DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendices to Draft WNDR Aquatic Lands

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendices to Draft WNDR Aquatic Lands Appendix A Ecosystems Characteristics Appendix A Ecosystems Characteristics Region/ Ecosystem Class Habitat Characteristics • Standing body of water located in a topographic depression that is not directly connected to the sea • Distinguished by relatively still waters, no ocean derived salts, and an absence of perennial emergent vegetation • Includes lacustrine wetlands • Low rates of primary productivity Oligotrophic • Trophic State Index less than 40 • Moderate rates of primary productivity Mesotrophic • Trophic State Index between 40 and 50 • High rates of primary productivity Eutrophic • Trophic State Index greater than 50 Freshwater Lacustrine • Extends waterward from ordinary high water to a depth of 2 meters below low Littoral water or the extent of annual emergent vegetation • Deep water benthic habitat with no Profundal vegetation • Long, linear interconnected networks, comprised of patterns and processes that occur in longitudinal, lateral, and vertical dimensions • Unidirectional flows terminating at the confluence of a larger stream or river, marine ecosystem, or lake • Gradient typically decreases with longitudinal distance downstream • Structure and variability of in-channel habitat determined by topography • Energy sources, community composition, and behavioral adaptations vary with increasing distance downstream • Freshwater Riverine Includes riverine wetlands • Slopes less than 0.1 percent with sand and gravel substrates Low-gradient • Channels commonly have multiple valley threads • Sediment supply is generally greater than the river’s transport capacity. AUGUST 2014—Washington State Department of Natural Resources DRAFT Aquatics HCP A-1 Appendix A Ecosystems Characteristics Region/ Ecosystem Class Habitat Characteristics • Alternating sequences of pools, bars, and riffles with gradients of 0.1 to 2 percent • Sinuous channels with a high ratio of reach to valley length Riffle-pool • Pools typically created by scour; deposition occurs between pools in riffles, or adjacent to pools on bars • Substrate particle size comprised of gravel or cobble • Gradients between 2 and 4 percent Plane bed • Substrate particle size comprised of gravel or cobble • Gradients between 4 and 8 percent • Alternating sequences of relatively deep stream sections with flat, non-turbulent flow, and shallow, steep sections with turbulent flow Step-pool • Pools formed by large boulders that restrict the flow of water, resulting in a backwater upstream of the restriction and Riverine, continued Riverine, – a substantial drop in elevation downstream of the restriction • Gradients greater than 8 percent • Beds comprised of large boulders with Freshwater channels typically confined by valley Cascade walls • Movement of bed material is rare due to the large size of the dominant substrate and relatively shallow water depths • Depth less than 20 meters • Energy primarily derived from benthic vegetation and terrestrial sources • Benthic habitats within the photic zone • Vegetation has significant influence on species assemblages • Unconsolidated habitat dominates; Nearshore consolidated substrates found in Coastal scattered locations along the northern coast and rocky headlands in estuaries Saltwater • Unconsolidated habitat dominates; consolidated habitat most common Inland among the San Juan Islands and on rocky headlands in Puget Sound AUGUST 2014—Washington State Department of Natural Resources DRAFT Aquatics HCP A-2 Appendix A Ecosystems Characteristics Region/ Ecosystem Class Habitat Characteristics • Intertidal and shallow subtidal areas dominated by bedrock or boulder • Biota includes macroscopic red, green, and brown algae; kelp beds used by sea Consolidated otters; a variety of fish and invertebrate species; and benthic diatoms • Riparian area vegetated with overhanging shrubs and trees and adjacent herbaceous plants • Eelgrass meadows (approximately +0.3 meters to -10 meters—Mean Lower Low Water) used by a variety of fish and invertebrates for rearing, feeding and refuge • Flat areas of fine to coarse unconsolidated sediments near river and stream deltas and embayments not associated with freshwater systems • Biota includes drift seaweeds; infauna (worms, small crustaceans, and Unconsolidated bivalves); shorebirds; abundant juvenile and adult fish; and recreationally and commercially important stocks of clams • Sub-estuaries characterized by variable salinity concentrations, riparian habitat, dune habitat, tidal marshes, seaweed assemblages, eelgrass meadows, and limited rocky shore habitat • Riparian area vegetated with overhanging shrubs and trees and adjacent herbaceous plants • Greater than 10 meters above the bottom • Biota includes plankton (eggs, larvae, phytoplankton, and zooplankton), fish Water Column (herring, salmonids, smelt, spiny dogfish, sand lance, and rockfish), birds, and marine mammals • Depth greater than 20 meters • Benthic habitat below the photic zone • Energy production derived from communities of water column Offshore Saltwater phytoplankton • Dominated by unconsolidated sediments AUGUST 2014—Washington State Department of Natural Resources DRAFT Aquatics HCP A-3 Appendix A Ecosystems Characteristics Region/ Ecosystem Class Habitat Characteristics • Dominated by unconsolidated habitats; consolidated habitats are concentrated off the Olympic Peninsula coast, west and southwest of Willapa Bay, and off Coastal Cape Flattery • Unconsolidated habitats dominate; consolidated habitats are concentrated off