DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix a U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix a U.S Appendix A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Appendix B Special-Status Species List California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Selected Elements by Scientific Name - Portrait USGS Quads: Arcata South and Eureka, CA CDFG or Scientific Name/Common Name Element Code Federal Status State Status GRank SRank CNPS 1 Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora PDNYC010N2 G4G5T2 S2.1 1B.1 pink sand-verbena 2 Arborimus pomo AMAFF23030 G3 S3 SC Sonoma tree vole 3 Ardea alba ABNGA04040 G5 S4 great egret 4 Ardea herodias ABNGA04010 G5 S4 great blue heron 5 Ascaphus truei AAABA01010 G4 S2S3 SC western tailed frog 6 Astragalus pycnostachyus var. PDFAB0F7B2 G2T2 S2.2 1B.2 pycnostachyus coastal marsh milk-vetch 7 Carex arcta PMCYP030X0 G5 S1S2 2.2 northern clustered sedge 8 Carex lyngbyei PMCYP037Y0 G5 S2.2 2.2 Lyngbye's sedge 9 Carex praticola PMCYP03B20 G5 S2S3 2.2 meadow sedge 10 Castilleja affinis ssp. litoralis PDSCR0D012 G4G5T4 S2.2 2.2 Oregon coast Indian paintbrush 11 Castilleja ambigua ssp. humboldtiensis PDSCR0D402 G4T2 S2.2 1B.2 Humboldt Bay owl's-clover 12 Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus ABNNB03031 Threatened G4T3 S2 SC western snowy plover 13 Cicindela hirticollis gravida IICOL02101 G5T2 S1 sandy beach tiger beetle 14 Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris PDSCR0J0C3 G4?T2 S2.2 1B.2 Point Reyes bird's-beak 15 Egretta thula ABNGA06030 G5 S4 snowy egret 16 Erysimum menziesii ssp. eurekense PDBRA160E2 Endangered Endangered G3?T1 S1.1 1B.1 Humboldt Bay wallflower 17 Erythronium revolutum PMLIL0U0F0 G4 S2.2 2.2 coast fawn lily 18 Eucyclogobius newberryi AFCQN04010 Endangered G3 S2S3 SC tidewater goby 19 Fissidens pauperculus NBMUS2W0U0 G3? S1.2 1B.2 minute pocket-moss 20 Gilia capitata ssp. pacifica PDPLM040B6 G5T3T4 S2.2? 1B.2 Pacific gilia 21 Gilia millefoliata PDPLM04130 G2 S2.2 1B.2 dark-eyed gilia 22 Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia PDASTE5011 G4T3 S3.2 2.2 short-leaved evax Commercial Version -- Dated August 04, 2007 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 Report Printed on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Information Expires 02/04/2008 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Selected Elements by Scientific Name - Portrait USGS Quads: Arcata South and Eureka, CA CDFG or Scientific Name/Common Name Element Code Federal Status State Status GRank SRank CNPS 23 Lathyrus japonicus PDFAB250C0 G5 S1.1 2.1 sand pea 24 Lathyrus palustris PDFAB250P0 G5 S2S3 2.2 marsh pea 25 Layia carnosa PDAST5N010 Endangered Endangered G2 S2.1 1B.1 beach layia 26 Lilium occidentale PMLIL1A0G0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1.2 1B.1 western lily 27 Lycopodium clavatum PPLYC01080 G5 S3.2 2.2 running-pine 28 Monotropa uniflora PDMON03030 G5 S2S3 2.2 Indian-pipe 29 Montia howellii PDPOR05070 G3G4 S3.2 2.2 Howell's montia 30 Myotis evotis AMACC01070 G5 S4? long-eared myotis 31 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh CTT52110CA G3 S3.2 32 Nycticorax nycticorax ABNGA11010 G5 S3 black-crowned night heron 33 Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii AFCHA0208A G4T4 S3 SC coast cutthroat trout 34 Pandion haliaetus ABNKC01010 G5 S3 SC osprey 35 Phalacrocorax auritus ABNFD01020 G5 S3 SC double-crested cormorant 36 Rallus longirostris obsoletus ABNME05016 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 California clapper rail 37 Rhyacotriton variegatus AAAAJ01020 G3G4 S2S3 SC southern torrent salamander 38 Sidalcea malviflora ssp. patula PDMAL110F9 G5T1 S1.1 1B.2 Siskiyou checkerbloom 39 Sidalcea oregana ssp. eximia PDMAL110K9 G5T1 S1.2 1B.2 coast checkerbloom 40 Spergularia canadensis var. occidentalis PDCAR0W032 G5T4? S1.1 2.1 western sand-spurrey 41 Viola palustris PDVIO041G0 G5 S1S2 2.2 marsh violet Commercial Version -- Dated August 04, 2007 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 Report Printed on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Information Expires 02/04/2008 ============================================================== Listed/Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species for the EUREKA Quad (Candidates Included) August 21, 2007 Document number: 413883830-10552 ============================================================== KEY: (PE) Proposed Endangered Proposed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction (PT) Proposed Threatened Proposed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (E) Endangered Listed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction (T) Threatened Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (C) Candidate Candidate which may become a proposed species Habitat Y = Designated, P = Proposed, N = None Designated * Denotes a species Listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service Type Scientific Name Common Name Category Critical Habitat Plants Erysimum menziesii Menzies' wallflower E N Layia carnosa beach layia E N Lilium occidentale western lily E N Fish Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby E P * Oncorhynchus kisutch S. OR/N. CA coho T Y salmon * Oncorhynchus mykiss Northern California T Y steelhead * Oncorhynchus tshawytscha CA coastal chinook T Y salmon Reptiles * Caretta caretta loggerhead turtle T N * Chelonia mydas (incl. agassizi) green turtle T N * Dermochelys coriacea leatherback turtle E Y * Lepidochelys olivacea olive (=Pacific) T N ridley sea turtle Birds Brachyramphus marmoratus marbled murrelet T P Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy T P plover Coccyzus americanus Western yellow- C N billed cuckoo Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican E N