DOCSLIB.ORG

A Conservation Assessment for Castilleja Grisea (San Clemente Island

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Conservation Assessment for Castilleja Grisea (San Clemente Island ¬ RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS NUMBER 17 A CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT FOR CASTILLEJA GRISEA (SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND PAINTBRUSH, OROBANCHACEAE) SULA VANDERPLANK, KIMBERLY O’CONNOR, BRYAN MUNSON AND DAWN LAWSON Published by Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, 1500 North College Avenue, Claremont, California 91711 2019 RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS NUMBER 17 A CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT FOR CASTILLEJA GRISEA (SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND PAINTBRUSH, OROBANCHACEAE) SULA VANDERPLANK, KIMBERLY O’CONNOR, BRYAN MUNSON AND DAWN LAWSON RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS (ISSN 1094-1398) are published at irregular intervals in volumes of various sizes. This series of publications is designed to feature results of original botanical research by members of the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden staff, or by botanists who have collaborated in a Garden program. Proceedings of symposia sponsored by the Garden may also be published in this series. The RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS series is published by Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, 1500 North College Avenue, Claremont, California 91711-3157. For information about orders for RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS, contact Irene Holiman at the address above or via e-mail: [email protected] or fax at (909) 626-7670. For all other inquiries, contact Vanessa Ashworth at [email protected]. General information about the Garden and its programs can be obtained at www.rsabg.org. (Cover photograph by Sula Vanderplank) PUBLICATION DATA A Conservation Assessment for Castilleja grisea (San Clemente Island Paintbrush, Orobanchaceae). September 2019. Sula Vanderplank, Kimberly O’Connor, Bryan Munson and Dawn Lawson. RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS, Number 17, vi + 34 pages. ISSN 1094-1398. Series Editor Vanessa Ashworth; Managing Editor Lucinda McDade. First printing: 100 copies, September 2019. Copyright © 2019 by Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. This publication was printed with support from the United States Department of the Navy. Dr. Sula Vanderplank: Research Associate and Postdoctoral Scholar, San Diego State University Research Foundation, San Diego, California 92182 ([email protected]) Ms. Kimberly O’Connor: Natural and Cultural Resources Program Manager, Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, U.S. Department of the Navy, San Diego, California 92135 Mr. Bryan Munson: Botany Program Manager, Naval Base Coronado, U.S. Department of the Navy, San Diego, California 92135 Dr. Dawn Lawson: Ecologist, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, U.S. Department of the Navy, San Diego, California 92152 v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................ vi LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF MAPS ............................................................................................................................................................ vi 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SCOPE AND PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 4.0 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 4.1 Species Description .................................................................................................................................................. 1 4.2 Taxonomic History ................................................................................................................................................... 2 4.3 Regulatory History ................................................................................................................................................... 3 5.0 BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY AND HUMAN USES ...................................................................................................... 3 5.1 Biology and Ecology ................................................................................................................................................ 3 5.2 Habitat ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 5.3 Human Uses ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 6.0 DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE AND POPULATION TRENDS ...................................................................... 5 6.1 Distribution and Abundance .................................................................................................................................... 5 6.2 Population Trends .................................................................................................................................................... 9 6.3 Threats and Limiting Factors ................................................................................................................................. 11 6.4 Threats with Regard to Listing Requirements—FIVE-FACTOR ANALYSIS ..................................................... 