Cardno ENTRIX Report Template
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Pdf Clickbook Booklet
2. phyllaries strongly graded; basal lvs 0, cauline gen evenly sized and spaced; infls arising near st tips; per Plant Guide to Aspen Grove / Fish Creek Trail, San Bernardino Mountains 3. phyllaries glandular .... var. breweri 3'. phyllaries non-glandular ... var. covillei Mile S # id? Common Name Latin Name #here #all Trailhead at parking lot in front of kiosk / display board, elevation 7410 feet 2'. phyllaries roughly equal; cauline lvs reduced upwards; infls arising (2260 m). Trail is in sun for first 1/4 mile, then mostly in shade. (Coville's 0.00 near mid-stem; ann to biennial E. divergens fleabane, Erigeron breweri var. covillei, is found in the parking area, but not so far on the trail). threadleaf common Chrysothamnus nauseosus ssp. 1'. phyllary tips spreading to reflexed; lvs gen reduced upwards; per to subshrub 0.00 b 1 20 / 5 14 rabbitbrush consimilis 2. lvs green, linear, often toothed; resembling those of a penstemon in Machaeranthera canescens var. being rigidly spreading; gen per ..... Machaeranthera canescens 0.00 r 2 hoary-aster 50 / 9 3 canescens+ 2'. lvs gray, "half-tomentose", usually ascending; subshrub ...... Lessingia filaginifolia var. filaginifolia Eriogonum wrightii var. 0.00 b 3 Wright's buckwheat 40 / 6 11 subscaposum http://tchester.org/sb/plants/guides/fish_creek.html Elymus elymoides ssp. Updated 14 October 2013. 0.00 l 4 California squirreltail 50 / 9 8 californicus 0.00 r 5 Nevin's bird's beak Cordylanthus nevinii 30 / 5 5 0.00 l 6 yarrow Achillea millefolium 20 / 4 11 Castilleja applegatei ssp. 0.00 b 7 Martin's paintbrush 30 / 4 14 martinii+ 0.00 r Information board 0.00 r 8 Davidson's lotus Lotus nevadensis var. -
References and Appendices
References Ainley, D.G., S.G. Allen, and L.B. Spear. 1995. Off- Arnold, R.A. 1983. Ecological studies on six endan- shore occurrence patterns of marbled murrelets gered butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): in central California. In: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt island biogeography, patch dynamics, and the Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, technical edi- design of habitat preserves. University of Cali- tors. Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled fornia Publications in Entomology 99: 1–161. Murrelet. USDA Forest Service, General Techni- Atwood, J.L. 1993. California gnatcatchers and coastal cal Report PSW-152; 361–369. sage scrub: the biological basis for endangered Allen, C.R., R.S. Lutz, S. Demairais. 1995. Red im- species listing. In: J.E. Keeley, editor. Interface ported fire ant impacts on Northern Bobwhite between ecology and land development in Cali- populations. Ecological Applications 5: 632-638. fornia. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Allen, E.B., P.E. Padgett, A. Bytnerowicz, and R.A. Los Angeles; 149–169. Minnich. 1999. Nitrogen deposition effects on Atwood, J.L., P. Bloom, D. Murphy, R. Fisher, T. Scott, coastal sage vegetation of southern California. In T. Smith, R. Wills, P. Zedler. 1996. Principles of A. Bytnerowicz, M.J. Arbaugh, and S. Schilling, reserve design and species conservation for the tech. coords. Proceedings of the international sym- southern Orange County NCCP (Draft of Oc- posium on air pollution and climate change effects tober 21, 1996). Unpublished manuscript. on forest ecosystems, February 5–9, 1996, River- Austin, M. 1903. The Land of Little Rain. University side, CA. -
Terr–3 Special-Status Plant Populations
TERR–3 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT POPULATIONS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During 2001 and 2002, the review of existing information, agency consultation, vegetation community mapping, and focused special-status plant surveys were completed. Based on California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001a), CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2003), USDA-FS Regional Forester’s List of Sensitive Plant and Animal Species for Region 5 (USDA-FS 1998), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species List (USFWS 2003), and Sierra National Forest (SNF) Sensitive Plant List (Clines 2002), there were 100 special-status plant species initially identified as potentially occurring within the Study Area. Known occurrences of these species were mapped. Vegetation communities were evaluated to locate areas that could potentially support special-status plant species. Each community was determined to have the potential to support at least one special-status plant species. During the spring and summer of 2002, special-status plant surveys were conducted. For each special-status plant species or population identified, a CNDDB form was completed, and photographs were taken. The locations were mapped and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. Vascular plant species observed during surveys were recorded. No state or federally listed special-status plant species were identified during special- status plant surveys. Seven special-status plant species, totaling 60 populations, were identified during surveys. There were 22 populations of Mono Hot Springs evening-primrose (Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola) identified. Two populations are located near Mammoth Pool, one at Bear Forebay, and the rest are in the Florence Lake area. -
