Ontario City Council
March 21, 2023

Feature Description Assigned Point
Values
Project Point
Values
Reduction Measure PS E3: Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Development Building Envelope
Insulation 2008 Baseline (walls: R-13; roof/attic: R-30) 0 Modestly Enhanced Insulation (walls: R-13; roof/attic: R-38) 15 Enhanced Insulation (rigid wall insulation: R-13; roof/attic: R-38) 18 Greatly Enhanced Insulation (spray foam wall insulated walls R-15 or higher, roof/attic R-38 or higher) 20
(Applies to conditioned space, only, defined as those areas within the building that have air conditioning and heating)
Windows 2008 Baseline Windows (0.57 U-factor, 0.4 solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) 0 Modestly Enhanced Window Insulation {0.4 U-Factor, 0.32 SHGC) 7 Enhanced Window Insulation {0.32 U-Factor, 0.25 SHGC) 8 Greatly Enhanced Window Insulation {0.28 or less U-Factor, 0.22 or less SHGC) 12 (Applies to conditioned space, only, defined as those areas within the building that have air conditioning and heating)
Cool Roof Modest Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.15 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 12 Enhanced Cool Roof(CRRC Rated 0.2 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 14
Greatly Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.35 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 16
(Applies to conditioned space, only, defined as those areas within the building that have air conditioning and heating)
Air Infiltration Minimizing leaks in the building envelope is as important as the insulation properties of the building. Insulation does not work effectively if there is excess air leakage:
 Air barrier applied to exterior walls, calking, and visual inspection such as the HERS Verified Quality Insulation Installation (Q11 or equivalent) 12  Blower Door HERS Verified Envelope Leakage or equivalent 10  (Applies to conditioned space, only, defined as those areas within the building that have air conditioning and heating)
Thermal Storage of
Building
Thermal storage Is a design characteristic that helps keep a constant temperature in the building. Common thermal storage devices include strategically placed water filled columns, water storage tanks, and thick masonry walls:
 Modest Thermal Mass (10% of floor or 10% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials)
4  Enhanced Thermal Mass (20% of floor or 20% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials)
6 Table 2: Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Measures Screening Table for Commercial &
Industrial Development
City of Ontario
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Phone: 909.395.2036
Fax: 909.395.2420
3515
Table 2: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Table for Commercial & Industrial Development

Feature Description Assigned Point
Values
Project Point
Values
 Enhanced Thermal Mass (80% of floor or 80% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials)
24 Indoor Space Efficiencies
Heating/Cooling
Distribution System
Minimum Duct Insulation (R-4.2 required) 0
Modest Duct insulation (R-6) 8
Enhanced Duct Insulation (R-8) 10
Distribution loss reduction with inspection (HERS Verified Duct leakage or equivalent) 14
(Applies to conditioned space, only, defined as those areas within the building that have air conditioning and heating)
Space Heating/
Cooling Equipment
2008 Minimum HVAC Efficiency (SEER 13/60% AFUE or 7.7 HSPF} 0 Improved Efficiency HVAC (SEER 14/65% AFUE or 8 HSPF) 7 High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 15/72% AFUE or 8.5 HSPF) 8
Very High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 16/80% AFUE or 9 HSPF) 12 (Applies to conditioned space, only, defined as those areas within the building that have air conditioning and heating)
Commercial Heat
Recovery Systems
Heat recovery strategies employed with commercial laundry, cooking equipment, and other commercial heat sources for reuse in HVAC air intake or other appropriate heat recovery technology. Point values for these types of systems will be determined based upon design and engineering data documenting the energy savings.

TBD
Water Heaters 2008 Minimum Efficiency (0.57 Energy Factor) 0 Improved Efficiency Water Heater (0.675 Energy Factor) 14 High Efficiency Water Heater (0.72 Energy Factor) 16
Very High Efficiency Water Heater (0.92 Energy factor) 19 Solar Pre-heat System (0.2 Net Solar Fraction) 4
Enhanced Solar Pre-heat System (0.35 Net Solar Fraction) 8 Daylighting Daylighting is the ability of each room within the building to provide outside light during the day, reducing the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours:
 All peripheral rooms within the living space have at least one window (required) 1  All rooms within the living space have daylight (through use of windows, solar tubes, skylights, etc.) 5
 All rooms daylighted 7
Artificial Lighting 2008 Minimum (required) 0
Efficient lights (25% of In-unit fixtures considered high efficacy. High efficacy is defined as 40 lumens/watt for 15 watt or less fixtures; SO lumens/watt for15 to 40 watt fixtures, 60 lumens/watt for fixtures >40watt)
9 High Efficiency lights (50% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 12 Very High Efficiency Lights (100% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 14 Appliances Energy Star Commercial Refrigerator (new) 4
Energy Star Commercial Dish Washer (new) 4
Energy Star Commercial Cloths Washing 4
Miscellaneous Commercial/Industrial Building Efficiencies 3516
Table 2: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Table for Commercial & Industrial Development

Feature Description Assigned Point
Values
Project Point
Values
Building Placement North/South alignment of building or other building placement such that the orientation of the buildings optimizes natural heating, cooling, and lighting. 6 Shading At least 90% of south-facing glazing will be shaded by vegetation or overhangs at noon on Jun 21st•
6 Other This allows innovation by the applicant to provide design features that Increases the energy efficiency of the project not provided In the table. Note that engineering data will be required documenting the energy efficiency of innovative designs and point values given based upon the proven efficiency beyond Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards.

TBD
Existing
Commercial
Building Retrofits
The applicant may wish to provide energy efficiency retrofit projects to existing residential dwelling units to further the point value of their project. Retrofitting existing residential dwelling units within the City is a key reduction measure that is needed to reach the reduction goal. The potential for an applicant to take advantage of this program will be decided on a case by case basis and must have the approval of the Ontario Planning Department. The decision to allow applicants to participate in this program will be evaluated based upon, but not limited to, the following; TBD
 Will the energy efficiency retrofit project benefit low income or disadvantaged communities?
 Does the energy efficiency retrofit project fit within the overall assumptions in reduction measures associated with commercial building energy efficiency retrofits?
 Does the energy efficiency retrofit project provide co-benefits important to the City?
 Point value will be determined based upon engineering and design criteria of the energy efficiency retrofit project.

Reduction Measure PS E4: Commercial/Industrial Renewable Energy Photovoltaic Solar Photovoltaic panels installed on individual homes or in collective neighborhood arrangements, such that the total power provided augments:
 Solar Ready Roofs (sturdy roof and electric hookups) 2  10% of the power needs of the project 8
 20% of the power needs of the project 14
 30% of the power needs of the project 20
 40% of the power needs of the project 26
 50% of the power needs of the project 32
 60% of the power needs of the project 38
 70% of the power needs of the project 44
 80% of the power needs of the project 50
 90% of the power needs of the project 56
 100% of the power needs of the project 60
Wind Turbines Some areas of the City lend themselves to wind turbine applications. Analysis of the area's capability to support wind turbines should be evaluated prior to choosing this feature.

Wind turbines as part of the commercial development, such that the total power provided augments:
 10% of the power needs of the project 8
 20% of the power needs of the project 14
3517
Table 2: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Table for Commercial & Industrial Development

Feature Description Assigned Point
Values
Project Point
Values
 30% of the power needs of the project 20
 40% of the power needs of the project 26
 50% of the power needs of the project 32
 60% of the power needs of the project 38
 70% of the power needs of the project 44
 80% of the power needs of the project 50
 90% of the power needs of the project 56
 100% of the power needs of the project 60
Off-Site Renewable
Energy Project
The applicant may submit a proposal to supply an off-site renewable energy renewable project such as renewable energy retrofits of existing commercial/industrial energy project that will help implement reduction measures associated with existing buildings. These off-site renewable energy retrofit project proposals will be determined on a case by case basis, accompanied by a detailed plan documenting the quantity of renewable energy the proposal will generate. Point values will be based upon the energy generated by the proposal.

TBD
Other Renewable
Energy Generation
The applicant may have innovative designs or unique site circumstances (such as geothermal) that allow the project to generate electricity from renewable energy not provided In the table. The ability to supply other renewable energy, and the point values allowed, will be decided based upon engineering data documenting the ability to generate electricity.

TBD
Reduction Measure PS W2: Commercial/Industrial Water Conservation Irrigation and Landscaping
Water Efficient
Landscaping
Eliminate conventional turf from landscaping 0
Only moderate water using plants 3
Only low water using plants 4
Only California Native landscape that requires no, or only supplemental, irrigation. 8 Trees Increase tree planting in parking areas 50% beyond City Code requirements TBD Water Efficient
Irrigation Systems
Low precipitation spray heads <. 75"/hour, or drip irrigation 1 Weather based Irrigation control systems combined with drip irrigation (demonstrate 20% reduced water use) 5
Recycled Water Recycled connections (purple pipe) to irrigation system on site 5 Storm Water Reuse
Systems
Innovative on-site stormwater collection, filtration and reuse systems are being developed that provide supplemental irrigation water and provide vector control.

These systems can greatly reduce the irrigation needs of a project. Point values for these types of systems will be determined based upon design and engineering data documenting the water savings.

TBD
Potable Water
Showers Water Efficient Showerheads (2.0 gpm) 3
Toilets Water Efficient Toilets (1.5 gpm) 3
Faucets Water Efficient faucets (1.28 gpm) 3
Commercial
Dishwashers
Water Efficient Dishwasher (6 gallons per cycle or less) 1 Commercial
Laundry Washers
Water Efficient Washing Machine (Water factor < 5.5) 1
3518
Table 2: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Table for Commercial & Industrial Development

Feature Description Assigned Point
Values
Project Point
Values
Commercial Water
Operations Program
Establish an operational program to reduce water loss from pools, water features, etc., by covering pools, adjusting fountain operational hours, and using water treatment to reduce draw down and replacement of water. Point values for these types of plans will be determined based upon design and engineering data documenting the water savings.

TBD
Reduction Measure PS T1: Land Use Based Trips and VMT Reduction Mixed Use Mixes of land uses that complement one another in a way that reduces the need for vehicle trips can greatly reduce GHG emissions. The point value of mixed use projects will be determined based upon traffic studies that demonstrate trip reductions and/or reductions in vehicle miles traveled
TBD
Local Retail Near
Residential
(commercial only
projects
Having residential developments within walking and biking distance of local retail helps to reduce vehicle trips and/or vehicle miles traveled.

The point value of residential projects in close proximity to local retail will be TBD determined based upon traffic studies that demonstrate trip reductions and/or reductions in vehicle miles traveled
Reduction Measure PS T2: Bicycle Master Plan
Bicycle
Infrastructure
Ontario's Bicycle Master Plan is extensive and describes the construction on 11.5 miles of Class I bike paths and 23 miles of Class II and Class Ill bikeways to build upon the current 8 miles of bikeways.

TBD
Provide bicycle paths within project boundaries. TBD
Provide bicycle path linkages between residential and other land uses. 2 Provide bicycle path linkages between residential and transit. 5 Reduction Measure PS T3: Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Electric Vehicles Provide public charging station for use by an electric vehicle. (ten points for each charging station within the facility) 10
Reduction Measure PS T4: Employee Based Trip & VMT Reduction Policy Compressed Work
Week
Reduce the number of days per week that employees need to be on site will reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with commercial/industrial development.

Compressed work week such that full time employees are on site:
 5 days per week TBD
 4 days per week on site
 3 days per week on site
Car/Vanpools Car/vanpool program
TBD
Car/vanpool program with preferred parking
Car/vanpool with guaranteed ride home program
Subsidized employee incentive car/vanpool program
Combination of all the above
Employee
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Programs
Complete sidewalk to residential within one-half mile
TBD
Complete bike path to residential within 3 miles
Bike lockers and secure racks
Showers and changing facilities
Subsidized employee walk/bike program
Shuttle/Transit
Programs
Local transit within one-quarter mile
TBD
Light rail transit within one-half mile
3519
Table 2: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Table for Commercial & Industrial Development

Feature Description Assigned Point
Values
Project Point
Values
Shuttle service to light rail transit station
Guaranteed ride home program
Subsidized transit passes
CRT Employer based Commute Trip Reduction (CRT). CRTs apply to commercial, offices, or industrial projects that include a reduction of vehicle trip or VMT goal using a variety of employee commutes trip reduction methods. The point value will be determined based upon a TIA that demonstrates the trip/VMT reductions.

Suggested point ranges: TBD
 Incentive based CRT Programs (1-8 points)
 Mandatory CRT programs (5-20 points)
Other Trip
Reductions
Other trip or VMT reduction measures not listed above with TIA and/or other traffic data supporting the trip and/or VMT for the project. TBD Total Points Earned by Commercial/Industrial Project:

CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the statements and information provided in this Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Table, and in any attached exhibits, present the data and information required for this application to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date: Signature:

Name (print or type):
3520

BURROWING OWLS AT

ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT (OIA)
Biology, Status, Regulatory Setting, and Mitigation Options Prepared For:

Helix Environmental
7578 El Cajon Blvd
La Mesa, CA 91942
Contact: Ezekiel Cooley (949) 234-8770
Prepared By:

Kidd Biological, Inc
23046 Ave De La Carlota, Ste 600, PMB 66
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Contact: Jeff Kidd (949) 636-7769
3521
1 | P a g e
Contents
Biology...........................................................................................................................................................2 History and Current Status of BUOW Population in Inland Empire..............................................................3 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................................................4 Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA) / FAA / USDA APHIS...........................................................5 Mitigation Options (In Situ, Eviction, Active Relocation)..............................................................................6 In situ (Avoidance On-Site) .......................................................................................................................6 Eviction (Passive Relocation) ....................................................................................................................7 Active Translocation (Relocation).............................................................................................................8 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................10 Recommendations......................................................................................................................................10 Option 1. Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB). ........................................................................10 Option 2. Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) .....................11 Literature Cited...........................................................................................................................................12 APPENDIX A – MAPS ...................................................................................................................................15 APPENDIX B - Permits .................................................................................................................................16 3522
2 | P a g e
Biology
The burrowing owl is a small, brownish, ground-dwelling bird of prey that inhabits arid, open habitats with short vegetation, bare ground, level to sloping topography, and well-drained soils (Poulin et al. 2011, CDFG 2012). Suitable burrowing owl habitat varies widely from naturally occurring habitats to highly disturbed conditions in grasslands, deserts, and human-altered landscapes such as agricultural fields, vacant lots, pastures, fallow fields, road rights-of-way, airports, and golf courses (Klute et al. 2003). Throughout the range where burrowing owls are found, tall or dense cover types are generally not suitable as burrowing owl habitat. Visibility at nest sites appears to be an important habitat selection factor and may be an anti-predator behavior (Green and Antony 1989, Ronan 2002).

The primary requirement for suitable habitat is the presence of a suitable burrow (Rosenberg et al. 2007). Burrowing owls nest and roost in underground burrows created by burrowing mammals such as California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), coyotes (Canis latrans), and American badgers (Taxidea taxus), (Klute et al. 2003, Poulin et al. 2011, CDFG 2012). They may also nest and roost in other natural or man-made cavities such as rock piles, pipes, culverts, refuse piles, and artificial burrows. Owls prefer nesting in areas with a high density of suitable burrows which likely provide escape burrows for both adult and young owls (Poulin et al. 2011). In general, many burrowing owl adults show strong fidelity from year to year (CDFG 2012). Burrowing owls are semi-colonial and often congregate with other owls in winter and nest in loose colonies. Nest densities vary depending on abundance of suitable burrows and prey.

Burrowing owls are generalists as they feed on spiders and insects (arthropods), small mammals, birds and toads (Poulin et al. 2011, Rosenberg et al. 2007). Burrowing owls are mostly active during the morning and evening (crepuscular) but they can be found active at all times of the day and night (Poulin et al. 2011, Gervais et al. 2003). During the nesting season, they typically carry prey back to the nest burrow and drop prey at the apron or cache them in the burrows and tunnels depending on nest chronology (Poulin et al. 2011, Rosenberg et al. 2007). Distance to suitable foraging habitat is a primary factor in nest habitat selection (Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999, Rosenberg et al. 2007).

Current literature suggests, owl home range sizes vary from approximately 0.14 and 4.81 kilometers2(0.16 and 1.86 miles2; mean = 2.41 kilometers2 [0.93 miles2]), depending on habitat and region (Poulin et al. 2011) and is likely related to food abundance and habitat fragmentation (Gervais et al. 2008). During the breeding season, owls generally forage within

2.7 km (1.67 miles) of their nest burrow (Haug and Oliphant 1990, Gervais et al. 2003, Rosenberg and Haley 2004). In the southern San Joaquin and Imperial Valleys, owls concentrated 80 percent of foraging within 600 meters (1,968.5 feet) of their nests (Gervais et al. 2003, Rosenberg and Haley 2004). In general, during the breeding season most foraging occurs within 250 to 600 m (820 to 1,968.5 feet) of the nest. 3523
3 | P a g e
Natal dispersal from 17 nestlings recaptured as breeding adults in Western Riverside County ranged from 0.0 km to 5.7 km (J.W. Kidd unpublished). During 2013, Kidd Biological Inc, conducted a relocation for Helix Environmental in Otay Mesa, San Diego County and during the subsequent nesting in 2014, successful inbreeding was confirmed between a female offspring and the adult male (Kidd Biological, Inc 2013, San Diego Zoo pers comm).

Predation is often a limiting factor for burrowing owl populations (Catlin and Rosenberg 2008, Poulin et al. 2011). Burrowing owl adults, young, and/or eggs are preyed upon by a variety of avian, mammalian, and reptilian predators in our regions such as prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), barn owl (Tyto alba), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), American crow (Corvus brachrhynchos), common raven (Corvus corax), coyote, skunk (Mephitis spp.), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and domestic dogs and cats (Ronan 2002, Catlin and Rosenberg 2008, Poulin et al. 2011).

Common ravens are known to predate a wide variety of species (Boarman and Heinrich 1999).

Ravens were documented predating and harassing burrowing owls actively relocated to the Lake Mathews MSHCP Core Area in 2013 (Kidd Biological, Inc 2013). This behavior has been observed by others conducting burrowing owl relocations (Wildlife Preservation Canada 2013) and noted in other raven predation studies, notably desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), (Boarman 1992, Boarman 2002).

History and Current Status of BUOW Population in Inland Empire Prior to the 1980’s southwestern San Bernardino supported a robust breeding burrowing owl population with hundreds of pairs from the base of the San Bernardino Mountains south to the Prado Basin. After decades of development pressure and the complete absence of meaningful mitigation, only a few remaining breeding pairs and winter migrants are known to persist. The remaining highly fragmented landscape which lacks suitable large protected sites and critical connectivity to and between extant breeding sites creates a bottleneck and prevents the existence of a healthy source population. With the continued development pressure and lack of adequate mitigation required by the resource agencies, the burrowing owl population in this region is tenuous at best and will likely never recover from what was once a robust breeding source population (Kidd et al. 2003, 2007).

A current review of burrowing owls previously reported near the Ontario Airport includes 45 records from 1989-2017. These 45 records are located within seven nearby 7.5min USGS quads (Ontario, Prado, Corona North, Fontana, Cucamonga Peak and Mt. Blady) and Guasti quad where the airport is located (CNDDB 2020, Appendix A - Maps, Figure 1). The nearest owl locations reported south of the airport were evicted approximately ten years ago during development of industrial warehouses. Mitigation included the installation of artificial burrows in a barrow pit on the west side of the nearby retired landfill and the owls were evicted from 3524
4 | P a g e
their burrows prior to grading (J. Kidd personal observation). Owls are no longer known to occupy this site south of the airport. The subject owls on the OIAA property along the east side of Haven Avenue are included in the list of 45 owl records. Several reported owls north of Interstate 10 that are located west and north of Ontario Mills Mall are some of the only possible extant owls near the airport. All of these owls are surrounded by development and located on small, highly fragmented sites that don’t provide long-term conservation value for the owl due to future development and predation pressure to name a few.

The review of occupied owl sites within a few miles of the airport did not result in any known conserved sites, managed for owls, that appear to provide any long-term conservation value for the species. Some owl pairs and individuals are known to occupy sites nearby but those are surrounded by development and not expected to provide any meaningful long-term contribution to the status of burrowing owls in this region.

Regulatory Setting
The California Environmental Quality Act (hereafter CEQA) requires public agencies in California to analyze and disclose environmental impacts associated with development. CEQA was never intended to function as a habitat protection mechanism. When owl habitat is identified during the CEQA process, mitigation is nearly always proposed while avoidance and leaving owls in situ is rarely, if ever, implemented. Typically, during the CEQA process, lead agencies determine significant impacts can be reduced or avoided by evicting owls out of the way of development, thereby avoiding direct take.

CFGC §3503 protects bird nests and CDFC § 3503.5 protects birds of prey and their nests.

Therefore, CEQA and the Fish and Game Code protect owls while they have active nests with eggs or young but do not provide any protections for the owls or their burrows during the nonbreeding season even when burrows are occupied for shelter and refuge.

In the early 2000’s the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) wrote and submitted a listing petition for the species with the hopes of preserving more owls through adequate mitigation.

Despite the recommendation from CDFW staff and experts all over the state, to list this species as threatened or endangered in California, the CDFW Commission rejected a listing petition for political reasons while completely ignoring the science (Center for Biological Diversity 2003). If the commission would have listed the species, it would have afforded the species adequate protection and likely prevented the near extirpation in this region.

With the failed listing attempt, the burrowing owl remains a California Species of Special Concern (SSC) and little to no mitigation is required for destruction/development of occupied habitat. The CDFW BUOW Staff Report on Mitigation (1995) which was replaced by a newer version in 2012, encouraged mitigation and BMP’s, however both documents have weak language, are not enforceable, and have accelerated the decline of the burrowing owl throughout this and many other regions of California (Kidd et al. 2003, 2007). Other regional 3525
5 | P a g e
owl experts in California documented an “utter failure of CDFW and the CEQA process to protect owls and their habitats in central California” (L. Trulio pers comm).

CDFW mitigation requirements in San Bernardino County are weak at best and don’t afford the owls any reasonable chance of survival because actions weren’t taken early enough by the regulatory agencies. Unfortunately, the CDFW 2012 staff report is still the guiding document for mitigation and again, it provides very little, if any conservation value due to the language or lack thereof.

Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA) / FAA / USDA APHIS USDA (APHIS) is hired by OIAA to reduce strike hazards caused by various wildlife species. Per FAA rules and regulations, OIAA can’t engage in restoration, mitigation or any actions that increase wildlife hazards within zones at and around an FAA certified airport. Any airport can lose their FAA certificate and funding if they are found to be out of compliance with this rule.

Any mitigation efforts within 10,000 feet of the airport would be considered out of compliance and would likely result in wasted efforts as APHIS has the authority to haze, evict or lethally remove any hazardous wildlife.

Burrowing owls are generally not struck by aircraft, at high rates like geese, red-tailed hawks and vultures but they are in fact struck throughout their range at both commercial and military airfields. Importantly, owls utilize burrows that support other fossorial animals (e.g. squirrels and rabbits) that attract other large predators to the airfield.

Installing artificial burrows and/or encouraging owls to inhabit lands on or directly adjacent to the OIAA property violates FAA rules and is not a viable strategy because of the expected increased presence of other larger hazardous birds (e.g. red-tailed hawks, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, red-shouldered hawks, Cooper’s hawks, turkey vultures, and common ravens) who would attempt to predate the owls, squirrels or rabbits that would likely use the artificial burrows. Hawks and vultures are those struck by aircraft at the highest rates and those known to cause the most damage per strike. These species are often involved in aircraft strikes while they are hover hunting or circling over the approach or departure ends of the airport within the glide slopes. Bird strikes in these situations (landing and take-off) are the most dangerous and can lead to catastrophic events that can kill hundreds of passengers and crew on jetliners.

Evicting the owls along Haven Avenue outside the airfield could result in owls moving to areas within the airfield, making a more hazardous situation. Owls are often found seeking refuge very close to taxiways and runways under lights, signs and other man-made structures that support refuge and areas for squirrels to create burrows. Many burrowing owls that are struck at airports are those crossing runways as aircraft are departing and arriving. This will generally not lead to a catastrophic accident however even small birds like burrowing owls are capable of causing tens of thousands of dollars in damage to aircraft per event. 3526
6 | P a g e
Additionally, CDFW Headquarters has communicated with burrowing owl researchers and made it very clear we are not authorized to encourage burrowing owls to reside at or adjacent to commercial or military airfields whether they follow FAA rules or not. Local CDFW offices should be aware of the FAA rules regarding hazardous wildlife and their own internal guidelines from the Headquarters office.

Relocating or encouraging owls to reside on a commercial airfield would violate FAA rules, will result in APHIS having to remove the owls in the future, and creates huge liability for the resource agencies or biologists promoting the in-situ conservation of owls at or near an airport.

In summary, the act of attempting to conduct any form of “mitigation” including in situ or eviction on or directly adjacent to the airfield is not supported by the FAA, APHIS, or CDFW Headquarters hence this leaves us with Active Relocation as the most appropriate mitigation technique to conserve these breeding pairs.

Mitigation Options (In Situ, Eviction, Active Relocation) During the CEQA process, a project proponent, should expect to hear three common types of mitigation to avoid impacts to owls. These three types of mitigation are discussed in details in this section below.

In situ (Avoidance On-Site)
Although the most important mitigation option, conserving owls on site (in situ) is rarely ever conducted since it is not required by the resource agencies. Preserving occupied habitats would’ve been the most effective tool for preserving viable source populations of owls but this was never required through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process (CDFW Staff Report 1995, 2012). The loss of occupied habitats is directly correlated to the current status of owls throughout southwestern San Bernardino County in which owls have encountered significant declines and are on the verge of extirpation.

During the formation of the nation’s first HCP (Orange County NCCP) and largest HCP (Riverside County MSHCP) in southern California, very few burrowing owls were preserved within conservation areas in each of these plan areas. The Orange County NCCP preserved essentially no breeding burrowing owls within their plan area as it focused on grassland and ruderal sites that once supported burrowing owls.

The Riverside County MSHCP did preserve owls within conservations areas assumed under their plan and they have added some occupied lands through the development process however the County is having significant problems achieving their stated species objectives. More than a decade into their plan implementation, Riverside County has not met their owl species objectives and are running out of time to correct their failures.

Many of the remaining occupied sites in Riverside County occur in ruderal habitats surrounded by development which are not worthy of conserving. Additionally, during the development 3527
7 | P a g e
process, on-site conservation is only required within criteria cells if there are more than three pairs within a proposed project and that rarely ever happens therefore in situ conservation is rare, even under HCP’s.

Within the HCP, when conservation in situ is not required, viable or practical, owls can be evicted or relocated to suitable protected lands to support owl conservation efforts and to allow for development.

In summary, burrowing owl populations within southwestern San Bernardino County and southwestern California as a whole are in steep decline and on the verge of extirpation, even in the presence of HCP’s, because owls are rarely, if ever, preserved on site.

Avoidance is only required during the nesting season where pairs have active nests (CDFW Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5). Once a nest has failed or fledged their young and the nest is no longer considered active, the site can be destroyed through the CEQA process.

Eviction (Passive Relocation)
Since the mid 1990’s CDFW has endorsed eviction as the primary “mitigation” method associated with development projects (CDFW 1995, 2012 Staff Report). Also known as “Passive Relocation”, this is the act of evicting burrowing owls from their current burrows, outside the nesting season, in support of proposed project related impacts (Trulio 1995). Eviction typically consists of installing one-way doors at all burrow entrances/exits forcing owls to disperse somewhere offsite so a project can proceed. This requires the owl(s) to flee their home range, avoid predation, and find refuge offsite. This process assumes owls are capable of finding and safely settling on nearby suitable lands. This method also (in theory) pushes owls to the next adjacent suitable vacant land and forces the next development project to assume responsibility for the owls that should’ve been mitigated for properly the first time.

Unfortunately, this decades long mitigation method endorsed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW 1995 & 2012) has never been found to conserve even a single pair of owls. This method is not supported by research including CDFW’s own internal mark/recapture study that was quietly conducted between 2002 and 2003 (CDFW 2005). Their project which was never published, but is available on-line, concluded eviction resulted in mortality and never resulted in an evicted pair breeding the subsequent year, post eviction. Despite the known failures of eviction since 2003, CDFW has continued endorsement of eviction which has little to no conservation value. Kidd et al (2007) concluded the continued endorsement and use of eviction has accelerated the decline of the burrowing owl throughout southwestern California and has contributed to the near extirpation of the owl in southwestern San Bernardino County.

In summary, if eviction was found to be an effective mitigation method, one would assume an owl population would not have fluctuated much between 1995 and 2012. Unfortunately, the owl population in this region has sustained significant losses in this time and it is directly correlated to CDFW’s continued endorsement of eviction as a viable mitigation method. 3528
8 | P a g e
Active Translocation (Relocation)
As defined by Bloom and Kidd (unpublished), Active Translocation, is the act of relocating breeding pairs of owls from areas of impending development, immediately prior to egg laying.

The main goal of relocation is to provide at least one more breeding attempt by the adults versus eviction which leads to loss of the pair and has never been known to result in a successful nesting attempt post eviction.

In relocation, owl pairs are captured (Bloom 1987, Bloom et al. 2007) at the development site and placed in hacking cages at a conservation area managed for burrowing owls and fed/monitored daily. Once a clutch of eggs has been laid and incubation is more than 50% complete, the cages are completely removed from the relocation site and the daily feeding events stop. Monitoring is conducted using game cameras and site surveys at rates that only introduce a minimum amount of disturbance. Predator control efforts (e.g. hazing, scent markings) are often required to ensure successful efforts. Adults and young are banded (mark/recapture study) and the site is typically monitored/managed for 2 years post release (USFWS MBTA Permit requirement) to ensure the site is managed properly for owl suitability and to report on efficacy of the relocation effort(s).

The relocated adults are critical to the initial efforts of successfully raising young however the fledged young are the most important birds as they will show site fidelity (philopatry) to the release site where they emerged from their natal burrow. Hence, if the adults disperse away from the conservation area post nesting season, that does not make this effort a failure. The most important owls are the young who will show fidelity to their natal area. In many cases, adults do in fact stay on site or explore the new surroundings post breeding season but the owls often nest on the relocation site in subsequent years.

Since relocated adults may return to the source sites, we encourage moving owls as far as possible, over mountain ranges and across other geographic barriers that might reduce the chances of owls returning. Active Relocation works best when conducted at great distances (>30-40 km) as to help break their homing behavior (Kidd and Bloom unpublished data).

Because relocated adult owls are known to have returned to their source sites following successful breeding at the relocation site, the source site must be made inhospitable to burrowing owls before owls are released from cages at the release site. Wild owls may also inhabit a vacant site where owls were just removed therefore the development site must be made inhospitable to owls immediately following removal of owls from a site.

In these cases, we collapse active burrows immediately following capture and scoping, then install of one-way doors throughout all other suitable burrows on site for a minimum of 72 hours. After 72 hours, we scope burrows to better ensure owls are not present then suitable burrows and all remaining habitat features are eliminated to help prevent re-occupation by other owls between the time we depart and the time when construction begins. If long periods of time are expected or if the site has squirrels, rabbits, dogs and coyotes that can dig holes 3529
9 | P a g e
quickly, it is recommended that weekly site visits occur to better know new suitable burrows emerge.

We have used this mitigation method on state and federal lands throughout California since 1994 as part of personal research and conservation efforts. Many of the early and recent efforts were requested by or approved by the Ontario CDFW Office. Hence there is a system in place with the regulatory agencies that can authorize relocation within and across jurisdictional boundaries.

Relocation can be successful over time, with the right moving parts and some luck, however it is absolutely more successful than eviction when attempting to preserve breeding pairs from proposed development sites. Relocation is authorized by some HCP’s and NCCP’s or through Scientific Research Permits issued by the state and federal resource agencies to individuals or research organizations (Appendix B Permits).

Kidd Biological, Inc has conducted burrowing owl active translocations in six California counties (San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Kings and San Joaquin) where detailed coordination was required between multiple agencies and clients. Again, this form of mitigation is not intended to replace in situ conservation but in situ at airports is not recommended by CDFW Headquarters or supported by FAA guidelines.

In summary, this method of preserving breeding pairs is simply a better option than eviction because relocation offers pairs at least one last breeding attempt, something eviction has never been found to do. Active translocation is not the answer to the catastrophic extirpation of owls throughout southwestern California but this method does provide greater conservation value than eviction does, period.

Below I summarize the relocation process, chronologically. • Hire permitted expert.
• Investigate potential relocation sites to establish which site(s) are most appropriate. • Prepare Relocation Plan and submit to resource agencies and others included in the process (e.g. MBTA office, CDFW Headquarters, CDFW Local office, Land Owners). • Upon approval of plan the proponent will set up an escrow account or endowment that guarantees funding for the entire effort (if needed).
• Cages and burrows are installed at release site. String trimming or minor vegetation modifications may be necessary.
• Owls are trapped at the source site close to egg laying (Feb-early March) and released into hacking cages at relocation site. Owls are banded for ID purposes. • Occupied burrows at airport where capture occurred are excavated to prevent reoccupation. • One-way doors are installed for 72 hours prior at all other suitable burrows to prevent re-occupation of site.
3530
10 | P a g e
• Owls are fed and monitored daily at the release site until a full clutch of eggs is well into incubation. Cages are then removed from the site.
• Game cameras are installed to assist future monitoring efforts. • Monitoring occurs to assess site for predators, disturbance and actions are taken to address potential problems that could impact results of relocation • Band young and continue monitoring for success and address any problems related to predators or site disturbance
• Monitor site (staff and game cameras) for 2 yrs post release (USFWS Permit Requirement) to document efficacy of relocation
• Conduct habitat modifications and burrow maintenance as needed. • Monthly reporting from start of project through 24 months. • Two Annual Reports with the second being the final Project Report.

Conclusions
The USDA could evict the owls along Haven Avenue but that could lead to a more hazardous situation on the airfield operations area and would contribute to the continued reduction in owls within the region. This would also eliminate your chances for a sound and ethical resolution and positive public relations opportunity that would likely be beneficial to the OIAA.

The best approach for owl mitigation at and adjacent to OIAA property should involve active relocation. This will better ensure for safe flight operations and compliance with FAA regulations while also attempting to provide the owls with a greater chance of survival and future breeding attempts.

Recommendations
Below we provide two of the most logical translocation options.

Option 1. Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB).

This military installation in coastal, northwest Orange County once supported more than 50 pairs of owls (PhD Charles Collins unpublished data) in the 1970s-1980’s but the population has been hanging on by a thread for the last two decades. On behalf of Leslie McNair of the CDFW Ontario office, we conducted a few active relocations from the Etiwanda area of San Bernardino County to NWSSB in the mid to late 1990’s. Owls were removed from Southern California Edison projects and successfully relocated to NWSSB. These relocation efforts were some of the first owl relocations conducted in California and all of the current methods and permit conditions are based on the methods we developed from these successful relocations.

The NAVY conducts monthly surveys and annual owl banding to document and monitor the extant population. During late 2020 NWSSB installed 50 artificial burrowing owl burrows in a designated owl management area on the north magazine near where the extant population breeds. The base is committed to owl conservation and this site is located approximately 55 3531
11 | P a g e
kilometers southwest of the source at Ontario International Airport (Appendix A – Maps, Figure 2).

Relocating owls from San Bernardino County to NWSSB is not setting a precedence. NWSSB supports distant, suitable lands, managed for owls and the NAVY is fully committed to owl conservation and will participate in this effort if the resource agencies authorize this as the relocation site.

Relocation could be conducted under Principal Investigator (PI) Jeff Kidd’s CDFW and USFWS valid permits that authorize this activity.

Option 2. Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Active relocation is a pre-approved activity within the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The RCA who manages the reserve lands within Riverside County accepts relocated owls.

Consultations would be required with regional CDFW, CDFW Headquarters, USFWS MBTA office, possibly the regional USFWS ecological services office, RCA and Riverside County Parks for approvals.

The permitting would likely be conducted under the Riverside County HCP and they would need to hire a permittee who maintains permits to conduct the relocations. This process gets to be more difficult as the county will establish roles for different parts of the relocation and delegate to various entities. Since the County is in charge there is no clear PI and projects tend to fail because of the systems they have in place. The expert owl biologist is generally not in charge of the entire process because the County is using their HCP to assume the lead role.

Nonetheless, there is a pre-approved procedure for relocating owls within and to Riverside County and they (Regional Conservation Authority – RCA) has been accepting owls from San Bernardino therefore moving owls from the OIAA would not be precedence setting.

Riverside County has several possible relocation sites that are suitable for owls. Specific sites would need to be selected through a lengthy process involving multiple agencies that are currently bound by COVID-19 rules that appear to reduce their availability in participating in site visits and meetings necessary for deciding relocation sites under the HCP.

Regardless of these restrictions, a site could be selected eventually and owls could be accepted to Riverside County MSHCP reserve land(s). The site would likely not be managed specifically for owls since the Riverside County preserve lands are multi species reserves that are designed to benefit many species under the plan. This can impact long term efficacy of translocations so future management of any release area needs to be discussed with the agencies prior to accepting a site. The option of relocating owls to western Riverside County is viable but should remain as a second option to NWSSB for many reasons unless the past and current process with the county and related resources agencies is amended significantly to promote quick, successful relocations.
3532
12 | P a g e
Literature Cited
Barclay, J.H. 2008. A Simple Artificial Burrow Design for Burrowing Owls. Journal of Raptor Research 42(1):53-57.

Bloom, P.H. Capturing and handling raptors. 1987. Pages 99-123 in B.A. Giron Pendleton, B.A.

Millsap, K.W. Cline, and D.M. Bird, eds. Raptor Management Techniques Manual. Natl.

Wildl. Fed., Washington D.C.

Bloom, P.H., W.S. Clark, and J.W. Kidd. 2007. Raptor Capture techniques. Pgs. 193 – 219. In D.M. Bird and K.L. Bildstein (eds). Raptor research and management techniques.

Hancock House, Blaine, WA.

Boarman, W.I. 1992. Problems with Management of a Native Predator on a Threatened Species:

Raven Predation on Desert Tortoises. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference 1992. Paper 8. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc15/8 Boarman, W.I. 2002. Reducing Predation by Common Ravens on Desert Tortoises in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts. Report prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, San Diego Field Station, San Diego, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Sacramento, California. Dated July 18, 2002.

Boarman, W.I. and B. Heinrich. 1999. Common raven (Corvus corax), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/476 [CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Unpublished Report. Sacramento, California, USA. [CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. Resource Assessment Program. 2005.

Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Effectiveness Project.
http://dfg.ca.gov/habitats/RAP/default.html
[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency. Retrieved from:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/BUOWStaffReport.pdf.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2020. (http://dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/) Sacramento, California, USA.

Catlin, D.H. and D.K. Rosenberg. 2008. Breeding dispersal and nesting behavior of burrowing owls following experimental nest predation. American Midland Naturalist 159(1):1–7. 3533
13 | P a g e
Gervais, J.A., D.K. Rosenberg, and L.A. Comrack. 2008. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).

Pages 218–226 in W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali (eds.). California bird species of special concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 450 pp.

Green, R.A., and R.G. Anthony. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relationships of burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor 91:347–354.

Haug, E.A. and L.W. Oliphant. 1990. Movements, activity patterns, and habitat use of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1):27–35.

Kidd Biological, Inc. 2013. Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. Unpublished report prepared for KZ DevCo, LP, Irvine, California and Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, La Habra, California. Submitted to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. Dated January 31, 2013.

Kidd, J.W., P.H. Bloom, C.W. Barrows, and C.T. Collins. 2007. Status of Burrowing Owls in southwestern California. Pages 76-89 in Barclay, J.H. K.W. Hunting, J.L. Lincer, J.

Linthicum and T.A. Roberts (eds.), Proceedings of the Burrowing Owl Symposium (November 2003). Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc.

Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Shaffer, S.R. Sheffield, and T.S.

Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western burrowing owl in the United States. Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003. U.S.

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 120 pp.

Trulio, L. 1995. Passive Relocation: A method to preserve burrowing owls on disturbed sites.

Journal of Field Ornithology 66: 99-106.

Poulin, Ray, L. Danielle Todd, E.A. Haug, B.A. Millsap and M.S. Martell. 2011. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Retrieved July 2, 2013, from:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/061.

Ronan, N.A. 2002. Habitat selection, reproductive success, and site fidelity of burrowing owls in a grassland ecosystem. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 82 pp.

Rosenberg, D.K. and K.S. McKelvey. 1999. Estimation of habitat selection for central-place foraging animals. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(3):1028–1038.

Rosenberg, D.K. and K.L. Haley. 2004. The ecology of burrowing owls in the agroecosystem of the Imperial Valley, California. Pages 120–135 in W.D. Shuford and K.C. Molina (editors). 3534
14 | P a g e
Ecology and Conservation of Birds of the Salton Sink: An Endangered Ecosystem. Studies in Avian Biology 27, University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 169 pp.

Rosenberg, D.K., L.A. Trulio, D. Catlin, D. Chromczack, J.A. Gervais, N. Ronan, and K.L. Haley. 2007. The ecology of the burrowing owl in California. Unpublished report to Bureau of Land Management Available from:
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~rosenbed/articles/Ecology%20of%20Burrowing%20Owl s%20In%20California%20Final%20Report%20March%202007.pdf. 3535
15 | P a g e
APPENDIX A – MAPS
Figure 1. OIAA owls and nearest owls recently reported to CNDDB.

Figure 2. OIAA owls and possible relocation sites
3536
16 | P a g e
APPENDIX B - Permits
3537

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

PATUXENT WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER

BIRD BANDING LABORATORY
12100 BEECH FOREST ROAD STE-4037
LAUREL, MD 20708-4037
301-497-5790

FEDERAL BIRD BANDING PERMIT
Permittee agrees to band in accordance with the general conditions of this permit and with the specific authorization/s listed below:

Permittee:

JEFF KIDD
2911 MERIDIAN CT
ANACORTES, WA 98221
22951
Permit Number: Action: Issue Date: Valid Until:

Signature of Issuing Official
Signature of Permittee
02/08/1999 06/30/2022
Action Date:

Revise 09/01/2020
Personal
Permittee is Authorized To Band:

All Raptors Except Eagles
* Threatened and Endangered species are not included in groups unless specified.

