DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Resources Study Tolay Creek Ranch Sonoma County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Resources Study Tolay Creek Ranch Sonoma County, California BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY TOLAY CREEK RANCH SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Sonoma Land Trust 2300 County Center Drive #120A Santa Rosa, California 95403 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 LSA Project No. SOZ0801 May 2o, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................1 1.2 LOCATION ..........................................................................................................................1 1.3 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................1 1.4 LAND USE AND HISTORY...............................................................................................2 1.5 REGULATORY CONTEXT................................................................................................3 1.5.1 Federal Endangered Species Act .............................................................................3 1.5.2 Clean Water Act ......................................................................................................4 1.5.3 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.............................................................5 1.5.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act.......................................................................................5 1.5.5 California Endangered Species Act.........................................................................5 1.5.6 California Fish and Game Code ..............................................................................6 1.5.7 California Environmental Quality Act.....................................................................6 1.5.8 State Species of Special Concern ............................................................................7 1.5.9 Special Animals List................................................................................................7 1.5.10 California Native Plant Society .............................................................................7 2.0 METHODS......................................................................................................................................8 2.1 PLANT SURVEYS...............................................................................................................8 2.2 WETLANDS.........................................................................................................................9 2.2.1 Wetland Identification Methodology.......................................................................9 2.2.2 Field Methodology ..................................................................................................9 2.3 ANIMAL SURVEYS .........................................................................................................10 3.0 PHYSICAL SETTING..................................................................................................................11 3.1 TERRAIN AND HYDROLOGY .......................................................................................11 3.2 SOILS AND EROSION......................................................................................................11 3.3 GEOLOGY .........................................................................................................................12 3.4 CLIMATE...........................................................................................................................13 3.5 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE......................................................................................13 4.0 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE VALUES ...............................................................................14 4.1 WOODLAND .....................................................................................................................14 4.1.1 Botanical Values....................................................................................................14 4.1.2 Wildlife Values......................................................................................................15 4.2 RIPARIAN VEGETATION ...............................................................................................15 4.2.1 Botanical Values....................................................................................................15 4.2.2 Wildlife Values......................................................................................................16 4.3 GRASSLANDS AND NATIVE FORBS ...........................................................................16 4.3.1 Botanical Values....................................................................................................16 4.3.2 Wildlife Values......................................................................................................18 4.4 SEEPS AND SPRINGS......................................................................................................19 4.4.1 Botanical Values....................................................................................................19 4.4.2 Wildlife Values......................................................................................................19 4.5 SEASONAL WETLANDS.................................................................................................20 4.5.1 Botanical Values....................................................................................................20 4.5.2 Wildlife Values......................................................................................................20 4.6 VERNAL POOLS AND SMALL SEASONAL PONDS...................................................20 P:\SOZ0801\Biology\Report\Tolay Creek Ranch Report.doc (5/20/2009) i 4.6.1 Botanical Values....................................................................................................20 4.6.2 Wildlife Values......................................................................................................21 4.7 CREATED POND ..............................................................................................................21 4.7.1 Botanical Values....................................................................................................21 4.7.2 Wildlife Values......................................................................................................21 4.8 LARGE SEASONAL POND..............................................................................................21 4.8.1 Botanical Values....................................................................................................21 4.8.2 Wildlife Values......................................................................................................22 4.9 STREAMS ..........................................................................................................................22 4.9.1 Tolay Creek ...........................................................................................................22 4.9.2 Tributaries to Tolay Creek.....................................................................................23 4.10 ROCK OUTCROPS..........................................................................................................23 5.