DOCSLIB.ORG

2011 Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Natomas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2011 Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Natomas Biological Effectiveness Monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2011 ANNUAL SURVEY RESULTS Canal April 2012 ross Cr Natomas Cr Steel (Na Dra arden G Hwy. BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING FOR THE NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AREA 2011 ANNUAL SURVEY RESULTS P REPARED FOR: The Natomas Basin Conservancy 2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 460 Sacramento, CA 95833 Contact: John Roberts, Executive Director 916.649.3331 P REPARED BY: ICF International 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Douglas Leslie 916.737.3000 April 2012 Biological Effectiveness Monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2011 Annual Survey Results ICF International. 2012. Final. April. (ICF 00890.10.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA. Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1‐1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1.1 Location............................................................................................................................ 1‐2 1.1.2 Setting .............................................................................................................................. 1‐2 1.2 The Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program ........................................................... 1‐3 1.2.1 Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 1‐3 1.2.2 Covered Species ............................................................................................................... 1‐3 1.2.3 Types of Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 1‐3 1.3 Summary of the 2011 Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program Results ................. 1‐5 1.4 References ....................................................................................................................... 1‐6 Chapter 2 Land Cover Mapping, Floristic Inventory, and Noxious Weed Monitoring ................ 2‐1 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1.2 Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.2 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.2.1 Land Cover Mapping ........................................................................................................ 2‐2 2.2.2 Floristic Surveys ............................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.2.3 Noxious Weed Mapping .................................................................................................. 2‐3 2.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 2‐3 2.3.1 Land Cover Types Basin‐Wide .......................................................................................... 2‐3 2.3.2 Land Cover Types on Reserves ......................................................................................... 2‐4 2.3.3 Noxious Weeds Surveys ................................................................................................... 2‐5 2.3.4 Floristic Surveys ............................................................................................................... 2‐6 2.3.5 Managed Marsh Vegetation Management ..................................................................... 2‐6 2.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 2‐7 2.4.1 Land Cover Types Basin‐Wide .......................................................................................... 2‐7 2.4.2 Land Cover Types on Reserves ......................................................................................... 2‐7 2.4.3 Floristic Surveys ............................................................................................................... 2‐7 2.4.4 Noxious Weeds ................................................................................................................ 2‐8 2.5 Effectiveness .................................................................................................................... 2‐9 2.6 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 2‐9 2.7 References ..................................................................................................................... 2‐10 Chapter 3 Giant Gartersnake .................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3‐1 Biological Effectiveness Monitoring for the April 2012 Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area i ICF 00890.10 2011 Annual Survey Results 3.1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1.2 Objectives and Purposes of the Revised Monitoring Protocol ........................................ 3‐1 3.1.3 The Revised Monitoring Protocol .................................................................................... 3‐2 3.1.4 Life History ....................................................................................................................... 3‐4 3.1.5 History of the Natomas Basin .......................................................................................... 3‐5 3.2 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 3‐6 3.2.1 Demography .................................................................................................................... 3‐6 3.2.2 Distribution of Giant Gartersnake on Reserve Lands ...................................................... 3‐8 3.2.3 Size Distribution and Sex Ratio ........................................................................................ 3‐9 3.2.4 Habitat Assessment ....................................................................................................... 3‐10 3.3 Results ............................................................................................................................ 3‐10 3.3.1 Demography .................................................................................................................. 3‐10 3.3.2 Distribution of Giant Gartersnake on Reserve Lands .................................................... 