Markleeville Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Alpine County, California Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume I
Markleeville Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Alpine County, California Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Volume I February 2014 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Markleeville Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Document Information Prepared for Alpine County, CA Project Name Markleeville Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Project Number 3343000100 Project Manager Virginia Mahacek Date February 2014 Lead Agency: Alpine County 50 Diamond Valley Road, Markleeville, CA 96120 530.694.2140 www.alpinecountyca.gov Sponsor: Alpine Watershed Group 270 Laramie St. Markleeville, CA 96120 530.694.2327 www.alpinecountyca.gov Prepared by: Cardno ENTRIX 295 Highway 50, Suite 1 / PO Box 1533, Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 775.588.9069 www.cardno.com February 2014 Cardno ENTRIX Document Information i Markleeville IS-MND_Volume I_Feb2014_final.docx Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Markleeville Creek Floodplain Restoration Project This Page Intentionally Left Blank ii Document Information Cardno ENTRIX February 2014 Markleeville IS-MND_Volume I_Feb2014_final.docx Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Markleeville Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Table of Contents 1 Overview ........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 CEQA Review .................................................................................................................. -
5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction with the Watershed
Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Assessment 5. Human Interaction With the Watershed 5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction With the Watershed The purpose of this section is to summarize human activities that have had some effect on the Carson River watershed in Alpine County, California. Regional prehistory and ethnography are summarized by Nevers (1976), Elston (1982), d’Azevedo (1986), and Lindstrom et al. (2000). Details of regional history can be found in Maule (1938), Jackson (1964), Dangberg (1972), Clark (1977), Murphy (1982), Marvin (1997), and other sources. A book published by the Centennial Book Committee (1987) contains an excellent selection of historic photographs. Particularly useful is a study on the historical geography of Alpine County by Howatt (1968). 5.1.1 Prehistoric Land Use Human habitation of the Upper Carson River Watershed extends thousands of years back into antiquity. Archaeological evidence suggests use of the area over at least the last 8,000 to 9,000 years. For most of that time, the land was home to small bands of Native Americans. Their number varied over time, depending on regional environmental conditions. For at least the last 2,000 years, the Washoe occupied the Upper Carson River Watershed. Ethnographic data provides clues as to past land use and land management practices (see extended discussions in Downs 1966; Blackburn and Anderson 1993; Lindstrom et al. 2000; Rucks 2002). A broad range of aboriginal harvesting and hunting practices, fishing, and camp tending would have affected the landscape and ecology of the study area. Shrubs such as service berry and willow were pruned to enhance growth. -
California Water Trust Network
RESTORING CARSON MEADOWS: ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION A report supported by the National Fish and Wildlife February 2018 Foundation Results of a broadly-collaborative effort to prioritize meadows in the Carson River Watershed for restoration. Restoring Carson Meadows Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization Julie Fair, Luke Hunt, Meg Hanley and Jacob Dyste 2018. Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization. A report by American Rivers submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Page 1 Restoring Carson Meadows CONTENTS CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 THE CARSON WATERSHED .................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CONDITION DATA ............................................................ 7 PRIORITIES ........................................................................................................................... 9 PRIORITIZATION FOR LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT ................................................. 14 INFLUENCE OF BEAVER ..................................................................................................... 14 CONCLUSION -
