DOCSLIB.ORG

Us and Life History of the San Francisco Bay Listed Species

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Us and Life History of the San Francisco Bay Listed Species ATTACHMENT III: STATUS AND LIFE HISTORY OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY LISTED SPECIES 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: ALAMEDA WHIPSNAKE........................................................................................... 5 1.1 Species Listing Status .............................................................................................. 5 1.2 Description............................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Distribution and Status............................................................................................. 5 1.4 USFWS Critical Habitat .......................................................................................... 6 1.5 Habitat.................................................................................................................... 11 1.6 Diet......................................................................................................................... 11 1.7 Life History and Reproduction .............................................................................. 11 1.8 References.............................................................................................................. 12 2: BAY CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY ....................................................................... 14 2.1 Species Listing Status ............................................................................................ 14 2.2 Description............................................................................................................. 14 2.3 Distribution ............................................................................................................ 14 2.4 USFWS Critical Habitat ........................................................................................ 15 2.5 Habitat.................................................................................................................... 15 2.6 Diet......................................................................................................................... 15 2.7 Life History and Reproduction .............................................................................. 16 2.8 References.............................................................................................................. 17 3: CALIFORNIA CLAPPER RAIL ................................................................................ 18 3.1 Species Listing Status ............................................................................................ 18 3.2 Description............................................................................................................. 18 3.3 Distribution ............................................................................................................ 19 3.4 USFWS Critical Habitat ........................................................................................ 21 3.5 Habitat.................................................................................................................... 21 3.6 Diet......................................................................................................................... 23 3.7 Life History and Reproduction .............................................................................. 24 3.8 References.............................................................................................................. 28 4. CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP.................................................................. 32 4.1 Species Listing Status ............................................................................................ 32 4.2 Description and Taxonomy.................................................................................... 32 4.3 Distribution and Status........................................................................................... 32 4.4 USFWS Critical Habitat ........................................................................................ 34 4.5 Habitat.................................................................................................................... 34 4.6 Diet......................................................................................................................... 36 4.7 Life History and Reproduction .............................................................................. 37 4.8 References.............................................................................................................. 38 5: CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER: CENTRAL CALIFORNIA AND SONOMA COUNTY DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENTS .................................... 39 5.1 Species Listing Status ............................................................................................. 39 5.2 Description and Taxonomy..................................................................................... 39 5.3 Distribution ............................................................................................................. 40 5.4 USFWS Critical Habitat ......................................................................................... 41 5.5 Diet......................................................................................................................... 49 5.6 Life History and Reproduction ............................................................................... 49 2 5.7 References............................................................................................................... 50 6: DELTA SMELT .......................................................................................................... 