American Crow
Common Raven
Golden Eagle
Greater Roadrunner
Loggerhead Shrike
In the States of:

AK * CA * ID * NV * OR * UT * WA *
Comments:

With Special Authorization to:

Band
Take, possess and transport blood samples-not to exceed 1% body mass Take, possess and transport feather samples (except eagle flight feathers without USFWS authorization) Hand capture
Trap at Cavity, Burrow, or Nest Box
Use Bal-chatris
Use Bow nets
Use Dho-gazas
Use Mist nets
Use Net launchers
Use Noose Carpets and Snares
Swedish Goshawk Trap
Use Walk-in traps
Trap
And Additionally Authorized to Use The Following
Auxiliary Marking Authorization/s:

Use of Verbail Pole Traps, Pit Traps and Harnessed Lures approved.

Plastic Color Leg
Band (01A)
Satellite/ Cell/
Red-shouldered Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
Humboldt, CA
San Diego, CA
Orange, CA
CA
Red 2
3 Comments

SINGLE WHITE LETTER ON BAND
Marker Type Species Colors of marker Locations Seg #
3538

Permittee agrees to band in accordance with the general conditions of this permit and with the specific authorization/s listed below:

Permittee:

JEFF KIDD
2911 MERIDIAN CT
ANACORTES, WA 98221
22951
Permit Number: Action: Issue Date: Valid Until:

Signature of Issuing Official
Signature of Permittee
02/08/1999 06/30/2022
Action Date:

Revise 09/01/2020
Personal
GPS Transmitter
(back pack) (80B)
Satellite/ Cell/
GPS Transmitter
(back pack) (80B)
Satellite/ Cell/
GPS Transmitter
(back pack) (80B)
Plastic Color Leg
Band (01A)
Plastic Color Leg
Northern Harrier
Peregrine Falcon
Red-tailed Hawk
Short-eared Owl
Peregrine Falcon
Rough-legged Hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Butte, CA
Del Norte, CA
San Diego, CA
Orange, CA
Plumas, CA
Humboldt, CA
AK
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA
AK
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA
Humboldt, CA
Black
Red
3 5
6 7
8 a) 2 char. (100 combos)
1st place: ABCEHSTUXZ;
2nd place: 0123456789;
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
All bands, auxiliary markers and attachment materials not to exceed 3% total body weight.

All bands, auxiliary markers and attachment materials not to exceed 3% total body weight.

All bands, auxiliary markers and attachment materials not to exceed 3% total body weight.

A,B,C,E,H,S,T,U,X,Z plus 0 - 9; even numbers on males and odd numbers on females.

Code description(s)
Marker Type Species Colors of marker Locations Seg #
3539

Permittee agrees to band in accordance with the general conditions of this permit and with the specific authorization/s listed below:

Permittee:

JEFF KIDD
2911 MERIDIAN CT
ANACORTES, WA 98221
22951
Permit Number: Action: Issue Date: Valid Until:

Signature of Issuing Official
Signature of Permittee
02/08/1999 06/30/2022
Action Date:

Revise 09/01/2020
Personal
Band (01A)
Plastic Color Leg
Band (01A)
Anodized Color
Leg Band (01B)
Cooper's Hawk
Northern Harrier
Peregrine Falcon
San Diego, CA
Orange, CA
San Diego, CA
Orange, CA
Butte, CA
Del Norte, CA
San Diego, CA
Orange, CA
Plumas, CA
Humboldt, CA
White
Black
8 9
10 a) 2 char. (60 combos)
1st place: ABCDXZ;
2nd place: 0123456789;
a) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (10 combos) 1st place: 5;
2nd place: 0123456789;
3rd place: A;
4th place: D;
b) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (3 combos) 1st place: 6;
2nd place: 012;
3rd place: A;
4th place: D;
c) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (10 combos) 1st place: 7;
2nd place: 0123456789;
3rd place: A;
4th place: D;
d) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (3 combos) 1st place: 8;
2nd place: 012;
3rd place: A;
4th place: D;
e) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (20 combos) 1st place: 01;
2nd place: 0123456789;
3rd place: A;
4th place: H;
f) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (20 combos) Comments
Comments
Red plastic bands with white 2-character codes A,B,C,D,X,Z plus 0 through 9 Two-digit black numeric codes and 2-character black numeric-alpha codes Code description(s)
Code description(s)
Marker Type Species Colors of marker Locations Seg #
3540

Permittee agrees to band in accordance with the general conditions of this permit and with the specific authorization/s listed below:

Permittee:

JEFF KIDD
2911 MERIDIAN CT
ANACORTES, WA 98221
22951
Permit Number: Action: Issue Date: Valid Until:

Signature of Issuing Official
Signature of Permittee
02/08/1999 06/30/2022
Action Date:

Revise 09/01/2020
Personal
Plastic Color Leg
Band (01A)
Anodized Color
Leg Band (01B)
Anodized Color
Leg Band (01B)
Anodized Color
Leg Band (01B)
Anodized Color
Barn Owl
Great Horned Owl
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing Owl
San Diego, CA
Orange, CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Red
Black/Green
Green/Black
Green
Green
11 12
13 14
15 1st place: 23;
2nd place: 0123456789;
3rd place: A;
4th place: H;
a) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (20 combos) 1st place: 01;
2nd place: 0123456789;
3rd place: A;
4th place: 5;
a) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (20 combos) 1st place: 01;
2nd place: 0123456789;
3rd place: A;
4th place: 6;
a) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (100 combos) 1st place: 0123456789;
2nd place: 0123456789;
3rd place: A;
4th place: 5;
Comments
Red bands with one or two numbers or letters (see RSHA and RTHA authorization) Code description(s)
Code description(s)
Code description(s)
Marker Type Species Colors of marker Locations Seg #
3541

Permittee agrees to band in accordance with the general conditions of this permit and with the specific authorization/s listed below:

Permittee:

JEFF KIDD
2911 MERIDIAN CT
ANACORTES, WA 98221
22951
Permit Number: Action: Issue Date: Valid Until:

Signature of Issuing Official
Signature of Permittee
02/08/1999 06/30/2022
Action Date:

Revise 09/01/2020
Personal
Leg Band (01B)
Anodized Color
Leg Band (01B)
Anodized Color
Leg Band (01B)
Satellite/ Cell/
GPS Transmitter
(back pack) (80B)
Anodized Color
Leg Band (01B)
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing Owl
Golden Eagle
American Kestrel
Barn Owl
Burrowing Owl
Cooper's Hawk
Great Horned Owl
Northern Harrier
Red-tailed Hawk
Short-eared Owl
White-tailed Kite
CA
CA
Orange, CA
San Diego, CA
Plumas, CA
CA
OR
Black
Black
Silver
15 16
17 18
19 a) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (60 combos) 1st place: 012345;
2nd place: 0123456789;
3rd place: B;
4th place: 6;
a) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (100 combos) 1st place: 0123456789;
2nd place: 0123456789;
3rd place: A;
4th place: 5;
a) 2 upright silver characters over 2 upright silver characters read from left to right. (60 combos) 1st place: 012345;
2nd place: 0123456789;
3rd place: B;
4th place: 6;
Comments
All bands, auxiliary markers and attachment materials not to exceed 3% total body weight.

Code description(s)
Code description(s)
Code description(s)
Marker Type Species Colors of marker Locations Seg #
3542

Permittee agrees to band in accordance with the general conditions of this permit and with the specific authorization/s listed below:

Permittee:

JEFF KIDD
2911 MERIDIAN CT
ANACORTES, WA 98221
22951
Permit Number: Action: Issue Date: Valid Until:

Signature of Issuing Official
Signature of Permittee
02/08/1999 06/30/2022
Action Date:

Revise 09/01/2020
Personal
Wing Tag (39A)
Anodized Color
Leg Band (01B)
Satellite/ Cell/
GPS Transmitter
(back pack) (80B)
Plastic Color Leg
Band (01A)
Plastic Color Leg
Band (01A)
Turkey Vulture
Rough-legged Hawk
Burrowing Owl
Common Raven
Common Raven
Skagit, WA
Nome, AK
CA
San Bernardino, CA
Skagit, WA
Orange
Green
White
Red
20 21
22 23
24 a) 2 black char. (609 combos)
1st place: ABCEFGHJKMNPRSTUVWXYZ;
2nd place: 01234578ABCEFGHJKMNPRSTUVWXYZ;
a) 1 upright silver character over 1 upright silver character. (153 combos) 1st place: ABCDEHKMN;
2nd place: ABCDEHKMNPRSUVWXZ;
a) 1 upright black character over 1 upright black character. (260 combos) 1st place: 0123456789;
2nd place: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ;
a) 1 upright white character over 1 upright white character. (260 combos) Comments
Comments
Comments
Acraft Type 1 bands, silver with black codes A/N or N/A as coordinated by Pagel (23395) Acraft Bands. Type 2
All bands, auxiliary markers and attachment materials not to exceed 5% total body weight. Experimental authorization. Cease use if negative effects.

End of season report required
Code description(s)
Code description(s)
Code description(s)
Code description(s)
Marker Type Species Colors of marker Locations Seg #
3543

Permittee agrees to band in accordance with the general conditions of this permit and with the specific authorization/s listed below:

Permittee:

JEFF KIDD
2911 MERIDIAN CT
ANACORTES, WA 98221
22951
Permit Number: Action: Issue Date: Valid Until:

Signature of Issuing Official
Signature of Permittee
02/08/1999 06/30/2022
Action Date:

Revise 09/01/2020
Personal
Wing Tag (39A)
Satellite/ Cell/
GPS Transmitter
(back pack) (80B)
Satellite/ Cell/
GPS Transmitter
(back pack) (80B)
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Common Raven
King, WA
King, WA
San Bernardino, CA
Yellow 25
26 27
1st place: 0123456789;
2nd place: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ;
a) 2 upright black characters read from left to right. (10 combos) 1st place: K;
2nd place: 0123456789;
b) 2 upright black characters read from left to right. (3 combos) 1st place: L;
2nd place: 012;
Comments
Comments
GSM transmitter. All bands, auxiliary markers and attachment materials not to exceed 3% total body weight.

GSM-GPS transmitter. All bands, auxiliary markers and attachment materials not to exceed 3% total body weight.

Code description(s)
Marker Type Species Colors of marker Locations Seg #
3544

Permittee agrees to band in accordance with the general conditions of this permit and with the specific authorization/s listed below:

Permittee:

JEFF KIDD
2911 MERIDIAN CT
ANACORTES, WA 98221
22951
Permit Number: Action: Issue Date: Valid Until:

Signature of Issuing Official
Signature of Permittee
02/08/1999 06/30/2022
Action Date:

Revise 09/01/2020
Personal
The following Subpermittee/s are authorized to band under the direction of the above permittee, in accordance with the same general conditions, and the subpermittee specific authorizations listed below:
22951 - C
22951 - F

NINA JIMERSON-KIDD

PETER BLOOM
Is Authorized To Band:

Is Authorized To Band:

All Raptors Except Eagles
* Threatened and Endangered species are not included in groups unless specified.

American Crow
Common Raven
Greater Roadrunner
Loggerhead Shrike
All Raptors Except Eagles
* Threatened and Endangered species are not included in groups unless specified.

American Crow
Common Raven
Greater Roadrunner
Loggerhead Shrike
In the States Of:

In the States Of:

CA * ID * NV * OR * UT * WA *
CA * ID * NV * OR *
With Special Authorization to:

With Special Authorization to:

Band
Auxiliary mark
Use Bal-chatris
Use Mist nets
Band
Auxiliary mark
Take, possess and transport blood samples-not to exceed 1% body mass Take, possess and transport feather samples
Use Bal-chatris
Use Bow nets
Use Mist nets
Comments:

Comments:

Phai traps and harnessed lures approved
Verbail Pole Traps, Phai traps, Harnessed Lures approved 2911 MERIDIAN CT ANACORTES, WA 98221
13611 HEWES AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92705
3545

Permittee agrees to band in accordance with the general conditions of this permit and with the specific authorization/s listed below:

Permittee:

JEFF KIDD
2911 MERIDIAN CT
ANACORTES, WA 98221
22951
Permit Number: Action: Issue Date: Valid Until:

Signature of Issuing Official
Signature of Permittee
02/08/1999 06/30/2022
Action Date:

Revise 09/01/2020
Personal
22951 - G
22951 - H

SCOTT THOMAS

MATTHEW BRINKMAN
Is Authorized To Band:

Is Authorized To Band:

All Raptors Except Eagles
* Threatened and Endangered species are not included in groups unless specified.

American Crow
Common Raven
Golden Eagle
Greater Roadrunner
Loggerhead Shrike
All Raptors Except Eagles
* Threatened and Endangered species are not included in groups unless specified.

In the States Of:

In the States Of:

CA * ID * NV * OR * UT * WA *
CA *
With Special Authorization to:

With Special Authorization to:

Band
Auxiliary mark
Take, possess and transport blood samples-not to exceed 1% body mass Take, possess and transport feather samples (except eagle flight feathers without USFWS authorization)
Use Bal-chatris
Use Bow nets
Use Mist nets
Band
Auxiliary mark
Take, possess and transport blood samples-not to exceed 1% body mass Take, possess and transport feather samples
Use Bal-chatris
Use Bow nets
Use Dho-gazas
Use Noose Carpets and Snares
Comments:

Comments:

Verbail Pole Traps, Phai traps, Harnessed Lures approved

CAN USE VERBAIL POLE TRAPS AND HARNESSED LURES
24911 HAYUCO MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692
1092 DYLAN CT #B MCKINLEYVILLE, CA 95519
3546

Permittee agrees to band in accordance with the general conditions of this permit and with the specific authorization/s listed below:

Permittee:

JEFF KIDD
2911 MERIDIAN CT
ANACORTES, WA 98221
22951
Permit Number: Action: Issue Date: Valid Until:

Signature of Issuing Official
Signature of Permittee
02/08/1999 06/30/2022
Action Date:

Revise 09/01/2020
Personal
22951 - J
22951 - K
22951 - L

NEIL PAPROCKI

COLIN DILLINGHAM

JOHN HART
Is Authorized To Band:

Is Authorized To Band:

Is Authorized To Band:

Rough-legged Hawk
All Raptors Except Eagles
* Threatened and Endangered species are not included in groups unless specified.

Common Raven
In the States Of:

In the States Of:

In the States Of:

AK * CA * ID * NV * OR * UT * WA *
CA * NV *
CA *
With Special Authorization to:

With Special Authorization to:

With Special Authorization to:

Band
Hand capture
Use Bal-chatris
Use Bow nets
Use Dho-gazas
Use Mist nets
Band
Auxiliary mark
Use Bal-chatris
Use Bow nets
Use Dho-gazas
Use Mist nets
Band
Auxiliary mark
Hand capture
1467 S ALPOWA ST MOSCOW, ID 83843
400 FIRST STREET QUINCY, CA 95971
718 N HUMPHREY'S ST. STE 202 FLAGSTAFF, AZ
86001
3547

FEDERAL BIRD BANDING PERMIT
Under the provisions of Regulations issued under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918 (40 Stat. 755) as amended, or the Bald Eagle Act of June 8, 1940 (54 Stat. 250) as amended, the person named hereon is authorized to capture, for scientific banding or marking purposes, those migratory birds described hereon and to salvage birds accidentally killed during normal banding activities.

This permit is subject to the terms, exceptions and restrictions expressed herein or on the reverse side hereof and is further subject to any applicable Territorial, State, Tribal or Federal Regulations.

This permit is invalid unless accompanied by any required State permits or licenses.

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. The Permittee is not authorized to capture or possess migratory birds for any reason other than banding, marking or salvage of banding mortalities for scientific purposes. NOR IS THE PERMITTEE ALLOWED TO HOLD MIGRATORY BIRDS FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 24 HOURS. Live birds shall be released as soon as practical after capture.

2. You may donate dead migratory birds or any parts thereof (except bald eagles and golden eagles, and species listed as threatened and endangered) without additional authorization from the migratory bird permit issuing office to public institutions (as specified in 50 CFR 10.12) or individuals or entities authorized by permit to acquire and possess migratory bird specimens for educational purposes. All dead specimens that you do not transfer to another authorized party must be disposed of by such means as are necessary to ensure that they are not exposed to animals in the wild.

3. You may not salvage and must immediately report to the USFWS Office of Law Enforcement any dead or injured migratory birds that you encounter that appear to have been poisoned, shot, electrocuted, have collided with industrial power generation equipment, or were otherwise killed or injured as the result of potential criminal activity. Please contact BBL for more information.

4. All eagle feathers and/or whole eagle carcasses must be shipped to the National Eagle Repository. Contact: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Eagle and Wildlife Repository, 5650 Havana St., RMA, Building 128, Commerce City, Colorado 80022, (303) 287-2110.

5. The Permittee shall keep RECORDS accounting for the use of all bands received. Periodic RECORDS COVERING THE USE OF THESE BANDS shall be submitted to the Bird Banding Laboratory in accordance with the instructions received there from. Failure to provide data in accordance with the instructions received from the Bird Banding Laboratory is sufficient justification for the revocation of this permit. The Permittee shall keep records of disposition of salvaged banding mortalities for a period of five years and shall be reported to the Bird Banding Laboratory upon request.

6. The holder of this permit shall not sell, exchange, or transfer bands to unauthorized banders or to the general public. All transfers to authorized banders must be communicated to the Bird Banding Laboratory prior to the transfer of bands. Any unused bands remaining when this permit is voluntarily returned, revoked, or expired must be returned to the Bird Banding Laboratory.

7. The Permittee shall, at all reasonable hours, allow any authorized representative of the U. S. Geological Survey or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ENTER and INSPECT the premises where operations authorized by this permit are being conducted and shall allow such representative to inspect the records relating to such operations.

8. This permit may be SUSPENDED or REVOKED by the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey or authorized representative, if the Permittee violates any of the provisions in the regulations under which this permit is issued or if the Permittee fails to render promptly any reports required. This permit is, at all times, subject to suspension or revocation at the discretion of the Director or representative.

9. This permit is not transferable and must be in possession of the Permittee when exercising the authorizations granted herein.

10. All traps, nets or other capture devices shall bear a TAG or LABEL showing the name, address and permit number of the Permittee; alternatively the trapping area shall be adequately marked with POSTERS provided by the Bird Banding Laboratory. The Permittee’s name, address and permit number shall be legibly displayed on such posters.

11. This permit DOES NOT authorize the capture of any birds on any property, public or private without the CONSENT OF THE OWNER OR CUSTODIAN THEREOF.

12. All Banding under this permit is in accordance with the principles, spirit, and intent of the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 and the most recent revision of The Ornithological Council’s Guidelines in the Use of Wild Birds in Research.

13. Unless specifically noted on the reverse, the following ARE NOT AUTHORIZED:
a. The taking of blood or feather sampling from any bird. b. The use of ANY BAND, clip, paint, dye, signal-sending device or any marking device other than the official numbered leg bands issued by the Bird Banding Laboratory.
c. The use of MIST NETS or other nets for the capturing of birds. d. The use of TRANQUILIZING DRUGS OR OTHER CHEMICALS for the purpose of capturing birds. e. Trapping or disturbing the nests or nestlings, for the purpose of banding or marking, of species designated by the Secretary of Interior as “ENDANGERED “or “THREATENED.”
f. The handling of any PREVIOUSLY BANDED BIRD in any manner which may bias data on file in the Bird Banding Laboratory which pertain to that bird or which may alter that bird’s survival potential, behavior or other normal characteristics. This specifically includes adding markers to or removing markers from previously banded birds.

14. If a bird is found injured, the bander must assess the injury to determine if treatment and rehabilitation would lead to the bird's recovery. If it is likely that treatment will allow the bird to recover from it's injuries, the bander should transport the injured bird to an avian rehabilitation facility. If the bander determines that recovery is not likely given the extent of the injuries, they should euthanize the bird using approved euthanasia procedures. Banders operating under IACUC approval should follow their estabished guidelines regarding the application of euthanasia to bird in distress. Other banders should take the most appropriate course of action under the circumstances and consider euthanasia to avoid prolonged distress on birds.

Form 9-475
(February 2018)
3548

Effective: 12/18/2020 Expires: 03/31/2023
Permit Number: MB52857C-0

SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING
A.  General conditions set out in Subpart B of 50 CFR 13, and specific conditions contained in Federal regulations cited above, are hereby made a part of this permit.  All activities authorized herein must be carried out in accord with and for the purposes described in the application submitted.  Continued validity, or renewal of this permit is subject to complete and timely compliance with all applicable conditions, including the filing of all required information and reports.

B.  The validity of this permit is also conditioned upon strict observance of all applicable foreign, state, local tribal, or other federal law.

C.  Valid for use by permittee named above.

D.   Temporal Aspects of Rough‐legged Hawk Migration in Western North America Project Investigator:  Jeff Kidd (Kidd Biological, Inc) and Travis Booms (Alaska Dept of Fish & Game) Location:  Seward Peninsula, along the road system of Nome, Teller, & Council.

Dates:  June‐July 2019 Only
Authorized Activities:  Authorized to bring non‐releasable Great‐horned Owl or taxidermied Great Horned Owl from California to use as a lure bird for this study.  Authorized to trap and release Rough‐legged Hawks and attach, via the backpack method, PTT or GSM transmitters (weighing no more than 30 grams) on no more than 21 birds in 2019.

Great Horned Owl, Peregrine Falcon, and Turkey Vulture Lures for Studies Involving Raptor Trapping with a Dho‐Gaza Set ‐ All Authorized Locations Excluding Alaska Department of the Interior
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Migratory Bird Permit Office
2800 Cottage Way - Room W-2606
Sacramento, CA 95825
Tel: 916-978-6183 Fax: 916-978-6183
Authority: Statutes and Regulations: 16 USC 703-712, 16 USC 668(a); 50 CFR Part 13, 50 CFR 21.23, 50 CFR 22.21.

Activities authorized throughout California. Research activities using a live lure bird are authorized throughout Washington. Specific research activities using a live lure bird in Alaska are specified in permit condition "D" below.

Records are maintained at 2911 Meridian Ct, Anacortes, WA 98221.

ANNUAL REPORT DUE: 01/31
You must submit an annual report to your Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office each year, even if you had no activity. Form at www.fws.gov/forms/3-202-1.pdf.

JEFF W KIDD
23046 AVENUE DE LA CARLOTA, SUITE 600, PMB 66
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
U.S.A.

Permittee:

Authorizations and Conditions:

Issuing Office:

SUPERVISORY WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST
Location where authorized activity may be conducted:

Reporting requirements:
3549

Effective: 12/18/2020 Expires: 03/31/2023
Permit Number: MB52857C-0

SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING
You and all subpermittees are authorized to transport one (1) live, non‐releasable Great Horned Owl; one (1) live Peregrine Falcon; and one (1) live Turkey Vulture to use as lures in capturing and banding other raptors.  You are also authorized to transport one (1) live, non‐ releasable Common Raven to use as a lure in capturing and banding/marking other ravens.  The lure birds may be borrowed from an individual/organization permitted to hold non‐releasable raptors for educational or scientific purposes (see contact information below).  In addition, you are also authorized to possess, transport, and use one (1) taxidermied Great Horned Owl as a lure.

These live birds may be temporarily borrowed from:

Orange County Bird of Prey Center, Special Purpose Possession ‐ Live Permit No. MB753880, as well as other Special Purpose Possession ‐ Live permittees in California and in Washington.

You and your subpermittees are authorized to possess, transport, and use (1) taxidermied Great Horned Owl as a lure in capturing and banding other raptors.

Burrowing Owl Relocation Study
You and your subpermittees are authorized to live‐trap and relocate 30 BURROWING OWLS (Athene cunicularia) per year, including adults and juveniles from construction projects or airfields located throughout California.  You are authorized to move them to locations agreed upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).  You are not authorized to relocate Burrowing Owl pairs that have viable eggs or nestlings without additional authorization.   Every effort must be made to relocate Burrowing Owls immediately prior to the breeding season to avoid potentially impacting reproductive success.  Active translocation must be implemented in such a way to encourage relocated Burrowing Owls to stay at the relocation site.  Burrowing Owls are much more likely to stay at the relocation site if they successfully reproduce at the site.  For best results and to avoid placing wintering owls in captivity, place the owls in the hacking enclosures when most of the owls formed pairs and begin displaying courtship behavior.

The details of each relocation project must be submitted to our office for prior approval before any owls are moved.  A summary of each relocation project must include the following:
1) Location that Burrowing Owls are being removed from; 2) Reason why the Burrowing Owls need to be removed from the site; 3) Number of Burrowing Owls being relocated, including number of pairs and number of singles; 4) Description of methods that will be used to ensure burrows are vacant prior to their collapse (can be supplied by developer); 5) Location and landowner contact information for the release site 6) Description of the release site, including habitat description, presence/absence of ground squirrels, presence/absence of other Burrowing Owls, results of predator survey, results of prey survey, and landowner commitment to maintain artificial burrow systems and manage the land for Burrowing Owls long‐term E.  Release Site Requirements:
1) Rodenticides and pesticides must not be applied in or around the vicinity of the release site as long as Burrowing Owls remain at the release site.  Burrowing Owls are known to forage up to 600 meters away from their burrow.  The use of rodenticides and pesticides has been known to cause secondary poisoning in owls and also can reduce prey populations, which may limit the success of the relocation project.
2) The release site must also be occupied by California ground squirrels or other fossorial mammals that create burrows large enough for Burrowing Owls to utilize.   If ground squirrels are not currently present, you may translocate ground squirrels to the release site.  If ground squirrel translocation isn't feasible, you must install 50% more artificial burrows than required under Condition H below.
3) Artificial burrows must not be placed in the bottom of a basin, wash, or depression where water can collect and flood burrows.

Artificial burrows installed in mounds or levees must be above the flood zone. 4) The release site must consist of open habitat with short or sparse vegetation and an unobstructed view for hundreds of feet in all directions.
5) The release site must have abundant prey within close proximity (within 600 meters) to the burrows available year‐round to sustain the owls.

Release Site Recommendations:
1) The Service recommends selecting a release site that minimizes potential human and wildlife conflicts or incompatibility, 3550

Effective: 12/18/2020 Expires: 03/31/2023
Permit Number: MB52857C-0

SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING
including but not limited to human foot and vehicle traffic, predation by cats, loose dogs, and urban‐adapted wildlife. 2) The Service recommends selecting a release site where Burrowing Owls are already present to encourage relocated owls to stay.

F.  Trapping, Banding, and Monitoring Requirements:
1) Authorized trap methods include bow‐trap, Swedish goshawk trap, compartment trap, bal‐chatri, noose carpet, and one‐way door with box at the burrow.
2) Captured owls must be handled and transported in a manner that minimizes stress. 3) For monitoring purposes, owls must be banded under the authority of a U.S. Geological Survey Bird Banding Lab permit prior to release.

Trapping, Banding, and Monitoring Recommendations:
1) The Service recommends color‐banding captured owls to facilitate long‐term monitoring.  The Service also recommends gathering morphometric data for each owl.

G.   Hack Enclosure Requirements:  You are authorized to temporarily hold Burrowing Owls in hack enclosures at the release site. 1) You must keep family groups together in order to increase hunting success and protection from predators. 2) You must provide owls with food, water, and an adequate number of artificial burrows for shelter (artificial burrow requirements are described in further detail below) while they are held in the hack enclosure.  Food may consist of mice, crickets, chicks, and meal worms.
3) The enclosure must be able to withstand stormy weather.  The enclosure must also protect owls from all potential predators, be of sufficient size to enclose the artificial burrow systems, and provide sufficient space for flight (minimum 12' L x 12' W x 6' H).

The height of the enclosure should be extended to 8' if there is a possibility that birds may remain in captivity for longer than 30 days to minimize muscle atrophy.
4) You must dismantle the hack enclosure within 30 days of relocation unless you receive approval for an extension from the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.  Leaving Burrowing Owls in an enclosure for too long at the release site can give them a false sense of security and can be an attraction for predators.
5)   You must discontinue feeding immediately after dismantling the enclosures. 6) You must remove enclosures and other human artifacts from the relocation site immediately after dismantling the enclosures. 7) You must camouflage all remote monitoring equipment (cameras) and place equipment as far from the enclosure as practical to avoid attracting predators.  Cameras must be placed 1.5 feet or lower from the ground and be covered by a perch deterrent to minimize predator use as a perch.

Hack Enclosure Recommendations:
1) The Service recommends using an enclosure with corners that are as wide‐angled as possible to minimize sharp‐edge hazards and the risk of injury to owls.
2) Predators can be deterred from digging under the enclosure by installing a few feet of chicken wire or hardware cloth on the ground around the perimeter of the enclosure.  Bury the chicken wire or hardware cloth in soil so that predators are unable to determine where the edge of the wire is located.

H.  Artificial burrow system (ABS) Requirements:
1) Each relocated Burrowing Owl must be provided with 2‐4 burrow chambers at the release site; each relocated owl pair must be provided with a minimum of 4 burrow chambers at the release site. 2)   The bottom of the burrow chambers must be a minimum of 4 feet below the soil surface.  The top of the burrow chambers must be buried under a minimum of 3 feet of soil.
3)   Each ABS must have multiple entrances facing different directions so that owls can easily escape from predators. 4) Each burrow chamber must have at least one entrance tunnel leading to the soil's surface.  Tunnels must be at least 8 feet long and constructed of 4‐inch corrugated flexible drain pipe.  Tunnels should have a slope of 20‐45 degrees between the surface and the nest chamber.  Each tunnel must have a 90 degree horizontal turn between the entrance and the nest chamber to help prevent predators from entering the chamber.  The drain pipe should only protrude a short distance into the burrow chambers to maximize living space for the owls.
7) You must either install a hollow concrete block at each tunnel entrance at the soil surface, or you must slip a 6‐inch rigid PVC pipe over each entrance and pile river rock around each entrance for erosion control and protection from predators. 3551

Effective: 12/18/2020 Expires: 03/31/2023
Permit Number: MB52857C-0

SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING
9) You or the responsible landowner must maintain all ABS and surrounding habitat long‐term to ensure the site remains suitable for Burrowing Owls.  You or the responsible landowner must clean and repair artificial burrows annually.  You or the responsible landowner must also manage the vegetation in and around the release site annually to maintain visibility for the owls.

Artificial burrow system (ABS) Recommendations:
1)   The Service recommends maximizing the number of artificial burrows at the release site.  The Service recommends installing more artificial burrows than required to support local owls that may move into the site, in addition to supporting the relocated owls.  The quantity and spacing of occupied burrows and satellite burrows at the capture site will help determine the quantity and spacing of burrows that should be provided at the release site. 2) The Service recommends using either Wild at Heart's ABS design (summarized here) or John H. Barclay's design (Barclay, 2008, J.

Raptor Res. 42(1):53‐57).  A wooden burrow chamber design may be used in lieu of the plastic chamber designs.  The minimum ABS requirements described above must be implemented regardless of which ABS design you choose. 3) The following is a Summary of Wild at Heart, An Arizona‐Based Raptor Rescue's ABS design (Greg Clark is available for questions about methods; [email protected] or 480‐595‐5047).  Over‐turned 5‐gallon plastic buckets may be used as burrow chambers.

Four over‐turned buckets may be placed side‐by‐side in a cluster to serve as burrow chambers for each owl pair.  The buckets may either be arranged above ground for a mound ABS or placed inside the bottom of a pit for a subterranean ABS.  A 5‐inch diameter hole may be cut in the side of each bucket at the bucket opening for connection to a tunnel.  Two of the buckets may be inter‐connected with flexible tubing to provide owls with an expanded burrow chamber and a second entrance/exit.  Poultry cloth (chicken wire) may be placed under burrow chambers to prevent California ground squirrels and pocket gophers from digging up the soil and filling the chambers and tunnels with soil.  Poultry cloth may also be installed around burrow entrances to deter large predators from digging up a burrow.
4) The Service recommends installing ABS about 10 feet apart from each other. 5) Maintenance activities may include grazing, mowing with a push mower, mowing with a mechanical mower with low impact tires, or using a weedeater to reduce annual grass height.  Maintenance may also include keeping area free of trees and shrubs and habitat modification to increase prey populations.
6) The Service strongly recommends preventing excessive human and human‐related disturbance that can result in excessive flushing of Burrowing Owls or damage to their burrows (e.g., walking, jogging, off‐road/dirt bike activity, dog‐walking).  This also includes controlling loose and feral pets that may chase, injure, and prey upon owls.

I.  Post‐relocation Monitoring Requirements:
1) You must monitor owl activity once per week in the morning and evening immediately following release (satellite telemetry fulfills this requirement).  Cameras may be used to monitor activity to minimize disturbance at the release site.   Monitoring intensity may vary depending on the season (e.g. less frequent during the non‐breeding season).  Monitoring must continue through the breeding season at a minimum.

Post‐relocation Monitoring Recommendations:
1) The Service recommends continuing to monitor owl activity through the end of the second breeding season after release.

J.  Ground Squirrel and Burrowing Owl Management Recommendations:
1) The Service recommends managing the release/relocation site to attract and maintain ground squirrels.  Not only do the squirrels construct the natural and complex burrow systems used by the owls during all times of the year, they also serve as predator sentinels and can help reduce undue predation on owls.  If ground squirrels are not present, consideration should be given to translocating squirrels to make the site more suitable for burrowing owls.  Artificial burrows should not be relied upon as a long‐ term solution, and as long as artificial burrows are needed, there should be sufficient funding for annual maintenance and repair of the artificial burrow system.

K.   You assume all liability and responsibility, including financial costs, for the conduct of any associated activity, i.e., rehabilitation costs.

L. You are authorized to salvage Burrowing Owl carcasses, tissues, feathers, pellets, and non‐viable eggs for the purposes of 1) collecting genetic material for DNA sexing, gene sequencing, relatedness/parentage, cell culture, and other genetic analysis; 2) collecting feathers for stable isotope and other molecular analyses; 3) diet analysis of regurgitated pellets; 4) collecting non‐viable eggs to determine fertility and/or obtain genetic material, and 5) determining causes of death, if possible.  You are authorized to share specimens with collaborators 3552

Effective: 12/18/2020 Expires: 03/31/2023
Permit Number: MB52857C-0

SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING
who are either permitted to possess these specimens or are exempt under 50 CFR 21.12.

M. You are authorized to salvage dead migratory birds (except species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act).  Any dead bald eagle or golden eagle salvaged must be reported within 48 hours to the National Eagle Repository at (303) 287‐2110 and to the migratory bird permit issuing office at 2800 Cottage Way, W‐1916, Sacramento, CA 95825; (916) 978‐6183; [email protected].  The Repository will provide directions for shipment of these specimens.

For a list of threatened and endangered species in your state, visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

Unused specimens may be donated to the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology or to other permittees or institutions exempt under 50 CFR 21.12.

N.     You are authorized to salvage abandoned (unoccupied) migratory bird nests and nonviable eggs outside the nesting season, except for nests and eggs of bald eagles or golden eagles, or species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

O. You may not salvage and must immediately report to the USFWS Office of Law Enforcement any dead or injured migratory birds that you encounter that appear to have been poisoned, shot, electrocuted, have collided with industrial power generation equipment, or were otherwise killed or injured as the result of potential criminal activity.  See FWS OLE contact information below.

P.   A subpermittee is an individual to whom you have provided written authorization to conduct some or all of the permitted activities in your absence.  Subpermittees must be at least 18 years of age.

As the permittee, you are legally responsible for ensuring that your subpermittees are in compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit, are qualified to perform these authorized activities and adhere to the terms of your permit.  New subpermittees with limited Burrowing Owl relocation experience must receive a minimum of 4 days of training prior to conducting permitted activities independently.

You are also responsible for maintaining current records of anyone you have designated as a subpermittee, including copies of letters you have provided to the subpermittees authorizing them to conduct the permitted activities on your behalf.

The following subpermittees are authorized:

In addition, any person who is
(1) employed by or under contract to you for the activities specified in this permit, or (2) otherwise designated a subpermittee by you in writing, may exercise the authority of this permit.

Q.   This permit does NOT authorize trespass and/or take on State and Federal wildlife refuges or Federal reserves, or other public and private property without written permit/permission from landowner or custodian.

R.   Any injury to and/or death of a migratory bird or destruction of eggs shall be reported via e‐mail to issuing office within forty‐eight (48) hours at [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>or [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.

S.    You and any subpermittees must comply with the attached Standard Conditions for Federal Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permits.  These standard conditions are a continuation of your permit conditions and must remain with your permit.

T.  Reporting:
1) A completed Annual Report Form 3‐202‐1 shall be submitted your Migratory Bird Permit Office (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Permit Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W‐2606, Sacramento, CA 95825) by January 31st each year. 2) You shall also provide a written summary report describing results of the translocation efforts (i.e., geographic coordinates of capture site, release site, U.S. Geological Survey band numbers, breeding activity, movements, physical condition of the birds, predation, etc.) with your Annual Report Form.
3) Reporting must be submitted either electronically or in hard copy:

Email:  [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or [email protected] 3553

Effective: 12/18/2020 Expires: 03/31/2023
Permit Number: MB52857C-0

SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING

Postal Mail:  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Permit Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W‐2606, Sacramento, CA 95825
For suspected illegal activity, immediately contact USFWS Office of Law Enforcement at:  San Diego, CA (619) 557‐5063, Torrance, CA (310) 328‐1516, or Sacramento, CA (916) 569‐8444
3554
Standard Conditions
Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permits
50 CFR 21.23
All of the provisions and conditions of the governing regulations at 50 CFR part 13 and 50 CFR part 21.23 are are conditions of your permit. Failure to comply with the conditions of your permit could be cause for suspension of the permit. The standard conditions below are a continuation of your permit conditions and must remain with your permit. If you have questions regarding these conditions, refer to the regulations or, if necessary, contact your migratory bird permit issuing office. For copies of the regulations and forms, or to obtain contact information for your issuing office, visit: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mbpermits.html.

1. Live migratory birds you take and retain alive must be released at the capture site unless otherwise authorized on the face of the permit.

2. You must tag each migratory bird specimen you collect or salvage. Each tag must include the information below.

The permit number under which the specimen was collected or salvaged must be recorded in the permanent accession record.
(a) Date and location where the specimen was collected or salvaged, and (b) Name of the person who collected or salvaged the specimen.

3. If you encounter a migratory bird with a Federal band issued by the U.S. Geological Survey Bird Banding Laboratory, Laurel, MD, report the band number to 1-800-327-BAND (2263) or www.reportband.gov.

4. Nontoxic shot must be used with the following exceptions:
(a) You may use lead shot when nontoxic shot is not produced in the small sizes needed to preserve the integrity of the specimens;
(b) You may use lead shot in habitats where its use is allowed for sport hunting purposes.

5. Unless otherwise authorized on your permit, all migratory game birds taken during open hunting season must be in compliance with all applicable Federal and State hunting regulations.

6. This permit does not authorize the take or live trapping and release of bald eagles or golden eagles or species listed as endangered or threatened.

7. This permit does not authorize the take or release of migratory birds on Federal lands without additional prior written authorization from the applicable Federal agency, or on State lands or other public or private property without prior written permission or permits from landowner or custodian.

8. You may donate dead migratory birds or any parts thereof (except bald eagles and golden eagles, and species listed as threatened and endangered) without additional authorization from the migratory bird permit issuing office to public institutions (as specified in 50 CFR 10.12) or individuals or entities authorized by permit to acquire and possess migratory bird specimens for educational purposes.

All dead specimens that you do not transfer to another authorized party must be disposed of by such means as are necessary to ensure that they are not exposed to animals in the wild.

All eagle feathers and/or whole eagle carcasses must be shipped to the National Eagle Repository. Contact:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Eagle and Wildlife Repository, RMA, Building 128, 6550 Gateway Rd., Commerce City, Colorado 80022, (303) 287-2110. (page 1 of 2)
3555

9. A subpermittee is an individual to whom you have provided written authorization to conduct some or all of the permitted activities in your absence. Subpermittees must be at least 18 years of age. As the permittee, you are legally responsible for ensuring that your subpermittees are adequately trained and adhere to the terms of your permit. You are responsible for maintaining current records of who you have designated as a subpermittee, including copies of designation letters you have provided.

10. You and any subpermittees must carry a legible copy of this permit and display it upon request whenever you are exercising its authority. Subpermittees must also carry your written subpermittee designation letter.

11. Your annual report may include final reports, publications, or other documentation describing the results of the project.

12. You must maintain records as required by 50 CFR 13.46 and 50 CFR 21.23(c)(4). All records relating to the permitted activities must be kept at the location identified in writing by you to the migratory bird permit issuing office.

13. Acceptance of this permit authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service to inspect any wildlife held, and to audit or copy any permits, books, or records required to be kept by the permit and governing regulations.

14. You may not conduct the activities authorized by this permit if doing so would violate the laws of the applicable State, county, municipal or tribal government or any other applicable law. (SCCL - 12/3/2011)
(page 2 of 2)
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
THE HUB @ ONT

CITY OF ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan
Prepared For:

McDonald Property Group
1140 N Coast Highway
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Contact: John Pierce
949.655.8233
Prepared By:

ELMT Consulting
2201 N Grande Avenue, #10098
Santa Ana, California 92711
Contact: Travis J. McGill
714.716.5050
October 2022
3564
THE HUB @ ONT

CITY OF ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan
The undersigned certify that the statements furnished in this report and exhibits present data and information required for this biological evaluation, and the facts, statements, and information presented is a complete and accurate account of the findings and conclusions to the best of our knowledge and beliefs.

Travis J. McGill
Director/Biologist
Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D.

