Attachment E

Biological Opinion

In Reply Refer to: 

SB-22-0002338-S7 

April 6, 2023 

Sent Electronically 

Deborah Suciu-Smith 

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Biological Opinion for the Brightline West - Victor Valley to Rancho Cucamonga 

High-speed Rail Project 

Dear Deborah Suciu-Smith: 

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion on the 

proposed the Brightline West Victor Valley to Rancho Cucamonga High-Speed Rail Project 

(Project) and its effects on the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus; 

SBKR) and its designated critical habitat, least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; vireo), arroyo 

toad (Anaxyrus californicus [Bufo microscaphus c.]) and its designated critical habitat, Santa 

Ana River woolly-star (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum), and slender-horned spineflower 

(Dodecahema leptoceras) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the 

United States Department of Transportation are considering providing funding for the Project. 

We received your letter requesting initiation of formal consultation on July 15, 2022. 

Brightline West proposes to construct the Project (see Appendix A for location) and to operate 

the Project under a lease agreement with the California Department of Transportation for the use 

of the Interstate 15 (I-15) right-of-way and the proposed passenger station at Hesperia. 

The FRA is the lead federal agency for the Project, intending to provide funding for the Project. 

FRA is the National Environmental Policy Act lead for the Project, as well as providing 

clearance for and ensuring safety of the train, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sections 103, 20103, and 49 

CFR Part 236, and 49 CFR Part 238. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over 

Waters of the U.S. and may issue a Section 404 Permit, pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act; 

the Surface Transportation Board has jurisdiction over the construction, acquisition, operation, 

and abandonment of rail lines, railroad rates and services, and rail carrier consolidations and 

mergers; and the Federal Highway Administration has jurisdiction over the use and modification 

of the Interstate highway right-of-way. 

United States Department of the Interior 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ecological Services 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 

Carlsbad, California 92008 
 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 2 

This biological opinion is based on information provided in: 

• Draft Biological Assessment Cajon Pass High-speed Rail (HNTB July 2022a) 

• Addendum to the July 2022 Draft Biological Assessment Brightline West Cajon Pass 

High-Speed Rail Project (HNTB 2022b) 

• Draft Environmental Assessment Brightline West Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project 

(Draft EA; FRA 2022) 

• Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project Habitat Restoration Plan (Rincon 2022a; 

Appendix C) 

• Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and 

Translocation Plan (Rincon 2022b; Appendix D) 

In your request for consultation, you indicated the Project is not likely to adversely affect the 

federally threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica; gnatcatcher), and the 

federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; flycatcher) 

and its designated critical habitat. For reasons discussed in Appendix B and with the inclusion of 

the avoidance measures in Appendix B, we concur with your determination that the Project is not 

likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise, yellow-billed cuckoo, gnatcatcher, or flycatcher or 

its designated critical habitat. Furthermore, following our review of activities associated with the 

Project, the most recent available survey data, and our evaluation of conservation measures 

committed to by Brightline West, we have determined that the proposed Project is not likely to 

adversely affect the Santa Ana River woolly-star (Eriastrum densifolium sanctorum) or the 

slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) [see Appendix B]. Therefore, the 

aforementioned species and designated critical habitat are not further addressed in this biological 

opinion. 

CONSULTATION HISTORY 

The FRA sent our office a Draft Biological Assessment (BA) and an initiation letter dated 

July 15, 2022, requesting formal and informal consultation for the Project. After our evaluation 

of the BA, we concluded that in order to initiate formal consultation, we would need additional 

information. On August 12, 2022, our office sent FRA a letter outlining the additional 

information necessary to initiate formal consultation. Following that, FRA sent us an addendum 

to the BA along with a letter initiating formal consultation on September 15, 2022. 

Our office electronically mailed a draft biological opinion to FRA on January 26, 2023, and 

received comments on the draft, via electronic mail from FRA on February 28, 2023. On 

March 2, 2023, we held a follow-up conference call with FRA to discuss updates to the project 

description. 
 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 3 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC (doing business as “Brightline West”) proposes to construct and 

operate a passenger high-speed rail system capable of speeds up to 140 miles per hour (mph) 

covering 47.9 miles between Victor Valley and Rancho Cucamonga, California. The proposed 

high-speed rail would be built in, and share, the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans) right-of-way for the existing Interstate 15 (I-15). The northern terminus of the Project 

would be in Victor Valley, California, in the western Mojave Desert. From Victor Valley, the 

alignment extends southward, passing through or next to the communities of Victorville, 

Hesperia, Rialto, and Fontana—as well as the San Bernardino Mountains and Cajon Canyon— 

before it reaches its southern terminus in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Excepting the final 

approach to the Rancho Cucamonga station, the Project alignment occurs within Caltrans rightof-way, including when passing through San Bernardino National Forest. Figure 1 (Appendix A) 

shows the alignment of the proposed Project. 

The rail alignment would be built in the median between the northbound and southbound lanes 

of I-15 (median running), except at the approach to the Rancho Cucamonga station where the 

alignment would cross over southbound I-15 lanes and run parallel to the outer side of 

southbound lanes (side-running). Where the rail alignment leaves the I-15 right-of-way, it travels 

in city, railroad, or utility rights-of-way in Rancho Cucamonga. 

Most of the rail alignment would be built at the same elevation as the existing highway. Some 

rail segments would be on elevated structures (bridges or viaducts) supported by piers or 

columns, and some would be on elevated embankment or entrenched to enable grade-separated 

intersections and for grade control where needed for safe high-speed rail operations. The Project 

would cross the Mojave River, Cajon Wash, Lytle Creek, and other drainages and washes along 

the rail alignment. At all such crossings, the Project would build new crossings between the 

north and southbound lanes of the existing I-15 crossings. 

The proposed Project includes construction of two passenger stations, a traction power 

substation, and alterations of existing transportation infrastructure, including expansion of 

existing I-15 lane areas at the outer edges of the existing roadway to enable rail to travel in the I15 median. 

The Biological Assessment describes the alignment in three sections. 

• Section 1: High Desert – Approximately 19 miles. Starting immediately south of the 

proposed Victor Valley Passenger Station (proposed by a separate Project), Section 1 

extends south in the median of I-15 to the I-15/Oak Hill Road interchange in Hesperia. 

• Section 2: Cajon Pass – Approximately 12 miles. From the I-15/Oak Hill Road 

interchange, Section 2 continues south in the I-15 median, up and over Cajon Summit, 

and continuing in Cajon Canyon down to the I-15/Kenwood Avenue interchange in 

unincorporated San Bernardino County. 
 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 4 

• Section 3: Greater Los Angeles – Approximately 17 miles. From the I-15/Kenwood 

Avenue interchange, Section 3 continues southwest along I-15, then travels in an existing 

rail corridor to the proposed new Rancho Cucamonga passenger station (site of existing 

Metrolink passenger station) and ends at Haven Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga. 

In addition to guideway and rails, the Project includes a catenary system (posts with cantilevers 

supporting electrical supply wires), retaining walls and sound walls, and modification of 22 

existing highway interchanges and their ramps. In most of the alignment, accommodating the rail 

in the highway median would require modification of existing highway lanes; modifications 

would include expanding the lanes out toward the edge of right-of-way in most cases. 

Construction 

The proposed Project includes components that would be constructed in one or more of the three 

Project sections. Table 1 summarizes the major Project components and construction activities 

by Project section. Construction activities associated with many of the Project components are 

similar; therefore, we are organizing the discussion by the category of major construction 

activity. 

Earthwork and Site Preparation 

Excavation, grading, and vegetation removal are necessary for construction access, temporary 

construction areas, and temporary staging areas. The primary access route for construction is 

anticipated to occur via I-15 and adjacent existing roadways. No new access roads are 

anticipated to be required for almost all of the Project. At both Lytle Creek and Cajon Wash, a 

dirt access road would be temporarily constructed to enable access by cranes, pile drivers, and 

for materials delivery. The road would access locations where support structures (bents) for the 

guideway would be constructed. At the Mojave River crossing, an existing Caltrans construction 

access road would be used. 

Temporary construction areas would be located within the Caltrans right-of-way and include 

laydown/staging areas, i.e., illuminated, enclosed, secured, stabilized, graded yards that would 

serve as a base for construction operations for particular parts of the proposed Project. The 

temporary construction area footprints would vary according to the space available, but would 

provide sufficient space for unloading, storage, sorting, and distribution of concrete and other 

building materials, equipment, and large components required for a particular construction 

segment or structure. Temporary construction areas for bridges and viaducts would include space 

for steel and timber falsework used to support overhead concrete construction. To construct piers 

and other supporting structures, temporary formwork, falsework, cranes, and other protection 

devices would be utilized to support structural members during construction and would be 

removed following final installation. Temporary platforms would be used to support pile driving 

machinery where pile driving is necessary to install foundations for piers, abutments, and other 

structures requiring pile foundations. 

Temporary artificial lighting would be used during all nighttime construction activities. 
 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 5 

Construction would require large volumes of cut and fill to achieve necessary grades, as well as 

for temporary construction areas for material staging and Project administration. It is estimated 

that the proposed Project would result in the cut and fill of 288,500 and 1,370,000 cubic yards of 

material, respectively. To accommodate the proposed traction power substation, an area of 

approximately 70,200 square feet of undeveloped land would be cleared and graded. 

Work would be performed with a large variety of mobile, diesel-powered heavy construction 

equipment. Stationary equipment, such as generators or air compressors, would also be used. Pile 

driving would require use of impact and/or vibratory pile drivers. The proposed Project would 

not require blasting. 

Trucks would remove excavated soil either to stockpile locations or for off-site disposal and 

would bring suitable subgrade and guideway materials to the site. At least 154,000 dump truck 

trips are likely to be necessary to transport cut and fill. A source for fill material has not been 

confirmed, but material is presumed to be sourced from one or more existing quarries in the area. 

Except as specified below in Conservation Measures, restoration and maintenance of temporary 

construction areas in the right-of-way would follow Caltrans standards for landscape 

architectural design (Caltrans 2020) along with approved restoration plans for suitable habitat for 

ESA-listed species. 

Demolition 

Demolition would occur in multiple locations along the alignment. Existing highway overpasses 

and pavement on lanes and ramps would be demolished and/or modified to accommodate the 

guideway—including expanding the highway deck on the outside edges of the existing highway 

in many locations. The proposed Project includes approximately 316,137 cubic yards of 

pavement demolition. Two existing overpass bridges would be demolished, and access would be 

replaced elsewhere. Approximately 32,500 square feet of highway deck would be removed. 

New Structures 

New structures for the proposed Project include the rail guideway, bridges and viaducts, catenary 

system, traction power substation, two passenger stations, and a new parking garage. 

Approximately nine new bridges/viaducts would be constructed in alignment to existing I-15 

bridges. Bridges would be constructed with abutments supported by structural steel piles and 

would use cast-in-place concrete footings and piers. Construction activities include excavation 

and drilling for foundations, concrete pouring (including formwork and rebar placement), 

falsework installation, construction of bridge decking, and placement of ballast and ties. Impact 

pile driving machinery may be used to install steel piles, including at the Mojave River, Cajon 

Wash, and Lytle Creek crossings and other locations on elevated structures (Table 2). 

Approximately 5 million square feet (125 acres) of new pavement area on I-15 would be 

constructed to enable median-running rail. 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 6 

The proposed Hesperia passenger station is expected to require approximately 4 acres of 

undeveloped land to accommodate the surface parking area and station. The passenger station 

and parking garage at Rancho Cucamonga would be built in an existing heavily urbanized 

railroad corridor used by Metrolink and other railroads. The proposed Rancho Cucamonga 

passenger station would replace and, in the future, share passenger service with the existing 

Metrolink passenger station. 
 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 7 

Table 1. Major Project Components and Construction Elements 

Project Component Section 1: High Desert Section 2: Cajon Pass 

Section 3: Greater Los 

Angeles Major Construction Activities 

Rail and Catenary Single and double track at 

grade and on viaduct; 

median-running 

Single track at grade 

except for interchanges 

and crossing of existing 

railroads and washes; 

median-running 

Single and double track, 

at grade and on viaduct; 

Median- and siderunning sections. 

Earthwork and site preparation (road cut, grading, soil removal, 

vegetation removal, temporary staging areas) Structures (poured 

concrete, pile driving, imported fill material) Catenary wires, 

signal and control systems 

New Bridges/Viaducts 

(see Table 2) 

Major crossings: Mojave 

River, BNSF Railway 

tracks, Union Pacific 

Railroad (UPRR) tracks, 

U.S. 395, California 

Aqueduct 

Major crossings: three 

BNSF Railway mainline 

tracks, one UPRR track, 

tributaries to Cajon Wash 

Major crossings: 

southbound I-15, Cajon 

Wash, Lytle Creek, 

several constructed 

washes 

Earthwork and site preparation (road cut, grading, soil removal, 

vegetation removal, temporary staging areas) Structures (poured 

concrete, pile driving, imported fill material) 

Retaining Walls, 

Noise Walls 

Noise walls near viaduct 

in Victorville 

No noise walls, 

Retaining walls on steep 

slopes 

Noise walls near 

side-running track in 

Rancho Cucamonga 

Earthwork and site preparation (road cut, grading, soil removal, 

vegetation removal, temporary staging areas) Structures (poured 

concrete, pile driving, imported fill material) 

Interchange/Ramp 

Modification 

Yes Yes Yes Structure demolition, earthwork, and site preparation (grading, 

soil removal, vegetation removal, temporary staging areas) 

Structures (poured concrete, poured asphalt, imported fill 

material) 

Highway Footprint 

Expansion 

Yes Yes Yes Structure demolition, earthwork, and site preparation (grading, 

soil removal, vegetation removal, temporary staging areas) 

Structures (poured concrete, poured asphalt, imported fill 

material) 

New Passenger 

Station and Parking 

Hesperia station: Parking 

area for 300 vehicles, 

station in the median 

No passenger station Rancho Cucamonga 

station: 3,500-space 

parking garage shared 

with Metrolink, new 

shared passenger station 

Earthwork and site preparation (grading, soil removal, vegetation 

removal, temporary staging areas) Structures (poured concrete, 

asphalt, imported fill material) 

New Power 

Substation 

Traction power substation None None Earthwork and site preparation (grading, soil removal, vegetation 

removal, temporary staging areas) Building Structures, utility 

relocation/expansion 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 8 

Table 2. Sections of Rail Alignment Built on Elevated Structures 

Project 

Section Crossing Name and Location 

Location Relative 

to I-15 Travel 

Lanes 

High-Speed 

Rail Bridge or 

Viaduct 

Length 

(feet) 

High-Speed 

Rail Bridge or 

Viaduct Width 

(feet) 

Number of 

Structure 

Spans 

1 Bell Mountain Wash and Stoddard 

Wells Road 

At same elevation, 

Median-running 

260 40.5 2 

1 Mojave River Crossing At same elevation, 

Median-running 

600 22.75 8 

1 Crossing of D/E Street and Rail At same elevation, 

Median-running 

80 22.75 1 

2 Cleghorn Creek Bridge At same elevation, 

Median-running 

250 22.75 3 

2 Debris Cone Creek Bridge At same elevation, 

Median-running 

120 22.75 1 

2 Brush Creek Bridge At same elevation, 

Median-running 

125 22.75 3 

3 Cajon Wash At same elevation, 

Median-running 

484 22.75 5 

3 Lytle Creek Bridge (Sycamore 

Creek Drive) 

At same elevation, 

Median-running 

1,982 22.75 18 

3 East Etiwanda Channel At same elevation, 

Median-running 

100 22.75 1 

3 Crossing over southbound I-15 at 

Rancho Cucamonga 

Overhead, siderunning to 

Southbound lanes 

and in rail corridor 

2,574 22.75 and 40.5 25 

Operations and Maintenance 

Trains are expected to operate daily between Victor Valley and Rancho Cucamonga, with a trip 

duration of approximately 35 minutes. Initially, trains are expected to run every 60 minutes; and 

by year 11 of operations, trains are expected to run every 30 minutes. Trains are anticipated to 

run between 6 a.m. and midnight. 

It is anticipated that train horn use would be very limited if used at all because there are no atgrade road crossings in the alignment. Fixed headlights would be used on trains. Nighttime 

lighting would be provided at passenger stations, including at platforms, in parking areas, and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 9 

along exterior landscaping and access routes. Intermittent flashes of light at the pantograph (the 

apparatus that contacts the overhead lines to drive the train car) contact may occur during train 

operations, depending on atmospheric and pantograph conditions, and would be most noticeable 

at night. 

No major maintenance areas are proposed as part of the proposed Project. Periodic routine 

maintenance activities would include addressing rail sensors, rail lubrication, track, and electrical 

and catenary inspections, maintaining the route to be free from obstructions and debris, and 

passenger station and traction power facilities maintenance. Most routine maintenance would be 

performed by maintenance machinery on the rail. Limited on-the ground crews would be 

required for maintenance. Crews would access the alignment from the highway and from the rail 

to service signaling, communications, and maintenance of the electrical overhead catenary 

system and to traction power facilities. Because the alignment is median running for most of its 

extent, no crews are anticipated to be on the ground for maintenance or inspection for any 

significant time within designated critical habitat for ESA-listed species. 

Sequencing and Timeline 

The general target date for completion of construction of the proposed Project is 2027. 

Construction would occur year-round. Construction would occur six days a week and is very 

likely to include work at night to minimize impacts on I-15 traffic. 

A timeline for construction is not yet available, but it is anticipated the Project would require at 

least three years from start to completion. Construction work at any single location on the 

alignment would occur for approximately 18 months. In the vicinity of occupied habitat areas, 

certain types of construction would be scheduled to mitigate potential construction effects. 

Conservation Measures 

Practicable measures to avoid impacts on ESA-listed threatened and endangered species and 

their critical habitats, such as those described below, will be implemented. In areas where 

unavoidable impacts may occur, efforts will be made to minimize those impacts. Following 

implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, the proposed Project will employ 

compensation measures to offset any unavoidable impacts that occur. 

Conservation measures (CM) are applicable to the entire proposed Project. In the list below, 

general CMs are followed by additional measures for specific species. 

CM 1 Biologists will be present to monitor construction activities along the following 

portions of the Project alignment: 

• Mojave Desert vicinity: From the northern-most Project extent, continuing 

south to the I-15 Bridge over D/E Street in Victorville - Focusing on 

protection of least Bell’s vireo, and critical habitat for southwestern willow 

flycatcher. 
 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 10 

• Cajon Canyon and Cajon Summit vicinity: From I-15 at Oak Hill Road to I-15 

at Hall Ranch Road - Focusing on protection of least Bell’s vireo, arroyo toad, 

and critical habitat for arroyo toad. 

• Cajon Wash and Lytle Creek vicinity: From I-15 at Hall Ranch Road to I-15 

at Summit Avenue. Focusing on protection of SBKR, ESA-listed plants, and 

critical habitat for SBKR. 

No biologist is required during construction along other portions of the alignment 

not listed above—for example, in urban areas in of Rancho Cucamonga, Hesperia, 

and Victorville—although Brightline West and its contractors may choose to 

utilize resource monitors/biological monitors at their discretion in these areas to 

ensure environmental compliance. 

CM 2 Certain types of construction activities are not to be commenced during bird 

breeding season at three separate locations along the alignment. The types of 

construction activities regulated are vegetation disturbance, pile driving, and 

ground disturbance (defined below). This conservation measure does not apply to 

other construction activities or other locations. Three separate locations of Avian 

Avoidance Exclusion Areas are: 

Area 1. Mojave River (Figure A-6) 

Area 2. Cajon Wash (Figure A-7) 

Area 3. Lytle Creek (Figure A-8) 

Figures showing the exclusion areas are provided in Appendix A. 

Vegetation disturbance activities, including clearing and grubbing of vegetation, 

are prohibited in exclusion areas during closure dates. 

Pile driving and ground disturbance activities are prohibited in exclusion areas 

during closure dates unless the work is initiated prior to the start of the closure 

period. In addition, impact pile driving at the Mojave River Crossing will not be 

allowed to commence between March 15 and May 31. 

Project-related ground disturbance is defined as: 

• Site preparation including grading and establishment of construction access, 

and 

• Grading, earth moving, stockpiling materials, excavation, and filling 

activities. 
 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 11 

Table 3 summarizes the closure dates by location. 

Table 3. Locations and Closure Dates 

Location Closed From To 

Area 1. Mojave River Crossing March 15 May 31 

Area 2. Cajon Wash February 15 September 30 

Area 3. Lytle Creek February 15 September 30 

The Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office (PSFWO) of the Service has verified 

bird nesting dates, which are summarized for reference in Table 4. 

Table 4. ESA-Listed Bird Species’ Nesting Dates (information provided for reference) 

Breeding Habitat Used 

Habitat Location 

Species Nesting Dates 

Coastal California gnatcatcher 

(Polioptila californica californica) 

Coastal sage scrub and adjacent 

areas of chapparal, grassland, 

and riparian vegetation. 

February 15 to August 

301 

Yes Yes No 

Least Bell's vireo 

(Vireo bellii pusillus) 

Desert Riparian, Riverine, 

Valley Foothill Riparian 

March 15 to September 

302 

Yes Yes Yes 

Southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus) 

Desert Riparian, Riverine, 

Valley Foothill Riparian 

May 1 to September 13 No No Yes 

Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo 

(Coccyzus americanus) 

Desert Riparian, Riverine, 

Valley Foothill Riparian 

June 1 to September 14 No No Yes 

1

USFWS, 2019. Section 7 Consultation on FEMA Disaster, Mitigation, and Preparedness Programs in Imperial, 

Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties, California. File Number: 

FWS-CFWO-16B0293-18F1358. May 31, 2019. 2

USFWS, 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the least Bell’s vireo. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 139 

pp. 3

USFWS, 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix+210 pp., 

Appendices A-O. 4

Laymon, S.A. 1998. “Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)” in The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: a 

strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Accessed 

on 8/2/22. Available at: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/species/riparian/yellow-billed_cuckoo.htm onhs aj

a

C

W

elt

reek

Ly

C

ave

r e

oj

iv

M

R
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 12 

CM 3 All Project staff, including Brightline West and its contractors, operators, 

consultants, field personnel, and subcontractors, will attend a mandatory 

environmental awareness training program. The program will be developed and 

presented by knowledgeable biologists. The curriculum will cover the following, 

at a minimum: 

• Awareness information for each ESA-listed species potentially present and 

designated critical habitats in the Project area. 

• The legal protection for each ESA-listed species, critical habitats, and the 

definition of “take” for listed species. 

• Measures to protect ESA-listed species during construction. 

• Review of the Project’s environmental commitments, restoration steps, and 

mitigation requirements. 

• Explain the reasoning behind the restrictions on the construction, where 

restrictions exist. 

• Importance of avoiding ground-disturbing activities outside the designated 

work areas, closing construction gates, and visually surveying designated 

work zones prior to moving equipment. 

• The location of any occupied ESA-listed species habitat and any suitable 

habitat within designated critical habitat areas within 400 feet of the Project 

footprint. 

• Requirements for ground and general areas inspection prior to moving 

vehicles and equipment. 

• Explain the problem of generalist predators, such as common ravens (Corvus 

corax). 

• Explain the importance of keeping construction areas free from trash and litter 

and avoiding subsidizing generalist predators. 

• Penalties for violation of federal and state environmental laws. 

Training will be documented, including names of trainees and dates of 

completion. All trained workers will be given an identifying sticker to be worn on 

site. 

CM 4 At least 60 calendar days prior to the start of Project-related ground disturbance 

that would occur within 400 feet of any occupied ESA-listed species habitat or 

within any suitable habitat within designated critical habitat areas, a written 

Biological Monitoring During Construction Plan (Plan) will be developed by 

Brightline West PSFWO. 

The Plan will discuss the type, locations, and timing of physical disturbance: (1) 

within 400 feet of any occupied ESA-listed species habitat, or (2) within any 

suitable habitat within designated critical habitat areas. The Plan will provide 

details of construction monitoring to be completed. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 13 

The Plan will identify appropriate monitoring and reporting needs during 

construction, including responsibilities, timing, and monitoring activities 

including information to be collected, and will identify coordination requirements, 

safety requirements, and communications, including points of contact. The Plan 

will be implemented during construction to ensure compliance with 

environmental commitments and will focus on commitments under the ESA. 

CM 5 No more than 120 calendar days after the completion of construction, the 

biologist will prepare a Construction Monitoring, and Restoration Report for 

submission to PSFWO for any construction areas: (1) within 400 feet of any 

occupied ESA-listed species habitat, or (2) within suitable habitat within 

designated critical habitat areas. The report will include the results of construction 

monitoring, pre- and post-construction photographs, and the type and locations of 

installed mitigation measures and a discussion of planned restoration measures. 

The report will include reporting on exclusion fencing monitoring and repairs. 

CM 6 Pre- and post-construction photographs will be taken by the biologist to document 

habitat conditions and alterations within the limits of disturbance during 

construction activities. Photographs will be dated, and their locations recorded, 

and they will be stored in a manner that will allow access for reporting purposes. 

CM 7 In areas adjacent to sensitive resources, the contractor will restrict all work to 

designated work areas through the use of visible demarcation. 

The following are locations of sensitive resources: 

• Mojave Desert vicinity: From the northern-most Project extent, 

continuing south to the I-15 Bridge over D/E Street in Victorville. 

• Cajon Canyon and Cajon Summit vicinity: From I-15 at Oak Hill Road to 

I-15 at Hall Ranch Road. 

• Cajon Wash and Lytle Creek vicinity: From I-15 at Hall Ranch Road to I15 at Summit Avenue. 

The contractor will avoid any unauthorized disturbance of native vegetation and 

sensitive resources outside the designated work area. Remnant habitat and 

existing stands of native vegetation will be identified and protected wherever 

possible. 

During construction, the contractor, or their representative, will monthly inspect 

the visible demarcation and will help ensure that construction equipment, 

vehicles, and associated activities remain within designated construction work 

areas. 

CM 8 Prior to ground disturbing activities, a noxious weed survey will be performed by 

a qualified biologist within the temporary construction impact areas outside the I15 median. “A” and “B” rated weeds on the California Department of Food and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CM 11 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 14 

Agriculture’s Weed Pest Ratings table will be managed per Caltrans landscape 

management requirements. During construction, the contractor will avoid the 

introduction or spread of noxious weeds by having a biologist perform annual reinspections and implementing weed removal/control in temporary construction 

impact areas and in restoration areas. 

CM 9 The contractor will ensure that supplies, equipment, and/or construction 

excavations where wildlife such as SBKR could hide (e.g., materials stockpiles, 

equipment in staging areas, and under vehicles) will be inspected by all 

construction crew members prior to moving or working on or with them to avoid 

killing or injuring wildlife. If wildlife is detected, the biologist will be contacted. 

CM 10 The contractor and Brightline West will preserve any dead biological material 

encountered related to ESA-listed species in the best possible state for later 

analysis. Preservation may include chilling and general protection from 

disturbance. 

The contractor will prepare and implement a Temporary Erosion and Sediment 

Control Plan that identifies best management practices (BMPs) best suited for site 

conditions. The plan will meet applicable Caltrans standards for erosion and 

sediment control. 

CM 12 The contractor will develop and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasures Plan for construction activities. The potential for chemical spills 

or releases of contaminants, including any non-stormwater discharge to drainage 

channels, will be managed and the risk reduced. If a spill occurs, cleanup, 

containment, and response measures will be implemented. Any accidental spills 

will be immediately contained and reported to the California Office of Emergency 

Services (1-800-852-7650) and the National Response Center (1-800-424-8802). 

CM 13 The contractor will not store construction equipment, chemicals, fuels, or 

lubricants within the 100-year floodplain of any water feature. 

CM 14 The contractor will ensure that all equipment maintenance activities and 

dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other such materials will be restricted to the 

designated staging areas outside of the Mojave River floodplain, Cajon Wash, and 

Lytle Creek to prevent the release of hazardous substances into these sensitive 

areas. 

CM 15 The contractor will develop and implement a Fugitive Dust Control Plan that 

includes, at a minimum, the following: 

• Reduce nonessential earth-moving activity under high-wind conditions when 

visible dusting occurs from surfaces due to wind erosion. 
 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 15 

• Water will be used for stabilization of surfaces for fugitive dust control within 

400 feet of areas occupied by ESA-listed species, or within suitable habitat 

within designated critical habitat areas. 

• Periodic watering for short-term stabilization of disturbed surface area. 

• Prevent track-out onto paved surfaces and clean up any tracked materials 

immediately. 

• Stabilize graded site surfaces upon completion of grading when subsequent 

development is delayed or expected to be delayed more than 30 days, except 

when such a delay is due to precipitation that dampens the disturbed surface 

sufficiently to eliminate visible fugitive dust emissions. 

CM 16 The contractor will employ permanent stabilization measures upon completion of 

construction along washes and in other areas of potential erosion. 

CM 17 Water will be obtained by the contractor from existing commercially available 

water sources during construction. No new groundwater wells or surface water 

impoundments will be developed without federal, state, and local permits as 

appropriate and legally required. 

CM 18 Existing stormwater systems will be designed or redesigned by Brightline West to 

accommodate runoff from impervious surfaces. Drainage facilities will detain 

flows and will not contribute to additional flows in rivers, streams, and washes. 

CM 19 All new utility lines and ancillary structures associated with the Project will be 

designed by Brightline West in a manner that will reduce the likelihood of bird 

nesting, especially by common ravens. 

CM 20 Permanent water quality treatment devices that comply with state and local 

requirements, as applicable, will be designed by Brightline West and installed to 

meet water quality objectives. 

CM 21 The contractor will employ noise control measures to reduce noise from 

construction including: 

• Use equipment with enclosed engines and/or high-performance mufflers. 

• Locate stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noisesensitive sites. 

• Construct noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated 

material, between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receivers. 

• Route truck traffic along roadways that will cause the least disturbance to 

species. 

• Where pile driving is needed, use sonic/vibratory pile driver wherever 

possible. Where impact pile drivers must be used near noise-sensitive 

receptors, implement a slow start and limit activity to daylight hours to the 

extent possible. 
 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 16 

CM 22 The contractor will implement a litter-control program during construction to 

avoid subsidizing (feeding) generalized scavengers, such as common ravens. The 

program will include: 

• Use of covered common-raven-proof trash receptacles. 

• Daily removal of trash from the trash receptacles. 

• Daily site inspections. 

• Proper disposal of trash in a designated solid waste disposal facility. 

Precautions will also be taken by the contractor to prevent trash from blowing out 

of construction vehicles. 

CM 23 To mitigate subsidized predation, Brightline West will plan and implement 

operational standards to maintain railway and stations free of food and habitat 

elements that subsidize generalist scavengers, such as common ravens. 

CM 24 Brightline West and their contractors will ensure that no feeding of wildlife 

occurs during construction and operations. No pets or firearms will be allowed in 

the construction area. 

CM 25 New culverts, bridges, and viaducts will be designed by Brightline West to align 

with any existing I-15 structures to maintain a continuous wildlife crossing 

corridor. Where the alignment of new culvert, bridges, or viaduct would deviate 

from alignment with existing I-15 structures, Brightline West will design and 

install appropriately sized crossing structures at appropriate intervals to allow for 

terrestrial wildlife to pass under the proposed alignment. 

CM 26 Brightline West has developed a Restoration Plan to restore areas of native 

vegetation that are temporarily disturbed by construction. The Restoration Plan is 

provided here as Appendix C. Within Caltrans right-of-way, outside of designated 

critical habitat restoration will follow Caltrans requirements. Within Caltrans 

right-of-way that is also designated critical habitat, restoration will include habitat 

structure considerations for the relevant species. Initiation of restoration will 

occur within one year of the completion of construction at any location along the 

alignment, during the appropriate seasonal window. Replanting will not be 

delayed. 

CM 27 The contractor will stockpile and protect removed native topsoil and will use the 

stockpiled topsoil in restoration and landscaped areas. Areas from where topsoil is 

recovered will be free from invasive plant species. 

CM 28 In consultation with the Caltrans District Landscape Architect, permanent or 

temporary irrigation systems to supply water to replacement landscape plantings 

will be developed and implemented by Brightline West. 
 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 17 

CM 29 Nighttime lighting at passenger stations and along the rail alignment will be 

designed by Brightline West to incorporate minimized light intensity, duration, 

and distribution and will utilize wildlife- and insect-sensitive spectrum lighting to 

reduce the negative effects of artificial nighttime lighting to sensitive species. 

Passenger stations will incorporate light and glare screening measures—for 

example, use downward-cast lighting—and will use motion sensor lighting, where 

appropriate. 

CM 30 Brightline West will promptly remove all track-killed animals along the operating 

rail line to reduce adverse effects associated with food subsidies to generalist 

predators, such as common ravens. 

CM 31 During operations, Brightline West will annually monitor catenary and ancillary 

structures, power poles, auxiliary buildings, passenger stations, and parking areas 

to identify and remove common raven nests outside of the nesting season. Once 

raven nesting sites are identified, actions will be taken to block the site from raven 

reuse. In coordination with PSFWO, adaptive management may be undertaken if 

the initial measures are unsuccessful to remove common raven nests. 

CM 32 During operations, and to mitigate potential subsidized predation, Brightline West 

will plan and implement operational standards for maintaining railway and 

passenger stations to not support generalist predators. Stations and other 

operations areas will be maintained free of food sources and will mitigate 

identified habitat support elements that facilitate opportunist predators. 

CM 33 Within 120 calendar days following the completion of restoration activities, 

Brightline West will develop an Invasive Plant Species Monitoring and Control 

Plan for review and approval by PSFWO. Invasive plant species in the restored 

temporarily disturbed areas and within operational areas will be monitored 

monthly from January through June for two growing seasons following 

completion of initial restoration. 

Arroyo Toad 

ARTO 1 Surveys for the presence of suitable habitat for arroyo toad within the Caltrans 

right-of-way will be conducted by qualified biologists prior to the start of 

construction. Suitable habitat areas are likely present in the vicinity of tributaries 

to Cajon Creek and are not likely in any other locations within the Project. 

Coordination with PSFWO prior to implementation of any survey is required. 

Information on monitoring within suitable habitat will be included in the 

monitoring plan identified in CM 4. 

ARTO 2 Presence/absence surveys will be conducted by biologists at all locations within 

Caltrans right-of-way identified to have suitable habitat prior to the start of 

ground disturbance within 150-feet of ground disturbance. Survey procedures will 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 18 

be consistent with survey protocols for arroyo toad (USFWS 1999b). If surface 

water is present, surveys will be conducted during the breeding season, which 

generally occurs from March 15 through July 1. Information on monitoring within 

occupied habitat will be included in the Monitoring Plan identified CM 4. 

ARTO 3 Arroyo toads identified to be present within the surveyed areas will be captured 

by biologists and relocated prior to the start of any ground disturbance that would 

occur within 150 feet of the surveyed area. 

Captured animals will be released as soon as possible following capture. Capture and handling 

procedures will follow the directives of the Declining Amphibian Task Force’s 

Fieldwork Code of Practice. The Fieldwork Code of Practice provides procedures 

for reducing the risk of spread of amphibian diseases and/or parasites during 

handling. 