11 FACTOR A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range ..... 11 1. Land Use ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 2. Non-Native [Invasive] Plant Species ............................................................................................................. 12 3. Fire and Fire Management ............................................................................................................................ 13 4. Soil Erosion .................................................................................................................................................... 15 FACTOR B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or Educational Purposes ............. 16 FACTOR C: Disease or Predation .................................................................................................................... 17 FACTOR D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms ...................................................................... 17 FACTOR E: Other Natural or Human-Caused Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence ...................... 18 1. Movement of Vehicles and Troops ................................................................................................................. 18 2. Fire ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 3. Climate Change .............................................................................................................................................. 18 7.0 RECENT CONSERVATION ACTIONS .............................................................................................................. 18 7.1 Conservation Status ................................................................................................................................................ 19 7.2 Conservation Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 19 8.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 19 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 19 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................................................ 20 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 MAPS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 26 vi LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1–2. Castilleja grisea.—1. Close-up of flower.—2. Habit. .................................................................................... 4 Fig. 3. Increasing population trend in Castilleja grisea after removal of non-native herbivores. ............................... 10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Presence of Castilleja species on the California Channel Islands (excluding San Clemente Island) .............. 2 Table 2. Associated species of Castilleja grisea taken
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Partial Flora Survey Rottnest Island Golf Course
    PARTIAL FLORA SURVEY ROTTNEST ISLAND GOLF COURSE Prepared by Marion Timms Commencing 1 st Fairway travelling to 2 nd – 11 th left hand side Family Botanical Name Common Name Mimosaceae Acacia rostellifera Summer scented wattle Dasypogonaceae Acanthocarpus preissii Prickle lily Apocynaceae Alyxia Buxifolia Dysentry bush Casuarinacea Casuarina obesa Swamp sheoak Cupressaceae Callitris preissii Rottnest Is. Pine Chenopodiaceae Halosarcia indica supsp. Bidens Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia blackiana Samphire Chenopodiaceae Threlkeldia diffusa Coast bonefruit Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia quinqueflora Beaded samphire Chenopodiaceae Suada australis Seablite Chenopodiaceae Atriplex isatidea Coast saltbush Poaceae Sporabolis virginicus Marine couch Myrtaceae Melaleuca lanceolata Rottnest Is. Teatree Pittosporaceae Pittosporum phylliraeoides Weeping pittosporum Poaceae Stipa flavescens Tussock grass 2nd – 11 th Fairway Family Botanical Name Common Name Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia quinqueflora Beaded samphire Chenopodiaceae Atriplex isatidea Coast saltbush Cyperaceae Gahnia trifida Coast sword sedge Pittosporaceae Pittosporum phyliraeoides Weeping pittosporum Myrtaceae Melaleuca lanceolata Rottnest Is. Teatree Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia blackiana Samphire Central drainage wetland commencing at Vietnam sign Family Botanical Name Common Name Chenopodiaceae Halosarcia halecnomoides Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia quinqueflora Beaded samphire Chenopodiaceae Sarcocornia blackiana Samphire Poaceae Sporobolis virginicus Cyperaceae Gahnia Trifida Coast sword sedge
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Design Documentation
