DOCSLIB.ORG

Habitat Conservation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Habitat Conservation Plan Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for Bay Checkerspot Butterfly and Serpentine Endemic Plant Species in Santa Clara County, California Donald Von Raesfeld Power Plant (02-AFC-03) Santa Clara, California Prepared for: Silicon Valley Power City of Santa Clara Prepared by: Sacramento, California and Creekside Center for Earth Observation Menlo Park, California March 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ I TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... I 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Need for an Incidental Take Permit ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.3.2 Habitat Conservation Plan Requirements and Guidelines ................................................................................ 23 1.3.3 National Environmental Policy Act ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Plan Duration .................................................................................................................................................................. 45 1.5 Species to be Covered by this HCP ............................................................................................................................. 45 1.6 Organization of this HCP .............................................................................................................................................. 45 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (DVR) ............................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Project Description (DVR) .............................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Project Location (DVR) ........................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Brief Project Summary (DVR) ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Activities Covered by Permit........................................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 BIOLOGICAL SETTING ............................................................................................................................ 10 3.1 Characteristics of the Project Site and Surrounding Lands ....................................................................................... 10 3.2 Regional Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Description of Serpentine Bunchgrass Ecosystem .................................................................................................... 12 3.3.1 Climate ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.3.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.3.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 3.3.4 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................. 1415 3.4 Special Status Species in the Project and DVR Ecological Preserve Areas ............................................................ 15 3.5 The Bay Checkerspot Butterfly and Federally Listed Serpentine Endemic Plants ............................................ 1617 4.0 EFFECTS/TAKE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 2122 4.1 Impacts Assessment ................................................................................................................................................... 2122 4.1.1 Direct Impacts..................................................................................................................................................... 2122 4.1.2 Indirect Impacts .................................................................................................................................................. 2122 4.1.3 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................................................ 2223 4.2 Take Assessment ......................................................................................................................................................... 2224 5.0 CONSERVATION STRATEGY .............................................................................................................. 2527 5.1 Biological Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 2527 5.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................................................... 2730 5.2.1 Mitigation Area ................................................................................................................................................... 2831 6.0 CONSERVATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................. 3134 6.1 Preserve Management ................................................................................................................................................ 3134 6.1.1 Grazing ................................................................................................................................................................. 3235 6.1.2 Adaptive Management ....................................................................................................................................... 3337 6.1.3 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................................... 3538 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3538 Bay Checkerspot Butterfly .................................................................................................................................................... 3539 Donald Von Raesfeld Power Plant (02-AFC-03) Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan i 6.1.4 Reports ................................................................................................................................................................. 3640 6.2 Responsibilities ............................................................................................................................................................ 3741 6.3 Scope ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3741 6.4 Permit Holder .............................................................................................................................................................. 3741 6.5 Access ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3741 6.6 Permit Amendments/Renewal Process ................................................................................................................... 3741 6.6.1 Permit Amendments .......................................................................................................................................... 3741 6.6.2 HCP Amendments ............................................................................................................................................. 3842 6.6.3 Permit Renewal ................................................................................................................................................... 3842 6.7 Public Input
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ray Grass Perenne Pdf
