DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendices Appendix D9 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Survey Report (PBS&J 2009)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Appendices Appendix D9 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Survey Report (PBS&J 2009) Spring Trails Draft EIR City of San Bernardino Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center July 2011 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Presence/Absence Trapping Surveys Springs Trails Project Site Submitted to: Montecito Equities 3080 Bristol Street, Suite 630 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Contact: David DeMoranville Submitted by: 650 E. Hospitality Lane, Suite 450 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Contact: Marnie McKernan, July 22, 2009 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary of Findings ....................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Methods .......................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Literature Review .................................................................................. 5 2.2 General Biological Assessment ............................................................. 5 2.3 Primary Constituent Elements ............................................................... 6 2.4 Focused Trapping Surveys ................................................................... 6 Chapter 3 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 8 3.1 Topography and Soils ........................................................................... 8 3.2 Land Uses ............................................................................................. 8 3.3 Description of Habitat ............................................................................ 8 3.3.1 Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ....................................... 8 3.3.2 Riversidean Sage Scrub ........................................................ 10 3.4 Critical Habitat ..................................................................................... 12 Chapter 4 Results .......................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Weather Conditions ............................................................................. 14 4.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................. 15 4.2.1 Sensitive Biological Resources .............................................. 15 Chapter 5 Discussion .................................................................................................... 18 5.1 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat ............................................................ 18 5.2 Sensitive Rodent Species ................................................................... 18 Chapter 6 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 19 Chapter 7 Certification .................................................................................................. 20 Chapter 8 References ................................................................................................... 21 Appendices Appendix A Floral And Faunal Compendia Figures Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity Map ............................................................................................... 2 Exhibit 2: Local Topographic Map ............................................................................................ 3 Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Map..................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 4: Trap Locations Map .................................................................................................. 7 Exhibit 5: Soils Map .................................................................................................................. 9 Exhibit 6: Vegetation Communities Map ................................................................................ 11 Exhibit 7: USFWS San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Critical Habitat Map ................................. 13 ii SBKR Presence/Absence Trapping Surveys Spring Trails Table of Contents Tables Table 1: Weather Conditions .................................................................................................. 14 Table 2: Focused Trapping Results ....................................................................................... 14 iii SBKR Presence/Absence Trapping Surveys Spring Trails Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary of Findings PBS&J has prepared this report for Montecito Equities to document the presence or absence of the federally endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) (SBKR) within the proposed secondary access road alignments for the proposed Spring Trails Project. The study area herein referred to as project site or site is located northeast of Interstate 215 (I-215), south of State Route 138 (SR-138) and southeast of the I-15/I-215 interchange in southwestern San Bernardino County (Exhibit 1). The site is located in Sections 26 and 35, Township 2 North, Range 5 West on portions of the Devore and San Bernardino North U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps (Exhibit 2). The two secondary access roads under consideration originate at the frontage road adjacent to the I-215 freeway and travel northeasterly to the project site (Exhibit 3). Marnie McKernan, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) permitted biologist for SBKR (TE839211-2), conducted protocol-level live trapping for five consecutive nights during the week of July 12, 2009, to determine the presence/absence of SBKR, their relative abundance, and breeding status within the project site. No SBKR were captured during the current survey effort. However, SBKR were captured within the habitat adjacent to the proposed access roads during a survey in 2004. Therefore, it is assumed that portions of the Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) habitat of the Cable Creek floodplain where the proposed access roads are located support populations of SBKR. The southern portions of the two access roads are located within designated SBKR Critical Habitat (USFWS). Impacts to SBKR and SBKR Critical Habitat are potentially significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for modification of the Cable Creek channel. Consequently, the USACE will consult with the USFWS regarding impacts and mitigation measures for SBKR and its habitat. Impacts to SBKR individuals and Critical Habitat may be reduced to below the level of significance with mitigation coordinated through the USFWS. Impacts to state sensitive species, such as San Diego pocket mouse are not typically considered significant under CEQA due to their abundance on a local and regional level. However, impacts to the Los Angeles pocket mouse may be considered significant since their range and preferred habitat is narrow and it is not known to be locally or regionally abundant. With appropriate mitigation, these impacts can be reduced to below a level of significance. 1 SBKR Presence/Absence Trapping Surveys Spring Trails Study Area Location ^_ 0 52.5 SPRING TRAILS ACCESS ROAD Miles FOCUSED SBKR SURVEY 1 in = 5 miles Source: PBS&J, ESRI Streetmap | 07/22/2009 Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity Map Legend SPRING TRAILS ACCESS ROADS 0 500 1,000 2,000 1 inch = 2,000 feet Project_Area ¯ Feet FOCUSED SBKR SURVEY EXHIBIT 2: LOCAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Source: PBS&J, ESRI Streetmap, MSHCP 07/08/2009 Legend 0 250 500 1,000 SPRING TRAILS ACCESS ROADS 1 inch = 1,000 feet Project_Area ¯ Feet FOCUSED SBKR SURVEY EXHIBIT 3: LOCAL VICINITY MAP Source: PBS&J, ESRI Streetmap, MSHCP 07/08/2009 Chapter 2 Methods A literature review and records check was conducted for sensitive resources within the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition to the literature review, a general field assessment of the project area was conducted. The field survey provided information on the existing conditions of the site and the potential for sensitive resources to be present. Following the assessment, focused trapping surveys for SBKR were conducted where suitable habitat occurs within and adjacent to the proposed secondary access road alignments. 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review and records check included a review of standard field guides and texts on sensitive and non-sensitive biological resources potentially onsite, as well as the following sources: List of sensitive biological resources provided by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2006) USFWS. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus); Final Rule. Michael Brandman Associates. July 2005. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Presence/Absence Trapping Studies on the 260 acre Rolling Hills Ranch Country View Estates. Prepared for: Century Vintage Homes, 1535 S. “D” Street, Suite 200, San Bernardino, CA 92408. Unpublished report 2.2 GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT A reconnaissance survey was conducted on the property to assess suitable habitat for sensitive biological resources within the project boundaries. The plant communities on the project site were assessed for their ability to support SBKR or other sensitive species. Notes were taken during the surveys of all plant and wildlife species observed. Observations of wildlife species included burrows, nests, sounds, and visual observation. In addition, site characteristics such as soils, topography, the condition of the plant communities, and evidence of human use of the site were noted.
Recommended publications
  • Jeremy Langley Chief Operations Officer Wilhite Langley, Inc. 21800 Barton Road, Ste 102 Grand Terrace, Ca 92313

