DOCSLIB.ORG

Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility Project Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility Off-site Habitat Restoration Plan May 21, 2012 Prepared for: Ocotillo Express LLC 1600 Smith Street Suite 4025 Houston, TX 77002 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility Off-site Habitat Restoration Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1 A. Project Background .............................................................................................2 1. Project Location .............................................................................................2 2. Project Description .........................................................................................2 B. Summary of Impacts ...........................................................................................2 1. Jurisdictional Habitat Impacts ........................................................................2 2. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Habitat Impacts ....................................................4 3. Sensitive Vegetation Community Impacts .....................................................5 C. Mitigation Requirements .....................................................................................5 1. Jurisdictional Areas ........................................................................................7 2. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Essential Habitat ..................................................7 3. Sensitive Vegetation Communities ................................................................8 D. Agency Coordination ..........................................................................................8 II. RESTORATION PROJECT .......................................................................................9 A. Location ...............................................................................................................9 B. Environmental Setting .........................................................................................9 C. Existing Functions and Services ........................................................................10 1. Vegetation ....................................................................................................10 2. Hydrology .....................................................................................................12 3. Wildlife .........................................................................................................12 D. Mitigation Site Suitability .................................................................................13 III. MITIGATION DESIGN CONCEPT ........................................................................13 A. Mitigation Design ..............................................................................................13 1. Design Details ..............................................................................................14 2. LBV Avoidance and Minimization Measures ..............................................15 B. Target Functions and Services ..........................................................................17 C. Rationale for Expecting Implementation Success .............................................17 D. Adaptive Management ......................................................................................18 IV. PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY .................................................................................19 A. Project Proponent ..............................................................................................19 B. Restoration Specialist ........................................................................................19 C. Implementation/Maintenance Contractor(s) ......................................................20 D. State Agencies ...................................................................................................20 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Section Title Page V. MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................20 A. Implementation Schedule ..................................................................................20 B. Pre-construction Meeting ..................................................................................21 C. Delineating Limits of Work ..............................................................................21 D. Non-native Plant Removal ................................................................................21 E. Documenting Baseline Conditions ....................................................................21 VI. FIVE-YEAR MAINTENANCE ...............................................................................21 A. Maintenance Activities ......................................................................................21 1. General Maintenance ....................................................................................22 2. Non-native Plant Removal ...........................................................................22 3. Other Pests ....................................................................................................22 B. Maintenance Schedule .......................................................................................22 VII. MONITORING .........................................................................................................23 A. Habitat Changes ................................................................................................23 1. Photo Documentation ...................................................................................23 2. Vegetation Data ............................................................................................24 3. General Wildlife ...........................................................................................24 4. CRAM ..........................................................................................................24 B. Activity Monitoring ...........................................................................................25 1. Implementation Monitoring .........................................................................25 2. Maintenance Monitoring ..............................................................................26 3. Least Bell’s Vireo Monitoring .....................................................................26 C. Annual Reports ..................................................................................................26 VIII. SUCCESS CRITERIA ..............................................................................................27 A. Tamarisk Cover ..................................................................................................27 B. Noxious Weed Cover ..........................................................................................27 