DOCSLIB.ORG

Baldy Mesa OHV Trails and Staging Area Prepared By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Baldy Mesa OHV Trails and Staging Area Prepared By BOTANY REPORT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION and INVASIVE WEED RISK ASSESSMENT for Baldy Mesa OHV Trails and Staging Area Front Country Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest Prepared by: _Debra Nelson__________ __08/15/2013_______ Debra Nelson, District Botanist Date Page 1 SUMMARY This report addresses the potential effects of the proposed actions of the Baldy Mesa OHV Trails Project on Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Watch list plant species that are known or likely to occur in the project area and general vegetation. It also serves as the Invasive Weed Risk Assessment. The project area is located in the Cajon Pass and Baldy Mesa area of the San Bernardino National Forest (Forest) on the Front Country Ranger District (District), north of California Highway 138, and near Interstate Highway 15 where it crosses the summit of Cajon Pass. The legal description for the project area is Township 3 North, Range 6 West, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 23. Baldy Mesa is the District’s “hot spot” for Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use (Figure 1). Baldy Mesa is very popular for OHV use due to its isolation, terrain, and historic use. OHV use on Baldy Mesa includes four wheeled vehicle, quad, and dirt-bike use on 14.84 miles of National Forest System (NFS) roads 3N21 and 3N24.(Figure 1). A Travel Analysis Process (TAP) was completed for the Cajon Place of the San Bernardino National Forest, which includes the project area. The TAP analyzed the capacity of the existing road and motorized trail system and helps to identify some of the associated issues. From the TAP, recommendations were made based on the risks and benefits in the area. This process helped to inform the recreational use and management capability needs for this project. Federally-Listed Species and Critical Habitat: No currently-listed threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur within in the project area. There is also no designated Critical Habitat for plants within the project area or Modeled Habitat for any Federally listed plant species within the project boundary. Determination of effects: This is no known mapped modeled or occupied habitat within the project area, therefore no adverse effects are expected for T/E species and Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation with the US Fish & Wildlife Service is not required. Forest Service Sensitive Species: The following Forest Service Sensitive species are known from within the Project Area: Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada Many occurrences of this species were found within the project area and adjacent. areas. Determination of effects: It is my determination that due to design criteria included in the proposed action, the implementation of the proposed action may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada (Table 1), or any other FS Sensitive plant species that may occur in the project area undetected. Page 2 SBNF Watch List Species: There are no known records and surveys conducted found no Forest Service Watch list plant species in the project area. No threat to the viability of any of the SBNF Watch list plants is expected from the proposed project. Summary of Determinations: Table 1 provides a summary of special status species known to occur in or adjacent to the project area or those with a high probability of occurrence. Table 3 and 4 of this document display all of the FS Watch list and Sensitive species considered in this evaluation. Management Indicator Species: No SBNF Management Indicator vascular plant species are known from the Project Area. Table 1. Summary of Effects Determinations for TESW Species Common Name Occurrence Information1 Determinations 2 Threatened & Endangered Plants None Forest Service Sensitive Plants Astragalus bernardinus P MAI Canbya candida P MAI Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi P MAI Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca P MAI Dienandra mohavensis P MAI Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada Y MAI Orobanche valida supsp. valida P MAI Saltugilia latimeri P MAI SBNF Watch list Plants Calochortus plummerae P NA SBNF MIS Plants None 1Occurrence Codes: MH = Modeled habitat exists Y = Species is known to occur. P = Occurrence of the species is possible; suitable habitat exists and it is within the distribution of the species. H = Historic record. 2Determination Codes: NA = No affect expected NLAA = not likely to adversely affect for T/E species; MAI = may affect individuals but not likely to lead to a trend to Federal listing for Sensitive species. n/a =Not Applicable. Determinations are not made for Watch species – this is simply documentation of an occurrence. Page 3 TABLE of CONTENTS SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF FIGURES AND PHOTOS ................................................................................................. 