the San Juan Islands the west coast of Whidbey Island and Admiralty Inlet, Inland and the Tacoma Narrows • Substrate is comprised of rocks larger than cobble (265 millimeters in diameter), bedrock, and consolidated clays • In high- to moderate-energy regimes, biota includes encrusting invertebrates Consolidated and plants, urchins, rockfish, gobies, lingcod, and sculpins; in low-energy regimes, biota includes glass sponges, serpulid polychaetes, planktivorous invertebrates, cup coral, rockfish, longfin sculpin, and gobies • Substrate consists of cobble, gravel, sand, mud and organic materials • In high-energy systems comprised of cobble and mixed-coarse substrates, biota includes mussels, barnacles, urchins, rock scallops, small bivalves, Unconsolidated amphipods, and polychaetes; in low- energy systems with mud substrates, biota includes sea pens and whips, polychaetes, bivalves, amphipods, anemones, sea stars, urchins, and sea cucumbers • Greater than 10 meters above the bottom • Biota includes plankton (eggs, larvae, phytoplankton, and zooplankton), fish Water Column (herring, salmonids, smelt, lamprey, spiny dogfish, cods, sand lance, and rockfish), birds, and marine mammals AUGUST 2014—Washington State Department of Natural Resources DRAFT Aquatics HCP A-4 Appendix B Species Considered Appendix B Species Considered Species Listing Natural Final Reasoning Status1 Heritage Recommendation 2 Group Name Rank Included in Species Reasoning5 Potential Designation4 Effects Analysis Screening3 Cascades frog FCo; G3,G4; No Watch Not state or Exclude Apparently secure; low (Rana cascadae) SM S3,S4 federally potential to affect; threatened or insufficient biological endangered; information apparently secure; low potential for use authorization s to affect species; insufficient s biological information Coastal tailed frog SM G4; S4 No Evaluation Not state or Exclude Apparently secure (Ascaphus truei) federally threatened or endangered; apparently Amphibians & Reptile secure 1 F = Federal (FE = Federal Endangered; FT = Federal Threatened; FCo = Federal Species of Concern; S = State (SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; SC = State Candidate; SS = State Sensitive; SM = State Monitor; SX = possibly extinct or extirpated) 2 Natural Heritage program ranks: G = Global; S = State; B = Breeding populations; N = Non-breeding populations; 1 = Critically imperiled; 2 = Imperiled; 3 = Rare locally or with a restricted range; 4 = Apparently secure; 5 = Demonstrably secure; H = Possibly extirpated. GNR = globally not ranked; SNR = State not ranked 3Species was included in spatial-temporal screening of potential effect analysis (see Table 3-1 in Washington DNR Aquatic Resources Program Habitat Conservation Plan Potential Effects and Expected Outcomes Technical Paper. Washington DNR, Olympia WA. August 2007). See also Washington DNR Aquatic Resources Program Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Species Technical Paper (Washington DNR, Olympia WA. August 2007). 4Designation based on results of Potential Effects Analysis (Washington DNR Aquatic Resources Program Habitat Conservation Plan Potential Effects and Expected Outcomes Technical Paper. Washington DNR, Olympia WA. August 2007); or based on input from species experts. 5Reasoning may be based on results of Potential Effects Analysis alone; based on additional unrelated reasons; or a combination of the two. AUGUST 2014—Washington State Department of Natural Resources DRAFT Aquatics HCP B-1 Appendix B Species Considered Species Listing Natural Final Reasoning Status1 Heritage Recommendation 2 Group Name Rank Included in Species Reasoning5 Potential Designation4 Effects Analysis Screening3 Columbia spotted SC G4; S4 Yes Covered State Include Covered activities could frog (Rana candidate; have high potential luteiventris) high potential effect on species, to affect; additionally other similar covered amphibians habitat use similar habitat requirements to other species Leatherback sea FE; SE G2; SNR No Evaluation State and Exclude Unlikely that use turtle (Dermochelys federally
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 6 – Biological Resources 6 - 1 Draft EIR Mill Creek Project June 2018 and Features Adjacent Woodlands
    Draft EIR Mill Creek Project June 2018 6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6.1 INTRODUCTION The Biological Resources chapter of the EIR evaluates the biological resources known to occur or potentially occur within the Mill Creek Project (proposed project) site, as well as biological resources known to occur in off-site areas where off-site project work may occur. This chapter describes potential impacts to those resources, and identifies measures to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels. Existing plant communities, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and potential for special-status species and communities are discussed for the project area. The information contained in this analysis is primarily based on the Biological Resources Assessment1 and the Special-Status Plant Survey Report2 prepared by Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC (Madrone). Information concerning existing on-site trees was provided by the Arborist Reports prepared by Abacus Consulting Arborists. Further information was sourced from the Placer County General Plan,3 the Placer County General Plan EIR,4 and the Dry Creek-West Placer Community Plan (DCWPCP).5 6.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following sections describe the existing environmental setting related to biological resources occurring in the proposed project area. Regional Setting The proposed project site is located north of Antelope and southwest of the City of Roseville, in an unincorporated portion of western Placer County, within the DCWPCP. The DCWPCP experiences a Mediterranean type climate with cool, wet winters, and hot, dry summers. Temperatures in the project area fluctuate from average highs in July of 95 degrees Fahrenheit, with average lows in December and January, averaging 39 degrees Fahrenheit for both months.