Managing Director
October 2022
3565
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan i
Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Location and Description ................................................................................... 1

1.2 Species Background ....................................................................................................... 1 Section 2 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................ 7

2.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ............................................................................................. 7

2.2 California Fish and Game Code ..................................................................................... 8

2.3 California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................................... 8 Section 3 Site Conditions .............................................................................................................. 9

3.1 The HUB @ ONT Center Project site............................................................................ 9 Section 4 Survey Results ............................................................................................................. 11 Section 5 Relocation Plan ........................................................................................................... 14

5.1 Relocation Sites ........................................................................................................... 15

5.2 Other Relocation sites .................................................................................................. 17

5.3 Preparation of the Relocation Site ............................................................................... 19

5.4 Relocation to the Relocation Site ................................................................................. 19

5.5 Post-Release Monitoring .............................................................................................. 27

5.6 Reporting ..................................................................................................................... 28 Section 6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 32 Section 7 References ................................................................................................................... 33 3566
Table of Contents
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan ii

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity ........................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 2: Site Vicinity ................................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 3: Project Site ..................................................................................................................... 6 Exhibit 4: 2022 Burrowing Owl Observations ............................................................................. 13 Exhibit 5: Colton Dunes Conservation Bank ................................................................................ 30 Exhibit 6: Nuevo Donation Site .................................................................................................... 31

APPENDIX
Appendix A 2022 Burrowing Owl Survey Report
3567
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 1
Section 1 Introduction
This Relocation Plan has been prepared to address the relocation of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), (BUOW) from The HUB @ ONT Project Site (project site or site), an approximately 197- acre site the Ontario International Airport Authority is leasing for the development of a logistics center, to an approved relocation site (site approved for translocation). The purpose of this relocation plan is to obtain authorization to actively translocate two resident BUOW pairs and evict any possible nonbreeding or migratory individuals prior to project related impacts. The number of owls to be translocated may change as the number may be different than what was reported during focued surveys conducted in 2022 (2022 Burrowing Owl Survey Report for The HUB @ ONT (formerlly California Logistics Cetner at Ontario International Airport, HELIX).

All monitoring and relocation efforts will be coordinated and approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) local and headquarters offices, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), collectively the Wildlife Agencies, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) office.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The approximately 197-acre undeveloped project site is located east of the Ontario International Airport, south of Interstate 10, west of Interstate 15, and north of State Route 60 in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity). The site is depicted on the Guasti quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series within Section 25 of Township 1 South, Range 7 West (Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity). Specifically, the project site is bounded by S. Haven Avenue to the west, E. Jurupa Street to the south, E. Airport Drive to the north, and Doubleday Avenue to the east (Exhibit 3, Project Site).

The Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA) is leasing 197 acres of undeveloped land under one of its approach corridors for the development of a logistics center to support the commercial warehouse growth in the region and provide vital revenue to the OIAA. The 197-acre site will be developed as a logistic center consisting of 9 buildings totaling 4,282,450 square feet with associated parking, and landscaping.

1.2 SPECIES BACKGROUND
The BUOW is a small, brownish, ground-dwelling bird of prey that inhabits arid, open habitats with short vegetation, bare ground, level to sloping topography, and well-drained soils (Poulin et al. 2011, CDFG 2012). Suitable BUOW habitat varies widely from naturally occurring habitats to highly disturbed conditions in grasslands, deserts, and human-altered landscapes such as agricultural fields, vacant lots, pastures, fallow fields, road rights-of-way, airports, and golf courses (Klute et al. 2003).

Throughout the range where BUOWs are found, tall or dense cover types are generally not suitable as BUOW habitat. Visibility at nest sites appears to be an important habitat selection factor and may be an anti-predator behavior (Green and Antony 1989, Ronan 2002). 3568
Introduction
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 2
The primary requirement for suitable habitat is the presence of a suitable burrow (Rosenberg et al. 2007). BUOWs nest and roost in underground burrows created by burrowing mammals such as California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), coyotes (Canis latrans), and American badgers (Taxidea taxus), (Klute et al. 2003, Poulin et al. 2011, CDFG 2012). They may also nest and roost in other natural or man-made cavities such as rock piles, pipes, culverts, refuse piles, and artificial burrows. Owls prefer nesting in areas with a high density of suitable burrows which likely provide escape burrows for both adult and young owls (Poulin et al. 2011). BUOWs are semi-colonial and often congregate with other owls in winter and nest in loose colonies. Nest densities vary depending on abundance of suitable burrows and prey and reduced predation pressure and site disturbance.

BUOWs are generalists as they feed on spiders and insects (arthropods), small mammals, birds and toads (Poulin et al. 2011, Rosenberg et al. 2007). BUOWs are mostly active during the morning and evening (crepuscular) but they can be found active at all times of the day and night (Poulin et al. 2011, Gervais et al. 2003). During the nesting season, they typically carry prey back to the nest burrow and drop prey at the apron or cache them in the burrows and tunnels depending on nest chronology (Poulin et al. 2011, Rosenberg et al. 2007). Distance to suitable foraging habitat is a primary factor in nest habitat selection (Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999, Rosenberg et al. 2007).

Current literature suggests, owl home range sizes vary from approximately 0.14 and 4.81 kilometers2 (0.16 and 1.86 miles2
; mean = 2.41 kilometers2 [0.93 miles2]), depending on habitat and region (Poulin et al. 2011) and is likely related to food abundance and habitat fragmentation (Gervais et al. 2008).

During the breeding season, owls generally forage within 2.7 km (1.67 miles) of their nest burrow (Haug and Oliphant 1990, Gervais et al. 2003, Rosenberg and Haley 2004). In the southern San Joaquin and Imperial Valleys, owls concentrated 80 percent of foraging within 600 meters (1,968.5 feet) of their nests (Gervais et al. 2003, Rosenberg and Haley 2004). In general, during the breeding season most foraging occurs within 250 to 600 m (820 to 1,968.5 feet) of the nest.

Predation is often a limiting factor for BUOW populations (Catlin and Rosenberg 2008, Poulin et al. 2011). BUOW adults, young, and/or eggs are preyed upon by a variety of avian, mammalian, and reptilian predators in our regions such as prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), barn owl (Tyto alba), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), American crow (Corvus brachrhynchos), common raven (Corvus corax), coyote, skunk (Mephitis spp.), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and domestic dogs and cats (Ronan 2002, Catlin and Rosenberg 2008, Poulin et al. 2011).

History and Current Status of BUOW Population in Inland Empire Prior to the 1980’s southwestern San Bernardino supported a robust breeding BUOW population with hundreds of pairs from the base of the San Bernardino Mountains south to the Prado Basin. After decades of development pressure and the complete absence of meaningful mitigation, only a few remaining breeding pairs and winter migrants are known to persist. The remaining highly fragmented landscape which lacks suitable, large, protected sites with connectivity to and between extant breeding sites creates a bottleneck and prevents the existence of a healthy source population. With the continued development pressure and lack of adequate mitigation required by the resource agencies, the BUOW 3569
Introduction
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 3
population in this region is tenuous at best and will likely never recover from what was once a robust breeding source population (Kidd et al. 2003, 2007).

A current review of BUOWs previously reported near the Ontario Airport includes 45 records from 1989-2017. These 45 records are located within seven nearby 7.5min USGS quads (Ontario, Prado, Corona North, Fontana, Cucamonga Peak and Mt. Blady) and Guasti quad where the airport is located (CNDDB 2020). The nearest owl locations reported south of the airport were evicted approximately ten years ago during development of industrial warehouses. Mitigation included the installation of artificial burrows in a barrow pit on the west side of the nearby retired landfill and the owls were evicted from their burrows prior to grading. Owls are no longer known to occupy this site south of the airport.

The subject owls on the OIAA property along the east side of Haven Avenue are included in the list of 45 owl records. Several reported owls north of Interstate 10 that are located west and north of Ontario Mills Mall are some of the only possible extant owls near the airport. All of these owls are surrounded by development and located on small, highly fragmented sites that don’t provide long-term conservation value for the owl due to future development and predation pressure to name a few.

It should further be noted that 3-5 pairs of burrowing owls have been documented west of Haven Avenue with the OIAA property adjacent to the runway that are subject to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
3570
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_ RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

LOS ANGELES
ORANGE

SAN DIEGO
Regional Vicinity
THE HUB @ ONT

BURROWING OWL RELOCATION PLAN
Exhibit 1
O
Source: World Street Map, San Bernardino County
0 2.5 5 10
Miles

PROJECT

LOCATION
Nuevo Donation
Site
San Jacinto
Wildlife Area
El Sol
Seal Beach
Colton Dunes
Conservation Bank
3571
Site Vicinity
THE HUB @ ONT

BURROWING OWL RELOCATION PLAN
Exhibit 2
O
Source: USA Topographic Map, San Bernardino County
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
3572
Project Site
THE HUB @ ONT

BURROWING OWL RELOCATION PLAN
Exhibit 3
O
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, San Bernardino County
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
3573
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 7
Section 2 Regulatory Framework

2.1 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
The BUOW is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S. Government Code [USC] 703) of 1918, as amended in 1972, federal law prohibits the taking of migratory birds or their nests or eggs (16 USC 703; 50 CFR 10, 21).

The MBTA reflects agreements made between the U.S., England, Mexico, the former Soviet Union, and Japan to protect all of North America’s migratory bird populations. Pursuant to the MBTA The statute states:

Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill...any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird...included in the terms of the [Migratory Bird] conventions… The MBTA covers the taking of any nests or eggs of migratory birds, except as allowed by permit pursuant to 50 CFR, Part 21. Disturbances causing the killing of young by abandonment of eggs or offspring may also be considered “take1
”. It is illegal to collect, possess, and by any means transfer possession of any migratory bird nest.

The MBTA prohibits the destruction of a nest when it contains birds or eggs, and no possession shall occur during the destruction (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum, April 15, 2003). Certain exceptions to this prohibition are included in 50 C.F.R. section

21. Pursuant to CDFW Code section 3513, CDFW enforces the MBTA consistent with rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act. An avian nest (i.e., burrows) is no longer protected once it is deemed inactive for nesting by a qualified biologist
In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (e.g., raptors). Six families of raptors occurring in North America were included in the amendment: Accipitridae (kites, hawks, and eagles); Cathartidae (New World vultures); Falconidae (falcons and caracaras); Pandionidae (ospreys); Strigidae (typical owls); and Tytonidae (barn owls). The provisions of the 1972 amendment to the MBTA protects all species and subspecies of the families listed above. The MBTA protects over 800 species including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds and many relatively common species.
1 The regulatory definition of take, as defined in Title 50 C.F.R. part 10.12, means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. Only the verb “collect” applies to nests. 3574
Regulatory Framework
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 8

2.2 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE
The BUOW is also protected under CDFW Fish and Game Code which prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 are applicable to natural resource management. For example, Section 3503 of the Code makes it unlawful to destroy any birds’ nest or any birds’ eggs that are protected under the MBTA. Further, any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (Birds of Prey, such as hawks, eagles, and owls) are protected under Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code which makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy their nest or eggs. A consultation with CDFW may be required prior to the removal of any bird of prey nest that may occur on a project site. Section 3511 of the Fish and Game Code lists fully protected bird species, where the CDFW is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species. BUOW is not included in protections per Section 3511. Pertinent species that are fully protected by the State include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Section 3513 of the Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA. This burrowing owl relocation plan has been put together to ensure compliance with Section 3513 and minimize potential take of BUOW.

The BUOW is not listed as endangered or threatened or as a candidate for such a listing under the California Endangered Species Act, nor is it listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.

2.3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for the protection of the environment within the State of California by establishing State policy to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures for projects. It applies to actions directly undertaken, financed, or permitted by State or local lead agencies. Under CEQA, project impacts to sensitive species and species of special concern, such as the BUOW, must be analyzed and mitigated. The RSP Amendment Recirculated Subsequent EIR, Clearing House No. 2006071021, certified on December 14, 2016 (SEIR) concluded that development of the RSP Amendment Area would significantly adversely impact BUOW, and imposed Mitigation Measure BIO-3 (SEIR pp. 4.3-15 -4.3-16) requiring development of a BUOW relocation plan to mitigate those impacts.
3575
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 9
Section 3 Site Conditions

3.1 THE HUB @ ONT CENTER PROJECT SITE
The approximately 197-acre project site consists of disturbed habitat with primarily non-native annuals and grasses, such as Hordeum spp. Bromus spp., Malva spp., and Sisymbrium spp. Native Amsinckia spp. was also observed throughout the site. Vegetation on the study area is regularly maintained as required for weed abatement. Ornamental landscaping was observed along the periphery of the project site. Soils within the project site solely consist of Delhi fine sand.

The topography of the project site is mostly flat, with elevations ranging from 900 feet (274 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL) near the southeast corner to 942 feet (287 meters) AMSL near the southwest corner. The project site is bounded by Ontario International Airport to the west, and industrial and commercial properties to the north, east, and south.

Except for the undeveloped interstitial areas associated with the Ontario International Airport runway to the west of the project site, the project site is almost entirely surrounded by existing development (industrial buildings) to the north, east and south. In accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owls, BUOW burrow exclusion and closure is employed only where there are adjacent natural burrows and non-impacted sufficient habitat for BUOW to occupy with permanent protection mechanism in place. Since the project site is surrounded by development on three of its boundaries, BUOW burrow exclusion and closure would likely result in BUOW moving from The HUB @ ONT project site to the Ontario International Airport runway, which would put the BUOW at risk of creating additional bird strike hazards with aircraft.

Numerous avian bird strikes have been reported on the Ontario International Airport, including various strikes from BUOW. Between 2008 and 2021, approximately sixteen (16) BUOW strikes have been recorded. Due to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations for avian bird strikes, flight safety, and USDA depredation permits in situ conservation is not feasible. Translocation is needed for the long-term survival of the BUOWs on The HUB @ ONT project site.

USDA (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service; APHIS) is hired by OIAA to reduce strike hazards caused by various wildlife species. Per FAA rules and regulations, OIAA can’t engage in restoration, mitigation or any actions that increase wildlife hazards within zones at and around an FAA certified airport. Any airport can lose their FAA certificate and funding if they are found to be out of compliance with this rule. Any mitigation efforts within 10,000 feet of the airport (the project site is located well within 10,000 feet of the airport) would be considered out of compliance and would likely result in wasted efforts as APHIS has the authority to haze, evict or lethally remove any hazardous wildlife.

Installing artificial burrows and/or encouraging owls to inhabit lands on or directly adjacent to the OIAA property violates FAA rules and is not a viable strategy because of the expected increased presence of other larger hazardous birds (e.g. red-tailed hawks, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, redshouldered hawks, Cooper’s hawks, turkey vultures, and common ravens) who would attempt to 3576
Site Conditions
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 10
predate or scavenge owls, squirrels or rabbits that would likely use the artificial burrows. Hawks and vultures are those struck by aircraft at the highest rates and those known to cause the most damage per strike. These species are often involved in aircraft strikes while they are hover hunting or circling over the approach or departure ends of the airport within the glide slopes. Bird strikes in these situations (landing and take-off) are the most dangerous and can lead to catastrophic events that can kill hundreds of passengers and crew on jetliners.

Evicting the owls along Haven Avenue outside the airfield could result in owls moving to areas within the airfield, making a more hazardous situation. Owls are often found seeking refuge very close to taxiways and runways under lights, signs and other man-made structures that support refuge and areas for squirrels to create burrows. Many burrowing owls that are struck at airports are those crossing runways as aircraft are departing and arriving. This will generally not lead to a catastrophic accident however even small birds like burrowing owls are capable of causing tens of thousands of dollars in damage to aircraft per event.

Further, relocating or encouraging owls to reside on a commercial airfield would violate FAA rules, will result in APHIS having to remove the owls in the future, and creates potential liability for the resource agencies or biologists promoting the in-situ conservation of owls at or near an airport.

In summary, the act of attempting to conduct any form of “mitigation” including in situ or eviction on or directly adjacent to the airfield is not supported by the FAA, APHIS, or past direction from CDFW Headquarters. The best approach for owl mitigation at and adjacent to OIAA property should involve active relocation. This will better ensure for safe flight operations and compliance with FAA regulations while also attempting to provide the owls with a greater chance of survival and future breeding attempts. 3577
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 11
Section 4 Survey Results
Focused surveys were conducted during the 2022 breeding season within all areas determined to provide suitable habitat. Surveys were at least 3 weeks apart with the first survey conducted on March 3, 2022, and the remaining three surveys were conducted on April 21, 2022, May 18, 2022, and July 8, 2022 (see Appendix A, 2022 Burrowing Owl Survey Report). Results from the 2022 focused survey can be seen in Exhibit 4, 2022 Burrowing Owl Observations, and are summarized below.

Two burrows (Nest Nos. 1 and 2), with breeding pairs and juveniles, were detected within the project site. Six alternate burrows (Nos. 1 through 6) were also noted throughout the project site, and these burrows were used by BUOWs for cover.
• Nest No. 1 is an earthen burrow located on the westside of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 900 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW pair was observed near the burrow entrance during the first survey. Two adult BUOWs and two juvenile BUOWs were noted during the second survey. No BUOWs were noted at this burrow during the first or fourth surveys.
• Nest No. 2 is an earthen burrow located on the westside of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 630 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW was observed next to an earthen burrow during the second survey. Two adult BUOWs and four BUOW juveniles were observed during the third survey. No BUOWs were observed during the first or fourth surveys. • Alternative Burrow No. 1 is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 600 feet south of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW was observed during the second survey. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, third, or fourth surveys.
• Alternative burrow No. 2 is a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser located on the east side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 400 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW was observed near the storm drain riser during the third survey. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or fourth surveys. • Alternative burrow No. 3 is an earthen burrow located approximately 650 feet to the southwest of the intersection of E Airport Drive and Carnegie Avenue. One BUOW individual was observed during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys.
• Alternative burrow No. 4 is a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser located on the east side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 840 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Two BUOW individuals were observed during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding 3578
Survey Results
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 12
season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys. BUOWs from Nest No. 1 are presumably using this burrow as an alternate burrow based on its proximity to the nest location and observation of individuals flushing from the nest to this burrow. • Alternative burrow No. 5 is a storm drain riser located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 660 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Four individuals were noted during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys. BUOWs from Nest No. 2 are presumably using this burrow as an alternate burrow based on its proximity to the nest location and observation of individuals flushing from the nest to this burrow.
• Alternative burrow No. 6 is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 600 feet south of E Santa Ana Avenue. Two BUOW individuals were observed during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys.

Anthropogenic Disturbances
It should be noted that during the focused surveys, and as noted in news articles published online, numerous photographers, bird enthusiasts, and members of the Audubon society routinely gather immediately adjacent to the burrowing owls onsite to obtain close photographs of the burrowing owls.

As observed onsite during the focused surveys, these photographers have trespassed to set up artificial perches to obtain “trophy” photographs of the burrowing owls. These anthropogenic disturbances could cause the burrowing owls to flush from their burrows and result in predation and they also leave their human scents which could lead to mammalian predators to the burrows they look at. Further, the routine human interactions with the burrowing owls onsite do not provide long term conservation for the owls onsite. In addition, this harassment of nongame birds could be considered a violation of the California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 251.1.
3579
2022 Burrowing Owl Observations
THE HUB @ ONT

BURROWING OWL RELOCATION PLAN
Exhibit 3
O
Source: HELIX Environmental Planning 2022 Focused Burrowign Owl Survey Not to Scale
3580
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 14
Section 5 Relocation Plan
Active relocation is an available method used in certain situations to provide future breeding and dispersal opportunities to owls that are presented with unique challenges including those from pending development, plane strike hazards and those that are predating special-status species. Active relocation typically involves the capture, marking, relocation, maintenance, release and monitoring of owls to preserved lands managed for owls. These sites are generally distant from the capture site and offer ample suitable habitat necessary for increased survivorship and breeding success as well as dispersal opportunities for their young. A relocation plan has 2 main steps: 1) Release Site Selection (5.1 – 5.2); and 2) Translocation Methods (5.3 – 5.6).

Active relocation is a lengthy step by step process that is fully described in the permittee’s permits that are obtained on a case-by-case basis. In general, during relocation, owl pairs are captured (Bloom 1987, Bloom et al. 2007) at the development site and placed in hacking cages at an approved relocation site managed for BUOWs. Owls are fed and monitored daily and once a clutch of eggs has been laid and incubation is more than 50% complete, the cages are completely removed from the relocation site and the daily feeding events stop. Monitoring is conducted using game cameras and site surveys at rates that only introduce a minimum amount of disturbance. Predator control efforts (e.g., hazing and scent markings) are often required to ensure successful efforts (e.g. survival, breeding and site fidelity).

Adults and young are banded (mark/recapture study) and the site is typically monitored/managed for 2 years post release (USFWS MBTA Permit requirement) to better ensure the site is managed properly for owl suitability and to report on efficacy of the relocation effort(s).

The relocated adults are critical to the initial efforts of successfully raising young however the fledged young are arguably the most important birds as they will show site fidelity (philopatry) to the release site where they emerged from their natal burrow. Hence, if the adults disperse away from the relocation site post nesting season, that does not make this effort a failure. The most important cohort of owls are the young who will show fidelity to their natal area. In many cases, adults do in fact stay on site or explore the new surroundings post breeding season, but the owls often nest on or adjacent to the relocation site in subsequent years.

Active Relocation works best when conducted at distances greater than (>30-40 km) as to help break their homing behavior.

This Active Relocation Plan has been prepared to address the relocation of breeding BUOWs from the proposed The HUB @ ONT site to one the following relocation sites ranked in order of hierarchy based on location (within same County), suitability of the habitat onsite and surrounding area to support a long-term population of burrowing owls, and; 1) Colton Dunes Conservation bank; 2) the Nuevo Donation Site in Riverside County; 3) Other Relocation Sites. 3581
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 15

5.1 RELOCATION SITES
Prior to the selection of the following relocation sites, a lengthy, in-depth review of available lands within San Bernardino County and the region was conducted. Currently, San Bernardino County does not support any pre-established conservation areas for BUOW. Therefore, the search for a suitable conservation site included areas, not only in San Bernardino County, but also conservation sites in Riverside County and areas within the region.

Undeveloped areas in Chino/Ontario (near the Chino Preserve and Prado Basin), Green River Golf Course, and areas in the high desert were researched to find a suitable site for long term BUOW conservation. Next, areas already under conservation in San Bernardino County (i.e., Colton Dunes Conservation Bank and Cajon Creek Conservation Bank) that provide areas of open habitat that could be utilized by BUOW were explored. Finally, areas in the region that have already been receiver sites for relocation were looked at in Riverside County and Orange County.

5.1.1 Colton Dunes Conservation Bank
The Colton Dunes Conservation Bank (Bank) is 150 acres of conserved land that was established as a conservation bank in Colton, California, for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (DSF) habitat, but also supports several other sensitive species including Los Angeles Pocket mouse, Cactus Wren, Coastal California Gnatcatcher, and BUOWs. Historically, the site supported active agriculture on the valley floor area of the site, along its eastern boundary. The western portion of the site has a series of gentle sloping hills that overlook the valley floor. With the abandonment of agricultural activities, the valley floor was restored to native coastal sage scrub habitat, while the remainder the of site supports Colton sand dune habitat, an open plant community with low growing and spare vegetative cover, that provides line-of-site opportunities for BUOW. BUOWs have periodically inhabited the Bank, usually observed on the walls of a deep drainage system entering the Bank from the north. A single pair of BUOW were observed within the canyon in 2020 and 2022.

Since the Bank was created specifically for protecting DSF and its habitat in south Colton, an inquiry was made to USFWS regarding the compatibility of DSF and BUOW. BUOW, when present, were found to occupy top of the canyon walls of the drainage entering the Bank from the north and have not occurred in the northeast corner of the Bank and the central portion down to the southern boundary.

DSF only emerge during the heat of the day, between 10 am and 2 pm primarily during the month of August, a period of time when owls would be sheltering during the intense summer heat. Given the lack of proximity of the drainage feature from known DSF observations within the Bank and the lack of an overlap in their respective use of the habitat within the Bank, USFWS did not raise concerns regarding the relocation of BUOW into the Bank.

The Bank provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for BUOW and is protected from trespass and other disturbances. Given the natural occurrence of BUOWs, there appears to be prey available to support the species. However, the Colton Dunes Conservation Bank is the closest potential relocation site to the population of owls on the project site. Further, some additional issues to note are that the Bank will require the installation of approximately 20 artificial burrows which could potentially impact 3582
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 16
DSF larvae in the soils (although burrows would be placed in areas that are not know to support DSF), the powerline easements across the site provide perching for raptors that could prey on BUOW, and the potential need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement if the onsite drainage feature were impacted.

Even though the Bank provides suitable habitat for BUOW and is located within San Bernardino County, the proximity of the relocation site to the project site (12 miles/19 kilometers), raptor perching opportunities on the SCE powerlines, and lack of suitable dispersal habitat adjacent to the site (due to existing industrial buildings and mining activities bordering the relocation site) reduces the chance of survivorship for dispersing young and sustaining a long-term population of BUOW.

5.1.2 Nuevo Donation Site
The Nuevo Donation Site is generally located north of the Ramona Expressway, south of Alessandro Boulevard, east of Lake Perris, and west of Gillman Springs Road in the unincorporated community of Lakeview, Riverside County, California. The Conservation Site consists of one parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 425-040-009) which is 83.5 acres in size and abuts the San Jacinto Wildlife Area (SJWA) to the north and west, the San Jacinto River to the north, and Marvin Road to the south (refer to Exhibit 5, Nuevo Donation Site). Previous relocation efforts by the San Diego Zoo have occurred on the Nuevo Donation Site, and the Zoo has stated that the Nuevo Donation Site is suitable for future relocations.

The conservation site consists of fallow field that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances (i.e., tilling and disking) associated with several decades of agricultural practices. Due to agricultural uses, plant communities that once occurred on the Nuevo Donation Site have been removed resulting in the majority of the site supporting non-native vegetation. Areas immediately to the south and east of the Nuevo Donation Site consist of agricultural land while areas to the north and east consist of vacant public land associated with the SJWA. Historically, the conservation site supported robust floodplain habitat associated with the San Jacinto River, as well as vernal pool habitat associated with on-site alkali/clay soils. The northern 30 acres will be converted back to floodplain habitat.

The Nuevo Donation Site consists of fallow agricultural field and is dominated by a variety of lowgrowing, early-successional/weedy plant species that provide open foraging habitat for BUOWs.

Vegetative cover ranges between 10 and 25%. Several fossorial mammal burrows, including ground squirrel burrows, capable of providing suitable roosting/nesting opportunities for BUOWs are in the northern portions of the conservation site and throughout the surrounding agricultural fields, including along the banks of the San Jacinto River.

It is recommended that additional artificial burrows be installed, and the vegetation onsite be restored and maintained to ensure there is ample open space and cover for BUOWs. The entire site provides either suitable nesting habitat for BUOW or suitable foraging habitat.

The Nuevo Donation Site provides for increased chances of survivorship for dispersing young and for the relocated BUOW adults once the relocation is complete. No other sites in San Bernardino County offer this due to the level of development and highly fragmented landscapes. The Nuevo Donation Site is the number one choice for relocation because the site is part of a large, protected area that is capable of supporting a viable population of owls in the future, and the proximity of the site to San Bernardino 3583
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 17
County and the Ontario International Airport (30 miles/47 kilometers from the project site). Further the Nuevo Donation site has already been approved for relocation, does not need a lot of work to enhance, is distant from the project site, but within the same regional population.

As part of the proposed mitigation, the Applicant proposes to translate the BUOW pairs to a relocation site where the BUOW will have increased chances of survival. The Applicant will work with the landowner to accomplish needed tasks that are necessary to make the relocation site more suitable and provide long term conservation for the BUOW. The tasks listed below will be completed as part of the mitigation package for the Nuevo Donation Site to make this site more suitable for the future management of the BUOW at the relocation site
• Install two clusters of 10 artificial burrows (20 total artificial burrows) following the best available methods.
• Provide funding for the County to install 3 strand, no barb wire along the west and east sides of the property.
o The fence along the western boundary will be located on CDFW lands and increase the size of the protected Nuevo Donation Site by approoimalty 15 acres. o No Hunting and No Dog signs will be placed along this fence that runs north south along the east side of the CDFW access road, just east of the Nuevo Donation Site. • Provide funding necessary for the County to mow the site two times per year for two years. • Provide funding for a new pipe gate for CDFW/County of Riverside at the southwestern access point.
• Provide funding for large riprap to be placed on either side of the aforementioned gate to help prevent trespassing.
• Provide funding to purchase herbicide to treat patches of tall growing fivehook bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia) onsite for two years.
• Conduct success monitoring for three years (1 year more than other projects) • The project proponents will fund a GPS telemetry study in conjunction with the state and federal permitting agencies. This will be permitted separately.

5.2 OTHER RELOCATION SITES
San Jacinto Wildlife Area
The SJWA was initially created in 1979 by the California Department of Water Resources as mitigation for the State Water Project but has been subsequently expanded to incorporate additional habitat and wildlife species protection. It is located east of Lake Perris in the San Jacinto River Valley and is located immediately north of the Nuevo Donation Site in the unincorporated community of Lakeview, Riverside County, California. The Davis Unit of the SJWA is comprised of 10,483 acres and supports a diverse array of biological resources including wetland habitats, vernal pools, riparian habitats, alkali habitats, waterfowl habitats and upland habitats. SJWA has been managed by CDFW since 2000 and is an important component of two regional conservation programs, the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR-HCP) and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Davis Unit of SJWA is adjacent to and immediately west of the Nuevo Donation Site and includes non-native grassland and upland habitat areas known to support BUOW. BUOWs, 3584
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 18
including breeding pairs, have been observed in the SJWA every year since 2006 when routine surveys started to be conducted by CDFW. Portions of the grasslands are routinely mowed and provide foraging and nesting opportunities for BUOWs.

Similar to the Nuevo Donation Site, the SJWA provides for increased chances of survivorship for dispersing young and for the relocated BUOW adults once the relocation is complete. No other sites in San Bernardino County offer this due to the level of development and highly fragmented landscapes.

Artificial burrows would be installed, and the vegetation onsite would be restored and maintained to ensure there is ample open space and cover for BUOWs.

El Sol
The El Sol Vineyard Hill area is 400-acre of agriculural farmland that was donated to the Resources Conservation Agency (RCA) in Riverside County in 2007 and is managed by the RCA as part of the Western Riverside County MSHCP as prime burrowiung owl habitat.

El Sol Reserve is located between Lake Skinner and Temecula and consists primarily of gentle, rolling, grassland hills with scattered patches of sage scrub habitat. The grasslands have a mix of native and non-native plant species including Plantago sp., Erodium sp., Plagiobothrys sp., and various other forbs/herbaceous species and annual grasses. The sage scrub habitat is primarily dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Cattle frequently graze the site, as a part of the site management, restricting the vegetation within the grasslands to primarily low growing emergents.

Elevations on the site range from approximately 1400 feet to 1550 feet above sea level. Multiple scattered ephemeral drainages are present within the site primarily concentrated in the lower elevations.

Small mammal burrows are present throughout the site, while larger burrows, such as those created by California ground squirrel (Otospermiphilus beecheyi), are infrequently observed in the site. The locations selected for placement of artificial BUOW burrows to be used as relocation sites for the owls are primarily low growing annual grasslands that slope gently downward to the northwest.

The RCA’s El Sol Burrowing Owl Management Site has suitable habitat, artificial burrows, and longterm management support to help sustain BUOWs at the location. Additionally, successful relocations have occurred in the past, resulting in as many as 6 BUOW breeding pairs. There has been as many as ten known owls occupying the site, including three BUOW pairs on the Reserve utilizing approximately 34 artificial burrows on the Property. A new cluster of artificial burrows would be built for receiving the new owls will be about 300 to 500 feet from the closest occupied burrows.

Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach
The U.S. Navy operates a weapons storage and handling facility in Seal Beach, California. The Station support extensive open space with line-of-site opportunities for BUOW. Ground squirrels, which create burrows, are abundant, providing natural burrows for BUOWs. During 2022 fifty artificial burrows were installed within a burrowing owl management area on the north magazine. The relocation area is protected from intrusions and provides abundance prey for owls. The area historically supported a large population of BUOWs. With a commitment to protecting and restoring native habitats and species, the Navy has committed to re-establishing BUOW habitat providing and managing up to 50 3585
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 19
owls. Between 1992 and 2006, 63 BUOWs were relocated to Seal Beach. Early relocations originated from Etiwanda on behalf of CDFW. Management of the site is being done in partnership with USFWS, the Audubon Society, and the Friends of Seal Beach. An inquiry at the Station indicates that the BUOW population is below capacity and would be able to accommodate the two pairs of owls from the Ontario Airport Site.

5.3 PREPARATION OF THE RELOCATION SITE
Prior to relocation of BUOWs to the chosen relocation site, several steps may be taken to prepare the site for BUOW occupancy: Soil preparation, site contouring, installation of burrows, revegetation and enhancements:
• If needed, soil preparation includes de-compacting soils by ripping the soils to two directions, first against the overlying contours, and then again with the contour. The ripper blades will be 9 inches part and capable of ripping the soil to a depth of 6 to 10 inches. This will break up areas where the clay soils have clumped due to rough grading, making the soils finer and more suitable for installing burrows and conducive for seed germination. • Following the ripping of surface soils, if required, artificial burrows will be installed, in a series of mounds and other topographical relief features, providing site with habitat diversity and increasing the carrying capacity of the site.
• Install two clusters of 10 artificial burrows (20 total artificial burrows) following the best available methods. The proposed locations will correspond to the existing location of BUOW colonies at The HUB @ ONT site.
o Each colony will have a primary burrow enclosure and up to five individual and double burrows. The proposed locations will provide BUOWs immediate foraging habitat in the adjacent vegetated areas, while revegetation/enhancement activities on the relocation site are implemented.

5.4 RELOCATION TO THE RELOCATION SITE
The below methods are typically provided in the CDFW BUOW Amendment and USFWS MBTA permit. The below mentioned methods are those typically requested in the project specific permits and hence these can be modified by the permitting offices as needed. Therefore this plan should not be confused with the project permit or final conditions of approval provided to the permittee (principal investigator – PI)
The BUOWs found within the 197-acre property will be captured and relocated to the chosen relocation site that has been approved by CDFW. In agreement with CDFW, the BUOWs will be captured and released by a permitted biologist with prior experience into a designated conservation area. Trapping methodology is described below in Section 5.6.1. Relocation efforts will provide a more reasonable chance of success for the 2 pairs of BUOWs by reducing potential take and by providing an opportunity for long-term conservation of the BUOWs.
3586
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 20
McDonald Property Group has contacted ELMT to prepare this burrowing owl relocation plan and assist with the relocation of the BUOW from the 197-acre project site to the chosen relocation site.

ELMT will use an approved burrowing owl biologist authorized by the USFWS Migratory Bird Office (Jennifer Brown) and CDFW Sacramento Office (Esther Burkett) and agreed upon by the local CDFW office (Ontario) and USFWS (Palm Springs office), to live-trap and relocate the BUOWs from the project site to the relocation site.

Following relocation, the relocation site will be monitored as defined below in Section 5.7, which will include site assessment during each visit to ensure the continued integrity of artificial burrow complexes, the success of revegetation efforts, an ongoing evaluation and response to evidence of trespassing and the requirements for predator control. Signage will be installed every 100 feet along the perimeter to minimization trespassing. Enhancements and the installation of burrows will be sited to avoid or minimize the exposure to predators. Artificial or manmade perches within the project site that could be used by raptor species will be removed. If monitoring determines that predators are impacting the onsite BUOW populations, potential remedial actions, e.g., removal of raptor perches, installation of raptor deterrents, and removal of raptors, will be discussed with CDFW.

5.4.1 Authorized Trapping and Banding Methods
To relocate BUOW, the biologist who captures and handles BUOWs (including for translocation purposes) in California must maintain the following three permits authorizing BUOW capture and handling:

1. Scientific Collecting Permit from the USFWS’ Division of Migratory Birds (permit office in either Albuquerque or Sacramento) that authorizes BUOW active relocation;

2. Scientific Collecting Permit from CDFW Headquarters in Sacramento, California; and

3. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL) Banding permit that authorizes the capture and marking of BUOW in Riverside County, California.

Every effort will be made to relocate the BUOWs immediately prior to egg-laying to avoid potentially impacting reproductive success. Furthermore, active translocation should be implemented in such a way as to encourage relocated BUOWs to stay at the relocation site. Focused monitoring of the owls will occur leading up to relocation to ensure they are resident BUOWs and paired. Courtship behaviors will be monitored and noted. If BUOWs are known to be copulating during the relocation approval process the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies will be informed of possible time restraints as BUOWs should only be moved prior to egg-laying. If the PI identifies that there is a high potential for eggs to have been laid after close monitoring of BUOW behavior and camera data, then relocation will no longer be viable until after the nesting season.

The authorized trap methods of the BUOWs include:

1. Bow-trap, Swedish goshawk trap, compartment trap, bal-chatri, noose carpet, and one-way door with box at the burrow.

2. Captured BUOWs must be handled and transported in a manner that minimizes stress. 3587
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 21

3. For monitoring purposes, the BUOWs must be banded under the authority of a U.S.

Geological Survey Bird Banding Lab permit prior to release.

4. The USFWS recommends color-banding captured owls to facilitate long-term monitoring.

The USFWS also recommends gathering morphometric data for each BUOW.

5.4.2 Hack Enclosure and Artificial Burrow Requirements The authorized hack enclosure requirements and recommendations include:

1. The permittee will keep family groups together for a minimum of 30 days following relocation in order to increase hunting success and protection from predators.

2. The permittee must provide the BUOWs with food, water, and an adequate number of artificial burrows for shelter (artificial burrow requirements are described in further detail below) while they are held in the hack enclosure. Food may consist of mice, crickets, chicks, and meal worms.

3. The enclosure must be able to withstand stormy weather. The enclosure must also protect the BUOWs from all potential predators, be of sufficient size to enclose the artificial burrow systems and provide sufficient space for flight (minimum 12’ L x 12’ W x 6’ H). The height of the enclosure should be extended to 8’ if there is a possibility that birds may remain in captivity for longer than 30 days to minimize muscle atrophy. • Each Release Enclosure will be 12’x12’x6’ (144 sq. ft.) and consists of 12 panels with each panel being 6’x4’. Each is constructed with wood frames (2”x2”) and heavy gauge steel wire with 1”x1” mesh. Wire mesh is stapled pneumatically into the wood frame every 6” or as necessary. Panels are connected by 2 lag bolts and additional hardware including door hinges, hasps, and combo locks. The enclosure has a bottom, including welded mesh extending outward from the enclosure no less than 3’ to help prevent mammals from digging under and into the cage. A floor made of extra cage panels will also be added to eliminate the possibility of mammals digging into the enclosure. The floor made from additional panels will be covered with soil so the two owls will never encounter or come in contact with the wire. The cage has nylon netting surrounding the outside and top to help prevent avian predators from being able to reach through and grab the owls (Bloom et al. 2003). The release enclosure will be installed prior to the owls being captured.

4. The permittee must dismantle the hack enclosure within 30 days of relocation unless you receive approval for an extension from the USFWS. Leaving BUOWs in an enclosure for too long at the release site can give them a false sense of security and can be an attraction for predators.

5. The permittee must discontinue feeding immediately after dismantling the enclosures.

6. The permittee must remove enclosures and other human artifacts from the relocation site immediately after dismantling the enclosures.

7. The permittee must camouflage all remote monitoring equipment (cameras) and place equipment as far from the enclosure as practical to avoid attracting predators. Cameras must 3588
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 22
be placed 1.5 feet or lower from the ground and be covered by a perch deterrent to minimize predator use as a perch.

8. The USFWS recommends using an enclosure with corners that are as wide-angled as possible to minimize sharp-edge hazards and the risk of injury to owls.

9. Predators can be deterred from digging under the enclosure by installing a few feet of chicken wire or hardware cloth on the ground around the perimeter of the enclosure. Bury the chicken wire or hardware cloth in soil so that predators are unable to determine where the edge of the wire is located.

Artificial burrow system requirements include the following:

1. Each relocated BUOW must be provided with 2-4 burrow chambers at the release site; each relocated BUOW pair must be provided with a minimum of 4 burrow chambers at the release site.

2. The bottom of the burrow chambers must be a minimum of 4 feet below the soil surface. The top of the burrow chambers must be buried under a minimum of 3 feet of soil.

3. Each artificial burrow system must have multiple entrances facing different directions so that the BUOWs can easily escape from predators.

4. Each burrow chamber must have at least one entrance tunnel leading to the soil’s surface.

Tunnels must be at least 8 feet long and constructed of 4-inch corrugated flexible drainpipe.

Tunnels should have a slope of 20-45 degrees between the surface and the nest chamber. Each tunnel must have a 90-degree horizontal turn between the entrance and the nest chamber to help prevent predators from entering the chamber. The drainpipe should only protrude a short distance into the burrow chambers to maximize living space for the BUOWs.

5. The permittee must either install a hollow concrete block at each tunnel entrance at the soil surface, or you must slip a 6-inch rigid PVC pipe over each entrance and pile river rock around each entrance for erosion control and protection from predators.

6. The permittee or the responsible landowner must maintain all artificial burrow systems and surrounding habitat long-term to ensure the site remains suitable for BUOWs. The permittee or the responsible landowner must clean and repair artificial burrows annually. The permittee or the responsible landowner must also manage the vegetation in and around the release site annually to maintain visibility for the BUOWs.

Other Artificial Burrow System Recommendations:

1. The USFWS recommends maximizing the number of artificial burrows at the release site. The USFWS recommends installing more artificial burrows than required to support local BUOWs that may move into the site, in addition to supporting the relocated BUOWs. The quantity and spacing of occupied burrows and satellite burrows at the capture site will help determine the quantity and spacing of burrows that should be provided at the release site.

