HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-Public Works
, Cl'fV OF SAN BERh.ARDINO ;P(cEQU~i~T IV~~O~ l~g~'~~:~ ACTION
Adoption of Negative Declaration
Subject: Finding of Consistency with the
Circulation Element of the Gen-
eral Plan - Construction of S~
Improvements on Palm Avenue and
Kendall Dr.- Installation of
Storm Drain in Palm Avenue from
Cable Creek to Irvington Avenue,
and Construction of a Box Culvert
and Traffic Signal at Palm Avenue
and Kendall Drive --
Public Works Project No. 90-08
From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Dept: Public Works/Engineering
Date: 4-11-90
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
04-03-89 -- Authorization to proceed with Assessment District
granted.
.'..l
n"
Cf
::-:r.
1.:'
::;,..
(,.,) ..-,'
';';'1 c.
.,
Recommended motion:
-n
t'::-J
1.
That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 90-08, Con-
struction of street improvements on Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive,
installation of a storm drain in Palm Avenue, from Cable Creek to
Irvington Avenue, and construction of a Box Culvert and traffic signal
at Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive, be adopted.
That a finding be made that the construction of a street improvements
on Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive, installation of a Storm Drain in
Palm Avenue from Cable Creek to Irvington Avenue, and construction
of a box culvert and traffic signal at Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive,
is consistent with the circulation elem~en t~~~~~/'
Marshall Julian ~
m Richardson
2.
cc:
Supporting data attached:
Roger G. Hardgrave
Staff Report, Notice
Init.Studv.Nea.Dec..
Phone:
of Preparation,
Map Ward:
5025
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N / A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Aa~nrl" It~m Nn
L:2J
CITY OF SAN BER~..4RDINO - REQUEST k ~R COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
The Negative Declaration for Public Works project No.
90-08 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review
Committee at its meeting of 3-1-90.
A 21-day public review period was afforded from 3-08-90
to 3-28-90. No comments were received.
We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted
and a finding made that the project is consistent with the
Circulation element of the General Plan.
4-11-90
75-0264
N~TICE OF PREPARATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration
for the following projects. The Environmental Review Committee
found that the project will cot have a significant effect on the
environment on the basis of the Initial Study and mitigation
measures (If applicable).
PARCEL MAP NO. 11951 - To subdivide an approximately 14 acre
parcel into 4 parcels of varying size. The site is located on
the north side of 16th Street, approximately 190 feet north-
westerly of Hancock Street in the CO-I, Commercial Office l~nd
use designation.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-64 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14837 -
A proposal to construct a 36-unit condominium project as Ph~se
II of the existing 58-unit pine Ridge Condominium Project. The
2.85 acre site is located at 1974 Lynwood Drive, generally
situated 340 feet north of Lynwood Drive, west of Sterling
Avenue in the RM, Residential Medium land use designation.
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 90-06 - To construct street paving,
curbs and gutter, sidewalks, lights and related.work on Sunset
Drive between Caroline Street and Red1ands Boulevard.
/
, ?UBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 90-08 - To construct street improve-
\fments (curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc.) on Palm Avenue and Kenca11
Drive; a storm drain along Palm Avenue from Irvington Avenue to
Cable Creek; a box culvert on Cable Creek at Palm Avenue anc a
traffic signal at the intersection of Palm and Kendall Drive.
Copies of the Initial Study are available for public review at ~he
Planning Department, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, CA
92418, and the Feldheym Library, 555 West 6th Street, San Ber-
nardino, CA. Any environmental comments you have should be
received in this office no later than 4:00 p.m., March 28, 1990.
If you do not respond in writing, we will assume that you have ~o
opinions and/or recommendations on the above projects.
SUBMITTED: March 6, 1990
PUBLISH: March 8, 1990
l:'-'
t.:..
.:.:;..; t-.-~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
384-5057
~~
;:'::,..
.~ ..
I....
"., ,
,
Q')
,
t'l, ) ~ ,."
:;!i.;..;
- ,
.,",
CP
It'l
-',~I
C7 NOPND3190
~
o
-.J
,
C~ . Y OF SAN BERNAR"".NO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Initial study for Environmental Impacts
For t>u~\..\c. IA1~K'" PRo:1U:r 1-1.. qQ-Ol!>
Project Number
Project description/Location To c.o,,~ s~'t"
'MPlllNlt~ (c.\I.~ I &Im'liA!. , .. ,Q".,.t_ . ..-re.. ) ON VAL.. M "'IIE~ A..Jtl
\(&l.llM.I... ba.\~. A stt>Q,,\\, tll!A,o.l A-L...:l~'" Wr.o..M "'"e.w.2. l'/2oM. '/W'olbTl>N
"'~ 'TO cAe~ c.~ A Qo'j" C<AL..\liAT oN. CA0~ C~ ATPAL..M.
J _
AvElolLle.. ~o A ~ ':J\I.>IM.. A" TIlE ,~o.I or- PALf,\ lINt> ~
Date l=106I2\LAil." \2 \~~O
I
Applicant(s)
Prepared for:
ClT>4 01' SoW. ~bl"[)
'OIOPAlt'tMe.t>T 00: 'P\l.tlu.c.. w~
:l.oo N.. 0" 5TCl.E.\S.'"
S<\oM "~~l->>r c.A '\2A\~
Address
City, state
Zip
Prepared by:
MIC~I\'eL ll.. (:',..01.
Name
",",*,lfoT....sf i'LA....iOR.
Title
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 N. "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
MISC:
ISPREPARATION
ke/9-1-89
/!ILc' th ~ jp: 3 -1-10
..
~
('~TY OF SAN BERNAiCDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
""
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
\..
r
~
......
A.
BACKGROYND
App1 ication Number: P\A,e,L.\~ Woll.-,(,5, VltOXEC.T ~o. ~O-o'il
P roj ect Desc r ipt ion: TO CDM~'l1W.C.'t' !>'t1U!>Ot" IMi'llO>ll!lMe.ltS.'=A.a.~.S.~.e:n:..)
o>l ~ .w&llll<. A>lI> ~ OQ.\v€ A. s t'oilll\ ilQAltl. ....LOW" '1'_ _....IE fRo.... '/W,al60TOM ",~""u.e:: TO
,
"MIlL c.~. .. ~ ClluJEltt ON ~ dl.Ela"- A.T?M.Io\ AM!> A "QJrRO'" Sl("W.... "', PA<..M AN:E> L<fWi)tLL.
Locat ion: ~A<-M "\l6Iol1J.E 1"_ .llJ/..x.'Tt>M A\le..J1I.e To ""'->t>M..L.. t>A.'\lf: ~ A'r Tit!!
1"'TEQ...~T'ION of 'PAuVl A1ietolu.E ANt> Ke.-J\)i\-..... t>llJ.VIO.
Environmental Constraints Areas: GA.eetl.6e.a.:T''l.OIll!.''c.'', MObUAo~FlllfH~()
Al1EA, 111"1.\ NaNn ~, 'i\IOl.06oICAL- ov~~ '2>1SR1Cr. PIlJ<Ad-Nbl.I€Oko(!'IUtI...Co~J 500 YeN-fi.DoD~oIE.
General Plan Designation: R.~, R.E~ltllWt1"\.. ~1'Ml::b~ ~\..I R.EI;"t>40,.)TlAI... l.o.O\fJj
AlIID eG. -I, CCIII/l\~lk.... G€..Ne4lA'L-
Zoning Designation: R.€J~IWJTl'-l..UTA"I~bj RL,RE~~I"l.\..O"': /INb
C.('~l, c.oMM6$!LVt\.. G.eN.a2AL. .
B. ~HVIBONM~NTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. EaI~h Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes
No
Maybe
a.
Earth
fill)
more?
movement (cut and/or
of 10,000 cubic yards or
x.
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15%
natural grade?
)(
c.
Development
Alquist-Priolo
Zone?
within the
Special Studies
)(
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
x.
\..
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
."
r'
Yes
No
Maybe
"'"
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river? X
x
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
~
X
h. Other?
2. ~IR RESOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
x
x.
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area? ~
3.
WATES RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
Will
the
~
b. Changes in the course or flow
of flood waters?
x
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazarjs?
f. Other?
x
)(
x..
'I..
""
~
REVISED 12187
PAGE 2 OF 8
:
,
4.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE~:
proposal result in:
Could the
a.
Change
unique,
species
habitat
trees?
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
c. Other?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of plants or their
including stands of
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
c. Other?
6.
LAND_ USE:
result in:
a.
A change in
designated
Plan?
Will the
proposal
the land use as
on the General
b. Development within an Airport
District?
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
e. Other?
~
Yes
No
Maybe
"""II
)<.
x.
)(..
x
X
x.
)(
x
)(
)(
.
)(
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
Yes
7.
MAN-MADE HA~!!Nl~:
project:
Will
the
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
of
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d. Other?
8. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a.
existing housing or
demand for additional
Remove
create a
housing?
b. Other?
9. !RA~FQBTATlqN/CIRCULATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan?
b.
Use of existing,
new, par king
structures?
or demand for
facilities/
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safp.ty hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
No
Maybe
~
'J(
K
')(...
..;,
><-
x
X-
x.
x
x
x.
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 4 OF 8
g.
h.
Yes
No
Maybe
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
~
x.
Other?
PUBLIC SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the fOllowing beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
10.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools (Le. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
x
><.
