HomeMy WebLinkAbout15-Public Works
-
-
-
-
\
. CI~~ OF SAN BERNARDIN'd ~~REQ~~;' HFO~l;;OUNCIL dlON
~
Date:
06-06-90
Adoption of Negative Declaration,
Subject: Finding of Consistency with the
General Plan, and adoption of
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting
Program - Construction of Under-
ground Storm Drain in Chestnut
Ave. . frm Cable Creek to Verdemont
Drive & Debris Basin No. of
Verdemont Dr. --Public Works
Project No. 90-07
From: ROGER G. HA~DGRAVE
Dept: Public Works/Engineering
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
04-03-89 -- Authorization granted to proceed with Assessment
District No. 987.
;::::I
~_~ [ll
- ~
(-
~:;
CJ
I
~
I 0
-J
-~
,~
:Ji,:
u
p .."
Recommended motion: (,' .,.,
c~
1. That the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Re-
porting Program of underground storm drain in Chestnut Avenue,
from Cable Creek to Verdemont Drive, and debris basin north of
Verdemont Drive, be adopted.
2. That a finding be made that the construction of underground
storm drain in Chestnut Avenue from Cable Creek to Verdemont
Drive and Debris Basin north of Verdemont Drive is consistent
with the General Plan.
cc: Marshall Julian
..
Contact person:
Roger G. Hardgrave
Staff Rpt.,Not1ce of
Init.Study,Neg.Dec.,
Phone:
Preparation,
Map Ward:
5025
5
Supporting data attached:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.!
(Acct. DescriDtionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
7~.0262
Agenda Item No
I~
. CIT~ OF SAN BERNARDIN'iS - REQ~ST FOR COUNCIL Ai*'ON
STAFF REPORT
The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 90-
07 was reconunended for adoption by the Environmental Review
Conunittee at its meeting of 05-03-90.
A 2l-day public review period was afforded from 05-10-90
to 05-30-90. No conunents were received.
One special mitigation measure is that an archaeological
monitor shall be present during the initial excavation stages, in
order that any cultural deposits encountered can be evaluated and
appropriate data recovery/protection measures implemented if
necessary.
We reconunend that the Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Moni toring and Reporting Program be adopted and a finding made
that the project is consistent with the the General Plan.
6-06-90
75-0264
. ."..-..,
,~
o
o
:)
NOTICE 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 not have a significant effect on the
environment on the basis of the Initial Study and mitigation
measures (If applicable).
AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 15.20.050 - proposed ordi-
nance of the City of San Bernardino amending Section 15.20.050
of the Municipal Code to require landscaping prior to issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for buildings vacant for more than
180 days. -'
~UBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 90-07 - To construct an underground (
storm drain in Crestnut Avenue, from Cable Creek to Verdemont
-
. Drive and Debris Basin, north of Verdemont Drive.
Copies of the Initial Study are available for public review at the
Planning Department, 300 North "D" 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., May 30, 1990.
If YQU do not respond in writing, we will assume that you have no
opinions and/or recommendations on the above projects.
SUBMITTED: May 8, 1990
PUBLISH: May 10, 1990.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
384-5057
CP
C7 NOPND5390
<E
<.0
CO>
~
-<
I
CD
!'"
.
~
-
-<
"'"
'"
~
-
, ""
>~n~
~~'t::J
;-':---..-w
_~ ;;:zo,
r-'z:
=--'~>
-.:; ::0
. co
5:
=
~
U'I
oW
"Cv
/" ~
(.;
("'I
V
File No. 2.133
~)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE
CHESTNUT STORM DRAIN
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 90-07
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
,...-^.,
"-'
,....."
r",,\
\.....I
-)
...../
I NTRODUCTI ON
In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (enacted
by passage of AB3180 [Cortese]), public agencies approving
projects which may cause significant environmental impacts must
monitor the mitigation of those impacts. This Mitigation
Reporti ng/Moni tori ng Pl an, prepared for the Ci ty of San
Bernardino, Department of Public Works/Engineering, ensures
implementation of the mitigation measures adopted by
Environmental Review Committee in approving the project and the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
EARTH RESOURCES
Mitigation Measures
La. Grading of approximately 35,000 cubic yards of cut and
30,000 cubic yards of fill shall be accomplished in
accordance with Title 15 of the Municipal Code.
1.c. Development within Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone -
I ncorpora te all recommenda ti ons of the Geotechni ca 1 Study
into the project design.
I.e. Soil erosion to be controlled by use of sandbags as
necessary.
1.f. Impacts on Channel - Obtain permits from U.S. Army Corps of
Engi neers and Cali forni a State Department of Fi sh and Game
and comply with all requirements of the permits.
1.g. Mudslide Potential - Basin shall be cleaned on an annual
basis and after each major storm.
Reporting/Monitoring Action
La. Public Works Inspector shall inspect grading operations for
compliance with approved plan and City Code, and shall
certify compliance in his/her daily log which shall be filed
in the Department of Public Works Project File.
1.c.
Prior to design approval a geotechnical
obtained for the project and all
incorporated in the desi gn. A copy of
report and the final plans shall be filed
of Public Works Project File.
I.e. Public Works Inspector shall assure the site is protected
from run-off erosion by requiring sandbagging, when needed,
during the rainy season. He/she shall certify compliance in
the daily log which shall be filed in the Department of
Public Works Project File.
report shall be
recommendations
the geotechnical
in the Department
-1-
-
.c
/'......,
\....-
,......"'.
-...I
~)
l.f. Modification to Channel Public Works Inspector shall
assure compliance with all conditions of permits from the
U.S.' Army Corps of Engineers and the California State
Department of Fi sh and Game. Inspector shall note
compliance in his/her daily log and file in the Department
of Public Works Project File.
I.g. Mudslide Potential - The Public Services Department shall
clean out the Chestnut Debris Basin on an annual basis and
after each major storm. A record of each cleaning shall be
filed in the Department of Public Services.
AIR RESOURCES
Mitigation Measures
2.a. Effect on Ambient Air Quality Fugitive dust during
construction shall be controlled by frequent watering.
Reporting/Monitoring Action
2.a. Public Works Inspector shall assure sufficient watering
during construction to control dust and certify compliance
in his/her daily log which shall be filed in the Department
of Public Works Project File.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measures
4.a. Change in Stands of Trees - Trees shall be saved to the
greatest extent possible by pruning trees and adjusting the
pipeline alignment. Lost trees shall be replaced in kind.
Reporting/Monitoring Action
4. a. I f any trees are removed, they wi 11 be rep 1 aced as part of
the Chestnut Trail Plan. This program is partially
dependent on development adjacent to the trail and
completion is anticipated within 5 years. The Parks and
Recreation Department and the Public Works/Engineering
Department sha 11 insure that a 11 new deve 1 opments along the
Chestnut Trail either install the trail landscaping or pay
their fair share toward the cost of the landscaping, which
shall include tree replacement.
-2-
'-
r~,
\../
"''''',
V
-,
..J
WATER RESOURCES
Mitigation Measures
3.e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards - See 1.g.
Reporting/Monitoring Action
3.e. See log.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measures
9.d. Alteration of Present Patterns of Circulation - Traffic
control during construction shall conform to the require-
ments of Municipal Code Section 12.04.
Reporting/Monitoring Action
9.d. Public Works Inspector shall
Municipal Code Section 12.04
during construction and shall
daily log, which shall be filed
Works.
insure compliance with
regarding traffic control
note compliance in his/her
in the Department of Public
CULTURAL RESOURCES
"
Mitigation Measures
13.a.
Initial excavation
monitored by an
materials unearthed.
of the debris basin site shall be
Archaeologist to evaluate any
Reporting/Monitoring Action
l3.a.
An Archaeologist shall be retained for initial
excavati on of the debri s basi n. The Archaeol ogi st
shall make a written report of his observations which
shall be filed in the Department of Public Works and
shall be placed in the project file.
-3-
c
o
o
CONCLUSION
This Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program shall be retained by
the City in the Public Works/Engineering Department Project File
for Chestnut Storm Drain, Publ i c Works Project No. 90-07. As
various mitigation measures are fully implemented, their
completion should be documented by filing of the appropriate
document in the Project File. When all measures have been
confirmed, this Reporting/Monitoring Plan shall be complete.
-4-
-
,~."",
,....)
~
- --
;;'f: 2./33
CI. ( OOSAN aONAR....NO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Applicant(s)
Address
City, State
Zip
MISC:
IS PREPARATION
ke/9-1-89
.
Initial Study tor Environmental Impacts
For rl1&uc. wdCV. I'Aana' Nci. 10-0'
Project Number
Project description/Location To=. CONStQ.u.a" 4~
L.I.~''Ql ~~ ~N IN CltE6TMIQ" ~"liiIolIA.E. &:AoN; eMi\ui.
C~ To ";Q:)f!MOlo/T D1l111E. "-Kb ~ illl!alN ~Q,;nto op.
~ll"'r tllUlIo<.
Date APR.Il. "Z." I l~qO
Prepared tor:
C\T'l 0;: ~AM e.elUJ~o
bliPAG:r~ eF ?lo\.IIL.lc. \AI4~v..
'100 Ill. "tI" ~e.er
SAN e.E.QIII~l:1II10. cA 112.14111
Prepared by:
MIC.lt/rE.L. Ro. Fllollol
Name
~''h'e. l'LItM~
Title
City of San Bernardino
Planninq Department
300 N. "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
~ lIP' .
.r, 0 ':J '.
r '"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
"'- ..oil
, ~
A. BACKGROYlm
Application Number: ~~'- .,dUl/o ~ ~. ClO.o'
Project Description: "Te ~c:r IlIoIIlli1ll"D~ &1bAI\\ tlQAlIII \IJ c~T"
NltilI1Il. ~ c.1Oh ~ l:~"""" TO ,,~~1:Q.l.\Ie. ~ It ~ 6AS1N tolClft\t\ of'-
1f~~Vc..
