DOCSLIB.ORG

(Downingia Concoler Ssp, Brevior) at Cuyamaca Rancho State Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Downingia Concoler Ssp, Brevior) at Cuyamaca Rancho State Park Habitat Restoration and Enhancement for the Cuyamaca Lake Downingia (Downingia concoler ssp, brevior) at Cuyamaca Rancho State Park Prepared by: Ellen T. Bauder, PhD Department of Biology San Diego State University San Diego, CA 92182-4614 Assisted by: David Bainbridge and Steven P. Netto Department of Biology San Diego State University San Diego, CA 92162-4614 Prepared for: California Department of Fish and Game Natural Heritage Division Endangered Plant Program 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2090 • Funded by: Emergency Drought Relief Project Contract # CA HER 022593 September 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... i v FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................. Iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................................... v ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ v iii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONAND PROJECTOBJECTIVES.................................................................. 1 1.1. PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................... 1 1.2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1. The species Downingia concolor ssp. brevior ................................................................... 2 1.2.2. Meadow Characteristics ................................................................................. 2 _. 1,2.2.1. Hydrology and Vegetation ................................................................ 3 1.2.2.2. Factors Determining Meadow Hydrology ........................................ 4 1.2.2.2.1. Topography ...................................................................... 4 1.2.2.2.2. Precipitation ................................................................... 5 1.2.2.2.3. Soils................................................................................. 5 1.2.2.3. Meadow Hydrology-Summary ......................................................... 6 1.2.3. Cuyamaca Valley Meadows .............................................................................. 8 1.2.3.1. Hydrology ........................................................................................ 8 1.2.3.2. Downingia concolor ssp. brevior Distribution and the Hydrologic Regime ................................................................................................ 9 1.2.3.3. Soils in Cuyamaca Meadows ............................................................ 1 1 CHAPTER2. HABITAT DEGRADATIONAND LOSS................................................................................ 1 3 2.1. EROSION AND ARROYO FORMATION IN THE WEST ......................................................... 1 3 2.1.1. The Role of Weather Patterns and Climate Change ......................................... 1 4 2.1.2. Changes in Land Use........................................................................................ 1 5 2.2. HISTORICLAND USE AT CUYAMACA .................................................. i............................ 1 6 CHAPTER3. HABITAT RESTORATIONAND ENHANCEMENT................................................................ 1 9 3.!. MEADOW AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION METHODS............... i........................................1 9 3.1.1. Erosion Control Structures for Gullies ......................................................... 1 9 3.1.2. Ground Water Monitoring .............................................................................. 2 1 3.1.3. Restoration Projects in Areas Similar to Cuyamaca ..................................... 2 3 3.2. SELECTION OF RESTORATION SITES............................................................................... 2 5 ii 3.2.1. Little Stonewall Creek Watershed...:. .............. .......... i......-............... .. ............. 25 3.2.2. Minshall Drainage ................................................................... ....................... 28 3.2.3. Paso Picacho Meadow...................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER4. RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENTACTIONS....................................................................... 31 4.1. PASO PICACHO MEADOW................................................................................................ 31 4.1.1. Erosion Control-Design and Installation ....................................................... 31 4.1.2. Hydrology Monitoring Instruments ............................................................... 41 4.1.3. Seed Introduction ............................................................................................ 42 4.1.4. Trail Rehabilitation ........................................................ ............................... 42 4.2. MINSHALL DRAINAGE ..................................................................................................... 48 4.3. LITTLE STONEWALL CREEK WATERSHED ...................................................................... 48 CHAPTER5. GENERALRECOMMENDATIONS............. ......................................................................... 50 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................... i ......................................................... 51 iii T!L j TABLES TABLE 1. HYDROLOGICCLASSIFICATIONOF MEADOWSITESINTHE SIERRANEVADA, CAUFORNIA ........................................................................................................................... 