DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Resources Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BAY AREA RIDGE TRAIL‐ FREMONT TO GARIN ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA September 2018 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BAY AREA RIDGE TRAIL ‐ FREMONT TO GARIN ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland, California 94605‐0381 Prepared by: LSA 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 Project No. EBR1701 September 2018 B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT B AY A REA R IDGE T RAIL‐ F REMONT TO G ARIN S EPTEMBER 2018 A LAMEDA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 5 Database Search And Literature Review ....................................................................................... 5 Field Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 5 Nomenclature .............................................................................................................................. 12 Regulatory Context ...................................................................................................................... 13 Special‐status species ....................................................................................................................... 13 Other Statutes, Codes, and Policies addressed under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .............................................................................................................................................. 13 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 16 Biological setting ......................................................................................................................... 16 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Sensitive Natural Communities ........................................................................................................ 19 Potentially Jurisdictional Features .................................................................................................... 20 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................. 20 Special‐Status Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 21 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MEASURES TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ........................................................................ 33 Special‐status Plants .................................................................................................................... 33 Sensitive Natural Communities ................................................................................................... 33 Jurisdictional Features ................................................................................................................. 33 General Wildlife Protection Measures ............................................................................................. 34 Mammals .......................................................................................................................................... 35 Reptiles ............................................................................................................................................. 36 Amphibians ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Birds .................................................................................................................................................. 37 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 40 FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location .................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Site Location and Topographic Map ........................................................................................ 4 Figure 3: Critical Habitat ......................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Sensitive Natural Communities and Potential Waters of the U.S. ........................................ 17 TABLES Table A: Special‐status Plant Species and Sensitive Natural Communities Evaluated ........................... 7 Table B: Sensitive Natural Communities Evaluated ............................................................................. 11 Table C: Special‐Status Animal Species’ Potential to Occur ................................................................. 22 APPENDICES A: List of Plants Observed P:\EBR1701\Bio\Biological Resources Assessment\Draft_Fremont_to_Garin_Bio Resources_Assessment_09‐20‐18.docx (09/20/18) i B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT B AY A REA R IDGE T RAIL‐ F REMONT TO G ARIN S EPTEMBER 2018 A LAMEDA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a biological resources assessment conducted by LSA on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) for a proposed segment of the Bay Ridge Trail to be constructed between Vallejo Mill Park in Fremont and Garin Regional Park in Union City, Alameda County (proposed project). The project location is shown in Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Site Location and Topographic Map. This assessment was conducted to: 1) characterize the existing biological conditions; 2) assess sensitive plant communities and wildlife habitats; 3) evaluate the potential for occurrence of special‐status plant and animal species; 4) delineate potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S./State are present; and 5) assess potential impacts of development of the trail on the resources. P:\EBR1701\Bio\Biological Resources Assessment\Draft_Fremont_to_Garin_Bio Resources_Assessment_09‐20‐18.docx (09/20/18) 2 880 ¦¨§ San Contra Costa ¦¨§580 Ramon C o u n t y 880 Castro 680 ¦¨§ Valley ¨§ San ¦ Leandro Leandro 580 Ashland ¦¨§ d R Livermore San Pleasanton s e Lorenzo r a Hayward Study Area m 92 o ST l Union a City P Fremont 84 ST A l a m e d a Oconnell Ln East East Newark C o u n t y Palo Alto Palo ¦¨§680 Study Area Alto 101 Milpitas ¤£ Mountain Milpitas View 237 Santa Clara 280 ST82 ST ST84 ¦¨§ ¦¨§880 C o u n t y Sunnyvale Santa Clara ¦¨§680 Niles Blvd Rd n yo an C r d r D l me O m a h B n e la t is S Wa d e y ll Mayhews Rd ST238 Mission Blvd 84 Ave ST r Nursery Niles Blvd D h R 2n r c iv r d iera St D t D Iron Horse Ln r a D e s r Pl Vallejo St v w Victory Ln i a e Essanay D St R i W v l l n i o t rt H a S J St B r Orangewood Dr l 3rd D o o St Sch I St Mission Blvd A Morrison ST84 l Pickering Avet Overcracker Ave u Canyon Rd F r o a r d S R t id Copa Del L BuenaYerba St T g n Cas e e tro L r Oro Dr n Gilbert Ave Mowry Ave ST238 RiverwalkDr Spetti Dr LEGEND FIGURE 1 Study Area Bay Area Ridge Trail – Fremont to Garin to Fremont – Trail Ridge Area Bay 0 1000 2000 California County, Alameda FEET Regional Location SOURCE: ESRI StreetMap North America (2012). I:\EBR1701\GIS\Maps\Jurisdictional Delineation and Bio Assessment\Figure 1_Regional Location.mxd (3/21/2018) Study Area LEGEND FIGURE 2 Study Area Bay Area Ridge Trail Fremont to Garin 0 1000 2000 Alameda County, California FEET Site Location and Topographic Map SOURCE: 7.5-minute Quad: Niles, Calif. (1980). I:\EBR1701\GIS\Maps\Jurisdictional Delineation and Bio Assessment\Figure 2_Site Location and Topographic Map.mxd (3/21/2018) B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES A SSESSMENT B AY A REA R IDGE T RAIL‐ F REMONT TO G ARIN S EPTEMBER 2018 A LAMEDA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA METHODS DATABASE SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW Prior to conducting fieldwork, LSA searched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2017) for records of special‐status plant and wildlife species and sensitive habitat occurrences within 5 miles of the project site. To supplement the CNDDB results, LSA searched the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS 2017) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (8th edition) and the East Bay Chapter of the CNPS’s Rare, Unusual, and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (local rare plant list, EB‐CNPS 2010) for records of special‐status (rare) plant species (Lake 2010)1. The plant‐only searches were limited to the hilly regions of the Dublin, Hayward, La Costa Valley, Newark, and Niles USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles. Based on these outputs, LSA developed Table A: Potentially Occurring Special‐status Plant Species (Table A) and Table B: Sensitive Natural Communities Evaluated (Table B). These tables were used as a target list for special‐status plants and communities on the project site. LSA also reviewed the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Portal2, current and historic Google Earth aerial images of the site, and the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map3 for wetlands on and near the site. Critical habitat within 5 miles of the project site is depicted in Figure 3. LSA also obtained an official species list
Recommended publications
  • Botanical Survey Report Horseshoe Pond Restoration Project Point Reyes National Seashore Marin County, California

