DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Resource Management Plan for Potrero/Mason Property San Diego County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Resource Management Plan for Potrero/Mason Property San Diego County Draft Resource Management Plan for Potrero/Mason Property San Diego County April 2018 The County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation is pleased to announce the availability of the Draft Potrero/Mason Property (Property) Resource Management Plan (RMP) for public review and comment. This RMP has been prepared as a guidance document to manage and preserve the biological and cultural resources within the Property. As part of the RMP effort, biological and cultural surveys were conducted in 2012 to characterize the baseline conditions of the Property needed to develop future management and monitoring efforts. The vegetation communities within the Property include coast live oak woodland, eucalyptus woodland, chamise chaparral, coastal sage-chaparral transition, northern mixed chaparral, southern mixed chaparral, scrub oak chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub, coastal scrub/chaparral, non-native grassland, and foothill/mountain perennial grassland. These vegetation communities support multiple sensitive species including: coast horned lizard, loggerhead shrike, white-tailed kite, and Dulzura pocket mouse. If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Price at (858) 966-1375. Please send your comments to the attention of Jennifer Price, via mail at 5500 Overland Avenue, Suite 410, San Diego, CA 92123; via fax to (858) 495-5841; or via email to [email protected] by May 17, 2018. Potrero/Mason Property April 2018 Draft Resource Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 1.1. Purpose of Resource Management Plan ................................................ 1 1.1.1 MSCP Background .............................................................................. 3 1.1.2 Framework Resource Management Plan .......................................... 3 1.2. Implementation ....................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Management Approach ..................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Responsible Parties/Designation of Land Manager .......................... 4 1.2.3 Regulatory Context............................................................................ 4 1.2.4 Limitations and Constraints ............................................................... 5 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 5 2.1 Legal Description .................................................................................... 5 2.2 Geographical Setting .............................................................................. 5 2.2.1 Site Access ....................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 MSCP Context .................................................................................. 6 2.3 Physical and Climatic Conditions ............................................................ 9 2.3.1 Geology and Soils ............................................................................. 9 2.3.2 Climate ............................................................................................ 11 2.3.3 Hydrology ........................................................................................ 12 2.3.4 Fire History ...................................................................................... 12 2.4 Land Use .............................................................................................. 12 2.4.1 On-Site Land Use ............................................................................ 12 2.4.2 Adjacent Properties ......................................................................... 15 2.4.3 Easements or Rights ....................................................................... 15 2.5 Trails ..................................................................................................... 15 3.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DESCRIPTION .......................................... 19 3.1 Vegetation Communities/Habitat .......................................................... 19 3.2 Plant Species ........................................................................................ 29 3.2.1 Plant Species Present ..................................................................... 29 3.2.2 Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Plant Species Present .............. 29 3.2.3 Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Plant Species not Observed but with High Potential to Occur ............................................................ 33 3.2.4 Non-native and/or Invasive Plant Species ....................................... 34 3.3 Wildlife Species .................................................................................... 36 3.3.1 Wildlife Species Present .................................................................. 36 3.3.2 Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Wildlife Species Present ........... 