Phoebastris albatrus short-tailed albatross E N Strix occidentalis caurina northern spotted owl T Y Synthliboramphus hypoleucus Xantus's murrelet C N Mammals * Balaenoptera borealis sei whale E N * Balaenoptera musculus blue whale E N * Balaenoptera physalus fin whale E N * Eumetopias jubatus Steller (=northern) T Y sea-lion * Megaptera novaengliae humpback whale E N * Physeter macrocephalus sperm whale E N ============================================================== Listed/Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species for the ARCATA SOUTH Quad (Candidates Included) August 21, 2007 Document number: 414404850-105435 ============================================================== KEY: (PE) Proposed Endangered Proposed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction (PT) Proposed Threatened Proposed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (E) Endangered Listed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction (T) Threatened Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (C) Candidate Candidate which may become a proposed species Habitat Y = Designated, P = Proposed, N = None Designated * Denotes a species Listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service Type Scientific Name Common Name Category Critical Habitat Plants Lilium occidentale western lily E N Fish Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby E P * Oncorhynchus kisutch S. OR/N. CA coho T Y salmon * Oncorhynchus mykiss Northern California T Y steelhead * Oncorhynchus tshawytscha CA coastal chinook T Y salmon Birds Brachyramphus marmoratus marbled murrelet T P Coccyzus americanus Western yellow- C N billed cuckoo Phoebastris albatrus short-tailed E N albatross Strix occidentalis caurina northern spotted T Y owl Synthliboramphus hypoleucus Xantus's murrelet C N Appendix C Cultural Resources Background Report A Cultural Resource Investigation of the Murray Field Airport, Eureka, Humboldt County, California. Prepared for: Environmental Science Associates 8950 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, CA 95826 Prepared by: Jerry Rohde, MA James M. Roscoe, MA Erik Whiteman, MA Roscoe & Associates Cultural Resource Consultants 3781 Brookwood Drive Bayside, CA 95524 January 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 2 Project Location and Description ................................................................................................ 3 METHODS AND CONSULTATION ............................................................................................ 5 Investigation Methods and Native American Consultation......................................................... 5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 6 ETHNOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................... 7 General Ethnogeography............................................................................................................. 8 Ethnogeography of the Study Area and Environs..................................................................... 9 HISTORY...................................................................................................................................... 10 A. The Second Murray Field (Humboldt County Airport) ..................................................... 10 B. The Railbed of the Pacific Lumber Company Railroad/Humboldt Logging Railroad Company................................................................................................................................. 13 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 14 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................. 16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location Map.....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RESTORATION ACTION PLAN MARINA DUNES PRESERVE Marina, California
    RESTORATION ACTION PLAN MARINA DUNES PRESERVE Marina, California Prepared for: Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District 4860 Carmel Valley Road Carmel, CA 93923 Prepared by: Burleson Consulting Inc. 1900 Garden Road, Suite 210 Monterey, CA 93940 March 2021 This page intentionally left blank Restoration Action Plan, Marina Dunes Preserve CONTENTS CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................................................i APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... ii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... iii 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2. UPDATED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .............................................................................. 3 2.1 Weed Eradication and Control .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Dunes
    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DEL MONTE FOREST COASTAL DUNES DEL MONTE FOREST PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared for: Pebble Beach Company Post Office Box 1767 Pebble Beach, California 93953-1767 Contact: Mark Stilwell (831) 625-8497 Prepared by: Zander Associates 150 Ford Way, Suite 101 Novato, California 94945 Contact: Michael Zander July 2001 Zander Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures and Plates 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................1 2.0 Overview of Dunes within the DMF Planning Area...................................................2 2.1 Remnant Dunes .......................................................................................................2 2.2 Rehabilitation Area..................................................................................................4 2.3 ESHA Boundary......................................................................................................6 3.0 Relationship to the DMF Plan .....................................................................................8 3.1 Preserve Areas (Area L and Signal Hill Dune) .......................................................8 3.2 Development Areas (New Golf Course and Facilities—Areas M & N).................8 3.2.1 General Design Considerations .......................................................................8 3.2.2 Golf Course Specific Design...........................................................................9 3.2.3 Golf
