Biological Technical Report for Euclid/Bickmore
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR EUCLID/BICKMORE PROJECT LOCATED IN THE CITY OF CHINO, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: T&B Planning 3665 Ruffin Road Suite 2018 San Diego, California 92123 Contact: David Ornelas Phone: (619) 501-6041 Prepared By: Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. 29 Orchard Lake Forest, California 92630 Phone: (949) 340-0256 Report Preparers: David Smith and Martin Rasnick November 7, 2018 i INFORMATION SUMMARY A. Report Date: November 7, 2018 B. Report Title: Biotechnical Report for the Euclid/Bickmore Project C. Project Site Location: The Project site consists of approximately 21.68 and is located at latitude 33.962571° and longitude -117.649074°, within an unsectioned area of Township 2 South and Range 7 West, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map Prado Dam (dated 1967 and photorevised in 1981). D. Owner/Applicant: David Ornelas Planner T&B Planning 3665 Ruffin Road Suite 2018 San Diego, California 92123 Phone: (619) 501-6041 Email: [email protected] E. Principal Investigator: Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. 29 Orchard Lake Forest, California 92630 Phone: (949) 837-0404 Report Preparer: David Smith F. Report Summary: A biological study was performed for the proposed Euclid/Bickmore Project (Project). The Project would create eight commercial buildings, a truck yard adjacent to each building, vehicle parking, landscaped areas, and associated roadside impacts on an approximately 21.68-acre area in the City of Chino, San Bernardino County, California. The Project would impact 21.68 acres in total. This document provides the results of a field study performed to evaluate the potential occurrence of biological resources and the requirements triggered by environmental laws and regulations. A site habitat assessment was performed which determined the presence of potential habitat for the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The Project contains one drainage ditch on the western edge of the project, which is parallel to Euclid Avenue. This ditch is subject to jurisdiction by both the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), no part of which is wetland or supports riparian habitat. The entirety of the drainage will be impacted as part of the ii Project, and as such a Porter-Cologne Water Quality Waste Discharge authorization and a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement will be needed. G. Individuals Conducting Fieldwork: David Smith, Trina Ming, Martin Rasnick, Lesley Lokovic iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background and Scope of Work .......................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Location ................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Description ............................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Summary of Surveys ............................................................................................ 2 2.2 Botanical Resources ............................................................................................. 3 2.3 Wildlife Resources ............................................................................................... 5 2.4 Jurisdictional Delineation ..................................................................................... 6 3.0 REGULATORY SETTING .................................................................................. 6 3.1 State and/or Federally Listed Plants or Animals .................................................. 6 3.2 California Environmental Quality Act ................................................................. 8 3.3 Jurisdictional Waters .......................................................................................... 10 4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 14 4.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................... 14 4.2 Vegetation .......................................................................................................... 14 4.3 Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 15 4.4 Special-Status Vegetation Communities (Habitats) ........................................... 15 4.5 Special-Status Plants .......................................................................................... 15 4.5.1 Special-Status Plants Detected at the Project Site ...................................... 19 4.6 Special-Status Animals ...................................................................................... 19 4.6.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Observed within the Project Site ............. 26 4.6.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Not Observed but with a Potential to Occur at the Project Site ........................................................................................ 26 4.6.3 Critical Habitat ............................................................................................ 27 4.7 Raptor Use .......................................................................................................... 27 4.8 Nesting Birds ...................................................................................................... 27 4.9 Wildlife Linkages/ Corridors and Nursery Sites ................................................ 28 4.10 Jurisdictional Delineation .................................................................................. 28 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 29 iv 5.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ................................................. 29 5.2 Impacts to Native Vegetation ............................................................................. 31 5.3 Impacts to Special-Status Plants ........................................................................ 31 5.4 Impacts to Special-Status Animals ..................................................................... 31 5.5 Impacts to Critical Habitat ................................................................................. 32 5.6 Raptor Use .......................................................................................................... 32 5.7 Impacts to Nesting Birds .................................................................................... 32 5.8 Wildlife Migration/Nurseries ............................................................................. 32 5.9 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters ........................................................................ 32 5.10 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources .......................................................... 33 5.11 Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources .................................................... 33 6.0 MITIGATION/AVOIDANCE MEASURES ..................................................... 33 6.1 Burrowing Owl ................................................................................................... 33 6.2 Nesting Birds ...................................................................................................... 35 6.3 Jurisdictional Waters .......................................................................................... 35 7.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 36 8.0 CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................... 39 TABLES Table 2-1. Summary of Biological Surveys for the Project Site ..........................................3 Table 3-1. CNPS Ranks 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Threat Code Extensions .................................10 Table 4-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site .........................14 Table 4-2. Special-Status Plants Evaluated for the Project Site ........................................16 Table 4-3. Special-Status Wildlife Evaluated for the Project Site .....................................20 Table 5-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Impacts .....................................................31 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Regional Map Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3A RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation Map Exhibit 3B CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Map Exhibit 4 Vegetation Map Exhibit 5 Soils Map Exhibit 6 Site Photographs v APPENDICES Appendix A Floral Compendium Appendix B Faunal Compendium vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Scope of Work This document provides the results of a biological study for the approximately 21.68-acre Euclid/Bickmore Project (the Project) located in the City of Chino, San Bernardino County, California. This report identifies and evaluates impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed Project in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and State and Federal regulations such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (CWC), and the California Fish and Game Code. The scope of this report includes a discussion of existing conditions for the approximately 21.68- acre Project site, all methods employed regarding