DOCSLIB.ORG

Scoping Comments of the San Juan Ridge Taxpayers Association (SJRTA)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Scoping Comments of the San Juan Ridge Taxpayers Association (SJRTA) COM MENTS OF THE SAN JUAN RIDGE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION ON THE PROPOSED SAN JUAN RIDGE MINE Submitted to the Nevada County Planning Department December 4, 2012 Sacramento Bee, December 31, 1997. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................4 III. OUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................8 A. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................8 B. ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................10 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .........14 A. THE EIR MUST CLEARLY DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED PROJECT; CEQA DEMANDS AN ACCURATE, STABLE AND FINITE PROJECT DEFINITION THAT ADDRESSES THE “WHOLE OF THE ACTION” UNDER REVIEW. ...........................................................................................................14 1. The Proposed Action Should Be Described in a Manner that Provides for Full Disclosure and Evaluation of Potentially Significant Impacts ..............................................15 2. Additional Information Is Needed ..................................................................................19 B. CEQA REQUIRES IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY “SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT” ..........................................................................................................................21 1. Significant impacts on water supply and drinking water, including public water supplies, are likely. ................................................................................................................22 2. Potential negative impacts to water quality are significant and may impact human health and safety. ...................................................................................................................26 3. Dewatering under normal operations or in response to catastrophic events could have significant, negative hydrologic impacts on upland, wetland and riparian vegetation in and near the project site. ..............................................................................................................30 4. Discharge of mine effluent directly and indirectly into surface waters has the potential for a host of significant effects. ..............................................................................................32 5. Potentially significant impacts of erosion and sedimentation must be assessed............37 6. The adequacy and impacts of settlement and infiltration ponds should be assessed in full in the EIR. ........................................................................................................................40 7. The project may have significant impacts on rare, threatened, and endangered species known to occur within the project area. ................................................................................41 8. Impacts to public lands and recreation must be assessed in the EIR.............................53 9. Transportation impacts should be assessed in the EIR. .................................................54 10. Negative impacts to air quality may impact human health ..........................................54 11. The proposed mining would have potentially significant noise impacts on local residents. ................................................................................................................................56 12. Safety for mine workers ................................................................................................57 13. Impacts to archeological resources could be significant; high quality archeological evaluation is needed in order to avoid mercury displacement. .............................................58 14. The proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases and climate change. ......................................................................................................................60 15. The project has the capacity to have substantially degrade the environment by the introduction, spread, and proliferation of invasive species...................................................61 16. There is the potential for increased risk of wildfire that could result in significant effects to human beings..........................................................................................................62 17. The EIR should evaluate cumulative impacts to light. .................................................63 Table of Contents for the Comments of the SJRTA--Page i of ii V. THE PROPOSED MINE AND EIR SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.........................................................................................................................63 1. The proposed mine is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Policies and zoning designation.............................................................................................................................65 2. The proposed mine is not consistent with the General Plan’s Economic Policies.........66 3. The Proposed Mine Is Inconsistent with the General Plan’s Recreation Element ........68 4. The EIR should address consistency with the General Plan’s Open Space Policies.....68 5. The proposed mine must be consistent with the General Plan’s Noise Element and Policies...................................................................................................................................69 6. The mine must comply with County Safety Policies. ......................................................69 7. The mine is inconsistent with County Water policy........................................................70 8. The proposed mine must be consistent with General Plan requirements and policies regarding Wildlife and Vegetation.........................................................................................70 9. The proposed mine must be consistent with General Plan Air Quality policies and requirements. .........................................................................................................................71 10. The mine is inconsistent with General Plan forestry direction ....................................72 11. Impacts to Agriculture may be significant and must be assessed in the EIR ...............73 VI. THE SAN JUAN MINING CORPORATION MUST SUBMIT A RECLAMATION PLAN AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCES THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SMARA..........................................................................................................................................74 A. THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SMARA..............................74 B. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES MUST BE SUFFICIENT .................................................................77 VII. CLEAN WATER ACT .....................................................................................................78 A. THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE REQUIRES A NPDES PERMIT; A PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED ONLY IF CONSISTENT WITH THE CWA..................................................................................................78 1. NPDES Permits Required...............................................................................................78 2. No NPDES Permit May Be Issued Should the Water Quality Control Board Find that the Discharge May Result in Unlawful Impairment of Water Quality. .................................79 B. THE EIR MUST EVALUATE IMPACTS TO CWA IMPAIRED STREAMS AND ASSESS THE EFFECT OF MINE DISCHARGE ON TMDLS...................................................................................80 C. IMPACTS TO WETLANDS MAY REQUIRE A PERMIT UNDER SECTION 404(D) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT................................................................................................................................82 VIII. THE STATE AND FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACTS ............................83 A. FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ...............................................................................83 B. CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ..........................................................................84 IX. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................85 LITERATURE CITED APPENDIX A Table of Contents for the Comments of the SJRTA--Page ii of ii I. Executive Summary On November 9, 2012, the Nevada County Planning Department issued a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed re-opening of the San Juan Ridge Mine. These are the scoping comments of the San Juan Ridge Taxpayers Association (SJRTA). SJRTA believes that some of the potentially significant impacts of the mine may not be able to be mitigated. Further, there could be and have been numerous potentially significant impacts on water quality, quantity, on wetlands and streams, as well as on our economy and infrastructure. The NOP identified many of these significant impacts including impacts to water supply. These comments contain information that may be helpful in assessing the extent of these impacts. There are several areas in which the NOP seems to indicate that there will be no significant impacts. SJRTA believes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Mining's Toxic Legacy
    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Acknowledgements _____________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Sierra Fund would like to thank Dr. Carrie Monohan, contributing author of this report, and Kyle Leach, lead technical advisor. Thanks as well to Dr. William M. Murphy, Dr. Dave Brown, and Professor Becky Damazo, RN, of California State University, Chico for their research into the human and environmental impacts of mining toxins, and to the graduate students who assisted them: Lowren C. McAmis and Melinda Montano, Gina Grayson, James Guichard, and Yvette Irons. Thanks to Malaika Bishop and Roberto Garcia for their hard work to engage community partners in this effort, and Terry Lowe and Anna Reynolds Trabucco for their editorial expertise. For production of this report we recognize Elizabeth “Izzy” Martin of The Sierra Fund for conceiving of and coordinating the overall Initiative and writing substantial portions of the document, Kerry Morse for editing, and Emily Rivenes for design and formatting. Many others were vital to the development of the report, especially the members of our Gold Ribbon Panel and our Government Science and Policy Advisors. We also thank the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment and The Abandoned Mine Alliance who provided funding to pay for a portion of the expenses in printing this report. Special thanks to Rebecca Solnit, whose article “Winged Mercury and
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Results of Charitable Solicitation Campaigns Conducted by Commercial Fundraisers in Calendar Year 2016
    SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF CHARITABLE SOLICITATION CAMPAIGNS CONDUCTED BY COMMERCIAL FUNDRAISERS IN CALENDAR YEAR 2016 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF CHARITABLE SOLICITATION BY COMMERCIAL FUNDRAISERS FOR YEAR ENDING 2016 (Government Code § 12599) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES SUMMARY 1 - 5 TABLE SUBJECT/TITLE 1 ALPHABETICAL LISTING BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION 2 LISTING BY PERCENT TO CHARITY IN DESCENDING ORDER 3 THRIFT STORE OPERATIONS – GOODS PURCHASED FROM CHARITY 4 THRIFT STORE OPERATIONS – MANAGEMENT FEE/COMMISSION 5 VEHICLE DONATIONS – ALPHABETICAL BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION 6 COMMERCIAL COVENTURERS – ALPHABETICAL BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION California Department of Justice November 2017 SUMMARY Every year Californians provide generous support to a wide array of charities, either directly or through commercial fundraisers that charities hire to solicit donations on their behalf. The term “commercial fundraiser” refers generally to a person or corporation that contracts with a charity, for compensation, to solicit funds. The commercial fundraiser charges either a flat fee or a percentage of the donations collected. By law, commercial fundraisers are required to register with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts and file a Notice of Intent before soliciting donations in California. For each solicitation campaign conducted, commercial fundraisers are then required to file annual financial disclosure reports that set forth total revenue and expenses incurred. This Summary Report is prepared from self-reported information contained in the annual financial disclosure reports filed by commercial fundraisers for 2016 and includes statistics for donations of both cash and used personal property (such as clothing and vehicles) for the benefit of charity. Only information from complete financial reports received before October 20, 2017 is included.
