NATURAL ENVIRONMENT STUDY (Minimal Impacts) I-215/University Parkway Interchange Improvement Project San Bernardino, CA 08-SBd-215-PM 11.35/11.95 EA 0E4200 Project No. 0800000083 October 2018 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impact) This page is intentionally blank. Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impact) Summary The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of San Bernardino (City), is proposing to improve the Interstate 215 (I-215)/University Parkway Interchange in the City of San Bernardino, California. Caltrans is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Caltrans is also the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in accordance with NEPA (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.); and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508). The proposed I-215 University Parkway Interchange Improvement Project (Project) is intended to provide operational improvements to traffic flow within the Project limits. SBCTA proposes to replace the existing University Parkway tight diamond interchange configuration with a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) configuration. The existing undercrossing would remain in place. This concept would improve all four legs of the current interchange and would improve directional movement through the system. Using the DDI system, the interchange would allow more efficient left-turn and right-turn movements at all ramp terminals. The Project limits are located within Caltrans and City right-of-way (ROW). The areas within and immediately adjacent to the Project limits are predominately developed and generally consist of commercial/retail land uses. The existing interchange serves as a main point of access for students, faculty, and visitors of California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB). The purpose of this Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts) [NES(MI)] is to describe the existing biological resources and to review the proposed Project in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the Project may affect biological resources. The results presented in the NES(MI) are based on literature searches and biological resource surveys conducted in 2017. A reconnaissance-level biological resource survey, habitat assessment, and jurisdictional delineation survey were performed to document the existing condition of biological resources within the Biological Study Area (BSA). The BSA is located in a mostly-developed area at the I- 215/University Parkway Interchange in the City of San Bernardino. The proposed Project would not result in direct impacts to any special-status vegetation communities or any threatened or endangered plant or wildlife species. Drainage features identified within the BSA consist of ditches constructed in uplands in order to contain freeway runoff. Based on their characteristics, these features have been determined to be non- jurisdictional. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife have the ultimate authority of determining whether or not permits would be required for project impacts to these features. The Project supports suitable habitat for nesting birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and would result in loss of 0.04 acre of California buckwheat scrub which has low potential to support native plants and wildlife. California buckwheat scrub within the Project limits provides low quality, but suitable habitat, to support the federally- listed as threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Avoidance measures will be implemented in order to avoid potential impacts to these protected resources. S-1 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impact) This page is intentionally blank. S-2 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impact) TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Need ................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 2 2. Study Methods ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Federal Laws and Regulations .................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act .................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ................... 9 2.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ................................................................................. 9 2.1.4 Clean Water Act – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .......................................... 9 2.1.5 Clean Water Act – Regional Water Quality Control Board ............................ 10 2.1.6 Executive Order 13112 .................................................................................. 10 2.2 State and Local Laws and Regulations ..................................................................... 10 2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act ............................................................... 10 2.2.2 Lake and Streambed Alteration Program ...................................................... 10 2.2.3 Fully Protected Species ................................................................................. 11 2.2.4 City of San Bernardino General Plan – Natural Resources and Conservation Chapter .......................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Studies Required ....................................................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Definition of Biological Study Area ................................................................ 12 2.3.2 Literature Search and Field Reviews ............................................................. 12 2.3.3 General Survey .............................................................................................. 19 2.3.4 Jurisdictional Delineation ............................................................................... 19 2.3.5 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment .............................................................. 20 2.3.6 Rare Plant Habitat Assessment ..................................................................... 20 2.3.7 Personnel and Survey Dates ......................................................................... 20 2.4 Agency Coordination and Professional Contacts ...................................................... 20 2.5 Limitations That May Influence Results ..................................................................... 20 3. Results: Environmental Setting .......................................................................................... 21 3.1 Existing Biological and Physical Conditions .............................................................. 21 3.1.1 Physical Conditions ....................................................................................... 21 3.1.2 Biological Conditions in the BSA ................................................................... 22 3.1.3 Regional Species and Habitats and Natural Communities of Concern ......... 27 4. Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts & Mitigation ................................... 37 4.1 Natural Communities of Special Concern ................................................................. 37 4.1.1 Discussion of Natural Community California Buckwheat Scrub .................... 41 4.2 Special Status Plant Species .................................................................................... 43 4.3 Special Status Wildlife Species ................................................................................. 43 4.3.1 Discussion of Coastal California Gnatcatcher ............................................... 43 4.3.2 Discussion of Burrowing Owl ......................................................................... 45 4.3.3 Discussion of Bat Species ............................................................................. 46 4.3.4 Other Special Status Wildlife Species ........................................................... 48 4.4 Discussion of Wildlife Movement Corridors ............................................................... 48 i Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impact) 5. Conclusions and Regulatory Determination ....................................................................... 49 5.1 Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary ........................................ 49 5.2 Federal Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Summary ...................... 49 5.3 California Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary ..................................... 49 5.4 Wetland and Other Waters Coordination Summary