C. Weed Cover by Other Weed Species ..................................................................28 D. Native Sapling Density .......................................................................................28 E. Anticipated Functions and Services Improvements ............................................28 1. CRAM ............................................................................................................28 2. Surface and Groundwater ..............................................................................30 IX. COMPLETION OF MITIGATION ..........................................................................31 A. Notification of Completion .................................................................................31 B. Confirmation .......................................................................................................31 C. Long-term Management ......................................................................................31 D. Site Protection .....................................................................................................31 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Section Title Page X. CONTINGENCY MEASURES ...............................................................................31 A. Implementation ..................................................................................................31 B. Initiating Procedures ..........................................................................................32 C. Natural Disaster .................................................................................................32 XI. REFERENCES .........................................................................................................33 LIST OF APPENDICES Letter Title A Carrizo Marsh Endowment LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Follows Page No. 1 Regional Location Map ........................................................................................................2 2 Project Location Map ...........................................................................................................2 3 Marsh Location Map ..........................................................................................................10 4 Preliminary Tamarisk Removal Plan .................................................................................12 5 Preliminary Tamarisk Removal Plan .................................................................................14 6 CRAM Sampling Locations ...............................................................................................26
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Right-Sljp Offset of the Eocene Ballena River Valley Across the Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California
    http://dx.doi.org/10.7773/cm.v9i1.412 RIGHT-SLJP OFFSET OF THE EOCENE BALLENA RIVER VALLEY ACROSS THE ELSINORE FAULT ZONE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Patrick L. Abbott Ronald P. Kies Dermis R. Kerr Department of GeologicaI Sciences San Diego State University San Diego, California 92182 U. S. A. ABSTRACT TWO small paleovalleys carved into granitic rocks of the Peninsular Ranges contain conglomerates similar to the Eocene Ballena Gravels farther west in San Diego County. These conglomerates are dominated by the distinctive, temporally restricted, Poway rhyolite clasts. The newly discovered fluvial conglomerates lie in the Vallecito Mountains east of the Elsinore fault zone. Extrapolation of the offset fluvial valley trends to the Elsinore fault suggests 37 kilometers (23 miles) of right slip. RESUMEN Dos valles pequeños paleolíticos, grabados en cuerpos graníticos de la Cor- dillera Peninsular, contienen conglomerados semejantes a las gravas de la Forma- ción Ballena del Eoceno, localizada al peste, en el Condado de San Diego. Este conglomerado es dominado por clastos riolíticos de la Formación Poway, los cuales son característicos y están temporalmente restringidos. Los conglomerados fluviales recientemente descubiertos, se encuentran en las Montanas del Vallecito, al este de la zona de la falla de Elsinore. Proyectando los rumbos de los conglome- rados fluviales y de las gravas a través de la falla de Elsinore, se observa un despla- zamiento de 37 km. (23 millas) en un sentido lateral-derecho. INTRODUCTION The Ballena Gravels (actually conglomerate ) were named by Fairbanks (1893) for a prominent, southwest-trending line of outcrops on the western flank of the batholithic Peninsular Ranges in San Diego County (figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Bibliography Compiled and Edited by Jim Dice
    Steele/Burnand Anza-Borrego Desert Research Center University of California, Irvine UCI – NATURE and UC Natural Reserve System California State Parks – Colorado Desert District Anza-Borrego Desert State Park & Anza-Borrego Foundation Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Bibliography Compiled and Edited by Jim Dice (revised 1/31/2019) A gaggle of geneticists in Borrego Palm Canyon – 1975. (L-R, Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Dr. Steve Bryant, Dr. Richard Lewontin, Dr. Steve Jones, Dr. TimEDITOR’S Prout. Photo NOTE by Dr. John Moore, courtesy of Steve Jones) Editor’s Note The publications cited in this volume specifically mention and/or discuss Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, locations and/or features known to occur within the present-day boundaries of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, biological, geological, paleontological or anthropological specimens collected from localities within the present-day boundaries of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, or events that have occurred within those same boundaries. This compendium is not now, nor will it ever be complete (barring, of course, the end of the Earth or the Park). Many, many people have helped to corral the references contained herein (see below). Any errors of omission and comission are the fault of the editor – who would be grateful to have such errors and omissions pointed out! [[email protected]] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As mentioned above, many many people have contributed to building this database of knowledge about Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. A quantum leap was taken somewhere in 2016-17 when Kevin Browne introduced me to Google Scholar – and we were off to the races. Elaine Tulving deserves a special mention for her assistance in dealing with formatting issues, keeping printers working, filing hard copies, ignoring occasional foul language – occasionally falling prey to it herself, and occasionally livening things up with an exclamation of “oh come on now, you just made that word up!” Bob Theriault assisted in many ways and now has a lifetime job, if he wants it, entering these references into Zotero.