    Jeremy Langley Chief Operations Officer Wilhite Langley, Inc. 21800 Barton Road, Ste 102 Grand Terrace, Ca 92313

    47 1st Street, Suite 1 Redlands, CA 92373-4601 (909) 915-5900 May 22, 2019 Jeremy Langley Chief Operations Officer Wilhite Langley, Inc. 21800 Barton Road, Ste 102 Grand Terrace, Ca 92313 RE: Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Glen Helen/Devore parcel - APN: 0261-161-17, Devore, CA Dear Mr. Langley: Jericho Systems, Inc. (Jericho) is pleased to provide this letter report that details the results of a general Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) that includes habitat suitability assessments for nesting birds, Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) [BUOW] and a Jurisdictional Waters Delineation (JD) for the proposed Glen Helen/Devore parcel (Project) located within Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) #0261-161-17 in the community of Devore, CA (Attachment B: Figures 1 and 2). This report is designed to address potential effects of the proposed Project to designated Critical Habitats and/or any species currently listed or formally proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), or species designated as sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Attention was focused on sensitive species known to occur locally. This report also addresses resources protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) respectively; and Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (FCG) administered by the CDFW. SITE LOCATION The approximately 1-acre parcel (APN: 0261-161-17) is located north of Kendall Drive just north of the intersection with N.
  • Body Size, Not Phylogenetic Relationship Or Residency, Drives Interspecific Dominance in a Little Pocket Mouse Community

    Body Size, Not Phylogenetic Relationship Or Residency, Drives Interspecific Dominance in a Little Pocket Mouse Community

    Animal Behaviour 137 (2018) 197e204 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Animal Behaviour journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anbehav Body size, not phylogenetic relationship or residency, drives interspecific dominance in a little pocket mouse community * Rachel Y. Chock a, , Debra M. Shier a, b, Gregory F. Grether a a Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A. b Recovery Ecology, San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, Escondido, CA, U.S.A. article info The role of interspecific aggression in structuring ecological communities can be important to consider Article history: when reintroducing endangered species to areas of their historic range that are occupied by competitors. Received 6 September 2017 We sought to determine which species is the most serious interference competitor of the endangered Initial acceptance 6 November 2017 Pacific pocket mouse, Perognathus longimembris pacificus, and more generally, whether interspecific Final acceptance 1 December 2017 aggression in rodents is predicted by body size, residency status or phylogenetic relatedness. We carried out simulated territory intrusion experiments between P. longimembris and four sympatric species of MS. number: A17-00719 rodents (Chaetodipus fallax, Dipodomys simulans, Peromyscus maniculatus, Reithrodontomys megalotis)ina field enclosure in southern California sage scrub habitat. We found that body size asymmetries strongly Keywords: predicted dominance, regardless of phylogenetic relatedness or the residency status of the individuals. aggression The largest species, D. simulans, was the most dominant while the smallest species, R. megalotis, was the dominance least dominant to P. longimembris. Furthermore, P. longimembris actively avoided encounters with all interference competition Perognathus longimembris species, except R.
  • Mammal Species Native to the USA and Canada for Which the MIL Has an Image (296) 31 July 2021

