DOCSLIB.ORG

Mendocino County--Local Coastal Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mendocino County--Local Coastal Program Basis for Appeal Mendocino County CDP#12-2012 (MacKerricher Dune Rehabilitation Project) This appeal is filed pursuant to Mendocino County Code 20.544.015. The foundational issues for the appeal reference the Project Findings and Conditions listed in the Staff Report for this permit, as well as revisions to those conditions stipulated in the approval of the permit at the CPA hearing June 11, 2013. 1. Staff Finding #1 states "the proposed development is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP)." That finding is not supported. The development violates Policies 3.1-8, 3.1-15, and 3.6-27, the intent of Policy 4.2-21, and the policies and directives in the MacKerricher Park General Plan prepared by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) in 1995 in response to LCP Policy 4.2-19. These matters are taken up in more detail below. 2. Staff Finding #4 suggests the project "will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment" if mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared by CDPR and the conditions of the permit are followed. That finding is not supported and we contend the analysis in the MND provides inadequate disclosure. Impacts to archaeological sites, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), wetlands, neighboring property owners, recreation, and public health have not been reduced below the level of significant adverse impacts. These matters were raised by the public during circulation of the draft MND, but not addressed. 3. We disagree with Staff Finding #5 that the project will have no adverse impacts on archaeological resources. The project will facilitate massive deflation of the foredunes and realignment of two watersheds with the direct result that several archaeological sites in that vicinity will be adversely impacted, if not destroyed outright. No mitigation is proposed to reduce those adverse impacts. Impacted sites must be presumed to qualify as historical resources for purposes of CEQA because no formal evaluation took place or was concurred in by the California State Historic Preservation Officer as required pursuant to California Public Resources Code 5024. 4. Staff Finding #7 incorrectly finds the project "is in conformity with public access and public recreation policies in Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act and the Coastal Element of the General Plan." This finding is particularly egregious with respect to Coastal Act Sections 30210 and 30211; and Coastal Element Policies 3.1-8, 3.1-15, and 3.6-27, and the intent of Policy 4.2-21. Special Conditions 3 through 6 provide inadequate and unenforceable actions to compensate for the intentional destruction of this designated coastal trail as discussed in Issues 6-9 and 12. 5. Staff Finding #8 draws unsupported conclusions about resource protection from CDPR's MND. Finding 8(a) states resources will "not be significantly degraded," contrary to WMAC's conclusion summarized in Issue 3 and explored further in Issues 4 and 10. Finding 8(b) is flawed because CDPR studied no alternatives when it was reasonable and necessary (under CEQA) to do so. WMAC also disagrees with Finding 8(c) that "all feasible mitigation measures capable of reducing or eliminating project related impacts have been adopted." WMAC will offer suggestions for a reduced project and additional conditions of approval that will more adequately mitigate or avoid adverse impacts. 6. The approved permit inappropriately allows destruction of 2.7 miles of existing coastal trail shown on County Land Use Maps 10 and 12 along the haul road. That alignment was certified by the Coastal Commission in 1983. The haul road is the designated coastal trail through MacKerricher Park, not a wet beach route listed in the MND. The beach route is not a viable alternative because it discriminates against many users who still enjoy the haul road and is dangerous in winter due to sleeper waves. In contrast, the coastal trail on the haul road provides access for bicycling, disabled users, strollers, pedestrians, and even horse riding. No comparable alternative trail is required as compensatory mitigation for extinguishing this existing access as required by Mendocino's Coastal Element Policy 3.6-27. Destruction of this historical access is also inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30211 that requires non-interference with historical prescriptive access rights. page 1 of 3 Basis for Appeal—CDP#12-2012) page 2 of 3 7. The permitted destruction of this existing coastal access is also inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30210 which assigns high priority to maximizing public access. Instead, it reduces access in a discriminatory manner that will ensure bicyclists and disabled persons can no longer enjoy the northern portion of the park. Special Conditions discussed in Issue 12 do not result in the construction of continuous alternative trail. They only encourage discussion and evaluation that may never produce a comparable replacement trail. 