53 6.1 Species Listing Status ............................................................................................ 53 6.2 Description and Taxonomy.................................................................................... 53 6.3 Distribution and Status........................................................................................... 53 6.4 USFWS Critical Habitat ........................................................................................ 54 6.5 Habitat.................................................................................................................... 55 6.6 Activity, Movement, and Behavior........................................................................ 56 6.7 Diet......................................................................................................................... 56 6.8 Life History and Reproduction .............................................................................. 56 6.9 References.............................................................................................................. 57 7: SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE.......................................................................... 59 7.1 Species Listing Status ............................................................................................ 59 7.2 Description............................................................................................................. 59 7.3 Distribution ............................................................................................................ 59 7.4 USFWS Critical Habitat ........................................................................................ 60 7.5 Habitat.................................................................................................................... 60 7.6 Diet......................................................................................................................... 60 7.7 Life History and Reproduction .............................................................................. 61 7.8 References.............................................................................................................. 61 8: SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE....................................................................... 63 8.1 Species Listing Status ............................................................................................ 63 8.2 Description............................................................................................................. 63 8.3 Distribution ............................................................................................................ 63 8.4 USFWS Critical Habitat ........................................................................................ 65 8.5 Habitat.................................................................................................................... 65 8.6 Diet......................................................................................................................... 67 8.7 Life History and Reproduction .............................................................................. 68 8.8 References.............................................................................................................. 68 9: SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX .......................................................................................... 71 9.1 Species Listing Status ............................................................................................ 71 9.2 Description............................................................................................................. 71 9.3 Distribution ............................................................................................................ 71 9.4 USFWS Critical Habitat .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download the Full Report
    Greenbelt Alliance thanks the many people around the Bay Area who helped to provide the information com- piled in this report as well as our generous supporters: Funders Anonymous The Clarence E. Heller Foundation Arntz Family Foundation The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Matthew and Janice Barger JEC Foundation California Coastal Conservancy Expert Advisors Nicole Byrd Tom Robinson Executive Director, Solano Land Trust Conservation Planner, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Dick Cameron Senior Conservation Planner, The Nature Conservancy Bill Shoe Principal Planner, Santa Clara County Planning Office James Raives Senior Open Space Planner, Marin County Parks Beth Stone GIS Analyst, East Bay Regional Park District Paul Ringgold Vice President, Stewardship, Peninsula Open John Woodbury Space Trust General Manager, Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District Greenbelt Alliance Staff Lead Researcher Field Researchers Adam Garcia, Policy Researcher Melissa Hippard, Campaigns Director Michele Beasley, Senior Field Representative Intern Researchers Amanda Bornstein, Senior Field Representative Derek Anderson Ellie Casson, Field Representative Joe Bonk Whitney Merchant, Field Representative Samantha Dolgoff Matt Vander Sluis, Senior Field Representative John Gilbert Marisa Lee Editors Bill Parker Jennifer Gennari Ramzi Ramey Stephanie Reyes Authors Jeremy Madsen, Executive Director Stephanie Reyes, Policy Director Jennifer Gennari, Communications Director Adam Garcia Photo credits Mapping Photography by
    [Show full text]
  • Coreopsideae Daniel J
