HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - Canyon Estate DEIR Volume 2StateClearinghouseNumber201404113
CANYONPRIVATERESIDENCE
TentativeParcelMapNo.TPM14-01
ResidentialMountainousDevelopment
PermitNo.RM14-01
DraftProjectEIR(2015-01)
Appendices-Volume2of2
CITYOFARCADIA
DevelopmentServicesDepartment
240WestHuntingtonDrive
Arcadia,California91066-6021
SIDLINDMARK,AICP
Planning.Environmental.Policy
March2015
TableofContents
A.NoticeofPreparation
B.CommentsontheNoticeofPreparation
C.Hydrology/WaterQualityStudy
D.BiologicalResourceStudy
E.ArboristStudy
F.Soils/GeologyReports
G.CalEEModEmissionsReports
H.CorrespondenceReceived
I.OtherProjectInformation
J.JurisdictionalDelineationReport
K.CulturalResourceStudy
Notice of Preparation 1 FORM “G”
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report.
The City of Arcadia will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project
identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental
information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed
project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other
approval for the project. The Project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are
contained in the attached materials.
A copy of the Initial Study IS attached.
A copy of the Initial Study IS NOT attached.
The proposed project IS considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance.
The proposed project IS NOT considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance.
The proposed project WILL affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State
Department of Transportation.
The proposed project WILL NOT affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State
Department of Transportation.
A scoping meeting WILL be held by the lead agency.
A scoping meeting WILL NOT be held by the lead agency.
Your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to Thomas Li, Associate Planner, at the address shown above. We will need the
name of a contact person in your agency.
Project Title: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 14-01 and Residential
Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 14-01
Project Location – Specific: Identify street
address and cross street or attach a map
showing project site (preferably a
U.S.G.S. 15’ or 7 ½’ topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
2111 – 2125 Canyon Road
(APNs 5765-002-013 and 5765-002-014)
Project Description: The proposed project involves the subdivision of a 90.46-acre
undeveloped property in the foothills of Arcadia into two (2)
parcels. Two (2) applications are necessary for consideration of
the proposed project:
• Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 14-01 (72681)
is required to subdivide the property into two (2) lots. Parcel 1
would be approximately 11.68 acres in area and Parcel 2 would
be approximately 78.78 acres in area.
Notice of Preparation 2 FORM “G”
• Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application
No. RM 14-01 is required for the grading of one of the two parcels
for a single-family development. The grading to accommodate the
proposed developments would involve approximately 7,000 cubic-
yards of cut and 7,000 cubic-yards of fill.
Project Applicant (if any): Mr. Scott Yang, Nevis Capital, LLC
9674 Telstar Avenue #C, El Monte, CA 91731
California Environmental Protection
Agency Hazardous Waste List (if
applicable):
Date: April 25, 2014 Signature: Thomas Li
Title: Associate Planner
Telephone: 626-574-5447
Consulting firm retained to prepare draft EIR (if applicable):
Name: Sid Lindmark
Address: 10 Aspen Creek Lane
City/State/Zip: Laguna Hills, CA 92653-7401
Contact Person: Sid Lindmark
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE
CANYON PRIVATE RESIDENCE, CITY OF ARCADIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
First Pacific Builders, Inc.
9674 Telstar Avenue, # C
El Monte, CA 91731
Contact: Jeff Lee
Prepared by:
Ryan Ecological Consulting
526 West Colorado Blvd.
Monrovia, CA 91016
Contact: Thomas Ryan, Biologist
December 24, 2013
Page 2
Introduction
This Biological Resources Assessment report provides the methods and results of biological
reconnaissance site visits for the Canyon Private Residence Project (Project) located at
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 5765-002-014, 2125 Canyon Road, Arcadia, Los Angeles
County, California. The scope of this report consists of conducting biological reconnaissance
surveys in support of Nevis Capital L.L.C.’s preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for
the City of Arcadia. The proposed Project consists of a one-lot subdivision on 1.34 acres of the
11.68-acre parcel. Within the subdivision, 1.34 acres will be graded and 10.34 acres will not be
graded. The purpose of this report is to provide a description of the existing biological
conditions of the 11.68-acre proposed Project Site, to assess the potential for special status
plant and wildlife species, to assess the site’s potential as a wildlife corridor, to assess the site’s
potential for supporting jurisdictional habitats, to provide a habitat map, to discuss potential
constraints and make recommendations for additional focused studies and for methods to
avoid or mitigate any potential significant impacts.
Project Location
The Canyon Private Residence Project is located at 2125 Canyon Road, Arcadia, Los Angeles
County, California. This is west of Canyon Road, east and south of Santa Anita Canyon Road and
Chantry Flats Road, and north of Carolwood Drive in Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California
(Project Site) (Figure 1). The Project Site is located at 34°10'22" North, 118° 1'43" West, within
Township 1 North, Range 11 west, of the Mount Wilson, California, U. S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle (USGS 1994). It is within APN Number 5765-002-014.
Project Description
The proposed Project consists of a one-lot subdivision on 1.34 acres of the of the 11.68-acre
parcel.
Literature Review
A literature review was conducted for the Canyon Private Residence Project and vicinity (“study
area”) prior to the site visit. The literature review included the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(2010) Soil Survey data layers, the Mount Wilson USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle topographical
map, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) maintained by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW 2013), the Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH
2011), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2013).
Additionally, literature detailing the habitat requirements of special-status species reported by
Page 3
the CNDDB was reviewed. County-provided aerial photography was also reviewed prior to the
site visit to locate and inspect any potential features of concern regarding the objectives of the
site visits.
For this report “special-status” refers to species that are: (1) listed, proposed for listing, or
candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA); (2) listed or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under California
Endangered Species Act (CESA); (3) listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection
Act; (4) a state species of special concern or fully protected species; and, (5) on CNPS List 1A,
1B, 2, and 3, or on a Los Angeles County Sensitive Bird Species List (CDFW 2011, LACSBS
Working Group 2009).
Field Investigation
For this field investigation, four site visits were performed at the Project Site to evaluate the
existing conditions.
Biologists Thomas Ryan and Richard Montijo conducted the reconnaissance field site visits on
December 15, 18, and 19, 2011 and Thomas Ryan and Nathan Mudry conducted a site visit on
December 19, 2013. The purpose of the survey in 2013 was to ensure that the site conditions
had not changed and to collect updated information on the flora and fauna of the site. Times
and weather conditions of each survey are provided in Table 1. Surveys focused on the parcel
proposed to be developed, but included coverage of the entire Project Site.
Table 1. Summary of Survey Times and Weather Conditions.
Date
Surveyor Time
Temp
(°F)
Wind
(mph) Conditions
Dec. 15, 2011 Richard Montijo 11:00 - 14:30 55-60 0-5 Cloudy - Rain
Dec. 18, 2011 Thomas Ryan 09:20 – 12:35 52-56 0–5 Clear-Cloudy
Dec. 21, 2013 Richard Montijo 07:00 – 12:30 55-62 0-5 Clear
Dec. 19, 2013 Thomas Ryan &
Nathan Mudry
08:00 – 09:25 54-54 0-3 Cloudy - Rain
The Project Site was evaluated for the presence, absence, or likelihood of occurrence of
special-status species, vegetation types, or more general biological resource issues that could
constrain the Project under applicable laws and regulations. All accessible, adjacent areas were
examined to provide context. Focused surveys for plants or wildlife were not performed during
Page 4
this site visit. Parameters for special-status plants included topography, soil conditions,
elevation, hydrology, a site’s operational activities, and life history needs for the specific
species. Special-status parameters for wildlife included connectivity to documented and
potentially occurring habitat, hydrology, access to the site, foraging and nesting habitat, the
site’s operational activities, and life history needs for each species.
The biologists walked all areas subject to development and obtained 100% visual coverage of
the entire Project Site. Representative site photographs were taken. All plant and animal
species observed or otherwise detected during the site visit were recorded in a field notebook.
Detailed field notes were compiled including conditions, visible disturbance factors, species,
vegetation types, and more general biological resource issues observed or detected. Common
plant species observed were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field.
Unusual and less familiar plants were identified in the office using taxonomic guides. Taxonomic
nomenclature for plants follows CNPS (2013). In 2011, vegetation was mapped by the biologists
on a hand-held device (Trimble Juno GPS with ARCPad 8.0 GIS software installed).
Wildlife species were detected by sight, call, tracks, scat, or other signs. The biologists used
binoculars to aid field identification when necessary. A complete list of flora and fauna species
detected is included in Appendix A.
The results of the habitat assessments were used to evaluate the potential for occurrence for
each special-status species identified in the study area (Project Site and vicinity) during
database/literature reviews and/or during the field survey within the study area. They are
provided in Tables 3 and 4, below. The categories for occurrence potential are as follows:
Present: Species is known to occur within the study area based on recent CNDDB records,
and/or was observed within the study area during the field survey(s).
May occur: Species is known to occur within the study area based on recent CNDDB
records, and there is suitable habitat within the study area. For avian species, a distinction
was made between occurrence potential on the study area as a forager, nester, and/or
transient.
Not likely to occur: Species is known to occur within the study area based on recent
CNDDB records; however, there is poor quality or marginal habitat in the study area and
there are no recent records from the immediate vicinity. If the species occurs at the study
area, it would likely be as a migrant, and the species is not likely to reproduce (breed or
nest) within the study area due to a lack of suitable habitat or because the study area is
outside of their known breeding range.
Absent: There is no suitable habitat for the species within the study area, or the study
area is located outside of the known range of the species.
Page 5
Existing Conditions
The following section describes existing conditions near the Project Site, including land use,
topography, vegetation, and soils.
Land Uses
The Canyon Private Residence Project Site is located within a natural area in the City of Arcadia,
with suburban development to the south and east and natural areas to the north and west,
including the Angeles National Forest which forms the northern boundary of the Project Site
(Figure 1). The natural areas within the Project Site support informal trails, and contain power
transmission poles and lines. The Project Site is located 2.1 km (1.3 mi) south of Chantry Flats,
1.3 km (0.7 mi) southwest of Santa Anita Canyon Dam, and 0.6 km (0.4 mi) west of Big Santa
Anita Canyon Wash. It is bordered on the east and south by suburban residences and Canyon
Road. Santa Anita Avenue-Santa Anita Canyon Road form part of the western and northern
boundary and Santa Anita Canyon Road bisects the parcel on its northern edge. The west side
of the Project Site is bordered by natural areas and suburban residences of the City of Sierra
Madre.
Topography
The Canyon Private Residence Project Site is located within a side canyon near the mouth of
Santa Anita Canyon, an area with low rolling hills. The Canyon Private Residence Project Site is
located within a small, unnamed hill and canyon oriented north-south near the mouth of Santa
Anita Canyon. This is at the base of the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, where the
foothills meet the alluvial fan created by Big Santa Anita Canyon Wash. The elevation of the
Project Site ranges from 900 to 1200 feet above mean sea level (msl).
Soils
The majority of the local watershed for the Canyon Private Residence Project Site are within the
Trigo family, granitic substratum, 60 to 90 percent slopes (USDA 2011). This soil is considered to
be somewhat excessively well drained (NRCS 2007). The substrate observed within the site is
primarily loamy sand soils with a thick organic layer below vegetated areas.
Jurisdictional Habitats
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of
the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.
Page 6
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulate discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters of the United States under
Section 404 of the CWA. The general definition of navigable waters of the U.S. includes those
waters of the U.S. that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high
water mark, and/or are presently used or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to
use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. “Discharges of fill material” are defined as the
addition of fill material into waters of the U.S., including, but not limited to the following:
placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment
requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; site-development fills for
recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; fill for
intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines [33 C.F.R. §328.2(f)]. Additionally, Section
401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to
conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United
States to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with applicable effluent
limitations and water quality standards.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. include jurisdictional wetlands as well as all other waters of the
U.S. such as creeks, ponds, and intermittent drainages. Wetlands are defined as “those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Corps 1987). The majority of
jurisdictional wetlands in the United States meet three wetland assessment criteria: hydrophilic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. can also be
defined by exhibiting a defined bed and bank and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). As
discussed in Regulatory Framework, jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are subject to Section 404
of CWA and are regulated by the Corps. Methods for delineating wetlands and non-tidal waters
are described below.
Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33
C.F.R. §328.3(b),1991]. Presently, to be a wetland, a site must exhibit three wetland criteria:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology existing under the “normal
circumstances” for the site.
The lateral extent of non-tidal waters is determined by delineating the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) [33 C.F.R. §328.4(c)(1)]. The OHWM is defined by the Corps as “that line on
shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil,
destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate
means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)].
Page 7
The Corps authorizes certain fill activities under the Section 404 Nationwide Permit Program
(NWP). NWP 12 covers utility line construction activities that result in fill placement into Waters
of the U.S. NWP 12 also states that overhead utility lines constructed over navigable Waters of
the U.S. require a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit. Nationwide permits do not
authorize activities that are likely to jeopardize the existence of a threatened or endangered
species or that may affect properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places (56 Federal Register [FR] 59134, November 22, 1991). In addition to conditions
outlined under each NWP, project-specific conditions may be required by the USACE as part of
the Section 404 permitting process.
Because of recent court decisions in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, the
USACE and the EPA issued joint guidance regarding the USACE’s jurisdiction over Waters of the
United States under the CWA. The guidance summarizes the Supreme Court’s findings and
provides how and when the USACE should apply the “significant nexus” test in its jurisdictional
determinations. This test determines whether a waterway is substantially connected to a
traditionally navigable water tributary and thus falls within the USACE’s jurisdiction. The
guidance provides the factors and summarizes the significant nexus test as an assessment of
“the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all
wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters.” Flow
characteristics include the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow. Additionally, ecological
factors should be included, such as the shared hydrological and biological characteristics
between a tributary and an adjacent wetland.
Section 401 of the CWA requires the issuance of a water quality certification thereof for all
Section 404 nationwide or individual permits issued by the USACE. The EPA has deferred water
quality certification authority to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Most
projects are regulated by Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The SWRCB directly
regulates multi-regional projects and supports and coordinates the program statewide.
CDFW is a trustee agency that has jurisdiction under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish
and Game Code. Under Section 1602, a private party must notify CDFW if a proposed project
will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel,
or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department, or use any material from
the streambeds - except when the department has been notified pursuant to Section 1601.”
Under this code, the CDFW not only regulates activities that would alter the flow, bed and
banks, channel of a river, stream or a lake, but also activities that may affect associated riparian
areas of these resources – all considered “waters of the state.”
Page 8
The Project Site, including the area of potential impacts, supports an unnamed mapped and an
unmapped temporary stream that are tributary of Big Santa Anita Canyon Wash (Figure 3).
These two drainage features are likely subject to provisions of the CWA and the California Fish
and Game Code 1600 et sequiter. However, the Project as proposed would not impact either of
the drainage features.
Vegetation
Three vegetation types were mapped on the parcels (Figure 3). Most of the site is covered by
low-growing to medium-height arborescent (tree-like) shrubs. These vegetation communities
can be generically categorized as mixed chaparral/coastal sage, oak woodlands, riparian, and
landscaped vegetation.
The majority of the Study Area supports a mixed Chaparral- coastal sage scrub vegetation
community. Chaparral is the more common of the scrub vegetation types and covers most of
the mesic (moist) slopes on the Project Site. This vegetation type is comprised of shrubs
between eight and twelve feet tall. The plants in this vegetation type are generally drought-
deciduous and fire-adapted. Common plant species locally found in this community include
laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), ceanothus (Ceanothus
spp.), and sugar bush (Rhus ovata). In more open areas plants typical of coastal sage scrub form
an understory.
Coastal sage scrub is a more-open open scrub comprised shrubs generally less than six feet tall.
Dominant species include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), black sage (Salvia
mellifera), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and deer weed (Lotus scoparius).
This scrub community occurs on less mesic slopes within the parcels. This vegetation type
occurs in patches within the more common and widespread chaparral community found on the
Project Site, most patches are less than 50 feet in diameter and are mixed among the chaparral.
We estimate the site supports 7.5 acres of mixed chaparral-coastal sage scrub.
Moist canyons and hillsides found on the Project Site support oak woodlands. Oak woodlands
within the parcels are comprised of mostly and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and California
scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), as well as Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii) and canyon
oak (Quercus chrysolepis). We estimate the site supports 2.9 acres of oak woodlands.
A small riparian area at the base of the canyon that intersects Canyon Road supports wild
blackberry (Rubus ursinus), currant (Ribes spp.), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), poison oak
(Toxicodendron diversilobum), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Mexican elderberry
(Sambucus mexicana), and red willow (Salix laevigata). We estimate the site supports 0.2 acres
of sycamore-willow riparian forest.
Page 9
Landscaped areas, roadsides and disturbed trails also support a host of native and non-native
species. The parcel intersects a small area of landscaped habitat with non-native pines (Pinus
sp.). Among the common native roadside plants are sawtooth goldenbush (Hazardia
squarrosa), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and annual bursage (Ambrosia
acanthicarpa). Non-native species commonly found along roadsides include slender wild oats
(Avena barbata), red brome (Bromus madritensis rubens), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) and
Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium) and
annual bluegrass (Poa annua) were found in various places throughout the Project Site. Castor
bean (Ricinus communis) is a common non-native invasive species found in wetter portions of
the Project Site. The landscaped areas are located on the periphery of the Project Site along
Canyon Road (Figure 3) and adjacent to residences at the north end of Vista Avenue on the
southern boundary (Figure 3). We estimate the site supports 0.9 acres of landscaped/disturbed
habitat.
For a comprehensive plant list, refer to Appendix A, Table A-1. Taxonomic nomenclature used
here follows Hickman (ed.) 1993.
Wildlife
At the Canyon Private Residence Project Site, wildlife species observed included those typical of
chaparral and scrub communities. The only amphibians or reptiles observed were Pacific tree
frogs (Pseudacris regilla) calling within the drainage feature near Canyon Road. However, the
relative lack of amphibians and reptiles was likely due to the cool conditions and time of the
year. Given the abundance of burrows, woody material and leaf litter it is likely that the site
supports several species of amphibians and reptiles.
Bird species typical of chaparral and scrub communities included the California quail (Callipepla
californica), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Bewick’s wren
(Thryomanes bewickii), California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), and California towhee (Pipilo
crissalis). Species with affinities to oak woodland were identified, including acorn woodpecker
(Melanerpes formicivorus) and oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus). With the exception of a
few winter migrant species, most bird species observed are resident and will likely nest within
the Project Site. Special status species birds observed nearby included the Rufous crowned
sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps), Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus). The Rufous-crowned sparrow and Cooper ’s hawk are state watch list species and
may nest within the Project Site (Figure 5). The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) was
observed flying nearby in 2011, and while this species may occasionally forage at the site, there
is no suitable nesting habitat for this species here.
Page 10
Mammals observed include the desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus) and coyote (Canis latrans) tracks were also observed at the site. Twelve unidentified
woodrat middens were observed (Figure 4). A raccoon (Procyon lotor) skull was found in 2013.
Burrows of various sizes were observed throughout the site and adjacent canyon walls,
indicating that a potential abundance of nocturnal mammals. Black bear (Ursus americanus) are
known to occasionally visit nearby residences are likely occasional transients at the Project Site.
The adjacent suburban residences contain domestic animals including the domestic dog (Canis
familiaris) and house cat (Felis domesticus). Tracks of these species were observed throughout
the Project Site, likely diminishing its value to native wildlife. There are many large trees in the
vicinity that may support nesting raptors (hawks and owls).
A complete list of the wildlife detected can be found in Appendix A, Table A-2.
Wildlife Corridors
Many areas serve as habitat for several species of wildlife, providing shelter, food, water and
other resources. However, the concept of corridors for wildlife movement is often
misunderstood. Wildlife species make use of travel routes within a given patch of habitat to
find food, water, mates, and shelter or den sites. A wildlife movement corridor, also called a
habitat linkage, landscape linkage, or dispersal corridor, is a large patch of habitat connecting
two or more larger areas of habitat that would otherwise be isolated from one another. A
functioning wildlife movement corridor allows for ease of movement between habitat patches.
Canyon bottoms with a well-developed tree canopy often serve as wildlife corridors and offer
food, shelter, and water as well as ease of movement, depending upon the density of the
understory. Corridors function to prevent habitat fragmentation that would result in the loss of
species that require large contiguous expanses of unbroken habitat and/or that occur in low
densities. Specific impediments inhibiting movement within the corridor may include
topography, roads, and type of road crossing, fences, outdoor lighting, domestic pets, noise
from vehicle traffic or nearby buildings, and other human impacts. These can result in habitat
fragmentation, which in turn can result in increased numbers of non-native species and may
allow inbreeding to occur in species whose populations are small because they have become
confined to smaller areas. In addition, fragmentation reduces functioning ecosystems to small
pockets, decreasing biodiversity and the interactive processes required for healthy ecosystem
functioning. Corridors promote gene flow, allow re-colonization of areas following catastrophic
events such as fire, prevent the loss of large animals by linking suitable habitat areas, and help
to ensure the survival of native species that cannot compete with more aggressive non-native
species in fragmented habitats.
The Canyon Private Residence Project Site has limited functionality as a wildlife corridor. This is
due to the fact that downslope of the site is the suburban development in the City of Arcadia.
Page 11
The drainages intersect city streets and concrete drainage structures. The native habitats meet
landscaped properties. This site is at the southern limit of a large contiguous area of native
habitat, but does not provide connectivity with other areas of native habitat.
Results and Constraints Analysis
Jurisdictional Habitats
The biologists did not perform a wetland delineation, however based on the Jurisdictional
Delineation Report (Helix 2012a) the Project Site supports one unnamed temporary stream that
is a tributary to Big Santa Anita Canyon Wash on the east side of the Project Site, outside of the
proposed disturbance area. Additionally, there is a small area of riparian habitat featuring
western sycamore, red willow and arroyo willow at the bottom of a canyon where it intersects
Canyon Road (Figure 3). However, this area was not considered to be a Jurisdictional Habitat in
the Helix (2012a) evaluation.
Special-Status Plants
Special-status plants, vegetation communities, and wildlife identified in the literature review as
potentially occurring within the vicinity of the Project Site are discussed below. Plant or wildlife
species may be considered to have “special status” due to declining populations, vulnerability
to habitat change, or restricted distributions. See “Literature Review” above for criteria used for
special-status species.
Plants and Plant Communities Special-status plant species reviewed based on the potential
presence of suitable habitat and nearby extant populations are as follows:
• Nevin’s Barberry (Berberis nevinii) is Federally listed as endangered, State listed as
endangered and is CNPS List 1B species
• Plummer’s Mariposa Lily (Calochortus plummerae) is a Federal species of concern and a
CNPS List 1B species
• Southern Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) is a Federal species of concern and
a CNPS List 1B species
• Parry’s Spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) is a CNPS List 3 species
• California Saw-grass (Cladium californicum) is a CNPS List species
• Slender-horned Spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) is Federally listed as endangered,
State listed as endangered and is a CNPS List 1 species
Page 12
• Santa Gabriel River Dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. crebrifolia) is a CNPS List 1B species
• San Gabriel Mountains Dudleya (Dudleya densiflora) is a CNPS List 1B species
• Many-stemmed Dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) is a CNPS List 1B species
• San Gabriel Bedstraw (Galium grande) is a CNPS List 1B species
• Mesa Horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula) is a CNPS List 1B species
• Robinson’s Pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii) is a CNPS List 1B species
• San Gabriel Linanthus (Linanthus concinnus) is a CNPS List 1B species
• California Muhly (Muhlenbergia californica) is a CNPS List 4 species
• White Rabbit Tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum) is a CNPS List 2 species
• Parish’s Gooseberry (Ribes divaricatum var. parishii) is a Federal species of concern and
a CNPS List 1A species
• Greata’s Aster (Symphyotrichum greatae) is a CNPS List 1B species
• Sonoran Maidenfern (Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis) is a CNPS List 1B species
None of the plant species listed above were detected during the general biological surveys or
during a rare plant survey (Helix 2012b). Suitable habitat for some of these species does occur
within the Project Site. This information, as well as the occurrence likelihood for each species is
provided in Table 2 (Sensitive Plant Species Considered for this Project).
Sensitive habitats are areas that are sometimes afforded special legislative protection but that
are normally considered of management priority because of their rarity or imperilment, the
sensitivity of the species that they support, or because these areas serve multiple functions as
is often the case with wetlands. Sensitive habitats are normally rare plant communities but can
also refer to a number of environments such as tidal areas, dunes, or pebble plains.
The CNDDB lists several habitats in addition to the sensitive plants potentially occurring on and
in the vicinity of the Project Site. These include California Walnut Woodland, Riversidian Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian
Forest, Southern Mixed Riparian Forest, Southern Riparian Scrub, Southern Sycamore Alder
Riparian Woodland, Southern Willow Scrub, and Valley Needlegrass Grassland. Elements of the
Oak Woodland and Riparian Scrub occur on the Project Site adjacent to Canyon Road.
