DOCSLIB.ORG

Regional Conservation Investment Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regional Conservation Investment Strategy DRAFT San Bernardino County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy December 2018 PREPARED BY Draft San Bernardino County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy Prepared for: Prepared by: 605 3rd Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Mike Howard DECEMBER 2018 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Draft San Bernardino County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................v 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................ 1-3 1.3 Intended Uses ....................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 RCIS Area ............................................................................................................ 1-4 1.5 Conservation Elements ........................................................................................ 1-8 1.6 Planning Process .................................................................................................. 1-8 1.7 Relationship to Other Planning .......................................................................... 1-10 1.8 Document Content and Organization................................................................. 1-10 2 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT AND SETTING ................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Ecoregions............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Climate ................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3 Geomorphology, Topography, and Soils ............................................................. 2-7 2.4 Hydrology ............................................................................................................ 2-8 2.5 Land Ownerships, Designations, and Jurisdictions ........................................... 2-11 2.6 Other Resource Conservation and Management Plans and Programs .............. 2-20 2.7 Land Uses and Reasonably Foreseeable Development ..................................... 2-22 2.8 Regional Pressures and Stressors ....................................................................... 2-22 3 CONSERVATION STRATEGY .................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Conservation Elements ........................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.1 Valley Subarea ......................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.2 West Desert Subarea .............................................................................. 3-23 3.2 Conservation Analysis ....................................................................................... 3-34 3.2.1 Valley Subarea ....................................................................................... 3-38 3.2.2 West Desert Subarea .............................................................................. 3-42 3.2.3 Analysis Limitations .............................................................................. 3-47 3.3 Conservation Goals and Objectives ................................................................... 3-48 3.3.1 Valley Subarea (V) ................................................................................ 3-49 3.3.2 West Desert Subarea (WD) .................................................................... 3-54 3.4 Conservation and Mitigation Actions and Priorities .......................................... 3-59 3.4.1 Actions ................................................................................................... 3-60 3.4.2 Guidelines for Prioritizing Actions ........................................................ 3-73 i December 2018 Draft San Bernardino County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page No. 4 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK....................................................................... 4-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS .............................................................. 5-1 6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 6-1 APPENDICES A Focal Species Summaries B Key Data Descriptions FIGURES 1-1 San Bernardino Valley and West Desert RCIS Area ....................................................... 1-5 2-1 Reference Map ................................................................................................................. 2-3 2-2 RCIS Area Landscape Context ........................................................................................ 2-5 2-3 Landforms and Topography ............................................................................................. 2-9 2-4 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 2-13 2-5 Land Ownership and Jurisdiction .................................................................................. 2-15 2-6 Land Designations ......................................................................................................... 2-17 2-7 Habitat Conservation Planning in the Region ................................................................ 2-23 2-8 Existing and Reasonably Foreseeable Development ..................................................... 2-25 3-1 Habitat Linkages .............................................................................................................. 3-5 3-2 Vegetation Communities ............................................................................................... 3-11 3-3 Focal Species Habitat Heat Map .................................................................................... 3-19 3-4 Focal Species Richness Classes ..................................................................................... 3-21 3-5 Conservation Prioritization Factors ............................................................................... 3-75 3-6 Aggregate Conservation Prioritization .......................................................................... 3-77 ii December 2018 Draft San Bernardino County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page No. TABLES 2-1 Land Ownership in San Bernardino County .................................................................. 