    Chapter42 Coreopsideae Daniel J. Crawford, Mes! n Tadesse, Mark E. Mort, "ebecca T. Kimball and Christopher P. "andle HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND PHYLOGENY In a cladistic analysis of morphological features of Heliantheae by Karis (1993), Coreopsidinae were reported Morphological data to be an ingroup within Heliantheae s.l. The group was A synthesis and analysis of the systematic information on represented in the analysis by Isostigma, Chrysanthellum, tribe Heliantheae was provided by Stuessy (1977a) with Cosmos, and Coreopsis. In a subsequent paper (Karis and indications of “three main evolutionary lines” within "yding 1994), the treatment of Coreopsidinae was the the tribe. He recognized ! fteen subtribes and, of these, same as the one provided above except for the follow- Coreopsidinae along with Fitchiinae, are considered ing: Diodontium, which was placed in synonymy with as constituting the third and smallest natural grouping Glossocardia by "obinson (1981), was reinstated following within the tribe. Coreopsidinae, including 31 genera, the work of Veldkamp and Kre# er (1991), who also rele- were divided into seven informal groups. Turner and gated Glossogyne and Guerreroia as synonyms of Glossocardia, Powell (1977), in the same work, proposed the new tribe but raised Glossogyne sect. Trionicinia to generic rank; Coreopsideae Turner & Powell but did not describe it. Eryngiophyllum was placed as a synonym of Chrysanthellum Their basis for the new tribe appears to be ! nding a suit- following the work of Turner (1988); Fitchia, which was able place for subtribe Jaumeinae. They suggested that the placed in Fitchiinae by "obinson (1981), was returned previously recognized genera of Jaumeinae ( Jaumea and to Coreopsidinae; Guardiola was left as an unassigned Venegasia) could be related to Coreopsidinae or to some Heliantheae; Guizotia and Staurochlamys were placed in members of Senecioneae.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
    Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma County Rainfall Map (1.81MB)
    128 OAT VALLEY CREEK ALDER CREEK Mendocino County CREEK BIG SULPHUR CREEK CLOVERDALE 40 Cloverdale 29 60 CREEK OSSER CREEK PORTERFIELD SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY 45 40 LITTLE SULPHUR CREEK BUCKEYE CREEK 40 Lake County FLAT RIDGE CREEK 45 GUALALA RIVER 50 55 60 70 GRASSHOPPER CREEK 55 Sea Ranch 60 65 75 70 RANCHERIA CREEK LITTLE CREEK 55 50 GILL CREEK Annapolis 4 A SAUSAL CREEK 55 45 Lake STRAWBERRY CREEK Sonoma MILLER CREEK BURNS CREEK 50 TOMBS CREEK 45 65 WHEATFIELD Geyserville INGALLS CREEK FORK GUALALA-SALMON GUALALA-SALMON WOOD CREEK 1 GEORGE YOUNG CREEK BOYD CREEK MILL STREAM SOUTH FORK GUALALA BEAR CREEK FULLER CREEK COON CREEK 40 LITTLE BRIGGS CREEK RIVER 50 GIRD CREEK BRIGGS CREEK 7 A MAACAMA CREEK Jimtown WINE CREEK 6 A KELLOGG CREEK GRAIN CREEK HOUSE CREEK 60 CEDAR CREEK INDIANCREEK LANCASTER CREEK DANFIELD CREEK FALL CREEK OWL CREEK 40 Stewarts Point HOOT WOODS CREEK CRANE CREEK HAUPT CREEK YELLOWJACKET CREEK FOOTE CREEK REDWOOD CREEK GUALALA RIVER WALLACE CREEK 60 128 Lake JIM CREEK Berryessa ANGEL CREEK Healdsburg RUSSIAN RIVER SPROULE CREEK MILL CREEK DEVIL CREEK AUSTIN CREEK RUSSIAN RIVER SLOUGHWEST MARTIN CREEK BIG AUSTIN CREEK GILLIAM CREEK THOMPSON CREEK PALMER CREEK FELTA CREEK FRANZ CREEK BLUE JAY CREEK MCKENZIE CREEK BARNES CREEK BIG OAT CREEK Windsor MARK WEST CREEK COVE 75 WARD CREEK POOL CREEK PORTER CREEKMILL CREEK Fort Ross 80 HUMBUG CREEK TIMBER Cazadero STAR FIFE CREEK CREEK 55 PRUITT 45 HOBSON CREEK CREEK 50 NEAL CREEK 1 A 60 Hacienda REDWOOD CREEK RUSSIAN WIKIUP KIDD CREEK Guerneville CREEK VAN BUREN CREEK 101 RINCON CREEK RIVER 70 35 WEEKS CREEK 50 FULTON CREEK 65 BRUSH CREEK DUCKER CREEK GREEN COFFEYCREEK PINER CREEK 5 A VALLEY Forestville 60 CREEK CREEK RUSSELL BRUSH CREEK LAGUNA 55 Monte Rio CREEK AUSTIN BEAR CREEK RIVER CREEK GREEN FORESTVILLECREEK PAULIN CREEK DUTCH PINER CREEK Santa Rosa DE PETERSONCREEKFORESTVIEW SANTA ROSA CREEK OAKMONT STEELE VALLEY WENDELL CREEK CREEK BILL SANTA CREEK 45 SONOMA CREEK RUSSIAN GRUB CREEK SPRING CREEK LAWNDALECREEK 40 Napa County STATE HWY 116 COLLEGE CREEK CREEK HOOD MT.
    [Show full text]
  • Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae
    SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY 0 NCTMBER 52 Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae Harold Robinson, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, andJames F. Weedin SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS City of Washington 1981 ABSTRACT Robinson, Harold, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, and James F. Weedin. Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae. Smithsonian Contri- butions to Botany, number 52, 28 pages, 3 tables, 1981.-Chromosome reports are provided for 145 populations, including first reports for 33 species and three genera, Garcilassa, Riencourtia, and Helianthopsis. Chromosome numbers are arranged according to Robinson’s recently broadened concept of the Heliantheae, with citations for 212 of the ca. 265 genera and 32 of the 35 subtribes. Diverse elements, including the Ambrosieae, typical Heliantheae, most Helenieae, the Tegeteae, and genera such as Arnica from the Senecioneae, are seen to share a specialized cytological history involving polyploid ancestry. The authors disagree with one another regarding the point at which such polyploidy occurred and on whether subtribes lacking higher numbers, such as the Galinsoginae, share the polyploid ancestry. Numerous examples of aneuploid decrease, secondary polyploidy, and some secondary aneuploid decreases are cited. The Marshalliinae are considered remote from other subtribes and close to the Inuleae. Evidence from related tribes favors an ultimate base of X = 10 for the Heliantheae and at least the subfamily As teroideae. OFFICIALPUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution’s annual report, Smithsonian Year. SERIESCOVER DESIGN: Leaf clearing from the katsura tree Cercidiphyllumjaponicum Siebold and Zuccarini. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Chromosome numbers in Compositae, XII.