    Mammal Species Native to the USA and Canada for Which the MIL Has an Image (296) 31 July 2021

    Mammal species native to the USA and Canada for which the MIL has an image (296) 31 July 2021 ARTIODACTYLA (includes CETACEA) (38) ANTILOCAPRIDAE - pronghorns Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn BALAENIDAE - bowheads and right whales 1. Balaena mysticetus – Bowhead Whale BALAENOPTERIDAE -rorqual whales 1. Balaenoptera acutorostrata – Common Minke Whale 2. Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale 3. Balaenoptera brydei - Bryde’s Whale 4. Balaenoptera musculus - Blue Whale 5. Balaenoptera physalus - Fin Whale 6. Eschrichtius robustus - Gray Whale 7. Megaptera novaeangliae - Humpback Whale BOVIDAE - cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes 1. Bos bison - American Bison 2. Oreamnos americanus - Mountain Goat 3. Ovibos moschatus - Muskox 4. Ovis canadensis - Bighorn Sheep 5. Ovis dalli - Thinhorn Sheep CERVIDAE - deer 1. Alces alces - Moose 2. Cervus canadensis - Wapiti (Elk) 3. Odocoileus hemionus - Mule Deer 4. Odocoileus virginianus - White-tailed Deer 5. Rangifer tarandus -Caribou DELPHINIDAE - ocean dolphins 1. Delphinus delphis - Common Dolphin 2. Globicephala macrorhynchus - Short-finned Pilot Whale 3. Grampus griseus - Risso's Dolphin 4. Lagenorhynchus albirostris - White-beaked Dolphin 5. Lissodelphis borealis - Northern Right-whale Dolphin 6. Orcinus orca - Killer Whale 7. Peponocephala electra - Melon-headed Whale 8. Pseudorca crassidens - False Killer Whale 9. Sagmatias obliquidens - Pacific White-sided Dolphin 10. Stenella coeruleoalba - Striped Dolphin 11. Stenella frontalis – Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 12. Steno bredanensis - Rough-toothed Dolphin 13. Tursiops truncatus - Common Bottlenose Dolphin MONODONTIDAE - narwhals, belugas 1. Delphinapterus leucas - Beluga 2. Monodon monoceros - Narwhal PHOCOENIDAE - porpoises 1. Phocoena phocoena - Harbor Porpoise 2. Phocoenoides dalli - Dall’s Porpoise PHYSETERIDAE - sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus – Sperm Whale TAYASSUIDAE - peccaries Dicotyles tajacu - Collared Peccary CARNIVORA (48) CANIDAE - dogs 1. Canis latrans - Coyote 2.
  • San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Study

    San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Study

    NATURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, INC. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) Presence/Absence Trapping Studies Cajon Boulevard Warehouse Project San Bernardino, California Prepared for: L&L Environmental 721 Nevada, Suite 307 Redlands, CA 92373 951 681 4929 Prepared by: ENVIRA P. O. Box 2612 Ramona, CA 92065 Phone 619-885-0236 E-mail [email protected] May 9, 2018 Project Number: LLE18-101 T (951) 686-4483 3415 Valencia Hill Drive F (951) 686-8418 Riverside, California 92507 [email protected] Cajon Boulevard Warehouse Development! NATURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, INC. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Survey CERTIFICATION This Phase One Survey and report were conducted and prepared in accordance with professional requirements for small mammal trapping studies by Philippe Vergne (USFWS Permit TE068072-3). Philippe Jean Vergne, Field Biologist and Author. !!!!!!! !! May 9, 2018 Cajon Warehouse Trapping LLE18-101!i Cajon Boulevard Warehouse Development! NATURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, INC. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Survey Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction!.........................................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Site Location and Project Description!..............................................................................................................................1 3.0 Methods................................................................................................................................................................................!
  • 2021 Rangewide SKR Management & Monitoring Plan

