DOCSLIB.ORG

Implementing Agreement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Implementing Agreement IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AND THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (NCCP/HCP) March 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT ................................................................... 1 2.0 RECITALS ............................................................................................................ 1 3.0 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................. 4 4.0 DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................... 4 5.0 FINDINGS BY THE USFWS AND CDFW ..................................................... 13 6.0 NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN/HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN .................................................................................. 13 7.0 RESERVE DESIGN AND CONSERVATION STRATEGY ......................... 14 7.1 Existing Public Lands to be Dedicated to the Preserve .................................... 14 7.2 Other Private and Public Targeted DEFINITIONS Lands for Dedication to the Preserve ............................................................................................................ 15 7.3 Neutral Lands .................................................................................................... 15 7.4 Conservation Easements ................................................................................... 16 7.5 Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Potential ..................................................... 16 8.0 COVERED Projects and ACTIVITIES............................................................ 16 8.1 Covered CITY Projects/Activities .................................................................... 17 8.2 Covered Private Projects and Activities ........................................................... 17 8.3 Other Covered Activities .................................................................................. 18 8.3.1 Operation and Maintenance .......................................................................... 18 8.3.2 Public Use ..................................................................................................... 18 8.3.3 Preserve Management ................................................................................... 19 8.4 Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Covered Projects and Activities .................................................................................................... 19 8.5 Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Covered Species .......................... 19 8.6 Restrictions and Requirements for Projects/Activities Abutting and Adjacent to the Preserve ...................................................................................................... 19 9.0 TAKE AUTHORIZATIONS ............................................................................. 19 9.1 Take Authorizations for Permittee .................................................................... 20 9.2 Timing of Take Authorizations.. ....................................................................... 20 9.3 Take Authorizations for Non-Listed Covered Species ..................................... 20 9.3.1 ESA Section 10. ............................................................................................ 20 9.3.2 NCCP Act ..................................................................................................... 20 9.4 Take Authorization for Migratory Bird Species ............................................... 20 9.5 No Take Authorization for Fully Protected Species ......................................... 21 9.6 Take Authorizations for Third-Party Participants............................................. 21 9.6.1 Grant of Take to Third-Party Participants .................................................... 21 9.6.2 Requirements for Third-Party Participants ................................................... 22 10.0 OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES ................................................................ 22 10.1 Obligations of the CITY ................................................................................... 22 10.1.1 Assembly of Preserve System ................................................................... 23 10.1.2 Management of the Preserve System ........................................................ 23 10.1.3 CITY Implementation Process .................................................................. 23 10.1.4 CITY Urgency Ordinance ......................................................................... 24 10.1.5. CITY and Wildlife Agency Coordination................................................. 24 10.1.6 Compliance with Existing Federal and State Wetland Regulations ......... 25 10.2 Obligations of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy ........................ 25 10.3 Obligations of the USFWS ............................................................................... 25 10.3.1 Section 7 Consultations............................................................................. 25 10.3.2 Future Environmental Documentation. ..................................................... 26 10.4 Obligations of CDFW. ...................................................................................... 26 10.4.1 CEQA. ....................................................................................................... 26 10.4.2 Future CEQA by CDFW. .......................................................................... 