DOCSLIB.ORG

Oregon Department of Transportation Statewide Habitat Conservation Plan for Routine Maintenance Activities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oregon Department of Transportation Statewide Habitat Conservation Plan for Routine Maintenance Activities Oregon Department of Transportation Statewide Habitat Conservation Plan for Routine Maintenance Activities May 21, 2015 Oregon Department of Transportation Maintenance & Operations Branch 800 Airport Road SE Salem, OR 97301-4792 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. ES-1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................ ES-1 Impacts and Conservation Measures .................................................................................... ES-2 Implementation ..................................................................................................................... ES-2 1.0 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Evolution of the ODOT Routine Maintenance HCP ...................................................... 2 1.3 Permit Duration ............................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Regulatory/Legal Framework for the RM-HCP ............................................................. 3 1.4.1 Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) ................................................................. 3 1.4.2 State Endangered Species Laws.............................................................................. 4 1.5 Plan Area ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Covered Species .............................................................................................................. 5 1.6.1 Animal Species ....................................................................................................... 5 1.6.2 Plant Species ........................................................................................................... 5 1.7 Species Not Covered ....................................................................................................... 7 1.7.1 Animal Species ....................................................................................................... 7 1.7.2 Plant Species ........................................................................................................... 8 2.0 Environmental Setting and Biological Resources............................................................. 10 2.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 10 2.1.1 Coast Range Ecoregion ......................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Willamette Valley Ecoregion ................................................................................ 10 2.1.3 Klamath Mountains Ecoregion ............................................................................. 10 2.1.4 Cascade Mountains Ecoregion .............................................................................. 12 2.1.5 Eastern Cascades Slope and Foothills Ecoregion ................................................. 12 2.1.6 Columbia Plateau Ecoregion................................................................................. 12 2.1.7 Blue Mountains Ecoregion ................................................................................... 12 2.1.8 Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion ................................................................... 13 2.2 General Roadside Conditions ....................................................................................... 13 2.3 Covered Species Information ........................................................................................ 13 2.3.1 Animals Species .................................................................................................... 13 2.3.2 Plant Species ......................................................................................................... 16 3.0 Project Description/Activities Covered by Permit ............................................................ 36 3.1 Project Description........................................................................................................ 36 3.2 Maintenance Activities Covered by Permit .................................................................. 39 3.2.1 Stormwater Management ...................................................................................... 39 3.2.2 Stockpiling (Activity 081) .................................................................................... 39 3.2.3 Shoulder Work ...................................................................................................... 39 3.2.4 Drainage Work ...................................................................................................... 40 3.2.5 Vegetation Management ....................................................................................... 42 3.2.6 Fence Maintenance (Activity 138)........................................................................ 43 3.2.7 Traffic Services Work ........................................................................................... 43 3.2.8 Structural Work ..................................................................................................... 43 3.2.9 Snow and Ice Work ............................................................................................... 44 3.2.10 Emergencies and Extraordinary Maintenance ...................................................... 