DOCSLIB.ORG

JH Ranch Planned Development Plan Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JH Ranch Planned Development Plan Amendment JH Ranch Planned Development Plan Amendment Revised November 2013 JH Ranch 8525 Homestead Lane Etna, CA 96027 530.467.3468 (phone) 530.467.5890 (fax) [email protected] Table of Contents 1.0 Intent of Planned Development Plan Amendment ................................................................................ 1 2.0 General Development and Use.................................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Overall Use and Intent ................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Site Access...................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Facility Renovation and Construction........................................................................................ 4 2.4 Occupancy and Related Considerations .................................................................................... 4 3.0 Project Design Standards............................................................................................................................12 3.1 Site Design Standards...................................................................................................................12 3.2 Architectural Design Standards ..................................................................................................13 4.0 Development Areas.....................................................................................................................................14 4.1 Area A: Commercial Resort.........................................................................................................14 4.2 Area B: Housing ............................................................................................................................16 4.3 Area C: Maintenance ....................................................................................................................19 4.4 Area D: Program Activities..........................................................................................................20 5.0 Development Interpretation and Amendments......................................................................................21 5.1 Uses Not Listed .............................................................................................................................22 5.2 Modification and Replacement of Structures............................................................................22 5.3 Changes to Building Uses ............................................................................................................22 5.4 Changes to Development Areas..................................................................................................23 6.0 Program Overview......................................................................................................................................23 6.1 Summer Season Description........................................................................................................23 6.2 Winter Season Description...........................................................................................................27 Attachments .............................................................................................................................................. A1-L1 A Revised JH Ranch Traffic Volume Study (April 30, 2012) ...................................................A1-A61 B Level of Service Techinical Memorandum ............................................................................. B1-B2 C Revised Sound Analysis Results for JH Ranch (August 10, 2011)....................................... C1-C9 D Natural Resources Assessment Report ..................................................................................D1-D54 E Land Use Compatibility Memorandum.................................................................................. E1-E2 F Water Supply Assessment Memorandum.............................................................................. F1-F3 G Sheet C-1 (JH Ranch Existing Development/Zoning) .............................................................G1 H Sheet C-2 (JH Ranch Development Plan)...................................................................................H1 I Sheet C-3 (JH Existing Site Plan).................................................................................................I1 J Sheet C-4 (JH Ranch Circulation Plan).......................................................................................J1 K Sheet C-4 (JH Ranch Existing Utilities Plan)..............................................................................K1 L Program Summary Chart.............................................................................................................L1 M Ground Water Memo (August 6, 2013)......................................................................................M1 N PEER Review of Traffic Analysis (October 18, 2012)............................................................N1-N15 O French Creek Road Traffic Microsimulation.........................................................................O1-O16 JH Ranch Planned Development Plan Amendment (Rev. November 2013) 1 1.0 Intent of Planned Development Plan Amendment JH Ranch has applied for a Planned Development Plan Amendment (PDPA) to increase the amount of land zoned in the Planned Development (PD) District from 79 acres to 202 acres and to modify the existing PD district’s narrative to accommodate the JH Ranch’s existing and future operations. The proposed PDPA is an amendment to the PDPA (Z- 93-11) and includes the following: I. The incorporation of existing JH Ranch property contiguous to the current Planned Development District into the proposed PDPA. II. PDPA development standards that will provide guidelines for the future development of facilities within identified zones. III. Address Guest Ranch occupancy as it relates to the following potential issues from this use: A. Adequate utility systems to serve both wastewater and potable water needs. B. Noise effects from JH Ranch activities on adjacent private property. C. Traffic related impacts to uses associated with French Creek Road. D. Emergency vehicle access. 