbsentU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fed) - FederalCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CA) - CaliforniaEND- Federal EndangeredTHR- Federal ThreatenedDL- DelistedEND- California EndangeredTHR- California ThreatenedCandidate- Candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species ActFP- California Fully Protected SSC- Species of Special ConcernWL- Watch ListCE- Candidate EndangeredSpecial-Status Plant Species California Native Plant Society (CNPS)California Rare Plant Rank1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere3 Plants About Which More Information is Needed – A Review List4 Plants of Limited Distribution – A Watch List 0.1- Seriously threatened in California 0.2- Moderately threatened in California 0.3- Not very threatened in CaliforniaCNPS Threat RanksSpecial-Status Plant Communities Biological Due Diligence Investigation Rincon Consultants, Inc. 1980 Orange Tree Lane Suite 105 Redlands, California 92374 909 253 0705 OFFICE AND FAX info@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsultants.com E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s November 16, 2021 Project No: 21-11204 Rod Fermin, Vice President of Development & Construction Begonia Real Estate Development, Inc. 980 Roosevelt, Suite 110 Irvine, California 92620 Via email: rod@begoniared.com Subject: Tree Survey Report for 15926 Foothill Boulevard, Fontana, California Dear Mr. Fermin: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is pleased to provide this Tree Survey Report for the property located at 15926 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Fontana (City), California. At the request of Begonia Real Estate Development (Client), a Rincon Certified Arborist summarized the City of Fontana’s tree regulations in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Sections 28-62 to 28-69 and surveyed the trees on the property. Below is a summary of the City’s tree protection requirements and information collected on the trees located on the property. Summary of City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 28 - Vegetation The following is in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Sections 28-62 to 28-69: Sec. 28-63 - Definitions Heritage tree means any tree which: 1. Is of historical value because of its association with a place, building, natural feature, or event of local, regional, or national historical significance as identified by city council resolution; or 2. Is representative of a significant period of the city's growth or development (windrow tree, European Olive tree); or 3. Is a protected or endangered species as specified by federal or state statute; or 4. Is deemed historically or culturally significant by the city manager or his or her designee because of size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities. Significant tree means any tree that is one of the following species: Genus/species Common name Juglans californica Southern California black walnut Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Cedrus deodora Deodora cedar Platanus racemosa California sycamore Platanus acerifolia London plane Begonia Real Estate Development, Inc. 15926 Foothill Boulevard Page 2 Provided, however, the term "significant trees" shall not include any tree located on a private parcel of property of less than one acre zoned for residential use. Specimen tree is defined as a mature tree (which is not a heritage or significant tree) which is an excellent example of its species in structure and aesthetics and warrants preservation, relocation or replacement as provided in sections 28-66, 28-67 and 28-68. Specimen trees shall not include any tree located on a private parcel of property of less than one acre zoned for residential use. Section 28-67 (c) of the City Ordinance states the following: All other trees which are not heritage, significant, or specimen tree shall be replaced. The size of the replacement tree(s) shall be based on a scale of ten percent to 100 percent. Staff may require that the ratings be performed by a certified arborist. The arborist report will be approved by staff. Other Tree Replacement Table No. III for Trees Under Seven Inches in Diameter Trunk Diameter (Approximate)/Replace With Scale Rating (10% to 100%) 0.75″/ 2″/ 3.25″/ 4.5″/ 6″/ Very poor Below 45% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. Poor 45%— 55% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. Average 60%— 70% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 1/36″ box 1/48″ box Very good 75%— 85% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 1/36″ box 1/48″ box 2/48″ box Excellent 90%—100% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 1/36″ box 2/48″ box 3/48″ box Other Tree Replacement Table No. IV for Trees Seven Inches in Diameter or Greater Scale Rating (10% to 100%) Number Removed Replace With Minimum Size Very poor Below 45% 1 1 15-gallon Poor 45%—55% 1 1 15-gallon Average 60% 1 4 24″ box 65% 1 4 24″ box 70% 1 4 36″ box Very good 75% 1 4 36″ box 80% 1 4 48″ box 85% 1 4 48″ box Section 28-67 (g) of the City Ordinance states the following: In lieu of the replacement trees as required by subsections (a), (b) and (c), a cash equivalent as determined by the staff may be deposited with the City in the tree account. This account is established to purchase, plant, or relocate trees in public areas, conduct surveys of trees in public areas, design Begonia Real Estate Development, Inc. 15926 Foothill Boulevard Page 3 master landscape plans to