    [Show full text]
  • Marlin Marine Information Network Information on the Species and Habitats Around the Coasts and Sea of the British Isles
    MarLIN Marine Information Network Information on the species and habitats around the coasts and sea of the British Isles Sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) MarLIN – Marine Life Information Network Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Review Nicola White & Charlotte Marshall 2007-09-06 A report from: The Marine Life Information Network, Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Please note. This MarESA report is a dated version of the online review. Please refer to the website for the most up-to-date version [https://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1375]. All terms and the MarESA methodology are outlined on the website (https://www.marlin.ac.uk) This review can be cited as: White, N. & Marshall, C.E. 2007. Saccharina latissima Sugar kelp. In Tyler-Walters H. and Hiscock K. (eds) Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews, [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.17031/marlinsp.1375.1 The information (TEXT ONLY) provided by the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. Note that images and other media featured on this page are each governed by their own terms and conditions and they may or may not be available for reuse. Permissions beyond the scope of this license are available here. Based on a work at www.marlin.ac.uk (page left blank) Date: 2007-09-06 Sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) - Marine Life Information Network See online review for distribution map Buoy line with Saccharina latissima.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps
    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity of Wisconsin Asterids
    Diversity of Wisconsin Asterids . bellflowers and asters . **Campanulaceae - bellflower family A family mostly of herbs, but some secondarily woody, widely distributed in the temperate regions and in the montane tropics. Contains 65 genera and over 2200 species, with half belonging to Campanula and Lobelia. • Family has alternate leaves and milky latex. • Flowers are 5 merous and inferior ovaried. **Campanulaceae - bellflower family The family is divided into two distinct subfamilies - Campanuloideae and Lobelioideae - distinguished by floral symmetry, staminal fusion, and carpel number. They were often considered as separate families. Campanulastrum - bellflower Lobelia - lobelia Subfamily Campanuloideae Subfamily Lobelioideae **Campanulaceae - bellflower family Subfamily Campanuloideae __ CA (5) CO (5) A 5 G (3-5) Campanula and relatives have actinomorphic flowers, stamens not fused, and 3-5 fused carpels. Note the 3 styles of Campanula to the left. **Campanulaceae - bellflower family Triodanis perfoliata - Venus looking glass Secondary pollen presentation **Campanulaceae - bellflower family Campanulastrum americana - tall bellflower **Campanulaceae - bellflower family Campanula rotundifolia Campanula rapunculoides Bluebell - circumboreal European bellflower **Campanulaceae - bellflower family Subfamily Lobelioideae Lobelia and relatives have __ zygomorphic flowers, stamens fused CA (5) CO (5) A (5) G (2) into a tube in which the pollen is shed, and 2 fused carpels. Style pushes pollen out through the tube. Style Staminal tube **Campanulaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Inland Fish
    NatureMapping for Fish and Streams A citizen’s guide to stream monitoring and restoration Washington Department of FISH AND WILDLIFE Outreach and Education TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number Introduction 1 NatureMapping 1 Stream Safety and Etiquette 1 How to Use This Manual 1 Fish and Their Needs 2 Salmon 3 The Salmon Life Cycle 3 Other Fish 4 Data Collection 6 Fish Surveys 6 Habitat Surveys 9 Stream Bugs 9 Redd Identification 12 Step by Step Survey Instructions 13 Data Input Form 14 Appendix 1 - Anadromous Fish 15 Appendix 2 - Inland Fish 19 Appendix 3 - Critical Stocks 22 Glossary 23 January 1997 Produced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Outreach and Education Funded by the Shewmaker Bequest Scholarship Written by Adam Couto Contributors: Chuck Baranski, Jim Byrd, Kent Dimmitt, Steve Jenks, Mike O’Malley, Lynn Palensky, Darrell Pruett, Carol Smith, Kathleen South, Margaret Tudor, Bill Tweit, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the North West Indian Fisheries Commision. Introduction Introduction NatureMapping ...is a joint outreach program (developed by the NATUREMAPPING for STREAMS Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Stream Safety and Etiquette University of Washington Gap Analysis Project) to 1. Always ask permission to enter private property. Your promote biodiversity studies through citizen and school- ability to monitor and enhance fish habitat depends on based data collection. The objective is to empower the goodwill of the landowner. citizens to plan and manage resources for a community 2. Watch for redds (salmon egg nests), particularly from within a watershed. September through January. Redds can be hard to see, and eggs are easily killed by a poorly placed foot.
