Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 127/Tuesday, July 2, 2002/Rules

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

44372 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Rules and Regulations • § 63.1344(a)(3), related to the (San Diego ambrosia) pursuant to the collected near San Diego, California, in temperature operating limit for an in- Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 1836. Asa Gray (Gray 1882), after seeing line kiln/raw mill equipped with an amended (Act). This plant species is specimens of the plant with fruits, alkali bypass; restricted to 15 known occurrences in decided it was closely related to • § 63.1349(e)(3), related to San Diego and Riverside Counties, CA, members of the genus Ambrosia and requirements associated with and also occurs in Estado de Baja published the currently accepted preparation for, and conduct of, a new California, Mexico. Ambrosia pumila combination, Ambrosia pumila (Nutt.) performance test if a source anticipates primarily occurs on upper terraces of A. Gray. This classification has been making an operational change that may rivers and drainages as well as in open recognized by current systematic and adversely affect compliance with an grasslands, openings in coastal sage floristic treatments (Payne 1964, Munz applicable dioxin/furan (D/F) emission scrub habitat, and occasionally in areas 1935, Keck 1959, Ferris 1960, Munz standard; adjacent to vernal pools. This species is 1974, Beauchamp 1986, and Payne • § 63.1350(a)(4)(v) through (vii), threatened by the following: present or 1993). related to visible emission monitoring of threatened destruction, fragmentation, Ambrosia pumila is an herbaceous a totally enclosed conveying system and degradation of habitat primarily by perennial plant species that spreads transfer point; and construction and maintenance of vegetatively by means of slender, • § 63.1350(c)(2)(i), (d)(2)(i), and (e), highways, maintenance of utility branched, underground rhizome-like related to operating conditions during easements, development of recreational roots from which the aerial (above- daily visual opacity observations by facilities, and residential and ground) stems arise. Plants that spread Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) commercial development; inadequate in this way are referred to as clonal and daily visual emissions observations regulatory mechanisms; potential species. This clonal growth pattern by Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix competition, encroachment, and other results in groupings of aerial stems A). negative impacts from non-native interconnected by their underground Accordingly, these seven amendments plants; mowing and discing for fuel rhizome-like roots that represent are withdrawn as of July 2, 2002. We modification; and trampling, as well as genetically identical individuals. When will take final action on the proposed soil compaction by horses, humans, and these underground interconnections rule after considering the comments vehicles. This rule implements the disintegrate, aerial stems that are received. We will not institute a second Federal protection and recovery genetically identical are physically comment period on this action. The provisions of the Act for Ambrosia separate. The aerial stems sprout in seventeen provisions for which we did pumila. early spring after the winter rains. Dead not receive adverse comment will DATES: This rule is effective August 1, aerial stems may persist or deteriorate become effective on July 5, 2002, as 2002. after their growing season. Therefore, the plant may not be in evidence at provided in the preamble to the direct ADDRESSES: The supporting record for final rule. some times of the year. The aerial stems this rule is available for inspection, by sprout in early spring after the winter List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 appointment, during normal business rains and deteriorate in late summer. hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Therefore, the plant may not be in Environmental protection, Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Administrative practice and procedure, evidence from late summer to early 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, CA spring. The aerial stems are 5 to 30 Air pollution control, Reporting and 92008. recordkeeping requirements. centimeters (cm) (2 to 12 inches (in)) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim tall, but may grow to 50 cm (20 in), and Dated: June 26, 2002. Bartel, Field Supervisor, at the above are densely covered with short hairs. Robert Brenner, address; telephone 760/431–9440; The leaves are two to four times Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and facsimile 760/918–0638. pinnately divided into many small Radiation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: segments and are covered with short, [FR Doc. 02–16642 Filed 7–1–02; 8:45 am] soft, gray-white, appressed (lying flat on Background BILLING CODE 6560–50–P surface) hairs. This wind-pollinated Ambrosia is a genus comprising 35 to species flowers from May through 50 wind-pollinated annual and October with separate male and female DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR perennial plant species in the flower clusters (heads) on the same Asteraceae (sunflower) family. The plant. The male flowers are yellow to Fish and Wildlife Service perennial taxa range from woody shrubs translucent and are borne in clusters on to herbaceous plants with rhizome-like terminal racemes (flower stalks). The 50 CFR Part 17 roots. Rhizomes are underground