2-11 2-2 Land Designations in San Bernardino County ............................................................... 2-19 2-3 Existing Resource Conservation and Management Planning and Programs Relevant to the SBC RCIS ............................................................................................. 2-20 3-1 Habitat Groups for the Focal Species in the Valley Subarea ........................................... 3-3 3-2 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers in the Valley Subarea.................................. 3-8 3-3 Focal Species List for the Valley Subarea ..................................................................... 3-15 3-4 Focal Species Habitat in the Valley Subarea ................................................................. 3-17 3-5 Focal Species Richness in the Valley Subarea .............................................................. 3-18 3-6 Habitat Groups for the Focal Species in the West Desert Subarea ................................ 3-24 3-7 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers in the West Desert Subarea....................... 3-26 3-8 Focal Species List for the West Desert Subarea ............................................................ 3-31 3-9 Focal Species Habitat in the West Desert Subarea ........................................................ 4-33 3-10 Focal Species Richness in the West Desert Subarea ..................................................... 3-34 3-11 Habitat Group General Conservation Targets ................................................................ 3-37 3-12 Habitat Group Conservation Gap Analysis – Valley Subarea ....................................... 3-39 3-13 Focal Species Habitat Conservation Gap Analysis – Valley Subarea ........................... 3-40 3-14 Focal Species Richness Class Gap Analysis – Valley Subarea ..................................... 3-42 3-15 Habitat Group Conservation Gap Analysis – West Desert Subarea .............................. 3-43 3-16 Focal Species Habitat Conservation Gap Analysis – Valley Subarea ........................... 3-45 3-17 Focal Species Richness Class Gap Analysis – West Desert Subarea ............................ 3-46 3-18 Conservation Actions Summary for the Valley Subarea ............................................... 3-61 3-19 Conservation Actions Summary for the West Desert Subarea ...................................... 3-66 3-20 Conservation Prioritization Factors ............................................................................... 3-74 EXHIBIT 1 Hierarchical Structure of Conservation Goals, Objectives, and Priorities..................... 3-48 iii December 2018 Draft San Bernardino County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eriodictyon Trichocalyx A
    I. SPECIES Eriodictyon trichocalyx A. Heller NRCS CODE: Family: Boraginaceae ERTR7 (formerly placed in Hydrophyllaceae) Order: Solanales Subclass: Asteridae Class: Magnoliopsida juvenile plant, August 2010 A. Montalvo , 2010, San Bernardino Co. E. t. var. trichocalyx A. Subspecific taxa ERTRT4 1. E. trichocalyx var. trichocalyx ERTRL2 2. E. trichocalyx var. lanatum (Brand) Jeps. B. Synonyms 1. E. angustifolium var. pubens Gray; E. californicum var. pubens Brand (Abrams & Smiley 1915) 2. E. lanatum (Brand) Abrams; E. trichocalyx A. Heller ssp. lanatum (Brand) Munz; E. californicum. Greene var. lanatum Brand; E. californicum subsp. australe var. lanatum Brand (Abrams & Smiley 1915) C.Common name 1. hairy yerba santa (Roberts et al. 2004; USDA Plants; Jepson eFlora 2015); shiny-leaf yerba santa (Rebman & Simpson 2006); 2. San Diego yerba santa (McMinn 1939, Jepson eFlora 2015); hairy yerba santa (Rebman & Simpson 2006) D.Taxonomic relationships Plants are in the subfamily Hydrophylloideae of the Boraginaceae along with the genera Phacelia, Hydrophyllum, Nemophila, Nama, Emmenanthe, and Eucrypta, all of which are herbaceous and occur in the western US and California. The genus Nama has been identified as a close relative to Eriodictyon (Ferguson 1999). Eriodictyon, Nama, and Turricula, have recently been placed in the new family Namaceae (Luebert et al. 2016). E.Related taxa in region Hannan (2013) recognizes 10 species of Eriodictyon in California, six of which have subspecific taxa. All but two taxa have occurrences in southern California. Of the southern California taxa, the most closely related taxon based on DNA sequence data is E. crassifolium (Ferguson 1999). There are no morphologically similar species that overlap in distribution with E.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammals of the California Desert
    MAMMALS OF THE CALIFORNIA DESERT William F. Laudenslayer, Jr. Karen Boyer Buckingham Theodore A. Rado INTRODUCTION I ,+! The desert lands of southern California (Figure 1) support a rich variety of wildlife, of which mammals comprise an important element. Of the 19 living orders of mammals known in the world i- *- loday, nine are represented in the California desert15. Ninety-seven mammal species are known to t ':i he in this area. The southwestern United States has a larger number of mammal subspecies than my other continental area of comparable size (Hall 1981). This high degree of subspeciation, which f I;, ; leads to the development of new species, seems to be due to the great variation in topography, , , elevation, temperature, soils, and isolation caused by natural barriers. The order Rodentia may be k., 2:' , considered the most successful of the mammalian taxa in the desert; it is represented by 48 species Lc - occupying a wide variety of habitats. Bats comprise the second largest contingent of species. Of the 97 mammal species, 48 are found throughout the desert; the remaining 49 occur peripherally, with many restricted to the bordering mountain ranges or the Colorado River Valley. Four of the 97 I ?$ are non-native, having been introduced into the California desert. These are the Virginia opossum, ' >% Rocky Mountain mule deer, horse, and burro. Table 1 lists the desert mammals and their range 1 ;>?-axurrence as well as their current status of endangerment as determined by the U.S. fish and $' Wildlife Service (USWS 1989, 1990) and the California Department of Fish and Game (Calif.