Location: Nb~ oF ,,~tlA.\"i:.. ~~'N #l\.bAls' c: tteE.TNIA:r A:1f&lr.Ae. 'TO
.
~CD~J.
Environmental Constraints Areas: Q,P--'llaELr~:.* 8+'C, Jlw~,..-?Q.\l'\..O
...l'SC.IN- snaN ~ . ~L. ~"".D, ~1~"'''a.liI\~1LAI.. , QoO-IR.l"\.DOCl. AI\It) 1..16W.I~.
, , .
General Plan Designation: R.\-, REc.IlleNTlI'K.- 1-.1:11.....
. RI. I Rsolll""'TI""- \..O~
zoning Designation:
B. ~IB~~~ IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. b.I~h Resources Will the proposal result in:
" ..
Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or
more? X
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15'
natural grade? X
c. Development within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone? )(
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature? ){
"'- ....
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
#'.
'\"...
,.
c'
(J
Yes
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
q.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
h. Other?
2. ~IB-~QY~: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Development within a hiqh wind X
hazard area? -
3.
Will
the
~WIL- RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
a. Chanqes in absorption rates,
drainaq, patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces? )L
b. Chanqes in the course or flow ~
of flood waters? ^
No
x
)(.
c. Discharqe into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality? ~
d. Chanqe in the quantity or
quality of qround waters?
~ e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazar~s?
f. Other?
""
REVISED 12187
')(
)l,
')
Maybe
"""'IIIl
x
><.
x
x
ox
~
PAGE 2 OF 8
r'O
(j
o
Yes
No
Maybe
4.
BIOLOGIC61tJ1=~URCEe:
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
x.
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
Exposure of people to
noise levels over 65
interior noise levels
dB?
exterior
dB or
over 45
x.
x.
b.
c.
Other?
6.
~ USE:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan?
'l(
b. Development within an Airport
District?
'l(
c. Development within -Greenbelt-
Zone A,B, or C? ~
d. Development within a high fire v
hazard zone? ^"
e. Other? X
><
')(.
x.
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
-
:r,
,-
o
o
~es
No
Maybe
""l
7.
MAN-MADE BA~~ltP$ :
project:
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (inCluding but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
Will
the
)<::
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
of
x..
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
~
X
d. Other?
B. B2YQ.l.t&: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
X.
K
b. Other?
9. ~MNSPOR'l'ATIO.liL,g~ATION: 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, or demand for
new, parking facilitiesl
structures?
)!.
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation .systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
)(
x.
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
x
x
Ilo...
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 4 OF 8
~
.,....
c
o
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
h.
Other?
10. ~~~ SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
-g.
a.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
b.
c.
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
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?
b.
c.
'\.
REVISED 10/87
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
Require the construction of
new facilities?
..:-..
-
res
MaYDe
.,
No
x.
)(
x
X
x
)(
X
'X.
x..
x
)(
x..
~
)(
x
x
..J
PAGE 5 OF 8
.. ,....,
o
(J
12. AES'l'BE'l'I~:
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?
c. Other?
13. ~Y~1URA~--F~QURCES: Could the
proposal result in:
a. 'l'he alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
. c. Other?
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
'l'he 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 corJmunity, reduce
the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
Yes
Maybe
No
~
x.
)(
'J(
\I
,
x
REVISED 10/87 PAGE 60F8
-
-
-
"C
r
()
(")
""\
Yes
No
Maybe
""'III
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.)
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.l
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either dir~ctly or indirectly?
"-
x
.x
x
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.l
~ ~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
-
-
"C
o
o
~)
, ~
D. DETERMI~11QlT
On the basis of this initial study,
D
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
L:J this case because the mitigation measures described above have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
O The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
.;:J;"'N f. fff)IJ7if.D"'E:~'I' 1iA1t'J"""~ ~;tIOC
Name and Title I.
j:; '~= ~
~#' ". -,
gnature.
Date: ~- 3-90
""
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
- - - - -
..c...., 0 0 ,,,,._,
'\"... ...<1
project Number Public works Project No. 90-07
April 27, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONHBNTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
HBASURES
-
1.a., 1.e., 2.a., and 5.a.
-
The project will result In approximately 35,000 cubic yards of
cut and 30,000 cubic yards of fill. The 9radln9 operation will
result In temporary Impacts on the physical environment (erosion,
dralnage, etc.) as well as the community (dust, noise, etc.).
The erosion and dralnage from the project will be controlled and
minimized with the use of sandba9s as necessary. Dust will be
controlled by frequent waterln9 of soil. compliance with San
Bernardino Municipal Code section 8.54 will minimize noise
Impacts. Resultant Impacts from the 9radln9 will be
InslCjnlflcant.
"\
'I.e., 1.Cj., and 3.e.
,
J
The lofatlon for the debris basin Is within an Alquist-priolo
Special Study Zone, and In an area classified by the Verdemont
Area Plan as having low to moderate probability of slope failure
(see Location Hap). Only superficial downslope movement of rock
or sojl debris or mud flow Is expected, even during an
earthquake. In the unlikely event of debris basin failure as a
result of a major earth tremor or slope failure, expected risk
and damaqe would primarily be dependent upon the amount of water
In the basin at time of failure. The basin will fill only If Its
outlets become clogqed. To preclude the basin from fllllnq, the
outlets shall be cleaned out annually and after each major storm.
Potential risk of floodlnq as a result of debris basin failure
will be reduced to a level of Insignificance.
~.
l.f., and 4.a.
c6nstructlon of the debris basin may prevent water from reachlnCj
the natural and Intermittent streambed that parallels Chestnut
Avenue outside the sixty foot right-of-way. If the debris basin
cuts off the flow to the exlstlnq natural stream channel, a
Streambed Alteration ACjreement with the Department of Fish and
Game will be required. Less than one acre of exlstlnq riparian
vegetation IlvlnCj along the streambed may be Impacted. AlthouCjh
the lapact of the diversion Is not known, Cjradual die-off of the
native trees mlCjht be expected. Mitigation shall Include a line
of native sycamores, walnuts, and willows adjacent to the planned
Chestnut Equestrian Trail. Additional mltlCjatlon may Include the
formation of the riparian woodland Into a Cjreenbelt adjacent to
the Chestnut Trail.
Construction of the project will result
mature Eucalyptus and Olive trees,
california Sycaaores and perhaps one or
In the reaoval of several
alonq with about twenty
two California Walnuts.
-
-
.c
'-'-'
/""'\
'-"
')
,.
.
~
Project Number Publlc works Project No. 90-07
Apr 11 27, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURBS (continued)
1.f., and 4.a. (contlnued)
These trees shall be saved to the qreatest extent possible by
prunlnq and movlnq the trees from the slte durlnq construction of
the project, and then replantinq them alonq the Chestnut
Equestrian Trail. Those trees whlch are lost wlll be replaced on
a one-for-one basis alonq the trail.
The project wlll requlre permlttin9 from the Department of Flsh
and Game under Sections 1601-3 of the Fish and Game Code. The
project will also llkely requlre permlts from the Corps of
En9ineers, which admlnisters Section 404 of the federal Clean
Water Act. The project may requlre further study and analysls by
both agencies and shall be required to comply with any further
mltl9atlon measures requlred by the respective agencies In the
permittinq process for the project.
2.c.
Development of the project
Glven the nature of the
siqnificant impacts.
3.a., and 3.b.
The project lies within a
project wlll result In a
area. There will be no
vlll lmprove drainage In
floodin9.
4.b.
vill be with a hlqh wind hazard area.
project hl9h wlnd will result In no
500 year flood zone. Additlonally the
change In the dralnage patterns In the
siqnificant impacts slnce the project
the area and reduce the potentlal for
The project lies within a Bloloqical Manaqeaent overlay District.
A biol09lcal lmpact assessment was conducted by Lawrence F.
LaPre, PhD. of Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. (Attachment A). In
the assessment of the slte, no rare, endangered or threatened
species of plant or animal vas found. However, potential habitat
for two sensltlve specles, the San Dle90 Horned Llzard and Los
Angeles pocket mouse, vas found to exist in the project area. On
the evenln9 of April 21, 1990, a focused trappln9 study for the
Los Anqeles Pocket Mouse was conducted at the project site by
Lawrence F. LaPre and hls asslstant. The results of the study
yeilded five rodents, none of vhich vere pocket aice (Attachment
B). LaPre therefore concluded that the specles was absent from
the site with no mitiqation measures recommended.
, ~
'I",...
/'......
:)
:)
......
Project Nu.ber Public Works Project No. 90-07
February 9, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF BNVIRONMBNTAL BVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURES (continued)
6.c., and 6.d.
The project is located within Greenbelt Zones "B" and "C"
a hi9h fire hazard area. Due to the nature of the
potential i.pacts will not be si9nificant.
and
project
9.d.
There could be te.porary alterations of present traffic
circulation on Chestnut Avenue south of Irvin9ton Avenue durin9
construction of the stora drain. Durin9 the excavation phase,
portions of the street may have to be torn up. This iapact shall
be .iti9ated by proper traffic control such as barricades,
fla9aen and detours as required by San Bernardino Municipal Code
Section 12.04.
13.a.
The project lies within an area of archaeolo9ical concern.
Michael K. Lerch and Associates conducted an archaeolo9ical
survey and study of the site in Nove.ber, 1989 (Attach.ent C).