)I..
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
ox
'!..
)(
'f...
Medical aid?
Solid waste?
Other?
11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
1. Natural gas?
)(
>(
x:.
X
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
x
b.
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
x
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
J(
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 5 OF 8
. "._. ,
.,.
Yes
No
Maybe
..,
12. AESTHETI~:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
\(
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
x
c. Other?
'l
13.
~Y~TURA~--FESQURCES:
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Could the
x
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
)(
><
c. Other?
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
lir...
The California Environmental
Quality Act states that if any of
the following can be answered yes
or maybe, the project may have a
significant effect on the
environment and an Environmental
Impact Report shall be prepared.
a. Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal COfJrnunity, reduce
the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 6 OF 8
"
Yes
No
Maybe
"'"
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the
potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the
future,)
><.
X'
.
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on
the environment is
significant. )
)(
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
.
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
\. ~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
"'Ill
DETERMINA1JON
On the basis of this initial study,
o
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
~
The proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, although there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described above have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
An 11 ({) A 011 - PI /d~, ~M i 01 P-J0JIl Y\.Q.I\
Name and Title
()~ c1~xJ~~
Signature
Date:
3-/-10
\..
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
LOCATION
CASE
AGENDA
ITEM #=
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE
//~.
,/
I'
.'
:L. t
,r-
"
JO
K
\ "
~V\ R~
'1////
INTRODUC'l'ION
This report documents a cultural resources assessment of tive
pUblic works intrastructure improvements in the Verdemont
Planning Are. of the city of San Bernardino, Calitornia. The
study was conducted by Michael K. Lerch & Associates at the
request of the City Public Works Department, in order to provide
information for environmental assessments for the proposed
projects. Because the projects will require actions by local,
state, and federal agencies, the study provides the necessary
information for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The field
survey of the projects was conducted on Auqust 2-4, 1989, by
Michael K. Lerch (see Appendix A), who also authored this report.
The five proposed projects are known as: 1) Chestnut Avenue
Storm Drain: 2) Palm Avenue Improvements: 3) Palm Avenue/Cable
Creek Box Culvert: 4) Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive Traffic Signal:
and 5) Bailey Creek Storm Drain. All five projects are located
in the Verdemont Planning Area in the northwestern portion of the
City of San Bernardino, California. More specifically, they are
situated in the extreme southeastern corner of Section 36, T2N,
R5W: Section 1 (projected), T1N, R5W: and section 6 (projected),
T1N, R4W: SBBM, as shown on the USGS San Bernardino North 7.5'
topographic quadrangle, 1967 edition, photorevised 1980 (Fig. 1).
The project descriptions are as follows, with numbers and names
, corresponding to locations shown in Fiqure 1:
1. Chestnut Avenue Storm Drain. This project will consist of
the construction of an underground storm drain from the
National Forest boundary to Cable Creek within the 60-toot
right-of-way of Chestnut Avenue. A 2-3 acre debris basin
will be constructed at the inlet on the northern end of the
drain. The approximate length of the storm drain will be
5,000 feet. For purposes of this study the area of
potential environmental impact was considered to be 100 feet
(30 meters) wide and one mile long.
2. Palm Avenue ImDrovements. This project involves widening of
Palm Avenue to its full right-of-way width, which varies
from 88 to 100 feet, from the boundary of Muscubiabe Rancho
on the north to Kendall Drive on the south, a distance of
one mile. CUrbs, qutters, sidewalks, and street lights will
be constucted in those portion of Palm Avenue where they are
currently lacking. Full right-of-way improvements have
already been made adjacent to some recent developments,
which amount to approximately 10\ of the total length of the
project. For purposes of this study the area of potential
environmental impact was considered to be 150 feet (45
meters) wide and one mile long.
1
REFERENCES
Jeffrey H., Martin R. Rose, and Michael K. Lerch
Man and Settlement in the Upper Santa Ana River
Drainage: A CUltural Resources .overview. Tucson:
Statistical Reserach, Technical Ser1es No.1.
Bean Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith
'1978 Serrano. In: Handbook of North American
Volume 8, California, R. F. Heizer, ed., pp.
Washington, D.C.: smithsonian Institution.
Altshcul,
1984
Indians,
570-574.
Beattie, George W.,
1951 Heritage
Century.
and Helen P. Beattie
of the Valley: San
Oakland: Biobooks.
Bernardino's
First
Benedict, Ruth F.
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano culture.
Anthropologist 26(3):366-392.
Department of Parks & Recreation (State of California)
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources.
Sacramento: The Resources Agency, Department of Parks
& Recreation.
American
1982 California Historical Landmarks. Sacramento: The
Resources Agency, Department of Parks & Recreation.
Kroeber, A. L.
1925 Handbook
American
of the Indians of california.
Ethnology Bulletin No. 78.
Bureau
of
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service
1979 National Register of Historic Places, Annual Listing of
Historic Properties. Federal Register 44(26), 45(54),
46(22), 47(22), 48(41), 49(26), 50(43), 51(37), and
53(100).
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal
Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
11(3):214-230.
Warren, Claude N.
1968 CUltural Tradition and Ecological Adaptations on the
Southern California Coast. In: Archaic Prehistory of
the Western United States, Cynthia Irwin-Williams, ed.
Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in
Anthropology 1(3):1-14.
9
OBJECTIVES OP THB S'l'ODY
The objectiv.. of this study were to identify, record, and
evaluate the significance of all historic and prehistoric
cultural re.ource. located within and immediately adjacent to the
project locations. The study addresses historic structures older
than 45 years, historic archaeological resources older than 100
years and all prehistoric archaeological resources. Signifi-
cance' was to be determined with reference to criteria for
eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places (36 CFR 60.4). These criteria may also be used for
determining whether a resources is "important" as defined in CEQA
Appendix K.
METHODS OP DATA COLLECTION
Prior to the fieldwork portion of the study, an
records check for previously recorded sites and
was conducted at the San Bernardino county
Information Center, located at the San Bernardino
Redlands (see Appendix B).
Available archaeological, ethnographic, and historical
literature was reviewed in order that known or expected site
types for the region could be anticipated and accurately
identified during the field survey. other sources consulted
included the National Reaister of Historic Places (USDr 1979),
California Inventorv of Historic Resources (DPR 1976), and
California Historical Landmarks (DPR 1982).
archaeological
surveyed areas
ArChaeological
County Museum,
Archival records reviewed included the US Government Land Office
plat map of Rancho Muscupiabe, surveyed by Henry Hancock in 1867,
the USGS San Bernardino 1901 15' quadrangle (based on surveys
conducted in 1893-1894), and the US Army Corps of Engineers San
Bernardino 1942 15' quadrangle (based on surveys conducted in
1940-1941), on file at the San Bernardino County Archaeological
Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands. In
addition to the above historic maps, various other local history
sources pertinent to the area which were provided by the
Information Center also were reviewed.
An intensive cultural resources inventory
potential environmental impact for all
conducted by the author on August 3-4, 1989.
are described as follows, for each project:
1) A transect spaced approximately 30 feet (10 meters) was
walked on each side of the current road alignment for the
entire length of the project and parallel transects spaced
approximately 10 meters apart were walked in a northwest/
southeast direction over an area of approximately 5 acres
where the debris basin is proposed:
of the areas
five proj ects
Field methods
of
was
used
4
Archival Research
The principal reason for reviewing the various historic maps of
the project area was to determine whether any historic structures
or historic archaeological resources might be present on or
adjacent: to the project route. None of the historic maps
researched depicted any structures or other cultural features in
or immediately adjacent to the project areas of disturbance,
although a number of potential historic resources are depicted in
the qeneral vicinity of the projects.
RESULTS OP THE STUDY
The results
review, and
prehistoric
immediately
impact.
Although no surface evidence was observed, buried prehistoric ~
archaeological resources are considered a possibility in the )
upper portions of the Bailey Creek storm Drain project.
Altschul, Rose, and Lerch (1984:12) noted that the present qround
surfaces in much of San Bernardino Valley are dynamic features,
and that archaeological sites of any antiquity along the
tributaries of the Santa Ana River are pJi'obably buried. The
potential for buried archaeoloqical resources to be encountered
in the upper Bailey Creek area is considered moderate due to the~
environemtnal context at the mouth of a canyon and the proximity
of a source of natural fresh water.
of the records checks, literature and archival
field survey of the project sites were neqative. No
or historic cultural resources were observed in or
adjacent to any of the project areas of potential
POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS
Due to the negative results of the study as noted above, no
adverse impacts to known cultural resources eligible or
potentially eligible for listinq in the National Reqister of
Historic Places are anticipated from construction of the five
public works infrastructure improvements in the Verdemont
Planninq Area, Assessment District U87. In the event that
subsurface cultural deposits with no surface evidence are present
in the Bailey Creek area, they could be subj ect to adverse
impacts. Any buried cultural resources located within the
proposed riqht-of-way would be impacted.
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
No further preconstruct ion archaeological investigation is
warranted for the five infrastructure projects. However, it is
recommended that an archaeological monitor should be present~ xi
durinq construction excavation of the Bailey Creek Storm Drain,l~
so that in the event subsurface cultural materials are
encountered, such materials can be evaluated and appropriate data
7
recovery/protection measures implemented it necessary. It this
recommended measure is implemented, it can be concluded that none
ot the proposed projects will have an adverse ettect on
"important- cultural resources as detined by CEQA Appendix K, or
on properties eliqible or potentially eliqible tor listinq in
the National Reqister ot Historic Places, as detined in 36 CPR
60.4.