7 TABLE 2. MAP INDEX WITH CHANNEL DIMENSIONS AND PLACEMENT OF TREATMENTS ................. 3 3 FIGURES FIGURE1. AERIALPHOTOGRAPHOFTHE PASOPICACHOMEADOW,CUYAMACARANCHO STATE PARK ............................................................................................................................ 1 0 FIGURE2. EROSION CONTROLSTRUCTURESA)SPACING,B) FF.ATURES........................................ 2 0 FIGURE3. DOWNINGIACONCOLORSSP.BREVIORHABITATAND LOCATIONOFRESORATION PROJECTS .............................................................................................................................. 2 6 FIGURE4. MAP OF MEADOWNORTH OFPASOPICACHOGROUPCAMP,CUYAMACARANCHO STATE PARK ............................................................................................................................ 3 0 FIGURE5. IN-CHANNELCROSS SECTIONSIN MEADOWNORTHOF PASOPICACHOGROUP CAMP, CUYAMACA RANCHO STATE PARK ................................................................................ 3 2 FIGURE6. PERPENDICULARCROSS SECTIONSOF CHANNELA-A' ................................................... 3 6 FIGURE 7. PERPENDICULAR CROSS SECTIONSOF CHANNELB-B' .................................................. 3 7 FIGURE8. PHOTOSOFTREATMENTSAT PASOPICACHOGROUPCAMP,CUYAMACARANCHO STATE PARK............................................................................................................................ 3 9 FIGURE9. PHOTOSOF TREATMENTSAT PASOPICACHOGROUPCAMP,CUYAMACARANCHO STATE PARK ............................................................................................................................ 4 0 FIGURE 10. PIEZOMETER DESIGN AT MAP LOCATIONS71 and 72................................................... 4 3 FIGURE 11. PIEZOMETER DESIGN AT MAP LOCATION 73 ................................................................. 4 4 FIGURE 12. PIEZOMETER DESIGN AT MAP LOCATION74................................................................. 4 5 FIGURE 13. PIEZOMETER NEST DESIGN AT MAP LOCATION75........................................................ 4 6 FIGURE 14. WELL DESIGN AND BOREHOLE LOGAT MAP LOCATION76 ........................................... 4 7 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This restoration and enhancement project was funded by the Emergency Drought Relief Project. I would like to thank Mr. Michael Golden and Ms Diane Steeck, Administrators of the Drought Relief Project for The Nature Conservancy, for their support, attention to detail and e!ficiency. Ms Steeck was exceptionally patient and helpful. Mr. Jim Dice, Regional Plant Ecologist for the Department of Fish and Game, provided effective local oversight. The idea for this project was developed under his guidance as plant ecologist for the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Bill Tippets and Mr. Jack Shu, also with Parks and Recreation at that time, provided important input in the development stage. When the actual restoration efforts began, new personnel were overseeing Cuyamaca Rancho State Park. I appreciate the assistance of Mr. Greg Picard, Park Superintendent, and Mr. Paul Jorgensen, Resource Ecologist. The Helix Water District and Lake Cuyamaca Recreation and Park District allowed us access to Downingia habitat on their land so that we could make seed collections and map the species. Seed collection was done with a California Department of Fish and Game permit and California Department of Parks and Recreation collecting permit. Ms Ronilee Clark aided in the preparation and filing of CEQA documentation, and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Vista Irrigation District
    MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT February 7,2018 A Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Vista Irrigation District was held on Wednesday, February 7,2018 at the offices of the District, l39l Engineer Street, Vista, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER President Dorey called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. 2. ROLL CALL Directors present: Miller, Vásquez, Dorey, Sanchez, and MacKenzie. Directors absent: None. Staff present: Eldon Boone, General Manager; Lisa Soto, Secretary of the Board; Brett Hodgkiss, Assistant General Manager; Don Smith, Director of Water Resources; Brian Smith, District Engineer; Randy Whitmann, Director of Engineering; Frank Wolinski, Operations and Field Services Manager; Alisa Nichols, Management Analyst; Al Ducusin, Engineering Services Manager; Sherry Thorpe, Safety and Risk Manager; Marlene Kelleher, Finance Manager; and Marian Schmidt, Administrative Assistant. General Counsel Joel Kuperberg was also present. Other attendees: Karen L. Thesing, Associate in Risk Management (ARM), Director of Insurance Services, and Peter Kuchinsky II, Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Lead Risk Management Advisor. 3 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Director MacKenzie led the pledge of allegiance 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA t8-02-12 (Ipon motíon by Director Vdsquez, seconded by Dírector MøcKenzie and unanímously carrìed (5 ayes: Miller, Vósquez, Dorey, Sønchez, and MacKenzie), the Board of Dírectors the AS 5. PUBLIC COMMENT TIME No public comments were presented on items not appearing on the agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 8-02-13 Upon motion by Dírector MacKenzíe, seconded by Dírector Vdsquez and unanìmously carried (5 øyes: Mìller, Vdsquez, Dorey, Sanchez, and MacKenzíe), the Board of Dìreclors øpproved the Consent Calendar, íncluding Resolution No.