44 ODOT RM-HCP 5-21-2015 i 3.2.11 Miscellaneous Maintenance .................................................................................. 45 3.4 Covered Property Types ............................................................................................... 45 3.4.1 Right of Way ......................................................................................................... 45 3.4.2 Operational Roadway............................................................................................ 46 3.4.3 Other ODOT Properties ........................................................................................ 49 4.0 Potential Biological Impacts ............................................................................................. 50 4.1 Methodology for Assessing Impacts to Covered Species ............................................. 50 4.1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 50 4.1.2 Survey Methodology ............................................................................................. 50 4.1.3 Baseline Population Estimate Methodology ......................................................... 52 4.1.4 Calculating Impacts in Known Occupied Sites .................................................... 55 4.1.5 Methodology for Calculating Impacts in Un-surveyed Areas .............................. 56 4.2 Assessed Direct and Indirect Impacts ........................................................................... 57 4.2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 57 4.2.2 Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Activities ................................................. 57 4.2.3 Assessed Impacts: Animals................................................................................... 57 4.2.4 Assessed Impacts: Plants ...................................................................................... 58 4.3 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 60 4.3.1 Agricultural Development .................................................................................... 61 4.3.2 Residential Development ...................................................................................... 61 4.3.3 Infrastructure Development .................................................................................. 61 4.3.4 Summary of Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................... 62 5.0 Conservation Strategy ....................................................................................................... 63 5.1 Biological Goals............................................................................................................ 63 5.1.1 Biological Goals: Animals .................................................................................... 63 5.1.2 Biological Goals: Plants ........................................................................................ 65 5.2 Biological Objectives and General Strategy ................................................................. 65 5.3 Measures to Minimize Impacts ..................................................................................... 65 5.3.1 Measures to Minimize Routine Maintenance Impacts.......................................... 65 5.3.2 Measures to Minimize Third Party Impacts........... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.4 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 66 5.4.1 Mitigation Overview ............................................................................................. 66 5.4.2 Mitigation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Calochortus Flexuosus S. Watson (Winding Mariposa Lily): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Calochortus flexuosus S. Watson (winding mariposa lily): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project July 24, 2006 Susan Spackman Panjabi and David G. Anderson Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO Peer Review Administered by Center for Plant Conservation Panjabi, S.S. and D.G. Anderson. (2006, July 24). Calochortus flexuosus S. Watson (winding mariposa lily): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/calochortusflexuosus.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was facilitated by the helpfulness and generosity of many experts, particularly Leslie Stewart, Peggy Fiedler, Marilyn Colyer, Peggy Lyon, Lynn Moore, and William Jennings. Their interest in the project and time spent answering questions were extremely valuable, and their insights into the distribution, habitat, and ecology of Calochortus flexuosus were crucial to this project. Thanks also to Greg Hayward, Gary Patton, Jim Maxwell, Andy Kratz, and Joy Bartlett for assisting with questions and project management. Thanks to Kimberly Nguyen for her work on the layout and for bringing this assessment to Web publication. Jane Nusbaum and Barbara Brayfield provided crucial financial oversight. Peggy Lyon and Marilyn Colyer provided valuable insights based on their experiences with C. flexuosus. Leslie Stewart provided information specific to the San Juan Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management, including the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. Annette Miller provided information on C. flexuosusseed storage status. Drs. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson provided access to specimens of C.
    [Show full text]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Treatments Record of Decision