    Appendix A: Conceptual Design Documentation APPENDIX A Conceptual Design Documentation June 2019 A-1 APPENDIX A: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DOCUMENTATION The environmental analyses in the NEPA and CEQA documents for the proposed improvements at Oceano County Airport (the Airport) are based on conceptual designs prepared to provide a realistic basis for assessing their environmental consequences. 1. Widen runway from 50 to 60 feet 2. Widen Taxiways A, A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 from 20 to 25 feet 3. Relocate segmented circle and wind cone 4. Installation of taxiway edge lighting 5. Installation of hold position signage 6. Installation of a new electrical vault and connections 7. Installation of a pollution control facility (wash rack) CIVIL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS The purpose of this conceptual design effort is to identify the amount of impervious surface, grading (cut and fill) and drainage implications of the projects identified above. The conceptual design calculations detailed in the following figures indicate that Projects 1 and 2, widening the runways and taxiways would increase the total amount of impervious surface on the Airport by 32,016 square feet, or 0.73 acres; a 6.6 percent increase in the Airport’s impervious surface area. Drainage patterns would remain the same as both the runway and taxiways would continue to sheet flow from their centerlines to the edge of pavement and then into open, grassed areas. The existing drainage system is able to accommodate the modest increase in stormwater runoff that would occur, particularly as soil conditions on the Airport are conducive to infiltration. Figure A-1 shows the locations of the seven projects incorporated in the Proposed Action.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Weeds of Coastal Plains and Heathy Forests Bioregions of Victoria Heading in Band
    Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Heading in band b Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Heading in band Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Contents Introduction 1 Purpose of the list 1 Limitations 1 Relationship to statutory lists 1 Composition of the list and assessment of taxa 2 Categories of environmental weeds 5 Arrangement of the list 5 Column 1: Botanical Name 5 Column 2: Common Name 5 Column 3: Ranking Score 5 Column 4: Listed in the CALP Act 1994 5 Column 5: Victorian Alert Weed 5 Column 6: National Alert Weed 5 Column 7: Weed of National Significance 5 Statistics 5 Further information & feedback 6 Your involvement 6 Links 6 Weed identification texts 6 Citation 6 Acknowledgments 6 Bibliography 6 Census reference 6 Appendix 1 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed alphabetically within risk categories. 7 Appendix 2 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed by botanical name. 19 Appendix 3 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed by common name. 31 Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria i Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment Melbourne, March2008 © The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2009 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds on San Clemente Island, As Part of Our Work Toward the Recovery of the Island’S Endangered Species
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 36, Number 3, 2005 THE BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND BRIAN L. SULLIVAN, PRBO Conservation Science, 4990 Shoreline Hwy., Stinson Beach, California 94970-9701 (current address: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods Rd., Ithaca, New York 14850) ERIC L. KERSHNER, Institute for Wildlife Studies, 2515 Camino del Rio South, Suite 334, San Diego, California 92108 With contributing authors JONATHAN J. DUNN, ROBB S. A. KALER, SUELLEN LYNN, NICOLE M. MUNKWITZ, and JONATHAN H. PLISSNER ABSTRACT: From 1992 to 2004, we observed birds on San Clemente Island, as part of our work toward the recovery of the island’s endangered species. We increased the island’s bird list to 317 species, by recording many additional vagrants and seabirds. The list includes 20 regular extant breeding species, 6 species extirpated as breeders, 5 nonnative introduced species, and 9 sporadic or newly colonizing breeding species. For decades San Clemente Island had been ravaged by overgrazing, especially by goats, which were removed completely in 1993. Since then, the island’s vegetation has begun recovering, and the island’s avifauna will likely change again as a result. We document here the status of that avifauna during this transitional period of re- growth, between the island’s being largely denuded of vegetation and a more natural state. It is still too early to evaluate the effects of the vegetation’s still partial recovery on birds, but the beginnings of recovery may have enabled the recent colonization of small numbers of Grasshopper Sparrows and Lazuli Buntings. Sponsored by the U. S. Navy, efforts to restore the island’s endangered species continue—among birds these are the Loggerhead Shrike and Sage Sparrow.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plant List
    UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plants Below is the most recently updated plant list for UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve. * non-native taxon ? presence in question Listed Species Information: CNPS Listed - as designated by the California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists). More information at http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php Cal IPC Listed - an inventory that categorizes exotic and invasive plants as High, Moderate, or Limited, reflecting the level of each species' negative ecological impact in California. More information at http://www.cal-ipc.org More information about Federal and State threatened and endangered species listings can be found