Page 13
Oak Trees
The oak trees at the Project Site are protected by the Oak Tree Protection Ordinance is included
in the Arcadia Municipal Code (AMC) in Chapter 7, Section 9700-9708. The Ordinance
recognizes oak trees as a significant aesthetic and ecological resource and creates favorable
conditions for the preservation and propagation of an irreplaceable plant heritage for the
benefit of current and future residents of the City. The Ordinance is intended to maintain
and enhance the public health, safety and welfare through the mitigation of soil erosion and
air pollution, preserve and enhance property values through conserving and enhancing the
distinctive and unique aesthetic character of many areas of the City (Section 9700).
The Ordinance stipulates that no oak tress shall be removed, damaged or have its protected
zone encroached upon. The Ordinance applies to all oak trees on all public and private
property whether vacant, undeveloped, in the process of developed or developed (Section
9701). An application for an oak tree permit for the removal of a healthy oak tree shall be made
to the Community Development Division, and shall include an evaluation from a certified
arborist as to the condition of the tree (Section 9704).
Special-Status Wildlife
According to the CNDDB (CDFW 2013), several special-status wildlife species are known to
occur in the vicinity of the Canyon Private Residence Project Site and suitable habitat for these
species occurs within or immediately adjacent to the Project Site and there is potential for the
site to serve as a breeding, resting or roosting area for these species. Additionally species are
included that were observed, even if they are unlikely to breed or regularly use the site.
Coast Range Newt (Taricha torosa torosa); state species of special concern
Coastal Western whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri): state special animal
Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum (blainvillii)): state species of special
concern
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii): state watch list
Southern California rufous crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens): state watch
list
American peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus): federal delisted, state endangered, state
fully protected species.
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus); state species of special concern
Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus); state special animal
San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia): state species of special concern
Page 14
Amphibians
The Canyon Private Residence Project Site supports an unnamed mapped and unmapped
temporary drainages, including one drainage that supports a narrow band of riparian habitat.
However, these drainages are all ephemeral and even following several recent rainstorms in
December 2011 or 2013, there is no evidence of ponding within the streams or adjacent areas.
This makes it unlikely that many of the sensitive amphibian and reptile species that are known
to occur in the vicinity, but require pools, ponds, or running water such as the western pond
turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida), arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus), red-legged frog
(Rana aurora draytoni), yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) or Western spadefoot (Spea
hammondii) would occur at this site (Figure 3). However, there is potential for several special
status amphibians and reptiles to occur here.
The Coast Range Newt (Taricha torosa torosa) occurs in perennial streams or streams that
produce perennial, well-developed pools. They are often found in rocky canyons and breed in
streams and ponds but spend much of the year away from water (Stephenson et al 1999).
There are local records. Given the dense leaf litter, downed woody material and nearby
reservoirs and drainage basins, therefore there is a low but reasonable potential for this species
to occur at the Canyon Private Residence Project Site in low numbers.
The Coastal Western Whiptail is found in chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas. It is found in
open, often rocky areas with little vegetation or sunny microhabitats within shrub or grassland
associations. It is commonly found on the eastern and western slopes of the San Gabriel
Mountains There are several extant local records for this species. It is likely that it occurs at the
site, but was not observed due to cold temperatures.
The Coast Horned Lizard is found in a wide variety of vegetation types including coastal sage
scrub, annual grassland, chaparral, oak woodland, riparian woodland and coniferous forest
(Stebbins 2003). In inland areas, this species is restricted to areas with pockets of open
microhabitat, created by disturbance (e.g., floods, fire, roads, grazed areas, fire breaks)
(Stebbins 2003). There are local records for this species in similar adjacent areas. However, this
species has become increasingly rare, particularly in areas with invasions of non-native ant
species and where domestic animals are common. There is a low but reasonable potential for
this species to occur at the Canyon Private Residence Project Site in low numbers.
Birds
The Canyon Private Residence Project Site has the potential to support nesting by Cooper’s
hawk and rufous-crowned sparrow within the 300 foot buffer area. Both are special-status bird
species. The Cooper’s hawk nests in dense trees such as coast live oaks, eucalyptus, and
sycamores that occur within and adjacent to the Project Site. A Cooper’s hawk was observed at
Page 15
the Project Site in 2011 and 2013. A Rufous crowned sparrow was observed adjacent in 2011 as
well. This species prefers to nest on steep, bare slopes, which occur within the area of potential
impact and elsewhere within the site. There is a low but reasonable potential for these species
to occur at Canyon Private Residence Project Site.
An American peregrine falcon was observed in an off-site area adjacent to the Project Site
during a site visit in 2011. This species has become increasingly common in Southern California
in recent years, having recovered from near extinction due to egg-shell thinning caused by DDT.
In addition to resident pairs that frequently nest on tall buildings, including those in nearby
Pasadena, there are many over-wintering individuals that follow migrating waterfowl and
shorebirds into the area. They are known to frequently hunt at local reservoirs where
waterfowl and shorebirds congregate. The Project Site has little to offer a peregrine falcon,
other than an occasional perch and forage on some of the larger bird species that occur here
such as doves and pigeons. It is likely that the individual observed is either a migrant or nests
elsewhere and occasionally uses the site to perch or forage. It is not likely that this species nests
or relies on this site for foraging. Therefore, the Project is not likely to adversely impact this
species.
In addition to these species, the potential for nesting by the coastal California gnatcatcher and
least Bell’s vireo—both federal listed species—were also evaluated. The gnatcatcher is unlikely
to occur based on an absence of records in the vicinity and the relatively poor condition of the
coastal sage scrub, which occurs in small, widely separated patches less than 50 feet in
diameter among the chaparral. Breeding populations of the least Bell’s vireo and California
gnatcatcher occur in the San Gabriel River, approximately 8.7 km (5.5 mi) east of the Project
Site. Suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo is not present in or adjacent to the drainages; there
are only a few scattered willows. This species is not expected to occur at the Canyon Private
Residence Project Site.
Mammals
Both the pallid bat and hoary bat are known to occur in the local vicinity and may occur at the
Project Site. The pallid bat is known to roost on cliff faces, such as those created by the road cut
for Santa Anita Canyon Road. However, these areas are not likely to be impacted by
development. Therefore this species is not likely to present a potential constraint. The Hoary
bat used dense trees, such as the coast live oak trees present at the Project Site. There is a low
but reasonable potential for this species to occur at the Canyon Private Residence Project Site
in low numbers.
We encountered 12 unidentified woodrat nests within the area to be impacted by the Project
(Figure 4). There are two species of woodrats whose ranges overlap in Southern California, the
San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida), a special status species, and the dusky-footed
Page 16
woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes), not considered a special status species. The habitat on the Project
Site is more typical of dusky-footed woodrat that tends to be more of large shrub/arboreal
species. There are some differences in midden construction and those middens we saw match
dusky-footed woodrat more closely (R. Montijo pers. comm.). The habitat on the site is more
typical of dusky-footed woodrat that tends to be more of large shrub/arboreal species. The San
Diego desert woodrat builds stick nests among boulders and dense trees. There are some
differences in midden construction and those middens we saw match dusky-footed woodrat
more closely (R. Montijo pers. comm.). However, the species cannot be properly identified
without more detailed studies, including trapping. Without more detailed study it cannot be
confirmed that the subspecies that occurs here is the San Diego desert woodrat, however, the
site is within its’ known range and habitat preferences. The presence of woodrat nests may be a
potential constraint on the Project.
Nesting Birds
Many common and a few special status bird species likely nest within the potential impact area.
Most species are protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish
and Game Code Sections 3503, and 3503.5. The list of birds detected should be considered a
partial list because all field surveys were conducted in winter. Many of the resident species
likely breed here. Additionally, many migrant species including the Pacific-slope flycatcher
(Empidonax difficilis) and Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii) likely breed here as well. The Project
has the potential to impact nesting birds protected by Federal and State Laws.
Bats
Bats are considered non-game mammals and are afforded protection by state law from take
and/or harassment, (Fish and Game Code Section 4150, California Code of Regulations, Section
251.1). Several bat species are also considered California Species of Special Concern (CSC) and
meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines 15065).
Take of CSC could require a mandatory finding of significance by the Lead Agency, (CEQA
Guidelines 15065). Potential bat maternity roosts may occur in the oak woodlands and non-
native pines (Figure 3).
Wildlife Corridors
The Project Site is not a functional wildlife corridor (see discussion above on wildlife corridors).
Therefore it is not considered a potential constraint on the Project.
Page 17
V. Impact Analysis and Recommendations
Based on the resources documented and potentially present, along with the limitations
provided in the introduction regarding the context and scope of this report, the following issues
were identified as potential constraints to the Project.
Jurisdictional Habitats
Based on the Jurisdictional Delineation Report (Helix 2012a) the Project Site supports one
unnamed temporary stream that is a tributary to Big Santa Anita Canyon Wash on the east side
of the Project Site, outside of the proposed disturbance area. Additionally, there is a small area
of riparian habitat featuring western sycamore, red willow and arroyo willow at the bottom of a
canyon where it intersects Canyon Road (Figure 3). However, this area was not considered to
be a Jurisdictional Habitat in the Helix (2012a) evaluation. The Project, as proposed, avoids the
area of potential jurisdiction (Helix 2012b) (Figure 3).
Special-Status Plants
CEQA Guidelines (Section 15380[b]) afford species not listed under FESA or CESA special
consideration if a species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. Intended primarily to
deal with situations in which, for example, an action affects a species not yet afforded
protection under state or federal law, this section of the Guidelines affords species protection
until legal designation of the species occurs. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
maintains a list of plants believed or known to be rare. This list includes species not protected
under federal or state endangered species legislation (CNPS 2010). The major categories of
plants under the CNPS scheme are:
List 1A - Plants presumed extinct.
List 1B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
List 2 - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere.
List 3 - A review list of plants for which the CNPS requires more information.
List 4 - A watch list of plants of limited distribution.
CNPS List 1 or 2 generally meet CEQA Section 15380 criteria.
Several special-status plant species have potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the
Project Site. Plummer’s Mariposa Lily, Parry’s Spineflower, California Saw-grass, San Gabriel
River Dudleya, San Gabriel Mountains Dudleya, Many-stemmed Dudleya, San Gabriel Bedstraw,
Mesa Horkelia, Robinson’s Peppergrass, California Muhly, White Rabbit Tobacco, Parish’s
Page 18
Gooseberry, Greata’s Aster and Sonoran Maidenfern have a reasonable potential to occur on or
in the vicinity of the Project Site. A directed survey for special status plants was conducted of
the Project Site by Helix Biologist W. Larry Sward on May 16, 2012 (Helix 2012b). Mr. Sward
found no special status plants at the Project Site (Helix 2012b).
Oak Trees
Prior to removal or damage of any oak trees An application for an oak tree permit for the
removal of a healthy oak tree shall be made to the Community Development Division, and shall
include an evaluaton from a certified arborist as to the condition of the tree (Section 9704).
An Oak Tree Permit shall be obtained prior to removal of any oak tree and obtained prior to
any encroachment into the protected zone of any oak tree. Conditions which may be imposed
on the issuance of an Oak Tree Permit include, but are not limited to the following: (1)
Relocating of oak trees on-site, or the planting of new oak trees, and (2) Planting of additional
trees other than oak, which may be more appropriate to the site (Section 9706).
Protected oak trees include: (1) Engelmann Oak, Coast Live Oak, California Live Oak with a
trunk diameter larger than four inches measured at the point four and on-half feet above
the crown root, or two or more trunks measuring three inches each or greater in diameter,
measured at a point four and one-half feet above the crown root and, (2) Any other living
oak tree with a trunk diameter larger than twelve inches measured at a point four and on-
half feet above the crown root, or two or more trunks measuring ten inches each or greater
in diameter, measured at a point four and one-half feet above the crown root (Section 9702).
An Oak Tree Permit for the removal of healthy oak trees shall be subject to the approval
or conditional approval of the Modification Committee or the Planning Commission (on
appeal) or City Council (on appeal) pursuant to the modification regulations. In the applicant
lives within a Homeowners Association (HOA) area established pursuant to Section 9272.2.3
of the AMC, the applicant shall submit their tree removal plans to the Architectural Review
Board (Committee) of the Homeowners Association for review and approval, conditional
approval or denial, prior to filing an application with the City. The Committee’s review and
comment are not required if the HOA has filed a letter with the Community Development
Division stating that their Association does not wish to perform such review. The privileges
granted an applicant in this Section shall become null and void if not utilized within one
year from the date of approval or conditional approval (Section 9705).
Upon receipt of an application to remove a diseased or hazardous oak tree, or an application
to encroach into the protected zone of any oak tree, the Community Development
Administrator or his/her designee shall have five working days to approve, conditionally
approve, or deny the application (Section 9705).
Page 19
Special Status Wildlife
There is low potential for Coast Range newt, Coastal Western whiptail, coast horned lizard,
Cooper’s hawk, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, pallid bat, hoary bat and San
Diego desert woodrat to occur on the Project Site. If these species occur it would be in low
numbers that, if impacted, would not threaten the continued existence of the species. The
potential loss of habitat to these species would be less than significant under CEQA. Therefore,
their potential presence does not pose a constraint to the Project in the regulatory context
applied in this report.
The destruction of active nests of the Cooper’s hawk and Southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow would present a violation of State and Federal laws and would be a potential
constraint (see Nesting Birds, below). The destruction of active woodrat nests containing young
may be a potential constraint (see Woodrats, below). The destruction of bat maternity roosts
may be a potential constraint (see Bats, below).
Nesting Birds
There is potential nesting habitat for special-status bird species and many additional native bird
species throughout the Project Site. Impacts to these birds, their nests, eggs, and young may be
a potential constraint. Project construction including vegetation clearing and grading should
occur outside the nesting season (March 1 to August 31, as early as January 1 for raptors. If
Project construction activities are to be conducted during the local, nesting bird season
(January 1 to August 31), it is recommended that beginning thirty days prior to the initiation of
Project activities, a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys
conduct weekly bird surveys to detect protected native birds occurring in suitable nesting
habitat that is to be disturbed and (as access to adjacent areas allows) any other such habitat
within 300 feet of the disturbance area (within 500 feet for raptors) . The surveys should
continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted no more than 3 days prior to
the initiation of Project activities. If a protected native bird is found, the Project proponent
should delay all Project activities within 300 feet of on- and off-site suitable nesting habitat
(within 500 feet for suitable raptor nesting habitat) until August 31.
Alternatively, the qualified biologist could continue the surveys in order to locate any nests. If
an active nest is located, Project activities within 300 feet of the nest (within 500 feet for raptor
nests) or as determined by a qualified biological monitor, must be postponed until the nest is
vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting.
Flagging, stakes, and/or construction fencing should be used to demarcate the inside boundary
of the buffer of 300 feet (or 500 feet) between the Project activities and the nest. Project
personnel, including all contractors working on site, should be instructed on the sensitivity of
Page 20
the area. The Project proponent should provide the City of Arcadia the results of the
recommended protective measures described above to document compliance with applicable
State and Federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds.
If the biological monitor determines that a narrower buffer between the Project activities and
observed active nests is warranted, he/she should submit a written explanation as to why (e.g.,
species-specific information; ambient conditions and birds' habituation to them; and the
terrain, vegetation, and birds' lines of sight between the Project activities and the nest and
foraging areas) to the City and, upon request, the Department. Based on the submitted
information, the City of Arcadia, as lead agency, or the applicant will determine whether to
allow a narrower buffer is appropriate, while staying within the law.
The biological monitor should be present on site during all grubbing and clearing of vegetation
to ensure that these construction activities remain within the Project footprint (i.e., outside the
demarcated buffer) and that the flagging/stakes/fencing is being maintained, and to minimize
the likelihood that active nests are abandoned or fail due to Project activities. The biological
monitor should send weekly monitoring reports to the City of Arcadia during the grubbing and
clearing of vegetation, and should notify the City of Arcadia immediately if Project activities
damage active avian nests. This would reduce potential impacts to a level of less than
significant under CEQA.
Woodrats
Twelve unidentified woodrat middens were located within the Project Site (Figure 4) and there
are likely additional middens throughout the site. Destruction of these middens may be a
potential constraint on the Project. We recommend conducting a preconstruction survey to find
and map the locations of any active woodrat nests both in the area to be disturbed and the
non-disturbed area. We recommend creating new habitat within the 10.34 acres of undisturbed
habitat that do not presently provide this habitat so there is at least some creation of habitat to
minimize competition with existing woodrats in the area. This may be accomplished by
providing vertical structure such as laying downed or cut trees stacked horizontally in areas that
are under a shady canopy or piling rocks to achieve this structure. It is very important that the
structures are under shady areas or they will not be used. After creating off site habitat out of
the Project impact footprint, habitat on the Project Site around woodrat nests structures should
be cleared (outside of the breeding season) to the extent that no habitat is left on site that
woodrats can escape into.
The nest should then be nudged with a front end loader to encourage woodrats to abandon the
nest and run out into the adjacent off site cover. The nest structure is then carefully and slowly
Page 21
picked up with a front end loader (to allow any additional woodrats to escape). The structure is
then moved to the creation area and the displaced woodrats will find the nest structure
materials and scavenge the material and build new nests in the newly created habitat. This
would reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant under CEQA.
Bats
Bats may occupy trees slated for trimming, removal or other disturbances. To avoid the direct
loss of bats that could result from removal of trees and/or structures that may provide
maternity roost habitat (e.g., in cavities or under loose bark), we recommend the following:
1. To the extent feasible, tree removal or relocation would be scheduled between October
1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting season.
2. If trees and/or structures must be removed during the maternity season (March 1 to
September 30), a qualified bat specialist should conduct a pre-construction survey to
identify those trees and/or structures proposed for disturbance that could provide
hibernacula or nursery colony roosting habitat for bats.
3. Each tree and/or structure identified as potentially supporting an active maternity roost
should be closely inspected by the bat specialist no greater than 7 days prior to tree
disturbance to more precisely determine the presence or absence of roosting bats.
4. If bats are not detected, but the bat specialist determines that roosting bats may be
present at any time of year, it is preferable to push any tree down using heavy
machinery rather than felling it with a chainsaw. In order to ensure the optimum
warning for any roosting bats that may still be present, the tree should be pushed lightly
two to three times, with a pause of approximately 30 seconds between each nudge to
allow bats to become active. The tree should then be pushed to the ground slowly and
should remain in place until it is inspected by a bat specialist. Trees that are known to be
bat roosts should not be sawn up or mulched immediately. A period of at least 24 hours,
and preferably 48 hours, should elapse prior to such operations to allow bats to escape.
5. Maternity season lasts from March 1 to September 30. Trees and/or structures
determined to be maternity roosts should be left in place until the end of the maternity
season.
6. The bat specialist should document all demolition monitoring activities, and prepare a
summary report to the City upon completion of tree disturbance and/or building
demolition activities.
Page 22
Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors are not a potential constraint; therefore we provide no recommendations for
impact mitigation.
Attachments
Figures
Figure 1. Project Location Map.
Figure 2. California Natural Diversity Database Map.
Figure 3. Vegetation Map.
Figure 4. Observed Locations of Sensitive Species.
Appendices
Appendix A. Flora/Fauna Lists
Appendix B. Photolog
Appendix C. Specials Status Species Analysis Table
Page 23
References
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. Amphibian and Reptile species of
special concern in California, Western Spadefoot. Available:
<http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/cgibin/read_one.asp?specy=amphibians&idNum=75>.
Accessed: December 17, 2011.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013. California Natural Diversity
Database. Available: <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/>. Accessed: December
19, 2013.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFW). 2011. Special animals (including California
species of special concern). CDFW, Resource Management and Planning Division,
Biogeographic Data Branch, January 2011.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2013. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants
(online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Available:
<http://www.cnps.org/inventory>. Accessed on Sunday, December 22, 2013.
Consortium of California Herbaria. 2011. Consortium of California Herbaria Database
Gateway. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. Accessed: December 17, 2011.
Helix Environmental Planning. 2012a. Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941 Jurisdictional
Delineation Report. Helix Environmental Planning, La Mesa, California. Dated February
20, 2012. 6 pp plus figures and attachments.
Helix Environmental Planning. 2012b. Special Status Plant Survey for Nevis Homes, Tract No.
51941. Arcadia, California. Helix Environmental Planning, La Mesa, California. Dated
June 22, 2012. 3 pp plus figures and attachments.
Hickman, J.C. (ed) 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Los Angeles County Sensitive Bird Species (LACSBS) Working Group. 2009. Los Angeles
County’s Sensitive Bird Species. Western Tanager 75(3):1–11.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available: <http://
websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/>. Accessed: December 20, 2011.
Rand McNally & Company. 2007. The Thomas Brothers Guide, Los Angeles County, Street
Guide.
Page 24
Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A
ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of
immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field
Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin
Company, New York, NY.
Stephenson, J.R. and G.M Calcarone. 1999. Southern California Mountains and Foothills
Assessment: Habitat and Species Conservation Issues. General Technical Report GTR-
PSW-175. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research Station; 402 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2011. Soil survey data layers, GIS. Natural Resources
Conservation Service. Soils. California. Available:
<http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/>. Accessed: December 20, 2011.
U.S. Geological Service (USGS). 1994. Mount Wilson, California, 7.5-minute topographic
maps. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Color, revised 1994, scale 1:24,000.
Figures
Appendix A: Flora and Fauna Lists
Table A-1. Plant List for the Canyon Private Residence Project Site.
Gymnosperms
Non-Flowering Plants
Dennstaedtiaceae Bracken Family
Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens Bracken
Polypodiaceae Polypody Family
Polypodium californicum California Polypody
Pteridaceae Brake Family
Pellaea andromedifolia Coffee Fern
Pentagramma triangularis Goldenback Fern
Selaginellaceae Spike Moss Family
Selaginella bigelovii Spike Moss
Angiosperms
Flowering Plants
Dicotyledons
Amaranthaceae Amaranth Family
Amaranthus albus Pigweed
Anacardiaceae Cashew Family
Malosma laurina Laurel Sumac
Rhus ovata Sugar Bush
Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison Oak
Apiaceae Carrot Family
Foeniculum vulgare Sweet Fennel
Asteraceae Sunflower Family
Achillea millefolium Yarrow
Ambrosia acanthicarpa Annual Bursage
Artemisia californica California Sagebrush
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort
Artemisia dracunculus Tarragon
Baccharis salicifolia Mule Fat
Brickellia californica California Brickellbush
Centaurea melitensis Yellow Star Thistle
Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle
Conyza bonariensis Little Horseweed
Conyza canadensis Horseweed
Ericameria parishii var. parishii Parish's Goldenbush
Erigeron foliosus var. foliosus Fleabane Aster
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden Yarrow
Filago sp. Filago
Gnaphalium bicolor Two-tone Everlasting
Gnaphalium californicum California Everlasting
Gnaphalium canescens ssp. microcephalum Felt-leaf Everlasting
Gnaphalium luteo-album Cudweed
Hazardia squarrosa Sawtooth Goldenbush
Helianthus annuus Common Sunflower
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph Weed
Hypochaeris glabra Cat's Ear
Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce
Lessingia filaginifolia Cudweed Aster
Senecio vulgaris Common Groundsel
Silybum marianum Milk Thistle
Sonchus oleraceus Sow Thistle
Stephanomeria virgata Wand Chicory
Taraxacum officinale Dandelion
Brassicaceae Mustard Family
Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's Purse
Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean Mustard
Sisymbrium orientale Oriental Mustard
Cactaceae Cactus Family
Opuntia ficus-indica Barbary Fig
Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle Family
Lonicera subspicata Wild Honeysuckle
Sambucus mexicana Elderberry
Caryophyllaceae Pink Family
Silene gallica Common Catchfly
Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family
Chenopodium album Lamb's Quarters
Salsola tragus Russian Thistle
Convolvulaceae Morning Glory Family
Calystegia macrostegia Morning Glory
Cucurbitaceae Gourd Family
Marah macrocarpus Wild Cucumber
Cuscutaceae Dodder Family
Cuscuta sp. Dodder
Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family
Chamaesyce albomarginatus White-edged Spurge
Ricinus communis Castor Bean
Fabaceae Pea Family
Lotus scoparius Deerweed
Lotus strigosus Bishop's Lotus
Lupinus hirsutissimus Stinging Lupine
Medicago polymorpha Bur Clover
Melilotus indica Yellow Sweet Clover
Spartium junceum Spanish Broom
Fagaceae Oak Family
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus berberidifolia Scrub Oak
Quercus chrysolepis Canyon Oak
Quercus engelmannii Engelmann Oak
Geraniaceae Geranium Family
Erodium cicutarium Red Stem Filaree
Grossulariaceae Gooseberry Family
Ribes aureum Golden Currant
Ribes malvaceum Chaparral Currant
Hydrophyllaceae Phacelia Family
Nemophila menziesii Baby Blue Eyes
Phacelia cicutaria Caterpillar Phacelia
Phacelia minor Wild Canterbury Bells
Phacelia ramosissima Branching Phacelia
Juglandaceae Walnut Family
Juglans californica Calif. Black Walnut
Lamiaceae Mint Family
Lamium amplexicaule Dead Nettle
Marrubium vulgare Horehound
Salvia apiana White Sage
Salvia columbariae Chia
Salvia mellifera Black Sage
Oxalidaceae Oxalis Family
Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda Buttercup
Plantaginaceae Plantain Family
Plantago indica Sand Plantain
Platanaceae Sycamore Family
Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore
Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family
Eriogonum fasciculatum California Buckwheat
Polygonum arenastrum Knotweed
Portulacaceae Purslane Family
Claytonia perfoliata Miner's Lettuce
Primulaceae Primrose Family
Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel
Ranunculaceae Buttercup Family
Ranunculus occidentalis Western Buttercup
Rhamnaceae Buckthorn Family
Ceanothus crassifolius Hoary-leaf Ceanothus
Ceanothus leucodermis Chaparral Whitethorn
Rhamnus californica California Coffeeberry
Rhamnus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Redberry
Rosaceae Rose Family
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise
Cercocarpus betuloides Mountain Mahogany
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Prunus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Cherry
Rubus ursinus California Blackberry
Salicaceae Willow Family
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow
Salix laevigata Red Willow
Scrophulariaceae Snapdragon Family
Keckiella cordifolia Heartleaf Penstemon
Mimulus aurantiacus Bush Monkey Flower
Penstemon spectabilis Notable Penstemon
Solanaceae Nightshade Family
Nicotiana glauca Tree Tobacco
Solanum xanti Purple Nightshade
Urticaceae Nettle Family
Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea Stinging Nettle
Monocotyledons
Liliaceae Lily Family
Dichelostemma capitatum Blue Dicks
Yucca whipplei Chaparral Yucca
Poaceae Grass Family
Avena barbata Slender Wild Oats
Avena fatua Wild Oats
Bromus diandrus Rip Gut Brome
Bromus hordeaceus Soft Chess
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red Brome
Hordeum murinum Foxtail Grass
Leymus condensatus Giant Rye Grass
Nassella pulchra Purple Needlegrass
Poa annua Annual Bluegrass
Table A-2. Wildlife List for the Canyon Private Residence Project Site.
