DOCSLIB.ORG

The Approximately 203.64-Acre Castlerock Site Document Located in the City of San Diego San Diego County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Approximately 203.64-Acre Castlerock Site Document Located in the City of San Diego San Diego County, California A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE APPROXIMATELY 203.64-ACRE CASTLEROCK SITE DOCUMENT LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TRACKING NUMBER 10046 JOB ORDER NUMBER 42-1653 Prepared For: Hewitt Wolensky LLP 4041 MacArthur Boulevard - Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Hugh Hewitt, Esq. Prepared By: Natural Resource Consultants 1590 South Coast Highway, Suite 17 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Contact: David Levine Date: October 11, 2012 Biological Resources Assessment October 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Proposed Project and Alternative Scenario ................................................................................................ 8 1.1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... 8 1.1.2 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO ................................................................................................................... 8 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 9 2.1 GIS Analysis of Special Status Species Data ........................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT ............................................................................................................ 12 2.1.2 CALIFORNIA NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE ANALYSIS ............................................................... 12 2.1.3 MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM CONFORMANCE ...................................................... 12 3.0 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY METHODS ........................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Vegetation Mapping ................................................................................................................................. 16 3.2 Special Status Species Surveys ................................................................................................................. 17 3.2.1 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SURVEYS ................................................................................................... 17 3.2.2 CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS ............................................................................................ 17 3.2.3 LEAST BELL’S VIREO AND SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER SURVEYS ................................ 17 3.2.3 SAN DIEGO FAIRY SHRIMP SURVEYS ............................................................................................... 18 3.2.4 QUINO CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY SURVEYS .................................................................................. 18 3.2.5 HERMES COPPER SURVEYS .............................................................................................................. 19 4.0 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................................. 19 4.1.1 COASTAL SAGE SCRUB – COASTAL FORM (32510) .......................................................................... 21 4.1.2 BACCHARIS-DOMINATED COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (32510) .............................................................. 21 4.1.3 DISTURBED COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (32510) ................................................................................... 21 4.2 Valley and Foothill Grassland (42000) ..................................................................................................... 22 4.2.1 NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND (42200) .................................................................................................. 22 4.2.2 NATIVE GRASSLAND (42100) .......................................................................................................... 22 4.3 Eucalyptus Woodland (11100) ................................................................................................................. 22 4.4 Disturbed / Developed (11300) ................................................................................................................ 22 4.5 Jurisdictional Waters, Wetlands and Vernal Pools ................................................................................... 23 4.5.1 VERNAL POOL (44300) .................................................................................................................... 23 4.5.2 EMERGENT WETLAND (52440) ........................................................................................................ 25 4.5.3 COASTAL AND VALLEY FRESHWATER MARSH (52410) ................................................................... 25 5.0 SPECIAL STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 25 5.1 Special Status Vegetation Communities ................................................................................................... 