39 3.3.2.1 Herpetofauna ............................................................................ 41 3.3.2.2 Birds ......................................................................................... 41 3.3.2.3 Mammals - Small Mammals...................................................... 45 3.3.2.4 Bats .......................................................................................... 47 i Potrero/Mason Property April 2018 Draft Resource Management Plan 3.3.3 Rare, Threatened or Endangered Wildlife with High Potential to Occur ............................................................................................... 50 3.3.3.1 Invertebrates ............................................................................. 50 3.3.3.2 Herpetofauna ............................................................................ 50 3.3.3.3 Birds ......................................................................................... 51 3.3.3.4 Mammals .................................................................................. 51 3.3.4 Non-native and/or Invasive Wildlife Species ................................... 52 3.4 Overall Biological and Conservation Value ........................................... 52 3.4.1 Wildlife Linkages and Corridors ....................................................... 52 4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 53 4.1 Site History ........................................................................................... 53 4.1.1 Pre-Contact ..................................................................................... 53 4.1.2 Post-Contact ................................................................................... 54 4.1.3 Historic Overview of the Potrero Mason Property ........................... 57 4.2 Native American Consultation .............................................................. 63 4.3 Cultural Resource Descriptions ............................................................ 64 4.3.1 Prehistoric Archaeological Resources ............................................. 64 4.3.2 Historic Sites ................................................................................... 65 4.4 Resource Significance .......................................................................... 67 5.0 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 69 5.1 Management Goals and Objectives ...................................................... 69 5.1.1 Management Directives and Implementation Measures.................. 69 5.2 Biological Resources Element (A) ........................................................ 69 5.2.1 Biological Monitoring ....................................................................... 69 5.2.3 Non-Native Invasive Wildlife Species Control ................................. 70 5.2.4 Future Research ............................................................................. 71 5.3 Vegetation Management Element (B) .................................................. 71 5.3.1 Habitat Restoration.......................................................................... 71 5.3.2 Invasive Non-Native Plant Species Removal and Control ............... 72 5.3.3 Fire Prevention, Control, and Management ..................................... 72 5.4 Public Use, Trails, and Recreation Element (C) ................................... 75 5.4.1 Public Access .................................................................................. 75 5.4.2 Fencing and Gates .......................................................................... 76 5.4.3 Trail and Access Road Maintenance ............................................... 77 5.4.4 Signage ........................................................................................... 78 5.5 Operations and Facility Maintenance Element (D) ............................... 78 5.5.1 Litter/Trash and Materials Storage .................................................. 78 5.5.2 Hydrological Management ............................................................... 79 5.5.3 Emergency, Safety and Police Services .......................................... 79 5.5.4 Adjacency Management Issues ...................................................... 80 5.6 Cultural Resources Element (E) ........................................................... 80 6.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 86 ii Potrero/Mason Property April 2018 Draft Resource Management Plan TABLES Table 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument
    In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service This page left intentionally blank. In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument By Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt, William L. Halvorson, and Pamela Anning Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey 125 Biological Sciences East National Park Service Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web:http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested Citation Powell, B.F., Schmidt, C.A., Halvorson, W.L., and Anning, Pamela, 2008, Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Chiricahua National Monument: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1023, 104 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1023/]. Cover photo: Chiricahua National Monument. Photograph by National Park Service. Note: This report supersedes Schmidt et al. (2005). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tijuana River Valley Existing Conditions Report
