DOCSLIB.ORG

Foothill Feeder Inspection and Maintenance Activities Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Foothill Feeder Inspection and Maintenance Activities Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan DRAFT Foothill Feeder Inspection and Maintenance Activities Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan August 2018 Prepared by The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Foothill Feeder Inspection and Maintenance Activities Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan D R A F T AUGUST 2018 Prepared by The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview/Background ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Regulatory Compliance Framework ................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended ..................................... 1-2 1.2.2 National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................... 1-6 1.2.3 Federal Clean Water Act ..................................................................................... 1-6 1.2.4 National Historic Preservation Act ..................................................................... 1-7 1.3 HCP Boundaries (Covered Area) ..................................................................................... 1-7 Covered Activities ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Shutdowns ........................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2 Emergency Dewatering Scenario ..................................................................................... 2-4 2.3 UTS Conservation Action Site......................................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Avoidance and Minimization Measures .......................................................................... 2-5 Environmental Setting / Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Physical Environment....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Climate ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.3 Topography ......................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.5 Surface and Groundwater ................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Biological Environment ................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1 Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover ................................................ 3-3 3.2.2 Common Wildlife ............................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.3 Aquatic Biota ...................................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.4 Project Sites ........................................................................................................ 3-6 3.3 Species Considered for Coverage .................................................................................... 3-7 3.4 Proposed Covered Species ............................................................................................... 3-7 August 2018 Table of Contents i METROPOLITAN’S FOOTHILL FEEDER TABLE OF CONTENTS LOW-EFFECT HCP 3.4.1 Unarmored Threespine Stickleback .................................................................... 3-8 3.4.2 Arroyo Toad ...................................................................................................... 3-11 3.4.3 California Red Legged Frog ............................................................................. 3-13 3.4.4 Santa Ana Sucker .............................................................................................. 3-15 3.4.5 Western Spadefoot ............................................................................................ 3-16 3.4.6 Two-Striped Garter Snake ................................................................................ 3-17 3.4.7 Western Pond Turtle ......................................................................................... 3-18 Potential Biological Effects / Take Assessment ..................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Type of Potential Effects ................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 General Description of Potential Effects ......................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Potential Effects on Covered Species ............................................................................... 4-2 4.3.1 Unarmored Threespine Stickleback .................................................................... 4-2 4.3.2 Arroyo Toad ........................................................................................................ 4-4 4.3.3 California Red-legged Frog ................................................................................ 4-5 4.3.4 Santa Ana Sucker ................................................................................................ 4-5 4.3.5 Western Spadefoot .............................................................................................. 4-5 4.3.6 Two-striped Garter Snake ................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.7 Western Pond Turtle ........................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.8 Summary of Potential Covered Species Effects ................................................. 4-6 4.4 Potential Effects on Critical Habitat ................................................................................ 4-7 4.5 Potential Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................ 4-8 4.6 Take Estimate ................................................................................................................... 4-9 Conservation Program ............................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Biological Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ........................................................................... 5-1 5.2.1 Shutdowns ........................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2 Emergency Dewatering Scenario ........................................................................ 5-5 5.2.3 UTS Conservation Action Site ........................................................................... 5-5 5.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 5-10 5.4 Monitoring, Adaptive Management, and Reporting ....................................................... 5-10 Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 HCP Administration and Funding .................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances ......................................................................... 6-1 6.2.1 Changed Circumstances ...................................................................................... 6-1 6.2.2 Unforeseen Circumstances .................................................................................. 6-2 6.3 Revisions and Amendments ............................................................................................. 6-3 Table of Contents ii August 2018 METROPOLITAN’S FOOTHILL FEEDER TABLE OF CONTENTS LOW-EFFECT HCP 6.3.1 Revisions ............................................................................................................. 6-3 6.3.2 Amendments to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits ................................................ 6-4 Alternatives Analyzed ............................................................................................................................... 7-1 Citations .................................................................................................................................................... 8-1 List of Preparers ....................................................................................................................................... 9-1 Appendices
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report
    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality
    3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section describes the drainage features, stormwater quality, flooding hazards, and flood-protection improvements within the City’s Planning Area. Regulatory agencies governing stormwater quality and flooding hazards are also discussed. The City’s Planning Area is comprised of the City’s boundaries and adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI). The County’s Planning Area consists of unincorporated land within the One Valley One Vision (OVOV) Planning Area boundaries that is outside the City’s boundaries and adopted SOI. Together the City and County Planning Areas comprise the OVOV Planning Area. With implementation of the proposed General Plan goals, objectives, and policies potential impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. EXISTING CONDITIONS Surface Water Drainage Patterns within City’s Planning Area Surface water drainage patterns are dependent on topography, the amount and location of impervious surfaces, and the type of flood control that is located in an area. The size, or magnitude, of a flood is described by a term called a “recurrence interval.” By studying a long period of flow record for a stream, hydrologists estimate the size of a flood that would have a likelihood of occurring during various intervals. For example, a five-year flood event would occur, on the average, once every five years (and would have a 20 percent chance of occurring in any one year). Although a 100-year flood event is expected to happen only once in a century, there is a 1 percent chance that a flood of that size could happen during any year.
