DOCSLIB.ORG

Thousand Oaks Groundwater Utilization Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thousand Oaks Groundwater Utilization Project 2775 North Ventura Road, Suite 100 Oxnard, California 93036 805-973-5700 FAX: 805-973-1440 Thousand Oaks Groundwater Utilization Project Public Draft CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020 Prepared for City of Thousand Oaks 2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd. Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 K/J Project No. 1744405*02 Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv List of Figures................................................................................................................................ v List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... v List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ v Section 1: Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................ 1-1 1.1 Organization of this IS/MND ................................................................ 1-5 Section 2: Project Description .................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Overview of the Proposed Project ....................................................... 2-1 2.2 City of Thousand Oaks ........................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Project Goals and Objectives .............................................................. 2-2 2.4 Project Location .................................................................................. 2-2 2.5 Project Components ............................................................................ 2-5 2.5.1 Site Improvements ................................................................... 2-5 2.5.2 Water Treatment Plant ............................................................. 2-5 2.5.2.1 WTP Pump Stations............................................... 2-7 2.5.2.2 WTP Decant Tanks ................................................ 2-7 2.5.2.3 Chemical Storage .................................................. 2-7 2.5.2.4 Appurtenances and Other Facilities ....................... 2-8 2.5.3 Road Access ............................................................................ 2-8 2.5.4 Pipeline Segments ................................................................... 2-8 2.5.4.1 Raw Water Transmission Pipeline ......................... 2-8 2.5.4.2 Irrigation Water Pipeline......................................... 2-8 2.5.4.3 Potable Water Pipeline .......................................... 2-8 2.5.5 Well Improvements .................................................................. 2-9 2.6 Project Construction and Operation Activities ..................................... 2-9 2.6.1 Construction Activities .............................................................. 2-9 2.6.2 Construction Schedule ........................................................... 2-11 2.7 Operation and Maintenance of New Facilities ................................... 2-12 2.8 Purpose and Intended Uses of the IS/MND ...................................... 2-12 2.9 Project Design Features/Applicant Proposed Measures ................... 2-12 2.9.1 Permits Potentially Required to Implement the Project .......... 2-15 2.9.2 Funding .................................................................................. 2-15 Section 3: Environmental Checklist ........................................................... 3-1 3.1 Initial Study Checklist .......................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 AESTHETICS ........................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1.1 Environmental Setting ............................................ 3-1 3.1.1.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................. 3-2 Thousand Oaks Groundwater Utilization Project, CEQA IS/MND Page i Table of Contents (cont'd) 3.1.1.3 Impact Analysis ...................................................... 3-3 3.1.1.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................... 3-5 3.1.1.5 Significance After Mitigation .................................. 3-5 3.1.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................ 3-6 3.1.2.1 Environmental Setting ............................................ 3-6 3.1.2.2 Impact Analysis ...................................................... 3-7 3.1.2.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................... 3-7 3.1.2.4 Significance After Mitigation .................................. 3-7 3.1.3 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................... 3-8 3.1.3.1 Environmental Setting ............................................ 3-8 3.1.3.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................. 3-9 3.1.3.3 Impact Analysis .................................................... 3-10 3.1.3.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................. 3-16 3.1.3.5 Significance After Mitigation ................................ 3-16 3.1.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................. 3-18 3.1.4.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... 3-19 3.1.4.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................... 3-22 3.1.4.3 Impact Analysis .................................................... 3-25 3.1.4.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................. 3-28 3.1.4.5 Significance After Mitigation ................................ 3-33 3.1.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................... 3-34 3.1.5.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... 3-34 3.1.5.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................... 3-34 3.1.5.3 Impact Analysis .................................................... 3-35 3.1.5.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................. 3-36 3.1.5.5 Significance After Mitigation ................................ 