Froa the study and survey it was concluded that no adverse
i.pacts to known cultural resources were expected froa the
construction of the Chestnut Stor. Drain. Since the ori9inal
study did not address the upper debris basin site, the site was
surveyed for potential archaeolo9ical resources on April 25,
1990, and an addendu. to the ori9inal cultural assess.ent was
prepared (Attach.ent D). The addendua a9ain concluded that no
adverse i.pacts to known cultural resources were expected fro.
the construction of the debris basin at the upper site. However,
because of the possibility of encounterin9 buried cultural
deposits durin9 excavation of the Chestnut Drain Debris Basin, an
archaeolo9ical aonitor shall be present durin9 initial excavation
stages in order that any such materials encountered can be
evaluated and appropriate data recovery/protection aeasures
iapleaented if necessary.
, ,...-.
"'-
r'
-
r,,\
-...,I
:.J
r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
.., r AGENDA """I .
ITEM #:
LO'CATION
CASE
HEARING DATE
....
..oil 10.
...
~
r
..
P''''''-
'\..-
Mr~~
1""
.J
'-"
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. EAlm Avenue ImDrovements. 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 Orive to the
Muscubiabe Rancho line.
3. EAlm Avenue Dgx Culvert. A box culvert will be constructed
at the crossing of Cable Creek by Palm Avenue.
4. EAlm Avenue/Kendall Orive Traffic Sianal. A traffic signal
will be installed at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall
Drive.
5. Bailev Creek Storm Drain. This project 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.
Pf)j ~-O?
-
,>-';",
,-...
'-'
o
:)
"I",...
Xetllods
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 Bioloqical Services (1985) on the
Verdemont planninq 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 Manaqement Plan (1988) for the Bailey Canyon area
was reviewed as well.
FOllowinq 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 AUqust 20, 1989.
Twenty hours were spent walkinq 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
siqnalization (Project #4) which provides both scientific and
common names. The siqnalization project area was entirely paved,
and contained no plants or animals.
aesulte
The Verdemont area is characterized by alluvial deposits
which are dissected streambeds draininq the adjoininq chaparral-
covered slopes of the San Bernardino National Forest. The
veqetation on the alluvial fans and terraces is in a transition
between the coastal saqe scrub communities of lower elevations
and the chaparral of the hiqher elevations and steep sloes. The
veqetation reflects the lonq-term activities of the Cajon Creek
drainaqe, supportinq both elements of the alluvial saqe scrub
community and a rather larqe stand of California walnut trees.
These noteworthy California native plants reach the eastern edqe
of their distribution in the Cajon Pass. The walnut woodland is
a declininq nativ~.. plant community (Holland 1986). The walnut
treespresent in the Verdemont area are not in a woodland
formation, but rather are found as larqe isolated trees on the
alluvial bench and as trees and shrubs within the riparian
drainaqes.
The Riversidian alluvial fan saqe scrub plant community is a
species-rich assemblaqe of shrubs typical of both the coastal
saqe scrub and chaparral communities, thouqh coastal saqe species
are qenerally dominant (Sanders, 1987, citinq Smith). This
veqetation formerly covered most of the alluvial slopes in the
Los Anqeles basin, but has now been qreatly reduced in extent by
urban expansion (Smith, 1980, citinq Hanes). This is the same
fate that has befallen the more typical coastal saqe scrub of
adjacent foothill slopes and plains: it has been estimated that
2
.C
,.....,
'-'
o
,,--"',\
...)
this community has been reduced in extent by 90t due to
urbanization (Sanders, 1987). Most authors have included
alluvial" scrllb within their concept of coastal sage scrllb and
even Smith agrees that alluvial scrllb 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
distinot 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 dfscussed 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 Eucalvctus 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 raqweed. This riparian vegetation is of
high importance as wildlife habitat, contrasting with the
3
-
'''''''
I"""'.
'-"
~
:)
artificial ditch and bordering ornamental tre.s within the road
right-Of-way. "
The debris basin site contains primarily a disturbed coastal
sage scrub plant co_unity, dominated by buckwheat and coastal
sagebrush. The stream channel at this location includes a scrub
vegetation of mulefat, with about eight smaller sycamore trees.
The dry riparian debris basin site is much less well developed
than the riparian woodland located downstream.
EAlm Avenue Imnrovements
No significant biological resources exist within the right-
of-way for the planned improvements to Palm Avenue. We estimate
that the improvements will result in the removal of one sycamore,
one California walnut, several EucalvDtus, and a few olive trees.
EAlm Avenue Ilgx CUlvert
No siqnificant 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.
iAlm Avenue/Kendall Drive Traffic sianal
The intersection to be signalized is completely disturbed or
paved and contains no biological resources.
Bailev 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 EucalvDtus, 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 snecies
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 co_unity have been recorded
4
.c
"......
.....I
......,-
,
,j
'-'"
in the vicinity of the Verdemont infrastructure projects. Two
other plants, the thread-leaved brodiaea and the San Bernardino
owl'. clover, were also reported from the San Bernardino North
quad, but these plants are montane species found at higher
elevation. and have no suitable habitat near Verdemont.
Therefore, they were eliminated from further consideration. .
sensitive species are so-called because their populations
are declining, 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
occurring in the Verdemont infrastructure project area, see Table
1.
.'
5
. ,------,
.\.,.,
.-.
v
C)
:.)
Table
1.
sensitive species considered for the Verdemont
infrastructure projects.
specie. or community status. Occurrence NUmber of
probability. Sightings
CAntrosteaia 1) E
lAatocAras 2) CE Absent 0
Slender-horned 3) List 1
spine flower 3-3-3
Eriastrum dengifolium 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 #l and '5
~eroanathus 1) C2
lonaimembris 2) CSC Moderate 0
brevinasus Projects
Los Angeles pocket #l and 115
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 on
the site is a type occasionally utilized by the species; or site
is within the known range of the species and habitat on the site
is a type occasionally utilized by the species.
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
",,>'~
/''''
1'""\
-......;
r-'",\
~.)
'1"...
....J
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
o (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
,,"'''',
.f" "
-.J
-
-.,.J
"-"
The potentially-occurrinq species listed in Table 1 are
discussed below and the results of the field surveys to determine
their presence or absence are qiven.
Sleneler-boneel spine flower is a small, low-to-the-qround,
sprinq-bloominq annual of the buckwheat family. Its preferred
habitat is dry sandy benches of washes below 2,000 feet in the
coastal saqe 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 of 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
spineflower 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
500 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 sui table
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 Cali fornia and the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service.
The Data Base reported an extirpated location of the Santa
Ana River WOOlly-starin 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
"C
/'"'",
1""'\
V
.J
~
All known sites for the Santa Ana River woolly-star are west
of the infrastructure projects in Verdemont. No suitable
alluvial sage scrub habitat is present on the project sites, and
no woolly-star plants were saen.
Tha range of the San Diego horned lizard extends from near
the coastline eastward through the interior valleys and plains to
the slopes of 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 of open, coniferous woodlands. It is rarely found
under closed-canopy, evergreen cover. open stretches of 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 ADgele. pocket mou.e. It
apparently digs underground burrows and is nocturnal, and is
thereflllre 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 Aquanga in
R.i.verside County. Urbanization and cultivation 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~rea 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
lIIoderate probability exists for occurrence of this rodent.
9
"C
1"'""\
V
-:)
:J
In sUlDlDary, no rare, threat.ned, or .ndanq.red speci.s of
plant or animal was found on any of the infrastructure proj act
sit.s. . pot.ntial habitat: is available at the Chestnut Street\
drain and Bailey Dreek drain sit.. for two declininq .pecies Of..
wilcUife, which are candidate speci.s for future federal
protection under the Endanqered Species Act.
DiscussioD
One of the proposed infrastructure projects did not contain
any native veqetation 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 bioloqical siqnificance except as a component of
the Cabl. Creek stream system, which contains higher 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
this P..I"oj ect 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 projects 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 Enqineers 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 fomer
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
.1'...._, .
r"
'-"
/,,\
V
:.)
"\"....
We recommend that the line of native sycamores, walnuts, andl
willow. be retained to the extent possible within any future
planned" development adjacent to Chestnut street. The riparian
woodland could form a qreenbelt of some sort adjacent to Chestnut
street. Hiqher-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 EucalVDtus and olive trees,
along 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 plantings, rather than olives,
Eucal VDtus, or other ornamentals. The older neighborhoods of
Verdemont have been planted with California sycamores, and the
result is a shady street that still provides some wildlife with
valuable habitat.
~ Avenue ImDrovements
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
trees lining the sidewalk.
~ Avenue BQx 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.
EAlm Avenue/kendall Drive Traffic Sianal
This project has no biological resources, and no mitiqation
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
Engineers will issue a permit for the project as proposed. Heavy
mitigation in the form of riparian enhancement in other areas is
sure to be a condition of approval, it approval can be obtained.
11
. ..-
\.. .
c
:>
,
,)
We recommend that the city rethink the Bailey Creek drainage
plan. -The best location for a debris basin from the biological
perspective would be at the inlet of the existing concrete
channel. Even here, impacts to the Bailey Creek riparian habitat
would be substantial. At all other locations upstream, impacts
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
subject 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 riparia~ 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
. ,~.
'\..w
/"",
......,
"
-.J
J
ltefereDce.
Briqht 'and A..ociat.., 1987, "The Ecoloqy of Eriastrum
den.i~olium sanctorum (Milliken) Mason: A Preliminary
Report-, report prepared ~or the Army Corps o~ Enqineers,
Lo. Anqele. District.
California Native Plant society, 1988. Inventorv 2f BAn .I.Dl1
Endana.rad Vascular Plants gf 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. preliminarv Descriotions 2f tnl Terrestrial
Natural Communities 21 California. California Department of
Fish and Game, Nongame Heritage Proqram. 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 Planninq Area", report
prepared for the San Bernardino Planninq 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
Enqineers, Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, CA. 18 pp.