8
REFERENCES
Jettrey H., Martin R. Rose, and Michael K. Lerch
Man and Settlement in the Upper Santa Ana River
Drainaqe: A CUltural Resource. Overview. Tucson:
statistical Reserach, Technical Series No.1.
Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith
1978 Serrano. In: Hand~ook of North American
VolWlle 8, California, R. F. Heizer, ed., pp.
Washinqton, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Altshcul,
1984
Indians,
570-574.
Beattie, Georqe W.,
1951 Heritaqe
Century.
and Helen P. Beattie
ot the Valley: San
Oakland: Bio~ooks.
Bernardino's
First
Benedict, Ruth F.
1924 A Briet Sketch of Serrano culture.
Anthropologist 26(3):366-392.
Department ot Parks & Recreation (State ot california)
1976 California Inventory ot Historic Resources.
Sacramento: The Resources Aqency, Department ot Parks
& Recreation.
American
1982 California Historical Landmarks. Sacramento: The
Resources Aqency, Department of Parks & Recreation.
Kroe~er, A. L.
1925 Hand~ook
American
of the Indians ot California.
Ethnology Bulletin No. 78.
Bureau
of
United states Department of the Interior, National Park Service
1979 National Register of Historic Places, Annual Listinq of
Historic Properties. Federal Reqister 44(26), 45(54),
46(22), 47(22), 48(41), 49(26), 50(43), 51(37), and
53(100).
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal
Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
11(3) :214-230.
Warren, Claude N.
1968 CUltural Tradition and Ecoloqical Adaptations on the
Southern California Coast. In: Archaic Prehistory of
the Western United States, Cynthia Irwin-Williams, ed.
Eastern New Mexico University Contri~utions in
Anthropology 1(3):1-14.
9
Project Number Public Works Project No. 90-08
February 12, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
1.e., 2.a., and 5.a.
Construction could result in transient impacts on the physical
environment (erosion, drainage, etc.) as well on the community
(dust, noise, etc.). Drainage and erosion viII be controlled
with the use of sandbags during construction. Soil will be
watered to minimize dust and wind erosion. compliance with
San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 8.54 will minimize
potential impacts resulting from the temporary increases in
noise. Resultant construction impacts concerning erosion,
drainage, dust, and noise will be reduced to a level of
insignificance.
lof.
The project will result in the modification of Cable Creek at
Palm Avenue with the construction of the box culvert on the
creek. The box culvert is being constructed to support the
widening of Palm Avenue and to enable all weather access on
, Palm Avenue across Cable Creek. The box culvert will not
restrict or reroute flows in or along Cable Creek. Approval
for the culvert must be obtained from the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District. Impacts resulting from the
construction of the Cable Creek box culvert will be
insignificant.
2.c.
The project is located within a high wind hazard area. Soil
will be watered to minimize wind erosion of soil during
construction. Given the nature of the project, high wind will
result in no significant impacts.
3.a., and 3.b.
The project lies within a 500 year flood zone and the project
will result in a change in the drainage patterns in the area.
There will be no significant impacts since the project will
improve drainage in the area and reduce the potential for
flooding.
4a., and 4.b.
The project lies within a Biological Management Overlay District.
A biological impact assessment was conducted by Lawrence F.
LaPre, PhD. of Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. (attachment "A".)
The assessment indicates the absence of biological resources in
Project Number Public Works Project No. 90-08
February 12, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURES (continued)
4.b. (continued)
the right-of-way for the street improvements along Palm Avenue,
at the Palm Avenue crossing of Cable Creek (the site of the box
culvert), and at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall
Drive. However, the study indicates the probable loss of less
than five native trees, California Walnuts and California
Sycamores, due to the Palm Avenue improvements. To mitigate
o these re , cement of the same
species of tree shall be planted along the street in the same
vicinit as those 10
6.c.
The project is located within Greenbelt Zone "C" and in a
moderate fire hazard area. Due to the nature of the project
potential impacts will be insignificant.
9.d.
There could be temporary alterations of present traffic
circulation on Chestnut Avenue south of Irvington Avenue
during construction of the storm drain. During the
excavation phase, portions of the street may have to be
torn up. Traffic control such as barricades, flagmen and
detours satisfactory to the City Traffic Engineer and
required by San Bernardino Municipal Code 12.04 shall be
maintained throughout project construction. Impacts will
be reduced to a level of insignificance.
13.a.
The project lies within an area of archaeological concern.
Michael K. Lerch and Associates were enjoined to conduct
an archaeological survey and study of the site (Attachment
"B".) From the study and survey it was concluded that no
adverse impacts to known cultural resources were expected
from the construction of the Palm Avenue street improvements,
the box culvert on Cable Creek, or the traffic signal at
the intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive. However,
during construction of these projects, should any archaeological
resources be uncovered, all grading and/or construction shall
halt and a qualified archeologist shall be consulted to document,
remove, and otherwise preserve any archaeological resources
located at the site.
Anlrc\\I\!.W\ A'
Verdemont Infrastructure: Phase 1 Biological Assessment
Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc.
Lawrence F. LaPre, PhD
Robin Bishop
November, 1989
Introduction
This report was contracted by Michael K. Lerch & Associates
to provide the city of San Bernardino Public Works Department
with site-specific information on five infrastructure projects in
the Verdemont area. The location of these projects is given in
Figure 1 and they are described briefly below:
1. Chestnut Avenue Drain
underground storm drain
undeveloped Chestnut Avenue
base of the foothills.
constructed at the inlet.
This consists of construction of an
within the 60' right-of-way of
from the Cable Creek crossing to the
A 2-3 acre debris basin will be
2. Palm Avenue Imorovements. Palm Avenue will be improved with
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and streetlights within the existing
right-of-way (88-100'). Improvements are planned for all
unfinished segments of Palm Avenue from Kendall Drive to the
Muscubiabe Rancho line.
3. fslm Avenue Box Culvert. A box culvert will be constructed
at the crossing of Cable Creek by Palm Avenue.
4. Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive Traffic Sianal.
will be installed at the intersection of Palm
Drive.
A traffic signal
Avenue and Kendall
5. Bailev Creek Storm Drain. This proj ect is to construct a
concrete trapezoidal channel from the existing channel near the
corner of Walnut Avenue and Belmont Avenue along the existing
stream channel to the mouth of Bailey Canyon, where a debris
basin will be located.
The Chestnut Avenue drain, the Bailey Creek drain, and the
Palm Avenue box culvert will require permits from the California
Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. These agencies guide development within stream beds,
and often require mitigation for adverse impacts to riparian
vegetation that is found along stream channels. This report is
intended to provide baseline data on the biological resources of
these project areas, particularly existing riparian vegetation
and habitat values. Suggestions are also provided so that the
City can prepare applications for the wetland permits and plan
for the expected mitigation that could be imposed as permit
conditions.
PW ~-07
Methods
A literature review was conducted to identify any sensitive
elements which are known to occur on or in the vicinity of the
property. This included consultation with the California Natural
Diversity Data Base (Data Base). We also reviewed the earlier
report of Pacific Southwest Biological Services (1985) on the
Verdemont planning area, as well as pertinent environmental
documents from other development projects in the area.
Information included in the San Bernardino National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan (1988) for the Bailey Canyon area
was reviewed as well.
Following the literature review, a field survey was
performed by Robin Bishop on May 9, 11, 12, 18, and 19, 1989.
L. LaPre reviewed all of the project sites on. August 20, 1989.
Twenty hours were spent walking over the sites and all plant and
animal species detected were recorded in field notes. Common
names are used in the text for all species. Appended to this
report is a species inventory for each project site except the
signalization (Project #4) which provides both scientific and
common names. The signalization project area was entirely paved,
and contained no plants or animals.
Results
The Verdemont area is characterized by alluvial deposits
which are dissected streambeds draining the adjoining chaparral-
covered slopes of the San Bernardino National Forest. The
vegetation on the alluvial fans and terraces is in a transition
between the coastal sage scrub communities of lower elevations
and the chaparral of the higher elevations and steep sloes. The
vegetation reflects the long-term activities of the Cajon Creek
drainage, supporting both elements of the alluvial sage scrub
community and a rather large stand of California walnut trees.
These noteworthy California native plants reach the eastern edge
of their distribution in the Cajon Pass. The walnut woodland is
a declining native plant community (Holland 1986). The walnut
treespresent in the Verdemont area are not in a woodland
formation, but rather are found as large isolated trees on the
alluvial bench and as trees and shrubs within the riparian
drainages.
The Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub plant community is a
species-rich assemblage of shrubs typical of both the coastal
sage scrub and chaparral communities, though coastal sage species
are generally dominant (Sanders, 1987, citing Smith). This
vegetation formerly covered most of the alluvial slopes in the
Los Angeles basin, but has now been greatly reduced in extent by
urban expansion (Smith, 1980, citing Hanes). This is the same
fate that has befallen the more typical coastal sage scrub of
adjacent foothill slopes and plains: it has been estimated that
2
this community has been reduced in extent by 90t due to
urbanization (Sanders, 1987). Most authors have included
alluvial SCruD within their concept of coastal sage scrub and
even smith agrees that alluvial SCruD is part of the coastal sage
scrub "type" (Sanders, 1987). Holland, (1986) includes the
community in his inventory of natural communities in California.