Scientific Name Common Name Species Status Observed
Callipepla californica California Quail X
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture LACSBS (nest) X
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk SW X
Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk X
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk X
Falco Peregrinus Peregrine Falcon FD, SD, FP X
Columba livia Rock Pigeon I X
Patagioenas fasciata Band-tailed Pigeon X
Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove X
Aeronautes saxatalis White-throated Swift X
Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird X
Selasphorus sasin Allen's Hummingbird X
Melanerpes formicivorus Acorn Woodpecker X
Sphyrapicus nuchalis Red-naped Sapsucker X
Picoides nuttallii Nuttall's Woodpecker X
Scientific Name Common Name Species Status Observed
Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker X
Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe X
Aphelocoma californica Western Scrub-Jay X
Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow X
Corvus corax Common Raven X
Baeolophus inornatus Oak Titmouse X
Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit X
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren X
Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet X
Chamaea fasciata Wrentit X
Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush X
Turdus migratorius American Robin X
Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird X
Toxostoma redivivum California Thrasher X
Sturnus vulgaris European Starling I X
Phainopepla nitens Phainopepla X
Oreothlypis celata Orange-crowned Warbler X
Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler X
Pipilo maculatus Spotted Towhee X
Aimophila ruficeps Rufous-crowned Sparrow SW X
Melozone crissalis California Towhee X
Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow X
Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow X
Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco X
Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch X
Spinus psaltria Lesser Goldfinch X
Spinus tristis American Goldfinch X
Canis latrans Coyote X
Canis familiaris Domestic Dog X
Procyon lotor Raccoon X
Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk X
Felis domesticus House Cat X
Odocoileus hemionus Mule Deer X
Thomomys bottae Botta Pocket Gopher X
Neotoma spp Unidentified Woodrat FSC X
Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Cottontail X
LACSBS – Los Angeles County Sensitive Bird Species I - Introduced
SW – State Watch List SC – State Species of Special Concern
SD – State Delisted FP – State Fully Protected
FD – Federal Delisted FSC – Federal Species of Special Concern
Appendix B. Photolog
Photograph: 1
Comment: Sycamore-willow riparian areas
along Canyon Drive.
Photograph: 2
Comment: Small patch of coastal sage scrub
among chaparral on eastern side of the Project
Site.
Photograph: 3
Comment: Woodrat midden
Photograph: 4
Comment: Mixed Chaparral/Coastal Sage Scrub
on the hillsides within the Project Site.
Photograph: 5
Comment: Oak woodland.
Photograph: 6
Comment: Chaparral within the proposed
impact area.
Appendix C. Special Status Species Analysis Tables
Table C-1. Special Status Plant Analysis Table. Scientific Name Common Name Federal St
atus
State
Status
CNPS Status
General Habitat Micro Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Plants
Astragalus brauntonii
Braunton’s Milk-vetch
FE None 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland.
Recent burns or disturbed areas; in stiff gravelly clay soils overlying granite or limestone. 4-640m.
Unlikely to occur. Recent records from San Gabriel Mts. Are from above Monrovia (CNDDB, CCH). Historic records from West Hollywood (1908) and Cienega (1904). Marginally suitable habitat exists on the Project Site.
Berberis nevinii
Nevin’s Barberry FE SE 1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian scrub.
On steep, North-facing slopes or in low grade sandy washes. 290-1575m.
Unlikely to occur. Habitat conditions do not match the species’ preferences and none were observed during surveys
and vegetation mapping efforts. Extant in Arroyo Seco and Griffith Park, and Tujunga Cyn. (CNDDB)
Calochortus plummerae
Plummer’s Mariposa Lily
FSC None 1B Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest.
Occurs on rocky and sandy sites, usually of granitic or alluvial material. 90-1610m.
May occur. Habitat is less than suitable but records are from San Gabriel Mts. N. of Monrovia and near W. Fork San Gabriel River (CNDDB). Historic records from Mt. Wilson, Rubio Cyn, Pasadena, Verdugo Cyn, Tujunga Cyn. also exist (CNDDB).
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
CNPS Status
General Habitat Micro Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Centromadia (=Hemizonia) parryi
ssp.
australis
Southern Tarplant FSC None 1B Marshes and swamps (margins), valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. From southern California and Baja California.
Often in disturbed sites near the coast. Also in alkaline soils, sometimes
with saltgrass. Also vernal pools. 0-425m.
Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat exists on the Project Site. Historic records from Altadena (1933), Commerce (1933) (CNDDB)
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi
Parry’s Spineflower
None None 3.2 Coastal scrub, chaparral.
Dry slopes and flats;
sometimes at interface of two vegetation types,
such as chaparral and oak woodland; dry, sandy soils. 40-1705m.
May occur. Marginally suitable habitat is present; however, historic records are from Mt. Lowe (1902) and Arroyo Seco near Pasadena (1920)(CNDDB).
Cladium californicum
California Saw-grass
None None 2 Freshwater and alkali marshes, seeps.
Freshwater or alkaline moist habitats. 60-600m.
May occur. Marginally suitable habitat is present; California herbaria do not report records from Los Angeles County.
Dodecahema leptoceras
Slender-horned Spineflower
FE SE 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub (alluvial fan sage scrub). Historically from Los
Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Extirpated from much of range.
Flood deposited terraces and washes. Associates include
Encelia,
Dalea,
and
Lepidospartum
. 200-
760m.
Absent. Habitat conditions preferred by the species do not match those present on the Project Site. Nearby records are from Tujunga Wash (CNDDB). Historic records from Rubio Wash, Santa Anita Wash, and West Fork of San Gabriel River (CNDDB).
Dudleya cymosa
ssp
.
crebrifolia
San Gabriel River Dudleya
None None 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
On granite cliffs and outcrops, surrounded by scrub. 365m.
May occur. Limited suitable habitat occurs on the Project Site. Records suggest that the plant is narrowly endemic and restricted to areas near the San Gabriel River in the San Gabriel Foothills.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
CNPS Status
General Habitat Micro Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Dudleya densiflora
San Gabriel Mountains Dudleya
None None 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest. Endemic to los angeles county.
In crevices and on decomposed granite on cliffs and canyon walls. 300-520m
May occur. Limited suitable habitat occurs on the Project Site. None were observed during the survey.
Dudleya multicaulis
Many-stemmed Dudleya
None None 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Endemic to southern California.
In heavy, often clay-type soils or grassy slopes. 0-790m.
May occur. Limited suitable habitat occurs on the Project Site. None were observed during the survey.
Galium grande
San Gabriel Bedstraw
None None 1B Cismontane woodland, chaparral, broadleafed upland
forest, lower montane coniferous forest. Endemic to Los Angeles County.
Open chaparral and low, open oak forest; on rocky slopes; probably undercollected due to inaccessible habitat. 425-1200m.
May occur. Suitable habitat exists for this plant on the Project Site.
Horkelia cuneata ssp. Puberula
Mesa Horkelia None None IB Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub.
Sandy or gravelly soils, 70-810 m. Blooms Feb-Jul.
May occur. Limited suitable habitat occurs on the Project Site. Historic (1911) record from Alhambra
Lepidium virginicum
var.
robinsonii
Robinson’s Pepper-grass
None None 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub.
Dry soils, shrubland. 1-945m.
May occur. Marginally suitable habitat exists for this plant on the Project Site. Historic records suggest that this species occurs in suitable habitat near the site.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
CNPS Status
General Habitat Micro Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Linanthus concinnus
San Gabriel Linanthus
None None 1B Lower montane coniferous forest, upper montane coniferous forest. Known only from LA and San Bernardino Counties.
Dry rocky slopes, often in Jeffrey pine/canyon oak forest. 1575-2545m.
Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat exists for this plant on the Project Site. Nearby record
s
are from higher elevations in the San Gabriel Mountains.
Muhlenbergia californica
California Muhly None None 4 Endemic to the Transverse Ranges
Canyons, along moist ditches, and on sandy slopes, at elevations of 100-2150 m
May occur. Suitable habitat exists for this plant on the Project Site.
Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum
White Rabbit Tobacco
None None 2 Sandy areas. Sandy or gravelly benches, dry stream bottoms, canyon bottoms; < 500 m.
May occur. Marginally suitable habitat exists for this plant on the Project Site.
Ribes divaricatum
var.
parishii
Parish’s Gooseberry
FSC None 1A Riparian woodland. Salix swales in riparian habitats. 60-305m.
May occur. Some suitable habitat exists for this plant on the Project Site.
Symphyotrichum greatae
Greata’s Aster None None 1B Broad-leafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and riparian woodland habitats in the San Gabriel Mountains.
Damp places in canyons; 300–2000 m
May occur. Some suitable habitat occurs on the Project Site.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
CNPS Status
General Habitat Micro Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis
Sonoran Maidenfern
None None 1B Meadows and seeps. Along streams, seepage areas. 50-550m.
May occur. Some suitable habitat occurs on the Project Site. Other fern species with somewhat similar requirements occur on the Project Site. Monrovia Cyn., Roberts Cyn. Santa Anita Cyn.
Table C-2. Special Status Wildlife Analysis Table. Scientific Name Common Name Federal St
atus
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Invertebrates
Danaus plexippus
Monarch butterfly
None None (Wintering Sites) Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico.
Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves (Eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, Cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby.
Not likely to occur
; no wintering sites known from the Project Site or adjacent trees.
Fish
Catostomus santaanae
Santa Ana sucker Threatened
None AFS:TH DFG:SSC
IUCN:VU
USFS:S
Endemic to Los Angeles basin south coastal streams.
Habitat generalists, but prefer sand-rubble-boulder bottoms, cool, clear water and algae.
Absent;
no surface
water, downstream obstacles to dispersal.
Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni
Unarmored threespine stickleback
Endangered
Endangered
AFS:EN
DFG:FP USFS:S
Weedy pools, backwaters, and among emergent vegetation at the stream edge in small southern California streams.
Cool (< 24
oC), clear water with abundant vegetation.
Absent;
no surface
water, downstream obstacles to dispersal.
Gila orcutti
Arroyo chub None None AFS:VU DFG:SSC
USFS:S
Los Angeles basin in southern coastal streams.
Slow water stream sections with mud or sand bottoms. Feed heavily on aquatic vegetation and associated invertebrates.
Absent;
no surface
water, downstream obstacles to dispersal.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Rhinichthys osculus ssp.
3
Santa Ana speckled dace
None None AFS:TH DFG:SSC
USFS:S
Headwaters of Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers. May be extirpated from the Los Angeles River system.
Requires permanent flowing streams with summer water temperatures of 17-20o
C. Usually inhabits shallow cobble and gravel riffles.
Absent;
no surface
water, downstream obstacles to dispersal.
Amphibians
Batrachoseps gabrieli
San Gabriel slender salamander
None None IUCN:DD
USFS:S
Known only from the San Gabriel Mtns. Found under rocks, wood, fern fronds and on soil at the base of talus slopes.
Most active on the surface in winter and early spring.
Absent;
no local records, site is outside of known range.
Anaxyrus
californicus
Arroyo toad Endangered
None DFG:SSC
IUCN:EN
Semi-arid regions near washes or intermittent streams, including valley-foothill and desert riparian, desert washes, etc.
Rivers with sandy banks, willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores. Loose gravelly areas of streams in drier parts of range.
Not likely to occur;
not
known to occur in the Big
Santa Anita Canyon Wash area, marginal habitat with limited connectivity to potential suitable habitat.
Rana aurora draytoni
California red-legged frog
Threatened
None DFG:SSC
IUCN:VU
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation.
Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to estivation habitat.
Not likely to occur;
no
surface water, marginal habitat with limited connectivity to potential suitable habitat.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Rana muscosa
Sierra Madre yellow-legged frog
Endangered
None DFG:SSC
IUCN:EN
USFS:S
Proposed Federal listing refers to populations in the San Gabriel, San Jacinto, and San Bernardino Mountains only.
Always encountered within a few feet of water. Tadpoles may require up to 2 years to complete their aquatic development.
Not likely to occur;
historic populations in/near Big Santa Anita Canyon Wash area is thought to be extirpated (CNDDB 2011),
no
surface water, marginal habitat with limited connectivity to potential suitable habitat.
Spea (=Scaphiopus) hammondii
Western spadefoot
None None BLMS DFG:SSC
IUCN:NT
Occurs primarily in
grassland habitat, but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands.
Vernal pools are essential for breeding and egg-laying.
Not likely to occur;
no
vernal pools or seasonal ponds detected, there is marginal habitat within the stream, but it has limited connectivity to potential suitable habitat.
Taricha torosa torosa
Coast Range newt None None DFG:SSC
Coastal drainages from Mendocino County to San Diego County.
Lives in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over 1 km to breed in ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams.
May occur;
suitable
habitat and potential breeding areas within 1 km.
Reptiles
Actinemys
marmorata pallida
Southwestern pond turtle
None None BLM:S DFG:SSC
IUCN:VU
USFS:S
Inhabits permanent or nearly permanent bodies of water in many habitat types below 6000 ft.
Require basking sites such as partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, or open mud banks.
Not likely to occur;
no
surface water, marginal habitat with limited connectivity to potential suitable habitat.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Aspidoscelis
hyperythra beldingi
Beldings orange-throated whiptail
None None DFG:SSC
IUCN;LC
Inhabits low elevation coastal scrub, chaparral and valley-foothill hardwood habitats.
Prefers washes and other sandy areas with patches of brush and rocks. Perennial plants necessary for its major food-termites.
Not likely to occur
; no
local records.
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
Coastal western whiptail
None None Deserts and semi-arid areas with sparse vegetation and open areas. Also in woodland and riparian areas.
Ground may be firm soil, sandy, or rocky.
May occur
; local records, suitable habitat at the Project Site.
Charina trivirgata
Rosy boa
None None BLMS
IUCN:LC
USFS:S
Desert and chaparral from the coast to the Mojave and Colorado Deserts. Prefers moderate to dense vegetation and rocky cover.
Habitats with a mix of brushy cover and rocky soil such as coastal canyons and hillsides, desert canyons, washes, and mountains.
Not likely to occur;
marginal habitat and adjacent development. No local records.
Phrynosoma coronatum (blainvillii)
Coast (San Diego) horned lizard
None None DFG:SSC
IUCN:LC
USFS:S
Inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral in arid and semi-arid climate conditions.
Prefers friable, rocky or shallow sandy soil.
May occur;
local records and suitable soils and potential foraging resources at the Project Site.
Thamnophis hammondii
Two-striped garter snake
None None
BLMS
DFG:SSC
IUCN:LC
USFS:S
Coastal California from vicinity of Salinas to NW Baja California. From sea level to about 7,000 ft. elevation.
Highly aquatic, found in or near permanent fresh water. Often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth.
Not likely to occur; local records, however, there is no permanent water sources on site and the site is partially surrounded by existing development. May occasionally occur as a transient.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Birds
Accipter cooperii
Cooper’s hawk (N)
None None
DFG:WL
IUCN:LC
Woodland, chiefly of open, interrupted or marginal type.
Nest sites mainly in riparian growths of deciduous trees, as in canyon bottoms, on river floodplains; also live in oaks.
Present;
observed during the site visit. There are several suitable nesting trees within and adjacent to the Project Site.
Accipiter striatus
Sharp-shinned hawk
None None DFG:WL Found in Ponderosa pine, black oak, riparian
deciduous, mixed conifer, and Jeffrey pine habitats but prefers riparian areas.
Requires north facing slopes with plucking perches. Nests usually within 275 ft of water.
Not likely to occur
as a
nesting species. Does not nest in LA County. May occasionally forage at the site during the non-reproductive season.
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
None None DFG:WL Resident in southern California coastal sage scrub and sparse mixed chaparral.
Frequents relatively steep, often rocky hillsides with grass and forb patches.
Present;
observed during the site visit. There is suitable nesting habitat within the Project Site.
Amphispiza belli belli
Bell’s sage sparrow
None None ABC:WLBCC
DFG:WL
USFWS:BBC
Nests in hard chaparral dominated by fairly
dense stands of chamise. Found in coastal sage scrub in south of range.
Nest located on the ground beneath a shrub or in a shrub 6-18 inches above ground. Territories about 50 yards apart.
Not likely to occur;
marginal habitat at the site, not typical nesting habitat for this species.
Aquila chrysaetos
Golden eagle (N&W)
None SC, FP
BLMS
CDF:S
DFG:FP DFG:WL
IUCN:LC
Rolling foothill or coast-range terrain, where open grassland turns to scattered oaks, sycamores, or large digger pines.
Cliff-walled canyons
provide nesting habitat in most parts of range; also large trees in open areas.
Not likely to occur
as a
nesting species. Nearby area developed and heavily disturbed. May occasionally forage in the vicinity.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Athene cunicularia hypugaea
Burrowing owl (burrow sites),
None None BLMS DFG:SSC
IUCN:LC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.
Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, especially California ground squirrel.
Not likely to occur; no
suitable habitat and no recent local records.
Baeolophus inornatus
Oak titmouse None None ABC:WLBCC
IUCN:LC
Occurs in chaparral, oak woodlands and coniferous forests.
Nests in tree cavities
Present:
observed at the study area; abundant in upland habitats.
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk (N)
None Threatened
ABC:WLBCC
IUCN:LC
USFS:S
USFWS:BCC
Breeds in stands with few trees in Juniper-Sage flats, riparian areas and in oak savannahs.
Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations.
Not likely to occur
as a nesting species. May occasionally fly over or roost during migration.
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis
San Diego cactus wren
None None DFG:SSC
USFS:S
USFWS:BCC
Southern California coastal sage scrub.
Requires tall
Opuntia
cactus for nesting and roosting.
Not likely to occur; no suitable habitat at the Project Site.
Cathartes aura meridionalis
Turkey vulture None None MSHCP, SBNFS
Extensive open areas including pastured rangeland, non-intensive agriculture, or wild areas.
Requires large trees,
snags, thickets, shrubs, or rock outcrops for roosting and nesting.
Not likely to occur
as a nesting species. May occasionally fly over while foraging or roost during migration.
Chaetura vauxi
Vaux’s swift (N) None None DFG:SSC
IUCN:LC
Migratory over wet areas, agriculture, forests.
Nests in stumps of large trees in forests
Not likely to occur
as a
nesting species. Does not nest in Los Angeles County. May occasionally fly over while foraging or during migration.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
Candidate Endangered
FSS,
RHCP
Riparian forest nester, along the broad, lower flood-bottoms of larger river systems.
Nests in riparian jungles of willow, often mixed with cottonwoods, with
lower story of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape.
Not likely to occur
; no
suitable nesting habitat, marginal foraging habitat, only recent
records in the San Gabriel Valley are of transients.
Cypseloides niger
Black swift (N) None None ABC:WLBCC
DFG:SSC
IUCN:LC
USFWS:BCC
Coastal belt of Santa Cruz
and Monterey Co; central and southern Sierra Nevada; San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mtns.
Breeds in small colonies on cliffs behind or adjacent to waterfalls in deep canyons and sea-bluffs above surf; forages widely.
Not likely to occur
as a
nesting species. Known
to nest in waterfalls in Big Santa Anita Canyon Wash. No suitable nesting habitat at the Project Site. May
occasionally forage above the Project Site.
Dendroica petechia brewsteri
Yellow warbler (N)
None None DFG:SSC Riparian plant associations. Prefers willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores, and alders for nesting and foraging.
Also nests in montane
shrubbery in open conifer forests.
Not likely to occur
; no
suitable nesting habitat, marginal foraging
habitat, may occur during migration as a transient.
Elanus leucurus
White-tailed kite (N)
None None
DFG:FP
IUCN:LC
(Nesting) rolling foothills/valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland.
Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for
foraging close to isolated, dense-topped trees for nesting and perching.
Not likely to occur
; this
species is nearly exterpated as a nesting species within Los Angeles County. There are no known nesting pairs in the vicinity.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Empidonax traillii extimus
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Endangered
Endangered
ABC:WLBCC IUCN:LC
USFS:S
Riparian woodlands in southern California.
Not likely to occur
; no
suitable nesting habitat, marginal foraging
habitat, may occur during migration as a transient.
Falco columbarius
Merlin (W) None None
DFG:WL
IUCN:LC
Open country, coastal area, grasslands, and scrub.
Tends to hunt over wetlands and agricultural fields with large flocks of small birds.
Not likely to occur
as a
nesting species. Does not nest in LA County. May occasionally forage at the site during the non-reproductive season.
Falco mexicanus
Prairie falcon None None DFG:WL
IUCN:LC
USFWS:BCC
Inhabits dry, open terrain, either level or hilly.
Breeding sites located on cliffs. Forages far afield, even to marshlands and ocean shores.
Not likely to occur
as a nesting species. No suitable nesting habitat at the Project Site.
Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon
Delisted Endangered
CDF:S
DFG:FP USFS:S
USFWS:BCC
Habitat generalist. In southern California common in estuaries, open fields, and urban and suburban areas.
Tends to forage in areas with large flocks of birds. Nests on ledges on natural cliffs and human built structures.
Present, but not likely to occur
as a nesting species. No suitable
nesting habitat at the Project Site.
Gymnogyps californianus
California condor Endangered
Endangered
ABC;WLBCC
CDF:S
IUCN:CR
Requires vast expanses of open savannah, grasslands, and foothill chaparral in mountain ranges of moderate altitude.
Deep canyons containing clefts in the rocky walls provide nesting sites. Forages up to 100 miles from roost/nest.
Absent
as a nesting
species. The Project Site is outside of their known breeding range.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald eagle (N&W) Delisted Endangered
CDFS,
DFG:FP
IUCN:LC
Ocean shorelines, lake margins, and river courses for both nesting and wintering. Most nests within one mile of water.
Nests in large, old-growth, or dominant live tree with open branches, especially Ponderosa Pine. Roosts communally in winter.
Absent
as a nesting
species. The Project Site is outside of their known breeding range.
Icteria virens
Yellow-breasted chat
(N)
None None DFG:SSC
IUCN:LC
Summer resident, inhabits riparian thickets of willow and other brushy tangles near watercourses.
Nests in low, dense riparian, consisting of willow, blackberry, wild grape; forage and nest within 10 ft of the ground.
Not likely to occur
; no
suitable nesting habitat, marginal foraging
habitat, may occur during migration as a transient.
Lanius ludovicianus
Loggerhead shrike None None DFG:SSC
IUCN:LC
USFWS:BCC
Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon-juniper, Joshua tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oases, scrub, and washes.
Prefers open country for hunting, with perches for
scanning, and fairly dense shrubs and brush for nesting.
Not likely to occur
; this
species is nearly exterpated as a nesting species within Los Angeles County. There are no known nesting pairs in the vicinity.
Melanerpes lewis
Lewis’ woodpecker
None None ABC:WLBCC
IUCN:LC
USFWS:BCC
Occurs in oak woodlands and coniferous forests
Not likely to occur
as a
nesting species. Does not nest in LA County. May occasionally forage at the site during the non-reproductive season.
