Sujeto activo y sujeto pasivo del delito de lesiones al feto

ranunculoides Permanently Flooded Herbaceous Alliance only /1 N none Permanently s unique /1 N Sagittaria sanfordii Flooded Herbaceou stands V.D.2.N. Temperate or subpolar annual grasslands or forb vegetation

none California Annual Grassland/Herbaceous ndru o e N Bro Pro mu visi s dia onal s-Br mus hordeac us 6/3

none Lolium multiflorum

Grassland Alliance only 1 multiflor o Provis N Lolium arvensis um-C ional nvolvulus 6/2

Loliummultiflorum-T physaria eriari ntha (W=

11)

Lo multiflorum-La

ssp. glabrata

lium sthenia glabrata (W=

11) Lolium multiflorum-Ble nanum nnosperma (W= 5) none lifornica ac Alliance only 2 L H ast erb henia ca eous V.D.2.N.b Tall temperate or

subpolar annual forb vegetation

none s Ma U

dy fo n

assic

Ruderal Herbaceou Includes all tall wee such as Silybum, Br Conium, etc. pping rb sta a, nit ds 1/5 V.D.2.N.g Seasonally flooded temperate annual grassland n-cla d N Juncus bufonius no stands ssifie 1

Vernal Pool stands 1

(w= 10)

Notes:

Hierarchy Code Code indi ng location of the type in the National Vegetation C on Sy r r Alliance Code Unique alliance code assigned by NatureServe (2006)

N= Number of Rapid Assessments/Number of Reconnaissance stan d D= “N” if newly described from the Delta project

B= Number of relevés from Sue Brainbridge

ve 2006) eSe

stem hierarchy (Natu lassificati

ds sample cati

A numb are vegetation types exist in the region with respect to the state and national classific Rarity in vegetation is primarily based on the number of occurrences

worldwide a ea covered worldwide and statewide. Table

3 provides types that are of highest rarity in the study area. Table 3. Veg y rity in the Delta

er of r ation.

and st tewide and/or the amount of ar a list of vegetation

etation t pes of highest ra

Vegetation Cla sification s Polys Acreage Rarity

code Tree types

Alnus rhombifolia/Cornus sericea Provisional 20 32 G2S2 Alnus rhombifolia/Salix lucida-Cornus sericea phase Mapped

with above

G2S2

Acer negundo Alliance only 0 0 G5S2

Acer negundo-Salix gooddingii Provisional 11 35 G2S2 Salix gooddingii-Quercus lobata/wetland herb Provisional 103 433 G2S2

Quercus lobata-Acer negundo Provisional 22 68 G2S2

Quercus lobata-Fraxinus latifolia/Vitis californica 35 318 G2S2 Quercus lobata-Fraxinus latifolia phase Mapped

with above

G2S2

Shrub Types

Lotus scoparius Antioch Dunes 3 5 G1S1

Cornus sericea-Salix exigua Provisional 64 122 G2S2?

Cephalanthus occidentalis Alliance only 9 8 G5S2

Lupinus albifrons Antioch Dunes 2 15 G1S1

Herbaceous Types

Carex barbarae Alliance 5 15 G1S1?

Typha latifolia-pure Provisional 152 363 G4S2?

Deschampsia caespitosa Tidal Herbaceous Alliance 0 0 G4S2 Deschampsia caespitosa-Lilaeopsis masonii Provisional 2 0.5 G1S1

Sagittaria sanfordii unique stands 0 0 G1S1

Rarity Code

G= Glob f the overall co n element throughout its

global ra

G1 Os) or less than 2,000 ac .

G

G .

G4 rly lower than G3 but factors ex cause some

co is some threat, or somewhat na t.

G5 monstrably secure to ineradicable due t commonly found in the wo

S= State Ranking (S-rank), assigned much the same way as the global rank S1 an 6 EOs or less than 2,000 acres.

S2 = 6-2 s or 2,000-10,000 acres. S3 = 21-80 EOs or 10,000-50,000 acres.

S4 = Apparently secure within California; this rank is clearly lower than S3 but factors exist to cause some concern; i.e. there is some threat, or somewhat narrow habitat.