stems female flowers have no petals and are that produce leafy shoots. Self- yellowish-white. Female flowers are in RIN 1018–AF86 pollination and self-fertility contribute clusters in the axils of the leaves below Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to strong inbreeding among species of the male flower clusters. and Plants; Determination of Ambrosia (Payne 1976). Members of the Although some species of Ambrosia Endangered Status for Ambrosia genus occur predominantly in the have breeding systems that contribute to pumila (San Diego Ambrosia) From Western Hemisphere, especially North strong inbreeding (Payne 1976), the Southern California America. Species are generally found in breeding system of A. pumila has not arid or semiarid areas and some are been studied. The fruiting heads are AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, weeds of cultivated fields or strand enclosed by involucres (composed of Interior. species of Pacific and Caribbean modified leaf-like structures fused ACTION: Final rule. beaches. together) to form cup-like structures that Ambrosia pumila (San Diego have no spines, although some reports SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and ambrosia) was originally described as note a few vestigial (remnant) spines. Wildlife Service (Service), determine Franseria pumila by Thomas Nuttall Few preserved museum specimens have endangered status for Ambrosia pumila (Nuttall 1840) based on a specimen he fertile fruits, and field collections have VerDate May<23>2002 08:38 Jul 01, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02JYR1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 02JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 44373 not provided evidence of production of each of the separate occurrences to 1936 (CNDDB 1999), including the significant numbers of viable seeds. preserve the genetic variability recently reported historical occurrence None of the 22 seeds collected from represented in each of the occurrences. in the City of Riverside (Provance et al. three sites at Mission Trails Regional Ambrosia pumila primarily occurs on 2001) which no longer exists. One Park germinated in a test performed by upper terraces of rivers and drainages as occurrence, near a city sidewalk, Ransom Seed Laboratory (City of San well as in open grasslands, openings in reduced to a single stem in 1996 Diego 2000). Although plants may coastal sage scrub, and occasionally in (CNDDB 1999), is considered non-viable flower, the annual reproductive output areas adjacent to vernal pools. The and therefore is not considered as an of fruits may be low. The lifespan of an species may also be found in disturbed extant occurrence. Subtracting these 4 individual plant, as well as the number sites such as fire fuel breaks and edges occurrences, we now believe that there and distribution of seedlings, are of dirt roadways. Associated native are 15 extant native occurrences of this unknown. A. pumila may be plants include Distichlis spicata species, 12 are in San Diego County and distinguished from other species of (saltgrass), Baccharis salicifolia (mule- 3 are in western Riverside County. Ambrosia in the area by its herbaceous fat), Baccharis sarathroides (broom Knowledge of the full extent of the perennial growth form, leaves which are baccharis), Eriogonum fasciculatum historical range of any organism is two to four times pinnately divided, (California buckwheat), and limited by the surviving records. In the cup-like involucres lacking hooked Eremocarpus setigerus (turkey-mullein). case of Ambrosia pumila in San Diego spines, and lack of longer, stiff hairs on In the United States, populations of A. County, the pattern of extirpated the stems and leaves. pumila occur on Federal, State, local occurrences reflects a significant loss of jurisdictional, and private lands in Because Ambrosia pumila is a clonal occurrences from each of the watersheds western San Diego and Riverside species, it is difficult to determine the in which the species occurs rather than Counties. a complete loss from those watersheds. extent of an individual plant. Individual This species has been previously plants persist as a herbaceous rhizome- The pattern in Riverside County is reported from 49 occurrences in the different in that the recently
Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    Biological Resources Assessment Rainbow Municipal Water District Fallbrook, San Diego County, California Prepared for: Rainbow Municipal Water District 3707 Old Hwy 395 Fallbrook, California 92028 Contact: Tom Kennedy North American Resort Properties, Inc. 4450 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 Contact: Justin Basie Prepared by: WRA, Inc. 9815 Carroll Canyon Rd., Ste. 206 San Diego, CA 92131 858-842-1800 Contact: Rod Dossey [email protected] Date: January 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................2 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ......................................................................................4 2.1 Sensitive Biological Communities ................................................................................ 4 2.2 Special-Status Species ................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................. 7 2.4 San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program ......................................... 7 3.0 METHODS .....................................................................................................................10 3.1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................10
  • Section 5 References