    [Show full text]
  • Soleglad, Fet & Lowe: Hadrurus “Spadix” Subgroup 17
    Soleglad, Fet & Lowe: Hadrurus “spadix” Subgroup 17 Figures 31–33 Comparisons of Hadrurus obscurus and H. spadix, metasomal segments II–III, ventral view, showing diagnostic setation located between the ventromedian (VM) carinae. 31. H. obscurus, male (pale phenotype, segment II length = 8.44 mm, segment III length = 9.26 mm), Bird Spring Canyon Road, Kern Co., California, USA. 32. H. obscurus, female (dark phenotype, segment II length = 5.02 mm, segment III length = 5.70 mm), Bird Spring Canyon Road, Kern Co., California, USA. 33. H. spadix, female (segment II length = 7.87 mm, segment III length = 8.36 mm), Apex Mine in Curly Hollow Wash, Washington Co., Utah, USA. 19). However, to support our suspicion, we have ex- As stated above the positions and numbers of chelal amined two H. obscurus specimens collected from the internal trichobothria are essentially identical in Ha- same locality where one has a carapace pattern of H. drurus obscurus and H. spadix, while both numbers and spadix and the other a pattern typical of H. obscurus (see positions differ in H. anzaborrego (see Fig. 19). H. Fig. 20 for color closeup images of these carapaces, and anzaborrego has three internal accessory trichobothria Figs. 9–10 for overall comparison with “arizonensis” whereas the other two species have two. Statistics group species). Based on these data, we suggest here that involving over 250 samples show that these numerical these carapacial pattern differences are analogous to differences are observed in over 87 % of the specimens those exhibited by the dark and pale phenotypes of H. examined (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery 2011 Annual Report
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP RECOVERY 2011 ANNUAL REPORT A cooperative effort by the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Parks and Recreation Photo By Janene Colby This report presents information on the status, distribution, and management of peninsular bighorn sheep in eastern San Diego County and portions of Riverside and Imperial Counties, California, from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. Report prepared by Janene Colby and Randy Botta TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY...…………………………………………………………………………… 2 PROJECT PERSONNEL……………………………………………………………… 3 CDFG Resource Management and Air Services Divisions…........................... 3 CDFG South Coast Region………………………….……..……………...…… 3 RECOVERY PROGRAM OVERVIEW Telemetry Monitoring…..……………………….………….……………..…… 4 Population Size and Estimation…...………………………….…………..……. 5 Distribution and Movement………….…………………………………...…..... 7 Central Santa Rosa Mountains…………………………………….....…... 7 Southern Santa Rosa Mountains…………..……………………...……… 7 Coyote Canyon........................................................................................... 7 Northern San Ysidro Mountains……………………..…………...……… 9 Southern San Ysidro Mountains…………………….…………...………11 Vallecito Mountains.....……………………………………..……...…….13 Carrizo Canyon…...…………………………………………………….. 15 Survivorship….…………………………………...………………………..….. 17 Lamb Mortality Monitoring………..……………………………………...…. 19 2012 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES …………………………………………………... 19 1 SUMMARY This report
    [Show full text]
  • California Department of Fish and Wildlife Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Annual Report 2015
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP 2015 ANNUAL REPORT A cooperative effort by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Parks and Recreation Photo by Janene Colby This report presents information on the status, distribution, and management of peninsular bighorn sheep in eastern San Diego County and portions of Riverside and Imperial Counties for 2015 Authors Janene Colby and Randy Botta South Coast Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Annual Report 2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………...1 Background……………………………………………………….......3 Capture and Radio-collaring……………………………………3 Radio Collar Status………………………………………………….4 Population Size and Estimation…………………….………..5 Respiratory Disease………………………………………………..5 Cause Specific Mortality and Survival……………………..6 Lamb Survival and Recruitment……………………………...8 Distribution and Movement………………………………….11 San Jacinto Mountains………………………………………...12 Central Santa Rosa Mountains………………………........12 Southern Santa Rosa Mountains……………………….....15 Vallecito Mountains………………………………………......16 Threats to Recovery………………………………………….….17 San Jacinto Mountains…………………………................17 Northern Santa Rosa Mountains………………………….17 Central Santa Rosa Mountains………………….……...…17 Southern Santa Rosa Mountains…………………….……19 Coyote Canyon…………………………………………….….…19 Northern San Ysidro Mountains………………….….…...19 Southern San Ysidro Mountains……………………..…...20 Vallecito Mountains……………………………………………20
    [Show full text]
  • CH1-13: Some Characteristics of the Eastern Peninsular Ranges