5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED................................................................................... 6 PART I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 7 I-1 METHODS ...........................................................................................................................7 I-2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...................................................................................9 LMP “Place” Designations .............................................................................................................. 9 Special Area Designations ............................................................................................................ 10 LMP Land Use Zones ..................................................................................................................... 10 SBNF LMP Direction ...................................................................................................................... 10 National Goals .............................................................................................................................. 11 Compliance with Management Direction and Regulations .......................................................... 11 I-3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................... 11 I-3.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................... 11 I-3.2 Proposed Action –Design Criteria ........................................................................................ 12 I-4 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................. 21 PART II: BOTANY REPORT........................................................................................................ 21 II-1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 21 II-2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT – GENERAL ................................................................................ 21 II-2.1 Existing Environment - Vegetation ...................................................................................... 21 II-3 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION – GENERAL ....................................................................... 26 II-3.1 Levels of Impact Analyses ................................................................................................... 26 II-3.2 Impacts of Proposed Action – Plants................................................................................... 29 II-4 Impacts of No Action ........................................................................................................ 31 II-5 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS – SBNF WATCH LIST PLANTs .............. 32 II-5.1 Existing Environment and Potential Impacts to SBNF Watch list Plants – Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 II-5.2 SBNF Watch list Plants – No Action ..................................................................................... 34 PART III: BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES .... 37 III-1 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES BASELINE CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS .................... 37 III-1.1 Sensitive Plants – Baseline Conditions and Potential Impacts of Proposed Action ........... 37 III-1.2 Sensitive Plants – Potential Impacts of No Action ............................................................. 44 III-2 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS –FS SENSITIVE PLANTS ................................. 44 PART IV: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS TO THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES .................................................................................... 49 IV-1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 49 IV-2 CONSULTATIONS AND CONFERENCES TO DATE ................................................................ 49 IV-3 BASELINE CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS FOR T/E SPECIES ................................... 50 IV-3.1 Baseline Conditions for T/E Plants and Potential Effects
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attachment E Part 2
    Response to Correspondence from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy Regarding the ArtCenter Master Plan Note that the emails (Attachment A) dated after April 25, 2018, were provided to the City after the end of the CEQA comment period, and, therefore, the emails and the responses below are not included in the EIR, and no response is required under CEQA. However, for sake of complete analysis and consideration of all comments submitted, the City responds herein and this document is made part of the project staff report. Response to Correspondence This correspondence with the Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy occurred in the context of the preparation of the EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The formal comment letter from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy included in this correspondence was responded to as Letter No. 6 in Section III, Response to Comments, of the April 2018 Final EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The primary correspondence herein is comprised of emails between John Howell and Mickey Long discussing whether there is a wildlife corridor within the Hillside Campus, as well as emails between John Howell and CDFW regarding whether there is a wildlife corridor and whether CDFW will provide a comment letter regarding the ArtCenter Project for the Planning Commission hearing on May 9, 2018. Note that CDFW submitted a comment letter on May 9, 2018, after completion of the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The City has also provided a separate response to this late comment letter. This correspondence centers around the potential for the Hillside Campus to contribute to a wildlife corridor. The CDFW was contacted during preparation of the Final EIR to obtain specific mapping information to provide a more comprehensive description of the potential for wildlife movement within the Hillside Campus within the Final EIR.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS G. LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The 887-acre Canyon Hills project site is located in the northeastern portion of the City. The project site lies within the Verdugo Mountains, a mountain range that covers an area of approximately 25 square miles.1 The Verdugo Mountains are geographically defined by the San Fernando Valley and the La Tuna Canyon and Tujunga Canyon drainages to the west, the Los Angeles Basin to the south, the San Gabriel Valley and the Arroyo Verdugo drainage to the east, and the communities of Sunland and Tujunga, which lie at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, to the north. The project site is an irregular-shaped property that extends along a southeast to northwest axis, and is roughly bounded by Verdugo Crestline Drive2 on the north and La Tuna Canyon Road on the south. Interstate 210 bisects the project site in an east-west direction dividing it into a northern subarea (“Development Area A”) of approximately 492 acres and a southern subarea (“Development Area B”) of approximately 395 acres. Existing Land Uses The project site contains steep mountainous terrain with local relief changes in excess of 500 vertical feet. Land elevations range from approximately 1,160 to 2,064 feet above sea level. Natural slope gradients roughly range from 3:1 to as steep as 0.75:1 (horizontal:vertical). Steep “V” shaped canyons are abundant throughout the project site. The proposed project site is bisected by Interstate 210. The portion of the freeway that passes through the project site was constructed in the early 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources of Concern
    APPENDIX D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resources of Concern This resource list is to be used for planning purposes only Ð it is not an of®cial species list. Endangered Species Act species list information for your project is available online and listed below for the following FWS Field Of®ces: CARLSBAD FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 101 CARLSBAD, CA 92011 (760) 431-9440 http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/ VENTURA FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE 2493 PORTOLA ROAD, SUITE B VENTURA, CA 93003 (805) 644-1766 Project Name: OMYA White Knob Mine 07/30/2013 Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC) Page 1 of 5 Version 1.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resources of Concern Project Location Map: Project Counties: San Bernardino, CA Geographic coordinates (Open Geospatial Consortium Well-Known Text, NAD83): MULTIPOLYGON (((-116.943255 34.3824195, -116.943255 34.3804361, -116.9827372 34.3801528, -116.9882303 34.3781693, -116.9904619 34.3780276, -116.9928652 34.3793027, -116.9956118 34.379161, -116.9983583 34.3778859, -117.0016199 34.3780276, -117.0043751 34.3770359, -117.0057398 34.3744856, -117.0035168 34.3710851, -117.0043665 34.3560648, -117.0280643 34.3566316, -117.0273777 34.3733521, -117.0067783 34.3723603, -117.0076281 34.3744856, -117.0052334 34.3784527, -117.0019718 34.3795861, -116.9945904 34.3808611, -116.9908138 34.3805778, -116.9894405 34.3794444, -116.9875523 34.3800111, -116.9832607 34.3814278, -116.9434353 34.3822778, -116.943255 34.3824195))) 07/30/2013 Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC) Page 2 of 5 Version 1.4 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Collections