27 11.0 PRESERVE MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 27 11.1 Non-Native Animal Species Management Plans. ............................................. 27 11.2 Habitat Restoration Plan ................................................................................... 27 11.3 Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants (TERPP). ........................................ 28 11.4 Covered Species Reintroduction. ...................................................................... 28 12.0 MONITORING, MANAGEMENT, AND REPORTING ............................... 29 12.1 The Public Use Master Plan .............................................................................. 29 12.2 Fire and Fuel Modification in the Preserve ....................................................... 29 12.3 Fencing and Signage. ........................................................................................ 30 12.3.1. Fencing ...................................................................................................... 30 12.3.2. Signage ...................................................................................................... 30 12.4 Covered Species Monitoring............................................................................. 30 12.5 Wildlife Agencies Monitoring .......................................................................... 30 12.6 Reporting........................................................................................................... 31 12.6.1 Preserve Habitat Management Plan (PHMP) ........................................... 31 12.6.2 Annual Reports ......................................................................................... 31 12.6.3 Comprehensive Reports ............................................................................ 32 12.6.4 Annual Coordination Meetings ................................................................. 33 13.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 34 13.1 CITY and PVPLC-initiated Adaptive Management. ........................................ 34 13.2 Reductions in Mitigation................................................................................... 34 13.3 No Increase in Take .......................................................................................... 35 14.0 FUNDING ............................................................................................................ 35 14.1 Management Budget Analysis .......................................................................... 35 14.2 Habitat Management Funding........................................................................... 35 14.2.1 Habitat Restoration Fund .......................................................................... 36 14.3 Non-Wasting Endowment Fund ....................................................................... 36 14.4 Effect of Inadequate Funding............................................................................ 37 15.0 CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES ...................................................................... 38 15.1 CITY-Initiated Response to Changed Circumstances ...................................... 38 15.2 Wildlife Agency-Initiated Response to Changed Circumstances ..................... 38 16.0 REGULATORY ASSURANCES ...................................................................... 39 16.1 Assurances under the ESA. ............................................................................ 39 16.1.1. No Surprises. ............................................................................................. 39 16.1.2 Unforeseen Circumstances. ....................................................................... 39 16.2 Assurances Under the NCCP
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Malosma Laurina (Nutt.) Nutt. Ex Abrams
    I. SPECIES Malosma laurina (Nutt.) Nutt. ex Abrams NRCS CODE: Family: Anacardiaceae MALA6 Subfamily: Anacardiodeae Order: Sapindales Subclass: Rosidae Class: Magnoliopsida Immature fruits are green to red in mid-summer. Plants tend to flower in May to June. A. Subspecific taxa none B. Synonyms Rhus laurina Nutt. (USDA PLANTS 2017) C. Common name laurel sumac (McMinn 1939, Calflora 2016) There is only one species of Malosma. Phylogenetic analyses based on molecular data and a combination of D. Taxonomic relationships molecular and structural data place Malosma as distinct but related to both Toxicodendron and Rhus (Miller et al. 2001, Yi et al. 2004, Andrés-Hernández et al. 2014). E. Related taxa in region Rhus ovata and Rhus integrifolia may be the closest relatives and laurel sumac co-occurs with both species. Very early, Malosma was separated out of the genus Rhus in part because it has smaller fruits and lacks the following traits possessed by all species of Rhus : red-glandular hairs on the fruits and axis of the inflorescence, hairs on sepal margins, and glands on the leaf blades (Barkley 1937, Andrés-Hernández et al. 2014). F. Taxonomic issues none G. Other The name Malosma refers to the strong odor of the plant (Miller & Wilken 2017). The odor of the crushed leaves has been described as apple-like, but some think the smell is more like bitter almonds (Allen & Roberts 2013). The leaves are similar to those of the laurel tree and many others in family Lauraceae, hence the specific epithet "laurina." Montgomery & Cheo (1971) found time to ignition for dried leaf blades of laurel sumac to be intermediate and similar to scrub oak, Prunus ilicifolia, and Rhamnus crocea; faster than Heteromeles arbutifolia, Arctostaphylos densiflora, and Rhus ovata; and slower than Salvia mellifera.