Animals will be released within the closest available habitat of equivalent or superior 

suitability to the habitat in which the animals were found, and at least 150 feet 

from any area of the Project’s potential ground disturbance. The biologist will 

determine the best location for release. Where feasible, animals will be released 

downstream within the same drainage captured. Release areas will be selected 

based on arroyo toad habitat requirements, generally including relatively broad, 

streamside flats with scattered vegetation located adjacent to shallow pools that 

have unvegetated sand bars or gravel bars. Adjacent upland may be vegetated 

with coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, or oak woodland. 

ARTO 4 For all areas within the active ground disturbance footprint that is also within 150 

feet of the location of an arroyo toad capture, a biologist will perform daily 

clearance surveys prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing operations for 

that the day. The clearance survey area will be defined as the location where the 

toad was captured plus the surrounding area within 150 feet. The biologist will 

have the authority to delay ground disturbance activities within the clearance 

survey area until the clearance is complete. 

ARTO 5 PSFWO shall be notified by the biologist within two business days of any capture 

and release actions. 

ARTO 6 Within 90 calendar days following capture and release, an Arroyo Toad Summary 

will be developed by the biologist and submitted to PSFWO. The summary will 

provide information on handling methods used, photographs, numbers of animals 

handled, and maps with coordinates of capture and release locations of arroyo 

toads. 

Least Bell’s Vireo 

LBV 1 Surveys to document the presence of suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo will be 

conducted prior to the start of construction by biologists in areas of mapped 
 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 19 

potential suitable habitat. Coordination with PSFWO prior to implementation of 

any survey is required. A summary memorandum with the results of the survey 

will be shared with PSFWO no later than 14 days after completion. 

LBV 2 Preconstruction surveys will be conducted within 400 feet of any proposed 

ground disturbance at any location identified to have suitable habitat following 

standard protocols. Information on any occupied habitat monitoring will be 

included in the Monitoring Plan identified in CM 4. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat 

SBKR 1 In collaboration with PSFWO and prior to the start of any ground disturbance, the 

biologist will identify areas within the construction Temporary and Permanent 

Limits of Disturbance that may support SBKR. Areas outside of the Temporary 

and Permanent Limits of Disturbance and also within the Caltrans right-of-way in 

SBKR critical habitat will also be assessed for areas that may support SBKR. 

Suitable habitat is most likely be located along the Project alignment between the 

vicinity of Hall Ranch Road and the vicinity of Summit Avenue and could be 

encountered in Cajon Wash, Lytle Creek, and or terraces adjacent to these 

features. 

Areas identified to have suitable habitat for SBKR will be called “SBKR restricted work 

areas”. Areas of existing infrastructure and areas lying between I-15 highway 

lanes (median) will not be included in SBKR restricted work areas. 

The 2002 final rule designating critical habitat for SBKR identified four primary constituent 

elements, now called Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) that provide for the 

conservation of SBKR. The PBFs for SBKR critical habitat are: 

• (PBF 1) Soil series consisting predominantly of sand, loamy sand, sandy 

loam, or loam; 

• (PBF 2) Alluvial sage scrub and associated vegetation such as coastal sage 

scrub and chamise chaparral, with a moderately open canopy; 

• (PBF 3) River, creek, stream, and wash channels that are subject to 

dynamic geomorphological and hydrological processes typical of fluvial 

systems; and 

• (PBF 4) Upland areas adjacent to more suitable habitat that serve as 

refugia during large-scale flooding. 

SBKR suitable habitat, protected as SBKR restricted work areas, will be further 

classified as Moderate habitat when evidence of PBFs 1, 2, and 3, but not 4 are 

present, or as High habitat when evidence of PBF 4 is present. 

Coordination with and approval by PSFWO will occur to identify and refine the 

geographical boundaries of SBKR restricted work areas. 
 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 20 

Information on monitoring of SBKR restricted work areas during construction 

will be included in the Monitoring Plan identified CM 4. 

SBKR 2 Surveys for SBKR will be performed by qualified biological monitors who are 

either approved by the PSFWO or are section 10(A)(1)(a) permit holders which 

allow handling of SBKR. Permit holder names and permit numbers will be 

provided to the PSFWO for record keeping purposes. Resumes for qualified 

SBKR biological monitors who do not hold a section 10(A)(1)(a) permit will be 

submitted via email to the PSFWO biologist assigned the Project for recordkeeping purposes and approval. The PSFWO will have 7 calendar days to approve 

biological monitors based on submitted qualifications. If the PSFWO does not 

respond within seven calendar days, it will be assumed that all biological 

monitors are approved. 

SBKR 3 Trapping for SBKR will be performed by qualified biological monitors prior to 

the start of ground-disturbing activities within SBKR restricted work areas per 

details provided in Appendix D in order to remove animal from the work area. 

SBKR 4 Based on survey results, PSFWO, in collaboration with Brightline West, will 

determine where captured SBKR are released. Captured SBKR will be released to 

either: 

i) suitable unoccupied habitat within Caltrans right-of-way adjacent to the 

project site, or 

ii) suitable unoccupied habitat within Caltrans right-of-way beyond the 

limits of temporary and permanent impacts, or 

iii) a receiving conservation bank, preferably located within the same 

watershed as original trapping location. 

SBKR 5 Prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities within any portion of SBKR 

restricted work areas, SBKR barrier fencing will be installed by the contractor or 

biologist to separate the construction activities from the surrounding area and 

allow clearance of the restricted work area. 

• SBKR barrier fencing will be constructed with suitable fencing for 

effective small mammal exclusion that uses anti-climb technology 30 to 

36 inches high above ground with the bottom buried at least 12 inches 

deep with a 6-inch apron lying at 12 inches deep at a right angle. 

• No gaps greater than 0.5 inch will be allowed. 

• The biologist or the biologist’s representative will be present when the 

fence is installed to ensure that no burrows or burrow entrances are 

covered by the apron of the barrier fence. 

• Within in 14 calendar days of the conclusion of exclusion fence 

installation, Brightline West will submit to PSFWO an Exclusion Fencing 

Report indicating the locations of fence along with photographs 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 21 

SBKR 6 For the duration of construction work within the SBKR restricted work area, the 

Biologist(s) shall: 

• Review the previous week’s construction activities and the upcoming 

week’s construction activities to determine if there are areas that need 

additional inspection, fencing, or monitoring. 

• Inspect the SBKR barrier fencing at the end of each workday during 

construction. 

• Repair any gaps in the barrier fence prior to leaving the site at the end of 

the workday. 

• Inspect SBKR barrier fencing, and repair as needed at least weekly during 

any pause in construction of greater than 1 week. 

• Search the construction footprint for any kangaroo rat sign early in the 

morning and prior to any ground-disturbing activities. 

• Contact PSFWO immediately if kangaroo rat sign is detected inside the 

barrier fencing. 

• Provide a weekly written report of construction monitoring activities and 

findings to PSFWO within 4 business days following the end of each week 

during ground-disturbing construction within the SBKR restricted work 

area. 

SBKR 7 Prior to ground disturbance, the biologist will conduct pre-construction clearance 

trapping of SBKR inside exclusion fenced areas. Trapping will be conducted at 

each location until no SBKR are trapped for two consecutive nights. Initial 

trapping is required to be performed on the evening of the first day on which the 

barrier fence installation is complete. 

SBKR 8 The biologist will implement the SBKR Translocation Plan (Rincon 2022b, 

Appendix D), which provides procedures and protocols to follow when SBKR are 

relocated from the SBKR restricted work areas. 

SBKR 9 The biologist will house and release all captured SBKR as soon as possible 

following trapping. The captured SBKR will be housed in suitable facilities until 

they are released. The protocol for housing trapped SBKR will follow the SBKR 

Translocation Plan. Captured SBKR will be translocated by soft release into 

appropriate receiving habitat as detailed in the SBKR Translocation Plan. 

SBKR 10 Bright line will restore SBKR restricted work areas temporarily affected by the 

Project as described in the Restoration Plan (Appendix C). The restored areas will 

be monitored in accordance with CM 33, Appendix C, and Caltrans requirements. 

SBKR 11 Not less than 90 calendar days prior to construction groundbreaking within any 

identified SBKR restricted work area, Brightline West will provide PSFWO with 

a SBKR Compensation Summary identifying the locations, type, and extent of 

permanent impacts to SBKR restricted work areas along with a calculation of 

required compensation credits to be provided. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 22 

Permanent impacts will be defined as direct, negative effects to functioning PBFs 

within designated critical habitat that result in permanent loss of the PBFs. Using 

the habitat classification provided under SBKR 1, impacts will be calculated, and 

conservation credits purchased at the following ratios: 

• 0.5 credits per acre (0.5:1) for permanent impact to Moderate functioning 

SBKR restricted work areas, and 

• 1.0 credit per acre (1:1) for permanent impact to High functioning SBKR 

restricted work areas. 

SBKR 12 To offset permanent impacts to suitable SBKR habitat, Brightline West will 

purchase conservation credits. Not less than 60 calendar days prior to construction 

groundbreaking within any identified SBKR restricted work area, Brightline West 

will submit proof of payment or proof of escrow account payable, either payable 

to a Service-approved conservation bank to establish an endowment sufficient to 

compensate permanent impacts at the ratios given above. 

SBKR 13 Brightline West will submit a SBKR Final Report to PSFWO within 60 calendar 

days of the completed Project. The SBKR Final Report will include results of 

trapping within SBKR restricted work areas and a status report of SBKR 

relocated, including numbers and status of soft release. 

Action Area 

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR § 402.02) describe the action area as all areas to be 

affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved 

in the action. 

We have identified the action area as all areas within and adjacent to the Project footprint which 

may be exposed to Project related effects such as noise, vibration, dust, digging, grading, 

artificial lighting, and human activity during Project construction, including construction, 

staging, and operation and maintenance areas. We have defined the action area to encompass the 

Project footprint and a 500-ft buffer. Wherever construction requires impact pile driving, this 

buffer extends up to 1-mile (See Appendix A, Figures 1 through 5). Subsequent analyses of the 

environmental baseline, effects of the action, and levels of incidental take are based upon this 

action area. 

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE SECTION 7(A)(2) DETERMINATIONS 

Jeopardy Determination 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. “Jeopardize 

the continued existence of” means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, 

directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a 
 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 23 

listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species 

(50 CFR § 402.02). 

The jeopardy analysis in this biological opinion relies on four components: (1) the Status of the 

Species, which describes the range-wide condition of the species, the factors responsible for that 

condition, and its survival and recovery needs; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which analyzes 

the condition of the species in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the 

relationship of the action area to the survival and recovery of the species; (3) the Effects of the 

Action, which are all consequences to listed species caused by the proposed action that are 

reasonably certain to occur; and (4) the Cumulative Effects, which evaluate the effects of future, 

non-Federal activities in the action area on the species. 

For the section 7(a)(2) determination regarding jeopardizing the continued existence of the 

species, the Service begins by evaluating the effects of the proposed Federal action and the 

cumulative effects. The Service then examines those effects against the current status of the 

species to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to reduce appreciably the 

likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. 

Adverse Modification Determination 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or to adversely modify designated critical habitat. 

“Destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat means a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed 

species (50 CFR § 402.02). 

In accordance with policy and regulation, the adverse modification analysis in this biological 

opinion relies on four components: (1) the status of critical habitat, which describes the condition 

of all designated critical habitat in terms of its physical and biological features, the factors 

responsible for that condition, and the intended recovery function of the critical habitat overall; 

(2) the environmental baseline, which analyzes the condition of the designated critical habitat in 

the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the recovery role of the critical 

habitat in the action area; (3) the effects of the action, which analyze all consequences to critical 

habitat caused by the proposed action that are reasonably certain to occur and their influence on 

the recovery role of the affected designated critical habitat units; and (4) cumulative effects, 

which evaluate the effects of future non-Federal activities in the action area on the physical and 

biological features of critical habitat and how that will influence the recovery role of affected 

critical habitat units. 

For purposes of the adverse modification determination, the effects of the proposed Federal 

action on the designated critical habitat are evaluated in the context of the condition of all 

designated critical habitat, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if the 

consequences of the proposed action are likely to appreciably reduce the value of critical habitat 

as a whole for the conservation of the species. 
 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 24 

STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND ITS CRITICAL HABITAT 

The San Bernardino kangaroo rat 

The San Bernardino kangaroo rat was emergency listed as endangered on January 27, 1998, and 

listed as endangered on September 24, 1998 (Service 1998a). We completed a comprehensive 5-

year review of the status of SBKR in August 2009 (Service 2009a) and a short-form update in 

2020 (Service 2020a) in which no change to the listing status of SBKR was recommended. We 

provide the following biological information to inform the reader’s understanding of our analysis 

and provide an update to information about the SBKR contained in our last comprehensive 

review (Service 2009a). The location and dynamic nature of the alluvial habitat occupied by this 

species makes it especially vulnerable to flood control activities within the floodplain drainages 

where it occurs. The long-term conservation of SBKR is dependent upon a number of factors 

including: the protection and management of occupied habitat; the protection of linkages 

between groups of SBKR to maintain gene flow and minimize loss of genetic diversity; the 

protection of upland areas adjacent to suitable habitat that serve as refugia during flood events 

and source populations for recolonization of the lower floodplain after the flooding recedes; and 

the protection of geomorphological, hydrological, and aeolian (wind-driven) processes essential 

to the continued existence and conservation of suitable habitat (Service 2002a). Other 

background information is available in these two referenced documents which are available on 

the Environmental Conservation Online System SBKR Species Profile website. 

Numbers and Reproduction 

The population size of SBKR both over its range and within each population and designated 

critical habitat unit is difficult to determine because the sub-species spends much of its life 

underground (Service 2009a). Kangaroo rat populations also exhibit large fluctuations in density 

in response to temporal variability in plant seed productivity and periodic flooding (Brown and 

Harney 1993; Goldingay et al. 1997). Systematic trapping is required to acquire distribution and 

abundance information. Reproductive activity coincides with high food availability (Brown and 

Harney 1993). The rate of population growth is limited in SBKR by the relatively small litter 

size and long intervals between litters (Brown and Harney 1993). During flooding events, 

burrows within the active channel are inundated, presumably drowning the occupants. Post 

flooding, suitable habitat can be recolonized by individuals dispersing from adjacent refugia 

habitat. These factors explain why range-wide population numbers are difficult to quantify and 

can fluctuate widely from year to year. 

Distribution 

Historically, SBKR ranged from the San Bernardino Valley in San Bernardino County to 

southwest Perris, Bautista Canyon, and Murrieta Hot Springs in Riverside County, with at least 

25 separate localities identified (Service 2009a). Present day populations are limited to three 

disjunct areas in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties which contain the largest remaining 

areas of suitable habitat for this species: the historical floodplain along the upper Santa Ana 
 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 25 

River wash, Lytle and Cajon Washes, and the San Jacinto River. In 2009, we considered the 

range of SBKR to be approximately 10,696 acres (Service 2009a). 

Santa Ana River Population 

The area within and adjacent to the Santa Ana River is the largest remaining area of contiguous 

habitat of SBKR; this area encompasses the open washes of the Santa Ana River and City, Mill, 

Plunge, and Elder Creeks, which are tributaries to the Santa Ana River. SBKR are known to 

occur within the upper Santa Ana River wash from approximately 3.5 miles above the 

confluence of Mill Creek and the Santa Ana River to approximately 0.5 mile downstream of the 

Tippecanoe Avenue overpass in the City of San Bernardino (CFWO Listing and Recovery 

internal database 2020). SBKR occupies habitat within a mosaic of undisturbed habitat and 

developed areas and may use less suitable habitats such as the margins of water spreading 

grounds (groundwater recharge), airports, aggregate mining operations, and fallow citrus groves 

(Service 2009a). 

The Corps and local sponsors (Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange County Flood Control 

Districts) established the 764-acre Woolly Star Preserve Area to offset impacts to alluvial fan 

habitat and associated species as the result of the operation of Seven Oaks Dam (Service 2002b); 

its boundary was expanded to approximately 781 acres in 2009 (SAIC 2012, unpublished report). 

Our most recent data indicates that approximately 53 percent of the WSPA was occupied by the 

SBKR in 2011 (SJM Biological Consultants 2011, unpublished report). We estimate 

approximately 450–500 acres of additional habitat is occupied outside of the WSPA lands. The 

recently completed Upper Santa Ana Wash Habitat Conservation Plan (Wash Plan HCP) 

includes conservation of 940 acres and management of 683 acres of Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Area of Critical Environmental Concern (Service 2020b). 

With additional conservation of lands through other Federal and non-Federal actions, a total of 

approximately 2,733 acres of habitat have been conserved and or managed within the Santa Ana 

Wash and adjacent upland areas for the SBKR (CFWO GIS internal database 2020). 

SBKR is most abundant in the washes at the confluences of the various creeks with the Santa 

Ana River. 

Lytle Creek and Cajon Wash Populations 

The Lytle-Cajon population is found in a roughly Y-shaped distribution along Lytle Creek and 

Cajon Wash, beginning just north of the Interstate 15 Bridge downstream approximately to 

Foothill Boulevard in the City of San Bernardino. The 1,373-acre Cajon Wash Conservation 

Area, which includes a 675-acre conservation bank, was set aside by Vulcan Materials, Inc. in 

the Cajon Wash to offset future mining impacts outside of the active floodplain (Service 1995, 

1998a). 

Near the Lytle-Cajon confluence, a 128-acre area was set aside to offset impacts of the 

construction of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office training facility on the Santa Ana River 

woolly-star (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. Sanctorum; woolly-star); however, this property has not 
 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 26 

been protected with a durable protective legal instrument, nor has a mechanism for funding the 

management of the area for the benefit of woolly-star been established. It is not known to be 

occupied by SBKR. San Bernardino County Flood Control District has set-aside 40 acres of 

habitat under conservation easement, but without management in Cajon Wash (Service 1995, 

1998b). An additional 435 acres of San Bernardino County Flood Control District-owned lands 

have been identified for potential future conservation by the San Bernardino County Flood 

Control District to offset effects from their ongoing maintenance activities. 

Frisbee Creek is downstream of the Lytle Cajon confluence and is a historic braid of Lytle 

Creek. Frisbee Creek is approximately 1 mile in length and is bisected by Pepper Avenue. The 

area upstream and immediately downstream of Pepper Avenue is known to be occupied. 

Most SBKR populations associated with tributaries to Lytle Creek or Cajon Wash appear to be 

extirpated. Just east of the main Lytle-Cajon population is a now-disjunct stream called Cable 

Creek; SBKR were last captured in this area in 2004. To the south and west of Lytle Creek is a 

large triangular-shaped area in north Fontana, west of Riverside and Sierra Avenues, that 

historically contained SBKR and was part of the Lytle Creek alluvial floodplain, but there have 

been no positive trapping results in the area since 2002 (Service 2002a, 2002b). 

San Jacinto River and Bautista Creek Population 

The smallest area supporting SBKR is within the San Jacinto River and its tributary, Bautista 

Creek. This area supports the only known remaining population of SBKR within Riverside 

County. The extent of occupied habitat has been reduced from an estimated 15-mile length of the 

San Jacinto River floodplain to just 6 miles as a result of habitat loss and degradation from 

agriculture, residential development, and flood control activities. The largest concentration of 

SBKR within this population is between the San Jacinto River-Bautista Creek confluence and the 

Main Street Bridge (Service 2002a, 2002b). The Western Riverside County Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan was designed to address the impacts of urbanization within western 

Riverside County and contains specific management and minimization measures intended to 

protect SBKR and other species (Service 2004). 

The last record of SBKR in Bautista Creek is from 2002 when one animal was caught. Minimal 

trapping has occurred in Bautista Creek since then; however, a trapping effort in the Bautista 

flood control basin in 2015 produced negative results (Biological Monitoring Program 2016). 

The status of SBKR in Bautista Creek is currently unknown; however, it is isolated from the San 

Jacinto River population by more than 4 miles of concrete channel. 

A Review and Summary of Kangaroo Rat Translocation Projects 

Translocation of SBKR from the Project footprint is proposed as part of this Project. We have 

considered information from translocation of other species of kangaroo rat, as we consider the 

information applicable to SBKR. Therefore, we have reviewed the following, recent kangaroo rat 

translocation Projects conducted to date, although this review is not exhaustive: Shier and 

Swaisgood 2011; Shier and Wang 2012, unpubl. report; Tetra Tech 2016, unpubl. report; 

Tennant and Germano 2017; and Montgomery 2020, unpubl. report. The purposes for these 
 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 27 

different translocations included testing assumptions about techniques and reducing mortality 

from habitat destruction. 

The number of kangaroo rats released in each of these studies varied widely and, in general, no 

objective assessment of receptor-site carrying capacity was made beforehand. These 

translocations included both “soft-releases” in which translocated animals were confined on the 

site for some period of time and “hard-releases” in which translocated animals were released 

without confinement at the new location. Site preparation varied from no preparation to removal 

of congeneric species considered possible competitors, predator management, vegetation 

management and/or exclusionary fencing. These translocation efforts provide some insight into 

possible factors affecting release, and though no standard practices were employed, some 

inferences about relative success can be drawn. 

In general terms, all post-release assessments were completely dependent upon re-capture at the 

release site, with the exception of the Tennant and Germano (2017) study in which a small 

proportion of the translocated kangaroo rats were radio collared. In general, post-release 

recapture of translocated individuals declined over time even though reproduction was 

documented at some release sites. Tennant and Germano (2017) reported the depredation and 

injury from intraspecific competition were the primary causes of post-release mortality. Shier 

and Swaisgood (2011) found that when SKR were released at translocation sites in proximity to 

“neighbors” (i.e., other SKR from immediately adjacent habitat areas at the capture-location), 

animals responded less-aggressively to familiar neighbors following release, thereby reducing 

potentially lethal interactions and energy-expenditures. With solitary animals such as kangaroo 

rats, aggression and territorial defense are normal behaviors and for translocated animals, and in 

addition to greater risk of depredation, affects their probability of survival post-release into novel 

habitat areas (Shier and Swaisgood 2011). 

Where different release techniques were employed, soft-release appears to enhance survival 

relative to those kangaroo rats given a hard-release (Tennant and Germano 2017; Montgomery 

2020, unpubl. report). Soft release was employed for 45 SBKR translocated in the San Jacinto 

River: 15 SBKR were found 3 months following release along with four putative offspring, but 

no animals were detected onsite in subsequent trapping although a single SBKR was captured in 

a nearby dirt road suggesting possible dispersal from the translocation site (Shier and Wang 

2012, unpubl. report). 

In only two of the cases we reviewed [i.e., the Diversified Pacific SBKR Translocation Project 

and the U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCBCP) SKR translocation] does it seem 

that a novel colony of kangaroo rats was established at the relocation site. With the Diversified 

Pacific Translocation Project, the number of animals persisting on the site represents a small 

fraction (i.e., less than 5 percent) of the 370 SBKR initially translocated. However, the numerous 

factors affecting post-release survival and assumed retention at the relocation site included sitedisturbance from transients and recreational uses at the site, soil disturbance from use of goats to 

control weedy vegetation, and the high number of SBKR introduced into a relatively small 

receptor site (Montgomery 2020, unpubl. report). Translocated SBKR did reproduce at the 

Diversified Pacific translocation site with at least 175 putative offspring of these individuals 
 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 28 

captured during 3–4 years of post-release trapping. However, during the most-recent trapping 

effort in October of 2019, only 17 SBKR (none of which were animals released at translocation) 

were captured at the site (Montgomery 2020, unpubl. report). Of particular note is the subsequent 

detection of a genetic signature unique to the Santa Ana Wash population of SBKR in SBKR 

captured in the upper Cajon Wash. Tissue samples taken from two SBKR within Cajon Wash in 

2018, documented ancestry from the Santa Ana River wash; these SBKR were captured roughly 

1 kilometer (0.6 mile) from the Diversified Pacific SBKR Translocation Project release site 

(Hendricks et al 2020). This demonstrates that either emigration from the release site and/or 

mating(s) between translocated SBKR and SBKR resident to the Lytle-Cajon Wash occurred. 

Therefore, survival greater than that documented by post-release trapping alone is possible. As 

no tagged SBKR were captured from the relocation site, emigration cannot be determined. A 

secondary goal of translocation of SBKR across the geographic range could be to attempt to 

increase effective population size (Ne); however, the longer-term stability of, or effects from, 

gene-flow resulting from translocation cannot be assessed from this limited sampling. 

At MCBCP there was little observed mortality of translocated SKR and that with reproduction, a 

four-fold increase in SKR at the translocation site was realized within just short of 3 years. This 

may be explained, in part, by the different techniques used for this Project: the primary factor in 

preventing dispersal of SKR from the release site was the use of exclusionary fencing maintained 

over this 3-year period and prevention of interactions between potential competitors such as the 

DKR which were excluded from the area. The number of SKR within the release site continued 

to increase over the 2 years since dispersal was allowed indicating that a self-sustaining resident 

colony has been established (Tetra Tech 2016, unpubl. report). 

Designated Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat for SBKR was first proposed on December 8, 2000 (65 FR 77178), and 

designated on April 22, 2002 (67 FR 19812). Critical habitat for SBKR was subsequently reproposed on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33808), and a revised designation of the critical habitat was 

made final on October 17, 2008 (73 FR 61936). Following a 2009 lawsuit challenging the 2008 

critical habitat designation, the court vacated the 2008 designation and reinstated the 2002 

critical habitat designation on January 8, 2011. Designated critical habitat for SBKR 

encompasses approximately 33,295 acres in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. 

Four critical habitat units have been delineated: Santa Ana River; Lytle and Cajon Washes; San 

Jacinto River-Bautista Creek; and Etiwanda Alluvial Fan and Wash. We provide below a 

summary description of the designated critical habitat units and the physical and biological 

features (previously referred to as primary constituent elements) for the SBKR; the status of each 

unit is discussed below. A more detailed description of each critical habitat unit is found within 

the final rule designating the critical habitat (Service 2002a). 

Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) 

The 2002 designation of SBKR critical habitat includes four PBFs: 

1. Soil series consisting predominantly of sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, or loam. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 29 

2. Alluvial sage scrub and associated vegetation, such as coastal sage scrub and chamise 

chaparral, with a moderately open canopy. 

3. River, creek, stream, and wash channels; alluvial fans; floodplains; floodplain benches 

and terraces; and historic braided channels that are subject to dynamic geomorphological 

and hydrological processes typical of fluvial systems within the historical range of the 

San Bernardino kangaroo rat. These areas may include a mosaic of suitable and 

unsuitable soils and vegetation that either: 

a. Occur at a scale smaller than the home range of the animal, or 

b. Form a series of core areas and linkages between them. 

4. Upland areas proximal to floodplains with suitable habitat (e.g., floodplains that support 

the soils, vegetation, or geomorphological, hydrological, and aeolian processes essential 

to this species). 

The term “upland areas” in the SBKR critical habitat rule is used synonymously with the term 

“refugia” when it is suitable for use by SBKR. These areas may include marginal habitats, such 

as agricultural lands that are disked annually, out-of-production vineyards, margins of orchards, 

areas of active or inactive industrial or resource extraction activities, and urban/wildland 

interfaces where SBKR have been found (CFWO Listing and Recovery internal database 2020). 

Along with mature alluvial fan sage scrub, these upland areas adjacent to more suitable habitat, 

when occupied, may also serve as refugia during large-scale flooding events and become a 

source of animals for recolonization of the lower floodplain once the system has stabilized 

(Service 2002a). SBKR may occupy less preferred refugia habitats when favorable climatic 

conditions have provided for population expansion. 

The habitat within each designated critical habitat unit provides varying conservation value to 

the species. In order to maintain viable populations of SBKR in each critical habitat unit, 

protection and/or active management may be necessary and should focus on improving those 

degraded PBFs where intervention may provide a meaningful benefit. These features of critical 

habitat should include: (1) geomorphological, hydrological, and aeolian processes (PBF3); (2) 

linkages between core areas to maintain gene flow and minimize the loss of genetic diversity 

(Lande 1988; Keyghobadi 2007); and (3) upland areas adjacent to more suitable habitat that 

serve as refugia during large scale flooding events and provide a source for recolonization after 

the flooding has subsided (PBF 4) (Service 2002a, 2020b). 

Critical Habitat Units (CHU) 

Unit 1 – Santa Ana River 

The Santa Ana River unit encompasses approximately 8,936 acres in San Bernardino County 

(Service 2002a). The area includes lands within the San Bernardino National Forest and portions 

of the cities of San Bernardino, Redlands, Highland, and Colton (Service 2002a). This unit 

contains upland refugia, active hydrological channels, floodplain terraces, and areas of habitat 
 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 30 

immediately adjacent to floodplain terraces within the Santa Ana River and its tributaries: City, 

Plunge, and Mill Creeks. 

Unit 2 – Lytle and Cajon Washes 

The Lytle and Cajon Washes unit, which encompasses approximately 13,971 acres in San 

Bernardino County, includes the northern extent of the SBKR’s remaining distribution. Critical 

habitat in CHU2 was designated as 3 subunits. We designated approximately 12,278 acres of 

critical habitat within Subunit 2A in the cities of Fontana and Muscoy. We designated 

approximately 787 acres of critical habitat in Devil’s Canyon (Subunit 2B) and approximately 

906 acres in Cable Creek (Subunit 2C), both in the City of Verdemont to the east of the 

Interstate-215 Freeway (Service 2002a). This unit contains habitat along and between Lytle and 

Cajon Washes and their tributaries emanating from canyons within the Angelus and San 

Bernardino National Forests. 

Unit 3 – San Jacinto River and Bautista Creek 

This unit is a long and linear area and includes approximately 5,565 acres in Riverside County 

along the San Jacinto River and Bautista Creek (Service 2002a). This unit includes portions of 

San Bernardino National Forest, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation, Bautista 

Creek (a tributary to the San Jacinto River), and areas along the San Jacinto River in the vicinity 

of the cities of San Jacinto, Hemet, and Valle Vista. This unit, which represents the southern 

extent of the currently known distribution of the SBKR, is adjacent to the Cleveland National 

Forest. 

Unit 4 – Etiwanda Alluvial Fan and Wash 

The Etiwanda Alluvial Fan and Wash critical habitat unit encompasses approximately 4,818 

acres in western San Bernardino County in the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana, and 

represents the approximate westernmost extent of the known range of the SBKR. The northern 

boundary of the unit is within the Angelus National Forest. This unit includes lands within and 

between Deer, Day, and Etiwanda creeks. 

Critical Habitat Function 

To assess the changes in the function or ability of the designated critical habitat to support SBKR 

since the designation, we reviewed aerial imagery and identified developed areas and other land 

uses that appeared to remove or degrade PBFs and, thus, negatively affect the function of SBKR 

critical habitat. We then subtracted the acres of critical habitat where PBFs no longer occur (e.g., 

habitat lost to residential or commercial development, flood control structures, hard-sided 

recharge basins) from that designated within each critical habitat unit. We have done a similar 

evaluation to assess relative function in areas where essential PBF’s have not been eliminated, 

but rather where they have become degraded since 2002. This estimate is far less precise as 

information from site visits and survey reports is incomplete and hence, is not included herein. 

We are preparing the Recovery Plan for SBKR and actively assessing the condition of critical 

and other habitat areas, which will allow us to better quantify acres of habitat that we consider 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 31 

sufficiently degraded with respect to PBFs to no longer provide the function for which they were 

designated as critical. 

In Table 1 below, we report the estimated number of acres of critical habitat that have been 

developed since the 2002 designation and which, therefore, no longer provide the function 

intended at designation. We also report acreage conserved based upon information developed 

during section 7 consultation, a section 10 Habitat Conservation Plan, and/or recorded 

conservation easements provided to us from other entities (e.g., county jurisdictions). 

Table 1. Assessment of Physical and Biological Features and Conserved Lands for San 

Bernardino Kangaroo Rat within Critical Habitat Units 

CH Unit Total Acres Developed 

Acres 

Percent 

Developed 

Conserved 

Acres 

Percent 

Conserved 

1 - Santa Ana River 8,936 1,871 21 2,733 31 

2 - Lytle-Cajon Washes 13,971 3,603 26 2,014 14 

3 - San Jacinto 

River/Bautista Creek 5,565 1,099 20 1,269 23 

4 - Etiwanda fan 4,818 1,213 25 1,124 23 

Total 33,290 7,786 23 7,140 21 

Least Bell’s Vireo 

The following section summarizes information about the federally endangered least Bell’s vireo 

pertinent to its legal status and biology as it pertains to the Project. For more detailed information 

on the vireo’s biology, ecology, range wide status, threats, and conservation needs, please refer 

to the draft recovery plan (Service 1998b) and 5-year review (Service 2006). Additional 

information is also available in the final rule designating critical habitat for vireo (59 FR 4845). 

These documents are available on the least Bell’s vireo species’ profile. 

Numbers 

The vireo was listed as endangered on May 2, 1986 (51 FR 16474), in response to a dramatic 

decline in population and widespread loss of riparian habitat. Since then, there has been a tenfold increase in population size, and we recommended that the vireo be down listed from 

endangered status to threatened status in our 2006 5-year review. Numbers of documented vireo 

have continued to climb, and 3,413 territories were recorded range-wide in 2018 (Kus et al. 

2019). Within the Santa Ana River watershed, 2,293 in 2020 vireo territories were observed 

(Zembal et al. 2020). It is important to keep in mind that the numbers reported here are for 

territories observed and reported; they are not exhaustive and observed territorial males do not 

necessarily represent pairs. The recorded territories are the minimum number of territorial males 

observed and reported within an area. It is also important to note that the survey effort, both 

within the Santa Ana River watershed and range-wide, varies widely from year to year and 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 32 

therefore numbers of territories presented may underestimate true abundance. Year-to-year 

comparisons should be made with caution. 

Reproduction 

Vireo generally begin to arrive from their wintering range in southern Baja California and 

establish breeding territories by mid to late March, departing from their breeding grounds by the 

third week of September (Garrett and Dunn 1981; Salata l983a, 1983b; Hays 1989; Pike and 

Hays 1992). Data collected for color-banded birds indicate that site fidelity is high among adults, 

with many birds not only returning to the same territory, but also placing nests in the same shrub 

used the previous year (Salata 1983b). 

The vireo is an obligate riparian nester, occupying a number of riparian habitat types, including 

cottonwood-willow woodlands/forests, oak woodlands, and mulefat scrub. However, vegetation 

structure is an important determinant of vireo site use, and they prefer a diverse array of early 

successional riparian vegetation. Occupied breeding habitat generally includes dense shrub cover 

within 3 to 6 feet from the ground for nesting and a structurally diverse canopy for foraging 

(Service 1998b). Plant species composition does not appear as important a determinant in nesting 

site selection as habitat structure. As riparian vegetation matures, the tall stands tend to shade out 

the shrub layer, making the sites less suitable for vireo nesting. In addition, vireo nests tend to 

occur in openings and along the riparian edge, where exposure to sunlight allows the 

development of shrubs (Service 1998b). 

Although the vireo occupy breeding territories that typically vary in size from 0.5 to 4.5 acres 

(RECON 1988), a few may be as large as 7.5 acres (Service 1998b). In general, it appears likely 

that areas that contain relatively high proportions of degraded habitat have lower reproductive 

success than areas that contain high quality riparian woodland (Jones 1985; RECON 1988; Pike 

and Hays 1992). 