2.0 General Development and Use 2.1 Overall Use and Intent The use of the properties shown in the proposed PDPA is for a year-round “Guest Ranch” operation. This use has not deviated from the solitary land use and Guest Ranch activities described and approved in the 1993 PD Amendment (J.H. Ranch Planned Development Amendment (Z-93-11), Staff Report for Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors Resolution approving amendment, (Oct, 26, 1993). Refer to Attachment E (Land Use Compatibility Memorandum) for more information. Furthermore, this use is consistent with the SCMC for a Planned Development described as a single use “Planned Development District” with a solitary land use. The intent of the proposed PDPA is to clearly describe the relationship between program occupancy, utility system capacities and traffic related impacts as measured by Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on French Creek Road (FCR). Specifically, Section 2.4.3 provides a methodology developed by the Siskiyou County Planning Department and JH Ranch to convert guest and staff occupancy into ADT. This methodology was applied to the guest program with the greatest traffic impact and has subsequently produced an ADT within acceptable environmental thresholds. JH Ranch Planned Development Plan Amendment (Rev. November 2013) 2 Further information on JH Ranch programs can be found in Section 6.0, Program Overview. The intent of this section is to provide a description of current program use and operations that has been developed since the 1993 PD Amendment. This description of uses does not however represent an agreement of current or future staff and guest occupancy. Additionally, this discussion reflects all current Ranch operation and was used as a reference point for the analysis of Biological, Noise and Traffic assessments prepared by SHN, Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc. in 2010 (see Attachments A, C & D). Since the completion of the 2010 studies modifications to the program operations have been adopted in particular the assignment of different days for guest departure and arrival. Whilst this operational change has eliminated 7-days of peak season revenue for JH Ranch it has resulted in reducing the overall traffic ADT volumes on French Creek Road during peak season. 2.2 Site Access 2.2.1 Vehicular access Primary access to the property is provided via a single lane bridge (Bridge A) across French Creek at the main JH Ranch entrance. This location provides a central access point for guests, staff and deliveries. As shown in Attachment J (JH Ranch Circulation Plan), the primary vehicular guest patterns occur from the main access point at Bridge A up to the main lodge and down to the Housing area. Parking for guest vehicles is provided adjacent to guest housing facilities. Refer to Attachment J (JH Ranch Circulation Plan). This access point will continue to be the main access to JH Ranch and will be the focal point for all guest arrivals and departures, access by staff and other general uses of the property. No changes to the access road are required for current or anticipated future uses. Secondary access to JH Ranch properties is provided by the bridge and access road at Homestead Lane
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Guide to Priority Plant and Animal Species in Oregon Forests
    A GUIDE TO Priority Plant and Animal Species IN OREGON FORESTS A publication of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute Sponsors of the first animal and plant guidebooks included the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Oregon State University and the Oregon State Implementation Committee, Sustainable Forestry Initiative. This update was made possible with help from the Northwest Habitat Institute, the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University and Oregon State University. Acknowledgments: The Oregon Forest Resources Institute is grateful to the following contributors: Thomas O’Neil, Kathleen O’Neil, Malcolm Anderson and Jamie McFadden, Northwest Habitat Institute; the Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity Information System (IBIS), supported in part by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and the Bonneville Power Administration under project #2003-072-00 and ESRI Conservation Program grants; Sue Vrilakas, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources; and Dana Sanchez, Oregon State University, Mark Gourley, Starker Forests and Mike Rochelle, Weyerhaeuser Company. Edited by: Fran Cafferata Coe, Cafferata Consulting, LLC. Designed by: Sarah Craig, Word Jones © Copyright 2012 A Guide to Priority Plant and Animal Species in Oregon Forests Oregonians care about forest-dwelling wildlife and plants. This revised and updated publication is designed to assist forest landowners, land managers, students and educators in understanding how forests provide habitat for different wildlife and plant species. Keeping forestland in forestry is a great way to mitigate habitat loss resulting from development, mining and other non-forest uses. Through the use of specific forestry techniques, landowners can maintain, enhance and even create habitat for birds, mammals and amphibians while still managing lands for timber production.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit E: Botanical and Wildlife Resources