    [Show full text]
  • The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan
    The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California A Project of California Partners in Flight and PRBO Conservation Science The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California Version 2.0 2004 Conservation Plan Authors Grant Ballard, PRBO Conservation Science Mary K. Chase, PRBO Conservation Science Tom Gardali, PRBO Conservation Science Geoffrey R. Geupel, PRBO Conservation Science Tonya Haff, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at Museum of Natural History Collections, Environmental Studies Dept., University of CA) Aaron Holmes, PRBO Conservation Science Diana Humple, PRBO Conservation Science John C. Lovio, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, U.S. Navy (Currently at TAIC, San Diego) Mike Lynes, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at Hastings University) Sandy Scoggin, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at San Francisco Bay Joint Venture) Christopher Solek, Cal Poly Ponoma (Currently at UC Berkeley) Diana Stralberg, PRBO Conservation Science Species Account Authors Completed Accounts Mountain Quail - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Greater Roadrunner - Pete Famolaro, Sweetwater Authority Water District. Coastal Cactus Wren - Laszlo Szijj and Chris Solek, Cal Poly Pomona. Wrentit - Geoff Geupel, Grant Ballard, and Mary K. Chase, PRBO Conservation Science. Gray Vireo - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Black-chinned Sparrow - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Costa's Hummingbird (coastal) - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Sage Sparrow - Barbara A. Carlson, UC-Riverside Reserve System, and Mary K. Chase. California Gnatcatcher - Patrick Mock, URS Consultants (San Diego). Accounts in Progress Rufous-crowned Sparrow - Scott Morrison, The Nature Conservancy (San Diego).
    [Show full text]
  • 3.4 Biological Resources
    3.4 Biological Resources 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for implementation of the Proposed Project to have impacts on biological resources, including sensitive plants, animals, and habitats. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated to candidate, sensitive, or special status species (as defined in Section 3.4.6 below), sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional waters of the United States, wildlife corridors or other significant migratory pathway, and a potential to conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the Orange County General Plan, the City of Lake Forest General Plan, Lake Forest Municipal Code, field observations, and other sources, referenced within this section, for background information. Full bibliographic references are noted in Section 3.4.12 (References). No comments with respect to biological resources were received during the NOP comment period. The Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and zone change for development of Sites 1 to 6 and creation of public facilities overlay on Site 7. 3.4.2 Environmental Setting Regional Characteristics The City of Lake Forest, with a population of approximately 77,700 as of January 2004, is an area of 16.6 square miles located in the heart of South Orange County and Saddleback Valley, between the coastal floodplain and the Santa Ana Mountains (see Figure 2-1, Regional Location). The western portion of the City is near sea level, while the northeastern portion reaches elevations of up to 1,500 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliographies on Coastal Sage Scrub and Related Malacophyllous Shrublands of Other Mediterranean- California Wildlife Type Climates Conservation Bulletin No
    Bibliographies on Coastal Sage Scrub and Related Malacophyllous Shrublands of Other Mediterranean- California Wildlife Type Climates Conservation Bulletin No. 10 1994 Table of Contents: John F. O'Leary Department of Geography San Diego State Preface University San Diego, CA 92182- 1. Animals 4493 2. Autecology 3. Biogeography, Evolution, and Systematics Sandra A. DeSimone Department of Biology 4. Community Composition, Distribution, and San Diego State Classification University 5. Comparisons with Other Malacophyllous San Diego, CA 92182- Shrublands in Mediterranean Climates 0057 6. Conservation, Restoration, and Management 7. Fire, Diversity, and Succession Dennis D. Murphy Center for Conservation 8. Maps Biology 9. Mediterranean Systems (Malacophyllous Only) of Department of Other Regions Biological Sciences 10. Morphology, Phenology, and Physiology Stanford University 11. Mosaics: Coastal Sage Scrub/Chaparral or Stanford CA 94305 Grasslands Peter Brussard 12. Productivity and Nutrient Use Department