    [Show full text]
  • North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records: Finding Aid
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf2f59n5kg No online items North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records: Finding Aid Processed by The Huntington Library staff; supplementary encoding and revision supplied by Xiuzhi Zhou and Diann Benti. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2129 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org © 2000 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining mssHM 51035-51130 1 Co. Records: Finding Aid Overview of the Collection Title: North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records Dates (inclusive): 1890-1891 Collection Number: mssHM 51035-51130 Creator: North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company. Extent: 96 pieces in 1 box Repository: The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2129 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org Abstract: This collection consists primarily of letters from the secretary to the president of the North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company of Nevada County, California, in 1890-1891 related to the company and hydraulic mining. Language: English. Access Open to qualified researchers by prior application through the Reader Services Department. For more information, contact Reader Services. Publication Rights The Huntington Library does not require that researchers request permission to quote from or publish images of this material, nor does it charge fees for such activities. The responsibility for identifying the copyright holder, if there is one, and obtaining necessary permissions rests with the researcher. Preferred Citation [Identification of item]. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Executive Summary Published March 2008 by The Sierra Fund The Sierra Fund’s Initiative to address legacy mining pollution has been made possible by the support of: The California Endowment The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and True North Foundation Executive Summary ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Is human health, water quality or the environment at risk from historic mining toxins? The Gold Rush changed California demographics as indigenous people were dislocated and mining towns appeared and disappeared across the Sierra Nevada Mountains. A less recognized consequence of the California Gold Rush was the massive environmental destruction that took place, which still plagues the Sierra today. Working with partners from state, federal, and tribal governments as well as from the academic, health, and environmental communities, The Sierra Fund’s report “Mining’s Toxic Legacy” is the first comprehen- sive evaluation of what happened during the Gold Rush, including: the cultural, health, and environmental impacts of this era; the obstacles that lie in the way of addressing these impacts; and a strategic plan for taking action on the longest neglected environmental problem in the Golden State of California. The California Gold Rush clawed out of the foothills of the Sierra Nevada considerable gold—93 tons or 2.7 million troy ounces in the peak year of 1853 alone... In the course of doing so, everything in the region and much downstream was ravaged. Wildlife was decimated. Trees were cut down to burn for domestic and industrial purposes and to build the huge mining infrastructure that was firmly in place by the 1870s.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation Sensitive Plants and Fungi Tahoe National Forest American River Ranger District Big Hope Fire Salvage and Restoration Project
    BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION SENSITIVE PLANTS AND FUNGI TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST AMERICAN RIVER RANGER DISTRICT BIG HOPE FIRE SALVAGE AND RESTORATION PROJECT Prepared by: KATHY VAN ZUUK Plant Ecologist/Botanist TNF Nonnative Invasive Plant Coordinator February 27, 2014 A Portion of the American Wildfire Area along Foresthill Divide Road 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Topic Page Executive Summary 4 Introduction 6 Consultation to Date 6 Current Management Direction 8 Alternative Descriptions 9 Existing Environment 11 Description of Affected Sensitive Species Habitat Effects Analysis and 20 Determinations