Distribution 

The number of locations with breeding vireo has increased throughout southern California since 

listing, and there has been a slight shift northward in the subspecies overall distribution, but it 

remains restricted to the southern portion of its historic range (Service 2006). Vireo historically 

occupied willow riparian habitats from Tehama County in northern California, southward to 

northwestern Baja California, Mexico, and as far east as Owens Valley, Death Valley, and the 

Mojave River (Grinnell and Miller 1944; Service 1998b). Greater than 99 percent of remaining 

vireo still nest in southern California, south of the Tehachapi Mountains (Service 2006). 

Widespread habitat losses have fragmented most remaining populations into small, disjunct, and 

widely dispersed subpopulations. 

Recovery 

The overall positive trend for vireo since its listing is primarily due to efforts to reduce threats 

such as wholesale loss and degradation of riparian habitat, and brown-headed cowbird 

(Molothrus ater) parasitism. To be considered for downlisting, the Draft Recovery Plan identifies 
 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 33 

11 sites that must be protected and managed, with stable or increasing vireo populations/ 

metapopulations consisting of several hundred or more breeding pairs. The Santa Ana River and 

Camp Pendleton/Santa Margarita River populations have met this criterion due to the extensive 

efforts by the Corps and other partners, but most of the other locations have not. As numbers 

increase locally, the goal is that these “source populations” will yield individuals that will 

expand into the northern portion of its current and historic range, eventually recolonizing riparian 

woodlands of the California Central Valley. 

Arroyo Toad 

The Service federally listed the arroyo toad as endangered on December 16, 1994 (Service 

1994), and on July 24, 1999, issued the Arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus 

californicus) recovery plan (arroyo toad recovery plan; Service 1999a). The arroyo toad recovery 

plan identifies recovery units and number of populations for each unit to allow for delisting. 

More detailed information on the status of arroyo toad can be found in the arroyo toad recovery 

plan (Service 1999a), 5-year review (Service 2009b) and the latest rule regarding this species 

(Service 2015). Please refer to these documents for detailed information on life history 

requirements, threats, and conservation needs of the species rangewide. 

An estimated 25 populations of arroyo toad are known in the United States, from Monterey 

County south to the Mexican border (Service 2014), and an additional 10 populations occur in 

Mexico. These populations persist primarily as small, isolated populations in the headwaters of 

streams. Arroyo toads are terrestrial for much of the year and can range widely into upland 

habitat for foraging and burrowing, but use aquatic habitat for breeding. Breeding occurs in 

shallow, slow-moving stream systems and may occur from January to July. Breeding tends to 

occur earlier in coastal areas than inland areas (Service 1999a). Urbanization, agriculture, and 

dams are the main reasons for the decline of arroyo toad and are also current threats. Other 

threats include water management activities and diversions; road construction, maintenance, and 

use; grazing; mining; recreation; and nonnative plants and animals (Service 1999a). 

Designated Critical Habitat 

Final critical habitat for the arroyo toad was designated on February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7246). 

Arroyo toad critical habitat is designated in 21 different units from Santa Barbara County south 

to San Diego County, including units in Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and 

Orange counties. The designation includes a total of 98,366 ac of arroyo toad critical habitat. 

Consistent with the recovery plan for the arroyo toad (Service 1999a), the critical habitat units 

are grouped into three recovery units: the northern, southern, and desert recovery units. The 

northern recovery unit consists of units in Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties. 

Critical habitat in the northern recovery unit is primarily restricted to Forest Service lands as 

most of the habitat off of Forest Service land has been lost due to road construction, dams, 

agriculture, and urbanization. 

The desert recovery unit consists of units in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. The final 

rule describes the desert recovery unit as follows: "Each of these units is isolated from each other 
 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 34 

and from any other recovery units, making the issues of inbreeding, fragmentation, and random 

negative impacts of great concern. However, this recovery unit also represents unique ecological 

conditions for arroyo toads, such as extremes in aridity, heat, and cold, and likely harbors 

important genetic diversity" (Service 2011). 

The southern recovery unit consists of units in Orange, western Riverside, and San Diego 

counties. The final rule describes the southern recovery unit as follows: "These critical habitat 

units consist of a range of geographic locations from coastal regions to interior mountains. 

Arroyo toads likely occurred throughout each of these river and creek basins, but are now found 

only in segments of the rivers and creeks due to loss or change of habitat and nonnative 

predators. Conserving arroyo toad populations in these river basins is necessary for preserving 

the species' full range of genetic and phenotypic variation" (Service 2011). The Plan Area is 

within the southern recovery unit for arroyo toad. 

The primary constituent elements (PBFs) for arroyo toad critical habitat are defined as follows 

(Service 2011): 

1. Rivers or streams with hydrologic regimes that supply water to provide space, food, and 

cover needed to sustain eggs, tadpoles, metamorphosing juveniles, and adult breeding 

toads. Breeding pools must persist a minimum of 2 months for the completion of larval 

development. However, due to the dynamic nature of southern California riparian 

systems and flood regimes, the location of suitable breeding pools may vary from year to 

year. Specifically, the conditions necessary to allow for successful reproduction of arroyo 

toads are: 

a. Breeding pools that are less than 6 inches (in) deep; 

b. Areas of flowing water with current velocities less than 1.3 feet (ft) per second; 

and 

c. Surface water that lasts for a minimum of 2 months during the breeding season (a 

sufficient wet period in the spring months to allow arroyo toad larvae to hatch, 

mature, and metamorphose). 

2. Riparian and adjacent upland habitats, particularly low-gradient (typically less than 6 

percent) stream segments and alluvial streamside terraces with sandy or fine gravel 

substrates that support the formation of shallow pools and sparsely vegetated sand and 

gravel bars for breeding and rearing of tadpoles and juveniles; and adjacent valley 

bottomlands that include areas of loose soil where toads can burrow underground, to 

provide foraging and living areas for juvenile and adult arroyo toads. 

3. A natural flooding regime, or one sufficiently corresponding to natural, that: (A) Is 

characterized by intermittent or near-perennial flow that contributes to the persistence of 

shallow pools into at least mid-summer; (B) Maintains areas of open, sparsely vegetated, 

sandy stream channels and terraces by periodically scouring riparian vegetation; and (C) 
 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 35 

Also modifies stream channels and terraces and redistributes sand and sediment, such that 

breeding pools and terrace habitats with scattered vegetation are maintained. 

4. Stream channels and adjacent upland habitats that allow for movement to breeding pools, 

foraging areas, overwintering sites, upstream and downstream dispersal, and connectivity 

to areas that contain suitable habitat. 

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

The regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR § 402.02) define the environmental baseline as 

the condition of the listed species or its designated critical habitat in the action area, without the 

consequences to the listed species or designated critical habitat caused by the proposed action. 

The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private 

actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed 

Federal Projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 

consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the 

consultation in process. The consequences to listed species or designated critical habitat from 

ongoing agency activities or existing agency facilities that are not within the agency’s discretion 

to modify are part of the environmental baseline (50 CFR § 402.02). 

In the following paragraphs, we have provided information on the likely status of SBKR, vireo, 

and arroyo toad, the status of critical habitat, land status, and previous consultations in the action 

area in each of the three sections. Unless otherwise cited, the following discussion is based on 

the biological assessment (HNTB 2022a) and general knowledge of Service staff. 

Habitat Characteristics of the Action Area 

The biological assessment (HNTB 2022a) provides a more detailed description of the action 

area. In general, the action area covers approximately 64,803 acres and has high biotic, climatic, 

and geographic diversity. The proposed rail alignment (north to south) begins in the arid Mojave 

Desert (Section 1, High Desert), crosses the Cajon Pass area of the San Gabriel Mountains 

(Section 2), and travels into the marine-influenced, Mediterranean climate of the northeastern 

extent of the Los Angeles Basin (Section 3). The rail alignment would be built primarily in the 

median between the northbound and southbound lanes of I-15 (median running), except at the 

approach to the Rancho Cucamonga station where the alignment would cross over southbound I15 lanes and run parallel to outer side of southbound lanes (side-running). Where the rail 

alignment leaves the I-15 right-of-way, it travels in city, railroad, or utility rights-of-way. 

Alterations of landscape, topography, hydrology, and vegetation have occurred previously along 

the I-15 highway corridor. Human presence is common in all portions of the Project. The 

existing highway corridor already effects wildlife and wildlife habitats; effects include 

alterations in wildlife behavior and direct mortality from construction and highway use and 

operations; reduction in habitat connectivity, facilitation of invasive plant species spread, and 

frequent human presence (Trombulak and Frissell 2001). 

Elevated ambient noise is a prominent baseline feature within the action area, along with 

punctuated reoccurring episodes of louder noise from train and car horns, sirens, and other 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 36 

sources. The main source of noise in the Project area is the I-15. Cross-Spectrum Acoustics 

collected noise readings for FRA along the Project alignment to assess the impact of construction 

and operation of the high-speed train on noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project 

such as human dwellings. Noise readings were not collected in the Cajon Pass area because of a 

lack of human presence and noise-sensitive receptors. Existing noise levels recorded at sensitive 

receptor locations range from 51.8 dBA Leq (A-weighted decibels of equivalent continuous 

sound level over a specified number of hours) hourly at about 400 feet away from I-15, to 76.7 

dBA Leq from within 50 feet from I-15. Readings of Leq tended to fall in around 65 dBA Leq 

measured about 200-feet from the I-15. Of course, these are samples of average noise conditions 

and noise on a given day will vary depending on conditions like wind, temperature, and traffic. 

Thus, typical daytime noise levels along the Project alignment measured at human-sensitive 

receptor locations from I-15 is approximately 65 dBA Leq at a distance of 200 feet from I-15 

(Cross-Spectrum Acoustics 2022). Noise closer to the I-15 is likely approaching or at times 

exceeding 70 dBA. 

At the Mojave River crossing, there is ongoing disturbance to the riparian vegetation where I-15 

crosses the river. In addition to elevated noise due to vehicle traffic at the Mojave River crossing, 

there is extensive human presence in the form of human encampments and off-road vehicle use. 

Four rail lines run along mainly along the west side of Cajon Wash to the west of the proposed 

alignment, and three of the rails cross the active channel of Cajon Wash twice within one mile 

near Cleghorn Creek and Debris Cone Creek. Cajon Boulevard runs along the east side of Cajon 

Wash. At its junction with the I-215 Freeway, I-15 turns south southwest crossing Cajon Wash. 

In addition to removing habitat, the railroad and roads and freeways have constrained Cajon 

Wash and reduced connectivity between the active stream channel and adjacent upland habitat. 

The use and maintenance of dirt roads extending from Cajon Boulevard has degraded and 

fragmented some of the habitat within the wash. Some illegal OHV use is known to occur in 

Cajon Wash. 

Additionally, numerous wildfires in excess of 500 acres have occurred in the action area within 

the Cajon Wash or Cajon Pass area in the last two decades resulting in periodic and sometimes 

large swaths of vegetation disturbance. At least 8 of them between 2000 and 2009 including the 

50,618-acre Grand Prix Fire and the 91,428-acre Old Fire in 2003. More recently the Blue cut 

fire of 2016 burned 36,274 acres off of I-15 and SR 138, affecting Cajon Wash, Cleghorn creek 

and blue cut. Numerous smaller fires occur almost annually in the Cajon Pass area such as the 

2020 Brook fire, 2018 Box fire, and 2017 Tower fire. After crossing over Cajon Wash, Section 3 

briefly runs through the foothills in the San Bernardino National forest (SBNF) adjacent to 

residential development where roads and the freeway again constrain the flow of water from the 

mountains. A riparian corridor is present near the I-15/Glen Helen Parkway interchange. From 

there, section 3 crosses over Lytle Creek, passes through increasing residential and urban 

development before entering Rancho Cucamonga. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 37 

Status of the Species in the Action Area 

San Bernardino kangaroo rat 

In general, SBKR have been detected in the action area primarily within the alluvial channels of 

Cajon and Lytle Creeks and to a lesser extent the adjacent upland areas and terraces. No surveys 

were conducted for SBKR or field evaluations/site visits in support of the biological assessment 

for this biological opinion. The BA (HNTB 2022a) used available environmental documentation 

to assess the likelihood of suitable habitat presence in the action area, including California 

Natural Diversity Database, and the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Overall, 

the action area provides a wide range of suitability conditions from unsuitable to suitable for 

SBKR. Likewise, the distribution of SBKR within suitable habitat in the action area is most 

likely patchy. SBKR are assumed present to the north and south of I-15 in the action area at the 

Cajon and Lytle Creek crossings. 

Previous surveys in the action area include: 

• A small trapping effort near Kenwood Ave and Cajon Blvd in dense woody chaparral and 

coastal sage scrub that could be characterized as refugia habitat for SBKR. That trapping 

effort was in 2014 and found no SBKR. 

• A small trapping effort along Cajon Blvd near the intersection of Glen Helen Pkwy Cajon 

Blvd and Devore Rd. The survey was done in dense scrub in 2015 and found no SBKR. 

• In 2015, a 160-acre survey area spread across several locations from Cajon Pass to just 

downstream of the I-15/215 interchange along Cajon Wash. In total, 7 SBKR were 

captured, all in the vicinity of the I-15/I-215 interchange, and surveys were negative in 

the Cajon Pass area at several sites in Cajon Wash. Fewer than 1 SBKR per hectare 

sampled (trapped) were captured. 

• In 2016, a 35-acre site was surveyed for SBKR near the intersection of I-15 and Victoria 

St in Fontana. There were no SBKR found. 

• In 2018, a 40-acre site just downstream of the Lytle Creek portion of the Project was 

surveyed. 30 unique SBKR were captured; about 2 SBKR per hectare. 

Abundance of San Bernardino Kangaroo Rats in the Action Area 

Based on a review of SBKR occurrence data by Service staff, the habitat assessment in the BA, a 

subsequent site visit by Service staff, vegetation maps (HNTB 2022a), and aerial photographs, 

we estimate that SBKR inhabit the area in low densities in a patchy distribution. Generally, we 

expect there are less than one SBKR per hectare in the action area, but there could be between 1 

to 5 SBKR per hectare. Earlier, in our status of the species, we said that Kangaroo rat 

populations exhibit large fluctuations in density in response to temporal variability in plant seed 

productivity and periodic flooding. Numbers of SBKR are difficult to estimate with accuracy due 

to their characteristic boom-bust population demographic. Therefore, we would only expect high 

densities of SBKR in the action area in a particularly good year for SBKR. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 38 

Previous Consultations in the vicinity of the Action Area 

• Lytle Creek Ranch development. The Service issued a biological opinion on April 21, 

2021, (FWS-SB-09B0411-16F0721-R001) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the 

issuance of a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Project comprises 

approximately 1,938 acres encompassing Lytle Creek north and south of I-15 at Lytle 

Creek Road, Riverside Avenue, and Glen Helen Parkway, and the On-Site and Off-Site 

Conservation Areas. The Project will result in the permanent loss of 962 acres of SBKR 

critical habitat, including 88 acres of occupied habitat. The Project will mitigate for 

impacts to SBKR habitat through Active habitat management and site-protection 

measures proposed for the 944-acres of habitat in perpetuity. 

• Interstate 15/Interstate 215 Interchange Improvements Project. The Service issued a 

biological opinion on January 27, 2012, (FWS-SB-10B0097-12F0001) to the California 

Department of Transportation (who assumed the Federal Highway Administration’s 

responsibilities under the Act for the consultation) for proposed Interstate 15/215 

interstate improvements in the Cajon Wash/Wash area. The action area contained SBKR 

habitat. Assessments were conducted in 2008 and 2009 by Caltrans and Service 

biologists to identify potentially suitable SBKR habitat within the action area. 

Approximately 29.3 acres of occupied SBKR habitat were identified in the Project 

footprint. Take was exempted for up to 145 adult and 219 immature SBKR that could be 

killed or injured as a result of the Project and for all SBKR taken in the form of capture 

and relocation. There were approximately 203.2 acres of critical habitat in the action area, 

of which 146.4 acres supported the PBFs necessary for SBKR breeding, feeding, and 

sheltering, although with various degrees of disturbance. The remaining 56.8 acres were 

considered unsuitable due to development or absence of PBFs to support SBKR. To 

offset permanent and temporary impacts to SBKR habitat, the California Department of 

Transportation agreed to purchase 75.7 acres of conservation credits in an accredited 

conservation bank for SBKR. 

• Glen Helen Parkway Grade Separation Project. The Service issued a biological opinion 

on December 13, 2011, (FWS-SB-08B0293-11F0415) to the California Department of 

Transportation (who assumed the Federal Highway Administration’s responsibilities 

under the Act for the consultation) construction of transportation improvements along 

Glen Helen Parkway. It was determined that the Project would have 10.68 acres of 

temporary impacts to SBKR habitat. Project impacts were offset by habitat restoration 

and creation. Permanent impacts of 2.89 acres were compensated for at a 2:1 ratio. 

• Calnev Expansion Project. A biological opinion was issued by the Service on March 31, 

2016, (FWS-SB-12B0205-12F0352) to the Bureau of Land Management for the issuance 

of a right-of-way grant and maintenance for the Calnev Expansion Project. It was 

determined that 115.51 acres of occupied and suitable habitat will be impacted by Project 

construction and O&M, and result in a loss of 18.51 acres of SBKR critical habitat. The 

Project mitigated its impacts through the conservation and management of 190 acres of 

habitat for SBKR. To offset the effects of the Project’s impacts on SBKR critical habitat, 
 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 39 

the applicant provided for the permanent conservation and management of 85.37 acres of 

habitat for construction impacts and up to 51.31 acres of habitat for O&M impact either 

by direct acquisition or by purchase of conservation credits from an approved 

conservation bank. 

• Ongoing Activities on the San Bernardino National Forest. A biological opinion was 

issued by the Service on December 6, 2012, to the USFS (FWS-SB/WRIV- 08B0680-

09F0227) for the effects of ongoing activities on eight riparian species and SBKR. The 

activities were identified as Invasive Species Management, Recreation, Road Use and 

Trail Maintenance, Aerial Water Drafting for Fire Suppression and Cultural Resource 

Excavation. The level of incidental take of SBKR and impacts to its habitat was 

estimated to be very low, in part due to numerous measures the USFS proposed to reduce 

the level and extent of take. In addition, because the action area of the USFS action area 

narrowly intersects that which is analyzed for the Project in this biological opinion, only 

a very small portion of the take associated with the USFS ongoing activities would 

coincide geographically with the Project. 

• Burlington Northern Santa Fe Third Main Track. The Service issued a biological opinion 

on April 13, 2007, (1-6-07-F-4426.6) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for issuance 

of a permit for impacts to waters of the U.S. from construction of a railroad track by 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe in the Cajon Wash Area. It was determined that the Project 

would impact a total of 16.8 acres of SBKR habitat in critical habitat Unit 2. Of the 16.8 

acres of habitat impacts, 10.6 acres would be permanent, and 6.2 acres would be 

temporary. Permanent and temporary impacts to SBKR and its habitat were offset by on 

and off-site conservation and restoration of 25.9 acres of Riversidean alluvial fan sage 

scrub. 

Least Bell’s vireo 

In our status of the species, we said that more than 99 percent of remaining vireo nest south of 

the Tehachapi Mountains, and widespread habitat losses have fragmented most remaining 

populations into small, disjunct, and widely dispersed subpopulations. In 2005, we estimated that 

3% of all vireo territories were in San Bernardino County, where the action area is located 

(Service 2006). In contrast, in 2005 San Diego and Riverside Counties accounted for 54 percent 

and 30 percent of all vireo territories respectively (Service 2006). While no surveys were 

conducted for vireo in support of the biological assessment for this biological opinion, we do 

have records of past surveys in the action area. 

Mojave River Crossing 

Between 2012 and 2018, several surveys have been completed to support projects in the vicinity 

of the I-15 Mojave River Bridge. In 2012, a survey of 141 acres of habitat detected two vireo 

territories within an approximately 60-acre section of the survey area which held the highest 

quality of habitat. This survey was in the extreme north of the action area and as many as seven 

individual vireo were observed. In 2016, one territory was detected in the same survey area, and 
 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 40 

another territory was detected south of the survey area. In 2017, a survey area that covered 

approximately 25 acres detected one vireo territory; three individuals were detected. This survey 

area was limited to the area within about 1,000 feet of the I-15 Mojave River Bridge. The 

following year in 2018, the same area was surveyed and detected no vireo territories. 

Abundance of Least Bell’s Vireo in the Action Area 

Generally, we expect that vireo would be less abundant near the I-15 Mojave River Bridge since 

there is elevated noise and disturbance from vehicular traffic, ongoing vegetation disturbance 

underneath the bridge and adjacent areas from vegetation management, off-road vehicle use, and 

human encampments. 

Cajon Wash and Glen Hellen Parkway 

In 2010, surveys of a 30.5-acre site south of the Glen Hellen Parkway/I-15 interchange, 

incidentally detected 3 territorial male vireo (Glenn Lukos 2010; unpublished report). In 2015, 

survey effort in Cajon Pass sighted one vireo, which was determined to be an unpaired (not 

nesting) wandering male (BonTerra Psomas 2015; unpublished report). 

Abundance of vireo 

In general, we expect vireo to be less abundant in the Cajon Wash in the action area since habitat 

is not well managed (in contrast to areas where vireo have recovered the most, i.e. the lower 

Santa Ana River watershed and San Diego County), and because of relatively high disturbance 

due to fire, noise, off-road vehicle use, and human activity. 

Summary 

In general, we expect to see low numbers of vireo since the action area is outside of the areas 

where vireo habitat and numbers have recovered the most, i.e. in the lower Santa Ana River 

watershed and in San Diego County. In section 1, vireo are assumed present at the Mojave River 

crossing where they have been observed nesting as recently as 2018; in portions of the Cajon 

Wash in the Cajon Pass in section 2; and in a drainage adjacent to I-15 near Glen Helen Park in 

section 3 of the action area. We estimate that there may be 6 to 10 vireo territories in the action 

area, the majority of which are within the Santa Ana River watershed (1 to 2 territories in the 

Cajon Creek, 3 to 4 territories near Glen Helen Parkway, and 2 to 4 territories in the Mojave 

River). 

The Santa Ana River population of vireo meets the downlisting criteria specified in the 1998 

Draft Recovery Plan; the population is currently protected and managed. Although the primary 

threats to the population are still present and show no signs of abating should the management 

cease, the number and distribution of vireo have been increasing since the Draft Recovery Plan 

was written. The number of observed vireo pairs within the Santa Ana River watershed was 

1,199 in 2020 (Pike 2020; Zembal et al. 2020), satisfying the stated goal of several hundred or 

more breeding pairs in the Santa Ana River watershed. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 41 

Previous Consultations in the Action Area 

• Calnev Expansion Project. A biological opinion was issued by the Service on March 31, 

2016, (FWS-SB-12B0205-12F0352) to the Bureau of Land Management for the issuance 

of a right-of-way grant and maintenance for the Calnev Expansion Project. It was 

determined that construction of the 16-inch pipeline will result in 0.47 acres of permanent 

impacts to vireo habitat. Construction was expected to result in 0.47 acres of permanent 

impacts and 3.88 acres of temporary impacts to vireo habitat. The applicant offset 

permanent impacts to vireo habitat by acquiring replacement habitat at a 2:1 ratio. If 

impacts occurred to a known breeding territory, the replacement ratio was 3:1. We 

expected the Project to result in harm of one or more vireo pairs from the removal of 

habitat or from construction noise during construction or O&M activities. 

• Ongoing Activities on the San Bernardino National Forest. A biological opinion was 

issued by the Service on December 6, 2012, (FWS-SB/WRIV-08B0680- 09F0227) to the 

USFS for the effects of ongoing activities on eight riparian species including vireo. The 

activities were identified as Invasive Species Management, Recreation, Road Use and 

Trail Maintenance, Aerial Water Drafting for Fire Suppression and Cultural Resource 

Excavation. The level of incidental take of vireo and impacts to their habitat was 

estimated to be low, in part due to numerous measures the USFS proposed to reduce the 

level and extent of take. 

• Burlington Northern Santa Fe Third Main Track. A biological opinion was issued by the 

Service on April 13, 2007, (1-6-07-F-4426.6) to the Army Corps of Engineers for 

issuance of a permit for impacts to waters of the U.S. from construction of a railroad 

track by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) in the Cajon Wash Area. Impacts 

to vireo occurred over a long, narrow, linear area, primarily in and adjacent to habitat 

which had previously been disturbed. Impacts to vireo habitat were estimated to be 2.9 

acres (1.6 acres of temporary and 1.3 acres of permanent impacts). A small amount of 

take, the young (eggs of fledglings) of two pair, was authorized. 

Arroyo toad 

Historically, arroyo toads occurred in two sites within the action area, at the Mojave River in the 

Victor Valley and Cajon Wash. They are assumed to be extirpated from Victor Valley because 

there have been no detections in more than 30 years, though there have been no recent surveys 

(Service 2014). The current status of arroyo toad in Cajon Wash is unknown because 

documentation history includes only a few records with low numbers of individuals and high 

disturbance of habitat (Service 2014). Arroyo toads are assumed present in suitable habitat in 

Cajon Wash in the BA. No surveys were conducted for arroyo toad in support of the biological 

assessment for this biological opinion. Recent focused surveys for arroyo toad in Cajon Wash 

near the SR-138 (MIG 2019; unpublished report), Cleghorn Creek and its confluence with Cajon 

Wash, and Crowder Creek (BonTerra Psomas 2015; unpublished report), were negative. The 

U.S. Geologic Survey conducted surveys for arroyo toads in the Cajon Wash in 2020 and 2021 

and found no arroyo toads in either year (Hitchcock et al. 2022; unpublished report). 
 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 42 

The extensive area of habitat and its dynamic nature combined with variation in timing of 

precipitation and arroyo toad breeding in Cajon Wash may make locating toads very difficult. 

The best available information that we have on arroyo toad distribution in their upland and 

riparian habitat come from studies done on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Between 1998 

and 2000, Holland and Sisk used extensive pitfall trapping in an attempt to determine arroyo toad 

distribution in the upland and riparian environment on MCBCP. This included trapping in 

locations adjacent to San Mateo and Cristianitos Creeks, and the Santa Margarita River (Holland 

and Sisk 2001). As described in more detail in previous consultations (FWS-MCBCP-09B0249-

10F0421, FWS-MCBCP-10B0201-10F0410, FWS-MCBCP-12B0042-12F0058), based on the 

information in Holland and Sisk (2001), we estimate the average density of arroyo toads in the 

upland environment near Cajon Wash to be 0.47 arroyo toads per acre and estimate the average 

density of arroyo toads in the riparian environment near Cajon Wash to be 21.0 arroyo toads per 

acre. We expect there would be fewer toads per acre in the tributaries to Cajon Wash. 

Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are a significant threat to arroyo toads in and around 

the action area. Activities contributing to these threats in various parts of the Cajon Wash include 

the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line on the west side of Cajon Wash, a paved road (Cajon 

Boulevard) on the east side of Cajon Wash, dirt roads and trails extending into Cajon Wash from 

Cajon Boulevard, illegal off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and dumping. Direct mortality to 

juvenile and adult toads may also be occurring in the action area from collisions with vehicles 

travelling on and off-road. 

At the time of listing, recreational activities in riparian wetlands had substantial negative effects 

on arroyo toad habitat and individuals. Streamside campgrounds in southern California National 

Forests were frequently located adjacent to arroyo toad habitat (Sweet 1992). With nearly 20 

million people living within driving distance of the National Forests and other public lands in 

southern California, recreational access and its subsequent effects are an ongoing concern. 

Numerous studies have documented the effects of recreation on vegetation and soils and report 

results of human trampling caused by hiking, camping, fishing, and nature study. In Cajon Wash, 

swimming and OHV recreation are the most prominent threats to arroyo toad associated with 

recreation (Service 2014). 

At the time of listing and at present, periodic fires are considered a threat to the arroyo toads 

because fires can cause direct mortality of arroyo toads, destroy streamside vegetation, or 

eliminate vegetation that sustains the watershed. Numerous wildfires in excess of 500 acres have 

occurred in the action area where toads have been documented within the Cajon Wash or Cajon 

Pass area in the last two decades. See the Habitat Characteristics of the Action Area section of 

this biological opinion. 

While the wildfires may have resulted in temporary impacts such as the loss of riparian 

vegetation, in arroyo toads have been documented in recently burned habitat. For example, the 

1991 Lions Fire on upper Sespe Creek in the Los Padres National Forest directly destroyed 

riparian habitat along Sespe Creek, which contained the largest known extant population of 

arroyo toads. The fire also destroyed 15 known breeding pools and over 50 percent of the known 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 43 

adult population on the Sespe drainage. By 1993, surveys in the burned riparian area indicated 

that toads had recovered rapidly through an equivalent recruitment of newly matured toads 

throughout the length of Sespe Creek (Sweet 1993). 

At the time of listing, drought and the resultant deterioration of riparian habitats was considered 

to be the most significant natural factor adversely affecting the arroyo toad. Although drought is 

a recurring phenomenon in southern California, there is no doubt that this natural event 

combined with the many manmade factors negatively affects arroyo toad survival. Drought 

continues to have negative effects on arroyo toads in Cajon Wash and range wide. 

Abundance of Arroyo Toads in the Action Area 

In general, we expect arroyo toads to be much less abundant in the Cajon Wash and its tributaries 

in the action area since habitat is poor and few arroyo toads have ever been documented at this 

portion of the drainage, and because of relatively high disturbance due to fire, noise, off-road 

vehicle use, and human activity. 

Previous Consultations in the Action Area 

• Ongoing Activities on the San Bernardino National Forest. A biological opinion was 

issued by the Service on December 6, 2012, to the USFS (FWS-SB/WRIV- 08B0680-

09F0227) for the effects of ongoing activities on eight riparian species including arroyo 

toad. The activities were identified as Invasive Species Management, Recreation, Road 

Use and Trail Maintenance, Aerial Water Drafting for Fire Suppression and Cultural 

Resource Excavation. The level of incidental take of arroyo toad and impacts to its 

habitat was estimated to be low, in part due to numerous measures the USFS proposed to 

reduce the level and extent of take. 

• Kinder Morgan Pipeline Anomaly Repair Project. A biological opinion was issued by the 

Service on September 17, 2012 (FWS-SB-12B0250- 12F0553) to the USFS for a pipeline 

inspection and repair by Kinder Morgan. There were 0.43 acres of temporary impacts to 

arroyo toad critical habitat, and only a small amount of take was authorized. 

• Calnev Expansion Project. A biological opinion was issued by the Service on March 31, 

2016, (FWS-SB-12B0205-12F0352) to the Bureau of Land Management for the issuance 

of a right-of-way grant and maintenance for the Calnev Expansion Project. Project 

construction activities were expected to permanently impact approximately 7.75 acres 

and temporarily impact 18.79 acres of arroyo toad, breeding, foraging and aestivation 

habitat adjacent to Cajon Wash. O&M activities were expected to impact 26.03 acres 

(12.65 acres of breeding/floodplain habitat and 13.38 acres of upland habitat). The 

Project was also expected to result in 6.63 acres of permanent and 13.07 acres of 

temporary impacts to arroyo toad critical habitat as a result of Project construction, and 

up to 26.03 acres of temporary impacts from O&M activities during the life of the 50-

year permit. The affected critical habitat contains all four arroyo toad PBF’s. To offset 

the effects of the Project’s impacts on arroyo toad critical habitat, the applicant did 
 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 44 

provide for the permanent conservation and management of 14.59 acres of habitat for 

construction impacts and up to 26.03 acres of habitat for O&M temporary impacts either 

by direct acquisition or by purchase of conservation credits from an approved 

conservation bank. 

• Burlington Northern Santa Fe Third Main Track Project. A biological opinion was issued 

by the Service on April 13, 2007, (1-6-07-F-4426.6) to the Army Corps of Engineers for 

issuance of a permit for impacts to waters of the U.S. from construction of a railroad 

track by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) in the Cajon Wash Area. It was 

determined that the Project would impact a total of 11.0 acres of arroyo toad breeding and 

forging habitat in critical habitat Unit 20. The breeding habitat did not contain 

documented breeding pools. The permanent loss of upland foraging habitat was relatively 

small considering available habitat in the area. 

Status of Critical Habitat of the Species in the Action Area 

Status of San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Critical Habitat in the vicinity of the Action area 

The action area is within critical habitat unit 2. Critical habitat unit 2 encompasses approximately 

13,970 acres and represents the northern extent of the subspecies’ distribution. Subunit 2 is 

divided into three subunits. The Project goes through only subunit 2A. Subunit 2A provides 

alluvial fans, floodplain terraces, and historic braided river channels (PBF 3) that contain suitable 

habitat within Lytle and Cajon Washes and their remaining alluvial terraces (PBFs 1–4) (Service 

2002a). We estimate that approximately 1,177 acres (346 acres in Lytle Creek and 771 acres in 

Cajon Wash) within Subunit 2A upstream from currently occupied habitat provide important 

hydro-geomorphological processes that support the PBFs downstream. 

In general, Lytle Creek contains abundant soils and vegetation (PBFs 1 and 2) to support the 

SBKR. However, multiple flood control structures have reduced much of the area of upland 

habitat proximal to the floodplain (PBF 4) that would receive flood disturbance (PBF 3) now and 

into the future. Much of Subunit 2A is part of the historic Lytle Creek alluvial fan, but is outside 

of the current channel alignment of Lytle Creek. As a result, it is completely isolated from fluvial 

activity and vegetation in the area has become senescent (degraded PBFs 2-4). 

The fluvial processes that rejuvenate and maintain the dynamic mosaic of alluvial fan sage scrub 

(PBF 3) are extensive within Cajon Wash. Downstream of the floodplain-constriction that exists 

near the San Manuel Amphitheater and Glen Helen Parkway, there are multiple stream braids 

and terracing within the active wash (PBFs 1–4). However, the installation of flood control 

structures in Cajon Wash (i.e., the Devore levees, Muscoy groins and Devil’s Creek diversion), 

channel-maintenance (e.g., at Institution Road), engineered and non-engineered berms and 

levees, encroachment into the wash from recreational areas in Glen Helen Regional Park, and 

long-term OHV use of these areas have degraded soils and vegetation (PBFs 1 and 2) in critical 

habitat in many areas of Cajon Wash (e.g., see ECORP 2009, in litt.). 
 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 45 

The Cajon Wash Habitat Conservation Management Area and the Cajon Wash Conservation 

Bank together provide approximately 1,445 acres of conserved and managed critical habitat 

containing PBFs 1–4. Isolation from the streambed limits the function of upland refugia habitat 

that is now no longer topographically or hydrologically connected to Cajon Wash (degraded PBF 

4). Vulcan Materials, Inc. has reported that flow patterns have shifted within their conservation 

properties as a result of upstream manipulations affecting sediment deposition over the time 

period of 1997 to 2008 (ECORP 2009, in litt.). Vulcan is working to restore habitat connectivity 

between upland terraces and in-wash habitat within Cajon Wash (Lockhart and Associates, Inc. 

2019, unpubl. report). 

The Lytle Creek Conservation Bank conserves approximately 182.2 acres of habitat containing 

appropriate substrate and vegetation (PBFs 1 and 2). Roughly half of this property is within the 

active floodplain which in this reach of Cajon Wash is much-subjected to scour (degraded PBFs 

1–3). Habitat on the elevated terrace supports appropriate soils and vegetation and provides 

refugia habitat (PBFs 1, 2, and 4), but no longer experiences fluvial processes (lacking PBF 3). 