Piranga rubra
Summer tanager
(N)
None None DFG:SSC
IUCN:LC
Summer resident of desert riparian habitat along lower Colorado River, and locally elsewhere in California deserts.
Requires cottonwood-willow riparian for nesting and foraging; prefers older, dense stands along streams.
Not likely to occur
; no
suitable nesting habitat, marginal foraging
habitat, may occur during migration as a transient.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Polioptila californica californica
Coastal california gnatcatcher
Threatened
None DFG:WLBCC
DFG:SSC
Obligate permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2,500 ft in southern California.
Low, coastal sage scrub, in arid washes, on mesas and slopes. Not all areas classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied.
Not likely to occur;
historic record from Arcadia in a developed area. Nearest known population is in the San Gabriel River. Marginal habitat, some small, disjunct patches of coastal sage scrub within Chaparral.
Progne subis
Purple martin None None DFG:SSC
IUCN:LC
Open areas across eastern North America, and also some locations on the west coast
open areas with an open water source nearby
Not likely to occur
as a nesting species. Only nests on snags on high ridges. May occasionally fly over while foraging or during migration
Strix occidentalis occidentalis
California spotted owl
None None ABC:WLBCC
BLM:S
DFG:SSC
IUCN:NT
USFS:S
USFWS:BCC
Not likely to occur
;
known from higher up Santa Anita Canyon, no suitable habitat at the Project Site.
Vireo bellii pusillus
Least Bell’s vireo (N)
Endangered
Endangered
ABC:WLBCC
IUCN:NT
USFWS:BCC
Summer resident of southern California. Inhabits low riparian growth in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms, below 2,000 ft.
Nests placed along margins of bushes or twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite.
Not likely to occur
; no
suitable nesting habitat, marginal foraging
habitat, may occur during migration as a transient. Nearest known breeding population is in the San Gabriel River.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Wilsonia pusilla pileolata
Wilson’s warbler None None MSHCP, PFPBS, SBNFS
Woodlands and forests with shrub understories as well as chaparral habitats, city parks, and gardens.
Nesting habitat includes thickets, second-growth saplings of clearings, in spruce-tamarack, balsam fir, and sphagnum bogs, or in alders and birches near streams and ponds.
Not likely to occur
; no
suitable nesting habitat, marginal foraging
habitat, may occur during migration as a transient.
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
Pallid bat
None None BLM: S DFG:SSC IUCN:LC USFS:S WBWG:H
Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting.
Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. Arid, low elevations (<6,000 feet); roost in deep crevices in rock faces, buildings, or bridges.
May occur, particularly in the open rock face along the road cut. Not likely to roost within the area proposed for development. Local records.
Eumops perotis californicus
California mastiff bat
None None BLM:S DFG:SSC
WBWG:H
Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous
woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral, etc.
Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees and tunnels.
May occur, local records suitable roosting habitat in large trees.
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
None None IUCN:LC
WBWG:M
Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics with access to trees for cover & open areas or habitat edges for feeding.
Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Requires water.
May occur, local records suitable roosting habitat in large trees.
Myotis thysanodes
fringed myotis None None Optimal habitats are pinyon-juniper, valley foothill hardwood & hardwood-conifer
Uses caves, mines, buildings or crevices for maternity colonies and roosts.
Not likely to occur; no
suitable roosting habitat on the Project Site. Local records.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
State
Status
Other
Status
General Habitat Microhabitat
Potential for Occurrence
Myotis volans
Long-legged myotis
None None Most common in woodland & forest habitats above 4000 ft. Trees are important day
roosts; Caves & mines are night roosts.
Nursery colonies usually under bark or in hollow trees, but occasionally in crevices or Buildings.
Not likely to occur; the
Project Site is below the known elevational range for this species.
Neotoma lepida intermedia
San Diego desert woodrat
None None Coastal southern California from San Diego County to San Luis Obispo County.
Moderate to dense canopies preferred. They are particularly abundant in rock outcrops and rocky cliffs and slopes.
May occur;
unidentified woodrat nests were located during the site visit. Unable to confirm species without more detailed study. The habitat is more typical of dusky-footed woodrat.
Onychomys torridus ramona
southern grasshopper mouse
None None DFG:SSC
Desert areas, especially scrub habitats with friable soils for digging. Prefers low to moderate shrub cover.
Not likely to occur
; no suitable habitat, no recent records.
Status Codes: N = Nesting, Nesting Colony or Rookery W = Winter Federal State Other CNPS FT = Federal Threatened ST = State Threatened FSS = Forest Service Sensitive 1A = Presumed Extinct in California FE = Federal Endangered SE = State Endangered BLMS = Bureau of Land Management 1B = Rare, Threatened or Endangered in FPE = Federal Proposed SR = State Rare Sensitive California and elsewhere Endangered SC = State Species of Special Concern CDFS = California Dept. of Forestry 2 = Rare, Threatened or Endangered in
FPT = Federal Proposed FP = State Fully Protected Sensitive California but more common Threatened RHCP=Western Riverside HCP elsewhere FPD = Federal Proposed 3 = More information needed (usually Delisting taxonomically problematic) FC = Federal Candidate 4 = “Watch list.” Limited distribution FD = Federal Delisted
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
Suite 200
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
December 18, 2013 NCL-01
Mr. Scott Yang
Nevis Capital, LLC
650 Huntington Drive, #210
Arcadia, CA 91007
Subject: Special Status Plant Survey for Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941, Arcadia, California
Dear Mr. Yang:
This letter presents the results of a directed survey for special status plants for the Nevis Homes,
Tract 51941 project (Project), located in the City of Arcadia, California. The project is currently
one lot and associated grading, but at the time of the survey, it consisted of two lots. The
biological assessment for the Canyon Estates project (Ryan Ecological Consulting 2012), of
which Tract 51941 is a part, identified 18 potentially occurring special status plant species
(Attachment A). This report presents the results of a spring 2012 survey for special status plants.
The 13-acre property is located in the foothills along the north edge of the San Gabriel Valley
(Figure 1) in Sections 15 and 16 of Township 1 North, Range 11 West; on the San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Mt. Woodson quadrangle map
(Figure 2). The property is located west of Canyon Road, east of Santa Anita Canyon Road, and
north of Vista Avenue.
METHODS
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) biologist W. Larry Sward surveyed the Project
for special status plants on May 16, 2012. The survey consisted of a systematic search of the
entire property (Figure 3), with special emphasis on the portions of the site to be impacted by the
proposed Project.
All plant species encountered were identified in the field or specimens were collected for later
identification. Plants were identified according to The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of
California (Baldwin et al. 2012). The habitat of the species observed was also noted. Habitat
names loosely mimic the previous biological study (Ryan Ecological Consulting 2012), although
Letter to Mr. Scott Yang Page 3 of 3
December 18, 2013
REFERENCES
Baldwin, B., D. Goldman, D. Keil, R. Patterson, T. Rosatti, and D. Wilken (eds.). 2012. The
Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second edition. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press. 1568 pp.
California Invasive Plant Council. 2012. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database.
www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/weedlist.php. April.
Holland R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. Nongame-Heritage Program, State of California, Department of Fish and
Game, Sacramento, 157 pp.
Ryan, T. 2012. Biological Assessment for the Canyon Estates Project Site, City of Arcadia,
County of Los Angeles, California. Ryan Ecological Consulting. February 20. 21 pp.,
plus figures and attachments.
!
Project Site
Culver
City
Lancaster
Santa
Monica
Calabasas
Acton
Santa
Clarita
Palmdale
Agoura
Hills
V
E
N
T
U
R
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
Malibu
Torrance
Inglewood
Beverly
Hills
Pasadena
Burbank
Glendale
Pomona
Whittier
Long
Beach
Los Angeles
Los
Angeles
Palos
Verdes
West
Covina
Norwalk
Carson
Downey
San
Gabriel
San Fernando
Valley
AÒ
AàIÄ
IÄ
!"`$
!"`$
%&q(
?Õ
?Õ
?q
%&g(
%&g(
?¤%&e(
AË
%&d(
%&o(
%&o(
Compton
Aÿ
Hollywood
Pacific
Ocean
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
ORANGE COUNTY
L
O
S
A
N
G
E
L
E
S
C
O
U
N
T
Y
SAN
BERNARDINO
COUNTY
LO
S ANG
E
LES
COUN
TY
KERN
CO
UN
TY
Santa Monica Mountains
AÒ
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
%&l(
%&l(
A»
A»
?Ð
?Ø
?Ø
?Ý
?Õ
?Ý
?ä
?ä
?ä
?ä
?ã
100105
Miles
I:\ArcGIS\N\NCL-01 NevisTR51941\Map\BIO\JD\Fig1_Regional.mxd -RK
Figure 1
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
Regional Location Map
Project Location Map
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
Figure 2
2,00002,0001,000 Feet
µ
Job No: NCL-01 Date: 02/10/12
I:\ArcGIS\N\NCL-01 NevisTR51941\Map\BIO\JD\Fig2_Location.mxd -RK
Project Site
SantaAnita
A
v
e
n
u
e
C a r ol w o o d D ri v e
Ca
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
Vista Avenue
I:\PROJECTS\N\NCL\NCL-01_Nevis\Map\BIO\RP\Fig3_ProjectFootprint.mxd -RK
Figure 3
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
2013 Project FootprintJob No: NCL-01 Date: 12/18/13
µ2500250125
Feet Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community
Project Site
Project Footprint
A-1
Attachment A POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPEC
IAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
FEDERAL STATUS
STATE
STATUS
CNPS
STATUS
GENERAL HABITAT
MICRO HABITAT
Astragalus brauntonii
Braunton’s milk-vetch FE None 1B
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland.
Recent burns or disturbed areas in stiff gravelly clay soils overlying granite or limestone. 4-640 m.
Berberis nevinii
Nevin’s barberry FE SE 1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian scrub.
On steep, north-facing slopes or in low grade sandy washes. 290-1575 m.
Calochortus plummerae
Plummer’s mariposa lily
FSC None 1B Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest.
Occurs on rocky and sandy sites, usually of granitic or alluvial material. 90-1610 m.
Centromadia (Hemizonia) parryi ssp.
australis
Southern tarplant FSC None 1B
Marshes and swamps (margins), valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. From southern California and Baja California.
Often in disturbed sites near the coast. Also in alkaline soils, sometimes with saltgrass. Also vernal pools. 0- 425 m.
A-2
Attachment A (cont.)
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPEC
IAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
FEDERAL STATUS
STATE
STATUS
CNPS
STATUS
GENERAL HABITAT
MICRO HABITAT
Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
Parry’s spineflower None None 3.2
Coastal scrub, chaparral.
On granite cliffs and outcrops, surrounded by scrub. 365 m.
Dudleya densiflroa
San Gabriel Mountains dudleya
None None 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest. Endemic to Los Angeles County.
In crevices and on decomposed granite on cliffs and canyon walls. 300-520 m.
Dudleya multicaulis
Many-stemmed dudleya
None None 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Endemic to southern California.
In heavy, often clay- soils or grassy slopes. 0-790 m.
Galium grande
San Gabriel bedstraw None None 1B
Cismontane woodland, chaparral, broad-leafed upland forest, lower montane coniferous forest. Endemic to Los Angeles County.
Open chaparral and low, open oak forest; on rocky slopes; probably under collected due to inaccessible habitat. 425-1200 m.
Horkelia cuneata ssp.
uberula
Mesa horkelia
None None 1B
Chaparral, costal scrub, cismontane woodland.
Sandy or gravelly soils. 70-810 m.
A-3
Attachment A (cont.)
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPEC
IAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
FEDERAL STATUS
STATE
STATUS
CNPS
STATUS
GENERAL HABITAT
MICRO HABITAT
Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii
Robinson’s pepper-grass
None None 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub.
Dry soils, shrubland. 1-945 m.
Linanthus concinnus
San Gabriel linanthus None None 1B
Lower montane coniferous forest, upper montane coniferous forest. Known only from Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties.
Dry rocky slopes, often in Jeffrey pine/canyon oak forest. 1575-2545m.
Muhlenbergia californica
California muhly None None 4
Endemic to the Transverse Ranges.
Canyons, along moist ditches, and on sandy slopes. 100-2150 m.
Pseudognaphalium leuycocephalum
White rabbit tobacco None None 2 Sandy areas.
Sandy or gravelly benches, dry stream bottoms, canyon bottoms. <500m.
Ribes divaricatum var.
parishii
Parish’s gooseberry FSC None
1A Riparian woodland. Salix swales in riparian habitats. 60-305 m.
A-4
Attachment A (cont.)
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPEC
IAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
FEDERAL STATUS
STATE
STATUS
CNPS
STATUS
GENERAL HABITAT
MICRO HABITAT
Symphyotrichum greatae
Greata’s aster None None 1B
Broad-leafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and riparian woodland habitats in the San Gabriel Mountains.
Damp places in canyons. 300- 2000 m
Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis
Sonoran maidenfern None None 1B
Meadows and seeps.
Along streams, seepage areas. 50-550 m.
B-1
Attachment B
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941
FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT‡
FERNS
Dryopteridaceae Dryopteris arguta wood fern OW
Pteridaceae Pellaea andromedifolia coffee fern OW
Pentagramma triangularis Goldenback fern C
GYMNOSPERMS
Pinaceae Pinus sp.* (cf. muricata) bishop pine NNV
Pinus sp.* (cf. sabiniana) foothill pine NNV
ANGIOSPERMS – DICOTS
Adoxaceae Sambucus nigra ssp.
caerulea
black elderberry C, OW
Anacardiaceae Malosma laurina laurel sumac DCSS
Rhus ovata sugar bush OW
Toxicodendron
diversilobum
poison-oak C, OW
Apiaceae Anthriscus caucalis* bur chervil W
Foeniculum vulgare*§ fennel DH
Asteraceae Acourtia microcephala sacapellote OW
Ageratina adenophora* sticky snakeroot OW
Artemisia californica California sagebrush C, DH
Brickellia californica brickellbrush DCSS
Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle C, DH, OW
Centaurea melitensis* yellow star-thistle DH
Cirsium occidentale var.
californicum
California thistle C
Hazardia squarrosa var.
grindelioides
Southern sawtooth
goldenbush
C
Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed DH
Hypochaeris glabra* smooth cat’s ear DH
Lactuca serriola* wild lettuce DH
Malacothrix saxitalis var.
commutata
malacothrix C, OW
B-2
Attachment B (cont.)
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941
FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT‡
ANGIOSPERMS – DICOTS (cont.)
Asteraceae
(cont.)
Pseudognaphalium
californicum
California everlasting C
Pseudognaphalium
canescens
Wrights cudweed C
Pseudognaphalium bioletti bicolor cudweed C
Sonchus oleraceous sow-thistle DH
Stephanomeria virgata virgate wreath-plant C
Boraginaceae Cryptantha microstachys Tejon cryptantha C
Eucrypta
chrysanthemifolia var.
chrysanthemifolia
common eucrypta C
Phacelia distans phacelia C, DH
Phacelia cicutaria var.
hispida
caterpillar phacelia C
Brassicaceae Brassica nigra* black mustard C, DH
Sismbrium orientale* Oriental mustard DH
Caprifoliaceae Lonicera subspicata honeysuckle C, OW
Caryophyllaceae Stellaria media* common chickweed OW
Convolvulaceae Calystegia macrostegia morning glory C
Cuscuta sp. chaparral dodder C
Cucurbitaceae Marah macrocarpus wild cucumber C
Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce
albomarginatus
White-edged spurge
Chamaesyce maculata* spotted spurge DH
Euphorbia peplis* petty spurge DH
Ricinus communis* castor-bean DH
Fabaceae Acmispon americanus Spanish-clover DH
Acmispon glaber deerweed DH
Lupinus bicolor miniature lupine DH
Rupertia physodes California tea C, OW
Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia coast live oak C, OW
Quercus berberidifolia scrub oak C, OW
Quercus chrysolepis canyon oak OW
Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium* filaree DH
Erodium moschatum* green-stem filaree DH
B-3
Attachment B (cont.)
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941
FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT‡
ANGIOSPERMS – DICOTS (cont.)
Grossulariaceae Ribes aureum var.
gracillimum
golden currant C, OW
Lamiaceae Marrubium vulgare* horehound DH, OW
Salvia apiana white sage C
Salvia columbariae chia C
Salvia mellifera black sage C, DH
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sp. eucalyptus NNV
Onagraceae Camissonia hirtella field sun cup DH
Oxalidaceae Oxalis albicans California wood-sorrel C
Phrymaceae Mimulus aurantiacus bush monkey flower C
Plantaginaceae Keckiella cordifolia heartleaf penstemon C, OW
Penstemon spectablis showy penstemon C
Plantanaceae Platanus racemosa western sycamore OW
Polygonaceae Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat C
Ranunculaceae Clematis pauciflora ropevine clematis OW
Rhamnaceae Ceanothus leucodermis chaparral whitethorn C
Rhamnus ilicifolia hollyleaf redberry C, OW
Rosaceae Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise C
Cercocarpus betuloides mountain mahogany C
Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon C
Rubiaceae Galium sp. bedstraw C
Solanaceae Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco DH
Solanum xanti purple nightshade C
Verbenaceae Lantana sp.* lantana C
B-4
Attachment B (cont.)
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941
FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT‡
ANGIOSPERMS - MONOCOTS
Agavaceae Yucca aloifolia* Spanish bayonet NNV
Poaceae Bromus diandrus* ripgut grass DH
Bromus madritensis ssp.
rubens*§
red brome C
Ehrharta calycina*§ perennial veldt grass C
Stipa lepida foothill needlegrass C, DH
*Non-native species
‡Habitat acronyms: C=coastal sage-chaparral scrub, DH=disturbed habitat, , NNV=non-native vegetation,
OW=coast live oak woodland
§Highly invasive (California Invasive Plant Council 2012)
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC
Disease and Pest Diagnosis, Hazard Evaluation, Restorative Pruning Advice, Value Assessment
3887 Woodcliff Rd.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
(818) 789-9127
2/5/14
Nevis Capital, LLC (applicant)
c/o Wendy Wu
650 W. Huntington Dr. #210
Arcadia, CA 91007
SUBJECT: Preliminary Arborist Report for “Canyon Private Residence” Canyon Rd.,
Arcadia
REFERENCE: Arcadia Municipal Code, article IX, chapter 7: Oak Tree Preservation
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing the construction of one new single family dwelling on this
property. There are protected oak trees on the site, requiring an oak tree report in
accordance with the Arcadia Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The property in
question is Parcel 1 only, and unless otherwise specified, all information below pertains
only to Parcel 1.
We visited the site on several occasions between 12/14 and 12/30/111 to assess the
oak trees and to evaluate anticipated construction impacts and mitigation measures.
The following report is based on our observations while on site, on discussions with the
applicant, and on the conceptual grading plan provided by the applicant.
OBSERVATIONS
Project Description: The subject property is a large, steep, undeveloped parcel. The
land is densely covered by native vegetation. A single family dwelling will be built toward
the front of the property, accessed from a driveway off Canyon Road, and leaving the
remaining portion of the property undisturbed. The grading plan shows that the building
pad will be approximately 15,600 square feet.
Tree description: This area is defined as an “oak woodland” habitat. At the time of the
field inventory, there were 128 protected oaks on or near the property2 that could be
impacted by construction, including 4 trees that were dead. These were all tagged in the
1 Trees 1-30, on the area nearest Canyon Rd. were actually inventoried in June of 2011 for a different
proposed design.
2 Tag 103 was lost and does not represent a tree.
Canyon Private Residence 2/5/14
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 2 of 12
field and most are shown on the accompanying Tree Protection Plan. There are a
number of trees3 that were included in the initial field inventory that are not shown on
the new plan because the project was scaled down in size. These trees should not be
impacted. A full inventory of the oaks is attached. As the inventory shows, the oaks are
a highly diverse mixture of various native oaks (Quercus berberidifolia, Q. agrifolia, Q.
engelmannii) and native oak crosses.
Tree safety:
We have not evaluated trees on this property for safety. Without a thorough and
focused “hazard evaluation,” it is difficult to estimate the likelihood that a tree may fail
and cause damage to life or property. Even with such an evaluation, there are no
guarantees that a tree will not fail unexpectedly. Trees are dynamic living organisms
subject to many influencing factors. All trees are potentially hazardous, regardless of
their apparent health and vigor. It is impossible to be certain that a tree is absolutely
safe.
Tree 19 has safety issues which concern us. This tree should be evaluated for
safety and remedial actions taken to enhance its safety if it is going to be
protected in place.
IMPACTS
Assumptions: The analysis of construction impacts in this section is based on
assumptions that:
1) the applicant has accurately described all relevant work to be done;
2) the mitigation measures described below will be implemented by the applicant,
and monitored by the City of Arcadia, to prevent unnecessary impacts to the
protected oaks, and;
3) the tree positions shown in the original site documents provided are accurate.
This report assumes that actual construction activities and mitigation measures will
follow the descriptions and recommendations in this report. If the project diverges from
this report, the oaks could be more severely impacted. The attached Oak Tree Inventory
shows which oaks will require protective measures as “PIP” (protect in place) in the
disposition column. Trees indicated as “save” are generally removed from the
construction, or are behind the “protect in place” trees, and should be relatively safe
from construction activities.
Summary:
Total Number of oaks....................................................................................128
Number of living oaks recommended for removal...........................................30
3 Trees 23-30, 46-49, 112-114, and 124-129 are well away from the construction and should not be
impacted at all.
Canyon Private Residence 2/5/14
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 3 of 12
Number of oaks with encroachments requiring protective mitigation..............33
Number of oaks not impacted……………………………………………………...65
Tree Removals: Thirty oaks will be removed by this project due to grading impacts and
actual building footprint. Tree 19 will be saved if possible (see below).
Construction impacts:
Trees marked as “PIP” are near to construction activities, especially grading. As long as
they are adequately fenced before and during construction, they will only suffer some
minor pruning of canopies (to clear protective fencing) and possibly some minor root
loss. This includes the following 33 trees: 1, 5, 9, 13, 14, 17, 19 (see below), 21, 22, 60-
64, 68-70, 72, 74-76, 79, 84, 92, 95, 96, 101, 102, 104, and 119-122.
Tree 19- This venerable old tree is slated to be saved, however the impacts to it may be
severe, and there are safety issues as well. (A huge limb broke off this oak shortly
before we did our field work.) Assuming that the tree is indeed going to be protected in
place, the following combined impacts are judged major:
Pruning- The tree canopy is touching the ground in many places and will have to
be pruned significantly just to accommodate the grading and construction
operations. In addition the tree must be inspected and pruned to increase safety.
Pruning will be a major impact.
Grading- Grading is shown within 15-20 feet of the tree. A previous plan showed
a “planter wall” to be built around the tree at about 10 feet from the trunk. It is
conceivable that many roots will be severed at this distance from the trunk to
construct the wall and implement the grading plans. If significant roots are cut
at this location, the impacts will be major to the survival of the tree, and the
tree may be made unsafe.
Irrigation impacts- It is our understanding that “fuel modification zone B” may be
required to be irrigated in keeping with fire safety regulations. Irrigation in the areas
where native oak trees are allowed to remain can be a significant negative impact if not
managed properly. We have made specific recommendations regarding irrigation below,
under “fire safety impact mitigation”.
Fuel modification impacts- It is our understanding that “fuel modification zones B and C”
may be required to be “thinned” in keeping with fire safety regulations. Fuel modification
requirements can be highly destructive of oak woodland habitat such as this. Especially
damaging can be the following instructions if applied without regard for the survival of
the oak woodland (from Arcadia’s “Fire Safety Checklist”) :
¥ Remove all hazardous native brush, trees, grasses and weeds within 100 feet of any building. Grasses and other small native shrubs may be retained on steep slopes to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion, but may not exceed a height of 18 inches. Large native specimen shrubs should be retained, but no closer than an average of 18 feet apart.
Canyon Private Residence 2/5/14
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 4 of 12
¥ Space trees and shrubs a minimum of 15 ft. or three times their diameter from other shrubs. Trees should be spaced to allow a minimum of 30 ft. between canopies at maturity.
¥
For trees taller than 18 ft., prune lower branches within 6 ft. of the ground.
¥
For trees and shrubs of less than 18 ft., prune lower branches to one-third of their height.
If these requirements do apply to the areas in this project where oaks will be retained
(PIP and “save” trees), we have made specific recommendations regarding thinning
below, under “fire safety impact mitigation”.
MITIGATION
REMOVAL MITIGATION MEASURES Due to the uncertainty associated with fire safety
impacts on the remaining oaks on parcel 1, mitigation for oak removals will consist of
the execution of three separate approaches as follows:
1) a Conservation Easement in perpetuity on adjacent oak woodland, identified
as “parcel 2”;
2) The successful on-site establishment on “parcel 2” of at least thirty4 (30)
seedling oaks5 of the same species as the oaks removed, on a 1:1 replacement
basis, and certified as successfully established after 10 years of monitoring;
3) The planting and successful establishment of twenty-four #1, #5, and 24”
boxed Q. agrifolia and Q. berberidifolia, as shown in the conceptual landscape
design, and certified as successfully established after 3 years of monitoring.
