DOCSLIB.ORG

A Focus on Grassland Habitats of the San Joaquin Valley and Carrizo Plain

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Focus on Grassland Habitats of the San Joaquin Valley and Carrizo Plain California Rangeland Monitoring and Mapping: A Focus on Grassland Habitats of the San Joaquin Valley and Carrizo Plain By Jennifer Buck-Diaz, Betsy Harbert and Julie Evens 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento CA, 95816 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding National Resource Conservation Service – CA Office, Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) Bureau of Land Management – In-kind funding for 2010 surveys at Carrizo National Monument California Native Plant Society – Matching non-cash funds toward the CIG project and in-kind funding for background work in recognizing grassland vegetation California Department of Fish and Game – In-kind funding for 2008-10 field survey work in the San Joaquin Valley The Nature Conservancy – In-kind funding for additional herbaceous sampling in this region Field Staff CNPS field staff in 2010 included Jennifer Buck-Diaz, Betsy Harbert, and Suzanne Harmon Donated Grassland Datasets Bureau of Land Management – Carrizo Plain National Monument California Department of Fish and Game – San Joaquin Valley and southern Sierra foothills sampling in 2008 Dr. Michael Barbour – Vernal Pool Upland Relevés, UC Davis Ayzik Solomeshch – Great Valley Grassland State Park, UC Davis Sasha Gennet – Mt. Hamilton Range, The Nature Conservancy Assistance with Land Access Pelayo Alvarez, Defenders of Wildlife Jeff Chance, Private rancher in Merced County Matt Gause, Westervelt Ecological Services Bob Holland, Geobotanical Phenomenologist Meredith Kupferman, California Rangeland Trust Ken Macklin, Private rancher in Tulare County Jaymee Marty, The Nature Conservancy Kendra Sikes, California Native Plant Society Larry Saslaw, Bureau of Land Management Greg Warrick, Center for Natural Lands Management Michael White, Tejon Ranch Conservancy Assistance with Workshop on Rangeland Grasslands Josie Crawford, California Native Plant Society Rebecca Crowe, California Native Plant Society Matt Echeverria, Private rancher Marilyn Henderson, Cooperative Extension Kern County Brian W. Hockett, North West Kern Resource Conservation District Carolyn LoFreso, Natural Resources Conservation Service Carol Rush, Natural Resources Conservation Service Michael White, Tejon Ranch Conservancy i ii Table of Contents Section Page Acknowledgements........................................................................................................ i I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 II. Objectives ..................................................................................................................1 III. Methods ....................................................................................................................2 Study area .................................................................................................................................2 Field Sampling and Classification..............................................................................................2 Figure 1. Project study area ...................................................................................................3 Field Reconnaissance and Vegetation Mapping Methods.........................................................4 Grazing Management Interviews...............................................................................................5 IV. Results...................................................................................................................... 6 Basic Species Data....................................................................................................................6 Table 1. Vegetation samples conducted in 2010 at rangeland sites. .....................................6 Table 2. Plant communities containing listed, sensitive plant species ...................................7 Figure 2. Comparison of spring and summer surveys across 24 sites...................................9 Vegetation Classification Analysis...........................................................................................10 Table 3. Draft Herbaceous Vegetation Classification...........................................................11 Figure 3. Cluster analysis from compiled surveys................................................................13 Vegetation Map and Attributes ................................................................................................14 Table 4. Map units with polygon count and total acreage. ...................................................14 Figure 4. Mapping area survey point locations.....................................................................15 Figure 5. Mapping area delineation and legend. ..................................................................17 Site Summaries from 2010 ......................................................................................................18 CARRIZO PLAIN..............................................................................................................................18 CHANCE RANCH ............................................................................................................................19 CHIMNEY SPRINGS RANCH..........................................................................................................20 