Carson River Geographic Response Plan
Carson River Geographic Response Plan Final Alpine County, California and Douglas, Carson City, Lyon, Churchill Counties, Nevada April 2006 Prepared by: Carson & Walker Rivers Area Committee (CWRAC) Carson River Geographic Response Plan April 2006 Acknowledgements The Carson River Geographic Response Plan (CRGRP) was developed through a collaborative effort between the local, state, and federal government agencies listed below. Local Government • Carson City Fire • Douglas County Emergency Management • East Fork Fire and Paramedic District • Lyon County Sheriff’s Office • Mason Valley Fire • Mono County Conservation District State Government • California Department of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response • California Office of Emergency Services • Nevada Division of Emergency Management • Nevada Division of Environmental Protection • Nevada Highway Patrol Tribal Government • Washo Tribe Federal Government • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Department of Agriculture Carson Valley Conservation District • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX o U.S. EPA Region IX Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START), Ecology & Environment, Inc. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service i Carson River Geographic Response Plan April 2006 If this is an Emergency… …Involving a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other contaminants impacting public health and/or the environment Most important – Protect yourself and others! Then: 1) Turn to the Immediate Action Guide (Yellow Tab) for initial steps taken in a hazardous material, petroleum product, or other contaminant emergency. 2) Make the initial notification to Dispatch by dialing 911. Dispatch will make the Mandatory Notifications. A list of county dispatch centers is on page R-2 of this plan. -
Plants of Chuchupate Valley, Ventura County, California by David L
Plants of Chuchupate Valley, Ventura County, California By David L. Magney Scientific Name Common Name Habit Family Achnatherum hymenoides Indian Rice Grass PG Poaceae Achnatherum speciosum Desert Needlegrass PG Poaceae Agoseris retrorsa Retrorse Mountain Dandelion PH Asteraceae Allium howellii var. clokeyi Mt. Pinos Onion PH Alliaceae Ambrosia acanthicarpa Annual Bursage AH Asteraceae Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia Ranchers Fire AH Boraginaceae Arabis pulchra var. gracilis Beautiful Rock-cress PH Brassicaceae Arabis pulchra var. pulchra Beautiful Rock-cress PH Brassicaceae Arctostaphylos parryana Parry Manzanita S Ericaceae Argemone munita Prickly Poppy BH Papaveraceae Artemisia dracunculus Taragon PH Asteraceae Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata Great Basin Sagebrush S Asteraceae Asclepias californica California Milkweed PH Asclepiadaceae Asclepias eriocarpa Chaparral Milkweed PH Asclepiadaceae Astragalus lentiginosus var. idriensis Freckled Milkvetch PH Fabaceae Astragalus pachypus var. pachypus Cream-flowered Milkvetch PH Fabaceae Astragalus purshii var. tinctus Pursh Woolly Pod PH Fabaceae Astragalus trichopodus var. phoxus Ocean Milkvetch PH Fabaceae Bromus carinatus var. carinatus California Brome PG Poaceae Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens* Red Brome AG Poaceae Bromus tectorum* Cheat Grass AG Poaceae Calochortus kennedyi Desert Mariposa Lily PH Liliaceae Calyptridium monandrum Calyptridium AH Portulacaceae Calyptridium parryi var. parryi Parry Pussypaws AH Portulacaceae Calystegia malacophylla var. ? Woolly Morning-glory -
Vascular Plant Species with Documented Or Recorded Occurrence in Placer County
A PPENDIX II Vascular Plant Species with Documented or Reported Occurrence in Placer County APPENDIX II. Vascular Plant Species with Documented or Reported Occurrence in Placer County Family Scientific Name Common Name FERN AND FERN ALLIES Azollaceae Mosquito fern family Azolla filiculoides Pacific mosquito fern Dennstaedtiaceae Bracken family Pteridium aquilinum var.pubescens Bracken fern Dryopteridaceae Wood fern family Athyrium alpestre var. americanum Alpine lady fern Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Lady fern Cystopteris fragilis Fragile fern Polystichum imbricans ssp. curtum Cliff sword fern Polystichum imbricans ssp. imbricans Imbricate sword fern Polystichum kruckebergii Kruckeberg’s hollyfern Polystichum lonchitis Northern hollyfern Polystichum munitum Sword fern Equisetaceae Horsetail family Equisetum arvense Common horsetail Equisetum hyemale ssp. affine Scouring rush Equisetum laevigatum Smooth horsetail Isoetaceae Quillwort family Isoetes bolanderi Bolander’s quillwort Isoetes howellii Howell’s quillwort Isoetes orcuttii Orcutt’s quillwort Lycopodiaceae Club-moss family Lycopodiella inundata Bog club-moss Marsileaceae Marsilea family Marsilea vestita ssp. vestita Water clover Pilularia americana American pillwort Ophioglossaceae Adder’s-tongue family Botrychium multifidum Leathery grapefern Polypodiaceae Polypody family Polypodium hesperium Western polypody Pteridaceae Brake family Adiantum aleuticum Five-finger maidenhair Adiantum jordanii Common maidenhair fern Aspidotis densa Indian’s dream Cheilanthes cooperae Cooper’s -