This mitigation is considered adequate and appropriate.
SPECIFIC IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES These steps are provided specifically for
the unique conditions of this project. These are considered minimum oak protection
measures the applicant will carry out in order to maintain or offset the impact levels
described in this report.
Protective fencing: Protective fencing shall be installed to protect trees listed as PIP
(protect-in-place) on the attached tree inventory. Fencing shall be installed between the
edge of grading and the tree canopy, as far from the tree as construction will allow. In
cases where the protected oak is not near grading, the fencing should extend at least to
the dripline of the tree. This protective fencing requirement applies to trees 1, 5, 9, 13,
14, 17, 19 (see below), 21, 22, 60-64, 68-70, 72, 74-76, 79, 84, 92, 95, 96, 101, 102,
104, and 119-122.
4 Experience tells us that the successful establishment of 30 seedling oaks after 5 years may require
substantially more than 30 seedlings be planted initially.
5 Seedling oaks will be grown from acorns harvested within 1 mile of Parcel 1.
Canyon Private Residence 2/5/14
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 5 of 12
Protective fencing around trees in construction zones is the best possible means of
minimizing impacts related to construction, if it is done properly. The purpose is to keep
the oaks’ root zone free from disturbance of any kind throughout the period of
construction activity. The greatest benefit from the use of protective fencing is the
prevention of soil compaction. Other benefits include protecting branches and trunks
from equipment-related breakage and injury, and preventing root damage from spillage
of construction chemicals, grading, etc..
1. Fencing will be installed between the protected oak trees and limits of grading, or
at the dripline of the tree when possible, prior to any grading activity or
construction on site. Fencing will be chain-link, at least 5 feet high, and held
securely in place by steel stakes driven directly into the ground. It is not necessary to
close the areas fenced, as long as fencing separates the oak(s) adequately from the
construction and prevents intrusion into oaks of debris, equipment, soil, etc.
2. No workers or equipment shall enter the fenced areas.
3. No storage, waste disposal, equipment clean-out, outhouse, or vehicle parking will
be allowed within the fenced areas, or under any oaks.
Oversight of tree 19 activity: Before any work is conducted in the vicinity of oak tree
19, the project arborist will be called to discuss the steps needed to ensure safety and
maximize tree viability.
1. Pruning of this oak will be carried out with the project arborist in attendance to
oversee pruning and judge the effect on the safety of the tree.
2. When grading or excavation is to take place within 30 feet of this oak in any
direction, the project arborist will be called to be on site and examine the extent of
root damage and judge the viability and safety of the tree.
3. It is the owner’s responsibility to ensure that the project arborist is notified
prior to initiating these activities. This is a safety issue.
Fire safety impact mitigation:
1. To the extent that the fire department will allow changes in irrigation requirements,
it is our recommendation that no irrigation be allowed within Fuel Modification Zones
B or C, except that which is required to establish mitigation oak plantings and
landscape plantings as described below (individual “spot” drip irrigation).
2. Landscape plantings in Fuel Modification Zones B or C, if any, should be limited to
“fire-safe” native vegetation types which can be established with minimal “spot” drip
irrigation. Such plantings should be well outside the oak trees’ driplines.
3. Fuel modification and clearance, as described in the “Fire Safety Checklist” cited
above, should not be carried out in Fuel Modification Zones B or C beyond a
distance of 100 feet from structures. Beyond 100 feet, limiting brush clearance to
Canyon Private Residence 2/5/14
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 6 of 12
shredding of dead and dry material and leaving debris in place on the ground will
limit impacts to the oak woodland.
Post-construction monitoring: The project arborist or a qualified arborist or forester
(Monitor) will be retained to monitor the successful establishment of all mitigation
plantings. Plantings will be assessed annually for three years for nursery stock oaks
planted on parcel 1, and for ten years for seedling oaks planted on parcel 2. At the end
of each establishment period, the Monitor shall notify the City of successful
establishment.
In the monitoring of establishment, the Monitor shall also inspect the conditions of the
remaining oak woodland on parcel 1 and make recommendations to the City as to any
changes needed in maintenance practices.
GENERAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES The following measures should be
applied where they are relevant.
1. All work conducted in the ground within the protection zone of any protected tree
should be accomplished with hand tools only. (The protection zone is defined as the
area behind protective fencing).
2. Where structural footings are required and major roots will be impacted, the footing
depth should be reduced to 12". This may require additional "rebar" for added strength.
An alternative would involve bridging footings over roots and covering each root with
plastic cloth and 2-4" of Styrofoam matting before pouring concrete.
3. Any required trenching which has options as to the trench path should be routed in
such a manner as to minimize root damage. Radial trenching (radial to the tree trunk) is
less harmful than tangential trenching because it runs parallel to tree roots rather than
diagonal or perpendicular to them.
If roots can be worked around, cutting of roots should be avoided (i.e. place pipes and
cables below uncut roots whenever possible). Whenever possible, utilize the same
trench for as many utilities as possible. Generally, roots with a diameter of two inches
or more should be saved. Digging should be done manually to avoid tearing,
puncturing, or otherwise damaging the bark that covers the roots. Roots should be
covered and kept damp while trenching is being done, and reburied as quickly as
possible.
4. "Natural" or pre-construction grade should be maintained for as great a distance from
the trunk of each tree as construction permits. At no time during or after construction
should soil be in contact with the trunk of the tree above natural grade.
5. In areas where grade will be lowered, or where footings will be dug, some root cutting
may be unavoidable. Cuts should be made cleanly with a sharp saw or pruning tool, far
enough behind the damage that all split and cracked root portions are removed. The cut
should be made at right angles to the root so that the wound is no larger than
Canyon Private Residence 2/5/14
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 7 of 12
necessary. When practical, cut roots back to a branching lateral root. Do not apply any
pruning wound treatment to cuts.
6. When removing pavement, as little disruption of soil as necessary should be
attempted.
7. Pruning of oaks should be limited to the removal of dead wood and the correction of
potentially hazardous conditions, as evaluated by a qualified arborist. Pruning oaks
excessively is harmful to them. Removal or reduction of major structural limbs should be
done only as required for actual building clearance or safety. If limbs must be removed,
cuts should be made perpendicular to the branch, to limit the size of the cut face. The
branch bark collar should be preserved (i.e. no “flush cuts”), and cuts should be made in
such a way as to prevent the tearing of bark from the tree. All pruning should be done in
accordance with ANSI A300 pruning standards. No pruning wound treatment (e.g.
“Tree Seal”) should be applied.
8. Keep all activity and traffic to a minimum within the protection zone of the trees to
minimize soil compaction.
9. It is important that the protection zone not be subjected to flooding incidental to the
construction work, or to disposal of construction debris such as paints, plasters, or
chemical solutions. No equipment fueling or chemical mixing should be done within the
root protection zone.
10. In general, it is best to minimize the amount of environmental change which trees
will be subjected to. This includes drastic changes in watering practices from historic
conditions, especially drastic increases.
11. Care should be exercised not to allow equipment to physically damage the tree’s
trunk, root crown, or lower scaffold branches during construction. This includes but is
not limited to 1) impact damage by scrapers, buckets, or hoes; or 2) damage by tires,
wheels, or tracks from operating in close proximity to trees.
CONCLUSIONS
This project will remove many healthy native oaks, but it will also protect many oaks in
place, and it will provide both on-site and off-site mitigation plantings for the oaks
removed and a Conservation Easement in perpetuity on adjacent oak woodland. The
protective measures will help to keep the remaining oaks from serious damage if
followed appropriately. The only real concerns here are with 1) the largest oak, tree 19,
and 2) the fire safety treatments in saved oak areas. It is important that the project
arborist be involved in efforts to save tree 19, as safety is a concern, as well as for the
tree’s survival. If there is any possibility for leniency in fire safety measures, it would
greatly benefit the surviving oaks.
Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance or if you have any additional
questions. Our goal is to satisfy our clients and help them to better care for their trees
Canyon Private Residence 2/5/14
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 8 of 12
in the most effective way possible. We look forward to working with you toward that
goal!
Sincerely,
Jan C. Scow
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #382
ISA Certified Arborist # WC1972
Attached: Oak Tree Inventory
Canyon Private Residence 2/5/14
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 9 of 12
Oak Inventory (Dec. 2011)
Tree # Species Diameter
DBH
Est.
Height
Canopy
N/E/S/W
Health Structure Disposition*
1 Q. agrifolia 27, 15 28 30’ r good good PIP
2 Q. agrifolia 16,16,10 25 20/30/20/15 good good save
3 Q. agrifolia 15,14,11 22 25/30/20/15 good good save
4 Quercus X 10 12 22SE fair fair save
5 Quercus X 14 20 30E fair good PIP
6 Q
berberidifolia
16 25 15’ r good good save
7 Q
berberidifolia 9 12 8/10/8/- fair good remove
8 Q
berberidifolia 8 12 fair good remove
9 Q
berberidifolia 6,5,5 10 8’ r good good PIP
10 Q
berberidifolia 5,5,5 8 12’ r fair good save
11 Q
berberidifolia 5,5 12 8’ r fair good save
12 Q
berberidifolia 5 10 12E good good save
13 Q
berberidifolia 8 12 12’ r good good PIP
14 Q. agrifolia 15 21 15NE good fair PIP
15 Q. agrifolia 15, 14 25 20’ r good good remove
16 Q
berberidifolia 6 10 12E fair fair remove
17 Quercus X 6 8 10NE good fair PIP
18 Q. agrifolia 12,10,8 22 15/20/15/12 good good save
19 Q. agrifolia ~60 35 10/40/40/40 good poor PIP
20 Q. agrifolia 14 17 15’ r good good remove
21 Q. agrifolia ~26 35 15/40/30/20 good good PIP
22 Q. agrifolia 25 35 10/35/10/10 good good PIP
23 Q. agrifolia 25 35 30/20/30/30 good good save
24 Q. agrifolia 25 32 35N, NE good fair save
25 Q. agrifolia 18,8,8 12 20E good fair save
26 Q. agrifolia 11 30 30S, W good fair save
27 Q. agrifolia 26 30 25/30/25/10 good good save
28 Q. agrifolia 30@2’ 35 30’ r good good save
OP29 Q. agrifolia ~26@1’ 35 35’ r good good save
OP30 Q. agrifolia ~14 30 20’ r good good save
31 Quercus X 16 18 8/10/18/17 good fair save
32 Q. agrifolia 17 25 10/14/15/12 fair good save
33 Q
berberidifolia 9,9,7,7+ 12 8/15/18/20 fair good save
34 Q
berberidifolia 11,9,8,6,5 16 10/18/16/15 fair good save
35 Q
berberidifolia 3 8 10S fair fair save
Canyon Private Residence 2/5/14
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 10 of 12
Tree # Species Diameter
DBH
Est.
Height
Canopy
N/E/S/W
Health Structure Disposition*
36 Q
berberidifolia 6,4 8 7’ r poor fair save
37 Q
berberidifolia 6,5,4,2+ 8 10S fair poor save
38 Quercus X 7,7,6,6,5 17 20’ r fair good save
39 Quercus X 12,5,4 22 13’ r good good save
40 Quercus X 6,6,3 16 9’ r fair fair save
41 Q
berberidifolia 7,6,5+ 12 15’ r fair good save
42 Q
berberidifolia 8,7,6,6 17 12’ r fair fair save
43 Quercus X 8,7 15 9’ r fair fair save
44 Quercus X 6,5 12 12’ r good good save
45 Q
berberidifolia 12,8,8 29 15’ r fair good save
46 Quercus sp dead tree dead
tree
dead tree dead
tree
dead tree save
47 Q
berberidifolia 2,2,1,1+ 12 7’ r good fair save
48 Quercus sp dead tree dead
tree
dead tree dead
tree
dead tree save
49 Quercus sp dead tree dead
tree
dead tree dead
tree
dead tree save
50 Quercus X 7 11 14’ r fair-
good
good remove
51 Q
berberidifolia 6,6,5 22 10/-/15/20 fair poor remove
52 Quercus X 11 28 16’ r fair fair remove
53 Q
berberidifolia 6 14 10’ r fair fair remove
54 Quercus X 6,5,5,4,4+ 14 14SE fair fair remove
55 Quercus X 6 26 18SW fair fair remove
56 Quercus X 7,6 11 12SSW fair fair remove
57 Quercus X 8,7,7,5,3 17 20/10/20/12 fair fair remove
58 Quercus X 7,7,7,5+ 15 15’ r fair fair remove
59 Quercus X 6,3 9 10NW fair fair remove
60 Quercus X 8,7,7,6+ 22 18’ r fair good PIP
61 Quercus X 14,12,11,10+ 33 30’ r fair very good PIP
62 Quercus X 8,7 25 16NE fair fair PIP
63 Quercus X 8,8 26 17W fair fair PIP
64 Quercus X 8,6 20 21SSW fair poor PIP
65 Quercus X 13,10,10,9+ 30 22’ r good good save
66 Quercus X 8,8,7,7,4 15 18’ r fair-
poor
fair remove
67 Quercus X 8 24 15S poor fair remove
68 Quercus X 7,4,3 22 14NS poor fair PIP
69 Quercus X 6,5 22 12SW poor fair PIP
70 Quercus X 10,10 26 14’ r fair good PIP
71 Quercus X 8,5,4,4,4 15 20S fair fair remove
Canyon Private Residence 2/5/14
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 11 of 12
Tree # Species Diameter
DBH
Est.
Height
Canopy
N/E/S/W
Health Structure Disposition*
72 Quercus X 8,8,6,5 24 22’ r fair-
poor
good PIP
73 Quercus X 12,10,8 13 23S good fair-poor remove
74 Quercus X 10,7,7 18 20’ r fair very good PIP
75 Quercus X 9,9 18 15’ r fair fair PIP
76 Quercus X 7,6 13 6’ r fair fair PIP
77 Quercus X 11 18 16ENE poor fair save
78 Quercus X 12,10 28 20’ r fair fair save
79 Q
berberidifolia 6,5,4,4+ 14 9’ r fair fair PIP
80 Quercus X 6,6,5,2 10 10’ r good very good save
81 Q
berberidifolia 9,7,6,3 13 13’ r fair good save
82 Quercus X 4,4,3,3,2 10 6’ r fair good save
83 Q
berberidifolia 6 10 8’ r fair fair save
84 Q
berberidifolia 5,5,5,4+ 9 12’ r good good PIP
85 Quercus X 8,6 16 6/22/21/10 fair fair save
86 Quercus X 10,8 25 18NW fair fair save
87 Quercus X 10,9 30 6/13/21/18 fair fair save
88 Quercus X 7,6,6,6,6+ 15 15’ r good fair save
89 Quercus X 10,9 23 16’ r good good remove
90 Quercus X 9,9,9,9,8,8+ 27 23’ r good very good remove
91 Quercus X 10,9 21 8/14/18/14 fair fair remove
92 Quercus X 7,10 24 10/10/10/22 fair fair-poor PIP
93 Quercus X 11,9,8,5+ 25 22’ r fair-
good
very good save
94 Quercus X 9 9 15NW poor poor save
95 Q
berberidifolia 6,3 16 12WNW fair fair PIP
96 Quercus X 7 8 20W good poor PIP
97 Quercus X 10,8,7,7 22 20’ r fair-
good
good remove
98 Quercus X 6,6,6,5,4 11 14’ r good fair remove
99 Quercus X 9,6 22 18SW fair fair remove
100 Q
berberidifolia 5,5,3,2,2,1 12 9’ r good very good remove
101 Quercus X 7,7 24 10/10/10/22 fair fair-poor PIP
102 Quercus X 11,10 24 18/16/17/25 fair fair PIP
103 No tree No tree No
tree
No tree No
tree
No tree No tree
104 Q
berberidifolia 6,6 13 14S fair fair PIP
105 Quercus X 11,8 25 19’ r fair very good save
106 Quercus X 8 22 17SW fair fair save
107 Quercus X 10,10,7,7 22 -/16/24/24 fair fair save
108 Q
berberidifolia 9,8,7,3 22 15’ r poor fair save
Canyon Private Residence 2/5/14
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 12 of 12
Tree # Species Diameter
DBH
Est.
Height
Canopy
N/E/S/W
Health Structure Disposition*
109 Q
berberidifolia 4,3,3,2 11 12/9/2/13 fair fair save
110 Quercus X 8,1 18 3/6/15/11 good good save
111 Q
berberidifolia 9 25 15S fair-
good
fair save
112 Q.
engelmannii
2,2,2,1,1+ 12 5’ r good fair save
113 Quercus X 3,3,1,1,1+ 9 8’ r very
good
fair save
114 Quercus sp dead tree dead
tree
dead tree dead
tree
dead tree save
115 Q. agrifolia ~18 45 20’ r good good save
116 Quercus X 13 25 17’ r good good remove
117 Quercus X 5,4,4,4,3+ 11 13’ r fair good remove
118 Q
berberidifolia 5,5,2+ 9 11’ r very
good
good remove
119 Q
berberidifolia 6,2,2,1 9 12W fair fair PIP
120 Quercus X 8 11 15W fair fair PIP
121 Q
berberidifolia 3,2,2,1+ 8 11W fair fair PIP
122 Quercus X 4,2 6 10W fair fair PIP
123 Q
berberidifolia 6,5,5,4,4 13 20SW fair fair remove
124 Quercus X 16,12,8 20 20’ r fair fair save
125 Q.
engelmannii
9 25 8’ r fair fair save
126 Q.
engelmannii
9 18 20N fair poor save
127 Q.
engelmannii
8 20 8’ r fair fair save
128 Q.
engelmannii
~16 35 20’ r good good save
129 Quercus X ~12 18 15N good fair save * “PIP” indicates tree will be protected in place with chain link fencing to protect it from construction impacts. These trees will typically require some clearance pruning. “Save” trees should not experience any significant impacts.
DATE: April 7, 2014
TO: Tom Li, Associate Planner
FROM: Tiffany Lee, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Plan Check Review Comments for Canyon Road, TPM 14-01 and RM
14-01
Water
W-1. A 12” cast iron water main (from Zone 5) with static pressure 40 psi is
located in front of the proposed project. Based on the difference in
elevation from the proposed water meter (approximately El. 1000) and the
proposed elevation of the residence (El. 1100) which will result in a static
pressure loss of approximately 43 psi. Therefore the existing water main
does not provide sufficient pressure for the proposed project.
It is recommended the Developer consider:
1. Providing a private booster system to provide the necessary water
pressure.
2. Extend the City water main from the next higher pressure zone
(Zone 6) to provide the necessary pressure. The Zone 6 main is 4”
and the point of connection is approximately 200’ north of the
project on Canyon Road.
W-2. Fire System requirements by Fire Marshall.
W-3. A Water Meter Clearance Application, filed with the Public Works Services
Department, shall be required prior to permit issuance.
W-4. New water service installation shall be by the Developer. Installation shall
be according to the specifications of the Public Works Services
Department, Engineering Division. Abandonment of existing water
services, if necessary, shall be by the Developer, according to Public
Works Services Department, Engineering Division specifications.
Sewer
1. The city sewer main serving the subject address is an 8” sewer, located in right
of way of Canyon Road, and it is capable of meeting anticipated increased
demands of the improvement as described in the information provided.
2. Due to the steep slope of the sewer lateral coming from the property to the City
sewer main, the design of the property sewer must ensure that flow from the
private lateral does not exceed 10ft/s at the connection to the existing sewer
main.
Tree
• 2 – 36” box Fern Pipe trees shall be planted. Exact location along the right of way
on Canyon Road to be determined by the Public Works Inspector.
SUSMP
1) Proposed project may be subject to SUSMP if the property is located in an area
with known erosive soil conditions, where the development contemplates grading
on any natural slope that is 25% or greater and where grading contemplates cut
or fill slopes. Please note that the City will modify its SUSMP requirements so
that it will consistent with Low Impact Development (LID) criteria. The City
anticipates the first reading of the LID Ordinance in August 2014.
2) Street and road construction of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface
area shall follow USEPA guidance regarding Managing Wet Weather with Green
Infrastructure: Green Streets to the maximum extent practicable (will be in effect
after LID Ordinance is approved by City Council)
.
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200
La Mesa, CA 91942
Prepared for:
Nevis Capital, LLC
650 Huntington Drive, Suite 210
Arcadia, CA 91007
Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
February 20, 2012
Revised December 16, 2013
i
Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
II. METHODS .................................................................................................................1
III. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................3
A. Site Description ...................................................................................................3
B. Habitats ................................................................................................................3
1. Coastal Sage-chaparral Scrub .........................................................................3
2. Oak Woodland/Riparian .................................................................................4
3. Non-wetland WUS/Streambed .......................................................................4
C. Federal Jurisdiction .............................................................................................4
D. State Jurisdiction .................................................................................................5
IV. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................5
A. Federal Permitting ...............................................................................................5
B. State Permitting ...................................................................................................5
V. REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................6
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Federal Jurisdictional Information
B State Jurisdictional Information
C Representative Site Photos
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page No.
1 Regional Location Map ........................................................................................................2
2 Project Location Map ...........................................................................................................2
3 Aerial Photo .........................................................................................................................2
4 Soils Map .............................................................................................................................4
5 National Wetlands Inventory ...............................................................................................4
6 Potential CDFW Jurisdictional Areas ..................................................................................6
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941 / NCL-01 / February 20, 2012 / Revised December 16, 2013 1
I. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a focused jurisdictional delineation of the Nevis Homes,
Tract 51941 project (Project), located in the City of Arcadia, California. The delineation was
conducted to identify and map existing areas under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), and wetland and
streambed habitats under California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. This information is necessary
to evaluate jurisdictional impacts and permit requirements associated with development of the
property. This report presents HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.’s (HELIX’s) best efforts to
quantify the extent of Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and state jurisdictional habitats within the
property using the current regulations, written policies, and guidance from regulatory agencies.
The jurisdictional boundaries provided here are subject to verification by the Corps and CDFW.
The 13-acre property is located in the foothills along the north edge of the San Gabriel Valley
(Figure 1) in Sections 15 and 16 of Township 1 North, Range 11 West; on the San Bernardino
Base and Meridian, U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Mt. Woodson quadrangle map
(Figure 2). The property is located west of Canyon Road, east of Santa Anita Canyon Road, and
north of Vista Avenue.
II. METHODS
Prior to beginning fieldwork, aerial photographs (1"=250' scale; Figure 3), topographic maps
(1"=100' scale), and previous vegetation mapping (Ryan 2011) were reviewed to determine the
location of potential jurisdictional areas that may be affected by the proposed project. Data were
collected in areas that were suspected to be jurisdictional habitats on February 2, 2012.
Corps wetland boundaries were determined using the 3 criteria (vegetation, hydrology, and soils)
established for wetland delineations, as described within the Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Corps 2008).
The results presented here are consistent with past court decisions regarding the federal
jurisdiction (i.e., Rapanos v. United States, Carabell v. United States, and Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County [SWANCC] v. Corps), as outlined and applied by the Corps (Corps 2007;
Grumbles and Woodley 2007), Corps and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2007), and
EPA and Corps (2007). These publications explain that the EPA and Corps will assert
jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters (TNW) and tributaries to TNWs that are a
relatively permanent water body (RPW), which have year-round or continuous seasonal flow.
For water bodies that are not RPWs, a significant nexus evaluation must be conducted to
determine whether the non-RPW is jurisdictional. An overview of Corps wetlands and
jurisdictional WUS definitions is presented in Appendix A.
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941 / NCL-01 / February 20, 2012 / Revised December 16, 2013 2
Plants were identified according to Baldwin, et. al. (2012). Wetland affiliations of plant species
follow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s) National List of Plant Species that Occur
in Wetlands: California (Reed 1988).
Soils information was taken from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Walden
2004). Soil samples were evaluated for hydric soil indicators (e.g., hydrogen sulfide [A4], sandy
redox [S5], depleted matrix [F3], redox dark surface [F6], redox depressions [F8], and vernal
pools [F9]). Soil chromas were identified according to Munsell’s Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen
1994).
Sample points were inspected for primary wetland hydrology indicators (e.g., surface water [A1],
saturation [A3], water marks [non-riverine, B1], sediment deposits [non-riverine, B2], drift
deposits [non-riverine, B3], surface soil cracks [B6], inundation visible on aerial imagery [B7],
salt crust [B11], aquatic invertebrates [B13], hydrogen sulfide odor [C1], and oxidized
rhizospheres along living roots [C3]) and secondary wetland hydrology indicators (e.g., water
marks [riverine, B1], sediment deposits [riverine, B2], drift deposits [riverine, B3], drainage
patterns in wetlands [B10], shallow aquitard [D3], and positive FAC neutral test [D5]).
Areas were determined to be non-wetland WUS if there was evidence of regular surface flow
(e.g., bed and bank) but neither vegetation nor soils criterion was met. Jurisdictional limits for
these areas were defined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is defined in 33 CFR
Section 329.11 as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by
physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in
the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or debris; or
other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The Corps
has issued further guidance on the OHWM (Riley 2005; Lichvar and McColley 2008), which
also has been used for this delineation. The OHWM widths were measured to the nearest foot at
various locations along mapped drainages.