    Botanical Survey Report Horseshoe Pond Restoration Project Point Reyes National Seashore Marin County, California

    Botanical Survey Report Horseshoe Pond Restoration Project Point Reyes National Seashore Marin County, California Prepared By: Lorraine Parsons Point Reyes National Seashore Division of Natural Resources Management Point Reyes Station, CA 94956 May 17, 2002 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to provide background information regarding botanical resources within the Horseshoe Pond Restoration Project area (Proposed Project Area). Point Reyes National Seashore (Seashore) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Project. Background information in this report will be used to guide development and assess potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. As part of the EA, the Seashore must consider whether the Proposed Project could impact special status plant species, as well as special status wildlife species and other sensitive biological resources such as wetlands and riparian areas. Special status plant species include those that are legally protected under the federal and California Endangered Species Acts (ESA) or other regulations and species that are considered rare by the scientific community. Special status species are defined as: • plants that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the California ESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.; 14 CCR §670.1 et seq.) and/or the federal ESA (50 CFR 17.11 for animals; various notices in the Federal Register [FR] for proposed species); • plants that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA (61 FR 7506 February 28, 1996); • plants that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR §15380) which includes species not found on state or federal endangered species lists; • plants that are designated as “species of concern” (former category 2 candidates for listing) by the U.S.
  • Conceptual Design Documentation

    Conceptual Design Documentation

    Appendix A: Conceptual Design Documentation APPENDIX A Conceptual Design Documentation June 2019 A-1 APPENDIX A: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DOCUMENTATION The environmental analyses in the NEPA and CEQA documents for the proposed improvements at Oceano County Airport (the Airport) are based on conceptual designs prepared to provide a realistic basis for assessing their environmental consequences. 1. Widen runway from 50 to 60 feet 2. Widen Taxiways A, A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 from 20 to 25 feet 3. Relocate segmented circle and wind cone 4. Installation of taxiway edge lighting 5. Installation of hold position signage 6. Installation of a new electrical vault and connections 7. Installation of a pollution control facility (wash rack) CIVIL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS The purpose of this conceptual design effort is to identify the amount of impervious surface, grading (cut and fill) and drainage implications of the projects identified above. The conceptual design calculations detailed in the following figures indicate that Projects 1 and 2, widening the runways and taxiways would increase the total amount of impervious surface on the Airport by 32,016 square feet, or 0.73 acres; a 6.6 percent increase in the Airport’s impervious surface area. Drainage patterns would remain the same as both the runway and taxiways would continue to sheet flow from their centerlines to the edge of pavement and then into open, grassed areas. The existing drainage system is able to accommodate the modest increase in stormwater runoff that would occur, particularly as soil conditions on the Airport are conducive to infiltration. Figure A-1 shows the locations of the seven projects incorporated in the Proposed Action.
  • Naturally Large Fires in Southern California

