My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013451
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
L
>
LAKE FOREST
>
2248
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
WC-90-1
>
SU0013451
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/17/2021 4:00:53 PM
Creation date
6/23/2020 11:17:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0013451
PE
2600
FACILITY_NAME
WC-90-1
STREET_NUMBER
2248
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
LAKE FOREST
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
ACAMPO
APN
00306001
ENTERED_DATE
6/17/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
2248 W LAKE FOREST RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\dsedra
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1834
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Andrew Engilis, Jr. Jeffrey A. Hart. Ph.D. <br /> Consulting Wildlife Biologist Consulting Landscape Ecologist <br /> P. O. Box 2424 1547 33rd Street <br /> Elk Grove, CA 95759 Sacramento, CA 95816 <br /> 1 February 1993 <br /> Ms. Kerry Sullivan <br /> San Joaquin Planning Department <br /> 1810 Hazelton Avenue <br /> Stockton, CA 95205 <br /> RE: Supplemental Biotics Study for Buckeye Ranch Development, dated <br /> October 26, 1992 <br /> Dear Ms. Sullivan: <br /> This letter comprises our comments on the Supplemental Biotics Study for <br /> the Buckeye Ranch Development. <br /> 1. General Comments <br /> Although upon the surface, the Biotics Study seems complete, there are <br /> several inherent problems with It. The description of the plant Ufa is vary I <br /> incomplete. Plant communities are not described using up-to-date classifications <br /> commonly used by resource professionals. No mention is made of the presence D61 <br /> and distribution of jurisdictional wetlands. The nature of the Brovelli Woods <br /> closed canopy forest, In contrast to true riparian vegetation, Is not discussed. The <br /> very degraded nature of the site, especially in relation to past grazing and <br /> farming activities, seems poorly understood in relationship to the functionality of <br /> wetlands. <br /> The document does not correctly portray the wildlife communities. In <br /> particular, the avifauna description is grossly inaccurate and do not give <br /> reviewers an accurate appraisal of those species on the ranch. There are <br /> conflicting statements relating to wetland and riparian hablUds and threatened D62 <br /> species biology and occurrence. The Biotics report provides mitigation <br /> recommendations, many of which are sound, others that are incorrect and/or <br /> missing additional restoration opportunities. Flaws in those recommendations <br /> suggest a poor understanding of the biological communities present on the site, <br /> and the impacts the proposed project will have on wildlife species, particularly <br /> birds. <br /> The Biotics Survey has failed to characterize the wildlife communities <br /> associated with plant communities on the site. Without a clear understanding of <br /> the wildlife communities one cannot accurately ascertain impacts. <br /> This plan lacks important literature citations relative to riparian systems, <br /> waterfowl and wetlands management, riparian restoration techniques, and <br /> VI-81 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.