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resource Information
    APPENDIX C Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resource Information Appendix C1 Resource Agency Coordination Appendix C2 Marine Biological Resources Report APPENDIX C1 RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION 1 The ICF terrestrial biological team coordinated with relevant resource agencies to discuss 2 sensitive biological resources expected within the terrestrial biological study area (BSA). 3 A summary of agency communications and site visits is provided below. 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: On July 30, 2020, ICF held a conference 5 call with Greg O’Connell (Environmental Scientist) and Corianna Flannery (Environmental 6 Scientist) to discuss Project design and potential biological concerns regarding the 7 Eureka Subsea Fiber Optic Cables Project (Project). Mr. O’Connell discussed the 8 importance of considering the western bumble bee. Ms. Flannery discussed the 9 importance of the hard ocean floor substrate and asked how the cable would be secured 10 to the ocean floor to reduce or eliminate scour. The western bumble bee has been 11 evaluated in the Biological Resources section of the main document, and direct and 12 indirect impacts are avoided. The Project Description describes in detail how the cable 13 would be installed on the ocean floor, the importance of the hard bottom substrate, and 14 the need for avoidance. 15 Consultation Outcomes: 16 • The Project was designed to avoid hard bottom substrate, and RTI Infrastructure 17 (RTI) conducted surveys of the ocean floor to ensure that proper routing of the 18 cable would occur. 19 • Ms. Flannery will be copied on all communications with the National Marine 20 Fisheries Service 21 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: On August 7, 2020, ICF held a conference 22 call with Greg O’Connell to discuss a site assessment and survey approach for the 23 western bumble bee.
    [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]
  • Vascular Plants of the Coastal Dunes of Humboldt County, California
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 4-2019 Vascular Plants of the Coastal Dunes of Humboldt County, California James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Vascular Plants of the Coastal Dunes of Humboldt County, California" (2019). Botanical Studies. 41. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/41 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE COASTAL DUNES OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Compiled by James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University Arcata, California Ninth Edition • August 2019 Amaryllidaceae — Onion or Amaryllis Family F E R N S Allium unifolium •One-leaved onion Dennstaedtiaceae — Bracken Fern Family Anacardiaceae — Cashew Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens • Bracken fern Toxicodendron diversilobum • Poison-oak Ophioglossaceae — Adder’s-tongue Family Apocynaceae — Dogbane or Milkweed Family Botrychium multifidum • Leathery
    [Show full text]
  • Population Dynamics of Humboldt Bay Wallflower (Erysimum Menziesii) Over Three Decades on the North Spit of Humboldt Bay, California Andrea J
    Population Dynamics of Humboldt Bay wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) over three decades on the North Spit of Humboldt Bay, California Andrea J. Pickart, Annie Eicher, and Laurel Goldsmith U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2018 INTRODUCTION Menzies’ wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) is a monocarpic perennial in the Brassicaceae restricted to early successional coastal dune habitats in Humboldt, Mendocino, and Monterey Counties, California. The current taxonomic treatment (Al-Shehbaz 2012) combines the different geographic populations as a single species, however, recent genetic work supports subspecies status for the Humboldt Bay population (Vorobik 2015), and it has been previously separated as Erysimum menziesii ssp. eurekense (Hickman 1993). Hereafter, we refer to the Humboldt Bay population as Humboldt Bay wallflower, by the genus name Erysimum or the common name “wallflower.” Humboldt Bay wallflower was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered species in 1992, with the recognized threats of invasive species displacement, recreational impacts, and lack of protected habitat (USFWS 1998). The wallflower is found only in the semi-stable foredune zone in the Abronia latifolia – Ambrosia chamissonis herbaceous alliance, also known as dune mat (Sawyer et al. 2005). This low-growing herbaceous community is characterized by relatively low cover (Pickart and Barbour 2007) in which wallflower assumes a patchy distribution. On the North Spit of Humboldt Bay, dune mat has been highly impacted by the spread of invasive species including: European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria), ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis and C. edulis x C. chilensis), yellow bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus), and the annual grasses ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima) (Pickart and Sawyer 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Recovering the South Spit of Humboldt Bay Mark E