at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (US) and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ t_e_spp/ (CA). FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LISTED Ferns AZOLLACEAE - Mosquito Fern American water fern, mosquito fern, Family Azolla filiculoides ? Mosquito fern, Pacific mosquitofern DENNSTAEDTIACEAE - Bracken Hairy brackenfern, Western bracken Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens fern DRYOPTERIDACEAE - Shield or California wood fern, Coastal wood wood fern family Dryopteris arguta fern, Shield fern Common horsetail rush, Common horsetail, field horsetail, Field EQUISETACEAE - Horsetail Family Equisetum arvense horsetail Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant horse tail, Giant horsetail Pentagramma triangularis ssp. PTERIDACEAE - Brake Family triangularis Gold back fern Gymnosperms CUPRESSACEAE - Cypress Family Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress CNPS - 1B.2, Cal IPC
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix G. Wildlife and Plant Species at the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge and Vicinity (Red Bluff to Colusa)
    Appendix G.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2009 an Analysis of Possible Risk To
    Project Title An Analysis of Possible Risk to Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Associated with Glyphosate Use in Alfalfa: A County-Level Analysis Authors Thomas Priester, Ph.D. Rick Kemman, M.S. Ashlea Rives Frank, M.Ent. Larry Turner, Ph.D. Bernalyn McGaughey David Howes, Ph.D. Jeffrey Giddings, Ph.D. Stephanie Dressel Data Requirements Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision E—Hazard Evaluation: Wildlife and Aquatic Organisms Guideline Number 70-1-SS: Special Studies—Effects on Endangered Species Date Completed August 22, 2007 Prepared by Compliance Services International 7501 Bridgeport Way West Lakewood, WA 98499-2423 (253) 473-9007 Sponsor Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. Saint Louis, MO 63167 Project Identification Compliance Services International Study 06711 Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 RD 1695 Volume 3 of 18 Page 1 of 258 Threatened & Endangered Plant Species Analysis CSI 06711 Glyphosate/Alfalfa Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 Page 2 of 258 STATEMENT OF NO DATA CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIMS The text below applies only to use of the data by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in connection with the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) No claim of confidentiality is made for any information contained in this study on the basis of its falling within the scope of FIFRA §10(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C). We submit this material to the United States Environmental Protection Agency specifically under the requirements set forth in FIFRA as amended, and consent to the use and disclosure of this material by EPA strictly in accordance with FIFRA. By submitting this material to EPA in accordance with the method and format requirements contained in PR Notice 86-5, we reserve and do not waive any rights involving this material that are or can be claimed by the company notwithstanding this submission to EPA.
    [Show full text]
  • Benton County Prairie Species Habitat Conservation Plan
    BENTON COUNTY PRAIRIE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN DECEMBER 2010 For more information, please contact: Benton County Natural Areas & Parks Department 360 SW Avery Ave. Corvallis, Oregon 97333-1192 Phone: 541.766.6871 - Fax: 541.766.6891 http://www.co.benton.or.us/parks/hcp This document was prepared for Benton County by staff at the Institute for Applied Ecology: Tom Kaye Carolyn Menke Michelle Michaud Rachel Schwindt Lori Wisehart The Institute for Applied Ecology is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to conserve native ecosystems through restoration, research, and education. P.O. Box 2855 Corvallis, OR 97339-2855 (541) 753-3099 www.appliedeco.org Suggested Citation: Benton County. 2010. Prairie Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 160 pp plus appendices. www.co.benton.or.us/parks/hcp Front cover photos, top to bottom: Kincaid’s lupine, photo by Tom Kaye Nelson’s checkermallow, photo by Tom Kaye Fender’s blue butterfly, photo by Cheryl Schultz Peacock larkspur, photo by Lori Wisehart Bradshaw’s lomatium, photo by Tom Kaye Taylor’s checkerspot, photo by Dana Ross Willamette daisy, photo by Tom Kaye Benton County Prairie Species HCP Preamble The Benton County Prairie Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was initiated to bring Benton County’s activities on its own lands into compliance with the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts. Federal law requires a non-federal landowner who wishes to conduct activities that may harm (“take”) threatened or endangered wildlife on their land to obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State law requires a non-federal public landowner who wishes to conduct activities that may harm threatened or endangered plants to obtain a permit from the Oregon Department of Agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of the Vegetation Alliances and Associations of Sonoma County, California