25 5.1.1 COASTAL SAGE SCRUB .................................................................................................................... 25 5.1.2 GRASSLAND ..................................................................................................................................... 26 5.1.3 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ........................................................................................................... 26 5.2 Special Status Plant Species ..................................................................................................................... 27 5.2.1 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES DETECTED ON SITE ..................................................................... 27 5.2.2 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS POTENTIALLY OCCURRING BUT NOT DETECTED ON SITE ....................... 31 5.3 Special Status Wildlife Species ................................................................................................................ 31 5.3.1 SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES DETECTED ON SITE ................................................................ 31 5.3.2 SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING BUT NOT DETECTED ON SITE ...... 39 5.4 Wildlife Movement Corridors .................................................................................................................. 39 6.0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................................... 39 6.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities ........................................................................................................ 39 6.1.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE REMEDIATION ............................................... 41 6.2 Indirect Effects ......................................................................................................................................... 41 6.2.2 TOXICS ............................................................................................................................................ 44 6.2.3 LIGHTING ......................................................................................................................................... 44 6.2.4 NOISE .............................................................................................................................................. 44 6.2.5 BARRIERS ........................................................................................................................................ 44 6.2.6 INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES ................................................................................................................ 44 6.2.7 BRUSH MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 44 6.3 Impacts to Special Status Biological Resources ....................................................................................... 44 Castlerock | San Diego County, California Natural Resource Consultants Castlerock_BRA_NRC08_20121010 2 Biological Resources Assessment October 2012 6.3.1 IMPACTS TO SPECIAL STATUS VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ............................................................. 45 6.3.2 IMPACTS TO SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS ............................................................................................. 45 6.3.3 IMPACTS TO SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE ......................................................................................... 45 6.4 Other Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 47 6.4.1 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ................................................................................................................ 47 6.4.2 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ................................................................................................. 48 6.5 Off-site Improvement Areas ..................................................................................................................... 49 6.6 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................................. 49 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A New Macrolepidopteran Moth (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Geometridae) in Miocene Dominican Amber