The CDFW jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence of riparian
vegetation or regular surface flow. Streambeds within CDFW jurisdiction were delineated based
on the definition of streambed as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or
intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life.
This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation”
(Title 14, Section 1.72). This definition for CDFW jurisdictional habitat allows for a wide
variety of habitat types to be jurisdictional, including some that do not include wetland species
(e.g., oak woodland and alluvial fan sage scrub). Definitions of CDFW jurisdictional areas are
presented in Appendix B. Streambed widths were measured to the nearest foot at various
locations along the channel.
Representative photographs were taken of the drainages and are included in Appendix C.
!
Project Site
Culver
City
Lancaster
Santa
Monica
Calabasas
Acton
Santa
Clarita
Palmdale
Agoura
Hills
V
E
N
T
U
R
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
Malibu
Torrance
Inglewood
Beverly
Hills
Pasadena
Burbank
Glendale
Pomona
Whittier
Long
Beach
Los Angeles
Los
Angeles
Palos
Verdes
West
Covina
Norwalk
Carson
Downey
San
Gabriel
San Fernando
Valley
AÒ
AàIÄ
IÄ
!"`$
!"`$
%&q(
?Õ
?Õ
?q
%&g(
%&g(
?¤%&e(
AË
%&d(
%&o(
%&o(
Compton
Aÿ
Hollywood
Pacific
Ocean
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
ORANGE COUNTY
L
O
S
A
N
G
E
L
E
S
C
O
U
N
T
Y
SAN
BERNARDINO
COUNTY
LO
S ANG
E
LES
COUN
TY
KERN
CO
UN
TY
Santa Monica Mountains
AÒ
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
%&l(
%&l(
A»
A»
?Ð
?Ø
?Ø
?Ý
?Õ
?Ý
?ä
?ä
?ä
?ä
?ã
100105
Miles
I:\ArcGIS\N\NCL-01 NevisTR51941\Map\BIO\JD\Fig1_Regional.mxd -RK
Figure 1
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
Regional Location Map
Project Location Map
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
Figure 2
2,00002,0001,000 Feet
µ
Job No: NCL-01 Date: 02/10/12
I:\ArcGIS\N\NCL-01 NevisTR51941\Map\BIO\JD\Fig2_Location.mxd -RK
Project Site
Project Site
SantaAnita
A
v
e
n
u
e
C a r ol w o o d D ri v e
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
Vista Avenue
I:\PROJECTS\N\NCL\NCL-01_Nevis\Map\BIO\JD\Fig3_Aerial.mxd -RK
Figure 3
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
Aerial PhotoJob No: NCL-01 Date: 02/10/12
µ2500250125
Feet Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941 / NCL-01 / February 20, 2012 / Revised December 16, 2013 3
III. RESULTS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
The Project is situated in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. The property is loacted
near the top of a watershed, and surface runoff flows south. A small ridge bisects the property
and extends parallel to Canyon Road. Two ravines exist on-site along the western side of this
ridge; only the westernmost ravine, or the one closest to Santa Anita Avenue, has sufficient
surface runoff to leave any evidence of surface flows. Potential runoff from these features flows
into residential lots, and onto the paved streets of the City of Arcadia. All potential federal
jurisdictional features at the Project qualify as isolated based on the Rapanos and Carabell court
decisions, and are not regarded as WUS in this report.
Elevations at the Project range from 910 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the southeast
corner of the property along Canyon Road to 1,222 AMSL at the northwestern property corner.
Four mapping units are provided on the soil maps for the Project (Figure 4; Walden 2004):
Placentia loam, Hanford fine sandy loam; Hanford gravely sandy loam, and upper San Gabriel
River. The Placentia soils formed in alluvium from granite and other rocks of similar
composition and texture. The Hanford soils formed in deep, moderately coarse textured
alluvium dominantly from granite and other quartz bearing rocks of similar texture. Upper San
Gabriel River is undefined in the soil data base. The climate is dry subhumid mesothermal with
hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The mean annual precipitation is 9 to 20 inches. The
mean annual temperature is 62 to 65 degrees Fahrenheit (°F); the mean January temperature is
about 45°F.; and the mean July temperature is about 81°F. The frost free season is 200 to
280 days. Most of the potentially jurisdictional features exist in the upper San Gabriel River
mapping unit.
B. HABITATS
Two upland habitats have been mapped at the Project site: coastal sage scrub/chaparral and oak
woodland/riparian. Streambed was also noted on site during the field work for this project. No
wetlands were observed on site. Descriptions of the habitats observed at the project are provided
below.
1. Coastal Sage-chaparral Scrub
Coastal sage-chaparral scrub is a mixture of sclerophyllous chaparral shrubs and
drought-deciduous sage scrub species regarded as an ecotone (transition) between 2 vegetation
communities. This singular community contains floristic elements of both communities
including California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasciculatum ssp. fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), chamise (Adenostoma
fasciculatum), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), and ceanothus (Ceanothus sp.) (Holland
1986). This community varies in species composition but always contains coastal sage and
chaparral species.
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941 / NCL-01 / February 20, 2012 / Revised December 16, 2013 4
Species in coastal sage-chaparral scrub within the Project include California sagebrush,
California buckwheat, laurel sumac, chamise, sugarbush (Rhus ovata), and scrub oak (Quercus
berberidifolia). Approximately two-thirds, or 8.7 acres, of the site is coastal sage-chaparral
scrub.
2. Oak Woodland/Riparian
The vegetation mapping for the site combined oak woodland and riparian habitats, which may
have been appropriate for the larger project area addressed in that biology report (Ryan 2011).
The habitat within the Project, however, is comprised solely of coast live oak woodland; no
riparian habitat exists on site. Coast live oak woodland is an open to dense evergreen woodland
or forest community, dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) that may reach a height of
35 to 80 feet. The shrub layer consists of toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), black elderberry
(Sambucus nigra), fuchsia-flowered gooseberry (Ribes spp.), and poison oak (Toxicodendron
diversilobum). A dense herbaceous understory is dominated by miner’s lettuce (Claytonia
perfoliata var. perfoliata) and chickweed (Stellaria media). This community occurs along the
coastal foothills of the Peninsular Ranges; typically, on north-facing slopes and shaded ravines
(Holland 1986).
Species in the oak woodland within the Project include Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii)
toyon, black elderberry, laurel sumac, California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and poison oak.
Approximately one-third, or 4.3 acres, of the site supports oak woodland.
3. Non-wetland WUS/Streambed
The project supports a single ravine or drainage that regularly conveys surface water. This is an
ephemeral drainage and does not support any riparian vegetation. It is not regarded as WUS due
to isolation from other WUS. This drainage is regulated by the CDFW as a streambed.
C. FEDERAL JURISDICTION
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) has mapped 2 types of wetland within the Project
(Figure 5; USFWS 2011): riverine, intermittent streambed, temporarily flooded; and palustrine
forested, temporarily flooded. Three nearby off-site areas to the east and west are also included
on the NWI maps: Riverine, intermittent streambed, temporarily flooded; palustrine scrub-shrub,
temporarily flooded; and riverine intermittent streambed, intermittently flooded.
The field work for this project revealed the area mapped as Palustrine forested is a non-native
pine stand (on site) and residential landscaping on a steep, east facing slope (off site to the
south). The streambed is essentially as indicated, however, no signs of this drainage being
anything other than ephemeral were noted. In an intermittent drainage some wetland plant
species would be expected and none were observed. The location of this section of the drainage
near the top of its watershed supports the conclusion that this drainage is ephemeral.
No federal (Corps) jurisdictional areas occur at the Project. The streambed did have evidence of
an OHWM, but the isolation of the site from other WUS precludes it from being jurisdictional.
Project Site
UPPER SAN GABRIEL RIVER Class 88
PLACENTIA LOAM Class 11
HANFORD FINE SANDY LOAM Class 6
HANFORD GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM Class 7
PLACENTIA LOAM Class 11
I:\ArcGIS\N\NCL-01 NevisTR51941\Map\BIO\JD\Fig4_Soils.mxd -RK
Figure 4
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
Soils MapJob No: NCL-01 Date: 02/10/12
µ2500250125
Feet
Vista Avenue
C
a
n
y
o
n
Ro
a
d
C a r ol w o o d D ri v e
SantaAnita
A
v
e
n
u
e
I:\PROJECTS\N\NCL\NCL-01_Nevis\Map\BIO\JD\Fig5_NWI.mxd -RK
Figure 5
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
National Wetlands InventoryJob No: NCL-01 Date: 02/13/12
µ2000200100
Feet
Project Site
NWI Classifications
Palustrine, Forested, Temporarily Flooded
Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Temporarily Flooded
Riverine, Intermittent Streambed, Temporarily Flooded
Riverine, Intermittent Streambed, Intermittently Flooded
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941 / NCL-01 / February 20, 2012 / Revised December 16, 2013 5
D. STATE JURISDICTION
State (CDFW) jurisdictional areas at Tract 51941 include 393 linear feet of streambed for a total
of 0.04 acre (Figure 6).
IV. CONCLUSION
A. FEDERAL PERMITTING
No federal permits are necessary for this project due to a lack of federal jurisdiction.
B. STATE PERMITTING
CDFW regulates alterations or impacts to streambeds or lakes under California Fish and Game
Code 1602. The CDFW requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for projects that will
divert or obstruct the natural flow of water; change the bed, channel, or bank of any stream; or
use any material from a streambed. The SAA is a contract between the applicant and CDFW
stating what activities can occur in the riparian zone and stream course (California Association of
Resource Conservation Districts 2002). However, the project avoids the area of potential
jurisdiction and therefore no permit from CDFW is necessary.
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941 / NCL-01 / February 20, 2012 / Revised December 16, 2013 6
V. REFERENCES
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. 2002. Guide to Watershed Project
Permitting for the State of California. URL: http://www.carcd.org/permitting/
pguide.pdf.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. 100 pp. with Appendices.
Grumbles, B.H. and J.P. Woodley, Jr. 2007. Memorandum: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell
v. United States. June 5. 12 pp.
Holland R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. Nongame-Heritage Program, State of California, Department of Fish and
Game, Sacramento, 156 pp.
Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation (Kollmorgen). 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Revised
edition. Baltimore, MD.
Lichvar, R.W. and S.M. McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary
High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States.
ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Hanover, NH. U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. August.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California
(Region 0). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.10). 135 pp.
Riley, D.T. 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. RGL No. 05-05. December 5. 4
pp.
Ryan, T. 2011. Draft Biological Assessment for the Canyon Estates Project Site, City of Arcadia,
County of Los Angeles, California. Ryan Ecological Consulting. December 26, 2011. 21
pp., plus figures and attachments.
%
%
%
%
4'
2'
6'
7'
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
SantaAni
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
C ar o lw o o d D ri v e
I:\PROJECTS\N\NCL\NCL-01_Nevis\Map\BIO\JD\Fig6_CDFG.mxd -RK
Figure 6
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
Potential CDFW Jurisdictional AreasJob No: NCL-01 Date: 12/16/13
µ150015075
Feet
Project Site
Impact Area
%Streambed (Widths shown in feet)
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941 / NCL-01 / February 20, 2012 / Revised December 16, 2013 7
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Eds. J.S. Wakely, R.W.
Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center. September.
2007. Questions and Answers for Rapanos and Carabell Decisions. June 5. 21 pp.
--- and EPA. 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook.
May 30. 60 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Corps. 2007. Joint Guidance to Sustain
Wetlands Protection under Supreme Court Decision. 2 pp.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. National Wetlands Inventory.
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/GoogleEarth.html. October.
Walden, A. 2004. Soil Maps. Hydrology section of Water Resources Division; Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works.
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for Nevis Homes, Tract No. 51941 / NCL-01 / February 20, 2012 / Revised December 16, 2013 8
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A
FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION
A-1
Appendix A
FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION
Wetlands and “Waters of the U.S.” Definitions
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps; Federal Register 1982) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (Federal Register 1980) jointly define wetlands as “[t]hose areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
The official definition of “Waters of the U.S.” and their limits of jurisdiction (as they may apply)
are defined by the Corps’ Regulatory Program Regulations (Section 328.3, paragraphs [a] 1-3
and [e], and Section 328.4, paragraphs [c] 1 and 2) as follows:
All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to
use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tide; all waters including interstate wetlands, all other waters such as
interstate lakes, rivers, streams [including intermittent streams], mudflats, sandflats,
wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use,
degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce including any such
water, which are or could be used by interstate travelers for recreation or other purposes;
or from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate commerce; or
which are or could be used for industries in interstate commerce; or wetlands adjacent to
waters [other than waters that are themselves wetlands].
Non-tidal Waters of the U.S. The limits of jurisdiction in non-tidal waters: In the
absence of adjacent wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark, or
when adjacent wetlands are present, the jurisdiction extends to the limit of the adjacent
wetlands.
The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the
fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line
impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial
vegetation (scouring), the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that
consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
Waters of the U.S. must exhibit an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or other evidence of
surface flow created by hydrologic physical changes. These physical changes include (Riley
2005):
Natural line impressed on the bank Sediment sorting
Shelving
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Changes in the character of soil Scour
Destruction of terrestrial vegetation
Deposition
Presence of litter and debris Multiple observed flow events
A-2
Wracking Bed and banks
Vegetation matted down, bent, or
absent
Water staining
Change in plant community
Jurisdictional areas also must be connected to Waters of the U.S. (Guzy and Anderson 2001;
U.S. Supreme Court 2001).
As a consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States, a
memorandum was developed regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction (Grumbles and Woodley
2007). The memorandum states that the EPA and the Corps will assert jurisdiction over
traditional navigable waters (TNW), wetlands adjacent to TNW, tributaries to TNWs that are a
relatively permanent water body (RPW), and wetlands adjacent to TNW. An RPW has year
round flow or continuous seasonal flow (i.e., typically for three months or longer). Jurisdiction
over other waters (i.e., non TNW and RPW) will be based on a fact specific analysis to
determine if they have a significant nexus to a TNW.
Pursuant to the Corps Instructional Guidebook (Corps and EPA 2007), the significant nexus
evaluation will cover the subject reach of the stream (upstream and downstream) as well as its
adjacent wetlands (Illustrations 2 through 6, Corps and EPA 2007). The evaluation will include
the flow characteristics, annual precipitation, ability to provide habitat for aquatic species, ability
to retain floodwaters and filter pollutants, proximity of the subject reach to a TNW, drainage
area, and the watershed.
Wetland Criteria
Wetland boundaries are determined using three mandatory criteria (hydrophytic vegetation,
wetland hydrology, and hydric soil) established for wetland delineations and described within the
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Interim Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Corps
2006). Following is a brief discussion of the three criteria and how they are evaluated.
Vegetation
“Hydrophytic vegetation is defined herein as the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs
in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently
or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant
species present” (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
The wetland indicator status (obligate upland, facultative upland, facultative, facultative wetland,
obligate wetland, or no indicator status) of the dominant plant species of all vegetative layers is
determined. Species considered to be hydrophytic include the classifications of facultative,
facultative wetland, and obligate wetland as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1988;
Table A-1). The percent of dominant wetland plant species is calculated. The hydrophytic
vegetation criterion is considered to be met if it meets the “Dominance Test,” “Prevalence
Index,” or the vegetation has morphological adaptations for prolonged inundation.
A-3
Table A-1
DEFINITIONS OF PLANT INDICATOR CATEGORIES
Indicator
Categories Abbreviation Probability of Occurring in Wetlands
Obligate wetland OBL Occur almost exclusively in wetlands
Facultative
wetland FACW Usually found in wetlands (66 to 99 percent probability)
but occasionally in uplands
Facultative FAC Equally likely to occur in wetland (34 to 66 percent
probability) or non-wetland
Facultative upland FACU Usually occur in non-wetlands but occasionally found
in wetlands
Obligate upland UPL Occur almost exclusively in non-wetlands
No indicator NI Inconclusive status
Hydrology
“The term ‘wetland hydrology’ encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are
periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing
season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of
water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic
reducing conditions, respectively” (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the
surface for at least 5 percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year (approximately
18 days for most of low-lying southern California). Hydrology criteria are evaluated based on
the characteristics listed below (Corps 2006). Where positive indicators of wetland hydrology
are present, the limit of the OHWM (or the limit of adjacent wetlands) is noted and mapped.
Evidence of wetland hydrology is met by the presence of a single primary indicator or two
secondary indicators.
Primary
Primary (continued)
surface water (A1) presence of reduced iron (C4)
high water table (A2) recent iron reduction in plowed soils (C8)
saturation (A3)
water marks (B1; non-riverine) Secondary
sediment deposits (B2; non-riverine)
watermarks (B1; riverine)
drift deposits (B3; non-riverine) sediment deposits (B2; riverine)
surface soil cracks (B6) drift deposits (B3; riverine)
inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) drainage patterns (B10)
water-stained leaves (B9) dry-season water table (C2)
salt crust (B11) thin muck surface (C7)
biotic crust (B12)
crayfish burrows (C8)
A-4
aquatic invertebrates (B13) saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9)
hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) shallow aquitard (D3)
oxidized rhizospheres along living roots
(C3)
FAC-neutral test (D5)
In the absence of all other hydrologic indicators and in the absence of significant modifications
of an area’s hydrologic function, positive hydric soil characteristics are assumed to indicate
positive wetland hydrology. This assumption applies unless the site visit was done during the
wet season of a normal or wetter-than-normal year. Under those circumstances, wetland
hydrology would not be present.
Soils
“A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long
enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (Natural
Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] 2004).
Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic
saturation. Soil matrix and mottle colors are identified at each sampling plot using a Munsell
soil color chart (Kollmorgen 1994). Generally, an 18-inch or deeper pit is excavated with a
shovel at each sampling plot unless refusal occurs above 18 inches.
Soils in each area are closely examined for hydric soil indicators, including the characteristics
listed below. Hydric soil indicators are presented in three groups. Indicators for “All Soils” (A)
are used in any soil regardless of texture, indicators for “Sandy Soils” (S) area used in soil layers
with USDA textures of loamy fine sand or coarser, and indicators for “Loamy and Clayey Soils”
(F) are used with soil layers of loamy very fine sand and finer (Corps 2006).
histosols (A1)
histic epipedons (A2)
black histic (A3)
sulfidic odor (A4)
stratified layers (A5)
1 cm muck (A9)
depleted below dark surface (A11)
thick dark surface (A12)
sandy mucky mineral (S1)
sandy gleyed matrix (S4)
sandy redox (S5)
stripped matrix (S6)
loamy mucky mineral (F1)
loamy gleyed matrix (F2)
depleted matrix (F3)
redox dark surface (F6)
depleted dark surface (F7)
redox depressions (F8)
vernal pools (F9)
2 cm muck (A10)
reduced vertic (F18)
red parent material (TF2; indicator is
currently being tested by NRCS).
Hydric soils may be assumed to be present in plant communities that have complete dominance
of obligate or facultative wetland species. In some cases, there is only inundation during the
growing season and determination must be made by direct observation during that season,
recorded hydrologic data, testimony of reliable persons, and/or indication on aerial photographs.
A-5
Non-wetland Waters of the U.S.
The non-wetland Waters of the U.S. designation is met when an area has periodic surface flows
but lacks sufficient indicators to meet the hydrophytic vegetation and/or hydric soils criteria. For
purposes of delineation and jurisdictional designation, the non-wetland Waters of the U.S.
boundary in non-tidal areas is the OHWM as described in the Section 404 regulations (33 CFR
Part 328).
USGS Mapping
The USGS Quad maps are one of the resources used to aid in the identification and mapping of
jurisdictional areas. Their primary uses include understanding the subregional landscape
position of a site, major topographical features, and a project’s position in the watershed.
In our experience the designation of watercourse as a blue-line stream (intermittent or perennial)
on USGS maps has been unreliable and typically overstates the hydrology of most streams. This
has also been the experience of others, including the late Luna Leopold. Leopold was a
hydrologist with USGS from 1952 to 1972, Professor in the Department of Geology and
Geophysics, and Department of Landscape Architecture, University of California, Berkeley from
1972 to 1986, and Professor Emeritus from 1987 until his death in 2006. In regard to stream
mapping on USGS maps, Dr. Leopold opined that “. . . blue lines on a map are drawn by
nonprofessional, low-salaried personnel. In actual fact, they are drawn to fit a rather
personalized aesthetic.”
A-6
REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. 100 pp. with Appendices.
Grumbles, B.H. and J.P. Woodley, Jr. 2007. Memorandum: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v.
United States. June 5. 12 pp.
Guzy, G.S. and R.M. Anderson. 2001. Memorandum: Supreme Court Ruling Concerning
CWA Jurisdiction Over Isolated Waters. U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Revised edition.
Baltimore, MD.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2004. Hydric Soils of the U.S. Internet web
site. URL: http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/mlra02/abouthyd.html.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region
0). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. 88 (26.10). 135 pp.
Riley, D.T. 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark. RGL No. 05-05. 4 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional
Guidebook. May 30. 60 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
2006. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Arid West Region. Eds. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS; U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center.
U.S. Supreme Court. 2001. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, No. 99-1178 (SWANCC). January 9.
Appendix B
STATE JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION
B-1
Appendix B
STATE JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION
California Department of Fish and Game Regulations
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG; Department) regulates alterations or
impacts to streambeds or lakes (wetlands) under Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through
1616 for any private, state, or local government or public utility-initiated projects. The Fish and
Game Code Section 1602 requires any entity to notify the Department before beginning any
activity that will do one or more of the following: (1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural
flow of a river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed,
channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other
material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream,
or lake. Fish and Game Code Section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral
rivers and streams as well as lakes in the state.
In order to notify the Department, a person, state, or local governmental agency or public utility
must submit a complete notification package and fee to the Department regional office that
serves the county where the activity will take place. A fee schedule is included in the
notification package materials. Under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Sections
65920 et seq.), the Department has 30 days to determine whether the package is complete. If the
requestor is not notified within 30 days, the application is automatically deemed to be complete.
Once the notification package is deemed to be complete, the Department will determine whether
the applicant will need a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for the activity, which
will be required if the activity could substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife
resource. If an SAA is required, the Department will conduct an on-site inspection, if necessary,
and submit a draft SAA that will include measures to protect fish and wildlife resources while
conducting the project. If the applicant is applying for a regular SAA (less than five years), the
Department will submit a draft SAA within 60 calendar days after notification is deemed
complete. The 60-day time period does not apply to notifications for long-term SAAs (greater
than five years).
After the applicant receives the SAA, the applicant has 30 calendar days to notify the
Department whether the measures in the draft SAA are acceptable. If the applicant agrees with
the measures included in the draft SAA, the applicant will need to sign the SAA and submit it to
the Department. If the applicant disagrees with any measures in the draft SAA, the applicant
must notify the Department in writing and specify the measures that are not acceptable. Upon
written request, the Department will meet with the applicant within 14 calendar days of receiving
the request to resolve the disagreement. If the applicant fails to respond in writing within 90
calendar days of receiving the draft SAA, the Department may withdraw that SAA. The time
periods described above may be extended at any time by mutual agreement.
After the Department receives the signed draft SAA, the Department will make it final by
signing the SAA; however, the Department will not sign the SAA until it both receives the
notification fee and ensures that the SAA complies with the California Environmental Quality
B-2
Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). After the applicant receives the final
agreement, the applicant may begin the project the agreement covers, provided that the applicant
has obtained any other necessary federal, state and/or local authorizations.
Water Resource Control Board Regulations
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Whenever a project requires a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit or a Rivers
and Harbors Act Section 10 permit, it must first obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the 401
Certification program. Federal CWA Section 401 requires that every applicant for a Section 404
permit must request a Water Quality Certification that the proposed activity will not violate state
and federal water quality standards.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCB regulate the discharge of
waste to waters of the State via the 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-
Cologne) as described in the California Water Code (SWRCB 2008). The California Water
Code is the State’s version of the Federal CWA. Waste, according to the California Water Code,
includes sewage and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, or radioactive,
associated with human habitation, or of human or animal origin, or from any producing,
manufacturing, or processing operation, including waste placed within containers of whatever
nature prior to, and for purposes of, disposal. State waters that are not federal waters may be
regulated under Porter-Cologne. A Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB
for projects that result in discharge of waste into waters of the State. The RWQCB will issue
Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or a waiver. The WDRs are the Porter-Cologne version
of a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification.
REFERENCES
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. 2002. Guide to Watershed Project
Permitting for the State of California. Available at URL:
http://www.carcd.org/permitting/pguide.pdf.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through
1616.
Date unknown. Streambed/Lake Alteration Notification Guidelines.
Appendix C
REPRESENTATIVE SITE PHOTOS
J/PROJECTS/Biology/N/NCL-01 Arcadia JD/JD Photo Pages
Representative Site Photos
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
Appendix C
Upper section of CDFW jurisdictional
drainage. Photo taken at fork in drainage
and is looking north. 2 February 2012.