8. Removal of the haul road is contrary to County Coastal Element Policy 3.1-15 which requires that public access to the dunes shall be on well-defined paths that direct use to minimize impacts to the natural environment. By destroying the existing designated multi-use coastal trail along the haul road, access will spread potential impacts across a broad area through the propagation of many social trails. Those social trails can be expected to increase impacts to habitats of the endangered Western Snowy Plover and endangered plant species, rather than protecting them. 9. County Coastal Element Policy 4.2-21 directs CDPR to acquire the haul road for use as coastal access and incorporate policies regarding it in a management plan for MacKerricher State Park required in Policy 4.2-19. CDPR acquired the road in 1992 and prepared a general plan for the park in 1995. This project violates the intent of Policy 4.2-21 which was designed to acquire the road for public recreational access, not so it could destroy this coastal trail to restore ecosystem processes. The project also violates the park's General Plan policies and directives which direct that it be maintained and reconnected to once again create a continuous multi-use path through the park. 10. The project will intentionally destabilize the fore dunes in the northern park, with massive wind and water erosion acknowledged as a predictable outcome. Yet neither the MND and County staff report for the project analyze the volume of sand that will be mobilized or its impacts on the environment and neighboring land owners. Engineer David Paoli estimates nearly a million cubic yards of sand will migrate east, burying wetlands, ESHAs, and neighboring lands. Inadequate impact analysis, protective measures, and compensatory mitigation are identified to address habitat destruction and impacts to endangered and threatened species in violation of County Coastal Element Policy 3.1-8 and Coastal Act Sections 30240 and 30607.1. Monitoring requirements are inadequate and no dedicated compensation fund or bond is established as a condition of permit approval. Thus, the impacts of this induced sand migration on the properties of neighbors are inadequate. 11. The haul road was built in 1949 over a railroad grade built in use since 1916. Railroad grades are well known repositories of hazardous petrochemical waste, creosoted rail road ties, arsenic from herbicides, and asbestos from brake linings that likely persist in the soil, ballast, and woody material under the paved road. The project will remove the asphalt road surface which currently acts to sequester contaminants, as well as the hazardous underlying ballast and timbers. Yet no sampling or Phase I hazardous waste study was included in the MND supporting the project to determine the presence of toxic materials or plan for the special handling and disposal that they will require. Treated wood waste is known to contain hazardous chemicals at elevated levels that are subject to California’s Hazardous Waste Control Law. Hazardous waste can be reasonably anticipated based on comparable studies of the GP mill site where the former railroad originated (e.g., Cal/EPA docket HWCA P1-00/01-005; DTSC remediation; etc.). There is no evidence Form 6a was filed with Cal EPA in connection with removal of this old railroad grade. This poses an undisclosed health threat relative Standard Condition 6(c) that must be addressed with testing and remediation requirements. 12. Special Conditions 5 and 6 will not reduce impacts to public access and recreation because they define unenforceable processes rather than concrete actions. There is no assurance either condition will ever result in the construction of a continuous multi-use trail comparable to the one CDPR proposes to destroy. Special Condition 5 urges only planning for two discontinuous trail segments located far from the sea, with no provisions to actually build it. Special Condition 6 asks for evaluation of alternate pedestrian stream crossing methods with no requirement to implement a solution. It ignores the needs of other users like bicyclists and disabled individuals. Basis for Appeal—CDP#12-2012) page 3 of 3 The WMAC recognizes the BOS may take a variety of actions when considering this appeal. When deliberating on this matter, we urge the BOS to consider our allegations that the project approved by the CPA as CDP#12-2012 on June 11, 2013 fails to reduce many adverse impacts and poses serious health threats that have not been investigated or properly considered when planning for the disposal of large volumes of asphalt, ballast, and contaminated soil. We believe by permitting this activity the County is exposing itself to damage claims from workers, offset landowners, and government agencies if the presence of these hazardous materials is not identified prior to aerial exposure. The project also extinguishes an existing prescriptive coastal access without requiring construction of a comparable and non-discriminatory replacement route consistent with many provisions of the Coastal Act and LCP.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RESTORATION ACTION PLAN MARINA DUNES PRESERVE Marina, California
    RESTORATION ACTION PLAN MARINA DUNES PRESERVE Marina, California Prepared for: Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District 4860 Carmel Valley Road Carmel, CA 93923 Prepared by: Burleson Consulting Inc. 1900 Garden Road, Suite 210 Monterey, CA 93940 March 2021 This page intentionally left blank Restoration Action Plan, Marina Dunes Preserve CONTENTS CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................................................i APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... ii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... iii 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2. UPDATED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .............................................................................. 3 2.1 Weed Eradication and Control .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Dunes
