DOCSLIB.ORG

San Clemente Island Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Clemente Island Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Environmental Assessment for the San Clemente Island Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan February 2002 Environmental Assessment for the San Clemente Island Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan San Clemente Island, California February 2002 Abstract: This Environmental Assessment is to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) should be prepared on the policy strategies proposed in the final draft of the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for San Clemente Island (Island), U.S. Naval Base Coronado, California (SCI). The footprint of the Plan is all the terrestrial lands and offshore rocks, and all in-water resources to 300 yards offshore. The purpose of this INRMP is to meet statutory requirements under the Sikes Act Improvement Act, Public Law 105-85, Div. B Title XXIX, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat 2017-2019, 2020-2022. The INRMP is designed to provide for the continuation of military activities while preserving, protecting, and enhancing the natural ecosystem and biodiversity of the Island. This EA describes the proposed action and an alternative to the proposed action. The Proposed Action is to implement the 2002 INRMP for SCI and provide a net benefit to the environment while still providing for the mission of the Armed Forces using the Island to accomplish military objectives. The No-Action Alternative assumes implementation of activities described in the 1986 Landscape Management Plan for Endangered Species Recovery at San Clemente Island (Gripp and Howard 1986), the Natural Resource Management Plan for Naval Air Station, North Island and Outlying Landing Field, Imperial Beach, San Diego County (Chambers Consultants and Planners 1982) which covered SCI, several U.S. Navy Instructions that cover SCI activities, and a range of terms and conditions from a total of eighteen reasonable and prudent measures described in seven Biological Opinions (BOs) issued with regard to federally listed species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (1978 Amendments), (PL 95-632; 16 USC §§ 1531 et seq.). This INRMP will serve as a planning tool for Commander, Navy Region Southwest (CNRSW). As opportunities become available to seek funding for environmental projects or as mitigation for future activities, this Plan will serve as a priority list to better enable the Natural Resources Department to practice effective ecosystem management. This Plan is not meant as a definitive list of projects that will be automatically funded upon enactment. It provides guidance to the resource managers on strategies to employ for the next five years. The Navy will implement recommendations in the INRMP within the framework of regulatory compliance, national Navy mission obligations, anti-terrorism and force protection limitations, and funding constraints. Any requirement for the obligation of funds for projects in this INRMP shall be subject to the availability of funds appropriated by Congress, and none of the proposed projects shall be interpreted to require obligation or payment of funds in violation of any applicable federal law, including the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 341, et seq. For further information, contact: Mr. Jan Larson, Director, Natural Resources U.S. Department of the Navy Commander Navy Region Southwest 937 No. Harbor Dr. San Diego, CA 92132-0058 Prepared for: Commander, Navy Region Southwest, Natural Resources Office. Prepared under contract to: Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1220 Pacific Hwy, San Diego, California, Contract #N68711-99-D-6619/0021. Points of Contact: Tamara Conkle, Commander Navy Region Southwest; Danielle Flynn or Kimberly O’Connor (Natural Resources) and Christine Tuttle (Planning), Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Prepared by: Tierra Data Inc., 10110 W. Lilac Road, Escondido, CA 92026 Points of Contact: Elizabeth M. Kellogg and Cory Davis. Environmental Assessment February 2002 San Clemente Island TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Military Mission............................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE..................................................... 2-3 2.1 Proposed Action-Implement the 2002 INRMP.................................................................... 2-3 2.1.1 INRMP Overview/Ecosystem Management .............................................................. 2-3 2.1.1.I INRMP Development and Implementation ................................................. 2-3 2.1.1.2 Vegetation Communities............................................................................ 2-4 2.2 No-Action Alternative-Continue Existing Management Strategies.............................. 2-8 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Physical/Natural Environment ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Geology/Topography/Soils ................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 3-3 3.1.3 Air Quality........................................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................ 3-7 3.1.4.1 Vegetation Communities............................................................................ 3-7 3.1.4.2 Sensitive Plant and Animal Populations ...................................................... 3-9 3.2 Man-Made Environment ................................................................................................. 3-20 3.2.1 Land Use........................................................................................................... 3-20 3.2.2 Traffic and Circulation........................................................................................ 3-24 3.2.3 Noise................................................................................................................. 3-24 3.2.4 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................... 3-25 3.2.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 3-25 3.2.6 Public Facilities/Access/Recreation ..................................................................... 3-25 3.2.7 Safety and Environmental Health ........................................................................ 3-25 3.2.8 Utilities.............................................................................................................. 3-28 3.2.9 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................. 