    Attachment B – Conservation Measures for Special Status Species Introduction These Conservation Measures were displayed in Appendix 5 of the Final EIS. They are the product of the PEIS Biological Assessment and adopted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Consultation, and apply to listed and proposed species as described in those consultation documents. These do not apply where a No Effect determination can be made without them, or where site-specific consultation identifies alternative ways to achieve appropriate protection. PEIS Mitigation Measures adopted by this Record of Decision also require implementation of certain of these conservation measures “When necessary to protect Special Status plant/fish and other aquatic organisms/wildlife species….” (see Attachment A). Conservation Measures for Birds Conservation Measures for the California Brown Pelican Although treatment activities are unlikely to negatively affect the brown pelican or its habitat, extra steps could be taken by the BLM to ensure that herbicide treatments conducted in brown pelican wintering habitat did not result in negative effects to the species: • If feasible, conduct vegetation treatments in brown pelican wintering habitat outside the period when pelicans are likely to be present. • If herbicide treatments in brown pelican habitats must be conducted during the wintering period: ◦ Do not use 2,4-D in pelican wintering habitat. ◦ Prior to conducting herbicide treatments on pelican wintering habitat, survey the area for pelicans. Wait for pelicans to leave the area before spraying. ◦ Do not broadcast spray clopyralid, glyphosate, hexazinone, picloram, or triclopyr in pelican wintering habitats. ◦ If broadcast spraying imazapyr or metsulfuron methyl in pelican wintering habitats, use the typical rather than the maximum application rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants at Fort Ross State Historic Park
    19005 Coast Highway One, Jenner, CA 95450 ■ 707.847.3437 ■ [email protected] ■ www.fortross.org Title: Vascular Plants at Fort Ross State Historic Park Author(s): Dorothy Scherer Published by: California Native Plant Society i Source: Fort Ross Conservancy Library URL: www.fortross.org Fort Ross Conservancy (FRC) asks that you acknowledge FRC as the source of the content; if you use material from FRC online, we request that you link directly to the URL provided. If you use the content offline, we ask that you credit the source as follows: “Courtesy of Fort Ross Conservancy, www.fortross.org.” Fort Ross Conservancy, a 501(c)(3) and California State Park cooperating association, connects people to the history and beauty of Fort Ross and Salt Point State Parks. © Fort Ross Conservancy, 19005 Coast Highway One, Jenner, CA 95450, 707-847-3437 .~ ) VASCULAR PLANTS of FORT ROSS STATE HISTORIC PARK SONOMA COUNTY A PLANT COMMUNITIES PROJECT DOROTHY KING YOUNG CHAPTER CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DOROTHY SCHERER, CHAIRPERSON DECEMBER 30, 1999 ) Vascular Plants of Fort Ross State Historic Park August 18, 2000 Family Botanical Name Common Name Plant Habitat Listed/ Community Comments Ferns & Fern Allies: Azollaceae/Mosquito Fern Azo/la filiculoides Mosquito Fern wp Blechnaceae/Deer Fern Blechnum spicant Deer Fern RV mp,sp Woodwardia fimbriata Giant Chain Fern RV wp Oennstaedtiaceae/Bracken Fern Pleridium aquilinum var. pubescens Bracken, Brake CG,CC,CF mh T Oryopteridaceae/Wood Fern Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Western lady Fern RV sp,wp Dryopteris arguta Coastal Wood Fern OS op,st Dryopteris expansa Spreading Wood Fern RV sp,wp Polystichum munitum Western Sword Fern CF mh,mp Equisetaceae/Horsetail Equisetum arvense Common Horsetail RV ds,mp Equisetum hyemale ssp.affine Common Scouring Rush RV mp,sg Equisetum laevigatum Smooth Scouring Rush mp,sg Equisetum telmateia ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Alplains 2013 Seed Catalog P.O
    ALPLAINS 2013 SEED CATALOG P.O. BOX 489, KIOWA, CO 80117-0489, U.S.A. Three ways to contact us: FAX: (303) 621-2864 (24 HRS.) email: [email protected] website: www.alplains.com Dear Growing Friends: Welcome to our 23rd annual seed catalog! The summer of 2012 was long, hot and brutal, with drought afflicting most of the U.S. Most of my botanical explorations were restricted to Idaho, Wash- ington, Oregon and northern California but even there moisture was below average. In a year like this, seeps, swales, springs, vestigial snowbanks and localized rainstorms became much more important in my search for seeding plants. On the Snake River Plains of southern Idaho and the scab- lands of eastern Washington, early bloomers such as Viola beckwithii, V. trinervata, Ranunculus glaberrimus, Ranunculus andersonii, Fritillaria pudica and Primula cusickiana put on quite a show in mid-April but many populations could not set seed. In northern Idaho, Erythronium idahoense flowered extensively, whole meadows were covered with thousands of the creamy, pendant blossoms. One of my most satisfying finds in the Hells Canyon area had to be Sedum valens. The tiny glaucous rosettes, surround- ed by a ring of red leaves, are a succulent connoisseur’s dream. Higher up, the brilliant blue spikes of Synthyris missurica punctuated the canyon walls. In southern Oregon, the brilliant red spikes of Pedicularis densiflora lit up the Siskiyou forest floor. Further north in Oregon, large populations of Erythronium elegans, Erythronium oregonum ssp. leucandrum, Erythro- nium revolutum, trilliums and sedums provided wonderful picture-taking opportunities. Eriogonum species did well despite the drought, many of them true xerics.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Monophyly and Biogeography of Cryptantha (Boraginaceae)