Because this vegetation association is thought to be in decline,
it is designated by the Data Base as a community with highest
inventory priorities.
Riparian communities occur along drainages and provide
plants adapted to temporary or permanent water with the
conditions to survive. Riparian vegetation provides high-quality
wildlife habitat. Because of the extensive loss of riparian
communities in california, the protection of this vegetation is a
top priority of the California Department of Fish and Game CDFG).
The California Fish and Game Commission has adopted a policy of
"no net loss" of wetlands for the state, which includes riparian
wetlands.
The riparian communities bordering the streams within the
Verdemont area are narrow bands of dense trees and undergrowth.
Most of the drainages support a diverse plant community which is
high-quality wildlife habitat.
The historic vegetation in the Verdemont area has been
modified into what is now a degraded community of coastal sage
scrub vegetation with scattered walnut trees on .the uplands, and
remnant strips of good riparian communities along the drainages.
The Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is only present as a
distinct association west of Interstate 15, and none of the rare
species known to occur in this community are found near the Phase
I infrastructure project area. The walnut woodland, if ever
present, has likewise been reduced to scattered older trees, some
of which are found within the infrastructure project boundaries.
Only the riparian communities appear to have maintained their
historic structure and species diversity.
The biological resources of the individual infrastructure
project sites are discussed separately below.
Chestnut Avenue Drain
Chestnut Avenue is undeveloped along most of its length
north of Belmont Avenue. The road right-of-way follows dense
rows of EucalvDtus and olive trees, and contains a wide ditch in
the centerline. The streamcourse parallels Chestnut Avenue, and
does not appear to be part of the sixty foot right-of-way.
A large number of riparian trees, mainly sycamore,
elderberry, and willow are found in the stream channel that
borders the Chestnut Avenue right-of-way. A dense understory in
most places is made up of mulefat, poison oak, squawbush,
tarragon, and western ragweed. This riparian vegetation is of
high importance as wildlife habitat, contrasting with the
3
artificial ditch and bordering ornamental trees within the road
right-ot-way.
The debris basin site contains primarily a disturbed coastal
sage scrub plant community, dominated by buckWheat and coastal
sagebrush. The stream channel at this location includes a scrub
vegetation ot mulefat, with about eight smaller sycamore trees.
The dry riparian debris basin site is much less well developed
than the riparian woodland located downstream.
fAlm Avenue Imorovements
No significant biological resources exist within the right-
of-way tor the planned improvements to Palm Avenue. We estimate
that the improvements will result in the removal of one sycamore,
one California walnut, several Eucalvotus, and a few olive trees.
~ Avenue ~ Culvert
No significant biological resources are found at the Palm
Avenue crossing of Cable Creek, where the box culvert is planned.
Cable Creek is channelized and riprapped at this location, and
virtually no vegetation exists in the stream channel. Along the
borders for 200" in either direction, the plants consist of weedy
natives such as Jimson weed and doveweed, along with many
undesirable introduced European grasses and weeds.
Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive Traffic Sianal
The intersection to be signalized is completely disturbed or
paved and contains no biological resources.
Sailev Creek Storm Drain
Bailey Creek, where it crosses over the alluvial plain
downstream to Walnut Avenue near Belmont Avenue supports a lush
and very significant riparian community. At the debris basin
site, most trees are in excess of forty feet in height. Wildlife
is abundant in and near this stream channel. In addition to
sycamores, mulefat, willows, and elderberry, we observed one
fifty-foot-tall incense cedar, and four bigcone Douglas fir, all
of which appeared to be naturally-occurring "washdown" plants
from higher elevations. The riparian community is somewhat
invaded by tall Eucal votus, but continues as a strip of dense
trees downstream almost the entire way to the junction with the
existing concrete trapezoidal channel. Just upstream from the
channel is the driest and least significant portion of this
creek.
Sensitive soecies
The computerized search of the Data Base, previous reports
from the area, and other materials listed in the references
section of this report indicated that four sensitive plants, two
sensitive animals, and one natural community have been recorded
4
in the vicinity of the Verdemont infrastructure projects. Two
other plants, the thread-leaved brodiaea and the San Bernardino
owl's clover, were also reported from the San Bernardino North
quad, but these plants are montane species found at higher
elevations and have no sui table habitat near Verdemont.
Therefore, they were eliminated from further consideration.
Sensitive species are so-called because their populations
are declininq, they are especially vulnerable to habitat change,
or because they have restricted distributions and are therefore
uncommon. For a summary of those sensitive species potentially
occurrinq in the Verdemont infrastructure project area, see Table
1.
5
Table
1.
Sensitive species considered for the
infrastructure projects.
Verdemont
Species or community Status. occurrence NUmber of
Probability. Sightings
Centrosteaia 1) E
leotoceras 2) CE Absent 0
Slender-horned 3 ) List 1
spineflower 3-3-3
Eriastrum densifolium 1) E
var. sanctorum 2) E Absent 0
Santa Ana River 3) List 1
woolly-star 3-3-3
Phrvnosoma coronatum 1) C2
blainvillei High 0
San Diego horned Projects
lizard #1 and #5
Peroanathus 1) C2
lonqimembris 2) CSC Moderate 0
brevinasus Projects
Los Angeles pocket #1 and #5
mouse
. Definitions of Occurrence Probability:
High: Observed on similar habitat in surrounding region by field
personnel of Tierra Madre Consultants, or habitat on the site is
a type often utilized by the species and the site is within the
known range of the species.
Moderate: Reported sightings in surrounding region, habitat
the site is a type occasionally utilized by the species; or
is within the known range of the species and habitat on the
is a type occasionally utilized by the species.
on
site
site
Low: Site is within the known range of the species but habitat
on the site is rarely used by the species.
Absent: Suitable habitat absent or a focused survey during the
correct season failed to detect the species.
6
STATUS DESIGNATIONS
1) FEDERAL DESIGNATIONS
E - Federally listed, endangered
T ~ Federally listed, threatened
C1 - category 1 candidate species. Enough data are on file to
support the federal listing.
C2 = Category 2 candidate species. Threat and/or distribution
data are insufficient to support federal listing.
2) STATE DESIGNATIONS
CE - State listed, endangered
CT = State listed, threatened (previously listed as rare)
CSC ~ Species of Special Concern (see Williams, 1986).
3. CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY (CNPS)
List 1 - Plants rare and endangered in California and
elsewhere.
List 2 - Plants rare or endangered in California, but more
common elsewhere.
List 3 - Plants about which we need more information.
List 4 - Plants of limited distribution ( a watch list).
R-E-D CODE:
R (Rarity)
1 - Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and
distributed widely enough that the potential for
extinction or extirpation is low at this time.
2 Occurrence confined to several populations or one
extended population.
3 Occurrence limited to one or a few highly
restricted populations, or present in such small
numbers that it is seldom reported.
E (Endangerment)
1 - Not endangered
2 - Endangered. in a portion of its range
3 - Endangered throughout its range
D (Distribution)
1 - More or less widespread outside California
2 - Rare outside California
3 - Endemic to California (i.e., does not
outside California).
Status descriptions are derived from the California Natural
Diversity Data Base and California Native Plant Society. See
references. for federal and state designations.
occur
7
The potentially-occurring species listed in Table 1 are
discussed below and the results ot the field surveys to determine
their presence or absence are given.
Slender-borDed spine flower is a small, low-to-the-ground,
spring-blooming annual of the buckwheat family. Its preferred
habitat is dry sandy benches of washes below 2,000 teet in the
coastal sage scrub or alluvial sage scrub plant communities.
Although populations of the slender-horned spineflower range from
the San Fernando Valley to the San Bernardino Valley and the
Elsinore area, most historic locations have been eliminated by
urbanization and river modification for flood control. This
extensive loss of habitat has resulted in the. listing ot this
species as endangered by the State of California and the U. S.
Fish & Wildlife Service.
The Data Base reported a population of slender-horned
spineflower in Cajon Canyon near Devore, somewhat west of the
project sites. No suitable habitat for the slender-horned
spine flower exists on the Phase I Verdemont infrastructure sites.
All known habitat and occurrences are west of Interstate 15.
The Santa Ana River woolly-star is a small gray-green shrub
of the phlox family with blue flowers. It occurs in alluvial fan
sage scrub of the higher flood plain terraces of the Santa Ana
River and its tributaries and tends to occupy habitats with
little evidence of surface disturbance. The historic range of the
Santa Ana River woolly-star spanned approximately sixty river
miles from Rancho Santa Ana in Orange County at an elevation of
SOO ft. to the the vicinity of Highland in San Bernardino County
at 1500 ft. It is currently restricted to several disjunct
populations on Lytle Creek and in the flood plain of the Santa
Ana River from Redlands to the mouth of the Santa Ana Canyon in
San Bernardino County. The total range has been reduced by at
least 70% to about 18 river miles. Human encroachment through
intensive use of the flood plain margins for urbanization, flood
control structures, ground water recharge facilities, sand and
gravel mining, and farming has further reduced the suitable
habitat for the plant by greater than 90%. This extensive loss
of habitat has resulted in the recent listing of this species as
endangered by the State of California and the U. S. Fish &
Wildlife Service.