    A. andersonii A. Gray SANTA CRUZ MANZANITA San Mateo Along Skyline Blvd. between Gulch Road and la Honda Rd. (A. regismontana?) Santa Cruz Along Empire Grade, about 2 miles north of its intersection with Alba Grade. Lat. N. 37° 07', Long. 122° 10' W. Altitude about 2550 feet. Santa Cruz Aong grade (summit) 0.8 mi nw Alba Road junction (2600 ft elev. above and nw of Ben Lomond (town)) - Empire Grade Santa Cruz Near Summit of Opal Creek Rd., Big Basin Redwood State Park. Santa Cruz Near intersection of Empire Grade and Alba Grade. ben Lomond Mountain. Santa Cruz Along China Grade, 0.2 miles NW of its intersection with the Big Basin-Saratoga Summit Rd. Santa Cruz Nisene Marks State Park, Aptos Creek watershed; under PG&E high-voltage transmission line on eastern rim of the creek canyon Santa Cruz Along Redwood Drive 1.5 miles up (north of) from Monte Toyon Santa Cruz Miller's Ranch, summit between Gilroy and Watsonville. Santa Cruz At junction of Alba Road and Empire Road Ben Lomond Ridge summit Santa Cruz Sandy ridges near Bonny Doon - Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Cruz 3 miles NW of Santa Cruz, on upper UC Santa Cruz campus, Marshall Fields Santa Cruz Mt. Madonna Road along summit of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Between Lands End and Manzanitas School. Lat. N. 37° 02', Long. 121° 45' W; elev. 2000 feet Monterey Moro Road, Prunedale (A. pajaroensis?) A. auriculata Eastw. MT. DIABLO MANZANITA Contra Costa Between two major cuts of Cowell Cement Company (w face of ridge) - Mount Diablo, Lime Ridge Contra Costa Immediately south of Nortonville; 37°57'N, 121°53'W Contra Costa Top Pine Canyon Ridge (s-facing slope between the two forks) - Mount Diablo, Emmons Canyon (off Stone Valley) Contra Costa Near fire trail which runs s from large spur (on meridian) heading into Sycamore Canyon - Mount Diablo, Inner Black Hills Contra Costa Off Summit Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Berberis Nevinii (Nevin's Barberry) 5-Year Review
    Berberis nevinii (Nevin’s barberry) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photograph by Chris Wagner, SBNF. Used with permission. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Carlsbad, CA August 14, 2009 2009 5-year Review for Berberis nevinii 5-YEAR REVIEW Berberis nevinii (Nevin’s barberry) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Qualifications
    STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Page & Turnbull FIRM PROFILE Page & Turnbull is interested in the intersection between the built surroundings we have inherited and the way we live now. Our mission is to imagine change within historic environments through design, research, and technology. Page & Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page & Associates to provide architectural and conservation services for historic buildings, resources and civic areas. We were one of the first architecture firms in California to dedicate our practice to historic preservation and we are among the longest-practicing such firms in the country. Our offices are located in San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles. Our staff includes licensed architects, designers and historians, conservators and planners. We approach projects with imagination and flexibility and are committed to the conservation of significant resources—where these resources can be made to function for present and future needs. Our services are oriented to our clients’ time and budget. All our professional staff meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards. ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES We emphasize the re-use of existing buildings and the thoughtful application of new design. Solutions for new construction respect existing architectural values and the context of neighboring structures. When analyzing buildings we are skilled in the assessment and treatment of the most significant architectural and historical spaces and elements. We welcome the challenge of solving problems of repair, seismic strengthening, and integrating new systems. Page & Turnbull ensures that projects comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for local, state and federal agency review.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Report
    Biological Resources Letter Report for the Rancho Sierra Property, APN 404-430-45 County of San Diego, California [County Project # PDS2015-TM-5601; Log No. PDS2015-ER-15-14-004] Prepared for: The County of San Diego Department of Planning and Development Services 5510 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 Project Proponent: Mr. Brad Bailey 10035 Prospect Avenue, Suite 101 Santee, CA 92071 (619)244-4979 Prepared By: Gretchen Cummings Cummings and Associates P.O. Box 1209 Ramona, CA 92065 (760)440-0349 Revised 28 December 2016 Revised 8 September 2015 Revised 1 May 2015 21 May 2014 Job Number 1698.21D SDC PDS RCVD 02-15-18 TM5601 Biological Resource Letter Report for the Rancho Sierra Property, APN 404-430-45 County of San Diego, California [County Project #PDS2015-TM-5601; Log No. PDS2015-ER-15-14-004] Prepared For: The County of San Diego Department of Planning and Development Services 5510 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 Project Proponents: Mr. Brad Bailey 10035 Prospect Ave, Suite 101 Santee, CA 92071 (619)244-4979 Prepared By: Gretchen Cummings Cummings and Associates P.O. Box 1209 Ramona, CA 92065 (760)440-0349 Revised 28 December 2016 Revised 8 September 2015 Revised 1 May 2015 21 May 2014 Job Number 1698.21D Table of Contents Summary. 3 1.0 Introduction, Project Description, Location and Setting. 3 2.0 Regional Context . 4 3.0 Habitats/Vegetation Communities . 4 4.0 Special Status Species. 6 5.0 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waterways . 11 6.0 Other Unique Features/Resources. 11 7.0 Significance of Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .
    [Show full text]
  • 5.15 Recreation
    SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 5. Environmental Analysis 5.15 RECREATION This section of the San Bernardino County (County) Countywide Plan (CWP or Project) Program Environmental Impact Report describes the regulatory framework, existing conditions, and the potential for environmental impacts related to parks and recreations. 5.15.1 Environmental Setting 5.15.1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND Federal National Park Service The National Park system is considered to have begun in 1872 when Congress established Yellowstone National Park under exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the “Organic Act” to create the National Park Service to “promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations” and to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Wilderness Act of 1964 In the Wilderness Act of 1964, Congress directed certain federal agencies to study lands they administer for inclusion in a system of preserved wildernesses where no extractive activities can occur. Wilderness designation ensures the resources are managed to retain their “primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation.” Wilderness areas are open to hiking and, in some cases, horseback riding, backpacking, and other nonmechanical recreation. The Wilderness Act prohibits permanent roads and commercial enterprises, except in some instances related to recreation and safety. California Desert Conservation Area Plan The California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan was approved in 1980 in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
    [Show full text]
  • RECIRCULATED PORTIONS of LAZER BROADCASTING FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No
    RECIRCULATED PORTIONS OF LAZER BROADCASTING FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2008041082) Responding to Superior Court of California County of San Bernardino’s January 10, 2020 Judgment Prepared for: County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department – Planning Division 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, First Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-0187 Prepared by: Lilburn Corporation 1905 Business Center Drive San Bernardino, California 92408 NOVEMBER 23, 2020 385 N. Arrowhead Ave, First Floor, San Bernardino, CA 92415 | Phone: 909.387.8311 Fax: 909.387.3223 Terri Rahhal Land Use Services Department Director Planning November 24, 2020 Dear Reader: The enclosed “Recirculated Portions of Lazer Broadcasting Facility EIR” has been prepared for the project known as Lazer Broadcasting Facility. The Applicant, Lazer Broadcasting Corporation, has proposed construction and operation of a FM radio broadcast facility on a 38.12- acre site located near Wildwood Canyon and Oak Glen Road, west of Pisgah Peak Road in the unincorporated Yucaipa area of San Bernardino County, and within the Oak Glen Community Plan area. The Proposed Project consists of one free-standing, 43-foot tall monopole with attached antenna, and one 10-foot by 10-foot single-story (nine-feet tall) equipment building on the 38.12 acre Project Site. The Proposed Project will also include the installation of approximately 6,700 lineal feet (LF) of underground electrical conduit in Pisgah Peak Road to bring power to the site and approximately 650LF of underground electrical line connecting the equipment building and monopole. Approximately 38 acres of the Project Site will be permanently preserved as non-developable, passive open space via a deed restriction.
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving Wild California an External Assessment
    PRESERVING WILD CALIFORNIA AN EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT Report to the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Steven L. Yaffee, Sheila K. Schueller and Julia M. Wondolleck School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan April 15, 2009 The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable inputs of numerous Preserving Wild California staff and grantees along with others in the California conservation community who shared their experiences and insights with us. Research Team Steven L. Yaffee, PhD Sheila K. Schueller, PhD Julia M. Wondolleck, PhD Michelle S. Aldridge Yvette C. Dimcheff Nicole A. Fernandes Aviva Y. Glaser José G. Gonzalez Kristen E. Johnson Lauren V. Pidot For comments and questions, please contact: Dr. Steven Yaffee School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan 440 Church Street Ann Arbor MI 48109‐1041 [email protected] 734‐763‐5451 Title page photos by Tupper Ansel Blake Table of Contents Executive Summary ……..............................................................