    ,,; STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION '- 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 ICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 X ( 415) 904- 5400 • !"'~~ ;·•••mt ':·.•' ,''" nr'. ~ ~'t r,._ l' r '''-· COPY W12a STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION Consistency Determination No. CD-052-02 Staff: LJS-SF File Date: 7/12/02 60th Day: 9/10/02 75th Day: extended through 12/13/02 Commission Meeting: 12/11102 FEDERAL AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management • PROJECT LOCATION: Humboldt Bay South Spit, Humboldt County (Exhibits 1-2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implementation of the South Spit Interim Management Plan, a three-year plan to provide a baseline level of visitor services, public uses, resource protection, monitoring, and habitat restoration until the long-term management plan for the South Spit is developed. SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: 1. South Spit Interim Management Plan, July 10, 2002 (BLM). 2. Environmental Assessment for the South Spit Interim Management Plan, July 2002 (BLM). 3. Biological Assessment for Arcata Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Interim Management Plan for Lands on the South Spit of Humboldt Bay, Managed under Conservation • Easement by the Bureau of Land Management, July 2002 (BLM) . CD-052-02 (BLM) Page2 4. Formal Consultation on the Interim Management Plan for Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management on the South Spit ofHumboldt Bay, California, September 11,2002 (U.S. • Fish and Wildlife Service). 5. South Spit Access Improvements (State Coastal Conservancy), August 8, 2002. 6. Adopted Findings for Humboldt County LCP Amendment No. 1-93 (Beach and Dunes Management Plan), December 13, 1993.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Effects of Mechanical and Manual
    EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF MECHANICAL AND MANUAL REMOVAL OF Ammophila arenaria WITHIN COASTAL DUNES OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY ____________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Biological Sciences ____________ by Ayla Joy Mills Spring 2015 EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF MECHANICAL AND MANUAL REMOVAL OF Ammophila arenaria WITHIN COASTAL DUNES OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY A Thesis by Ayla Joy Mills Spring 2015 APPROVED BY THE DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND VICE PROVOST FOR RESEARCH: _________________________________ Eun K. Park, Ph.D. APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ______________________________ _________________________________ Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Kristina Schierenbeck, Ph.D., Chair Graduate Coordinator _________________________________ Colleen Hatfield, Ph.D. ______________________________ _________________________________ Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Adrienne Edwards, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair Kristina Schierenbeck. She has given me great advice and assistance throughout the process. I would also like to thank my knowledgeable committee members Colleen Hatfield and Adrienne Edwards. A special thanks to Amber Transou and California State Park’s North Coast Redwood District for providing me with guidance, funding, equipment, and for making this project possible. I’d like to thank my wonderful husband Jason who helped me set up my plots and collect data, even when it was cold and raining. I couldn’t have done it without you. I would like to thank my Mom who helped me financially and emotionally make it through graduate school. I would also like to thank my best friend Krystal Godfrey for always being there to listen to me vent and also for helping collect data.
    [Show full text]
  • Erysimum Menziesii
    http://www.flowershots.net/Brassicaceae.html Erysimum menziesii NEW CROP PROJECT - HORT 5051 BY: CALEB SIMON Taxonomy Erysimum menziesii is federally endangered Brassicaceae family Erysimum menziesii common name is Menzies’ wallflower (Berkeley). In 1992 Erysimum menziesii, was divided into four subspecies 1. E. m. ssp eurekense (Humboldt Bay wallflower) 2. E. m. ssp menziesii (Also known as Menzies’ wallflower) 3. E. m. ssp yadonii (Yadon’s wallflower) 4. E. m. ssp concinnum (curly wallflower) (FWS). This grouping of Erysimum subspecies is collectively known as Menzies’ wallflower. Geographic Distribution North American native. From northern Southern Oregon to central California bioregions include the North Coast and Central Coast Altitude: 0 to 300 meters above sea level (Berkeley). Native Habitat Erysimum is found growing on Coastal fore dunes, headlands and cliffs (Berkeley). On the nearshore dunes and swales Erysimum menziesii grows in association with other low growing plants such as beach sagewort, sand-dune bluegrass, dune goldenrod, beach bursage, coast buckwheat, sand verbena, and beach pea. Non-native plants like iceplant, and yellow lupine grow in the same habitat and prove problematic for Erysimum menziesii establishment (FWS). http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/plants/menziesWallflower/gallery/large/menziesWallflower7.jpg Taxonomic Description biennial or a short lived perennial 12 inches high and 12 inches wide Flowers blooms February to April (FWS) Yadon’s wallflower blooms from May to June clustered racemes petals are clawed, ranging in color from yellow to orange stigma has 2 lobes (Berkeley). Leaves basal rosettes simple, fleshy, spoon-shaped leaves, cauline leaf margins are entire to lobed (Berkeley) Erysimum menziesii is a ‘semelparous (monocarpic) perennial’; this means that the plant only flowers and produces fruit one time during its life, after that it will die.