    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DEL MONTE FOREST COASTAL DUNES DEL MONTE FOREST PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared for: Pebble Beach Company Post Office Box 1767 Pebble Beach, California 93953-1767 Contact: Mark Stilwell (831) 625-8497 Prepared by: Zander Associates 150 Ford Way, Suite 101 Novato, California 94945 Contact: Michael Zander July 2001 Zander Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures and Plates 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................1 2.0 Overview of Dunes within the DMF Planning Area...................................................2 2.1 Remnant Dunes .......................................................................................................2 2.2 Rehabilitation Area..................................................................................................4 2.3 ESHA Boundary......................................................................................................6 3.0 Relationship to the DMF Plan .....................................................................................8 3.1 Preserve Areas (Area L and Signal Hill Dune) .......................................................8 3.2 Development Areas (New Golf Course and Facilities—Areas M & N).................8 3.2.1 General Design Considerations .......................................................................8 3.2.2 Golf Course Specific Design...........................................................................9 3.2.3 Golf
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resource Information
    APPENDIX C Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resource Information Appendix C1 Resource Agency Coordination Appendix C2 Marine Biological Resources Report APPENDIX C1 RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION 1 The ICF terrestrial biological team coordinated with relevant resource agencies to discuss 2 sensitive biological resources expected within the terrestrial biological study area (BSA). 3 A summary of agency communications and site visits is provided below. 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: On July 30, 2020, ICF held a conference 5 call with Greg O’Connell (Environmental Scientist) and Corianna Flannery (Environmental 6 Scientist) to discuss Project design and potential biological concerns regarding the 7 Eureka Subsea Fiber Optic Cables Project (Project). Mr. O’Connell discussed the 8 importance of considering the western bumble bee. Ms. Flannery discussed the 9 importance of the hard ocean floor substrate and asked how the cable would be secured 10 to the ocean floor to reduce or eliminate scour. The western bumble bee has been 11 evaluated in the Biological Resources section of the main document, and direct and 12 indirect impacts are avoided. The Project Description describes in detail how the cable 13 would be installed on the ocean floor, the importance of the hard bottom substrate, and 14 the need for avoidance. 15 Consultation Outcomes: 16 • The Project was designed to avoid hard bottom substrate, and RTI Infrastructure 17 (RTI) conducted surveys of the ocean floor to ensure that proper routing of the 18 cable would occur. 19 • Ms. Flannery will be copied on all communications with the National Marine 20 Fisheries Service 21 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: On August 7, 2020, ICF held a conference 22 call with Greg O’Connell to discuss a site assessment and survey approach for the 23 western bumble bee.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Report City of Fort Bragg Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT CITY OF FORT BRAGG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 101 West Cypress Street (APN 008-020-07) Fort Bragg Mendocino County, California prepared by: William Maslach [email protected] August 2016 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT CITY OF FORT BRAGG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 101 WEST CYPRESS STREET (APN 008-020-07) FORT BRAGG MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Scott Perkins Associate Planner City of Fort Bragg 416 North Franklin Street Fort Bragg, California PREPARED BY: William Maslach 32915 Nameless Lane Fort Bragg, California (707) 732-3287 [email protected] Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Location & Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 2 1.5 Site Directions ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of the Coastal Dunes of Humboldt County, California
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 4-2019 Vascular Plants of the Coastal Dunes of Humboldt County, California 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, "Vascular Plants of the Coastal Dunes of Humboldt County, California" (2019). Botanical Studies. 41. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/41 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]. VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE COASTAL DUNES OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Compiled by James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University Arcata, California Ninth Edition • August 2019 Amaryllidaceae — Onion or Amaryllis Family F E R N S Allium unifolium •One-leaved onion Dennstaedtiaceae — Bracken Fern Family Anacardiaceae — Cashew Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens • Bracken fern Toxicodendron diversilobum • Poison-oak Ophioglossaceae — Adder’s-tongue Family Apocynaceae — Dogbane or Milkweed Family Botrychium multifidum • Leathery
    [Show full text]
  • Population Dynamics of Humboldt Bay Wallflower (Erysimum Menziesii) Over Three Decades on the North Spit of Humboldt Bay, California Andrea J