3-36 3.1.6 ENERGY ................................................................................ 3-37 3.1.6.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... 3-37 3.1.6.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................... 3-37 3.1.6.3 Impact Analysis .................................................... 3-38 3.1.6.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................. 3-38 3.1.6.5 Significance After Mitigation ................................ 3-38 3.1.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................................................... 3-39 3.1.7.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... 3-40 3.1.7.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................... 3-40 3.1.7.3 Impact Analysis .................................................... 3-43 3.1.7.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................. 3-46 3.1.7.5 Significance After Mitigation ................................ 3-47 3.1.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................ 3-48 3.1.8.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... 3-48 3.1.8.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................... 3-49 3.1.8.3 Impact Analysis .................................................... 3-52 3.1.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................ 3-55 3.1.9.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... 3-55 3.1.9.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................... 3-56 Page ii Thousand Oaks Groundwater Utilization Project, CEQA IS/MND Table of Contents (cont'd) 3.1.9.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................. 3-60 3.1.9.4 Significance After Mitigation ................................ 3-60 3.1.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................. 3-61 3.1.10.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... 3-61 3.1.10.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................... 3-62 3.1.10.3 Impact Analysis .................................................... 3-64 3.1.10.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................. 3-69 3.1.10.5 Significance After Mitigation ................................ 3-69 3.1.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................. 3-70 3.1.11.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... 3-70 3.1.11.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................... 3-70 3.1.11.3 Impact Analysis .................................................... 3-71 3.1.11.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................. 3-71 3.1.11.5 Significance After Mitigation ................................ 3-71 3.1.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................... 3-72 3.1.12.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... 3-72 3.1.12.2 Impact Analysis .................................................... 3-72 3.1.12.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................. 3-72 3.1.12.4 Significance After Mitigation ................................ 3-73 3.1.13 NOISE .................................................................................... 3-74 3.1.13.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... 3-74 3.1.13.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................... 3-77 3.1.13.3 Impact Analysis .................................................... 3-78 3.1.13.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INSIDE the EXPLORER Oak Titmouse
    FRIENDS OF EDGEWOOD NATURAL PRESERVE Edgewood Explorer September 2007 Volume 14 Number 3 EDGEWOOD’S GRASSHOPPERS PARKS FOR THE FUTURE By Paul Heiple We are including a flyer in this Explorer describing the Parks for the Future campaign. Grasshoppers are easy to find in Edgewood this Last year San Mateo County voters cast a time of year. Also known as short-horned majority of YES votes for this initiative when it grasshoppers because of their short antennae, appeared as Measure A. Unfortunately, the these insects are in the order Orthoptera (straight measure failed to gain the required 2/3 majority. wing, referring to the forewing of many that are held straight along the back). Within the short- We are now hoping to bring Parks for the Future horned grasshopper family Acididae, we find to the voters again in 2008. We hope you will spur-throated, slant-faced, and banded-winged take a moment to review the flyer. That’s our grasshoppers. own docent and weeder John Allen leading a group through Edgewood in the middle picture. Spur-throated grasshoppers are named for the spur in their throats just behind their mouths. You can help spread the word about this very These are the most common grasshoppers and important effort to secure dedicating funding for the ones that cause the most damage. our county parks. Populations of these insects can explode into vast numbers that eat everything in their path. BIOCONTROL REPORT VIII Clouds of these grasshoppers can number in the By Paul Heiple trillions. Some species can have more than one There’s not much to report in the world of generation a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Juniper (Plain) Titmouse (Baeolophus Ridgwayi)