    Classification of the Vegetation Alliances and Associations of Sonoma County, California Volume 1 of 2 – Introduction, Methods, and Results Prepared by: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program California Native Plant Society Vegetation Program For: The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District The Sonoma County Water Agency Authors: Anne Klein, Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie Evens December 2015 ABSTRACT This report describes 118 alliances and 212 associations that are found in Sonoma County, California, comprising the most comprehensive local vegetation classification to date. The vegetation types were defined using a standardized classification approach consistent with the Survey of California Vegetation (SCV) and the United States National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) system. This floristic classification is the basis for an integrated, countywide vegetation map that the Sonoma County Vegetation Mapping and Lidar Program expects to complete in 2017. Ecologists with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society analyzed species data from 1149 field surveys collected in Sonoma County between 2001 and 2014. The data include 851 surveys collected in 2013 and 2014 through funding provided specifically for this classification effort. An additional 283 surveys that were conducted in adjacent counties are included in the analysis to provide a broader, regional understanding. A total of 34 tree-overstory, 28 shrubland, and 56 herbaceous alliances are described, with 69 tree-overstory, 51 shrubland, and 92 herbaceous associations. This report is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 (this volume) is composed of the project introduction, methods, and results. It includes a floristic key to all vegetation types, a table showing the full local classification nested within the USNVC hierarchy, and a crosswalk showing the relationship between this and other classification systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant Species with Documented Or Recorded Occurrence in Placer County
    A PPENDIX II Vascular Plant Species with Documented or Reported Occurrence in Placer County APPENDIX II. Vascular Plant Species with Documented or Reported Occurrence in Placer County Family Scientific Name Common Name FERN AND FERN ALLIES Azollaceae Mosquito fern family Azolla filiculoides Pacific mosquito fern Dennstaedtiaceae Bracken family Pteridium aquilinum var.pubescens Bracken fern Dryopteridaceae Wood fern family Athyrium alpestre var. americanum Alpine lady fern Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Lady fern Cystopteris fragilis Fragile fern Polystichum imbricans ssp. curtum Cliff sword fern Polystichum imbricans ssp. imbricans Imbricate sword fern Polystichum kruckebergii Kruckeberg’s hollyfern Polystichum lonchitis Northern hollyfern Polystichum munitum Sword fern Equisetaceae Horsetail family Equisetum arvense Common horsetail Equisetum hyemale ssp. affine Scouring rush Equisetum laevigatum Smooth horsetail Isoetaceae Quillwort family Isoetes bolanderi Bolander’s quillwort Isoetes howellii Howell’s quillwort Isoetes orcuttii Orcutt’s quillwort Lycopodiaceae Club-moss family Lycopodiella inundata Bog club-moss Marsileaceae Marsilea family Marsilea vestita ssp. vestita Water clover Pilularia americana American pillwort Ophioglossaceae Adder’s-tongue family Botrychium multifidum Leathery grapefern Polypodiaceae Polypody family Polypodium hesperium Western polypody Pteridaceae Brake family Adiantum aleuticum Five-finger maidenhair Adiantum jordanii Common maidenhair fern Aspidotis densa Indian’s dream Cheilanthes cooperae Cooper’s
    [Show full text]
  • Key Baylands Habitats
    1 Key Baylands Habitats The Science Process adopted by the RMG has called for the Focus Teams to identify and describe the Key Habitats that comprise the baylands ecosystem. This step of the process enables the Focus Teams and the RMG to think about the spatial distribution of species support functions, as required to formulate habitat recommendations. In actuality, the Focus Teams considered species and habitats in an iterative way, such that there was overlap between Step 1, the selection of Key Species, and Step 2, the selection of Key Habitats. It has been recognized that the “species perspective” and the “habitat perspective” are complementary, not redundant, and that they are both needed for a comprehensive view of ecological form and function. It should be acknowledged that the list of Key Habitats is subject to change. The Focus Teams continue to exercise the scientific prerogative to add or delete habitats from the Key Habitat List. The start of habitat selection was complicated by unclear ecological definitions of common spatial terms. For example, there was a need to define the project boundary and associated habitats with respect to the distribution of Key Species, rather than by physiography, land use, or infrastructure. With regard to the open bays and straits, it was decided that the boundary would be the limit of shallow subtidal environments, which is approximated by the bottom contour at 20 feet below the zero tidal datum. With regard to the rivers and creeks, it was decided that the boundary of the project would be the usual upstream limit of the physical effects of the tides, as evidenced by aqueous salinity or hydrology.
    [Show full text]