    Systematic Botany (2018), 43(1): pp. 53–76 © Copyright 2018 by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists DOI 10.1600/036364418X696978 Date of publication April 18, 2018 Evaluating the Monophyly and Biogeography of Cryptantha (Boraginaceae) Makenzie E. Mabry1,2 and Michael G. Simpson1 1Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182, U. S. A. 2Current address: Division of Biological Sciences and Bond Life Sciences Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, U. S. A. Authors for correspondence ([email protected]; [email protected]) Abstract—Cryptantha, an herbaceous plant genus of the Boraginaceae, subtribe Amsinckiinae, has an American amphitropical disjunct distri- bution, found in western North America and western South America, but not in the intervening tropics. In a previous study, Cryptantha was found to be polyphyletic and was split into five genera, including a weakly supported, potentially non-monophyletic Cryptantha s. s. In this and subsequent studies of the Amsinckiinae, interrelationships within Cryptantha were generally not strongly supported and sample size was generally low. Here we analyze a greatly increased sampling of Cryptantha taxa using high-throughput, genome skimming data, in which we obtained the complete ribosomal cistron, the nearly complete chloroplast genome, and twenty-three mitochondrial genes. Our analyses have allowed for inference of clades within this complex with strong support. The occurrence of a non-monophyletic Cryptantha is confirmed, with three major clades obtained, termed here the Johnstonella/Albidae clade, the Maritimae clade, and a large Cryptantha core clade, each strongly supported as monophyletic. From these phylogenomic analyses, we assess the classification, character evolution, and phylogeographic history that elucidates the current amphitropical distribution of the group.
    [Show full text]
  • Mulford's Milkvetch (Astragalus Mulfordiae)
    Mulford's milkvetch (Astragalus mulfordiae) ENDANGERED Flowers and fruit (left), habit (center), and habitat (right) of Mulford’s milkvetch. Photos by Andrea Thorpe (left) and Nancy Fredricks (center and right). If downloading images from this website, please credit the photographer. Family Fabaceae Plant description Mulford’s milkvetch is a perennial species with a long taproot and clustered, slender, wiry, thinly strigose stems, 3–20 cm long, arising from a woody, many-branched caudex. Leaves are 4–10 cm long including the petiole, with a flattened rachis and 11- 23 linear to elliptic leaflets, 0.3–0.8 cm long and nearly glabrous. Flowers are scattered, 5–20, in loose racemes on peduncles 5–8 cm long. The calyx is 0.28-0.5 cm long, strigose, with narrow triangular-subulate teeth slightly shorter than the tube. The corolla is whitish, drying yellow, the banner often bluish to purple lined or tinged, 0.5- 0.9 cm long. Pods are horizontally spreading, papery, inflated, 0.8-1.5 cm long, beaked, and almost triangular in cross-section. Valves are strigose and finely cross- veined, the ventral suture straight or curved slightly, the dorsal suture strongly curved. The slender stipe is 0.2-0.3 cm long. Distinguishing characteristics Mulford’s milkvetch is distinguished from the other Astragalus species with which it occurs by its small whitish flowers, its connate, sheath-forming lower stipules, and its pendulous, stipitate, three-faced pods. When to survey Surveys for Mulford’s milkvetch should be performed from May through June when the species is flowering and/or fruiting.
    [Show full text]
  • 39516 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 1985
    39516 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 1985 / Rules and Regulations reaction irreversibility or by formation polarography or square-wave (3) Irving, H., “The Stability of Metal of two or more complex species in polarography). Complexes and Their Measurement equilibrium with each other. In this last (3) Interpretation and evaluation of Polarographically," Advances ih case it is necessary to apply the method resu lts, (i) Stability constants Polarography Proceedings of the 2nd by De Ford and Hume paragraph (d) (8) determined for a new substance can be International Congress, Ed. I.S. of this section to calculate stepwise compared with literature values for Langmuir (Pergamon Press, 1960). formation constants. standard substances (see Reference (4) Perrin, D.D., Dempsey, B., B u ffe r (2) Test report, (i) The test report substances, above) and used therefore for pH and Metal Ion Controls. should list for each metal ion to evaluate the strength of its (Chapman and Hall: London, 1974). investigated the half-wave potential complexing ability. (5) “Stability Constants of Metal-ion Complexes,” Part B, Organic Ligands, Ei /2 , co-ordination number and overall (ii) The system is physically stability constant. Compiled by D.D. Perrin, IUPAC meaningful if (A) the value of the Publication on Chemical Data Series, stability constant is positive and (B) the (ii) In addition, the following should No. 22 (Pergamon Press, 1979) also be reported: standard error is less than the constant (6) Grabaric, B., Tkalcec, M., Piljac, L, (A) Type of polarisable micro­ (the t-test should be used as a criterion).