3-28 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE...... 4-1 4.1 Physical/Natural Environment ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Geology/Topography/Soils ................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 Air Quality........................................................................................................... 4-4 4.1.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................ 4-7 4.1.4.1 Vegetation Communities............................................................................ 4-7 4.1.4.2 Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Populations ..................................................... 4-8 4.2 Man-Made Environment ................................................................................................. 4-13 4.2.1 Land Use........................................................................................................... 4-13 4.2.2 Transportation and Circulation ............................................................................ 4-13 4.2.3 Noise................................................................................................................. 4-14 Table of Contents 4.2.4 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................... 4-14 4.2.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 4-14 4.2.6 Public Facilities/Access/Recreation ..................................................................... 4-15 4.2.7 Safety and Environmental Health ........................................................................ 4-15 4.2.8 Utilities.............................................................................................................. 4-16 4.2.9 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2012 Planting Lines
    San Clemente Island Native Habitat Restoration Program Native Seed Collection, Propagation and Outplanting in Support of San Clemente Island Endangered Species Programs Under Contract With: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest San Diego, California N68711 -05-D-3605-0077 Prepared By: Emily Howe, Korie Merrill, Thomas A. Zink. Soil Ecology and Restoration Group San Diego State University Research Foundation, San Diego, CA Prepared for: Natural Resources Office Environmental Department, Commander, Navy region Southwest, San Diego, CA Table Of Contents Table Of Contents ................................................................................................................ 2 Table of Figures ................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 Native Plant Nursery ..................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Nursery Inventory .......................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Seed propagation ........................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Rainfall Data Collection ................................................................................................ 6 3.0 Seed Collection .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Artifact Found on San Clemente Island Mass Communication Specialist 2Nd Class Shawnte Bryan July 16, 2013 (U.S
    Santa Cruz Archaeological Society Newsletter Rare Artifact Found on San Clemente Island Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Shawnte Bryan July 16, 2013 (U.S. Navy Story Number: NNS130716-29) The Navy discovered a significant prehistoric artifact 90 miles west of San Diego on San Clemente Island (SCI) located mid-island at a newly discovered archeological site. A boat effigy made of submarine volcano lava was spotted at the surface of the site during an archeology survey. The boat effigy represents a type of boat used by the California Indians who occupied the California Channels and adjacent southern California mainland at the time of the Spanish "discovery" in the AD 1500s. Dr. Andy Yatsko, Senior Archaeologist and Region Southwest Archaeologist for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest in San Diego, who has over 40 years experience in prehistoric and historic archaeology finds the boat effigy to be an uncommon find. "Boat effigies like the one found are exceedingly rare in the archaeological record, with this being my first one recovered during my 30 year tenure with SCI," said Dr. Yatsko [image courtesy U.S. Navy]. "Finding artifacts on the surface of archaeological sites at the island is not unusual, but a rare one like this is always exciting to come across." The effigy was created from submarine volcano lava. This lava differs from the lava that flows on the mainland because the vesicles are smaller, making it more brittle and more difficult to handle. “The vesicle volcanic material used is hard and brittle but somehow they were able to craft a fine little carving out of it to represent an important part of their culture," said Yatsko.
    [Show full text]
  • Artemisia Californica Less
    I. SPECIES Artemisia californica Less. [Updated 2017] NRCS CODE: Subtribe: Artemisiinae ARCA11 Tribe: Anthemideae (FEIS CODE: Family: Asteraceae ARCAL) Order: Asterales Subclass: Asteridae Class: Magnoliopsida flowering heads spring growth seedling, March 2009 juvenile plant photos A. Montalvo flowering plant, November 2005 mature plant with flower buds August 2010 A. Subspecific taxa None. Artemisia californica Less. var. insularis (Rydb.) Munz is now recognized as Artemisia nesiotica P.H. Raven (Jepson eFlora 2017). B. Synonyms Artemisia abrotanoides Nuttall; A. fischeriana Besser; A. foliosa Nuttall; Crossostephium californicum (Lessing) Rydberg (FNA 2017). C. Common name California sagebrush. The common name refers to its strong, sage-like aroma and endemism to California and Baja California. Other names include: coastal sage, coast sage, coast sagebrush (Painter 2016). D. Taxonomic relationships The FNA (2017) places this species in subgenus Artemisia . The molecular phylogeny of the genus has improved the understanding of relationships among the many species of Artemisia and has, at times, placed the species in subgenus Tridentadae; morphology of the inflorescences and flowers alone does not place this species with its closest relatives (Watson et al. 2002). The detailed phylogeny is not completely resolved (Hayat et al. 2009). E. Related taxa in region There are 18 species and a total of 31 taxa (including infrataxa) of Artemisia in southern California, all of which differ clearly from A. californica in habitat affinity, structure, or both (Munz 1974, Jepson eFlora 2017). Within subgenus Artemisia (as per FNA 2017), A. nesiotica from the Channel Islands is the most similar and was once considered part of A. californica ; it can be distinguished by its wider leaves with flat leaf margins (not rolled under).
