DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Resources Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Resources Technical Report BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT CASCADA VERDE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY OF CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Lanshire Housing Partners LLC 2633 South Fairfax Avenue Culver City, California 90232 Contact: Matt Nelson Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 260 Carlsbad, California 92011 (760) 931-5471 LSA Project No. IKN1301 March 2015 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT MARCH 2015 CASCADA VERDE RESIDERESIDENTIALNTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRPROJO JOJJE C T CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2.0: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 2 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 2 2.2 BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA ................................................................................................ 2 SECTION 3.0: METHODS .................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW .......................................................................... 4 3.2 GENERAL BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ................................................. 4 3.3 FOCUSED PLANT SURVEYS ................................................................................................ 5 3.4 COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER FOCUSED SURVEY ..................................... 5 3.5 JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION ....................................................................................... 5 SECTION 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 7 4.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................ 7 4.1.1 Riparian Woodland....................................................................................................... 7 4.1.2 Coastal Sage Scrub ....................................................................................................... 7 4.1.3 Native Grassland .......................................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Nonnative Grassland .................................................................................................... 9 4.1.5 Eucalyptus Woodland................................................................................................... 9 4.1.6 Landscape/Ornamental ................................................................................................. 9 4.1.7 Disturbed Land ............................................................................................................. 9 4.1.8 Developed ..................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................ 9 4.3 SOILS ...................................................................................................................................... 10 4.4 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ................................................................................................ 10 4.4.1 Special-Status Plants .................................................................................................. 11 4.4.2 Special-Status Wildlife ............................................................................................... 11 4.5 USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT AREAS ................................................................................ 13 4.6 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS ...................................................................................................... 13 4.7 AQUATIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 13 SECTION 5.0: IMPACT DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................. 16 5.1 PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS ........................................................................................... 16 5.1.1 Permanent Impacts ..................................................................................................... 16 5.1.2 Temporary Impacts..................................................................................................... 16 5.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES .......................................................................................... 16 P:\IKN1301-Ikon\BTR\Cascada Verde BTR.docx (3/8/2015) i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT MARCH 2015 CASCADA VERDE RESIDERESIDENTIALNTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRPROJO JOJJE C T CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 5.3 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES .................................................................................. 18 5.4 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES ............................................................................ 18 5.4.1 Special-Status Invertebrate Species ............................................................................ 18 5.4.2 Special-Status Avian Species and Nesting Birds ....................................................... 18 5.4.3 Special-Status Mammal Species ................................................................................ 18 5.5 USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT AREAS ................................................................................ 18 5.6 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS .............................................................................. 19 5.7 AQUATIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 19 5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Jurisdictional Impacts ............................................. 