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES......................................................................................................24 5.1 PLANTS .............................................................................................................................24 5.1.1 Known Occurrences of Special-status Plants ........................................................24 5.1.2 Potential Occurrences of Special-status Plants......................................................25 5.2 INVERTEBRATES ............................................................................................................29 5.2.1 Opler's Longhorn Moth .........................................................................................29 5.2.2 Blennosperma Bee.................................................................................................29 5.2.3 Rare Arachnids ......................................................................................................29 5.2.4 Tomales Isopod......................................................................................................29 5.2.5 Zerene Silverspot Subspecies ................................................................................30 5.2.6 Ricksecker's Water Scavenger Beetle....................................................................30 5.2.7 Marin Hesperian ....................................................................................................30 5.3 AMPHIBIANS....................................................................................................................30 5.3.1 California Red-Legged Frog..................................................................................30 5.3.2 Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog................................................................................32 5.4 REPTILES ..........................................................................................................................32 5.4.1 Western Pond Turtle..............................................................................................32 5.5 BIRDS.................................................................................................................................32
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "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]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 118/Monday, June 20, 2016/Notices
    39944 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 118 / Monday, June 20, 2016 / Notices information collection described in Type of Request: Extension. programs and projects that increase the Section A. Form Number: N/A. supply of affordable housing units, Description of the need for the prevent and reduce homelessness, A. Overview of Information Collection information and proposed use: improve data collection and reporting, Title of Information Collection: Application information is needed to and use coordinated neighborhood and OneCPD Technical Assistance Needs determine competition winners, i.e., the community development strategies to Assessment. technical assistance providers best able revitalize and strengthen their OMB Approval Number: 2506–0198. to develop efficient and effective communities. Number of Frequency of Responses Burden hour Annual burden Hourly cost Information collection respondents response per annum per response hours per response Annual cost Application .................... 52 1 52 100 5,200 $0 $0 Work Plans ................... 23 10 230 18 4,140 40 165,600 Reports ......................... 23 4 72 6 432 40 17,280 Recordkeeping ............. 23 12 276 6 1,656 40 66,240 Total ...................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 11,248 ........................ 249,120 B. Solicitation of Public Comment DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND or telephone (202) 708–2290. This is not URBAN DEVELOPMENT a toll-free number. Persons with hearing This notice is soliciting comments or speech impairments may access this [Docket No. FR–5910–N–10] from members of the public and affected number through TTY by calling the toll- parties concerning the collection of 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877– information described in Section A on Collection: Veterans Home 8339.
    [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]
  • Analysis of the Giant Genomes of Fritillaria (Liliaceae) Indicates That a Lack of DNA Removal Characterizes Extreme Expansions in Genome Size
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Queen Mary Research Online Analysis of the giant genomes of Fritillaria (Liliaceae) indicates that a lack of DNA removal characterizes extreme expansions in genome size. Kelly, LJ; Renny-Byfield, S; Pellicer, J; Macas, J; Novák, P; Neumann, P; Lysak, MA; Day, PD; Berger, M; Fay, MF; Nichols, RA; Leitch, AR; Leitch, IJ © 2015 The Authors. CC-BY For additional information about this publication click this link. http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/8496 Information about this research object was correct at the time of download; we occasionally make corrections to records, please therefore check the published record when citing. For more information contact [email protected] Research Analysis of the giant genomes of Fritillaria (Liliaceae) indicates that a lack of DNA removal characterizes extreme expansions in genome size Laura J. Kelly1,2, Simon Renny-Byfield1,3, Jaume Pellicer2,Jirı Macas4, Petr Novak4, Pavel Neumann4, Martin A. Lysak5, Peter D. Day1,2, Madeleine Berger2,6,7, Michael F. Fay2, Richard A. Nichols1, Andrew R. Leitch1 and Ilia J. Leitch2 1School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK; 2Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, TW9 3DS, UK; 3 4 Department of Plant Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA; Biology Centre CAS, Institute of Plant Molecular Biology, CZ-37005, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic; 5Plant Cytogenomics Research Group, CEITEC – Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, CZ-62500, Brno, Czech Republic; 6School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK; 7Rothamsted Research, West Common, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 2JQ, UK Summary Authors for correspondence: Plants exhibit an extraordinary range of genome sizes, varying by > 2000-fold between the Laura J.
    [Show full text]
  • Legenere Limosa (Legenere)
    7. LEGENERE LIMOSA (LEGENERE) a. Description and Taxonomy Taxonomy.—Greene (1890) originally published the scientific name Howellia limosa for legenere. He gave the type locality only as “the lower Sacramento” (Greene 1890:81). Based on label information from Greene’s collections, the type locality has been further described as “Fields of the lower Sacramento Valley near Elmira, Solano County, California” (McVaugh 1943:14). McVaugh (1943) determined that this species differed sufficiently from Howellia to be transferred to a new genus, Legenere. Thus, the currently accepted name for this species is Legenere limosa. Legenere is the only species in its genus (Morin 1993), which is in the bellflower family (Campanulaceae). Another common name for this species is Greene’s legenere (Morin and Niehaus 1977, Holland 1984). Description and Identification.—Legenere limosa is an inconspicuous annual. The entire plant is hairless. The main stems are 10 to 30 centimeters (3.9 to 11.8 inches) long and decumbent, although any branches are erect. Extra roots often arise from the lower nodes. The leaves, which are produced underwater, are 1 to 3 centimeters (0.4 to 1.2 inches) long and narrowly triangular; they fall off the plant before flowers appear. The egg-shaped or oval bracts are 6 to 12 millimeters (0.24 to 0.47 inch) long and remain throughout the flowering period. A single flower arises above each bract. Legenere limosa flowers may or may not have corollas, and a single plant can produce both types of flowers. When present, the corollas are white or yellowish, 3.5 to 4 millimeters (0.14 to 0.16 inch) long, and two-lipped.
