DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Campo Wind Project With

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Campo Wind Project With DRAFT Campo Wind Project with Boulder Brush Facilities Biological Technical Report Prepared for: Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Region 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825 Contact: Dan (Harold) Hall Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Brock Ortega MAY 2019 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Campo Wind Project with Boulder Brush Facilities Biological Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................VII SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. IX 1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of the Report.............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Description .................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Standard Best Management Practices ..................................................................... 2 2 REGULATORY SETTING ..............................................................................................5 2.1 National Environmental Policy Act ........................................................................ 5 2.2 Endangered Species Act ......................................................................................... 5 2.3 USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines ...................................................... 6 2.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...................................................................................... 6 2.5 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................... 6 2.6 Clean Water Act ...................................................................................................... 7 2.7 EO 11988, Floodplain Management ....................................................................... 8 2.8 EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands ......................................................................... 8 2.9 EO 13112, Invasive Species ................................................................................... 8 2.10 EO 13807, Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects .................................... 8 2.11 California Endangered Species Act ........................................................................ 9 2.12 California Fish and Game Code ............................................................................ 10 2.13 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act ......................................................... 11 2.14 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................. 11 2.15 East County Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan .................................. 12 2.16 County Resource Protection Ordinance ................................................................ 12 3 METHODS .......................................................................................................................15 3.1 Literature Review.................................................................................................. 15 3.2 Field Reconnaissance ............................................................................................ 15 3.2.1 On Reservation.......................................................................................... 15 3.2.2 Off-Reservation ......................................................................................... 26 3.3 Focused Surveys for Candidate, Proposed, or Listed Species under ESA and/or Federally Regulated Resources ............................................................................. 30 3.3.1 Federally Listed Plants .............................................................................. 30 10212 i May 2019 Campo Wind Project with Boulder Brush Facilities Biological Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page No. 3.3.2 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation Surveys ........................ 31 3.3.3 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Surveys ...................................................... 31 3.3.4 Arroyo Toad Surveys ................................................................................ 34 3.3.5 Riparian Bird Surveys ............................................................................... 35 3.3.6 Golden Eagle Aerial and Ground Nest Searches ...................................... 37 3.3.7 Bat Surveys ............................................................................................... 39 3.3.8 Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Surveys ........................................................... 42 3.4 Survey Limitations ................................................................................................ 42 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................43 4.1 Project Site Description ........................................................................................ 43 4.2 Vegetation Communities, Land Covers, and Floral Diversity .............................. 44 4.2.1 Big Sagebrush Scrub (35210) ................................................................... 47 4.2.2 Chamise Chaparral (37200) ...................................................................... 47 4.2.3 Coast Live Oak Woodland (71160) .......................................................... 47 4.2.4 Developed (12000).................................................................................... 48 4.2.5 Disturbed Habitat (11300) ........................................................................ 48 4.2.6 Emergent Wetland (52440) ....................................................................... 48 4.2.7 Eucalyptus Woodland (79100) ................................................................. 49 4.2.8 Freshwater Marsh (52400) ........................................................................ 49 4.2.9 Granitic Chamise Chaparral (37210) ........................................................ 49 4.2.10 Granitic Northern Mixed Chaparral (37131) ............................................ 50 4.2.11 Montane Buckwheat Scrub (32800) ......................................................... 50 4.2.12 Mulefat Scrub (63310) .............................................................................. 50 4.2.13 Non-Native Grassland (42200) ................................................................. 51 4.2.14 Non-Native Grassland Broadleaf-Dominated (42210) ............................. 51 4.2.15 Red Shank Chaparral (37300) ................................................................... 51 4.2.16 Scrub Oak Chaparral (37900) ................................................................... 52 4.2.17 Semi-Desert Chaparral (37400) ................................................................ 52 4.2.18 Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest (61320) ................................... 52 4.2.19 Southern Willow Scrub (63320) ............................................................... 53 4.2.20 Unvegetated Stream Channel (64200) ...................................................... 53 4.2.21 Upper Sonoran Subshrub Scrub (39000) .................................................. 53 4.2.22 Valley Sacaton Grassland (42120) ............................................................ 54 4.2.23 Wildflower Field (42300) ......................................................................... 54 10212 ii May 2019 Campo Wind Project with Boulder Brush Facilities Biological Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page No. 4.3 Floral Diversity ..................................................................................................... 