19 5.7.2 Permanent and Temporary Impacts ............................................................................ 19 SECTION 6.0: MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE, AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................................. 22 6.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES .......................................................................................... 22 6.2 POTENTIALLY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ...................................................................... 22 6.3 POTENTIAL ON-SITE CREATION, RESTORATION, AND ENHANCEMENT .............. 23 6.4 WILDLIFE CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................. 23 6.5 MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................... 24 SECTION 7.0: REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 25 FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Vegetation Map ....................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: Potential Resource Agency Jurisdiction Map ....................................................................... 14 Figure 4: Vegetation Impacts Map ....................................................................................................... 17 Figure 5: Potential Resource Agency Jurisdiction Impacts Map ......................................................... 21 TABLES Table A: Vegetation Communities within the BSA ............................................................................... 7 Table B: Criteria for Evaluating Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence (PFO) .......................................................................................................................... 11 Table C: Potential Corps and RWQCB Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. within the BSA ................. 15 Table D: Potential CDFW Jurisdiction within the BSA ....................................................................... 15 Table E: Anticipated Impacts by Vegetation Community Type (Acres) ............................................. 16 Table F: Potential Impacts to Corps and RWQCB Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. .......................... 19 Table G: Potential Impacts to CDFW Jurisdiction (acres) ................................................................... 19 Table H: Mitigation for Impacts to Vegetation Communities .............................................................. 22 Table I: Mitigation for Impacts to Potentially Jurisdictional Areas ..................................................... 22 P:\IKN1301-Ikon\BTR\Cascada Verde BTR.docx (3/8/2015) ii LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT MARCH 2015 CASCADA VERDE RESIDERESIDENTIALNTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRPROJO JOJJE C T CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Plant Species Observed List APPENDIX B: Wildlife Species Observed List APPENDIX C: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Report APPENDIX D: Jurisdiction Delineation Report APPENDIX E: Special-Status Species Occurrence Table APPENDIX F: Site Photographs P:\IKN1301-Ikon\BTR\Cascada Verde BTR.docx (3/8/2015) iii LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT MARCH 2015 CASCADA VERDE RESIDERESIDENTIALNTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRPROJO
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Argia the News Journal of the Dragonfly Society of the Americas
    ISSN 1061-8503 TheA News Journalrgia of the Dragonfly Society of the Americas Volume 22 17 December 2010 Number 4 Published by the Dragonfly Society of the Americas http://www.DragonflySocietyAmericas.org/ ARGIA Vol. 22, No. 4, 17 December 2010 In This Issue .................................................................................................................................................................1 Calendar of Events ......................................................................................................................................................1 Minutes of the 2010 Annual Meeting of the Dragonfly Society of the Americas, by Steve Valley ............................2 2010 Treasurer’s Report, by Jerrell J. Daigle ................................................................................................................2 Enallagma novaehispaniae Calvert (Neotropical Bluet), Another New Species for Arizona, by Rich Bailowitz ......3 Photos Needed ............................................................................................................................................................3 Lestes australis (Southern Spreadwing), New for Arizona, by Rich Bailowitz ...........................................................4 Ischnura barberi (Desert Forktail) Found in Oregon, by Jim Johnson ........................................................................4 Recent Discoveries in Montana, by Nathan S. Kohler ...............................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of North American Odonata, 2021 1 Each Species Entry in the Checklist Is a Paragraph In- Table 2