    Section 5 References

    Section 5 References 5.0 REFERENCES Akçakaya, H. R. and J. L. Atwood. 1997. A habitat-based metapopulation model of the California Gnatcatcher. Conservation Biology 11:422-434. Akçakaya, H.R. 1998. RAMAS GIS: Linking landscape data with population viability analysis (version 3.0). Applied Biomathematics, Setaauket, New York. Anderson, D.W. and J.W. Hickey. 1970. Eggshell changes in certain North American birds. Ed. K. H. Voous. Proc. (XVth) Inter. Ornith. Congress, pp 514-540. E.J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. Anderson, D.W., J.R. Jehl, Jr., R.W. Risebrough, L.A. Woods, Jr., L.R. Deweese, and W.G. Edgecomb. 1975. Brown pelicans: improved reproduction of the southern California coast. Science 190:806-808. Atwood, J.L. 1980. The United States distribution of the California black-tailed gnatcatcher. Western Birds 11: 65-78. Atwood, J.L. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Unpublished Technical Report, Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts. Atwood, J.L. 1992. A maximum estimate of the California gnatcatcher’s population size in the United States. Western Birds. 23:1-9. Atwood, J.L. and J.S. Bolsinger. 1992. Elevational distribution of California gnatcatchers in the United States. Journal of Field Ornithology 63:159-168. Atwood, J.L., S.H. Tsai, C.H. Reynolds, M.R. Fugagli. 1998. Factors affecting estimates of California gnatcatcher territory size. Western Birds 29: 269-279. Baharav, D. 1975. Movement of the horned lizard Phrynosoma solare. Copeia 1975: 649-657. Barry, W.J. 1988. Management of sensitive plants in California state parks. Fremontia 16(2):16-20. Beauchamp, R.M.
  • Baja California, Mexico, and a Vegetation Map of Colonet Mesa Alan B

    Baja California, Mexico, and a Vegetation Map of Colonet Mesa Alan B

    Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Volume 29 | Issue 1 Article 4 2011 Plants of the Colonet Region, Baja California, Mexico, and a Vegetation Map of Colonet Mesa Alan B. Harper Terra Peninsular, Coronado, California Sula Vanderplank Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, California Mark Dodero Recon Environmental Inc., San Diego, California Sergio Mata Terra Peninsular, Coronado, California Jorge Ochoa Long Beach City College, Long Beach, California Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Botany Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Harper, Alan B.; Vanderplank, Sula; Dodero, Mark; Mata, Sergio; and Ochoa, Jorge (2011) "Plants of the Colonet Region, Baja California, Mexico, and a Vegetation Map of Colonet Mesa," Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany: Vol. 29: Iss. 1, Article 4. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso/vol29/iss1/4 Aliso, 29(1), pp. 25–42 ’ 2011, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden PLANTS OF THE COLONET REGION, BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO, AND A VEGETATION MAPOF COLONET MESA ALAN B. HARPER,1 SULA VANDERPLANK,2 MARK DODERO,3 SERGIO MATA,1 AND JORGE OCHOA4 1Terra Peninsular, A.C., PMB 189003, Suite 88, Coronado, California 92178, USA ([email protected]); 2Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, 1500 North College Avenue, Claremont, California 91711, USA; 3Recon Environmental Inc., 1927 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, California 92101, USA; 4Long Beach City College, 1305 East Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, California 90806, USA ABSTRACT The Colonet region is located at the southern end of the California Floristic Province, in an area known to have the highest plant diversity in Baja California.
  • Letter Report (December 7, 2020)