55 4.4 Wildlife Diversity ................................................................................................. 55 4.5 Candidate, Proposed, or Listed Species under the ESA ....................................... 57 4.5.1 Plant Species ............................................................................................. 59 4.5.2 Wildlife Species ........................................................................................ 59 4.6 Bald and Golden Eagles ........................................................................................ 62 4.6.1 Bald Eagle ................................................................................................. 62 4.6.2 Golden Eagle ............................................................................................. 63 4.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-Wetland Waters ............................................... 66 4.8 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages .............................................................. 68 5 PROJECT IMPACTS .....................................................................................................71 5.1 Definition of Impacts ............................................................................................ 71 5.2 Effects on Vegetation Communities and Land Covers ......................................... 72 5.2.1 Direct........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Carrico Department of American Indian Studies, San Diego State University
    CLANS AND SHIMULLS/SIBS OF WESTERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY RICHARD L. CARRICO DEPARTMENT OF AMERICAN INDIAN STUDIES, SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY In San Diego County and northern Baja California the social and political make-up of the Kumeyaay (Ipai and Tipai) is fairly well documented for the settlements and villages east of the western foothills of the Cuyamaca Mountains and into the western Imperial Desert. By contrast, the traditional and historical distribution and names of the coastal and inland valley clans is far less documented. This paucity of data for the western clans is largely a function of the removal of these clans from the region by European colonialists and their settlement in the interior of San Diego County by 1875. The goal of this study is to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of the precontact and early proto-historic coastal and inland valley clans through the use of Spanish mission records and early historic documents. As a result of this study 10 coastal and inland valley clans have been identified and their general area of distribution plotted. The combination of earlier studies with the current study provides a much clearer and more complete depiction of the Kumeyaay clans of San Diego County. The Kumeyaay people of San Diego County trace their family lineage back to a distant past and often to animals and creatures from another time. In spite of decades of study, traditional Kumeyaay social organization remains unclear. The basic unit appears to have been kin groups referred to by a variety of names including sib, shimulls, cimuLs, gens, and gentes.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses
    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc CHAPTER 2 BENEFICIAL USES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USES ..........................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ..1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT .................................................2 BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ..................................................................................7 BENEFICIAL USES FOR SPECIFIC WATER BODIES ........................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF RARE BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT BENEFICIAL USE ...............................................9 DESIGNATION OF SPAWNING, REPRODUCTION, AND/ OR EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SPWN) BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................................11 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY ..................................................................................11 EXCEPTIONS TO THE "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER" POLICY................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX D Biological Technical Report
    APPENDIX D Biological Technical Report CarMax Auto Superstore EIR BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE PROJECT CITY OF OCEANSIDE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: EnviroApplications, Inc. 2831 Camino del Rio South, Suite 214 San Diego, California 92108 Contact: Megan Hill 619-291-3636 Prepared by: 4629 Cass Street, #192 San Diego, California 92109 Contact: Melissa Busby 858-334-9507 September 29, 2020 Revised March 23, 2021 Biological Technical Report CarMax Auto Superstore TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3 SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 6 1.1 Proposed Project Location .................................................................................... 6 1.2 Proposed Project Description ............................................................................... 6 SECTION 2.0 – METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS ............................................ 8 2.1 Background Research .......................................................................................... 8 2.2 General Biological Resources Survey .................................................................. 8 2.3 Jurisdictional Delineation ...................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction .................................................... 9 2.3.2 Regional Water Quality
    [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]
  • Letter Report (December 7, 2020)
    Appendix B Biological Letter Report (December 7, 2020) STREET 605 THIRD 92024 CALIFORNIA ENCINITAS. F 760.632.0164 T 760.942.5147 December 7, 2020 11575 John R. Tschudin, Jr. Director – Design & Construction Encompass Health 9001 Liberty Parkway Birmingham, Alabama 35242 Subject: Biology Letter Report for Encompass Health Chula Vista, City of Chula Vista, California Dear Mr. Tschudin: This letter report provides an analysis of potential biological resource impacts associated with Encompass Health Chula Vista (proposed project) located in the City of Chula Vista (City), California (Assessor’s Parcel Number 644- 040-01-00). This biology letter report also includes a discussion of any potential biological resources that may be subject to regulation under the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) (City of Chula Vista 2003). Project Location The property (i.e., on-site; Assessor’s Parcel Number 644-040-01-00) occupies 9.79 acres and is located approximately 0.2 miles east of Interstate 805 between Main Street and Olympic Parkway (Figure 1, Project Location). The project also includes an off-site impact area of 0.22 acre located along the southeastern corner of the site where future utility connections may occur, making the total study area acreage for the project 10.01 acres. The site is located on Shinohara Lane accessed from Brandywine Avenue and is located on the U.S. Geological Service 7.5-minute series topographic Imperial Beach quadrangle map. The site exists within an urban portion of the City and is bound on the south and east by industrial buildings, to the west by single-family residences, and to the north by multi-family condominiums (Figure 2, Aerial Image).
