DOCSLIB.ORG

APPENDIX E Biological Resources Assessment - Rio Mesa Boulevard Project (ECORP 2020)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
APPENDIX E Biological Resources Assessment - Rio Mesa Boulevard Project (ECORP 2020) APPENDIX E Biological Resources Assessment - Rio Mesa Boulevard Project (ECORP 2020) Biological Resources Assessment Rio Mesa Boulevard Project Madera County, California Prepared for: Madera County May 20, 2020 ECORP Consulting, Inc. has assisted public and private land owners with environmental regulation compliance since 1987. We offer full service capability, from initial baseline environmental studies through environmental planning review, permitting negotiation, liaison to obtain legal agreements, mitigation design, and construction monitoring and reporting. Citation: ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2020. Biological Resources Assessment for the Rio Mesa Boulevard, Madera County, California. Prepared for Madera County. May 2020. Biological Resources Assessment for the Rio Mesa Boulevard Project CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Area Location ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Purpose of this Biological Resources Assessment ................................................................................. 3 2.0 REGULATORY SETTING ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Federal Regulations ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act .................................................................................................. 3 2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ................................................................................................................ 5 2.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ....................................................................................... 6 2.1.4 Federal Clean Water Act .................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 State or Local Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 California Fish and Game Code .................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Species of Special Concern ............................................................................................................. 8 2.2.3 California Rare Plant Ranks ............................................................................................................. 8 2.2.4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act .............................................................................................. 9 2.2.5 California Environmental Quality Act.......................................................................................... 9 2.2.6 Local Plans and Ordinances ........................................................................................................ 11 3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11 3.1 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................................. 11 3.2 Site Reconnaissance ........................................................................................................................................ 12 3.3 Additional Surveys Conducted ................................................................................................................... 12 3.3.1 Aquatic Resources Delineation .................................................................................................. 13 3.3.2 Special-Status Plant Surveys ....................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Special-Status Species Considered for the Project ............................................................................. 13 4.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 4.1 Site Characteristics and Land Use .............................................................................................................. 13 4.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ................................................................................ 14 4.2.1 Annual Grassland ............................................................................................................................. 14 4.2.2 Orchard ................................................................................................................................................ 14 4.2.3 Agriculture .......................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2.4 Ruderal ................................................................................................................................................. 14 4.3 Potential Waters of the U.S. ......................................................................................................................... 15 4.3.1 Vernal Pool ......................................................................................................................................... 