    E5.0 BOTANICAL AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES This section on the terrestrial resources (plants and wildlife) associated with the Klamath Hydroelectric Project (Project) contains the following elements: • A description of the existing botanical and wildlife resources in the study area (see Figure E5.1-1) • A discussion of agency consultation related to terrestrial resources • Summaries of the studies conducted by PacifiCorp on wildlife and vegetation • A summary of proposed enhancement measures • A discussion of continuing impacts E5.1 HISTORICAL TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES The terrestrial resources in the Project vicinity historically have been affected by humans for a long period of time. Much of the information on Native American use of the Klamath River Canyon comes from the archaeological investigations conducted by Gleason (2001). Native Americans have been part of the Klamath River ecosystem for at least the last 7,500 years (Gleason, 2001). The Upland Takelma, Shasta, Klamath, and Modoc tribes all used various portions of the study area; the Yurok Tribe historically used the lands along the Lower Klamath River. Before settlement by Europeans, Native Americans affected terrestrial resources through clearing vegetation for villages; harvesting plants and animals for food, medicine, and other uses; and using fire to manage vegetation. The most intensive uses occurred close to the river. Apparently, many of the flat terraces in the canyon were used at one time or another as village- sized settlements. The existing Topsy Grade Road is near the site of a Native American trail. Beginning in about 1870, homesteaders established ranches in the Klamath River Canyon. Apparently, the canyon was mostly unoccupied by any Native American tribes after this time.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2016 Monitoring Report
    Klamath National Forest FY 2016 Monitoring and Evaluation Report USDA FOREST SERVICE Fiscal Year 2016 Monitoring and Evaluation Report Klamath National Forest Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor 9/26/2017 This report is located on the Forest Service website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsm8_049843 USDA is an equal opportuniUSDAty provider is an equal and opportuniemployer.ty provider and employer. Klamath National Forest FY 2016 Monitoring and Evaluation Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Geology ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Soils............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Biological Diversity .................................................................................................................................. 12 Sensitive Plants ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 195/Thursday, October 8, 2015/Proposed Rules
    60834 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules $4 million, the determination must now offerors to proceed to phase two. Any burden Government’s interest and is consistent have a higher level of approval for the caused by this rule is expected to be minimal with the purposes and objectives of the contracting officer to select more than and will not be any greater on small two-phase design-build selection five offerors. A potential offeror may be businesses than it is on large businesses. procedures. The contracting officer shall The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or more inclined to invest their pre-award conflict with any other Federal rules. No document this determination in the efforts on solicitations where they have alternative approaches were considered. It is contract file. For acquisitions greater an increased chance of award. not anticipated that the proposed rule will than $4 million, the determination shall have a significant economic impact on small be approved by the head of the III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 entities. contracting activity, delegable to a level Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and The Regulatory Secretariat has no lower than the senior contracting 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs submitted a copy of the IRFA to the official within the contracting activity. and benefits of available regulatory Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small * * * * * alternatives and, if regulation is Business Administration. A copy of the [FR Doc. 2015–25613 Filed 10–7–15; 8:45 am] necessary, to select regulatory IRFA may be obtained from the BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P approaches that maximize net benefits Regulatory Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 195/Thursday, October 8, 2015/Proposed Rules