    A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2021 Edition (updated 12 February 2021) A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution 2021 Edition (updated 12 February 2021) Dennis R. Paulson1 and Sidney W. Dunkle2 Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009; updated February 2011, February 2012, October 2016, November 2018, and February 2021. Copyright © 2021 Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2018, and 2021 editions published by Jim Johnson Cover photo: Male Calopteryx aequabilis, River Jewelwing, from Crab Creek, Grant County, Washington, 27 May 2020. Photo by Netta Smith. 1 1724 NE 98th Street, Seattle, WA 98115 2 8030 Lakeside Parkway, Apt. 8208, Tucson, AZ 85730 ABSTRACT The checklist includes all 471 species of North American Odonata (Canada and the continental United States) considered valid at this time. For each species the original citation, English name, type locality, etymology of both scientific and English names, and approximate distribution are given. Literature citations for original descriptions of all species are given in the appended list of references. INTRODUCTION We publish this as the most comprehensive checklist Table 1. The families of North American Odonata, of all of the North American Odonata. Muttkowski with number of species. (1910) and Needham and Heywood (1929) are long out of date. The Anisoptera and Zygoptera were cov- Family Genera Species ered by Needham, Westfall, and May (2014) and West- fall and May (2006), respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Index of ARGIA and Bulletin of American Odonatology
    Cumulative Index of ARGIA and Bulletin of American Odonatology Compiled by Jim Johnson PDF available at http://odonata.bogfoot.net/docs/Argia-BAO_Cumulative_Index.pdf Last updated: 14 February 2021 Below are titles from all issues of ARGIA and Bulletin of American Odonatology (BAO) published to date by the Dragonfly Society of the Americas. The purpose of this listing is to facilitate the searching of authors and title keywords across all issues in both journals, and to make browsing of the titles more convenient. PDFs of ARGIA and BAO can be downloaded from https://www.dragonflysocietyamericas.org/en/publications. The most recent three years of issues for both publications are only available to current members of the Dragonfly Society of the Americas. Contact Jim Johnson at [email protected] if you find any errors. ARGIA 1 (1–4), 1989 Welcome to the Dragonfly Society of America Cook, C. 1 Society's Name Revised Cook, C. 2 DSA Receives Grant from SIO Cook, C. 2 North and Central American Catalogue of Odonata—A Proposal Donnelly, T.W. 3 US Endangered Species—A Request for Information Donnelly, T.W. 4 Odonate Collecting in the Peruvian Amazon Dunkle, S.W. 5 Collecting in Costa Rica Dunkle, S.W. 6 Research in Progress Garrison, R.W. 8 Season Summary Project Cook, C. 9 Membership List 10 Survey of Ohio Odonata Planned Glotzhober, R.C. 11 Book Review: The Dragonflies of Europe Cook, C. 12 Book Review: Dragonflies of the Florida Peninsula, Bermuda and the Bahamas Cook, C. 12 Constitution of the Dragonfly Society of America 13 Exchanges and Notices 15 General Information About the Dragonfly Society of America (DSA) Cook, C.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Wildlife Notebook
    ARIZONA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ARIZONA WILDLIFE NOTEBOOK GARRY ROGERS Praise for Arizona Wildlife Notebook “Arizona Wildlife Notebook” by Garry Rogers is a comprehensive checklist of wildlife species existing in the State of Arizona. This notebook provides a brief description for each of eleven (11) groups of wildlife, conservation status of all extant species within that group in Arizona, alphabetical listing of species by common name, scientific names, and room for notes. “The Notebook is a statewide checklist, intended for use by wildlife watchers all over the state. As various individuals keep track of their personal observations of wildlife in their specific locality, the result will be a more selective checklist specific to that locale. Such information would be vitally useful to the State Wildlife Conservation Department, as well as to other local agencies and private wildlife watching groups. “This is a very well-documented snapshot of the status of wildlife species – from bugs to bats – in the State of Arizona. Much of it should be relevant to neighboring states, as well, with a bit of fine-tuning to accommodate additions and deletions to the list. “As a retired Wildlife Biologist, I have to say Rogers’ book is perhaps the simplest to understand, yet most comprehensive in terms of factual information, that I have ever had occasion to peruse. This book should become the default checklist for Arizona’s various state, federal and local conservation agencies, and the basis for developing accurate local inventories by private enthusiasts as well as public agencies. "Arizona Wildlife Notebook" provides a superb starting point for neighboring states who may wish to emulate Garry Rogers’ excellent handiwork.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 2012 Bulletin of the Oregon Entomological Society
    Fall 2012 Bulletin of the Oregon Entomological Society Got Clearance? The 2012 Aeshna Blitz at Three Forks, Oregon Jim Johnson Jim Johnson Unforeseen circumstances and competing engagements left this photo above) and you should be able to pick out the remnants year’s Aeshna Blitz with a skeleton crew of four intrepid odona- of a road which switchbacks up to the rim. According to a BLM tists to explore the rugged and remote Three Forks area of the law enforcement officer, that road was part of a route between Owyhee River. Cary Kerst, Steve Berliner, Sherry Daubert and Silver City, Idaho, and Winnemucca, Nevada, built by the army I met at the Rome BLM station the morning of 27 July, syn- in the 1870s. Apparently, the road was used only once when a chronized our watches to make sure we were all on Mountain wagon was hauled up by rope, after which it was abandoned. Daylight Time, then caravanned the 17 miles of highway and 36 That would have been a hair-raising trip! miles of dirt and gravel to Three Forks. The most abundant dragonfly seemed to be Erpetogomphus It felt like an oven down in the canyon when we arrived later compositus (White-belted Ringtail). They were conspicuous as that morning, but odonates were readily apparent in the sage- they cruised over the river and they also littered the sagebrush brush as we picked out a camping area. It didn’t take us long to where most of them assumed the thermoregulating “obelisk hydrate, get our gear together and wander down to the river.