    Naturally Large Fires in Southern California

    December 2011 CHAPTER MEETING Tuesday, December 20; 7 p.m. Room 104, Casa del Prado Balboa Park HOLIDAY GALA Heteromeles arbutifolia (Toyon) provides winter color. Toyon is a It’s time for our Holiday Gala Extravaganza on prominent component of the coastal sage scrub and is also often found in chaparral and mixed oak woodlands. It is also known by the common Tuesday, December 20! It’s a regular chapter names Christmas berry and California holly. Some say Hollywood, meeting day, so it’s already on your calendar. California was named for this species. And it’s a potluck, so no need to RSVP. Just come and bring your choicest delicacies (or most down-home goodies) to share. The BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chapter will supply the usual tasty hot water for coffee and tea, hot mulled cider, utensils, cups, MEETING napkins, and plates. You provide the stuff to put on the plates! There will be live music and Wednesday, December 7, 6:30 - 8:30 p.m., who knows what-all! monthly CNPS San Diego Chapter board meeting to be held at 4010 Morena Blvd, Suite 100, San Diego (Thomas Guide 1248 C4). Exit I-5 to Balboa Dr. east Bring your pictures of native plants, native and turn north on Morena Drive. Proceed 1/2 mile gardens, or whatever on a disk or thumb drive and make a u-turn at the Avati Street signal and turn and CNPS will provide a computer and into the driveway for 4010. Drive to the parking lot on projector. See you at the Gala! the west side (away from Morena).
  • 3.4 Biological Resources for the Purpose of This EIR, Biological Resources Comprise Vegetation, Wildlife, Natural Communities, and Wetlands and Other Waters

    3.4 Biological Resources for the Purpose of This EIR, Biological Resources Comprise Vegetation, Wildlife, Natural Communities, and Wetlands and Other Waters

    Impact Analysis Alameda County Community Development Agency Biological Resources 3.4 Biological Resources For the purpose of this EIR, biological resources comprise vegetation, wildlife, natural communities, and wetlands and other waters. Potential biological resource impacts associated with the program and the two individual projects are analyzed. Potential impacts are described quantitatively and qualitatively in Section 3.4.2, Environmental Impacts. This section also identifies specific and detailed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potentially significant impacts on biological resources, where necessary. 3.4.1 Existing Conditions Regulatory Setting Federal Endangered Species Act Pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have authority over projects that may result in take of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the act. Take is defined under the ESA, in part, as killing, harming, or harassing. Under federal regulations, take is further defined to include habitat modification or degradation that results, or is reasonably expected to result, in death or injury to wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. If a likelihood exists that a project would result in take of a federally listed species, either an incidental take permit, under Section 10(a) of the ESA, or a federal interagency consultation, under Section 7 of the ESA, is required. Several federally listed species—vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red‐legged frog (Rana draytonii), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)—have the potential to be affected by activities associated with the Golden Hills and Patterson Pass projects as well as subsequent repowering projects.
  • Biological Resources Assessment

    Biological Resources Assessment

    Biological Resources Assessment Valle Vista Properties HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: William Lyon Homes, Inc. 2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 450 San Ramon, California 94583 Contact: Scott Roylance WRA Contact: Mark Kalnins [email protected] Date: July 10, 2017 Revised: November 16, 2017 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94702 (415) 454-8868 tel [email protected] www.wra-ca.com This page intentionally blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 3 2.1 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................................................................. 3 2.2 Special-Status Species .............................................................................................. 8 2.3 Relevant Local Policies, Ordinances, Regulations ..................................................... 9 3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 Biological Communities ............................................................................................ 10 3.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities ...................................................... 10 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................................................. 10 3.2 Special-Status Species ...........................................................................................
  • Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plant List

    Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plant List

    UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plants Below is the most recently updated plant list for UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve. * non-native taxon ? presence in question Listed Species Information: CNPS Listed - as designated by the California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists). More information at http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php Cal IPC Listed - an inventory that categorizes exotic and invasive plants as High, Moderate, or Limited, reflecting the level of each species' negative ecological impact in California. More information at http://www.cal-ipc.org More information about Federal and State threatened and endangered species listings can be found at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (US) and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ t_e_spp/ (CA). FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LISTED Ferns AZOLLACEAE - Mosquito Fern American water fern, mosquito fern, Family Azolla filiculoides ? Mosquito fern, Pacific mosquitofern DENNSTAEDTIACEAE - Bracken Hairy brackenfern, Western bracken Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens fern DRYOPTERIDACEAE - Shield or California wood fern, Coastal wood wood fern family Dryopteris arguta fern, Shield fern Common horsetail rush, Common horsetail, field horsetail, Field EQUISETACEAE - Horsetail Family Equisetum arvense horsetail Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant horse tail, Giant horsetail Pentagramma triangularis ssp. PTERIDACEAE - Brake Family triangularis Gold back fern Gymnosperms CUPRESSACEAE - Cypress Family Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress CNPS - 1B.2, Cal IPC
  • United States Department of the Interior MAR 2 7 2019

    United States Department of the Interior MAR 2 7 2019

    U,S. FISH & WILDLIFE S1:!;RVICE United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ' .' Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office �-,.111,'"!il'f; In Reply Refer to: 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 0SESMF00- Sacramento, California 95825-1846 2018-F-3331-1 MAR 2 7 2019 Mr. Alessandro Amaglio RegionalEnvironmental Officer, Region IX Federal Emergency Management Agency 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, California 94607 Subject: Programmatic Formal Section 7 Consultationon Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster, Mitigation, and Preparedness Programs within the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office'sJurisdiction, California Dear Mr. Amaglio: This letter is in response to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) request to initiate formalsection 7 consultationunder the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), and provides the U.S. Fish and WildlifeServic e's (Service) programmatic biological opinion on FEMA's Disaster, Mitigation, and Preparedness Programs (proposed project) in Californiaas described in FEMA's June 20, 2018 Programmatic Biological Assessmentfor Disaster, Mitigation, and PreparednessPrograms in California (programmatic biological assessment). We received your June 20, 2018, letter requestinginitiation of consultation in our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (SFWO) on June 20, 2018. On September 14, 2018, we received a letter fromFEMA changing effectsdeterminations for 20 species. At issue are the effects of FEMA's proposed action on 35 federally-listed species and their designated or proposed criticalhabitats which the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office has lead responsibility and seven federally-listed species and their critical habitat which occur within the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office but for which other Service field officeshave lead responsibility.
  • Papilio (New Series) #24 2016 Issn 2372-9449

    Papilio (New Series) #24 2016 Issn 2372-9449

    PAPILIO (NEW SERIES) #24 2016 ISSN 2372-9449 MEAD’S BUTTERFLIES IN COLORADO, 1871 by James A. Scott, Ph.D. in entomology, University of California Berkeley, 1972 (e-mail: [email protected]) Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………..……….……………….p. 1 Locations of Localities Mentioned Below…………………………………..……..……….p. 7 Summary of Butterflies Collected at Mead’s Major Localities………………….…..……..p. 8 Mead’s Butterflies, Sorted by Butterfly Species…………………………………………..p. 11 Diary of Mead’s Travels and Butterflies Collected……………………………….……….p. 43 Identity of Mead’s Field Names for Butterflies he Collected……………………….…….p. 64 Discussion and Conclusions………………………………………………….……………p. 66 Acknowledgments………………………………………………………….……………...p. 67 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………….………...….p. 67 Table 1………………………………………………………………………….………..….p. 6 Table 2……………………………………………………………………………………..p. 37 Introduction Theodore L. Mead (1852-1936) visited central Colorado from June to September 1871 to collect butterflies. Considerable effort has been spent trying to determine the identities of the butterflies he collected for his future father-in-law William Henry Edwards, and where he collected them. Brown (1956) tried to deduce his itinerary based on the specimens and the few letters etc. available to him then. Brown (1964-1987) designated lectotypes and neotypes for the names of the butterflies that William Henry Edwards described, including 24 based on Mead’s specimens. Brown & Brown (1996) published many later-discovered letters written by Mead describing his travels and collections. Calhoun (2013) purchased Mead’s journal and published Mead’s brief journal descriptions of his collecting efforts and his travels by stage and horseback and walking, and Calhoun commented on some of the butterflies he collected (especially lectotypes). Calhoun (2015a) published an abbreviated summary of Mead’s travels using those improved locations from the journal etc., and detailed the type localities of some of the butterflies named from Mead specimens.
  • 0506 NVC Student Housing Admin Draft ISMND.Docx