    Climate Understanding & Resilience in the River Valley Tijuana River Valley Existing Conditions Report Prepared by the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve for the CURRV project’s Stakeholder Working Group Updated April 14, 2014 This project is funded by a grant from the Coastal and Ocean Climate Applications Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office. Also, supported in part by a grant from the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) Science Collaborative. 1 Table of Contents Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Resources and Geography ........................................................................................................................... 6 Climate ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Topography & Floodplain ....................................................................................................................... 6 Hydrology ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Campo Wind Cultural Report
    APPENDIX I Cultural Resources Report CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND EVALUATION REPORT IN SUPPORT OF SECTION 106 OF THE NHPA for the CAMPO WIND PROJECT WITH BOULDER BRUSH FACILITIES Reviewing Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Region 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825 Contact: Dan Hall Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Brad Comeau, MSc, RPA, Angela Pham, MA, RPA, Micah Hale, PhD, RPA and Rachel Hoerman, PhD, MAY 2019 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Campo Wind Project with Boulder Brush Facilities NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE (NADB) INFORMATION Authors: Brad Comeau, MSc, RPA; Angela Pham, MA, RPA; Micah J. Hale, PhD, RPA and Rachel Hoerman, PhD Firm: Dudek Project Proponent: Terra-Gen Development Company LLC 11512 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92130 Report Date: April 2019 Report Title: Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Campo Wind Project with Boulder Brush Facilities, San Diego County, California Type of Study: Phase I Archaeological Survey; Phase II Archaeological Evaluation New Sites: CWA-S-001, CWA-S-004, CWA-S-005, CWS-S-006, CWS-S-007, CWS-S- 008, CWS-S-009, CWS-S-010, CWS-S-011, CWS-S-012; ECWEP-I-015, ECWEP-SW-001, ECWEP-SW-003, ECWEP-SW-005, ECWEP-SW-006, ECWEP-SW-007, ECWEP-SW-009, ECWEP-SW-011, ECWEP-SW-017, TW-S-001, TW-S-002, TW-S-003, TW-S-007,TW-S-008, TW-S-009, TW-S- 010, TW-S-011, TW-S-012, TW-S-013, TW-S-014, TW-S-015, TW-S-016, TW-S-017, TW-S-030, TW-S-031,
    [Show full text]
  • Description of Source Water System
    CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SOURCE WATER SYSTEM 2.0 Description of the Source Water System During the last 100 years, the CSD’s water system has evolved into a very complex system. It is now estimated to serve a population of 1.4 million people spread out over 370 square miles (Table 2.1). The CSD treats imported raw water and local runoff water at three City WTPs which have a combined capacity of 378 MGD. The CSD treats water by conventional technologies using coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection. Recently, all CSD water treatment plants have been modified to provide for the addition of fluoride to the potable water supply. To ensure safe and palatable water quality, the CSD collects water samples at its reservoirs, WTPs, and throughout the treated water storage and distribution system. The CSD’s use of local and imported water to meet water demand is affected by availability, cost, and water resource management policies. Imported water availability decreases the need to carry over local water for dry years in City reservoirs. CSD policy is to use local water first to reduce imported water purchases; this policy runs the risk of increased dependence on imported water during local droughts. Table 2.1 - City of San Diego General Statistics Population (2010) 1,301,621 Population (Estimated 2014) 1,381,069 Population percent change 6.1 Land Area Square Miles 370 Population Density per Square Mile 3733 Water Distribution Area Square Miles 403 Number of Service Connections (2015) 279,102 2.1 Water Sources (Figure 2.1) Most of California's water development has been dictated by the multi-year wet/dry weather cycles.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT OAEC NATIVE PLANT LIST FERNS and FERN ALLIES