    [Show full text]
  • California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP
    CALIFORNIA VEGETATION MAP IN SUPPORT OF THE DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN (2014-2016 ADDITIONS) John Menke, Edward Reyes, Anne Hepburn, Deborah Johnson, and Janet Reyes Aerial Information Systems, Inc. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Renewable Energy Program and the California Energy Commission Final Report May 2016 Prepared by: Primary Authors John Menke Edward Reyes Anne Hepburn Deborah Johnson Janet Reyes Report Graphics Ben Johnson Cover Page Photo Credits: Joshua Tree: John Fulton Blue Palo Verde: Ed Reyes Mojave Yucca: John Fulton Kingston Range, Pinyon: Arin Glass Aerial Information Systems, Inc. 112 First Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 793-9493 [email protected] in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95811 and California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by: California Energy Commission US Bureau of Land Management California Wildlife Conservation Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife Personnel involved in developing the methodology and implementing this project included: Aerial Information Systems: Lisa Cotterman, Mark Fox, John Fulton, Arin Glass, Anne Hepburn, Ben Johnson, Debbie Johnson, John Menke, Lisa Morse, Mike Nelson, Ed Reyes, Janet Reyes, Patrick Yiu California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Diana Hickson, Todd Keeler‐Wolf, Anne Klein, Aicha Ougzin, Rosalie Yacoub California
    [Show full text]
  • See the Forest Order
    SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST Forest Order No. 05-12-00-21-12 Wilderness Occupancy and Use Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.50(a), and to protect natural resources and provide for public safety, the following acts are prohibited within the San Bernardino National Forest. This Order is effective from September 1, 2021, through August 31, 2022. 1. Entering or being in the San Gorgonio, San Jacinto, or Cucamonga Wilderness Areas. 36 C.F.R. § 261.57(a). 2. Being on any National Forest System trail within the San Gorgonio, San Jacinto, or Cucamonga Wilderness Areas. 36 C.F.R. § 261.55(a). 3. Being within the San Gorgonio, San Jacinto, or Cucamonga Wilderness Area as part of a group larger than 12 persons. 36 C.F.R. § 261.58(f). 4. Camping in the San Gorgonio, San Jacinto, or Cucamonga Wilderness Areas, or within the Stonehouse Crossing Campsite. 36 C.F.R. § 261.58(e). Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 261.50(e), the following persons are exempt from this Order: 1. Persons with a valid wilderness area day use permit issued by the San Bernardino National Forest are exempt from Prohibition Nos. 1 and 2, provided they are in compliance with the conditions contained in the permit. 2. Persons with a valid wilderness area overnight permit issued by the San Bernardino National Forest are exempt from Prohibition Nos. 1, 2, and 4, provided they are in compliance with the conditions contained in the permit. 3. Persons with a valid “PCT Long-Distance Permit” issued by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Plants of Big Break Regional Shoreline Common Name Version
    Wild Plants of Big Break Regional Shoreline Common Name Version A Photographic Guide Sorted by Form, Color and Family with Habitat Descriptions and Identification Notes Photographs and text by Wilde Legard District Botanist, East Bay Regional Park District New Revised and Expanded Edition - Includes the latest scientific names, habitat descriptions and identification notes Decimal Inches .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 .5 2 .5 3 .5 4 .5 5 .5 6 .5 7 .5 8 .5 9 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 1/2 2 1/2 3 1/2 4 1/2 5 1/2 6 1/2 7 1/2 8 1/2 9 English Inches Notes: A Photographic Guide to the Wild Plants of Big Break Regional Shoreline More than 2,000 species of native and naturalized plants grow wild in the San Francisco Bay Area. Most are very difficult to identify without the help of good illustrations. This is designed to be a simple, color photo guide to help you identify some of these plants. This guide is published electronically in Adobe Acrobat® format so that it can easily be updated as additional photographs become available. You have permission to freely download, distribute and print this guide for individual use. Photographs are © 2014 Wilde Legard, all rights reserved. In this guide, the included plants are sorted first by form (Ferns & Fern-like, Grasses & Grass-like, Herbaceous, Woody), then by most common flower color, and finally by similar looking flowers (grouped by genus within each family). Each photograph has the following information, separated by '-': COMMON NAME According to The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (JM2) and other references (not standardized).