of Biology 13. Soils and Water Resources University of Nevada Reno, NV 89557-0015 Michael S. Gilpin Department of Biology University of California, San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093 Reed F. Noss 7310 N.W. Acorn Ridge Drive Corvallis, OR 97330 Bibliography on Coastal Sage Scrub Shrublands Page 1 of 2 Preface Coastal sage scrub is often referred to as "soft chaparral" to differentiate it from "hard chaparral," the more widespread shrub community that generally occupies more mesic sites and higher elevations in cismontane California. Unlike evergreen, sclerophyllous chaparral, coastal sage scrub is characterized by malacophyllous subshrubs with leaves that abscise during summer drought and are replaced by fewer smaller leaves (Westman 1981, Gray and Schlesinger 1983). Sage scrub also contrasts with chaparral in its lower stature (0.5 - 1.5 meters vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Description--Coastal Scrub (CSC)
    California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System California Department of Fish and Game California Interagency Wildlife Task Group Coastal Scrub Sally de Becker Vegetation Structure-- Structure of the plant associations that comprise Coastal Scrub is typified by low to moderate-sized shrubs with mesophytic leaves, flexible branches, semi-woody stems growing from a woody base, and a shallow root system (Harrison et al. 1971, Bakker 1972). Structure differs among stands, mostly along a gradient that parallels the Pacific coastline. Northern Coastal Scrub, from Humboldt County to the San Francisco Bay Area, ranges from a patchy oceanside cover of nearly prostrate subshrubs surrounded by grassland to a dense and continuous cover of two layers: an overstory of shrubs up to 2 m (7 ft) tall and a perennial herb/subshrub understory up to 0.3 m (1 ft) tall. The southern sage scrub form, typical of inland central (around Mt. Diablo) and most southern stands, is made up of a shrub layer up to 2.0 m (7 ft) tall. Canopy cover usually approaches 100 percent in these stands (Mooney 1977), although bare areas are sometimes present. Sufficient light penetrates through the canopy to support an herbaceous understory. Bare zones about 1 m (3 ft) wide may extend from stands dominated by sage species into surrounding annual grasslands (Halligan 1973, Mooney 1977, Westman 1981 a) . Composition-- No single species is typical of all Coastal Scrub stands. As with structure, composition changes most markedly with progressively more xeric conditions from north to south along the coast. With the change from mesic to xeric sites, dominance appears to shift from evergreen species in the north to drought-deciduous species in the south.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Decline of Coastal Sage Scrub in the Riverside-Perris Plain, California
    HISTORICAL DECLINE OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB IN THE RIVERSIDE-PERRIS PLAIN, CALIFORNIA RICHARD A. MINNICH, Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California 92521 RAYMOND J. DEZZANI, College of Liberal Arts, Boston University,Boston, Massa- chusetts 02215-1401 Californian coastal sage scrub (CSS), which consistsof dense stands of soft-leaved drought-deciduoussubshrubs 0.5-1.5 m tall, has been exten- sivelycleared for agricultureand urbanization(Westman 1981). The state of California has initiated a regionally focused conservation-planningprocess for natural communities,including CSS, in southern California (O'Leary et al. 1992). To protect two endangered species of CSS, the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (Dipodornys $tephen$i) and the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), Riverside County has developed a habitat-conserva- tion plan for CSS in the Riverside-PerrisPlain, an area of rapid presentand future urbanization.This has resultedin protectionof CSS through purchase of private lands surroundingpreexisting public lands, largely through politi- cal and economic incentives(Feldman 1995). Few studies have examined the landscape-scaledynamics of surviving CSS, particularlyin relation to the invasionof exotic annuals introduced from the Mediterraneanbasin and Middle East since the late 18th century. While it is widely reported that exotic annuals have displaced indigenous herbaceous ecosystems(McNaughton 1968, Gulmon 1977, Heady 1988, Drake and Mooney 1986, Huenneke et al. 1990, D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992), relationshipsbetween the spread of these annuals and the dynamics of shrublandcommunities are not well understood.O'Leary and Westman (1988) and O'Leary (1990) demonstratedthat CSS has been reduced by frequent fire, grazing, and the invasion of exotic annuals, as well as air pollution.