We estimate that approximately 3,603 acres of the 13,971 acres of designated critical habitat 

(approximately 26 percent) of CHU 2 have been developed since 2002 (CFWO GIS internal 

database 2020), and that approximately 2,014 acres, or 14 percent, have been conserved (as 

depicted in Figure 4). 

Status of Arroyo Toad Critical Habitat in the vicinity of the Action area 

The action area is located in the 1,775-acre Unit 20 (Upper Santa Ana River Basin/Cajon Wash). 

Located in southwestern San Bernardino County this unit encompasses approximately 7.9 miles 

of Cajon Wash from approximately 0.2 miles north of Highway 138 downstream to 

approximately 0.3 miles northwest of the Interstate 15 crossing. The unit consists of 711 acres of 

USFS land and 1,065 acres of private land. Unit 20 supports a remnant of a much larger 

population that historically existed along the upper Santa Ana River Basin, but was almost 

entirely extirpated by urbanization. Therefore, this location is important to maintain the current 

geographic extent of the species (Service 2011). The action area intersects the eastern side of 

Unit 20 along most of its length, primarily affecting upland habitat in the 100-year floodplain. 

Although the upland areas in the vicinity of the action area are somewhat confined and 

fragmented due to Cajon Boulevard, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line, and naturally 

steep topography, the habitat in the vicinity of the action area contains the primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) necessary for breeding, foraging, and aestivating. A detailed description of the 

PCEs of critical habitat for arroyo toad can be found within the 2011 final rule designating 

critical habitat (Service 2011). 

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR § 402.02) define the effects of the action as all 

consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including 

the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is 

caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 46 

reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include 

consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR § 402.17). 

The regulations for section 7(a)(2) note that “a conclusion of reasonably certain to occur must be 

based on clear and substantial information, using the best scientific and commercial data 

available” [50 CFR § 402.17(a)]. When considering whether activities caused by the proposed 

action (but not part of the proposed action) or activities reviewed under cumulative effects are 

reasonably certain to occur, we consider factors such as (1) past experiences with activities that 

have resulted from actions that are similar in scope, nature, and magnitude to the proposed 

action; (2) existing plans for the activity; and (3) any remaining economic, administrative, and 

legal requirements necessary for the activity to go forward. 

Effects of Construction on SBKR 

Brightline West will identify any areas of suitable habitat within the construction limits of 

disturbance and begin SBKR surveys in areas of suitable habitat that may support SBKR (SBKR 

1). In areas found to contain SBKR, Brightline West will temporarily fence the construction area 

with SBKR exclusionary fencing (SBKR 5). After the fences are installed, Brightline West will 

begin trapping SBKR and translocating them (SBKR 7, SBKR 8; Rincon 2022b). Any SBKR 

found during translocation will be housed temporarily before soft release at a receiver site 

(SBKR 8, SBKR 9, San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan). Brightline 

West and the Service will identify an alternative receiver site after preconstruction surveys if 

needed to avoid harm to SBKR living at receiver sites after preconstruction surveys have been 

conducted. The receiver site(s) will be selected based on the number of SBKR captured and the 

availability of suitable habitat within the Caltrans right-of-way adjacent to the Project footprint. 

If few animals are captured in the Project footprint, then they will be soft released adjacent to 

their capture location if possible, so that individuals may remain within their existing home 

range. If more SBKR are captured in the Project footprint than can be accommodated in the 

suitable adjacent habitat in the Caltrans ROW, or if the Caltrans ROW is densely occupied by 

SBKR, Brightline West will have the SBKR translocated into the chosen alternative location. 

Grading, compacting, filling, pile driving, and construction of the rail may begin after capture 

and translocation of SBKR within the Project footprint has been completed. 

Capture of SBKR during surveys could result in death or injury. It is possible for ants to attack 

SBKR inside the trap, or for the trapped SBKR to be depredated. The trap itself may injure 

SBKR, or SBKR may be injured during handling. Steps taken to reduce some of these risks 

include checking traps twice a night, and not trapping during inclement weather. Vehicles may 

collapse SBKR burrows during fence installation or removal, killing or injuring SBKR. The 

biologist or the biologist’s representative will be present when the fence is installed to ensure 

that the apron of the barrier fence covers no burrows or burrow entrances. The SBKR fence will 

also be a barrier to movement of any SBKR that have burrows outside of the Project site but use 

the Project site for foraging. This may impair essential behavior patterns such as feeding and 

may result in harm of those SBKR. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 47 

Removal of SBKR from the wild for holding during translocation could result in harm of 

individuals because of general stress, lower immunity, potential for spread of diseases, a selfinflicted injury, and malnutrition/weight loss if an individual loses appetite while in captivity. 

Lactating females captured from the Project site will not return to nursing juveniles, and if those 

juveniles are immobile their death is likely. Releasing SBKR to a receiver site away from their 

home range could result in mortality from predation as individuals reestablish territories, with 

possibly more long-distance dispersal events and increased above ground activity. 

Ground disturbance from clearing, grading, and soil redistribution are likely to crush any 

remaining SBKR and their burrows. However, this outcome is greatly reduced in magnitude 

because the use of SBKR fence and efforts to capture all SBKR that have a burrow within the 

Project footprint. Capture efforts should result in a high confidence that all SBKR are removed 

from the Project footprint. However, there is always a possibility that there are SBKR individuals 

that are not captured or individuals that immigrate into the Project area could be harmed as a 

result of construction activities. Because we cannot guarantee the removal of all SBKR from the 

Project site, we assume an unknown number of individuals may remain or immigrate to the 

Project site. A biological monitor will be present throughout ground disturbing activities to look 

for SBKR sign on the Project site, and to inspect and repair the SBKR fence on a daily basis. 

Construction will require impact pile driving at Cajon and Lytle Creeks. We are addressing 

impact pile driving in our analysis because it is the loudest form of pile driving and has the 

farthest-reaching effects, and because the Project proponent was not able to commit to other less 

impactful forms of pile driving. Impact pile driving will be the loudest noise during construction 

and noise effects will expand beyond the effects of ground disturbance. Noise and vibration from 

pile driving and other heavy machinery may adversely affect SBKR during construction. Earlier, 

in our description of the action area, we stated that the pile driving buffer would be one mile. At 

one mile, we expect that noise from pile driving will reach approximately background levels. At 

1,600 feet away from impact pile driving, we expect noise levels to reach about 67 dBA, which 

is the baseline noise level within about 200 feet from the I-15 (Cross-Spectrum Acoustics 2022). 

Within 1,600 feet of piledriving, we expect SBKR to have reduced alerting distance which could 

lead to a higher than usual number of SBKR being predated on. Beyond 1,600 feet from impact 

pile driving, we expect that noise will be low enough not to cause stress, alarm, or alerting 

behavior from SBKR above ground which could reasonably lead to reduced fitness by 

interrupting foraging, breeding, or intra species communication behaviors; Within 1,600 feet, we 

expect that SBKR individuals could suffer from temporary hearing loss and stress induced 

effects on foraging, breeding, and communication behavior. In addition, impact pile driving has 

the potential to cause vibrations and damage buildings within 55 feet, and vibrations could be 

noticeable by people out to 290 feet (Cross-Spectrum Acoustics 2022). Therefore, it is 

reasonable to assume that some burrows could collapse as a result of the vibration generated 

from pile driving, killing or injuring any SBKR within about 55 feet. Vibrations could also 

startle or flush SBKR within 290 feet, or mask SBKR communication such as foot drumming. 

Ultimately, we expect that any SBKR exposed to impact pile driving noise and vibration within 

1,600 feet could be harmed. Beyond 1,600 feet we expect that SBKR are not likely to be 

adversely affected in a way that is measurable. 
 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 48 

However, as described in the Project description, Brightline West will implement conservation 

measures specific to SBKR (SBKR 1 through 13) to minimize these impacts including, but not 

limited to, preconstruction surveys, delineation of areas to be avoided by construction, measures 

to keep SBKR out of construction zones, and biologists authorized to move SBKR from within 

the construction area to nearby suitable habitat outside of harm’s way. While some SBKR may 

be injured or killed during relocation efforts, this risk will be minimized because only individuals 

knowledgeable of SBKR will be authorized to handle animals. Any SBKR remaining in the 

Project site are likely to die. Clearing, grubbing, and soil redistribution are likely to crush any 

remaining SBKR and their burrows. However, this outcome is greatly reduced in magnitude 

because the use of SBKR fence and efforts to capture all SBKR that have a burrow on the Project 

site. 

Effects of Operation and Maintenance on SBKR 

We do not have extensive information regarding the types of Project operation or maintenance 

activities. We anticipate that the potential for injury or mortality of SBKR to result from these 

activities would generally be low because most of these activities would occur on top of the 

viaducts away from SBKR. We expect that activities in Cajon and Lytle Creeks would be 

infrequent and fairly limited in size and duration. If such activities occurred in Cajon and Lytle 

Creeks, SBKR would be exposed to threats similar to those we described for construction. 

The operation of the high-speed passenger train will generate increased noise and vibration 

throughout the action area. We cannot assess how far away from the train SBKR would be 

affected and whether or not it will change their behavior. Operation of the train could potentially 

prevent SBKR from re-occupying the area immediately adjacent to the train viaducts that cross 

Cajon and Lytle Creeks. Conversely, the animals, after some time, may become habituated and 

move back into the area. 

Since Brightline West will be constructing the rail alignment in the median of the I-15 and most 

routine maintenance would be performed by maintenance machinery on the rail, and because the 

rail will ride on an elevated structure through Cajon and Lytle Creeks, we do not anticipate that 

operation and maintenance will result in effects above and beyond the baseline conditions of 

existing noise, lighting, or habitat fragmentation. 

Effect on Recovery 

According to section 2(b) of the Act, the primary purposes of the Act are to provide a means 

whereby the ecosystems upon which listed species depend may be conserved, and to provide a 

program for the recovery of listed species. Under section 2(c), Congress established a policy 

requiring all Federal agencies to use their authorities in seeking to recover listed species in 

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Consistent with these purposes and Congressional policy, 

sections 3(5), 4(f), 7(a)(1), the implementing regulations to section 7(a)(2) at 50 CFR § 402.02 

and related preamble at 51 FR 19926 (June 3, 1986) generally require Federal agencies to further 

the survival and recovery of listed species in the use of their authorities. According to these 

mandates, our analysis below assesses: (1) whether the proposed action adequately offsets its 
 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 49 

adverse effects to the environmental baselines for SBKR, and (2) the extent to which the 

proposed action would cause “significant impairment of recovery efforts” or adversely affect the 

“species” chances for survival to the point that recovery is not attainable (51 FR 19926). 

While the Service has not developed a recovery plan for SBKR, the proposed conservation 

measures avoid and minimize adverse effects to SBKR. While the Project may result in the 

displacement or loss of a few SBKR that are present in the Project site, the Project will (1) have a 

small amount of permanent and temporary impacts to SBKR habitat, (2) Brightline West will 

restore temporarily disturbed habitat which SBKR may immigrate back into, (3) Brightline West 

will compensate for permanent impacts to SBKR and their designated critical habitat through the 

purchase of credits at an approved SBKR bank as described in SBKR 11 and SBKR 12, and (4) 

no measurable long term affects are expected from operation and maintenance of the Project. 

Effects on SBKR Critical Habitat 

The Project will result in permanent loss of 0.89 acres of SBKR designated critical habitat, and 

temporary impacts to 76.3 acres from ground disturbance. Of the 13,971 acres of SBKR 

designated critical habitat in unit 2, approximately 3,603 have been developed, and about 10,368 

acres are undeveloped. The Project would affect 0.7 percent of SBKR designated critical habitat 

in unit 2. Thus, the impacts to critical habitat are very minor relative to the entire designation and 

the unit, and the conservation role of the entire critical habitat and the unit will not be 

diminished. Further, the permanent and temporary impacts to SBKR habitat will be offset by onsite restoration and compensated for through the purchase of credits at an approved SBKR Bank 

(SBKR 11, and SBKR 12). Critical habitat was designated to protect hydrologic function for 

habitat regeneration and habitat connectivity between occupied sites within Unit 2 (67 FR 

19818). Due to the Project’s alignment with the existing I-15, and that the elevated crossings at 

Lytle and Cajon Washes, impacts to hydrologic functions supporting SBKR habitat are expected 

to be limited and not expected to measurably change from the existing condition. 

Summary 

As we stated previously in this biological opinion, “jeopardize the continued existence of” means 

to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce 

appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by 

reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (50 CFR 402.02). This 

regulatory definition focuses on how the proposed action would affect the reproduction, 

numbers, and distribution of the species under consideration in the biological opinion. For that 

reason, we have used those aspects of the SBKR’s status as the basis to assess the overall effect 

of the proposed action on the species. 

Additionally, we determine whether a proposed action is likely “to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species” through an analysis of how a proposed action affects the listed taxon 

within the action area in relation to the range of the entire listed taxon. For the SBKR, this 

process involves considering the effects at the level of the action area, then at the level of the 

critical habitat unit or recovery unit, and then finally for the range of the listed taxon. Logically, 
 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 50 

if a proposed action is unlikely to cause a measurable effect on the listed taxon within the action 

area, it is unlikely to affect the species throughout the critical habitat unit, the recovery unit, or 

the remainder of its range. Conversely, an action with appreciable effects on the listed entity in 

the action area may degrade the status of the species to the extent that it affects the recovery unit 

or the entire range. 

In the following sections, we will synthesize the analyses contained in the Effects of the Action 

section of this biological opinion to determine how each of the proposed actions affects the 

reproduction, number, and distribution of the SBKR. We will then assess the effects of the 

proposed actions on the recovery of the species and whether they are likely to appreciably reduce 

the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the SBKR in the wild. 

Reproduction 

The Project will have short term effects on individual reproductive capacity since a relatively 

small number of individuals will not have the opportunity to reproduce for a maximum of two 

peak breeding seasons due to the 18 month-long construction timeline. The proposed Project 

does not involve actions, processes, or the introduction of chemicals that would logically lead to 

the conclusion that reproduction of the species as a whole would be affected in a meaningful 

way. Moreover, we do not expect that the number of individuals affected, compared to the 

population as a whole, to be so large that it would logically lead to a significant decrease in 

reproduction of the species. Thus, we do not expect the proposed action will cause a meaningful 

decrease in reproductive capacity of the species. 

Numbers 

Since there were no SBKR surveys conducted for this Project at the time of writing this 

biological opinion, we do not have a recent sample of census data that is representative of this 

Project as a whole. Therefore, we do not know how SBKR are distributed in the action area. 

However, in the past we have used the Abundance Index provided by McKernan (McKernan 

1997) to estimate the numbers of SBKR in a given Project site. Abundance of SBKR is generally 

correlated with the quality and amount of habitat in a given area and may be estimated by certain 

characteristics: low abundance are usually areas with dense cover of non-native annual plants 

carrying 1-5 individual SBKR per hectare (ha), moderate abundance can be expected for habitat 

with intermediate phases of alluvial fan sage scrub carrying 5-15 SBKR per ha, and high 

abundance usually contains pioneer to intermediate phases of alluvial fan sage scrub carrying 20-

30 SBKR per ha. 

Noise from pile driving may adversely affect SBKR within about 262 acres of suitable SBKR 

habitat (106 hectares). Of those 262 acres, about 75.6 acres are pioneer, 80 acres are 

intermediate, and 106.29 acres of dense and lower suitability habitat. Within those 262 acres, 

ground disturbance from construction may affect as much as 77.2 acres, or 31.2 hectares (ha), of 

occupied habitat for SBKR. 

Based on these abundance indexes, the quality of available habitat, and the information available 

to us, which we provided in the status of the species in the action area section of this biological 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 51 

opinion, we estimate the number of SBKR in the action area to be on the lowest end of the 

Abundance Index. We estimate SBKR in the action area number between approximately 106 to 

530 individuals; of those, between 32 and 157 may be adversely affected by ground disturbance 

and translocation in the form of harm, capture, injury or death; and 75 to 374 individuals may be 

affected by nighttime pile driving noise. Furthermore, an unknown number of pups may be 

crushed killed or by ground disturbing activities, or harmed by pile driving noise. Any SBKR 

exposed to noise from pile driving outside of the limits of ground disturbance and within 1,600 

feet of pile driving may be harmed by noise in the form of reduced fitness by damaging hearing, 

interrupting foraging, breeding, or intra-species communication behaviors, and reduced alerting 

distance leading to higher predation. 

In Status of the Species, we described several factors that explain why range-wide population 

numbers are difficult to quantify and that SBKR numbers can fluctuate widely from year to year. 

Because of this, it is difficult to identify an accurate scale of impact to numbers. We used the 

Abundance Index provided by McKernan (McKernan 1997) to estimate the numbers of SBKR 

range-wide with our estimate of occupied habitat (10,696 acres or 4,328 hectares). The total 

estimate of occupied habitat range-wide could support 1 to 30 SBKR per hectare, which means 

that range-wide SBKR could number between 4,328 to 129,840 individuals. Even at the lowest 

estimate of SBKR numbers range-wide, we do not expect this Project to have a significant effect 

on the number of SBKR range-wide. 

Distribution 

All SBKR within the Project site will be removed through capture or otherwise adversely 

affected. Some SBKR will be relocated outside of the construction area. Thus, we anticipate a 

small change in the distribution of the species within the action area. However, based on the 

scale of the action area relative to the range of the species, and because most of the action area 

will remain as suitable habitat for SBKR, the overall distribution of the Lytle-Cajon SBKR 

population and range-wide will not be decreased by the Project. 

Effects of Construction on Arroyo Toad 

Brightline West will identify suitable arroyo toad habitat that may support arroyo toad (ARTO 1) 

within the construction limits of disturbance and begin arroyo toad surveys. Earlier we described 

the current status of arroyo toad in Cajon Wash as unknown and that historically only a few 

records exist with low numbers of individuals and that suitable habitat is under pressure from 

disturbance. We have little data on the proportion of arroyo toads likely to be captured within the 

proposed areas of ground disturbance. We expect that surveys will find very low numbers of 

arroyo toads since ground disturbance and survey efforts will focus on tributaries to Cajon Wash 

and upland areas where arroyo toads are less likely to be found, and because ground disturbance 

that may affect arroyo toads in riparian areas will be several hundred feet away from the main 

stem of Cajon Wash. Any arroyo toads found in the survey areas, will be removed from harm’s 

way by a qualified biologist and released nearby in Cajon Wash in an area of suitable habitat. 

Construction may begin after the site has been surveyed and cleared of arroyo toads. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 52 

Capture and relocation measures have the potential to effectively minimize death and injury of 

arroyo toads during ground disturbing activities. Toads often release their bladder contents upon 

capture (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012) and may experience increased stress levels; these 

responses could reduce arroyo toad survival and reproduction following capture and relocation. 

However, foraging and aestivating arroyo toads are not known to be territorial, so individuals 

have the potential to continue foraging or aestivating without substantial disruption following 

relocation. A qualified biologist, with experience using methods that have been implemented 

successfully during construction of other Projects in arroyo toad-occupied habitat, will oversee 

capture and relocation efforts. Based on the past successful implementation of trapping and 

relocation of arroyo toads in other Projects without any documented mortality, we do not 

anticipate that any individuals will be killed or injured during trapping and relocation efforts. 

We are not aware of any studies that have determined the carrying capacity for arroyo toads 

within the habitat along the Cajon Wash or similar habitat. However, because a large area of 

undisturbed suitable arroyo upland habitat will remain within and adjacent to the action area after 

Project construction, the relocation of toads captured within the impact areas into adjacent 

suitable habitat is not expected to result in adverse impacts associated with overcrowding. 

Ground disturbance will affect 13.67 acres of arroyo toad habitat. Of those 13.67 acres,12.66 

acres are upland aestivation habitat, and 1.01 acres are riparian breeding habitat. Any remaining 

arroyo toads that are not salvaged are likely to be injured or killed during ground disturbing 

activities. Those arroyo toads remaining in the Project footprint are likely to be aestivating and 

difficult to observe. We assume that any arroyo toad remaining in the impact area will be killed 

or injured as a result of being crushed by construction equipment. Based on our experience with 

previous construction Projects within arroyo toad habitat, aestivating toads are rarely discovered 

during or after ground disturbing activities. 

Habitat adjacent to construction areas may be exposed to increased lighting and noise from pile 

driving. Increased ambient lighting and noise levels can affect arroyo toads through increased 

predation risk and disruption of normal behaviors in adjacent breeding, foraging, and dispersal 

habitat. We expect that toads within 3,200 feet of impact pile driving may be adversely affected 

because that is the approximate distance where impact pile driving noise should reach 

background levels. However, we expect there to be few toads in areas where noise will be loud 

enough to cause adverse effects; since, most toads will be farther away inside Cajon Wash and 

because the baseline noise level is so high, owing to the combination of I-15, Cajon Boulevard, 

and 4 existing high traffic cargo rail lines intertwined with Cajon Wash. 

Additionally, we do not expect that additional light from nighttime construction is likely to cause 

additional adverse effects once arroyo toads are removed from the construction area because 

construction will be within the median of the existing I-15, which is a source of light as well as 

Cajon Boulevard, and because Cajon Boulevard and the I-15 act as barriers making it unlikely 

for toads to be affected by construction lighting. We anticipate that potential effects to arroyo 

toads resulting from lighting are likely to be insignificant (i.e., should not reach the level where 

take occurs). 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 53 

Effects of Operation and Maintenance on Arroyo Toad 

We do not have extensive information regarding the types of operation or maintenance activities. 

We anticipate that the potential for injury or mortality of arroyo toad to result from these 

activities would generally be low because most of these activities would occur on top of the 

viaducts away from arroyo toad habitat. We expect that activities in Cajon Creek would be 

infrequent and fairly limited in size and duration. If such activities occurred in Cajon Creek, 

arroyo toad would be exposed to threats similar to those we described for construction. 

The operation of the high-speed passenger train will generate increased noise and vibration 

throughout the action area. We cannot assess how far away from the train arroyo toad would be 

affected and whether or not it will change their behavior. Operation of the train could potentially 

prevent arroyo toad from re-occupying the area immediately adjacent to the train viaducts that 

cross Cajon Creek and its tributaries. Conversely, the animals, after some time, may become 

habituated and move back into the area. 

Since Brightline West will be constructing the rail alignment in the median of the I-15 and most 

routine maintenance would be performed by maintenance machinery on the rail, and because the 

rail will ride on an elevated structure, we do not anticipate that operation and maintenance will 

result in effects measurable effects different from the existing levels of noise, lighting, or habitat 

fragmentation. 

Effect on Recovery 

Downlisting and delisting criteria are described in the arroyo toad recovery plan (Service 1999a) 

as conserving, maintaining, and restoring the riparian and upland habitats used by arroyo toads 

for breeding, foraging, and wintering habitat; maintaining a minimum number of self-sustaining 

populations in each of the three recovery units; and by maintaining 15 additional self-sustaining 

populations of arroyo toads in coastal plain, coastal slope, desert slope, and desert river basins, 

including known populations outside of federal jurisdiction. 

With the implementation of conservation measures such as 1) restoring approximately 12.92 

acres (of 13.67 acres total) of temporary impacts from vegetation removal (CM-5, CM-27), and 

2) having a biological monitor on site to avoid adverse effects (CM-1); and since 3) the Project 

will not result in significant permanent impacts since only 0.73 acres of upland habitat and 0.01 

acres of riparian habitat will be lost, 4) the Project area is small relative to the overall range of 

arroyo toad, and 5) because the proposed rail alignment is in the median of the I-15, without 

significant impact to arroyo toad numbers, distribution, and reproduction, we expect that the 

proposed activities would not cause significant impairment of recovery efforts or adversely affect 

the arroyo toad’s prospects for recovery. 

Effects on Arroyo Toad Critical Habitat 

Temporary and permanent vegetation removal would occur within critical habitat for arroyo 

toad. Clearing and grubbing within the temporary and permanent LOD would affect habitat types 
 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 54 

that may be used for foraging and burrowing (PBF 4). Permanent loss of vegetation would 

directly reduce the area of PBFs essential to the functioning of critical habitat for arroyo toad. 

Fugitive dust as a result of construction activities in arid conditions may indirectly affect critical 

habitat for arroyo toad. Fugitive dust that settles on plants can reduce the photosynthesis 

capability of multiple plant species, including evergreen and perennial shrubs typical of riparian 

and adjacent upland habitat types. Plant mortality or reduced plant vitality may change the 

composition of riparian or adjacent upland plant communities; such changes could reduce the 

quality or availability of functioning critical habitat for arroyo toad within the Action Area. 

Avoidance and minimization measures for fugitive dust from Project construction activities 

would reduce this impact. 

The Project will result in permanent loss of 0.73 acres of arroyo toad upland habitat (PBF 4), and 

0.01 acres of riparian habitat (PBF 2) in tributaries to Cajon Wash as a result of soil compaction 

and habitat type conversion from installation of the rail and new bridge structures. The Project 

will result in temporary impacts to approximately 0.54 acres of riparian habitat (PBF 2) and 

approximately 12.5 acres of upland habitat (PBF 4) within arroyo toad critical habitat unit 20. 

We do not expect the proposed Project will alter the function of PBFs within Cajon Wash, and is 

not expected to affect hydrologic regimes of Cajon Wash or tributaries to Cajon Wash because 

the Project does not involve actions that would logically lead to changes in the hydrologic 

regime such as, disrupt a natural flooding regime (PBF 3), or remove or modify stream channels 

(PBF 4), and the Project is not expected to increase fragmentation of critical habitat above and 

beyond the baseline conditions because the rail will be constructed in the median. 

Summary 

In the following sections, we will synthesize the analyses contained in the Effects of the Action 

section of this biological opinion to determine how each of the proposed actions affects the 

reproduction, number, and distribution of the arroyo toad. We will then assess the effects of the 

proposed actions on the recovery of the species and whether they are likely to appreciably reduce 

the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the arroyo toad in the wild. 

Reproduction 

The Project will have short term effects on individual reproductive capacity since a relatively 

small number of individuals will not have the opportunity to reproduce. The proposed Project 

does not involve activities, processes, or the introduction of chemicals that would logically lead 

to the conclusion that reproduction of the species as a whole would be affected in a meaningful 

way. Moreover, we do not expect that the number of individuals affected, compared to the 

population as a whole, to be so large that it would logically lead to a significant decrease in 

reproduction of the species. Thus, we do not expect the proposed action will cause a meaningful 

decrease in reproductive capacity of the species. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 55 

Numbers 

It is not possible to quantify exactly how many arroyo toads may be killed, injured, or adversely 

affected by noise during construction of the proposed Project. Due to the difficulty in finding this 

species and the fluctuations that occur in the numbers and densities on a seasonal and annual 

basis, and the lack of recent survey data in the action area, we cannot precisely determine the 

number of individuals that may be adversely affected. Regardless, the numbers of arroyo toads 

killed, injured, or harmed should be low due to the limited extent of Project activities, the focus 

of Project activities in upland areas where arroyo toad densities are expected to be lower, and 

implementation of the proposed conservation measures. 

The proposed Project will affect a small fraction of more than one thousand acres of arroyo toad 

riparian and upland habitat within and adjacent to Cajon Wash. Based on the scale of the impacts 

relative to the amount of available habitat, this loss of habitat is not anticipated to have a 

significant effect on the size or persistence of the arroyo toad populations in these drainages. In 

addition, habitat impacts will be mitigated by restoring 12.92 acres of disturbed arroyo toad 

habitat impacted by the Project. Similarly, the potential for impacts will be minimized due to the 

limited amount of ground disturbance (13.67 acres total), the focus of ground disturbance in 

upland areas where arroyo toad densities are expected to be much lower (12.66 acres), education 

of workers, use of biological monitors, and relocation of individual adult or juvenile arroyo toads 

out of harm’s way. The anticipated death, injury, or relocation of a small number of arroyo toads 

will affect a small fraction of the population along Cajon Wash. The individuals lost from the 

population are anticipated to be replaced by successful breeding in subsequent years and will not 

have a significant impact on the long-term persistence of arroyo toads along Cajon Wash. 

Distribution 

Since the Project will have a small amount (0.74 acres) of permanent impacts to arroyo toad 

habitat, and the size of adverse effects to arroyo toad individuals will be small relative to the 

species range and the population’s range in Cajon Wash, and because the proposed rail 

alignment will be in the median of the I-15 thereby minimizing additional affects beyond the 

baseline conditions, we do not expect that the Project is likely to cause a meaningful reduction in 

the distribution of arroyo toad. 

Effects of Construction on Least Bell’s Vireo 

Vegetation clearing in suitable vireo habitat may harm, crush, or kill vireo and their eggs or 

chicks. Adverse effects during construction and vegetation removal will be minimized by 

implementing preconstruction surveys within the limits of ground disturbance to verify presence 

or absence, and by timing construction to minimize adverse effects during the nesting season 

(LBV 1, LBV 2, CM 2). Vegetation clearing that may affect vireo will only be necessary at the 

Mojave River crossing. The Project is expected to result in temporary disturbance to 8.65 acres 

of riparian habitat from vegetation removal and habitat alteration or degradation during 

construction at the Mojave River. 1.88 acres of suitable habitat will be lost at the Mojave River 

crossing due to construction of the viaduct and expansion of the I-15 Bridge. To minimize the 
 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 56 

effect of vegetation clearing in the Mojave River, Brightline West will limit the construction 

footprint and delay vegetation clearing to the later part of the nesting season, beginning in June 

after vireo have had time for at least one reproductive cycle. If vireo have late clutches in the 

nesting season, vegetation clearing may crush, kill or injure eggs, chicks or fledglings, and 

vegetation clearing may elicit startle or escape responses or adversely affect normal feeding and 

breeding behavior in adults. 

Brightline West will restore the area of temporary construction impacts. Restoration activities 

themselves may cause temporary impacts due to noise, fugitive dust, ground disturbance, and 

human presence. Control of invasive species may require mechanical or chemical disturbance 

during native plant reestablishment periods. Human presence would occur during monitoring and 

maintenance activities during reestablishment. Reestablishment to preconstruction levels of plant 

cover for riparian plant species may take two to three years, during which reduced habitat 

functions would be present in the restoration area. 

Noise from pile driving and other heavy machinery may adversely affect vireo during 

construction. Construction will require impact pile driving at several locations near Cajon Creek, 

at the Mojave River, and possibly at the I-15 overpass at Glen Helen Parkway which is near a 

site known to be occupied by vireo (Appendix A, Figure 4). We chose to use impact pile driving 

in our analysis because it is the loudest form of pile driving and has the farthest-reaching effects, 

and because the Project proponent was not able to commit to other less impactful forms of pile 

driving. Impact pile driving will be the loudest noise during construction and noise effects will 

extend beyond the effects of ground disturbance and any other source of noise from the Project. 

The Service has previously used 60 dBA Leq per half hour, or 5 dBA above ambient conditions, 

as the threshold to assess impacts to vireo due to noise. A study examining the effects of 

helicopter noise at Camp Pendleton in San Diego County found that vireo vocalization rates were 

significantly reduced when noise levels exceeded 60 dBA Leq and breeding success was 3 to 11 

percent higher outside of the zone exposed to 60 dBA (Mock and Tavares 1997), although we 

note that this effect is difficult to tease apart from external factors. The authors still found an 

exponential increase of vireo following cowbird management and habitat restoration at Camp 

Pendleton, suggesting that the impacts of noise are minor compared to cowbird parasitism and 

habitat degradation. Additionally, it should be noted that the Service has been unable to track the 

specific methods and analysis used by Mock and Tavares. However, with the lack of other study 

data indicating that the 60 dBA threshold is inappropriate to use for this species, we will not 

deviate from our standard practice. 

Our rationale for considering construction noise up to 5 dBA over ambient (when ambient noise 

is above 60 dBA Leq) as a noise level that is likely to adversely affect vireo is in recognition that 

vireo seem to habituate to elevated ambient noise as is evidenced by their presence near major 

roadways such as I-15. Earlier in our environmental baseline section we explained that the 

existing daytime noise level at about 200 feet from the I-15 is about 65 dBA Leq. 

The noise report proposes that typical at-grade track construction would result in an 8-hour 

workday Leq of 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the construction site (grader, loader, truck), 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 57 

without considering pile driving (Cross-Spectrum Acoustics 2022). Impact pile driving would 

generate a maximum sound level (Lmax) of 101 dBA at 50 feet from the source (Federal 

Highway Administration 2006). Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during 

a specified period. Construction noise is commonly reported in maximum noise levels, which are 

not typically sustained over long periods of time. Construction equipment generally acts like a 

point source and will typically reduce at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance, across hard flat 

surfaces (CalTrans 2016). However, acoustically absorptive sites with soft dirt, grass, or 

scattered bushes and trees between the source and the receiver increase sound attenuation 

(reduction) by an additional 1.5 dBA per doubling distance, or an overall attenuation factor of 

7.5 dBA per doubling distance for a point source. Additionally, a break in the line of sight 

between the noise source and the receptor using sound walls can result in a 5 dBA reduction 

(Federal Highway Administration 1995). 

Assuming the first 100 feet from pile driving and construction is a hard flat surface with 6 dBA 

of attenuation, we expect 101 Lmax dBA at 50 feet to attenuate to 95 dBA at 100 feet (double 

the distance). Beyond 100 feet we expect attenuation will increase due to terrain and softer 

surfaces such as lose soil, grass, shrubs and trees; beyond 100 feet we expect attenuation will be 

7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. At 200 feet we expect noise to drop off to 87.5 dBA; then 

doubling to 400 feet, 80 dBA; 800 feet, 72.5 dBA; 1,600 feet, 65 dBA; 3,200 feet, 57.5 dBA. 

At 1,600 feet away from impact pile driving, we expect noise levels to reach about 65 dBA, 

which is the ambient noise level within about 200 feet from the I-15; therefore, we expect 

ambient noise to be lower than 65 dBA at 1,600 feet from I-15 (Cross-Spectrum Acoustics 

2022). Beyond 2,700 feet from impact pile driving, we expect that noise will drop below 60 dBA 

Leq hourly and vireo are not likely to be adversely affected beyond 2,700 feet from impact pile 

driving. Therefore, within 2,700 feet, we expect that noise will interfere with vireo vocalization, 

reduce listening and alerting distance, negatively interfere with hatchling development and 

nesting, stimulate startle and escape behavior, and cause hearing loss with increased negative 

effects and increased risk of injury or death as distance is reduced between the vireo and the 

source of noise. 

Based on a distance of 2,700 feet, we can measure the acreage of riparian habitat that is assumed 

to be occupied by vireo. We estimate that approximately 55.6 acres of habitat may be affected by 

pile driving noise in Cajon Creek, and about 19 acres of habitat will impacted near the Glen 

Helen Parkway overcrossing. Pile driving at the Mojave River crossing may affect 28.8 acres of 

riparian habitat. In total, the Project is likely to result in adverse noise effects in 103.4 acres of 

habitat, all of which is assumed to be occupied. 

Effects of Operation and Maintenance on Least Bell’s Vireo 

Operations of high-speed rail could result in mortality of least Bell’s vireo through collisions 

with operating trains. The viaduct would be elevated over the Mojave River and its floodplain, 

creating physical separation from rail operations and the alignment is median running across the 

river. We expect the physical separation away from riparian habitat along with isolation within 
 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 58 

the highway median to minimize potential for bird strikes during nesting season as it is expected 

that the birds would remain close to vegetation well below the track. 