15 ECORP Consulting, Inc. i May 20, 2020 Rio Mesa Boulevard 2017-089 Biological Resources Assessment for the Rio Mesa Boulevard Project 4.3.2 Seasonal Wetland ............................................................................................................................ 17 4.3.3 Seasonal Wetland Swale ............................................................................................................... 17 4.3.4 Ditch ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.3.5 Detention Basin ................................................................................................................................ 17 4.4 Soils ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.5 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................. 20 4.6 Evaluation of Species Identified in the Literature Search ................................................................. 20 4.6.1 Plants .................................................................................................................................................... 34 4.6.2 Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................................... 39 4.6.3 Fish ........................................................................................................................................................ 41 4.6.4 Amphibians ........................................................................................................................................ 41 4.6.5 Reptiles ................................................................................................................................................ 42 4.6.6 Birds ...................................................................................................................................................... 43 4.6.7 Mammals ............................................................................................................................................ 45 4.7 Wildlife Movement/Corridors ..................................................................................................................... 47 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 48 5.1 Waters of the U.S. and State ........................................................................................................................ 48 5.2 Special-Status Species .................................................................................................................................... 48 5.2.1 Plants .................................................................................................................................................... 48 5.2.2 Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................................... 49 5.2.3 Fish ........................................................................................................................................................ 49 5.2.4 Amphibians ........................................................................................................................................ 49 5.2.5 Reptiles ...............................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Changes in the Insect Fauna of a Deteriorating Riverine Sand Dune
    ., CHANGES IN THE INSECT FAUNA OF A DETERIORATING RIVERINE SAND DUNE COMMUNITY DURING 50 YEARS OF HUMAN EXPLOITATION J. A. Powell Department of Entomological Sciences University of California, Berkeley May , 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORY OF EXPLOITATION 4 HISTORY OF ENTOMOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 7 INSECT FAUNA 10 Methods 10 ErRs s~lected for compar"ltive "lnBlysis 13 Bio1o~ica1 isl!lnd si~e 14 Inventory of sp~cies 14 Endemism 18 Extinctions 19 Species restricted to one of the two refu~e parcels 25 Possible recently colonized species 27 INSECT ASSOCIATES OF ERYSIMUM AND OENOTHERA 29 Poll i n!ltor<'l 29 Predqt,.n·s 32 SUMMARY 35 RECOm1ENDATIONS FOR RECOVERY ~4NAGEMENT 37 ACKNOWT.. EDGMENTS 42 LITERATURE CITED 44 APPENDICES 1. T'lbles 1-8 49 2. St::ttns of 15 Antioch Insects Listed in Notice of 75 Review by the U.S. Fish "l.nd Wildlife Service INTRODUCTION The sand dune formation east of Antioch, Contra Costa County, California, comprised the largest riverine dune system in California. Biogeographically, this formation was unique because it supported a northern extension of plants and animals of desert, rather than coastal, affinities. Geologists believe that the dunes were relicts of the most recent glaciation of the Sierra Nevada, probably originating 10,000 to 25,000 years ago, with the sand derived from the supratidal floodplain of the combined Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. The ice age climate in the area is thought to have been cold but arid. Presumably summertime winds sweeping through the Carquinez Strait across the glacial-age floodplains would have picked up the fine-grained sand and redeposited it to the east and southeast, thus creating the dune fields of eastern Contra Costa County.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Appendices