    [Show full text]
  • Transverse Ranges - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    San Gabriel Mountains - Field Trip http://www.csun.edu/science/geoscience/fieldtrips/san-gabriel-mts/index.html Sourcebook Home Biology Chemistry Physics Geoscience Reference Search CSUN San Gabriel Mountains - Field Trip Science Teaching Series Geography & Topography The Sourcebook for Teaching Science Hands-On Physics Activities Tour - The route of the field trip Hands-On Chemistry Activities GPS Activity HIstory of the San Gabriels Photos of field trip Internet Resources Geology of the San Gabriel Mountains I. Developing Scientific Literacy 1 - Building a Scientific Vocabulary Plate Tectonics, Faults, Earthquakes 2 - Developing Science Reading Skills 3 - Developing Science Writing Skills Rocks, Minerals, Geological Features 4 - Science, Technology & Society Big Tujunga Canyon Faults of Southern California II. Developing Scientific Reasoning Gneiss | Schist | Granite | Quartz 5 - Employing Scientific Methods 6 - Developing Scientific Reasoning Ecology of the San Gabriel Mountains 7 - Thinking Critically & Misconceptions Plant communities III. Developing Scientific Animal communities Understanding Fire in the San Gabriel Mountains 8 - Organizing Science Information Human impact 9 - Graphic Oganizers for Science 10 - Learning Science with Analogies 11 - Improving Memory in Science Meteorology, Climate & Weather 12 - Structure and Function in Science 13 - Games for Learning Science Inversion Layer Los Angeles air pollution. Åir Now - EPA reports. IV. Developing Scientific Problem Climate Solving Southern Calfirornia Climate 14 - Science Word Problems United States Air Quality blog 15 - Geometric Principles in Science 16 - Visualizing Problems in Science 1 of 2 7/14/08 12:56 PM San Gabriel Mountains - Field Trip http://www.csun.edu/science/geoscience/fieldtrips/san-gabriel-mts/index.html 17 - Dimensional Analysis Astronomy 18 - Stoichiometry 100 inch Mount Wilson telescope V.
    [Show full text]
  • California Sagebrush (Artemisia Californica) Plant Guide
    Natural Resources Conservation Service Plant Guide CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH Artemisia californica Less. Plant Symbol = ARCA11 Common Names: Coastal sagebrush, Coast sagebrush, California sagewort. Scientific Names (The Plant List, 2013; USDA-NRCS, 2020): Artemisia californica var. californica Less. (2011); Artemisia californica var. insularis (Rydb,) Munz (1935). Figure 1 California Sagebrush. James L. Reveal, USDA- NRCS PLANTS Database Description General: Aster Family (Asteraceae). California sagebrush is an aromatic, native, perennial shrub that can reach 5 to 8 feet in height. It has a generally rounded growth habit, with slender, flexible stems branching from the base of the plant. Leaves are more or less hairy, light green to gray in color, usually 0.8 to 4.0 inches in length, with 2 to 4 thread-like lobes that are less than 0.04 inches wide, with the margins curled under. California sagebrush blooms in the later summer to autumn/winter (depending on locale), and inflorescences are long, narrow, leafy and sparse, generally exceeding the leaves, with heads less than 0.2 inches in diameter that nod when in fruit (Hickman, 1993). Distribution: California sagebrush is found in coastal sage scrub communities from southwestern coastal Oregon, along the California coast and foothills, south into northern Baja California, Mexico (Figure 2) (Hickman, 1993). It also occurs on the coastal islands of California and Baja, generally below 3300 feet elevation, but may extend inland (and over 4920 feet in elevation) from the coastal zone. Habitat Adaptation This shrub is a dominant component of the coastal sage scrub, and an important member of some chaparral, coastal dune and dry foothill plant communities, especially near the coast (Hickman, 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Prospects for Restoration of Coastal Sage Scrub: Invasive Species, Nitrogen Deposition, and Novel Ecosystems1
    Chaparral Restoration Workshop, June 17-20, 2013 Arcadia, CA Long-Term Prospects for Restoration of Coastal Sage Scrub: Invasive Species, Nitrogen Deposition, and Novel Ecosystems1 Edith B. Allen2, Christopher McDonald3, and Bridget E. Hilbig4 Abstract Coastal sage scrub (CSS) is one of the most endangered ecosystem-types in California and is undergoing extensive restoration efforts. Major threats to CSS include agriculture and urban development, fragmentation, invasive species, frequent fire, and high levels of anthropogenic nitrogen (N) deposition that increases exotic species productivity, further increasing fuel for fire. In this review we compare a range of techniques that have been used with varying success to restore CSS, using examples from published and unpublished sources. Techniques that treat large scales and reduce the exotic seedbank are the most effective, such as herbicides or solarization, but each may also have drawbacks. Other methods include mulch, seeding or planting species with competitive functional traits, grazing, and fire. Regardless of method, invasive species recolonize to varying extents following restoration, and periodic treatment is needed. CSS in sites receiving more than the critical load of 11 kg ha-1 yr-1 of N deposition may become type-converted to exotic annual grassland in the absence of other disturbance such as fire. Such sites are not good candidates for restoration. Inability to control exotic species reinvasion and restore diversity of native forbs results in novel ecosystems with reduced conservation value and ecosystem services. Keywords: Coastal sage scrub, invasive plant species, fire, functional traits, nitrogen deposition, critical load, restoration, smokewater, solarization Introduction Restoration of some ecosystem types has proved quite challenging for various reasons, including the degree of impact they have received or the extent of invasion by exotic plant species (Allen et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Sage Scrub at University of California, Los Angeles
    BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: COASTAL SAGE SCRUB AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES Prepared by: Geography 123: Bioresource Management UCLA Department of Geography, Winter 1996 Dr. Rudi Mattoni Robert Hill Alberto Angulo Karl Hillway Josh Burnam Amanda Post John Chalekian Kris Pun Jean Chen Julien Scholnick Nathan Cortez David Sway Eric Duvernay Alyssa Varvel Christine Farris Greg Wilson Danny Fry Crystal Yancey Edited by: Travis Longcore with Dr. Rudi Mattoni, Invertebrates Jesus Maldonado, Mammals Dr. Fritz Hertel, Birds Jan Scow, Plants December 1, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2: PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................2 GEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK.....................................................................................................................................2 LANDFORMS AND SOILS ..........................................................................................................................................2 The West Terrace ...............................................................................................................................................3 Soil Tests.............................................................................................................................................................4 SLOPE, EROSION, AND RUNOFF ..............................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography Technical Report
    UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography Technical Report Title On “CHAPARRAL” versus “COASTAL SAGE SCRUB” in San Diego County Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9rj6r9f1 Author Berger, Wolf Publication Date 2013-07-02 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California ON “CHAPARRAL” versus “COASTAL SAGE SCRUB” in San Diego County Wolf Berger Geosciences Research Division Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego Questions arising The County of San Diego has both “Coastal Sage Scrub” and “Chaparral” in abundance (a detailed map is at www. Sdcounty.ca.gov./pds/mscp/docs/Biodiversity/veg_cntywide_2008.pdf). In fact, these two ecosystems cover most of the ground in the county, albeit with many different types (24 for “Chaparral” in the Holland classification system in the County map, 6 for “Coastal Sage Scrub”) (The Holland classification is in Holland and Keil, 1995). Many of the plants involved in the two systems are deceptively similar, although they quite commonly belong to different species. Naturally, one would like to know how to keep the two communities apart. The criteria, evidently, are plant species distributions. These have been and are being mapped by various methods, including field work by expert observers, collections of specimens in museum repositories, and the study of air photos and satellite images. Plant cover is important to know for a number of reasons, one being the modeling of the distribution of protected bird species and other endangered organisms. Such modeling allows the County to advise prospective developers about areas suitable for urbanization, facilitating growth in some regions, while protecting others.
    [Show full text]
  • Alluvial Scrub Vegetation of Southern California, a Focus on the Santa Ana River Watershed in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, California
    Alluvial Scrub Vegetation of Southern California, A Focus on the Santa Ana River Watershed In Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, California By Jennifer Buck-Diaz and Julie M. Evens California Native Plant Society, Vegetation Program 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 In cooperation with Arlee Montalvo Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) 4500 Glenwood Drive, Bldg. A Riverside, CA 92501 September 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Background and Standards .......................................................................................................... 1 Table 1. Classification of Vegetation: Example Hierarchy .................................................... 2 Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Study Area ................................................................................................................................3 Field Sampling ..........................................................................................................................3 Figure 1. Study area map illustrating new alluvial scrub surveys.......................................... 4 Figure 2. Study area map of both new and compiled alluvial scrub surveys. ....................... 5 Table 2. Environmental Variables ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]