2. The USFWS recommends using either Wild at Heart’s artificial burrow system design (summarized here) or John H. Barclay’s design (Barclay, 2008, J. Raptor Res. 42(1):53–57).

A wooden burrow chamber design may be used in lieu of the plastic chamber designs. The 3589
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 23
minimum artificial burrow system requirements described above must be implemented regardless of which artificial burrow system design the Permittee chooses.

3. The following is a Summary of Wild at Heart, An Arizona-Based Raptor Rescue’s artificial burrow system design (Greg Clark is available for questions about methods; [email protected] or 480-595-5047). Over-turned 5-gallon plastic buckets may be used as burrow chambers. Four over-turned buckets may be placed side-by-side in a cluster to serve as burrow chambers for each owl pair. The buckets may either be arranged above ground for a mound artificial burrow system or placed inside the bottom of a pit for a subterranean artificial burrow system. A 5-inch diameter hole may be cut in the side of each bucket at the bucket opening for connection to a tunnel. Two of the buckets may be inter-connected with flexible tubing to provide owls with an expanded burrow chamber and a second entrance/exit. Poultry cloth (chicken wire) may be placed under burrow chambers to prevent California ground squirrels and pocket gophers from digging up the soil and filling the chambers and tunnels with soil. Poultry cloth may also be installed around burrow entrances to deter large predators from digging up a burrow.

4. The USFWS recommends installing artificial burrow system about 10 feet apart from each other.

5. Maintenance activities may include grazing, mowing with a push mower, mowing with a mechanical mower with low impact tires, or using a weed eater to reduce annual grass height.

Maintenance may also include keeping area free of trees and shrubs and habitat modification to increase prey populations.

6. The USFWS strongly recommends preventing excessive human and human-related disturbance that can result in excessive flushing of BUOWs or damage to their burrows (e.g., walking, jogging, off-road/dirt bike activity, dog-walking). This also includes controlling loose and feral pets that may chase, injure, and prey upon owls.

5.4.3 BUOW Capture and Release Activities
Once all owls are translocated away from the project site, all burrows and refugia will be excavated and collapsed following the CDFW (2012) guidelines. The primary occupied burrow(s) will be excavated and collapse at The HUB @ ONT project site prior to leaving the site after trapping.

Occupied burrows where BUOWs were captured will be excavated to prevent re-occupation.

One-way doors are installed for 48-72 hours prior at all other suitable burrows to prevent re-occupation of site.

Grading/disturbance of the site will immediately follow burrow excavation and owl relocation to better prevent occupation by any other BUOWs. The enclosures at the relocation site will not be removed until the project site is cleared and graded therefore the developer should eliminate all suitable BUOW habitat features prior to BUOW release.

After capture, relocation and burrow excavations on The HUB @ ONT project site, a letter report will be submitted to all pertinent parties including the Wildlife Agencies within 72 hours of completion. 3590
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 24
The report will include, but not be limited to: capture dates, times, USGS and VID band numbers, and coordinates. Conditions of each bird will be documented including overall health, weight, brood patch, molt, obvious injuries, and presence/absence of ectoparasites. Exact release time and location will also be documented.

While BUOWs are in the release enclosures, qualified staff as named on the List of Authorized Individuals associated with his Scientific Collecting Permit will provide daily feedings of dead house mice (Mus musculus) at a rate of one to two (2) mice per owl per day during the captivity period. Water will also be provided in a 24”x12”x4” plastic tub for drinking or bathing. A small rock is placed in the tub to help any small animals exit if they enter the water. When BUOWs are placed into the release enclosures, feeding visits will take place in the afternoons between 1430 and dusk, however, high temperatures greater than 85 degrees Fahrenheit will be avoided and mice won’t be delivered until near dusk during those conditions, so mice don’t spoil. Feeding events will be conducted in a manner that reduces disturbance to the BUOWs. Feedings are not conducted in the presence of known predators.

Any nearby perched avian predators will be “bumped” from their perches and once safe, feeding of the caged owls will take place. Feedings do not require entering the enclosures; however, entry may be required to add water or remove any rotten mice that could attract predators.

During each site visit, the biologist will conduct a rapid evaluation of the release enclosures, visually assess owl health and document problems from trespassers and/or predators (coyotes, weasels, feral dogs, hawks, falcons, and great horned owls). Visits will be conducted as quickly as possible to reduce disturbance to the owls and the entire relocation site. Monitoring forms will have a comments section to address changes in habitat(s), management or any concerns. Additionally, any concerns that may conflict with the success of the relocation will be reported to the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies immediately.

During each visit, authorized individuals will fill out an electronic monitoring form on an application used on smart devices, or will fill out hand written forms. Forms will be used as part of the annual reporting process.

While BUOWs are in the release enclosure, camera traps will be placed approximately 15-30 feet south of the enclosure for a wide angle of the surrounding area and another inside the enclosure. The cameras will generally face north away from the sun resulting in better images. Cameras will be camouflaged, and bird spikes will be attached to camera cases to prevent perching by avian predators. Selected images from wildlife cameras will be provided with the final report. Cameras will be checked no later than every seven days, with every 2-3 days being the preference, in order to detect any significant issues in a timely manner and take effective action. Issues that may affect the survival of the BUOWs and the success of the translocation project will be reported. Significant issues would include any threats to BUOW health (e.g., high infestation of stick-tight fleas; or behavioral abnormalities, e.g., lethargy) or survival that may affect the success of the relocation project. Any issues and corrective actions will also be discussed in the final report.

Enclosures will be removed (and BUOWs will be released) when BUOWs have laid a complete clutch of eggs and are well into the incubation stage. Egg laying dates vary, and some pairs ultimately may 3591
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 25
not lay eggs. Therefore, if owls do not appear to be nesting, BUOWs will be released after agency consultation and coordination (CDFW Headquarters and Regional staff and USFWS MBTA office). If nesting is not confirmed within the first 30 days of captivity in the enclosure, all pertinent parties will be notified and will discuss the situation and agree upon a plan. Esther Burkett, CDFW, will be consulted in regard to any caging extension beyond 30 days and if extension is allowed, CDFW shall authorize such via email.

When BUOWs are ready to be released, the enclosure(s) will then be carefully dismantled by two or more people and immediately removed and taken offsite. Adult BUOWs will generally flush down the burrow tunnel when the enclosure is entered by humans, however, if the owls don’t flush down the burrow tunnel, they will be captured with a butterfly net and be released down the burrow tunnel at which point a towel will be placed in the burrow entrance to prevent escape. Once the human disturbance is complete and enclosure parts removed, the towel is removed so the owls can emerge safely. This event is timed such that owls emerge as close to dusk as possible so there is less risk of predation by local resident or migrant diurnal predators.

Supplemental Feeding:

Supplemental feeding shall occur in a carefully monitored way during both the acclimation period immediately following enclosure removal and through the fledgling stage, but feeding amount or frequency can be decreased or discontinued, if deemed necessary by the PI, based on camera footage, and observations and careful notes taken by the site monitors. Assessments of supplemental food that remains uneaten at each burrow will be conducted by the authorized individuals, throughout the season.

The amount of supplemental food provisioning shall be tailored to the number and life stage of owls at each burrow. The PI can select their own protocol as needed to better suit the unique situation presented by the relocation. Supplemental feeding following hacking enclosure removal will be implemented with triggers based on site conditions, the PI prior data and experience, and additionally considering the feeding protocol and factors identified below:
• Feeding protocol utilized by the San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research in past studies, with the caveats as noted in federal and state scientific collecting permits that feeding quantity and frequency can be adaptively managed depending on the needs of the owls, predator activity, and in keeping with minimizing human disturbance but also maximizing successful breeding and fledging of young.

San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research feeding protocol used in past studies (for reference):

Provide food on Mondays (for 2 days [Mon and Tues]), Wednesdays (for 2 days [Wed and Thurs]), and Fridays (for 3 days [Fri, Sat, Sun]), but feeding could possibly occur daily if there are sufficient personnel. One benefit of feeding every other day is reducing the amount of disturbance time. The feeding schedule is provided below with the amounts and frequency of feeding. Begin to wean the owls down 2 weeks after fledging and examine pellet contents throughout the season to keep rough track of wild prey utilized by the owls (i.e. wild prey remains versus white mice). Provide the mice 3592
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 26
inside the burrows (chambers, if possible, or a few feet down the tunnels) to minimize attracting predators such as ravens and coyotes. Reduce the amount of mice if the owls are not consuming all of them (aim for 2-3 leftover mice, maximum, at each visit).

Remove most of the uneaten mice (the owls do cache food, but aim to reduce the presence of many decayed mice). Guidelines for feeding schedule are noted in the chart below.

Qualified staff will provide feedings. Based on the PI’s experience, a rate of one (1) mouse per owlet every other day is often used as a starting point. The feeding rate will be adjusted as necessary, based on the results of the periodic detailed assessments described below and in consideration of the protocols and factors listed above. For example, if the detailed assessment indicates there is too much food (prey remains are plentiful inside/outside the burrow, then supplemental feeding may be reduced to one (1) mouse per owlet every three days. The supplemental feeding rate would be tapered/reduced until the supplemental feeding is determined no longer necessary and stopped. The duration of supplemental feeding is proposed to occur as needed for up to 30 days post fledging, unless extenuating circumstances exist (e.g. if adults leave the site, etc.) or it is determined necessary to continue for successful rearing of the young and/or survival of the adults. Mice not consumed from the prior feeding will be removed and noted in the daily log (described below).

The frequency of detailed assessments will generally occur once per week but may vary and will be based on the goals of limiting disturbance to the owls, while gaining information often enough to sustain the offspring and encourage adults to remain on the site. The level of disturbance will be gauged by the owls’ behavior. Considerations will include but not be limited to the following, as applicable, based on the life stage of the young:
• Examination inside the burrow tunnel and outside the burrow for prey remains.

In order to avoid unnecessary disturbance and possible nest abandonment, the nest chamber shall only be examined when necessary, as determined by the PI. 3593
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 27
• Observation of patterns in adult male/female foraging and feeding of live prey to the young owlets, and older juveniles in late Summer and early Fall. • If adult owls abandon the site, supplemental feeding may be needed to sustain the young owls to fledging stage.
• Examination of quantity and size (e.g., small mammals vs. invertebrates) of natural prey remains in the immediate vicinity of the burrow.

Annual and final reports shall contain detailed information on the supplemental feeding effort and recommendations in regard to such for any future translocation efforts. The involved agencies understand that predators (e.g., coyotes, ravens) may be attracted to uneaten supplemental prey remains and could pose a risk to survival of the adults or chicks, in addition to causing owls to abandon the site. The agencies will rely on the monitoring results conveyed by the PI to determine how to proceed as the translocation effort unfolds. Because methods for owl translocation are still being tested and different sites present unique challenges, an adaptive management approach is needed, and close consultation between the PI and the agencies will be required throughout the translocation and monitoring effort.

5.5 POST-RELEASE MONITORING
Monitoring will be conducted through the first three breeding seasons beginning immediately following release. Monitoring will be conducted three times a week during the breeding season and weekly outside the breeding season. Cameras may be used to monitor activity to minimize disturbance at the release site. Monitoring will also include assessing the mitigation area to ensure the continued integrity of artificial burrow complexes, the success of revegetation efforts, effectiveness of control of trespassing, the requirements to control predator. Signage will be installed every 100 feet along the perimeter to minimization trespassing. Fencing may be required if trespassing become a management issue and will be discussed with CDFW prior to actions being taken. Enhancements and the installation of burrows will be sited to avoid or minimize the exposure to predators. Perches within the project site that could be used by raptor species will be removed. If monitoring determines that predators are impacting the onsite BUOW populations, remedial actions such as the installation of deterrents and/or the removal of predator birds, will be discussed with CDFW.

The detailed description of the monitoring efforts are described below that will be followed to better increase the chances of a successful relocation. Monitoring will be conducted by the approved BUOW biologist and qualified personnel.

1. Monitoring events should be conducted every third day post-release for the first 30 days. A simple windshield survey from points where all burrows can be viewed will be adequate unless BUOWs are not observed. Monitoring should take place during periods of BUOW activity (morning or evening) and in the absence of obvious avian predators. If BUOWs are not observed, quick pedestrian surveys of the release area should be conducted. If BUOWs are subsequently detected, the surveys will halt to reduce disturbance.

2. During the post-release monitoring phase, camera traps will be deployed to assist with data collection. This will help determine presence/absence and reduce site disturbance. 3594
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 28

3. If BUOWs are present on the release site after 30 days post release, monitoring efforts will continue typically once-twice weekly with camera maintenance while they are present. The frequency of monitoring will be based on BUOW behavior and predator presence. Once a week monitoring is conducted only through fledging and supplemental feeding. Monitoring twice a month is conducted during the non-breeding season (relying on cameras) for most of the information. Monitoring will be less often if owls seem to be disturbed by presence of monitors, and if the site has predators that are following monitors around or attracted to the area (learning routines of feeding for example), then the frequency of site visits may be further reduced.

4. If breeding takes place during 2023, all young will be banded. Any unbanded BUOWs observed within the release area will also be banded (if captured) for monitoring purposes. Capture forms will be including with required reporting.

5. After the 2023 breeding season is complete, the site will continue to be monitored once to twice weekly with monthly camera maintenance and agency submittals will continue through the nonbreeding season. The monitoring frequency will depend on number of BUOWs present and as noted above, the level of disturbance to the BUOWs (indicated by the owls’ behavior) as well as potential modification to predator behavior/patterns. Each monitoring event will include a rapid assessment of the site as to reduce human activity. Most visits will last only a few minutes and surveys can generally take place from the vehicle. If BUOWs are absent from the site for one month, surveys will be reduced to monthly site visits. However, if the owl numbers decline over the 3-year period, so will the monitoring effort (accordingly). Also, if the PI believes management actions are needed to increase success, the PI we will do so as needed during the appropriate seasons.

During the 2023 breeding season (April-August) additional monitoring will take place to document presence/absence, nesting, and reproduction. Banding will occur for any young produced or new adults to further report on success during years two and three.

Predator Management
The county of riverside will obtain a depredation permit from the USFWS MBTA office and CDFW that allows them and the PI (and his subs) to haze and harass wildlife that are causing impacts to the relocation that would reduce the success of the relocation.

5.6 REPORTING
Three annual reports (and/or when the approved biologist encounters problems) will be submitted to the RCA and Wildlife Agencies through the conclusion of the 2023 nesting season. Memoranda will be prepared for the RCA after relocation efforts as needed. The RCA and County Parks shall be notified within 48 hours if there are problems on the release sites, such as predator risk, trespass, vandalism, other incompatible activities, or other concerns the approved biologist may encounter. Should any one serious injury (compromising survival in the wild) or mortality of burrowing owls or other species occur as a result of the methods, the Wildlife Agencies will be notified by phone within 24 hours, and the injury/mortality event must be described in the annual report. A separate detailed report of the injury/mortality incident, including photographs, must also be sent via email to the Wildlife Agencies within 3 days of the incident (or as detailed in the approved biologist’s permits). 3595
Relocation Plan
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 29
A completed Annual Report Form 3-202-1 shall be submitted to the Migratory Bird Permit Office (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Permit Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2606, Sacramento, CA 95825) by January 31st each year for two years post-release. Copies of this report will also be submitted to USFWS Palm Springs and CDFW (Sacramento and Ontario). The report shall also provide a written summary describing results of the translocation efforts (i.e., geographic coordinates of capture site, release site, U.S. Geological Survey band numbers, breeding activity, movements, physical condition of the birds, predation, etc.). Upon completion of the project, a final report documenting the overall number of BUOWs relocated (including artificial burrows) and burrows excavated shall be submitted to USFWS, CDFW, and other cooperating agencies.

A comprehensive final report describing the results of the project over the three-year period of work will be prepared summarizing the results of the monitoring and relocation efforts as described in this relocation plan written in scientific format including introduction, methods, results, discussion, recommendations, literature cited, and appendices for monitoring data, photos, and banding forms. This comprehensive report may be combined with the year 2 annual report, if appropriate.

All reporting will follow the terms and conditions of the approved biologist’s permits and will be submitted to the respective agencies.
3596
Colton Dunes Conservation Bank
THE HUB @ ONT

BURROWING OWL RELOCATION PLAN
Exhibit 5
O
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, San Bernardino County
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Legend
Colton Dune Conservation Bank
3597
Lake
Perris
Mystic
Lake
Gilman Springs Rd
Ramona Expy
Hansen Ave
Lakeview Ave
Davis Rd
Martin St
Ramona Expy
D3
D4
D7
D1
D2
D13
D6
D9
D14
D5
D15
D12
D10
D11
D5
D8
THE HUB @ ONT

BURROWING OWL RELOCATION PLAN
Nuevo Donation Site
Exhibit 6
° 0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Source: Riverside County, NearMaps 2016
Legend
Nuevo Donation Site
San Jacinto Wildlife Area - Davis Unit
Management Subunits
Existing Upland / Wetland Dog Training Area
Existing Riparian Restoration Area
3598
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 32
Section 6 Conclusion
During the 2022 breeding season, two pairs of BUOWs were observed to have successfully breed on the 197-acre The HUB @ ONT site in the eastern flight corridor at the Ontario International Airport.

Based on the results of the 2022 breeding season focused surveys, these two pairs of BUOWs will be actively relocated prior to egg laying during the 2023 breeding season (end of February/beginning of March) to a relocation site to allow the two pairs to continue to breed. The vacated project site will subsequently be developed, removing all BUOW habitat.

Based upon an assessment of the available relocation sites presented in Section 5 above, we recommend proceeding with the relocation of the aforementioned BUOWs to the Nuevo Donation Site. The selected relocation site will provide the best long-term solution suitable for propagation and conservation of the BUOWs from eastern flight corridor at the Ontario International Airport.

McDonald Property Group will contract with an approved burrowing owl biologist to conduct the relocation of the BUOWs from The HUB @ ONT project site as approved by CDFW and USFWS MBTA offices.
3599
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 33
Section 7 References
Barclay, J.H. 2008. A Simple Artificial Burrow Design for Burrowing Owls. J. Raptor Res. 42 (1): 53-

57. Bloom, P.H. J.W. Kidd, J.W. Johnson, S.H. Weldy, J.R. Bradley, E. Henckel and J Henckel. 2003.

Notes on the effectiveness of burrowing owl translocations in southern California. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November, Sacramento, CA.

Bloom, P. H, Clark, W.C. and J.W. Kidd. 2007. Capture Techniques pages 193-219 in D.M. Bird and K.L. Bildstein, Raptor Research and Management Techniques. Raptor Research Foundation.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Accessed on the internet at:
www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/boconsortium.pdf
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 7, 2012.

Coulombe, H.N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia) in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73: 162-176.

Daily Bulletin. https://www.dailybulletin.com/2020/03/25/the-fate-of-burrowing-owls-near-ontarioairport-up-in-the-air/ Haug, E.A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, Birds of North America, No. 61. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Science; Washington DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Johnson, D.H., Gillis, D.C., Gregg, M.A., Rebholz, J.L., Lincer, J.L., and Belthoff, J.R. 2010. Users Guide to Installation of Artificial Burrows for Burrowing Owls. August 19, 2010.

Martin, D.J. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75:446-456 McDonald, D., N.M. Korfanta, and S.J. Lantz. 2004. The Burrowing Owl: A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, and Species Conservation Project. Accessed online at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/burrowingowl.pdf Ramsen, Jr., J.V. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. Non-game Wildlife Investigations. Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report No78-1. Report prepared for California Department of Fish and Game.
3600
References
The HUB @ ONT
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan 34
San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research. Assessing California’s Mitigation Guidelines for Burrowing Owls Impacted By Development.

San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research (SDZ ICR). 2017. Burrowing Owl Conservation and Management Plan for San Diego County. San Diego, CA. 85 pp.

S.M. Hennessy et. al. 2020. Release Strategies and Ecological Factors Influence Mitigation Translocation Outcome for Burrowing Owls: a comprehensive evaluation.

Trulio, L.A. 1995. Passive relocation: a method to preserve burrowing owls on disturbed sites. J.

Field Ornithology. 66:99-106.

Varland, D.E, J.A. Smallwood, L.S. Young, and M.N. Kochert. 2007. Marking Techniques pages 221- 236 in D.M. Bird and K.L. Bildstein, Raptor Research and Management Techniques. Raptor Research Foundation. Hancock House Publishers, Surrey, British Columbia. 3601
Appendix A 2022 Burrowing Owl Survey Report
3602
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road
Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618
949.234.8770 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
September 1, 2022 03902.00002.001
Mr. John Pierce, Sr. Vice President
McDonald Property Group
1140 North Coast Highway
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Subject: 2022 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Survey Report for the California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project
Dear Mr. John Pierce:

This letter presents the results of the 2022 focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) survey conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project (project). The survey was conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (formerly California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2012).1 This letter describes the methods used to perform the survey and the results.

SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY
Numerous suitable burrow and burrow surrogates were observed throughout the project site. Two burrows (Nest Nos. 1 and 2) with breeding pairs and juveniles were detected. Six additional burrows (Alternate Burrow [AB] Nos. 1 through 6) were also noted, which were used by BUOWS for cover.

PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is generally located 0.7 mile to the west of Interstate (I-) 15 and 3 miles to the south of I10 in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). It is depicted within Section 25 of Township 1 South, Range 7 West of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Guasti quadrangle map (Figure 2, USGS Topography). Specifically, the project site is located west and east of S Commerce Parkway and north and south of E Santa Ana Street (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). 1 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resource Agency. March 7.
3603
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 2 of 8
September 1, 2022

PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
The approximately 218-acre project site consists of disturbed habitat with primarily non-native annuals and grasses, such as Hordeum spp. Bromus spp., Malva spp., and Sisymbrium spp. Native Amsinckia spp. was also observed throughout the site. Soils within the project site solely consist of Delhi fine sand. 2 The
topography of the project site is mostly flat, with elevations ranging from 900 feet (274 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL) near the southeast corner to 942 feet (287 meters) AMSL near the southwest corner. The project site is bounded by Ontario International Airport to the west, and industrial and commercial properties to the north, east, and south.

Representative photographs of the project site are shown in Attachment A, Representative Site Photos.

METHODS
Part I: Habitat Assessment and Focused Burrow Survey
Prior to conducting the habitat assessment, HELIX consulted the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to determine the nearest BUOW occurrence(s).3 HELIX biologists John Gardner, Robert Hogenauer, Jessica Lee, and Daniel Torres conducted a habitat assessment on March 3, 2022, to determine whether the project site supports suitable BUOW habitat. A focused burrow survey was conducted concurrently with the habitat assessment. All suitable burrows (i.e., greater than approximately four inches [11 cm] in height and width and greater than approximately 59 inches [50 cm] in depth) and burrow surrogates were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) unit.

The habitat assessment and focused burrow survey were conducted concurrently with the first focused survey (see Part II described below). The assessment was conducted on the project site and included an approximately 500-foot (150-m) buffer zone around the periphery of the project site (survey area).

Inaccessible areas of the survey area, including private land behind fences, were visually assessed using binoculars. The survey area was slowly walked and assessed for suitable BUOW habitat, including:
• disturbed, low-growing vegetation within grassland and shrublands (less than 30 percent canopy cover);
• gently rolling or level terrain;
• areas with abundant small mammal burrows, especially California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows;
• fence posts, rocks, or other low perching locations; and • artificial structures, such as earthen berms, debris piles, and cement culverts. 2 Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Retrieved from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.Aspx. Accessed July 14, 2022. 3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database and Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Sacramento, California. Retrieved from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

Accessed July 14, 2022.
3604
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 3 of 8
September 1, 2022
All potential owl burrows were checked for signs of recent owl occupation. Signs of occupation include:
• pellets/casting (regurgitated fur, bones, and/or insect parts); • white wash (excrement); and/or
• feathers.

Part II: Focused Burrowing Owl Survey
Because suitable habitat and burrows were observed within the survey area during the habitat assessment, focused BUOW surveys were conducted to determine whether the survey area supports BUOW. The focused surveys consisted of four breeding season surveys performed by Mr. Gardner, Mr.

Hogenauer, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Torres, and HELIX Biologists Matthew Dimson and Shawn Carroll between March 3 and July 8, 2022. The surveys were spaced at least three weeks apart, with at least one survey conducted between February 15 and April 15, and the remaining three surveys conducted between April 15 and July 15, with at least one of these surveys occurring after June 15 (Table 1, Survey Information).

The biologists walked transects spaced no greater than approximately 65 feet apart (20 meters) to allow for 100 percent visual coverage of all suitable habitat within the survey area. The biologists walked slowly and methodically, closely checking suitable habitat within the survey area for BUOW diagnostic sign (e.g., molted feathers, pellets/castings, or whitewash at or near a burrow entrance) and individual BUOW. If observed, BUOW sign and BUOW observations were recorded with a GPS unit. Inaccessible areas of the survey area were visually assessed using binoculars.

Table 1

SURVEY INFORMATION
Survey
Visit Date Biologist(s) Time (Start/Stop)
Weather Conditions
(Start/Stop) Results
11 03/03/22 John Gardner
Robert Hogenauer
Jessica Lee
Daniel Torres
0610/0910 51°F, wind 0-1 mph,
30% clouds
62°F, wind 1-3 mph,
55% clouds
• Suitable BUOW habitat and burrows
were identified within the survey area.
• No BUOWs were observed during this
focused survey.
2 04/21/22 Shawn Carroll
Matthew Dimson
Jessica Lee
Daniel Torres
0630/1000 52°F, wind 0-1 mph,
1% clouds
61°F, wind 3-5 mph,
1% clouds
• Two adult BUOWs were observed near
Nest No. 1, which is an earthen burrow
located on the west side of Carnegie
Avenue and approximately 900 feet
north of E Santa Ana Street.
• One adult BUOW was observed near
Nest No. 2, which is an earthen burrow
located on the west side of Carnegie
Avenue and approximately 630 feet
north of E Santa Ana Street.
• One adult BUOW was observed near AB
No. 1, which is an earthen burrow
located on the west side of Carnegie
Avenue and approximately 600 feet
south of E Santa Ana Street.
3605
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 4 of 8
September 1, 2022
Survey
Visit Date Biologist(s) Time (Start/Stop)
Weather Conditions
(Start/Stop) Results
3 05/18/22 Matthew Dimson
Shawn Carroll
Jessica Lee
Daniel Torres
0610/0930 55°F, wind 1-2 mph,
100% clouds
64°F, wind 2-3 mph,
100% clouds
• Two adult BUOWs and two juvenile
BUOWs were observed near Nest No. 1.
• Two adult BUOWs and four juvenile
BUOWs were observed near Nest No. 2
• One adult BUOW was observed near AB
No. 2, which is a vertical corrugated
metal pipe storm drain riser located on
the east side of Carnegie Avenue and
approximately 400 feet north of E Santa
Ana Street.
4 07/08/22 Shawn Carroll
Matthew Dimson
John Gardner
Daniel Torres
0620/0930 64°F, wind 1-2 mph,
10% clouds
73°F, wind 0-1 mph,
1% clouds
Due to the timing of the breeding season
and the maturity of the juveniles, only
individuals were noted, given juveniles and
adults were difficult to differentiate.
• One BUOW individual was observed
near AB No. 3, which is an earthen
burrow located approximately 650 feet
to the southwest of the intersection of
E Airport Drive and Carnegie Avenue.
• Two BUOW individuals were observed
near AB No. 4, which is a storm drain
riser located on the east side of
Carnegie Avenue and approximately
840 feet north of E Santa Ana Street.

Individuals from Nest No. 1 are
presumably using this burrow as an
alternate burrow based on its
proximity to the nest location and
observation of individuals flushing from
the nest to this burrow. 2
• Two BUOW individuals were observed
near AB No. 5, which is a storm drain
riser located on the west side of
Carnegie Avenue and approximately
660 feet north of E Santa Ana Street.

Individuals from Nest No. 2 are
presumably using this burrow as an
alternate burrow based on its
proximity to the nest location and
observation of individuals flushing from
the nest to this burrow. 2
• Two BUOW individuals were observed
near AB No. 6, which is an earthen
burrow located on the west side of
Carnegie Avenue and approximately
600 feet south of E Santa Ana Avenue. 1 This survey included the habitat assessment and focused burrow survey. 2 Alternate burrows used by BUOWs associated with Nests No. 1 and 2 are indicated by arrows shown on Figure 5. 3606
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 5 of 8
September 1, 2022

RESULTS
CNDDB Record Review
There is a CNDDB record (Occurrence No. 1788) of BUOWs within the survey area, which between one and four breeding pairs were recorded between 2007 and 2013.4 Four additional populations have been
recorded on CNDDB within 1.5 miles of the project site. These CNDDB records are described below:
• CNDDB Occurrence No. 561: A BUOW population was documented within and adjacent to the existing Toyota Arena in the City of Ontario, approximately 0.75 mile north of the project site.

Multiple breeding pairs and juveniles were documented at this location between 2002 and 2016, including prior to and after the Toyota Arena was constructed in 2007. • CNDDB Occurrence No. 636: A BUOW population was recorded north of E 4th Street, east of Richmond Place, south of Mission Park Drive, and west of Buffalo Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This population was recorded approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site.

Nesting BUOWs were observed in 2003. The population is presumed extirpated since the habitat appears to have been developed sometime between 2015 and 2016 based on aerial imagery.5

• CNDDB Occurrence No. 664: A BUOW breeding pair and juveniles were documented in 2003 near the intersection of Vanderbilt Street and S Auto Center Drive in the City of Ontario, approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the project site. Based on the record description, these individuals were evicted outside of the nesting season in 2003. The site was developed sometime in 2003 based on aerial imagery.
6 The remaining suitable habitat appears to be
present directly to the northwest and south of the developed site. • CNDDB Occurrence No. 1044: A BUOW population was recorded east of S Haven Avenue, south of E Francis Street, and west of Dupont Avenue in the City of Ontario. This population was recorded approximately 0.3 mile south of the project site. Seven BUOWS were recorded at this location in 2006. This population is presumed extirpated since the habitat appears to have been developed sometime between 2008 and 2009 based on aerial imagery,7 although remaining suitable habitat appears to be present directly to the south and southeast of the developed site.

Survey Results
Suitable BUOW habitat was observed within the survey area during the habitat assessment conducted on March 3, 2022, including low-growing vegetation within the non-native grassland. Several burrows and burrow surrogates, such as vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain risers, which could 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database and Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Sacramento, California. Retrieved from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

Accessed August 1, 2022. 5 Google Earth. 2022. Aerial imagery of 34.080104°, -117.551433°. Aerial Imagery from February 9, 2016. Retrieved from:
https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed August 19, 2022. 6 Google Earth. 2022. Aerial imagery of 34.046098°, -117.545772°. Aerial Imagery from November 30, 2003. Retrieved from:
https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed August 19, 2022. 7 Google Earth. 2022. Aerial imagery of 34.042164°, -117.571124°. Aerial Imagery from January 31, 2009. Retrieved from:
https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed August 19, 2022. 3607
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 6 of 8
September 1, 2022
potentially be used by BUOWs, were observed throughout the survey area (Figure 4, Suitable Burrows).

Suitable foraging habitat was observed within and adjacent to the survey area.

Two burrows (Nest Nos. 1 and 2), with breeding pairs and juveniles, were detected within the project site (Figure 5, Nests and Alternate Burrows). Six alternate burrows, (AB Nos. 1 through 6) were also noted throughout the project site (Figure 5), and these burrows were used by BUOWs for cover. A summary of observations is provided below:
• Nest No. 1 is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 900 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW pair was observed near the burrow entrance during the first survey. Two adult BUOWs and two juvenile BUOWs were noted during the second survey. No BUOWs were noted at this burrow during the first or fourth surveys. • Nest No. 2 is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 630 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW was observed next to an earthen burrow during the second survey. Two adult BUOWs and four BUOW juveniles were observed during the third survey. No BUOWs were observed during the first or fourth surveys. • AB No. 1 is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 600 feet south of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW was observed during the second survey.

No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, third, or fourth surveys. • AB No. 2 is a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser located on the east side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 400 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW was observed near the storm drain riser during the third survey. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or fourth surveys.
• AB No. 3 is an earthen burrow located approximately 650 feet to the southwest of the intersection of E Airport Drive and Carnegie Avenue. One BUOW individual was observed during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys. • AB No. 4 is a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser located on the east side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 840 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Two BUOW individuals were observed during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys. BUOWs from Nest No. 1 are presumably using this burrow as an alternate burrow based on its proximity to the nest location and observation of individuals flushing from the nest to this burrow.
• AB No. 5 is a storm drain riser located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 660 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Four individuals were noted during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys. BUOWs from Nest No. 2 are presumably using this burrow as an alternate burrow based on its proximity to the nest location and observation of individuals flushing from the nest to this burrow. 3608
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 7 of 8
September 1, 2022
• AB No. 6 is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 600 feet south of E Santa Ana Avenue. Two BUOW individuals were observed during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys.

OTHER SITE CONDITIONS
Wildlife photographers were noted in close proximity to Nest No. 1 during the second and third surveys (see Photograph 1 in Attachment A). An unknown person installed a perch consisting of a tree branch outside of Nest Nos. 1 and 2 (see Photographs 1 and 2 in Attachment A). There are numerous suitable raptor perches within and adjacent to the project site, which consists of tall ornamental trees and light poles. Raptors and/or sign of use (e.g., white wash) were observed on multiple suitable perching locations (Figure 6, Observed Raptor Perches).

CONCLUSION
Numerous suitable burrow and burrow surrogates were observed throughout the project site (Figure 4).

Two burrows (Nest Nos. 1 and 2) with breeding pairs and juveniles were detected (Figure 5). Six alternate burrows (AB Nos. 1 through 6) were also noted (Figure 5), which were used by BUOWs for cover.

A take avoidance (pre-construction) survey is required within 14 days prior to ground disturbance ground-disturbing activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and/or grubbing), in accordance with CDFW Staff Report on BUOW Mitigation. If BUOW(s) are observed during the take avoidance survey, a BUOW Exclusion Plan and Mitigation Management Plan must be prepared and coordinated with CDFW prior to ground disturbance.
8 If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter report, please contact Ezekiel Cooley at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Ezekiel Cooley Jessica Lee
Regulatory Specialist/Biology Project Manager Biologist/Assistant Biology Project Manager Matthew Dimson Daniel Torres
Biologist Biologist
8 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resource Agency. March 7.
3609
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 8 of 8
September 1, 2022
John Gardner Shawn Carroll
Biologist Biologist
Enclosures:

Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: USGS Topography
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
Figure 4: Suitable Burrows
Figure 5: Nests and Alternate Burrows
Figure 6: Observed Raptor Perches
Attachment A: Representative Site Photos
3610
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!!!
! !! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
Ô?
×?
×?
×?
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"a$ !"`$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
å?
å?
ì?
ø?
?a
?s
?u
?z
?z
?z
?¥
?¬
?°
?± ?±
?±
?¹
?¹
?¹
?Æ
?Æ
?Æ ?Æ
IÆ
%&d(
%&e(
Aå
Aí
Añ
Añ
Am
%&g(
%&g(
%&h(
%&h(
%&h(
AÎ
AÐ
AÝ
%&l(
%&l(
%&l(
%&l(
%&o(
%&o(
%&q(
!
Project Site
Lee
Lake
CULVER
CITY
SANTA
MONICA

TORRANCE

INGLEWOOD

BEVERLY
HILLS

PASADENA

BURBANK

GLENDALE
POMONA

WHITTIER
LONG
BEACH
LOS

ANGELES
PALOS
VERDES
WEST
COVINA

NORWALK
CARSON
DOWNEY
SAN

GABRIEL

COMPTON

HOLLYWOOD

NEWPORT
BEACH
SANTA
ANA

MISSION
VIEJO
LAGUNA
BEACH

ANAHEIM
LA
HABRA
BUENA
PARK

WESTMINSTER

HUNTINGTON
BEACH

ONTARIO
AZUZA

RIVERSIDE
CORONA
CHINO
LAKE

ELSINORE

SAN BERNARDINO

HESPERIA
IRVINE
San Gabriel Mountains
Santa Ana Mountains
San Bernardino Mountains

ORANGE COUNTY

MURRIETA
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY

BANNING

BEAUMONT
HEMET

SAN JACINTO
PERRIS
Big Bear Lake
Alvord
Perris
Reservoir
Lake
Mathews
Canyon
Lake
Lake
Elsinore
Skinner
Reservoir
Diamond
Valley Lake
Figure 1
Regional Location
\\IrvineDC\Vol3\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig1_Regional : 03902.00002.001 : 7/28/2022 - DY Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) K
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 10 Miles
3611
Figure 2
USGS Topography
\\IrvineDC\Vol3\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig2_USGS : 03902.00002.001 : 7/28/2022 - DY Source: GUASTI 7.5' Quad (USGS)
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 2,000 Feet
K
Project Site
3612
Slater
Cir
Guasti Rd
Lowell St
Haven Ave
Dupont St
Airport Dr
Santa Ana St
Jurupa St
Brickell St
Carnegie Ave
Doubleday Ave
Commerce Pkwy
East 'a' St East A St
S.p.r.r. Rr
La Salle St
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
\\IrvineDC\Vol3\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig3_Aerial : 03902.00002.001 : 7/28/2022 - DY Source: Aerial (San Bernardino County, 2020) K
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 750 Feet
Project Site
3613
Slater
Cir
Guasti Rd
Lowell St
Haven Ave
Dupont St
Airport Dr
Santa Ana St
Jurupa St
Brickell St
Carnegie Ave
Doubleday Ave
Commerce Pkwy
East 'a' St East A St
S.p.r.r. Rr
La Salle St
Figure 4
Suitable Burrows
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig4_SuitableBurrows : 03902.00002.001 : 8/19/2022 - DY Source: Aerial (San Bernardino County, 2020) K
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 750 Feet
Project Site
Survey Area - 500-ft Buffer
Suitable Burrow
3614
Slater
Cir
Guasti Rd
Lowell St
Haven Ave
Dupont St
Airport Dr
Santa Ana St
Jurupa St
Brickell St
Carnegie Ave
Doubleday Ave
Commerce Pkwy
East 'a' St East A St
S.p.r.r. Rr
La Salle St
Nest No. 2
4/21/2022 - 1 individual
5/18/2022 - 6 individuals
Alternate Burrow No. 4
7/8/2022 - 2 individuals
Alternate Burrow No. 6
7/8/2022 - 2 individuals
Alternate Burrow No. 3
7/8/2022 - 1 individual
Alternate Burrow No. 2
5/18/2022 - 1 invididual
Nest No. 1
4/21/2022 - 2 individuals
5/18/2022 - 4 individuals
Alternate Burrow No. 1
4/21/2022 - 1 individual
Alternate Burrow No. 5
7/8/2022 - 4 individuals
Figure 5
Nests and Alternate Burrows
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig5_NestsAlternateBurrows : 03902.00002.001 : 8/31/2022 - DY Source: Aerial (San Bernardino County, 2020) K
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 750 Feet
Project Site
Survey Area - 500-ft Buffer
Nest No. 1
Alternate Burrow No. 4
Nest No. 2
Alternate Burrow No. 5
Alternate Burrow
Note: arrows indicate alternate burrows
used by individuals from nests.
3615
Slater
Cir
Guasti Rd
Lowell St
Haven Ave
Dupont St
Airport Dr
Santa Ana St
Jurupa St
Brickell St
Carnegie Ave
Doubleday Ave
Commerce Pkwy
East 'a' St East A St
S.p.r.r. Rr
La Salle St
Figure 6
Observed Raptor Perches
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig6_ObservedPerches : 03902.00002.001 : 8/19/2022 - DY Source: Aerial (San Bernardino County, 2020) K
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 750 Feet
Project Site
Survey Area - 500-ft Buffer
Obseved Raptor Perch
3616
H:\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\00002_OIALogisticsCenterBUOW\_Reports\BUOW\Attachment A\Photos Representative Site Photos
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project Photograph 1: View of Nest No. 1, facing west. This burrow is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue, approximately 900 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Successful breeding (two juveniles) were documented at this burrow. Photographers were observed near this burrow during the second and third surveys. Photograph taken on April 21, 2022.

Photograph 2: View of Nest No. 2, facing west. This burrow is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue, approximately 630 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Successful breeding (four juveniles) was documented at this burrow. Photograph taken on May 18, 2022.

Attachment A 3617
H:\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\00002_OIALogisticsCenterBUOW\_Reports\BUOW\Attachment A\Photos Representative Site Photos
Attachment A
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project Photograph 3: View of Alternate Burrow No. 4, facing east. This burrow consists of a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser located and is located on the east side of Carnegie Avenue, approximately 840 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Photograph taken on May 18, 2022.

Photograph 4: View of Alternate Burrow No. 5, facing west. This burrow consists of a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue, approximately 660 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Photograph taken on Photograph taken on July 8, 2022.
3618
From: Brantley, Michelle
To: Suzanne C. Thompson
Subject: RE: Burrowing Owls
Attachments: image002.png
Helix Ont BUOW with Permits_Revised.pdf
Hi Suzanne,
Thanks for your note. I did receive the report yesterday afternoon. I reviewed it today and am attaching it to this email.

The biologist’s assessment concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. As I mentioned to you before, I did discuss the draft report with the FAA. My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport. I recognize that this is not the outcome that you and the Audubon Society were hoping for and understand any disappointment you may experience but I wanted to share it with you today.

Michelle Brantley
Director of Planning
Ontario International Airport
M: 909.227.3055 | O: 909.544.5255
[email protected] | @flyONT
From: Suzanne C. Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 8:05 AM
To: Brantley, Michelle <[email protected]>
Subject: Burrowing Owls
Hi Michelle,
A link for an article from the Daily Bulletin is below. It is the story about our work with Burrowing Owls in Chino and a connection between the owls and an astronaut at the International Space Station. It is getting a lot of attention--people love those little owls! https://www.dailybulletin.com/2021/02/17/volunteer
s-send-photos-of-rare-burrowing-owls-to-pomonaborn-astronaut-in-space/ We are eager to get the report from the Helix biological consultant on good options for the 3619
Ontario Airport owls (we hope). Do you have an estimate of when we can expect it? I hope all is well with you.