    I SOME ~ CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EASTERN PENINSULAR bY Robert V. Sharp U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, California 940 Amajor regional belt of pervasively sheared cataclastic rocks, here termed th e eastern Peninsular Ranges mylonite zone, is the subject of this paper. T he regional characteristics of these mylonitic rocks, as well as a set of younger thrust faults that are spatially and temporally associated with them are briefly described. This discussion is preliminary with regard to the detailed structure of the cataclastic zone; most of the zone has been studied only in r ough reconnaissance. Detailed petrofabric studies of the mylonitic rocks hav e been made only at Coyote Mountain, north of Borrego Valley, by Theodore (1966, 1970). Brief descriptions of the regional distribution and some tectonic implications of the cataclastic rocks have been made by Sharp (1966, 19 67, 1968). Work on this zone by the author is continuing. In the discussion to follow, the locations of named geographic landmarks and geolo gic features are shown in the map of Figure 1, or explained in its caption. GEOGRAPHY AND GEOMETRY OF THE EASTERN PENINSULAR MYLONITE ZONE As d epicted in Figure 1, the cataclastic rocks of the mylonite zone extend fr om the latitude of Palm Springs southward about 80 km to the North Pinyon Moluntains. The planar structure or foliation of the rocks dips generally' in the range 300 to 600 toward the east or northeast, but locally a,nd to a minor extent in other directions. What is most remarkable about theI orientation of this zone is its approximately north-northwest average s trike, coinciding with the trend of the eastern margin of the Peninsulalr Ranges through its linear 1500 km extent from Palm Springs to the tip of Baija California.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Society of America Bulletin
    Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on 28 April 2009 Geological Society of America Bulletin Early Pleistocene initiation of the San Felipe fault zone, SW Salton Trough, during reorganization of the San Andreas fault system Alexander N. Steely, Susanne U. Janecke, Rebecca J. Dorsey and Gary J. Axen Geological Society of America Bulletin 2009;121;663-687 doi:10.1130/B26239.1 E-mail alerting services click www.gsapubs.org/cgi/alerts to receive free e-mail alerts when new articles cite this article Subscribe click www.gsapubs.org/subscriptions/index.ac.dtl to subscribe to Geological Society of America Bulletin Permission request click http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/copyrt.htm#gsa to contact GSA Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees within scope of their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission, without fees or further requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a brief paragraph of text in subsequent works and to make unlimited copies of items in GSA's journals for noncommercial use in classrooms to further education and science. This file may not be posted to any Web site, but authors may post the abstracts only of their articles on their own or their organization's Web site providing the posting includes a reference to the article's full citation. GSA provides this and other forums for the presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide, regardless of their race, citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this publication do not reflect official positions of the Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphy, Tectonics, and Basin Evolution in the Anza-Borrego Desert Region
    Anza - C05 Stratigraphy 10/28/05 3:21 PM Page 89 Stratigraphy, Tectonics, and 5Basin Evolution in the Anza-Borrego Desert Region The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and all science. Albert Einstein Rebecca Dorsey 89 Anza - C05 Stratigraphy 10/28/05 3:22 PM Page 90 Stratigraphy, Tectonics, and Basin Evolution in the Anza-Borrego Desert Region Southern Borrego Badlands Looking West. (Photograph by Rebecca Dorsey) Introduction The fossil record of past life is commonly preserved in ancient sedi- ments and sedimentary rocks. Sediments accumulate in subsiding basins that contain different kinds of depositional environments such as rivers, lakes, deltas, and marine seaways. These environments are friendly to life, and often support assemblages of plants and animals. Through integrative studies of stratigraphy, sedimentology, and paleontology, we can reconstruct ancient life communities and the environments in which they lived. Plate tectonic forces determine where sedimentary basins form, how long and how fast sediments accumulate, and how they may later be faulted, uplifted, and eroded at the surface. Climate also affects basins and sediments; precipitation, wind, and temperature variation affect surface processes such as erosion and soil formation. In the Salton Trough region of southern California, styles, rates, and environments of basin formation have evolved through time in response to complex changes in driving tectonic forces, fault interactions, and climate change. Because of the rich history of geologic research in Anza- Borrego Desert State Park and adjacent areas, it is impossible to summarize all of the knowledge on this subject in a few pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery 2012 Annual Report
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP 2012 ANNUAL REPORT AND RECOVERY PROGRAM REVIEW 1993 - 2012 A cooperative effort by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Parks and Recreation Jeff Young This report presents information on the status, distribution, and management of peninsular bighorn sheep in eastern San Diego County and portions of Riverside and Imperial Counties, California Report prepared by Janene Colby and Randy Botta TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND...…………………………………………………………………………………2 PROJECT PERSONNEL…………………………………………………………………………3 RECOVERY PROGRAM OVERVIEW Capture and Radiocollaring.……………..……………………….………….……………..….…3 Population Monitoring……………………………………………………………………………4 Population Size and Estimation…………………………………………………………….…….5 Central Santa Rosa Mountains……………………………………................................…...6 Southern Santa Rosa Mountains…………..…………………………………..…...…….…6 Coyote Canyon.......................................................................................................................6 Northern San Ysidro Mountains……………………..………….............................…….…7 Southern San Ysidro Mountains……………………..……………………………...……...7 Vallecito Mountains.....……………………………….……………………….……...….…8 Carrizo Canyon…...………………………………………………………………………...8 Distribution and Movement….…………………………………...………………………....…....8 Central Santa Rosa Mountains……………………………………...............................…... 9 Southern Santa Rosa Mountains…………..…………………………………..…...…….…9