    [Show full text]
  • Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Bibliography Compiled and Edited by Jim Dice
    Steele/Burnand Anza-Borrego Desert Research Center University of California, Irvine UCI – NATURE and UC Natural Reserve System California State Parks – Colorado Desert District Anza-Borrego Desert State Park & Anza-Borrego Foundation Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Bibliography Compiled and Edited by Jim Dice (revised 1/31/2019) A gaggle of geneticists in Borrego Palm Canyon – 1975. (L-R, Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Dr. Steve Bryant, Dr. Richard Lewontin, Dr. Steve Jones, Dr. TimEDITOR’S Prout. Photo NOTE by Dr. John Moore, courtesy of Steve Jones) Editor’s Note The publications cited in this volume specifically mention and/or discuss Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, locations and/or features known to occur within the present-day boundaries of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, biological, geological, paleontological or anthropological specimens collected from localities within the present-day boundaries of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, or events that have occurred within those same boundaries. This compendium is not now, nor will it ever be complete (barring, of course, the end of the Earth or the Park). Many, many people have helped to corral the references contained herein (see below). Any errors of omission and comission are the fault of the editor – who would be grateful to have such errors and omissions pointed out! [[email protected]] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As mentioned above, many many people have contributed to building this database of knowledge about Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. A quantum leap was taken somewhere in 2016-17 when Kevin Browne introduced me to Google Scholar – and we were off to the races. Elaine Tulving deserves a special mention for her assistance in dealing with formatting issues, keeping printers working, filing hard copies, ignoring occasional foul language – occasionally falling prey to it herself, and occasionally livening things up with an exclamation of “oh come on now, you just made that word up!” Bob Theriault assisted in many ways and now has a lifetime job, if he wants it, entering these references into Zotero.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Strategy for Multi-Species at Risk in Vernal Pools and Other Ephemeral Wet Areas Associated with Garry Oak Ecosystems in Canada
    Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series Recovery Strategy for Multi-Species at Risk in Vernal Pools and other Ephemeral Wet Areas Associated with Garry Oak Ecosystems in Canada Bog birds-foot trefoil Tall woolly-heads (Pacific population) Water plantain buttercup Kellogg’s rush Rosy owl clover Dwarf sandwort July 2006 About the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)? SARA is the Act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003 and one of its purposes is “to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.” What is recovery? In the context of species at risk conservation, recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered, threatened or extirpated species is arrested or reversed, and threats are removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of the species’ persistence in the wild. A species will be considered recovered when its long-term persistence in the wild has been secured. What is a recovery strategy? A recovery strategy is a planning document that identifies what needs to be done to arrest or reverse the decline of a species. It sets goals and objectives and identifies the main areas of activities to be undertaken. Detailed planning is done at the action plan stage. Recovery strategy development is a commitment of all provinces and territories and of three federal agencies — Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada — under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations
    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This chapter presents an overall summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the water resources on their reservations. A brief description of each Tribe, along with a summary of available information on each Tribe’s water resources, is provided. The water management issues provided by the Tribe’s representatives at the San Diego IRWM outreach meetings are also presented. 4.1 Reservations San Diego County features the largest number of Tribes and Reservations of any county in the United States. There are 18 federally-recognized Tribal Nation Reservations and 17 Tribal Governments, because the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation. All of the Tribes within the San Diego IRWM Region are also recognized as California Native American Tribes. These Reservation lands, which are governed by Tribal Nations, total approximately 127,000 acres or 198 square miles. The locations of the Tribal Reservations are presented in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Two additional Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized lands: 1) the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians (though the Band remains active in the San Diego region) and 2) the Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians. Note that there may appear to be inconsistencies related to population sizes of tribes in Table 4-1. This is because not all Tribes may choose to participate in population surveys, or may identify with multiple heritages. 4.2 Cultural Groups Native Americans within the San Diego IRWM Region generally comprise four distinct cultural groups (Kumeyaay/Diegueno, Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño), which are from two distinct language families (Uto-Aztecan and Yuman-Cochimi).