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Yield of the Castaic Watershed, Western Los Angeles County California a Quantitative Geomorphic Approach
    Sediment Yield of the Castaic Watershed, Western Los Angeles County California A Quantitative Geomorphic Approach GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 422-F Prepared in cooperation with State of California Department of Water Resources Sediment Yield of the Castaic Watershed, Western Los Angeles County California A Quantitative Geomorphic Approach By LAWRENCE K. LUSTIG PHYSIOGRAPHIC AND HYDRAULIC STUDIES OF RIVERS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 422-F Prepared in cooperation with State of California Department of Water Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 65 cents CONTENTS Page Page Abstract..________________________________ _ _______ Fl Quantitative geomorphology____-__-__-_-_--_--__-__- F12 Introduction.______________________________________ 1 General discussion._____.___-____-____--_______- 12 Statement of the problem and the approach em­ ployed. _____________________________________ 2 Basic-data collection.__________-_____--_-----_-- 12 Acknowledgments and personnel-_-_-----_-__--___ 2 Geomorphic parameters. ________________________ 13 The Castaic watershed_____________________________ 2 Relief ratio-.---------------.-------------- 14 Physical description of the area_________________ 2 Sediment-area factor._______________________ 15 Location and extent_______________________
    [Show full text]
  • Aquifers East Subbasin
    JUNE 2020 OF THE SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY AQUIFERS EAST SUBBASIN Anatomy of an aquifer An aquifer is an underground reservoir where water fills and moves between the voids in rocks, silt and other material. Many different types of sediments and rocks can form aquifers, including gravel, sandstone, and fractured limestone. Aquifers are fed by rain and runoff, which percolates downward. There are two main types of aquifers: unconfined and confined. Unconfined, or alluvial aquifers, lie below a permeable layer of soil. Confined aquifers occur beneath an impenetrable layer of rock or clay. RECHARGE AREA DISCHARGE AREA PUMPED WELL STREAM Unconfined Aquifer Confining Bed (aquitard) Confined Aquifer CENTURIES Confining Bed (aquitard) MILLENNIA Confined Aquifer Slowing the flow Natural groundwater filter Aquitards are geological formations of semi-permeable material, like silts and clays that separate one part of an aquifer from Aquifers naturally filter groundwater by another, limiting the ow of water between geological forcing it to pass through small pores formations. and between sediments, which helps to remove substances from the water. Find more information at scvgsa.org AQUIFERS OF THE SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY EAST SUBBASIN Groundwater in the Santa Clarita Valley SCV Water gets half of its total supply from two aquifers. The shallow alluvial aquifer lies beneath the Santa Clara River and its tributaries; the larger, deeper Saugus Formation aquifer sits beneath the entire Santa Clarita Valley. Of the 35,900 acre-feet of total groundwater pumped in the Santa Clarita Valley in 2018, about 26,450 acre-feet came from the alluvial aquifer and 9,450 acre-feet were pumped from the underlying Saugus Formation.
    [Show full text]
  • 23. Hydrology and Water Quality Modeling of the Santa Clara River Watershed
    NOVEMBER 2009 23. Hydrology and Water Quality Modeling of the Santa Clara River Watershed Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: This work was completed as part of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California, which received funding from the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, the County of Los Angeles, and the USC College of Letters, Arts & Sciences. The authors thank Travis Longcore and Jennifer Wolch for their comments and edits on this paper. The authors would also like to thank Eric Stein, Drew Ackerman, Ken Hoffman, Wing Tam, and Betty Dong for their timely advice and encouragement. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, 100 North Old Santa Clara Canyon Road, Azusa, CA 91702 Preferred Citation: Sheng, J., and Wilson, J.P., 2009. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern Califor- nia: 23. Hydrology and Water Quality Modeling of the Santa Clara River Watershed. Univer- sity of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California. Our goals are to protect and restore natural areas, restore natural hydrological function, promote equitable access to open space, and maximize support via multiple-use facilities. The Plan is a joint venture between the University of Southern California and the San Gabriel and lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Coastal Conservancy, and Baldwin Hills Conservancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Addendum Final: Hydrologic Modeling of the Santa Clara River