    [Show full text]
  • California Native Plant Society – Vascular Plants Marina Dunes State Park
    2006 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY – VASCULAR PLANTS MARINA DUNES STATE PARK Abronia latifolia - yellow sand verbena Leymus triticoides - beardless ryegrass Abronia umbellata - pink sand verbina Linaria canadensis - toad-flax Achillea millefolium - common yarrow Lolium multiflorum - Italian ryegrass Agoseris apargioides var. apargioides - sandhill dandelion Lotus scoparius - deerweed Ambrosia chamissonis - beach bur Lotus strigosus - Bishop's lotus Amsinckia spectabilis - seaside fiddleneck Lupinus albifrons var. albifrons - silver bush lupine Armeria maritima ssp. californica - sea pink/Calif. thrift Lupinus arboreus - yellow bush/tree lupine Artemisia pycnocephala - beach sagewort Lupinus chamissonis - silver beach lupine Astragalus nuttallii - Gray's locoweed Lupinus nanus - sky lupine/Douglas' annual lupine Atriplex leucophylla - beach saltbush/sea-scale Madia sativa - coast tarweed Avena barbata - slender wild oat Marah fabaceus - man-root/wild cucumber Bromus carinatus - California brome Melilotus indica - Indian melilot Bromus diandrus - ripgut grass Nemophila menziesii - baby blue-eyes Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens - red brome Phacelia ramosissima - branching phacelia Bromus racemosus - smooth-flowered soft cheat Platystemon californicus - cream cups Cakile maritima - sea rocket Poa annua - annual bluegrass Calandrinia ciliata - red maids Poa douglasii - dune bluegrass Calystegia soldanella - beach morning-glory Polygonum arenastrum - common knotweed Camissonia cheiranthifolia - beach evening primrose Polygonum paronychia -
    [Show full text]
  • 5-Year Review of Menzies' Wallflower
    Menzies’ Wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office Arcata, California June 2008 5-YEAR REVIEW Species reviewed: Menzies’ wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. General Information A. Methodology B. Reviewers C. Background II. Review Analysis A. Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Policy B. Recovery Criteria C. Updated Information and Current Species Status 1. Biology and Habitat 2. Five-Factor Analysis D. Synthesis III. Results IV. Recommendations for Future Actions V. References 1 5-YEAR REVIEW Menzies’ wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology used to complete the review: This review was conducted by David Imper, Ecologist, with the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), based on all information contained in files at that office and provided by other agencies. No comments were received from the public or other agencies in response to the Federal Notice. B. Reviewers Lead Region – Region 8, California and Nevada; Diane Elam, Deputy Division Chief for Listing, Recovery, and Habitat Conservation Planning, and Jenness McBride, Fish and Wildlife Biologist; (916)414-6464 Lead Field Office – Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office; Mike Long (707)822-7201 Cooperating Field Office(s) – Ventura, California C. Background 1. FR Notice citation announcing initiation of this review: Federal Register 71(55):14538-14542, March 22, 2006 2. Listing history Original Listing FR notice: 50 Federal Register 27848-27859 Date listed: June 22, 1992 Entity listed: Erysimum menziesii (species) Classification: Endangered Revised Listing, if applicable: NA 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Investigation Report
    Biological Investigation Report: Humboldt County APN 505-121-031 Survey Dates: March 18 and March 21, 2019 Prepared for Open Door Community Health Centers Arcata, Ca 95521 Contact: Project Manager Laura Kadlecik Tel: (707) 826-8633 x 5165 Prepared by Claire Brown March 28, 2019 Natural Resources Management Corporation 1434 Third Street, Eureka, CA 95501 (707) 442-1735 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Background: Historic Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 3 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Pre-field Review ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Field Survey ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Vegetation and Sensitive Plant Species ........................................................................................................ 5 Pre-field Review .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]