DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix E Biological Assessment (Revised)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix E Biological Assessment (Revised) APPENDIX E BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (REVISED) BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT LYTTON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER 2010 Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Region Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2820 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT LYTTON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER 2010 Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Region Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2820 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 Prepared By: Analytical Environmental Services 1801 7th Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 447-3479 www.analyticalcorp.com TABLE OF CONTENTS BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: LYTTON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Interrelated and Interdependent Activities .......................................................................... 9 1.4 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 9 1.5 Previous Studies ................................................................................................................ 11 2.0 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION TO DATE ........................................................................... 11 3.0 REGULATORY SETTING ........................................................................................................... 11 4.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 17 4.1 Preliminary Research ........................................................................................................ 17 4.2 Field Surveys and Analysis ............................................................................................... 18 4.3 Federally Listed Species ................................................................................................... 21 4.4 Other Species .................................................................................................................... 23 5.0 CRITICAL HABITAT ................................................................................................................... 26 6.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 26 6.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 26 6.2 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 27 6.3 Habitat Types .................................................................................................................... 29 6.3.1 Potential Impacts and Recommended Mitigation ............................................................ 38 6.4 Native Trees ...................................................................................................................... 39 6.4.1 Potential Impacts and Recommended Mitigation ............................................................ 39 6.5 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S ....................................................................................... 41 6.5.1 Potential Impacts and Recommended Mitigation ............................................................ 41 6.6 Stream Characterization and Aquatic Species .................................................................. 42 6.6.1 Impacts Discussion (Location 1) ..................................................................................... 49 6.6.2 Impacts Discussion (Location 2) ..................................................................................... 49 6.7 Wildlife and Plant Species Observed Within the Project Site .......................................... 50 6.8 Federally Listed Plant Species .......................................................................................... 51 6.9 Migratory Birds................................................................................................................. 59 6.9.1 Potential Impacts and Recommended Mitigation ............................................................ 60 7.0 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES ..................................................... 61 8.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 61 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND DETERMINATION ................................................................................ 62 10.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 64 Analytical Environmental Services i Lytton Residential Development September 2010 Biological Assessment LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location ..................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Site and Vicinity ........................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Aerial Parcel Map ...................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4 Site Plan – Alternative B. .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5 Watershed Map ........................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 6 CNDDB 5-Mile Radius Map ................................................................................................... 19 Figure 7 Soils Map ................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 8 Habitat Map ............................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 9 Site Photographs – Terrestrial Habitat Types .......................................................................... 31 Figure 10 Site Photographs – Aquatic Habitat Types .............................................................................. 35 Figure 11 Wetland Delineation Map ....................................................................................................... 36 Figure 12 Drainage Photographs – Unnamed Drainage Channel (Location 1) ....................................... 44 Figure 13 Drainage Photographs –Unnamed Tributary to Windsor Creek (Location 2) ......................... 45 Figure 14 Drainage Photographs – Offsite Drainage ............................................................................... 46 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers within the Project Site ...................................................................... 4 Table 2 Summary of Biological Surveys for the Lytton Residential Property ........................................ 20 Table 3 Federal Special-Status Plants With Potential to Occur Within the Project Site ......................... 22 Table 4 Regionally Occurring Non-Federal Species ............................................................................... 23 Table 5 Summary of Habitat Types Within the Project Site ................................................................... 29 Table 6 Estimated Acreages and Percent Impacts to Habitats (All Alternatives) .................................... 38 Table 7 Tree Impact Summary for each Project Alternative ................................................................... 40 Table 8 Summary of Mitigation Ratios for the Federally Listed Plants of the Santa Rosa Plain ............ 