    [Show full text]
  • SONOMA VALLEY HISTORICAL HYDROLOGY MAPPING PROJECT, TASK 2.4.B: FINAL REPORT
    Sonoma Valley Historical Hydrology Mapping Project Phase I FINAL REPORT Task 2.4b Arthur Dawson, Baseline Consulting Alex Young, Sonoma Ecology Center Rebecca Lawton Consulting Funded by the Sonoma County Water Agency November 2016 Prepared by: Baseline Consulting, 13750 Arnold Drive, P.O. Box 207, Glen Ellen, CA 95442 Sonoma Ecology Center, P.O. Box 1486, Eldridge, CA 95431 Rebecca Lawton Consulting, P.O. Box 654, Vineburg, CA 95687 BASELINE CONSULTING, SONOMA ECOLOGY CENTER, REBECCA LAWTON CONSULTING 2 CONTENTS OVERVIEW 3 METHODS 5 RESULTS 17 DISCUSSION 22 Comparison of Modern & Historical Conditions 24 RECOMMENDATIONS 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY 30 FIGURES 1. Project Area, Sonoma Valley Watershed, Sonoma County, California 4 2. Definition of Terms and Assumptions 6 3. Wetland Designations Used in this Study 10 4. Certainty Level Standards 14 5. Data Limitations and Temporal Context 15 6. Dates of Sources Used in this Study in Relation to Long-Term Rainfall 16 7. Estimated Pre-Settlement Freshwater Channels and Wetlands 18 8. Estimated Pre-Settlement Freshwater Channels and Wetlands (LIDAR Basemap) 19 9. Estimated Pre-Settlement Freshwater Channels and Wetlands (USGS quads) 20 10. Certainty Levels for Presence of Features Mapped from Historical Sources 21 11. Average annual hydrographs for the historical watershed for Napa River 25 APPENDIXES A. Selected Historical Maps A1. Detail from O’Farrell’s 1848 Rancho Petaluma Map A-2 A2. Confluence of Agua Caliente and Sonoma Creeks in 1860 A-3 A3. Confluence of Agua Caliente and Sonoma Creeks in 1980 A-4 A4. Alternate Channels Occupied by Pythian, an Unnamed Creek, and Sonoma Creek A-5 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking Beyond the Mortality of Bycatch: Sublethal Effects of Incidental Capture on Marine Animals
    Biological Conservation 171 (2014) 61–72 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Review Looking beyond the mortality of bycatch: sublethal effects of incidental capture on marine animals a, a a,b b a Samantha M. Wilson ⇑, Graham D. Raby , Nicholas J. Burnett , Scott G. Hinch , Steven J. Cooke a Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada b Pacific Salmon Ecology and Conservation Laboratory, Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada article info abstract Article history: There is a widely recognized need to understand and reduce the incidental effects of marine fishing on Received 14 August 2013 non-target animals. Previous research on marine bycatch has largely focused on simply quantifying mor- Received in revised form 10 January 2014 tality. However, much less is known about the organism-level sublethal effects, including the potential Accepted 13 January 2014 for behavioural alterations, physiological and energetic costs, and associated reductions in feeding, growth, or reproduction (i.e., fitness) which can occur undetected following escape or release from fishing gear. We reviewed the literature and found 133 marine bycatch papers that included sublethal endpoints Keywords: such as physiological disturbance, behavioural impairment, injury, reflex impairment, and effects on RAMP reproduction,
    [Show full text]
  • Olympia Oyster (Ostrea Lurida)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Olympia Oyster Ostrea lurida in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2011 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Olympia Oyster Ostrea lurida in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 56 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2000. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Olympia Oyster Ostrea conchaphila in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 30 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm) Gillespie, G.E. 2000. COSEWIC status report on the Olympia Oyster Ostrea conchaphila in Canada in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Olympia Oyster Ostrea conchaphila in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-30 pp. Production note: COSEWIC acknowledges Graham E. Gillespie for writing the provisional status report on the Olympia Oyster, Ostrea lurida, prepared under contract with Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The contractor’s involvement with the writing of the status report ended with the acceptance of the provisional report. Any modifications to the status report during the subsequent preparation of the 6-month interim and 2-month interim status reports were overseen by Robert Forsyth and Dr. Gerald Mackie, COSEWIC Molluscs Specialist Subcommittee Co-Chair. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur l’huître plate du Pacifique (Ostrea lurida) au Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Camp Connection INSIDE THIS ISSUE
    Camp Connection INSIDE THIS ISSUE VOL. XX, NUMBER 4 • FEBRUARY 15, 2019 WWW.PLEASANTONWEEKLY.COM Iconic instrument is a joy to hear, play and behold Page 12 5 NEWS Findings released in PUSD transcript probe 10 PULSE Bank robbers escape after shooting at police 11 OPINION Mayor reflects on advocacy trip to D.C. Hybrid ablation and the minimally invasive Cox Maze procedures revolutionize the way we treat Atrial Fibrillation Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is the most common FREE COMMUNITY TALK irregular heart rhythm, aff ecting over two million Americans each year. Without February 23, 2019 detection and treatment, atrial fibrillation 9:30am – 11:30am can cause stroke and heart failure. Fremont Marriott Silicon Valley Stanford Medicine experts are pioneering new treatments for 46100 Landing Parkway AFib, through medications and groundbreaking new therapies like Fremont, CA 94538 the hybrid ablation or the minimally invasive Cox Maze procedure. This event is free and open to the Join us for this free community talk to learn more about AFib’s public, though seating is limited. signs, symptoms, and all of the latest advances in treatment. If you plan to attend, please register at stanfordhealthcare.org/events SPEAKERS or by calling 650.736.6555. Paul J. Wang, MD Anson M. Lee, MD Director, Stanford Arrhythmia Service Assistant Professor of Cardiothoracic Co-Director, Stanford Center for Surgery (Adult Cardiac Surgery), Arrhythmia Research Professor of Stanford University School of Medicine Medicine (Cardiovascular Medicine) and Bioengineering (by courtesy), Stanford University School of Medicine Page 2 • February 15, 2019 • Pleasanton Weekly TIM TALK NEW LISTING - OPEN SAT & SUN 1 - 4 BY TIM HUNT Being prepared saves a life she was able to cough it out.