    Population Dynamics of Humboldt Bay wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) over three decades on the North Spit of Humboldt Bay, California Andrea J. Pickart, Annie Eicher, and Laurel Goldsmith U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2018 INTRODUCTION Menzies’ wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) is a monocarpic perennial in the Brassicaceae restricted to early successional coastal dune habitats in Humboldt, Mendocino, and Monterey Counties, California. The current taxonomic treatment (Al-Shehbaz 2012) combines the different geographic populations as a single species, however, recent genetic work supports subspecies status for the Humboldt Bay population (Vorobik 2015), and it has been previously separated as Erysimum menziesii ssp. eurekense (Hickman 1993). Hereafter, we refer to the Humboldt Bay population as Humboldt Bay wallflower, by the genus name Erysimum or the common name “wallflower.” Humboldt Bay wallflower was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered species in 1992, with the recognized threats of invasive species displacement, recreational impacts, and lack of protected habitat (USFWS 1998). The wallflower is found only in the semi-stable foredune zone in the Abronia latifolia – Ambrosia chamissonis herbaceous alliance, also known as dune mat (Sawyer et al. 2005). This low-growing herbaceous community is characterized by relatively low cover (Pickart and Barbour 2007) in which wallflower assumes a patchy distribution. On the North Spit of Humboldt Bay, dune mat has been highly impacted by the spread of invasive species including: European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria), ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis and C. edulis x C. chilensis), yellow bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus), and the annual grasses ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima) (Pickart and Sawyer 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Effects of Mechanical and Manual
    EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF MECHANICAL AND MANUAL REMOVAL OF Ammophila arenaria WITHIN COASTAL DUNES OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY ____________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Biological Sciences ____________ by Ayla Joy Mills Spring 2015 EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF MECHANICAL AND MANUAL REMOVAL OF Ammophila arenaria WITHIN COASTAL DUNES OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY A Thesis by Ayla Joy Mills Spring 2015 APPROVED BY THE DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND VICE PROVOST FOR RESEARCH: _________________________________ Eun K. Park, Ph.D. APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ______________________________ _________________________________ Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Kristina Schierenbeck, Ph.D., Chair Graduate Coordinator _________________________________ Colleen Hatfield, Ph.D. ______________________________ _________________________________ Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Adrienne Edwards, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair Kristina Schierenbeck. She has given me great advice and assistance throughout the process. I would also like to thank my knowledgeable committee members Colleen Hatfield and Adrienne Edwards. A special thanks to Amber Transou and California State Park’s North Coast Redwood District for providing me with guidance, funding, equipment, and for making this project possible. I’d like to thank my wonderful husband Jason who helped me set up my plots and collect data, even when it was cold and raining. I couldn’t have done it without you. I would like to thank my Mom who helped me financially and emotionally make it through graduate school. I would also like to thank my best friend Krystal Godfrey for always being there to listen to me vent and also for helping collect data.
    [Show full text]
  • Erysimum Menziesii
    http://www.flowershots.net/Brassicaceae.html Erysimum menziesii NEW CROP PROJECT - HORT 5051 BY: CALEB SIMON Taxonomy Erysimum menziesii is federally endangered Brassicaceae family Erysimum menziesii common name is Menzies’ wallflower (Berkeley). In 1992 Erysimum menziesii, was divided into four subspecies 1. E. m. ssp eurekense (Humboldt Bay wallflower) 2. E. m. ssp menziesii (Also known as Menzies’ wallflower) 3. E. m. ssp yadonii (Yadon’s wallflower) 4. E. m. ssp concinnum (curly wallflower) (FWS). This grouping of Erysimum subspecies is collectively known as Menzies’ wallflower. Geographic Distribution North American native. From northern Southern Oregon to central California bioregions include the North Coast and Central Coast Altitude: 0 to 300 meters above sea level (Berkeley). Native Habitat Erysimum is found growing on Coastal fore dunes, headlands and cliffs (Berkeley). On the nearshore dunes and swales Erysimum menziesii grows in association with other low growing plants such as beach sagewort, sand-dune bluegrass, dune goldenrod, beach bursage, coast buckwheat, sand verbena, and beach pea. Non-native plants like iceplant, and yellow lupine grow in the same habitat and prove problematic for Erysimum menziesii establishment (FWS). http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/plants/menziesWallflower/gallery/large/menziesWallflower7.jpg Taxonomic Description biennial or a short lived perennial 12 inches high and 12 inches wide Flowers blooms February to April (FWS) Yadon’s wallflower blooms from May to June clustered racemes petals are clawed, ranging in color from yellow to orange stigma has 2 lobes (Berkeley). Leaves basal rosettes simple, fleshy, spoon-shaped leaves, cauline leaf margins are entire to lobed (Berkeley) Erysimum menziesii is a ‘semelparous (monocarpic) perennial’; this means that the plant only flowers and produces fruit one time during its life, after that it will die.