    ZooKeys 965: 73–84 (2020) A peer-reviewed open-access journal doi: 10.3897/zookeys.965.54461 RESEARCH ARTICLE https://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research A new macrolepidopteran moth (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Geometridae) in Miocene Dominican amber Weiting Zhang1,2, Chungkun Shih3,4, YuHong Shih5, Dong Ren3 1 Hebei GEO University, 136 Huaiandonglu, Shijiazhuang 050031, China 2 State Key Laboratory of Pal- aeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, CAS, Nanjing 210008, China 3 College of Life Sciences and Academy for Multidisciplinary Studies, Capital Normal University, 105 Xisan- huanbeilu, Haidian District, Beijing 100048, China 4 Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA 5 Laboratorio Dominicano De Ambar Y Gemas, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic Corresponding author: Weiting Zhang ([email protected]) Academic editor: Gunnar Brehm | Received 19 May 2020 | Accepted 12 August 2020 | Published 3 September 2020 http://zoobank.org/05E273DB-B590-42D1-8234-864A787BE6A0 Citation: Zhang W, Shih C, Shih YH, Ren D (2020) A new macrolepidopteran moth (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Geometridae) in Miocene Dominican amber. ZooKeys 965: 73–84. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.965.54461 Abstract A new genus and species of fossil moth, Miogeometrida chunjenshihi Zhang, Shih & Shih, gen. et sp. nov., assigned to Geometridae, is described from Miocene Dominican amber dating from 15–20 Mya. The new genus is characterized by the forewing without a fovea, R1 not anastomosing with Sc, no areole formed by veins R1 and Rs, R1 and Rs1 completely coincident, M2 arising midway between M1 and M3, anal veins 1A and 2A fused for their entire lengths; and the hind wing with Rs running close to Sc + R1 and M2 absent.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Biological Resources Assessment Rainbow Municipal Water District Fallbrook, San Diego County, California Prepared for: Rainbow Municipal Water District 3707 Old Hwy 395 Fallbrook, California 92028 Contact: Tom Kennedy North American Resort Properties, Inc. 4450 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 Contact: Justin Basie Prepared by: WRA, Inc. 9815 Carroll Canyon Rd., Ste. 206 San Diego, CA 92131 858-842-1800 Contact: Rod Dossey [email protected] Date: January 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................2 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ......................................................................................4 2.1 Sensitive Biological Communities ................................................................................ 4 2.2 Special-Status Species ................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................. 7 2.4 San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program ......................................... 7 3.0 METHODS .....................................................................................................................10 3.1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Design Documentation
    Appendix A: Conceptual Design Documentation APPENDIX A Conceptual Design Documentation June 2019 A-1 APPENDIX A: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DOCUMENTATION The environmental analyses in the NEPA and CEQA documents for the proposed improvements at Oceano County Airport (the Airport) are based on conceptual designs prepared to provide a realistic basis for assessing their environmental consequences. 1. Widen runway from 50 to 60 feet 2. Widen Taxiways A, A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 from 20 to 25 feet 3. Relocate segmented circle and wind cone 4. Installation of taxiway edge lighting 5. Installation of hold position signage 6. Installation of a new electrical vault and connections 7. Installation of a pollution control facility (wash rack) CIVIL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS The purpose of this conceptual design effort is to identify the amount of impervious surface, grading (cut and fill) and drainage implications of the projects identified above. The conceptual design calculations detailed in the following figures indicate that Projects 1 and 2, widening the runways and taxiways would increase the total amount of impervious surface on the Airport by 32,016 square feet, or 0.73 acres; a 6.6 percent increase in the Airport’s impervious surface area. Drainage patterns would remain the same as both the runway and taxiways would continue to sheet flow from their centerlines to the edge of pavement and then into open, grassed areas. The existing drainage system is able to accommodate the modest increase in stormwater runoff that would occur, particularly as soil conditions on the Airport are conducive to infiltration. Figure A-1 shows the locations of the seven projects incorporated in the Proposed Action.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcgrath State Beach Plants 2/14/2005 7:53 PM Vascular Plants of Mcgrath State Beach, Ventura County, California by David L