Reasonably Foreseeable Actions/Time Frames for the Analysis/ List of 20 Assumptions Effects to Species without potential habitat in the Project Area 22 • Lemmon’s milk-vetch, Astragalus lemmonii 22 • Modoc Plateau milk-vetch, Astragalus pulsiferae var. coronensis 22 • Sierra Valley Ivesia, Ivesia aperta var. aperta 22 • Dog Valley Ivesia, Ivesia aperta var. canina 23 • Plumas Ivesia, Ivesia sericoleuca 23 • Webber’s Ivesia, Ivesia webberi 23 • Wet-cliff Lewisia, Lewisia cantelovii 24 • Long-petaled Lewisia, Lewisia longipetala 24 • Follett’s mint, Monardella follettii 24 • Layne’s butterweed, Packera layneae 24 • White bark pine, Pinus albicaulis 25 • Sticky Pyrrocoma, Pyrrocoma lucida 25 Effects to Species with potential habitat in the Project Area 26 • Webber’s Milkvetch, Astragalus webberi 26 • Carson Range rock cress, Boechera rigidissima var. demota 27 • Triangle-lobe moonwort, Botrychium ascendens 27 • Scalloped moonwort, Botrychium crenulatum 27 • Common moonwort, Botrychium lunaria 27 • Mingan moonwort, Botrychium minganense 27 • Mountain moonwort, Botrychium montanum 28 • Bolander’s candle moss, Bruchia bolanderi 29 • Clustered Lady’s Slipper Orchid, Cypripedium fasciculatum 29 • Mountain Lady’s Slipper Orchid, Cypripedium montanum 30 • Starved Daisy, Erigeron miser 31 • Donner Pass Buckwheat, Eriogonum umbellatum var.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract and Presentation by Steve Evans, Friends of the River
    PRESENTATION ABSTRACTS Reclaiming the Sierra Green $olutions to Abandoned Mines Reclaiming the Sierra: Green $olutions to Abandoned Mines May 3 - 5, 2012 Miners Foundry Nevada City, California Presented by THE SIERRA FUND INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A PASSIVE TREATMENT SYSTEM TO TREAT MINING INFLUENCED WATER FROM THE MAGENTA DRAIN PORTAL AT EMPIRE MINE STATE HISTORIC PARK, GRASS VALLEY, CA James Gusek, Lee Josselyn, William Agster, Steve Lofholm, and Daniel Millsap Abstract. Empire Mine State Historic Park (EMSHP) near Grass Valley, CA contains historic mine workings that flooded with ground water since the Empire Mine closed in 1957. Mining influenced water (MIW) perennially flows from portions of the underground workings via the Magenta Drain portal located near the northwest corner of the Park and into an unnamed channel. The MIW water has a neutral pH (no acid mine drainage), but contains elevated concentrations of iron, arsenic, manganese, and various other trace metals. Design treatment flows vary significantly from 20 gallons per minute to a maximum 100 year storm event level of 1,200 gallons per minute. Several active treatment alternatives were evaluated including traditional lime dosing and green sand; passive treatment technologies, including biochemical reactors were also considered. However, bench scale test results indicated that simple settling of suspended iron oxy-hydroxide (with co-precipitated arsenic) and passive aerobic precipitation of manganese oxide could meet regulatory mandated effluent limits. Passive treatment methods are economical, with lower initial capital costs, lower long term operations and maintenance costs and smaller carbon footprint than active treatment methods. Keeping with California’s Dept. of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Mission Statement, “to preserve the State’s extraordinary biological diversity and protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources,” the technology is green and sustainable which is critical since the passive treatment system (PTS) will, in principle, operate into perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan
    SIERRA NEVADA ECOREGIONAL PLAN December 1999 Photo Courtesy Charles Webber Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 2 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan: Craig Mayer Pam Weiant Larry Serpa Christine Tam Robin Cox Jim Gaither 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 777-0487 3 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 4 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Ecoregional Plan A. Executive Summary ……………………………………………….. 7 B. Purpose ……………………………………………………… 9 C. Description of Ecoregion ……………………………………… 9 D. Conservation Issues ……………………………………………… 11 E. Data Sources and Management ……………………………… 11 F. Conservation Targets ……………………………………… 12 G. Conservation Goals ……………………………………………… 12 H. Portfolio Assembly ……………………………………………… 14 I. Portfolio Results ……………………………………………… 15 J. Evaluation of Conservation Lands ………………………………… 25 K. Functional Aggregations …………….