    June 2007 Juniper (Plain) Titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi) INDICATOR SPECIES HABITAT The plain titmouse is an indicator species for piñon-juniper (PJ) canopies (USDA 1986a, p. 97). Until 1997 the taxa was regarded as a single species (Parus inornatus). The taxa were split into two separate species; oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) and juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi). The oak titmouse is found in the oak woodlands of the Pacific and is not found in New Mexico (Cicero 2000). The juniper titmouse inhabits juniper and piñon-juniper woodlands of the intermountain region (id.). Further discussion in this document will call the species juniper titmouse, however, it is the same species identified as an indicator species in 1986 (USDA 1986a, p. 97). The juniper titmouse is a resident of deciduous or mixed woodlands, favoring oak and piñon- juniper (Ehrlich et al. 1988). The titmouse usually nests in natural cavities or old woodpecker holes primarily in oak trees, but it is capable of excavating its own cavity in rotted wood. The species feeds mainly on large seeds from piñon pine and juniper, as well as, acorns (Christman 2001), insects, and occasional fruits, and is also a bark gleaner (Cicero 2000; Scott et al. 1977; Scott and Patton 1989). As a cavity nester, large, older senescent trees are an important habitat feature (Pavlacky and Anderson 2001). Potential Habitat Distribution Based on the 2003 GIS vegetation cover data, the Carson National Forest currently supports approximately 355,409 acres of piñon-juniper habitat (USDA 2003a). As displayed on Map 1, potential habitat for the juniper titmouse on the Carson National Forest is abundant and well distributed across the Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • The Klamath Bird
    The Klamath Bird Newsletter of the Klamath Bird Observatory, Fall 2018 KBO Science Applied Removal of the Klamath River Dams— Birds Informing the Forest Restoration Design An Amazing Opportunity for Study for South Fork Stillaguamish Vegetation By Sarah Rockwell, Research Biologist Project Removal of the Klamath River dams, expected to begin in 2020 or By Jaime Stephens, Science Director 2021, represents the most extensive dam removal and river Klamath Bird Observatory has partnered with the Stillaguamish Tribe restoration project in United States history. It presents an amazing of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and Puget Sound Bird opportunity to study the ecological effects of large-scale dam removal, Observatory to form a technical advisory team which is working side which are not currently well-understood. Elimination of the four dams by side with the Regional Forest Service Avian Conservation Program would allow salmon to return to 300 miles of upstream spawning Manager and USDA Forest Service Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National habitat for the first time in decades. Forest staff to inform forest restoration planning. Collectively, this team has integrated focal species needs into planning for the South Fork Stillaguamish Vegetation Project and designed a robust monitoring strategy to measure ecological outcomes. Continued Page 4—Birds Inform KBO’s 2018 Annual Appeal By Shannon Rio, Board President In this season of thankful giving, we acknowledge with gratitude the bounty of life that the earth gives us. It is Iron Gate Reservoir on the Klamath River © KBO. truly a time worthy of ceremony around gratitude for food and friendship and family. Salmon are important to the health of our forests—they carry marine nutrients to terrestrial systems when they swim up rivers to spawn and To complement this holiday season, die.
    [Show full text]
  • Thousand Oaks Groundwater Utilization Project
    2775 North Ventura Road, Suite 100 Oxnard, California 93036 805-973-5700 FAX: 805-973-1440 Thousand Oaks Groundwater Utilization Project Public Draft CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020 Prepared for City of Thousand Oaks 2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd. Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 K/J Project No. 1744405*02 Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv List of Figures................................................................................................................................ v List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... v List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ v Section 1: Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................ 1-1 1.1 Organization of this IS/MND ................................................................ 1-5 Section 2: Project Description .................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Overview of the Proposed Project ....................................................... 2-1 2.2 City of Thousand Oaks ........................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Project Goals and Objectives .............................................................. 2-2 2.4 Project Location .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Juniper Titmouse Baeolophus Ridgwayi
    Juniper Titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi Aves — Passeriformes — Paridae CONSERVATION STATUS / CLASSIFICATION Rangewide: Secure (G5) Statewide: Imperiled (S2) ESA: No status USFS: Region 1: No status; Region 4: No status BLM: No status IDFG: Protected nongame BASIS FOR INCLUSION Habitat threats and declining population trends in Idaho. TAXONOMY The juniper titmouse was formerly considered conspecific with the oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), with the name plain titmouse (Parus inornatus). However, due to genetic distinctions and because they differ in voice, morphology, coloration, and ecology, the species complex was reclassified as 2 sibling species in the Genus Baeolophus in 1997 (Cicero 1996). No subspecies are recognized, but northern birds are typically larger in body and bill size and grayer in plumage than southern birds (Cicero 1996). DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE The juniper titmouse is resident in mid-elevation woodlands of the intermountain west and southwestern U.S. and extreme northern Mexico. It ranges from south-central Oregon and northeastern California, south through much of Nevada, northern and eastern Arizona and northeastern Sonora, Mexico and east through most of Utah, southern Idaho, extreme southwest Wyoming, western and southern Colorado, northern and western New Mexico, and extreme west Texas and Oklahoma (Cicero 1996, Biota Information System of New Mexico 2004). Because of the scattered nature of its preferred habitat (juniper and piñon-juniper woodlands – see below), the species occurs in scattered locations throughout this range. The abundance of this species is highest in southern Utah, northern Arizona and central New Mexico and decreases outward from these core areas. In Idaho, the juniper titmouse occurs irregularly in the southwest and is resident in the southeast (Stephens and Sturts 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • Oak Or Plain Titmouse Baeolophus Inornatus a Plain Gray Bird