    [Show full text]
  • 4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
    4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 4.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES This section evaluates the potential impacts to visual resources and aesthetics associated with implementation of the 2050 RTP/SCS. The information presented was compiled from multiple sources, including information from the San Diego County Draft General Plan and its associated Draft EIR (2010), and the SANDAG 2030 RTP EIR (2007). 4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Regional Character The San Diego region is an area of abundant and varied scenic resources. The topography of the region contributes greatly to the overall character and quality of the existing visual setting. In general terms, the region is characterized by four topographical regions: coastal plain, foothills, mountains, and desert. The visual character of each is described briefly below. The coastal plain ranges in elevation from sea level to approximately 600 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and varies from rolling terraces to steep cliffs along the coastline. The coastal plain provides expansive views in all directions, with the coastline visible from some local roadways. Much of the coastal plain is already developed with varying densities of urban and suburban development. Agricultural uses within the coastal area include row crops, field flowers, and greenhouses. The foothills of the San Diego region range in elevation from 600 to 2,000 feet AMSL and are characterized by rolling to hilly uplands that contain frequent narrow, winding valleys. This area is traversed by several rivers as well as a number of intermittent drainages. The foothills are also developed with various urban and rural land uses. Agriculture consists of citrus and avocado orchards as well as row crops.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Vina Plains Preserve Wurlitzer Unit
    DO r:r:i :;:i·,iOVE Ff.'f)l,1 . ,- . - . "'I":; Vascular Plants of Vina Plains Preserve, Wurlitzer Unit Vernon H. Oswald Vaseular Plants of Vina Plains Preserve, Wurlitzer Unit Vernon H . Oswald Department of Biological Sciences California State University, C h ico Ch ico, California 95929-0515 1997 Revision RED BLUFF •CORN ING TEHAMA CO. -------------B1JITECO. ORLAND HWY 32 FIGURE I. Location of Vina P la.ins Preserve, Main Unit on the north, Wurlitzer Unit on the south. CONTENTS Figure 1. Location of Vina Plains Preserve ...... ................................. facing contents Figure 2. Wurlitzer Unit, Vina Plains Preserve ..... ............................... facing page I Introduction .. ... ..................................... ................................ ....... ....... ... ................ I References .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4 The Plant List: Ferns and fem allies .......... ................................................... ........... ................. 5 Di cot flowering plants ............... ...................................................... ................. 5 Monocot flowering plants .......... ..................................................................... 25 / ... n\ a: t, i. FIGURE 2. Wurlitzer Unit, Vina Plains Preserve (in yellow), with a small comer of the Main Unit showing on the north. Modified from USGS 7.5' topographic maps, Richardson Springs NW & Nord quadrangles. - - INTRODUCTION 1 A survey of the vascular flora of the Wurl itzer
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Biodiversity Report
    FINAL Baseline Biodiversity Survey for Potrero Mason Property Prepared for: County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation 5500 Overland Avenue Drive, Suite 410 San Diego, California 92123 Contact: Jennifer Price Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Brock Ortega DECEMBER 2012 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Final Baseline Biodiversity Survey Potrero Mason Property TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................VII 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of the Report.............................................................................................. 1 1.2 MSCP Context ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................9 2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Geographical Setting ............................................................................................... 9 2.3 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Rainfall and Reservoirs
    Local Rainfall and Reservoirs San Diego County Reservoirs ORANGE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY RED MOUNTAIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY RESERVOIR Fallbrook 76 DIVERSIFICATION MORRO HILL RESERVOIR Local Storage: LAKE HENSHAW Enhancing Water 15 TURNER LAKE A Vital Water Supply Reliability Vista Resource Oceanside 78 DIXON LAKE MAERKLE RESERVOIR LAKE WOHLFORD San Marcos SUTHERLAND Carlsbad San Diego Escondido RESERVOIR County’s semiarid OLIVENHAIN RESERVOIR climate means that SAN DIEGUITO Encinitas RESERVOIR 5 truly wet years are LAKE HODGES LAKE RAMONA few and far between, Solana Beach LAKE POWAY CUYAMACA and dry years are very 15 RESERVOIR Del Mar 56 Poway SAN VICENTE RESERVOIR common. Since 1976, the EL CAPITAN MIRAMAR RESERVOIR amount of local surface RESERVOIR 805 Santee water used to help meet La Jolla 52 LAKE JENNINGS annual demand has been as 67 high as 140,300 acre-feet LAKE MURRAY El Cajon 163 LOVELAND 8 RESERVOIR and as low as 4,071 acre- La Mesa feet. Consequently, runoff from 5 San Diego 94 SWEETWATER RESERVOIR BARRETT LAKE Lemon local rainwater that flows into Coronado Grove reservoirs – commonly National City MORENA 54 RESERVOIR called surface water – Chula Vista AF = acre-foot LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR represents a vital One acre-foot is but small portion of 905 approximately San Diego County’s Maerkle, Red Mountain and Morro Hill store 325,900 gallons, MEXICO treated water and do not capture local runoff. enough to supply water supply needs. 2.5 single-family Over the past 10 years, an Enhancing Water Storage households of four average of about 7 percent of the Today, the Water Authority and its mem- for a year.