Best wishes,
Suzanne
3620
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road
Suite 150
Irvine, CA 2618
949.234.8770 tel
619.462.1515 fax
www.helixepi.com
September 16, 2019 OIA-01
Mr. Keith Owens
Ontario International Airport Authority
1923 E Avion Avenue
Ontario, CA 91761
Subject: 2019 Burrowing Owl Survey Report for Potential Development of Ontario International Airport’s Group 1 Parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0211-222-47, 48, 53, 54; 0211- 232-11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 45, 46; 0211-232-52, and 55) Dear Mr. Owens:

This letter report presents the results of the 2019 focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) survey conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the Ontario International Airport’s Group 1 Parcels (study area) located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. The survey was conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; previously California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]) Staff Report on BUOW Mitigation (CDFG 2012). This letter report describes the methods used to perform the survey and the survey results.

STUDY AREA LOCATION
The 151-acre study area is generally located south of the Interstate (I-) 10 and west of I-15 (Figure 1, Regional Location). The study area is located within Section 25 of Township 1 South, Range 7 West of the Guasti, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2, Vicinity Map). Specifically, the study area is located to the northeast and southeast of the intersection of E Santa Ana Avenue and South Commerce Parkway; to the southwest and south of the intersection of E Airport Drive and S Carnegie Avenue; and to the southeast of the intersection of S Haven Avenue and E La Salle Street (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The study area comprises eighteen parcels with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0211-222-47, 48, 53, 54; 0211-232-11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 45, 46; 0211- 232-52, and 55.

STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The study area is located directly east of the Ontario International Airport. The study area is dominated by non-native grass species, such as common ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), and slender oat (Avena barbata), which are maintained as required for weed 3621
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 2 of 8
September 16, 2019
abatement. The topography of the study area is mostly flat with elevations ranging from 900 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) near the southeast corner to 942 feet AMSL near the southwest corner.

Immediate surrounding land uses include undeveloped land and the Ontario International Airport to the west and commercial buildings to north, east, and south.

Representative photographs of the study area are shown on Attachment A, Site Photographs.

METHODS
The focused BUOW survey was conducted according to the CDFW BUOW survey guidelines (CDFG 2012), which includes Part I Habitat Assessment and Focused Burrow Survey and Part II Focused BUOW Surveys. The CDFW BUOW survey guidelines are described in further detail below.

Part I: Habitat Assessment and Focused Burrow Survey
Prior to conducting the habitat assessment, HELIX consulted the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to determine the nearest BUOW occurrence(s). A habitat assessment was conducted by HELIX biologists Ezekiel Cooley and Lauren Singleton on November 1, 2018 to determine whether the study area supports suitable BUOW habitat. A focused burrow survey was conducted concurrently with the habitat assessment. All suitable burrows (i.e., greater than 11 centimeters [cm] in height and width and greater than 150 cm in depth) and burrow surrogates were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) unit (Figure 4, Suitable Burrow and Transect Locations). The habitat assessment and focused burrow survey were conducted prior to commencement of the BUOW focused surveys. The assessment was conducted on the study area and within a 150-meter (approximately 500- foot) buffer zone around the periphery of the study area (survey area). The survey area was slowly walked and assessed for suitable BUOW habitat, including:
• disturbed low-growing vegetation within grassland and shrublands (less than 30 percent canopy cover);
• gently rolling or level terrain;
• areas with abundant small mammal burrows, especially California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows;
• fence posts, rocks, or other low perching locations; and • man-made structures, such as earthen berms, debris piles, and cement culverts.

All potential burrows were checked for signs of recent owl occupation. Signs of occupation include:
• pellets/casting (regurgitate fur, bones, and/or insect parts); • white wash (excrement); and/or
• feathers.

Part II: Locating Burrowing Owls
Since suitable habitat and burrows were observed within the survey area during the habitat assessment, focused BUOW surveys were conducted to determine whether the survey area supports BUOW. The focused surveys consisted of four breeding season surveys that were performed by Mr. Cooley and Ms.

Singleton and HELIX biologists Matthew Dimson and Daniel Torres between March 20 and June 26, 3622
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 3 of 8
September 16, 2019
2019. The surveys were spaced at least three weeks apart, with at least one survey conducted between February 15 and April 15 and three surveys conducted between April 15 and July 15 (Table 1, Survey Information)
The biologists walked transects spaced no greater than 20 meters apart (approximately 65 feet) to allow for 100 percent visual coverage of all suitable habitat within the survey area (Figure 4). The biologists walked slowly and methodically, closely checking suitable habitat within the survey area for BUOW diagnostic sign (e.g., molted feathers, pellets/castings, or whitewash at or near a burrow entrance) and individual BUOW. If observed, BUOW sign and BUOW observations were recorded with a GPS unit.

Inaccessible areas of the survey area were visually assessed using binoculars. 3623
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 4 of 8
September 16, 2019
Table 1

SURVEY INFORMATION
Site Visit Survey
Date Biologist Start/Stop Time
Start/Stop
Weather Conditions Survey Results
HA1 11/01/18 Ezekiel Cooley
Lauren Singleton 0815-1500 63F, wind 0-1 mph, 15% clouds 84F, wind 6-8 mph, 80% clouds Suitable habitat and burrows observed. 1 03/20/19
Ezekiel Cooley
Matthew Dimson
Lauren Singleton
Daniel Torres
0645-0930
54F, wind 2-3 mph, 100%
clouds
56F, wind 1-2 mph, 90% clouds
• Active Burrow #1: One adult was observed on a berm
adjacent to Doubleday Avenue in the eastern portion of the study area, approximately 1,800 feet to the south of its intersection with E Santa Ana Street. The individual was observed perched next to the burrow and pellets and
whitewash were observed around the burrow entrance.
• Active Burrow #2: One adult was observed in the
northwestern portion of the study area, approximately 630 feet to the west of the Commerce Parkway and Carnegie
Avenue intersection. The individual was observed in a
burrow and pellets were observed around the burrow
entrance.
• Active Burrow #3: Two adults were observed within the 500-foot buffer adjacent to Carnegie Avenue,
approximately 180 feet to the north of the Santa Ana Street and Carnegie Avenue intersection. The pair was observed perched near a burrow with sign, including pellets and
whitewash. One of the adults flushed to the east and was observed perched adjacent to a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser. Sign, including pellets and
whitewash, were observed in and around the storm drain
riser.
• Active Burrow #4: Two adults were observed within the 500-foot buffer adjacent to Carnegie Avenue,
approximately 490 feet to the south of the Santa Ana
Street and Carnegie Avenue intersection. The pair was
observed perched near a burrow with sign, including pellets and whitewash. One of the adults flushed approximately
100 feet to the east and was observed perched adjacent to a storm drain riser. Sign, including pellets and whitewash, 3624
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 5 of 8
September 16, 2019
Table 1

SURVEY INFORMATION
Site Visit Survey
Date Biologist Start/Stop Time
Start/Stop
Weather Conditions Survey Results
were observed in and around the storm drain riser.
2 04/23/19
Ezekiel Cooley
Matthew Dimson
Lauren Singleton
Daniel Torres
0600-0900 60F, wind 0-2 mph, 20% clouds
66F, wind 0-1 mph, 10% clouds
• Active Burrow #1: One adult was observed perched next to the burrow.
• Active Burrow #3: Two adults were perched near the
burrow entrance. Both adults flushed to the east and were observed perched adjacent to two different vertical
corrugated metal pipe storm drain risers. Sign, including pellets and whitewash, were observed in and around the
storm drain risers.
• Active Burrow #4: Two adults were perched near the
burrow entrance.
3 05/21/19
Ezekiel Cooley
Matthew Dimson
Lauren Singleton
Daniel Torres
0700-0930 55F, wind 0-1 mph, 95% clouds
57F, wind 1-2 mph, 85% clouds
• Active Burrow #1: One adult was observed perched next to the burrow.
• Active Burrow #3: Two adults were perched near the
burrow entrance. Both adults flushed to the east and were observed perched adjacent to two different storm drain
risers.
• Active Burrow #4: One adult was perched near the burrow entrance. Six juvenile BUOWs were observed in and around the burrow. Another adult was observed adjacent to a
burrow approximately 800 feet to the southwest of Active Burrow #4. The adult flushed towards Active Burrow #4.
4 06/26/19
Ezekiel Cooley
Matthew Dimson
Lauren Singleton
Daniel Torres
0600-0830
64F, wind 1-2 mph, 100%
clouds
65F, wind 1-2 mph, 100%
clouds
• Active Burrow #1: One adult was observed perched next to the burrow.
• Active Burrow #3: Two adults were perched near the
burrow entrance. Both adults flushed to the east and were observed perched adjacent to two different storm drain
risers.
• Active Burrow #4: Two adults were perched near the
burrow entrance. Five juvenile BUOWs were observed in
and around the burrow.
1 Step I Habitat Assessment and Step II (Part A) focused burrow survey. 3625
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 6 of 8
September 16, 2019

RESULTS
Suitable BUOW habitat was observed within the survey area during the habitat assessment, including low-growing vegetation within the non-native grassland. Several burrows and burrow surrogates, such as vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain risers, that could potentially be used by BUOWs were observed within the survey area (Figure 4). Suitable foraging habitat was observed within and adjacent to the survey area. There are CNDDB records of BUOWs within the survey area from 2007 and 2013 (CDFW 2019).

A total of four active burrows were detected within the survey area (Figure 4). Two active burrows were located within the study area (Active Burrow [AB]-1 and AB-2). AB-1 was located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the study area and AB-2 was located in the northwest portion of the study area. Two active burrows were located within the 500-foot buffer, adjacent to the western boundary of the study area (AB-3 and AB-4). A summary of observations is provided below.

AB-1 was located on the study area adjacent to Doubleday Avenue, approximately 1,800 feet to the south of the Doubleday Avenue and E Santa Ana Street intersection. One adult was observed perched next to the burrow during all four surveys. Pellets and whitewash were observed around the burrow entrance.

AB-2 was located in the northern portion of the study area, approximately 630 feet to the west of the Commerce Parkway and Carnegie Avenue intersection. One adult BUOW was observed during the first survey. The individual was observed in AB-2 and pellets were observed around the burrow entrance. No BUOWs were observed at AB-2 during the second, third, or fourth survey.

AB-3 was located within the 500-foot buffer adjacent to Carnegie Avenue, approximately 180 feet to the north of the Santa Ana Street and Carnegie Avenue intersection. Two adults were observed during the first survey. The pair was observed perched near AB-3 with sign, which included pellets and whitewash.

One of the adults flushed to the east and was observed perched adjacent to a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser. Sign was observed in and around the storm drain riser, including pellets and whitewash. The two adults were also observed near AB-3 during the second, third, and fourth survey.

During these three surveys, the individuals flushed to the east and were observed perched adjacent to two different storm drain risers.

AB-4 was located within the 500-foot buffer adjacent to Carnegie Avenue, approximately 490 feet to the south of the Santa Ana Street and Carnegie Avenue intersection. Two adults were observed during the first survey. The pair was observed perched near AB-4 with sign, which included pellets and whitewash.

One of the adults flushed approximately 100 feet to the east and was observed perched adjacent to a storm drain riser. Sign, including pellets and whitewash, were observed in and around the storm drain riser. The pair was observed near AB-4 during the second survey. During the third survey, one adult was perched near the entrance of AB-4. Six juvenile BUOWs were also observed in and around the burrow.

Another adult was observed adjacent to a burrow approximately 800 feet to the southwest of AB-4 and flushed towards AB-4 when approached. During the fourth survey, two adults and five juveniles were perched near AB-4.

The locations of all suitable burrows, BUOW sign, and occupied burrows observed within and adjacent to the study area are shown on Figure 4.
3626
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 7 of 8
September 16, 2019

CONCLUSION
A total of four active burrows were detected within the survey area, including two on the study area (AB-1 and AB-2) and two within the 500-foot buffer (AB-3 and AB-4). One adult was observed near AB-1, one adult was observed near AB-2, two adults were observed near AB-3, and two adults and five to six juveniles were observed near AB-4.

A take avoidance (pre-construction) survey is required to be conducted within 14 days prior to ground disturbance in accordance with CDFW Staff Report on BUOW Mitigation (2012). If ground-disturbing activities are delayed more than 14 days after the pre-construction survey has been completed, the study area must be resurveyed.

If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter report, please contact Ezekiel Cooley ([email protected]) or Lauren Singleton ([email protected]) at (949) 234-8770.

Sincerely,
Ezekiel Cooley Lauren Singleton
Biologist Biologist
Daniel Torres Matthew Dimson
Biologist Biologist
Attachments:

Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: USGS Topography
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
Figure 4: BUOW Observations and Burrow Locations
Attachment A: Site Photographs
3627
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 8 of 8
September 16, 2019

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Natural Diversity Database and Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Sacramento, California. Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed July 31, 2019. 3628
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
!!
!!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!!
! ! ! ! !
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! ! !! !!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !!! ! !
!! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !!
!
!!
!
!! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! !! !
!
!
! !
!! !
! !
!! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!!
!
!! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !!!
! !! ! !!
!
!
! ! !!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !! ! !! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! ! !
!
!!
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
?z
?Æ
!"a$
!"a$
%&h(
?±
!"a$
!"a$ ?¹
?¹ %&h(
?±
?z
?¹ AÐ
!"`$
Añ
?¡
AÙ
?± ?¿
A¨
?¿
?±
?¹
!"`$
!"`$
?ø
!"a$
?a
?°
%&l(
?±
AÎ
?s
AÝ
?u
?Æ
!"^$
!"^$
?å
Añ
?¥
%&h(
?¡
AÔ
!
Study Area

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
POMONA
CAMP

PENDELETON

MISSION
VIEJO
SAN

CLEMENTE
LAGUNA
BEACH

ANAHEIM

ONTARIO

RIVERSIDE
CORONA
CHINO
LAKE

ELSINORE

SAN BERNARDINO
IRVINE
San Gabriel Mountains
Santa Ana Mountains
San Bernardino Mountains

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY
San Jacinto Mountains
Little San Be rnardino Mountains
YUCCA
VALLEY

TEMELCULA

MURRIETA
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY

BANNING

BEAUMONT

HEMET PALM DESERT

SAN JACINTO

COACHELLA
PALM

SPRINGS PERRIS
Pacific
Ocean
Big Bear Lake
Coyote
Lake
Lee
Lake
Alvord
Perris
Reservoir
Lake
Mathews
Canyon
Lake
Hemet
Lake
Lake
Elsinore
Lake
Cahuilla
Skinner
Reservoir
Vail
Lake
Diamond
Valley Lake
Figure 1
Regional Location
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01\Map\Group1_BUOW\Fig1_Regional.mxd OIA-01 8/26/2019 -EC Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) K
Ontario International Airport
0 10 Miles
3629
Study Area Study Area
Figure 2
USGS Topography
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01\Map\Group1_BUOW\Fig2_USGS.mxd OIA-01 8/28/2019 -EC Source: Guasti 7.5' Quad (USGS)
Ontario International Airport
0 2,000 Feet K
3630
Jurupa Street
Airport Drive
Guasti Road
Ontario
International
Airport
Airport Drive
Haven Avenue
Commerce Way
Carnegie Avenue
Doubleday Avenue
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01\Map\Group1_BUOW\Fig3_Aerial.mxd OIA-01 8/26/2019 -EC Source: Base Map Layers (Eagle Aerial, 2014)
K
Ontario International Airport
0 1,000 Feet
Study Area Study Area
3631
^_
^_
^_
^_
Jurupa Street
Santa Ana Street
Guasti Road
Ontario
International
Airport
Haven Avenue
Carnegie Avenue
Commerce Way
Doubleday Avenue
Figure 4
Burrow and Transect Locations
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01\Map\Group1_BUOW\Fig4_BurrowTransect.mxd OIA-01 8/27/2019 -EC Source: Base Map Layers (Digitial Globe, 2018) K
Ontario International Airport
0 550 Feet
Survey Areas
Study Area
500-foot Survey Buffer
BUOW Observations
Suitable Burrow
BUOW Sign
^_ Occupied Burrows
Transect
Active Burrow #2
03/20/19 - 1 Adult
04/23/19 - Not Detected
05/21/19 - Not Detected
06/26/19 - Not Detected
Active Burrow #3
03/20/19 - 2 Adult
04/23/19 - 2 Adults
05/21/19 - 2 Adults
06/26/19 - 2 Adults
Active Burrow #4
03/20/19 - 2 Adults
04/23/19 - 2 Adults
05/21/19 - 2 Adults, 6 Juveniles
06/26/19 - 2 Adults, 5 Juveniles
Active Burrow #1
03/20/19 - 1 Adult
04/23/19 - 1 Adult
05/21/19 - 1 Adult
06/26/19 - 1 Adult
3632
Ontario International Airport
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01\Map\Group1_BUOW\AttA_RepSitePhotos.indd OIA-01 8/15/19 -EC Representative Site Photographs
Attachment A
Source: HELIX 2019
Photograph 1: View of the non-native grassland habitat in the eastern portion of survey area, facing west.

Photograph 2: View of the non-native grassland in the northern portion of survey area, facing southeast. 3633
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road
Suite 150
Irvine, CA 2618
949.234.8770 tel
619.462.1515 fax
www.helixepi.com
February 11, 2020 OIA-01
Mr. Keith Owens
Ontario International Airport Authority
1923 E Avion Avenue
Ontario, CA 91761
Subject: 2019\2020 non-breeding Burrowing Owl Survey Report for Potential Development of Ontario International Airport’s Parcel Study
Dear Mr. Owens:

This letter report presents the results of the 2019 non-breeding season burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) survey conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the Ontario International Airport (study area) located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. The survey was conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; previously California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]) Staff Report on BUOW Mitigation (CDFG 2012). This letter report describes the methods used to perform the survey and the survey results.

STUDY AREA LOCATION
The 322-acre study area is generally located south of the Interstate (I-) 10 and west of I-15 (Figure 1, Regional Location). The study area is located within Section 25 of Township 1 South, Range 7 West of the Guasti, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2, Vicinity Map). Specifically, the study area is located to the northwest of the intersection of S Haven Avenue and Jurupa Street; to the northwest and southwest of the intersection of E Airport Drive and S Haven Avenue; and to the southwest and southeast of the intersection of S Grove Avenue and E Airport Drive (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The study area comprises approximately 320 acres of suitable burrowing owl habitat.
3634
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 2 of 7
February 11, 2020

STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The study area is located directly on and surrounding the tarmac of the Ontario International Airport.

The study area is dominated by non-native grass species, such as common ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), puncture vine (Tribulus terestris), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), and slender oat (Avena barbata), which are maintained as required for weed abatement. The topography of the study area is mostly flat with elevations ranging from 902 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) near the southeast corner to 967 feet AMSL near the northeast corner. Immediate surrounding land uses include the commercial buildings to the north, east, south, and west.

METHODS
The focused BUOW survey was conducted according to the CDFW BUOW survey guidelines (CDFG 2012), which includes Part I Habitat Assessment and Focused Burrow Survey and Part II Focused BUOW Surveys. The CDFW BUOW survey guidelines are described in further detail below.

Part I: Habitat Assessment and Focused Burrow Survey
Prior to conducting the habitat assessment, HELIX consulted the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to determine the nearest BUOW occurrence(s). A habitat assessment was conducted by HELIX biologists Ezekiel Cooley and Lauren Singleton on November 1, 2018 to determine whether the study area supports suitable BUOW habitat. A focused burrow survey was conducted concurrently with the habitat assessment. All suitable burrows (i.e., greater than 11 centimeters [cm] in height and width and greater than 150 cm in depth) and burrow surrogates were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) unit (Figure 4, Suitable Burrow and Transect Locations). The habitat assessment and focused burrow survey were conducted prior to commencement of the BUOW focused surveys. The assessment was conducted on the study area and within a 150-meter (approximately 500- foot) buffer zone around the periphery of the study area (survey area). The survey area was slowly walked and assessed for suitable BUOW habitat, including:
• disturbed low-growing vegetation within grassland and shrublands (less than 30 percent canopy cover);
• gently rolling or level terrain;
• areas with abundant small mammal burrows, especially California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows;
• fence posts, rocks, or other low perching locations; and • man-made structures, such as earthen berms, debris piles, and cement culverts.

All potential burrows were checked for signs of recent owl occupation. Signs of occupation include:
• pellets/casting (regurgitate fur, bones, and/or insect parts); • white wash (excrement); and/or
• feathers.
3635
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 3 of 7
February 11, 2020
Part II: Locating Burrowing Owls
Since suitable habitat and burrows were observed within the survey area during the habitat assessment, non-breeding focused BUOW surveys were conducted to determine whether the survey area supports BUOW. The focused surveys consisted of four (4) non-breeding season surveys, spread evenly, throughout the nonbreeding season, that were performed by Mr. Cooley and Ms. Singleton and HELIX biologists Matthew Dimson, Amy Lee, and Daniel Torres between October 8, 2019 and January 14, 2020. (Table 1 Survey Information)
The biologists walked transects spaced no greater than 20 meters apart (approximately 65 feet) to allow for 100 percent visual coverage of all suitable habitat within the survey area (Figure 4). The biologists walked slowly and methodically, closely checking suitable habitat within the survey area for BUOW diagnostic sign (e.g., molted feathers, pellets/castings, or whitewash at or near a burrow entrance) and individual BUOW. If observed, BUOW sign and BUOW observations were recorded with a GPS unit.

Inaccessible areas of the survey area were visually assessed using binoculars. 3636
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 4 of 7
February 11, 2020
Table 1
Survey Information
Biologist Start/Stop
Time
Start/Stop
Weather Conditions Survey Results
10/08/19 Ezekiel Cooley
Lauren Singleton 0715-0900 62°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds 69°F, wind 1-2 mph, 0% clouds
• Active Burrow #1: One adult was observed next to a
grated drain with a burrow located to the west of the
drain.
10/11/19 Ezekiel Cooley
Lauren Singleton 0710-0900 67°F, wind 4-5 mph, 0% clouds 71°F, wind 4-5 mph, 0% clouds • Active Burrow #2: One adult was in a cement culvert. 10/15/19 Lauren Singleton
Daniel Torres
0710-1000 56°F, wind 3-4 mph, 0% clouds
73°F, wind 1-2 mph, 0% clouds • No BUOW detected.
11/05/19 Matthew Dimson
Lauren Singleton 0715-0945 61°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds 73°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds • No BUOW detected.
11/08/19 Matthew Dimson
Lauren Singleton 0730-0915 61°F, wind 2-3 mph, 0% clouds 77°F, wind 2-3 mph, 0% clouds • Active Burrow #2: One adult was in a cement culvert. 11/12/19 Amy Lee
Lauren Singleton 0715-0945 55°F, wind 0-1 mph, 5% clouds 77°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds • No BUOW detected.
12/03/19 Matthew Dimson
Lauren Singleton
0800-1000 56°F, wind 0-1 mph, 100% clouds
63°F, wind 0-1 mph, 100% clouds • No BUOW detected.
12/06/19 Matthew Dimson
Lauren Singleton
0730-0930 50°F, wind 0-1 mph, 30% clouds
63°F, wind 2-3 mph, 50% clouds • No BUOW detected.
12/10/19 Matthew Dimson
Lauren Singleton
0710-0930 46°F, wind 1-2 mph, 20% clouds
55°F, wind 0-1 mph, 80% clouds • No BUOW detected.
01/07/20 Ezekiel Cooley
Matthew Dimson 0715-0900 46°F, wind 0-1 mph, 15% clouds 55°F, wind 0-1 mph, 20% clouds
• Active Burrow #3: One adult was observed below a grated drain with a burrow located on the south side of the drain. 1/10/20 Ezekiel Cooley
Matthew Dimson 0710-0850 43°F, wind 2-3 mph, 100% clouds 50°F, wind 1-2 mph, 100% clouds • No BUOW detected.
01/14/20 Ezekiel Cooley
Matthew Dimson 0700-0900 43°F, wind 0-1 mph, 100% clouds 47°F, wind 0-1 mph, 100% clouds • No BUOW detected.
3637
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 5 of 7
February 11, 2020

RESULTS
Suitable BUOW habitat was observed within the survey area during the habitat assessment, including low-growing vegetation within the non-native grassland. Several burrows and burrow surrogates, such as vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain risers, that could potentially be used by BUOWs were observed within the survey area (Figure 4). Suitable foraging habitat was observed within and adjacent to the survey area. There are CNDDB records of BUOWs within the survey area from 2007 and 2013 (CDFW 2019).

A total of three active burrows were detected within the survey area (Figure 4). One active burrow was located on the western end of the tarmac (Active Burrow [AB]-1) and two active burrows were located on the northeastern end of the tarmac (Active Burrow [AB]-2 and AB-3). A summary of observations is provided below.

AB-1 was on the study are in the middle of the tarmac between the two runways, approximately 2,100 feet to the northwest of South Vineyard Avenue and Avion Drive intersection. One adult BUOW was observed next to a grated drain with a burrow located to the west of the drain. This adult was only observed once on October 5, 2019 and was not present on subsequent surveys.

AB-2 was located on the eastern portion of the study area, approximately 2,200 feet to the southwest of South Haven Avenue and East Airport Drive. One adult BUOW was observed in a cement culvert on October 11 and November 8, 2019. The BUOW was not present on subsequent surveys.

AB-3 was located on the eastern portion of the study area, approximately 3,000 feet to the southwest of South Haven Avenue and East Airport Drive. One adult was observed below a grated drain with a burrow located on the south side of the drain. This adult was observed only once on January 7, 2020.

The locations of all suitable burrows, BUOW sign, and occupied burrows observed within and adjacent to the study area are shown on Figure 4.

CONCLUSION
A total of three active burrows were detected within the survey area. One adult BUOW was observed at each active burrow: AB-1, AB-2, and AB-3. AB-1 and AB-2 had no adult BUOW present during the final series of surveys.

These surveys are intended to document the non-breeding season activity on the survey area and may not be considered conclusive findings by CDFW even if BUOW are observed. A breeding season focused survey may be required to determine the full extent of use on the survey area.

In addition to breeding season protocol surveys, a take avoidance (pre-construction) survey would also be required and shall be conducted within 14 days prior to ground disturbance in accordance with CDFW Staff Report on BUOW Mitigation (2012). If ground-disturbing activities are delayed more than 14 days after the pre-construction survey has been completed, the study area must be resurveyed. 3638
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 6 of 7
February 11, 2020
If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter report, please contact Ezekiel Cooley ([email protected]) or Lauren Singleton ([email protected]) at (949) 234-8770.

Sincerely,
Ezekiel Cooley Lauren Singleton
Biologist Biologist
Attachments:

Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: USGS Topography
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
Figure 4: BUOW Observations and Burrow Locations
3639
Letter to Mr. Keith Owens Page 7 of 7
February 11, 2020

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Natural Diversity Database and Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Sacramento, California. Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed July 31, 2019. 3640
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
!!
!!
! !
! !!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!!
! ! ! ! !
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! ! !! !!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !!! ! !
!! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !!
!
!!
!
!! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! !! !
!
!
! !
!! !
! !
!! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!!
!
!! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !! !
! !! ! !!
!
!
! ! !!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !! ! !! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! ! !
!
!!
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
?z
?Æ
!"a$
!"a$
%&h(
?±
!"a$
!"a$ ?¹
?¹ %&h(
?±
?z
?¹ AÐ
!"`$
Añ
?¡
AÙ
?± ?¿
A¨
?¿
?±
?¹
!"`$
!"`$
?ø
!"a$
?a
?°
%&l(
?±
AÎ
?s
AÝ
?u
?Æ
!"^$
!"^$
?å
Añ
?¥
%&h(
?¡
AÔ
!
Study Area

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
POMONA
CAMP

PENDELETON

MISSION
VIEJO
SAN

CLEMENTE
LAGUNA
BEACH

ANAHEIM

ONTARIO

RIVERSIDE
CORONA
CHINO
LAKE

ELSINORE

SAN BERNARDINO
IRVINE
San Gabrie l Mountains
Santa Ana Mountains
San Bernardino Mountains

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY
San Jacinto Mountains
Little San Be rnardino Mountains
YUCCA
VALLEY

TEMELCULA

MURRIETA
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY

BANNING

BEAUMONT

HEMET PALM DESERT

SAN JACINTO

COACHELLA
PALM

SPRINGS PERRIS
Pacific
Ocean
Big Bear Lake
Coyote
Lake
Lee
Lake
Alvord
Perris
Reservoir
Lake
Mathews
Canyon
Lake
Hemet
Lake
Lake
Elsinore
Lake
Cahuilla
Skinner
Reservoir
Vail
Lake
Diamond
Valley Lake
Figure 1
Regional Location
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01.1\Map\BUOW_airport\Fig1_Regional.mxd OIA-01 2/26/2020 -EC Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) K
Ontario International Airport
0 10 Miles
3641
Study Area
Figure 2
USGS Topography
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01.1\Map\BUOW_airport\Fig2_USGS.mxd OIA-01 2/26/2020 -EC Source: Guasti 7.5' Quad (USGS)
Ontario International Airport
0 2,000 Feet K
3642
Jurupa Street
Ontario
International
Airport
Airport Drive
Haven Avenue
East Mission Boulevard
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01.1\Map\BUOW_airport\Fig3_Aerial.mxd OIA-01 2/26/2020 -EC Source: Base Map Layers (Eagle Aerial, 2014) K
Ontario International Airport
0 2,500 Feet
Study Area Study Area
3643
#*
#* #*
AB-1 AB-3
AB-2
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01.1\Map\BUOW_airport\Fig4_BUOW_obs.mxd OIA-01 2/26/2020 -EC Figure 4
2019/2020 Non-Breeding Season BUOW Survey Areas
Source: Aerial (Eagle Aerial, 2014) 0 1,300 Feet
Ontario International Airport
500-foot Survey Buffer
Survey Areas
#* 2019/2020 Non-Breeding Season BUOW Observations
Suitable Burrows
Transects
K
#* #*
#*
0 200 Feet 0 200 Feet
AB-1 AB-3
AB-2
Inset Map Inset Map
3644
1 California Logistics Center
City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Pre-Construction Clearance Survey for Burrowing Owl
and other Nesting Bird Species
To McDonald Property Group
1140 N. Coast Hwy.

Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Phone: (949) 655-8233
Email: [email protected]
Attn: John Pierce
From Michael Wilcox
Tel (909) 369-8060
Fax (909) 369-8035
Date 08/14/2021
Subject: Pre-Construction Clearance Survey for Burrowing Owl and Other Nesting Birds at 10 Proposed Geotechnical Boring Sites in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California

INTRODUCTION
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood) conducted a clearance survey for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and other nesting bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) at 10 proposed boring sites located within the California Logistics Center in the city of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Appendix A, Figure 1).

McDonald Property Group proposes to conduct exploratory geotechnical boring at these sites in the immediate future and contracted Wood to conduct the clearance survey to determine if the burrowing owl would potentially be affected by the proposed action.

The 256-acre proposed project is located east of the Ontario International Airport. This area is generally located east of S Haven Avenue, west of Doubleday Avenue, south of E Airport Drive and north of E Jurupa Street (Appendix A, Figure 1). The proposed boring sites are location on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN’s) 021-123-204-207, 211-220, 244-246 and 021-122-247, 248, 252-257 (Wood 2021).

BACKGROUND
The burrowing owl is a small, tan, short-tailed, ground-dwelling owl that occupies underground burrows. A member of the Strigidae (typical owls family), this species is associated with 3645
2 grasslands and other arid open terrain, including Sonoran creosote bush scrub, throughout much of the western United States. Burrowing owls are opportunistic in their selection of burrows, typically utilizing the burrows of small mammals (e.g., ground squirrels, kit fox), but also use drainpipes, culverts, and other suitable natural or manmade cavities at or below ground level. In California, the species often occurs in association with colonies of the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), where it makes use of the squirrel’s burrows. The entrance of the burrow is often adorned with animal dung, feathers, debris, and other small objects. The species is active both day and night and may be seen perching conspicuously on fence posts or standing at the entrance of their burrows. Due to the characteristic fossorial habits of burrowing owls, nest burrows are a critical component of their habitat.

In Southern California, burrowing owls are not only found in undisturbed natural areas, but also fallow agricultural fields, margins of active agricultural areas, livestock farms, airports, and vacant lots. Despite their apparent tolerance to human activities, burrowing owl populations in California are clearly declining and, if declines continue, the species may qualify for listing under the state and/or federal Endangered Species Acts (CDFG 1995). The declines in burrowing owl populations are attributed to loss and degradation of habitat, to on-going residential and commercial development, and to rodent control programs. The burrowing owl is currently designated a California Species of Concern (CSC) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW 2020), managed as a Bird of Conservation Concern by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), is considered “sensitive” by the U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513, and 3800. Any impacts to burrowing owls and/or their occupied burrows may be considered significant under the MBTA and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requiring specific mitigation often in the form of the purchase, establishment, and management of on- or off-site conservation areas in perpetuity.

The California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC) developed the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines to meet the need of uniform standards when surveying burrowing owl populations and evaluating impacts from development projects (CBOC 1997). In 1995 the CDFG issued the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation to all its regional managers to ensure consistency in standards, policies, and regulatory mandates relating to the burrowing owl (CDFG 1995). Due to the continued decline of burrowing owl populations statewide and as an attempt to reverse this trend, the CDFG issued more effective, viable, coordinated and concerted approach to burrowing owl conservation actions with the release of an updated Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012).

METHODS
The clearance survey was conducted on 11 August 2021 by Wood biologists Nathan Moorhatch, Alec Williams and Michael Wilcox. All areas of the Biological Study Area (BSA), which included all proposed boring locations, obvious access/ingress and egress routes and a 500-foot buffer zone area surrounding the bore sites and access routes, were surveyed on-foot utilizing parallel pedestrian belt transects spaced approximately 18 meters (60 feet) apart.

Additionally, previously reported/known burrowing owl locations on-site and in immediate vicinity were surveyed. Adjacent off-site areas were surveyed with binoculars for presence of burrowing owls, in accordance with protocol established by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (1997) and the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). Binoculars were used to visually inspect potential perching locations (i.e., rocks, debris, dirt mounds) as well as the entrances to all on-site mammal burrows, debris providing potential shelter (i.e., piles of 3646
3 concrete slabs, cement drainpipes), search for other bird nests and to identify other bird species observed. Mammal burrows were carefully examined for evidence of burrowing owl occupation (i.e., animal dung, feathers, whitewash, pellets, debris, etc.). Locations with burrowing owls and/or burrows exhibiting burrowing owl sign were marked with a handheld cell phone using the Collector application. Representative photographs were also taken (Appendix B). All wildlife detected was recorded in field notes and is included as Appendix C.

RESULTS
Weather conditions during the survey were conducive for owl activity. Skies were partly cloudy with an estimated 30 to 90% cloud cover. Temperatures were 75 to 92 degrees Fahrenheit.

Winds were calm (~0-5 mph).

Multiple burrowing owls were detected in multiple locations during the clearance survey (Appendix A, Figure 1). Some were observed perching on or beneath covered metal manmade structures resembling drainage features (although these features may serve some other purpose), some were observed perching on the ground and one was observed perching on a dead branch apparently staged by burrowing owl watchers/enthusiasts that were present and photographing the owls during the survey. At least 7 cars and at least 7 people were present, taking photographs and watching the owls for several hours during the survey. Biologists spoke with several of these individuals, and they indicated that they have collectively been aware of and monitoring this population for years. Several other staged branches, logs, etc. were observed throughout the area. A gathering of police officers training on motorcycles along one section of one of the roads bisecting the BSA were also aware of the owls and pointed out at least one location where they had just observed an owl to the biologists.

In addition to the live burrowing owls, several burrow locations were also observed exhibiting recent burrowing owl sign (i.e., whitewash, pellets, feathers, tracks and/or burrow adornments) (Appendix A, Figure 3). California ground squirrel burrows suitable for burrowing owls were detected on-site and throughout the adjacent BSA within the buffer zone areas.

More specifically, live burrowing owls and active burrowing owl burrows, including man-made structures currently being utilized by the species, are present in several areas of the site.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) 152 meters (500-feet) in diameter from the center of the occupied owl burrows/shelters were established around these areas. Proposed bore sites B3, B6 and B7 are within the established ESAs. Proposed bore sites B1, B2, B4, B5, B7, B8, B9 and B10 are located outside of the established ESAs. While technically outside of the established ESAs, bore sites B2 and B4 are very close to the respective ESA edges.

No other bird nests or bird species displaying nesting behavior were detected. If an active nest belonging to a species protected by the MBTA are observed within the 152-meter (500-foot) buffer zone area of any of the bore sites, adaptive measures will be implemented to avoid impacts to those nests as well.

A total of one reptile, 14 bird species and two mammals were detected (Appendix C).

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
All the proposed bore sites are within suitable habitat for burrowing owl and the area is currently occupied by this declining and protected species. California ground squirrel burrows and manmade structures suitable for burrowing owl use are present throughout the area and within 3647
4 proximity to each of the proposed bore sites. Live burrowing owls, active burrows and manmade structures currently being utilized by burrowing owls are present within the 150-meter (500-foot) buffer zone area surrounding bore sites B3, B6 and B7. Bore sites B2 and B4, while technically outside of ESAs, are very close to the edges. It should be noted that burrowing owls are highly mobile and may colonize or recolonize currently unused burrows and/or new burrows recently created by California ground squirrels at any time.

For these reasons, the potential for burrowing owls to occur in, or occupy areas where no burrowing owls, or their sign, were observed during the survey is considered high. As a result, biological monitoring of all project-related activities on-site is strongly recommended. Monitors would conduct a pre-construction clearance survey at the bore site(s) proposed to be worked on at that time, their proposed ingress/egress access route(s) and in the immediate vicinity prior to mobilization of equipment and throughout the day to confirm that burrowing owls are not currently present within the 500-foot buffer zone areas around each of the bore sites and to ensure that burrowing owls are not affected by project activities. If those bore sites that are within the 500-foot buffer of an occupied burrow can be moved outside of this buffer area, it would greatly reduce the potential for burrowing owl impacts.

If burrowing owls are determined to be present at a particular bore site, or nearby burrowing owls are observed displaying distress behaviors (i.e., flushing from perches or burrows, excessive bobbing, emitting distress calls, etc.) then actions to avoid disturbing those owls would be implemented immediately. Such actions may include stop work orders at that bore site and/or mobilization to other bore sites where activities would not affect burrowing owls. Use of sound and/or visual barriers may also be an option should the need arise.

Monitors would take daily field notes, or fill out standardized field forms, take photographs of the progress of project activities to document compliance and avoidance of project-related impacts to burrowing owls. A Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) with emphasis on the burrowing owl and the actions proposed to be implemented to avoid project-related impacts to the species should also be administered to all project personnel prior to the commencement of on-site activities. The WEAP would outline the identification, ecology, and conservation status of the burrowing owl, as well as general and specific impact avoidance measures to be implemented. All personnel would be required to sign a form documenting their attendance and agreement to implement measures to avoid impacting burrowing owls. Anyone that refuses to attend the WEAP, refuses to sign the acknowledgement form and/or implement impact avoidance measures will not be permitted to work on the site.

For work at proposed bore sites B3, B6 and B7, the CDFW should be contacted immediately for additional guidance. This population of burrowing owls is well-known and has a devoted fan club that monitors their activity frequently, perhaps even daily. Any perceived disturbance to these owls will almost certainly result in calls and/or reports to CalTIP, an online mobile phone application, website, and phone number for people to easily and instantly report violations of wildlife laws, catch poachers, etc., to the CDFW. Because of the high profile of this burrowing owl population, the project will very likely be under the microscope of both the public and resource agencies and could potentially end up in the crosshairs of anyone that believes that actions to protect the well-being of these owls aren’t being implemented or are inadequate or ineffective. Actions taken, or not taken, during the implementation of on-site project activities could potentially end up in lawsuits and/or negative publicity. Wood strongly recommends that the project proponent involve the CDFW in the planning of project activities and implement the above measures and any others that the CDFW recommends. 3648
5 CONCLUSIONS
Because burrowing owls occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bore sites, actions to avoid potential impacts to this species have been developed specifically for this project and should be implemented for all on-site project-related activities. These actions include: 1) administration of a project-specific WEAP, 2) pre-construction clearance surveys at bore sites, along access routes and the immediate vicinity immediately prior to site mobilization, 3) biological monitoring during all on-site operations resulting in surface disturbance, increased vibrations and/or loud noise, and 4) notification and correspondence with CDFW regarding the proposed project and impact avoidance measures. With implementation of the impact avoidance measures recommended above and the notification, and inclusion of the CDFW for any recommendations that they may have, the proposed geotechnical boring at the project site should be able to be successfully implemented without impacts to the burrowing owls.

Literature Cited
California Bird Records Committee. 2021. Official California Checklist. Accessed online at:
http://californiabirds.org/ca_list.asp.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1997. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Journal of Raptor Research Report, The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1995. Staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. CDFG, Sacramento, CA.

CDFG. 2012. Staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. CDFG, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California. Accessed online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=87155&inline CDFW. 2021. Special Animals List. July. Periodic publication. Sacramento, CA. Online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline.

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Inc. 2021. Proposal to Provide Biological Assistance for the California Logistics Center Project Located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. Unpublished document dates August 4, 2021. 3649
6 APPENDIX A
Figures
3650
A!(
A!(
A!(
A!(
A!(
A!( A!(
A!(
A!(
A!(
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.