Task 4.9 Public Draft Page 2
Task 4.9 Stormwater Resource Plan Public Draft Version 0.1 Drafted: December 4, 2017 STORMWATER RESOURCE PLAN – TASK 4.9 PUBLIC DRAFT PAGE 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2 ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 5 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 11 IMPLEMENTERS .............................................................................................................................................. 12 PARTNERS ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 OTHERS ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 SECTION A. DESCRIPTION OF WATERSHED AND SUB-WATERSHEDS .................................................... 14 WATERSHED BOUNDARIES (SWRP GUIDELINES SECTION A.I) ................................................................ 14 INTERNAL BOUNDARIES (SWRP GUIDELINES SECTION A.II) ................................................................... -
To Volume 36
Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Volume 36 | Issue 2 Article 4 2019 Index to Volume 36 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation (2019) "Index to Volume 36," Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany: Vol. 36: Iss. 2, Article 4. Available at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso/vol36/iss2/4 Aliso, 36(2), pp. 85–88 ISSN: 0065-6275 (print), 2327-2929 (online) INDEX TO VOLUME 36, ALISO Includes authors, titles, taxa, and salient concepts appearing in the scientific papers, as well as additional terms of use in infor- mation retrieval. New taxa and combinations appear in boldface. Page numbers reflect the location where an indexing term appears or—if it occurs repeatedly—receives special mention. Abies concolor 63 Athyrium distentifolium var. americanum Carter, B. E., W. F. Hoyer III, J. Dunn, S. Abies magnifica var. magnifica 63 61, 66 Junak, C. M. Guilliams.—New Abronia turbinata 53, 73 Autapomorphy (in Paracryphiaceae) additions to the flora of San Acacia 3 12–13 Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Acanthaceae 27–45 Axial parenchyma 1–2, 4, 6–7, 11–17 California 21–26 Acer 3 Belliolum 12 Caryophyllaceae 23, 70–71 Achillea millefolium 54, 67 Betula occidentalis 54, 69 Cassiope mertensiana 55–56, 71 Acmispon 24 Betulaceae 17, 69 Castilleja 47, 54–56, 58, 61, 73 Acorus 13 Boechera 56, 58–62, 69–70 Castilleja linariifolia 54, 73 Adenostoma 17 Boechera tularensis 61–62, 70 Castilleja nana 55–56, 61, 73 Adoxaceae 12, 67 Boraginaceae 32, 69 Castilleja peirsonii 47, 54–55, 58, 73 Aextoxicaceae 15 Bordered pits 1–2, 4, 6, 10–12, 15–16 Cephalacanthus 32 Agrostis humilis 61, 79 Botrychium crenulatum 61–62, 67 Cerastium arvense subsp. -
J:\Projects\Monrovia Nursery EIR 2002-43\DRAFT EIR\4.9 Biological
Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan and Project 4.9 Biological and Agricultural Resources Draft EIR 4.9 BIOLOGICAL AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY This section examines the potential for the proposed project to result in significant adverse impacts to agricultural and biological resources. The existence (or lack) of such resources in the project area and immediate surroundings were identified through consultation with appropriate local, state, and federal agencies, including the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), United States. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the California Department of Conservation, and the City of Azusa. Biological surveys of the site were conducted by Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) from April to July 2002 to ascertain the nature of biological resources on the site and the potential for impacts (See Appendix G).1 Previous biological surveys were conducted by Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) in 1992 and 1996. MBA reports provided detailed descriptions of the site, including the nursery areas occupied by native habitats.2 3 4 The focus of the 2002 GLA surveys was determined through a review of the MBA reports, which can be viewed in the Rosedale Specific Plan EIR, also used to prepare this Section. Field studies were conducted and focused on a number of primary objectives: (1) confirmation of previous vegetation mapping; (2) focused plant surveys; (3) general wildlife surveys (including considerations of wildlife movement corridors); (4) focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica); (5); focused surveys for Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphisipiza belli belli) and rufus crowned sparrow (Aimiophila ruficeps) and (6) raptor surveys, and an oak tree survey conducted in accordance with the Los Angeles County Oak Tree Permit requirements set forth in Title 22, Part 16 of the Los Angeles County Code (see Appendix G).