Tierra Madre Consultants, 1988, San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Traininq Site Biological Assessment", report prepared for
the San Bernardino County Department of Planning, San
Bernardino, CA';
U. S. Forest Service, 1988, ~ Bernardino National Forest ~
.I.Dl1 Resource Manaaement ilAn, USFS, San Bernardino, CA.
U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985,
"Endanqered 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,
"Endanqered and threatened wildlife and plants: Review of
vertebrate wildlife", Federal Reaister 50(181):37958-37967.
Williams, D. F., 1986, Mammalian Soecies 21 Soecial Concern in
California, Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
13
r"""''''
''-
--
-
/'
'-'"
:)
I
I
Palm Avenue improvements
Plant:.
ANGIOSPERMIAE: DICOTYLEDONEAE
ADacardiacea.
lima trilobat:a
Ast.rac.a.
Ambrosia acanthicarn&
Amhrosia Dsilostachva
Baccharis alutinosa
ChrvSODSis villos&
Convza canadensis
Helianthus annuus
Heterotheca arandiflora
Bra.sicac.a.
*Brassica aeniculata
cactac.a.
ODuntia littoralis
caprifoliac.a.
Sambucus mexicana
CMnopodiac.a.
*ChenoDodium album
*ChenoDodium bot~vs
*Salsola iberica
Euphorbiac.a.
Croton californicus
Eremocarcus setiaerus
Fabac.a.
Lotus scoDarius
Geraniacea.
*Erodium botrvs
*Erodium cicutarium
Hydrophyllaceae
Emmenanthe Denduliflora
Juqlandacea.
Jualans californica
DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Sumac Family
Squaw-bush
Sunflower Family
Annual bur-weeel
Western raqweeel
Nulefat
Golelen-aster
Horseweeel
Western sunflower
Telegraph weeel
Mustard Family
Short-poel mustarel
Cactus Family
Prickly pear
Hon.ysuckle Family
Elelerberry
Goosefoot Family
Piqweeel
Jerusalem-Oak
Russian thistle
spurq. Family
california croton
Doveweeel
Pea Family
Deerweeel
Oeranium Family
Long-beak filaree
Reel-stem filaree
Waterleaf family
Whispering bells
Walnut Family
California walnut
14
.p'.'~
,..,.,
,r,"\
>...,I
,j
. \.,..
""-'
Palm Avenue improvements
Plant:s
(cont. )
Lami.c...
Salvia columbariae
Mint Family
Chia
olive Family
Arizona ash
Ol..c...
Fraxinus velutina
on.qr.c...
Camissonia bistorta
Camissonia californica
zv.ninq-primros. family
Sun cups
False mustard
Solan.c...
Datura meteloides
*Nicotiana alauca
sycamor. Family
Calif. sycamore
Buckwh..t Family
Tall buckwheat
Calif. buckwheat
Ros. FamUy
Mountain mahoqany
Niqhtsh.d. Family
Jimsonweed
Tree tobacco
Pl.tan.c...
Platanus racemosa
pOlyqon.c...
Erioaonum elonaatum
Erioaonum fasciculatum
Rosac.a.
Cercocarnus betuloides
ANGIOSPERMIAE:
MONOCOTYLEOONES
MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
po.c...
*Arundo
*Bromus
* Bromus
*Bromus
*Bromus
donax
dactvlon
diandrus
rUbens
tectorum
Grass Family
Giant reed
Bermuda qrass
Ripqut qrass
Redbrome
Cheat qrass
* - 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
.~
f''\
'-'
o
,)
. ^
Palm Avenue improvements
Animals
AVES
BIRDS
colWllJ)ida.
Zenaida macroura
Piq.ons and dov..
Mourninq dove
CUcuUda.
Geococcvx californianus
Cuckoos
Greater roadrunner
conida.
Corvus brachvrhvnchos
Crows and' jays
American crow
EJD!).rizida.
EQDhaaus cvanocenhalus
Sparrow., war~l.r., tanaqers
Brewer's blackbird
MAMMALIA
MAMMALS
Leporida.
Svlvilaaus auduboni
Har.. and r~~it.
Audubon cottontail
sciurida.
OtosDermoDhilus beechevi
squirr.l.
Beechey ground squirrel
16
. t
r"
.......,
'.......
,/'.
V
')
Palm Avenue Box CUlvert
Plants
ANGIOSPERMIAE: DICOTYLEDONEAE
ADacardiac.a.
Bmla trilobat.a
Ast.rac.a.
Amhrosia Dsilost.achva
Baccharis alut.inosa
ChrvSODSis villosa
Convza canadensis
Helianthus annuus
Heterotheca arandiflora
Lenidosnartum sauamatum
Brassicac.a.
*Brassica aeniculata
caprifoliac.a.
Sambucus mexicana
Chenopodiac.a.
*ChenoDodium album
.. *Salsola iberica
Euphor!liac.a.
Croton californicus
Eremocarnus setiaerus
Fallac.a.
Lotus sC~Darius
G.raniac.a.
*Erodium botrvs
*Erodium cicutarium
Juqlandac.a.
Jualans californica
Lamiac.a.
Salvia columbariae
Platanac.a.
Platanus racemosa
DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Sumac Pamily
Squaw-bush
Sunflower Family
Western raqweed
Mulefat
Golden-aster
Horseweed
Western sunflower
Teleqraph weed
Scalebroom
Mustard pamily
Short-pOd mustard
Hon.ysuckl. Family
Elderberry
Goos.foot Family
Piqweed
Russian thistle
Spurq. Family
california croton
Doveweed
P.a Family
Deerweed
G.ranium Family
Lonq-beak filaree
Red-stem filaree
Walnut Family
California walnut
Mint Family
Chia
sycamor. Family
Calif. sycamore
17
"-
o
C)
~
Palm Avenue Box CUlvert
Plants (cont.)
Po1YI10_0...
Erioaonum elonaatum
Erioaonum fasciculatum
Buokvh..~ ramily
Tall buckwheat
Calif. buckwheat
Rosac.a.
CArcocarnus betuloides
Ros. l'ami1y
Mountain mahoqany
Hiqhtshad. pamily
Jil!lsonweed
Tree tobacco
Soluac.a.
Datura meteloides
*Nicotiana alauca
. poac.a.
*Arundo donax
*Bromus dactvlon
*Bromus diandrus
*Bromus rubens
*Lamarkia aurea
MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Gra.. 1'&II11y
Giant reed
Bermuda qrass
Ripqut qrass
Redbrome
spranqle top
ANGIOSPERMIAE: MONOCOTYLEDONES
Animals
AVES
BIRDS
Co1\11111)ida.
Zenaida macroura
piqeons ud doves
Mourninq dove
Crows and jays
American crow
conida.
Corvus brac~vr~vnchos
MAMMALIA
MAMMALS
L.porida.
Svlvilaaus Audubonii
Hares and rabbits
Audubon cottontail
Sciurida.
otosDermonhilus beechevi
Squirr.1s
Beechey qround squirrel
* - denotes introduced (non-native) species.
18
-
''-
.-.,
v
-
-
o
.J
Chestnut Avenu. drain
Plants
ANGIOSPERMIAE: DICOTYLEDONEAE
AD.c.rcU.c...
Bhu trilobat.a
Toxicodendron radicans
Ast.r.c...
a.hrosia Dsilosta.chva
Artemisia dracunculus
Baccharis alutinosa
ChrvSqDSis villasa
Convza canadensis
Eriaeron foliosus
Helianthus annuus
Helianthus aracilentus
Heterotheca arandiflora
Lenidosnartum sauamatum
Taraxacum officinale
Brassicac.a.
*Brassica aeniculata
eactac...
ODuntia littoralis
eaprifoliac...
Sambucus mexicana
Ch.DopocUac.a.
*ChenoDodium album
*Salsola iberica
Euphor!)iac...
Croton californicus
EremOC8rnus setiaerus
1'&1).c.a.
Lotus scoDar-ius
o.rui.c...
*Erodium botrvs
*Erodium cicutarium
19
DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Sumac l'&IIIily
Squaw-!)ush
Poison-oak
SUDflov.r l'&IIIily
Western ragweed
Tarragon
Mulefat
Golden-aster
Horseweed
Leafy daisy
Western sunflower
Slender sunflower
Telegraph weed
Sealebroom
Common dandelion
Mustard l'&IIIily
Short-pod mustard
Cactus 1'&III1ly
Prickly pear
RODeysuckl. l'&IIIily
Elderberry
Goos.foot 1'&III1ly
Pigweed
Russian thistle
Spurge F&IIIily
California croton
Doveweed
P.. l'&IIIily
Deerweed
GeraDiUlll l'&IIIily
Long-beak filaree
Red-stem filaree
-
-
........
1"'"'\
'-'
~
-
-
o
:)
Chestnut Avenu. drain
Plants (cant.)
Bydroplal'll.c...
Eriodictvon trichocalvx
Juglod.c...
Jualans californica
Lui.c...
Salvia aniana
Salvia mel1ifera
Salvia columbariae
M7rt.o...
*Eucalvnt.ussp.
Ol..c...
*S2JJlA euraDeaea
Pl.to.c...
Platanus racemosa
POlygon.c...
Erioaonum elonaatum
Erioaonum fasciculatum
Rhamnac...
Ceanothus crassifolius
Ros.c.a.
CerCOCArnus betuloides
Salicac...
Salix la~:ioleDis
scrophul.ri.c.a.
Penstemon snectabilis
Solo.c.a.
Datura meteloides
*Nicotiana alauca
ANGIOSPERMIAE: MONOCOTYLEOONES
Ag.v.c...
Yucca whiDele!