Since Brightline West will be constructing the rail alignment in the median of the I-15 and most 

routine maintenance would be performed by maintenance machinery on the rail, and because the 

rail will ride on an elevated structure across the Mojave River, Lytle Creek, and along Cajon 

Creek, we do not anticipate that operation and maintenance will result in effects above and 

beyond the baseline conditions of existing noise, lighting, or habitat fragmentation. 

Effect on Recovery 

The number of vireo in the vicinity of the Project’s action area has been steadily increasing, 

although substantial threats requiring ongoing management remain. A Draft Recovery Plan for 

the species was outlined in 1998 and coordinated actions by several agencies have been taken to 

promote the recovery of the vireo since it was listed in 1986. The primary goals of the draft vireo 

recovery plan are stated as: (1) maintain stable or increasing vireo metapopulations, each 

consisting of several hundred or more breeding pairs; (2) protect and manage riparian and 

adjacent upland habitats within the historic range of the vireo, (3) control non-native plant 

species, (4) control cowbird parasitism, and (5) conduct habitat restoration. Population surveys 

indicate that the Santa Ana River population has achieved the downlisting criterion in the draft 

recovery plan, although most of the other populations/metapopulations of vireo have not. This 

Project is not anticipated to have measurable effects on vireo recovery. 

Summary 

In the following sections, we will synthesize the analyses contained in the Effects of the Action 

section of this biological opinion to determine how each of the proposed actions affects the 

reproduction, number, and distribution of the vireo. We will then assess the effects of the 

proposed actions on the recovery of the species and whether they are likely to appreciably reduce 

the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the vireo in the wild. 

Reproduction 

The Project will have short term effects on individual reproductive capacity since a relatively 

small number of individuals will not have the opportunity to reproduce and some vireo nest sites 

will be lost due to a permanent loss of a small amount of habitat. The proposed Project does not 

involve activities, processes, or the introduction of chemicals that would logically lead to the 

conclusion that reproduction of the species as a whole would be affected in a meaningful way. 

Moreover, we do not expect that the number of individuals affected, compared to the population 

as a whole, to be so large that it would logically lead to a significant decrease in reproduction of 

the species. Thus, we do not expect the proposed action will cause a meaningful decrease in 

reproductive capacity of the species. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 59 

Numbers 

The Project will result in permanent loss of 1.88 acres of vireo habitat, and likely adverse noise 

effects to vireo across 103.4 acres (55.6 acres along Cajon Creek, 19 acres near Glen Helen 

Parkway, and 28.8 acres in the Mojave River) of habitat. Using the survey data we presented in 

the status in the action area, we estimate that the Project is likely to adversely affect 6 to 10 vireo 

territories, the majority of which are within the Santa Ana River watershed (1 to 2 territories in 

the Cajon Creek, 3 to 4 territories near Glen Helen Parkway, and 2 to 4 territories in the Mojave 

River). Of the 2,293 territories estimated to be in the Santa Ana River watershed, the Project 

would affect less than one percent of those territories alone. Of the 87 estimated territories in San 

Bernardino County, from less than 9 to 11 percent would be affected. Moreover, we expect that 

the low number of territories in our estimate is the most likely to be present in the action area, 

based on past survey results, and the baseline conditions of the habitat in the action area. Even at 

the high end of estimated effects to vireo territories, we do not expect this Project to have a 

significant effect on the number of vireo range wide. We expect there could be as many as 10 

territories adversely affected by construction noise. 

Distribution 

Since the Project will have a small amount (1.88 acres) of permanent impacts to vireo habitat, 

and since temporary impacts to vireo habitat will be small (8.65 acres) and the size of adverse 

effects to vireo individuals will be small relative to the species range, and because the proposed 

rail alignment will be in the median of the I-15 thereby minimizing additional affects beyond the 

baseline conditions, we do not expect that the Project is likely to cause a meaningful reduction in 

the distribution of vireo. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects are effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal 

activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject 

to consultation (50 CFR § 402.02). Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed 

action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to 

section 7 of the Act. We have not identified any future State, Tribal, local, or private actions that 

are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. 

CONCLUSION 

After reviewing the current status of the SBKR and its critical habitat, the arroyo toad and its 

critical habitat, and the least Bell’s vireo, the environmental baseline for the action area, the 

effects of the proposed activities, and the cumulative effects, we have determined that the 

activities considered in this biological opinion are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the SBKR, arroyo toad, least Bell’s vireo or adversely modify arroyo toad or SBKR 

critical habitats. We have reached this conclusion for the following reasons: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 60 

1. Project activities are likely to kill or injure few SBKR and arroyo toads because 

Brightline West will implement numerous measures to reduce the potential that SBKR 

and arroyo toads will occupy Project work sites. 

2. We expect habitat supporting up to 10 vireo territories may be affected by ground 

disturbance and construction noise, which may reduce the fitness and productivity of 

these birds. However, any associated impacts will be temporary, lasting a maximum of 

the estimated two nesting seasons during Project construction. 

3. Adverse effects to arroyo toad, SBKR, and vireo in the action area will be reduced by 

implementation of the conservation measures identified in the Project Description of this 

biological opinion. 

4. As many SBKR as practicable will be trapped prior to ground disturbance and 

translocated. 

5. The loss of designated critical habitat is limited to a small fraction of total critical habitat 

within SBKR Unit 2 and arroyo toad Unit 20. 

6. Temporary impacts to critical habitat will be restored to pre-Project conditions. 

7. To minimize impacts to arroyo toads, construction areas will be surveyed prior to 

initiating ground-disturbing activities, and any arroyo toads observed in the Project 

footprint will be relocated to safety in suitable habitat nearby. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened animal species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is 

defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt 

to engage in any such conduct. Harm in the definition of “take” in the Act means an act which 

actually kills or injures wildlife. Such [an] act may include significant habitat modification or 

degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential 

behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Under the terms of 

section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not the purpose of the agency 

action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in 

compliance with the proposed protective measures and the terms and conditions of an incidental 

take statement and occurs as a result of the action as proposed. 

The measures described below are non-discretionary and must be undertaken by the FRA so that 

they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the Brightline West, for the 

exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The FRA has a continuing duty to regulate the activity 

covered by this incidental take statement. If the FRA: (1) fails to assume and implement the 

terms and conditions, or (2) fails to require the Brightline West to adhere to the terms and 

conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit 

or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the 

impact of incidental take, the FRA or Brightline West must report the progress of the action and 

its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR § 

402.14(i)(3)]. 
 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 61 

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat 

The regulations for section 7(a)(2) clarify that the Service may use surrogates to express the 

amount or extent of anticipated take when “exact numerical limits on the amount of anticipated 

incidental take may be difficult” (80 FR 26832). The implementing regulations [50 CFR § 

402.14(i)(1)(i)] require that the Service meet three conditions for the use of a surrogate. To use a 

surrogate, the Service must: 

1. Describe the causal link between the surrogate and take of the listed species: 

Construction impacts to habitat can be a surrogate for take of individual SBKR 

because SBKR can be crushed and/or entombed during grading and clearing 

activities or harmed by noise and vibration from impact pile driving. They may 

also be inadvertently crushed during vegetation management activities. We 

consider that most, if not all, occupied habitat in the construction footprint would 

be trapped in order to remove SBKR prior to ground-disturbance. An unknowable 

number of SBKR would also be exposed to pile driving noise within habitat 

outside the limits of ground disturbance. Construction impacts to habitat 

represents the potential loss of or harm to an unknown number of SBKR which 

cannot accurately be estimated. 

2. Describe why it is not practical to express the amount of anticipated take or to monitor 

take-related impacts in terms of individuals of the listed species: 

Incidental take in terms of numbers of individual SBKR is difficult to quantify 

because they are small, nocturnal animals that spend daylight hours underground; 

young are not detectable in the burrow; and populations fluctuate seasonally. 

Therefore, it is not possible to accurately assess or predict the number of SBKR 

that may be present within any area of habitat. 

3. Set a clear standard to determine when the proposed action has exceeded the 

anticipated amount or extent of the taking: 

Take of SBKR would be exceeded if more than 77.2 acres of habitat are cleared, 

graded or otherwise disturbed during Project implementation. Take would be 

exceeded if noise levels exceed 68 dBA Leq hourly during nighttime pile driving 

activities at 1,600 feet away from pile driving. 

We anticipate take of all SBKR within the 77.2 acres of habitat within the Project site, and we 

anticipate that all of these individuals would be taken in the form of capture, harm, injury or 

death during capture, off-site housing, translocation, and construction. We also anticipate the 

additional take of all SBKR in the form of harm from noise within the 184.8 acres of suitable 

habitat beyond the limits of ground disturbance. Note that the 77.2 acres of impacts from ground 

disturbance is nested within the 262 acres where we anticipate that adverse effects may occur, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 62 

therefore take in the form of harm from noise may affect 184.8 acres of suitable habitat beyond 

the ground disturbance footprint. 

IT 1. Capture, handling, captive holding, and release of all SBKR within the 77.2-acre 

Project site. We anticipate that all or most of the adult SBKR residing within the 

Project will be captured. We are not putting a limit on take in the form of capture. 

We are not putting a limit on take in the form of harm during the holding and 

release process. 

IT 2. Take in the form of death or injury of up to 2 SBKR as a result of capture or 

handling. If the initial capture and handling period kills or injures more than 2 

SBKR, take will be exceeded. 

IT 3. Take in the form of harm, death, or injury of an unknown number of SBKR that 

escape capture, and an unknown number of underground pups that are not 

collected within the 77.2-acre Project site. 

IT 4. Take in the form of harm of an unknown number of SBKR exposed to nighttime 

pile driving noise within 184.8 acres of habitat outside the limits of ground 

disturbance. 

Arroyo Toad 

The regulations for section 7(a)(2) clarify that the Service may use surrogates to express the 

amount or extent of anticipated take when “exact numerical limits on the amount of anticipated 

incidental take may be difficult” (80 FR 26832). The implementing regulations [50 CFR § 

402.14(i)(1)(i)] require that the Service meet three conditions for the use of a surrogate. To use a 

surrogate, the Service must: 

1. Describe the causal link between the surrogate and take of the listed species: 

The precise distribution and number of arroyo toads in the action area is difficult 

to determine due to the dynamic conditions associated with their habitat and 

biology and because detection of arroyo toads outside of the breeding season is 

very difficult. Because arroyo toads are likely to remain underground within their 

burrows during Project implementation, it will not be possible to observe and 

quantify the number of animals residing within the soil disturbance footprint that 

escape capture and are killed, injured, or harmed. Finally, earlier in the ‘status of 

the species in the action area’ section, we established a way to estimate the 

number of arroyo toads in suitable arroyo toad habitat of Cajon Wash based on 

information about arroyo toads in another watershed. Therefore, we have 

established estimated levels of take and associated triggers for reinitiation based 

on the amount of habitat that will be affected, the number of arroyo toads that are 

observed within the Project footprint and relocated, and the number of arroyo 

toads that are anticipated to be observed dead or injured due to the action. 
 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 63 

2. Describe why it is not practical to express the amount of anticipated take or to monitor 

take-related impacts in terms of individuals of the listed species: 

In most cases, the precise level or extent of anticipated take in terms of 

individuals is difficult to determine because: (1) the small size and cryptic nature 

of arroyo toads; (2) the numbers of arroyo toad individuals will change over time 

in a given area; and (3) the best available commercial and scientific data for 

arroyo toad in Cajon Creek does not provide a reliable population estimate or 

distribution of arroyo toads in the action area. 

3. Set a clear standard to determine when the proposed action has exceeded the anticipated 

amount or extent of the taking: 

Take of arroyo toad associated with Project activities will be exceeded if: 

IT 1 Take will be exceeded if capture of all arroyo toads exceeds 13.67 acres of arroyo 

toad suitable habitat. 

IT 2 Take will be exceeded if ground disturbance exceeds 13.67 acres of arroyo toad 

habitat. 

IT 3 Take will be exceeded if more than one arroyo toad is observed dead or injured 

from construction activities or relocation activities. 

Least Bell’s Vireo 

We anticipate take in the form of harm for two vireo territories in the Mojave River due to the 

temporary loss of breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitat within 8.65 acres. These vireo 

territories are expected to become displaced, which will subject them to increased competition, 

greater risk of predation/nest parasitism, and decreased reproductive success. If the habitat of 

more than two vireo territories is removed by this Project, the take limit will have been exceeded 

and consultation will need to be reinitiated. 

We anticipate take in the form of harm for the vireo (pairs and young) within up to 10 vireo 

territories that may be affected by construction noise. These birds may suffer a reduction in 

fitness and productivity during Project construction, expected to last no more than two nesting 

seasons. The take exemption will be exceeded if more than two nesting seasons are impacted by 

impact pile driving during Project construction. 

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 

We have determined that the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and 

appropriate to minimize the impact of the incidental take of SBKR and vireo: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 64 

RPM 1 FRA and Brightline West must adhere to the requirements of this biological 

opinion, including the avoidance and minimization measures included the Project 

Description as conservation measures as a condition of funding. 

RPM 2 FRA will cause Brightline West to monitor and report on compliance with the 

established take thresholds for SBKR, vireo, and arroyo toads associated with the 

proposed action. 

RPM 3 FRA will cause Brightline West to carry out habitat assessments and 

preconstruction construction surveys for SBKR, arroyo toad, and vireo. 

RPM 4 FRA will cause Brightline West to capture and translocate SBKR prior to ground 

disturbance in SBKR restricted work areas of the Project alignment. 

Our evaluation of the proposed action includes consideration of the conservation measures 

proposed by FRA and Brightline West in the Description of the Proposed Action section of this 

biological opinion. Consequently, any changes in the conservation measures may constitute a 

modification of the proposed action that causes an effect to the SBKR, vireo, and/or arroyo toad 

that was not considered in the biological opinion and would require re-initiation of consultation, 

pursuant to the implementing regulations of the section 7(a)(2) of the Act (50 CFR 402.16). The 

reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions are intended to compliment the 

conservation measures proposed by FRA and Brightline West. 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the FRA and Brightline West must 

comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent 

measures described above and outline monitoring and reporting requirements. These terms and 

conditions are non-discretionary. 

TC 2.1 Submit a written Biological Monitoring Plan to the PSFWO for approval at least 

60 days prior to the start of Project-related ground disturbance that is within 400 

feet of any occupied ESA-listed species habitat or within any suitable habitat 

within designated critical habitat areas (CM 4). 

TC 2.2 Contact the PSFWO within 24 hours if the qualified biologist detects impacts to 

SBKR from Project-related activities that exceed the take limits identified above. 

TC 2.3 Brightline West will monitor the noise in Lytle and Cajon Creeks during pile 

driving activities at 400-foot intervals out to 1600 feet and provide a monthly 

report to the PSFWO and FRA. 

TC 3.1 FRA will cause Brightline West to ensure the biologist monitoring Project 

activities within the SBKR restricted work areas meet the standards for a qualified 

SBKR biologist and has been pre-approved by the PSFWO to work on this 

Project. 
 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 65 

TC 3.2 Submit preconstruction survey results to PSFWO within 14 days of completion. 

TC 4.1 Construct SBKR exclusion fencing to exclude SBKR from construction areas 

based on preconstruction survey results. 

TC 4.2 Submit documentation of exclusion fence monitoring and repairs. 

TC 4.3 Submit an exclusion fencing report to the PSFWO upon exclusion fencing 

completion. 

TC 4.4 Translocated SBKR will be soft release as described in Appendix D. 

TC 4.5 Trapped SBKR will be translocated to suitable habitat adjacent to their capture 

site; or to nearby suitable habitat that was identified as suitable but not occupied 

during preconstruction surveys and within Caltrans Right-of-way; or moved to a 

receiving Conservation Bank. 

TC 4.6 If more than 1 SBKR is injured or dies during capture or handling contact the 

PSFWO so we can discuss what went wrong and how harm and mortality can be 

minimized going forward. 

TC 4.7 Submit a final Project report within 60 days of the completed Project, which 

includes the results of SBKR trapping within the exclusion areas, and a status 

report of SBKR relocated off-site including the number of SBKR relocated and 

the status of soft release. 

DISPOSITION OF SICK, INJURED, OR DEAD SPECIMENS 

The Applicant shall notify the PSFWO (see email address and phone number below) within 1 

working day if any federally endangered or threatened species is found dead or injured as a direct 

or indirect result of Project implementation, in excess of that described in the above incidental 

take statement. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the injured animal or 

carcass, and any other pertinent information. In addition, mark dead animals appropriately, 

photograph, and leave the carcass on site; transport injured animals to a qualified veterinarian; 

and contact the PSFWO regarding the final disposition of any treated animals that survive. 

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes 

of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened 

species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid 

adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement 

recovery plans, or to develop information. 

CR 1 In order to improve our understanding of the utility of translocation in minimizing 

impacts to individual SBKR and to the larger population, implement post-
 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 66 

translocation trapping at 3- and 6-month intervals following release from artificial 

burrows. 

REINITIATION NOTICE 

Reinitiation of consultation is required and will be requested by the Federal agency or by the 

Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or 

is by law and: 

1. If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; 

2. If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; 

3. If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the 

listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this biological opinion; or 

4. If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the 

identified action. 

Any questions or comments should be directed to William Sherwin5 of my staff at 760-322-2070. 

Sincerely, 

Scott A. Sobiech 

Field Supervisor 

5 william_sherwin@fws.gov 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 67 

LITERATURE CITED 

Biological Monitoring Program. 2016. 2015 San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Survey Report. 

Unpublished report prepared for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat 

Conservation Plan, Riverside, California. https://wrc-rca.org/about-rca/monitoringsurveys/. 

Brown, J.H. and B.A. Harney. 1993. Population and Community Ecology of Heteromyid 

Rodents in Temperate Habitats in Biology of the Heteromyidae [Eds] H.H. Genoways 

and J.H. Brown. Special Publication No. 10, The American Society of Mammologists, 

Published 20 August 1993. Pp. 618-651. 

[CalTrans] California Department of Transportation. 2016. Technical Guidance for Assessment 

and Mitigation of the Effects of Traffic Noise and Road Construction Noise on Birds. 

Final Report prepared by California Department of Transportation for California 

Department of Transportation. CTHWANP-RT-15-306.04.2. 

[CalTrans] California Department of Transportation. 2020. Highway Design Manual. Chapter 

900, Landscape Architecture – Roadsides. 

[Cross-Spectrum Acoustics] Draft Noise and Vibration Technical Report. Brightline West Cajon 

Pass High-Speed Rail Project. Prepared by: Cross-Spectrum Acoustics, Inc. August 2022. 

[FRA] Draft Environmental Assessment Brightline West Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project. 

Prepared for FRA by Circlepoint. August 2022. 

Goldingay, R. L., P. A. Kelly, and D. F. Williams. 1997. The kangaroo rats of California: 

[HNTB] Draft Biological Assessment. 2022a. Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Victor Valley to 

Rancho Cucamonga, California. Prepared by: HNTB. July 2022. 

 [HNTB] Addendum to the July 2022 Draft Biological Assessment Brightline West Cajon Pass 

High-Speed Rail Project. 2022b. Prepared by HNTB. September 2022 

ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2009. Letter to Mr. Doug Sprague, Vulcan Materials Company – 

Western Division, 3200 San Fernando Road, Los Angeles, California 90065 re: Summary 

of Habitat Analysis Survey and Recent Impacts to Lytle Creek and Cajon Creek in the 

vicinity of Vulcan Materials Company’s Cajon Creek Conservation Area. 19 pp. 

Federal Highway Administration. 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analyses and Abatement: Policy 

and Guidance. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 

Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch, Washington, D.C. 

Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s 

Guide. Final Report prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. FHWA-HEP-05-054; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. 

http://goo.gl/PXltyy. 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 68 

Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California: status and distribution. Los Angeles 

Audubon Society; 408pp. 

Grinnell, J. and A. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast 

Avifauna Number 27: 1-608. 

Hays, L. 1989. The status and management of the least Bell's vireo within the Prado Basin, 

California, 1986-1989. Unpublished report, California State University, Long Beach, 

California. 

Hendricks, S. and A.Y. Navarro, T. Wang, A. Wilder, O.A. Ryder, and D.M. Shier. 2020. 

Patterns of genetic partitioning and gene flow in the endangered San Bernardino 

kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) and implications for conservation 

management. Conservation Genetics 21:819-833. 

Holland, D.C. and N.R. Sisk. 2001. Habitat use and population demographics of the arroyo toad 

(Bufo californicus) on MCB Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California 1998-2000. 

Prepared for AC/S Environmental Security, MCB Camp Pendleton. 

Jones, B. 1985. A report on the status of the least Bell's vireo on the San Diego, Sweetwater, and 

San Luis Rey Rivers, San Diego County, California. Unpublished Report. 

Kus, B.E., S. Howell, R. Pottinger, M. Treadwell, S. Mendia. 2019. Recent Population Trends in 

Least Bell’s Vireos and Southwestern Willow Flycatchers: 2018 Update. Presentation to 

the Riparian Birds Working Group biennial meeting, 4 December 2019, Carlsbad, CA. 

Lockhart & Associates, Inc. 2019. Vulcan Materials, Cajon Creek 2018 Annual Report February 

2019. 51 pp. + Appendices. 

McKernan, R. L. 1997. The status and known distribution of the San Bernardino Kangaroo rat 

(Dipodomys merriami parvus): field surveys conducted between 1987 and 1996. 

Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Mock, P.J. and R. Tavares. 1997. Noise effects on least Bell’s vireo: Studies of military 

helicopter activity, auto traffic, and light rails. Abstract for the Conference on Noise 

Effects on Passerine Birds, January 15, 1997. 

Montgomery, S.J. 2020. Interim Report of the Phase I and Phase 2 SBKR Translocation 

Programs at the Diversified Pacific Judson Ranch Project Site, Redlands, California – 

August 2015 through October 2019. Prepared for: Peter Pitassi, Diversified Pacific 

Developers, Rancho Cucamonga, California by: Stephen K. Montgomery, SJM 

Biological Consultants/ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2028 N. Cobblestone Circle, Flagstaff, 

AZ 86001. 8 June 2020, 139 pp. + Appendices. 
 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 69 

Pike, J. and L. Hays. 1992. The status and management of the least Bell's vireo within the Prado 

Basin, California, 1986-1991. Unpublished report, California State University, Long 

Beach Foundation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel, California. 

Pike, J. 2020. Least Bell’s vireos and southwestern willow flycatchers in Prado Basin of the 

Santa Ana River Watershed, CA. Prepared by the Orange County Water District and 

submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[RECON] Regional Environmental Consultants. 1988. Comprehensive Management Plan for the 

Least Bell's Vireo. Unpublished report submitted to the San Diego Area of Governments 

(SANDAG); San Diego, California. 

[Rincon] Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project Habitat Restoration Plan. Prepared by Rincon 

Consultatnts, Inc. September 2022a. 

[Rincon] Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and 

Translocation Plan. Prepared by Rincon Consultatnts, Inc. September 2022b. 

[SAIC] Science Applications International Corporation. 2012. Santa Ana River Woolly Star 

Preserve Area Final Multi-Species Habitat Management Plan. Prepared for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California. 

Salata, L.R. 1983a. Status of the least Bell's vireo on Camp Pendleton, California. Report on 

research done in 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contract Report No. 11100-0145-

82, Laguna Niguel, California. 

Salata, L.R. 1983b. Status of the least Bell's vireo on Camp Pendleton, California. Report on 

research done in 1983. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contract Report No. 10181-9373, 

Laguna Niguel, California. 73pp. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

determination of endangered status for the arroyo southwestern toad. Federal Register 

59:64859-64867. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Biological Opinion on the Proposed Mining 

Activities and Industrial Development at the CalMat San Bernardino and Cajon Creek 

Properties, Lytle-Cajon Wash San Bernardino County. (1-6-94-F-51). 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

Final rule to list the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as endangered. (63 FR 51005). 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. Draft recovery plan for the least Bell’s vireo 

(Vireo bellii pusillus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus 

californicus) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. vi + 119 

pp. 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 70 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999b. Survey protocol for the Arroyo Toad (Bufo 

californicus). May 19. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat; Final 

Rule. 67 Federal Register 19812-19845. April 23, 2002. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002b. Section 7 Consultation for Operations of Seven 

Oaks Dam, San Bernardino County, California (1-6-02-F-1000.10). December 19, 2002. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Intra-Service formal section 7 

consultation/conference for issuance of an Endangered Species Act section 10(a)(1)(B) 

permit (TE-088609-0) for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat 

Conservation Plan, Riverside County, California (FWS-WRIV-870.19). June 22, 2004. 

Carlsbad, California. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Least Bell’s vireo5-year review. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 8, Carlsbad, California. 26 pp. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. San Bernardino kangaroo rat 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. August 14, 2009. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus 

(=microscaphus)) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. 55 pp. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Revised Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad; Final Rule. 76 Federal Register 7246-7467. 

February 9, 2011. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Arroyo Toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) 

Species Report. March 24, 2014. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

withdrawal of proposed rule to reclassify the arroyo toad as threatened. Federal Register 

80:79805-79816. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020a. 5-Year Review, San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat 

(Dipodomys merriami parvus). April 6, 2020. 2pp. 

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020b. Intra-Service Biological and Conference 

Opinion on the Issuance of an Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit (TE 

78703D and TE 78704D) for the Upper Santa Ana Wash Habitat Conservation Plan, San 

Bernardino County, California. July 13, 2020. 

Shier, D.M. and R.R. Swaisgood. 2011. Fitness Costs of Neighborhood Disruption in 

Translocations of a Solitary Mammal. Conservation Biology 26(1): 116-123. 
 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 71 

Shier, D.M. and T. Wang. 2012 Translocation of the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat, 

(Dipodomys merriami parvus). Unpublished annual report prepared by the San Diego 

Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, Escondido, California. 10 pp. 

SJM Biological Consultants. 2011. San Bernardino kangaroo rat percent area occupied (PAO) 

survey at the Santa Ana River Woolly Star Preserve Area, May-June 2011. Prepared for 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California in coordination with Science 

Applications International Corporation, San Diego, California. 

Stebbins, R.C. and S.M. McGinnis. 2012. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California 

(California Natural History Guides). University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 

552 pp.Toraason M.A., D.W. Badger, and G.L. Wright. 1980. Gastrointestinal response 

in rats to vibration and restraint. Environ Res 23: 341–347. doi: 10.1016/0013-

9351(80)90069-9. 

Sweet, S. S. 1992. Initial report on the ecology and status ofthe arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus 

californicus) on the Los Padres National Forest of southern California with management 

recommendations. Contract report to Los Padres National Forest. 198 pp. 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2016. Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Management Area Habitat Enhancement and 

Monitoring Summary Report – 2015, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. 

Unpublished report prepared for Assistant Chief of Staff, Environmental Security, Marine 

Corps Base Camp Pendleton by Tetra Tech, Inc., Arlington, Virginia. 176 pp + 

Appendices. 

Tennant, E.N and D.J. Germano. 2017. Survival of translocated Heerman’s Kangaroo Rats 

(Dipodomys heermanni) in the San Joaquin Desert of California using hard and soft 

release methods. Western Wildlife 4:1-11. 

Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frissell. 2001. Review of the ecological effects of roads on terrestrial 

and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14: 18-30. 

Zembal, R., M. Aimar, A. Beckman, J. Burton, J. Carpenter, F. Chan, P. Falatek, C. Farmer, A. 

Locatelli, and C. Macbeth. 2020. Status and Management of the Least Bell’s Vireo and 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher in the Santa Ana River Watershed, 2020, and Summary 

Data by Site and Watershed-wide, 2000-2020. Unpublished report prepared by the Santa 

Ana Watershed Association. On file in the Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office, Palm 

Springs, California. 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 72 

APPENDIX A 

Figure 1. Project Location, Action Area, and Critical Habitat Areas for Cajon Pass High-Speed 

Rail 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 73 

Figure 2. Project Location, Action Area, and Critical Habitat Areas for Cajon Pass High-Speed 

Rail, Mojave River Crossing 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 74 

Figure 3. Project Location, Action Area, and Critical Habitat Areas for Cajon Pass High-Speed 

Rail, Cajon Pass 
 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 75 

Figure 4. Project Location, Action Area, and Critical Habitat Areas for Cajon Pass High-Speed 

Rail, Cajon Creek, Glen Helen Pkwy Interchange, Lytle Creek (from northeast to southwest) 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 76 

Figure 5. Project Location, Action Area, and Critical Habitat Areas for Cajon Pass High-Speed 

Rail,) I-15/SR-210 Interchange 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 77 

Figure 6. Avian Exclusion Area Mojave River 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 78 

Figure 7. Avian Exclusion Area Cajon Wash 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 79 

Figure 8. Avian Exclusion Area Lytle Creek 
 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 80 

APPENDIX B 

NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSLEY AFFECT CONCURRENCE 

The following information supports the Service’s concurrence with the FRA’s not likely to 

adversely affect determination for the federally threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

californica; gnatcatcher), and the federally endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus) and its designated critical habitat. Furthermore, following our 

review of activities associated with the Project, the most recent available survey data, and based 

on conservation measures committed to by Brightline West, we have determined that the 

proposed Project is not likely to adversely affect the Santa Ana River woolly-star (Eriastrum 

densifolium ssp. Sanctorum, woolly-star), and the slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema 

leptoceras, spineflower), in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), for the Brightline West - Victor Valley to Rancho Cucamonga 

High-speed Rail Project. This concurrence depends upon implementation of the following 

components of the proposed action. 

Avoidance Measures 

ESA-Listed Plant Species Protection 

P 1 Qualified botanists will conduct preconstruction surveys within suitable habitat 

for ESA-listed plant species prior to any ground disturbing activities. 

P 2 Prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities, temporary construction fencing 

shall be placed around all ESA-listed plant species that occur within the 

temporary construction areas. When ESA-listed plants are observed within 

temporary construction areas, avoidance and minimization measures shall be 

applied. Exclusionary areas shall be signed for avoidance by construction 

equipment and personnel. Depending on the proximity of the ESA-listed plant 

populations to the construction work area, the plant populations shall be 

monitored during and following construction to avoid adverse effects. 

P 3 To the extent possible, the Project shall completely avoid areas with ESA-listed 

plant populations by designing viaduct piers outside such areas. 

Analysis of Effects 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

The proposed rail line crosses the Mojave River and yellow-billed cuckoo and southwestern 

willow flycatcher habitat at the existing Interstate-15 crossing. Although habitat is present, we do 

not expect individuals to occur at this location because the habitat is poor quality, and we 

anticipate that continuous noise disturbance from the existing interstate will reduce the potential 

for occupancy. CM 2 would ensure that any disturbance to vegetation occurs outside the 
 

 

 

 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 81 

breeding season, which will reduce the amount of time that construction activities occur when 

listed birds are present along the Mojave River. Collision risk by individuals with trains is 

unlikely because trains would operate at a low frequency and birds would be more likely to fly 

under the bridge or high above it (when migrating). Consequently, there is a discountable 

potential for construction and operation activities to affect yellow-billed cuckoo or southwestern 

willow flycatcher because there is a low potential that either species will occur at this location. 

Desert Tortoise 

The proposed rail line occurs within the range of desert tortoise, but its alignment is within 

disturbed habitat in the median of the existing Interstate-15 corridor. Although some widening of 

the corridor may be necessary to allow use of the median, areas potentially affected by the 

widening are also previously disturbed. In addition, areas immediately adjacent to interstate 

highways typically have few desert tortoises, the Project location is on the edge of the species 

range, and habitat in the surrounding area is highly fragmented and unlikely to support large 

numbers of individuals. Consequently, there is a discountable potential for construction and 

operation activities to affect the desert tortoise because there is a low potential for desert 

tortoises to occur within the Project area. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Critical Habitat 

Although the Project includes a small amount) of permanent (1.88 acres) and temporary (8.07 

acres) disturbance of desert riparian habitat at the existing Interstate-15 crossing, the condition of 

the physical and biological features of critical habitat is poor at this location because of past 

disturbance, fragmentation by the existing bridge structure and an understory that is continually 

being disturbed by human activity. Consequently, effects to southwestern willow flycatcher 

designated critical habitat would be insignificant because of the small area of effects and the 

poor condition of affected habitat. 

Coastal California Gnatcatcher 

The Project is at the northeast extent of the gnatcatchers current range, and any existing habitat is 

small and fragmented due to past development, or of poor quality due to frequent fires in the area 

and prolonged drought. Gnatcatcher occupancy in the action area is tenuous at best, and many 

focused surveys document negative sightings. Since Brightline West will be constructing the rail 

alignment in the median of the I-15 and most routine maintenance would be performed by 

maintenance machinery on the rail, and because the rail will ride on an elevated structure, we do 

not anticipate that operation and maintenance will result in effects above and beyond the baseline 

conditions of existing noise, lighting, or habitat fragmentation. Therefore, effects to gnatcatcher 

from construction of the train are expected to be discountable, and effects from operation of the 

train are expected to insignificant to gnatcatcher. 

Santa Ana River Woolly-Star and Slender-Horned Spineflower 

Two small sections of the train alignment traverse potentially suitable habitat for woolly-star and 

spineflower. There is potentially suitable habitat for woolly-star and spineflower where the train 
 

Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 82 

alignment crosses Cajon Creek, and there is potentially suitable habitat for spineflower at the 

Lytle Creek crossing. Focused surveys were conducted at Lytle Creek Crossing in 2004, 2005, 

2006, 2007, and 2012 with negative results. Therefore, effects to spineflower at the Lytle Creek 

crossing is anticipated to be discountable based on multiple negative surveys there. At the Cajon 

Creek crossing, focused surveys for the spineflower, and woolly-star were conducted in 2008, 

2009, and 2010 with negative findings. A previous Project, Interstate 15/Interstate 215 

Interchange Improvements (FWS-SB-10B0097-12F0001), has been completed there but habitat 

restoration has not been completed. Therefore, effects to woolly-star and spineflower at the 

Cajon Creek crossing are anticipated to be discountable based on negative surveys and recently 

disturbed habitat. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the analysis provided above, including the implementation of the proposed 

conservation measures, we concur that the proposed Project is not likely to adversely affect 

desert tortoise, Southwestern willow flycatcher and its designated critical habitat, yellow-billed 

cuckoo, coastal California gnatcatcher, Santa Ana River woolly-star, and the slender-horned 

spineflower. 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 83 

APPENDIX C. 

CAJON PASS HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN 
Deborah Suciu-Smith (22-0002338-S7) 84 

APPENDIX D. 