    Ray grass perenne pdf Continue Published in Temperate Climate and Cold Description: Unlike the annual rye grass, this variety is characterized by lasting over two years, being able to reach up to three or four years. It has a shallow fibrous radical system. It adapts to a temperate climate, does not tolerate high temperatures. Its growth is straight, with bright green leaves. It supports trampling, frost and is well competitive with other species. Soil: Suitable for all soils (except sandy soils), although it prefers fertile and moist soils and ph is close to neutrality. Nutrients and water: Requires irrigation, especially in summer and high fertilization. Shadow: Not suitable. Landing density: 3 to 15 kg / 100 m2. It is preferable to sow in early autumn, but can also be done in summer. Please note that the depth is no more than 2 cm. Cutting: 3 to 5 cm. Frequency: increased. Use: Widely used in parks and sports grounds, in mixes. It belongs to the family of grass, which is widely used all over the world and is considered one of the most valuable species of meadows. It is one of the most commonly used species both alone and in the mix. It has excellent tolerance to use, rapid germination (7 days in spring and 10 days in winter) and excellent installation speed. On the other hand, it is a species that is not drought-tolerant and requires high maintenance. Crossing different varieties has produced a wide range of varieties that differ in their characteristics, such as: tolerance to use, winter strength, color, resistance to disease and tolerance to heat and drought.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study Appendix B
    Uvas Road at Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Biological Assessment Biological Assessment Uvas Road over Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (37C-0095/37C-0601 [new]) Near Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California 04-SCL-0-CR Federal Project Number BRLO 5937(124) Caltrans District 04 November 2015 Biological Assessment Uvas Road over Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (37C-0095/37C-0601 [new]) Near Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California 04-SCL-0-CR Federal Project Number BRLO 5937(124) Caltrans District 04 November 2015 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation and Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department Prepared By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Patrick Boursier, Principal (408) 458-3204 H. T. Harvey & Associates Los Gatos, California Approved By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Solomon Tegegne, Associate Civil Engineer Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department Highway and Bridge Design 408-573-2495 Concurred By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Tom Holstein Environmental Branch Chief Office of Local Assistance Caltrans, District 4 Oakland, California 510-286-5250 For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department: Solomon Tegegne Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department 101 Skyport Drive San Jose, CA 95110 408-573-2495 Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Determinations Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Determinations The Uvas Road at Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (proposed project) is proposed by the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department in cooperation with the Office of Local Assistance of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and this Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared following Caltrans’ procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 9-17-2018 Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park" (2018). Botanical Studies. 85. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/85 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL & STATE PARKS James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State Univerity Arcata, California 14 September 2018 The Redwood National and State Parks are located in Del Norte and Humboldt counties in coastal northwestern California. The national park was F E R N S established in 1968. In 1994, a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation added Del Norte Coast, Prairie Creek, Athyriaceae – Lady Fern Family and Jedediah Smith Redwoods state parks to form a single administrative Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosporum • northwestern lady fern unit. Together they comprise about 133,000 acres (540 km2), including 37 miles of coast line. Almost half of the remaining old growth redwood forests Blechnaceae – Deer Fern Family are protected in these four parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Assessment
    Town of Los Gatos 15215 Shannon Road Planned Development Application PD-15-001 Initial Study | Appendices Attachment 2 Biological Resources Assessment 2/4/16 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR 10 RESERVOIR ROAD LOS GATOS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA April 18, 2015 Prepared for: Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 5054 Berkeley, CA 94705‐5054 Prepared by: Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. 65 Alta Hill Way Walnut Creek, CA 94595 (925) 899‐1282 mike@wood‐biological.com The information provided in this document is intended solely for the use and benefit of Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. and the Town of Los Gatos. No other person or entity shall be entitled to rely on the services, opinions, recommendations, plans or specifications provided herein, without the express written consent of Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................. 1 3.0 SETTING ...................................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES
    [Show full text]
  • © 2020 Hui Chen ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
    © 2020 Hui Chen ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TRAFFIC TOLERANCE OF FINE FESCUES: TECHNIQUES FOR SCREENING GERMPLASM by HUI CHEN A dissertation submitted to the School of Graduate Studies Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Plant Biology written under the direction of James A. Murphy and approved by ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey JANUARY 2020 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Traffic tolerance of fine fescues: Techniques for screening germplasm BY HUI CHEN Dissertation Director: Dr, James A. Murphy The term fine fescue refers to several Festuca spp. that have a very fine leaf texture compared to most other turfgrass species. These species are adapted to low-input management systems and have been used in mixtures with other cool-season grasses. However, fine fescues are not utilized to the same extent as other species partially due to their poor traffic tolerance and recuperative ability. Improvement in traffic tolerance of fine fescues would enable use of these grasses beyond turf systems that experience little to no traffic. The purpose of this dissertation was to develop and evaluate germplasm screening techniques that improve selecting efficiency for traffic tolerant fine fescues. The specific objectives of this research were: i) to evaluate the effect of traffic form (abrasive wear vs. cleated traffic) and season (spring vs. summer vs. autumn) on the assessment of fine fescue traffic tolerance (Chapters 1 and 2); ii) to evaluate the effect of nitrogen fertilization and harvest time on cell wall composition of fine fescues (Chapters 3 and 4); iii) to investigate the correlation between cell wall composition and wear tolerance of fine ii fescues; and iv) to develop near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) models to determine the cell wall composition of fine fescues.