    60834 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 195 / Thursday, October 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules $4 million, the determination must now offerors to proceed to phase two. Any burden Government’s interest and is consistent have a higher level of approval for the caused by this rule is expected to be minimal with the purposes and objectives of the contracting officer to select more than and will not be any greater on small two-phase design-build selection five offerors. A potential offeror may be businesses than it is on large businesses. procedures. The contracting officer shall The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or more inclined to invest their pre-award conflict with any other Federal rules. No document this determination in the efforts on solicitations where they have alternative approaches were considered. It is contract file. For acquisitions greater an increased chance of award. not anticipated that the proposed rule will than $4 million, the determination shall have a significant economic impact on small be approved by the head of the III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 entities. contracting activity, delegable to a level Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and The Regulatory Secretariat has no lower than the senior contracting 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs submitted a copy of the IRFA to the official within the contracting activity. and benefits of available regulatory Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small * * * * * alternatives and, if regulation is Business Administration. A copy of the [FR Doc. 2015–25613 Filed 10–7–15; 8:45 am] necessary, to select regulatory IRFA may be obtained from the BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P approaches that maximize net benefits Regulatory Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plant Surveys and Vegetation Mapping For
    Appendix A Rare Plant and Vegetation Surveys 2002 and 2003 Santa Ysabel Ranch Open Space Preserve Prepared For The Nature Conservancy San Diego County Field Office The County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation By Virginia Moran, M.S. Botany Sole Proprietor Ecological Outreach Services P.O. Box 2858 Grass Valley, California 95945 Southeast view from the northern portion of the West Ranch with snow-frosted Volcan Mountain in the background. Information contained in this report is that of Ecological Outreach Services and all rights thereof reserved. Santa Ysabel Ranch Botanical Surveys 2 Contents I. Summary ……………………………………………………………… ……………. 4 II. Introduction and Methods……………………………..……………… …………… 5 III Results…………………………………………………………………...…………… 6 III.A. East Ranch Species of Interest Plant Communities III.B. West Ranch Species of Interest Plant Communities III.C. Sensitive Resources of the Santa Ysabel Ranch IV. Discussion……………………………………………………………….……………. 14 V. Conclusion…………………………………………….……………….……………… 18 VI. Management Recommendations…………………….……………………… …….. 19 VII. Suggested Future Projects………………….…….……………………… …………26 VIII. Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………… …….. 28 IX. References Cited / Consulted ……………………..……………………………….. 29 X. Maps and Figures ………………………….……………………………… ……... 30 Appendices 1 - 6 …………………………….…………………………………………….…44 Santa Ysabel Ranch Botanical Surveys 3 I. Summary The Santa Ysabel Ranch Open Space Preserve was established in 2001 from a purchase by The Nature Conservancy from the Edwards Family; the Ranch is now owned by the County of San Diego and managed as a Department of Parks and Recreation Open Space Preserve. It totals nearly 5,400 acres and is comprised of two parcels; an "East Ranch” and a "West Ranch". The East Ranch is east of the town of Santa Ysabel (and Highway 79 running north) and is bordered on the east by Farmer's Road in Julian.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue of Type Specimens in the Vascular Plant Herbarium (DAO)
    Catalogue of Type Specimens in the Vascular Plant Herbarium (DAO) William J. Cody Biodiversity (Mycology/Botany) Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada WM. Saunders (49) Building , Central Experimental Farm Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0C6 Canada March 22 2004 Aaronsohnia factorovskyi Warb. & Eig., Inst. of Agr. & Nat. Hist. Tel-Aviv, 40 p. 1927 PALESTINE: Judaean Desert, Hirbeth-el-Mird, Eig et al, 3 Apr. 1932, TOPOTYPE Abelia serrata Sieb. & Zucc. f. colorata Hiyama, Publication unknown JAPAN: Mt. Rokko, Hondo, T. Makino, May 1936, ? TYPE COLLECTION MATERIAL Abies balsamea L. var. phanerolepis Fern. f. aurayana Boivin CANADA: Quebec, canton Leclercq, Boivin & Blain 614, 16 ou 20 août 1938, PARATYPE Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. var. phanerolepis Fern. f. aurayana Boivin, Nat. can. 75: 216. 1948 CANADA: Quebec, Mont Blanc, Boivin & Blain 473, 5 août 1938, HOLOTYPE, ISOTYPE Abronia orbiculata Stand., Contrib. U.S. Nat. Herb. 12: 322. 1909 U.S.A.: Nevada, Clark Co., Cottonwood Springs, I.W. Clokey 7920, 24 May 1938, TOPOTYPE Absinthium canariense Bess., Bull. Soc. Imp. Mosc. 1(8): 229-230. 1929 CANARY ISLANDS: Tenerife, Santa Ursula, La Quinta, E. Asplund 722, 10 Apr. 1933, TOPOTYPE Acacia parramattensis Tindale, Contrib. N.S. Wales Nat. Herb. 3: 127. 1962 AUSTRALIA: New South Wales, Kanimbla Valley, Blue Mountains, E.F. Constable NSW42284, 2 Feb. 1948, TOPOTYPE Acacia pubicosta C.T. White, Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensl. 1938 L: 73. 1939 AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Burnett District, Biggenden Bluff, C.T. White 7722, 17 Aug. 1931, ISOTYPE Acalypha decaryana Leandri, Not. Syst.ed. Humbert 10: 284. 1942 MADAGASCAR: Betsimeda, M.R.