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Relationship Between Sedimentation, Vegetation and Topography in the Tijuana River Estuary, San Diego, CA
    University of San Diego Digital USD Theses Theses and Dissertations Spring 5-25-2019 Understanding the relationship between sedimentation, vegetation and topography in the Tijuana River Estuary, San Diego, CA. Darbi Berry University of San Diego Follow this and additional works at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/theses Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Geomorphology Commons, and the Sedimentology Commons Digital USD Citation Berry, Darbi, "Understanding the relationship between sedimentation, vegetation and topography in the Tijuana River Estuary, San Diego, CA." (2019). Theses. 37. https://digital.sandiego.edu/theses/37 This Thesis: Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Digital USD. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital USD. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO San Diego Understanding the relationship between sedimentation, vegetation and topography in the Tijuana River Estuary, San Diego, CA. A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental and Ocean Sciences by Darbi R. Berry Thesis Committee Suzanne C. Walther, Ph.D., Chair Zhi-Yong Yin, Ph.D. Jeff Crooks, Ph.D. 2019 i Copyright 2019 Darbi R. Berry iii ACKNOWLEGDMENTS As with every important journey, this is one that was not completed without the support, encouragement and love from many other around me. First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Suzanne Walther, for her dedication, insight and guidance throughout this process. Science does not always go as planned, and I am grateful for her leading an example for me to “roll with the punches” and still end up with a product and skillset I am proud of.
    [Show full text]
  • Laguna and Laguna Meadow Grazing Allotments – Forest Environmental Assessment Service
    United States Department of Agriculture Laguna and Laguna Meadow Grazing Allotments – Forest Environmental Assessment Service July 2010 Descanso Ranger District Cleveland National Forest San Diego County, California For Information Contact: Lance Criley 3348 Alpine Blvd. Alpine, CA 91901 (619) 445-6235 ext. 3457 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Laguna and Laguna Meadow Grazing Allotments Environmental Assessment Descanso Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest, Page 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Area Description The project area consists of the Laguna and Laguna Meadow grazing allotments on the Descanso Ranger District (Descanso RD) of the Cleveland National Forest (Cleveland NF). There are approximately 30,810 acres of National Forest System lands in the project area, which ranges in elevation from 3,200 to 6,200 feet. Legal locations of the allotments on the San Bernardino Base Meridian, San Diego County, are: Laguna Allotment: T15S, R5E, Sections 15 to 17, 20 to 29, 31 to 36; T15S, R6E, Section 31; T16S, R5E, Sections 1 to 24, and 26 to 35; T16S, R6E, Sections 6 to 8, 19; and T17S, R5E, Sections 1 to 5, 9 to 16, 21, and 22.