    [Show full text]
  • Biology Report
    MEMORANDUM Scott Batiuk To: Lynford Edwards, GGBHTD From: Plant and Wetland Biologist [email protected] Date: June 13, 2019 Verification of biological conditions associated with the Corte Madera 4-Acre Tidal Subject: Marsh Restoration Project Site, Professional Service Agreement PSA No. 2014- FT-13 On June 5, 2019, a WRA, Inc. (WRA) biologist visited the Corte Madera 4-Acre Tidal Marsh Restoration Project Site (Project Site) to verify the biological conditions documented by WRA in a Biological Resources Inventory (BRI) report dated 2015. WRA also completed a literature review to confirm that special-status plant and wildlife species evaluations completed in 2015 remain valid. Resources reviewed include the California Natural Diversity Database (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 20191), the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (California Native Plant Society 20192), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation database (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 20193). Biological Communities In general, site conditions are similar to those documented in 2015. The Project Site is a generally flat site situated on Bay fill soil. A maintained berm is present along the western and northern boundaries. Vegetation within the Project Site is comprised of dense, non-native species, characterized primarily by non-native grassland dominated by Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica) and pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.). Dense stands of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) are present in the northern and western portions on the Project Site. A small number of seasonal wetland depressions dominated by curly dock (Rumex crispus), fat hen (Atriplex prostrata) and brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia) are present in the northern and western portions of the Project Site, and the locations and extent of wetlands observed are similar to what was documented in 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of the Vegetation Alliances and Associations of Sonoma County, California
    Classification of the Vegetation Alliances and Associations of Sonoma County, California Volume 1 of 2 – Introduction, Methods, and Results Prepared by: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program California Native Plant Society Vegetation Program For: The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District The Sonoma County Water Agency Authors: Anne Klein, Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie Evens December 2015 ABSTRACT This report describes 118 alliances and 212 associations that are found in Sonoma County, California, comprising the most comprehensive local vegetation classification to date. The vegetation types were defined using a standardized classification approach consistent with the Survey of California Vegetation (SCV) and the United States National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) system. This floristic classification is the basis for an integrated, countywide vegetation map that the Sonoma County Vegetation Mapping and Lidar Program expects to complete in 2017. Ecologists with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society analyzed species data from 1149 field surveys collected in Sonoma County between 2001 and 2014. The data include 851 surveys collected in 2013 and 2014 through funding provided specifically for this classification effort. An additional 283 surveys that were conducted in adjacent counties are included in the analysis to provide a broader, regional understanding. A total of 34 tree-overstory, 28 shrubland, and 56 herbaceous alliances are described, with 69 tree-overstory, 51 shrubland, and 92 herbaceous associations. This report is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 (this volume) is composed of the project introduction, methods, and results. It includes a floristic key to all vegetation types, a table showing the full local classification nested within the USNVC hierarchy, and a crosswalk showing the relationship between this and other classification systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Round Valley Regional Preserve Checklist of Wild Plants Sorted Alphabetically by Growth Form, Scientific Name
    Round Valley Regional Preserve Checklist of Wild Plants Sorted Alphabetically by Growth Form, Scientific Name This is a comprehensive list of the wild plants reported to be found in Round Valley Regional Preserve. The plants are sorted alphabetically by growth form, then by scientific name. This list includes the common name, family, status, invasiveness rating, origin, longevity, habitat, and bloom dates. EBRPD plant names that have changed since the 1993 Jepson Manual are listed alphabetically in an appendix. Column Heading Description Checklist column for marking off the plants you observe Scientific Name According to The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (JM2) and eFlora (ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html) (JM93 if different) If the scientific name used in the 1993 edition of The Jepson Manual (JM93) is different, the change is noted as (JM93: xxx) Common Name According to JM2 and other references (not standardized) Family Scientific family name according to JM2, abbreviated by replacing the “aceae” ending with “-” (ie. Asteraceae = Aster-) Status Special status rating (if any), listed in 3 categories, divided by vertical bars (‘|’): Federal/California (Fed./Calif.) | California Native Plant Society (CNPS) | East Bay chapter of the CNPS (EBCNPS) Fed./Calif.: FE = Fed. Endangered, FT = Fed. Threatened, CE = Calif. Endangered, CR = Calif. Rare CNPS (online as of 2012-01-23): 1B = Rare, threatened or endangered in Calif, 3 = Review List, 4 = Watch List; 0.1 = Seriously endangered in California, 0.2 = Fairly endangered in California EBCNPS (online as of 2012-01-23): *A = Statewide listed rare; A1 = 2 East Bay regions or less; A1x = extirpated; A2 = 3-5 regions; B = 6-9 regions; C = watch list Inv California Invasive Plant Council Inventory (Cal-IPCI) Invasiveness rating: H = High, L = Limited, M = Moderate, N = Native OL Origin and Longevity.