CYRIL SMITH TRUST PROPERTY.................................................................................................22 iii DUTCHMAN CREEK .......................................................................................................................23 FLYING M RANCH...........................................................................................................................24 LOKERN PRESERVE......................................................................................................................24 SEMITROPIC RIDGE PRESERVE..................................................................................................25 TEJON RANCH................................................................................................................................26 Rangeland Management .........................................................................................................27 Rangeland Monitoring Workshop ............................................................................................30 V. Discussion............................................................................................................... 32 VI. References ............................................................................................................. 34 VII. Appendices ........................................................................................................... 36 Appendix A. CNPS Field Sampling Protocol and Field Forms .............................................36 Appendix B. CNPS Long-Term Monitoring Protocol and Field Forms..................................46 Appendix C. Mapping Rules and Attributes..........................................................................51 Appendix D. Species List .....................................................................................................53 Appendix E. Table of non-native species .............................................................................64 Appendix F. Map Unit Hierarchy for Pilot Mapping Area in Carrizo Plain.............................69 Appendix G. Key to mapped vegetation types in the Carrizo Plain Grasslands...................70 Appendix H. Oral History......................................................................................................73 iv I. INTRODUCTION The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) awarded a Conservation Innovation Grant to the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) in 2009 to (1) inventory and analyze vegetation to categorize the variation of grassland types, and (2) develop tools for mapping and monitoring grassland vegetation to allow better management of grassland resources of the Central Valley and related areas. Our study area in 2010 focused on the San Joaquin Valley and Carrizo Plain, which encompass a wide range of herbaceous communities from alkali herbaceous flats to perennial bunchgrasses. Field survey data were compiled and analyzed statistically to develop a floristically-based vegetation classification. More than 100 vegetation samples from 2010 were classified according to the National Vegetation Classification System to the alliance and association level. Along with these samples, hundreds of other existing grassland surveys from related vegetation projects were also compiled and analyzed to categorize a larger array of data in the region. Also, a pilot fine-scale vegetation mapping effort was undertaken through heads-up computer digitizing to discern vegetation signatures across an area of almost 10,000 acres. The mapping includes delineation and attribution by floristic vegetation type, total cover, shrub cover, herb cover and site impacts using 2007 1-foot resolution base imagery. An accurate vegetation map provides a baseline, floristic dataset for this region and will allow for detailed assessment, modeling, and management of plant species, vegetation, and wildlife habitat resources. Non-native and invasive plant species detected during field surveys were analyzed at each site within the study area, and control measures and management recommendations are presented for high-risk invasive species. II. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this study was to establish baseline
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Summary of Offerings in the PBS Bulb Exchange, Dec 2012- Nov 2019
    Summary of offerings in the PBS Bulb Exchange, Dec 2012- Nov 2019 3841 Number of items in BX 301 thru BX 463 1815 Number of unique text strings used as taxa 990 Taxa offered as bulbs 1056 Taxa offered as seeds 308 Number of genera This does not include the SXs. Top 20 Most Oft Listed: BULBS Times listed SEEDS Times listed Oxalis obtusa 53 Zephyranthes primulina 20 Oxalis flava 36 Rhodophiala bifida 14 Oxalis hirta 25 Habranthus tubispathus 13 Oxalis bowiei 22 Moraea villosa 13 Ferraria crispa 20 Veltheimia bracteata 13 Oxalis sp. 20 Clivia miniata 12 Oxalis purpurea 18 Zephyranthes drummondii 12 Lachenalia mutabilis 17 Zephyranthes reginae 11 Moraea sp. 17 Amaryllis belladonna 10 Amaryllis belladonna 14 Calochortus venustus 10 Oxalis luteola 14 Zephyranthes fosteri 10 Albuca sp. 13 Calochortus luteus 9 Moraea villosa 13 Crinum bulbispermum 9 Oxalis caprina 13 Habranthus robustus 9 Oxalis imbricata 12 Haemanthus albiflos 9 Oxalis namaquana 12 Nerine bowdenii 9 Oxalis engleriana 11 Cyclamen graecum 8 Oxalis melanosticta 'Ken Aslet'11 Fritillaria affinis 8 Moraea ciliata 10 Habranthus brachyandrus 8 Oxalis commutata 10 Zephyranthes 'Pink Beauty' 8 Summary of offerings in the PBS Bulb Exchange, Dec 2012- Nov 2019 Most taxa specify to species level. 34 taxa were listed as Genus sp. for bulbs 23 taxa were listed as Genus sp. for seeds 141 taxa were listed with quoted 'Variety' Top 20 Most often listed Genera BULBS SEEDS Genus N items BXs Genus N items BXs Oxalis 450 64 Zephyranthes 202 35 Lachenalia 125 47 Calochortus 94 15 Moraea 99 31 Moraea