    [Show full text]
  • Light Use Efficiency of California Redwood Forest Understory Plants Along a Moisture Gradient
    Light use efficiency of California redwood forest understory plants along a moisture gradient Louis S. Santiago & Todd E. Dawson Oecologia ISSN 0029-8549 Volume 174 Number 2 Oecologia (2014) 174:351-363 DOI 10.1007/s00442-013-2782-9 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy Oecologia (2014) 174:351–363 DOI 10.1007/s00442-013-2782-9 PHYSIOLOGICAL ECOLOGY - ORIGINAL RESEARCH Light use efficiency of California redwood forest understory plants along a moisture gradient Louis S. Santiago · Todd E. Dawson Received: 6 May 2013 / Accepted: 10 September 2013 / Published online: 26 September 2013 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013 Abstract We investigated photosynthesis of five plant out of five species, coupled with changes in leaf N isotopic species growing in the understory at three sites (1,170-, composition with the onset of the summer fog season sug- 1,600- and 2,100-mm annual moisture inputs), along the gest that natural N deposition increases with rain and fog geographical range of coastal California redwood forest, to inputs and contributes to greater utilization of fluctuating determine whether greater inputs of rain and fog at north- light availability in coastal California redwood forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Importance of Coastal Grasslands Point Reyes Seashore & Influence
    Importance of Coastal Grasslands Point Reyes Seashore & Influence of Shrub Establishment October 18, 2012 Central Coast Rangeland Coalition Fall 2012 Meeting Abstracts Why Do We Care about California’s Coastal Prairie? Dr. Grey Hayes, Restoration Ecologist, Elkhorn Slough Reserve In a very brief presentation, Dr. Hayes outlines some of the central concerns facing conservationists working to maintain biological diversity in California’s coastal prairie. A wealth of rare plant and wildlife species is found in this increasingly threatened plant community. Even when ‘protected,’ coastal prairie managers are afforded little funding and even less scientific certainty about how to manage this system. Will we find a way to care enough to save California’s coastal prairie species? Characteristics and Dynamics of California Coastal Grasslands Joe McBride, Professor, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley Grasslands of the coastal zone in California vary in species composition in relation to environmental gradients and grazing history. Studies of grasslands in Mt. Tamilpais State Park demonstrate the importance of the summer fog gradient in controlling species composition. The elimination of grazing from the park in the 1950s resulted in the "recovery" and/or "return" of native bunch grass species. The grasslands in Mt. Tamilpais State Park are now being invaded by coyote brush and Douglas-fir. A similar invasion has been noted in coastal grasslands in parks and open space areas of the San Francisco Bay area where livestock have been removed. Vegetation Community Change and Special Status Species in the Rangelands of Point Reyes National Seashore Amelia Ryan, Wetland and Plant Ecologist, Point Reyes National Seashore, National Park Service Point Reyes supports over 60 plant species that are considered rare, threatened, or endangered, including many that occur in grazed lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Agavaceae Subf. Chlorogaloideae)
    Taylor, D.W. and D.J. Keil. 2018. Hooveria , a new genus liberated from Chlorogalum (Agavaceae subf. Chlorogaloideae). Phytoneuron 2018-67: 1–6. Published 1 October 2018. ISSN 2153 733X HOOVERIA , A NEW GENUS LIBERATED FROM CHLOROGALUM (AGAVACEAE SUBF. CHLOROGALOIDEAE) DEAN W. TAYLOR Redwood Drive Aptos, California 95003-2517 [email protected] DAVID J. KEIL Professor Emeritus Biological Sciences Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California 93407 [email protected] ABSTRACT Molecular phylogenetic analyses have indicated that Chlorogalum (sensu lato) (Agavaceae subf. Chlorogaloideae) comprises more than one lineage. A recently published study indicated that Chlorogalum is paraphyletic, with two well-supported clades that are successive sister groups to the remainder of the Chlorogaloideae. The first is composed of three vespertine-flowering species (Chlorogalum sensu stricto), and the second comprises two diurnally flowering species. Additional morphological and cytological evidence independently support recognition of two lineages. Hooveria , gen. nov. , is proposed to accommodate the diurnally flowering species of the second lineage. Three taxa are transferred from Chlorogalum to the new genus: Hooveria parviflora (S. Wats.) D.W. Taylor & D.J. Keil, comb. nov. , H. purpurea (Brandeg.) D.W. Taylor & D.J. Keil, comb. nov. , and H. purpurea var. reducta (Hoover) D.W. Taylor & D.J. Keil, comb. nov. A neotype is designated for Chlorogalum parviflorum S. Wats. Chlorogalum Kunth (Agavaceae subf. Chlorogaloideae) as treated traditionally is a genus of five species with nine terminal taxa (Jernstedt 2002; Callahan 2015a, b; Table 1). Chlorogalum is endemic to the California Floristic Province, extending from its northern limit in southern Coos County, Oregon (Callahan 2015b), southward to extreme northwestern Baja California (Rebman et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes
    National Plant Data Team August 2012 Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes and the Klamath Tribe of Oregon in the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum of Anthropology Collections, University of California, Berkeley August 2012 Cover photos: Left: Maidu woman harvesting tarweed seeds. Courtesy, The Field Museum, CSA1835 Right: Thick patch of elegant madia (Madia elegans) in a blue oak woodland in the Sierra foothills The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its pro- grams and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sex- ual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Acknowledgments This report was authored by M. Kat Anderson, ethnoecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Jim Effenberger, Don Joley, and Deborah J. Lionakis Meyer, senior seed bota- nists, California Department of Food and Agriculture Plant Pest Diagnostics Center. Special thanks to the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum staff, especially Joan Knudsen, Natasha Johnson, Ira Jacknis, and Thusa Chu for approving the project, helping to locate catalogue cards, and lending us seed samples from their collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Report City of Fort Bragg Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT CITY OF FORT BRAGG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 101 West Cypress Street (APN 008-020-07) Fort Bragg Mendocino County, California prepared by: William Maslach [email protected] August 2016 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT CITY OF FORT BRAGG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 101 WEST CYPRESS STREET (APN 008-020-07) FORT BRAGG MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Scott Perkins Associate Planner City of Fort Bragg 416 North Franklin Street Fort Bragg, California PREPARED BY: William Maslach 32915 Nameless Lane Fort Bragg, California (707) 732-3287 [email protected] Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Location & Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 2 1.5 Site Directions ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of the Reproductive Ecology and Seed Bank
    California Department of Fish & Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act (Section-6) Grant-in-Aid Program FINAL PROJECT REPORT E-2-P-35 An Investigation of the Reproductive Ecology and Seed Bank Dynamics of Burke’s Goldfields (Lasthenia burkei), Sonoma Sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri), and Sebastopol Meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans) in Natural and Constructed Vernal Pools Christina M. Sloop1, 2, Kandis Gilmore1, Hattie Brown3, Nathan E. Rank1 1Department of Biology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA 2San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, Fairfax, CA 3Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation, Santa Rosa, CA Prepared for Cherilyn Burton ([email protected]) California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Division 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1280, Sacramento, CA 95814 March 1, 2012 1 1. Location of work: Santa Rosa Plain, Sonoma County, California 2. Background: Burke’s goldfield (Lasthenia burkei), a small, slender annual herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known only from southern portions of Lake and Mendocino counties and from northeastern Sonoma County. Historically, 39 populations were known from the Santa Rosa Plain, two sites in Lake County, and one site in Mendocino County. The occurrence in Mendocino County is most likely extirpated. From north to south on the Santa Rosa Plain, the species ranges from north of the community of Windsor to east of the city of Sebastopol. The long-term viability of many populations of Burke’s goldfields is particularly problematic due to population decline. There are currently 20 known extant populations, a subset of which were inoculated into pools at constructed sites to mitigate the loss of natural populations in the context of development.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine) Lasthenia burkei (Burke’s goldfields) Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam) California tiger salamander Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (Ambystoma californiense) Lasthenia burkei Blennosperma bakeri Limnanthes vinculans Jo-Ann Ordano J. E. (Jed) and Bonnie McClellan Jo-Ann Ordano © 2004 California Academy of Sciences © 1999 California Academy of Sciences © 2005 California Academy of Sciences Sonoma County California Tiger Salamander Gerald Corsi and Buff Corsi © 1999 California Academy of Sciences Disclaimer Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, publish recovery plans, sometimes preparing them with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, Tribal agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Costs indicated for action implementation and time of recovery are estimates and subject to change. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific actions, and may not represent the views or the official positions of any individuals or agencies involved in recovery plan formulation, other than the Service. Recovery plans represent our official position only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: U.S.
    [Show full text]