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Ancient Plant Use and the Importance of Geophytes Among the Island Chumash of Santa Cruz
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Ancient Plant Use and the Importance of Geophytes among the Island Chumash of Santa Cruz Island, California A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology by Kristina Marie Gill Committee in charge: Professor Michael A. Glassow, Chair Professor Michael A. Jochim Professor Amber M. VanDerwarker Professor Lynn H. Gamble September 2015 The dissertation of Kristina Marie Gill is approved. __________________________________________ Michael A. Jochim __________________________________________ Amber M. VanDerwarker __________________________________________ Lynn H. Gamble __________________________________________ Michael A. Glassow, Committee Chair July 2015 Ancient Plant Use and the Importance of Geophytes among the Island Chumash of Santa Cruz Island, California Copyright © 2015 By Kristina Marie Gill iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my Family, Mike Glassow, and the Chumash People. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many people who have provided guidance, encouragement, and support in my career as an archaeologist, and especially through my undergraduate and graduate studies. For those of whom I am unable to personally thank here, know that I deeply appreciate your support. First and foremost, I want to thank my chair Michael Glassow for his patience, enthusiasm, and encouragement during all aspects of this daunting project. I am also truly grateful to have had the opportunity to know, learn from, and work with my other committee members, Mike Jochim, Amber VanDerwarker, and Lynn Gamble. I cherish my various field experiences with them all on the Channel Islands and especially in southern Germany with Mike Jochim, whose worldly perspective I value deeply. I also thank Terry Jones, who provided me many undergraduate opportunities in California archaeology and encouraged me to attend a field school on San Clemente Island with Mark Raab and Andy Yatsko, an experience that left me captivated with the islands and their history.
    [Show full text]
  • Assigned Deferred Area Map 2
    Senate District 28 - LIEU Deferred Areas d C n a 7 Ve a n r 2 t n ura e v B o Moorpark 134 li g ST O 159 Colorado a ST Sherman Oaks Studio City DeferCred Places: ol Gllendalle V ora 134 e do ST r 710 d ST d Bevu erly Glen 0 Universal City n g 1 a o r Mulh Mulh d F 1 olland oll B nd Dr and an i Mulholla Dr l g l Beverly Hills u o e lh r Mu 101 York o a N ¤£ i n c z Brentwood h o l i o y Fe l s n o s L 2 a ST C R C i a v (Hollywood Hills) 0 e r n 5 y 7 rs e y e 1 id t r B o § ¨ e a ¦ e ood n Hollyw t e C n v w R S e Paciyfic Palisaodes e d t k p l unse d Hollywood u 405 S n r M r o a e 4 ly s R s 3 C e L s ¦¨§ G t r iv e e le v Palor s Verdes Estates t Topanga il s S n m i d n S u e e i o d p West Hollywood 110 West Hollywood m t Melrose a u t ST e e l s SPark La2 Brea r v 6 n F e Bel Air u d S Beverly 2 16 a Sun x 170 ST s a ST e f t r i g Rancrinho Palos Verdes a 3rd p 27 F ST Beverrlly Hiilllls S Va W 6th St lley Wilshire RT olling Hills Brentwood H e e e v m 10 a A 6 p th Westwood t Whitworth Dr le x ¨§ h ¦ e t v a A f Rolling Hills Estates A r e v i s a e 10 un n a 1 S a F st t n 8 ¨§ Pico ¦ n t o o S h s a M t Santa Catalina Island ic r e avez p r V Cesar E Ch t e e 7 4 m B n t t e Pacific Palisades y b i h h s 2 l ce 6 o a n O th B r L n u R u to o n t San Clemente Island S o dy g n 1 M n i r ST 10 l r a 60 e n l t a A ST ta 2 n § s ¨ Sante a Monica o ¦ a n ti 5 7 o a F 2 E M 20 N a ¨§ Rodeo ¦ th 187 t ST n t S a n West Hollywood o S o t l o n i m 7 a r r 8 a 1 t 710 e M n V B e Westwood an ¨§ d ¦ er C in Santta Moniica 87 Culver
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The People of Quinquina: San Clemente Island's Original
    The People of Quinquina: San Clemente Island's Original Inhabitants as Described in .Ethnohistoric Documents by John R. Johnson, M.A. Prepared for: Natural Resources Office Naval Air Station, North Island San Diego, CA 92135 Submitted by: Anthropology Department Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 2559 Puesta del Sol Santa Barbara, CA 93105 February, 1988 The People of Quinquina: San Clemente Island's Original Inhabitants as Described in Ethnohistoric Documents John R. Johnson Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History February, 1988 Introduetion Not much has been published regarding the indigenous population of San Clemente Island. This primarily ls due to the paucity of surviving documents per- taining to the early years of the island's history following European contact. After a brief review of early European descriptions of San Clemente Island and its inhabi- tants, this report will