The Data Base reported an extirpated location of the Santa
Ana River woolly-star in the vicinity of Devore. Krantz (1987)
reported 16 small woolly-star plants 0.3 mile north of
Institution Road on the west side of Cajon Boulevard. The
woolly-stars at the Sheriff's Training Center site have been
studied (Tierra Madre Consultants, 1988) and determined to
contain intergrade pOpulations, representing genetic crossing
between two subspecies.
8
All known sites for the Santa Ana River woolly-star are west
ot the infrastructure proj ects in Verdemont. No sui table
alluvial sage scrub habitat is present on the project sites, and
no woolly-star plants were seen.
The range ot the SaD Diego horDe4 lizar4 extends from near
the coastline eastward through the interior valleys and plains to
the slopes ot the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa
Mountains. This species is also known from western San Diego
County but is absent from southern California deserts. Preferred
habitat consists primarily of flatlands occupied by grassland,
coastal sage scrub, sparse chaparral, and occasionally, upper
elevations ot open, coniferous woodlands. It is rarely found
under closed-canopy, evergreen cover. open stretches ot sandy
soil used for basking, cover, and social behavior, are apparently
a critical habitat component. Ants are the primary food of this
species although, it will also feed on other insects.
Populations of this lizard are declining due to extensive
collecting on wildlands and as a result of its habitat being
converted to agricultural and urban uses.
This lizard has been recently reported from Cajon wash, and
is expected to occur in the less-disturbed lands of the Verdemont
planning area. This includes the Chestnut Avenue drain and the
Bailey Canyon strom drain project areas.
Very little is known about the Los ADqeles pocket mouse. It
apparently digs underground burrows and is nocturnal, and is
~herefore not often detected except in trapping surveys. The
geographic range is restricted to lower elevations in grassy
areas from Burbank to San Bernardino and eastwards to Aguanga in
Riverside County. Urbanization and cul ti vat ion have eliminated
much of the habitat for this uncommon rodent.
In 1931 there was a report of the Los Angeles pocket mouse
from 4.75 miles north of San Bernardino. The records presented
by Williams (1986) indicate that this species ranged mainly in
the San Bernardino Valley. Therefore, it is not known whether or
not the Verdemont area would provide suitable habitat, since it
appears to lie at the upper elevational edge of the species
range. In addition, the probable habitat of this species is
grassland or coastal sage scrub, rather than the riparian
vegetation found at the least disturbed infrastructure project
sites. The most likely locations for this species, if it occurs,
are at the edge of the drainages on the Chestnut Avenue and
Bailey Canyon drain projects.
A focused trapping study would be required to absolutely
determine the presence or absence of the Los Angeles pocket
mouse. Because of the nearness of the historic record and the
fact that some sage scrub habitat is found at the edges of the
Bailey Creek and Chestnut Avenue drainages, we believe that a
moderate probability exists for occurrence of this rodent.
9
In SU1lll'1ary, no rare, threatened, . or endanqered species of
plant or animal was found on any ot the intrastructure project
sites. Potential habitat is available at the c~estnut ~treet\
drain and Bailey Dreek drain sites for two declin1ng spec1es of
wildlite which are candidate species tor future federal
, .
protection under the Endanqered Spec1es Act.
Discussioll
One of the proposed infrastructure projects did not contain
any native vegetation or wildlife habitat, or any other
siqnificant bioloqical features. This project, the signalization
of the Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive intersection, is excluded from
further discussion of bioloqical resources. The Palm Avenue box
culvert lacks biological significance except as a component of
the Cable Creek. stream system, which contains hiqher resource
value upstream and downstream. The Palm Avenue widening
improvements affect biological resources only minimally,
resulting in the loss of a few native trees. However, the\,
Chestnut Avenue drain project contains significant riparian J
vegetation.
Three of the five Phase 1 infrastructure projects will
require permits from the Department of Fish and Game under
Sections 1601-3 of the Fish and Game Code. These same projects
will also probably require permits from the Corps of Engineers,
which administers Section 404 of the federal -Clean Water Act.
Because the Palm Avenue box culvert will not impact .riparian
habitat of any important biological resources, the permitting for
t,his project will be ministerial after submittal of the
application with fee.
The Chestnut Avenue drain and the Bailey Creek storm drain,
on the other hand, will require permits from the CDFG and the
corps of Engineers. The permitting requirements and further
analysis that might be needed for each of the proj ects is
discussed below, along with recommendations and potential
mitigating measures for loss of biological resources.
Chestnut Avenue Drain
Most of this project appears to lie outside of the blueline
stream channel depicted on the USGS map. Therefore, permitting
by the Department of Fish and Game and Corps of Engineers may not
be necessary. Less than one acre of existing riparian vegetation
will be impacted by construction of a 2-3 acre debris basin at
the base of the foothills. However, the debris basin may prevent \
water from reaching the existing native trees in the former
stream channel. If the debris basin cuts off the flow to the
existing natural stream channel, a Streambed Alteration Agreement
with the Department of Fish and Game will be required. Although
the impact of this diversion is unknown, we would expect a
gradual die-off of the native trees, even without surrounding
. development.
10
We recommend that the line of native sycamores, walnuts, andl
willows be retained to the extent possible within any future
planned development adjacent to Chestnut street. The riparian
woodland could form a greenbelt of some sort adjacent to Chestnut
street. Higher-density development of the non-riparian lands
wi th retention of the riparian strip would be preferable to
removal of the trees.
Construction of the Chestnut Avenue drain will result in the
removal of several hundred mature Eucalvotus and olive trees,
alonq with about twenty California sycamores and perhaps one or
two california walnuts. These trees should be replaced with
plantings of street trees once the Chestnut Avenue improvements
are in place. We recommend the use of California sycamore,
California walnut, Fremont cottonwoods, white alders, and other
native trees for replacement plantinqs, rather than olives,
Eucalvotus, or other ornamentals. The older neiqhborhoods of
Verdemont have been planted with California sycamores, and the
result is a shady street that still provides some wildlife with
valuable habitat.
~ Avenue Imorovements
This project has no substantial biological resources, and no
mitigation of adverse impacts is required. The project is
outside of the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game
and the Corps of Engineers. The loss of less than five native
trees (California walnut and California sycamore) could be
mitigated with the replanting of these same species as street
~rees lining the sidewalk.
~ Avenue ~ Culvert
No important biological resources would be impacted by this
project, so mitigating conditions are not expected to be
necessary. Because the size of the stream channel that is being
altered is so small, the 1601 and 404 permits required by the
Department of Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers will be
mainly a matter of notification to the agencies.
~ Avenue/Kendall Drive Traffic Sianal
This project has no biological resources, and no mitigation
of adverse impacts is required. The project is outside of the
jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game and the Corps of
Engineers.
Bailev Creek storm Drain
Construction of the Bailey Creek storm drain will present
very significant impacts to the biotic environment. We do not
believe that the Department of Fish and Game or the Corps of
Enqineers will issue a permit for the project as proposed. Heavy
mitiqation in the form of riparian enhancement in other areas is
sure to be a condition of approval, if approval can be obtained.
11
We rec~mmend that the city rethink the Bailey Creek drainage
plan. The best location for a debris basin from t~e biological
perspective would be at the inlet ?f the exi~tln~ conc~ete
channel. Even here, impacts to the Balley Creek rlparlan ~abltat
would be substantial. At all other locations upstream, lmpacts
to the riparian vegetation would be highly significant.
We cannot recommend in favor of proceeding with the Bailey
Creek storm drain project as proposed. The conversion of the
former creek where the concrete channel is now is a classic
example of what the Fish and Game Commission is attempting to
prevent with its new "no net loss of wetlands" policy. A better
plan would preserve the remaining drainage course as a natural
greenbelt. This may require reducing the density approved for
the surrounding lands so that the developed. lots will not be
subj ect to flooding. Perhaps a levee could be constructed
outside of the riparian zone on either side to protect lands from
flooding. Land uses that are compatible with the retention of
the riparian strip, such as a golf course or parks, should be
considered.
- Alternative designs and locations for a debris basin might
reduce the biological impact. The further downstream the debris
basin is placed, the lower will be the biological impacts. At
and within the Forest Service boundary, the riparian vegetation
is especially dense and diverse. The Forest Service is unlikely
to approve a drainage plan that disturbs this habitat on their
lands, so we recommend that the debris basin be placed
downstream.
Additional study will be necessary to proceed with the
permits required by the Department of Fish and Game and the Corps
of Engineers. We anticipate that the Corps will insist on a
discussion of alternatives, and that they might require a federal
Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared on the issuance of
a permit. If the application is accepted as now envisioned,
extensive mitigation will likely be required. In similar cases
in the past, permit conditions have included provision of
replacement riparian acreage. Enhancement of a degraded stream
channel at another location with riparian species could mitigate
the loss of the existing habitat. Enhancement projects have
often been required at a replacement ratio of 1: 1, meaning for
every acre of riparian habitat lost, one acre must be enhanced or
restored. Purchase of an existing riparian habitat for purposes
of protection is also a mitigation possibility. In cases like
this, purchase of habitat has been accomplished at a ratio of 3:1
or greater, even of up to 10:1 on an acre-for-acre basis,
depending on the value of the riparian habitat being lost.
12
Reference.