    [Show full text]
  • GREAT PLAINS REGION - NWPL 2016 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant Species Not Listed Are Considered UPL for Wetland Delineation Purposes
    GREAT PLAINS REGION - NWPL 2016 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps region.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Reserves Program Guidance (Final EIS) on September 6, 2002
    N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E SA Implementation andDesignation Aquatic ReserveProgram Photo b y Ca rol Cloen Guidance September 2005 Acknowledgements Technical Reviewers of Site Evaluation Criteria and Ecological Framework Dr. James W. Barry, California Department of Parks and Recreation Dr. Mike Beck, The Nature Conservancy Dr. Megan Dethier, University of Washington Dr. David Fluharty, University of Washington Dr. Ron Hilborn, University of Washington Wayne Palsson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Dr. Julia Parrish, University of Washington Kit Rawson, Tulalip Tribe Dr. Mary Ruckelshaus, National Marine Fisheries Service Other Contributors Marc Daily Carol Piening Jay Udelhoven Helen Berry Tom Mumford Scott Pearson John Gammon DNR Regional Review David Roberts Scott Robinson Rex Thompson Editor / Report Production Jane Chavey All contributors are DNR staff unless otherwise indicated. Copies of this report may be obtained from the Aquatic Reserves Program Manager or copied from the web page. Contact Information Aquatic Reserve Program Manager Phone: 360-902-1100 E-mail: [email protected] Webpage: www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/aqr/reserves DOUG SUTHERLAND Commissione r of Public Lands November 4, 2005 Dear Reader, Washington’s aquatic environment is an invaluable public resource that is treasured by the people of the state. The 2.4 million acres of state-owned aquatic lands is managed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to foster water- dependent use, public access, renewable resources, and environmental protection. Established in September 2002, the Aquatic Reserves Program is part of the Department’s efforts to conserve significant state-owned aquatic lands through preservation, restoration, and enhancement.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List Flowering Latin Name Common Name Community Date
    Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List Flowering Latin Name Common Name Community Date EQUISETACEAE HORSETAIL FAMILY Equisetum arvense L. Field Horsetail FF Equisetum fluviatile L. Water Horsetail LRB Equisetum hyemale L. ssp. affine (Engelm.) Stone Common Scouring-rush BS Equisetum laevigatum A. Braun Smooth Scouring-rush WM Equisetum variegatum Scheich. ex Fried. ssp. Small Horsetail LRB Variegatum DENNSTAEDIACEAE BRACKEN FAMILY Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn Bracken-Fern COF DRYOPTERIDACEAE TRUE FERN FAMILILY Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth ssp. angustum (Willd.) Northeastern Lady Fern FF Clausen Cystopteris bulbifera (L.) Bernh. Bulblet Fern FF Dryopteris carthusiana (Villars) H.P. Fuchs Spinulose Woodfern FF Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Tod. Ostrich Fern FF Onoclea sensibilis L. Sensitive Fern FF Polystichum acrostichoides (Michaux) Schott Christmas Fern FF ADDER’S-TONGUE- OPHIOGLOSSACEAE FERN FAMILY Botrychium virginianum (L.) Sw. Rattlesnake Fern FF FLOWERING FERN OSMUNDACEAE FAMILY Osmunda regalis L. Royal Fern WM POLYPODIACEAE POLYPODY FAMILY Polypodium virginianum L. Rock Polypody FF MAIDENHAIR FERN PTERIDACEAE FAMILY Adiantum pedatum L. ssp. pedatum Northern Maidenhair Fern FF THELYPTERIDACEAE MARSH FERN FAMILY Thelypteris palustris (Salisb.) Schott Marsh Fern WM LYCOPODIACEAE CLUB MOSS FAMILY Lycopodium lucidulum Michaux Shining Clubmoss OF Lycopodium tristachyum Pursh Ground-cedar COF SELAGINELLACEAE SPIKEMOSS FAMILY Selaginella apoda (L.) Fern. Spikemoss LRB CUPRESSACEAE CYPRESS FAMILY Juniperus communis L. Common Juniper Jun-E DS Juniperus virginiana L. Red Cedar Jun-E SD Thuja occidentalis L. White Cedar LRB PINACEAE PINE FAMILY Larix laricina (Duroi) K. Koch Tamarack Jun LRB Pinus banksiana Lambert Jack Pine COF Pinus resinosa Sol. ex Aiton Red Pine Jun-M CF Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List 1 Pinery Provincial Park Vascular Plant List Flowering Latin Name Common Name Community Date Pinus strobus L.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Assessment of Brown Algae-Derived Ingredients As Used in Cosmetics