    Letter Report (December 7, 2020)

    Appendix B Biological Letter Report (December 7, 2020) STREET 605 THIRD 92024 CALIFORNIA ENCINITAS. F 760.632.0164 T 760.942.5147 December 7, 2020 11575 John R. Tschudin, Jr. Director – Design & Construction Encompass Health 9001 Liberty Parkway Birmingham, Alabama 35242 Subject: Biology Letter Report for Encompass Health Chula Vista, City of Chula Vista, California Dear Mr. Tschudin: This letter report provides an analysis of potential biological resource impacts associated with Encompass Health Chula Vista (proposed project) located in the City of Chula Vista (City), California (Assessor’s Parcel Number 644- 040-01-00). This biology letter report also includes a discussion of any potential biological resources that may be subject to regulation under the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) (City of Chula Vista 2003). Project Location The property (i.e., on-site; Assessor’s Parcel Number 644-040-01-00) occupies 9.79 acres and is located approximately 0.2 miles east of Interstate 805 between Main Street and Olympic Parkway (Figure 1, Project Location). The project also includes an off-site impact area of 0.22 acre located along the southeastern corner of the site where future utility connections may occur, making the total study area acreage for the project 10.01 acres. The site is located on Shinohara Lane accessed from Brandywine Avenue and is located on the U.S. Geological Service 7.5-minute series topographic Imperial Beach quadrangle map. The site exists within an urban portion of the City and is bound on the south and east by industrial buildings, to the west by single-family residences, and to the north by multi-family condominiums (Figure 2, Aerial Image).
  • Clonality in the Endangered Ambrosia Pumila (Nutt.) Gray (Asteraceae)

    Clonality in the Endangered Ambrosia Pumila (Nutt.) Gray (Asteraceae)

    Clonality in the endangered Ambrosia pumila (Nutt.) Gray (Asteraceae) inferred from RAPD markers; implications for conservation and management Mitchell McGlaughlin and Elizabeth Friar Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden / Department of Botany, Claremont Graduate University, 1500 N. College Ave., Claremont, CA, 91711 Abstract Clonal plants have the ability to spread and survive over long periods of time by vegetative growth. For endangered species, the occurrence of clonality can have significant impacts on levels of genetic diversity, population structure, recruitment, and the implementation of appropriate conservation strategies. In the present study, we examine levels of clonal diversity in three populations of Ambrosia pumila (Nutt.) Gray (Asteraceae), an endangered clonal species from southern California. Ambrosia pumila is a perennial herbaceous species spreading from a rhizome like root, frequently found in dense patches of several hundred stems in a few square meters. The primary habitat for this species is upper terraces of rivers and drainages in areas that have been heavily impacted by anthropogenic disturbances and changing flood regimes. RAPD markers were employed to document the number and distribution of clones within multiple 0.5m2 plots from each population. Thirty-one multi-locus genotypes were identified from the 201 stems sampled. The spatial distribution of clones was limited with no genotypes shared between plots or populations. Mean clone size was estimated at 6.48 ramets per genet. Mean values of genotypic diversity (D=0.93) and evenness (E=0.93) were higher than the average for clonal plant species. Mean genetic similarity was 0.64 among all genets and ranged from 0.78 – 0.94 within populations.
  • FINAL REPORT a Comparison of Vegetation Management