B-1
B-2
B-3
B-6
B-8
B-4
B-7
B-9
B-5
B-10
A!( Boring Location
Survey Results
!. Burrowing Owl
!. Burrowing Owl Burrow
!. Burrowing Owl Sign
Environmentally Sensitive Area
(ESA)
1 inch = 500 feet
° 0 500
Feet
Path: \\sdg1-fs1\gis\3554_NaturalResources\McDonaldProperties_CA_LogisticsCenter\MXD\Review\CA_LogisticsCenter_FieldDataReview.mxd, aaron.johnson, 8/11/2021 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors
FIGURE 1
Field Survey Results
McDonald Properties
CA Logistics Center
Ontario, CA
3651
7 APPENDIX B
Photographs
3652
California Logistics Center, Proposed Geotechnical Boring

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo 1: Representative condition of proposed project site and adjacent areas.

Photo 2: Representative bore site location and adjacent areas. 3653
California Logistics Center, Proposed Geotechnical Boring

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo 3: California ground squirrel burrow with burrowing owl sign (whitewash and pellets).

Photo 4: Man-made structure with recent burrowing owl sign. 3654
California Logistics Center, Proposed Geotechnical Boring

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo 5: Man-made structure with live burrowing owl.

Photo 6: Two burrowing owls perched on man-made structure with burrowing owl enthusiasts/birdwatchers in background.
3655
8 APPENDIX C
Observed Species List
3656
9 APPENDIX A

OBSERVED VERTEBRATE SPECIES LIST
California Logistics Center
Proposed Geotechnical Drilling Operations
This list reports only the wildlife observed to on the project site by this study. Other species may have been overlooked or undetectable due to their activity seasons. Unless noted otherwise, nomenclature and systematics follow California Bird Records Committee (2021) for avifauna, and CDFW (2016) for herpetofauna and mammals.

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS:
* Nonnative species.
** Sensitive species (see text).

I. VERTEBRATA VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE

HERPETOFAUNA REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS
Phrynosomatidae Spiny Lizards & Relatives
Uta stansburiana common side-blotched lizard

AVIFAUNA BIRDS
Columbidae Pigeons and Doves
Zenaida macroura mourning dove
Accipitridae Hawks, Old World Vultures, Harriers
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk

Tytonidae Barn Owls
** Athena cunicularia western burrowing owl
Falconidae Caracaras and Falcons
Falco sparverius American kestrel
Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers
Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird
Corvidae Jays, Magpies, and Crows
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvus corax common raven
3657
10 Hirundinidae Swallows
Hirundo rustica barn swallow
Mimidae Mockingbirds and Thrashers
Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird
Sturnidae Starlings
*Sturnus vulgaris European starling
Passeridae Old World Sparrows
*Passer domesticus house sparrow
Fringillidae Fringilline & Cardueline Finches & Allies
Haemorhous mexicanus house finch
Passerellidae New World Sparrows
Chondestes grammacus lark sparrow
Icteridae Blackbirds
Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark

MAMMALIA MAMMALS
Sciuridae Squirrels
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Geomyidae Pocket Gophers
Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher
3658
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road
Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618
949.234.8770 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
September 1, 2022 03902.00002.001
Mr. John Pierce, Sr. Vice President
McDonald Property Group
1140 North Coast Highway
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Subject: 2022 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Survey Report for the California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project
Dear Mr. John Pierce:

This letter presents the results of the 2022 focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) survey conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project (project). The survey was conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (formerly California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2012).1 This letter describes the methods used to perform the survey and the results.

SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY
Numerous suitable burrow and burrow surrogates were observed throughout the project site. Two burrows (Nest Nos. 1 and 2) with breeding pairs and juveniles were detected. Six additional burrows (Alternate Burrow [AB] Nos. 1 through 6) were also noted, which were used by BUOWS for cover.

PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is generally located 0.7 mile to the west of Interstate (I-) 15 and 3 miles to the south of I10 in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). It is depicted within Section 25 of Township 1 South, Range 7 West of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Guasti quadrangle map (Figure 2, USGS Topography). Specifically, the project site is located west and east of S Commerce Parkway and north and south of E Santa Ana Street (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). 1 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resource Agency. March 7.
3659
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 2 of 8
September 1, 2022

PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
The approximately 218-acre project site consists of disturbed habitat with primarily non-native annuals and grasses, such as Hordeum spp. Bromus spp., Malva spp., and Sisymbrium spp. Native Amsinckia spp. was also observed throughout the site. Soils within the project site solely consist of Delhi fine sand. 2 The
topography of the project site is mostly flat, with elevations ranging from 900 feet (274 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL) near the southeast corner to 942 feet (287 meters) AMSL near the southwest corner. The project site is bounded by Ontario International Airport to the west, and industrial and commercial properties to the north, east, and south.

Representative photographs of the project site are shown in Attachment A, Representative Site Photos.

METHODS
Part I: Habitat Assessment and Focused Burrow Survey
Prior to conducting the habitat assessment, HELIX consulted the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to determine the nearest BUOW occurrence(s).3 HELIX biologists John Gardner, Robert Hogenauer, Jessica Lee, and Daniel Torres conducted a habitat assessment on March 3, 2022, to determine whether the project site supports suitable BUOW habitat. A focused burrow survey was conducted concurrently with the habitat assessment. All suitable burrows (i.e., greater than approximately four inches [11 cm] in height and width and greater than approximately 59 inches [50 cm] in depth) and burrow surrogates were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) unit.

The habitat assessment and focused burrow survey were conducted concurrently with the first focused survey (see Part II described below). The assessment was conducted on the project site and included an approximately 500-foot (150-m) buffer zone around the periphery of the project site (survey area).

Inaccessible areas of the survey area, including private land behind fences, were visually assessed using binoculars. The survey area was slowly walked and assessed for suitable BUOW habitat, including:
• disturbed, low-growing vegetation within grassland and shrublands (less than 30 percent canopy cover);
• gently rolling or level terrain;
• areas with abundant small mammal burrows, especially California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows;
• fence posts, rocks, or other low perching locations; and • artificial structures, such as earthen berms, debris piles, and cement culverts. 2 Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Retrieved from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.Aspx. Accessed July 14, 2022. 3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database and Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Sacramento, California. Retrieved from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

Accessed July 14, 2022.
3660
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 3 of 8
September 1, 2022
All potential owl burrows were checked for signs of recent owl occupation. Signs of occupation include:
• pellets/casting (regurgitated fur, bones, and/or insect parts); • white wash (excrement); and/or
• feathers.

Part II: Focused Burrowing Owl Survey
Because suitable habitat and burrows were observed within the survey area during the habitat assessment, focused BUOW surveys were conducted to determine whether the survey area supports BUOW. The focused surveys consisted of four breeding season surveys performed by Mr. Gardner, Mr.

Hogenauer, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Torres, and HELIX Biologists Matthew Dimson and Shawn Carroll between March 3 and July 8, 2022. The surveys were spaced at least three weeks apart, with at least one survey conducted between February 15 and April 15, and the remaining three surveys conducted between April 15 and July 15, with at least one of these surveys occurring after June 15 (Table 1, Survey Information).

The biologists walked transects spaced no greater than approximately 65 feet apart (20 meters) to allow for 100 percent visual coverage of all suitable habitat within the survey area. The biologists walked slowly and methodically, closely checking suitable habitat within the survey area for BUOW diagnostic sign (e.g., molted feathers, pellets/castings, or whitewash at or near a burrow entrance) and individual BUOW. If observed, BUOW sign and BUOW observations were recorded with a GPS unit. Inaccessible areas of the survey area were visually assessed using binoculars.

Table 1

SURVEY INFORMATION
Survey
Visit Date Biologist(s) Time (Start/Stop)
Weather Conditions
(Start/Stop) Results
11 03/03/22 John Gardner
Robert Hogenauer
Jessica Lee
Daniel Torres
0610/0910 51°F, wind 0-1 mph,
30% clouds
62°F, wind 1-3 mph,
55% clouds
• Suitable BUOW habitat and burrows
were identified within the survey area.
• No BUOWs were observed during this
focused survey.
2 04/21/22 Shawn Carroll
Matthew Dimson
Jessica Lee
Daniel Torres
0630/1000 52°F, wind 0-1 mph,
1% clouds
61°F, wind 3-5 mph,
1% clouds
• Two adult BUOWs were observed near
Nest No. 1, which is an earthen burrow
located on the west side of Carnegie
Avenue and approximately 900 feet
north of E Santa Ana Street.
• One adult BUOW was observed near
Nest No. 2, which is an earthen burrow
located on the west side of Carnegie
Avenue and approximately 630 feet
north of E Santa Ana Street.
• One adult BUOW was observed near AB
No. 1, which is an earthen burrow
located on the west side of Carnegie
Avenue and approximately 600 feet
south of E Santa Ana Street.
3661
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 4 of 8
September 1, 2022
Survey
Visit Date Biologist(s) Time (Start/Stop)
Weather Conditions
(Start/Stop) Results
3 05/18/22 Matthew Dimson
Shawn Carroll
Jessica Lee
Daniel Torres
0610/0930 55°F, wind 1-2 mph,
100% clouds
64°F, wind 2-3 mph,
100% clouds
• Two adult BUOWs and two juvenile
BUOWs were observed near Nest No. 1.
• Two adult BUOWs and four juvenile
BUOWs were observed near Nest No. 2
• One adult BUOW was observed near AB
No. 2, which is a vertical corrugated
metal pipe storm drain riser located on
the east side of Carnegie Avenue and
approximately 400 feet north of E Santa
Ana Street.
4 07/08/22 Shawn Carroll
Matthew Dimson
John Gardner
Daniel Torres
0620/0930 64°F, wind 1-2 mph,
10% clouds
73°F, wind 0-1 mph,
1% clouds
Due to the timing of the breeding season
and the maturity of the juveniles, only
individuals were noted, given juveniles and
adults were difficult to differentiate.
• One BUOW individual was observed
near AB No. 3, which is an earthen
burrow located approximately 650 feet
to the southwest of the intersection of
E Airport Drive and Carnegie Avenue.
• Two BUOW individuals were observed
near AB No. 4, which is a storm drain
riser located on the east side of
Carnegie Avenue and approximately
840 feet north of E Santa Ana Street.

Individuals from Nest No. 1 are
presumably using this burrow as an
alternate burrow based on its
proximity to the nest location and
observation of individuals flushing from
the nest to this burrow. 2
• Two BUOW individuals were observed
near AB No. 5, which is a storm drain
riser located on the west side of
Carnegie Avenue and approximately
660 feet north of E Santa Ana Street.

Individuals from Nest No. 2 are
presumably using this burrow as an
alternate burrow based on its
proximity to the nest location and
observation of individuals flushing from
the nest to this burrow. 2
• Two BUOW individuals were observed
near AB No. 6, which is an earthen
burrow located on the west side of
Carnegie Avenue and approximately
600 feet south of E Santa Ana Avenue. 1 This survey included the habitat assessment and focused burrow survey. 2 Alternate burrows used by BUOWs associated with Nests No. 1 and 2 are indicated by arrows shown on Figure 5. 3662
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 5 of 8
September 1, 2022

RESULTS
CNDDB Record Review
There is a CNDDB record (Occurrence No. 1788) of BUOWs within the survey area, which between one and four breeding pairs were recorded between 2007 and 2013.4 Four additional populations have been
recorded on CNDDB within 1.5 miles of the project site. These CNDDB records are described below:
• CNDDB Occurrence No. 561: A BUOW population was documented within and adjacent to the existing Toyota Arena in the City of Ontario, approximately 0.75 mile north of the project site.

Multiple breeding pairs and juveniles were documented at this location between 2002 and 2016, including prior to and after the Toyota Arena was constructed in 2007. • CNDDB Occurrence No. 636: A BUOW population was recorded north of E 4th Street, east of Richmond Place, south of Mission Park Drive, and west of Buffalo Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This population was recorded approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site.

Nesting BUOWs were observed in 2003. The population is presumed extirpated since the habitat appears to have been developed sometime between 2015 and 2016 based on aerial imagery.5

• CNDDB Occurrence No. 664: A BUOW breeding pair and juveniles were documented in 2003 near the intersection of Vanderbilt Street and S Auto Center Drive in the City of Ontario, approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the project site. Based on the record description, these individuals were evicted outside of the nesting season in 2003. The site was developed sometime in 2003 based on aerial imagery.
6 The remaining suitable habitat appears to be
present directly to the northwest and south of the developed site. • CNDDB Occurrence No. 1044: A BUOW population was recorded east of S Haven Avenue, south of E Francis Street, and west of Dupont Avenue in the City of Ontario. This population was recorded approximately 0.3 mile south of the project site. Seven BUOWS were recorded at this location in 2006. This population is presumed extirpated since the habitat appears to have been developed sometime between 2008 and 2009 based on aerial imagery,7 although remaining suitable habitat appears to be present directly to the south and southeast of the developed site.

Survey Results
Suitable BUOW habitat was observed within the survey area during the habitat assessment conducted on March 3, 2022, including low-growing vegetation within the non-native grassland. Several burrows and burrow surrogates, such as vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain risers, which could 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database and Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Sacramento, California. Retrieved from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

Accessed August 1, 2022. 5 Google Earth. 2022. Aerial imagery of 34.080104°, -117.551433°. Aerial Imagery from February 9, 2016. Retrieved from:
https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed August 19, 2022. 6 Google Earth. 2022. Aerial imagery of 34.046098°, -117.545772°. Aerial Imagery from November 30, 2003. Retrieved from:
https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed August 19, 2022. 7 Google Earth. 2022. Aerial imagery of 34.042164°, -117.571124°. Aerial Imagery from January 31, 2009. Retrieved from:
https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed August 19, 2022. 3663
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 6 of 8
September 1, 2022
potentially be used by BUOWs, were observed throughout the survey area (Figure 4, Suitable Burrows).

Suitable foraging habitat was observed within and adjacent to the survey area.

Two burrows (Nest Nos. 1 and 2), with breeding pairs and juveniles, were detected within the project site (Figure 5, Nests and Alternate Burrows). Six alternate burrows, (AB Nos. 1 through 6) were also noted throughout the project site (Figure 5), and these burrows were used by BUOWs for cover. A summary of observations is provided below:
• Nest No. 1 is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 900 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW pair was observed near the burrow entrance during the first survey. Two adult BUOWs and two juvenile BUOWs were noted during the second survey. No BUOWs were noted at this burrow during the first or fourth surveys. • Nest No. 2 is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 630 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW was observed next to an earthen burrow during the second survey. Two adult BUOWs and four BUOW juveniles were observed during the third survey. No BUOWs were observed during the first or fourth surveys. • AB No. 1 is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 600 feet south of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW was observed during the second survey.

No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, third, or fourth surveys. • AB No. 2 is a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser located on the east side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 400 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. One adult BUOW was observed near the storm drain riser during the third survey. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or fourth surveys.
• AB No. 3 is an earthen burrow located approximately 650 feet to the southwest of the intersection of E Airport Drive and Carnegie Avenue. One BUOW individual was observed during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys. • AB No. 4 is a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser located on the east side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 840 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Two BUOW individuals were observed during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys. BUOWs from Nest No. 1 are presumably using this burrow as an alternate burrow based on its proximity to the nest location and observation of individuals flushing from the nest to this burrow.
• AB No. 5 is a storm drain riser located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 660 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Four individuals were noted during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys. BUOWs from Nest No. 2 are presumably using this burrow as an alternate burrow based on its proximity to the nest location and observation of individuals flushing from the nest to this burrow. 3664
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 7 of 8
September 1, 2022
• AB No. 6 is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue and approximately 600 feet south of E Santa Ana Avenue. Two BUOW individuals were observed during the fourth survey. Due to the timing of the breeding season and the maturity of the juveniles, only individuals were noted during the fourth survey, given juveniles and adults were difficult to differentiate. No BUOWs were observed at this burrow during the first, second, or third surveys.

OTHER SITE CONDITIONS
Wildlife photographers were noted in close proximity to Nest No. 1 during the second and third surveys (see Photograph 1 in Attachment A). An unknown person installed a perch consisting of a tree branch outside of Nest Nos. 1 and 2 (see Photographs 1 and 2 in Attachment A). There are numerous suitable raptor perches within and adjacent to the project site, which consists of tall ornamental trees and light poles. Raptors and/or sign of use (e.g., white wash) were observed on multiple suitable perching locations (Figure 6, Observed Raptor Perches).

CONCLUSION
Numerous suitable burrow and burrow surrogates were observed throughout the project site (Figure 4).

Two burrows (Nest Nos. 1 and 2) with breeding pairs and juveniles were detected (Figure 5). Six alternate burrows (AB Nos. 1 through 6) were also noted (Figure 5), which were used by BUOWs for cover.

A take avoidance (pre-construction) survey is required within 14 days prior to ground disturbance ground-disturbing activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and/or grubbing), in accordance with CDFW Staff Report on BUOW Mitigation. If BUOW(s) are observed during the take avoidance survey, a BUOW Exclusion Plan and Mitigation Management Plan must be prepared and coordinated with CDFW prior to ground disturbance.
8 If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter report, please contact Ezekiel Cooley at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Ezekiel Cooley Jessica Lee
Regulatory Specialist/Biology Project Manager Biologist/Assistant Biology Project Manager Matthew Dimson Daniel Torres
Biologist Biologist
8 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resource Agency. March 7.
3665
Letter to Mr. John Pierce Page 8 of 8
September 1, 2022
John Gardner Shawn Carroll
Biologist Biologist
Enclosures:

Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: USGS Topography
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
Figure 4: Suitable Burrows
Figure 5: Nests and Alternate Burrows
Figure 6: Observed Raptor Perches
Attachment A: Representative Site Photos
3666
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!!!
! !! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
Ô?
×?
×?
×?
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"a$ !"`$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
å?
å?
ì?
ø?
?a
?s
?u
?z
?z
?z
?¥
?¬
?°
?± ?±
?±
?¹
?¹
?¹
?Æ
?Æ
?Æ ?Æ
IÆ
%&d(
%&e(
Aå
Aí
Añ
Añ
Am
%&g(
%&g(
%&h(
%&h(
%&h(
AÎ
AÐ
AÝ
%&l(
%&l(
%&l(
%&l(
%&o(
%&o(
%&q(
!
Project Site
Lee
Lake
CULVER
CITY
SANTA
MONICA

TORRANCE

INGLEWOOD

BEVERLY
HILLS

PASADENA

BURBANK

GLENDALE
POMONA

WHITTIER
LONG
BEACH
LOS

ANGELES
PALOS
VERDES
WEST
COVINA

NORWALK
CARSON
DOWNEY
SAN

GABRIEL

COMPTON

HOLLYWOOD

NEWPORT
BEACH
SANTA
ANA

MISSION
VIEJO
LAGUNA
BEACH

ANAHEIM
LA
HABRA
BUENA
PARK

WESTMINSTER

HUNTINGTON
BEACH

ONTARIO
AZUZA

RIVERSIDE
CORONA
CHINO
LAKE

ELSINORE

SAN BERNARDINO

HESPERIA
IRVINE
San Gabriel Mountains
Santa Ana Mountains
San Bernardino Mountains

ORANGE COUNTY

MURRIETA
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY

BANNING

BEAUMONT
HEMET

SAN JACINTO
PERRIS
Big Bear Lake
Alvord
Perris
Reservoir
Lake
Mathews
Canyon
Lake
Lake
Elsinore
Skinner
Reservoir
Diamond
Valley Lake
Figure 1
Regional Location
\\IrvineDC\Vol3\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig1_Regional : 03902.00002.001 : 7/28/2022 - DY Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) K
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 10 Miles
3667
Figure 2
USGS Topography
\\IrvineDC\Vol3\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig2_USGS : 03902.00002.001 : 7/28/2022 - DY Source: GUASTI 7.5' Quad (USGS)
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 2,000 Feet
K
Project Site
3668
Slater
Cir
Guasti Rd
Lowell St
Haven Ave
Dupont St
Airport Dr
Santa Ana St
Jurupa St
Brickell St
Carnegie Ave
Doubleday Ave
Commerce Pkwy
East 'a' St East A St
S.p.r.r. Rr
La Salle St
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
\\IrvineDC\Vol3\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig3_Aerial : 03902.00002.001 : 7/28/2022 - DY Source: Aerial (San Bernardino County, 2020) K
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 750 Feet
Project Site
3669
Slater
Cir
Guasti Rd
Lowell St
Haven Ave
Dupont St
Airport Dr
Santa Ana St
Jurupa St
Brickell St
Carnegie Ave
Doubleday Ave
Commerce Pkwy
East 'a' St East A St
S.p.r.r. Rr
La Salle St
Figure 4
Suitable Burrows
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig4_SuitableBurrows : 03902.00002.001 : 8/19/2022 - DY Source: Aerial (San Bernardino County, 2020) K
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 750 Feet
Project Site
Survey Area - 500-ft Buffer
Suitable Burrow
3670
Slater
Cir
Guasti Rd
Lowell St
Haven Ave
Dupont St
Airport Dr
Santa Ana St
Jurupa St
Brickell St
Carnegie Ave
Doubleday Ave
Commerce Pkwy
East 'a' St East A St
S.p.r.r. Rr
La Salle St
Nest No. 2
4/21/2022 - 1 individual
5/18/2022 - 6 individuals
Alternate Burrow No. 4
7/8/2022 - 2 individuals
Alternate Burrow No. 6
7/8/2022 - 2 individuals
Alternate Burrow No. 3
7/8/2022 - 1 individual
Alternate Burrow No. 2
5/18/2022 - 1 invididual
Nest No. 1
4/21/2022 - 2 individuals
5/18/2022 - 4 individuals
Alternate Burrow No. 1
4/21/2022 - 1 individual
Alternate Burrow No. 5
7/8/2022 - 4 individuals
Figure 5
Nests and Alternate Burrows
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig5_NestsAlternateBurrows : 03902.00002.001 : 8/31/2022 - DY Source: Aerial (San Bernardino County, 2020) K
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 750 Feet
Project Site
Survey Area - 500-ft Buffer
Nest No. 1
Alternate Burrow No. 4
Nest No. 2
Alternate Burrow No. 5
Alternate Burrow
Note: arrows indicate alternate burrows
used by individuals from nests.
3671
Slater
Cir
Guasti Rd
Lowell St
Haven Ave
Dupont St
Airport Dr
Santa Ana St
Jurupa St
Brickell St
Carnegie Ave
Doubleday Ave
Commerce Pkwy
East 'a' St East A St
S.p.r.r. Rr
La Salle St
Figure 6
Observed Raptor Perches
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\Maps\BUOW_2022\BUOW_2022.aprx Fig6_ObservedPerches : 03902.00002.001 : 8/19/2022 - DY Source: Aerial (San Bernardino County, 2020) K
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project 0 750 Feet
Project Site
Survey Area - 500-ft Buffer
Obseved Raptor Perch
3672
H:\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\00002_OIALogisticsCenterBUOW\_Reports\BUOW\Attachment A\Photos Representative Site Photos
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project Photograph 1: View of Nest No. 1, facing west. This burrow is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue, approximately 900 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Successful breeding (two juveniles) were documented at this burrow. Photographers were observed near this burrow during the second and third surveys. Photograph taken on April 21, 2022.

Photograph 2: View of Nest No. 2, facing west. This burrow is an earthen burrow located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue, approximately 630 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Successful breeding (four juveniles) was documented at this burrow. Photograph taken on May 18, 2022.

Attachment A 3673
H:\PROJECTS\M\McDonaldPropertyGroup_03902\00002_OIALogisticsCenterBUOW\_Reports\BUOW\Attachment A\Photos Representative Site Photos
Attachment A
California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project Photograph 3: View of Alternate Burrow No. 4, facing east. This burrow consists of a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser located and is located on the east side of Carnegie Avenue, approximately 840 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Photograph taken on May 18, 2022.

Photograph 4: View of Alternate Burrow No. 5, facing west. This burrow consists of a vertical corrugated metal pipe storm drain riser located on the west side of Carnegie Avenue, approximately 660 feet north of E Santa Ana Street. Photograph taken on Photograph taken on July 8, 2022.
3674
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151-acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019

FIRST YEAR FOCUSED SURVEY FOR

DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY
(Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis)
ON A 151-ACRE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY (GROUP 1 PROPERTIES) IN

ONTARIO

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Ontario International Airport Authority
1923 E. Avion Street
Ontario, CA 91761
Prepared by:

Kendall H. Osborne
Osborne Biological Consulting
6675 Avenue Juan Diaz
Riverside, CA 92509
October 26, 2019
3675
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151-acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 1.0 1

NATURAL HISTORY OF THE DSF 2.0 1

METHODOLOGY 3.0 3
DSF Survey Guidelines 3.1 3
Habitat Assessment Methods 3.2 3
Focused Surveys Methods 3.3 4

RESULTS 4.0 7
Habitat Assessment Results 4.1 7
Survey Results 4.2 8
Existing Environment and Community 4.3 8
Adjacent Lands 4.3.1 8
Topography 4.3.2 8
Soils 4.3.3 8
Vegetation 4.3.4 8
Insect Community 4.3.5 9

CONCLUSIONS 5.0 9
REFERENCES 6.0 9
FIGURES 7.0 10
APPENDIX 8.0 17
Appendix A: plant and insect species 17
Table A1. Plant species 17
Table A2. Insect species 18

Appendix B: Correspondence with USFWS
Field notes 21

3676
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151-acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019

FIRST YEAR FOCUSED SURVEY FOR

DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY
(Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis)
ON A 151-ACRE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY (GROUP 1 PROPERTIES)

ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Ontario International Airport Authority
1923 E. Avion Street
Ontario, CA 91761
Prepared by
Kendall H. Osborne
Osborne Biological Consulting
6675 Avenue Juan Diaz
Riverside, CA 92509
The undersigned certify this report to be a complete and accurate account of the findings and conclusions of a first year, 2019 focused survey for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on the 151-acre Ontario International Airport Authority (Group 1) properties, Ontario, San Bernardino, California. ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Ken H. Osborne Rick Rogers David K. Faulkner
6675 Avenue Juan Diaz 8640 Hillrose St. 2321 Gladwick St.

Riverside, CA 92509 Apt. I-10 Rancho Dominguez, CA
Sunland, CA 91040 90220
______________________
Eric Renfro
22909 Pennsylvania Ave.

Torrance, CA 90501
October 26, 2019
3677
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 1

SUMMARY
The Ontario International Airport Authority has requested a first year focused survey to assess the presence or absence of Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF, Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) for 151 acres (Group 1, with 143 acres of habitat suitable for DSF) of the Ontario International Airport Northwest Quadrant Demolition project in Ontario, California. To determine presence or absence of DSF on the study area, a series of at least 83 site visits totaling at least 274.56 field hours, were conducted on the survey area from July 1 to September 20, 2019.

A habitat evaluation conducted on March 13, 2019 (Osborne 2019) found all parcels investigated for the project area are mapped with Delhi sands (Woodruff 1980). These parcels all feature soil and ecological conditions Suitable for potential DSF. The habitat evaluations determined 143 acres of potential DSF habitat over the study area.

Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly was not observed on the Group 1 properties during the course of this first year 2019 field season. One special status animal species, Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) was occasionally encountered in the course of this survey.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the methods and results of a Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF, Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) focused survey for a 151-acre Group 1 properties, in Ontario, San Bernardino. The DSF was listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on September 23, 1993 (USFWS 1993).

The Group 1 properties are located east of Haven Avenue, south of E. Airport Drive, and north of Jurupa Street as shown on the accompanying maps. And can be found on the Guaste, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map, Township 2 South, Range 7 West, in Section 1 (Figures 1 and 2) .

2.0 NATURAL HISTORY OF THE DELHI SANDS FLOWERLOVING FLY Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly belongs to a genus of flies (Rhaphiomidas) commonly known as flower loving flies. There are more than 30 species of these flies, distributed across the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. These flies are huge by the standards set by most flies – with size among the species ranging from approximately 1.5 centimeters up to 3, and even 4 centimeters, usually gray, tan, rust or yellow in color. All species of Rhaphiomidas are associated with rather arid, sandy habitats, with most species living on dune systems of inland desert valleys, rivers, deltas, and beach strands. A few species are found in sandy washes, alluvial benches and remnant glacial moraines. Many species of these flies often hover before flowers in the manner of hummingbirds, using a long, thin, tubular proboscis (mouth-part), with which the flies probe for nectar – hence a traditional name “giant flower-loving flies”. Smaller flies of the family Apioceridae, once considered very closely related to Rhaphiomidas were formerly called “flower-loving flies”.
3678
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 2 The DSF is only known to occur in association with Delhi sand deposits, presumably occupied the once extensive dune system of the upper Santa Ana River Valley, including portions of what is now the City of Colton, west through portions of the City of Ontario, and south to the Santa Ana River. Today, DSF exists on only a few disjunct sites (USFWS 1997) within a radius of about eight miles in southwestern San Bernardino and northwestern Riverside Counties (Colton, Rialto, Fontana, and Ontario). More than 95 percent of known DSF habitat was considered eliminated by development, agriculture and other land management practices by 1993 (Smith 1993, USFWS 1996 in Kingsley 1996), however, this proportion is now nearer 98 to 99% due to these ongoing processes. Many of the last remaining fragments of DSF habitat are currently under pressure by land management efforts such as heavy disking, irrigation, manure dumping, and gravel dumping.

There is presently an estimated 1,200 acres of habitat that can support this species (USFWS 1997), but this estimate likely includes lands needing extensive habitat restoration.

Adult DSF flight period is typically August and September, when individual adults emerge, reproduce and die. The adult life span of an individual DSF lasts for a few days and adults do not live beyond the flight period (Kiyani 1995). Adult DSF are highly mobile, agile fliers. Male DSF are frequently seen flying low through habitat, using apparently random, circuitous paths around and between shrubs in search of females. Such “cruising” behavior often covers areas on the scale of 1000 square meters in the time span of a minute. Alternatively, male DSF are often seen flying about an open patch of ground (ca 100 square meters) such as along a dirt path or dune blow-out area. Here, males may repetitively land and rest on one or another object (such as small dried plants) in the area, and such rests are interrupted by periods of patrolling flight (apparently territorial) about the spot. When alarmed, these insects tend to fly rapidly in more or less a straight line – often covering distances of 100 meters in less than 6 seconds. Adult DSF are known to nectar at flowers of California buckwheat and California croton.

DSF, like other Rhaphiomidas species, appears to have an annual life cycle (because of the annual flight). However, it has been widely believed that the underground larval/pupal stage may persist for additional years, depending upon various environmental factors such as annual rainfall, food availability and weather conditions during the flight season (many desert Rhaphiomidas species do not appear after a drought year and often, substantial flights occur only sporadically over the years). The biology of Rhaphiomidas trochilus is likely informative of Rhaphiomidas species in general and DSF in particular. Based on observations of captive R. trochilus larvae (Osborne and Ballmer 2014) it is reasonable to conclude that they are mobile opportunistic predators of softbodied, sand-inhabiting insects. Larvae from Sand Ridge, Kern County, CA were maintained in captivity for several months, during which they burrowed actively through sand maintained with slight moisture content (similar to the damp sand where they were found). They fed on larvae of a scarab beetle (Scarabaeidae) and an unidentified beefly (Diptera: Bombyliidae), which were also recovered from Sand Ridge, and larvae of paper wasps (Polistes sp.) which were removed from their nests and buried in the sand. Captive larvae grew and molted after feeding; but, when not fed for extended periods of time, they molted again – losing weight and size in the process. Some larvae were observed to repeat the growth and “shrinkage” cycle multiple times. One larva survived about 17 months in captivity; because it was captured nine months after the most recent flight season, it was at least two years old at time of death. This larva molted four times while undergoing five cycles of growth and shrinkage driven by variable food availability. Its final dry 3679
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 3 weight was slightly smaller than the typical dry weight of an adult male R. trochilus. The ability of R. trochilus larvae to molt down during times of scarce food resources could allow an extended and indeterminate larval growth period, but with maturation and appearance of adults always during summer months. This may also explain the common observations that populations of various Rhaphiomidas species apparently exhibit little or no adult emergence in some years (especially years of below normal precipitation).

The brief adult life span and active mate-locating behavior of DSF males (typical of all Rhaphiomidas species) suggests that relatively high population density and/or nearly synchronous adult emergence may be crucial to survival of populations. Protracted Rhaphiomidas larval biology and staggered (across years) adult emergence must enhance population momentum and cross generational gene flow, and the requirement of abundant and diverse insect prey on which larvae develop – all explain why DSF populations appear as long-term entities (persisting for decades) associated with ecologically intact dune habitats.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 DSF Survey Guidelines
Interim General Survey Guidelines for the DSF have been suggested by the USFWS (1996). By following these guidelines, DSF presence or absence survey results may be deemed acceptable to the USFWS (rejection of survey results may result where the guidelines are not followed). The guidelines indicate that focused DSF surveys should be conducted wherever Delhi sands are present within the presumed range of DSF, twice weekly (two days per week) during the single annual flight period (usually from July 1 to September 20). Recent early season DSF discoveries lead the USFWS to recommend a survey season from July 15 to September 20 for 2003 and a survey season from July 1 to September 20 from the year 2004. Weather conditions must be suitable for DSF activity at the times survey work is pursued. The DSF is generally active when daytime temperatures exceed 80 degrees Fahrenheit (F), but may fly with slightly cooler temperatures in bright sunlight.

3.2 Habitat Assessment Methods
On March 13, 2019, Osborne visited the project area in order to investigate habitat suitability for the DSF. Osborne examined the subject survey area to rate its potential to support DSF.

Photographs were taken of the survey area from various perspectives. Habitat suitability for DSF was evaluated using indicators of potential DSF habitat including: presence and abundance of loose, unconsolidated Delhi sands with low organic contamination; degree of habitat disturbance indicated by plant species composition and disposition of soil surface, presence and abundance of native sand associated plants such as Croton californicus, Heterotheca grandiflora, Eriogonum thurberi and Eriogonum fasciculatum. These plants are actually more an indication of relative disturbance regimen – conditions with lesser disturbance being of higher quality for DSF.

Presence and abundance of Delhi sands associated insects such as Apiocera convergens, Apiocera chrysolasia and (to a lesser extent) Nemomydas pantherinus, noted throughout the course of focused surveys, serve as further indicators of DSF habitat quality. Potential DSF habitat has been 3680
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 4 further evaluated on the basis of overall insect diversity and abundance, particularly with respect to sand associated predators and parasitoids.

In the course of previous work Osborne (2003, Osborne et al. 2003) developed a means of rating habitat on sites for potential to support DSF, rating areas within any site based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat based on the following scheme:

1. Developed areas, non-Delhi sands soils with high clay, silt, and/or gravel content. Delhi sands extensively and deeply covered by dumping of exotic soils, rubble, trash, manure, or organic debris. Unsuitable.

2. Delhi sands are present but the soil characteristics include a predominance of exotic soils such as alluvial materials, or predominance of other foreign contamination as gravels, manure, or organic debris. Severe and frequent disturbance (such as a maintenance yard or high use roadbed). Very Low Quality.

3. Moderately contaminated Delhi sands. Delhi sands with moderate to high disturbance (such as annual disking). Sufficient Delhi Sands are present to prevent soil compaction (related to contamination by foreign soils). Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity. Low Quality.

4. Abundant clean Delhi Sands with little or no foreign soils (such as alluvial material) present. Moderate abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover.

Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates.

May represent high quality habitat with mild or superficial disturbance. Moderate Quality

5. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi Sands. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. Sand associated plant and arthropod species may be abundant. High Quality
It should be noted that habitat qualities often vary spatially within a site so that conditions on a site fall within a range of qualities. Further, overall habitat quality is affected by the overall habitat area on a site, such that very small areas diminish the overall habitat value of a site. It is also important to note that suitable habitats, even rated as high quality for DSF, are very rarely actually occupied by DSF. These ratings are more informative on mitigation and conservation measures in the event that DSF is found on any particular site. Use of this habitat rating system is somewhat subjective and best undertaken by a biologist who has extensive experience with Rhaphiomidas species. While investigating the survey area, Osborne subjected the site to an analysis of this kind so as to give a general estimate of overall habitat conditions relevant to DSF potential.

3.3 Focused Survey Methods
Each portion of suitable habitat (for DSF) was surveyed on 24 dates, with the overall survey effort involving four biologists conducting at least 83 site visits totaling at least 274.56 field hours, with site visits made from July 1, to September 20, 2019. Focused DSF surveys were conducted by 3681
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 5 Kendall H. Osborne, Permit # TE-837760-10, Rick Rogers (under Osborne’s permit), David K.

Faulkner # TE-838743-6, and Eric S. Renfro # TE-142436-2. Following the USFWS Interim General Survey Guidelines, we surveyed all portions of the survey area at least twice a week, between the hours of 1000 and 1400 (Table 1). Due to the large acreage of the survey area, and four-hour (50 acre limit) of survey effort allowed for any given biologist, the survey area was divided into portions (1A, 1B, and 1C) in order to facilitate survey logistics and scheduling.

These portions are noted in Table 1, below, as well as on daily field notes presented in the Appendix. A map was developed showing survey areas (including other surveys for the OIAA) showing acreages and allotted survey times meeting the USFWS protocol (Figure 4). The survey protocol, as set forth in the Interim General Guidelines for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly survey, is designed to maximize the validity of a presence/absence determination.

Osborne photographed the property from several perspectives to document existing conditions.

Notes were taken on vegetative cover and plant species composition, abundance and diversity and species composition of insects and other animals, soil types, degree and nature of disturbance, surface cover, organic content, compaction, current land management practices, existing development, and conditions of surrounding vicinity and proximity of other DSF populations.

Table 1. Dates, personnel, times and conditions for focused DSF survey work.

Date Portion Biologist Hours Weather Conditions
7/1/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 2-5 mph, 90-95° F. 7/2/2019 1C R. Rogers 1000-1325 clear, winds 1-4 mph, 80-90° F. 7/2/2019 1B K. Osborne 1000-1400 clear, winds 2-6 mph, 78-90° F. 7/4/2019 1A E. Renfro 1000-1400 clear, winds 2-4 mph, 78-86 ° F. 7/6/2019 1B E. Renfro 1000-1400 clear, winds 2-5 mph, 73-88° F. 7/7/2019 1C R. Rogers 1000-1325 50% patchy clouds, clearing, winds 1-4 mph, 75-80° F.
7/8/2019 1A K. Osborne 1000-1355 100% overcast to clear, winds 0-3 mph, 70- 80° F.
7/8/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 100% overcast, clearing, winds 0-5 mph, 73- 78° F.
7/8/2019 1A E. Renfro 1117-1131 clear, winds 2-4 mph, 80° F. 7/9/2019 1C R. Rogers 1000-1325 5% patchy clouds, clearing, winds 1-4 mph, 80-87° F.
7/10/2019 1A E. Renfro 1000-1332 clear, winds 2-3 mph, 78-84° F. 7/11/2019 1A E. Renfro 1215-1243 clear, winds 2-3 mph, 92-94° F. 7/12/2019 1C E. Renfro 1036-1400 clear, winds 1-4 mph, 89-99° F. 7/13/2019 1B D. Faulkner 1000-1400 clear, winds 1-6 mph, 84-100° F. 7/15/2019 1C E. Renfro 1037-1400 clear, winds 2-4 mph, 88-99 ° F. 7/16/2019 1B E. Renfro 1000-1400 clear, winds 2-6 mph, 86-96° F. 7/17/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-8 mph, 83-94 ° F. 7/18/2019 1C D. Faulkner 1000-1229 clear, winds 1-3 mph, 86-88° F. 7/18/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 1-8 mph, 81-93° F. 7/18/2019 1C D. Faulkner 1334-1400 clear, winds 5-7 mph, 94° F. 7/20/2019 1A E. Renfro 1000-1400 clear, winds 1 mph, 74-90° F. 7/22/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 45% - 75% patchy clouds, winds 0-5 mph, 80- 94° F.
7/22/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 75% - 45% patchy clouds, winds 0-5 mph, 80- 94° F.
7/22/2019 1B D. Faulkner 1000-1400 80% - 20% patchy clouds, winds 0-3 mph, 84- 3682
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 6 100° F.
7/23/2019 1C R. Rogers 1038-1400 40% - 50% patchy clouds, winds 0-4 mph, 97- 100° F.
7/24/2019 1A E. Renfro 1000-1400 clear, winds 1-4 mph, 93-104° F. 7/24/2019 1B R. Rogers 1012-1400 10% - 20% patchy clouds, 0-5 mph, 92-100° F.
7/25/2019 1C E. Renfro 1037-1404 overcast, clearing to 60%, winds 1-4 mph, 85- 94° F.
7/25/2019 1B K. Osborne 1158-1210 100% overcast, calm, 87° F. 7/30/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 5% patchy clouds, winds 0-3 mph, 81-95° F. 7/31/2019 1C R. Rogers 1000-1325 clear, winds 0-3 mph, 83-92° F. 7/31/2019 1B D. Faulkner 1000-1400 clear, winds 1-6 mph, 79-92° F. 8/2/2019 1B E. Renfro 1000-1400 clear, winds 2-4 mph, 82-98° F. 8/3/2019 1A D. Faulkner 1000-1400 0 - 30% patchy clouds, winds 1-8 mph, 87- 103° F.
8/3/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear- 5% patchy clouds, winds 0-5 mph, 90- 99° F.
8/3/2019 1C E. Renfro 1037-1402 clear, winds 2-5 mph, 87-101° F. 8/5/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-4 mph, 80-88° F. 8/6/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 20% - 25% patchy clouds, winds 0-3 mph, 86- 100° F.
8/7/2019 1A (part) K. Osborne 1030-1215
1220-1245
10% - 15% clouds, winds 0-2 mph, 81-93° F.
8/7/2019 1C R. Rogers 1038-1400 20% - 25% patchy clouds, winds 1-4 mph, 82- 84° F.
8/9/2019 1A K. Osborne
R. Rogers
1215-1400
1343-1400
clear, winds 0-6 mph, 94-96° F.
8/10/2019 1B K. Osborne 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-4 mph, 79-90° F. 8/11/2019 1C K. Osborne 1035-1400 clear, winds 0-6 mph, 79-87° F. 8/12/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-4 mph, 89-94° F. 8/13/2019 1C R. Rogers 1038-1400 clear, winds 1-5 mph, 92-95° F. 8/14/2019 1A D. Faulkner 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-5 mph, 87-101° F. 8/14/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 2-4 mph, 84-100° F. 8/16/2019 1B K. Osborne 1120-1220 clear, winds 0-2 mph, 90-95° F. 8/17/2019 1C D. Faulkner 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-4 mph, 75-86° F. 8/17/2019 1B (Part) K. Osborne 1008-1308 clear, winds 0-2 mph, 74-83° F. 8/19/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-5 mph, 82-91° F. 8/20/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-6 mph, 93-100° F. 8/20/2019 1C D. Faulkner 1040-1405 clear, winds 1-3 mph, 87-93° F. 8/21/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-6 mph, 94-98° F. 8/22/2019 1C R. Rogers 1038-1400 clear, winds 1-7 mph, 90-96° F. 8/23/2019 1B D. Faulkner 1000-1400 90% overcast, clearing, winds 0-3 mph, 72- 85° F.
8/26/2019 1C R. Rogers 1038-1400 clear, winds 0-5 mph, 95-96° F. 8/27/2019 1A D. Faulkner 1000-1400 clear, winds 2-7 mph, 82-97° F. 8/28/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-7 mph, 90-94° F. 8/29/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-4 mph, 90-95° F. 8/30/2019 1C E. Renfro 1000-1325 clear, winds 1-2 mph, 88-95° F. 8/30/2019 1B D. Faulkner 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-6 mph, 81-96° F. 9/2/2019 1C K. Osborne 1058-1118 5% - 10% patchy clouds, winds 0-2 mph, 85- 86° F.
9/2/2019 1C R. Rogers 1135-1400 25% patchy clouds, winds 1-7 mph, 98-99° F. 9/3/2019 1A D. Faulkner 1000-1400 clear, winds 1-8 mph, 90-99° F. 9/3/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 25% - 45% patchy clouds, winds 1-5 mph, 88- 3683
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 7 92° F.
9/3/2019 1A K. Osborne 1204-1236 clear, winds 2-4 mph, 91-92° F. 9/5/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 40% - 65% patchy clouds, winds 1-3 mph, 84- 92° F.
9/6/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-7 mph, 83-95° F. 9/6/2019 1C D. Faulkner 1035-1400 clear, winds 1-7 mph, 88-97° F. 9/10/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 50% - 90% patchy clouds, winds 0-5 mph, 70- 88° F.
9/10/2019 1C K. Osborne 1035-1400 100% overcast, clearing, winds 0-5 mph, 73- 76° F.
9/11/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 15% patchy clouds, clearing, winds 1-5 mph, 79-83° F.
9/13/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-3 mph, 92-98° F. 9/13/2019 1C D. Faulkner 1035-1400 clear, winds 1-6 mph, 88-100° F. 9/15/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 90% - 20% patchy clouds, winds 0-3 mph, 78- 85° F.
9/16/2019 1C K. Osborne 1050-1400 5% - 10% patchy clouds, winds 0-6 mph, 86- 87° F.
9/17/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-4 mph, 82-89° F. 9/18/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 0-5 mph, 75-85° F. 9/18/2019 1C (part) K. Osborne 1215-1232 clear, calm, 80-81° F. 9/19/2019 1B R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 1-4 mph, 74-77° F. 9/20/2019 1A R. Rogers 1000-1400 clear, winds 1-4 mph, 74-82° F. 9/20/2019 1C D. Faulkner 1035-1400 clear, winds 1-4 mph, 72-82° F.