focus on a virtually untapped source of information regarding San Clemente Island's Native American population: the mission records from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Using the mission register data, some inferences may be made regarding social interaction between the Gabrielino islanders and the mainland, and the history of the acculturation of these people into European society may be reconstructed. Finally, the potential for tracing descendants of San Clemente islanders into the twentieth century will be considered. Early European De1eription1 of San Clemente bland and It1 Inhabitant• The first historic mention of San Clemente Island may be found in the 1543 summary of Cabrlllo's voyage prepared after the expedition's return to the port of Navidad on the west coast of Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • V. Environmental Impact Analysis C. Biological Resources
    V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION A Biological Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Project was prepared by TeraCor Resource Management in November 2003 to analyze the potential impacts on biological resources associated with the Proposed Project. A summary of the Biological Resources Evaluation with respect to potential impacts on biological resources, and as reviewed and revised for consistency with the City of Malibu LCP1, is set forth below. The Biological Resources Evaluation, which is incorporated herein by this reference, is included in its entirety as Appendix D to this Draft Final EIR. A Technical Memorandum amending the Biological Resources Evaluation prepared by Teracor Resource Management was written on 27 March 2007 to clarify and evaluate three issues: 1) to confirm the status of biological resources present on site, 2) to confirm the presence or absence of wetlands, “waters of the U.S.” streambeds, or other water features present on-site, and, 3) determine if California black walnut (Juglans californica) trees are present on-site. The conclusions of the findings made by TeraCor Resource Management with respect to these three issues are set forth below. The Technical Memorandum, which is incorporated herein by reference, is provided in Appendix D-1, Biological Assessment – Verification of Conditions. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide an understanding of the biological resources present within the Project Site, as determined from field reconnaissance and available scientific literature. This biological evaluation inventories floral and faunal resources detected on or near the Project Site, and predicts faunal resources determined likely to be present based on habitat conditions, known species distribution, and field observations.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds on San Clemente Island, As Part of Our Work Toward the Recovery of the Island’S Endangered Species
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 36, Number 3, 2005 THE BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND BRIAN L. SULLIVAN, PRBO Conservation Science, 4990 Shoreline Hwy., Stinson Beach, California 94970-9701 (current address: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods Rd., Ithaca, New York 14850) ERIC L. KERSHNER, Institute for Wildlife Studies, 2515 Camino del Rio South, Suite 334, San Diego, California 92108 With contributing authors JONATHAN J. DUNN, ROBB S. A. KALER, SUELLEN LYNN, NICOLE M. MUNKWITZ, and JONATHAN H. PLISSNER ABSTRACT: From 1992 to 2004, we observed birds on San Clemente Island, as part of our work toward the recovery of the island’s endangered species. We increased the island’s bird list to 317 species, by recording many additional vagrants and seabirds. The list includes 20 regular extant breeding species, 6 species extirpated as breeders, 5 nonnative introduced species, and 9 sporadic or newly colonizing breeding species. For decades San Clemente Island had been ravaged by overgrazing, especially by goats, which were removed completely in 1993. Since then, the island’s vegetation has begun recovering, and the island’s avifauna will likely change again as a result. We document here the status of that avifauna during this transitional period of re- growth, between the island’s being largely denuded of vegetation and a more natural state. It is still too early to evaluate the effects of the vegetation’s still partial recovery on birds, but the beginnings of recovery may have enabled the recent colonization of small numbers of Grasshopper Sparrows and Lazuli Buntings. Sponsored by the U. S. Navy, efforts to restore the island’s endangered species continue—among birds these are the Loggerhead Shrike and Sage Sparrow.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper Version of Palos Verdes