    [Show full text]
  • California Native Plant Society – Vascular Plants Marina Dunes State Park
    2006 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY – VASCULAR PLANTS MARINA DUNES STATE PARK Abronia latifolia - yellow sand verbena Leymus triticoides - beardless ryegrass Abronia umbellata - pink sand verbina Linaria canadensis - toad-flax Achillea millefolium - common yarrow Lolium multiflorum - Italian ryegrass Agoseris apargioides var. apargioides - sandhill dandelion Lotus scoparius - deerweed Ambrosia chamissonis - beach bur Lotus strigosus - Bishop's lotus Amsinckia spectabilis - seaside fiddleneck Lupinus albifrons var. albifrons - silver bush lupine Armeria maritima ssp. californica - sea pink/Calif. thrift Lupinus arboreus - yellow bush/tree lupine Artemisia pycnocephala - beach sagewort Lupinus chamissonis - silver beach lupine Astragalus nuttallii - Gray's locoweed Lupinus nanus - sky lupine/Douglas' annual lupine Atriplex leucophylla - beach saltbush/sea-scale Madia sativa - coast tarweed Avena barbata - slender wild oat Marah fabaceus - man-root/wild cucumber Bromus carinatus - California brome Melilotus indica - Indian melilot Bromus diandrus - ripgut grass Nemophila menziesii - baby blue-eyes Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens - red brome Phacelia ramosissima - branching phacelia Bromus racemosus - smooth-flowered soft cheat Platystemon californicus - cream cups Cakile maritima - sea rocket Poa annua - annual bluegrass Calandrinia ciliata - red maids Poa douglasii - dune bluegrass Calystegia soldanella - beach morning-glory Polygonum arenastrum - common knotweed Camissonia cheiranthifolia - beach evening primrose Polygonum paronychia -
    [Show full text]
  • 5-Year Review of Menzies' Wallflower
    Menzies’ Wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office Arcata, California June 2008 5-YEAR REVIEW Species reviewed: Menzies’ wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. General Information A. Methodology B. Reviewers C. Background II. Review Analysis A. Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Policy B. Recovery Criteria C. Updated Information and Current Species Status 1. Biology and Habitat 2. Five-Factor Analysis D. Synthesis III. Results IV. Recommendations for Future Actions V. References 1 5-YEAR REVIEW Menzies’ wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology used to complete the review: This review was conducted by David Imper, Ecologist, with the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), based on all information contained in files at that office and provided by other agencies. No comments were received from the public or other agencies in response to the Federal Notice. B. Reviewers Lead Region – Region 8, California and Nevada; Diane Elam, Deputy Division Chief for Listing, Recovery, and Habitat Conservation Planning, and Jenness McBride, Fish and Wildlife Biologist; (916)414-6464 Lead Field Office – Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office; Mike Long (707)822-7201 Cooperating Field Office(s) – Ventura, California C. Background 1. FR Notice citation announcing initiation of this review: Federal Register 71(55):14538-14542, March 22, 2006 2. Listing history Original Listing FR notice: 50 Federal Register 27848-27859 Date listed: June 22, 1992 Entity listed: Erysimum menziesii (species) Classification: Endangered Revised Listing, if applicable: NA 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Investigation Report
    Biological Investigation Report: Humboldt County APN 505-121-031 Survey Dates: March 18 and March 21, 2019 Prepared for Open Door Community Health Centers Arcata, Ca 95521 Contact: Project Manager Laura Kadlecik Tel: (707) 826-8633 x 5165 Prepared by Claire Brown March 28, 2019 Natural Resources Management Corporation 1434 Third Street, Eureka, CA 95501 (707) 442-1735 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Background: Historic Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 3 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Pre-field Review ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Field Survey ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Vegetation and Sensitive Plant Species ........................................................................................................ 5 Pre-field Review .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Coulter's Californian Exsiccata
    Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Volume 37 Issue 1 Issue 1–2 Article 2 2019 Plantae Coulterianae: Thomas Coulter’s Californian Exsiccata Gary D. Wallace California Botanic Garden, Claremont, CA Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Wallace, Gary D. (2020) "Plantae Coulterianae: Thomas Coulter’s Californian Exsiccata," Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany: Vol. 37: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso/vol37/iss1/2 Aliso, 37(1–2), pp. 1–73 ISSN: 0065-6275 (print), 2327-2929 (online) PLANTAE COULTERIANAE: THOMAS COULTER’S CALIFORNIAN EXSICCATA Gary D. Wallace California Botanic Garden [formerly Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden], 1500 North College Avenue, Claremont, California 91711 ([email protected]) abstract An account of the extent, diversity, and importance of the Californian collections of Thomas Coulter in the herbarium (TCD) of Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, is presented here. It is based on examination of collections in TCD, several other collections available online, and referenced literature. Additional infor- mation on historical context, content of herbarium labels and annotations is included. Coulter’s collections in TCD are less well known than partial duplicate sets at other herbaria. He was the first botanist to cross the desert of southern California to the Colorado River. Coulter’s collections in TCD include not only 60 vascular plant specimens previously unidentified as type material but also among the first moss andmarine algae specimens known to be collected in California. A list of taxa named for Thomas Coulter is included.
    [Show full text]