CAJON PASS HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT SAN BERNARDINO KANGAROO RAT 

CAPTURE AND TRANSLOCATION PLAN 
 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project 

Habitat Restoration Plan 

prepared for 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

prepared by 

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 

1980 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 105 

Redlands, California 92374 

November 2022 

 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

Habitat Restoration Plan 

prepared for 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

prepared by 

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 

1980 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 105 

Redlands, California 92374 

November 2022 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Table of Contents 

Table of Contents 

1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Project Background.............................................................................................................1 

1.2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................1 

1.3 Project Description..............................................................................................................1 

1.4 Purpose and Intended Use..................................................................................................1 

2 Temporarily Impacted Habitat Types.............................................................................................3 

2.1 Desert Scrub........................................................................................................................3 

2.2 Alkali Desert Scrub ..............................................................................................................3 

2.3 Desert Wash........................................................................................................................4 

2.4 Desert Riparian ...................................................................................................................4 

2.5 Valley Foothill Riparian .......................................................................................................4 

2.6 Annual Grassland ................................................................................................................5 

2.7 Barren..................................................................................................................................5 

2.8 Juniper.................................................................................................................................5 

2.9 Riverine ...............................................................................................................................5 

2.10 Joshua Tree .........................................................................................................................6 

2.11 Sagebrush............................................................................................................................6 

2.12 Mixed Chaparral..................................................................................................................6 

2.13 Chamise-Redshank Chaparral, Mixed Chaparral ................................................................7 

2.14 Coastal Scrub and Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub......................................................7 

2.15 Temporary Impacts to Habitat Types .................................................................................8 

3 Performance Standards................................................................................................................10 

3.1 Baseline Pre-Construction Surveys...................................................................................10 

3.2 Site-Specific Performance Standards................................................................................11 

4 Implementation............................................................................................................................13 

4.1 Species Avoidance and Minimization Measures...............................................................13 

4.2 Access Routes and Staging................................................................................................13 

4.3 Site Preparation ................................................................................................................14 

4.4 Potential Restoration Techniques.....................................................................................15 

5 Monitoring and Maintenance Program........................................................................................18 

5.1 Monitoring Requirements.................................................................................................18 

5.2 Maintenance Activities .....................................................................................................19 

5.3 Adaptive Management .....................................................................................................21 

5.4 Contingency Measures......................................................................................................22 

6 Reporting ......................................................................................................................................23 

6.1 Annual Monitoring Reports ..............................................................................................23 

Habitat Restoration Plan i 
7 References 24

Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

6.2 Completion of Mitigation Notification..............................................................................23 

.................................................................................................................................... 

Tables 

Table 1 Section 1, High Desert, Temporary Impacts on Wildlife Habitat Types..............................8

Table 2 Section 2, Cajon Pass, Temporary Impacts on Wildlife Habitat Types................................8

Table 3 Section 3, Greater Los Angeles, Temporary Impacts on Wildlife Habitat Types ................9

Table 4 Temporary Impacts on Wildlife Habitat Types Across All Sections ....................................9

Appendices 

Appendix A Figures 

ii 
 

1 Introduction 

Introduction 

1.1 Project Background 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC (doing business as “Brightline West”) proposes to construct and 

operate a passenger high-speed rail system covering 47.9 miles within the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way of Interstate 15 (I-15) between Victor Valley and Rancho 

Cucamonga, California. The project’s potential adverse effects to biological resources have been 

evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through preparation of a Biological 

Assessment (HNTB 2022a) and Biological Technical Report (HNTB 2022b). The project includes 

construction of two passenger stations, a traction power substation, and alterations of existing 

transportation infrastructure, including relocating some existing I-15 lane areas at the outer edges 

of the existing roadway to enable rail to travel in the I-15 median. 

1.2 Project Location 

The project would be constructed within the existing Caltrans I-15 right-of-way. The northern 

terminus of the project is in Victor Valley, California, in the western Mojave Desert. The project 

alignment extends southward from Victor Valley, passing through, or next to the communities of 

Victorville, Hesperia, Rialto, and Fontana and crossing the San Bernardino Mountains through Cajon 

Canyon, reaching its southern terminus in Rancho Cucamonga, California, in the northeastern part 

of the Los Angeles Basin. The project is located within Caltrans and existing transportation rights-of

way, including when passing through the San Bernardino National Forest. The project is designed in 

three distinct sections: Section 1 High Desert; Section 2 Cajon Pass; and Section 3 Greater Los 

Angeles (Appendix A, Figure 1). 

­

1.3 Project Description 

The project includes construction and operation of a passenger high-speed rail system capable of 

speeds up to 140 miles per hour (mph) covering 47.9 miles between Victor Valley and Rancho 

Cucamonga, California. A more detailed description of the Project, including construction, 

operations and maintenance, and sequencing and timeline can be found in the Biological 

Assessment prepared for the project (HNTB 2022a). 

1.4 Purpose and Intended Use 

This Habitat Restoration Plan (Plan) has been prepared to address restoration of soils and areas of 

native vegetation that will be temporarily disturbed by project construction. The Plan has been 

prepared in accordance with General Measures (GM)-27 Native Plant Community Restoration Plans 

and GM-28 Stockpile Native Topsoil for Reuse in Restoration outlined in the Biological Assessment 

and Biological Resources Technical Report (HNTB 2022a, 2022b). 

Habitat Restoration Plan 1 
 

Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

Goals and Objectives 

The objective of this Plan is to provide a conceptual, programmatic restoration framework that 

allows flexibility for site-specific restoration implementation. Specifically, this Plan provides an 

approach to restore the function of temporarily disturbed habitat suitable for the following federally 

listed species: 

▪ Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus), 

▪ Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), 

▪ Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), 

▪ Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), 

▪ Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), 

▪ Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), 

▪ San Bernadino Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), 

▪ Santa Ana River woolly-star (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum), and 

▪ Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras). 

The Plan also establishes performance-based restoration standards, monitoring and reporting 

requirements, and provides contingency measures in the event that restoration efforts are not 

successful or feasible. 

2 
2 Temporarily Impacted Habitat Types 

Temporarily Impacted Habitat Types 

As described in the Biological Resources Technical Report (HNTB 2022b), the California Wildlife 

Habitat Relationship (CWHR) System (CDFW 2021) was used to map and describe the wildlife 

habitat types that occur within the project limits of disturbance. The CWHR System is a habitat 

classification program that provides detailed information on wildlife habitat types and their spatial 

distribution within California. The core of the CWHR System is a database that relates species to 

each of the habitats that support them. The classification system provides maps and contains life 

history, geographic range, and management information for California’s amphibians, reptiles, birds, 

and mammals. Fourteen habitat types that may be temporarily impacted by the Project are mapped 

within the project limits of disturbance (Appendix A). These habitat types are summarized below. 

Habitat descriptions have been adapted from the Biological Resource Technical Report (HNTB 

2022b). 

2.1 Desert Scrub 

Desert Scrub habitat is characterized by widely spaced shrubs with low levels of canopy cover and, 

depending on elevation, season, and disturbance, has either diverse herbaceous growth between 

shrubs or low plant coverage with nearly bare earth between shrubs. Creosote bush (Larrea 

tridentata) is the characteristic shrub present. Approximately 204 acres of Desert Scrub are mapped 

within the project limits of disturbance, occurring in Sections 1 and 2. 

The primary resident wildlife species that utilize Desert Scrub habitat include reptiles and rodents; 

however, many species use this habitat for foraging. Species typical of Desert Scrub habitat include 

black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), sage sparrow (Amphispiza bellii), desert kit fox 

(Vulpes macrotis arsipus), various pocket mice and kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp.), Mohave ground 

squirrel (Xerospermophilus mohavensis), and a variety of lizards and snakes, such as side-blotched 

lizard (Uta stansburiana), basin whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris tigris), and Mohave Desert sidewinder 

(Crotalus cerastes cerastes). Common raven (Corvus corax) are generalist predators and their 

numbers have recently increased in this habitat and adjacent urbanizing areas (Boarman 2003, 

Boarman et al. 2006). 

2.2 Alkali Desert Scrub 

Alkali Desert Scrub includes habitats on dry lakebeds, dry riverbeds, and dry shorelines in desert 

settings. project limits of disturbance. The habitat features shrubs and sometimes succulent plants, 

all of which are tolerant of dry and salty soils. Common shrub species include allscale (Atriplex 

polycarpa), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), and desert holly (Atriplex hymenelytra). Salt-tolerant forbs 

and grasses may also be present, especially as winter annuals. Trees are absent. Approximately 5.5 

acres of Alkali Desert Scrub are mapped within the project limits of disturbance along Section 1. 

Characteristic animal species include the Mohave ground squirrel, zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus 

draconoides), and long-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia wislizenii). 

Habitat Restoration Plan 3 
Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

2.3 Desert Wash 

Desert washes flow intermittently, usually only following heavy precipitation. Desert Wash habitat 

occurs where vegetation is present within desert washes. Some desert washes are not naturally 

vegetated and, thus, would be mapped as Barren habitat. This habitat type consists of plants 

adapted to intermittent or episodic presence of surface water. The plant communities within this 

habitat type are often taller and denser than surrounding desert habitats, thereby providing vertical 

structure and cover. Native plant species include desert pearl (Ambrosia salsola), threadleaf ragwort 

(Senecio flaccidus), and four-winged saltbush (Atriplex canescens). In some locations, washes are 

colonized by invasive tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis) or Russian olive shrubs (Elaeagnus angustifolia). 

Approximately 44 acres of Desert Wash habitat is mapped within the project limits of disturbance, 

nearly all within Section 3 in the Cajon Wash. Within this habitat type, the occasional presence of 

surface water along with dense shrubs provide cover and breeding habitat for many species that 

forage in the adjacent desert habitats. 

2.4 Desert Riparian 

Desert Riparian is characterized as dense groves of low, shrubby trees that may also include areas of 

woodlands composed of small- to medium-sized trees, all of which are adjacent to water. Along the 

Mojave River, willows (e.g., sandbar willow [Salix exigua], red willow [Salix laevigata]) form the 

riparian shrub community, while Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and Arizona ash trees 

(Fraxinus velutina) create an overstory. This habitat type is limited within the region and is 

associated with several endangered species, including least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow 

flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, and arroyo toad. Approximately 10 acres of Desert 

Riparian habitat are mapped within the project limits of disturbance, with most of this area located 

at the Mojave River crossing in Section 1. 

2.5 Valley Foothill Riparian 

Valley Foothill Riparian is one of two forested habitats present within the project limits of 

disturbance and is generally limited within the region. The habitat is restricted to stream and river 

valley floodplains bordered by alluvial fans and slightly dissected terraces at lower foothills, 

generally with gently sloping topography. Approximately two acres of Valley Foothill Riparian 

habitat is mapped within the project limits of disturbance, occurring in Sections 1 and 3 associated 

with the Mojave River and Cajon Canyon, respectively. 

Tree species present are usually broad-leafed and winter deciduous. While relatively limited in area, 

linear riparian habitats that traverse through various landscapes serve as key wildlife linkages and 

migratory and dispersal corridors. Cottonwood (Populus spp.) and California sycamore (Platanus 

racemosa) are dominant tree species, with white alder (Alnus rhombifolia) and boxelder (Acer 

negundo) as subdominant trees. Wild grape (Vitis californica), wild rose (Rosa californica), and 

willows are often present and important to create a multilayered vegetation canopy. With the 

presence of trees and water along with high plant diversity with overstory and understory layers, 

this habitat supports an abundance of wildlife for foraging and breeding. 

4 
2.7 Barren 

 

 

 

 

Temporarily Impacted Habitat Types 

2.6 Annual Grassland 

Annual Grassland habitats are characterized as having dramatic vegetation coverage differences 

from season to season, with lush, early-year, green growth as a response to winter rains followed by 

dry, brown, cured vegetation during the dry season. During drought years, vegetation is dry or 

absent throughout the year. Approximately 19 acres of the project limits of disturbance are mapped 

as Annual Grassland, with about 14 acres mapped along Section 3. 

In most locations, this habitat is dominated by introduced grass species mostly of Mediterranean 

origin including cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), slender wild oats 

(Avena barbata), and wild oats (Avena fatua). The non-native grasses are more fire-adapted than 

non-native species. Many animals use Annual Grassland for foraging, especially when the area is 

adjacent to other structural habitat elements such as cliffs, aquatic resources, shrubs, or other 

nearby areas suitable for perching and cover. Mammals typically found in this habitat include the 

black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), 

Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), 

California vole (Microtus californicus), badger (Mustelidae mephitidae), and coyote (Canis latrans). 

This habitat provides foraging habitat for a wide variety of birds, including raptors and other 

migratory birds. 

The Barren habitat type is defined as having less than 10 percent tree and shrub cover and less than 

two percent vegetative cover of plants. The habitat includes rock, gravel, and bare soil areas. Within 

the project limits of disturbance, some areas may be classified as Barren if vegetation is widely 

spaced or absent, such as in washes. Approximately 4.57 acres are mapped as Barren in the project 

limits of disturbance. The Barren habitat type is mapped in Sections 2 and 3, and is generally located 

adjacent to developed areas. The Barren habitat type does not provide suitable habitat for federally 

listed species due to the absence of vegetation and proximity to developed areas. 

2.8 Juniper 

Juniper habitats are characterized as woodlands with open to dense aggregations of small trees or 

shrubs. Utah juniper (Juniperus utahensis), California juniper (Juniperus californica), and Tucker oak 

(Quercus john-tuckeri) are the most common plant species, with other associated shrubs and 

herbaceous plants. 

Dusky chipmunk (Tamias obscurus davisii) and common ravens are common in this habitat. The 

acreage covered by juniper woodlands tends to increase under fire suppression and subsequently 

decreases immediately following wildfire. Approximately three acres of Juniper habitat is mapped 

along Section 1 in the vicinity of Hesperia. 

2.9 Riverine 

Riverine habitats are characterized by areas of streams and rivers with intermittent or continually 

running water. Approximately 15 acres of Riverine habitat are mapped within the project limits of 

disturbance and occur across all three project sections. Most of this habitat is located in either the 

Mojave River or Cajon Canyon. Riverine habitat is generally limited in this xeric environment. 

Habitat Restoration Plan 5 
 

 

Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

Open water provides habitat for a broad variety of wildlife (e.g., waterfowl, passerines, aquatic 

invertebrates). Riverine habitat is distinguished between Desert Riparian and Valley Foothill Riparian 

as it is typically located within the areas of actively flowing water within a watershed, such as in the 

central portion of the Mojave River, while Desert Riparian and Valley Foothill Riparian are typically 

located in vegetated areas adjacent to river or stream channels. 

2.10 Joshua Tree 

Joshua Tree (Yucca brevifolia) habitat supports widely scattered Joshua trees in open shrublands 

with low broad-leaved evergreen and deciduous shrubs and limited herbaceous understory. Other 

plants present with Joshua trees include California juniper, Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera), big 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata), Nevada ephedra (Ephedra nevadensis), California 

buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), Cooper’s goldenbush (Ericameria cooperi), burrobush 

(Ambrosia dumosa), Anderson's thornbush (Lycium andersonii), Cooper’s box thorn (Lycium 

cooperi), spiny desert olive (Menodora spinescens), and beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris). Joshua 

Tree habitat is generally located on the periphery of the Mojave Desert. 

Because Joshua trees grow tall within an otherwise shrubby habitat, they are critical to habitat 

function, providing perches and nesting sites. Common animal species include ladder-backed 

woodpecker (Dryobates scalaris), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), Scott's oriole 

(Icterus parisorum), and desert spiny lizard (Sceloporus magister). Approximately 0.4 acre of this 

habitat is mapped within the project limits of disturbance in Section 1 in the vicinity of Hesperia. 

2.11 Sagebrush 

This habitat is characterized by almost pure stands of big sagebrush with a generally low plant 

diversity relative to other shrub habitats. Shrub density is variable by location and disturbance 

regime and can range from sparsely distributed to closely spaced shrubs. Approximately 22 acres of 

Sagebrush habitat are mapped within the project limits of disturbance along Section 1. 

Common wildlife in Sagebrush habitat includes black-tailed jackrabbits, cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus 

spp.), ground squirrels, least chipmunk (Neotamias minimus), kangaroo rats, wood rats, pocket mice 

(Perognathus longimembris), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), grasshopper mice (Onychomys 

torridus), sagebrush vole (Lemmiscus curtatus), and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni). 

Birds that regularly utilize Sagebrush habitat include chukar (Alectoris chukar), black-billed magpie 

(Pica hudsonia), gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii), pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), sage 

thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), and several sparrows (multiple genera), and hawks (multiple 

genera). 

2.12 Mixed Chaparral 

Mixed Chaparral habitat consists of woody, stiff-stemmed, thick-leaved, mainly evergreen shrubs. 

Plant diversity is generally high, with many different species of woody shrubs potentially present. 

This habitat is wildfire-adapted as long as wildfires return at natural frequencies, but it can be 

damaged by intense wildfire following long periods of fire suppression, or too frequent fires. 

Approximately 134 acres of Mixed Chaparral are mapped within the project limits of disturbance. 

Mixed Chaparral occurs within all three project sections with the majority of the habitat type 

occurring in Sections 2 and 3. 

6 
 

 

 

Temporarily Impacted Habitat Types 

Plant species include scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and several 

species of chamise (Adenostoma spp.), ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.), and manzanita (Arctostaphylos 

spp.). Commonly associated shrubs include birchleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), 

silk-tassel (Garrya flavescens), poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), coffeeberry (Frangula 

californica), hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), and California fremontia (Fremontia californica). 

Wildlife species that utilize Mixed Chaparral, typically utilize a variety of shrub habitats. Common 

bird species that utilize shrub habitats include western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), California 

towhee (Melozone crissalis), various hummingbirds, and various sparrows. A variety of animals 

including wood rats (Neotoma fuscipes macrotis) and brush rabbits (Sylvilagus bachmani) use this 

shrub habitat for cover. 

2.13 Chamise-Redshank Chaparral, Mixed Chaparral 

Chamise-Redshank Chaparral and Mixed Chaparral is a heterogeneous mix of two habitat types at 

scales below the CWHR mapping resolutions. Chamise-Redshank Chaparral habitat is a dense 

habitat where shrubs with stiff, overlapping, interwoven branches are so dense that there is no 

herbaceous vegetation below the shrub canopy. Chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) and or 

redshank (Adenostoma sparsifolium) may comprise the entire community. Chamise-Redshank 

Chaparral is distinguished from Mixed Chaparral and Coastal Scrub based on percent cover of 

chamise and redshank compared to other shrub species. Less than four acres of this habitat type are 

mapped within the project limits of disturbance along Section 2. Wildlife use of this habitat is 

anticipated to be similar to Mixed Chaparral. 

2.14 Coastal Scrub and Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage 

Scrub 

In southern California, the typical community components of Coastal Scrub include a large variety of 

soft stemmed shrubs, such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and California buckwheat. 

In this habitat, shrubs may drop their leaves during dry months (drought deciduous), and, generally, 

plant density and structure allow enough light to support an herbaceous understory. 

“Coastal sage scrub” is generally referred to as Coastal Scrub in southern California, and within the 

project limits of disturbance, a very specific vascular plant community, called “Riversidean Alluvial 

Fan Sage Scrub” has been recognized (White and Padley 1997). Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 

habitat is a distinct and limited plant community found on alluvial fans at the foothills of the San 

Gabriel Mountains. In the project limits of disturbance, this includes Lytle Creek and Cajon Wash 

areas. Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub plant communities consist of a specific subset of plants 

within Coastal Scrub habitat types that consist of a distinct mix of plants that differs from Coastal 

Scrub habitat elsewhere in California. 

Plant species present in the Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub plant community include California 

sagebrush, white sage (Salvia apiana), various buckwheat species (Eriogonum spp.), golden yarrow 

(Eriophyllum confertiflorum), and coastal pricklypear (Opuntia littoralis). Scale-broom 

(Lepidospartum squamatum) is an indicator species for Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. 

The habitat is known to support several ESA-listed species, including coastal California gnatcatcher, 

San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat, slender-horned spineflower, and Santa Ana River woollyHabitat Restoration Plan 7 
 

 

 

 

Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

star. Designated critical habitat for San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat is mapped on alluvial fan 

landforms supporting, or potentially supporting, Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. 

This habitat type is found throughout the northern portions of the cities of Fontana and Rialto and 

in unincorporated San Bernardino County in the vicinity of I-15. Approximately 15 acres of Coastal 

Scrub habitat is mapped within the project limits of disturbance along Section 3 at Cajon Creek and 

Lytle Creek. 

2.15 Temporary Impacts to Habitat Types 

Based on 30% project design, up to 419 acres of wildlife habitat may be temporarily impacted as a 

result of the Project; however, this impact acreage estimate is subject to change depending on final 

project design. Anticipated temporary impacts to each habitat type are presented in Tables 1 

through 4 below. Approximately 114 acres of habitat may be temporarily impacted in Section 1 

(Table 1), 181 acres may be temporarily impacted in Section 2 (Table 2), and 124 acres may be 

impacted in Section 3 (Table 3) (HNTB 2022b). Table 4 provides a summary of total temporary 

impacts for all three segments. 

Table 1 Section 1, High Desert, Temporary Impacts on Wildlife Habitat Types 

CWHR Wildlife Habitat Type Habitat Codea Temporary Impact Area (acres) 

Alkali Desert Scrub ASC 3.93 

Annual Grassland AGS 2.63 

Barren BAR 0.16 

Desert Riparian DRI 8.19 

Desert Scrub DSC 85.70 

Joshua Tree JST 0.35 

Juniper JUN 1.94 

Mixed Chaparral MCH 0.56 

Riverine RIV 1.82 

Sagebrush SGB 8.08 

Valley Foothill Riparian VRI 0.46 

Total for Section 1 – High Desert 113.81 

Table 2 Section 2, Cajon Pass, Temporary Impacts on Wildlife Habitat Types 

CWHR Wildlife Habitat Type Habitat Code Temporary Impact Area (acres) 

Chamise-Redshank, Mixed Chaparral CRC, MCH 3.19 

Coastal Scrub CSC 5.72 

Desert Riparian DRI 0.85 

Desert Scrub, Desert Wash DSC, DSW 1.38 

Desert Scrub DSC 81.85 

Desert Wash DSW 0.17 

Mixed Chaparral MCH 87.76 

Total for Section 2 – Cajon Pass 180.91 

8 
 

 

Temporarily Impacted Habitat Types 

Table 3 Section 3, Greater Los Angeles, Temporary Impacts on Wildlife Habitat Types 

CWHR Wildlife Habitat Type Habitat Codea Temporary Impact Area (acres) 

Annual Grassland AGS 13.68 

Barren BAR 3.78 

Coastal Scrub CSC 9.41 

Desert Wash DSW 43.40 

Mixed Chaparral MCH 39.82 

Riverine RIV 12.42 

Valley Foothill Riparian VRI 1.48 

Total for Section 3 – Greater Los Angeles 124.19 

Table 4 Temporary Impacts on Wildlife Habitat Types Across All Sections 

CWHR Wildlife Habitat Type Habitat Codea Temporary Impact Area (acres) 

Alkali Desert Scrub ASC 3.93 

Annual Grassland AGS 16.31 

Barren BAR 3.94 

Chamise-Redshank, Mixed Chaparral CRC, MCH 3.19 

Coastal Scrub CSC 15.13 

Desert Riparian DRI 9.04 

Desert Scrub, Desert Wash DSC, DSW 1.38 

Desert Scrub DSC 167.55 

Desert Wash DSW 43.57 

Joshua Tree JST 0.35 

Juniper JUN 1.94 

Mixed Chaparral MCH 128.14 

Riverine RIV 14.24 

Sagebrush SGB 8.08 

Valley Foothill Riparian VRI 1.94 

Total for Sections 1 – 3 418.73 

Habitat Restoration Plan 9 
 

 

3 Performance Standards 

Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

Performance-based restoration standards provide a reliable and objective means of evaluating the 

success of restoration efforts over time. The Plan’s programmatic performance standards are 

intended to result in a return of temporarily lost habitat function for federally listed species. 

Performance standards are defined relative to the original pre-construction status of the habitat 

types occurring within the project limits of disturbance. These standards have been grouped based 

on functional habitat classes. All performance standards are designed to be attained within a fiveyear maintenance and monitoring period. 

One habitat type (Barren) does not provide suitable habitat for any federally listed species and does 

not contain native vegetation communities; therefore, this habitat type is not subject to restoration 

requirements and no performance-based restoration standards are defined for this habitat type. 

3.1 Baseline Pre-Construction Surveys 

Prior to initiation of project-related ground disturbing activities, baseline condition surveys must be 

conducted within all proposed temporary disturbance areas to determine the vegetative cover and 

species composition within each habitat type that will function as the baseline conditions against 

which performance standards will be evaluated. Baseline pre-construction surveys will be 

implemented in accordance with the Rapid Assessment (RA) vegetation sampling technique 

developed by the CDFW and CNPS (CDFW and CNPS 2019). The RA sampling methodology is based 

on a visually estimated area within a representative portion of an entire stand, with up to 20 of the 

dominant or characteristic plant species and their cover values recorded. A stand, as defined in the 

RA sampling protocol, is the basic physical unit of vegetation in a landscape. Stands of vegetation 

are consistent in their species composition, structure, and environmental setting. 

Vegetation sampling shall be conducted within each stand in the temporary impact area. The 

following protocol is designed to standardize data collection for comparison among vegetation 

stands: 

▪ The minimum mapping unit size for upland vegetation stands will be one (1) acre. 

▪ The minimum mapping unit size for riparian vegetation stands will be 0.25 acre. 

▪ Vegetation sampling should occur when vegetation is readily identifiable (i.e., during the spring 

season following winter rains). This is especially important for desert habitats (e.g., Annual 

Grassland) where vegetative coverage may shift dramatically from season to season. 

▪ Each stand within the temporary impact area will be traversed to look for variations in species 

composition and stand structure. 

▪ Once the entire stand has been assessed, a sample area will be selected that captures the 

stand’s common species composition and structural condition. 

▪ Within each sample area, vegetation (e.g., vegetative percent cover) will be collected in 

accordance with the RA vegetation sampling protocol (CDFW and CNPS 2019). 

▪ Relevant soil characteristics (e.g., leaf litter, soil texture and compaction) will be documented 

within each vegetation sampling location. 

Where stands overlap with federally designated critical habitat (i.e., arroyo toad, southwestern 

willow flycatcher, and San Bernardino kangaroo rat critical habitat), special attention will be 

10 
 

 

 

 

Performance Standards 

afforded to determining suitability of the habitat for each species and defining the most important 

species-specific habitat characteristics. The vegetation structure, presence of Physical or Biological 

Features (PBFs) essential for the species’ conservation, and potential use of the habitat by listed 

species will be documented within critical habitat areas that overlap the temporary disturbance 

area. 

Baseline vegetation cover/composition will inform site-specific, quantitative performance standards 

within each habitat type as assessed through post-restoration monitoring and as detailed in the 

following Sections. 

3.2 Site-Specific Performance Standards 

Site-specific performance standards are to be determined based on pre-construction conditions 

which will be assessed during the baseline pre-construction surveys described in Section 3.1. The 

specific plant percent cover (both native and non-native) required to meet the performance 

standards in each habitat type will be relative to pre-construction values. Additionally, specific 

planting techniques (e.g., seeding, container planting) and planting palette for each habitat type will 

be adjusted based upon pre-construction conditions. 

Federally listed species with potential to occur in each habitat type are discussed in detail in the 

Biological Assessment (HNTB 2022a) and Biological Technical Report (HNTB 2022b). These species 

include arroyo toad, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow 

flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, monarch butterfly, San Bernadino kangaroo rat, Santa Ana 

River woolly-star, and slender-horned spineflower. The site-specific performance standards have 

been designed to improve habitat function for these federally listed species through use of 

vegetative percent cover as a proxy for habitat function. 

Habitat Classes 

Shrubland Habitats 

Shrubland habitats that may be temporarily impacted by the Project include the Alkali Desert Scrub, 

Desert Scrub, Desert Wash, Joshua Tree, Mixed Chaparral, Coastal Scrub, Chamise-Redshank 

Chaparral, Mixed Chaparral, and Sagebrush habitat types. These shrublands potentially provide 

habitat for arroyo toad in Sections 2 and 3, coastal California gnatcatcher in Sections 2 and 3, 

monarch butterfly in all sections, San Bernardino kangaroo rat in Sections 2 and 3, Santa Ana River 

woolly-star in Sections 2 and 3, and slender-horned spineflower in Sections 2 and 3, and are 

generally dominated by shrub species (e.g., allscale and brittlebush in Alkali Desert Scrub; chamise 

and redshank in Chamise-Redshank Chaparral). Herbaceous species are generally subdominant and 

include a variety of annual and perennial plant species. Tree species are generally absent but 

habitats may include emergent trees that are present at relatively low cover. 

Performance standards for the restoration of shrubland habitats areas are as follows: 

▪ Shrubland 1: Native plant absolute cover shall reach 70 percent (%) of pre-construction levels. 

▪ Shrubland 2: Relative cover of shrub species to herbaceous species (when compared to shrub 

and tree species) shall be within 20% of pre-construction levels. 

▪ Shrubland 3: Non-native plant species absolute cover shall be no greater than 10% above pre

construction levels.. 

­

Habitat Restoration Plan 11 
Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

Riparian Habitats 

Riparian habitats that may be temporarily impacted by the project include the Desert Riparian, 

Riverine, and Valley Foothill Riparian habitat types. These riparian areas potentially provide habitat 

for arroyo toad in Sections 2 and 3, and least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and 

monarch butterfly in all three sections, and are generally dominated by tree species (e.g., willows 

and Fremont cottonwood in Desert Riparian; western sycamore and white alder in Valley Foothill 

Riparian). Shrub species (e.g., mulefat [Baccharis salicifolia]) may also be abundant. Herbaceous 

species are generally subdominant and include a variety of annual and perennial plant species. 

Performance standards for the restoration of riparian habitats areas are as follows: 

▪ Riparian 1: Native plant absolute cover shall reach 75% of pre-construction levels. 

▪ Riparian 2: Relative cover of tree and shrub species (when compared to herbaceous species) 

must be within 10% of pre-construction levels. 

▪ Riparian 3: Non-native plant species absolute cover shall be no greater than 10% above pre

construction levels. 

­

Juniper Habitat 

The Juniper habitat type potentially provides habitat for arroyo toad in Sections 2 and 3, and 

monarch butterfly in all three sections, and contains open to dense aggregations of small trees or 

shrubs, including Utah and California juniper, and Tucker oak. Herbaceous species are generally 

subdominant, and include a variety of annual and perennial plant species. 

Performance standards for the restoration of Juniper habitat is as follows: 

▪ Juniper 1: Native plant absolute cover shall reach 70% of pre-construction levels. 

▪ Juniper 2: Relative cover of tree species (when compared to herbaceous species) shall be within 

10% of pre-construction levels. 

▪ Juniper 3: Non-native plant species absolute cover shall be no greater than 10% above pre

construction levels. 

­

Annual Grassland Habitat 

The Annual Grassland habitat type potentially provides habitat for monarch butterfly in all three 

sections. This habitat type is generally dominated by herbaceous plant species, including annual 

non-native plants such as cheatgrass, soft brome, slender wild oats, and wild oats. Shrub and tree 

species are generally absent, but may be present at relatively low cover as emergent species. 

Performance standards for the restoration of Annual Grassland habitat is as follows: 

▪ Grassland 1: Native plant absolute cover shall reach 60% of pre-construction levels. 

▪ Grassland 2: Relative cover of herbaceous species (when compared to shrub and tree species) 

shall be within 5% of pre-construction levels. 

▪ Grassland 3: Non-native plant species absolute cover shall be no greater than 10% above pre

construction levels. 

­

12 
 

4 Implementation 

Implementation 

Restoration is intended to return temporarily disturbed areas to their pre-project ecological 

functions and values. The restoration area is defined as the portion of the project limits of 

disturbance that will be temporarily disturbed by project activities. This area is quantified in Tables 1 

through 4 based on 30% design (acreages are subject to change pending final project design). 

Temporary disturbance areas may be restored through a variety of restoration techniques, including 

but not limited to soil decompaction, seeding and container planting. All restoration work shall be 

conducted in accordance with the performance standards defined in Section 3 above. 

Implementation of this Restoration Plan must commence during the first appropriate seasonal 

window (i.e., in the fall prior to winter rainfall) following completion of construction at each project 

location. These restoration techniques, as described below, are most effective when implemented 

in the fall prior to winter rainfall, and would be less effective at promoting native plant 

establishment and growth if they were implemented during dry summer months. The exact acreage 

to be restored is dependent on the area that is disturbed. Temporarily disturbed areas will be 

documented by a biologist during construction. The total extent of the restoration area will be 

determined at the conclusion of the project. 

All restoration activities outlined herein shall be overseen by a qualified Restoration Specialist 

familiar with native restoration implementation, monitoring, and reporting and implemented by a 

Restoration Contractor with experience in native vegetation restoration, who is responsible for site 

preparation, installation, and maintenance of the restoration area. 

Diligent, pro-active maintenance of the restoration area is essential to achieving restoration 

objectives and success criteria. The Restoration Specialist will direct and oversee the work 

performed by the Restoration Contractor. 

4.1 Species Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

All restoration activities shall be performed in coordination with a qualified biologist to implement 

appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for activities within suitable habitat for federallylisted species. Avoidance and minimization measures shall be established by the qualified biologist 

based on site-specific conditions and proposed restoration activities. Avoidance and minimization 

measures may include but would not be limited to: installation of exclusion fencing, completion of 

pre-construction surveys, use of hand tools instead of mechanical equipment and/or biological 

monitoring. 

4.2 Access Routes and Staging 

Access and staging for vehicles and equipment, such as light and heavy-duty pickup trucks and 

heavy machinery may be necessary during restoration implementation, maintenance, and 

monitoring. Vehicle access routes will be limited to the minimum extent necessary to implement the 

Plan. 

Habitat Restoration Plan 13 
 

 

 

 

 

Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

4.3 Site Preparation 

The Restoration Specialist should oversee the Restoration Contractor during site preparation 

activities. The Restoration Contractor will be responsible for preparation of the restoration area as 

detailed below. 

Delineation of the Restoration Area 

The access routes and staging areas will be clearly marked on the site and described to the 

Restoration Contractor in the field. The restoration area will be described to the Restoration 

Contractor and clearly delineated in the field using temporary fencing, staking, or similar materials 

as necessary. 

Site Recontouring 

In accordance with Mitigation Measure GM-27, the topography of the restoration area will be 

restored to pre-construction contours. This will be completed at the conclusion of project 

construction prior to revegetation and is not the responsibility of the Restoration Contractor. 

Topsoil Salvage 

In accordance with Mitigation Measure GM-28, native topsoil will be salvaged (from areas free from 

invasive species) and stockpiled during initial ground disturbance and will be spread across the soil 

surface upon completion of construction. Areas from where topsoil is recovered shall be free from 

invasive plant species. This will preserve the existing seed bank and facilitate native plant 

establishment. It is recommended that the top 12 to 18 inches of native topsoil are salvaged. Native 

topsoil will be recovered from areas that are free of invasive plant species. For the purpose of this 

Plan, invasive plant species are those categorized as Moderate or higher by the California Invasive 

Plant Council (Cal-IPC) in the Mojave or Southwest Regions (Cal-IPC 2022). 

Soil Decompaction 

Project construction may result in soil compaction that will reduce soil aeration and filtration 

capacity. Soil compaction can reduce native plant establishment and growth, potentially adversely 

affecting habitat quality for federally listed plant and wildlife species. Soil within the restoration 

area will be assessed by the restoration specialist for signs of compaction, and decompacted where 

necessary prior to revegetation efforts. If areas are determined to be compacted based on a visual 

assessment by the Restoration Specialist, various decompaction techniques will be utilized to loosen 

the soil to mimic undisturbed conditions. The techniques chosen will be subject to site-specific 

conditions and accessibility, as determined by the Restoration Specialist. The most common and 

effective decompaction technique is ripping with tines (such as those on a bulldozer). Decompaction 

will occur with dry soils, to an average perennial plant rooting depth (approximately six to 24 

inches). The goal of decompaction is to provide a soil substrate that is loose, but still contains some 

soil clumps. Rocks in the soil are generally beneficial and should be left in place. Care should be 

taken to not mix the salvaged topsoil with lower soil horizons. Soil decompaction should take place 

within one month prior to the addition of any container plants or seed installation as described in 

Section 4.4. 