S5 = Demonstrably secure to ineradicable in California. al Ranking (G-rank), a reflection o ndition of a nge.

ences (E = Less than 6 viable element occurr

00 acres.

res 2 = 6-20 EOs or 2,000-10,0

3 = 21-80 EOs or 10,000-50,000 acres cure; this rank is clea = Apparently se

ncern; i.e., there

ist to rrow habita = Type de o being rld. = Less th 0 EO

Other considerations used when ranking a natural community include the pattern

of distribution of the element on the landscape, fragmentation of the population/stands, and historical extent as compared to its modern range. It is important to take a bird's eye or aerial view when ranking sensitive elements rather than simply counting element occurrences. ?= Uncertainty about the rank of an element is expressed in this report by adding a “?” to the rank.

While some alliances and associations may have little data available for the classification and description, they have been provisionally defined here in case they are found to occur in future projects. By providing as much information as possible in the classification and

descriptions, we hope that future research and management efforts can build upon this framework of vegetation classification in the Central Valley wetlands.

Vegetation and Land Use Map

The final Vegetation and Land Use map for the Delta is available as a shapefile with detailed metadata including attribute values and mapping criteria. The land use map classification is presented in Table 4, while the vegetation map classification is presented in Appendix E. Table 4. Land use mapping classification

Notes:

Map

Code Definition

1000 Urban or built-up Land 1100 Residential

1200 Commercial and Services 1271 Military – Built Up 1272 Military – Not Built Up 1300 Industrial

1400 Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 1410 Transportation Corridor

1500 Industrial and Commercial Complexes 1700 Other Urban or Built-up Land

2000 Agricultural Land 2100 Cropland and Pasture 2110 Flooded Agriculture 2200 Land

Orchards, Groves, Vineyards, Nurseries, and Ornamental Horticultural 2210 Nurseries and Ornamental Horticultural Land

2220 Deciduous Orchards 2230 Evergreen Orchards 2240 Vineyards

2300 Confined Feeding Operations 2400 Other Agricultural Land 3000 Natural Vegetation 3100 Vacant

5000 Water

Map

Code Definition

5200 Lakes, Reservoirs and Ponds 5300 Canals

5400 Areas of Inundation 7000 Barren Land

7500 Strip Mines, Quarries, and Gravel Pits

7600 Transitional Areas – Construction – Scraped Ground

A summary of the acreage by broad categories of land use and vegetation is presented in Table 5. The dual coding system in which each polygon is attributed by both land use and by vegetation type results in the apparent discrepancy in acreage between the two systems. For example, a polygon may be designated “Cropland and Pasture” in the land use attribute field and some type of annual grass-dominated grassland in the vegetation field, or “milit

built up” in the land us

ary – not he map in Figure 11 of e field and “vernal pools” in the vegetation field. T

is based on general land use categories, while the map of natural vegetation in Figure 12 shows all vegetated areas based on the vegetation field. Examination of the central portion the Delta on these two maps shows the dual coding of the Cropland and Pasture vs. annual grassland example.

Table 5. Mapped acreage by land use type and by vegetation type

Land Use Attribution Acres % of Delta

Natural vegetation ("vacant") 104,637 14

Agriculture 485,902 67 Urban 65,224 9 Water/Inundated 65,850 9 Barren/Scraped/Quarry 3,982 1 Total 725,595 100 Vegetation Attribution

Natural vegetation, upland 109,995 15 Natural vegetation, floating aquatic 4,164 1 Exotic vegetation (plantings) 5,939 1

Sparsely vegetated 8,312 1 Restoration-related vegetation 228 <1 Agriculture 473,971 65 Urban 62,220 9 Water 60,665 8 Unknown 100 <1 Total 725,595 100

Figure 12. All areas of natural vegetation types as coded in the vegetation field