3‐11 3.3.3 Size Distribution and Sex Ratio ...................................................................................... 3‐11 3.3.4 Habitat Assessment ....................................................................................................... 3‐12 3.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3‐14 3.4.1 Demography .................................................................................................................. 3‐14 3.4.2 Distribution of Giant Gartersnake on Reserve Lands .................................................... 3‐16 3.4.3 Size Distribution and Sex Ratio ...................................................................................... 3‐17 3.5 Effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 3‐18 3.6 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 3‐19 3.7 References ..................................................................................................................... 3‐20 Chapter 4 Swainson’s Hawk ...................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1.2 Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1.3 Life History ....................................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.2 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 4‐3 4.2.1 Population Assessment .................................................................................................... 4‐3 4.2.2 Habitat Assessment ......................................................................................................... 4‐4 4.3 Results .............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [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]
  • Classification, Ecological Characterization, and Presence of Listed Plant Taxa of Vernal Pool Associations in California
    Barbour et al.: Vernal pools Draft Final Report; May/07 1 FINAL REPORT, 15 May 2007 CLASSIFICATION, ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION, AND PRESENCE OF LISTED PLANT TAXA OF VERNAL POOL ASSOCIATIONS IN CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AGREEMENT/STUDY NO. 814205G238 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS ACCOUNT NO. 3-APSF026 , SUBACCOUNT NO. FMGB2 SUBMITTED BY: PROFESSOR MICHAEL G. BARBOUR PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, DR. AYZIK I. SOLOMESHCH, MS. JENNIFER J. BUCK WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM: ROBERT F. HOLLAND CAROL W. WITHAM RODERICK L. MACDONALD SANDRA L. STARR KRISTI A. LAZAR Barbour et al.: Vernal pools Draft Final Report; May/07 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS: Executive summary 3 Chapter 1. Introduction 8 Structure of the report 10 Chapter 2. Classification of vernal pool plant communities 12 Previous classifications 12 Materials and methods 15 Results 18 Class Lastenia fremontii-Downingia bicornuta 18 Key to Central Valley communities 19 Descriptions of community types 20 Alliance Lasthenia glaberrima 20 Alliance Lupinus bicolor-Eryngium aristulatum 28 Alliance downingia bocornuta-Lasthenia fremontii 29 Alliance Layia fremontii-Achyrachaena mollis 34 Alliance Montia fontana-Sidalcea calycosa 35 Alliance Frankenia salina-Lasthenia fremontii 36 Alliance Cressa truxillensis-Distichlis spicata of playas and alkali sinks 44 Central Valley vernal pools in a California-wide context 48 Discussion 50 Chapter 3. Persistence of diagnostic species and community types 56 Chapter 4. Presence of listed plants in Central Valley communities 64 Results and duscussion
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Santa Cruz County, California
    ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECOND EDITION Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland & Maps by Ben Pease CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CHAPTER Copyright © 2013 by Dylan Neubauer All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission from the author. Design & Production by Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland Maps by Ben Pease, Pease Press Cartography (peasepress.com) Cover photos (Eschscholzia californica & Big Willow Gulch, Swanton) by Dylan Neubauer California Native Plant Society Santa Cruz County Chapter P.O. Box 1622 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 To order, please go to www.cruzcps.org For other correspondence, write to Dylan Neubauer [email protected] ISBN: 978-0-615-85493-9 Printed on recycled paper by Community Printers, Santa Cruz, CA For Tim Forsell, who appreciates the tiny ones ... Nobody sees a flower, really— it is so small— we haven’t time, and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time. —GEORGIA O’KEEFFE CONTENTS ~ u Acknowledgments / 1 u Santa Cruz County Map / 2–3 u Introduction / 4 u Checklist Conventions / 8 u Floristic Regions Map / 12 u Checklist Format, Checklist Symbols, & Region Codes / 13 u Checklist Lycophytes / 14 Ferns / 14 Gymnosperms / 15 Nymphaeales / 16 Magnoliids / 16 Ceratophyllales / 16 Eudicots / 16 Monocots / 61 u Appendices 1. Listed Taxa / 76 2. Endemic Taxa / 78 3. Taxa Extirpated in County / 79 4. Taxa Not Currently Recognized / 80 5. Undescribed Taxa / 82 6. Most Invasive Non-native Taxa / 83 7. Rejected Taxa / 84 8. Notes / 86 u References / 152 u Index to Families & Genera / 154 u Floristic Regions Map with USGS Quad Overlay / 166 “True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.” —MIGUEL DE UNAMUNO 1 ~ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~ ANY THANKS TO THE GENEROUS DONORS without whom this publication would not M have been possible—and to the numerous individuals, organizations, insti- tutions, and agencies that so willingly gave of their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Flora Checklist a Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium
    Washington Flora Checklist A checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium The Washington Flora Checklist aims to be a complete list of the native and naturalized vascular plants of Washington State, with current classifications, nomenclature and synonymy. The checklist currently contains 3,929 terminal taxa (species, subspecies, and varieties). Taxa included in the checklist: * Native taxa whether extant, extirpated, or extinct. * Exotic taxa that are naturalized, escaped from cultivation, or persisting wild. * Waifs (e.g., ballast plants, escaped crop plants) and other scarcely collected exotics. * Interspecific hybrids that are frequent or self-maintaining. * Some unnamed taxa in the process of being described. Family classifications follow APG IV for angiosperms, PPG I (J. Syst. Evol. 54:563?603. 2016.) for pteridophytes, and Christenhusz et al. (Phytotaxa 19:55?70. 2011.) for gymnosperms, with a few exceptions. Nomenclature and synonymy at the rank of genus and below follows the 2nd Edition of the Flora of the Pacific Northwest except where superceded by new information. Accepted names are indicated with blue font; synonyms with black font. Native species and infraspecies are marked with boldface font. Please note: This is a working checklist, continuously updated. Use it at your discretion. Created from the Washington Flora Checklist Database on September 17th, 2018 at 9:47pm PST. Available online at http://biology.burke.washington.edu/waflora/checklist.php Comments and questions should be addressed to the checklist administrators: David Giblin ([email protected]) Peter Zika ([email protected]) Suggested citation: Weinmann, F., P.F. Zika, D.E. Giblin, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Effectiveness Monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2013 Annual Survey Results
    Biological E ectiveness Monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area ff 2013 ANNUAL SURVEY RESULTS April 2014 BI O LO G I CAL E F F E CTI V E NE SS MO NI TO R I NG F O R THE NATO MAS BASI N HABI TAT CO NSE R V AT O N PLAN AR E A 2013 ANNU AL SU R V E Y R E SU LTS P R E PAR E D O R : The Natomas Basin Conservancy 2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 460 Sacramento, CA 95833 Contact ohn Roberts, Executive Director 916 649 3331 P R E PAR E D BY : I CF I nternational 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact Douglas Leslie 916 737 3000 A p r i l 2014 ICF International. 2014. Biological Effectiveness Monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2013 Annual Survey Results. Final. April. (ICF 00890.10.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA. Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Location............................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.1.2 Setting .............................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 The Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program ........................................................... 1-3 1.2.1 Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Distribution of Contra Costa Goldfields in Solano County, California
    THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELDS IN SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESULTS OF CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELD POPULATION MONITORING FOR 2006, 2007, 2008, AND 2009 SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA June 30, 2010 THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELDS IN SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESULTS OF CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELD MONITORING, 2006-2009 SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Solano County Water Agency Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 LSA Project No. SCD430, SCD0601, SWG0701, SWG0801, and SWG0901 June 30, 2010 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELD POPULATION ASSESSMENT JUNE 2010 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................4 CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELDS....................................................................................................5 GENERAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS...........................................................................................6 Barnfield...................................................................................................................................6 Director’s Guild .......................................................................................................................7 Goldfield Conservation Bank...................................................................................................7 Jehovah’s Witness Complex ....................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Manchester State Park - Vascular Plants* Major Vasc
    Manchester State Park - Vascular Plants* Major Vasc. Plant Clades, Rare Plant Ranks, & Families/Scientific (Latin) Names/Common Names/ Duration/Habitat Types A Scientific Name (* = non-native) Common Name Life History/Form Habitat FERNS Athyriaceae (Cliff Fern Family) Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum lady fern perennial moist woods, forests Azollaceae (Mosquito Fern Family) Azolla filiculoides mosquito fern "annual"/herbaceous still water surface Blechnaceae (Deer Fern Family) Struthiopteris spicant deer fern perennial moist woods, canyons Dennstaedtiaceae (Bracken Family) Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens hairy bracken perennial widespread in grassland, scrub Dryopteridaceae (Wood Fern Family) Dryopteris arguta wood fern perennial scrub; forest Polystichum munitum western sword fern perennial damp forests, scrub, along streams Equisetaceae (Horsetail Family) Equisetum arvense common horsetail perennial wet soils near streams, seeps Polypodiaceae (Polypody Family) Polypodium scouleri leather fern perennial damp woods, stream banks GYMNOSPERMS Cupressaceae (Cypress Family) Hesperocyparis macrocarpa* Monterey cypress tree coastal grassland, scrub Pinaceae (Pine Family) Abies grandis grand fir tree scrub, grassland Pinus contorta ssp. contorta shore pine small tree moist grassland swales, scrub Pinus muricata Bishop pine tree grassland, scrub, forest Pinus radiata* Monterey pine tree disturbed sites; grassland Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir tree scrub, grassland NYMPHAEALES Nymphaeaceae Nuphar luteum ssp. polysepalum western pond