    400 Titmice and Chickadees — Family Paridae Oak or Plain Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus A plain gray bird ornamented only with a crest, the Oak Titmouse was long known as the Plain Titmouse, and as the San Diego Titmouse in the days when each subspecies was called by its own English name. It is indeed most common in oak woodland, though common also wherever there are trees in San Diego County’s foothills and mountains. A year-round resident, the titmouse is familiar to many because of its tameness around campgrounds and picnic tables and because of its patronizing bird feeders and birdhouses. But in spite of this familiar- ity with humanity it has not spread into cities now Photo by Anthony Mercieca landscaped into urban forest. 3000–4000 feet elevation with up to 80 in Matagual Valley Breeding distribution: The Oak Titmouse’s range is the (H19) 18 June 2000 (S. E. Smith), 79 near Warner Springs prime exemplar of a pattern typical of birds of oak wood- (F19) 14 May 1999 (C. G. Edwards), and 75 around land. The distribution of species following this pattern Descanso (P19) 28 April 2001 (M. and B. McIntosh). They covers most of the coastal slope but does not reach the occur in smaller numbers in conifer-dominated woodland coast itself. The range approaches the coast most closely up to the tops of San Diego County’s highest peaks (up to in the north (within 3 miles along San Onofre Creek in 10 near the summit of Hot Springs Mountain, E20, 19 the northeast corner of square D2), then retracts inland May 2001, K.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 1919-Biological Resources Assessment
    Biological Resources Assessment 94 Via Navarro Greenbrae, Marin County May 2019 Prepared for: Angelique Riordan 121 Oak Avenue San Anselmo, CA 94960 Prepared by: Prunuske Chatham, Inc. 400 Morris Street, Suite G Sebastopol, CA 95472 Copyright © 2019 by Prunuske Chatham, Inc. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 2. Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1. Project Location ................................................................................................... 4 3. Methods ........................................................................................................................ 5 4. Soils ............................................................................................................................... 7 5. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 7 6. Special-status Species ................................................................................................... 9 Definition of Special-status Species ......................................................................... 9 Special-status Species Evaluation Criteria ................................................................ 9 Jurisdictional Areas ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 3.7 Biological Resources
    3.7 Biological Resources This section addresses the potential direct and indirect effects of implementation of the pro- posed General Plan on biological resources in Pacifica. The setting descriptions and impact analyses presented in this section are based on the review of existing documentation and bio- logical databases. Environmental Setting Pacifica’s varied topography creates a wide range of habitats in the City, including intertidal areas, beaches, ridges, coastal headlands, woodlands, grasslands, scrub, creeks, and wetlands. Most natural vegetation in the valley and canyon bottoms has been converted to develop- ment. However, intact native habitats persist along the riparian corridors of San Pedro, Cal- era, Rockaway, and Milagra Creeks, and on steep slopes. PLANT COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITATS Plant communities are assemblages of plant species that recur in the landscape according to soil, climate, hydrological, and other conditions. The basis for the vegetation classification system utilized in this analysis relies on the currently accepted California Department of Fish and Wildlife1 List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (also known as the Natural Communities List).2 Plant communities generally correlate with wildlife habitat types, and these typically are classified and evaluated using CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Rela- tionship classification system.3 Plant communities and wildlife habitats are described below and depicted in Figure 3.7-1, Vegetation. 1 The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) changed its name on January 1, 2013 to The California De- partment of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In this document, references to literature or databases published by CDFW prior to Jan. 1, 2013 are cited as ‘CDFG, [year]’.
    [Show full text]
  • Gap Analysis Project (GAP) Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Richness Maps for the Conterminous U.S
    Prepared in cooperation with North Carolina State University, New Mexico State University, and Boise State University Gap Analysis Project (GAP) Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Richness Maps for the Conterminous U.S. Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5034 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Mosaic of amphibian, bird, mammal, and reptile species richness maps derived from species’ habitat distribution models of the conterminous United States. Gap Analysis Project (GAP) Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Richness Maps for the Conterminous U.S. By Kevin J. Gergely, Kenneth G. Boykin, Alexa J. McKerrow, Matthew J. Rubino, Nathan M. Tarr, and Steven G. Williams Prepared in cooperation with North Carolina State University, New Mexico State University, and Boise State University Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5034 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • The Phylogeny of New World Chickadees in the Family Paridae