..t.rl..t ~aaill'
Yerba santa
W.lnut ~aaily
California walnut
Nint ~aaill'
White sage
Black sage
chia
Nyrtl. faaily
Gum tree
olive Family
Olive tree
sycUlor. ~amill'
Calif. sycamore
Buckwh..t ~aaily
Tall buckwheat
Calif. buckwheat
Buckthorn ~amily
Thick-leaved
wild-lilac
Ro.. Family
Mountain mahogany
Willow Family
Arroyo willow
Fiqvort Family
Showy pens ternan
Nightsh.d. Family
Jimsonweed
Tree tobacco
MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Ag.v. Family
Our Lord's candle
..
20
--
~
-
-
~
-
-
.',,-
c
,---
'-"
.....
..)
Chestnut Avenue drain
Plants (cont.)
1'oao.a.
*Arundo donax
*BrOlllU8 dactvlon
*Bromus diandrus
*BromulI rubens
*Hordeum lIlurinum
*Lamarkia aurea
Gra.. l'&IIi17
Giant reed
Bermuda qrass
Ripqut qrass
Redbrome
Mouse barley
Spranqle top
Animals
AVES
BIRDS
Co1\l1D!)i4a.
Zenaida macroura
Piq.ODS aD4 40v..
Mourninq dove
Coni4a.
Corvus brachvrhvnchos
Crow. aD4 j a7.
American crow
MAMMALIA
MAMMALS
L.pori4a.
Svlvilaaus audubon!i
Xares aD4 rabbit.
Audubon cottontail
Sciuri4a.
otosDermoDhilus beechevi
Squirr.1.
Beechey qround 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
~
-
".
~....\
V
,..-""
v
Bailey Creek drain
Plants
AIIaraDtJlacea.
*Amaran~hus Albus
ADacardiac...
mma ovata
mma trilobata
Toxicodendron radicans
A.t.rac.a.
a.hrosia nsilostachva
A~.mi.ia californica
Artemisia dracunculus
Baccharis alutinosa
ChrvSODSis villasa
cirsiua occidentale
Convza canadensis
Eriaeron foliosus
Helianthus annuus
Helianthus aracilentus
Het.roth.cR arandiflora
Lactuca serriola
Lenidosnartum sauamatum
~ senecio doualas!i
*Sonchos asner
Taraxacum officinale
Boraqinac.a
Amsinckia intermedia
Bra..icac.a.
*Brassic~. .~eniculata
cactacea.
ODunt!. littoralis
caprifoliacea.
Sambucus mexicana
Ch.nopodiacea.
*Chenonodium album
*Salsola iberica
Convolvulacea.
Calvsteaia macrosteaia
22
-
-
:J
AIIaraDtJl Family
White tumbleweed
SUllac Family
suqar bush
Squaw-bush
poison-oak
Sunflow.r Family
Western ragweed
California saqebrush
Tarraqon
Mulefat
Golden-aster
Thistle
Horseweed
Leafy daisy
Western sunflower
Slender sunflower
Teleqraph weed
wild lettuce
Scalebroom
Groundsel
sow-thistle
Common dandelion
Boraq. Family
Rancher's fiddleneck
Mustard Family
Short-pod mustard
Cactus Family
Prickly pear
Honeysuckle Family
Elderberry
Goosefoot Family
Pigweed
Russian thistle
Korninq-Glory Family
Morninq-qlory
,..~
''-
o
~"
'-"
,)
Bailey Cr..k drain
Plants (cont.)
BUpllorlli.c...
Croton cali~ornicu.
Eremocarnus satiaerus
l'aII.c...
Trifolium cilioatum
Lotus sconarius
Luninus bicolor
LUDinus hirsutissimus
I'.q.c...
Ouercus chrvsol~Dis
G.rani.c.a.
*Erodium b~trvs .
*Erodium C1cutar1um
BycSrophyllacea.
Eriodic~von trichocalvx
Ph.velia distans
JuqlancS.c.a.
Jualans californica
Laiac...
*Marrubium vulaare
Salvia mellifera
Salvia columbariae
Lili.c...
Calochortus sDlendens
Myrt.c...
*EucalvDtussp.
Ol..c...
*Q1u euroneaea
papav.r.c.a.
Eschscholzia californica
Pl.t.n.c.a.
Platanus racemosa
spurq. I'aily
California croton
Doveweecl
,1.. I'aily
Clover
Deerweed
Lupine
Hairy lupine
B..ch I'aily
Canyon oak
G.raniWl I'aily
Lonq-beak filaree
Red-stem filaree
W.t.rl..r I'aily
Yerba santa
Common phacelia
Walnut I'aily
California walnut
Mint Faily
Horehound
Black saqe
Chia
Lily Faily
Mariposa-lily
Myrtl. raily
Gum tree
Olive I'aily
Olive tree
Poppy Faily
California poppy
Sycaor. Family
Calif. sycamore
23
'C
-
~
"""'"
'-J
:)
Bailey Creek drain
Plants (cont.)
Polnoll.c...
Erioaonum elonaatum
Erioaonum fasciculatum
Buckvb..~ .amily
Tall buckwheat
Calif. buckwheat
RhIUllJ1.ce..
Ceanothus crassifolius
Ceanothus leucodermis
Buek~horB Pamily
Thick-leaved
wild-lilac
Whitebark lilac
Ro.ac.a.
Adenostoma fasciculatum
Cercoc&rnus betuloides
Ro.. .amily
Chamis.
Mountain mahoqany
Willow Pamily
Black willow
Sandbar willow
Arroyo willow
Salieae.a.
Salix aooddinaii
Salix hindsiana
Salix 1asi01&1)is
Serophulariae.a.
. Mimulus auttatus
Mimulus lonaiflorus
Pen.temen scectabilis
Piqwort pamily
Seep monkey flower
Sticky monkey flower
Showy penstemon
Niqhtsha4. Pamily
Jimsonweed
Tree tobacco
SOleae.a.
D~tura meteloides
*Nicotiana alauca
Vitae...
Vitia airdiana
Grap. Pamily
wild qrape
ANGIOSPERMIAE: MO~OCOTYLEDONES
MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Aqavae.a.
Yucca whinDlei
Aqav. Pamily
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 qrass
Ripqut qrass
Redbrome
Foxtail fesque
Giant rye qrass
Mouse barley
24
. .f'"
. '""
AVES
J'-.....
'''\
-....I
.......
Bailey Creek drain
Plants (cont.)
1'0.0...
*Lamarkia aurea
MAlic. imDerfecta
Typh.o...
Tvtlha sp.
Animals
cuoulid..
Geococcvx californianus
I'h..i.nid..
Callin.n!. californica
ColWD!lida.
Zenaida macroura
corvida.
Anhelocoma coerulescens
Corvus bracQvrhvnchos
BJI!).rizida.
EUDhaaus ~vanoceDhalus
PintIc ervthrQchthalmus
PintIo fugeus
MAMMALIA
Leporida.
Svlvilaaus Auduboni!
soiurida.
otosnermonh!lus beechevi
:)
Gra.. I'aaily
spranqle top
Melic
Cat-tail family
cattail
BIRDS
Cuokoo.
Greater roadrunner
Grou.. aDd quail
california quail
I'iq.on. aDd dov..
Mourninq dove
Crow. and :lay.
Scrub jay
American crow
Sparrow., war~l.r., tanaqers
Brewer's blackbird
Rufous-sided towhee
Brown towhee
MAMMALS
Xar.. and r~~it.
Audubon cottontail
squirrel.
Beechey qround squirrel
* - denotes an introduced (non-native) species.
25
.r
."""
I'"
'-wi
'"""
v
:~)
,
if""
',..\. ;
- ).:-/
. .
'~:~::'d
"" 3. Palm Avenue/caDle Creek (
llaX OJlvert Per.ol.tion
... ,.-op .~.".:;...=-.~~~'::"~:~::"
';~;~ 4. Palm AvenJejl{endall Drive '~'"B:~:~~ .
.....~, Traffic Signal .. _...._.".~
~.. . .... ":;.- --_.-:-~~
..\'--'--- ~.. "'<~'-'-'~""'"
~' ~ !; .. ---~..~...
."~.~
":~_~:';;J{~~
Figure 1. Map of Project Locations and Areas Surveyed
(from USGS San Bernardino North 7.5' quadrangle, 1967, pro 1980)
1 "."....
'I"..<
'0
-0
.J
FRO" TIERRR "RDRE CONSUL.
..26.1998 9118
P. 2
"Tf""~ !J
-.
TI.rra Madre ConsuUants
Environmental Analysis and Resource Planning
Endangored Species Surveys. Mitigation Design. Ecological Services
1271 Columbia Ave.. Suite F.10
Riverside, CA 92507
(714) 684-7081 (~AX) 784-5647
April 2IS, 1990
Michael W. Grubbs
city of San Bernardino
Public Works/Engineering
300 N. D street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Mr: Grubb.:
I have completed a trappinq study at the Chestnut Avenue
Storm Drain, an infrastructure project located in the Verdemont
area of the City of San Bernardino. This study focused on
determining the pre.ence or absence of the Lo. Angeles pocket
mouse (P.ro~nathu. 10naimembris brevina.u.), also called the
.hort-no.ed pocket mouse. ~hi. rodent is thought to be
declining due to 10.. of habitat, and it haa been de.ignated a. a
candidate species for li.tinq as threatened or endangered by the
U. S. Fi.h , wildlife Service.
On the evening of April 21, 1990, my assistant Kelly
Campbell and I inspected the alignment of the proposed storm
drain from the Cable Creek wash to the proposed debris basin site
at the base of the foothills. We identified the suitable habitat
for the pocket mouse, then ..t 160 Sherman live trap. along the
.torm drain alignment. ~heee were placed in tour rowa spaced ten
meter. apart. The traps were .et mainly between Irvlnqton Avenue
and Pennsylvania Avenue.
We returned at sunrise on the morning of April 22, 1990 to
check the traps. Only five rodents were captured. None ot these
were pocket mlce. ~he four deer mice and one California mou.e
captured are common residents of sage scrub and chaparral
habitats in southern California.