    FINAL REPORT a Comparison of Vegetation Management

    FINAL REPORT A Comparison of Vegetation Management Techniques to Support Recovery of the Federally Endangered Ambrosia pumila Center for Natural Lands Management 215 West Ash Street Fallbrook, CA 92028 List of Preparers: Dr. Niles Hasselquist Email: [email protected] Eliza Maher Hasselquist Email: [email protected] Dr. Deborah Rogers Email: [email protected] December 2009 ABSTRACT Non-native plant species are considered a threat to virtually all of the extant populations of the federally endangered Ambrosia pumila. The objective of this study was to compare the response of A. pumila among to several vegetation management techniques that included: mowing, application of Fusilade © II Turf and Ornamental Herbicide (a grass-specific herbicide to remove non-native species), hand-pulling of all non-native species, and a control. This study was replicated at three different sites in San Diego and Riverside Counties (Skunk Hollow Preserve, Mission Trails Regional Park, and San Diego National Wildlife Refuge), which in turn allows us to describe management options for the full geographical range in which A. pumila occurs. Across all sites, hand-pulling and Fusilade ©II treatments showed the greatest increase in the number of A. pumila stems compared to the mowing and control treatments. Efficacy of the Fusilade ©II treatment depended on the dominant species at a given site because of the ineffectiveness of this grass-specific herbicide to kill Vulpia spp. We found that Fusilade ©II also effectively reduced the population of Erodium spp., non-native forb species. Furthermore, build up of dead biomass in plots treated with Fusilade ©II may have been another reason why the Fusilade ©II treatment was slightly less effective than the hand-pulling treatment.
  • San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Rare Plant Monitoring Review and Revision

    San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Rare Plant Monitoring Review and Revision

    San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Rare Plant Monitoring Review and Revision By Kathryn McEachern, Bruce M. Pavlik, Jon Rebman, and Rob Sutter Western Ecological Research Center Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested reference: McEachern, Kathryn, Pavlik, Bruce, Rebman, Jon, and Sutter, Rob, 2007, San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) rare plant monitoring review and revision: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5016, 68 p. iii Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................1 I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................2
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County 5Th Edition

    Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County 5Th Edition

    cHeckliSt of tHe vaScUlaR PlaNtS of SaN DieGo coUNty 5th edition Pinus torreyana subsp. torreyana Downingia concolor var. brevior Thermopsis californica var. semota Pogogyne abramsii Hulsea californica Cylindropuntia fosbergii Dudleya brevifolia Chorizanthe orcuttiana Astragalus deanei by Jon P. Rebman and Michael G. Simpson San Diego Natural History Museum and San Diego State University examples of checklist taxa: SPecieS SPecieS iNfRaSPecieS iNfRaSPecieS NaMe aUtHoR RaNk & NaMe aUtHoR Eriodictyon trichocalyx A. Heller var. lanatum (Brand) Jepson {SD 135251} [E. t. subsp. l. (Brand) Munz] Hairy yerba Santa SyNoNyM SyMBol foR NoN-NATIVE, NATURaliZeD PlaNt *Erodium cicutarium (L.) Aiton {SD 122398} red-Stem Filaree/StorkSbill HeRBaRiUM SPeciMeN coMMoN DocUMeNTATION NaMe SyMBol foR PlaNt Not liSteD iN THE JEPSON MANUAL †Rhus aromatica Aiton var. simplicifolia (Greene) Conquist {SD 118139} Single-leaF SkunkbruSH SyMBol foR StRict eNDeMic TO SaN DieGo coUNty §§Dudleya brevifolia (Moran) Moran {SD 130030} SHort-leaF dudleya [D. blochmaniae (Eastw.) Moran subsp. brevifolia Moran] 1B.1 S1.1 G2t1 ce SyMBol foR NeaR eNDeMic TO SaN DieGo coUNty §Nolina interrata Gentry {SD 79876} deHeSa nolina 1B.1 S2 G2 ce eNviRoNMeNTAL liStiNG SyMBol foR MiSiDeNtifieD PlaNt, Not occURRiNG iN coUNty (Note: this symbol used in appendix 1 only.) ?Cirsium brevistylum Cronq. indian tHiStle i checklist of the vascular plants of san Diego county 5th edition by Jon p. rebman and Michael g. simpson san Diego natural history Museum and san Diego state university publication of: san Diego natural history Museum san Diego, california ii Copyright © 2014 by Jon P. Rebman and Michael G. Simpson Fifth edition 2014. isBn 0-918969-08-5 Copyright © 2006 by Jon P.
  • Biological Assessment of Castle & Cook Pacific Clay Mine Site In