    DRAFT OAEC NATIVE PLANT LIST FERNS and FERN ALLIES: Blechnaceae: Deer Fern Family Giant Chain Fern Woodwardia fimbriata Dennstaedtiaceae: Bracken Fern Bracken Pteridium aquilinum Dryopteridaceae: Wood Fern Family Lady Fern Athyrium filix-femina Wood Fern Dryopteris argutanitum Western Sword Fern Polystichum muitum Polypodiaceae: Polypody Family California Polypody Polypodium californicum Pteridaceae: Brake Family California Maiden-Hair Adiantum jordanii Coffee Fern Pellaea andromedifolia Goldback Fern Pentagramma triangularis Isotaceae: Quillwort Family Isoetes sp? Nuttallii? Selaginellaceae: Spike-Moss Family Selaginella bigelovii GYMNOPSPERMS Pinaceae: Pine Family Douglas-Fir Psuedotsuga menziesii Taxodiaceae: Bald Cypress Family Redwood Sequoia sempervirens ANGIOSPERMS: DICOTS Aceraceae: Maple Family Big-Leaf Maple Acer macrophyllum Box Elder Acer negundo Anacardiaceae: Sumac Family Western Poison Oak Toxicodendron diversilobum Apiaceae: Carrot Family Lomatium( utriculatum) or (carulifolium)? Pepper Grass Perideridia kelloggii Yampah Perideridia gairdneri Sanicula sp? Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza chilensis Unidentified in forest at barn/deer fence gate Angelica Angelica tomentosa Apocynaceae: Dogbane or Indian Hemp Family Apocynum cannabinum Aristolochiaceae Dutchman’s Pipe, Pipevine Aristolochia californica Wild Ginger Asarum caudatum Asteraceae: Sunflower Family Grand Mountain Dandelion Agoseris grandiflora Broad-leaved Aster Aster radulinus Coyote Brush Baccharis pilularis Pearly Everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea Woodland Tarweed Madia
    [Show full text]
  • Water, Capitalism, and Urbanization in the Californias, 1848-1982
    TIJUANDIEGO: WATER, CAPITALISM, AND URBANIZATION IN THE CALIFORNIAS, 1848-1982 A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History By Hillar Yllo Schwertner, M.A. Washington, D.C. August 14, 2020 Copyright 2020 by Hillar Yllo Schwertner All Rights Reserved ii TIJUANDIEGO: WATER, CAPITALISM, AND URBANIZATION IN THE CALIFORNIAS, 1848-1982 Hillar Yllo Schwertner, M.A. Dissertation Advisor: John Tutino, Ph.D. ABSTRACT This is a history of Tijuandiego—the transnational metropolis set at the intersection of the United States, Mexico, and the Pacific World. Separately, Tijuana and San Diego constitute distinct but important urban centers in their respective nation-states. Taken as a whole, Tijuandiego represents the southwestern hinge of North America. It is the continental crossroads of cultures, economies, and environments—all in a single, physical location. In other words, Tijuandiego represents a new urban frontier; a space where the abstractions of the nation-state are manifested—and tested—on the ground. In this dissertation, I adopt a transnational approach to Tijuandiego’s water history, not simply to tell “both sides” of the story, but to demonstrate that neither side can be understood in the absence of the other. I argue that the drawing of the international boundary in 1848 established an imbalanced political ecology that favored San Diego and the United States over Tijuana and Mexico. The land and water resources wrested by the United States gave it tremendous geographical and ecological advantages over its reeling southern neighbor, advantages which would be used to strengthen U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • QH Ferns, Brakes and Horsetails 1
    Quail Hollow Ranch County Park Ferns and Their Spore-Bearing Allies Key to QH Ferns, Brakes and Horsetails 1. Found on surface of pond December - February, often looking reddish . .. Azolla filiculoides 1 [1'] Tubular stems . .. .. .. .Horsetail . Family . 4 1 [2'] Leaflets roundish, not noticeably longer than wide . Adiantum jordanii 1 [3'] Tiny leaflets green to purplish, edges curled under; all other plant parts brown . .. .. .. Pellaea. mucronata var. mucronata 1 [4'] Leaf shape +/- triangular; ventral leaflet surface may appear gold . .. .. .. Pentagramma. triangularis ssp. triangularis 1 [5'] Leaves 1-pinnate, deeply lobed or not . .. 2 1 [6'] Leaflet attachments generally appear +/- perpendicular at base, especially lower . .. 3 1 [7'] Leaflet attachments generally appear angled at base . .. .. Dryopteris arguta 2. Deeply lobed 1-pinnate leaves; sori oblong . Woodwardia fimbriata 2 [1'] Unlobed leaflets attached across entire base; sori round to generally ovate . .. .. Polypodium californicum 2 [2'] Unlobed leaflets narrowly attached via "petiole"; sori round, indusia peltate . .. .. Polystichum munitum 3. Sporangia at leaflet margin; leaves generally 3-pinnate, unlobed . .. .. .. .Pteridium . aquilinum var. pubescens 3' Oblong sporangia between leaflet margin and axis; leaves generally 1-2-pinnate, deeply lobed . Athyrium filix-femina 4. Stems annual; sterile stems branched . .. .. .. .Equisetum . telmateia ssp. braunii 4' Stems annual to perennial, usually unbranched . .. .. Equisetum X ferrissii 1 [3'] Pellaea mucronata var. mucronata , birdfoot cliffbrake - Leaves 2-3(4)-pinnate; tiny greenish to purplish leaflets 2-6(8) mm long by 0.5- 1. Azolla filiculoides , mosquito fern 2(4) mm wide, with edges folded under. Other than Common in ponds, slow streams, wet ditches. the leaflets, every other visible part of the plant is Tiny green to reddish leaves, 0.5 - 1.5 mm.