    [Show full text]
  • Noteworthy Collection Mexico Anemone Tuberosa
    NOTEWORTHY COLLECTION MEXICO ANEMONE TUBEROSA Rydb. (RANUNCULACEAE). — Baja California, Municipio of Ensenada, Ejido Nativos del Valle heading W to Santo Tomas, 31.42561°N, 116.34858°W (WGS 84), 434 m/1428 ft, 26 March 2010, Sula Vanderplank, Sean Lahmeyer, Ben Wilder and Karen Zimmerman 100326-29 (RSA), Less than 100 plants observed growing with Zigadenus sp. on N-facing side of a steep limestone outcrop. Most plants in full flower. Previous knowledge. The general habitat of this species is given by Dutton et al. (1997), in the Flora of North America, as from rocky slopes and stream sides 800-2500 m. It is known from desert regions of the southwestern USA (CA, NM, NV, TX, UT) and NW Mexico (Baja California, Sonora), and has been well documented within the Sonoran and Mojave deserts: Wiggins (1980) reports it from the western edge of the Colorado Desert and the eastern Mojave Desert; Wilken (1993) gives the range in California as eastern Desert Mountains; 900 – 1900 m; Munz (1974) reports elevations of 3000-5,000 ft (914-1520 m), in Joshua Tree Woodland and Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, western edge of the Colorado Desert, eastern Mojave Desert. The westernmost known collections for this taxon in California are from the southern Cuyamaca Mtns., near the southwestern end of Poser Mtn, March 19 1995, Jeri Hirshberg 253 (RSA) 60 km from the Pacific coast; and the Laguna Mountains, below Desert View, 06 April 1939, A. J. Stover 245 (SD), 80 km from the Pacific coast (CCH 2011). In Arizona, Kearney and Pebbles (1951) report elevations of 2,500-5000 ft (760-1520 m).
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plant and Vegetation Surveys 2002 and 2003 Santa Ysabel
    Rare Plant and Vegetation Surveys 2002 and 2003 Santa Ysabel Ranch Open Space Preserve Prepared For The Nature Conservancy San Diego County Field Office The County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation By Virginia Moran, M.S. Botany Sole Proprietor Ecological Outreach Services P.O. Box 2858 Grass Valley, California 95945 Southeast view from the northern portion of the West Ranch with snow-frosted Volcan Mountain in the background. Information contained in this report is that of Ecological Outreach Services and all rights thereof reserved. Santa Ysabel Ranch Botanical Surveys 2 Contents I. Summary ……………………………………………………………… ……………. 4 II. Introduction and Methods……………………………..……………… …………… 5 III Results…………………………………………………………………...…………… 6 III.A. East Ranch Species of Interest Plant Communities III.B. West Ranch Species of Interest Plant Communities III.C. Sensitive Resources of the Santa Ysabel Ranch IV. Discussion……………………………………………………………….……………. 14 V. Conclusion…………………………………………….……………….……………… 18 VI. Management Recommendations…………………….……………………… …….. 19 VII. Suggested Future Projects………………….…….……………………… …………26 VIII. Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………… …….. 28 IX. References Cited / Consulted ……………………..……………………………….. 29 X. Maps and Figures ………………………….……………………………… ……... 30 Appendices 1 - 6 …………………………….…………………………………………….…44 Santa Ysabel Ranch Botanical Surveys 3 I. Summary The Santa Ysabel Ranch Open Space Preserve was established in 2001 from a purchase by The Nature Conservancy from the Edwards Family; the Ranch is now owned by the County of San Diego and managed as a Department of Parks and Recreation Open Space Preserve. It totals nearly 5,400 acres and is comprised of two parcels; an "East Ranch” and a "West Ranch". The East Ranch is east of the town of Santa Ysabel (and Highway 79 running north) and is bordered on the east by Farmer's Road in Julian.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study a Potential Trinational Protected Area: the Campo-Tecate Creek Kumiai Corridor
    DRAFT • NOT FOR QUOTATION Case Study A Potential Trinational Protected Area: The Campo-Tecate Creek Kumiai Corridor Katherine Comer1 ABSTRACT This paper outlines a “blueprint” for potential trinational protected area that would benefit the Campo Indian Reservation, the United States, and Mexico. On one end of the corridor the Campo Indian Reservation already boasts community- lead riparian protection programs, and 35 kilometers (km) downstream on the other end, Mexico has implemented a binational easement on sacred Kumiai lands at Servidumbre Cuchumá. These lands would serve as anchors for a 100 meter-wide biodiverse riparian ribbon through urban Tecate and rural San Diego lands. The benefits of a green corridor for the region would be ecological, hydrological, and social/cultural enhancement. Consistent with the Laguna Madre binational conservation area plan (TNC 2001), the blueprint uses two phases. In phase one, lands are protected within national boundaries, using a variety of instruments. Phase two “welds” the protected areas across boundaries. A seamless corridor might help bring greater attention, protection, and funding for the area from organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Long-term goals for the region include the incorporation of lands adjacent to the river and lands beyond the Kumiai anchors. Thus, the riparian protected area would begin in the Laguna Mountains and terminate at the Tijuana Estuary on the Pacific Ocean. Estudio de Caso Un Área Trinacional Potencialmente Protegida: El Arroyo Campo-Tecate del Corredor Kumiai Katherine Comer RESUMEN Este escrito delinea un “plan” para el área trinacional potencialmente protegida que beneficiaría la Reserva India de Campo, los Estados Unidos y México.