    Report Addendum Final: Hydrologic Modeling of the Santa Clara River with U.S. EPA Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN (HSPF) December, 2009 Santa Clara River Feasibility Study June, 2011 Authors: Ventura County Watershed Protection District Los Angeles County Department of Public Works U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Reviewers: Bruce Rindahl, VCWPD Iraj Nasseri, LACDPW Jody Fischer, USACE TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and scope ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Supporting Documents ............................................................................................. 2 1.3 Intermediate Discharge Calculations ........................................................................ 3 1.4 Continuous HSPF Model Creation and Use ............................................................. 3 1.5 HSPF Model Design Storm Peaks ............................................................................ 3 1.6 Future Condition Flows ............................................................................................ 3 1.7 Calibrated Rainfall Factors ....................................................................................... 4 Section 2 Ventura County Modeling and Results ............................................................. 4 2.1 Ventura County Stream Gage Frequency Analyses.................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of Ventura County Rincon Rincon Creek consists of about 9.7 stream miles. It flows southwest, entering the Pacific Ocean at Rincon Point. The culvert at the Highway 101 crossing is a total passage barrier (Stoecker et al. 2002). A watershed plan prepared for Rincon Creek includes a review of historical steelhead information. The review notes O. mykiss stocking occurred in the 1940s and subsequently. Anecdotal accounts of trout observations from the 1950s to the 1980s also are included (Tetra Tech 2007; Stoecker et al. 2002). Rincon Creek was surveyed in 1993 and no fish were observed. The survey report states, “Sediment inputs from Casitas Creek are destroying downstream habitat” (Unknown 1993). A 1994 DFG memo relayed the results of surveys from that year. The memo states, “The Wheeler Fire [in 1985] could have been the event that eradicated rainbow trout from Rincon Creek, although there is anecdotal information from a landowner along Rincon Creek that suggests that the population was extirpated as early as the 1960’s” (DFG 1994a). The memo adds, “It appears that the Highway 101 culvert has prevented the recolonization of rainbow trout/steelhead in Rincon Creek” (DFG 1994a). Consultants surveyed Rincon Creek as part of a steelhead study, and observed O. mykiss likely representing one year class in 2001 (Stoecker et al. 2002). A 2002 memo from NMFS staff states, “Rincon Creek provides approximately 4 miles of steelhead spawning and rearing habitat…” (NMFS 2002a). A 2002 study report notes water quality impacts on Rincon Creek from the large sediment load carried by Casitas Creek, a tributary (Stoecker et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Southeastern Ventura Basin Los Angeles County California
    Geology of Southeastern Ventura Basin Los Angeles County California By E. L. WINTERER and D. L. DURHAM SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 334-H A study of the stratigraphy, structure, and occurrence of oil in the late Cenozoic Ventura basin UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1962 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEW ART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Page Abstract ____________________________________________ 275 Stratigraphy Continued Introduction.______________________________________ 276 Tertiary system Continued Purpose and scope.------_______________________ 276 Pliocene series..._________------__---__----- 308 Fieldwork __ __________________________________ 276 Pico formation.____________-_----_-_-_- 308 Acknowledgments. _ _----_-_-.________________- 276 Stratigraphy and lithology___________ 309 Geography. _________________________________________ 278 Newhall-Potrero area__________ 309 Climate- ______--_-__-_-__-_--_-_____________-_ 278 Newhsll-Potrero oil field to East Vegetation.____________________________________ 278 Canyon____________________ 310 Santa Clara River______________________________ 278 Mouth of East Canyon to San Fer­ Relief. __.._.._._._________---_-_--_________ 278 nando Pass__-----_-_-------- 311 Human activities----_------__--________________ 278 San Fernando Pass to San Gabriel Physiography_ _____________________________________ 278 fault..____-__-__-_------.--_ 311 Structural and lithologic control of drainage______ 279 Santa Clara River to Del Valle River terraces and old erosion surfaces-__ _________ 279 fault.___----.--_-_---------_ 312 Present erosion cycle.___________________________ 281 Del Valle fault to Holser fault__ 312 Landslides- ___--.-------_-_--___________________ 281 Area north of Holser fault- ______ 312 Stratigraphy.______________________________________ 281 Fossils..