FRO~ERRA MADRE COHSU~.
1'""
'-'
~6.I"I "11
..-/
""l. 3
\
l
--
On April 25, I visit.d the d.bri. basin .it. again to
d.termin. it. valua a. habitat tor the Lo. Anqel.. pocket mou...
Sh.ep w.re qrazing in the area ot the upper chann.l north ot
Penn.ylvania Av.nu.. Thi. area contain. a d.n.. .tand ot W..dy
introduced gra...., e.p.cially wild oat. and ripqut gra... Th.
alignment and d.bris ba.in site th.n .nter the upper alluvial tan
trav.r.ing a ranch resid.nce with hor.e. grazing. Although I
could not set traps within the graz.d areas, th..e disturbed
conditions preclude the debris ba.in site from being .uitabl.
habitat for the pock.t mouee. Uphill from the ranch re.id.nce,
the terrain i. mountainou., which i. ditterent trom the known
range of this .ubspecie. on the valley floor..
Becau.e ot the existing disturbance near the Che.tnut Av.nue
.torm drain, little natural vegetation remains. Mo.t of the
native .hrubs and herbs have been replaced by introduced grasse.
and weeds, especially ripgut grass and filaree. This has reduced
the value ot the habitat to rare .pecies like the Lo. Angele.
pocket mou.e, and it is doubttul that it occur. in the area at
pr..ent. The riparian tr.e. and shrub. in the channel adjacent
to the storm drain alignment, mainly .ycamore tree. and
elderberrie., are not tha preterred veqatation type tor the
pock.t mOU.., although little is known of it. .pecific
pret.rence..
The Lo. Angeles pocket mouse has b..n r.corded from Burbank
to San Bernardino and eastward. to Aquanga in River.ide County.
In 1931 there was a report of the Lo. Angele. pock.t mou.. from
4.75 mil.. north of "San Bernardino. The record. pr..ented by
William. (1986) indicate that this speci.. ranged mainly in the
San Bernardino valley. Therefor., the Verdemont area app.ar. to
lie at the upper elevational edge of the epeci.s range. The
results of this .tudy indicate that it i. absent from the
disturbed habitat pre.ent in Verdemont at the Ch..tnut Avenue
strom drain site at presant, and it may occur only in undi.turbed
habitat at lower elevationa, such as along the Santa Ana River in
Highland and Mentone.
B.cause no individuals of the Lo. Angele. pocket mouse were
detected by this study, and b.cau.e the habitat appears to be
di.turbed and un.uitable, we conclude that it i. ab.ent from the
proj.ct .ite. We therefore have no recommendaticn. for
mitigating mea.ure..
-
'itrt.,;...,
-...
1',,\
V
4 .le.. 1.~.1'€l '1: 1"
I'~""',
"....
F". ~
FRO" TIERRA "AaRE CONSUL.
,-
If you have any que.tions about this r.port, plea.. do not
h..itate to call.
Sincerely,
TIERRA MADRE CONSULTANTS, INC.
~7~~r
Lawrence F. LaPre, PhD
aefereDoe.
William., D., 1988, Mammalian SD@ei.. gf SnAcial Cone.rn in
California, Calif. Dept. of Fi.h and Game, wildlife
Management Division Admini.trative REport 86-1, sacramento,
CA.
...-
'---
.r". ""'"\
~~looIf C. '-"
::)
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF
FIVE PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS,
VERDEMONT AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT '987,
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 "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Purchase Order No. 904104
MKLA-902
November 1989
fw' tp,.O 7
-
-
."""
-
~
o
~l
.......
. ,P"''-.
MANAGEMENT SUMKARY
In Auqust 1989, an archaeo1oqical survey of five public works
infrastructure improvements in the Verdemont area of the City 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 aqencies, 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 archaeoloqical survey was preceded by a records
check with the Archaeoloqical 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 Siqnal:
and 5) Bailey Creek storm Drain. All five projects are located
in the Verdemont Planninq Area in the northwestern portion of the
City of San Bernardino, California.
The results of the records check, archival and literature review,
and archaeoloqical survey were neqative. No impacts to historic
or prehistoric cultural resources eliqible or potentially
eliqible for listinq in the National Reqister of Historic Places
are anticipated from construction of any of the five Verdemont
infrastructure improvements, and no further cultural resources
investiqations are recommended. However, because of the
possibility of encounterinq buried cultural deposits durinq.
excavation for the Bailey Creek Storm Drain, it is recommended
that an archaeoloqical monitor be present durinq initial
excavation for that project in order that any such materials
encountered can be evaluated and appropriate data recovery/
protection measuf.~s implemented if necessary.
i
-
-
"I",...
/".'
'-
-,
, ,
'....,I
')
. ,
DI'l'RODUCTJ:OIf
This "report documents a cultural resources assessment of five
public works infrastructure improvements in the verdemont
Planning Area of the City of San Bernardino, California. 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), TIN, 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-foot
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
-
"".-~.
c
,,,",,
'....,I
""",\
-#
...
-
)f"1O
... ....
.. ....
-~
~ '-" '- '''') .
--.:.:.~
Palm Avenue/Cable Creek
Box o.u vert
"
Pe'col~tlon
'....
------
4. Palm Avenue,lKendall Drive B.,in,
'~" .' Traffic Signal _ ~_ .. _ . _ _
~.~' I ~"."'. -..---.--..-,
"', .. ~ .......
. '" ". .
\,1" .,~ i;:;,-, X
,~. 'f.~oJ~- ......:
~>..\~:.. .\ .. x. ~'-, -. ..::.
Figure 1. Map of Project Locations and Areas Surveyed
(from USGS San Bernardino North 7.5' quadrangle, 1967, pro 1980)
2
. ,"-
",-
4.
,..-
,I
"'"'
"-'
'-'
3.
Palm Avenue/Cable Creek Box CUlvert. This project is a box
culvert to be constructed at the intersection of Palm Avenue
and Cable Creek. It will involve qradinq within the
existing' Palm Avenue and Cable Creek riqhts-of-way for a
distance of up to 200 feet (60 meters) upstream and
downstream from Palm Avenue.
Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive Traffic sianal. This project will
consist of the installation of a traffic siqnal at the
intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive. All work
will be conducted within the existinq riqhts-of-way and will
involve the installation of poles, underqround conduits, and
conductors at the intersection.
Bailev Creek storm Drain. This project involves the
construction of a storm drain from a location a short
distance inside the boundary of the San Bernardino National
Forest downstream to connect with the existinq channel near
the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Belmont Avenue, a
distance of approximately 5,000 feet. A 2-3 acre debris
basin will be constructed at the inlet of the channel. The
riqht-of-way for the open trapezoidal channel is 60 feet
wide. For purposes of this study the area of potential
environmental impact was considered to be 150 feet (45
meters) wide and one mile lonq.
Any cultural resources located within the area of potential
envi~onmental impact of any of the five projects would be subject
to direct adverse impacts.
5.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The five infrastructure projects are located on an alluvial slope
at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains, with elevations in
the area of the projects ranqinq from 1,700 to 2,200 feet above
mean sea level. A natural source of fresh water is present in
Bailey Creek, a perennial stream which supports a lush riparian
plant community. A riparian community is also present alonq the
Chestnut Avenue drainaqe, although the stream is intermittent.
Between the two drainages, an alluvial sage scrub plant community
is present.
Soils in the project area are primarily well-drained granitic
alluvium. Lithic materials in the area are limited to stream
cobbles and occasional qranitic outcrops, which would have been
suitable for aboriginal manufacture of ground stone implements.
Stone materials that could be utilized for flaked stone
implements were not observed during the field survey. The
current land use of the project area is rural/urban residential
in the process of converting to urban densities. Historically,
the area has been used for qrazing and low-density residential
purposes and open space.
""
3
. r"
''"-'
/.. ....
.:)
,)
......
OBJECTZVES OP THE STUDY
The Clbjective. of this study were to identify, record, and
evaluate the significance of all historic and prehistoric
cultural resources located within and immediately adjacent to the
project: location.. The study addresses historic structures older
than 45 years, historic archaeological resources older than 100
years, and all prehistoric archaeoloqical resources. Signifi-
cance was to be determined with reference to criteria for
eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic
Place. (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 archaeological
records check for previously recorded sites and surveyed areas
was conducted at the San Bernardino county Archaeological
Information Center, located at the San Bernardino County Museum,
Redlands (see Appendix B).
Available archaeol~gical, 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 (USOI 1979),
California Inventorv of Historic Resources (OPR 1976), and
California Historical Landmarks (OPR 1982).
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 I 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 projects
Field methods
of
was
used
4
,';"
'"",
3)
4)
5)
.......,.,..
)
f..'....
---
'-"
2)
A radius of approximately 300 feet (90 meters) was walked
around the entire intersection of Palm Avenue and Kendall
Drive, including the parallel section of Cable Creek:
Same as 2), above:
The entire length of the project was slowly driven, and a
transect was then walked along the margins of the road
approximately 10 meters from the edge of pavement in all
locations that have not yet been improved:
Two transects were walked on each side of the natural stream
channel from the mouth of the canyon to the existing
concrete storm drain at its upper end near the intersection
of Walnut Avenue and Belmont Avenue. One transect was at
the edge of the bank: the other was approximately 10 meters
away from the streambank. This project received extra
scrutiny because it appeared to be potentially sensitive for
prehistoric cultural resources due to its environmental
context at the mouth of a canyon adjacent to a natural
source of fresh water.
In all cases, transects occasionally varied to a zig-zag pattern,
with numerous intuitive deviations to adjacent areas to inspect
features such as rock outcrops, vegetational associations,
depressions, and any debris (refuse) that could have historic
significance. Field position was determined with reference to
the DSGS topographic quadrangle for the area and with reference
to name streets shown in the 1989 Thomas Brothers Guide for San
Bernardino County.