    [Show full text]
  • Pteridium: Dennstaedtiaceae) This Separation May Correspond to the Basal Divergence Among in Australia
    American Journal of Botany 96(5): 1041–1049. 2009. G LOBAL CHLOROPLAST PHYLOGENY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY OF BRACKEN ( PTERIDIUM ; DENNSTAEDTIACEAE) 1 Joshua P. Der, 2,4 John A. Thomson, 3 Jeran K. Stratford, 2,5 and Paul G. Wolf 2 2 Department of Biology, Utah State University, 5305 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322 USA; and 3 National Herbarium of New South Wales, Botanic Gardens Trust, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia Bracken ferns (genus Pteridium ) represent an ancient species complex with a natural worldwide distribution. Pteridium has historically been treated as comprising a single species, but recent treatments have recognized several related species. Phenotypic plasticity, geographically structured morphological variation, and geographically biased sampling have all contributed to taxo- nomic confusion in the genus. We sampled bracken specimens worldwide and used variable regions of the chloroplast genome to investigate phylogeography and reticulate evolution within the genus. Our results distinguish two major clades within Pteridium , a primarily northern hemisphere Laurasian/African clade, which includes all taxa currently assigned to P. aquilinum , and a primar- ily southern hemisphere Austral/South American clade, which includes P. esculentum and P. arachnoideum . All European acces- sions of P. aquilinum subsp. aquilinum appear in a monophyletic group and are nested within a clade containing the African P. aquilinum taxa ( P. aquilinum subsp. capense and P. aquilinum subsp. centrali-africanum ). Our results allow us to hypothesize the maternal progenitors of two allotetraploid bracken species, P. caudatum and P. semihastatum . We also discuss the biogeography of bracken in the context of the chloroplast phylogeny. Our study is one of the fi rst to take a worldwide perspective in addressing variation in a broadly distributed species complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Response of Leaf Photosynthesis in Two Fern Species Pteridium
    J Plant Res (2015) 128:777–789 DOI 10.1007/s10265-015-0736-5 REGULAR PAPER Rapid response of leaf photosynthesis in two fern species Pteridium aquilinum and Thelypteris dentata to changes in CO2 measured by tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy Keisuke Nishida1 · Naomi Kodama2,3,4 · Seiichiro Yonemura2 · Yuko T. Hanba5 Received: 6 November 2014 / Accepted: 20 April 2015 / Published online: 3 June 2015 © The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract We investigated stomatal conductance (gs) angiosperms. Together, these results suggest that regu- and mesophyll conductance (gm) in response to atmos- lation of gm to [CO2] may differ between angiosperms pheric CO2 concentration [CO2] in two primitive land and ferns. plants, the fern species Pteridium aquilinum and The- lypteris dentata, using the concurrent measurement of Keywords CO2 response · Ferns · Mesophyll leaf gas exchange and carbon isotope discrimination. conductance · Pteridophytes · Photosynthesis [CO2] was initially decreased from 400 to 200 μmol 1 1 mol− , and then increased from 200 to 700 μmol mol− , 1 and finally decreased from 700 to 400 μmol mol− . Introduction Analysis by tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS) revealed a rapid and continuous response Atmospheric CO2 is a substrate for leaf photosynthesis in in gm within a few minutes. In most cases, both ferns land plants, and thus CO2 availability at the carboxylation showed rapid and significant responses of gm to changes site is one of the most important limiting factors for leaf in [CO2]. The largest changes (quote % decrease) were photosynthesis. In the process of leaf photosynthesis in C3 obtained when [CO2] was decreased from 400 to 200 land plants, CO2 diffuses from the atmosphere through sto- 1 μmol mol− .