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Habitat Assessment Results
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service map (Woodruff 1980) and associated web based resources (https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/) show all portions of the project area mapped with Delhi fine sand soils (Figure 3). With the exception of limited street-side areas with exotic landscaped vegetation, and limited marginal portions with graveled drives, the project areas are open fields with vegetation dominated by exotic grasses and forbs (especially Hordeum, Bromus, Amsinkia, Malva, and Sisymbrium). Plant species associated with sandy soils are present in spare or low abundance, but include Ambrosia acanthicarpa, Eriogonum gracile, Camissonia bistorta, and Camisonia strigosa. The project areas appear unchanged since at least 1994 to the present, and have existed as exotic grass/forblands routinely mowed (Google Earth). Delhi sands are sporadically exposed by fossorial animals and paths through the majority of the area, demonstrating the wide distribution of sands across the survey area (as mapped by Woodruff 1980). In all areas investigated, where exotic annual (springtime) vegetation (covering the soil surface) was removed, Delhi sand soils were exposed. These areas constituting the majority of the investigated project areas were rated as Low to Moderate Quality habitat for DSF and are thus considered as approximately 142.32 acres of Suitable habitat for DSF. Street-side exotic landscaping is present in project areas along South Commerce Parkway, and along a southern portion of South Haven Avenue, amounting to an approximate total of 8.66 acres determined to be Unsuitable habitat for DSF. An additional 0.02 acres of graveled drive is present along the western edge of the extreme southwestern portion of this project area, also Unsuitable for DSF. 3684
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 8 During the course of summer surveys, annual vegetation had dried, or been mowed, and abundant gopher activity had exposed the underlying sandy soils. Summertime field observations lead us to upgrade our overall rating of habitat conditions for potential DSF on these lands to include some Low Quality habitat but primarily Moderate to High Quality habitat for DSF.

4.1 Survey Results
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF, Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) was not observed on the subject site during the course of this survey. One special status animal species, Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) was occasionally encountered in the course of this survey. Lists of plants and insects observed during the course of the survey are given in the appendix.

Some of the consulting biologists on this project had concern about the mowing of the survey area late into our season. We are aware that these fields are mowed on a regular basis and have been for at least the last twenty years (Osborne, personal observations). The fields on and around the airport are routinely mowed, often multiple times a year, not only to reduce fuel load, but to deter presence of abundant birds. We understand that an abundance of birds, and particularly large birds such as raptors on airport flight paths, present a hazard to aircraft. This was dramatically demonstrated in January of 2009, when U S Airways flight 1549 ingested a flock of Canada geese and was forced to land without engine power into the Hudson River, miraculously intact.

Nevertheless, we all noted the profound and immediate decline in insect abundance following mowing events.

4.3 Existing Environment and Community

4.3.1 Adjacent lands
The survey area is generally bounded on the west by undeveloped lands similar to those on the site, and otherwise generally surrounded (north, east, south) by commercial/industrial development.

4.3.2 Topography
The site is generally flat with elevation on the site ranging from approximately 950 to 900 feet, with the gentle slope diminishing to the south.

4.3.3 Soils
Woodruff (1980) indicated the site to consist of Delhi fine sands. These sands are evident throughout the site.

4.3.4 Vegetation
The survey area is generally characterized as open fields supporting exotic annual vegetation dominated by Hordeum, Bromus, Amsinkia, Malva, Salsola, Hirschfeldia, and Sisymbrium. Plant 3685
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 9 species commonly associated with Delhi sands and potential DSF habitat are abundant, and include annual bursage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandiflora), slender buckwheat (Eriogonum gracile), California croton (Croton califonicus), and golden crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides). No special status plant species (species of concern) were encountered in the course of this survey.

Figures 5-8 present representative views of the survey site and habitats. Figure 9 provides a key as to where on the site these photographs were taken. Table 1 (Appendix A) provides a list of plant species encountered on the survey site.

4.3.5 Insect Community
During site visits at least 150 insect species (counting only large and conspicuous insects) were observed. The insect community encountered on the survey area was typical of ecological communities occurring on Delhi sands. Insects included Mydidae (Nemomydas), Apioceridae, Asilidae, Bombyliidae, Mutilidae, Pompilidae, Mymerliontidae, Crabionidae, and Sphecidae. A list of most insect species observed is presented in the appendix (Table 2, Appendix A).

5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Our single season of survey for DSF does not provide a definitive conclusion as to DSF presence or absence. Due in part to the tendency of DSF to emerge on and off over the years, The USFWS recommends two consecutive years of protocol survey with negative results before making a determination of DSF absence.

6.0 REFERENCES
Hickman, J.C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Munz, P.A. 1974. A flora of southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Osborne, K. H. 2019. Habitat conditions for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly on a 151 acre portion (Group 1) of the Ontario International Airport Northwest Quadrant Demolition project, Ontario. Submitted to Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. on behalf of the Ontario International Airport Authority.

Osborne, K. H. 2003. Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly Habitat Assessment for the Hermosa Cemetery, Colton. Prepared for Inland Memorial Cremations and Burial. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA.

Osborne, K. H., G. R. Ballmer, and T. McGill. 2003. DSF Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Mary Vagle Conservation Area. Prepared for the City of Fontana. Submitted to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, CA.
3686
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 10 Rogers, R. and M. Mattoni. 1993. Observations on the natural history and conservation biology of the giant flower-loving flies, Rhaphiomidas (Diptera:Apioceridae). Dipterologial Research 4(1-2):21-34.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:

Determination of Endangered Status for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly.

U.S. Department of Interior. Federal Register, 58 (183): 49881-49887.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Draft Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. December 30.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Delhi sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 51 pp.

Woodruff, G. A. 1980. Soil survey of San Bernardino County, southwestern part, California.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

7.0 FIGURES
3687
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 11 = 1 mile N
Figure 1. General vicinity of survey area, Guaste, California USGS 7.5” quadrangle at 50%. 151-acre survey area is outlined in black and highlighted in yellow. 3688
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 12 = 100 meters N
Figure 2. General vicinity of survey area, Guaste, California USGS 7.5” quadrangle at 200%. 151-acre survey area is outlined in black and highlighted in yellow. 3689
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 13 Figure 3. Satellite image of survey area (brightly highlighted) with mapped soil types. Db = Delhi sands.

Figure 4. Overview map of all survey areas developed for the OIAA in 2019, used to facilitate logistics and scheduling of surveys, shows relevant acreages and assigned daily survey times (efforts). Airport Group 1 properties (1A, 1B, 1C) for this survey are shaded red, pink, and yellow. 3690
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 14

Figure 6 Photograph of photograph of north central portions of the study area, view looking northwest.

Figure 5. Photograph of the northwestern study area with a view looking across grassy fields toward the northwest. 3691
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 15 Figure 8 Photograph of the eastern central portion of the study area, the view looking south southwest from near Santa Ana Street.

Figure 7. Photograph of habitat conditions on the southwestern portion of the study area. The view looks east across this grassy field.
3692
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 16

5 6

8 7

N
Figure 9. Approximate locations around survey areas (outlined in blue) from which photographs were taken (base of arrows). Arrow indicates the direction a photograph was taken. Numbers next to the arrows indicate figure numbers (Figures 5-8). 3693
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 17

8.0 APPENDIX
Appendix A
Table A1. Plant species encountered on the survey area, FAMILY Species

ASTERACEAE
annual bur-weed Ambrosia acanthicarpa
prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola
common sow-thistle Sonchus oleraceus

BORAGINACEAE
ranchers fiddleneck Amsinkia menziesii

BRASSICACEAE
shortpod mustard Hirschfeldia incana
London rocket Sisymbrium irio
wild radish Raphanus sativus

CHENOPODIACEAE
Russian thistle Salsola tragus

GERANIACEAE
red-stem filaree Erodium cicutarium

CRASULACEAE
sand pygme-stonecrop Crassula connata

FABACEAE
Spanish clover Lotus purshianus

MALVACEAE
cheeseweed Malva parviflora

ONAGRACEAE
small primrose Camissonia micrantha
strigose sun cup Camissonia strigosa

POLYGONACEAE
slender buchwheat Eriogonum gracile

URTICACEAE
orchard nettle Urtica urens

POACEAE
slender oat Avena barbata
ripgut Bromus diandrus
mouse barley Hordeum murinum
Schismus Schismus barbatus
3694
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 18 Table A2. Insects encountered on the survey area.

Order Family Genus, species
Diptera (flies) Mydidae Nemomydas pantherinus
Diptera Apioceridae Apiocera convergens
Diptera Asilidae Efferia albibarbis
Diptera Asilidae Mallophora fautrix
Diptera Asilidae Proctacantha occidentalis
Diptera Asilidae Saropogon luteus
Diptera Asilidae Stenopogon brevisculus
Diptera Asilidae Stenopogon lomae
Diptera Therevidae Amnonaios confusus
Diptera Bombyliidae Apheobantus
Diptera Bombyliidae Exoprosopa butleri
Diptera Bombyliidae Geron
Diptera Bombyliidae Hemipenths inops
Diptera Bombyliidae Hemipenths sinuosa
Diptera Bombyliidae Heterostylum robustum
Diptera Bombyliidae Neodiplocampta mira
Diptera Bombyliidae Poecilognathus
Diptera Bombyliidae Thyridanthrax atrata
Diptera Bombyliidae Thyridanthrax nugator
Diptera Bombyliidae Villa lateralis
Diptera Bombyliidae Villa molitor
Diptera Bombyliidae Aphoebantus
Diptera Syrphidae Eristalis stipator
Diptera Syrphidae Eristalis tenax
Diptera Syrphidae Eristilis arbostrum
Diptera Syrphidae Eristlis aenea
Diptera Syrphidae Eupeodes volucris
Diptera Syrphidae Palparus mexicana
Diptera Syrphidae Paragus sp.

Diptera Syrphidae Syritta pipiens
Diptera Tabanidae Tabanus punctifer
Diptera Tephritidae Euaresta bella
Diptera Tephritidae Tomoplagia obliqua
Diptera Sarcophagidae Sarcophaga sp
Diptera Scenopinidae Brevitrichia
Diptera Tachinidae Archytas apicifer
Diptera Tachinidae Chetogena
Diptera Tachinidae Cylindromyia
3695
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 19 Diptera Tachinidae Gymnosoma fuliginosum
Diptera Tachinidae Microchaetina
Diptera Tachinidae Winthemia
Hymenoptera Crabronidae Bembix comatus
Hymenoptera Crabronidae Cerceris femurrubrum
Hymenoptera Crabronidae Cerceris sextoides
Hymenoptera Crabronidae Cercerus bicornuta
Hymenoptera Crabronidae Liris
Hymenoptera Crabronidae Microbembix californica
Hymenoptera Crabronidae Oxybelus uniglumis
Hymenoptera Crabronidae Philanthus multimaculatus
Hymenoptera Crabronidae Philanthus ventilabris
Hymenoptera Crabronidae Tachysphex
Hymenoptera Crabronidae Tachytes distincta
Hymenoptera Sphecidae Ammophila aberti
Hymenoptera Sphecidae Ammophila azteca
Hymenoptera Sphecidae Chlorion aerarium
Hymenoptera Sphecidae Diploplectron
Hymenoptera Sphecidae Hoplisoides diversus
Hymenoptera Sphecidae Nysson
Hymenoptera Sphecidae Prionyx parkeri
Hymenoptera Sphecidae Sceliphron caementarium
Hymenoptera Chrysididae Hedychrum
Hymenoptera Mutilidae Dasymutilla californica
Hymenoptera Mutilidae Dasymutilla sackeni
Hymenoptera Pompilidae Pepsis thysbe
Hymenoptera Formicidae Pogonomyrmex californicus
Hymenoptera Vespidae Euodynerus annulatum
Hymenoptera Vespidae Pterocheilus mirandus
Hymenoptera Andrenidae Perdita
Hymenoptera Apidae Anthophora curta
Hymenoptera Apidae Anthophora urbana
Hymenoptera Apidae Apis mellifera
Hymenoptera Apidae Xylocopa varipuncta
Hymenoptera Halictidae Agapostemon texana
Hymenoptera Halictidae Halicttus farinosus
Hymenoptera Halictidae Nomada
Hymenoptera Megachilidae Megachile
Hymenoptera Halictidae Lasioglossum
Hymenoptera Apidae Triepeolus
3696
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 20 Hymenoptera Apidae Xeromelecta californica
Hymenoptera Megachilidae Anthidiellum notatum
Hymenoptera Braconidae
Lepidoptera Erebidae Estigmene acrea
Lepidoptera Sphingidae Hyles lineata
Lepidoptera Sphingidae Manduca sexta
Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Erynnis funeralis
Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Heliopetes ericitorum
Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Hylephila phyleus
Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Lerodia eufala
Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Pyrgus albescens
Lepidoptera Danaidae Danaus gillipus
Lepidoptera Danaidae Danaus plexippus
Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Agraulis vanillae
Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Junonia coenia
Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Vanessa cardui
Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio rumiko
Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio rutulus
Lepidoptera Pieridae Colias eurytheme
Lepidoptera Pieridae Nathalis iole
Lepidoptera Pieridae Pieris rapae
Lepidoptera Pieridae Pontia protodice
Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Brephidium exilis
Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Leptotes marina
Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Plebejus acmon
Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Strymon melinus
Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Apleurus
Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Coscinoptera aeneipennis
Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Lema trilineata
Coleoptera Coccinellidae Coccinella californica
Coleoptera Coccinellidae Coccinella septempunctata
Coleoptera Coccinellidae Hippodamia convergens
Coleoptera Scarabaeidae Cotinus mutabilis
Coleoptera Tenebrionidae Eleodes gracilis
Neuroptera Chrysidae Chrysopa
Neuroptera Mymerliontidae Brachynemurus
Neuroptera Mymerliontidae Mymerlion
Neuroptera Mymerliontidae Scotoleon longipalpis
Neuroptera Mymerliontidae Scotoleon nigrilabris
Heteroptera (Auchenorryncha) Cicadellidae Homalodisca lacerta 3697
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2019 21 Heteroptera (Hemiptera) Alytidae Alydus pilosulus
Heteroptera (Hemiptera) Alytidae Alydus tomentosus
Heteroptera (Hemiptera) Lygaeidae Geocoris
Heteroptera (Hemiptera) Lygaeidae Lygaeus kalmii
Heteroptera (Hemiptera) Nabidae Nabis
Heteroptera (Hemiptera) Pentatomidae Bagrada hilaris
Heteroptera (Hemiptera) Pentatomidae Chlorochroa sayi
Heteroptera (Hemiptera) Reduviidae Sinea diadema
Heteroptera (Hemiptera) Reduviidae Zelus renardii
Heteroptera (Hemiptera) Rhopalidae Harmostes
Mantodea Gryllidae Gryllus
Mantodea Mantidae Iris oratoria
Mantodea Mantidae Litaneutria minor
Orthoptera Acrididae Derotmema saussuraenum
Orthoptera Acrididae Lactista gibbosa
Orthoptera Acrididae Psoloessa thamnogaea
Orthoptera Acrididae Schistocerca nitens
Orthoptera Acrididae Trimerotropis californica
Orthoptera Acrididae Trimerotropis fontana
Orthoptera Acrididae Trimerotropis pallidipennis
Orthoptera Acrididae Conozoa rebellis
Orthoptera Tettigoniidae Scudderia mexicana
Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia vividus
Odonata Aeshnidae Aeshna multicolor
Odonata Aeshnidae Anax junius
Odonata Libellulidae Brechmorhoga mendax
Odonata Libellulidae Libellula saturata
Odonata Libellulidae Pantala flavescens
Odonata Libellulidae Pantala hymenaea
Odonata Libellulidae Parathemis intensa
Odonata Libellulidae Sympetrum corruptum
Odonata Libellulidae Tramea lacerata
Odonata Libellulidae Tramea onusta
Appendix B
Correspondence with USFWS
Field Notes
3698
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151-acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020

SECOND YEAR FOCUSED SURVEY FOR

DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY
(Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis)
ON A 151-ACRE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY (GROUP 1 PROPERTIES) IN

ONTARIO

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Ontario International Airport Authority
1923 E. Avion Street
Ontario, CA 91761
Prepared by:

Kendall H. Osborne
Osborne Biological Consulting
6675 Avenue Juan Diaz
Riverside, CA 92509
October 7, 2020
3699
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151-acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 1.0 1

NATURAL HISTORY OF THE DSF 2.0 1
DSF Habitat Characteristics 2.1 3
METHODOLOGY 3.0 4
DSF Survey Guidelines 3.1 4
Habitat Assessment Methods 3.2 4
Focused Surveys Methods 3.3 5

RESULTS 4.0 8
Habitat Assessment Results 4.1 8
Survey Results 4.2 8
Existing Environment and Community 4.3 9
Adjacent Lands 4.3.1 9
Topography 4.3.2 9
Soils 4.3.3 9
Vegetation 4.3.4 9
Insect Community 4.3.5 9

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 5.0 10
REFERENCES 6.0 10
FIGURES 7.0 12
APPENDIX 8.0 19
Appendix A: plant and insect species 19
Table A1. Plant species 19
Table A2. Insect species 20

Appendix B: Correspondence with USFWS 24
Field notes

3700
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151-acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020

SECOND YEAR FOCUSED SURVEY FOR

DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY
(Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis)
ON A 151-ACRE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY (GROUP 1 PROPERTIES)

ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Ontario International Airport Authority
1923 E. Avion Street
Ontario, CA 91761
Prepared by
Kendall H. Osborne
Osborne Biological Consulting
6675 Avenue Juan Diaz
Riverside, CA 92509
The undersigned certify this report to be a complete and accurate account of the findings and conclusions of a second year, 2020 focused survey for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on the 151-acre Ontario International Airport Authority (Group 1) properties, Ontario, San Bernardino, California. ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Ken H. Osborne Rick Rogers David K. Faulkner
6675 Avenue Juan Diaz 8640 Hillrose St. 2321 Gladwick St.

Riverside, CA 92509 Apt. I-10 Rancho Dominguez, CA
Sunland, CA 91040 90220
______________________
Eric Renfro
22909 Pennsylvania Ave.

Torrance, CA 90501
October 7, 2020
3701
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 1

SUMMARY
The Ontario International Airport Authority has requested a second year focused survey to assess the presence or absence of Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF, Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) for 151 acres (Group 1, with 143 acres of habitat suitable for DSF) of the Ontario International Airport Northwest Quadrant Demolition project in Ontario, California. To determine presence or absence of DSF on the study area, a series of 82 biologist-site visits totaling 274.27 field hours, were conducted on the survey area from July 1 to September 20, 2020.

A habitat evaluation conducted on March 13, 2019 (Osborne 2019) found all parcels investigated for the project area are mapped with Delhi sands (Woodruff 1980). These parcels all feature soil and ecological conditions Suitable for potential DSF. The habitat evaluations determined 143 acres of potential DSF habitat over the study area.

The subject site does not currently support a population of the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly. Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly was not observed on the Group 2 properties site during the course of either consecutive years 2019 (Osborne 2019b) or 2020 field seasons.

Two special status animal species were encountered in the course of this survey. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) was regularly encountered on the site. One individual Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), a California special status animal species (species of concern) was encountered in the course of this survey.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the methods and results of a Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF, Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) focused survey for a 151-acre Group 1 properties, in Ontario, San Bernardino. The DSF was listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on September 23, 1993 (USFWS 1993).

The Group 1 properties are located east of Haven Avenue, south of E. Airport Drive, and north of Jurupa Street as shown on the accompanying maps. And can be found on the Guaste, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map, Township 2 South, Range 7 West, in Section 1 (Figures 1 and 2) .

2.0 NATURAL HISTORY OF THE DELHI SANDS FLOWERLOVING FLY Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly belongs to a genus of flies (Rhaphiomidas) commonly known as flower loving flies. There are more than 30 species of these flies, distributed across the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. These flies are huge by the standards set by most flies – with size among the species ranging from approximately 1.5 centimeters up to 3, and even 4 centimeters, usually gray, tan, rust or yellow in color. All species of Rhaphiomidas are associated with rather arid, sandy habitats, with most species living on dune systems of inland desert valleys, rivers, deltas, and beach strands. A few species are found in sandy washes, alluvial benches and remnant glacial moraines. Many species of these flies often hover before flowers in 3702
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 2 the manner of hummingbirds, using a long, thin, tubular proboscis (mouth-part), with which the flies probe for nectar – hence a traditional name “giant flower-loving flies”. Smaller flies of the family Apioceridae, once considered very closely related to Rhaphiomidas were formerly called “flower-loving flies”.

The DSF is only known to occur in association with Delhi sand deposits, presumably occupied the once extensive dune system of the upper Santa Ana River Valley, including portions of what is now the City of Colton, west through portions of the City of Ontario, and south to the Santa Ana River. Today, DSF exists on only a few disjunct sites (USFWS 1997) within a radius of about eight miles in southwestern San Bernardino and northwestern Riverside Counties (Colton, Rialto, Fontana, and Ontario). More than 95 percent of known DSF habitat was considered eliminated by development, agriculture and other land management practices by 1993 (Smith 1993, USFWS 1996 in Kingsley 1996), however, this proportion is now nearer 98 to 99% due to these ongoing processes. Many of the last remaining fragments of DSF habitat are currently under pressure by land management efforts such as heavy disking, irrigation, manure dumping, and gravel dumping.

There is presently an estimated 1,200 acres of habitat that can support this species (USFWS 1997), but this estimate likely includes lands needing extensive habitat restoration.

Adult DSF flight period is typically August and September, when individual adults emerge, reproduce and die. The adult life span of an individual DSF lasts for a few days and adults do not live beyond the flight period (Kiyani 1995). Adult DSF are highly mobile, agile fliers. Male DSF are frequently seen flying low through habitat, using apparently random, circuitous paths around and between shrubs in search of females. Such “cruising” behavior often covers areas on the scale of 1000 square meters in the time span of a minute. Alternatively, male DSF are often seen flying about an open patch of ground (ca 100 square meters) such as along a dirt path or dune blow-out area. Here, males may repetitively land and rest on one or another object (such as small dried plants) in the area, and such rests are interrupted by periods of patrolling flight (apparently territorial) about the spot. When alarmed, these insects tend to fly rapidly in more or less a straight line – often covering distances of 100 meters in less than 6 seconds. Adult DSF are known to nectar at flowers of California buckwheat and California croton.

DSF, like other Rhaphiomidas species, appears to have an annual life cycle (because of the annual flight). However, it has been widely believed that the underground larval/pupal stage may persist for additional years, depending upon various environmental factors such as annual rainfall, food availability and weather conditions during the flight season (many desert Rhaphiomidas species do not appear after a drought year and often, substantial flights occur only sporadically over the years). The biology of Rhaphiomidas trochilus is likely informative of Rhaphiomidas species in general and DSF in particular. Based on observations of captive R. trochilus larvae (Osborne and Ballmer 2014) it is reasonable to conclude that they are mobile opportunistic predators of softbodied, sand-inhabiting insects. Larvae from Sand Ridge, Kern County, CA were maintained in captivity for several months, during which they burrowed actively through sand maintained with slight moisture content (similar to the damp sand where they were found). They fed on larvae of a scarab beetle (Scarabaeidae) and an unidentified beefly (Diptera: Bombyliidae), which were also recovered from Sand Ridge, and larvae of paper wasps (Polistes sp.) which were removed from their nests and buried in the sand. Captive larvae grew and molted after feeding; but, when not fed 3703
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 3 for extended periods of time, they molted again – losing weight and size in the process. Some larvae were observed to repeat the growth and “shrinkage” cycle multiple times. One larva survived about 17 months in captivity; because it was captured nine months after the most recent flight season, it was at least two years old at time of death. This larva molted four times while undergoing five cycles of growth and shrinkage driven by variable food availability. Its final dry weight was slightly smaller than the typical dry weight of an adult male R. trochilus. The ability of R. trochilus larvae to molt down during times of scarce food resources could allow an extended and indeterminate larval growth period, but with maturation and appearance of adults always during summer months. This may also explain the common observations that populations of various Rhaphiomidas species apparently exhibit little or no adult emergence in some years (especially years of below normal precipitation).

The brief adult life span and active mate-locating behavior of DSF males (typical of all Rhaphiomidas species) suggests that relatively high population density and/or nearly synchronous adult emergence may be crucial to survival of populations. Protracted Rhaphiomidas larval biology and staggered (across years) adult emergence must enhance population momentum and cross generational gene flow, and the requirement of abundant and diverse insect prey on which larvae develop – all explain why DSF populations appear as long-term entities (persisting for decades) associated with ecologically intact dune habitats.

2.1 DSF Habitat Characteristics
DSF is typically found in areas of unconsolidated sandy soils (Delhi series) supporting an open community of native and exotic plant species. Dominant plants are typically California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California croton (Croton californicus), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), annual bur ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa) and deerweed (Acmespon scoparius) but many exotic species often dominate on DSF habitat as well. DSF have been found in habitats that do not support these dominant plant species, and plant species composition is not directly relevant to larval development (due to predatory biology of DSF larvae). Thus, the implication that DSF are reliant on some of these plant species – an idea often repeated in literature and biological reporting – is false. Adult DSF are anecdotally believed to nectar at flowers of California buckwheat and California croton, though such a habitat is rare at best and not yet documented. Many other plant species are common, including Thurber’s eriogonum (Eriogonum thurberi), autumn vinegar weed (Lessingia glandulifera), and sapphire eriastrum (Eriastrum sapphirinum). Nonnative plant species also occur in DSF habitat (and incidentally, virtually everywhere). DSF habitat also commonly supports other associated insects such as flies and wasps considered as indicator species – Apiocera convergens, Apiocera chrysolasia, Ligyra gozophylax, Campsomeris tolteca, Trielis alcione, and Nemomydas pantherinus. Over 350 insect species have been found on one DSF site, and DSF habitat is typically marked by high abundance and diversity of predatory and parasitic insect groups including many highly specialized families of flies, wasps, bees, beetles, and antlions. The Delhi Sands community is one of California's unique natural communities containing an array of native plants and animals, some of which are found nowhere else. One plant species, Pringle's monardella, (Monardella pringlei) is already presumed extinct, as no living individuals have been observed in many years. Several species of insects and some vertebrates, which inhabit the Delhi 3704
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 4 Sands dunes system, are as endangered as the DSF, but no one has yet petitioned to have them officially declared Endangered. These include the convergent flower-loving fly Apiocera convergens, a newly discovered species of Jerusalem cricket, (Stenopelmatus sp.), a new species of camel cricket (Ceuthophilus sp.) and an endemic subspecies of butterfly Apodemia mormo nigrescens (Emmel and Emmel 1998). The other apiocerid fly (Apiocera chrysolasia), although known from approximately six general localities, is only common within the Delhi sands.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 DSF Survey Guidelines
Interim General Survey Guidelines for the DSF have been suggested by the USFWS (1996). By following these guidelines, DSF presence or absence survey results may be deemed acceptable to the USFWS (rejection of survey results may result where the guidelines are not followed). The guidelines indicate that focused DSF surveys should be conducted wherever Delhi sands are present within the presumed range of DSF, twice weekly (two days per week) during the single annual flight period (usually from July 1 to September 20). Recent early season DSF discoveries lead the USFWS to recommend a survey season from July 15 to September 20 for 2003 and a survey season from July 1 to September 20 from the year 2004. Weather conditions must be suitable for DSF activity at the times survey work is pursued. The DSF is generally active when daytime temperatures exceed 80 degrees Fahrenheit (F), but may fly with slightly cooler temperatures in bright sunlight.

3.2 Habitat Assessment Methods
On March 13, 2019 (Osborne 2019a), Osborne visited the project area in order to investigate habitat suitability for the DSF. Osborne examined the subject survey area to rate its potential to support DSF. Photographs were taken of the survey area from various perspectives. Habitat suitability for DSF was evaluated using indicators of potential DSF habitat including: presence and abundance of loose, unconsolidated Delhi sands with low organic contamination; degree of habitat disturbance indicated by plant species composition and disposition of soil surface, presence and abundance of native sand associated plants such as Croton californicus, Heterotheca grandiflora, Eriogonum thurberi and Eriogonum fasciculatum. These plants are actually more an indication of relative disturbance regimen – conditions with lesser disturbance being of higher quality for DSF. Presence and abundance of Delhi sands associated insects such as Apiocera convergens, Apiocera chrysolasia and (to a lesser extent) Nemomydas pantherinus, noted throughout the course of focused surveys, serve as further indicators of DSF habitat quality.

Potential DSF habitat has been further evaluated on the basis of overall insect diversity and abundance, particularly with respect to sand associated predators and parasitoids.

In the course of previous work Osborne (2003, Osborne et al. 2003) developed a means of rating habitat on sites for potential to support DSF, rating areas within any site based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat based on the following scheme:

1. Developed areas, non-Delhi sands soils with high clay, silt, and/or gravel content. Delhi 3705
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 5 sands extensively and deeply covered by dumping of exotic soils, rubble, trash, manure, or organic debris. Unsuitable.

2. Delhi sands are present but the soil characteristics include a predominance of exotic soils such as alluvial materials, or predominance of other foreign contamination as gravels, manure, or organic debris. Severe and frequent disturbance (such as a maintenance yard or high use roadbed). Very Low Quality.

3. Moderately contaminated Delhi sands. Delhi sands with moderate to high disturbance (such as annual disking). Sufficient Delhi Sands are present to prevent soil compaction (related to contamination by foreign soils). Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity. Low Quality.

4. Abundant clean Delhi Sands with little or no foreign soils (such as alluvial material) present. Moderate abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover.

Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates.

May represent high quality habitat with mild or superficial disturbance. Moderate Quality

5. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi Sands. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. Sand associated plant and arthropod species may be abundant. High Quality
It should be noted that habitat qualities often vary spatially within a site so that conditions on a site fall within a range of qualities. Further, overall habitat quality is affected by the overall habitat area on a site, such that very small areas diminish the overall habitat value of a site. It is also important to note that suitable habitats, even rated as high quality for DSF, are very rarely actually occupied by DSF. These ratings are more informative on mitigation and conservation measures in the event that DSF is found on any particular site. Use of this habitat rating system is somewhat subjective and best undertaken by a biologist who has extensive experience with Rhaphiomidas species. While investigating the survey area, Osborne subjected the site to an analysis of this kind so as to give a general estimate of overall habitat conditions relevant to DSF potential.

3.3 Focused Survey Methods
Each portion of suitable habitat (for DSF) was surveyed on 24 dates, with the overall survey effort involving four biologists conducting a series of 82 biologist-site visits totaling 274.27 field hours, with site visits made from July 1, to September 20, 2020. A slight additional rigor was often imparted to the survey effort by virtue gratuitous presence of biologists on the survey areas arriving (as much as an hour) early in order to initiate the protocol surveys promptly at 1000 hours. DSF surveys were conducted by Kendall H. Osborne, Permit # TE-837760-10, Rick Rogers #TE-844645-2, David K. Faulkner # TE-838743-6, and Eric S. Renfro # TE-142436-3.

Following the USFWS Interim General Survey Guidelines, we surveyed all portions of the survey area at least twice a week, between the hours of 1000 and 1400 (Table 1). Due to the large acreage of the survey area, and four-hour (50 acre limit) of survey effort allowed for any given biologist, the survey area was divided into portions (1A, 1B, and 1C) in order to facilitate survey 3706
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 6 logistics and scheduling. On occasion, survey efforts on these individual portions were dispersed across two dates (noted as “parts”) always in keeping with USFWS survey protocol. These portions are noted in Table 1, below, as well as on daily field notes presented in the Appendix.

These portions are noted in Table 1, below, as well as on daily field notes presented in the Appendix. A map was developed showing survey areas (including other surveys for the OIAA) showing acreages and allotted survey times meeting the USFWS protocol (Figure 4). The survey protocol, as set forth in the Interim General Guidelines for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly survey, is designed to maximize the validity of a presence/absence determination.

Osborne photographed the property from several perspectives to document existing conditions.

Notes were taken on vegetative cover and plant species composition, abundance and diversity and species composition of insects and other animals, soil types, degree and nature of disturbance, surface cover, organic content, compaction, current land management practices, existing development, and conditions of surrounding vicinity and proximity of other DSF populations.

Table 1. Dates (2020), personnel, times and conditions for focused DSF survey work.

Date Portion Hours Biologist Weather Conditions
1-Jul 1A (part) 1020-1400 R. Rogers overcast to clear, winds 0-5 mph, 74-86° F. 1-Jul 1C 1000-1325 D. Faulkner 100% overcast clearing, winds 1-3 mph, 67-81° F. 2-Jul 1A (part) 1217-1237 K. Osborne clear, winds 2-4 mph, 75-76° F. 2-Jul 1B 1000-1400 R. Rogers 65% patchy clouds to clear, winds 1-2 mph, 76-85° F. 3-Jul 1C 1000-1325 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-2 mph, 79-93° F. 4-Jul 1A 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-8 mph, 84-93° F. 6-Jul 1B 1000-1400 D. Faulkner clear, winds 1-4 mph, 86-101° F. 8-Jul 1A 1000-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 0-3 mph, 80-94° F. 8-Jul 1C 1000-1325 D. Faulkner clear, winds 1-2 mph, 78-92° F. 9-Jul 1B 1000-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 0-5 mph, 81-92° F. 9-Jul 1C 1148-1202 K. Osborne clear, calm, 84° F.
10-Jul 1C 1000-1325 E. Renfro clear, winds 1 mph, 85-98° F. 12-Jul 1B 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-2 mph, 90-103° F. 12-Jul 1A 1000-1400 D. Faulkner clear, winds 1-5 mph, 86-102° F. 15-Jul 1C 1000-1325 E. Renfro clear, winds 2-3 mph, 73-89° F. 15-Jul 1A 1000-1400 D. Faulkner clear, winds 1-3 mph, 72-88° F. 16-Jul 1B 1000-1400 D. Faulkner clear, winds 1-6 mph, 72-89° F. 17-Jul 1A 1000-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 0-4 mph, 78-88° F. 17-Jul 1C 1000-1325 D. Faulkner clear, winds 2-6 mph, 76-87° F. 19-Jul 1B 1000-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 0-4 mph, 80-92° F. 20-Jul 1C 1000-1325 D. Faulkner overcast to clear, winds 1-3 mph, 67-81° F. 22-Jul 1B 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-2 mph, 73-87° F. 22-Jul 1C (part) 1112-1336 K. Osborne clear, winds 3-4 mph, 75-84° F. 23-Jul 1C (part) 1140-1240 K. Osborne clear, winds 2 mph, 71-76° F. 24-Jul 1A 1000-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 1-3 mph, 75-81° F. 26-Jul 1B 1000-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 1-3 mph, 82-100° F. 26-Jul 1A 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-6 mph, 84-95° F. 26-Jul 1C 1000-1325 D. Faulkner clear, winds 1-5 mph, 80-91° F. 29-Jul 1C 1000-1325 D. Faulkner clear, winds 1-5mph, 79-90° F. 31-Jul 1A 1000-1400 D. Faulkner clear, winds 1-7mph, 91-105° F. 1-Aug 1B (part) 1015-1215 K. Osborne clear, winds 2-3 mph, 91-96° F. 2-Aug 1C 1000-1325 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-2 mph, 85-99° F. 2-Aug 1B (part) 1010-1210 K. Osborne clear, winds 0-4 mph, 85-93° F. 3707
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 7 3-Aug 1A 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 2-4 mph, 84-97° F. 4-Aug 1B 1000-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 1-3 mph, 79-90° F. 5-Aug 1C 1035-1400 K. Osborne clear, winds 4-6 mph, 76-85° F. 6-Aug 1B 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-2 mph, 73-84° F. 6-Aug 1A 1000-1400 R. Rogers 60% patchy clouds to clear, winds 0-2 mph, 71-80° F. 8-Aug 1B 1000-1400 D. Faulkner clear/smoky, winds 0-7 mph, 72-90° F. 9-Aug 1A 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-3 mph, 81-93° F. 9-Aug 1C (part) 1148-1202 K. Osborne clear, calm, 84° F. 9-Aug 1C (part) 1049-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 1-4 mph, 85-89° F. 12-Aug 1C 1000-1325 K. Osborne clear, winds 0-1 mph, 88-97° F. 12-Aug 1B 1000-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 1-3 mph, 85-94° F. 12-Aug 1A 1000-1400 D. Faulkner clear to 10% patchy, winds 0-7 mph 81-100° F. 14-Aug 1B 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-3 mph, 91-102° F. 14-Aug 1A 1000-1400 R. Rogers 10% patchy clouds to clear, winds 0-3 mph, 91-101° F. 16-Aug 1C 1000-1325 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-2 mph, 86-99° F. 19-Aug 1B (part) 1125-1225 K. Osborne clear, winds 0-1 mph, 98-100° F. 19-Aug 1C 1000-1325 D. Faulkner clear/smoky to 70% patchy, winds 0-6 mph, 88-105° F. 20-Aug 1A 1000-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 1-4 mph, 88-104° F. 21-Aug 1B (part) 1000-1300 K. Osborne clear, winds 0-3 mph, 89-101° F. 22-Aug 1C 1000-1325 E. Renfro clear, winds 2-3 mph, 88-97° F. 23-Aug 1B 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear to patchy clouds, winds 1-2 mph, 82-93° F. 24-Aug 1A (part) 1000-1200 R. Rogers clear, winds 0-4 mph, 88-93° F. 25-Aug 1A (part) 1010-1210 R. Rogers clear, winds 0-3 mph, 85-90° F. 26-Aug 1C 1000-1325 K. Osborne clear/smoky, winds 0-3 mph, 88-98° F. 26-Aug 1B 1000-1400 D. Faulkner clear/smoky, winds 1-7 mph, 84-97° F. 27-Aug 1A 1025-1225 R. Rogers clear, winds 0-3 mph, 85-98° F. 28-Aug 1A (part) 1020-1220 R. Rogers clear, winds 0-2 mph, 89-94° F. 29-Aug 1B 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-2 mph, 78-93° F. 30-Aug 1C 1000-1325 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-2 mph, 74-87° F. 31-Aug 1A (part) 1025-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 1-3 mph, 85-90° F. 1-Sep 1A (part) 1000-1025 K. Osborne clear, calm, 69-70° F. 2-Sep 1C 1000-1325 D. Faulkner clear/smoky, winds 1-6 mph, 73-88° F. 3-Sep 1A 1000-1400 R. Rogers clear, winds 1-3 mph, 83-90° F. 4-Sep 1B 1000-1036 K. Osborne clear, calm, 88-90° F.
4-Sep 1B 1028-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 2-3 mph, 87-100° F. 4-Sep 1B (part) 1005-1036 K. Osborne clear, winds 2 mph, 87° F. 5-Sep 1C 1000-1325 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-2 mph, 95-113° F. 7-Sep 1A 1000-1400 R. Rogers clear/smoky, winds 0-5 mph, 84-89° F. 7-Sep 1B 1000-1400 D. Faulkner overcast/smoky, winds 0-9 mph, 88-94° F. 9-Sep 1C 1000-1325 D. Faulkner 50% overcast to clear; smoky, winds 3-11 mph, 82-88° F. 10-Sep 1A 1000-1400 R. Rogers overcast/smoky, winds 0-2 mph, 82-90° F. 12-Sep 1B 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-2 mph, 79-92° F. 13-Sep 1C 1000-1325 E. Renfro clear/smoky, winds 1 mph, 78-91° F. 14-Sep 1A (part) 1000-1345 R. Rogers clear/slightly hazy, winds 1-3 mph, 80-88° F. 14-Sep 1B 1000-1400 D. Faulkner overcast/smoky, winds 0-9 mph, 79-93° F. 15-Sep 1A (part) 1146-1201 K. Osborne clear/50% smoky, winds 0-2 mph, 90° F. 17-Sep 1A 1000-1400 R. Rogers 20%- 50% patchy clouds, winds 0-3 mph, 87-95° F. 17-Sep 1C 1000-1325 D. Faulkner overcast to 20% patchy clouds; smoky, winds 0-5 mph, 83-97° F.
18-Sep 1B 1000-1400 D. Faulkner clear, up to 25% haze, winds 2-7 mph, 87-102° F. 19-Sep 1C 1000-1325 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-2 mph, 86-97° F. 20-Sep 1A 1000-1400 E. Renfro clear, winds 1-4 mph, 81-93° F. 20-Sep 1B 1000-1400 D. Faulkner clear/hazy, winds 0-3 mph, 81-91° F. 3708
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 8

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Habitat Assessment Results
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service map (Woodruff 1980) and associated web based resources (https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/) show all portions of the project area mapped with Delhi fine sand soils (Figure 3). With the exception of limited street-side areas with exotic landscaped vegetation, and limited marginal portions with graveled drives, the project areas are open fields with vegetation dominated by exotic grasses and forbs (especially Hordeum, Bromus, Amsinkia, Malva, and Sisymbrium). Plant species associated with sandy soils are present in spare or low abundance, but include Ambrosia acanthicarpa, Eriogonum gracile, Camissonia bistorta, and Camisonia strigosa. The project areas appear unchanged since at least 1994 to the present, and have existed as exotic grass/forblands routinely mowed (Google Earth). Delhi sands are sporadically exposed by fossorial animals and paths through the majority of the area, demonstrating the wide distribution of sands across the survey area (as mapped by Woodruff 1980). In all areas investigated, where exotic annual (springtime) vegetation (covering the soil surface) was removed, Delhi sand soils were exposed. These areas constituting the majority of the investigated project areas were rated as Low to Moderate Quality habitat for DSF and are thus considered as approximately 142.32 acres of Suitable habitat for DSF. Street-side exotic landscaping is present in project areas along South Commerce Parkway, and along a southern portion of South Haven Avenue, amounting to an approximate total of 8.66 acres determined to be Unsuitable habitat for DSF. An additional 0.02 acres of graveled drive is present along the western edge of the extreme southwestern portion of this project area, also Unsuitable for DSF.