    0506 NVC Student Housing Admin Draft ISMND.Docx

    Napa Valley College Student Housing Project Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration August 12, 2020 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Napa Valley College Student Housing Project Prepared for: Napa Valley Community College District 2277 Napa-Vallejo Highway Napa, CA 94558 Prepared by: GHD Inc. 2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150 Santa Rosa, California 95407 August 12, 2020 Napa Valley College Student Housing Project – Initial Study/Proposed MND Table of Contents Project Information ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 Introduction and CEQA Requirements ........................................................................... 1-1 CEQA Lead Agency Contact Information ....................................................................... 1-1 Project Background and Objectives ............................................................................... 1-1 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 1-2 Environmental Protection Actions Incorporated Into the Proposed Project ................... 1-9 Required Agency Approvals ......................................................................................... 1-12 Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................ 1-12 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..............................................................................
  • Ventura County Plant Species of Local Concern

    Ventura County Plant Species of Local Concern

    Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants (Twenty-second Edition) CNPS, Rare Plant Program David L. Magney Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants1 By David L. Magney California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program, Locally Rare Project Updated 4 January 2017 Ventura County is located in southern California, USA, along the east edge of the Pacific Ocean. The coastal portion occurs along the south and southwestern quarter of the County. Ventura County is bounded by Santa Barbara County on the west, Kern County on the north, Los Angeles County on the east, and the Pacific Ocean generally on the south (Figure 1, General Location Map of Ventura County). Ventura County extends north to 34.9014ºN latitude at the northwest corner of the County. The County extends westward at Rincon Creek to 119.47991ºW longitude, and eastward to 118.63233ºW longitude at the west end of the San Fernando Valley just north of Chatsworth Reservoir. The mainland portion of the County reaches southward to 34.04567ºN latitude between Solromar and Sequit Point west of Malibu. When including Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands, the southernmost extent of the County occurs at 33.21ºN latitude and the westernmost extent at 119.58ºW longitude, on the south side and west sides of San Nicolas Island, respectively. Ventura County occupies 480,996 hectares [ha] (1,188,562 acres [ac]) or 4,810 square kilometers [sq. km] (1,857 sq. miles [mi]), which includes Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands. The mainland portion of the county is 474,852 ha (1,173,380 ac), or 4,748 sq.
  • Aspects of the Biology, Taxonomy and Control of Calystegia Silvatica

    Aspects of the Biology, Taxonomy and Control of Calystegia Silvatica

    Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Aspects of the biology, taxonomy and control of Calystegia silvatica A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of AgriScience in Agriculture at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Tracey Gawn 2013 i Abstract Calystegia silvatica or great bindweed has recently become a problematic weed in riparian zones but the information available about the control of C. silvatica with herbicides is limited. The current study was undertaken to gain more information about aspects of the control of C. silvatica with herbicides and of the biology and taxonomy of C. silvatica. In Experiment 1 a range of translocated herbicides were applied to established plants in the field. Herbicides were applied in autumn and it was found that none of the herbicides applied, at the rates they were applied at, controlled 100% of the C. silvatica. However triclopyr/picloram/aminopyralid and 2,4-D/dicamba showed significant control of C. silvatica spring regrowth. Aminopyralid alone and glyphosate also showed some long term control. Both metsulfuron and clopyralid showed poor control. The same herbicides applied in the field were also applied in autumn to young C. silvatica grown in pots in a glasshouse. Fluroxypyr and 2,4-D (ester) were also tested. Herbicides were applied to either the upper portion or the lower portion of the plants to determine whether it matters if only part of the plant is treated when trying to avoid spraying nearby native plants in the field.
  • Invertebrates

    Invertebrates

    State Wildlife Action Plan Update Appendix A-5 Species of Greatest Conservation Need Fact Sheets INVERTEBRATES Conservation Status and Concern Biology and Life History Distribution and Abundance Habitat Needs Stressors Conservation Actions Needed Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015 Appendix A-5 SGCN Invertebrates – Fact Sheets Table of Contents What is Included in Appendix A-5 1 MILLIPEDE 2 LESCHI’S MILLIPEDE (Leschius mcallisteri)........................................................................................................... 2 MAYFLIES 4 MAYFLIES (Ephemeroptera) ................................................................................................................................ 4 [unnamed] (Cinygmula gartrelli) .................................................................................................................... 4 [unnamed] (Paraleptophlebia falcula) ............................................................................................................ 4 [unnamed] (Paraleptophlebia jenseni) ............................................................................................................ 4 [unnamed] (Siphlonurus autumnalis) .............................................................................................................. 4 [unnamed] (Cinygmula gartrelli) .................................................................................................................... 4 [unnamed] (Paraleptophlebia falcula) ...........................................................................................................