For the most part, ground visibility for all the projects was
fair to excellent. Vegetation partially obscuring ground
visibility was heaviest along the upper reaches of Bailey Creek.
Some recent trash dumping was noted at the lower end of Bailey
Creek and at various locations along the Chestnut Avenue drain.
Many of the fields on the mar-qins of both Chestnut Avenue and
Palm Avenue had been disced, presumably for weed control.
Fieldwork was limited to surface observations--no subsurface
testing was attempted.
EXISTING DATA AND LITERATURE REVIEW
CUltural Background
The prehistory of the project region has been reviewed by
Altshcul, Rose, and Lerch (1984), who summarized the two primary
cultural chronologies relevant to the area (Wallace 1955: Warren
1968) in comparison with numerous refinements and revisions by
various authors and a consideration of the paleoenvironmental and
geomorphic history of the region.
5
r'
o\".,
r-.....
,,"',>
:)
-
'-"
The general pattern of cultural development in the region i. one
of early hunting culture. beginning more than 8,000 year. ago,
followed by Archaic Stage populations that emphasized plant food
resource. for .ubsistence, and ultimately the development of a
generalized hunting and gathering way of life. The latter
pattern per.isted into historic times and characterized the
lifeway of the ethnographic inhabitants of the region, the
Serrano Indians.
The Serrano were hunters and gatherers who utilized both large
and small game, as well as numerous plant resources, for food.
Large game such as deer and pronghorn were hunted with bow and
arrows, while smaller animals such as rabbits and various
rodent. were taken with throwing sticks, nets, and snares.
Acorns from several species of oak formed the staple of the diet,
supplemented by seeds such as chia, and roots, tubers, and
greens. The settlement pattern of the Serrano consisted of
permanent villages located in proximity to reliable sources of
water, and within range of a variety of floral and faunal food
resources, which were exploited from temporary camp locations
surrounding the main village. More detailed information on the
lifeways of the Serrano may be found in Benedict (1924), Kroeber
(1925:611-619) and Bean and Smith (1978), among other sources.
Historic use of the project area began during the Spanish Mission
period, with the earliest reference to the project region being
the result of an expedition by Pedro Fages in 1772 which passed
through Cajon Pass. Subsequent passages through area were
recorded by Garces in 1776, by Zalvidea in 1806, by Nuez in 1819,
and by Jedediah Smith in 1826. Following secularization of the
Spanish missions in 1834, the project area was granted to Michael
'White as Rancho Muscupiabe in 1843. The project area saw use in
the l850s and for the rest of the eighteenth century as a haul
route for lumber from the mountains via the Devil Canyon Toll
Road, which was located just east of the project area (Beattie
and Beattie 1951: Altschul, Rose, and Lerch 1984:65-77). During
this century the area has primarily been used for rural
residential and agricultural purposes.
Records Check
The archaeological records check conducted for this study by the
Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum,
indicated that a portion of the lower part of the Bailey Creek
Storm Drain had been included in previous surveys, and that a
previous survey for a 10-acre housing tract abutted Palm Avenue.
However, no previous archaeological investigation that included
all of the five project areas of potential impact had been
conducted, and no previously recorded archaeological or historic
sites were, located within the project rights-of-way. One
previously recorded historic resource, P-107l-24-H, a cistern, is
located adjacent to Plam Avenue, outside the disturbance area.
6
.r
.........
"'''
8
')
-
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
th~ general vicinity of the projects.
RESULTS OF '!'HE STUDY
The results of the records checks, literature and archival
review, and field survey of the project sites were negative. No
prehistoric or historic cultural resources were observed in or
immediately adjacent to any of the project areas of potential
impact.
Although no surface evidence was observed, buried prehistoric f
archaeological resources are considered a possibility in the y/
upper portions of the Bailey Creek Storm Drain project.
Altschul, Rose, and Lerch (1984:12) noted that the present ground
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 probably buried. The
potential for buried archaeological resources to be encountered
in toe upper Bailey Creek area is considered moderate due to ther-
environemtnal context at the mouth of a canyon and the proximity
of a source of natural fresh water.
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 listing in the National Register of
Historic Places are anticipated from construction of the five
public works infrastructure improvements in the Verdemont
Planning Area, Assessment District 1987. In the event that
subsurface cultural deposits with no surface evidence are present
in the Bailey Creek area, they could be subject to adverse
impacts. Any buried cultural resources located within the
proposed right-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~ xl
during 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
. ;r'--
0'-'
-
" ....
.--
:)
)
recovery/protection measures implemented if necessary. If this
recommended measure is implemented, it can be concluded that none
of the proposed projects will have an adverse effect on
"important" cultural resources as defined by CEQA Appendix X, or
on properties eliqible or potentially eliqible for listinq in
the National Reqister of Historic Places, as defined in 36 en
60.4.
8
'.C
r'"
'-'
.:)
)
I
I
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 Series No.1.
Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith
1978 Serrano. In: Handbook of North American Indians,
Volume 8, California, R. F. Heizer, ed., pp. 570-574.
Washinc;rton, D.C.: smithsonian Institution.
Altsheul,
1984
Beattie, Georqe W.,
1951 Heritaqe
Century.
and Helen P. Beattie
of the Valley: San
Oakland: Biobooks.
Bernardino's
First
Benedict, Ruth F.
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture.
Anthropoloqist 26(3):366-392.
Department of Parks & Recreation (State of California)
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources.
Sacramento: The Resources Aqency, Department of Parks
& Recreation.
American
1982 California Historical Landmarks. Sacramento: The
Resources Aqency, Department of Parks & Recreation.
Kroeber, A. L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California.
American Ethnolo9Y Bulletin No. 78.
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service
1979 National Reqister 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)'.
Bureau of
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal
Archaeolo9Y. 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 Contributions in
Anthropoloqy 1(3):1-14.
9
-
t'.....'.
" """"
r....,
V
,..~""
v
)
APPENDIX A
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
10
p.-'
r"
'-'
'10,....
,)
.....,
"j
PERSONNEL QUALJ:FlCATIONS
The principal investiqator, fieldarchaeoloqist, and report
author for this study was Michael K. Lerch. Mr. Lerch is a
qraduate in Anthropoloqy at the University of California,
Riverside, where he currently is completinq his doctorate with a
specialization in California and Great Basin prehistory. He has
been active in historic, ethnoqraphic, and archaeoloqical
research in the southern California reqion since 1977, and has
completed more than one hundred cultural resource manaqement
studies in compliance with the requirements of local, state, and
federal aqencies.
His employment history includes the United states Forest Service,
San Bernardino National Forest (Professional Archaeoloqist), San
Bernardino County Museum Association (Archaeoloqist-curator and
Information Center Coordinator), Archaeoloqical Research Unit,
University of California, Riverside (Museum Scientist), County of
San Bernardino, Department of Land Manaqement, Office of
Planninq, Enviromental Analysis Team (Senior Environmental
Analyst), and, since 1984, Michael K. Lerch & Associates (Owner
and Principal Investiqator).
11
'" ',""
........
, ,
'-'
i
. "'-
.....,;
APPENDIX B
RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
12
~
).~
-
A'" _ .IAEOLOGICAL INFORMA,:)4 CENTER
San Bemardino CoWlly Museum
2024 CrInge Tree Lane
Redlands. California 92374
(714) 792.1497
'C~ORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
INVENTORY
"
July 21, 1989
Mi ke Lerch
Lerch L Associates
P.O. Box 55134
Riverside, CA 92517-0134
Our Mike:
CI.l.TUAAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH FOR: Verdemont Plan Area - Citv of San
Bernard i no.
In response to your request for information Julv 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 Archaeolooical Resources (older than 50 vears in aoe) :
o historical archaeological sites
b pending historical archaeological sites
PSBR-4-H -- road
PSBR-19-H -- road
PI071-I-H WW II POW camp site (destroyed)
PI071-22-~:-- 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 Bernardino, surveyed
1893-94)
o historical isolates
Historic Structures (older than 50 vears 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 bv State and Federal commissions):
o National Register Listed Properties
o National Register Eligible Properties
o California Historic Landmarks
o California Point of Historical Interest
r
01",..,
..r.......
:J
.......
'-'.
PREVIOUS CUlTURAl.. RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS:
Cultural rRsourCR reports for thR project area includR Isee RnclosRd
bl iographiRsl J
11 ArRa-specific survRY rRports
4 General area overviews
In addition to the Center's cultural resource site files. the following
publications. manuscripts or correspondence also wRre consulted:
California ORpartment of Parks and Recreation
1982 California Historical Landmarks.
California Office of Historic Preservation
1985 National RegistRr of Historic Places -- Eligible Properties.
through 3/31/88. Correspondence (photocopy of listing from
the National Register).
198b Points of Historical Interest. SBr-OOI through SBr-109. as of
June 198b. Correspondence.
198b National Register of Historic Places -- Listed Properties. as
of August 198b. Correspondence.
198b Survev of Survevs: A Summarv of California's Historical and
Architectural Resource Survevs.
1987 Inventory of Historic Structures -- Records entered into the
OHP computer fi Ie of historiC resources as of February 1987.
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survev for California.
National
198b
Park Service
National Register of Historic Places; Annual Supplemental
Listing of Historic Properties -- Listed and Eligible
Properti~s. Federal Reoister:
February b. 1979; Vol. 44(2b):7433. 7b35;
March 18. 1980; Vol. 45(54):17449. 17493. 1751b;
February 3. 1981; Vol. 4b(54):10b25. 10b70;
February 2. 1982; Vol. 47(22):4933. 495b. 4957. 4959;
March I. 1983; Vol. 48(41):8b29. 8b73;
February 7. 1984; Vol. 4912b):4b12. 4b7b;
March 5. 1985; Vol. 50(43):8853. 8903;
February 25. 198b; Vol. 51(37):bb30. bb75. bb83. 8912; and
May 24. 1988; Vol. 53(100) : 18bb2. 18709. 18748. 18758.