    Biological Assessment of Castle & Cook Pacific Clay Mine Site In

    Biological Assessment of Castle & Cook Pacific Clay Mine Site in Riverside County, California Pacific Clay Mine Site APN #s: 389-020-032, 390-130-020, 390-130-021, 390-160-001, 390-190-011, 390-190-012, 391-170-005, 391-170-007, 391-200-004, 391-200-007, 391-200-012, 391-230-002, 391-230-003, 391-230-004, 391-230-005, 391-230-009, 391-230-010, 391-240-001, & 391-800-011 1,374-Acres Surveyed Report Developed For: Castle & Cooke Alberhill Ranch 17600 Collier Avenue Suite C120 Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Report Developed By: The Planning Associates, Inc 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite R-1 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Points of Contact: The Planning Associates H.M. Strozier, Esq., AICP J.C. Turner, Ph.D. Principal Senior Projects Biologist (714) 556-5200 (936) 661-1214 [email protected] [email protected] Survey Dates GLA Survey dates: March 31, April 10 & 30, May 14 & 15, June 3, 2008 TPA Survey dates: May 29 & 30, June 30, July 8 Report Date 25 October 2008 Pacific Clay Mine Site Biological Assessment ii Castle & Cooke, Inc. Table of Contents Acronyms ii Executive Summary iii Exhibit 1. Regional Map 1 Exhibit 2. Vicinity Map 2 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Site Description 3 2.1 MSHCP Exclusion 5 3.0 Methodology 5 3.1 Focused Special Status Plant Survey 5 3.2 Literature Review 5 3.3 Focused Special Status Plant Surveys 8 3.4 Constraints Analysis 9 4.0 Results 9 4.1 Focused Special Status Plant Surveys 9 4.2 Constraints Analysis 23 4.3 Special Status Animals 24 4.4 Special Status Habitats 47 4.5 Soil Map Review 47 4.6 Critical Habitat 47 4.7 Migratory Bird Treaty 48 4.8 Native Trees 48 4.9 Foraging Habitat 48 5.0 U.S.
  • The Approximately 203.64-Acre Castlerock Site Document Located in the City of San Diego San Diego County, California

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

    A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE APPROXIMATELY 203.64-ACRE CASTLEROCK SITE DOCUMENT LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TRACKING NUMBER 10046 JOB ORDER NUMBER 42-1653 Prepared For: Hewitt Wolensky LLP 4041 MacArthur Boulevard - Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Hugh Hewitt, Esq. Prepared By: Natural Resource Consultants 1590 South Coast Highway, Suite 17 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Contact: David Levine Date: October 11, 2012 Biological Resources Assessment October 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Proposed Project and Alternative Scenario ................................................................................................ 8 1.1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... 8 1.1.2 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO ................................................................................................................... 8 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 9 2.1 GIS Analysis of Special Status Species Data ..........................................................................................
  • (San Diego Ambrosia) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation

    (San Diego Ambrosia) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation

    Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia). Photo credit Ayoola Folarin (USFWS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Carlsbad, California July 15, 2010 2010 5-year Review for Ambrosia pumila 5-YEAR REVIEW Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Review: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
  • Biological Resources Technical Report

    Biological Resources Technical Report

    APPENDIX C Biological Resources Technical Report Lake Elsinore Walmart Supercenter Project ESA / D130767 Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2015 W1690-Lake_Elsinore_CA_(Third) -- 1705810.1 LAKE ELSINORE WALMART PROJECT Biological Resources Technical Report Prepared for March 2014 City of Lake Elsinore LAKE ELSINORE WALMART PROJECT Biological Resources Technical Report Prepared for March 2014 City of Lake Elsinore 9191 Towne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92121 858.638.0900 www.esassoc.com Irvine Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 130767 TABLE OF CONTENTS Lake Elsinore Walmart Project Biological Resources Technical Report Page 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2. Project Description ............................................................................................................ 1 3. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 1 3.1 Literature and Database Review .............................................................................. 1 3.2 General Biological Resource Surveys ..................................................................... 3 3.3 Plant Community/Habitat Classification and Mapping ............................................. 3 3.4 General Wildlife Inventory .......................................................................................