Bright and Associates, 1987, "The Ecology of Eriastrum
densifo1ium sanctorum (Milliken) Mason: A Preliminary
Report" , report prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers,
Los Angeles District.
California Native Plant society, 1988. Inventorv Q! ~ and
Endanaered Vascular Plants 21 California. Spec. Pub. No. 1
(4th ed.), CNPS, Sacramento, Calif.
California Natural Diversity Data Base, 1986. Computerized
records check for sensitive elements on the San Bernardino
North and Devore 7.5' USGS quads, CDFG, Sacramento, Calif.
Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary DescriDtions 21 ~ Terrestrial
Natural Communities Q1 California. California Department of
Fish and Game, Nongame Heritage Program. Sacramento, CA.
Krantz, Tim, 1979, "Status report: Chorizanthe leotoceras,
report prepared for the California Native Plant Society,
Sacramento, CA.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1985, "Report of a
Biological survey of the Verdemont Planl)ing Area", report
prepared for the San Bernardino Planning Department, San
Bernardino,.CA.
Sanders, Andrew C., 1987, "Sensitive Species of the Upper Santa
Ana River: Biotic Resources Scoping for the Santa Ana River
Resource Management Plan", report prepared for the Corps of
Engineers, Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, CA. 18 pp.
Tierra Madre Consultants, 1988, San Bernardino County Sheriff I s
Training Site Biological Assessment", report prepared for
the San Bernardino County Department of Planning, San
Bernardino, CA.
U. S. Forest Service, 1988, San Bernardino National Forest Land
~ Resource Manaaement Plan, USFS, San Bernardino, CA.
U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985,
"Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: review of
plant taxa for listing as Endangered or Threatened Species",
Federal Reaister 50(188): 39526-39584.
U. S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985,
"Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Review of
vertebrate wildlife", Federal Reaister 50(181):37958-37967.
Williams, D. F., 1986, Mammalian SDecies Q! SDecial Concern in
california, Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
13
Palm Avenue improvements
Plants
ANGIOSPERMIAE: DICOTYLEDONEAE
Anac.rcU.c...
Bbla trilobata
Ast.rac.a.
Ambrosia acanthicarDa
Ambrosia psilostachva
Baccharis a1utinosa
ChrvsODsis villosa
Convza canadensis
Helianthus annuus
Heterotheca arandiflora
Brassicac...
*Brassica aeniculata
Cactacea.
Opuntia littoral is
caprifoliacea.
Sambucus mexicana
Chenopo4iacea.
*ChenoDodium album
*ChenoDodium botrvs
*Salsola iberica
Euphorlliacea.
Croton californicus
EremocarDUS setiaerus
Fallacea.
Lotus scoparius
Geraniacea.
*Erodium botrvs
*Erodium cicutarium
Hy4rophyllacea.
Emmenanthe penduliflora
Juglan4acea.
Jualans californica
14
DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Sumac Family
Squaw-bush
Sunflow.r Family
Annual bur-weed
Western ragweed
Mulefat
Golden-aster
Horseweed
Western sunflower
Telegraph weed
Mustar4 Family
Short-pod mustard
Cactus Family
Prickly pear
Honeysuckl. Family
Elderberry
Goosefoot Family
Pigweed
Jerusalem-Oak
Russian thistle
spurge Family
California croton
Doveweed
Pea Family
Deerweed
Geranium Family
Long-beak filaree
Red-stem filaree
Waterl.af family
Whispering bells
Walnut Family
California walnut
Palm Avenue improvements
Plants (cont.)
Lamiac.a.
Salvia co1umbariae
Mint Family
Chia
Ol.ac.a.
Fraxinus velutina
olive Family
Arizona ash
onaqrac.a.
Camissonia bistorta
camissonia californica
Eveninq-primros. family
Sun cups
False mustard
Platanac.a.
Platanus racemosa
Sycamor. Family
Calif. sycamore
POlyqonacea.
Erioaonum elonaatum
Erioaonum fascicu1atum
Buckwh.at Family
Tall buckwheat
Calif. buckwheat
Rosacea.
Cercocarous betuloides
Rose Family
Mountain mahogany
Solanaceae
Datura meteloides
*Nicotiana alauca
Niqhtshad. FamilY
Jimsonweed
Tree tobacco
ANGIOSPE~IAE:
MONOCOTYLEDONES
MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
poac.a.
*Arundo
*Bromus
*Bromus
*Bromus
*Bromus
dona x
dactvlon
diandrus
rubens
tectorum
Grass Family
Giant reed
Bermuda grass
Ripgut grass
Redbrome
Cheat grass
* - denotes introduced (non-native) species.
This list reports only those plant species actually observed on
the site by this study. Other plants may have been overlooked or
undetectable due to the seasonal nature of their occurrence.
15
AVES
Palm Avenue improvements
Animals
Co lUllll:lidae
Zenaida macroura
cuculidae
Geococcvx californianus
corvidae
Corvus brachvrhvnchos
EGerizidae
Euphaqus cvanoceohalus
MAMMALIA
Leporidae
Svlvilaqus auduboni
Sciuridae
otosoermoohilus beechevi
16
BIRDS
piqeons and doves
Mourning dove
Cuckoos
Greater roadrunner
Crows and jays
American crow
Sparrows, war~lers, tanagers
Brewer's blackbird
MAMMALS
Hares and r&b~its
Audubon cottontail
squirr.els
Beechey ground squirrel
A
Palm Avenue Box Culvert
Plants
Anacardiac.a.
BhJ.IA trilobata
DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
SUlIIac Family
Squaw-bush
sunflow.r Family
Western ragweed
Mulefat
Golden-aster
Horseweed
Western sunflower
Telegraph weed
Scalebroom
ANGIOSPERMIAE: DICOTYLEDONEAE
Ast.rac.a.
Ambrosia Dsilostachva
Baccharis alutinosa
ChrvsoDsis vil10sa
Convza canadensis
Helianthus annuus
Heterotheca arandiflora
LeDidosDartum sauamatum
Mustard Family
Short-pod mustard
Honeysuckl. Family
Elderberry
Goosefoot Family
Pigweed
Russian thistle
Brassicacea.
*Brassica aeniculata
capritoliacea.
Sambucus mexicana
Chenopodiaceae
*ChenoDodium album
*Salsola iberica
Euphorbiacea.
Croton californicus
EremocarDUS setiaerus
Spurge Family
california croton
Doveweed
Fabacea.
Lotus scoDarius
Pea Family
Deerweed
Geraniacea.
*Erodium botrvs<
*Erodium cicutarium
GeraniUlll Family
Long-beak filaree
Red-stem filaree
Juglandac.a.
Jualans californica
Walnut Family
California walnut
Lamiac.a.
Salvia co1umbariae
Mint Family
Chia
Platanacea.
Platanus racemosa
sycamore Family
Calif. sycamore
17
Palm Avenue Box Culvert
Plants (cont.)
polYCJoDac.a.
Erioaonum elonaatum
Eriooonum fasciculatum
Buckwh.a~ ,amily
Tall buckwheat
Calif. buckwheat
Rosacea.
Cercocarous betu10ides
Ros. ,amily
Mountain mahogany
Solanaceae
Datura meteloides
*Nicotiana olauca
Nightshad. ,amily
Jimsonweed
Tree tobacco
ANGIOSPERMIAE: MONOCOTYLEDONES
MONO COT FLOWERING PLANTS
poaceae
*Arundo donax
*Bromus dactvlon
*Bromus diandrus
*Bromus rubens
*Lamarkia aurea
Grass 'amily
Giant reed
Bermuda grass
Ripgut grass
Redbrome
sprangle top
Animals
AVES
BIRDS
ColWl\l)idae
Zenaida macroura
pigeons and doves
Mourning dove
Corvidae
Corvus brachvrhvnchos
Crows and jays
American crow
MAMMALIA
MAMMALS
Leporidae
Svlvilaaus audubonii
Hares and rabbits
Audubon cottontail
Sciurida.
Otosoermoohilus beechevi
Squirrels
Beechey ground squirrel
* - denotes introduced (non-native) species.
18
Chestnut Avenue drain
Plants
ANGIOSPERMIAE: DICOTYLEDONEAE
Anacardiaceae
BhJa trilobata
Toxicodendron radicans
"steraceae
Ambrosia osilostachva
Artemisia dracunculus
Baccharis alutinosa
Chrvsoosis villosa
Convza canadensis
Eriaeron foliosus
Helianthus annuus
Helianthus araci1entus
Heterotheca arandiflora
Leoidosoartum sauamatum
Taraxacum officinale
Brassicaceae
*Brassica aenicu1ata
Cactaceae
Oountia littoralis
caprifoliaceae
Sambucus mexicana
Chenopodiacea.
*Chenooodium album
*Salsola iberica
Euphorbiacea.
Croton californicus
Eremocarous setiaerus
Fabac.a.
Lotus scooarius
Geraniac.a.
*Erodium botrvs
*Erodium cicutarium
19
DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Sumac Family
Squaw-bush
poison-oak
Sunflower Family
Western ragweed
Tarragon
Mulefat
Golden-aster
Horseweed
Leafy daisy
Western sunflower
Slender sunflower
Telegraph weed
Scalebroom
Common dandelion
Mustard Family
Short-pod mustard
Cactus Family
Prickly pear
Honeysuckl. Family
Elderberry
Goosefoot Family
Pigweed
Russian thistle
spurq. Family
California croton
Doveweed
Pea Family
Deerweed
Geranium Family
Long-beak filaree
Red-stem filaree
Chestnut Avenue drain
plants (cent.)