    [Show full text]
  • The Imperial Valley Is Located About 150 Miles Southeast of Los Angeles
    The Imperial Valley is located about 150 miles southeast of Los Angeles. It is a section of a much larger geologic structure -- the Salton Trough -- which is about 1,000 miles in length. The structure extends from San Gorgonio Pass southeast to the Mexican border, including the Gulf of California and beyond the tip of the Baja California Peninsula. The surrounding mountains are largely faulted blocks of the Southern California batholith of Mesozoic age, overlain by fragments of an earlier metamorphic complex. The valley basin consists of a sedimentary fill of sands and gravels ranging up to 15,000 feet in thickness. The layers slope gently down-valley, and contain several important aquifers. The valley is laced with major members of the San Andreas Fault system. Minor to moderate earthquake events are common, but severe shocks have not been experienced in recorded history. The entire trough, including the Gulf is an extension of the East Pacific Rise, a zone of separation in Earth's crust. Deep sea submergence instruments have observed many phenomena of crustal formation. The axis of the Rise, hence of the Salton Valley as well, is a great transform fault that is having the effect of separating an enormous slab of North America, consisting of the Baja Peninsula and coastal California away from the mainland, with movement to the northwest and out to sea as a terranne. Table of Contents Chapter 1 The San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains Chapter 2 The Eastern Mountains Chapter 3 San Gorgonio Pass Chapter 4 The Hills Chapter 5 Desert Sand
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail FY 2017 Appropriations Request
    Photo ©2016 Alasdair Fowler Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail FY 2017 Appropriations Request Prepared by: Pacific Crest Trail Association www.pcta.org Graphic design donated by Cover Photos by Alasdair Fowler, Shonda Feather and Carolyn Tepolt Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail FY2017 Appropriations Request The Pacific Crest Trail Association (PCTA) respectfully asks Congress to support the following FY2017 appropriations to protect, preserve and promote the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT): I. Land PCT Corridor Acquisition Projects & Water U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Budget Request Conservation $7.0 million Fund California—Landers Meadow, trail and resource (LWCF) protection within the Sequoia National Forest; Trinity Divide, trail and resource protection within the Shasta- Trinity National Forest, Donomore Meadows, trail and resource protection within the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Washington—Columbia Gorge, trail and resource protection in and adjacent to the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area; Stevens Pass, purchase portion of the trail that currently has no easement. $250,000—LWCF line item for program administration Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Budget Request $515,000 California—California Desert Southwest, purchase parcels within the San Gorgonio Wilderness to create an uninterrupted wilderness experience. Oregon—Cascade-Siskiyou Area, trail and resource $7.8 million protection in southern Oregon near the Klamath Basin. U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Budget Request II. Capital $2.1 million—allocation
    [Show full text]
  • Delhi Sands Flowerloving Fly Survey Report 2010
    Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Monitoring Program Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Survey Report 2010 23 March 2011 Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Survey Report 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1 SURVEY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................2 METHODS………… ....................................................................................................................................2 PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................2 PERSONNEL AND TRAINING...........................................................................................................3 STUDY SITE SELECTION AND TRANSECT PLACEMENT ..................................................................3 SURVEY METHODS........................................................................................................................5 DATA ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................6 RESULTS…….. ............................................................................................................................................6 DISCUSSION….. ........................................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Fremontia Journal of the California Native Plant Society