    [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]
  • INVASIVE SPECIES Grass Family (Poaceae) Wild Oats Are Annuals
    A PROJECT OF THE SONOMA-MARIN COASTAL PRAIRIE WORKING GROUP INVASIVE SPECIES I NVASIVE A NNUAL P LANTS WILD OATS (AVENA FATUA) AND SLENDER WILD OATS (AVENA BARBATA) - NON-NATIVE Grass Family (Poaceae) Wild oats are annuals. WILD OATS: Are native to Eurasia and North Africa. WILD OAT ECOLOGY Is often dominant or co-dominant in coastal prairie (Ford and Hayes 2007; Sawyer, et al. 2009), Occurs in moist lowland prairies, drier upland prairies and open woodlands (Darris and Gonzalves 2008), Species Interactions: The success of Avena lies in its superior competitive ability: o It has a dense root system. The total root length of a single Avena plant can be from 54.3 miles long (Pavlychenko 1937) to, most likely, twice that long (Dittmer 1937). Wild oats (Avena) in Marin coastal grassland. o It produces allelopathic compounds, Photo by D. (Immel) Jeffery, 2010. chemicals that inhibit the growth of other adjacent plant species. o It has long-lived seeds that can survive for as long as 10 years in the soil (Whitson 2002). Citation: Jeffery (Immel), D., C. Luke, K. Kraft. Last modified February 2020. California’s Coastal Prairie. A project of the Sonoma Marin Coastal Grasslands Working Group, California. Website: www.cnga.org/prairie. Coastal Prairie Described > Species: Invasives: Page 1 of 18 o Pavlychenko (1937) found that, although Avena is a superior competitor when established, it is relatively slow (as compared to cultivated cereal crops wheat, rye and barley) to develop seminal roots in the early growth stages. MORE FUN FACTS ABOUT WILD OATS Avena is Latin for “oat.” The cultivated oat (Avena sativa), also naturalized in California) is thought to be derived from wild oats (Avena fatua) by early humans (Baum and Smith [2011]).
    [Show full text]
  • Leptosiphon and Flower Color: Investigating Color Acquisition in Polemoniaceae Using Phylogenetics Margarita Hernandez A,B, Jacob B
    Leptosiphon and flower color: investigating color acquisition in Polemoniaceae using phylogenetics Margarita Hernandez a,b, Jacob B. Landis a,c, Douglas E. Soltis a,c, Pamela S. Soltis a a Florida Museum of Natural History, b College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, c Department of Biology, University of Florida Transitions in flower color are asymmetric over evolutionary time, with some transitions more favorable than others. Several selective pressures and mechanisms involving pollinators often drive these color changes, while other forces such as genetic drift and pleiotropic effects may drive others. In this project, we investigated transitions in flower color in Leptosiphon (Polemoniaceae). Leptosiphon comprises 38 species and has a center of distribution in California. Based on our initial analyses, it appears that flower color (blue/purple, pink, and yellow) has been gained in many independent transitions from a white-flowered ancestor. A well-supported species-level phylogeny will allow for better mapping of floral characteristics. To refine phylogenetic relationships, plant material was obtained from field, herbaria, and greenhouse collections for 197 accessions, representing all 38 species, plus Phlox as an outgroup. We selected 96 samples, including all species and each color morph for a targeted gene capture protocol using MYbaits, a procedure that allows custom design of baits. Probe sequences were created through a reciprocal blast using four transcriptomes (two species of Phlox, Fouqueria macdouglaii, and Ternstroemia gymanthera) and the Arabidopsis genome. One hundred probes were created, with markers with large introns discarded. After gene capture, samples were multiplexed and sequenced with Illumina. Reads were assembled, and phylogenetic analyses were conducted on concatenated and individual gene data sets.
    [Show full text]
  • Serpentine Vegetation Management Project
    Serpentine Vegetation Management Project 2005 REPORT Stuart B. Weiss, Ph.D. and David H. Wright, Ph.D. Creekside Center for Earth Observation 27 Bishop Lane, Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel: 650-854-9732, fax: 650-644-3355 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.creeksidescience.com FWS Grant Agreement No. 814205G240 Weiss and Wright 2005 Serpentine Vegetation Management Report Cover photo: David Wright trimming a 2-inch early trim, grazing exclusion plot on March 15, 2005. The PVC quadrat shows the size of the sample area; an additional 2 dm on all sides of the plot are trimmed to minimize edge effects. The wood blocks are temporarily placed to standardize the height of cut. The wooden stake at upper left marks and identifies the plot. The fence in the background excludes cattle grazing. CONTENTS: Page a. Abstract iii b. Introduction 1 c. Description of study area 3 d. Methods and materials 3 e. Results and Discussion 5 f. Summary and conclusions 14 g. Literature cited 15 h. Summary of expenditures 15 h. Data appendices CD included ii Weiss and Wright 2005 Serpentine Vegetation Management Report ABSTRACT We have begun a 3-year project to evaluate vegetation management methods and grazing impacts on serpentine habitat in Santa Clara County. In the first year of our project, funded by Habitat Restoration Program grant 814205G240, we established an experimental vegetation management trial, collecting initial vegetation data from that trial, conducted observations on serpentine vegetation characteristics across different grazing and other vegetation management regimes (fenceline and burn study), investigated herbivore damage to Dudleya setchellii, and recorded the spatial distribution and other observations on Streptanthus albidus peramoenus and S.
    [Show full text]