    CONCEPT, Vol. XXXIX (2016) 1 The Phylogeny of New World Chickadees in the family Paridae Robert Driver Biology Introduction Paridae, the tits and chickadees, are a widespread family of Passerine birds, ranging throughout the Holarctic as well as the Old World tropics (Gosler and Clement, 2007). Tits and chickadees share a number of features across the family; all species are seed eaters or insectivorous, and all nest in cavities (Gosler and Clement, 2007). They are found in a wide range of environments and some species are year-round residents at high latitudes such as the Boreal Chickadee in northern Canada in the Azure Tit in Scandanavia (Gosler and Clement, 2007). Due to their abundance, boldness, and adaptability to man-altered environments, avian research has frequently focused on members of Paridae such as the Great Tit and Blue Tit. The Great Tit’s propensity to nest in manmade boxes has made it a model for studying breeding biology, including differences in male reproductive success (Lambrechts and Dhondt, 1986), variation in timing of breeding (Verhulst et al., 1995), inbreeding (Greenwood et al., 1978), natural fitness variation (McCleary et al., 2004), nest ectoparasites (Christe et al., 1996), and differential contributions from sexes in feeding young (Sanz et al., 2000). The Blue Tit was one of the first passerines discovered to have ultraviolet colors in its plumage (Hunt et al., 1998). At Villanova University, a hybrid zone between the Black-capped Chickadee and Carolina Chickadee has been extensively studied as a model for avian tension zones and selectivity against hybrids (Curry, 2005). Here, the propensity for chickadees to nest in manmade boxes allows for the ease of study.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oak Woodland Bird Conservation Plan
    The Oak Woodland Bird Conservation Plan A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Oak Woodland Habitats and Associated Birds in California A Project of California Partners In Flight and PRBO Conservation Science The Oak Woodland Bird Conservation Plan A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Oak Woodland Habitats and Associated Birds in California Version 2.0 2002 Oak Woodland Bird Conservation Plan California Partners in Flight - 2 - Conservation Plan Authors Lead author: Dr. Steve Zack Conservation Scientist North America Program Wildlife Conservation Society Correspondence: 1746 NW Hartwell Place Portland, OR 97229 E-mail: [email protected] Supporting Authors (Point Reyes Bird Observatory): Grant Ballard Mary Chase, Ph.D. Gregg Elliott Thomas Gardali Geoffrey R. Geupel Sacha Heath Diana Humple Mike Lynes Melissa Pitkin Sandy Scoggin Diana Stralberg Species Account Authors: Moe Flannery, PRBO Sue Guers, PRBO Diana Humple, PRBO Colin Lee, PRBO Corrina Lu, California PIF Mike Lynes, PRBO Mark Reynolds, Ph.D., The Nature Conservancy Financial Contributors: David and Lucile Packard Foundation California Oak Foundation Members and Friends For Further Information: California Oak Foundation - www.californiaoaks.org California Partners in Flight - www.prbo.org/calpif Wildlife Conservation Society - www.wcs.org Point Reyes Bird Observatory - www.prbo.org Oak Woodland Bird Conservation Plan California Partners in Flight - 3 - Data contributions: Point Reyes Bird Observatory Eastern Sierra Riparian Songbird Conservation Project Central Coast Riparian Bird Conservation Project Cosumnes Preserve Project Sacramento River Project Klamath Bird Observatory The Nature Conservancy – Cosumnes River Preserve California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Habitat Relations California Interagency Wildlife Task Group US Bureau of Reclamation, East Park Reservoir Madrone Audubon Society – Mayacamas Preserve Hastings Natural History Reservation USDA Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Lab, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds Before I Worked on This Project, I Had No Idea How to Apply GIS to Basic Ecological Concepts
    Galbreath Wildlands Preserve Galbreath Special Status Species Assessment – Birds Before I worked on this project, I had no idea how to apply GIS to basic ecological concepts. – Christoph Schopfer, Geography Major Project Summary A team of students and Center staff mapped potential habitat for 110 special status plants and animals on the Galbreath Wildlands Preserve. We identified special status species with potential to occur in the Galbreath Preserve using existing agency databases and publications. These included fungi, bryophytes, plants, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. For each species, we collected biological information, undertook GIS-based habitat suitability analysis, and assessed the likelihood of occurrence within preserve boundaries. The project created professional experience for Biology and Geography undergraduates and graduate students who worked on an interdisciplinary team to develop assessment techniques and methods. See Methods (PDF) and Species List (PDF) for additional information. Project Lead: Claudia Luke Dates: 2010-2011 Funding: Robert and Sue Johnson Family Students: Neal Ramus (Business), Emily Harvey (Biology), Kandis Gilmore (Biology), Linden Schneider (Biology), Christoph Schopfer (Geography), James Sherwood (Geography) Birds These results are part of a larger assessment of all special status species with potential to occur at the Galbreath Wildlands Preserve. Assessments were conducted as planning exercise and do not constitute evidence of occurrence. SSU Center for Environmental
    [Show full text]