RydropiayU.c...
Eriodictvon trichocalvx
W.t.rl..f Family
Yerba santa
Jugland.c...
Jualans californica
Walnut Family
California walnut
Lami.c.a.
salvia aoiana
Salvia mellifera
Salvia columbariae
Mint Family
White sage
Black sage
Chia
Myrtac...
*Eucalvotussp.
Myrtl. family
Gum tree
Ol.acea.
*~ eurooeaea
olive Family
olive tree
Platanacea.
Platanus racemosa
sycamor. Family
Calif. sycamore
polygonacea.
Erioaonum e10naatum
Erioaonum fasciculatum
Buckwheat Family
Tall buckwheat
Calif. buckwheat
Rosaceae
Cercocarcus betuloides
Buckthorn Family
Thick-leaved
wild-lilac
Rose Family
Mountain mahogany
Rh&ml1acea.
Ceanothus crassifolius
Salicacea.
Salix 1asioleois
Willow Family
Arroyo willow
scrophulariacea.
penstemon soectabilis
Fiqwort Family
Showy penstemon
Solanaceae
Datura meteloides
*Nicotiana alauca
Nightshade Family
Jimsonweed
Tree tobacco
Agavacea.
Yucca whipolei
MONO COT FLOWERING PLANTS
Agave Family
Our Lord's candle
ANGIOSPERMIAE: MONOCOTYLEDONES
20
Chestnut Avenue drain
Plants (cont.)
poace..
*Arundo donax
*Bromus dactvlon
*Bromus diandrus
*Bromus rubens
*Hordeum murinum
*Lamarkia aurea
Grass FUlily
Giant reed
Bermuda grass
Ripgut grass
Redbrome
Mouse barley
Sprangle top
Animals
AVES
BIRDS
col~id..
Zenaida macroura
pigeons and doves
Mourning dove
Corvidae
Corvus brachvrhvnchos
Crows and jays
American crow
MAMMALIA
MAMMALS
Leporidae
Sv1vi1aaus audubonii
Hares and rabbits
Audubon cottontail
Sciuridae
otosoermophilus beechevi
Squirrels
Beechey ground squirrel
* - denotes introduced (non-native) species.
This list reports only those plant and animal species actually
observed on the site by this study. Other species may have been
overlooked or undetectable due to the seasonal nature of their
occurrence.
21
Bailey Creek drain
Plants
AIIIaranthac.a.
*Amaranthus a1bus
AIIIaranth Family
White tumbleweed
ADacarcUacaa.
~ ovata
~ trilobata
Toxicodendron radicans
Bumac Family
Sugar bush
Squaw-bush
poison-oak
Astaracaas
~mhrosia osilostachva
Artemisia californica
Artemisia dracunculus
Baccharis olutinosa
Chrvsoosis vil10sa
Cirsium occidentale
Convza canadensis
Eriaeron fo1iosus
Helianthus annuus
Helianthus araci1entus
Heterotheca arandiflora
Lactuca serriola
Leoidosoartum sauamatum
Senecio doualasii
*Sonchos asper
Taraxacum officina1e
Sunflower Family
Western ragweed
California sagebrush
Tarragon
Mulefat
Golden-aster
Thistle
Horseweed
Leafy daisy
Western sunflower
Slender sunflower
Telegraph weed
Wild lettuce
Scalebroom
Groundsel
Sow-thistle
Common dandelion
Boraginacea
Amsinckia intermedia
Borage Family
Rancher's fiddleneck
Brassicacea.
*Brassica aeniculata
Mustard Family
Short-pod mustard
Cactaceae
Opuntia littoralis
Caprifoliaceae
Sambucus mexicana
Cactus Family
Prickly pear
Honeysuckle Family
Elderberry
Chenopodiaceae
*Chenopodium album
*Salsola iberica
Goosefoot Family
Pigweed
Russian thistle
Convolvulaceae
Calvsteaia macrosteaia
Morning-Glory Family
Morning-glory
22
Bailey Creek drain
Plants (cont.)
I!:uphor))i.a...
Croton californicus
Eremocarous setiaerus
spurge Family
California croton
Doveweed
Fallaa.a.
Trifolium cilioatum
Lotus scoDarius
LUDinus bicolor
LUDinus hirsutissimus
Pea Family
Clover
Deerweed
Lupine
Hairy lupine
Fagaa...
Quercus chrvsoleDis
Beeah Family
canyon oak
Geraniacsa.
*Erodium botrvs
*Erodium cicutarium
Geranium Family
Long-beak filaree
Red-stem filaree
Hydrophyllacea.
Eriodictvon trichocalvx
Phavelia distans
Waterleaf Family
Yerba santa
Common phacelia
Juglandaceas
Jua1ans californica
Walnut Family
California walnut
Lamiacea.
*Marrubium vulaare
Salvia me1lifera
Salvia co1umbariae
Mint Family
Horehound
Black sage
Chia
Liliaceas
Calochortus sDlendens
Lily Family
Mariposa-lily
Myrtacea.
*EucalvDtusSp.
Myrtle family
Gum tree
Oleacea.
*Q12 eurODeaea
olive Family
Olive tree
Papaveraceae
Eschscholzia californica
Poppy Family
California poppy
Platanaceas
Platanus racemosa
sycamore Family
Calif. sycamore
23
Bailey Creek drain
Plants (cont.)
polyqon.c...
Erioaonum elonaatum
Erioaonum fasciculatum
Buckwh..t Family
Tall buckwheat
Calif. buckwheat
Rh&lllJ1acea.
Ceanothus crassifolius
Ceanothus leucodermis
Buckthorn Family
Thick-leaved
wild-lilac
Whitebark lilac
Rosac...
Adenostoma fascicu1atum
Cercocarous betuloides
Ros. Family
Chamise
Mountain mahogany
scrophulariaceae
Mimulus auttatus
Mimulus 10naif10rus
Penstemon soectabilis
willow Family
Black willow
Sandbar willow
Arroyo willow
Figwort Family
Seep monkey flower
sticky monkey flower
Showy penstemon
Salicacaa.
Salix aooddinaii
salix hindsiana
Salix lasioleois
Solanac.a.
Datura mete10ides
*Nicotiana a1auca
Nightshad. Family
Jimsonweed
Tree tobacco
vitacea.
Vitis airdiana
Grape Family
wild grape
ANGIOSPERMIAE: MONOCOTYLEDONES
MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Aqavacea.
Yucca whiDDlei
Aqave Family
Our Lord's candle
poac.a.
*Arundo donax
Avena barbata
*Bromus dactvlon
*Bromus diandrus
*Bromus rubens
Festuca meaalura
Elvmus condensatus
*Hordeum murinum
Grass Family
Giant reed
Slender wild oats
Bermuda grass
Ripgut grass
Redbrome
Foxtail fesque
Giant rye grass
Mouse barley
24
Bailey Creek drain
Plants (cont.)
poa".a.
*Lamarkia aurea
Melica imDerfecta
Gras. Family
Sprangle top
Melic
Typha".a.
TVDha sp.
cat-tail family
cattail
Animals
AVES
BIRDS
Cuculida.
Geococcvx californianus
Cuckoos
Greater roadrunner
Phasianida.
CalliDeDla californica
Grous. and quail
california quail
Columbida.
Zenaida macroura
piqeons and doves
Mourninq dove
corvida.
ADhelocoma coeru1escens
Corvus brachvrhvnchos
Crows and jays
Scrub jay
American crow
Emb.rizida.
EUDhaaus cvanoceDhalus
PiDilo ervthrophthalmus
PiDilo fuscus
sparrows, warblers, tanaqers
Brewer's blackbird
Rufous-sided towhee
Brown towhee
MAMMALIA
MAMMALS
Leporida.
Svlvilaaus audubonii
Hares and rabbits
Audubon cottontail
Sciurida.
otosDermoDhilus beechevi
squirrels
Beechey ground squirrel
* - denotes an introduced (non-native) species.
25
I' .~
\;; :
, .. nl~
\ ""se ........., .tlt
'.' ~."
.,.. ,/10'
. . i/~,,~t,
~ I~,.\t"
, - <''!-~ ..~
~-~-\'
: i~r-).~
,""'~o) .
-.... :' ~ 1'- ~.
. ,JI'
-,;,,>..~-_.... -~~ ",.- "-'~\
ro-" ,.. ........ ~-_. -.....:;..~
3. -pa)Jt\ A'I~/~1.e cree1t 1'0,<010\.00 r
~ cul'l~
.-:..~ _ -;.,:",.r.'
". pal3\' A'I~~l ori'le au'o'
.~, orraffic signal _,,,,,.c"-;;;
"'.~ I W......:::"..;/
0." v. .."~
~.{,:~
,-'y;
figure 1.
(frOm UsGS san
M.P of PrOject LOO.tions .nd ,.r... S....... l
..rnar.i'O .ortb 7.0' ....r...,.. ,..7, pro ,..0
.. .