    [Show full text]
  • San Bernardino Leslie Canyon
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service San Bernardino/ Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuges Watchable Wildlife List Welcome to San San Bernardino National Wildlife Bernardino and Refuge (NWR) and Leslie Canyon Leslie Canyon NWR are internationally significant National Wildlife sanctuaries established to protect Refuges and recover a variety of fish, wildlife, and their habitats. These refuges offer oases within the surrounding Chihuahuan Desert, providing resting, breeding, and year-around habitat for a significant number and diversity of animals. At least 314 bird species have been documented on the refuges, including many nesting This blue goose, species. In addition, 65 mammal, designed by J.N. 41 reptile, 11 amphibian, 8 fish, and “Ding” Darling, hundreds of invertebrate species have has become the been documented. San Bernardino symbol of the NWR and Leslie Canyon NWR National Wildlife provide a critical role in maintaining a Refuge System. sanctuary for several federally-listed threatened and endangered species, and both refuges currently provide a protected land base helping in the recovery of several Rió Yaqui species. The refuges lie within the Rió Yaqui Basin, a large watershed that drains portions of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico in the United States, and eastern Sonora and western Chihuahua in Mexico. The San Bernardino Ciénega (marshy wetland) was historically the most extensive wetland in the region, and forms an important migratory link between Mexico’s Sierra Madre Occidental and the Rocky Mountains to the north. The extensive and dependable wetlands in this area historically provided habitat for eight species of fish, nearly one-fourth of the species native to Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices for MMP Biological Inventory Final Report
    9. APPENDICES Appendix A1. Minutes of meeting with long-time residents, Feb. 16, 2010 Notes on the meeting with long-term resident Friends of Madrona Marsh : Jane Nishimura, Jack Knapp, Shirley Turner, and Ruth McConnell, and Tracy Drake [TD], conducted by Dan Cooper [DSC] & Emile Fiesler [EF]. (Notes in brackets are clarifications by TD/EF/DSC) 1. Jack Knapp: (Jack has lived in Torrance since 1958, near the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard.) In his neighborhood, he has observed: * Coyotes * Gray "Desert" Fox * Red Fox, and their dens & pups * Jackrabbits and Cottontail rabbits in area, but not on Preserve * Norway Rats, in association with restaurants * "Meadow Mice" * Quail, but not for a long time * Ringneck Snakes [= Diadophis punctatus ] * Rattlesnakes: observed by "old-timers" Jack spoke with in past; still on PV * Toads, in his yard, which were mainly active at night; many became traffic victims * Lizards; commonly seen on walls, etc., in neighborhood. In the area that is now the Preserve, he has observed: * Bats: inside a fenced section (of the Kelt area) in between stacked railroad ties lived batsand their "joeys" (= "pups"); they would stream out at night [= Mexican free- tailed bat? (DSC); which are common in urban Los Angeles area, incl. Downtown L.A./L.A. River]. Tracy said that Jack was the last person to see bats on the Preserve. * Red Squirrels [= eastern fox squirrel; noted "red tails"] * "Field Mice" [probably Mus musculus , DSC] * Cliff Swallows (couldn't recall where they nested) * Western Meadowlark: hundreds of them * Swimming snake in the Sump [could be Calif.
    [Show full text]
  • An Occasional Newsletter About Dragonflies and Damselflies in Southern New England Volume X, Number 1 ISSN 1084-9750 May 2003
    Ode News An Occasional Newsletter about Dragonflies and Damselflies in Southern New England Volume X, Number 1 ISSN 1084-9750 May 2003 ow! Wasn’t that quite the winter? Spring has Hard as it is to believe, this issue of Ode News marks W seldom been anticipated with such eagerness the beginning of our 10th year of publication! This, around these parts — or been so slow in appearing! our 20th issue, is being sent to over 300 subscribers in But spring is, indeed, here, and it’s time to shake the 29 states and four provinces (though how many cobwebs out of our nets and get actually read it we would prefer out into the field. The first not to speculate upon!). dragons and damsels are on the wing already and there’s no time We’re excited to report that a to lose — the season will be over new publication, A Field Guide before you know it! to the Dragonflies and Damselflies of Massachusetts, The late fall and winter period authored by Blair Nikula, was not only bitterly cold, but Jennifer Loose, and Matt Burne, very wet as well, and in sharp with any luck should be contrast to last year, concern of available by the time the season drought has fallen by the is in full “swing.” The guide wayside — at least for the time covers all of the 166 species being. The ponds and streams in recorded in the state; see page 5 southern New England have for more details. returned to normal levels or above. Indeed, most of the rivers Another busy season is taking are running high and hard, which shape, and there are more may make access rather difficult, dragonfly walks scheduled in at least during the peak of the Massachusetts this year than clubtail season (which for most ever before, with Dave Small species occurs in June).