    [Show full text]
  • 1935) and Van Valkenburg (N.D)
    NEW OBSIDIAN SOURCING RESULTS FOR INTERIOR VENTURENO CHUMASH SITES: THE OAKBROOK PARK/LANG RANCH EARLY SITES DEBORAH V. ROMAN VENTURA COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY As new radiocarBon dating reveals the antiquity of interior sites abutting the Santa Monica Mountains, this updated record of obsidian sourcing contributes to a re-evaluation of the antiquity of purported trade routes and sources utilized by the Early Period Ventureno Chumash. With the recent publicAtion of new AccelerAtor Mass Spectrometry dates for numerous interior sites abutting the Santa Monica Mountains, our scope of research at the Lang Ranch Project has expanded to review new X-ray fluorescence (XRF), portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) And Neutron ActivAtion AnAlysis (NAA) sourcing of obsidian that has been recovered from these sites (Roman 2017). Our case study of three sites exAmines the relationship between the evidence for the sources of this mAterial And considers its correlation with the early dates from these sites, as well as summarizes pAst hypotheses About the specific routes thAt were utilized to procure the mAterial. In Addition, we exAmine the evidence for hypothetical trade routes based upon early reports of Native American trails from Farmer (1935) and Van Valkenburg (n.d). AlternAtively, we Acknowledge cAutions issued by vArious scholars regArding the over- utilization of various proxies that have been extrapolated as evidence for long-distance trade. In 2017, RomAn reported on A new series of AMS radiocarbon dates that were recovered for the interior sites of CA-VEN-1029, -852, and -853 (Roman 2017). For a complete review of the methodology of the study and discussion of these curated collections, please see that publication.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Santa Clarita Valley Water Report Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36
    2019 Santa Clarita Valley Water Report Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36 July 2020 2019 Santa Clarita Valley Water Report prepared for: Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36 July 2020 prepared by: William L. Halligan, PG Lisa Lavagnino, GIT Senior Principal Hydrogeologist Project Geologist Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 2019 Water Requirements & Supplies .................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Groundwater........................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 I mported Water Supplies ........................................................................................ ES-3 ES.4 2020 Watter Supply Outlook .................................................................................. ES-4 ES.5 Water Supply Conservation .................................................................................... ES-5 1 - Introduction.......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Report ..................................................................................3 1.3 Santa Clarita Valley Water Divisions and LACWD 36 .....................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Critical Biological Zones in Southern California's
    1 Recommended Critical Biological Zones in Southern California’s Four National Forests: Los Padres · Angeles · San Bernardino · Cleveland Lake Fulmor, San Jacinto Mountains, San Bernardino National Forest. Photo by Monica Bond Monica Bond Curt Bradley 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary . 3 Introduction and Methods . 5 Los Padres National Forest . 6 Angeles National Forest . 10 San Bernardino National Forest . 15 Cleveland National Forest . 20 Literature Cited . 23 Map of Recommended CBZs . 24 We thank the following highly knowledgeable scientists for their input: • Chris Brown – U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, San Diego • David Goodward – San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society • Frank Hovore – Frank Hovore and Associates, Santa Clarita • Timothy Krantz – University of Redlands and San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society • Fred Roberts – California Native Plant Society • Sam Sweet – Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, U.C. Santa Barbara • Michael Wangler – Department of Science and Engineering, Cuyamaca College 3 Executive Summary With majestic mountains, dramatic coastlines, and a remarkable diversity of wildlands from alpine forests to desert scrublands, Southern California’s four national forests – Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino, and Cleveland – are beloved by millions of backpackers, hikers, birdwatchers, hunters and fisherman, and outdoor enthusiasts. Scientists recognize our region as one of the richest areas of plant and animal life on the planet. It is home to roughly 3,000 plant and 500 animal species, many of which are found nowhere else on Earth. Our national forests form the backbone for the conservation of the natural beauty and extraordinary biological diversity of the region. One of the great pleasures of hiking in the forests is to see this diversity, from rare butterflies, fish, frogs, and birds to mule deer, bighorn sheep, and bobcats.
    [Show full text]
  • Results of Focused Arroyo Toad Surveys, Castaic Creek, Santa Clarita, California" (August 17, 2005; 2005A) August 17, 2005
    Ecological Sciences, Inc., "Results of Focused Arroyo Toad Surveys, Castaic Creek, Santa Clarita, California" (August 17, 2005; 2005A) August 17, 2005 Mr. Sam Rojas Newhall Ranch Company 23823 Valencia Boulevard Valencia, CA 91355 SUBJECT: Results of Focused Arroyo Toad Surveys, Castaic Creek, Santa Clarita, California Dear Mr. Rojas: This letter report summarizes methodology and findings of focused protocol surveys for the federally listed endangered arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) conducted by Ecological Sciences, Inc. The surveys were conducted to determine the presence/absence of the arroyo toad within the subject study area. All surveys followed federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) protocol (2001). This represents the third consecutive year of protocol surveys in Castaic Creek as required by the USACOE in their permit modification letter dated March 17, 2003, and in accordance with the December 17, 2002 Service Biological Opinion Conservation Recommendation No.2. Introduction Surveys were conducted within potentially suitable habitat in a portion of Castaic Creek (±10,800 feet in length-herein site or study area) from State Route 126 upstream to just above the Interstate 5 Freeway. Regional and site vicinity survey location maps are included as Plate 1 and Plate 2, respectively. The survey area is located on the “Val Verde” and “Newhall”, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute quadrangle maps. General Arroyo Toad Ecology The arroyo toad was listed as an endangered species by the Service on December 16, 1994, and is also considered a California species of special concern. A federal Recovery Plan was prepared in 1999 and critical habitat was initially defined in February 2001.
    [Show full text]