    2021 Rangewide SKR Management & Monitoring Plan

    Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Rangewide Management and Monitoring Plan Photo by Moose Peterson March 2021 Prepared by Conservation Biology Institute for Bureau of Land Management and Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency CBI is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization that works collaboratively to conserve biological diversity in its natural state through applied research, education, planning, and community service. Preferred Citation: Spencer, W.D., D. DiPietro, H. Romsos, D. Shier, and R. Chock. 2021. Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Rangewide Management and Monitoring Plan. Unpublished report prepared by the Conservation Biology Institute for Bureau of Land Management and Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. March 2021. SKR Rangewide Management & Monitoring Plan Conservation Biology Institute, 2021 Table of Contents Foreword 5 Acknowledgments 7 Glossary 8 1. Introduction 12 1.1. Background and Context 14 1.2. Approach 16 1.2.1. Use of Habitat Models and Delineating Population Units 17 1.2.2. Biogeographic Mapping and Genetic Considerations 17 1.2.3. Threats Assessment 18 1.2.4. Management Strategy 18 1.2.5. Monitoring Strategy 18 1.2.6. Data Management Strategy 19 1.2.7. Coordination Structure 19 2. SKR Ecology 20 2.1. Distribution and Population Genetics 20 2.2. Habitat 21 2.3. Sociality and Burrow Use 22 2.4. Diet and Foraging 23 2.5. Space-use Patterns 23 2.6. Reproduction 23 2.7. Communication 24 2.8. Activity Patterns 24 2.9. Interspecific Relationships 25 3. SKR Habitat Model 27 3.1. Methods 28 3.2. Results and Discussion 29 4. Delineating SKR Habitat & Population Units 34 4.1.
  • Black-Chinned Hummingbird: New to Ontario by Nora M

    Black-Chinned Hummingbird: New to Ontario by Nora M

    27 Notes Black-chinned Hummingbird: New to Ontario by Nora M. Mansfield About 1700h, Friday, 25 May 1990, a appear to be black, with the breast warm sunny day, Dr. and Mrs. A.A. and sides darker than the Ruby­ Sterns of Rideau Ferry, Lanark throats'. There was no crest. I too County Ion the Rideau Waterway, thought it looked larger. about 9 km south of Perth) spotted a I asked Ron Beacock of Perth, a strange hummingbird amongst the sharp-eyed, experienced birdwatcher many Ruby-throated Hummingbirds with remarkable surveillance skills, at their feeders. It appeared to be to come. From 2000h to 2045h, with "larger, with a black head and a bit the light waning, we caught glimpses of a crest". They thought it might be of the bird in the feeder area, but sick or dying as it sat much of the these and the videotaped pictures time without moving, only were not clear enough to give us occasionally sipping from a feeder. what we needed definitively And they noted that the Ruby-throats concerning its colour. We decided to tried to chase it. return the next day to obtain more Dr. Sterns videotaped the strange details which might show whether it hummer. Mrs. Sterns tried to locate was a larger, darker Ruby-throated or an expert to identify it. First she prove that it was another species called the Ottawa Otizen newspaper, such as the Black-chinned but its staff was too busy with the Hummingbird IArchilochus alexandri). Meech Lake Accord affair to help. In that event, we would have to get Next she tried Lynne Thompson of an expert to confirm the the Perth Wildlife Reserve who, identification.
  • Evaluation of the Global Decline in the True Shrikes (Family Laniidae)

    Evaluation of the Global Decline in the True Shrikes (Family Laniidae)