    List of Appendices Scroll down to view the Appendices Appendix A - Compatibility Determinations Appendix B - Technical Panel Appendix C - Environmental Assessment Appendix D - Response to Comments Appendix E - Wilderness Review Appendix F - Plant List Appendix G - Bird List Appendix H - Fish List Appendix I - Insect List Appendix J - Fire Management Plan Appendix K - Glossary Appendix A Compatibility Determinations Appendix A - Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination Use: Environmental Education, Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and Photography Refuge Name: Antioch Dunes National Wildlife Refuge, Contra Costa County, adjacent to Antioch, California; a unit of Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR Complex. Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 - 1544) Refuge Purpose: “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species... or (B) plants...” (Endangered Species Act of 1973) National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]). Description of Use(s): Environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. As proposed, they would occur from outside the protective fence or under controlled visits inside the protective fence since the Refuge is otherwise closed to the public. Antioch Dunes NWR provides an opportunity for increasing awareness of the two endangered plants and one endangered insect species on the Refuge through guided tours and interpretive programs and information.
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera) in Tertiary: Eocene Ambers
    1 Review and phylogenetic placement of Asilidae (Diptera) in Tertiary: Eocene ambers Torsten Dikow 0000-0003-4816-2909 @TDikow #asiloidflies Smithsonian PDF doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1243382 National Museum of Natural History Tertiary: Eocene amber – Baltic Amber 2 ◊ well-known amber from the Bay of Gdansk (Poland) of the southern Baltic Sea ◊ 45 – 50 Million years old (myo) ◊ very rich in insect inclusions particularly Diptera › Hoffeins & Hoffeins 2003. Studia dipterologica 10(2): 381 – 392 ◊ Baltic, Bitterfeld, and Rovno ambers most probably same fauna › but see Penney 2010. Biodiversity of fossils in Amber from the major world deposits. Siri Scientific Press, Manchester ◊ Willi Hennig studied Diptera inclusions extensively › Acalyptratae, Acroceridae, Bombyliidae, Lower Brachycera, Therevidae › recorded several acalyptrate families believed to be Sweden Southern Hemisphere endemics Lithuania Russia Belarus Germany Poland Ukraine SimpleMappr link Asilidae – “assassin flies” 3 ◊ adult flies and larvae predatory ◊ size = 5 – 60 mm ◊ > 7,500 extant species in 541 genera ◊ 58 fossil species in 32 genera catalog URL ◊ oldest definitive assassin fly – †Araripogon axelrodi › Cretaceous Crato Formation of Brazil, ≈ 112 myo †Araripogon axelrodi / › Grimaldi 1990 open-access link ◊ rare in any amber due to life history › 2x Burmese Amber (100 myo) – †Burmapogon bruckschi › 1x Raritan Amber (92 myo) – †Cretagaster raritanensis › Dikow & Grimaldi 2014 open-access link › 18x Dominican Amber (20 – 25 myo) – Dikow & Fisher in prep. †Burmapogon bruckschi
    [Show full text]
  • (Diptera: Asilidae) of the Nearctic Region
    CATALOG OF THE ROBBER FLIES (DIPTERA: ASILIDAE) OF THE NEARCTIC REGION EmMm Fisher Calif. Dept. Food & Agric. 3294 Meadowview Road Sacramento, CA 95832 and J. Wilcox Anaheim, CA (dec.: Dec. 1982) Preliminary draft -- not for publication. April, 1997 - . Catalog of the Robber -Flies (Diptera: Asilidae) of the Nearctic Region. By E. M. Fisher and J. Wilcox (dec.). This draft, a preliminary version of a complete catalog for Nearctic Asilidae, contains a classification and listing of all described robber fly species found in the Nearctic Region (United States, Canada and northern Mexico). Included also are references to original descriptions and relevant taxonomic decisions, ' plus type locality and distribution for each Nearctic species. Not present here--but planned for the final version--are a bibliography for all references; an index to included taxa; general references to useful keys andlor revisionary studies for individual genera (or tribes or subfamilies); full introductory and explanatory information; and acknowledgements of contributors and reviewers. e The classification used is that published by Artigas & Papavero (1988 to present)--with a few minor exceptions. Although their classification scheme is still being developed (particularly with regard to the Asilinae s.l.), it is adopted here for two reasons: to provide a more uniform system of classification for New World Asilidae; and because it seems to be a distinct improvement over previous systems (for example, the classification used by Martin & Wilcox [I965; in Stone, et. al., "A Catalog of the Diptera-of America North of Mexico"]). It is obvious to many systematists that all available classifications of Asilidae are flawed (principally by general lack of rigorous phylogenetic analysis); and that it is to be expected that many changes will be made as a result of future studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database