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON ESTUARINE INVERTEBRATES an Illustrated Guide to the Common and Important Invertebrate Animals
    OREGON ESTUARINE INVERTEBRATES An Illustrated Guide to the Common and Important Invertebrate Animals By Paul Rudy, Jr. Lynn Hay Rudy Oregon Institute of Marine Biology University of Oregon Charleston, Oregon 97420 Contract No. 79-111 Project Officer Jay F. Watson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 500 N.E. Multnomah Street Portland, Oregon 97232 Performed for National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Table of Contents Introduction CNIDARIA Hydrozoa Aequorea aequorea ................................................................ 6 Obelia longissima .................................................................. 8 Polyorchis penicillatus 10 Tubularia crocea ................................................................. 12 Anthozoa Anthopleura artemisia ................................. 14 Anthopleura elegantissima .................................................. 16 Haliplanella luciae .................................................................. 18 Nematostella vectensis ......................................................... 20 Metridium senile .................................................................... 22 NEMERTEA Amphiporus imparispinosus ................................................ 24 Carinoma mutabilis ................................................................ 26 Cerebratulus californiensis .................................................. 28 Lineus ruber .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of the Reproductive Ecology and Seed Bank
    California Department of Fish & Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act (Section-6) Grant-in-Aid Program FINAL PROJECT REPORT E-2-P-35 An Investigation of the Reproductive Ecology and Seed Bank Dynamics of Burke’s Goldfields (Lasthenia burkei), Sonoma Sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri), and Sebastopol Meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans) in Natural and Constructed Vernal Pools Christina M. Sloop1, 2, Kandis Gilmore1, Hattie Brown3, Nathan E. Rank1 1Department of Biology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA 2San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, Fairfax, CA 3Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation, Santa Rosa, CA Prepared for Cherilyn Burton ([email protected]) California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Division 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1280, Sacramento, CA 95814 March 1, 2012 1 1. Location of work: Santa Rosa Plain, Sonoma County, California 2. Background: Burke’s goldfield (Lasthenia burkei), a small, slender annual herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known only from southern portions of Lake and Mendocino counties and from northeastern Sonoma County. Historically, 39 populations were known from the Santa Rosa Plain, two sites in Lake County, and one site in Mendocino County. The occurrence in Mendocino County is most likely extirpated. From north to south on the Santa Rosa Plain, the species ranges from north of the community of Windsor to east of the city of Sebastopol. The long-term viability of many populations of Burke’s goldfields is particularly problematic due to population decline. There are currently 20 known extant populations, a subset of which were inoculated into pools at constructed sites to mitigate the loss of natural populations in the context of development.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Horse Mountain (Humboldt County, California) James P
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 4-2019 Vascular Plants of Horse Mountain (Humboldt County, California) James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] John O. Sawyer Jr. Humboldt State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr and Sawyer, John O. Jr., "Vascular Plants of Horse Mountain (Humboldt County, California)" (2019). Botanical Studies. 38. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/38 This Flora of Northwest California: Checklists of Local Sites of Botanical Interest 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 HORSE MOUNTAIN (HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA) Compiled by James P. Smith, Jr. & John O. Sawyer, Jr. Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University Arcata, California Fourth Edition · 29 April 2019 Horse Mountain (elevation 4952 ft.) is located at 40.8743N, -123.7328 W. The Polystichum x scopulinum · Bristle or holly fern closest town is Willow Creek, about 15 miles to the northeast. Access is via County Road 1 (Titlow Hill Road) off State Route 299. You have now left the Coast Range PTERIDACEAE BRAKE FERN FAMILY and entered the Klamath-Siskiyou Region. The area offers commanding views of Adiantum pedatum var. aleuticum · Maidenhair fern the Pacific Ocean and the Trinity Alps.
    [Show full text]