    [Show full text]
  • Tejon Ranch Botanical Survey Report
    David Magney Environmental Consulting FLORA OF THE TEJON RANCH CONSERVANCY ACQUISITION AREAS, TEJON RANCH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: TEJON RANCH CONSERVANCY July 2010 DMEC Mission Statement: To provide quality environmental consulting services, with integrity, that protect and enhance the human and natural environment. David Magney Environmental Consulting Flora of the Tejon Ranch Conservancy Acquisition Areas, Tejon Ranch, California Prepared for: Tejon Ranch Conservancy P.O. Box 216 Frazier Park, California 93225 Contact: Michael White Phone: 661/-248-2400 ext 2 Prepared by: David Magney Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 1346 Ojai, California 93024-1346 Phone: 805/646-6045 23 July 2010 DMEC Mission Statement: To provide quality environmental consulting services, with integrity, that protect and enhance the human and natural environment. This document should be cited as: David Magney Environmental Consulting. 2010. Flora of the Tejon Ranch Conservancy Acquisition Areas, Tejon Ranch, California. 23 July2010. (PN 09-0001.) Ojai, California. Prepared for Tejon Ranch Conservancy, Frazier Park, California. Tejon Ranch Conservancy – Flora of Tejon Ranch Acquisition Areas Project No. 09-0001 DMEC July 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................. 1 SECTION 2. METHODS ........................................................................................ 3 Field Survey Methods ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP
    CALIFORNIA VEGETATION MAP IN SUPPORT OF THE DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN (2014-2016 ADDITIONS) John Menke, Edward Reyes, Anne Hepburn, Deborah Johnson, and Janet Reyes Aerial Information Systems, Inc. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Renewable Energy Program and the California Energy Commission Final Report May 2016 Prepared by: Primary Authors John Menke Edward Reyes Anne Hepburn Deborah Johnson Janet Reyes Report Graphics Ben Johnson Cover Page Photo Credits: Joshua Tree: John Fulton Blue Palo Verde: Ed Reyes Mojave Yucca: John Fulton Kingston Range, Pinyon: Arin Glass Aerial Information Systems, Inc. 112 First Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 793-9493 [email protected] in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95811 and California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by: California Energy Commission US Bureau of Land Management California Wildlife Conservation Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife Personnel involved in developing the methodology and implementing this project included: Aerial Information Systems: Lisa Cotterman, Mark Fox, John Fulton, Arin Glass, Anne Hepburn, Ben Johnson, Debbie Johnson, John Menke, Lisa Morse, Mike Nelson, Ed Reyes, Janet Reyes, Patrick Yiu California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Diana Hickson, Todd Keeler‐Wolf, Anne Klein, Aicha Ougzin, Rosalie Yacoub California
    [Show full text]
  • Viewed 100,000 of the Images for Content Before Uploading Them to Gigadb to Ensure Image Quality, Presence of Animals, Date and Temperature Stamp, and Data Integrity
    Noble et al. GigaScience (2016) 5:40 DOI 10.1186/s13742-016-0145-2 DATA NOTE Open Access A picture is worth a thousand data points: an imagery dataset of paired shrub-open microsites within the Carrizo Plain National Monument Taylor J. Noble1*, Christopher J. Lortie1, Michael Westphal2 and H. Scott Butterfield3 Abstract Background: Carrizo Plain National Monument (San Joaquin Desert, California, USA) is home to many threatened and endangered species including the blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila). Vegetation is dominated by annual grasses, and shrubs such as Mormon tea (Ephedra californica), which is of relevance to our target species, the federally listed blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and likely also provides key ecosystem services. We used relatively nonintrusive camera traps, or trail cameras, to capture interactions between animals and these shrubs using a paired shrub-open deployment. Cameras were placed within the shrub understory and in open microhabitats at ground level to estimate animal activity and determine species presence. Findings: Twenty cameras were deployed from April 1st, 2015 to July 5th, 2015 at paired shrub-open microsites at three locations. Over 425,000 pictures were taken during this time, of which 0.4 % detected mammals, birds, insects, and reptiles including the blunt-nosed leopard lizard. Trigger rate was very high on the medium sensitivity camera setting in this desert ecosystem, and rates did not differ between microsites. Conclusions: Camera traps are an effective, less invasive survey method for collecting data on the presence or absence of desert animals in shrub and open microhabitats. A more extensive array of cameras within an arid region would thus be an effective tool to estimate the presence of desert animals and potentially detect habitat use patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Italian Thistle (Carduus Pycnocephalus)