14 
 

 

Implementation 

Soil Stabilization 

In accordance with GM-27, soils within the restoration area will be stabilized through the use of 

erosion control materials such as straw wattles, mulch, erosion control blankets, or other materials 

as recommended by the Restoration Specialist. These materials may be installed to help avoid the 

transport of sediment and to provide soil stabilization; care will be taken to avoid unnecessary 

damage to native vegetation. Soil stabilization may occur at various stages as needed, including 

after seeding or container plant installation. 

4.4 Potential Restoration Techniques 

Restoration techniques provided below are intended as guidelines to be used when determining the 

final approach for implementation of the Plan. Restoration will aim to maintain the pre-project 

extent and functional capacity of temporarily disturbed areas by stabilizing soils, promoting 

establishment of native plants, and removing non-native plants. 

The project limits of disturbance along the I-15 between mile post 22.0 and 32.3 overlap the 

Caltrans right-of-way that is subject to the Monarch Butterfly Nationwide Candidate Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances (CCAA; Cardno 2019). The Monarch Butterfly Nationwide CCAA was 

reviewed, and this Plan was found to be consistent with all applicable conservation measures in the 

CCAA (Cardno 2019). 

Seed Installation 

Seed installation is recommended within all habitat types where performance standards have been 

defined in the Plan (i.e., shrubland, riparian, Juniper, and Annual Grassland). Seed installation 

promotes native plant establishment and growth, allowing restoration areas to progress more 

rapidly toward meeting defined performance standards than restoration actions without seeds. 

Native plants that are characteristic of each habitat type should be preferentially selected for seed 

installation. The site-specific planting palette must be tailored to include the dominant species 

found during baseline pre-construction surveys. To preserve the integrity of local gene pools, 

facilitate adaptation to site-specific conditions, and avoid inadvertent introduction of inappropriate 

species or pathogens, seed material should be sourced from locally-collected plant species. Where 

appropriate and based upon the results of baseline pre-construction surveys, pollinator plants and 

milkweed (Asclepias spp.) that have the potential to support monarch butterfly should be included 

in seed mixes to maintain consistency with Conservation Measure 1 in the CCAA (Cardno 2019) and 

Mitigation Measure MB-1 in the Biological Assessment (HNTB 2022a). A seeding rate of 20 pounds 

per acre or higher is recommended but may be adjusted as necessary. A higher seeding rate 

increases the likeliness of full coverage, optimizes plant growth, and precludes invasion by nonnative species. Actual species and amounts of each species installed will be dependent on those 

species and quantities that are available at the time of implementation. 

Seed installation should be conducted following site preparation. Seeds may be applied by hand or 

through mechanical means and should be distributed evenly to achieve full coverage. To minimize 

fugitive dust and prevent loss of seed material, seeding should only occur during low wind 

conditions. Following seeding, the restoration area may be hydromulched, if recommended by the 

Restoration Specialist. Hydromulch typically consists of long-strand wood fiber and is typically 

applied at a rate of 1,500 pounds per acre, along with a non-toxic binder (e.g., Ecology Control “M” 

binder) which should be applied at a rate of 100 pounds per acre. 

Habitat Restoration Plan 15 
 

 

 

 

Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

Seeding should occur in the fall, if feasible. Ideally, all seed installation should be conducted after 

the first rains, typically beginning in October-December. This installation timing will take advantage 

of the rainy season to maximize the potential for successful germination and establishment of the 

new seeds. 

Container Plant Installation 

Container plant installation may be appropriate within the shrubland, riparian, and Juniper habitat 

types. A reliable water source is necessary for the establishment of container plants. Similar to seed 

installation, container plant installation promotes native plant establishment and growth, but may 

result in a higher success rate of native plant establishment by installing pre-established container 

stock. 

Container plants should be installed throughout the habitat types recommended for this restoration 

technique, as appropriate for site-specific conditions. Container stock selection will be determined 

following completion of baseline pre-construction surveys. Container stock selection must be based 

on the dominant and/or characteristic plant species observed within each habitat type. The 

quantity, size, and spacing of container stock will be determined by the Restoration Specialist. 

Container stock species may also be adjusted based upon availability at the time of installation. 

Holes for the container plants may be dug by hand using a shovel, or mechanically through the use 

of an auger or similar device. Care should be taken not to disturb the root ball when installing 

container plants. Planting pits should be backfilled with soil so as not to leave air spaces around the 

plant’s soil and roots and so the soil surface of the container plant is at grade. Each container plant 

should be immediately watered after installation. 

Container plant installation should take place after site preparation is complete. If possible, 

installation will take place near the beginning of the rainy season (approximately October through 

December). This installation timing allows for taking advantage of the rainy season to maximize the 

potential for successful establishment. If installation is required during a different time of the year, 

the Restoration Specialist will tailor installation methods to improve the likelihood of establishment 

success. Maintenance of container plants should be conducted as described in Section 5. 

Willow/Mulefat Staking 

Willow/mulefat staking may be appropriate within the riparian habitat types. Willows and mulefat 

are fast-growing riparian species that can be utilized for bank stabilization and revegetation. 

If this restoration technique is selected, willow/mulefat cuttings should be collected from within the 

same watershed where they are proposed for planting. For example, if willow/mulefat staking will 

be implemented within the Mojave River, cuttings should be collected from within the Mojave River 

and installed within riparian habitat at this location. Cuttings should be collected during the 

dormant period for mulefat and/or willows, prior to bud emergence. Care should be taken to 

salvage from multiple trees to ensure that salvaging is not concentrated and does not negatively 

affect the source trees. Cuttings should be straight, with all secondary branches and leaves cut flush 

with the main branch. Cuttings should be stored in water containers with the terminal end facing 

upward and/or out of the water. It is recommended that salvage occur immediately prior to 

installation, and that willow/mulefat bundles and live stakes are installed or planted within 24 hours 

of cutting. 

16 
 

 

 

Implementation 

Willow/Mulefat Bundles 

Willow/mulefat bundles consist of a group of dormant branches bound together to create a log-like 

structure that will root, grow and quickly provide plant cover. Additionally, bundles create small 

terraces that encourage native seed growth through stabilizing the soil. 

Willow/mulefat bundles are ideally placed along steep slopes, and should be constructed as follows: 

Cuttings between 0.5 inch to 2.0 inches in diameter and at least three to four feet long should 

be collected and overlapped to form bundles that are eight to 10 inches in diameter and eight to 

10 feet long. Bundles are tied every one to two feet with biodegradable twine; 

Bundles are buried with soil approximately 3⁄4 the depth of the bundle diameter. Bundles should 

be watered, and the soil packed down to remove air pockets; and 

Bundles should be secured with wooden stakes that are at least 18 inches long. 

Once all bundles have been installed, they should be inspected to ensure adherence to the 

planting techniques mentioned above. 

Willow/Mulefat Live Stakes 

Willow/mulefat stakes may be opportunistically planted within the temporarily disturbed portions 

of riparian habitat types within the restoration area. Spacing should be adjusted to emulate natural 

conditions. Cuttings should be collected and installed as follows: 

Cuttings should be between 0.25 and 1.0 inch in diameter and cut to approximately four to five 

feet in length; 

The basal ends are cut at a 45-degree angle to identify the end to be planted, and immediately 

immersed in water for temporary storage and transport, as necessary; 

Cuttings should be planted in small-diameter holes at least three feet deep and as wide as 

necessary to accommodate the installation of the basal planting end; 

Immediately prior to the installation, the lower end of cuttings are given a fresh cut at a 45­

degree angle and immediately planted vertically in the holes; and 

Planting holes are then filled with water and backfilled to proper compaction, making sure that 

cuttings are properly secure within the soil, and to avoid potential washout of the cutting. 

Once all stakes have been installed, they should be inspected to ensure adherence to the 

planting techniques mentioned above. 

Habitat Restoration Plan 17 
 

 

 

 

5 Monitoring and Maintenance Program 

Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

Brightline West, through contractual commitments with the Restoration Contractor, shall be 

responsible for the adequate maintenance of the restoration area during the five-year maintenance 

and monitoring period. During this period, the restoration areas should show progress toward 

meeting performance criteria as specified in Section 3. If the Restoration Specialist determine that 

the restoration area meets the mandated performance criteria at the end of five years, no further 

restoration activity is required. If during the maintenance and monitoring period, progress toward 

performance criteria is inadequate, Brightline West and their contracted Restoration Specialist shall 

initiate consultation with USFWS to assess possible causes of, and solutions for deficiencies in 

restoration success. The purpose of consultations would be to identify appropriate adaptive 

management procedures to maintain the five-year restoration monitoring schedule, and to identify 

factors beyond a reasonable ability for Brightline West and their Restoration Specialist to manage 

(e.g., extended drought, wildfires, etc.) or to identify and approve alternative mitigation options. 

5.1 Monitoring Requirements 

Monitoring Schedule 

Following implementation of revegetation, the restoration area will be monitored two times (2) per 

year each year for five (5) years, totaling ten (10) monitoring visits, or until performance standards 

are met. Each year, one monitoring visit will be a qualitative assessment, and one monitoring visit 

will be a quantitative assessment. The quantitative assessment will be conducted in spring, and the 

qualitative assessment will be conducted in fall. The methodologies of qualitative and quantitative 

assessment are described below. 

The monitoring visits should be conducted just prior to or during the Restoration Contractor 

maintenance visits, when feasible. Data will be collected during each visit as detailed below. 

Additional monitoring visits may be required if the site is not meeting performance standards and 

remedial actions are required. 

Monitoring Procedures 

The Restoration Specialist shall assess site conditions relative to the required performance 

standards outlined in Section 3.2. The Restoration Specialist may determine that additional 

monitoring visits are necessary, depending on the site’s progression toward meeting performance 

standards. 

Qualitative Assessments 

During the qualitative monitoring visits, the Restoration Specialist should perform a qualitative 

assessment of the restoration area, consisting of an evaluation of the following: 

▪ List of native and non-native plant species observed within each habitat type, and general 

description of overall species composition in each habitat type. 

▪ General ecological conditions within each habitat type. 

▪ Establishment and health of native plants within each habitat type. 

▪ Naturally recruiting (not planted) native plant species. 

18 
 

 

 

Monitoring and Maintenance Program 

▪ The presence of non-native weeds and the effectiveness of weed control efforts. 

▪ Habitat suitability for federally listed species (actual species use or occupation not required) 

▪ The status and effectiveness of any soil stabilization Best Management Practices (BMPs). 

▪ The presence of any pest infestations, including rodents and insects. 

▪ General site conditions including the presence of trash, unnatural debris, unauthorized access, 

vandalism, theft, etc. 

Site photographs will be collected from photo points established by the Restoration Specialist to 

document site conditions and assist in tracking the success of the Plan. In addition to collecting 

information for inclusion in annual reports, qualitative monitoring visits will enable the 

identification of any potential problems or negative trends at the site. The Restoration Specialist 

shall promptly communicate the need for any remedial actions (replacement seeding and/or 

additional required maintenance activities) to the Restoration Contractor. The Restoration 

Contractor will perform required maintenance activities and/or take other remedial actions upon 

notification of any action items. Results of the qualitative monitoring visits will be presented in 

annual reports as described in Section 6. 

Quantitative Assessments 

One annual quantitative assessment will be conducted by the Restoration Specialist each year in 

spring. Data collection will utilize the Rapid Assessment (RA) vegetation sampling protocol described 

in Section 3.1. Additionally, restoration area conditions will be assessed in relation to the 

established performance standards outlined in Section 3.2. Data to be collected during annual 

quantitative monitoring visits will be used to document the status of the restoration area in annual 

reports. Data collected during annual quantitative monitoring visits will include all data noted above 

under qualitative monitoring visits as well as Rapid Assessment (RA) vegetation sampling. Results of 

the annual quantitative monitoring will be presented in annual reports as described in Section 6. 

5.2 Maintenance Activities 

Maintenance Schedule 

Throughout the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period, the Restoration Contractor shall visit 

the site on an as-needed basis under the direction of the Restoration Specialist to facilitate 

progression of the restoration area toward meeting the performance standards. 

Maintenance activities may consist of non-native weed removal, supplemental irrigation, additional 

seeding/container planting, or erosion control. These activities are described in detail below. 

Adaptive management may be required to respond to unforeseen circumstances. Maintenance 

activities may be adjusted depending on direction provided from the Restoration Specialist. 

Weed Removal 

Under the direction of the Restoration Specialist, the Restoration Contractor shall conduct weed 

removal activities during each maintenance visit. The Restoration Specialist may recommend 

implementation of the weed control methods outlined below or additional specific techniques 

based on the success or failure of weed control efforts. The Restoration Contractor shall ensure that 

the person(s) conducting weed control activities are trained and knowledgeable in identifying native 

and non-native species, particularly invasive weed species. It is critical that native species that 

become established are not damaged during weed control activities. 

Habitat Restoration Plan 19 
 

 

 

Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

Invasive non-native perennial species rated as Moderate or higher by the Cal-IPC observed during 

the maintenance and monitoring period will be targeted for removal (Cal-IPC 2022). Other nonnative species will also be removed as feasible. The level of required weed removal will likely be 

higher in the first year and may decrease thereafter as weeds are systematically controlled and 

native plant cover increases. If it is determined that additional weed removal is required, the 

Restoration Specialist will coordinate with the Restoration Contractor to schedule additional 

maintenance visits. 

During the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period, the removal of non-native vegetation shall 

be conducted by hand, or by using hand-operated power tools as necessary. All non-native plant 

materials, including roots, should be removed and properly disposed of in a manner and a location 

which prevents their reestablishment. Weed seeds, pollen, and biomass should be removed at the 

appropriate time of year to minimize spread by wind, water, animal, or other means. 

Whenever possible, invasive species should be removed by hand or by hand-operated power tools 

rather than by chemical means. However, for effective treatment of overly abundant or persistent 

invasive species, the use of herbicides may be warranted. Pre-emergent herbicides containing 

chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT, Chlordane, Lindane) or organic phosphates (e.g., Parathon or 

Paraquat or equivalents) should be avoided. If surfactants or spreader stickers are used, they should 

be restricted to non-ionic chemicals, such as Agri-Dex® or equivalent. 

Herbicide use should be conducted only when weather conditions are conducive to effective uptake 

of the herbicide by the targeted species (i.e., dry, and when plants are actively growing) and when 

wind conditions are such that herbicide drift is avoided (five miles per hour or less). Herbicides 

should not be applied within a minimum 72 hours of a predicted rain event or when nesting birds 

could be exposed. A brightly colored dye may be used in applications. Targeted application of 

herbicides should be completed in a manner that avoids application to non-target native species to 

the greatest extent feasible in order to prevent unintended mortality of native plant species. The 

material should be a nontoxic, water-soluble, liquid material such as Blazon® by Milliken Chemicals 

or its equivalent. Turfmark® is not an acceptable alternative. The dye should be mixed with the 

herbicide at no more than one-half the rate specified on the label (one-quarter the rate will usually 

suffice). 

All herbicides shall be applied in accordance with state and federal law. In order to apply an 

unrestricted herbicide (e.g., AquaMaster®), the Restoration Contractor must have a Pest Control 

Business License, which requires that at least one individual employed by the Restoration 

Contractor be in possession of a Qualified Applicator’s License (QAL). All licenses must be issued by 

the State of California, be registered in San Bernardino County, and be of current status. Application 

of herbicide must be supervised by a certified applicator and be in conformance with 

manufacturer’s specifications for use. Compounds used must be appropriate to the target species 

and habitat. 

Supplemental Irrigation and Maintenance 

Following seed and/or plant installation, optional supplemental irrigation may be provided by hand 

via a water truck and hose, water truck with side sprayers, or equivalent. Irrigation, if implemented, 

should be scheduled to maximize growth of native species and should account for natural rainfall, 

while minimizing growth of invasive non-native plants. Generally, if irrigation is needed, more 

irrigation should be provided during the growing season (winter and spring) to mimic seasonal 

weather patterns, and minimal irrigation should be provided during the summer and fall as needed 

to keep plants alive. In the Mojave Desert region, container plant establishment success is increased 

20 
 

 

Monitoring and Maintenance Program 

with at least two to three years of supplemental irrigation. The Restoration Contractor should 

manage the irrigation schedule to ensure sufficient water is supplied to the native plants to 

maintain their health and vigor in coordination with the Restoration Specialist. 

Erosion Control 

The Restoration Contractor should repair minor erosional issues with hand tools, as specified by the 

Restoration Specialist, in order to adequately maintain the restoration area. Any BMPs installed in 

the restoration area should be monitored and maintained by the Restoration Contractor to ensure 

that BMPs are being implemented correctly. 

General Site Maintenance 

The Restoration Contractor should remove all trash and other unnatural debris from the restoration 

area during regular maintenance visits. The site should be kept neat, clean, and free of nonvegetative debris and trash, as well as vegetative waste produced during weeding activities, which 

should be removed off-site. 

Replacement Seeding/Planting 

The restoration area may require supplemental revegetation to facilitate successful plant 

establishment. The Restoration Specialist will determine if replacement plants or additional seeding 

will be needed to meet success criteria by the end of Year 5. The Restoration Contractor should reseed or replace dead, stolen, vandalized, damaged, or dying plants as determined by the 

Restoration Specialist. Dead and dying material shall be replaced annually during the planting 

season. Newly planted material will be subject to a five-year monitoring period. 

Pest Control 

Pest management strategies should be employed if pest infestations are detected during 

maintenance and monitoring visits. Pest control shall be accomplished using only those methods 

approved by the Restoration Specialist. Fencing or caging plants at the earliest sign of severe 

damage is recommended. Severe insect infestation should be treated as necessary to protect the 

health and establishment of the installed plants, per the recommendations of the Restoration 

Specialist. 

5.3 Adaptive Management 

Adaptive management may be employed to respond to unforeseen circumstances and adjust 

restoration strategies as needed. Specific time-sensitive maintenance and project management 

activities may be identified based on the results of each monitoring visit. As part of each annual 

monitoring report, maintenance and management activities implemented during the previous year 

will be described and the results will be evaluated under the framework of adaptive management. If 

management and maintenance methods are not successful in addressing negative environmental 

stressors identified in monitoring reports, the methods will be examined and altered to increase the 

potential for success based on the Restoration Specialist’s best professional judgment and 

management methods that are shown to be successful based on scientific research. In some cases, 

the effectiveness of management and maintenance activities may not be evident over the course of 

only one year. This will be accounted for in annual monitoring reports through evaluation of the 

efficacy of management actions in progress towards success criteria. In some cases, it may be 

Habitat Restoration Plan 21 
 

Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

necessary to wait two years or more before altering methods as part of an adaptive management 

strategy. 

The entire project limits of disturbance are located within the Caltrans right-of-way. Caltrans will 

continue to conduct routine operations and maintenance of their right-of-way throughout the 

duration of the 5-year monitoring and maintenance period. Caltrans operations and maintenance 

activities have the potential to impact the restoration area. In the event that inadvertent damage is 

caused to the restoration area by Caltrans operations and maintenance activities, adaptive 

management strategies will be discussed in coordination with Caltrans and the Restoration 

Specialist. 

5.4 Contingency Measures 

This Plan includes habitat-specific performance standards that will be based on results of baseline 

pre-construction surveys, and generally follow a 5-year monitoring and maintenance period. If the 

restoration area does not progress toward meeting the defined performance standards, or if 

restoration is determined to be infeasible/cost-prohibitive, the habitat temporarily affected by the 

project may be mitigated through the purchase of mitigation credits at an in-kind 1:1 ratio to ensure 

no net loss of suitable habitat for federally listed species. The following conservation lands or 

conservation banks are located within the regional vicinity of the project, and may be used to 

purchase mitigation credits : 

▪ Lytle Creek Conservation Bank (approximately 199 acres available) 

▪ Cajon Creek Conservation Bank (approximately 1200 acres available) 

▪ San Bernadino Mountains Land Trust (approximately 310 acres available) 

Other mitigation bank(s) may be selected in coordination with USFWS. 

22 
 

 

 

6 Reporting 

Reporting 

The Restoration Specialist is required to document maintenance and monitoring activities as 

described below. 

6.1 Annual Monitoring Reports 

The Restoration Specialist shall prepare an annual monitoring report for each year of the five-year 

maintenance and monitoring period, or until restoration has been deemed successful. The annual 

monitoring report will include, at a minimum, documentation of the following: 

▪ Location and extent of the restoration area, including a GIS-based “As Built” map of the 

restoration area 

▪ Replacement plant installation or re-seeding techniques employed, if applicable 

▪ An overview of the maintenance activities performed during the year, such as weed control and 

any erosion control/stabilization efforts 

▪ A summary of any significant issues that may affect the ultimate success of restoration and how 

those issues are being addressed 

▪ A summary of remedial actions taken during the year (if any) and a discussion of any adaptive 

management strategies that have been implemented 

▪ Monitoring methodology 

▪ Results of Rapid Assessment (RA) vegetation sampling 

▪ General survivorship of container plants 

▪ Photographs from established photo stations 

▪ Summary of performance standards 

▪ A discussion of the monitoring results in relation to performance standards 

▪ Summary of significant issues that may affect restoration success, and pertinent 

recommendations/remedial actions required to meet performance standards 

All annual monitoring reports shall be submitted to the FRA, USFWS, Caltrans and the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) in digital format. The annual report at the close of Year 5 may 

double as the Completion of Mitigation Notification as detailed in Section 6.2. 

6.2 Completion of Mitigation Notification 

Restoration shall be considered complete when the performance standards defined in Section 3.1 

are achieved, as determined by the Restoration Specialist. The final monitoring report shall 

document an evaluation of the restoration effort in achieving the final performance standards. 

Habitat Restoration Plan 23 
 

7 References 

Brightline West 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail 

Boarman, W.I. 2003. Managing a subsidized predatory population: reducing common raven 

predation on desert tortoises. Environmental Management 32 (July 10): 25-217. 

Boarman, W.I., M.A. Patten, R.J. Camp, and S.J. Collis. 2006. Ecology of a population of subsidized 

predators: common ravens in the central Mojave Desert, California. Journal of Arid 

Environments 67: 248-261. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.09.024. 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship 

system. Accessed December 7, 2021. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR. 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Native Plant Society (CDFW and CNPS). 

2019. CDFW-CNPS Protocol for the Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé 

Field Form. June 5, 2019. 

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2022. Cal-IPC Inventory. Mojave and Southwestern 

Regions. Available online at https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/. Accessed July 2022. 

Calflora. 2021. Calflora Website and Observation Search 

http://www.calflora.net/botanicalnames/plantcommunities.html. Accessed December 7, 

2021. 

Cardno, Inc. (Cardno). 2019. Nationwide CCAA/CCA for Monarch Butterfly on Energy and 

Transportation Lands. Prepared for the Energy Resources Center at University of Illinois at 

Chicago. December 2019. Available online at: http://rightofway.erc.uic.edu/wp

content/uploads/Final_CCAA_040720_Fully-Executed.pdf 

­

HNTB. 2022a. Biological Assessment. Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail, Victor Valley to Rancho 

Cucamonga, California. June 2022. 

______. 2022b. Biological Resources Technical Report. Critical Habitats and Threatened and 

Endangered Species. Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail, Victor Valley to Rancho Cucamonga, 

California. Revised June 2022. 

White, S.D., and D.W. Padley. 1997. Coastal Sage Scrub Series of Western Riverside County, 

California. Madrono 44: 1, pp. 95-105. California Botanical Society. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41425182. 

24 
Appendix A 

Figures 
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Section 3

- Greater

Los Angeles

Section 1 -

High Desert

Section 2 -

Cajon Pass

Grifth Park

Silverwood Lake

State Recreaton Area

Angeles

Natonal

Forest

San Bernardino

Natonal Forest

|ÿ60

§ ̈¦215

§ ̈¦10

§ ̈¦15

Fontana

Hesperia

Ontario

Rancho

Cucamonga Rialto

San

Bernardino

Victorville

Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2022.

Additional Data: USFWS, 2021

±

0 31.5

Miles Project Limits of Disturbance

Fig 1 Project Locaton

Page 1 of 4
!

!

Section 1 -

High Desert

Section 2 -

Cajon Pass

San Bernardino

Natonal Forest

§ ̈¦15

Hesperia

Victorville

Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2022.

Additional Data: USFWS, 2021

±

0 1.5 3

Miles Project Limits of Disturbance

Fig 1 Project Locaton

Page 2 of 4
!

!

!

!

Section 3

- Greater

Los Angeles

Section 2 -

Cajon Pass

Silverwood

Lake State

Recreaton Area

San Bernardino

Natonal Forest

§ ̈¦215

§ ̈¦15

Hesperia

Rancho

Cucamonga

Rialto

San

Bernardino

Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2022.

Additional Data: USFWS, 2021

±

0 1.5 3

Miles Project Limits of Disturbance

Fig 1 Project Locaton

Page 3 of 4
!

!

!

!

Section 3

- Greater

Los Angeles

Section 2 -

Cajon Pass

Silverwood Lake

State Recreaton

Area

Angeles

Natonal

Forest

San Bernardino

Natonal Forest

|ÿ60

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦215

§ ̈¦10

Fontana

Ontario

Rancho

Cucamonga

Rialto

Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2022.

Additional Data: USFWS, 2021

±

0 1.5 3

Miles Project Limits of Disturbance

Fig 1 Project Locaton

Page 4 of 4
 

Photograph by: Marshal Hedin 

Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and 

Translocation Plan 

prepared for 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

prepared by 

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 

1980 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 105 

Redlands, California 92374 

November 2022 

..................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................

..................................................................................................

....................................................

..................................

.......................................................................................................

...................................................

......................................................................................................

...................................................................................................

................................................................................................

.................................................................................

.........................................................................................

.................................................................................................

..............................................................................................

.................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

.........................................................................

...........................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents 

1 Introduction 3 

1.1 Project Location 3 

1.2 Project Description 3 

1.3 Plan Background 3 

1.4 Plan Purpose 4 

1.5 Plan Methodology 4 

2 Species Description/Background 5 

2.1 Physical Characteristics, Life History and Listing Status 5 

2.2 Range Distribution, Critical Habitat and Documented Occurrences 6 

2.3 Habitat Requirements 7 

2.4 Potential to Occur within Project Limits of Disturbance 7 

3 SBKR Pre-Construction Survey 9 

3.1 Pre-Construction Survey 9 

4 Project Site/Worker Preparation 11 

4.1 Environmental Awareness Training 11 

4.2 Exclusion Fencing Installation 11 

5 SBKR Capture and Translocation 13 

5.1 Pre-Construction Trapping 13 

5.2 Handling/Captive Holding/Release 14 

5.3 Release Sites 16 

5.4 Hand Excavation 17 

6 Monitoring and Reporting 18 

6.1 Construction Monitoring and Reporting 18 

6.2 Release Site Monitoring and Reporting 18 

7 References 20 

8 List of Preparers 22 

Appendices 

Appendix A Figures 

Appendix B General Measures and SBKR Species-Specific Measures 

Appendix C Habitat Restoration Plan 

Appendix D Exclusion Fencing Example Photograph 

Appendix E Artificial Burrow Plans 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan i 
 

Table of Contents 

This page intentionally left blank. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Introduction 

Introduction 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC (doing business as “Brightline West”) proposes to construct and

operate a passenger high-speed rail system covering 47.9 miles within the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way of Interstate 15 (I-15) between Victor Valley and Rancho 

Cucamonga, California. The project’s potential adverse effects to biological resources have been 

evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through preparation of a Biological 

Technical Report (HNTB 2022a) and Biological Assessment (HNTB 2022b). The environmental review 

determined the project is likely to adversely effect the Federally Endangered San Bernardino 

Merriam’s kangaroo rat (SBKR, Dipodomys merriami parvus) and its designated critical habitat. This 

SBKR Capture and Translocation Plan (Plan) has been developed in accordance with species-specific 

measure SBKR-4 outlined in the project’s Biological Assessment to support Section 7 Consultation 

with United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Plan provides procedures and protocols to 

avoid and minimize effects to SBKR during project construction including methods for capture and 

translocation in areas with potential to support SBKR. 

1.1 Project Location 

The proposed project would be constructed within the existing Caltrans I-15 right-of-way. The 

northern terminus of the project is in Victor Valley, California, in the western Mojave Desert. The 

project alignment extends southward from Victor Valley, passing through, or next to the 

communities of Victorville, Hesperia, Rialto, and Fontana and crossing the San Bernardino 

Mountains through Cajon Canyon, reaching its southern terminus in Rancho Cucamonga, California, 

in the northeastern part of the Los Angeles Basin. The project is located within Caltrans and existing 

transportation rights-of-way, including when passing through the San Bernardino National Forest. 

The project is designed in three distinct sections: Section 1 High Desert; Section 2 Cajon Pass; and 

Section 3 Greater Los Angeles. This Plan focuses on the project limits of disturbance within the SBKR 

habitat distribution range (SBKR Plan Area; Appendix A, Figure 1). 

1.2 Project Description 

The project includes construction and operation of a passenger high-speed rail system capable of 

speeds up to 140 miles per hour (mph) covering 47.9 miles between Victor Valley and Rancho 

Cucamonga, California. The project would cross the Cajon Wash, Lytle Creek, and other drainages 

and washes along the rail alignment, that are within critical habitat and suitable habitat for SBKR. 

1.3 Plan Background 

In cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, Surface Transportation Board, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and tribal entities, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is preparing a NEPA 

Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321, 

et seq). The project is considered a major construction activity under the federal Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA; Title 16 of the United State Code [U.S.C.], Chapter 35). 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

Through consultation with USFWS, FRA identified SBKR critical habitat and potential for SBKR 

individuals, both protected under the ESA, within the project limits of disturbance. A Biological 

Technical Report (HNTB 2022a) and Biological Assessment (HNTB 2022b) were prepared to support 

the Environmental Assessment, and formal Section 7 consultation with USFWS has been initiated for 

incidental take of the species. The Biological Technical Report and Biological Assessment identified 

SBKR suitable habitat/SBKR critical habitat, assumed presence of the species and determined that 

implementation of the project may affect/is likely to adversely affect SBKR and its designed critical 

habitat. 

The SBKR assessments for this project have been based on desktop analyses and habitat modeling. 

1.4 Plan Purpose 

Adverse effects to SBKR that were assessed as potentially occurring during project-related 

construction activities, may require the translocation of SBKR from the project limits of disturbance. 

The intent of any translocation efforts would be to move SBKR individuals to the closest suitable 

habitat within the Caltrans right-of-way that is outside of the project limits of disturbance. 

In accordance with species-specific measure SBKR-4, this Plan has been developed to outline the 

procedures and protocols that will be implemented to avoid and minimize effects to SBKR during 

project construction including methods for capture and translocation in areas with potential to 

support SBKR. 

The two primary goals of this Plan are: 

1. Reduce the likelihood of injury and direct mortality to SBKR individuals during project 

construction. 

2. Increase the probability of survival for translocated SBKR individuals. 

Provided herein are the methods for SBKR detection, capture, handling, and translocation that will 

be implemented during project activities, as well as methods for appropriate monitoring and 

reporting. Avoidance and minimization measures have been incorporated into the project design 

and will be adhered to during construction. Species-specific avoidance and minimization measures 

as well as those specifically applicable to this Plan have been incorporated herein and included in 

Appendix B. Additional avoidance and minimization measures applicable to all species are not 

specifically referenced herein and would further reduce impacts to SBKR. Restoration of temporarily 

disturbed SBKR suitable habitat will occur as detailed in the Habitat Restoration Plan included in 

Appendix C. 

1.5 Plan Methodology 

This Plan relies on data provided in the Biological Technical Report and Biological Assessment as well 

as an updated literature review for SBKR occurrence documentation (CDFW 2022), review of SBKR 

trapping reports (RCA 2016; PBS&J 2009), and Final Designation of Critical Habitat for San 

Bernardino Kangaroo Rats (USFWS 2002; USFWS 2008). To assist in development of the 

methodologies for the capture and translocation of SBKR, translocation documents of kangaroo rats 

(Shier 2008; Bender et. al 2010) were also reviewed. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species Description/Background 

2 Species Description/Background 

The SBKR is a member of the Heteromyidae family and is one of three subspecies of the Merriam’s

kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami) (USFWS 2002). The Merriam’s kangaroo rat is a widespread 

species that can be found from the inland valleys to the deserts of Southern California. The 

subspecies known as SBKR has a limited distribution, confined to inland valley scrub communities 

occurring along rivers, streams and drainages. Most of the habitats that support SBKR have been 

historically altered by flood control efforts, the increased use of river resources, mining, off-road 

vehicle use, and road and housing developments. This historic alteration to river systems and 

anthropomorphic development has resulted in a reduction in both the amount and quality of SBKR 

habitat, prompting an emergency listing of SBKR as a federally endangered species under the ESA 

(USFWS 1998a). 

2.1 Physical Characteristics, Life History and Listing 

Status 

Physical Characteristics 

The SBKR is distinguished from the other Merriam’s kangaroo rat subspecies by its hind feet which 

have four toes on each foot, as opposed to five toes found on the Dulzura kangaroo rat (Dipodomys 

simulans), Pacific kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis), and Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys 

stephensi) (SKR). The SBKR is darker and smaller than other kangaroo rats with its total length 

averaging between 230 to 235 millimeters (mm) (9.0-9.3 inches[in]), including a body length of 

approximately 95 mm (3.7 in) (USFWS 2002) and weight averaging 36 grams (McKernan 1997). 

Life History 

SBKR are solitary animals that establish and defend individual territories through scent marking, 

chases, and other social dominance displays. Their burrows provide shelter from extreme 

temperatures and predators, as well as nesting and food caching areas. Burrows are excavated in 

loose soil, usually near or beneath shrubs. Each burrow is occupied by a single adult, and they must 

leave their burrows to mate (Daly, Behrends, and Wilson. 2000). The breeding season is from 

January through November with peak breeding in late June. SBKR are nocturnal and they are unable 

to enter a state of torpor (Brown and Harney 1993); therefore, they are active throughout the year. 

Kangaroo rats, in general, are typically sedentary once they have established a territory. Although 

local home ranges are approximately 0.75 acre, the species have a small core area near their burrow 

that they actively defend (Jones 1993). Changes to home ranges occur by incremental shifts within 

familiar territory (e.g., frequent moves to new burrows nearby) and not by large movements (Jones 

1993). 

SBKR do not need to drink water and they feed on a variety of seeds and some insects. SBKR have 

been documented using areas heavily disturbed by humans, including non-native grasslands, 

margins of orchards, and out-of-use vineyards. The life span of SBKR is unknown, but Merriam’s

kangaroo rat and SKR have been found to live from 3.7 months to 2 years, and death prior to 

reproduction has been found to be somewhat common in at least one species (Fresno kangaroo 

rats, Dipodomys nitratoides exilis; Daly et al. 2000). 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species Description/Background 

Populations for all species of kangaroo rat are highly variable, but environmental variables, 

competition for resources, and adequate space within appropriate habitat limit population growth 

for SBKR (Goldingray et al. 1997). Existing threats are moderate and primarily result from 

development, recreational vehicles, and alterations in hydrology (USFWS 2008). 

Listing Status 

The SBKR was listed as federally endangered under the ESA in 1998 (USFWS 1998b) due to loss and 

fragmentation of habitat; the most recent 5-year review indicated habitat loss continues to be the 

primary threat for the species (USFWS 2020). 