    228 ShortCommunications and Commentaries [Auk, Vol. 111 The Auk 111(1):228-233, 1994 CONSERVATION COMMENTARY Evaluation of the Global Decline in the True Shrikes (Family Laniidae) REUVEN YOSEF t ArchboldBiological Station, P.O. Box2057, Lake Placid, Florida 33852, USA The first International Shrike Symposiumwas held Shrike was found in 1975, and of the Northern Shrike at the Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, Flor- in 1982. In Switzerland, these two specieshave offi- ida, from 11-15 January 1993. The symposium was cially been declared extinct. attended by 71 participants from 23 countries(45% In Sweden, Olsson (1993) and Carlson (1993) have North America, 32%Europe, 21% Asia, and 2% Africa). attributed the decline (over 50% between 1970 and The most exciting participation was that of a strong 1990) of the Red-backed Shrike to the destruction and contingent of ornithologists from eastern Europe. In deterioration of suitable habitats. Olsson (1993) ob- this commentary I present the points stressedat the served a large reduction of pastures in the last two Symposiumand illustrate them with severalexamples decades,and considers the Swedish law requiring as presentedby the authors. planting of unused pastures and fallow lands with The Symposiumwas convened to focus attention conifers as unfavorable for shrikes. He also stated that on, evaluate, and possibly recommend methods to nitrogenousand acid-rainpollutants have influenced reverse the worldwide decline of shrike populations. vegetationcomposition and insectpopulations, both Many of the 30 speciesare declining, or have become of which in turn have affected shrikes negatively. In extinct locally. Studies have focused mainly on the the Swedish Bird Population Monitoring Program, five speciesfound closestto placeswhere ornithol- the numbers of Red-backed Shrikes declined from a ogists live: Northern/Great Grey Shrike (Laniusex- high index of 100 in 1975, to a low of 60 in 1981.
  • Productivity of Loggerhead Shrikes Nesting in an Urban Interface

    Productivity of Loggerhead Shrikes Nesting in an Urban Interface

    Productivity of loggerhead shrikes nesting in an urban interface Clint W. Boal, Tracy S. Estabrook and Adam E. Duerr Abstract Loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) are predatory songbirds that were once common across most of North America. A precipitous decline of loggerhead shrikes in recent years has often been associated with habitat degradation and alteration. Loggerhead shrikes are typically an open country species, and there have been no documentation or descriptions of productivity and habitat use by the species in urban environments. We monitored the productivity and characterized nesting habitat of an urban population of loggerhead shrikes in the city of Tucson, Arizona during the breeding seasons of 1997 and 1998. We documented nesting activity by 23 of 27 shrike pairs in 1997 and by 26 of 35 shrike pairs in 1998. Territory re-occupancy was high (72%) between the 2 years. Loggerhead shrikes in Tucson tended to nest earlier than reported elsewhere, with a mean estimated hatch date of April 20, and earliest hatch date of March 30. There was no difference between years in clutch size (P = 0.313) or brood size (P = 0.196). Nor was there a difference between years in fledglings per successful nest (P = 0.439), but the number of fledglings per nesting attempt was greater in 1997 than 1998 (P = 0.002). Nest suc- cess estimations using the Mayfield method indicated nest success rates of 82% in 1997 and 59% in 1998, with an average of 64%. The between year difference was probably due to nesting failures caused by several days of unseasonable heavy rain in 1998.
  • 2020 National Bird List

    2020 National Bird List

    2020 NATIONAL BIRD LIST See General Rules, Eye Protection & other Policies on www.soinc.org as they apply to every event. Kingdom – ANIMALIA Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias ORDER: Charadriiformes Phylum – CHORDATA Snowy Egret Egretta thula Lapwings and Plovers (Charadriidae) Green Heron American Golden-Plover Subphylum – VERTEBRATA Black-crowned Night-heron Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Class - AVES Ibises and Spoonbills Oystercatchers (Haematopodidae) Family Group (Family Name) (Threskiornithidae) American Oystercatcher Common Name [Scientifc name Roseate Spoonbill Platalea ajaja Stilts and Avocets (Recurvirostridae) is in italics] Black-necked Stilt ORDER: Anseriformes ORDER: Suliformes American Avocet Recurvirostra Ducks, Geese, and Swans (Anatidae) Cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae) americana Black-bellied Whistling-duck Double-crested Cormorant Sandpipers, Phalaropes, and Allies Snow Goose Phalacrocorax auritus (Scolopacidae) Canada Goose Branta canadensis Darters (Anhingidae) Spotted Sandpiper Trumpeter Swan Anhinga Anhinga anhinga Ruddy Turnstone Wood Duck Aix sponsa Frigatebirds (Fregatidae) Dunlin Calidris alpina Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Magnifcent Frigatebird Wilson’s Snipe Northern Shoveler American Woodcock Scolopax minor Green-winged Teal ORDER: Ciconiiformes Gulls, Terns, and Skimmers (Laridae) Canvasback Deep-water Waders (Ciconiidae) Laughing Gull Hooded Merganser Wood Stork Ring-billed Gull Herring Gull Larus argentatus ORDER: Galliformes ORDER: Falconiformes Least Tern Sternula antillarum Partridges, Grouse, Turkeys, and
  • Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Survey

    Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Survey

    Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Survey and Management Recommendations for the Santa Ysabel Open Space Reserve San Diego County, California Prepared by Wayne D. Spencer, Ph.D. 815 Madison Avenue San Diego, California 92116 Prepared for The Nature Conservancy 3033 Fifth Avenue, Suite 105 San Diego, California 92103 August 2002 Santa Ysabel Open Space Reserve SKR Conservation Biology Institute (CBI) is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt research and 1/3/2005 planning institution. We work collabo ratively to help conserve biological 2 diversity through research, educatio n, planning, and community service. Santa Ysabel Open Space Reserve SKR Introduction The endangered Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR; Dipodomys stephensi) is restricted largely to the San Jacinto Valley and vicinity in western Riverside County, but San Diego County supports a few scattered populations. The sparse grasslands this species requires are already rare in San Diego County, and remaining grasslands are increasingly threatened by development. Most potential habitat on private lands in San Diego County has never been surveyed for SKR, so additional populations may exist. Even currently unoccupied habitat may be essential to maintaining and recovering populations of this rare species by providing dispersal corridors and areas for population expansion. Grasslands in and near the Santa Ysabel Valley, in central San Diego County, appear to have strong potential to support SKR, and may play an important role in long-term species viability by maintaining habitat connectivity between known SKR populations. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) recently purchased for open space preservation two properties that include grassland habitat along the edges of the Santa Ysabel Valley. These properties, formerly comprising the Edwards Ranch, are to be managed by the County of San Diego as the Santa Ysabel Open Space Reserve (SYOSR).
  • Grey Shrikes Unless Noted Otherwise

    Grey Shrikes Unless Noted Otherwise

    Trends in systematics Speciation in shades of grey: Grey Shrike L elegans, while other great grey shrike taxa were left undetermined for the time being. the great grey shrike complex The purpose of this short paper is to present an Sometimes clear-cut species limits are hard to update on geographic variation in the great grey come by. A number of widespread Palearctic spe- shrike complex based on recent genetic studies cies and species complexes display an intricate (Gonzalez et al 2008, Klassert et al 2008, Olsson pattern of geographical (plumage) variation. et al 2010) and to show current implications for Information on patterns of genetic variation can species limits within this complex. Olsson et al be a tremendous help in clarifying relationships (2010) sampled by far the most extensively and between populations but the results are not al- agree with Gonzalez et al (2008) and Klassert et al ways unambiguous. The great grey shrike complex (2008) on the basic structure of the phylogeny. is one such diffcult case. Many may have been Therefore, Olsson et al (2010) is referred to below, surprised to note the treatment of great grey shrikes unless noted otherwise. in the second English edition of the Collins bird guide (Svensson et al 2009) in which two species Results are recognized: Great Grey Shrike Lanius excubi- The recovered mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) tree tor and Iberian Grey Shrike L meridionalis. The lat- (fgure 1) shows a deep split between two large ter now only includes the birds from Iberia and clades, representing up to several million years of south-eastern France.
  • Southern California Weekend, 2017

    Southern California Weekend, 2017

    Southern California Weekend Venkat Sankar March 31-April 3, 2017 This weekend trip across the coast, mountains, and deserts of S California was designed to take advantage of abnormally high winter rains following on years of “drought” in this part of the state. The trip ran better than expected, netting 26 species and good sightings of almost all target species (my only major dips were Cactus Mouse, Canyon Mouse, and amazingly Round-tailed Ground Squirrel—what I thought was my easiest target!). The only significant surprise was the lower numbers of kangaroo rats and pocket mice at most sites than expected (given the wet winter); perhaps it will be better to search for these in early-mid May. Thank you to Vladimir Dinets for advice on species IDs and Brian Keelan for details on the Stonehouse Mine. (Day 1: 3/31/17) We departed the Bay Area about an hour late and hit commute traffic driving towards the I-5, leaving us too far behind schedule to attempt a detour to Munz Ranch Road near Lake Hughes. After an early dinner, we made our first stop to break the boredom on San Emigdio Canyon Road at about 8:30 PM, which we drove to the gate at the Wind Wolves Preserve entrance. In about 30 minutes, we observed 4 Heermann’s Kangaroo Rats (in the grasslands), 2 almost certain Agile Kangaroo Rats (in a brushy wash with darker tail stripes and larger ears than the former; I have prior experience with this species), and best of all – 3 San Joaquin Pocket Mice (now the best site I know for this species).