    [Show full text]
  • BLM Special Status Plants Under the Jurisdiction of the California State Office As of May 28, 2015 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME T
    BLM Special Status Plants under the jurisdiction of the California State Office as of May 28, 2015 KNOWN OR SUSPECTED SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TYPE OF PLANT FAMILY STATUS ON BLM LANDS? Abronia umbellata var. breviflora pink sand-verbena Vascular Plant Nyctaginaceae BLM Sensitive Known on BLM lands Abronia villosa var. aurita chaparral sand-verbena Vascular Plant Nyctaginaceae BLM Sensitive Known on BLM lands Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego thornmint Vascular Plant Lamiaceae Federal Threatened Suspected on BLM lands Acanthoscyphus parishii var. goodmaniana Cushenberry oxytheca Vascular Plant Polygonaceae Federal Endangered Known on BLM lands Acmispon argyraeus var. multicaulis scrub lotus Vascular Plant Fabaceae BLM Sensitive Known on BLM lands Acmispon rubriflorus red-flowered lotus Vascular Plant Fabaceae BLM Sensitive Suspected on BLM lands Agave utahensis var. eborispina ivory-spined agave Vascular Plant Agavaceae BLM Sensitive Known on BLM lands Agrostis blasdalei Blasdale's bent grass Vascular Plant Poaceae BLM Sensitive Known on BLM lands Agrostis hooveri Hoover's bent grass Vascular Plant Poaceae BLM Sensitive Known on BLM lands Agrostis lacuna-vernalis vernal pool bent grass Vascular Plant Poaceae BLM Sensitive Known on BLM lands Albatrellus caeruleoporus blue-pored polypore Fungus Albatrellaceae BLM Sensitive Suspected on BLM lands Albatrellus ellisii greening goat's foot Fungus Albatrellaceae BLM Sensitive Suspected on BLM lands Albatrellus flettii blue-capped polypore Fungus Albatrellaceae BLM Sensitive Suspected on BLM
    [Show full text]
  • Calochortus Persistens, Siskiyou Mariposa Lily
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SPECIES ASSESSMENT AND LISTING PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT FORM Scientific Name: Calochortus persistens Common Name: Siskiyou Mariposa lily Lead region: Region 8 (California/Nevada Region) Information current as of: 03/31/2011 Status/Action ___ Funding provided for a proposed rule. Assessment not updated. ___ Species Assessment - determined species did not meet the definition of the endangered or threatened under the Act and, therefore, was not elevated to the Candidate status. ___ New Candidate _X_ Continuing Candidate ___ Candidate Removal ___ Taxon is more abundant or widespread than previously believed or not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate status ___ Taxon not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate status due, in part or totally, to conservation efforts that remove or reduce the threats to the species ___ Range is no longer a U.S. territory ___ Insufficient information exists on biological vulnerability and threats to support listing ___ Taxon mistakenly included in past notice of review ___ Taxon does not meet the definition of "species" ___ Taxon believed to be extinct ___ Conservation efforts have removed or reduced threats Petition Information ___ Non-Petitioned _X_ Petitioned - Date petition received: 90-Day Positive: 12 Month Positive: Did the Petition request a reclassification? No For Petitioned Candidate species: Is the listing warranted(if yes, see summary threats below) Yes To Date, has publication of the proposal to list been precluded by other higher priority listing? Yes Explanation of why precluded: Higher priority listing actions, including court-approved settlements, court-ordered and statutory deadlines for petition findings and listing determinations, emergency listing determinations, and responses to litigation, continue to preclude the proposed and final listing rules for the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix I, Jordan Cove Energy Project Draft