    [Show full text]
  • Flow of the Colorado River and Other Western Boundary Streams and Related Data
    WESTERN WATER BULLETIN 1994 RECENL.iJ Flow of SEpgg 2m® The Colorado RiveyBwc .and other Western Boundary Streams and INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF STATE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1994 INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND MEXICO UNITED STATES SECTION MEXICAN SECTION JOHN M . BERNAL J. ARTURO HERRERA SOLIS .Commissioner Commissioner El Paso, Texas Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua ALTON L . GOFF CECILIO LOMELI LOPEZ Chief Area Subdirector Yuma, Arizona Hydro Office Mexicali, Baja California WESTERN WATER BULLETIN 1994 Flow of The Colorado River and other Western Boundary Streams and Related Data COLORADO RIVER TIJUANA RIVER SANTA CRUZ RIVER SAN PEDRO RIVER WHITE WATER DRAW 1994 2 WESTERN BOUNDARY WATER BULLETIN - 1994 - INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION CONTENTS Foreword and Acknowledgments 4 General Hydrologic Conditions for 1994 6 Map of Western Boundary - Douglas, Arizona to Pacific Ocean 44 I - COLORADO RIVER - IMPERIAL DAM TO GULF OF CALIFORNIA Map of Lower Colorado River, United States and Mexico . Following Page 84 QUANTITY OF WATER Stream-Flow and Stage Records Tributary - Reservation Main Drain No . 4 (California Drain) 8 Yuma Main Canal Wasteway to Colorado River at Yuma, Arizona 9 Colorado River below Yuna Main Canal Wasteway at Yuma, Arizona - Discharges 10 below Yuma Main Canal Wasteway at Yuma, Arizona - Stages 11 Tributary - Yuma Mesa Outlet Drain to Colorado River near Yuma, Arizona 12 Drain No . 8-8 (Araz Drain) 13 Pilot Knob Power Plant and Wasteway
    [Show full text]
  • Backies Vegetation Survey Report 2017
    VEGETATION SURVEY OF LAND AT BACKIES, GOLSPIE, SUTHERLAND, AUGUST 2017 Ben and Alison Averis 6A Castle Moffat Cottages, Garvald, Haddington, East Lothian, EH41 4LW Tel: 01620 830 670 / 07767 058 318 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Website: www.benandalisonaveris.co.uk August 2017 Report commissioned by Alastair Cunningham, Anam Cara, 18 Upper Leachkin, Inverness, IV3 8PN www.anamcara.org CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 SURVEY METHODS 1 3 DESCRIPTIONS OF VEGETATION TYPES 2 4 EVALUATION OF BOTANICAL INTEREST 10 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 16 6 REFERENCES 16 APPENDIX 1 – POLYGON DATA 17 APPENDIX 2 – PLANT SPECIES LIST 19 APPENDIX 3 – PHOTOGRAPHS 25 APPENDIX 4 – MAPS 30 i 1 INTRODUCTION This survey was commissioned by Alastair Cunningham of Anam Cara in order to produce a National Vegetation Classification (NVC) map of an area of croft land at Backies, near Golspie, in East Sutherland, centred roughly on Ordnance Survey grid reference NC 8312 0258. The site covers about 18 hectares of upland heathland, wetland and woodland with an altitudinal range of 150 m to 200 m. It is on a gentle slope facing SSW. The underlying rock is Middle and Lower Old Red Sandstone of Devonian age (British Geological Survey 2007). The climate is cool, wet and windy with short summers: typical of the British uplands and the far north of Scotland. 2 SURVEY METHODS The fieldwork for this survey was carried out by Ben and Alison Averis on 1st August 2017. The habitats were classified and mapped using the National Vegetation Classification (NVC; Rodwell 1991 et seq.). The vegetation was classified to NVC sub-community level wherever possible, but in some cases it was classified to NVC community level only where the species composition did not fit clearly into any sub-community.
    [Show full text]
  • County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining
    COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP Department of Planning and Land Use Department of Public Works July 30, 2007 APPROVAL I hereby certify that these Guidelines for Determining Significance for Emergency Response Plans are a part of the County of San Diego, Land Use and Environment Group’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and were considered by the Director of Planning and Land Use, in coordination with the Director of Public Works on the 30th day of July, 2007. I hereby certify that these Guidelines for Determining Significance for Emergency Response Plans are a part of the County of San Diego, Land Use and Environment Group’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and have hereby been approved by the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (DCAO) of the Land Use and Environment Group on the 30th day of July, 2007. The Director of Planning and Land Use is authorized to approve revisions to these Guidelines for Determining Significance for Emergency Response Plans, except any revisions to Chapter 4.0 must be approved by the DCAO. Approved, July 30, 2007 EXPLANATION These Guidelines for Determining Significance for Emergency Response Plans and information presented herein shall be used by County staff for the review of discretionary projects and environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These Guidelines present a range of quantitative, qualitative, and performance levels for particular environmental effects. Normally
    [Show full text]