Vegetation Classification vs. Map Classification and Crosswalks

The concept of a crosswalk. The term “crosswalk” is commonly used in classification and

mapping, referring to the development of relationships between different classification systems. The need for crosswalks arises when there is more than one classification system in use for a given area. It is important to note that crosswalks are never exactly precise. Assuming that classifications arise independently, the meaning of one classification unit may not always completely encompass or be nested within the other classification unit(s) to which it is being related. Choices need to be made about those classification units that are partially included within two or more types of another classification system. For example, CWHR’s classification type of “Fresh Emergent Wetland” includes many associations and alliances of herbaceous vegetation in the National Vegetation Classification. The complexity and

uncertainty of such relationships arise not only from independent evolution of classifications, ut also from their imprecise definitions, without quantitative rules for proper interpretation.

the tion classification is based on floristic data collected in the field from tands that are independent of scale, and so some types identified from the analysis

(alliances, associations or phases) may be below the minimum mapping unit. Such types are ot included in the map classification. A more detailed map (i.e., with a smaller mmu) might

en the two classifications arise because the differences between similar vegetation types are not discernible, no matter how good the imagery. Thus, some classified vegetation types can’t be mapped to the finest level of the vegetation classification, and mapping units are an aggregation of these finer levels [e.g., the Cornus sericea - Salix

lasiolepis / (Phragmites australis) mapping unit combines both the Cornus sericea - Salix lasiolepis and Cornus sericea - Salix lasiolepis / Phragmites australis associations]. In some

cases, often based on information from their own reconnaissance, the photo interpreters are able to discern types that were not sampled sufficiently, and so were not classified to the finest level (e.g., the Salix gooddingii / Rubus discolor mapping unit).

Unique characteristics of the Delta, including its highly disturbed nature and the linearity of the patches of vegetation on levee banks, result in the need for mixed vegetation mapping units, just to meet the minimum mapping unit size. An example would be a long polygon of arroyo willow interspersed with below-mmu patches of pure Himalaya berry or California wild rose. Field crews would not see this as a homogeneous stand, and each patch would not be mapped by itself. For this example, the Salix lasiolepis - Mixed brambles (Rosa californica -

Vitis californica - Rubus discolor) mapping unit would be used.

Finally, the mapping unit name sometimes contains additional species in parentheses [e.g., the Salix gooddingii - Populus fremontii Association vs. the Salix gooddingii - Populus

fremontii - (Quercus lobata - Salix exigua - Rubus discolor) mapping unit]. Species in

parentheses may or may not be present, but are listed to better describe the mapping unit. The crosswalk in Appendix E relates the vegetation classification produced in this project (which follows the National Vegetation Classification system as expressed for California in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995) to the mapping classification.

ther crosswalks. The crosswalk in Appendix F relates the mapping classification to the

or CWHR (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

tion b

The best crosswalks are those that have been developed with a good understanding of the meaning and definitions of each classification system.

The vegetation classification vs. the mapping classification. The primary crosswalk in this

project is between the vegetation classification and the vegetation map classification (i.e., map legend). The vegeta

s n

be able to include these types, however, it would require finer resolution (and very expensive) imagery.

Other differences betwe

O

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships

Table 6 shows some of the relationships between the habitat types used in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Multi-Species Conservation Strategy/Natural Communities Conserva Plan (MSCS/NCCP), the habitat types used in the Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan (ERPP), and the mapping categories used in the California Central Valley Wetlands and Riparian GIS.

Crosswalking the MSCS Habitats to the current vegetation types would be meaningless to l Perennial Aquatic, Lacustrine, and Tidal Perennial

tic rily vegetated, and other types, such an

would crosswalk to numerous vegetation types, while som t

crosswalk back to more than one MSCS type (many-to-m io ).

T R in the Delta Regional Area to other types

a Regional Ar to MSCS Habitats ( pted

F ia Central Va Wetlan nd Rip n GIS

g

impossible. MSCS types such as Tida

Aqua are not necessa as Valley/Foothill Ripari

e vegeta any relat

ion types w nships

ould

able 6. elationship of ERPP Habitats

Rel tionship of ERPP Habitats in the Delta Californ

ea Ada from:

CAL

Cate

ED (ERPP Vol. I) 2000) and to

ories1

lley ds a aria Map

In document Responsabilidad civil derivada de daños corporales (enfermedades y malformaciones) de menores durante el embarazo y la lactancia (página 177-184)