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Freshwater Species Richness, Endemism, and Vulnerability in California
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Patterns of Freshwater Species Richness, Endemism, and Vulnerability in California Jeanette K. Howard1☯*, Kirk R. Klausmeyer1☯, Kurt A. Fesenmyer2☯, Joseph Furnish3, Thomas Gardali4, Ted Grantham5, Jacob V. E. Katz5, Sarah Kupferberg6, Patrick McIntyre7, Peter B. Moyle5, Peter R. Ode8, Ryan Peek5, Rebecca M. Quiñones5, Andrew C. Rehn7, Nick Santos5, Steve Schoenig7, Larry Serpa1, Jackson D. Shedd1, Joe Slusark7, Joshua H. Viers9, Amber Wright10, Scott A. Morrison1 1 The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California, United States of America, 2 Trout Unlimited, Boise, Idaho, United States of America, 3 USDA Forest Service, Vallejo, California, United States of America, 4 Point Blue Conservation Science, Petaluma, California, United States of America, 5 Center for Watershed Sciences and Department of Wildlife Fish and Conservation Biology, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America, 6 Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America, 7 Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, United States of America, 8 Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Rancho Cordova, California, United States of America, 9 School of Engineering, University of California Merced, Merced, California, United States of America, 10 Department of Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America ☯ OPEN ACCESS These authors contributed equally to this work. * [email protected] Citation: Howard JK, Klausmeyer KR, Fesenmyer KA, Furnish J, Gardali T, Grantham T, et al. (2015) Patterns of Freshwater Species Richness, Abstract Endemism, and Vulnerability in California. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0130710. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130710 The ranges and abundances of species that depend on freshwater habitats are declining Editor: Brian Gratwicke, Smithsonian's National worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage of the Peloncillo Mountain Region
    Natural Heritage of the Peloncillo Mountain Region San Bernardino Valley, Bob Van Deven 2005 A Synthesis of Science Report Editors Gitanjali Bodner, Ph.D., Biologist and Conservation Planner, Sky Island Alliance (Tucson, Arizona) Jennifer Atchley Montoya, Senior Program Officer, World Wildlife Fund, Chihuahuan Desert Program (Las Cruces, New Mexico) Roseann Hanson, Conservation Communications Consultant, former Executive Director of Sky Island Alliance and Program Director for Sonoran Institute (Tucson, Arizona) Walt Anderson, MS., Professor of Environmental Studies, Prescott College (Prescott, Arizona) Chapter Authors – Section Two Gitanjali Bodner, Ph.D. Chapter 2.5 (invertebrates). Biologist and Conservation Planner, Sky Island Alliance. Trained in systematics and biodiversity assessment of hyperdiverse invertebrate groups, Gita applies a range of research approaches to compiling place-based knowledge and filling data gaps. Charles Curtin, Ph.D. Chapter 2.6 (mammals). Conservation Biologist, Arid Lands Project and Malpai Borderlands Group. Founder of the nonprofit research institute Arid Lands Project, which conducts landscape-level experimental studies of the interaction of human and natural systems, Charles has coordinated a science program to support the efforts of the Malpai Borderlands Group. Jonathan M. Hanson. Chapter 2.3 (fishes). Ecologist and Naturalist. Jonathan is the author of more than a dozen books on nature and outdoor subjects, including the award-winning 50 Common Reptiles and Amphibians of the Southeast and Southern Arizona Nature Almanac. Charles W. Painter. Chapter 2.4 (reptiles and amphibians). Herpetologist, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Endangered Species Program. Charles has worked in New Mexico herpetology since 1976 and is coauthor of Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Creek Restoration Manual by J. Blueford
    Mission Creek A Model of Urban Stream Restoration by Joyce R. Blueford, Ph.D. Math Science Nucleus Math/Science Nucleus © 2004 2 Mission Creek A Model of Urban Stream Restoration by Joyce R. Blueford, Ph.D. with contributions by Erdmann Rogge, M.S.hydrologist Leonora Ellis, M.S., biologist Victoria Huang Advisory Joy Chien, Ph.D. Math/Science Nucleus Sandy Ferreira, City of Fremont Katie York, Math/Science Nucleus Photographs Victoria Huang, Joyce R. Blueford, Sandy Ferreira, ClipArt.com Drawings Doris Raia, Elaine Wang, Vicky Eggert, April Yang, Joyce Blueford Funding by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District California Department of Water Resources Math/Science Nucleus © 2004 3 Math/Science Nucleus Press Copyright © 2004 by Math/Science Nucleus March, 2004 Math/Science Nucleus © 2004 4 Acknowledgements The Mission Creek Restoration Project is a great example of many agencies and community groups working together to solve an environmental problem. Employees from Alameda County Public Works have been instrumental in spear heading this project including Emmanuel Canivel (engineer), Moses Tsang (engineer), Hank Ackerman (engineer), Erica La Fleur (legal), and George Bolton (inspector). They provided the majority of the $1.7 million for the completion of this restoration. The Department of Water Resources, Urban Stream Program awarded a $750,000.00 grant to aid the county in funding the project. Kurt Mulchow with Department of Water Resources, Urban Streams Program helped guide our grant application. Kathy Cote and Forrest Fraseiur from the City of Fremont, Environmental Services also were instrumental in obtaining funds. Sydney Temple and Chien Wang from Questa Engineering helped guide the project as consultants.
    [Show full text]