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Priority Plant and Animal Species in Oregon Forests
    A GUIDE TO Priority Plant and Animal Species IN OREGON FORESTS A publication of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute Sponsors of the first animal and plant guidebooks included the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Oregon State University and the Oregon State Implementation Committee, Sustainable Forestry Initiative. This update was made possible with help from the Northwest Habitat Institute, the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University and Oregon State University. Acknowledgments: The Oregon Forest Resources Institute is grateful to the following contributors: Thomas O’Neil, Kathleen O’Neil, Malcolm Anderson and Jamie McFadden, Northwest Habitat Institute; the Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity Information System (IBIS), supported in part by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and the Bonneville Power Administration under project #2003-072-00 and ESRI Conservation Program grants; Sue Vrilakas, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources; and Dana Sanchez, Oregon State University, Mark Gourley, Starker Forests and Mike Rochelle, Weyerhaeuser Company. Edited by: Fran Cafferata Coe, Cafferata Consulting, LLC. Designed by: Sarah Craig, Word Jones © Copyright 2012 A Guide to Priority Plant and Animal Species in Oregon Forests Oregonians care about forest-dwelling wildlife and plants. This revised and updated publication is designed to assist forest landowners, land managers, students and educators in understanding how forests provide habitat for different wildlife and plant species. Keeping forestland in forestry is a great way to mitigate habitat loss resulting from development, mining and other non-forest uses. Through the use of specific forestry techniques, landowners can maintain, enhance and even create habitat for birds, mammals and amphibians while still managing lands for timber production.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F.7
    APPENDIX F.7 Biological Evaluation Appendix F.7 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project Biological Evaluation March 2019 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Reviewed and Approved by: USDA Forest Service BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION This page intentionally left blank BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 1 PRE-FIELD REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4 RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................... 4 SPECIES IMPACT DETERMINATION SUMMARY .......................................................... 5 DETAILED EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON SPECIES CONSIDERED ............ 25 6.1 Global Discussion ........................................................................................................ 25 6.1.1 Analysis Areas and Current Environment ............................................................. 25 6.1.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................. 33 6.1.3 Conservation Measures and Mitigation ................................................................. 62 6.2 Species Accounts and Analysis of Impacts ................................................................. 63 6.2.1 Mammals ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants Endemic to the Klamath-Siskiyou Region
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 2020 Vascular Plants Endemic to the Klamath-Siskiyou Region James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Vascular Plants Endemic to the Klamath-Siskiyou Region" (2020). Botanical Studies. 66. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/66 This Flora of the Klamath-Siskiyou Region of California and Oregon is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A LIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS ENDEMIC TO THE KLAMATH-SISKIYOU REGION OF CALIFORNIA AND OREGON James P. Smith, Jr. & John O. Sawyer, Jr. † Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University February 2020 In California, the Klamath-Siskiyou Region includes all or portions of Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity counties. In Oregon, it includes all or portions of Curry, Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties. The region is the home of 215 endemics. No family of vascular plants is endemic here. Kalmiopsis is endemic to Oregon, Howellanthus to California, and Bensoniella to both states. There are 103 taxa restricted to northwestern California; 38 taxa to southwestern Oregon; and 74 taxa endemic to the region in both states. We have excluded taxa that are based on suspect far-out- of-range collections, presumed extinct, or that were otherwise anomalous.
    [Show full text]