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County 5Th Edition
    cHeckliSt of tHe vaScUlaR PlaNtS of SaN DieGo coUNty 5th edition Pinus torreyana subsp. torreyana Downingia concolor var. brevior Thermopsis californica var. semota Pogogyne abramsii Hulsea californica Cylindropuntia fosbergii Dudleya brevifolia Chorizanthe orcuttiana Astragalus deanei by Jon P. Rebman and Michael G. Simpson San Diego Natural History Museum and San Diego State University examples of checklist taxa: SPecieS SPecieS iNfRaSPecieS iNfRaSPecieS NaMe aUtHoR RaNk & NaMe aUtHoR Eriodictyon trichocalyx A. Heller var. lanatum (Brand) Jepson {SD 135251} [E. t. subsp. l. (Brand) Munz] Hairy yerba Santa SyNoNyM SyMBol foR NoN-NATIVE, NATURaliZeD PlaNt *Erodium cicutarium (L.) Aiton {SD 122398} red-Stem Filaree/StorkSbill HeRBaRiUM SPeciMeN coMMoN DocUMeNTATION NaMe SyMBol foR PlaNt Not liSteD iN THE JEPSON MANUAL †Rhus aromatica Aiton var. simplicifolia (Greene) Conquist {SD 118139} Single-leaF SkunkbruSH SyMBol foR StRict eNDeMic TO SaN DieGo coUNty §§Dudleya brevifolia (Moran) Moran {SD 130030} SHort-leaF dudleya [D. blochmaniae (Eastw.) Moran subsp. brevifolia Moran] 1B.1 S1.1 G2t1 ce SyMBol foR NeaR eNDeMic TO SaN DieGo coUNty §Nolina interrata Gentry {SD 79876} deHeSa nolina 1B.1 S2 G2 ce eNviRoNMeNTAL liStiNG SyMBol foR MiSiDeNtifieD PlaNt, Not occURRiNG iN coUNty (Note: this symbol used in appendix 1 only.) ?Cirsium brevistylum Cronq. indian tHiStle i checklist of the vascular plants of san Diego county 5th edition by Jon p. rebman and Michael g. simpson san Diego natural history Museum and san Diego state university publication of: san Diego natural history Museum san Diego, california ii Copyright © 2014 by Jon P. Rebman and Michael G. Simpson Fifth edition 2014. isBn 0-918969-08-5 Copyright © 2006 by Jon P.
    [Show full text]
  • Refining Phylogenetic Hypotheses Using Chloroplast Genomics and Incomplete Data Sets in Lasthenia (Madieae, Asteraceae) Joseph Frederic Walker Purdue University
    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Open Access Theses Theses and Dissertations Summer 2014 Refining phylogenetic hypotheses using chloroplast genomics and incomplete data sets in Lasthenia (Madieae, Asteraceae) Joseph Frederic Walker Purdue University Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_theses Part of the Biology Commons, Botany Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Walker, Joseph Frederic, "Refining phylogenetic hypotheses using chloroplast genomics and incomplete data sets in Lasthenia (Madieae, Asteraceae)" (2014). Open Access Theses. 701. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_theses/701 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. REFINING PHYLOGENETIC HYPOTHESES USING CHLOROPLAST GENOMICS AND INCOMPLETE DATA SETS IN LASTHENIA (MADIEAE, ASTERACEAE) A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Joseph Frederic Walker In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science August 2014 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all I would like to thank Dr. Nancy Emery. I would not have accomplished what I have and would not be headed to a PhD program at Michigan if it was not for her. Her mentoring allowed me to design and lead my projects, but at the same time she has always been there when I need help. I am thankful that I have had an opportunity to work with an advisor who puts her students first and always makes sure what happens is in their best interest. With that in mind, I would also like to thank Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine) Lasthenia burkei (Burke’s goldfields) Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam) Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander (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 Draft 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) 2014 Region 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento, California Approved: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region, Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 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.
    [Show full text]
  • + Traversing Swanton Road
    + Traversing Swanton Road (revised 02/22/2016) By James A. West Abstract: Situated at the northwest end of Santa Cruz County and occupying circa 30 square miles of sharply contrasted terrain, the Scott Creek Watershed concentrates within its geomorphological boundaries, at least 10-12% of California's flora, both native and introduced. Incorporated within this botanical overview but technically not part of the watershed sensu strictu, are the adjacent environs, ranging from the coastal strand up through the Western Terrace to the ocean draining ridge tops..... with the Arroyo de las Trancas/Last Chance Ridge defining the western/northwestern boundary and the Molino Creek divide, the southern demarcation. Paradoxically, the use/abuse that the watershed has sustained over the past 140+ years, has not necessarily diminished the biodiversity and perhaps parallels the naturally disruptive but biologically energizing processes (fire, flooding, landslides and erosion), which have also been historically documented for the area. With such a comprehensive and diverse assemblage of floristic elements present, this topographically complex but relatively accessible watershed warrants utilization as a living laboratory, offering major taxonomic challenges within the Agrostis, Arctostaphylos, Carex, Castilleja, Clarkia, Juncus, Mimulus, Pinus, Quercus, Sanicula and Trillium genera (to name but a few), plus ample opportunities to study the significant role of landslides (both historical and contemporary) with the corresponding habitat adaptations/modifications and the resulting impact on population dynamics. Of paramount importance, is the distinct possibility of a paradigm being developed from said studies, which underscores the seeming contradiction of human activity and biodiversity within the same environment as not being mutually exclusive and understanding/clarifying the range of choices available in the planning of future land use activities, both within and outside of Swanton.
    [Show full text]