include trees in public areas, and maintain existing heritage, significant and/or specimen trees. Tree Survey Methodology On November 1, 2021, Certified Arborist Genelle Watkins (WE-12998A) conducted an assessment of several trees located on the property (Figure 1) per the Client’s request. Information was collected for each tree on the property, using a global positioning system (GPS) with submeter accuracy. Each tree’s diameter at breast height (DBH) was measured at 4.5 feet (54 inches) above natural grade in accordance with the Fontana Municipal Code. Then, a visual above ground assessment was completed to determine each tree’s overall health and vigor, including any physical issues observed, such as canopy dieback, insect infestation, weak attachments, and any potential risks or threats the tree may possess. Survey results were summarized in Table 1 and representative photographs of each tree are attached to this report. Begonia Real Estate Development, Inc. 15926 Foothill Boulevard Page 4 Figure 1 Tree Location Map Begonia Real Estate Development, Inc. 15926 Foothill Boulevard Page 5 Results Seven trees are present on the property, including one lemon-gum eucalyptus (Corymbia citriodora) tree and six Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) trees. These trees are categorized as ‘other,’ and are not considered heritage, significant, or specimen trees. Table 1 describes the information collected for each and identifies their Scale rating to inform their appropriate replacement ratios. The one eucalyptus in the survey area had a ‘Very Good’ rating at 75%, while the remaining six Chinaberry trees had a rating between ‘Poor’ and ‘Average’ (50-55%). Table 1 Tree Matrix of ‘Other’ Trees Located at 15926 Foothill Blvd. ID# Tree Species Tree Height (ft) Number of trunks Aggregate DBH (in) Damage/Issues Scale Rating 1 Lemon gum eucalyptus (Corymbia citriodora) 60 1 45 dead branching on lower canopy, minor dieback throughout canopy, included bark, codominant leaders, leaves show signs of chewing insect pest (Eucalyptus leaf beetle) Very Good (75%) 2 Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) 25 2 23 codominant stems, epicormic growth on branches, leaf chlorosis, one codominant leader cut Average (60%) 3 Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) 45 2 18 codominant stems, epicormic growth on branches and trunk, weak attachments, leaf chlorosis, poor vigor Poor (55%) 4 Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) 28 2 22 codominant stems, epicormic growth on branches and trunk, weak attachments, one snapped codominant leader Average (60%) 5 Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) 25 1 16 severe lean from overcrowding, canopy dieback, leaf chlorosis, weak attachments, poor vigor Poor (55%) 6 Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) 25 5 61 multiple stems, weak attachments, leaning, canopy dieback, leaf chlorosis, poor vigor Poor (50%) 7 Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) 20 3 28.5 multiple trunks, leaf chlorosis, 2 of codominant leaders cut, leaning, weak attachments, poor vigor Poor (50%) To remain in compliance with the Fontana Municipal Code, and as noted in Table 2 below, 16 trees shall be planted to replace the removal of the seven trees. This includes providing four 36” box-sized trees to replace the eucalyptus, eight 24” box-sized trees to replace the two Chinaberry trees in ‘Average’ health, and four 15-gallon-sized trees to replace the Chinaberry trees in ‘Poor’ health. Tree replacement quantities in the Preliminary Landscape Plan includes thirty-four 36” box-sized cork oak (Quercus suber) trees, forty 36” box-sized Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) trees, and fifty 36” box-sized Japanese privet (Ligustrum japonica) trees. This would satisfy the minimum size of replacement trees required in accordance with the Fontana Municipal Code. Begonia Real Estate Development, Inc. 15926 Foothill Boulevard Page 6 Table 2 Tree Replacement Ratios ID# Tree Species Number Removed Replace With Minimum Size 1 Lemon gum eucalyptus 1 4 36″ box 2 Chinaberry 1 4 24″ box 3 Chinaberry 1 1 15-gallon 4 Chinaberry 1 4 24″ box 5 Chinaberry 1 1 15-gallon 6 Chinaberry 1 1 15-gallon 7 Chinaberry 1 1 15-gallon Total 16 trees 15-gal to 36” box Conclusions The tree survey confirmed that there is one lemon gum eucalyptus tree and six Chinaberry trees located on the property. The trees are not heritage, significant, or specimen trees, but are considered ‘Other’ trees in accordance with the Fontana Municipal Code, all of which are proposed for removal. Based on their respective trunk diameters, 16 trees would need to be planted to replace these existing trees on the property. In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, in lieu of planting replacement trees, a cash equivalent as determined by City staff may be deposited into the City’s tree account. With replacement of the trees or deposit of a cash equivalent as determined by City staff, the project would be consistent with the City Ordinance. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Genelle Watkins or Greg Ainsworth at (909) 253-0705. Sincerely, Rincon Consultants, Inc. Genelle Watkins Greg Ainsworth, Certified Arborist (ISA #WE-7473A) Certified Arborist WE-12998A Director of Urban Forestry and Arborist Services Attachment Tree Photograph Log Attachment Tree Photograph Log Tree Photograph Log Arborist Report 1 Begonia Real Estate Development 15926 Foothill Boulevard & Tokay Avenue, Fontana, California 2