Lower section of CDFW jurisdictional
drainage. Jurisdictional area is 7 feet wide at
this location. Overstory here is provided by
non-native eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) and
pine (Pinus sp.) trees. Photo taken looking
southeast. 2 February 2012.
J/PROJECTS/Biology/N/NCL-01 Arcadia JD/JD Photo Pages
Representative Site Photos
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
Appendix C
Evidence of any surface fow in the on-site CDFW drainage is absent at the southern boundary
of the project. 2 February 2012. Photo taken looking east.
Evidence of any surface fow in the on-site CDFW drainage is absent at the southern boundary
of the project. 2 February 2012. Photo taken looking northwest.
J/PROJECTS/Biology/N/NCL-01 Arcadia JD/JD Photo Pages
Representative Site Photos
NEVIS HOMES, TRACT NO. 51941
Appendix C
The on-site CDFW drainage fows off site to the south. Any water leaving the site
fows into a concrete lined drainage along the sides of a tennis court.
Photo taken looking south. 2 February 2012.
Several ravines exist on site that are non-
jurisdictional. This photo is of the second
largest ravine. It is located between the
north-south ridge and western ravine,
near the southern boundary of the
project. Note there is abundant leaf litter
and no evidence of surface fow (e.g., bed
and bank, wrack lines, etc.). Photo taken
looking north. 2 February 2012.
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
OF CANYON ESTATES IN ARCADIA,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Nevis Calvert, LLC
650 W. Huntington Dr. Suite 201
Ardadia, California 91007
Prepared by:
Tony Tri Quach
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
2034 Corte del Nogal
Carlsbad, California 92011
March 2012
PN 19250
Keywords: Arcadia, Los Angeles, County, Rancho Santa Anita
Table of Contents
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iii
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
2. CULTURAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 5
ETHNOHISTORIC BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 5
ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 7
Early Millingstone Period (10,000 - 3500 years B.P.) ................................................... 7
Intermediate Period (3500 - 800 years B.P.) .................................................................. 9
Late Prehistoric/Canaliño (800 to 200 years B.P.) ....................................................... 10
HISTORIC BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 10
Spanish and Mexican Eras ........................................................................................... 10
American (United States) Era ...................................................................................... 10
The City of Arcadia 1903-1950 ................................................................................... 12
3. NATURAL SETTING.......................................................................................... 17
4. RECORDS SEARCH ........................................................................................... 19
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................. 20
P-19-150025 (P-19-150026) ........................................................................................ 20
P-19-186535 ................................................................................................................. 20
P-19-187819 ................................................................................................................. 21
5. FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS ................................................................. 23
6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 25
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 27
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 33
APPENDIX A. Record Search – Confidential
APPENDIX B. NAHC Letter
Table of Contents
ii CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Location map of the project area. ........................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Vicinity map of the project area.............................................................................. 3
Figure 3. Historic map of the Pasadena/Santa Ana area around the turn of the
twentieth century (USGS 1898 Pasadena map). ................................................... 12
Figure 4. Primary and secondary school (Monrovia-Arcadia-Duarte High School)
enrollment figures from Ebery 1953 with decadal population census
information depicting the growth of the community of Arcadia in the
beginning of the twentieth century. The scale is presented logarithmically. ........ 13
Figure 5. Aerial view of the project area surveyed. ............................................................. 23
Figure 6. Upward approach to the tract showing heavy vegetation and a steep slope
(view southwest). .................................................................................................. 24
Figure 7. Overview of the overall ground visibility. ............................................................ 24
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Cultural Resource Reports Addressing Areas within 1/2 mi. of the Project
APE ....................................................................................................................... 19
Table 2. Cultural Resources Previously Recorded within 1/2 mi. of the Project’s
APEs ..................................................................................................................... 20
Abstract
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA iii
ABSTRACT
This report describes the results of an archaeological survey conducted by ASM Affiliates, Inc.
(ASM) to assess the potential effects of development activities on cultural resources related to
the construction of a proposed housing tract in Arcadia, Los Angeles County. A records search
and cultural resource survey was conducted by ASM to assist Nevis Calvert, LLC, in its
compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well
as to closely implement proposed project activities in accordance to stated Policies and Goals of
the City of Arcadia General Plan and the certified accompanying Environmental Impact Report.
A records search including the area within a 1/2-mile (mi.) radius of the proposed project area
indicated that there are three previously recorded cultural resources within the ½-mi. buffer but
that no previously recorded cultural resources were directly within the proposed project
boundary. ASM also contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a
records search of their Sacred Land Files to identify any traditional cultural properties or sacred
sites within 0.5 mi. of the project area. The reply from the NAHC stated that no current reported
areas of concern are on file within their records. A directed cultural resource survey was then
conducted, with no cultural resources observed during the study. In summary, no cultural
resources were identified during the current survey of the proposed project area. As such, no
further cultural resource work is recommended for this project.
1. Introduction
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the results of an archaeological survey conducted by ASM Affiliates, Inc.
(ASM) for a proposed housing tract in Arcadia, California in Northern Los Angeles County in
the northwest Quadrant of Section 15 of Township 1 North, Range 11 West shown on the USGS
Mount Wilson 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed project area consists of a
proposed housing tract located between Canyon Road and Chantry Flat Road. Two main housing
structures will be built on a graded portion of the hilltop with accompanying infrastructure and
utilities. A proposed roadway will also be constructed from the ground level of Canyon Road
that will loop upward around the southern portion hillside to the top of the hill. Brush will be
cleared from the portions directly within the structural footprint while areas of extent vegetation
outside of the structural footprint will remain.
ASM was contracted by Nevis Calvert, LLC to conduct a records search and an archaeological
survey to access the possibility of adverse effects upon local cultural and historical resources by
proposed project operations. The purpose of the records search and survey was to assist Nevis
Calvert, LLC, in its compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). On March 8, 2012, ASM Associate Archaeologist Tony T. Quach conducted a
records search with the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) and the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) for 1/2-mi. radius around the proposed project area, respectively
(Appendices A and B). On March 2nd, 2012, ASM Associate Archaeologist Tony Quach
conducted a directed pedestrian survey of the proposed project area.
1. Introduction
2 CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
Figure 1. Location map of the project area.
1. Introduction
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 3
Figure 2. Vicinity map of the project area.
2. Cultural Background
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 5
2. CULTURAL BACKGROUND
ETHNOHISTORIC BACKGROUND
No previously documented archaeological sites exist within the current study area though it is
known that an ethnohistoric Gabrielino community called Aluupkenga [alternative spelling
Aleupkigna, once existed in the area of present day Arcadia (Reid 1968)]. Overall, the study area
falls within the ethnographic territory of the Takic-speaking Gabrielino. “Gabrielino” as a term is
of course of Spanish derivation, resulting from the standard missionary practice of naming
indigenous peoples after the mission to which they were attached-- in this case Mission San
Gabriel. True indigenous names included Kij or Kizh (Johnston 1962; Reid 1968), the etymology
of which is unknown; Kumivit, “easterner”; and Tobikhar, etymology, again, unknown (Bean
and Smith 1978a:548), although it is not clear that any of these terms were actually employed by
the Gabrielino as self-referents (see below). Thus, although “Gabrielino” is in some senses
inappropriate, it continues in standard usage, though increasingly the utilization of the term
“Tongva” has been adopted by affiliated groups and subgroups in current times (Welch 2006:2).
Regardless of appellative, what historically have been referred to collectively as the Gabrielino
extended from Orange County north through the Los Angeles Basin to the crest of the San
Gabriel Mountains, including the headwaters and watershed of the San Gabriel River, and from
the coast eastward to include Mt. San Antonio (Mt. Baldy) and western Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties. To the west, Gabrielino territory extended to Topanga Canyon, and
included the San Fernando Valley (Kroeber 1925:Plate 57; Johnston 1962; Bean and Smith
1978a:538).
Although the Gabrielino were heavily impacted by missionization (Bean and Smith 1978a:538),
various sources, and analogies with better known surrounding groups, can be employed to
reconstruct aspects of their ethnographic lifeways. For example, they and the linguistically-
related Serrano shared many, if not most, cultural traits (Kroeber 1925:578-580; Bean 1972:69,
1978:575-576). We base the following reconstruction, accordingly, on Gabrielino, Serrano and
Cahuilla sources (e.g., for the Gabrielino, see Dakin 1939, Reid 1968, Kroeber 1925, Johnston
1962, and Bean and Smith 1978a; for the Serrano, see Benedict 1924, Kroeber 1925, Strong
1929, and Bean and Smith 1978b; for the Cahuilla, see Barrows 1900, Kroeber 1908, 1925,
Hooper 1920, Strong 1929, Bean 1972, 1978; and Bean and Saubel 1972, etc.).
The term “Gabrielino” strictly applies to groups of people united only by the use of the
Gabrielino language (itself a Cupan language of the Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic
family). That is, it implies no necessary sociopolitical unity (as in a single 'tribe') and, in fact, a
series of different political units may have existed among the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish
contact, explaining why they had no generic term for themselves as a unified corporate unit.
Further, there may have been as many as six dialectical variants of the larger Gabrielino
language (Kroeber 1925:620), the best known of which is Fernandeño, which was localized in
the San Fernando Valley (cf. Englehardt 1927).
2. Cultural Background
6 CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
Based on these ethnographic sources combined with early Spanish accounts, we may infer that
the inhabitants of the region were hunters-gatherers, with subsistence emphasizing acorns, yucca,
juniper berries, sage seeds, mesquite, pinyon and islay (Chia) and other plant resources.
Following a sexual division of labor common throughout native California, women were
principally responsible for the acquisition and preparation of plant foods. Game was also hunted,
with small animals, such as rabbits/hares and rodents, probably representing more significant
contributions of meat protein than larger game, such as deer. Women and children contributed to
the hunting (often with nets and drives) of the smaller game. The large game, however, was the
exclusive domain of the adult male hunters. Also following practices common throughout the
state, specific resources exploited at any given time were a function of what was then seasonally
available. Since this was somewhat a function of time of year and elevation, a pattern of
transhumance was followed, indicating that only a few of the local villages (exclusive of those
on the coast) would have been inhabited year around. Instead, inhabitation followed a pattern of
population aggregation into large villages, usually during the Fall/Winter, when stored resources
like acorns and pinyon nuts were eaten, and dispersal into single family units, typically during
the Spring/Summer, when resources were more widely distributed.
It is likely that the Gabrielino wintered in large villages near permanent water sources on the
coast and on the larger Los Angeles Basin floor. Upland zones, such as are found in the Santa
Monica and San Gabriel Mountains and foothills, would have been exploited seasonally, during
the Spring, Summer and Fall, when valuable plant species ripened (e.g., on the northern slopes,
pinyon nuts in the fall). Small, single family camp-sites would have been established near to the
plant resources at this time.
Social and political organization can be assumed to have been similar to the well-described
systems of the Cahuilla (see Strong 1929; Bean 1972, 1978). These involved patrilineal moieties
and clans of 3 to 10 lineages that served as political-ritual-corporate units (Bean 1978:580). Each
lineage maintained a village site and resource exploitation area. The office of the ceremonial
leader was usually restricted to the founding lineage of the clan, which also owned the
ceremonial house and ceremonial bundle. Each lineage had its own lineage leader who served in
a variety of sacred and secular capacities, and who met with other such leaders to adjudicate
inter-lineage disputes. This office was hereditary and patrilineal. He was assisted in many tasks
and responsibilities by a paxa, or assistant, also an inherited office. Ceremonial song-leaders also
aided in ritual activities (ibid).
It is also likely that religion followed the patterns found among surrounding groups. In this case,
shamanism would have functioned as the central element. This posits a direct and personal
relationship between each individual and the supernatural world, with this relationship enacted
by entering a trance or hallucinatory state (usually based on the ingestion of psychotropic plants,
such as jimsonweed or native tobacco). Shamans, per se, were considered individuals with an
unusual degree of supernatural power, and served as healers or curers, diviners, and controllers
of natural phenomena (such as rain or thunder). Shamans are also known to have produced the
rock art of this region, which depicted the hallucinations and spirits they observed in their vision
quests. In addition, however, rock art was also painted by male and female initiates at the
conclusion of a puberty ritual. Importantly, this initiatory art was also intended to display the
spirit helpers the initiates received during these ceremonies. Thus, two kinds of ethnographic
2. Cultural Background
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 7
rock art can be expected in the region: sites owned and made by shamans, and sites used for
village initiations (Whitley 1992).
ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
The study area, lying in eastern Los Angeles County, California, is situated in a zone known
prehistorically to have comprised a portion of the prehistoric Canaliño culture area (Rogers
1929; Wallace 1955), and historically to have been located within the territory of the Gabrielino
ethnolinguistic group (Kroeber 1925; Johnston 1962; Bean and Smith 1978a). We summarize
our current understanding of the Canaliño prehistory below.
Regional prehistory is best viewed in reference to a chronological scheme that has its origins in
the research of D.B. Rogers (1929), working on the Channel Islands and the Santa Barbara
coastline. At a later date, Rogers' scheme was modified in terminology and improved with
additional and more detailed data and radiocarbon dates by W.J. Wallace (1955), who applied it
to southern California more generally. Subsequently, the Rogers/Wallace chronology had been
successfully applied to inland Los Angeles County (e.g., McIntyre 1990), and is now recognized
as having applicability to a wide area of mesic (i.e., that area west of the xeric desert zone) Los
Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties. Due to the widespread
application of this chronological scheme, we employ Wallace's framework for the purposes of
this study.
Early Millingstone Period (10,000 - 3500 years B.P.)
With the transition towards a modern environment, starting approximately nine to ten thousand
years ago, an adaptation referred to as the Early Millingstone Period or Horizon began. This is
particularly evident along the coast, where many such sites are found, although a few examples
are known from the inland region. Most sites of this stage date between 8500 and 3500 years in
age.
Recent studies by Erlandson (1988; see also Erlandson and Colton 1991) provide evidence of a
significant, even if small, population of coastal hunter-gatherers in the region before 7000 years
ago, or essentially at the beginning of this Early Millingstone period. He has shown that these
were neither Big Game hunters, nor specialized, hard-seed gatherers, but instead generalized
foragers that relied on a variety of different kinds of terrestrial, coastal and marine resources, and
that they were adapted to estuarine embayments that have long-since disappeared from the local
environment. Further, his evidence indicates that their primary protein sources were shellfish and
other marine resources. Extending a pattern first identified by Meighan (1959) on the Channel
Islands, in other words, this suggests that the adaptation to the seashore is a very ancient and
long-lived tradition in local prehistory.
In the inland region, perhaps the earliest evidence of the Early Millingstone Period is provided
by so-called Los Angeles Woman, a female skeleton found in the La Brea Tar Pits which has
been radiocarbon dated to 9000 years B.P. Lacking clearly associated artifacts or other remains,
it is difficult to interpret the Los Angeles Woman beyond observing simply that her discovery
signals the fact that the inland region was in use shortly after the end of the Late Pleistocene.
2. Cultural Background
8 CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
Later Early Millingstone sites (post-dating approximately 6000 years B.P.) are dominated by
assemblages containing large numbers of groundstone artifacts, along with crude choppers,
scraper planes, and other core/cobble tools. These are thought to represent an adaptation to
gathered plant foods, especially a reliance on hard-shelled seeds. Accordingly, it has been
common practice to identify any site with a dominance of these plant processing implements as
Early Millingstone in age. More recently, it has also been suggested that scraper planes, in
particular, may have served in the processing of agave (Kowta 1969; Salls 1985); that the
association of groundstone and core/cobble tools represents a generalized plant processing
toolkit, rather than one emphasizing hard-seeds, per se (Whitley 1979), and that this toolkit was
used in appropriate environmental settings throughout the prehistoric past. That is, that the so-
called millingstone toolkit is environmentally rather than chronologically specific and reflects
localized exploitative patterns, rather than a chronologically-specific adaptational strategy
(Kowta 1969; Leonard 1971; McIntyre 1990). Thus, many inland sites identified as dating to the
Early Millingstone Period solely on the basis of their groundstone toolkits may, in fact, not be of
such age at all. However, on the coastal strip there continues to be evidence that such sites date
to the earlier end of the time-frame. These sites are generally located on terraces and mesas,
above the coastal verge, near permanent streams.
Although Early Millingstone period sites are relatively common along the coast, there is little
evidence for the occupation of the inland region during this early time period. That is, although
the millingstone adaptation to seeds and plants, and toolkits dominated by plant processing tools,
are present in the inland zone, they appear to date to a later time period, with true Early
Millingstone period occupation apparently restricted to the coastal strip, proper (Whitley and
Beaudry 1991; cf. Leonard 1971; McIntyre 1990). Again, it is currently unclear whether this
pattern reflects real differences in inland versus coastal settlement distributions, or is simply a
function of site preservation problems in the inland region. Whatever the cause, it is worth noting
that there are currently no reliable or plausible (even reasonably-so) chronometric dates from
inland sites that are Early Millingstone in age. All current temporal assignments of inland sites to
the Early Millingstone period are based on putative diagnostic artifacts but, when these are
examined critically, the verity of the early age assignments become dubious. And, too often, such
early age assignments are based on functional/adaptive traits rather than stylistic criteria, thus
confusing adaptive patterns for temporal ones.
A good example of the confusion of millingstone functional and adaptational patterns for Early
Millingstone chronological diagnostics in inland Los Angeles County is provided by the so-
called “Topanga Culture”, as exemplified by excavations at CA-LAN-1, the “Tank Site” (cf.
Heizer and Lemert 1947; Treganza and Malamud 1950; Treganza and Bierman 1958). This is
widely regarded as “Early Millingstone” chronologically, and its base (“Phase I”) has been
assigned 10,000 years of age, essentially due to the large numbers of millingstones, crude
choppers and “cog stones” (see Treganza and Bierman 1958:75,Table 1). But, as Johnson (1966)
has rightly pointed out, Phase III of the Topanga Culture is only 3000 years old, as demonstrated
by his excavations at CA-LAN-2. That is, it is Intermediate and not Early Millingstone in age. It
then must follow that the preceding Phase II can only be considered 3500 to 3000 years old, due
to the presence of (Intermediate period) mortars and pestles in the Phase II assemblage. That is,
Phase II of the Topanga Culture also can only be Intermediate period in age. Since Phase I lies
conformably and immediately below Phase II stratigraphically, it likewise must follow that it
2. Cultural Background
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 9
immediately pre-dates the Intermediate period Phase II remains. At best, then, Phase I of the
Topanga Culture is terminal Early Millingstone or transitional Early Millingstone/Intermediate,
but not necessarily of any great antiquity. This fact is emphasized when it is recognized that one
of the key classes of temporal diagnostics said to support the very early age assignment for Phase
I, the cog stones, were all recovered from the Phase II deposit, even though Treganza and
Bierman (1958) incorrectly assign them to the Phase I assemblage (Eberhart 1961:366-7). Thus,
there is currently no evidence to suggest any great antiquity for Phase I of the Topanga culture;
instead it may simply be 4000, rather than 10,000 years in age, and may represent an early
manifestation of the Intermediate Period movement of a millingstone adaptation into the interior,
rather than a manifestation of a coastal Early Millingstone culture in the inland zone. This
appears to represent the first recognizable occupation of the inland Los Angeles County region.
Intermediate Period (3500 - 800 years B.P.)
As implied above, a transitional stage followed the Early Millingstone, which is referred to as the
Intermediate Period (Wallace 1955). It is believed to have begun about 3500 years ago, and to
have lasted until about A.D. 1200 (according to the latest revisions; cf. Arnold 1987). It is
marked on the coast by a growing exploitation of marine resources, the appearance of the hopper
mortar and stone bowl/mortar, and a diversification and an increase in the number of chipped
stone tools. Projectile points, in particular, are more common at sites than previously, while
artifacts such as fish hooks and bone gorges also appear.
As noted above, cog stones also first appear during the Intermediate Period. These are relatively
small, flat cobbles, about the size of a large biscuit, that were shaped to resemble a kind of
mechanical cog or gear. Although the function of these is unknown, it is likely they served as
ceremonial objects, and their geographical distribution has an important implication for regional
prehistory. As first noted by Eberhart (1961), cog stones are only found from Los Angeles
County south and eastward; that is, they are absent in the areas of the Santa Barbara Channel
region (Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties) that, historically, were occupied by Chumash-
speaking groups. Although speculative, this suggests that the initial distinction between the
Hokan Chumash and Takic-speaking groups (which included the Gabrielino) may have
developed as early as 3500 years ago (cf. Kowta 1969:50; McIntyre 1990:5), rather than only
1500 years B.P., as Kroeber (1925) first hypothesized. That is, the distribution of these
“ceremonial” artifacts essentially follows the boundaries of ethnolinguistic groups during the
historical period, suggesting that such boundaries may have been more-or-less stable for about
3500 years.
As also implied above, there is growing evidence that it was at the beginning of this Intermediate
Period that inland sites, such as those found in the Conejo Corridor on the north side of the Santa
Monica Mountains, the upper Santa Clarita Valley, the Antelope Valley, and western Riverside
and San Bernardino Counties, were first established and occupied. Whether this pattern holds for
the interior Los Angeles Basin has yet to be determined, but it seems likely. This suggests the
exploitation of more varied environments and perhaps an increase in population at this time and,
again, it may correlate with Kroeber's “Shoshonean Wedge” moving into mesic southern
California at circa 3500 years B.P. (Whitley et al n.d.; cf. Whitley and Beaudry 1991). In
general, however, the Intermediate Period can be argued to have set the stage for the accelerated
changes that took place immediately following it.
2. Cultural Background
10 CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
Late Prehistoric/Canaliño (800 to 200 years B.P.)
With the transition to the Canaliño or Late Prehistoric period at A.D. 1200, we can correlate
local prehistory with the ethnographic societies as described (even if in abbreviated form) by
early chroniclers and missionaries. However, this is not to suggest that local societies and
cultures were in any way static, for the transition to the Canaliño period was marked by the
evolution and eventual dominance of a sophisticated maritime economy. Further, among the
Chumash to the west, a rise in social complexity has been shown to have been associated with
the development of craft specialization, involving the use of standardized micro-drills to mass
produce shell beads on Santa Cruz Island (Arnold 1987), which occurred during this period.
This, apparently, contributed if not caused the appearance of a simple chiefdom in the southern
Chumash region (cf. Whitley and Clewlow 1979; Whitley and Beaudry 1991).
Although we do not have evidence that the Gabrielino developed into a chiefdom like the
neighboring Chumash, the Canaliño period nonetheless witnessed a florescence of local
aboriginal culture paralleling the Chumash case. This included a substantial growth in
population, the establishment of permanent settlements on the coast (and probably at favored
locales in the inland), a high degree of sociopolitical complexity, and the development of a very
sophisticated maritime economy. It was during the Canaliño period, thus, that the occupants of
the Santa Barbara Channel and Los Angeles County region achieved levels of cultural and social
sophistication perhaps unrivaled by hunter-gatherer-fisher groups anywhere else in the world
(Wallace 1955; Johnston 1962; Landberg 1965; Brown 1967).
HISTORIC BACKGROUND
Spanish and Mexican Eras
Spain established the mission system in Alta California in 1769 (McWilliams 1946:28). This,
along with the land grant system, was an avenue to colonization. Presidios were established to
protect settlers, the mission, and to convert the native inhabitants of the area into Catholic
citizens (Fogelson 1967:6). Burdensome labor requirements, new diseases and new diets took its
toll on the Native Californians (McWilliams 1946:41). The system also served to disrupt
previously existing Native Californian social systems and cultural practices (Reid 1895:25). On
September 8th, 1771 the Mission of San Gabriel was established on the Rio Hondo to service the
overall Los Angeles area and Rancho Santa Anita (at the time encompassing approximately 21
square miles), was established as a midsized land holding (Eberly 1953:2). Mexico gained its
independence from Spain in 1821 and desecularized the missions in 1834 prompting a massive
redistribution of church owned properties and holdings to the few hands of baronial Dons
(McWilliams 1946:38). Mexico continued to grant land to settlers throughout this short lived
period of Mexican rule. In 1841 Hugo Reid acquired the title to Rancho Santa Anita (at the time
consisting of 13,319 acres of what is now Arcadia, Monrovia, Sierra Madre, San Marino, and
Pasadena) through his marriage to widower Dona Eulalia Perez (Eberly 1953:6).
American (United States) Era
After Mexican California became part of the United States in 1848 and California became a state
in the Union in 1850, many rancho land grantees had to prove their ownership through deed and
2. Cultural Background
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 11
survey (McWilliams 1946:62). Heavy property taxes on large holdings also presented an
additional burden to the ownership of large tracts for ranching (Fogelson 1967:13). This
prompted an additional reduction of land holdings that existed under the previous system during
the disastrous drought years of 1862-1864 where the estimated cattle losses approached 71
percent (McWiliams 1946:62). In 1848 the discovery of substantial gold deposits in the
mountains of Northern California prompted a massive influx of Americans displacing the native
Mexican (Californio) population. The new primarily Anglo-American settlers impacted the
environment with mining, ranching, horticulture, agriculture, and logging. During this time
period the orientation of the self sufficient Rancho in Southern California shifted towards a more
interdependent market of midsized farms that operated for the benefit of export to the east coast
markets and San Francisco (Fogelson 1967:20). During this time period Los Angeles grew to a
population of around 20,000 by 1885 from a modest population of 4,385 in 1860 (Fogelson
1967:21).