……………………………… 25 L. Selecting Action Areas ……………………………………………… 26 2. Analysis and Results by Ecological Group A. Aquatic Systems ……………………………………………… 35 B. Riparian ……………………………………………………… 49 C. Foothill Woodlands ……………………………………………… 61 D. Chaparral ……………………………………………………… 67 E. Montane and Subalpine Coniferous Forests ……………………… 75 F. Interior Wetlands Meadow, and Aspen ……………………… 81 G. Alpine ……………………………………………………… 95 H. Desert Scrub and Woodland ……………………………………… 101 I. Isolated Rare Plants ……………………………………………… 107 J. Common and Widespread Communities ……………………… 111 3. References and Contacts ……………………………………………. 115 4. Appendices ……………………………………………………… 127 Appendix I. Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Revised Management Plan for the Sequoia National Forest (USDA 2016A); • Draft Revised Management Plan for the Sierra National Forest (USDA 2016B)
    Draft REVISED ‘INIMIM FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for March 2018 U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Yuba Watershed Institute Prepared by Jo Ann Fites-Kaufman, PhD, Rebecca Robinson, MS, and Chris Friedel ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation of this report was made possible by the generous support of the Bella Vista Foundation. Special thanks go to the Board of Directors of the Yuba Watershed Institute (Corinne Munger, Ann Hobbs, Bob Erickson, Kurt Lorenz, Gary Parsons, and Daniel Nicholson) for providing extensive comments and edits to earlier drafts, and to Jerry Tecklin for his detailed recollections of past treatments and uncommon plant populations. The data collection effort would not have been possible without the assistance of a stellar field crew, which included Rusty Fites-Kaufman, Casey Fites-Kaufman, and Nathaniel Van Order. TABLE OF CONTENTS Revised ‘Inimim Forest Management Plan 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Plan Overview ............................................................................................................... 3 2. ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 5 2.1 Ecological Sustainability ................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Natural
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volume 8, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treat- ments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recom- mended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbreviated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu et al. (1992– 2009). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alpha- betically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. There may be citations in this list that have dates suffixed “b” but that are not preceded by citations of “[a]” works for the same year, or that have dates suffixed “c,” “d,” or “e” but that are not preceded by citations of “[a],” “b,” “c,” and/or “d” works for that year.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands of Lassen Volcanic National Park: an Assessment of Vegetation, Ecological Services, and Condition
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Wetlands of Lassen Volcanic National Park: An Assessment of Vegetation, Ecological Services, and Condition Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/KLMN/NRTR—2008/113 ON THE COVER A wetland in Lassen Volcanic National Park. Photograph by: Cheryl Bartlett Wetlands of Lassen Volcanic National Park: An Assessment of Vegetation, Ecological Services, and Condition Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/KLMN/NRTR—2008/113 Paul R. Adamus, PhD College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences Oregon State University 104 COAS Administrative Bldg Corvallis, OR 97331­5503 Cheryl L. Bartlett Department of Botany and Plant Pathology Oregon State University 2082 Cordley Hall Corvallis, OR 97331­2902 March 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer­reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. The Natural Resource Technical Reports series is used to disseminate the peer­reviewed results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service’s mission. The reports provide contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations.
    [Show full text]