    Thistles: Identification and Management Rebecca Ozeran 1 May 2018 Common thistles in the San Joaquin Valley Carduus Centaurea Cirsium Silybum Onopordum Italian thistle Yellow starthistle Bull thistle (Blessed) milkthistle Scotch thistle Tocalote Canada thistle (Malta starthistle) All of these species are found at least one of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, or Tulare Counties Identification • Many species start as a basal rosette in fall • Mature plants can have dense & bushy or tall & stemmy appearance • Purple/pink or yellow-flowered Identification • Why does thistle species matter? • Varying levels of risk to animals • Varying competition with forage • Varying susceptibility to control options Identification – 1. Italian thistle • Carduus pycnocephalus • narrow, spiky flower heads • winged, spiny stems branching above the base • found in Fresno, Kern, Madera, Tulare Identification – 2. Centaurea thistles • YELLOW STARTHISTLE (C. solstitialis) • long, yellow/white spines on phyllaries • can get a bushy structure • found in Fresno, Kern, Madera, Tulare • TOCALOTE (MALTA STARTHISTLE, C. melitensis) • stouter flower heads and shorter, redder spines on phyllaries • found in all 5 counties Identification – 3. Cirsium thistles • Canada thistle (C. arvense) • smooth stems, non-spiny flowerheads • flowers Jun-Oct • found in Fresno, Kern, Tulare • Bull thistle (C. vulgare) • large spiky looking flowerheads • lots of branching, dense plant • flowers Jun-Oct • found in all 5 counties Identification – 4. Blessed milk thistle • Silybum marianum • Distinct,
    [Show full text]
  • Slender Thistles LC0229 Department of Primary Industries ISSN 1329-833X
    Updated: August 2007 Slender Thistles LC0229 Department of Primary Industries ISSN 1329-833X Common and scientific names in colour. All seeds have a group of plumes (the pappus) about three times as long as the seed for wind dispersal. Slender thistle, shore thistle Roots - branched, slender or stout tap root. Carduus pycnocephalus L. (slender thistle) Carduus tenuiflorus Curt. (winged slender thistle) Family Asteraceae (daisy family) Origin and distribution Slender thistles are native to Europe and North Africa. The range of C. pycnocephalus extends to Asia Minor and Pakistan while that of C. tenuiflorus extends northwards to Britain and Scandinavia. They are a problem in many areas of the world. Both species were present in Victoria during the 1880s and now occur throughout much of the State. Slender thistles are troublesome weeds in pastures and wastelands, favouring areas of winter rainfall and soils of moderate to high fertility. The two species often occur together in mixed populations. Description Erect annual herbs, commonly 60 to 100 cm high but up to 2m, reproducing by seed. Seed germinates in the 6 weeks Figure 1. Slender thistle, Carduus tenuiflorus. following the autumn break. Seedlings develop into rosettes and remain in the rosette stage over winter. Flowering stems are produced in early spring and flowering continues from September to December. Plants die in early summer after flowering, but dead stems can remain standing for months. Stems - flowering stems are single or multiple from the base, branched, strongly ribbed and slightly woolly. Spiny wings occur along most of the length of flowering stems. Leaves - rosette leaves 15 to 25 cm long, stalked and Figure 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan
    The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California A Project of California Partners in Flight and PRBO Conservation Science The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California Version 2.0 2004 Conservation Plan Authors Grant Ballard, PRBO Conservation Science Mary K. Chase, PRBO Conservation Science Tom Gardali, PRBO Conservation Science Geoffrey R. Geupel, PRBO Conservation Science Tonya Haff, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at Museum of Natural History Collections, Environmental Studies Dept., University of CA) Aaron Holmes, PRBO Conservation Science Diana Humple, PRBO Conservation Science John C. Lovio, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, U.S. Navy (Currently at TAIC, San Diego) Mike Lynes, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at Hastings University) Sandy Scoggin, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at San Francisco Bay Joint Venture) Christopher Solek, Cal Poly Ponoma (Currently at UC Berkeley) Diana Stralberg, PRBO Conservation Science Species Account Authors Completed Accounts Mountain Quail - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Greater Roadrunner - Pete Famolaro, Sweetwater Authority Water District. Coastal Cactus Wren - Laszlo Szijj and Chris Solek, Cal Poly Pomona. Wrentit - Geoff Geupel, Grant Ballard, and Mary K. Chase, PRBO Conservation Science. Gray Vireo - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Black-chinned Sparrow - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Costa's Hummingbird (coastal) - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Sage Sparrow - Barbara A. Carlson, UC-Riverside Reserve System, and Mary K. Chase. California Gnatcatcher - Patrick Mock, URS Consultants (San Diego). Accounts in Progress Rufous-crowned Sparrow - Scott Morrison, The Nature Conservancy (San Diego).