    Occurrence Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Map Index Number: 34038 EO Index: 12605 Key Quad: Merritt (3812157) Element Code: AAAAA01180 Occurrence Number: 384 Occurrence Last Updated: 1996-07-09 Scientific Name: Ambystoma californiense Common Name: California tiger salamander Listing Status: Federal: Threatened Rare Plant Rank: State: Threatened Other Lists: CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_VU-Vulnerable CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3 State: S2S3 General Habitat: Micro Habitat: CENTRAL VALLEY DPS FEDERALLY LISTED AS THREATENED. SANTA NEED UNDERGROUND REFUGES, ESPECIALLY GROUND SQUIRREL BARBARA & SONOMA COUNTIES DPS FEDERALLY LISTED AS BURROWS, & VERNAL POOLS OR OTHER SEASONAL WATER ENDANGERED. SOURCES FOR BREEDING. Last Date Observed: 1993-01-31 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1993-01-31 Occurrence Rank: Unknown Owner/Manager: PVT Trend: Unknown Presence: Presumed Extant Location: SOUTH WEST CORNER OF COVELL BLVD AND LAKE BLVD, IN THE CITY OF DAVIS. Detailed Location: FOUND IN THE PARKING LOT AT THE WILLOWS APARTMENTS. Ecological: Threats: URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AGRICULTURAL FIELDS AND TWO VERY BUSY ROADS. General: APARTMENT COMPLEX PARKING LOT LOCATED ACROSS LAKE BLVD FROM "WET POND" A CITY OWNED WILDLIFE HABITAT AREA MANAGED BY THE YOLO AUDUBON SOCIETY. PLSS: T08N, R02E, Sec. 07 (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 0 UTM: Zone-10 N4268740 E605722 Latitude/Longitude: 38.56082 / -121.78655 Elevation (feet): 50 County Summary: Quad Summary: Yolo
    [Show full text]
  • Review and Phylogenetic Placement of Assassin Flies (Asilidae) in Tertiary: Eocene Ambers
    1 Review and phylogenetic placement of Assassin Flies (Asilidae) in Tertiary: Eocene ambers Torsten Dikow 0000-0003-4816-2909 @TDikow #asiloidflies Smithsonian PDF doi: National Museum of Natural History Tertiary: Eocene amber – Baltic amber 2 ◊ well-known amber from the Bay of Gdansk (Poland) in the south-eastern Baltic Sea ◊ 45 – 50 Million years old (myo) ◊ very rich in insect inclusions particularly Diptera (midges, flies and relatives) › Hoffeins & Hoffeins 2003. Studia dipterologica 10(2): 381 – 392 ◊ Bitterfeld and Rovno amber › Penney 2010. Biodiversity of fossils in Amber from the major world deposits. Siri Scientific Press Sweden Lithuania Russia Belarus Germany Poland Ukraine SimpleMappr link Tertiary: Eocene amber – Baltic amber 3 ◊ Hennig studied Diptera inclusions extensively › Acalyptratae, Acroceridae, Bombyliidae, Lower Brachycera, Therevidae › recorded several acalyptrate families believed to be Southern Hemisphere endemics ◊ Cypselosomatidae (acalyptrate flies, Nerioidea) › Hennig 1965 BHL link › 1965 – 3 extant + 1 extinct species › 2015 – 13 extant + 1 extinct species distribution after Hennig 1965 current known distribution Assassin flies – Asilidae 4 ◊ adult flies and larvae predatory ◊ size = 5 – 60 mm ◊ > 7,500 species in 541 genera ◊ speciose world-wide › arid & semi-arid environments › tropical environments ◊ perching sites to look for flying prey Scleropogon duncani › primarily on ground, rocks, leaves, small vegetation, or twig tips › some species on living tree trunks › Leptogastrinae capture resting prey ◊ morphological phylogeny › Dikow 2009 open-access link Ceraturgus fasciatus © M. Thomas Assassin flies – Asilidae 5 ◊ 58 fossil species in 32 genera catalog URL ◊ oldest definitive assassin fly – †Araripogon axelrodi › Cretaceous Crato Formation of Brazil, ≈ 112 myo › Grimaldi 1990 open-access link ◊ rare in any amber due to life history › strong flies that might pull their legs out of sticky tree resin ◊ known diversity in amber †Araripogon axelrodi / amber age # pieces # sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Candidate Review for Listing As Endangered Or Threatened