    [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]
  • Vascular Plants of Santa Cruz County, California
    ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECOND EDITION Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland & Maps by Ben Pease CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CHAPTER Copyright © 2013 by Dylan Neubauer All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission from the author. Design & Production by Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland Maps by Ben Pease, Pease Press Cartography (peasepress.com) Cover photos (Eschscholzia californica & Big Willow Gulch, Swanton) by Dylan Neubauer California Native Plant Society Santa Cruz County Chapter P.O. Box 1622 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 To order, please go to www.cruzcps.org For other correspondence, write to Dylan Neubauer [email protected] ISBN: 978-0-615-85493-9 Printed on recycled paper by Community Printers, Santa Cruz, CA For Tim Forsell, who appreciates the tiny ones ... Nobody sees a flower, really— it is so small— we haven’t time, and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time. —GEORGIA O’KEEFFE CONTENTS ~ u Acknowledgments / 1 u Santa Cruz County Map / 2–3 u Introduction / 4 u Checklist Conventions / 8 u Floristic Regions Map / 12 u Checklist Format, Checklist Symbols, & Region Codes / 13 u Checklist Lycophytes / 14 Ferns / 14 Gymnosperms / 15 Nymphaeales / 16 Magnoliids / 16 Ceratophyllales / 16 Eudicots / 16 Monocots / 61 u Appendices 1. Listed Taxa / 76 2. Endemic Taxa / 78 3. Taxa Extirpated in County / 79 4. Taxa Not Currently Recognized / 80 5. Undescribed Taxa / 82 6. Most Invasive Non-native Taxa / 83 7. Rejected Taxa / 84 8. Notes / 86 u References / 152 u Index to Families & Genera / 154 u Floristic Regions Map with USGS Quad Overlay / 166 “True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.” —MIGUEL DE UNAMUNO 1 ~ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~ ANY THANKS TO THE GENEROUS DONORS without whom this publication would not M have been possible—and to the numerous individuals, organizations, insti- tutions, and agencies that so willingly gave of their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Mountain Subregional Plan San Diego County General Plan
    Central Mountain Subregional Plan San Diego County General Plan Adopted January 3, 1979 Adopted August 3, 2011 Amended November 18, 2015 – GPA14-001 December 14, 2016 – GPA 12-004, GPA16-002 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1 – Community Character ........................................................ 54 Chapter 2 – Land Use: General ............................................................. 59 Residential ...................................................................... 63 Commercial ..................................................................... 66 Industrial ......................................................................... 69 Agricultural ...................................................................... 70 Civic ................................................................................ 74 Inholdings ........................................................................ 77 Private and Public Residential Treatment Centers........... 81 Specific Planning Areas................................................... 82 Chapter 3 – Housing .............................................................................. 84 Chapter 4 – Mobility ............................................................................... 85 Chapter 5 – Scenic Highways/Route & Scenic Preservation .................. 88 Chapter 6 – Public Facilities and Services ............................................. 95 Chapter 7 – Safety ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]