    $10.00 (Free to Members) VOL. 40, NO. 3 AND VOL. 41, NO. 1 • SEPTEMBER 2012 AND JANUARY 2013 FREMONTIA JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY INSPIRATIONINSPIRATION ANDAND ADVICEADVICE FOR GARDENING VOL. 40, NO. 3 AND VOL. 41, NO. 1, SEPTEMBER 2012 AND JANUARY 2013 FREMONTIA WITH NATIVE PLANTS CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1; Sacramento, CA 95816-5130 FREMONTIA Phone: (916) 447-CNPS (2677) Fax: (916) 447-2727 Web site: www.cnps.org Email: [email protected] VOL. 40, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2012 AND VOL. 41, NO. 1, JANUARY 2013 MEMBERSHIP Membership form located on inside back cover; Copyright © 2013 dues include subscriptions to Fremontia and the CNPS Bulletin California Native Plant Society Mariposa Lily . $1,500 Family or Group . $75 Bob Hass, Editor Benefactor . $600 International or Library . $75 Rob Moore, Contributing Editor Patron . $300 Individual . $45 Plant Lover . $100 Student/Retired/Limited Income . $25 Beth Hansen-Winter, Designer Cynthia Powell, Cynthia Roye, and CORPORATE/ORGANIZATIONAL Mary Ann Showers, Proofreaders 10+ Employees . $2,500 4-6 Employees . $500 7-10 Employees . $1,000 1-3 Employees . $150 CALIFORNIA NATIVE STAFF – SACRAMENTO CHAPTER COUNCIL PLANT SOCIETY Executive Director: Dan Gluesenkamp David Magney (Chair); Larry Levine Finance and Administration (Vice Chair); Marty Foltyn (Secretary) Dedicated to the Preservation of Manager: Cari Porter Alta Peak (Tulare): Joan Stewart the California Native Flora Membership and Development Bristlecone (Inyo-Mono): Coordinator: Stacey Flowerdew The California Native Plant Society Steve McLaughlin Conservation Program Director: Channel Islands: David Magney (CNPS) is a statewide nonprofit organi- Greg Suba zation dedicated to increasing the Rare Plant Botanist: Aaron Sims Dorothy King Young (Mendocino/ understanding and appreciation of Vegetation Program Director: Sonoma Coast): Nancy Morin California’s native plants, and to pre- Julie Evens East Bay: Bill Hunt serving them and their natural habitats Vegetation Ecologists: El Dorado: Sue Britting for future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX D Biological Technical Report
    APPENDIX D Biological Technical Report CarMax Auto Superstore EIR BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE PROJECT CITY OF OCEANSIDE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: EnviroApplications, Inc. 2831 Camino del Rio South, Suite 214 San Diego, California 92108 Contact: Megan Hill 619-291-3636 Prepared by: 4629 Cass Street, #192 San Diego, California 92109 Contact: Melissa Busby 858-334-9507 September 29, 2020 Revised March 23, 2021 Biological Technical Report CarMax Auto Superstore TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3 SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 6 1.1 Proposed Project Location .................................................................................... 6 1.2 Proposed Project Description ............................................................................... 6 SECTION 2.0 – METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS ............................................ 8 2.1 Background Research .......................................................................................... 8 2.2 General Biological Resources Survey .................................................................. 8 2.3 Jurisdictional Delineation ...................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction .................................................... 9 2.3.2 Regional Water Quality
    [Show full text]
  • 805.921.0683 Cell: 805.415.9595 Em
    July 11, 2018 Mr. Tal Shoshan, CEO c/o T-Rose Investments, LLC 3880 E. Ebony Ontario, CA 91761 SUBJECT: Results of a Habitat Suitability Evaluation, 2.76-acre Site, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Dear Mr. Shoshan: This letter report presents findings of a reconnaissance-level survey conducted to generally evaluate the suitability of a ±2.76-acre site to support the federally-listed endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis-DSFF). Introduction The subject 2.76-acre site is regionally located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (Plate 1). More specifically, the site is located north of 4th Street, east of Hermosa Avenue, west of Center Avenue, and south of Trademark Street; Township 1 South, Range 7 West, Section 14 on the “Guasti” USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map (Plate 2). Plate 3 provides an aerial photograph of the site. In order to meet the environmental documentation and review requirements, potentially occurring sensitive biological resources must be addressed to demonstrate the applicant’s conformance to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended. As such, this report is intended to provide biological information to the applicant and reviewing agencies in support of the environmental review process. Selected Species Overview The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed the DSFF as an endangered species on September 23, 1993. This species is only known to occur in association with Delhi sand deposits (FWS 1997), primarily on twelve disjunct sites within a radius of about eight miles in the cities of Colton, Rialto, and Fontana in southwestern San Bernardino and northwestern Riverside counties.
    [Show full text]