    [Show full text]
  • Population Genetics and Genetic Structure in San Joaquin Woolly
    POPULATION GENETICS AND GENETIC STRUCTURE IN SAN JOAQUIN WOOLY THREADS (Monolopia congdonii (A. Gray) B.G. Baldwin Bureau of Land Management – UC Berkeley Grant/Cooperative Agreement Number: L12AC20073 Susan Bainbridge Jepson Herbarium 1001 VLSB #2465 University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 Ryan O’Dell Bureau of Land Management California & Bruce Baldwin UC Berkeley INTRODUCTION Conservation of genetic variability is one of the most important and concrete measures ecologists and land managers can implement to maintain viability for specific organisms vulnerable to climate change and to increase success of restoration. Genetic diversity via adaptation and gene flow can help organisms increase chances of surviving environmental changes (Anderson et al. 2012, Reusch et al. 2005, Jump et al. 2008, Doi et al. 2010). Genetic diversity is also threatened by climate change by erosion due to range shifts and/or reductions (Aguilar et al. 2008, Alsos et al. 2012). Genetic diversity is also an important criterion for restoration and conservation planning, and prioritizing protection of populations. For plant taxa with a declining or limited geographical range or declining populations, perspective on regional and local genetic structure and history is important for developing effective management and restoration planning. Genetic diversity and the processes that shape or maintain that diversity are considered integral for population viability. Inherently rare taxa or those that have had a reduction in population size or an increase in fragmentation may have low levels of genetic variability, in addition to other factors. This increases their vulnerability to inbreeding depression and changes in environmental conditions. At the same time, these taxa are also more vulnerable to unintended consequences of restoration or attempts at enhancement, such as insufficient genetic sampling; swamping of rare genotypes or alleles; or hampered local adaptation by introduction of non-local material.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • 3-Web WB Plant List
    Wild Plants of Waterbird Regional Preserve Grouped by Growth Form Alphabetical by Scientific Name September 5, 2003 Wild Plants of Waterbird Regional Preserve Grouped by Growth Form Alphabetical by Scientific Name This document contains a comprehensive list of the wild plants reported to be found in Waterbird Regional Preserve. The plants are grouped according to their growth form for easy accessibility. These four groups are: Ferns & Horsetails, Grasses & Grasslike, Herbaceous, and Woody. The plants within each group are listed alphabetically by scientific name. Other information on each plant includes the common name, family, whether the plant is native or introduced, and its longevity. For quick reference, the upper left corner of each page displays both the group name (based on growth form) and the genus of the first scientific name. The abbreviations used: Checklist column for marking off the plants you observe Scientific Name According to The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California, 1993 Common Name According to Jepson and other references (highly variable) Family The scientific plant family name according to Jepson L Longevity: Annual (a), Biennial (b), Perennial (p), or a combination N/I Native (n) or Introduced (i) according to Jepson The listing of plants included in this document is by no means complete. The intent is to maintain an ongoing inventory to which additional plants can be added over time. Readers are encouraged to report any corrections or additions to this list by emailing the District Botanist (Wilde Legard, [email protected]). This welcomed assistance will help facilitate improved management of the Park District’s natural resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Milk Thistle
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control BIOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF EXOTIC T RU E T HISTL E S RACHEL WINSTON , RICH HANSEN , MA R K SCH W A R ZLÄNDE R , ER IC COO M BS , CA R OL BELL RANDALL , AND RODNEY LY M FHTET-2007-05 U.S. Department Forest September 2008 of Agriculture Service FHTET he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 Tby the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ On the cover: Italian thistle. Photo: ©Saint Mary’s College of California. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for information only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX D Biological Technical Report
    APPENDIX D Biological Technical Report CarMax Auto Superstore EIR BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE PROJECT CITY OF OCEANSIDE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: EnviroApplications, Inc. 2831 Camino del Rio South, Suite 214 San Diego, California 92108 Contact: Megan Hill 619-291-3636 Prepared by: 4629 Cass Street, #192 San Diego, California 92109 Contact: Melissa Busby 858-334-9507 September 29, 2020 Revised March 23, 2021 Biological Technical Report CarMax Auto Superstore TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3 SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 6 1.1 Proposed Project Location .................................................................................... 6 1.2 Proposed Project Description ............................................................................... 6 SECTION 2.0 – METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS ............................................ 8 2.1 Background Research .......................................................................................... 8 2.2 General Biological Resources Survey .................................................................. 8 2.3 Jurisdictional Delineation ...................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction .................................................... 9 2.3.2 Regional Water Quality
    [Show full text]