…………………………………… ix Section 1 – Introduction and Method of Assessment ………………………………………… 1 The Bottom Line ………………………………………………………………………...... 1 Methods Used to Carry Out the External Assessment …………………………................. 3 Some Caveats …………………………………………………………………………...…. 7 A Roadmap to the Report ………………………………………………………………...... 9 Section 2 – What was Intended? The Logic of the PWC Program ……………………..… 11 An Ambitious but Clear Set of Goals and Objectives ………………………………...…… 12 Six Major Types of Grantmaking Strategies …………………………………………….… 14 A Set of Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Success ………………………….…… 16 Section 3 – What was Funded? A Snapshot of Program Activities ………………….….. 23 How were funds distributed by region? ………………………………………………….… 25 How were funds distributed by type of project? ………………………………………….... 25 How were funds distributed by region and type of project? ………………………….……. 26 How many acres were acquired? ………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • D1) Biological Resources Existing Conditions
    SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Appendices Appendix D: Biological Resources Existing Conditions Report June 2019 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Appendices This page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks DRAFT San Bernardino Countywide Plan Biological Resources Existing Conditions Prepared for: County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Division, Advance Planning Division 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor San Bernardino, California 94215-0182 Contact: Terri Rahhal Prepared by: 3544 University Avenue Riverside, California 92501 Contact: Linda Archer DATA AND ANALYSIS AS NOVEMBER 2016 UPDATED WITH OUTREACH SUMMARY IN NOVEMBER 2018 DRAFTMAY 2019 D-1 REPORT USE, INTENT, AND LIMITATIONS This Background Report was prepared to inform the preparation of the Countywide Plan. This report is not intended to be continuously updated and may contain out-of-date material and information. This report reflects data collected in 2016 and analyzed in 2016 and 2017 as part of due diligence and issue identification. This report is not intended to be comprehensive and does not address all issues that were or could have been considered and discussed during the preparation of the Countywide Plan. Additionally, many other materials (reports, data, etc.) were used in the preparation of the Countywide Plan. This report is not intended to be a compendium of all reference materials. This report may be used to understand some of the issues considered and discussed during the preparation of the Countywide Plan, but should not be used as the sole reference for data or as confirmation of intended or desired policy direction. Final policy direction was subject to change based on additional input from the general public, stakeholders, and decision makers during regional outreach meetings, public review of the environmental impact report, and public adoption hearings.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County 5Th Edition
    cHeckliSt of tHe vaScUlaR PlaNtS of SaN DieGo coUNty 5th edition Pinus torreyana subsp. torreyana Downingia concolor var. brevior Thermopsis californica var. semota Pogogyne abramsii Hulsea californica Cylindropuntia fosbergii Dudleya brevifolia Chorizanthe orcuttiana Astragalus deanei by Jon P. Rebman and Michael G. Simpson San Diego Natural History Museum and San Diego State University examples of checklist taxa: SPecieS SPecieS iNfRaSPecieS iNfRaSPecieS NaMe aUtHoR RaNk & NaMe aUtHoR Eriodictyon trichocalyx A. Heller var. lanatum (Brand) Jepson {SD 135251} [E. t. subsp. l. (Brand) Munz] Hairy yerba Santa SyNoNyM SyMBol foR NoN-NATIVE, NATURaliZeD PlaNt *Erodium cicutarium (L.) Aiton {SD 122398} red-Stem Filaree/StorkSbill HeRBaRiUM SPeciMeN coMMoN DocUMeNTATION NaMe SyMBol foR PlaNt Not liSteD iN THE JEPSON MANUAL †Rhus aromatica Aiton var. simplicifolia (Greene) Conquist {SD 118139} Single-leaF SkunkbruSH SyMBol foR StRict eNDeMic TO SaN DieGo coUNty §§Dudleya brevifolia (Moran) Moran {SD 130030} SHort-leaF dudleya [D. blochmaniae (Eastw.) Moran subsp. brevifolia Moran] 1B.1 S1.1 G2t1 ce SyMBol foR NeaR eNDeMic TO SaN DieGo coUNty §Nolina interrata Gentry {SD 79876} deHeSa nolina 1B.1 S2 G2 ce eNviRoNMeNTAL liStiNG SyMBol foR MiSiDeNtifieD PlaNt, Not occURRiNG iN coUNty (Note: this symbol used in appendix 1 only.) ?Cirsium brevistylum Cronq. indian tHiStle i checklist of the vascular plants of san Diego county 5th edition by Jon p. rebman and Michael g. simpson san Diego natural history Museum and san Diego state university publication of: san Diego natural history Museum san Diego, california ii Copyright © 2014 by Jon P. Rebman and Michael G. Simpson Fifth edition 2014. isBn 0-918969-08-5 Copyright © 2006 by Jon P.
    [Show full text]