    Selected Plants Native to Palos Verdes Peninsula (C.M. Rodrigue, 07/26/11) http://www.csulb.edu/geography/PV/ Succulents (plants with fleshy, often liquid-saturated leaves and/or stems. These features can be found in a variety of life forms, including annual herbaceous plants, vines, shrubs, and trees, as well as cacti) Herbaceous plants (non-woody, though there may be a woody caudex or basal stem and root -- annual growth dies back each year, resprouting in perennial or biennial plants, or the plant dies and is replaced by a new generation each year in the case of annual plants) Extremely tiny plant. Stems only about 2-6 cm tall, occasionally as much as 10 cm, leaves only 1-3 mm long (can get up to 6 mm long), fleshy, found at the plant's base or on the stems, shape generally ovate (egg-shaped), may have a blunt rounded end or a fine acute tip. The leaves are arranged oppositely, not alternately. The plant is green when new but ages to red or pink. Tiny flower (0.5- 2 mm) borne in leaf axils, usually just one per leaf pair on a pedicel (floral stem) less than 6 mm long. Two or 3 petals and 3 or 4 sepals. Flowers February to May. Annual herb. Found in open areas, in rocky nooks and crannies, and sometimes in vernal ponds (temporary pools that form after a rain and then slowly evaporate). Crassula connata (Crassulaceae): pygmy stonecrop or pygmy-weed or sand pygmyweed Leaves converted into scales along stems, which are arranged alternately and overlap.
    [Show full text]
  • We Thank Both Reviewers for Their Valuable Comments That Have Improved This Version of the Manuscript
    We thank both reviewers for their valuable comments that have improved this version of the manuscript. Individual comments are addressed below, with the original comments/suggestions in black where possible and our point-by-point responses in blue italic font. Before we address the reviewers’ comments, we would like to make it clear that we discovered a MODIS processing error. When processing the Level 2 MODIS files, we accidentally shifted the days by one so that, for each year in the analysis, we processed from May 31st through September 29th instead of from June 1st through September 30th. Consequently, we have updated all figures, tables, and any text that refer to numerical values influenced by this mistake. Overall, the results of the study are not affected considerably and the main findings remain the same. Additionally, we want to point out that we unintentionally miscalculated the meteorological variables (LCF, LTS, and qv) in Table 2 because we originally included regions over land. This mistake has been fixed, and the correct values for LCF, LTS, and qv are now shown in Table 2. The differences are not large, and so our discussion regarding these numbers has not changed. In response to comments from both Reviewers 1 and 2 regarding the appropriateness of using 20 different meteorological regimes, we agree with the reviewers that this nomenclature is not realistic. Our intention is not to classify each node as a separate regime, and we apologize for this confusion. While 20 nodes may seem like a lot, it is customary in the literature (e.g, Cassano et al.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FLORISTICS of the CALIFORNIA ISLANDS Peter H
    THE FLORISTICS OF THE CALIFORNIA ISLANDS Peter H. Raven Stanford University The Southern California Islands, with their many endemic spe­ cies of plants and animals, have long attracted the attention of biologists. This archipelago consists of two groups of islands: the Northern Channel Islands and the Southern Channel Islands. The first group is composed of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa islands; the greatest water gap between these four is about 6 miles, and the distance of the nearest, Anacapa, from the mainland only about 13 miles. In the southern group there are also four islands: San Clemente, Santa Catalina, Santa Bar­ bara, and San Nicolas. These are much more widely scattered than the islands of the northern group; the shortest distance be­ tween them is the 21 miles separating the islands of San Clemente and Santa Catalina, and the nearest island to the mainland is Santa Catalina, some 20 miles off shore. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the complex floristics of the vascular plants found on this group of islands, and this will be done from three points of view. First will be considered the numbers of species of vascular plants found on each island, then the endemics of these islands, and finally the relationship between the island and mainland localities for these plants. By critically evaluating the accounts of Southern California island plants found in the published works of Eastwood (1941), Mill¬ spaugh and Nuttall (1923), Munz (1959), and Raven (1963), one can derive a reasonably accurate account of the plants of the area.
    [Show full text]