    58982 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 1994 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR ADDRESSES: Interested persons or Street, Anchorage. Alaska 99501 (907— organizations should submit comments 786—3605). Fish and Wildlife Service regarding particular taxa to the Regional FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director of the Region specified with Jamie Rappaport Clark, Chief, Division 5OCFRPartI7 each taxon as having the lead of Endangered Species (703—358—2171) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife responsibility for that taxon. Comments or Endangered Species Coordinator(s) in and Plants; Animal Candidate Review of a more general nature maybe the appropriate Regional Office(s) listed for Listing as Endangered or submitted to: Chief—Division of above. Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Threatened Species SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Wildlife Service, Mail Stop 452 ARLSQ AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington. D.C. 20240. Written Background Interior. comments and materials received in The Endangered Species Act (16 ACTION: Notice of review. response to this notice will be available U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires the for public inspection by appointment in Secretary of the Interior (or Commerce SL.YMARY: In this notice the U.S. Fish the Regional Offices listed below. according to vested program and Wildlife Service (Service) presents Region 1.—California, Hawaii, Idaho, responsibilities) to determine whether an updated compilation of vertebrate Nevada, Oregon, Washington, wildlife and plant species are and iA~vertebrateanimal taxa native to Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana endangered or threatened, based on the the United States that are being Islands, and Pacific Territories of the best available scientific and commercial reviewed for possible addition to the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Nearctic Diptera: Twenty Years Later
    CHAPTER ONE NEARCTIC DIPTERA: TWENTY YEARS LATER F. CHRISTIAN THOMPSON Systematic Entomology Laboratory, PSI, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC, USA INTRODUCTION Flies are found abundantly almost everywhere; they are only rare in oce- anic and extreme arctic and antarctic areas. More than 150,000 extant species are now documented (Evenhuis et al. 2008). So, given this great diversity, understanding is aided by dividing the whole into pieces. Sclater (1858) proposed a series of regions for the better understanding of biotic diversity. Those areas were based on common shared distribution of bird species and now are understood to reflect the evolution and dispersal/ vicariance of species since the mid-Mesozoic era. While the biotic regions defined by Sclater (1858) have been accepted by most zoologists, the precise definition used here follows the standards of the BioSystematic Database of World Diptera [BDWD] (Thompson 1999a). Biotic regions are statisti- cal concepts that try to maximize the common (unique to one area only) elements and minimize the shared elements (Darlington 1957, Thomp- son 1972). For pragmatic reasons, the BDWD has taken the traditional definitions of the biotic regions and normalized them so that they follow political boundaries, which make the assignment of data easier (Thomp- son 1999a). Earlier authors (Osten Sacken 1858, 1878; Aldrich 1905) di- vided the New World into a northern and southern component. So their catalogs covered all the species of North America, that is, the Americas north of Colombia. Unfortunately, most subsequent authors decided to re-define both North America and the Nearctic Region as the area north of Mexico (most recently, Poole 1996 & Adler et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Arthropod Species
    Biological assessment of the greater Ballona Wetlands region: Terrestrial Arthropod species Ruch Mattoni April 12, 1991 To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering -Aldo Leopold INTRODUCTION The following report summarizes findings regarding the terrestrial Arthropod populations of the Playa Vista project area. The study was primarily designed to quantitatively assay two sets of species: those easily identified visually along a regulAr transect and those collected in pitfall taps situated to sample the major communities of areas most representative of historic conditions. The latter were all located in area B. Groups sampled included insects, arachnids, isopods, millipedes, and centipedes. A section is devoted to background information and discussion of all species of special interest, as efforts were made to survey their status. A comprehensive summary is presented of the total arthropod collections of Nagano (1981) and•this study with comparative information from the nearby El Segundo sand dune system and coastal prairie at LAX. Historical perspectives The greater Ballona wetlands region was composed of five distinct communities: tidal salt marsh, freshwater marsh, riparian, coastal dune scrub, and coastal sage scrub. The first four communities are all highly degraded today with the entire ecosystem essentially collapsed. This assessment is inferred from the quantitative loss of species among all groups of organisms for which adequate documentation exists. The loss of native species is exacerbated by increases in alien species. Across much of the area alien plants and animals together approach 100% of the total biomass. A map of extrapolated historic community distributions, figure 1, presents one concept superimposed over the 1894 Geological survey quadrangle.