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Tuesday, August 26, 2008 Part IV Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Peninsular Ranges Population of Desert Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni); Proposed Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:18 Aug 25, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 C:\FR\FM\26AUP2.SGM 26AUP2 sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS 50498 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (3) Specific information on dispersal by one of the following methods: areas important for habitat connectivity, Fish and Wildlife Service • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// the role of such areas in the www.regulations.gov. Follow the conservation and recovery of the 50 CFR Part 17 instructions for submitting comments. Peninsular bighorn sheep, and why • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public such areas should or should not be [FWS–R8–ES–2008–0005; 92210–1117– Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018– included in the critical habitat 0000–B4] AV07, Division of Policy and Directives designation. Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife (4) Our proposed revision of criteria RIN 1018–AV09 Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite used to identify critical habitat, our 222, Arlington, VA 22203. addition of 36,240 ac (14,667 ha) to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We proposed critical habitat, and removal of and Plants; Designation of Critical will post all comments on http:// 163 ac (66 ha) from proposed critical Habitat for the Peninsular Ranges www.regulations.gov.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Miocene-Pleistocene Extensional Faulting, Northern Gulf of California, Mexico and Salton Trough, California Gary J
    This article was downloaded by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] On: 19 February 2013, At: 15:16 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Geology Review Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tigr20 Late Miocene-Pleistocene Extensional Faulting, Northern Gulf of California, Mexico and Salton Trough, California Gary J. Axen a & John M. Fletcher b a Department of Earth and Space Sciences , University of California, Los Angeles, California, 90095-1567 b Departamento de Geología , Centro de Investigacion Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada (CICESE), Baja California, México Version of record first published: 06 Jul 2010. To cite this article: Gary J. Axen & John M. Fletcher (1998): Late Miocene-Pleistocene Extensional Faulting, Northern Gulf of California, Mexico and Salton Trough, California, International Geology Review, 40:3, 217-244 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00206819809465207 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources.
    [Show full text]
  • 1990S Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Cultural Resources Inventory Conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside
    Recovery, Synthesis, and Reporting: 1990s Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Cultural Resources Inventory Conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside #CSP169-05 PCA #37165 Prepared for: California State Parks Cultural Heritage Division Prepared by: Joan S. Schneider, Ph.D., Associate State Archeologist, Colorado Desert District Matthew C. Hall, Ph.D. Director, Archaeological Research Unit University of California, Riverside Marla Mealey, M.A. Associate State Archeologist, Southern Service Center With a contribution by Heather Tompson September 2006 Schneider, Mealey, and Hall 2006 i MANAGEMENT SUMMARY During the mid-late 1990s, the University of California, Riverside - Archaeological Research Unit (UCR-ARU) contracted with California State Parks (CSP), through an Interagency Agreement, to carry out the first large-scale holistic systematic cultural resources inventory for Anza-Borrego Desert State Park (ABDSP). The project leader was Dr. Matthew C. Hall, Director of the UCR-ARU. Between 1995 and 1998, the UCR- ARU conducted fieldwork in ABDSP, following an elaborate Research Design that combined both a statistically based random-sample of parklands and a judgmental-area approach. The former was called Probabilistic Sample; the latter, Targeted Areas which were identified by ABDSP staff as areas with known high concentrations of cultural resources that had not been fully recorded. Field methods used in the two approaches were identical. The Research Design was developed to maximize the gathering of information about ABDSP cultural resources. As the project progressed, it became evident that, due to field conditions and findings, the Research Design was too ambitious and that the project could not be completed as was originally planned.
    [Show full text]