San Bernardino County Museum
1980 Historical Landmarks of San BRrnardino County. Quarterlv of
the San Bernardino County Museum Association 2811-2).
2
-
-
-
-
" "
01.,...
/"'-'.
.'."
>...,I
:J
.....,,'
SENSITIVITY OF PROJECT AREA FOR ClLTURAI.. RESOURCES:
B.sed upon the' .bove inform.tion, .v.ilable historic records .nd comp.risons
with similar environment.1 localities. the sensitivity assessment far this
project area is:
Prehistoric Archaeolooical Resources:
Law
Moder.te
....L High
Un~nown
Historic ArChaeolooic.1 Resources (alder than 100 ve.rs in aoe):
Law
Moder.te
....L High
Unknown
Historic Structures (older than SO years in .oe):
Law
Moder.te
....L High
Unknown
REtoI1l1ENDATIONS:
Reviewing av.ilable inform.tion, the fallowing recommend.tions .re made:
I. A field survey far Drehistoric archaeolooical re;ources. historic
.rChaeolooical resources and historic structures is ;tronolv recommended.
2. An environmental imD.ct review is recommended to establish the
sionificance .nd inteoritv of known cultural resources and/or resources
identified from a field survey. and to DrODose aODroDriate mitloatlon
measures.
3. A cultural resource manaoement reoort must be DreDared to document the
inventorv. ev.lu.tion .nd mitia.tion of resources withIn this crOiect area.
If mechanical testing or excavation 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 .rtif.cts over 50 ye.rs in .ge .re encountered
during I.nd modific.tion, then .ctivities in the immedi.te area of the finds
Should be h.lted .nd .n an-site inspection should be performed immediately by
. qu.lified arChaeologist. This profession.l will be able to assess the
find, determine its signific.nce. .nd make recommendations for appropriate
mitigation measures within the guidelines of the C.liforni. Environmental
Qu.lity Act .nd/or the Feder.1 N.tion.1 Environmental Policy Act.
3
. r
'I"",
.r. .......
/-..,
'I
....I
"-'
'-'
If human remain. are encountered on any property within San Bernardino
County. then the San Bernardino County Coroner's office must be contacted
within 2~ hours of the find. and all work should be halted until a clearance
is given by that office and any other involved agencie.. Contact the county
coroner at B2S Ea.t Third Street. San Bernardino. CA q2~IS-OB7b;
(71~) 3B7-2Q7B.
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 re.ource 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 3b CFR 7Q. Curation of
Federal lv-Owned and Administered Archeolooical Collections; Prooosed Rule.
published in the Federal Reoister, August 2B. IQB7. For name. and addresses
of repositories within the county. please contact me at the address and
telephone number above.
Sincerely.
~,t-';:
Lester A. Ross
Center Coordinator
~
''-
,"'-'"
A'\'T'A(.~WT 0
,.....,
-...;
\
,I
Addendua tOI
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSME!l'l' OF
FIVB PUBLIC WoJUtS I!lJ'RASTRUCTURB IKPROVEME!l'l'S,
VERDEKO!l'l' AREA ASSESSME!l'l' DISTRICT '987,
CITY OF SAB BElUfARDIlfO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
KICJlAEL It. 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 "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Purchase Order No. 904891
MKLA-902a
April 1990
,F ;~
t"".
'-'
,.."
'\,..11
.)
'I"....
DDGBHBJlT 81D11mRY
This report is an addendUIII to the cultural resources assessment of
five public works infrastructure improv_ents in the Verd_ont
Planning Area of the city of San Bernardino conducted by Michael K.
Lerch , Associates at the request of the city Public Works
Department (Lerch 1989). After the original study was completed;
the proposed location of the debris basin for the Chestnut Drain
project was relocated, which necessitated additional field survey
of the new location.
The new location for the debris basin is at the mouth of Meacham
Canyon, approximately 1,500 feet north of the originally planned
location. The archaeoloqical records check and literature review
for the area were updated, and the new debris basin location was
surveyed for cultural resources by the author on April 25, 1990.
The results of the updated records check, archival and literature
review, and archaeoloqical survey of the revised Chestnut Drain
Debris Basin were negative. No impacts to historic or prehistoric
cultural resources eligible or potentially eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places are a~ticipated froll
construction of the basin in its new location or froll the extension
of the route of the drain to the new location. However, because of
the possibility of encountering buried cultural deposits during
excavation for the Chestnut Drain Debris Basin, it is recommended
that an archaeoloqicalllonitor be present during initial excavation
for th~t project in order that any such lIaterials encountered can
be evaluated and appropriate data recovery/protection measures
implemented if necessary.
i
; ,.....
',-
1'""'..
'-'
-
v
,)
:EIl'.rJlODOCT:EOII
This report is an addendum to a cultural resources assessment
originally prepared for five public works infrastructure improve-
ment. in the Verd_ont Planning Area of the city of San Bernardino,
California (Lerch 1989). One of those five projects, the Chestnut
Drain, has been redesiqned since the original survey was completed.
The debris basin at the head of the Chestnut Drain has been moved
approximately 1,500 feet north of its original location. This
addenda reports the results of an archaeoloqical survey of the new
debris basin location and of an additional seqment of the Chestnut
Drain which will run from the previous debris basin location to the
revised location.
The additional study was conducted by Michael It. Lerch' Associates
at the request of the City Public Works Department. The field
survey of the new debris basin location was conducted on April 25,
1990, by Michael It. Lerch, who also authored this addendum.
The new location of the Chestnut Drain Debris Basin is shown is
Fiqure 1, along with the locations of the previously reviewed
projects and the original location of the Chestnut Basin. The
specific location of the new basin location is described as HE l& of
the SE l& of the SW l& of Section 36, T2N, R5W; SBBM, as shown on the
USGS San Bernardino North 7.5' topoqraphic quadrangle, 1967
edition, photorevised 1980 (Fig. 1).
The area of potential environmental impact and the area surveyed
for the debris basin encompasses approximately 10 acres. As with
the previous study, the area of potential impact for the additional
1,500t feet of storm drain was considered to be 100 feet (30
meters) wide.
BACDOtI1ID IIIPORMAT:EOII
The reader is referred to the original cultural resource assessment
to which this report is an addendum for information on the environ-
mental setting, objectives, methods of data collection, and
cultural background.
The archaeoloqical records check conducted for the earlier study
was updated by the author on April 11, 1990. No new information
relevant to the Chestnut Basin had been added to the records since
the previous records check conducted on July 21, 1989.
Field methods during the archaeoloqical survey were the sl!l.llle as
used in the earlier study. Parallel transects were walked on each
side of the centerline of the extension of the storm drain from the
SE corner of Section 36 to the mouth of Meacham Canyon, and the
entire 10-acre area of the debris basin and adjoining areas was
walked with parallel transects spaced 10 meters or less apart,
generally following contour lines.
1
-
',r"..'
,....."'\
~
.""'"
"-"
'I
-,j
-.......
r"~
~1;\~#
3.. PallII Averwe/Cable Creek
Box OJ1vert
I ,
~
t
Percoll.tion
'':'";~::"':'''''':':'~::'':.~':;;.''
Figure 1. Map of Project Locations and Areas Surveyed
(from USGS San Bernardino North 7.5' quadrangle, 1967, pro 1980)
2
. 1'"
'1;".,
,r".......
-...)
.........
. '-
"..,
...,i
DSULTS 01' TD STUDY
The results of the updated records cheek, literature and archival
review, and field survey of the revised location of the Chestnut
Basin were neqative. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources
were observed in or immediately adjacent to the project area of
potential impact.
Although no surface evidence was observed, buried prehistoric
archaeolO9ical resources are considered a possibility in the
vicinity of the debris basin, as was previously noted with respect
to the Bailey Creek storm Drain project. Present ground surfaces
in much of San Bernardino Valley are dynamic features, and archaeo-
lO9ical sites of any antiquity along the tributaries of the Santa
Ana River are probably buried. The potential for buried archaeo-
lO9ical resources to be encountered at the location of the Chestnut
Basin is considered moderate due to the environmental context at
the mouth of Meacham Canyon and the proximity of a source of
natural fresh water.
POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS
Due to the neqati ve results of the study as noted above, no adverse
impacts to known cultural resources eligible or potentially-
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
are anticipated from construction of the Chestnut Debris Basin in
its new location. In the event that subsurface cultural deposits
with no surface evidence are present in the Meacham Canyon area,
they could be subject to adverse impacts. Any buried cultural
resources located within the proposed basin or storm drain right-
of-way would be impacted.
DCOKIIEIlDBD MITIGATION KBASURBS
No further preconstruction archaeological investigation is war-
ranted for the Chestnut Drain project. However, it is recommended
that an archaeological monitor should be present during initial
construction excavation of the debris basin, so that in the event
subsurface cultural materials are encountered, such materials can
be evaluated and appropriate data recovery/protection measures
implemented if necessary. If this recommended measure is
implemented, it can be concluded that none of the proposed projects
will have an adverse effect on "important" cultural resources as
defined by CEQA Appendix X, or on properties eligible or
potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places, as defined in 36 CPR 60.4.
3
,.,-
'I"..,
"....,
'-'
o
"
,..",
UPBUBca
Lerch, Michael K.
1989'CUltural Resources Assessment of Five Public Works
Infrastructure Improvements, Verdemont Area Assessment
District '987, City of San Bernardino, California.
Report prepared by Michael K. Lerch , Associates for the
City of San Bernardino Public Works/Engineering
Department.
.,
4