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera) [Katalog Der Gattungen Der Asilidae (Diptera) Der Welt]
    GELLER-GRIMM:473-526 Studia dipterologica 10 (2003) Heft 2 ISSN 0945-3954 A world catalogue of the genera of the family Asilidae (Diptera) [Katalog der Gattungen der Asilidae (Diptera) der Welt] by Fritz GELLER-GRIMM Wiesbaden (Germany) Abstract A catalogue of the world genera of the Asilidae (Insecta: Diptera) is presented. More than 800 genus-group names are listed, of which 552 represent valid names for genera. Information on the original citation of each taxon, type species, and known distribution is given for all names. The genus Epholkiolaphriu HERMANN,1914 is synonymised with of Choerudes WALKER,1851 (syn. nov.). Key words Insecta, Diptera, Asilidae, catalogue, genera, world Zusammenfassung Ein Katalog uber die Gattungen der Asilidae (Insecta: Diptera) wird vorgestellt. Dieser enthalt mehr als 800 Namen, von denen 552 als valide Taxa einzustufen sind. Enthalten sind Informati- onen iiber die Orginalzitate, die Typusarten und die aktuell bekannte Verbreitung. Die Gattung Epholkiolaphria HERMANN,1914 wird mit Choerades WALKER,1851 synonymisiert (syn. nov.). Stichworter Insecta, Diptera, Asilidae, Katalog, Gattungen, Welt Introduction HULL(1962) and PAPAVERO(1973) published the most recent generic catalogues for the fam- ily Asilidae. An updated catalogue of asilid genera is necessary to summarise the numerous nomenclatural changes and additional information on genera distributions published during the last 30 years. The catalogue includes 528 valid genus-group names, 24 subgenera, 133 synonyms, 44 homo- nyms, 18 nomina nuda, and 71 misspelled names (818 entries). This catalogue reflects no- menclatural changes published before 2002 and reveals a 30% increase in the number of genus-group names. The list of genus-group names contains information on the original citation of each taxon, the respective type species, and known distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera: Asilidae)
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 47 Number 1 Article 6 1-31-1987 Robber flies of Utah (Diptera: Asilidae) C. Riley Nelson Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Nelson, C. Riley (1987) "Robber flies of Utah (Diptera: Asilidae)," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 47 : No. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol47/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. ROBBER FLIES OF UTAH (DIPTERA: ASILIDAE) C. Riley Nelson' Abstract —Reported are 158 species of Asilidae (Diptera) in 50 genera from Utah. Keys to subfamilies genera and species are given, along with information on seasonal and distributional occurrence in Utah. Seventy-six maps and 56 line drawings show the Utah distribution of each species and illustrate important characters used in the keys. A table summarizes the current status of names used in earlier state lists. The Asilidae (Diptera) have long attracted lections of asihds from the state revealed 158 the attention of collectors. As a result, numer- species in 50 genera. ous specimens have been deposited in collec- tions in the state of Utah. The systematics of Review of Literature the family have been studied rather inten- sively so that the taxonomic status of most Brown (1929) pubhshed the first paper groups is known. The purpose of this study is dealing with Asilidae of Utah.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft SEIR Chapter 4.3 Biological Resources
    1 Chapter 4.3 2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3 4.3.1 Introduction 4 This chapter discusses the potential for the Proposed Program to affect biological resources. 5 Specifically, this section: (1) discusses state and federal regulations relevant to the 6 biological resources affected by the Proposed Program; (2) provides an overview of the 7 existing environmental setting throughout the state; (3) identifies wildlife and plant species 8 potentially affected by the Proposed Program; and (4) makes findings regarding the 9 significance of the Proposed Program’s impacts on biological resources. 10 The following appendices support this chapter: 11 Appendix I: Descriptions of habitat types likely to occur in or adjacent to 12 Proposed Program activities; 13 Appendix J: Species lists generated from California Natural Diversity Database 14 (CNDDB) query; 15 Appendix K: Detailed life history descriptions for Fish action species 16 Appendix L: Species‐based restrictions on Proposed Program activities 17 Appendix M. Management of Invasive Species 18 For the purposes of this chapter, the word “fish” when written as Fish refers to all wild fish, 19 mollusks, crustaceans, invertebrates, or amphibians, including any part, spawn, or ova 20 thereof, per the definition promulgated in Fish and Game Code section 45. References to fin 21 fish are written without italics and in appropriate grammatical context. 22 Organization of the Discussion of Existing Conditions 23 This chapter addresses the following aspects of the existing conditions within the context of 24 the Proposed Program. 25 “Regulatory Setting” describes state and federal regulations relevant to the 26 assessment of existing conditions and environmental consequences of the 27 Proposed Program; 28 “Environmental Setting” describes the various eco‐regions of California where 29 suction dredging may occur; and 30 “Biological Resources” lists the organisms that potentially inhabit the Program 31 Area.
    [Show full text]