During the course of summer surveys, annual vegetation had dried, or been mowed, and abundant gopher activity had exposed the underlying sandy soils. Summertime field observations lead us to upgrade our overall rating of habitat conditions for potential DSF on these lands to include some Low Quality habitat but primarily Moderate to High Quality habitat for DSF.

4.2 Survey Results
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF, Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) was not observed on the subject site during the course of this survey. At least one individual Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), a California special status animal species (species of concern) was encountered in the course of this survey. Lists of plants and insects observed during the course of the survey are given in the appendix.

We noticed an exceptionally sharp decline in insect abundance following the extreme heat wave on and around September 5, 2020, wherein presumably, large numbers of insects which might normally live well into early fall season, were abruptly extinguished. Some of the consulting biologists on this project had concern about the mowing of the survey area late into our season.

We are aware that these fields are mowed on a regular basis and have been for at least the last twenty years (Osborne, personal observations). The fields on and around the airport are routinely mowed, often multiple times a year, not only to reduce fuel load, but to deter presence of abundant birds. We understand that an abundance of birds, and particularly large birds such as raptors on airport flight paths, present a hazard to aircraft. This was dramatically demonstrated in January of 3709
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 9 2009, when U S Airways flight 1549 ingested a flock of Canada geese and was forced to land without engine power into the Hudson River, miraculously intact. Nevertheless, we all noted the profound and immediate decline in insect abundance following mowing events.

4.3 Existing Environment and Community

4.3.1 Adjacent lands
The survey area is generally bounded on the west by undeveloped lands similar to those on the site, and otherwise generally surrounded (north, east, south) by commercial/industrial development.

4.3.2 Topography
The site is generally flat with elevation on the site ranging from approximately 950 to 900 feet, with the gentle slope diminishing to the south.

4.3.3 Soils
Woodruff (1980) indicated the site to consist of Delhi fine sands. These sands are evident throughout the site.

4.3.4 Vegetation
The survey area is generally characterized as open fields supporting exotic annual vegetation dominated by Hordeum, Bromus, Amsinkia, Malva, Salsola, Hirschfeldia, and Sisymbrium.

Plant species commonly associated with Delhi sands and potential DSF habitat are abundant, and include annual bursage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandiflora), slender buckwheat (Eriogonum gracile), California croton (Croton califonicus), and golden crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides). No special status plant species (species of concern) were encountered in the course of this survey.

Figures 5-8 present representative views of the survey site and habitats. Figure 9 provides a key as to where on the site these photographs were taken. Table 1 (Appendix A) provides a list of plant species encountered on the survey site.

4.3.5 Insect Community
During site visits (2019 and 2020) at least 179 insect species (counting only large and conspicuous insects) were observed. The insect community encountered on the survey area was typical of ecological communities occurring on Delhi sands. Insects included Mydidae (Nemomydas), Apioceridae, Asilidae, Bombyliidae, Mutilidae, Pompilidae, Mymerliontidae, Crabionidae, and Sphecidae. A list of most insect species observed is presented in the appendix (Table 2, Appendix A). Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus 3710
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 10 crotchii), a California special status animal species (species of concern) was encountered at least once in the course of these surveys (July 1, 2020 by Rogers).

5.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly is absent from the site. Finding of Delhi sands on the survey site, and the observations (over the years) of Mydidae (Nemomydas pantherinus), Apioceridae (Apiocera convergens), Asilidae, Bombyliidae, Mutilidae, Pompilidae, Mymerliontidae, Crabionidae, and Sphecidae, along with the overall habitat ratings made for the site have all suggested some degree of habitat suitability and potential for DSF. After the course of two consecutive field seasons of DSF survey with negative results, we conclude that the survey site does not support a population of DSF.

Populations of a number of bumble bee species have been in sharp decline in the western United States over the last decade. Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), observed at least once in the course of these two years of survey of Group 1 properties (observed multiple times on adjacent lands [Osborne 2020]), is generally distributed through wildlands and rural areas in low to middle elevations of California, and is one of several bumble bee species proposed for listing as a California endangered species.

It is important for any project proponent to understand that if the survey site is not developed before July 1, 2021, that the USFWS policy is to consider the current results (DSF absent the site) to be void as of that date, and thus their recommendation of continued consecutive years of survey until the site is developed. Should the project proponent fail to have the site surveyed for DSF in a subsequent summer season, then USFWS policy has been to require a full repeat of two consecutive years of DSF survey before negative results are again acceptable to them.

6.0 REFERENCES
Cazier, M. A. 1985. A revision of the North American flies belonging to the genus Rhaphiomidas (Diptera:Apioceridae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 182(2):181- 263.

Emmel, J. F., and T. C. Emmel. 1998. Two New Geographically Restricted Subspecies of Apodemia mormo (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae) from the Vicinity of San Bernardino, California in Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Emmel, T. C., Editor.

Mariposa Press, Gainsville, Florida. (67): 795-800.

Environmental Assessment Specialists 2017. Biological Resources Impact Analysis IE24209E, SCE Clover Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. Submitted to TMobile West, LLC Hickman, J.C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.
3711
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 11 Knecht, A.A. 1971. Soil survey of western Riverside area, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

Kingsley, Kenneth J. 1996. Behavior of the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Diptera: Mydidae), a Little Known Endangered Species. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 89(6): 883-891.

Kiyani Environmental Consultants. 1995. Principal Investigator’s Annual Report, Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Studies at Colton, California.

Prepared for San Bernardino County and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA. 25+ pp.

Munz, P.A. 1974. A flora of southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Osborne, K. H. 2003. Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly Habitat Assessment for the Hermosa Cemetery, Colton. Prepared for Inland Memorial Cremations and Burial. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA.

Osborne, K. H. 2019a. Habitat conditions for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly on a 151 acre portion (Group 1) of the Ontario International Airport Northwest Quadrant Demolition project, Ontario. Submitted to Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. on behalf of the Ontario International Airport Authority.

Osborne, K. H. 2019b. First Year Focused Survey for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on a 151-acre Ontario International Airport Authority (Group 1 Properties) in Ontario, San Bernardino, California. Prepared for the Ontario International Airport Authority. Submitted to USFWS, Carlsbad, October 2019.

Osborne, K. H. 2020. Second Year Focused Survey for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on a 67-acre Ontario International Airport Authority (Group 2 Properties) in Ontario, San Bernardino, California. Prepared for the Ontario International Airport Authority. Submitted to USFWS, Carlsbad, October 2020.

Osborne, K. H., G. R. Ballmer, and T. McGill. 2003. DSF Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Mary Vagle Conservation Area. Prepared for the City of Fontana. Submitted to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, CA.

Osborne, K. H. and G. R. Ballmer. 2014. A Petition to the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, for emergency action to list an endangered species pursuant to the conditions and regulations of the Federal Endangered Species Act: For the San Joaquin Valley Giant Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas trochilus). Submitted June, 2014.
3712
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 12 Rogers, R. and M. Mattoni. 1993. Observations on the natural history and conservation biology of the giant flower-loving flies, Rhaphiomidas (Diptera:Apioceridae). Dipterologial Research 4(1-2):21-34.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:

Determination of Endangered Status for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. U.S.

Department of Interior. Federal Register, 58 (183): 49881-49887.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Draft Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. December 30.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Delhi sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 51 pp.

Woodruff, G. A. 1980. Soil survey of San Bernardino County, southwestern part, California.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

7.0 FIGURES
3713
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 13 = 1 mile N
Figure 1. General vicinity of survey area, Guaste, California USGS 7.5” quadrangle at 50%. 151-acre survey area is outlined in black and highlighted in yellow. 3714
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 14 = 100 meters N
Figure 2. General vicinity of survey area, Guaste, California USGS 7.5” quadrangle at 200%. 151-acre survey area is outlined in black and highlighted in yellow. 3715
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DSF survey: 151- acre OIAA Group 1, Ontario Osborne Biological Consulting – October 2020 15 Figure 3. Satellite image of survey area (brightly highlighted) with mapped soil types. Db = Delhi sands.

Figure 4. Overview map of all survey areas developed for the OIAA in 2019, used to facilitate logistics and scheduling of surveys, shows relevant acreages and assigned daily survey times (efforts). Airport Group 1 properties (1A, 1B, 1C) for this survey are shaded red, pink, and yellow. 3716
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
April 15, 2019

Greg Devereaux OIA-01.17
Ontario International Airport Authority
1923 E Avion Avenue
Ontario, CA 91761
Subject: Cultural Resources Survey for the Potential Development of Parcel Group 1 Dear Mr. Devereaux:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) was contracted to conduct a cultural resources survey for the Ontario International Airport Authority’s (OIAA) potential development (project; Group 1) in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. HELIX conducted a pedestrian survey, a record search, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, and a review of existing documentation for the project. This letter report details the methods and results of the cultural resources survey. One cultural resource, a historic-period well, was observed in the northwest section of the survey area.

PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately 151-acre project area is located within the limits of the City of Ontario, west of Interstate (I-)15 and south of I-10 (Figure 1, Regional Location). The project is within Section 25 of Township 1 South, Range 7 West, on the Guasti, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2, Vicinity Map). The Group 1 survey area is comprised of 18 parcels with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0211-222-47, 48, 53, 54; 0211-232-11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 45, 46, 52, and 55.

The Group 1 survey area is located east of South Haven Avenue, south of East Airport Drive, west of Doubleday Avenue, and north of Jurupa Street (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). Elevations range from approximately 899 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the southern portion of the survey area to 951 feet amsl in the northern portion of the survey area. The Group 1 parcels are vacant; existing Ontario International Airport infrastructure and industrial development surround the survey area.

METHODS
HELIX conducted a record search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on March 7, 2019. The records search covered a one-mile radius around the Group 1 survey area and included the identification of previously recorded cultural resources and locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies. A review of the California Historical Resources and the state Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) historic properties directories was also conducted. 3717
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 2 of 7
April 2, 2019
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a SLF search on April 1, 2019; a response was received on April 15, 2019 and indicated that the results were negative for the project area; no additional outreach to the Native American community was conducted.

Various archival sources, including historic topographic maps and aerial imagery, were consulted, and the existing cultural resources reports, Historical Architectural and Cultural Resources Inventory Report (Douglas and Livingstone 2006) and the Ontario International Airport Historic Context Statement (Davis and Novell 2017), were reviewed.

RESULTS
Records Search
The records search results identified seven previously recorded cultural resources within one mile of the project area, none of which are located within the Group 1 parcels (Table 1, Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of the Group 1 Parcels). Two of the resources within the search limits, the Guasti (Brookside) Winery and the Church of San Secondo D`Asti, Guasti Church, are listed as California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), and one resource, the Hofer Ranch, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Guasti (Brookside) Winery and the Church of San Secondo D`Asti, Guasti Church are located to the northwest of the project area, north of the railroad. The Hofer Ranch is located to the west, within Section 26.

Table 1
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE GROUP 1 PARCELS Resource
Number
(P-36-#)
Resource
Number
(CA-SBR-#)
Age and Resource
Present Description Recorder, Date
001963 1963H Historic Site Remnants of a homestead/ranch, possibly associated with the Collins
family who owned the property in the
late 1800s
McKenna, 1987
001964 1964H Historic Structure Small shed containing modern pumping equipment
McKenna, 1987
015469 -- Historic Site Guasti (Brookside) Winery (CPHI # 84) Hansberger, 1975
015471 -- Historic Site San Secondo D’Asti Catholic Church (CPHI # 76)
Hansberger,
1975
015990 -- Historic
Structures/
Historic District
Guasti Historic District; consists of 51
resources (buildings, houses, etc.)
constructed between 1900 and 1946
Warner and
Solie, 1985
016249 -- Historic Site Hofer Ranch (NR #93000596), also known as Ballou Ranch & Ben Haven;
farm complex consisting of 15 resources
(buildings and structures) constructed
between 1905 and 1985
Hofer and
Warner, 1985;
Marvin and
Goodwin, 2004
016279 -- Historic Building Guasti Mansion; constructed in the Italian-Villa architectural style in 1922
Warner and
Solie, 1985
3718
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 3 of 7
April 2, 2019
The records search results identified 30 previous cultural resource studies within one mile of the project area, two of which cover or overlap with the project area (Table 2, Previous Studies within One Mile of the Group 1 Parcels). The overlapping studies include a cultural resource assessment (SB-01180) and a telecommunications report (SB-04161). The telecommunication study only covered a small portion of the Group 1 survey area. The cultural resources assessment study, however, was for the Ontario Industrial Park and covered the entirety of the project area; presumably this study included a pedestrian field survey.

Table 2
PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE GROUP 1 PARCELS Report No. Report Title Author, Date
SB-01180* Cultural Resources Assessment of the Ontario Industrial Park, San Bernardino County, California
Smith and Lerch,
1981
SB-01495 Addendum to Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for a Proposed Cal Crust Seismic Testing Route Near Vidal Junction, San Bernardino County, California Lerch, 1985
SB-01496 Cultural Resource Assessment of a 505-Acre Parcel Near Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Del Chario and
Cottrell, 1985
SB-01721 An Archaeological Report on The Reconnaissance Survey for the United Parcel Service, Air Cargo Facility, Ontario, California
Hatheway and
McKenna, 1987
SB-02038 United Parcel Service Air Cargo Facility Project: Archaeological Site Evaluation Farber, 1989 SB-02118 Cultural Resources Survey: United Parcel Service Proposed Air Cargo Facility, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Winter and Mason,
1989
SB-02348 A Comparative Study of Late Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Western Great Basin
Tuohy, 1974
SB-02795 Cultural Resource Investigation: Cajon Pipeline Project Hampson, Schmidt, and Schmidt, 1991
SB-02796 Cultural Resources Investigations, Site Inventory and Evaluations, The Cajon Pipeline Corridor, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties McKenna, 1993
SB-02863 Negative Archaeological Survey Report, Provide High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes on I-10 Between Mills and I-15
Wlodarski, 1993
SB-03573 Cultural Resource Assessment: Cingular Wireless Facility LA S04-01, San Bernardino County, California
Duke, 2001
SB-03586 Ontario to Colton Pipeline, San Bernardino County, California Love, 2000 SB-03588 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Property: AT&T Wireless Site PB20002- 115, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California Love, 2000
SB-04153 Proposed Wireless Device Monopole & Equipment Cabinet; Lowell Site, 1155 S.

Miliken Ave, Ontario, California
Budinger, 2002
SB-04158 Cultural Resource Assessment: AT&T Wireless Facility No. D115, San Bernardino County, California
Duke, 2001
SB-04161* Proposed Sprint PCS Wireless Telecommunication Facility Project SB40XC701E- -California Hardware
Martinez, 2001
SB-04266 CA7124A (Double Day) 1455 Double Day Ave, Ontario, California McKenna, 2004 SB-04669 Records Search Results and Site Visit for Sprint Telecommunications Facility Candidate SB60XC842D (Perma Industries) 400 South Rockefeller Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Bonner, 2004
SB-04672 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for Cingular Telecommunications Facility Candidate LSANCA 8113E (Nextel Doubleday), 1455 S. Doubleday Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California Bonner and AislinKay, 2005
3719
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 4 of 7
April 2, 2019
Table 2 (CON’T)
PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE GROUP 1 PARCELS Report No. Report Title Author, Date
SB-05367 Cultural Resource Assessment: Hofer Ranch Airport Business Park Specific Plan Amendment, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California Marvin and
Goodwin, 2004
SB-05483 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Bates Specific Plan Project Area on Haven Avenue in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
McKenna, 2006
SB-05740 Cultural Resource Records Search Results and Site Visit for T -Mobile Telecommunications Facility Candidate IE24077B (Airport Drive), 4000 Airport Drive, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Bonner and AislinKay, 2007
SB-06513 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of The GST Fiber Optic Alignment from Ontario, San Bernardino County, to Del Mar, San Diego County, California McKenna, 2000
SB-06516 Cultural Resource Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc., Proposed Fiber Optic System Installation Project, Los Angeles to Riverside, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties
Ashkar, 1999
SB-06523 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for AT&T Mobility, LLC Candidate LSANCAD115 (USID 16455), 410 Sequoia Ave, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Bonner and
Williams, 2009
SB-06525 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Verizon Wireless Candidate "Ontario Airport", 3601 Jurupa Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Bonner and Said,
2009
SB-06818 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: Chino Desalter Phase 3 Expansion Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California Tang, Encarnacion,
Ballester, and
Shaker, 2010
SB-07147 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate IE 24611C (Milliken-Frances), 1805 South Milliken Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Bonner and
Williams, 2012
SB-07196 Record Search Results for the Proposed AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Site LA8113 (Nextel Doubleday) located at 1455 South Doubleday Drive, Ontario, California
Wlodarski, 2012
SB-07756 Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Chino Desalter Phase 3 Expansion Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California Tang, 2014
*Studies that overlap with the project area
Other Archival Research
Various archival sources were consulted, including historic topographic maps, aerial imagery (NETR Online 2019), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) Records. The purpose of this research was to identify historic land use in the area.

No land patents are on file with the BLM GLO for Section 25 of Township 1 South, Range 7 West, and neither the 1858 nor the 1865 survey plats show any cultural or environmental data for the section.

No buildings or structures appear within the Group 1 survey area or Section 25 on topographic maps prior to the 1950s. On the Guasti 1953 (1955 edition) 7.5-minute topographic map, a hollow square, possibly indicating a small structure, is observed in the central area of Section 25, within the survey area. In addition, a reservoir located in the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 25 is 3720
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 5 of 7
April 2, 2019
represented on the same topographic map; it is situated outside of the project area and will not be impacted by the potential development of the Group 1 parcels.

The earliest aerial photograph of the Group 1 survey area dates to 1938; it shows open land and agricultural fields within the project area. By 1948, additional agriculture is represented in the area, and the reservoir shown on topographic maps appears, but no buildings or structures exist within the project area. By 1959, additional development, likely related to agriculture, is shown in the area, but outside of the Group 1 parcels. On the 1966 aerial, it appears that the majority of the lands surrounding the project have been left fallow and are still undeveloped. However, an influx of development occurred between 1966 and 1994, when aerial images show the region considerably more populated by buildings and roads; these are situated adjacent to, but outside of, the current project site. The area remains much as shown from 1994 until the final aerial image, dating to 2012.

Survey
A pedestrian survey of the Group 1 parcels was conducted between March 11 and 13, 2019 by HELIX archaeological field director Julie Roy and field archaeologists Ariana Yanez and Kellie Kandybowicz.

Stephen Bernal, a Native American monitor with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, assisted in the survey activities. Vegetation consisted of thick native and non-native weeds and flowering plants. Visibility ranged from 30 percent along the edges of the roads to no more than 20 percent away from the roads, with rodent back dirt piles sometimes being the only soils visually inspected. Numerous berms were observed within the survey areas. The berms may involve buried water transmission pipes.

A possible historic-period well comprised of a metal pipe with no markings, was observed in the northwest portion of the survey area. The well has had a metal cap with a lock welded to the top of it, most likely for safety issues (Plate 1). Although the age of the well is unknown, as observed on the historic aerial photographs, the project area has been cultivated since at least 1938 (NETR Online 2019).

Plate 1. Capped well. View to the northeast.
3721
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 6 of 7
April 2, 2019
No other cultural resources were observed within the Group 1 parcels during the survey effort. No evidence was observed of the building or structure shown within the project area on the Guasti 1953 (1955 edition) 7.5-minute topographic map.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A cultural resources survey of the Group 1 parcels was conducted between March 11 and 13, 2019. One potentially historic resource, a well comprised of a metal pipe, was identified within the project area.

Additionally, it must be noted that although no Native American cultural resources have been documented in the NAHC’s SLF for the project area, the general area is of importance to the Native American community.

No constraints to the potential development of the Group 1 parcels related to cultural resources are anticipated; however, documentation of the well/pipe on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and completion of a cultural resources technical report addressing both California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance and federal compliance (e.g., Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) are recommended.

If you have any questions, please call Stacie Wilson at (619) 462-1515.

Stacie Wilson, RPA Julie Roy
Senior Archaeologist Archaeological Field Director
Attachments:

Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
3722
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 7 of 7
April 2, 2019

REFERENCES
Davis, Shannon and Marilyn Novell
2017 Ontario International Airport Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the City of Ontario Planning Department. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc. On file at HELIX.

Douglas, Diane L. and David Livingstone
2006 Historical Architectural and Cultural Resources Inventory Report. Pacific Gateway Cargo Center Ontario Airport San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Aero Ontario RFP, LLC. URS Project No. 29870326.04200. On file at HELIX.

NETR Online
2019 Historic Aerials. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Electronic document available at: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 2019. 3723
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
!!
!!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!!
! ! ! ! !
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! ! !! !!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !!! ! !
!! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !!
!
!!
!
!! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! !! !
!
!
! !
!! !
! !
!! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!!
!
!! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !!!
! !! ! !!
!
!
! ! !!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !! ! !! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! ! !
!
!!
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
?z
?Æ
!"a$
!"a$
%&h(
?±
!"a$
!"a$ ?¹
?¹ %&h(
?±
?z
?¹ AÐ
!"`$
Añ
?¡
AÙ
?± ?¿
A¨
?¿
?±
?¹
!"`$
!"`$
?ø
!"a$
?a
?°
%&l(
?±
AÎ
?s
AÝ
?u
?Æ
!"^$
!"^$
?å
Añ
?¥
%&h(
?¡
AÔ
!
Survey Area

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
POMONA
CAMP

PENDELETON

MISSION
VIEJO
SAN

CLEMENTE
LAGUNA
BEACH

ANAHEIM

ONTARIO

RIVERSIDE
CORONA
CHINO
LAKE

ELSINORE

SAN BERNARDINO
IRVINE
San Gabriel Mountains
Santa Ana Mountains
San Bernardino Mountains

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY
San Jacinto Mountains
Little San Be rnardino Mountains
YUCCA
VALLEY

TEMELCULA

MURRIETA
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY

BANNING

BEAUMONT

HEMET PALM DESERT

SAN JACINTO

COACHELLA
PALM

SPRINGS PERRIS
Pacific
Ocean
Big Bear Lake
Coyote
Lake
Lee
Lake
Alvord
Perris
Reservoir
Lake
Mathews
Canyon
Lake
Hemet
Lake
Lake
Elsinore
Lake
Cahuilla
Skinner
Reservoir
Vail
Lake
Diamond
Valley Lake
Figure 1
Regional Location
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01\Map\Cultural_Memos\Fig1_Regional.mxd OIA-01 4/1/2019 -SW Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) K
Ontario International Airport
0 10 Miles
3724
Figure 2
Vicinity Map
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01\Map\Cultural_Memos\Fig2_USGS.mxd OIA-01 4/1/2019 -SW Source: Guasti 7.5' Quad (USGS)
Ontario International Airport
0 2,000 Feet
K
3725
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01\Map\Cultural_Memos\Fig3_Aerial.mxd OIA-01 4/1/2019 -EC Source: Base Map Layers (Eagle Aerial, 2014) K
Ontario International Airport
0 1,000 Feet
Survey Areas
Group 1 (151 acres)
3726
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
April 15, 2019

Greg Devereaux OIA-01.18
Ontario International Airport Authority
1923 E Avion Avenue
Ontario, CA 91761
Subject: Cultural Resources Survey for the Potential Development of Parcel Group 2 Dear Mr. Devereaux:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) was contracted to conduct a cultural resources survey for the Ontario International Airport Authority’s (OIAA) potential development (project; Group 2) in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. HELIX conducted a pedestrian survey, a record search, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, and review of existing documentation for the project. This letter report details the methods and results of the cultural resources survey. No cultural resources were observed during the survey effort

PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately 67-acre project area is located within the limits of the City of Ontario, west of Interstate (I-)15 and south of I-10 (Figure 1, Regional Location). The project is within Section 25 of Township 1 South, Range 7 West, on the Guasti, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2, Vicinity Map). The Group 2 survey area is comprised of five parcels with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0211-222-56; 0211-232-04, 05, 06, 07.

The Group 2 survey area is located east of Haven Street, south of East Airport Drive, west of South Carnegie Avenue, and north of La Salle Street (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). Elevations range from approximately 920 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the southern portion of the survey area to 938 feet amsl in the northern portion of the survey area. The Group 2 parcels are vacant; existing Ontario International Airport infrastructure and industrial development surround the survey area.

METHODS
HELIX conducted a record search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on March 7, 2019. The records search covered a one-mile radius around the Group 2 survey area and included the identification of previously recorded cultural resources and locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies. A review of the California Historical Resources and the state Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) historic properties directories was also conducted. 3727
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 2 of 7
April 2, 2019
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a SLF search on April 1, 2019; a response was received on April 15, 2019 and indicated that the results were negative for the project area; no additional outreach to the Native American community was conducted.

Various archival sources, including historic topographic maps and aerial imagery, were consulted, and the existing cultural resources reports, Historical Architectural and Cultural Resources Inventory Report (Douglas and Livingstone 2006) and Ontario International Airport Historic Context Statement (Davis and Novell 2017), were reviewed.

RESULTS
Records Search
The records search results identified seven previously recorded cultural resources within one mile of the project area, none of which are located within the Group 2 parcels (Table 1, Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of the Group 2 Parcels). Two of the resources within the search limits, the Guasti (Brookside) Winery and the Church of San Secondo D`Asti, Guasti Church, are listed as California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), and one resource, the Hofer Ranch, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Guasti (Brookside) Winery and the Church of San Secondo D`Asti, Guasti Church are located to the northwest of the project area, north of the railroad. The Hofer Ranch is located to the west, within Section 26.

Table 1
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE GROUP 2 PARCELS Resource
Number
(P-36-#)
Resource
Number
(CA-SBR-#)
Age and Resource
Present Description Recorder, Date
001963 1963H Historic Site Remnants of a homestead/ranch, possibly associated with the Collins
family who owned the property in the
late 1800s
McKenna, 1987
001964 1964H Historic Structure Small shed containing modern pumping equipment
McKenna, 1987
015469 -- Historic Site Guasti (Brookside) Winery (CPHI # 84) Hansberger, 1975 015471 -- Historic Site San Secondo D’Asti Catholic Church (CPHI # 76)
Hansberger, 1975
015990 -- Historic
Structures/
Historic District
Guasti Historic District; consists of 51
resources (buildings, houses, etc.)
constructed between 1900 and 1946
Warner and Solie,
1985
016249 -- Historic Site Hofer Ranch (NR #93000596), also known as Ballou Ranch & Ben Haven;
farm complex consisting of 15
resources (buildings and structures)
constructed between 1905 and 1985
Hofer and Warner,
1985; Marvin and
Goodwin, 2004
016279 -- Historic Building Guasti Mansion; constructed in the Italian-Villa architectural style in 1922
Warner and Solie,
1985
3728
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 3 of 7
April 2, 2019
The records search results identified 29 previous cultural resource studies within the record search limits, two of which cover or overlap with the project area (Table 2, Previous Studies within One Mile of the Group 2 Parcels). The overlapping studies include a cultural resources assessment (SB-01180) and a telecommunications report (SB-06525). The telecommunication study only covered a small portion of the Group 2 survey area. The cultural resources assessment study, however, was for the Ontario Industrial Park and covered the entirety of the project area; presumably this study included a pedestrian field survey.

Table 2
PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE GROUP 2 PARCELS Report No. Report Title Author, Date
SB-00613 Draft Environmental Impact Report: Milliken Sanitary Landfill Ultrasystems, Inc., 1978
SB-00644 Archaeological Evaluation of the Proposed Fontana Interceptor Leonard, 1978 SB-01180* Cultural Resources Assessment of the Ontario Industrial Park, San Bernardino County, California
Smith and Lerch,
1981
SB-01496 Cultural Resource Assessment of a 505-Acre Parcel Near Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Del Chario and
Cottrell, 1985
SB-01721 An Archaeological Report on The Reconnaissance Survey for the United Parcel Service, Air Cargo Facility, Ontario, California Hatheway and
McKenna, 1987
SB-02038 United Parcel Service Air Cargo Facility Project: Archaeological Site Evaluation
Farber, 1989
SB-02118 Cultural Resources Survey: United Parcel Service Proposed Air Cargo Facility, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Winter and Mason,
1989
SB-02194 Amanson Properties: Cultural Resource Investigation Davis, 1988 SB-02348 A Comparative Study of Late Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Western Great Basin
Tuohy, 1974
SB-02795 Cultural Resource Investigation: Cajon Pipeline Project Hampson, Schmidt, and Schmidt, 1991
SB-02796 Cultural Resources Investigations, Site Inventory and Evaluations, The Cajon Pipeline Corridor, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties McKenna, 1993
SB-02863 Negative Archaeological Survey Report, Provide High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes on I-10 Between Mills and I-15
Wlodarski, 1993
SB-03573 Cultural Resource Assessment: Cingular Wireless Facility LA S04-01, San Bernardino County, California
Duke, 2001
SB-03574 Cultural Resource Assessment for PBMS Facility CM 392-01, County of San Bernardino, California
Lapin, 2000
SB-03586 Ontario to Colton Pipeline, San Bernardino County, California Love, 2000 SB-03588 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Property: AT&T Wireless Site PB20002-115, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California Love, 2000
SB-04158 Cultural Resource Assessment: AT&T Wireless Facility No. D115, San Bernardino County, California
Duke, 2001
SB-04161 Proposed Sprint PCS Wireless Telecommunication Facility Project SB40XC701E--California Hardware
Martinez, 2001
3729
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 4 of 7
April 2, 2019
Table 2 (CON’T)
PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE GROUP 2 PARCELS Report No. Report Title Author, Date
SB-04669
Records Search Results and Site Visit for Sprint Telecommunications Facility Candidate SB60XC842D (Perma Industries) 400 South Rockefeller Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Bonner, 2004
SB-04672
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for Cingular Telecommunications Facility Candidate LSANCA 8113E (Nextel Doubleday), 1455 S. Doubleday Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Bonner and AislinKay, 2005
SB-05367 Cultural Resource Assessment: Hofer Ranch Airport Business Park Specific Plan Amendment, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California Marvin and
Goodwin, 2004
SB-05483
A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Bates Specific Plan Project Area on Haven Avenue in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
McKenna, 2006
SB-05740
Cultural Resource Records Search Results and Site Visit for T -Mobile Telecommunications Facility Candidate IE24077B (Airport Drive), 4000 Airport Drive, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California Bonner and AislinKay, 2007
SB-06513
A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the GST Fiber Optic Alignment from Ontario, San Bernardino County, to Del Mar, San Diego County, California
McKenna, 2000
SB-06516
Cultural Resource Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc., Proposed Fiber Optic System Installation Project, Los Angeles to Riverside, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Ashkar, 1999
SB-06523
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for AT&T Mobility, LLC Candidate LSANCAD115 (USID 16455), 410 Sequoia Ave, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Bonner and
Williams, 2009
SB-06525*
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Verizon Wireless Candidate "Ontario Airport", 3601 Jurupa Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Bonner and Said,
2009
SB-07195
Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment, Ontario Airport/Ensite #11890 (122944), 3330 East Francis Street, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Perez, 2012
SB-07196
Record Search Results for the Proposed AT&T Wireless
Telecommunications Site LA8113 (Nextel Doubleday) located at 1455 South Doubleday Drive, Ontario, California
Wlodarski, 2012
*Studies that overlap with the project area
Other Archival Research
Various archival sources were consulted, including historic topographic maps, aerial imagery (NETR Online 2019) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) Records. The purpose of this research was to identify historic land use in the area.

No land patents are on file with the BLM GLO for Section 25 of Township 1 South, Range 7 West, and neither the 1858 nor the 1865 survey plats show any cultural or environmental data for the section. 3730
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 5 of 7
April 2, 2019
No buildings or structures appear within the Group 2 survey area or Section 25 on topographic maps prior to the 1950s. On the Guasti 1953 (1955 edition) 7.5-minute topographic map, a hollow square, possibly indicating a small structure, is observed in the central area of Section 25, to the east of the survey area. A reservoir is shown adjacent to the western edge of the project area along the west side of Haven Road on the same topographic map; however, it is situated outside of the project area and will not be impacted by the potential development of the Group 2 parcels.

The earliest aerial photograph of the Group 2 survey area dates to 1938; it shows open land and agricultural fields within the project area. By 1948, additional agriculture is represented in the area with what may be farm buildings or a residence with outbuildings situated in the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 25; however, these buildings are located outside of the Group 2 survey area. In addition, the reservoir shown on topographic maps appears in aerial photos as early as 1948. By 1959, additional development, likely related to agriculture, is shown in the area, but outside of the Group 2 parcels. On the 1966 aerial, it appears that the majority of the lands surrounding the project have been left fallow and are still undeveloped. However, an influx of development occurred between 1966 and 1994, when aerial images show the region considerably more populated by buildings and roads; these are situated adjacent to, but outside of, the current project site. The area remains much as shown from 1994 until the final aerial image, dating to 2012.

Survey
A pedestrian survey of the Group 2 parcels was conducted on March 13, 2019 by HELIX archaeological field director Julie Roy and field archaeologists Ariana Yanez and Kellie Kandybowicz. Stephen Bernal, a Native American monitor with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, assisted in the survey activities. Vegetation consisted of thick native and non-native weeds and flowering plants.

Visibility ranged from 30 percent along the edges of the roads to 0 percent away from the roads, with rodent back dirt piles sometimes being the only soils visually inspected. Numerous berms were observed within the survey area. The berms may involve buried water transmission pipes. No cultural resources were observed during the survey effort.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A cultural resources survey of the project site was conducted on March 13, 2019, no cultural resources were recorded during the survey effort. It must be noted that although no Native American cultural resources have been documented in the NAHC’s SLF for the project area, the general area is of importance to the Native American community.

No known cultural resources will be impacted by the potential development of the Group 2 parcels, and no constraints related to cultural resources are anticipated; however, completion of a cultural resources technical report addressing both California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance and federal compliance (e.g., Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) is recommended. 3731
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 6 of 7
April 2, 2019
If you have any questions, please call Stacie Wilson at (619) 462-1515.

Stacie Wilson, RPA Julie Roy
Senior Archaeologist Archaeological Field Director
Attachments:

Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: USGS Topography
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
3732
Letter to Mr. Greg Devereaux Page 7 of 7
April 2, 2019

REFERENCES
Davis, Shannon and Marilyn Novell
2017 Ontario International Airport Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the City of Ontario Planning Department. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc. On file at HELIX.

Douglas, Diane L. and David Livingstone
2006 Historical Architectural and Cultural Resources Inventory Report. Pacific Gateway Cargo Center Ontario Airport San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Aero Ontario RFP, LLC. URS Project No. 29870326.04200. On file at HELIX.

NETR Online
2019 Historic Aerials. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Electronic document available at: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed March 2019. 3733
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
!!
!!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!!
! ! ! ! !
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! ! !! !!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !!! ! !
!! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !!
!
!!
!
!! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! !! !
!
!
! !
!! !
! !
!! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!!
!
!! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !!!
! !! ! !!
!
!
! ! !!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !! ! !! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! ! !
!
!!
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
?z
?Æ
!"a$
!"a$
%&h(
?±
!"a$
!"a$ ?¹
?¹ %&h(
?±
?z
?¹ AÐ
!"`$
Añ
?¡
AÙ
?± ?¿
A¨
?¿
?±
?¹
!"`$
!"`$
?ø
!"a$
?a
?°
%&l(
?±
AÎ
?s
AÝ
?u
?Æ
!"^$
!"^$
?å
Añ
?¥
%&h(
?¡
AÔ
!
Survey Area

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
POMONA
CAMP

PENDELETON

MISSION
VIEJO
SAN

CLEMENTE
LAGUNA
BEACH

ANAHEIM

ONTARIO

RIVERSIDE
CORONA
CHINO
LAKE

ELSINORE

SAN BERNARDINO
IRVINE
San Gabriel Mountains
Santa Ana Mountains
San Bernardino Mountains

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY
San Jacinto Mountains
Little San Be rnardino Mountains
YUCCA
VALLEY

TEMELCULA

MURRIETA
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY

BANNING

BEAUMONT

HEMET PALM DESERT

SAN JACINTO

COACHELLA
PALM

SPRINGS PERRIS
Pacific
Ocean
Big Bear Lake
Coyote
Lake
Lee
Lake
Alvord
Perris
Reservoir
Lake
Mathews
Canyon
Lake
Hemet
Lake
Lake
Elsinore
Lake
Cahuilla
Skinner
Reservoir
Vail
Lake
Diamond
Valley Lake
Figure 1
Regional Location
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01\Map\Cultural_Memos\Fig1_Regional.mxd OIA-01 4/1/2019 -SW Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) K
Ontario International Airport
0 10 Miles
3734
Figure 2
Vicinity Map
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01\Map\Cultural_Memos\Fig2_USGS.mxd OIA-01 4/1/2019 -SW Source: Guasti 7.5' Quad (USGS)
Ontario International Airport
0 2,000 Feet
K
3735
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
H:\GIS\PROJECTS\O\OIA-01\Map\Cultural_Memos\Fig3_Aerial.mxd OIA-01 4/1/2019 -EC Source: Base Map Layers (Eagle Aerial, 2014) K
Ontario International Airport
0 1,000 Feet
Survey Areas
Group 2 (67 acres)
3736
14274-02 VMT.docx
December 8, 2021
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
1140 N. Coast Highway
Laguna Beach, California 92651
SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS CENTER AT ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VEHICLE MILES

TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
Dear Mr. Bruce McDonald:

The following VMT Analysis has been prepared for the proposed California Logistics Center at Ontario International Airport Project (Project), which is located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and E.

Airport Drive in the City of Ontario.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
It is our understanding that the proposed Project intends to develop 9 industrial warehouse buildings totaling of 4,282,450 square feet (SF). (See Attachment A) It should be noted that, for the purposes of trip generation evaluation contained within this VMT analysis, the following mix of land uses are proposed to be evaluated for the Project:
• 642,368 SF of high-cube cold storage warehouse use (15% of the total square footage) • 3,640,082 SF of high-cube fulfillment center warehouse use (85% of the total square footage) • Total of 4,282,450 SF

BACKGROUND
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory). (1) Based on the Technical Advisory, the City of Ontario has developed and adopted their own VMT methodologies and thresholds, which were adopted by City Council in June 2020 (City Guidelines). (2) It is our understanding the City of Ontario utilizes the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool). The Screening Tool allows users to select an assessor’s parcel number (APN) to determine if a project’s location meets one or more of 3737
Mr. Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group
December 8, 2021