    Safety Assessment of Brown Algae-Derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics Status: Draft Report for Panel Review Release Date: August 29, 2018 Panel Meeting Date: September 24-25, 2018 The 2018 Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel members are: Chair, Wilma F. Bergfeld, M.D., F.A.C.P.; Donald V. Belsito, M.D.; Ronald A. Hill, Ph.D.; Curtis D. Klaassen, Ph.D.; Daniel C. Liebler, Ph.D.; James G. Marks, Jr., M.D.; Ronald C. Shank, Ph.D.; Thomas J. Slaga, Ph.D.; and Paul W. Snyder, D.V.M., Ph.D. The CIR Executive Director is Bart Heldreth, Ph.D. This report was prepared by Lillian C. Becker, former Scientific Analyst/Writer and Priya Cherian, Scientific Analyst/Writer. © Cosmetic Ingredient Review 1620 L Street, NW, Suite 1200 ♢ Washington, DC 20036-4702 ♢ ph 202.331.0651 ♢ fax 202.331.0088 [email protected] Distributed for Comment Only -- Do Not Cite or Quote Commitment & Credibility since 1976 Memorandum To: CIR Expert Panel Members and Liaisons From: Priya Cherian, Scientific Analyst/Writer Date: August 29, 2018 Subject: Safety Assessment of Brown Algae as Used in Cosmetics Enclosed is the Draft Report of 83 brown algae-derived ingredients as used in cosmetics. (It is identified as broalg092018rep in this pdf.) This is the first time the Panel is reviewing this document. The ingredients in this review are extracts, powders, juices, or waters derived from one or multiple species of brown algae. Information received from the Personal Care Products Council (Council) are attached: • use concentration data of brown algae and algae-derived ingredients (broalg092018data1, broalg092018data2, broalg092018data3); • Information regarding hydrolyzed fucoidan extracted from Laminaria digitata has been included in the report.
    [Show full text]
  • The Campanulaceae of Ohio1
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by KnowledgeBank at OSU 142 WIENS ET AL. Vol. 62 THE CAMPANULACEAE OF OHIO1 ROBERT W. CRUDEN2 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Ohio State University, Columbus 10 In Ohio the family Campanulaceae is represented by three genera: Campanula, Lobelia, and Specularia; and eleven species, of which five are common throughout the state and two are quite limited in their distribution. Following the key to species each species is briefly described, and distribution, common names, chromosome numbers, if known, and other pertinent data are given. Chromosome numbers are those given in Darlington and Wylie (1956) and in the papers of Bowden (1959a, 1959b). Average time of flowering is indi- ^ontribution Nc. 666 of the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University. Research completed while a National Science Foundation Co-operative Fellow. 2Present address: Department of Botany, University of California, Berkeley 4, California. THE OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 62(3): 142, May, 1962. No. 3 CAMPANULACEAE OF OHIO 143 cated as well as the extreme flowering dates as determined from a study of her- barium material. The genera and species are arranged alphabetically. Distri- bution maps are included. A dot represents a collection of a particular species in a given county. No attempt has been made to indicate the general area of collection within the county, as a majority of herbarium specimens do not have this information. It should also be pointed out that many of the collections examined are forty or more years old and thus the distribution maps do not neces- sarily indicate present distribution.
    [Show full text]