    Appendix I Vegetation and Wildlife TABLES Table I-1 Commonly Occurring Fish and Invertebrate Species in Coos Bay Table I-2 Fish Utilization, EFH in, and Crossing Techniques and In- Water Work Windows for Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Route Table I-3 Special Status Marine Mammal and Terrestrial Wildlife Species That May Occur Near the JCEP & PCGP Project Table I-4 Special Status Fish Species and Aquatic Invertebrates That May Occur Near the JCEP & PCGP Project Table I-5 Special Status Plant (Vascular and Non-Vascular) and Fungi Species That May Occur Near the JCEP & PCGP Project Table I-6 Forest Operations Inventory Impacted by the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project Table I-7 Plant Association Groups on the Umpqua, Rogue River- Siskiyou, and Fremont-Winema National Forests Table I-8 Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected/Removed by Construction within Riparian Zones (One Site-Potential Tree Height Wide) Adjacent to Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies on Federal and Non-Federal Lands Crossed by and Adjacent to the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project Table I-9 Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Within the 30-Foot-Wide Corridor Maintained During the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project Within Riparian Zones (One Site-Potential Tree Height Wide) Adjacent to Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies on Federal and Non-Federal Land Crossed by and Adjacent to the Pipeline Project Table I-10 Numbers of Streams within Four Width Classes that would be Crossed by Dry Open-Cuts and Estimated Durations (Worst Case) for In-stream Sediment
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Threatened, and Endangered
    Oregon Biodiversity Information Center Institute for Natural Resources Portland State University P.O. Box 751, Mail Stop: INR Portland, OR 97207-0751 (503) 725-9950 http://inr.oregonstate.edu/orbic With assistance from: U.S. Forest Service Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NatureServe OregonFlora at Oregon State University The Nature Conservancy Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Agriculture Native Plant Society of Oregon Compiled and published by the following staff at the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center: Jimmy Kagan, Director/Ecologist Sue Vrilakas, Botanist/Data Manager Eleanor Gaines, Zoologist Lindsey Wise, Botanist/Data Manager Michael Russell, Botanist/Ecologist Cayla Sigrah, GIS and Database Support Specialist Cover Photo: Charadrius nivosus (Snowy plover chick and adult). Photo by Cathy Tronquet. ORBIC Street Address: Portland State University, Science and Education Center, 2112 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 140, Portland, Oregon, 97201 ORBIC Mailing Address: Portland State University, Mail Stop: INR, P.O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon 97207-0751 Bibliographic reference to this publication should read: Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2019. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 133 pp. CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • USFWS Species Assessment and Listing
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SPECIES ASSESSMENT AND LISTING PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT FORM SCIENTIFIC NAME: Calochortus persistens COMMON NAME: Siskiyou mariposa lily LEAD REGION: Region 8 INFORMATION CURRENT AS OF: March 18, 2008 STATUS/ACTION: Species assessment - determined we do not have sufficient information on file to support a proposal to list the species and, therefore, it was not elevated to Candidate status ___ New candidate _X_Continuing candidate ___ Non-petitioned _X_ Petitioned - Date petition received: 9-10-01 90-day positive - FR date: 12-month warranted but precluded - FR date: Did the petition request a reclassification of a listed species? No FOR PETITIONED CANDIDATE SPECIES: a. Is listing warranted? Yes b. To date, has publication of a proposal to list been precluded by other higher priority listing actions? Yes c. If the answer to a. and b. is yes, provide an explanation of why the action is precluded. We find that the immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for this species has been, for the preceding 12 months, and continues to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions (including candidate species with lower listing priority numbers). During the past 12 months, almost our entire national listing budget has been consumed by work on various listing actions to comply with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, emergency listings, and essential litigation-related, administrative, and program management functions. We will continue to monitor the status of this species as new information becomes available. This review will determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing procedures.
    [Show full text]