    Vascular Plants of McGrath State Beach, Ventura County, California By David L. Magney Scientific Name Common Name Habit Family Abronia maritima Red Sand-verbena PH Nyctaginaceae Abronia umbellata Beach Sand-verbena PH Nyctaginaceae Allenrolfea occidentalis Iodinebush S Chenopodiaceae Amaranthus albus * Prostrate Pigweed AH Amaranthaceae Amblyopappus pusillus Dwarf Coastweed PH Asteraceae Ambrosia chamissonis Beach-bur S Asteraceae Ambrosia psilostachya Western Ragweed PH Asteraceae Amsinckia spectabilis var. spectabilis Seaside Fiddleneck AH Boraginaceae Anagallis arvensis * Scarlet Pimpernel AH Primulaceae Anemopsis californica Yerba Mansa PH Saururaceae Apium graveolens * Wild Celery PH Apiaceae Artemisia biennis Biennial Wormwood BH Asteraceae Artemisia californica California Sagebrush S Asteraceae Artemisia douglasiana Douglas' Sagewort PH Asteraceae Artemisia dracunculus Wormwood PH Asteraceae Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata Big Sagebrush S Asteraceae Arundo donax * Giant Reed PG Poaceae Aster subulatus var. ligulatus Annual Water Aster AH Asteraceae Astragalus pycnostachyus ssp. lanosissimus Ventura Marsh Milkvetch PH Fabaceae Atriplex californica California Saltbush PH Chenopodiaceae Atriplex lentiformis ssp. breweri Big Saltbush S Chenopodiaceae Atriplex patula ssp. hastata Arrowleaf Saltbush AH Chenopodiaceae Atriplex patula Spear Saltbush AH Chenopodiaceae Atriplex semibaccata Australian Saltbush PH Chenopodiaceae Atriplex triangularis Spearscale AH Chenopodiaceae Avena barbata * Slender Oat AG Poaceae Avena fatua * Wild
    [Show full text]
  • Guideline 410 Prohibited Plant List
    VENTURA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 165 DURLEY AVENUE CAMARILLO, CA 93010 www.vcfd.org Office: 805-389-9738 Fax: 805-388-4356 GUIDELINE 410 PROHIBITED PLANT LIST This list was first published by the VCFD in 2014. It has been updated as of April 2019. It is intended to provide a list of plants and trees that are not allowed within a new required defensible space (DS) or fuel modification zone (FMZ). It is highly recommended that these plants and trees be thinned and or removed from existing DS and FMZs. In certain instances, the Fire Department may require the thinning and or removal. This list was prepared by Hunt Research Corporation and Dudek & Associates, and reviewed by Scott Franklin Consulting Co, VCFD has added some plants and has removed plants only listed due to freezing hazard. Please see notes after the list of plants. For questions regarding this list, please contact the Fire Hazard reduction Program (FHRP) Unit at 085-389-9759 or [email protected] Prohibited plant list:Botanical Name Common Name Comment* Trees Abies species Fir F Acacia species (numerous) Acacia F, I Agonis juniperina Juniper Myrtle F Araucaria species (A. heterophylla, A. Araucaria (Norfolk Island Pine, Monkey F araucana, A. bidwillii) Puzzle Tree, Bunya Bunya) Callistemon species (C. citrinus, C. rosea, C. Bottlebrush (Lemon, Rose, Weeping) F viminalis) Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar F Casuarina cunninghamiana River She-Oak F Cedrus species (C. atlantica, C. deodara) Cedar (Atlas, Deodar) F Chamaecyparis species (numerous) False Cypress F Cinnamomum camphora Camphor F Cryptomeria japonica Japanese Cryptomeria F Cupressocyparis leylandii Leyland Cypress F Cupressus species (C.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting California's Butterfly Groves
    Protecting California’s Butterfly Groves Management Guidelines for Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 1 Protecting California’s Butterfly Groves Management Guidelines for Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation is a nonprofit organization that protects wildlife through the conservation of invertebrates and their habitat. Established in 1971, the Society is a trusted source for science-based information and advice. Our conservation team draws together experts from the fields of habitat restoration, entomology, botany, farming, and conservation biology with a single focus: protecting the life that sustains us. Portland, Oregon www.xerces.org Creekside Center for Earth Observation was founded in 2006 by Drs. Stuart B. Weiss and Paul M. Rich to apply the latest science and technology to address challenging conservation problems. We specialize in experimen- tal design, field measurement, and quantitative analysis. We subscribe to the worldview of Aldo Leopold, who expounded a “land ethic” in which the basic ethical considerations given to human beings are expanded to in- clude the natural world around us. As such, while our work is founded in science, it is also rooted in a deep philosophical commitment to achieve and maintain ecosystem health, preserve vital ecosystem functions, protect rare and endangered species, and expand consciousness about conserva- tion through education and outreach. Menlo Park, California www.creeksidescience.org Copyright © 2017 the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Acknowledgments This report was developed with funding from Monarch Joint Venture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and members of the Xerces Society. Additional funding to support the Xerces Society’s western monarch conservation work comes from Alice C.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 5 References