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego County Riverside County Orange County
    Chino Creek Middle Santa Ana River San Timoteo Wash Middle Santa Ana River Little Morongo Creek-Morongo Wash San Gabriel River 18070106 San Gorgonio River Headwaters Whitewater River Lower Santa Ana River Middle San Jacinto River Santa Ana River 18070203 Upper Whitewater River Temescal Wash Santiago Creek San Jacinto River 18070202 Whitewater River 18100201 San Diego Creek Lower San Jacinto River Upper San Jacinto River Newport Bay 18070204 Palm Canyon Wash O r a n g e C o u n t y RR ii vv ee rr ss ii dd ee CC oo uu nn tt yy Middle Whitewater River O r a n g e C o u n t y Middle San Jacinto River Newport Bay-Frontal Pacific Ocean San Jacinto River Deep Canyon Newport Bay-Frontal Pacific Ocean San Juan Creek Murrieta Creek Aliso Creek-Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina Aliso Creek-San Onofre Creek 18070301 Wilson Creek Lower Whitewater River San Mateo Creek Santa Margarita River 18070302 Aliso Creek-San Onofre Creek Santa Margarita River Lower Temecula Creek Aliso Creek-Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina Salton Sea 18100204 Santa Margarita River Upper Temecula Creek Coyote Creek Clark Valley San Felipe Creek San Onofre Creek-Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina Camp Pendleton Bank Property Middle San Luis Rey River Upper San Luis Rey River Lower San Luis Rey River Escondido Creek-San Luis Rey River San Felipe Creek 18100203 Escondido Creek-San Luis Rey River 18070303 Borrego Valley-Borrego Sink Wash Escondido Creek San Marcos Creek-Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina Upper Santa Ysabel Creek 8-digit HUC Upper San Felipe Creek Sevice Areas Lower Santa Ysabel
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the Natural History Museum
    Bulletin of _ The Natural History Bfit-RSH MU8&M PRIteifTBD QENERAl LIBRARY Botany Series VOLUME 23 NUMBER 2 25 NOVEMBER 1993 The Bulletin of The Natural History Museum (formerly: Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History)), instituted in 1949, is issued in four scientific series, Botany, Entomology, Geology (incorporating Mineralogy) and Zoology. The Botany Series is edited in the Museum's Department of Botany Keeper of Botany: Dr S. Blackmore Editor of Bulletin: Dr R. Huxley Assistant Editor: Mrs M.J. West Papers in the Bulletin are primarily the results of research carried out on the unique and ever- growing collections of the Museum, both by the scientific staff and by specialists from elsewhere who make use of the Museum's resources. Many of the papers are works of reference that will remain indispensable for years to come. All papers submitted for publication are subjected to external peer review for acceptance. A volume contains about 160 pages, made up by two numbers, published in the Spring and Autumn. Subscriptions may be placed for one or more of the series on an annual basis. Individual numbers and back numbers can be purchased and a Bulletin catalogue, by series, is available. Orders and enquiries should be sent to: Intercept Ltd. P.O. Box 716 Andover Hampshire SPIO lYG Telephone: (0264) 334748 Fax: (0264) 334058 WorW Lwr abbreviation: Bull. nat. Hist. Mus. Lond. (Bot.) © The Natural History Museum, 1993 Botany Series ISSN 0968-0446 Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 55-177 The Natural History Museum Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD Issued 25 November 1993 Typeset by Ann Buchan (Typesetters), Middlesex Printed in Great Britain at The Alden Press.
    [Show full text]