2.2 Range Distribution, Critical Habitat and 

Documented Occurrences 

Range Distribution 

The SBKR historical range is from the San Bernardino Valley in San Bernardino County west to the 

Menifee Valley in Riverside County within coastal sage scrub habitat that forms on alluvial fans. 

Currently the majority of the SBKR populations are predominantly localized in three areas, the Santa 

Ana Wash, the San Jacinto Wash, and Lytle Creek and Cajon Wash (USFWS 2002). 

Designated Critical Habitat 

Designated critical habitat (USFWS 2002, USFWS 2008) for the SBKR was final and effective on May 

23, 2002. The critical habitat area totals approximately 33,295 acres and is classified into four 

units—one of which occurs along Lytle and Cajon Creeks, from the point the creeks emerge from the 

San Bernardino National Forest to flood control channels downstream where these creeks 

transitions to washes (USFWS 2002). The Lytle and Cajon Creeks unit (Unit 2) encompasses 

approximately 3,421 acres in total and provides varying habitat value, including the SBKR’s three

Physical and Biological Features (PBFs; previously Primary Constituent Elements [PCEs]) that are 

further defined in Section 2.3 (USFWS 2002). On June 19, 2007, the USFWS proposed to revise the 

designated critical habitat with the addition of approximately 9,079 acres in San Bernardino and 

Riverside Counties (USFWS 2008), currently totaling 42,374 acres of designed critical habitat. 

Approximately 77 acres of SBKR designated critical habitat is located within the project limits of 

disturbance. 

Documented Occurrences 

The CNDDB documents SBKR occurrences within the project limits of disturbance at the following 

locations: I-15/1-210 (Occurrence No. 100, dated 199x), 0.4 miles east of Citrus Avenue (Occurrence 

No. 61, dated 2002), around Lytle Creek Wash (Occurrence No. 27, dated 2013) and Cajon Wash 

(Occurrence No. 5 and 27, dated 200 and 2013) (CDFW 2022). Additional occurrences of SBKR have 

been documented around Etiwanda Creek Wash (Occurrence No. 28, dated 2005) and San Sevaine 

Canyon Wash (Occurrence No. 29, dated 2002) west of the project limits of disturbance (CDFW 

2022). 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species Description/Background 

2.3 Habitat Requirements 

The final critical habitat rule for SBKR lists the following PBFs that are essential to the conservation 

of the species (USFWS 2002, USFWS 2008): 

▪ PBF 1: Alluvial fans, washes, and associated floodplain areas containing soil series consisting 

predominantly of sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, or loam. 

▪ PBF 2: Upland areas adjacent to PBF 1 containing alluvial sage scrub habitat and associated 

vegetation, such as coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral. 

▪ PBF 3: Upland areas adjacent to PBF 1 with marginal habitat that support individuals for 

repopulating wash areas following flood events. 

SBKR habitat has been described as confined to primary and secondary alluvial fan sage scrub 

habitats, with sandy soils deposited by fluvial (water) rather than aeolian (wind) processes (USFWS 

2008). 

SBKR have very specific habitat requirements that provide successful burrowing opportunities, cover 

from predators, and bipedal movement. Soils must be sandy with at least 25 percent gravel. 

Vegetative cover must be present, but generally sparse. Habitats with over 50 percent bare ground, 

less than 20 percent shrub cover, less than 30 percent annual grass cover, and between six and 13 

percent woody debris have been found to be suitable (Daly et al. 2000). 

SBKR can occupy mature coastal sage scrub and even chaparral vegetation types (USFWS 2002) but 

prefer Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is a distinct and rare 

plant community of coastal sage scrub habitat that occurs on alluvial fan landforms and is 

geographically confined to the western Los Angeles basin (White and Padley 1997). Plant species 

present in the Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub plant community include California sagebrush 

(Artemisia californica), white sage (Salvia apiana), various buckwheat species (Eriogonum spp.), 

golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), and coastal pricklypear (Opuntia littoralis). Scale-broom 

(also known as California broomsage; Lepidospartum squamatum) is an indicator species for the 

Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub association (Holland 1986). 

SBKR habitat generally correlates with areas having flooded within the last 40 to 70 years, but not 

areas that flood annually. SBKR do not retreat to upland areas during flood events; rather, 

populations from the upper floodplain repopulate the lower elevations over time, underlining the 

importance for habitat connectivity (USFWS 2021a). As they are most active and forage during the 

night, they are susceptible to effects of artificial light at night (USFWS 2002). 

2.4 Potential to Occur within Project Limits of 

Disturbance 

This section summarizes the determinations of potential occurrence of SBKR within the project 

limits of disturbance from the project’s Biological Technical Report and Biological Assessment (HNTB 

2020a, HNTB 2022b). These assessments were based on desktop review and modeling; no fieldwork 

has yet been conducted to verify conditions on the ground. 

As detailed in the Biological Assessment, approximately 77 acres of suitable SBKR habitat would be 

temporarily disturbed by project activities. Core habitat for SBKR includes pioneer and intermediate 

Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat where shelter and patches of suitable soils for burrowing 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 7 
 

 

 

 

 

   

Species Description/Background 

are present (USFWS 2008). Within the project limits of disturbance, suitable habitats are expected 

to exist in Cajon Wash and Lytle Creek. The CNDDB reports multiple sightings of SBKR around 

Etiwanda Creek Wash and San Sevaine Canyon Wash west of the project limits of disturbance, and 

around Lytle Creek and Cajon Wash within the project limits of disturbance. Suitable habitat is also 

present at the I-15/I-10 interchange where the project limits of disturbance cross Cajon Wash 

(CNDBB 2022). 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBKR Pre-Construction Survey 

3 SBKR Pre-Construction Survey 

Per species-specific measure SBKR-1, SBKR Restricted Work Areas will be established prior to the 

start of any ground disturbance. SBKR Restricted Work Areas are defined as areas mapped as 

suitable SBKR habitat in the project’s Biological Technical Report and Biological Assessment (HNTB 

2020a, HNTB 2022b), excluding areas of existing infrastructure and areas lying between I-15 

highway lanes (median). In accordance with species-specific measure SBKR-2, pre-construction SBKR 

surveys will be conducted within the SBKR Restricted Work Areas prior to initiation of grounddisturbing activities. One of the goals of pre-construction SBKR surveys will be to field-verify the 

habitat conditions of areas that were remotely assessed as potentially occupied. The results of fieldverification of suitable habitat may result in modifications to the extent and/or limits of SBKR 

suitable habitat areas. All suitable habitat areas will be delineated as SBKR Restricted Work Areas for 

the duration of construction. 

3.1 Pre-Construction Survey 

The pre-construction survey will consist of two primary objectives: 1) field-verify all areas mapped 

as SBKR suitable habitat; and 2) document presence or sign of presence of SBKR within the project 

limits of disturbance. The survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist1 and will include a habitat 

suitability evaluation of the SBKR PBFs and other habitat requirements outlined in Section 2.3 

above. The survey will include documentation/mapping of all potential SBKR active burrows and any 

SBKR individuals or sign (i.e., tail drags, tracks, food cashes and stacking, dust baths). The surveyor(s) 

will document the spatial arrangement of active burrows to determine the appropriate spatial 

placement of individual release sites for translocated SBKR. Based on the results of the preconstruction survey, the qualified biologist will refine the SBKR Restricted Work Area in coordination 

with USFWS to determine the limits of the area requiring SBKR capture and translocation. Areas 

determined not suitable for SBKR and lacking sign of SBKR will be excluded from the SBKR Restricted 

Work Area. Results of the pre-construction survey and the proposed SBKR Restricted Work Area 

refinement will be documented in the Pre-Construction Survey Report which will be submitted to 

USFWS prior to SBKR capture and translocation. 

Identification of SBKR Translocation Release Sites 

Potential translocation release sites adjacent to each SBKR Restricted Work Area will be investigated 

during the pre-construction survey. Potential release sites will be selected within the Caltrans rightof-way and outside the project limits of disturbance and will be evaluated based on presence of 

equivalent or superior habitat suitability and proximity to the areas of SBKR capture (i.e., SBKR 

Restricted Work Areas). Release sites will be selected based on the presence of SBKR habitat 

requirements including suitable soils and vegetation communities as described in Section 2.3. 

Additionally, all potential SBKR active burrows will be identified within each potential release site. 

Areas with low SBKR activity will be prioritized to limit competition with resident individuals present 

1 For the purpose of this Plan, a qualified biologist is defined as any person who has completed at least four years of university training in 

wildlife biology or a related science and has demonstrated field experience in the identification and life history of SBKR. Where specific 

activities outlined in this Plan require additional certifications/approvals (i.e., 10(a)(1)(A) permit), those have been specified in the 

relevant sections. With the exception of activities specifically requiring a 10(a)(1)(A) permit, the qualified biologist may delegate 

responsibilities to a designated representative which may include a biological or construction monitor. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBKR Pre-Construction Survey 

within the release sites. Proposed release sites and their selection rationale will be documented in 

the Pre-Construction Survey Report which will be submitted to USFWS prior to translocation. 

Pre-Construction Survey Report 

Results of the pre-construction survey will be documented in a Pre-Construction Survey Report 

which will be submitted to USFWS prior to SBKR capture and translocation. The Pre-Construction 

Survey Report will include, at minimum, documentation of the following: 

▪ Survey area limits 

▪ Survey methodology 

▪ SBKR habitat suitability evaluation of the survey area 

▪ Descriptions and map of all potential SBKR active burrows, including spatial arrangement of 

active burrows, and any SBKR individuals or sign observed 

▪ Proposed refinement of the SBKR Restricted Work Area based on field verification of SBKR 

habitat suitability 

▪ Locations and habitat suitability of proposed release sites, including presence of SBKR habitat 

requirements, identification of all potential SBKR active burrows, proximity to capture sites, and 

comparison of release site habitat quality to capture site quality 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Site/Worker Preparation 

4 Project Site/Worker Preparation 

Following the pre-construction survey (SBKR-2), the SBKR Restricted Work Areas (SBKR-1) will be 

refined, and the site will be prepared for SBKR capture and translocation. Project site and worker 

preparation will include presentation of an environmental awareness training and installation of 

temporary exclusion fencing. 

4.1 Environmental Awareness Training 

In accordance with GM-3, all project staff, contractors, operators, consultants, field personnel, and 

subcontractors, shall attend a mandatory environmental awareness training program. The program 

will be developed by a qualified biologist and will include focused information regarding SBKR and 

work limitations within SBKR Restricted Work Area. The program will also include a review of the 

project’s avoidance and minimization measures applicable to all species that would further reduce

impacts to SBKR, including inspection of supplies, equipment and excavations for wildlife prior to 

movement of materials or work within excavations (GM-6). 

4.2 Exclusion Fencing Installation 

In accordance with species-specific measure SBKR-5, exclusion fencing will be installed along the 

perimeter of the SBKR Restricted Work Area prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities 

(Appendix D). The exclusion fence will remain in place until all construction within the SBKR 

Restricted Work Areas are completed to ensure translocated animals do not attempt to move back 

in and reestablish. 

Fence Materials and Design 

The exclusion fencing will meet the following specifications: 

▪ Material is 0.5‐inches or smaller opening 

▪ Height of 30 to 36-inches above ground with the bottom buried at least 12 inches deep with a 

6-inch apron lying at 12 inches deep at a right angle. 

▪ No gaps greater than 0.5-inch 

▪ Uses anti-climb technology 

Fence material should be buried two feet below grade where feasible; however, if the substrate 

does not allow for this depth (e.g., a high percentage of rocks), the fence material can be placed at 

grade as follows: 

▪ Bend two feet of fence at grade facing out away from the work area and cover it with sandbags 

▪ Drive “T-posts” to hold the fence in place; if “T‐posts” cannot be driven in the ground, rebar

uprights can be fabricated which have three rebar legs welded at their base, so they are free 

standing. 

Access points to the SBKR Restricted Work Area will be constructed using the at grade fencing 

technique and will be secured at the end of each workday. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Site/Worker Preparation 

Exclusion Fence Monitoring 

The qualified biologist or the biologist’s representative will be present when the exclusion fence is 

installed to ensure that no burrows or burrow entrances are covered by the apron of the barrier 

fence. Once installed, the construction monitor will check the temporary barrier fencing at the close 

of each workday to ensure it is in place and properly maintained. Fence gaps greater than 0.5-inch 

will be repaired within 24-hours of detection. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBKR Capture and Translocation 

5 SBKR Capture and Translocation 

Capture and translocation of SBKR located within the SBKR Restricted Work Area will occur as 

detailed herein. No capture or translocation will occur prior to the complete installation of exclusion 

fencing. This section outlines specific protocols and standards, including timing of, and procedures 

for capture, handling and release; however, because translocation of small mammals is a dynamic 

and unpredictable process, the qualified biologist may adapt the Plan according to site-specific 

conditions, within allowable thresholds as outlined in this Plan. The methodology described below 

has been adapted from other successful kangaroo rat translocation efforts (Bender et al. 2010; 

Germano 2010; McCormick 2014, Shier 2008, and Tennant et al. 2013, 2017) and tailored to SBKR 

species-specific requirements. Other small mammals encountered during SBKR capture and 

translocation will be translocated outside the exclusion fencing as feasible. 

5.1 Pre-Construction Trapping 

In accordance with species-specific measure SBKR-6, prior to ground disturbance, a qualified 

biologist will conduct pre-construction trapping inside SBKR Restricted Work Areas. Initial trapping 

will be performed on the evening of the first day on which the exclusion fence installation is 

complete. Trapping will be conducted within each SBKR Restricted Work Area until no SBKR are 

trapped for two consecutive nights. 

Pre-construction trapping for SBKR will be conducted according to established USFWS protocols for 

10(a)(1)(A) permit specifications where feasible. The trapping will be led by a qualified biologist with 

a 10(a)(1)(A) permit for SBKR and will consist of baited 12-inch Sherman traps (or modified 9-inch 

traps to reduce the risk of tail injury). A maximum of 100 traps will be deployed each trapping night 

in proximity to documented active burrows. The total number of traps will be determined based on 

the number of active burrows (minimum of one trap per active burrow). If the number of active 

burrows requires greater than 100 traps, trapping will be conducted over multiple nights to avoid 

exceeding the 100 trap maximum outlined in the qualified biologist’s 10(a)(1)(A) permit. Trapping 

activity will not be undertaken during periods of precipitation or extreme heat/cold, above 105 

degrees Fahrenheit (F) or below 50 degrees F. Traps will be baited no more than 2-hours before 

sunset to minimize the potential of inadvertent capture during daylight hours. Traps will be checked 

at midnight and at sunrise to minimize the time SBKR are kept in the traps. During trap checks, 

captured SBKR will be removed from the traps and placed into captive holding or directly into the 

release site as outlined in Section 5.2. The following protocol will apply to all trapping activity: 

▪ Nighttime temperatures must be above 50 degrees F to initiate trapping. Should air 

temperatures exceed 105 degrees F, all traps will be closed and will not be reopened until 

temperatures drop below 105 degrees F. 

▪ Trapping each night will include two (2) trap checks; midnight and sunrise. 

Should trapping occur during the breeding season and lactating females are trapped, the following 

protocol will apply: 

▪ All captured lactating females will be immediately released back into the SBKR Restricted Work 

Area. 

▪ Re-trapping in areas where lactating females were captured will not be initiated until one week 

following initial capture unless approved by the qualified biologist. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBKR Capture and Translocation 

5.2 Handling/Captive Holding/Release 

The housing and release methodology has been designed to meet the specifications of speciesspecific measure SBKR-7. 

Handling 

Handling of SBKR will be conducted by, or directly supervised by a qualified biologist with a 

10(a)(1)(A) permit for SBKR, in accordance with the following standards: 

▪ Each individual will be removed following industry standards for safe extraction of an animal 

from a Sherman trap, examined and placed into temporary captive holding. To reduce stress 

to the individual SBKR, handling will be kept to the shortest time feasible for examination. 

Individuals will be monitored for signs of stress, and handling will be discontinued if 

necessary to reduce stress levels. Data collection and processing may require intermittent 

handling for up to one hour. The following data will be collected for each trapped individual: 

1. Trapped location (GPS coordinates and maps) 

2. Time of capture or observation 

3. Ambient weather conditions 

4. Individual’s sex 

5. Approximate age (adult/juvenile) 

6. Weight 

7. General physical condition and health (documentation of all visible conditions including 

behavior, signs of emaciation, hair loss, ectoparasites, injuries, etc.) 

Captive Holding 

Temporary captive holding of SBKR may be required if release cannot occur immediately. Captive 

holding should be limited to less than 24 hours, when feasible, and no longer than 12 days. Long 

holding periods beyond 24 hours should be avoided unless inclement weather conditions (i.e., 

precipitation or temperatures above 105 degrees) warrant a longer holding period. 

In accordance with species-specific measure SBKR-7, the protocol for housing trapped SBKR will 

follow standard holding/animal care requirements including appropriate nutrition, suitable housing 

to meet fundamental species requirements, and overall health monitoring as follows: 

▪ If necessary due to weather, time, or site preparation at release sites, captured SBKR will be 

held in captivity by a qualified biologist with a 10(a)(1)(A) permit for SBKR. Captive SBKR would 

be subject to holding for no more than 12 days. 

▪ Each individual captured SBKR will be housed in a separate plastic, glass, or other rigid non-toxic 

container at least five gallons in size. Containers will be stored in a climate-controlled space 

(between 60°F and 85°F) until released. Each individual will be checked daily to assess indicators 

of stress and evaluate if holding containers require cleaning or replenishment of food supply. If 

SBKR exhibit signs of stress, release of the individual will be scheduled as soon as feasible under 

the guidance of the qualified biologist. 

▪ Individual SBKR will be provided with non-tinted, unbleached paper towels and enough suitable 

substrate (soil, sand, or similar) to cover the bottom of the container. Each SBKR will be 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBKR Capture and Translocation 

provided with sufficient bird seed mix (mixture of approximately 75% proso white millet and 

25% oats groats) to provide 24-hours of food supply that will be maintained daily until release. 

Soft-Release 

Measure SBKR-7 requires that the qualified biologist release all captured SBKR as soon as possible 

following trapping. Captured SBKR will be released by soft-release into artificial burrows within the 

release sites described in Section 5.3. Soft-release is defined as the release of a SBKR wherein the 

individuals are held in confinement in an artificial burrow within the release site to allow the 

individual to acclimate to the new area (Tennant et al. 2013). The confinement period under this 

Plan is a minimum of 24 hours, but not more than 36 hours. 

The soft-release of each induvial will be scheduled as soon as possible following capture, not to 

exceed 12 days, and will implemented as follows. 

▪ Soft-release will occur during the new moon period of the lunar cycle to decrease the predation 

risk, when feasible. 

▪ Soft-release will occur as soon as possible following capture. Individuals released during daytime 

hours will be covered with sunlight blocking material (i.e., towel, fabric bag) during transfers to 

artificial burrows. 

▪ Individuals will be released into artificial burrows constructed within the designated release 

sites. The spatial arrangement of released individuals will be designed to match the natural 

burrow spacing documented during the pre-construction survey, where feasible. If natural 

burrow spacing is not feasible, artificial burrows will be spaced no less than 10 meters apart and 

no less than 10 meters from existing natural active burrows. 

▪ Where appropriate based on site-specific conditions (i.e., limited availability of high quality 

habitat and ample refugia), the qualified biologist may decide to install cages over the artificial 

burrows. Cages would be constructed of 6.4 mm (1/4 inch) hardware cloth. Each cage would be 

approximately 90 × 60 cm, closed on the top, and open on the bottom. The edges of the cage 

would be buried to discourage individuals from digging out (Tennant et al. 2017). 

Artificial Burrows 

All translocated SBKR will be placed inside an artificial burrow as depicted in Appendix E. Each 

artificial burrow will consist of one three-foot long by 1.5-inch diameter tube, made of cardboard or 

other biodegradable material. One end of the tube will be buried at an approximately 45-degree 

angle. Burrow construction will be as follows (Appendix E): 

Artificial Burrow Features and Dimensions 

▪ Small slits will be cut perpendicular to the length of the tube, at intervals of approximately 1-2 

inches to provide traction for SBKR movement inside the tube. 

▪ A plastic top cap or cover will be faceted to the surface end of the artificial burrow tube to 

eliminate escapement to the surface. In the plastic top cap or cover of the artificial burrow tube, 

a minimum of 10 small air holes for ventilation will be drilled with a 1/8-inch drill bit, from the 

inside towards the outside. The plastic extensions of each drilled hole will be on the outside of 

the cap to prevent the SBKR from gripping (and chewing) the cap from the inside of the tube. All 

drilled holes will be completely open to allow for clear flow of air into the tube. 

▪ Additional holes will be drilled on each side of the tube approximately 1⁄4-inch from the top. To 

ensure the cap remains in place once the SBKR is placed inside, a piece of wire will attach 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBKR Capture and Translocation 

through a hole in the cap, running the wire through both holes in the tube and back through the 

cap. 

▪ The bottom cap will be left off the tube and an uncapped plastic “T” fitting will be placed on the 

end. 

▪ Alternative materials should be used under inclement precipitation events. Cardboard tubes can 

be substituted with corrugated flexible plastic tubing. Cutting slits along the bottom of the 

tubing is not necessary to provide traction with corrugated tubing. A perforated polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC) drainage cap will be attached to the upper end of the tube and the cap will be 

pressure fit to the tubing such that it cannot be forced outward by a SBKR inside the tube. 

Artificial Burrow Installation 

▪ A trench will be excavated the length of the tube, at an approximately 45 degree angle from the 

soil surface, removing all cobbles and rocks. The bottom of the tube will rest at a point at least 

24-inches vertically below the surface. Placement of the tube will be such that the top of the 

tube is flush with the soil’s surface. The side of the tube with the slits will be placed facing 

downward. The bottom cap of the tube will remain off, exposing the bottom end of the tube to 

the soil for SBKR to naturally burrow. Pin-flags or other identification markers will be placed at 

each burrow to expedite locating the burrow at a later date. 

▪ Each artificial burrow will be provided with enough seed (mixture of approximately 75% proso 

white millet and 25% oats groats) to provide 24-36 hours of food supply, while maintaining 

space for the individual to move around within the burrow. Seed will be placed at the bottom of 

the burrow and will be supplied to each artificial burrow once per week until green-up of 

vegetation or until deemed unnecessary by the qualified biologist due to availability of natural 

food sources. 

Translocating SBKR to Artificial Burrows 

Translocated individuals have a higher success rate of survival if translocated as close to the capture 

site as feasible and if translocated with familiar neighbors (Bender et al 2010, Shier 2008, Tennant et 

al. 2013). Translocation into nearby habitat with other familiar individuals reduces the potential of 

conflict with other unfamiliar SBKR. Therefore, to increase the likelihood of survivability of the 

translocated SBKR, all individuals will be translocated in the order of capture and will be placed 

adjacent to individuals that were captured nearby. 

Once artificial burrow construction is complete, a single SBKR will be placed inside each artificial 

burrow with their head toward the bottom of the tube. The top cap of the tube will be placed on 

the tube once the SBKR is inside the tube and wired in place to prevent the SBKR from pushing it 

open. SBKR will be left in the artificial burrow for a minimum of 24 hours. Top caps will be removed 

from the tubes 24 to 36 hours following initial release to allow SBKR to exit the artificial burrow. 

5.3 Release Sites 

SBKR release sites within the Caltrans right-of-way will be identified during the pre-construction 

survey, and reviewed by USFWS, as discussed in Section 3.1. SBKR will be released to the closest 

portion of right-of-way containing suitable habitat and preferably located adjacent to the capture 

site outside of the project limits of disturbance. Release site habitat suitability will be of equivalent 

or superior quality than the capture site. As discussed in Section 3.1, release sites will be selected 

based on the presence of SBKR habitat requirements including suitable soils and vegetation 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBKR Capture and Translocation 

communities as described in Section 2.3. Release sites with no sign of SBKR occupancy will be 

prioritized over release sites with sign of SBKR occupancy. Release sites will be selected to contain 

similar occupancy densities as the capture sites post-release of translocated individuals, where 

feasible. Because of the project location immediately adjacent to I-15, selected release sites may 

experience vehicular lighting and routine ground disturbance from I-15 shoulder maintenance. This 

is allowable only if these conditions are consistent with those experienced at the capture sites. 

5.4 Hand Excavation 

Upon completion of pre-construction trapping with SBKR Restricted Work Areas, hand excavation of 

all active burrows within the limits of disturbance will be implemented as follows: 

▪ All small mammal burrows suitable for SBKR present within the SBKR Restricted Work Areas will 

be hand-excavated using hand tools, to the greatest extent feasible. In cases where handexcavation is impossible or infeasible (e.g., soil conditions, burrow depths, etc., make manual 

excavation impractical or unsafe) the qualified biologist may implement the use of hand-held 

power tools to assist in direct excavation of burrows. 

▪ If hand-held power tools are required, a protective barrier (such as PVC tube, or similar) will be 

placed within the burrow to prevent injury/mortality to small mammals that may be in the 

burrow or attempt to escape burrows during excavation procedures. 

▪ Mechanized equipment (e.g., backhoe) may be used to support burrow excavation but will not 

be used directly for burrow excavation. Appropriate uses of mechanized equipment include to 

slope expansion and terrace excavations for staff safety, and will only be utilized with approval 

of the qualified biologist. 

▪ All work conducted with hand power tools or other mechanized equipment will be under the 

direct supervision of the qualified biologist. 

▪ Prior to the start of soil removal at each burrow, the biologist will insert a section of PVC pipe 

(or similar material) not to exceed 12 inches in length, into the burrow opening. The placement 

of PVC or similar is intended to prevent the side walls from collapse inward during excavation, 

and potentially burying small mammals inside the burrow. Burrows will be excavated with hand 

tools along the length of the PVC pipe, and the pipe will then be reinserted farther into the 

burrow, with the process being repeated until the endpoint of the burrow is reached. PVC pipes 

will be selected with dimensions that most closely match the diameter of the burrow being 

excavated. 

▪ If any SBKR are detected during burrow excavation, they will be captured by hand if possible. 

Excavation of the burrow with SBKR detection will cease and additional trapping will occur the 

night following the encounter. Trapping will continue until the individual is captured and 

translocated to the release site. Burrow excavation of the burrow where the SBKR was 

encountered will resume following capture of the SBKR. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monitoring and Reporting 

6 Monitoring and Reporting 

6.1 Construction Monitoring and Reporting 

In accordance with measures GM-1 and SBKR-3, all construction within the SBKR Restricted Work 

Areas will be monitored daily during active ground disturbance and weekly during non-ground 

disturbing construction activities by a qualified biologist. The biologist will conduct a preconstruction sweep of the SBKR Restricted Work Areas each morning prior to ground disturbing 

activities to identify SBKR individuals or sign thereof. If SBKR individuals or sign are observed 

following initial capture and translocation, USFWS will be notified and additional trapping and 

translocation will be implemented to translocate any remaining individuals from the SBKR Restricted 

Work Areas. The biologist will inspect the SBKR exclusion fence daily during ground disturbing 

activities and weekly during non-ground disturbing activities to confirm it is secure and properly 

maintained. Weekly monitoring reports will be submitted to USFWS as detailed below. 

Weekly Monitoring Reports 

Weekly monitoring reports will be submitted to USFWS within 4 business days following the end of 

each week during which ground-disturbing construction activity occurred within the SBKR Restricted 

Work Areas. Weekly monitoring reports will include, at minimum, documentation of the following: 

▪ Summary of construction activities that occurred within the SBKR Restricted Work Area 

▪ Summary of biological monitoring 

▪ Observations of SBKR individuals or sign 

▪ Condition of SBKR exclusion fencing and any maintenance recommendations or actions taken to 

repair the fence 

▪ Representative photographs 

6.2 Release Site Monitoring and Reporting 

Monitoring of release sites will be the responsibility of the qualified biologist(s) or biologist’s

representative. Monitoring at the release sites will occur for ten days after release has occurred to 

document the immediate success of SBKR translocation. Monitoring will be conducted using track 

plates and/or remote cameras as follows: 

▪ Track plates will be placed at the entrance to the artificial burrows and will be checked every 

morning for new evidence of SBKR entering/leaving the burrow. Following the morning 

inspection of the plates for tracks, the plates will be brushed clean of all tracks so any new SBKR 

sign can be detected the following night. 

▪ Remote cameras will be placed at the entrance to the artificial burrows. Cameras will be 

attached to t-post stakes and positioned approximately two feet above ground and angled 

towards the burrow entrances. 

Results of release site monitoring will be documented in a Translocation Report. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monitoring and Reporting 

Translocation Report 

Following completion of release site monitoring, the qualified biologist(s) or biologist’s

representative will prepare a Translocation Report for submittal to USFWS. The Translocation 

Report will include, at a minimum, documentation of the following: 

▪ Final SBKR Restricted Work Areas within which SBKR capture and translocation occurred 

▪ Pre-construction trapping methodology and results including trapping dates, weather 

conditions, number and locations of traps deployed, and number and description of individuals 

trapped (including data on other small mammals incidentally encountered) 

▪ Handling and captive holding methodology and results including specific techniques and 

materials utilized, duration, and SBKR response to handling and captive holding 

▪ Soft-release methodology and results including dates of release and locations and spatial 

arrangement of artificial burrows 

▪ Summary of burrow excavation methodology and any SBKR observed during excavation 

▪ Methodology and results of release site monitoring including direct visual observations and 

track plate and/or remote camera detections 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

7 References 

Bender, Darren J., Randy Dzenkiw, and David L. Gummer. 2010. Translocation Protocol for the Ord’s

Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys ordii). Alberta Species at Risk Report No 131. March 2010. 

Brown, J.H., and B.A. Harney. 1993. Population and Community Ecology of Heteromyid Rodents in 

Temperate Habitats. Pages 618-651 in H.H. Genowys and J.H. Brown (eds) Biology of the 

Heteromyidae, Special Publication No. 10 of the American Society of Mammologist. 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database. 

Daly, M., P.R. Behrends, and M.I. Wilson. 2000. Activity Patterns of Kangaroo Rats – granivores in a 

desert habitat. in Activity Patterns in Small Mammals. Ecological Studies (Analysis and 

Synthesis), Pp. 145-158, Vol. 141 [S. Halle and N.C. Stenseth, eds.]. Springer-Verlag; Berlin, 

Heidelberg, Germany. 

Germano, David J. 2010. Survivorship of Translocated Kangaroo Rats in the San Joaquin Valley, 

California. California Fish and Game 96(1): 82-89; 2010. 

Goldingray, R.L., P.A. Kelley, and D.F. William, 1997. The Kangaroo Rats of California: endemism and 

conservation of keystone species. Pacific Conservation Biology. Vol 3: 47-60. Surrey, Beatty 

and Sons, Sydney. 

Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of 

California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Heritage Program. 156 pgs. 

HNTB. 2022a. Draft Biological Resources Technical Report for Critical Habitats and Threatened and 

Endangered Species. Cajon Pass High Speed Rail Project, Victor Valley to Rancho 

Cucamonga. June 2022. 

HNTB. 2022b. Draft Biological Assessment Report. Cajon Pass High Speed Rail Project, Victor Valley 

to Rancho Cucamonga. June 2022. 

Jones, W.T. 1993. The Social Systems of Heteromyid Rodents. Pp. 575-595 in Biology of the 

Heteromyidae [H.H. Genoways and J.H. Brown, eds.]. Special Publication 10, The American 

Society of Mammalogists. Lovich, J.E., R.C. Averill-Murray, M. Agha, J.R. Ennen, and M. 

Austin. 2017. Variation in Annual Clutch Phenology of Sonoran Desert Tortoises (Gopherus 

morafkai) in Central Arizona Herpetologica 73, no. 4: 313–322. 

McKernan, Robert L. 1997. The Status and Known Distribution of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat 

(Dipodmys merriami parvus): field surveys conducted 1987 and 1996. Available at: 

https://nrmsecure.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=195354 

McCormick Biological Inc. 2014. Panoche Valley Solar Giant Kangaroo Rate Relocation Plan. April 

2014. 

PBS&J. 2009. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Presence/Absence Trapping Surveys for Spring Trails 

Project. July 2009. 

Regional Conservation Authority2016. Western Riverside County. Multiple Species Habitat 

Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Monitoring Program. 2015 San Bernardino Kangaroo 

Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) Survey Report. September 15. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

Shier, Dr. Debra M. 2008. Behavior Ecology and Translocation of the Endangered Stephen’s

Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi) Annual Report. San Diego Zoo Institute of Conservation 

Research. 

Tennant, Erin, D. J. Germano and B. L. Cypher. 2013. Translocating endangered kangaroo rats in the 

San Joaquin Valley of California: recommendations for future efforts. California Fish and 

Game 99(2): 90-103; 2013. 

Tennant, Erin, D.J. Germano. 2017. Survival of Translocated Herman’s Kangaroo Rats (Dipodomys 

Heermanni) in the San Joaquin Desert of California Using Hard and Soft Release Methods. 

Western Wildlife 4:1 – 11; 2017. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998a. 63 FR 3835 3843. Emergency Rule to List the San 

Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties in Southern California, as 

Endangered. Vol. 63, No. 17, pp. 3835 - 3843. January 27. 

______. 1998b. 63 FR 51005 51017. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to 

List the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat as Endangered. Final rule. September 24. 

______. 2002. 67 FR 19812 19845. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final 

Designation of Critical Habitat for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. Federal Register 50 CFR 

Part 17. April 23. 

______. 2008. 73 FR 20581 20599. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Revised Critical 

Habitat for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat; Final Rule. Federal Register 50 CRF Part 17. 

November 17. 

______. 2020. 5-Year Review. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merrami parvus). Available 

at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/tess/species_nonpublish/2975.pdf 

______. 2021a. Amended Biological Opinion for the Lytle Creek Ranch South Development, City of 

Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. FWS-SB-09B0411-16F0721-R001. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office. April 2. 

White, S.D., and D.W. Padley. 1997. Coastal Sage Scrub Series of Western Riverside County, 

California. Madrono 44, no.1: 95-105. California Botanical Society. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Preparers 

8 List of Preparers 

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 

Primary Author 

▪ Carolynn Honeycutt, Biologist 

Technical Review 

▪ Kelly Rios, Senior Biologist, SBKR 10(a)(1)(A) permit holder 

▪ Christina Shushnar, Senior Supervising Biologist 

▪ David Daitch, Ph.D., Vice President Natural Resources 

Graphics 

▪ Keelie Rocker, GIS Senior Analyst 

▪ Chris Jackson-Jordan, GIS Analyst 

▪ Michael Glietz, GIS II Analyst 

Publishing 

▪ Luis Apolinar, Publishing Specialist 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan 22 
Appendix A 

Figures 
 

Figures 

Figure 1. SBKR Plan Area 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan A-1 
 

Appendix B 

General Measures and SBKR Species-Specific Measure 
Appendix C 

Habitat Restoration Plan 
 

Appendix D 

Exclusion Fencing Example Photograph 
 

Exclusion Fencing Example Photograph 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan D-1 
 

 

Exclusion Fencing Example Photograph 

This page intentionally left blank. 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan D-2 
Appendix E 

Artificial Burrow Plans 
 

Artificial Burrow Plans 

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Capture and Translocation Plan E-1