Hugo Reid was likewise no stranger to financial hardships during this time period. Reid soon
tired of sprawling Ranch holdings under constant financial stresses and in 1847 passed
ownership of Rancho Santa Ana to his business associate Henry Dalton (Eberly 1953:10). The
ownership of Rancho Santa Anita then changed hands from Joseph A. Rowe in 1854 to Albert
Diblee and his compatriots in 1858. Several more land transaction occurred that further divided
up portions of Rancho Santa Anita until Elias “Lucky” Baldwin acquired the primary portion of
the ranch for $200,000 dollars (Eberly 1953:26).
The construction and implementation of the railroad was an essential element in the development
of the western United States and Arcadia. In 1884 the Santa Fe Line was established in Cajon
pass providing traffic into eastern Los Angeles County from Colton into Los Angeles (Fogelson
1967:61). This precipitated a massive rise in land prices within the San Gabriel Valley where
Baldwin further subdivided his holdings into the beginnings of what we now know as Arcadia at
the turn of the twentieth century (Figure 3).
2. Cultural Background
12 CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
Figure 3. Historic map of the Pasadena/Santa Ana area around the turn of the twentieth
century (USGS 1898 Pasadena map).
The City of Arcadia 1903-1950
Historical information on the city of Arcadia was primarily derived by the retrospective account
of Gordon Eberly (1953) who witnessed much of the growth of the city of Arcadia through the
first half of the twentieth century. All the historical information provided is derived from these
this primary account unless otherwise noted. The city started out primarily as a ranching rural
community that then transitioned into a more commercial suburban community. The entire
history of the City of Arcadia as with most Southern California communities is one of
exponential population growth and urbanization. (Figure 4).
Arcadia was first incorporated as a city in 1903 with several land annexations and concessions in
the beginning until the borders of the city of Arcadia as we know it today was firmly stabilized
by 1908. The early years of the city witnessed the construction of the first grammar school in
1903 and the establishment of the structures that would form the seat of government in the early
1900’s. In the beginning the general industry of this region was primarily agrarian with much of
2. Cultural Background
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 13
the land undeveloped. The population at the time of founding was around 360 people, with the
land devoted to ranching and the growing of oranges. The main feature of the Arcadia at the time
consisted of Baldwin Ranch and the Oakwood Hotel. The Santa Anita racetrack that opened in
1907 formed one of the key attractions for the region for a few short years prior to the state ban
on horse racing in 1907. One of the early notable events of the city was the destruction of the
Oakwood hotel in 1911 due to fire which proved to be a short term setback to the early city
economy. The sale of alcoholic liquor was also banned by the city in 1912 due to moral
concerns.
Figure 4. Primary and secondary school (Monrovia-Arcadia-Duarte High School)
enrollment figures from Ebery 1953 with decadal population census information
depicting the growth of the community of Arcadia in the beginning of the
twentieth century. The scale is presented logarithmically.
The era from 1913 to 1916 was a time when many of the larger land holdings became subdivided
into smaller tracts for sale. Much of the city’s initial infrastructure was developed during this
time period. The first wooden bridge over the Santa Anita wash was constructed in 1913, with
subsequent road expansions facilitating traffic and commerce from the greater Los Angeles area.
Street lights were placed in 1914 along the main streets of the city. The first baseball field was
built in 1913 and the city newspaper Arcadia Journal was established in 1915.
In 1917 America entered World War I and the Santa Anita racetrack was converted into a
training facility for war balloon training. The influx of soldiers for training activities stimulated
the local economy and the population of the city steadily grew. The global influenza outbreak
finally hit the city in 1919 shutting down commerce and government-- but only for a short period
of time. With the cessation of war activities following the armistice in 1918 the city witnessed
large amounts of growth. Land sales continued during this time and the economy shifted towards
2. Cultural Background
14 CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
the raising of poultry for meat and eggs. Japanese farmers settled in much of the underdeveloped
areas of Arcadia during this time period.
With increasing population and commerce the city embarked upon additional development
projects. The first city library was built in 1920 and a deal was reached by the city of Arcadia
and the Pacific Electric Railway in 1922 for the building of a station within the city further
promoting the development of transportation and commerce. In 1924 a theater was constructed
but was burned down in an uncontrolled fire the very same year. The bridge over Santa Anita
wash was modernized into a two lane concrete bridge in 1925. Plans for roadway construction
and development were also made in this year to connect to Highway 66 with additional work
being put into ordinances and zoning to promote commercial activity and development. Growth
of the city necessitated the building of an additional water reservoir system in 1926. In 1927 the
Santa Anita Canyon dam was constructed as a means of flood control (Strauss et al 2007:27).
The very same year the Southern Counties Gas Company and the Bank of Italy (now known as
Bank of America) became established within the city.
The stock market crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression became a time of great
trial for the city but development steadily continued on. During this time period the city
transitioned away from rural housing to more dense suburban housing. Up unto this time period
Monrovia-Arcadia Duarte High School was the main school for secondary education for this area
and was run as a joint undertaking. In 1929 to meet the needs of a rising population Arcadia
High School was built. Additional water wells were also built in 1929 to meet the city’s growing
water needs. Commercial development also continued with the establishment of the Arcadia
National Bank as a competitive means to service demand for local finance. In 1931 the road
connection to Highway 66 was completed which provided additional commercial traffic to the
city.
The city entered into a short period of political and economic turmoil beginning in 1932 with the
formation of the Taxpayer’s League which sought to curtail and greatly reduce the city’s
expenditures in a time of great economic hardship throughout the country. A mayor was elected
from within this movement that then sought to greatly reduce the amount of work days and the
number of employees servicing the municipal government. This mayor served only a single day
until he removed by a vote within the Arcadia City Council. Commercially the city also
underwent some drastic changes. The Southern Pacific railroad station which served as the
transportation hub of the city was closed down in 1932 and buses of the Motor Transit Company
which served the route going from Pasadena to Pomona also ceased operations in Arcadia. In the
very same year Arcadia National Bank facing financial difficulties opted to relocate to San
Marino while quite a few stores within the city closed their doors.
Though the city was going through some tough times in the early 1930’s some degree of respite
came from of the repeal on the state ban on horse racing in 1932. In 1934 Santa Anita Racetrack
reopened and was once again the main recreational attraction of the city while the Pony Express
Museum also opened up in Arcadia in that same year. From the years 1935 to 1941 the city of
Arcadia saw tremendous growth with many properties subdividing into smaller tracts for
surburban housing. Large amounts of land were also sold by the Rancho Santa Anita Corporation
2. Cultural Background
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 15
accelerating the housing boom. The Arcadia City Park and accompanying recreational facilities
were built in 1935 and a service depot was built by the Forest Service just north of Arcadia.
Several natural disasters hit the city from 1937-1939 in the form of a devastating cold snap,
flooding, high winds, and a heat wave that hit the city consecutively in those three years causing
damage to property and vital city infrastructure. In 1938 with high amounts of flooding the city
was partially evacuated due to concerns over the overflow from Santa Anita dam which also
destroyed the bridge over Santa Anita Wash. Concerns over the water usage of the Raymond
Basin with Pasadena turned into a water rights lawsuit that concluded with a temporary reduction
of water use by Sierra Madre and Arcadia for a period of five years.
The Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941 marked the entrance of the United States into World
War II. The 35th Division Field Artillery unit was dispatched to Arcadia where they occupied
Arcadia County Park. The Santa Anita racetrack was then modified to accommodate the
temporary internment of the Japanese. During this time over 400 structures were built and at the
height of operations over 19,000 Japanese were held there, though the race track was only
utilized for a period of three months. In 1943 the race track was reconfigured as an army training
facility where Brigadier General B. W. Simpson oversaw the training of 20,000 troops. Towards
the tail end of the war the Santa Anita Racetrack was once again reconfigured to house around
2,000 prisoners of war.
Following the end of World War II in 1945 the city of Arcadia began to be formed into the
suburban commercial city that we know today. Buslines and electric rails were reestablished in
1945. A modernized sewer system was finally approved and implemented in 1948 after many
decades of debate. The Baldwin Lake County and State Arboretum was established in 1950. The
popularization of refrigerated trucks and home refrigeration greatly increased the availability of
many agricultural products (Krasner-Khait 2002). With this the need for locally produced
agricultural products such as poultry diminished significantly. This coupled with massive
governmental highway expansion projects fueled the expansion of urbanization across much of
Southern California.
3. Natural Setting
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 17
3. NATURAL SETTING
The project area is located south of the Los Angeles National Forest along the axis of the Sierra
Madre fault zone, at approximately 1100 feet above mean sea level (California Department of
Conservation 1998). Generally this region forms the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountain chain.
Soils within this localized area are classified as being predominantly young alluvial sediments.
Much of the observed soils types within this localized region are primarily soils of the Hanford
and Vista Amargosa series. Cretaceous and Proterozoic age granitic and metamorphic rock types
are known to form much of the underlying facies along the northeastern portions of Arcadia.
The generalized vegetation community represented within the project area is best characterized
as coastal sage scrub and chaparral (Munz 1974:2). A plant survey of the alluvial plant
communities of the San Gabriel canyon region (Hanes, et al 1989) found that Artemisia
californica (coastal sage scrub), Brickellia californica (california brickelbush), Eriogonum
fasciculatum (California buckwheat), Lepidospartum squamatum (scale broom), Opuntia
littoralis (coastal prickly-pear), and Rhus integrifolia (lemondade berry) to form the predominant
plants of alluvial stands within this vegetation zone. Other types of plants generally
representative of the foothill region include Ceanothus (California Lilac), Adenostoma (Red
Shank Chamise), Quercus (Oak), Arctostaphylos (Manzanita), and Malosma (Laurel Sumac).
The climate, like much of southern California is generally mild and best characterized as
Mediterranean with generally small short term fluctuations in rainfall (Munz 1974:1). Historical
studies in rainfall fluctuations in the region (Lynch 1991) seem indicates a regional consistency
between the recorded Mission rainfall data and crop yields over much of Southern California. It
also appears that rainfall variations over the decadal scale are closely linked to El Nino
oscillation events though atypical swings can occur across centuries that may adversely effect the
local population history (Raab and Larson 1997).
4. Records Search
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 19
4. RECORDS SEARCH
A records search for the property was requested from the South Coastal Information Center
(SCIC) on March 8, 2012 by ASM. The records search encompassed the project property and a
1/2-mi. radius around the proposed project Area of Potential Effect (APE). Fifteen
archaeological reports were identified that pertain to areas within the 1/2-mi. search radius
(Table 1). Of the fifteen archaeological reports one was found to have occurred within the project
area and one was found to occur directly adjacent to the project area.
Table 1. Cultural Resource Reports Addressing Areas within 1/2 mi. of the Project APE
Report
No. Reference Title Relation to APE
LA-01499 Gilliand (1985) K.m.a.x. Radio Tower (Arcadia Electronic Site) ARR. Outside
LA-02568 Unknown (1992) A Cultural Resource Assessment Conducted for a Ten-Acre
Parcel in Sierra Madre, Los Angeles. Directly Adjacent
LA-03308 Bissell (1993)
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the
Madison/Cloverleaf Specific Plan Area, Monrovia, Los
Angeles County, California.
Outside
LA-03372 Triem (1993) Historic Resources Evaluation and Management Plan,
United States Forest Service, Angeles National Forest. Outside
LA-06859 Unknown (1996) Arcadia General Plan. Inside
LA-08138 Jordan (2007)
Revised Archaeological Survey Report for the SCE
Deteriorated Pole Replacement Program for H-Frame
Poles 1927071e and 1927072e on Pearblossom-Vicent 220
kV Circuit (WO# 4753-0301) and Pole 884941e on the
Arboretum 16 kV Circuit (WO# 6027-4800, JI# 6-4869).
Outside
LA-09710 Solis (2007)
Santa Anita Canyon Reservoir Project, Los Angeles
Department of Public Works, Los Angeles County,
California. ARR No. 05-01-01065.
Outside
LA-03497 Anonymous (1994) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Pasadena-Los Angeles Light Rail Transit Project. Unmapped
LA-03498 Anonymous (1994) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Pasadena-Los Angeles Light Rail Transit Project. Unmapped
LA-03508 Van Wormer (2010) Historical Resource Overview and Survey for the Los
Angeles County Drainage Area Review Study. Unmapped
LA-03588 Hastey (1992) Proposed South Coast Resource Management Plan and
Final Environmental Impact Statement Unmapped
LA-07570 Noiron (2005)
Historic Context Statement, the Southern California
Transmission/Distribution Line Systems Within the Angeles
National Forest
Unmapped
LA-09705 Anonymous (2007)
Cultural Resources Inventory of the Southern California
Edison Company Tehachapi Renewable Transmission
Project, Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties,
California. ARR No. 05-01-01046.
Unmapped
LA-10991 Grimes (2001) East Colorado Boulevard, Specific Plan, Historic
Resources Survey. Unmapped
LA-11484 Walker (unknown) Partial List of Indian Village Sites in Los Angeles County,
with a Few in Orange County. Unmapped
4. Records Search
20 CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
The SCIC records search also identified three previously recorded historical sites within a 1/2-
mi. radius of the project boundary (Table 2). Although one survey has been conducted within the
proposed project area, no cultural resources have thus far been identified within the proposed
project APE. A single cultural resource (P-19-150025), consisting of a historic ranger station was
found to have been recorded twice as two separate resources though closer examination reveals
that the documentation for each of these resources is identical.
Table 2. Cultural Resources Previously Recorded within 1/2 mi. of the Project’s APEs
Primary
Number
(P-19-)
Trinomial
(CA-LAN-)
Recorded/Updated by
(Month/Year) Description or Comments
150025 -- Stone (4/92) Sierra Madre Ranger Station
150026 -- Stone (4/92) Sierra Madre Ranger Station
186535 -- Arbuckle (10/79) Los Angeles National Forest
187819 -- Huckabee (6/06) Chantry Road
Dave Singleton of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was also contacted for
recommendations and comments for a Native American Sacred Lands search of the proposed
project area. This search identified no resources of special concern within 0.5 mi. of the proposed
project area.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following summary outlines the cultural resources encountered within the ½ mi. buffer of
the project boundary. No previously identified cultural resources are found to occur inside of the
proposed project boundary.
P-19-150025 (P-19-150026)
This resource is the Sierra Madre Forest Service Ranger Station that was originally recorded as a
historic resource by Mitchel R. Stone in 1992. This historic parcel was acquired around 1932 or
1933 by the Forest Service to be used as the district station for the Santa Anita area. This three
bedroom station temporarily served as the residence for William Mendenhall, the supervisor of
the Angeles National Forest during a ten year span sometime in the 1940s and 1950s.
P-19-186535
This resource denotes the Angeles National Forest; itself a vast historical land holding
representative of the second major conservationist effort by the United States in terms of
National Park designations. Originally designated as the San Gabriel Timberland Reserve this
park was renamed to San Gabriel National on March 4th, 1907 and once again renamed as
Angeles National Forect in July 1st, 1908. This national forest was formally established in
December 1892 by President Benjamin Harrison. This resource encompasses the greater part of
the San Gabriel Mountains running from the Antelope Valley to the San Gabriel Valley and from
the San Fernando Valley/Los Angeles Basin to San Bernardino County. The Angeles National
4. Records Search
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 21
Forest was sponsored as a State Registered Historical Landmark by California State Parks in
1959 and subsequently investigated and updated by Jim Arbuckle in 1979 who remarked on the
condition of the 1960 plaque as being still in excellent condition.
P-19-187819
This resource consists of what is known today as Chantry Road. This resource was recorded by
Joanna Huckabee in 2006 as a paved two lane historic highway that runs 3.2 miles from Elkins
Avenue to Chantry Flat. The establishment of the road as we know it today occurred in 1934
when the paved road was constructed to run from Santa Anita Avenue to Chantry Flat and
serviced much of the traffic for the cabins, inn, and lodges of Santa Anita Canyon in its
recreational heyday.
5. Field Methods and Results
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 23
5. FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS
On March 2, 2012, ASM conducted a directed pedestrian survey of the proposed project area
(Figure 5). Upon arrival to the survey area it was noted that much of the area contained thick
brush and that the slopes of the approach were steep (Figure 6). Ground visibility was also noted
to be low to nonexistent in some portions of the delineated survey area (Figure 7). Due to the
constraints imposed by the disposition of the terrain, a directed survey was undertaken in which
coverage of the areas that provided the greatest maneuverability and visibility were more closely
examined during the study. Steep slopes were generally avoided as artifact distributions are
unlikely to persist intact along these gradients. The focus of the survey was then oriented directly
towards the examination of the areas that directly fall within the structural footprint wherever the
vegetation allowed some degree of feasible passage and in areas that presented some degree of
ground visibility. During the directed survey no cultural resources were identified.
Figure 5. Aerial view of the project area surveyed.
5. Field Methods and Results
24 CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
Figure 6. Upward approach to the tract showing heavy vegetation and a steep slope (view
southwest).
Figure 7. Overview of the overall ground visibility.
6. Summary and Recommendations
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 25
6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An archaeological records search and directed pedestrian survey was conducted by ASM for
Nevis Calvert, LLC. The records search and cultural resource survey was conducted by ASM to
assist Nevis Calvert, LLC, in its compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A records search encompassing an area of 1/2 mi. around the proposed project area indicated that
there were no previously recorded cultural resources directly within the proposed project
boundary, although three previously recorded cultural resources were noted within the 1/2–mi.
buffer outside of the proposed project boundary. ASM also contacted the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a records search of their Sacred Land Files to identify
any traditional cultural properties or sacred sites within 1/2 mi. of the proposed project area. To
date, no areas of concern have been identified within 1/2 mi. of the proposed project boundary.
A directed cultural resource survey was then conducted to access the potential effect of proposed
project operations on currently recorded and potentially unrecorded cultural resources. In the
directed pedestrian survey no cultural resources were identified within the proposed project APE.
In summary, no cultural resources were identified during the current survey of the proposed
project area. As such, no further cultural resource work or monitoring is recommended for this
project.
References
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 27
REFERENCES
Arnold, J.
1987 Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California. University of
California Publications in Anthropology 18. Berkeley.
Barrows, D.P
1900 Ethno-Botany of the Cahuilla Indians. Chicago: U. Chicago.
Bean, L.J.
1972 Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Berkeley: U. California.
1978 Cahuilla. In Handbook of the Indians of North America, Volume 8:
California. RF Heizer, ed. pp. 575-587. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Bean, L.J. and K.S. Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian knowledge and usage of plants. Morongo: Malki
Museum.
Bean, L.J. and C.R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In Handbook of the Indians of North America, Volume 8: California. R.
Heizer, ed. pp. 538-549. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 1978b Serrano.
In Handbook of the Indians of North America, Volume 8: California. R. Heizer, ed.
pp. 570-57. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
1978b Serrano. In Handbook of the Indians of North America, Volume 8: California. R.
Heizer, ed. pp. 570-57. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Benedict, R.
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26:366-392.
Brown, A.K.
1967 The Aboriginal Population of the Santa Barbara Channel. University of California
Archaeological Survey Reports 69. Berkeley.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology
1998 Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Mt. Wilson 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles
County, California
City of Arcadia
2010 Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Element, in Arcadia General Plan 2010
Cultural Resources, in Arcadia General Plan, Program EIR
Dakin, S.B.
1939 A Scotch Paisano in Old Los Angeles: Hugo Reid’s Life in California, 1832-1852,
Derived from His Correspondence. Berkeley: University of California.
References
28 CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
Eberhart, H.
1961 The Cogged Stones of Southern California. American Antiquity 26:361-370.
Eberly, Gordon S.,
1953 Arcadia: City of Santa Anita. Saunders Press. Claremont, California.
Englehardt, Z.
1927 San Fernando Rey: The Mission of the Valley. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press.
Erlandson, J.
1988 Of Millingstones and Molluscs: The Cultural Ecology of Early Holocene Hunter-
Gatherers on the California Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, UCSB.
Erlandson, J. and R. Colton, editors
1991 Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California
Archaeology, Vol. 1. UCLA.
Fogelson, Robert M.
1967 The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930. University of California Press.
Hanes, Ted L., Richard D. Friesen, and Kathy Keane
1989 Alluvial Scrub Vegetation in Coastal Southern California. USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report, PSW-110.
Heizer, R.F. and M.E. Lemert
1947 Observations on Archaeological Sites in Topanga Canyon California. University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 44(2):237-258.
Hooper, L.
1920 The Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology
and Ethnology 16(6):315-380.
Johnson, K.L.
1966 Site LAN-2: A Late Manifestation of the Topanga Complex in Southern California
Prehistory. Anthropological Records 23. Berkeley.
Johnston, B.E.
1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Los Angeles: Southwest Museum.
Krasner-Khait, Barbara
2002 The impact of Refrigeration. History Magazine.
Kroeber, A.L.
1908 Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(2):29-68.1925 Handbook of the Indians of
California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C.
References
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 29
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Kowta, M.
1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from the Cajon Pass and the
Ecological Implications of Its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in
Anthropology, Volume 6.
Landberg, L.
1965 The Chumash Indians of Southern California. Southwest Museum Papers 19.
Highland Park.
Leonard, N.N.
1971 Natural and Social Environments of the Santa Monica Mountains (6000 B.C. to 1800
A.D.). Archaeological Survey Annual Report 13: 93-136. UCLA.
Lynch, H. B.,
1931 Rainfall and Stream Run Off in Southern California Since 1769. Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California.
McWilliams, Carey
1946 Southern California: An Island on the Land
McIntyre, M.J.
1990 Cultural Resources of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley, Los Angeles and Ventura
Counties, California. In Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Antelope Valley and
Vicinity, edited by B. Love and W. DeWitt, pp. 1-20. Antelope Valley
Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 2.
Meighan, C.W.
1959 The Little Harbor Site, Catalina Island: An Example of Ecological Interpretation in
Archaeology. American Antiquity 24:383-405.
Munz, P.
1974 A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Raab, Mark L., and Daniel O. Larson
1997 Medieval Climatic Anomaly and Punctuated Cultural Evolution in Coastal Southern
California. American Antiquity 62(2):319-336
Reid, Hiram A.,
1895 History of Pasadena. Pasadena History Company.
Reid, H.
1968 The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of 1852 (ed. by R.F.
Heizer). Southwest Museum Papers No. 21.
References
30 CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
Rogers, D.B.
1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural
History. Santa Barbara, California.
Salls, R.
1985 The Scraper Plane: A Functional Interpretation. Journal of Field Archaeology
12(1):99-106.
Strauss, Monica, Christy Dolan, and Sara Dietler
2007 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Santa Anita Riser Modification and
Reservoir Sediment Removal Project, Los Angeles County, California
Strong, W.D.
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 26.
Treganza, A.E. and A. Bierman
1958 The Topanga Culture: Final Report on Excavations, 1948. Anthropological Records
20:2. Berkeley.
Treganza, A.E. and C.G. Malamud
1950 The Topanga Culture: First Season's Excavation of the Tank Site, 1947.
Anthropological Records 12:4. Berkeley.
Wallace, W.J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230.
Welch, R.
2006 A Brief History of the Tongva Tribe: The Native Inhabitants of the Lands of the
Puente Hills Preserve. Claremont Graduate University. Claremont, California.
Whitley, D.S.
1979 Subsurface features, toolkits and a sweathouse pit from the Ring Brothers Site
Complex. In Archaeological Investigations at the Ring Brothers Site Complex,
Thousand Oaks, California, ed. C.W. Clewlow, Jr, D.S. Whitley and E.L. McCann,
pp. 101-110. UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 13.
1992 Shamanism and Rock Art in Far Western North America. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 2(1):89-113.
Whitley, D.S. and M.P. Beaudry,
1991 Chiefs on the Coast: Developing Chiefdoms in the Tiquisate Region in Ethnographic
Perspective. In The Development of Complex Civilizations in Southeastern
Mesoamerica. W. Fowler , ed. pp. 101-120. Orlando: CRC.
References
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 31
Whitley, D.S. and C.W. Clewlow, Jr.,
1979 The Organizational Structure of the Lulapin and Humaliwo. In The Archaeology of
Oak Park, Ventura County, California, ed by C.W. Clewlow, Jr., and D.S. Whitley,
pp. 149-174. UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 11.
Whitley, D.S. and R.I. Dorn,
1993 New Perspectives on the Clovis vs. Pre-Clovis Controversy. American Antiquity
58(4):603-627.
Whitley, D.S., J. Simon and G. Gumerman,
n.d. Out West at 3500 B.P. Manuscript in preparation.
Appendices
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 33
APPENDICES
Appendices
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
APPENDIX A
Record Search – Confidential
Appendices
CRS of Canyon Estates, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA
APPENDIX B
NAHC Letter