A\t"PcCI,\ Io\ft.tJ'r e,
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF
FIVE PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE IHP~OVEMENTS,
VERDEMONT AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1987,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
MICHAEL K. LERCH , ASSOCIATES
Michael K. Lerch, Project Archaeologist
Post Office Box 55134
Riverside, CA 92517-0134
Prepared for:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Public Works/Engineering Department
300 North "0" street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Purchase Order No. 904104
MKLA-902
November 1989
fJw tp"'07
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
In August 1989, an archaeol,ogical survey of five public. works
infrastructure improvements ln the Verdemont area of the Clty of
San Bernardino was conducted by Michael K. Lerch & Associates at
the request of the City Public Works Department, in order to
provide information for environmental assessments for the
proposed projects. Because the projects will require actions by
local, state, and federal agencies, the study provides the
necessary information for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) . The archaeological survey was preceded by a records
check with the Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino
County Museum, and a review of relevant literature and archival
sources.
The five proposed projects are known as: 1) Chestnut Avenue
storm Drain; 2) Palm Avenue Improvements; 3) Palm Avenue/Cable
Creek Box Culvert; 4) Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive Traffic Signal;
and 5) Bailey Creek storm Drain. All five projects are located
in the Verdemont Planning Area in the northwestern portion of the
City of San Bernardino, California.
The results of the records check, archival and literature review,
and archaeological survey were negative. No impacts to historic
or prehistoric cultural resources eligible or potentially
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
, are anticipated from construction of any of the five Verdemont
infrastructure improvements, and no further cultural resources
investigations are recommended. However, because of the
possibility of encountering buried cultural deposits during
excavation for the Bailey Creek Storm Drain, it is recommended
that an archaeological monitor be present during initial
excavation for that project in order that any such materials
encountered can be evaluated and appropriate data recovery/
protection measures implemented if necessary.
i
APPENDIX A
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
10
PERSONNEL QUAL:r:nCATIONS
The principal investigator, field archaeologist, and report
author for this study was Michael K. Lerch. Mr. Lerch is a
graduate in Anthropology at the University of California,
Riverside, where he currently is completing his doctorate with a
specialization in California and Great Basin prehistory. He has
been active in historic, ethnographic, and archaeological
research in the southern california region since 1977, and has
completed more than one hundred cultural resource management
studies in compliance with the requirements of local, state, and
federal agencies.
His employment history includes the United states Forest Service,
San Bernardino National Forest (Professional ArChaeologist), San
Bernardino County Museum Association (Archaeologist-Curator and
Information Center coordinator), Archaeological Research Unit,
University of California, Riverside (Museum Scientist), County of
San Bernardino, Department of Land Management, Office of
Planning, Enviromental Analysis Team (Senior Environmental
Analyst), and, since 1984, Michael K. Lerch & Associates (Owner
and Principal Investigator).
11
APPENDIX B
RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
12
.CAUFORNfA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
INVENTORY
\ ~-
~
. ~CHAEOLOGICAL INFORMATION CENTER
dI1 Bernardino County Museum
2024 Orange Tree Lane
Redlands. California 92374
(714) 792-1497
July 21. 1989
Mike Lerch
Lerch ~ Associates
P.O. Box 55134
Riverside. CA 92517-0134
Dear Mike:
ClA.,TURAl RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH FOR: Verdemont Plan Area - City of San
Bernardino.
In response to your request for information July 19. 1989. a record search
has been conducted for the above project. located on the Devore and San
Bernardino North 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangles (see attached maps).
CULTURAl RESOURCES,
Cultural resources exist within the prOject area:
Prehistoric Archaeolooical Resources:
2 prehistoric sites
CA-SBR-1397 -- food processing site
CA-SBR-5429 -- food processing site
o pending prehistoric sites
o prehistoric isolates
Historical ArchaeoloQical Resources (older than 50 vears in aoe):
o historical archaeological sites
6 pending historical archaeological sites
PSBR-4-H road
PSBR-19-H road
PI071-I-H WW II POW camp site (destroyed)
PI07I-22-H irrigation ditch
PI071-24-H reservoir
PI072-12-H -- adobe house site
many possible historical archaeological site locations determined from
historic maps (maps searched: USGS San 8ernardino, surveyed
1893-94)
o historical isolates
Historic Structures Colder than 50 years in aoe):
o historic structures
o pending historic structures
many possible historiC structure locations determined from historic maps
(maps searched: U.S. Army San Bernardino. surveyed 1940-41)
Heritaoe Prooerties (desionated by State and Federal commissions):
o National Register Listed Properties
o National Register Eligible Properties
o California Hi..toric Landmarks
o California Point of Historical Interest
PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS:
Cultural re~ource reports for the project area include (see enclosed
bl iographies):
11 Area-specific survey reports
4 General area overviews
In addition to the Center's cultural resource site files, the following
publications. manuscripts or correspondence also were consulted:
California Department of Parks and Recreation
1982 California Historical Landmarks.
California Office of Historic Preservation
1985 National Register of Historic Places -- Eligible Properties.
through 3/31/88. Correspondence (photocopy of listing from
the National Register).
1986 Points of Historical Interest. SBr-OOl through SBr-l09. as of
June 1986. Correspondence.
1986 NatIonal RegIster of Historic Places -- Listed Properties. as
of August 1986. Correspondence.
1986 Survey of Surveys: A Summary of California's Historical and
Architectural Resource Survevs.
1987 Inventorv of Historic Structures -- Records entered into the
OHP computer file of historic resour:~s as of Februarv 1.87.
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California.
National
1986
Park Service
National Register of Historic Places; Annual Supplemental
Listing of Historic Properties -- Listed and Eligible
Properties. Federal Reoister:
February 6. 1979; Vo 1. 44 (26) : 7433. 7635;
March 18. 1980; Vol. 45(54):17449. 17493. 17516;
February 3. 1981; Vol. 46(54):10625. 10670;
February 2. 1982; Vol. 47(22):4933, 4956. 4957, 4959;
March I. 1983; Vol. 48(41):8629. 8673;
February 7. 1984; Vol. 49(26):4612. 4676;
March 5. 1985; Vol. 50(43):8853. 8903;
February 25. 1986; Vol. 51(37):6630. 6675. 6683. 8912; and
May 24,1988; Vol. 53(100):18662.18709.18748.18758.
San Bernardino County Museum
1980 Historical Landmarks of San Bernardino County. Quarterlv of
the San Bernardino County Museum Association 28(1-2).
2
SENSITIVITY OF PROJECT AREA FOR CULTURAL RESOURCESI
Based upon the above information, available historic records and comparisons
with similar environmental localities. the sensitivity assessment for this
project are. iSI
Prehistoric Archaeolooical Resourcesl
Low
Moderate
-1- High
Unknown
Historic Archaeolocical Resources (older than 100 years in ace):
Low
Moderate
-1- High
Unknown
HistorIC Structures (older than 50 years in ace)1
Low
Moderate
-1- High
Unknown
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Reviewing available information, the following recommendations are made:
1. A field survey for prehistoric archaeolooical re.ources, historic
archaeolocical resources and historic structures is .troncly recommended.
2. An envIronmental impact review is recommended to establish the
sionificance and intecrity of known cultural resources and/or resources
identified from a field survey, and to prOPose appropriate mitloat'on
measures.
3. A cultural resource manacement report must be prepared to document the
inventory, evaluation and mitioation of resources within this prOiect area.
If mechanical testing or ewcavation is undertaken, contact Underground
Service Alert at (BOO) 422-4133 for information regarding buried utilities.
ThIS service is provided free of charge.
.If prehistoric or historic artifacts over 50 years in age are encountered
during land modification. then activities in the immediate area of the finds
should be halted and an on-site inspection should be performed immediately by
a qualified archaeologist. This professional will be able to assess the
find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate
mitigatIon measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental
Quality Act and/or the Federal National Environmental Policy Act.
3
If humAn remAins Are encountered on Any property within SAn BernArdino
County. then the SAn Bernardino County Coroner's office must be contActed
within 24 hours of the find. and All work should be hAlted until A cleArAnce
is given by thAt office And Any other involved agencies. ContAct the county
coroner At 82~ EAst Third Street. SAn BernArdino. CA ~2415-087~;
(714) 387-2978.
The County of SAn BernArdino requests thAt culturAl resource datA And
Artifacts collected within this project AreA be permanently curated at a
repository within the county. and that a copy of cultural resource teChnical
reports be filed with the San Bernardino County ArchaeologicAl InformAtion
Center. The repository selected should possess archiVAl and collection
stAndArds equiVAlent to those discussed in 3~ CFR 7Q. Curation of
FederAllv-Owned and Administered Archeolooical Collections; Prooosed Rule.
pUblished in the Federal Reolster. August 28. 1~87. For names and addresses
of repositories within the county, please contact me At the addre..s and
telephone number above.
Sincerely.
~~~
Lester A. Ross
Center CoordinAtor
4
~ --
I
I /II
TI' CMJ5:rA~TI0I<I
'if %'.E'U'A6TrW
11 ~--
I
I
I
I
'/
I
I
I
I
.--:-11 I*lJf"O'WD S1b/l,." DJ!!JfIN
,
I '
, I
I
: ,I
i ~I
i 1'1
t 11
, ~'I
I '
,I
"1 ·
: I
. : I'
. :::.
J 1,li
~.. I' 'fu' ,
~~
.YtINT ' ! 'I
1'1
l' :
I~' I
I ,I
, ~: ; 1
---
--
---
-.
~opr;se:> 1:30>< Ct.lL vE1t.7
-
1\...lt?EX tvtAl"