    Section 5 References 5.0 REFERENCES Akçakaya, H. R. and J. L. Atwood. 1997. A habitat-based metapopulation model of the California Gnatcatcher. Conservation Biology 11:422-434. Akçakaya, H.R. 1998. RAMAS GIS: Linking landscape data with population viability analysis (version 3.0). Applied Biomathematics, Setaauket, New York. Anderson, D.W. and J.W. Hickey. 1970. Eggshell changes in certain North American birds. Ed. K. H. Voous. Proc. (XVth) Inter. Ornith. Congress, pp 514-540. E.J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. Anderson, D.W., J.R. Jehl, Jr., R.W. Risebrough, L.A. Woods, Jr., L.R. Deweese, and W.G. Edgecomb. 1975. Brown pelicans: improved reproduction of the southern California coast. Science 190:806-808. Atwood, J.L. 1980. The United States distribution of the California black-tailed gnatcatcher. Western Birds 11: 65-78. Atwood, J.L. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Unpublished Technical Report, Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. Atwood, J.L. 1992. A maximum estimate of the California gnatcatcher’s population size in the United States. Western Birds. 23:1-9. Atwood, J.L. and J.S. Bolsinger. 1992. Elevational distribution of California gnatcatchers in the United States. Journal of Field Ornithology 63:159-168. Atwood, J.L., S.H. Tsai, C.H. Reynolds, M.R. Fugagli. 1998. Factors affecting estimates of California gnatcatcher territory size. Western Birds 29: 269-279. Baharav, D. 1975. Movement of the horned lizard Phrynosoma solare. Copeia 1975: 649-657. Barry, W.J. 1988. Management of sensitive plants in California state parks. Fremontia 16(2):16-20. Beauchamp, R.M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Native and Non-Native Grasses on Spiders, Their Prey, and Their Interactions
    Spiders in California’s grassland mosaic: The effects of native and non-native grasses on spiders, their prey, and their interactions by Kirsten Elise Hill A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Joe R. McBride, Chair Professor Rosemary G. Gillespie Professor Mary E. Power Spring 2014 © 2014 Abstract Spiders in California’s grassland mosaic: The effects of native and non-native grasses on spiders, their prey, and their interactions by Kirsten Elise Hill Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science and Policy Management University of California, Berkeley Professor Joe R. McBride, Chair Found in nearly all terrestrial ecosystems, small in size and able to occupy a variety of hunting niches, spiders’ consumptive effects on other arthropods can have important impacts for ecosystems. This dissertation describes research into spider populations and their interactions with potential arthropod prey in California’s native and non-native grasslands. In meadows found in northern California, native and non-native grassland patches support different functional groups of arthropod predators, sap-feeders, pollinators, and scavengers and arthropod diversity is linked to native plant diversity. Wandering spiders’ ability to forage within the meadow’s interior is linked to the distance from the shaded woodland boundary. Native grasses offer a cooler conduit into the meadow interior than non-native annual grasses during midsummer heat. Juvenile spiders in particular, are more abundant in the more structurally complex native dominated areas of the grassland.
    [Show full text]
  • CA Checklist of Butterflies of Tulare County
    Checklist of Buerflies of Tulare County hp://www.natureali.org/Tularebuerflychecklist.htm Tulare County Buerfly Checklist Compiled by Ken Davenport & designed by Alison Sheehey Swallowtails (Family Papilionidae) Parnassians (Subfamily Parnassiinae) A series of simple checklists Clodius Parnassian Parnassius clodius for use in the field Sierra Nevada Parnassian Parnassius behrii Kern Amphibian Checklist Kern Bird Checklist Swallowtails (Subfamily Papilioninae) Kern Butterfly Checklist Pipevine Swallowtail Battus philenor Tulare Butterfly Checklist Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Kern Dragonfly Checklist Checklist of Exotic Animals Anise Swallowtail Papilio zelicaon (incl. nitra) introduced to Kern County Indra Swallowtail Papilio indra Kern Fish Checklist Giant Swallowtail Papilio cresphontes Kern Mammal Checklist Kern Reptile Checklist Western Tiger Swallowtail Papilio rutulus Checklist of Sensitive Species Two-tailed Swallowtail Papilio multicaudata found in Kern County Pale Swallowtail Papilio eurymedon Whites and Sulphurs (Family Pieridae) Wildflowers Whites (Subfamily Pierinae) Hodgepodge of Insect Pine White Neophasia menapia Photos Nature Ali Wild Wanderings Becker's White Pontia beckerii Spring White Pontia sisymbrii Checkered White Pontia protodice Western White Pontia occidentalis The Butterfly Digest by Cabbage White Pieris rapae Bruce Webb - A digest of butterfly discussion around Large Marble Euchloe ausonides the nation. Frontispiece: 1 of 6 12/26/10 9:26 PM Checklist of Buerflies of Tulare County hp://www.natureali.org/Tularebuerflychecklist.htm
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion (Opinion) in Accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), As Amended (16 U.S.C
    In Reply Refer to: FWS-SDG-15B0072-20F1452 November 17, 2020 Sent Electronically Memorandum To: Regional Endangered Species Program Manager Sacramento, California From: Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Carlsbad, California Subject: Intra-Service Formal Section 7 Consultation for the Issuance of an Amendment to the County of San Diego’s Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit (PRT-840414) for the Multiple Species Conservation Program, San Diego Subarea Plan to address the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16 and 19, San Diego County, California This document transmits the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion (Opinion) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), regarding the issuance of an amendment to the incidental take permit (ITP) for the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) County of San Diego (County) Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) for Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16 and 19 (Project) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The Service issued the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit (PRT-840414) to the County for their Subarea Plan on March 17, 1998. The permit duration is for 50 years. The County is requesting the Amendment to change the footprint of the Project, as well as add incidental take coverage for the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino; QCB) and San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis; SDFS). The MSCP is a comprehensive, 50-year habitat conservation plan program that addresses urban development and the needs of 85 covered species and the preservation of natural vegetation communities within a 582,243-acre planning area in southwest San Diego County (City of San Diego 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Baja California, Mexico, and a Vegetation Map of Colonet Mesa Alan B
    Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Volume 29 | Issue 1 Article 4 2011 Plants of the Colonet Region, Baja California, Mexico, and a Vegetation Map of Colonet Mesa Alan B. Harper Terra Peninsular, Coronado, California Sula Vanderplank Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, California Mark Dodero Recon Environmental Inc., San Diego, California Sergio Mata Terra Peninsular, Coronado, California Jorge Ochoa Long Beach City College, Long Beach, California Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Botany Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Harper, Alan B.; Vanderplank, Sula; Dodero, Mark; Mata, Sergio; and Ochoa, Jorge (2011) "Plants of the Colonet Region, Baja California, Mexico, and a Vegetation Map of Colonet Mesa," Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany: Vol. 29: Iss. 1, Article 4. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso/vol29/iss1/4 Aliso, 29(1), pp. 25–42 ’ 2011, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden PLANTS OF THE COLONET REGION, BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO, AND A VEGETATION MAPOF COLONET MESA ALAN B. HARPER,1 SULA VANDERPLANK,2 MARK DODERO,3 SERGIO MATA,1 AND JORGE OCHOA4 1Terra Peninsular, A.C., PMB 189003, Suite 88, Coronado, California 92178, USA ([email protected]); 2Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, 1500 North College Avenue, Claremont, California 91711, USA; 3Recon Environmental Inc., 1927 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, California 92101, USA; 4Long Beach City College, 1305 East Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, California 90806, USA ABSTRACT The Colonet region is located at the southern end of the California Floristic Province, in an area known to have the highest plant diversity in Baja California.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter Report (December 7, 2020)
    Appendix B Biological Letter Report (December 7, 2020) STREET 605 THIRD 92024 CALIFORNIA ENCINITAS. F 760.632.0164 T 760.942.5147 December 7, 2020 11575 John R. Tschudin, Jr. Director – Design & Construction Encompass Health 9001 Liberty Parkway Birmingham, Alabama 35242 Subject: Biology Letter Report for Encompass Health Chula Vista, City of Chula Vista, California Dear Mr. Tschudin: This letter report provides an analysis of potential biological resource impacts associated with Encompass Health Chula Vista (proposed project) located in the City of Chula Vista (City), California (Assessor’s Parcel Number 644- 040-01-00). This biology letter report also includes a discussion of any potential biological resources that may be subject to regulation under the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) (City of Chula Vista 2003). Project Location The property (i.e., on-site; Assessor’s Parcel Number 644-040-01-00) occupies 9.79 acres and is located approximately 0.2 miles east of Interstate 805 between Main Street and Olympic Parkway (Figure 1, Project Location). The project also includes an off-site impact area of 0.22 acre located along the southeastern corner of the site where future utility connections may occur, making the total study area acreage for the project 10.01 acres. The site is located on Shinohara Lane accessed from Brandywine Avenue and is located on the U.S. Geological Service 7.5-minute series topographic Imperial Beach quadrangle map. The site exists within an urban portion of the City and is bound on the south and east by industrial buildings, to the west by single-family residences, and to the north by multi-family condominiums (Figure 2, Aerial Image).
    [Show full text]