55 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A USFWS, CNDDB, and CNPS Scientific Database Queries Attachment B Regionally Occurring Special-Status Species for the Lytton Residential Project Site Attachment C Wildlife Species Observed Within the Project Site Attachment D Plant Species Observed Within the Project Site Attachment E Technical Memorandum: Botanical Surveys Analytical Environmental Services ii Lytton Residential Development September 2010 Biological Assessment Biological Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION Analytical Environmental Services (AES) has prepared this Biological Assessment (BA) for the Lytton Residential Development Project (proposed project). This BA has been prepared in support of an application to the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to place approximately 124.12 acres of land into federal trust (proposed action) for the Lytton Rancheria of California (Tribe) and the construction of a residential development complex that would include housing units and other associated facilities. This BA has been prepared to facilitate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and was prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (16 USC 1536 (c)) concerning the effects of the proposed project. The purpose of this BA is to review the proposed project in sufficient detail to determine the extent to which the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012
    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012 A guide to resources and services For management and stewardship of the Russian River Watershed © www.robertjanover.com. Russian River & Big Sulphur Creek at Cloverdale, CA. Photo By Robert Janover Production of this directory was made possible through funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Conservation. In addition to this version of the directory, you can find updated versions online at www.sotoyomercd.org Russian River Watershed Directory version September 2012 - 1 - Preface The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (RCD) has updated our Russian River Watershed directory to assist landowners, residents, professionals, educators, organizations and agencies interested in the many resources available for natural resource management and stewardship throughout the Russian River watershed. In 1997, The Sotoyome RCD compiled the first known resource directory of agencies and organization working in the Russian River Watershed. The directory was an example of an emerging Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) effort to encourage community-based solutions for natural resource management. Since that Photo courtesy of Sonoma County Water Agency time the directory has gone through several updates with our most recent edition being released electronically and re-formatting for ease of use. For more information or to include your organization in the Directory, please contact the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Future Role of the University of California Natural Reserve System for Sensitive Plant Protection Under Climate Change
    Evaluating the Future Role of the University of California Natural Reserve System for Sensitive Plant Protection under Climate Change ERIN C. RIORDAN* AND PHILIP W. RUNDEL DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095 USA *EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: [email protected] WINTER 2019 PREPARED FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM Executive Summary Description Protected areas are critical for conserving California’s many sensitive plant species but their future role is uncertain under climate change. Climate-driven species losses and redistributions could dramatically affect the relevance of protected areas for biodiversity conservation this century. Focusing on the University of California Natural Reserve System (NRS), we predicted the future impact of climate change on reserve effectiveness with respect to sensitive plant protection. First, we evaluated the historical representation of sensitive plant species in the NRS reserve network by compiling species accounts from checklists, floras, and spatial queries of occurrence databases. Next, we calculated projected climate change exposure across the NRS reserve network for the end of the 21st century (2070–2099) relative to baseline (1971–2000) conditions under five future climate scenarios. We then predicted statewide changes in suitable habitat for 180 sensitive plant taxa using the same future climate scenarios in a species distribution modeling approach. Finally, from these predictions we evaluated suitable habitat retention at three spatial scales: individual NRS reserves (focal reserves), the NRS reserve network, and the surrounding mosaic of protected open space. Six reserves—Sagehen Creek Field Station, McLaughlin Natural Reserve, Jepson Prairie Reserve, Landels-Hill Big Creek Reserve, Sedgwick Reserve, and Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center—were selected as focal reserves for analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Curriculum Vitae
    Jason Ager Koontz Biology Department, Augustana College Phone: 309-794-3442 639-38th Street FAX: 309-794-8004 Rock Island, IL 61201 E-mail: [email protected] Education 1993 B.S. (Botany) Iowa State University, Ames, IA (with Distinction, Honors Program, and Phi Beta Kappa) 1995 M.S. (Botany) Miami University, Oxford, OH 2000 Ph.D. (Botany) Washington State University, Pullman, WA Current Position 7/14-present: Chair of Biology 8/11-7/14: Co-Chair of Biology 8/10: Tenured and promoted to Associate Professor 9/04-8/10: Assistant Professor of Biology Becoming Biologists (BI150), General Botany (BI220), Cell Biology (BI210), Nutrition (BI263; 2004-2006), Natural History of Ireland (BI328; 2010, 2013), Conservation Biology (BI410), Conservation Biology Senior Inquiry (BI464) Non-Academic Positions 5/12-present: Research Associate, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, CA. 1/06-present: Research Associate, Department of Botany, The Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL. 10/04-present: Adjunct Assistant Professional Scientist, Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, IL. 5/00-9/04: Assistant Research Scientist III, Plant Systematist, Centers for Biodiversity and Wildlife and Plant Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL. Academic Positions 10/01-12/07: Affiliate Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. 8/95-5/00: Graduate Teaching Assistant, Department of Botany, Washington State University,
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Friends, Sonoma County Is Celebrating the Winter and Spring Rains Which Have Left Our Rivers and Creeks with Plenty of Clea
    This picture of Mark West creek was taken in April by our intern, Nick Bel. Dear Friends, Sonoma County is celebrating the winter and spring rains which have left our rivers and creeks with plenty of clear clean water going into summer. Many of CCWI’s water monitors have noted that local rivers and creeks have more water and are more beautiful than they have been in the past several years. This is a very promising start to the summer season, but we should not let our guard down just yet. Several years of drought have left us with a shortage of water in many reservoirs so we must still be conscious of how we use and protect this precious resource. CCWI has a new program Director! Art Hasson joined the Community Clean Water Institute in 2008 as an intern and volunteer water monitor. Art has a business degree from the State University of New York, which he has put to good use as our new program director. He has updated our water quality database engaged in field work, performed flow studies and bacterial analysis for the past two years. Art is focused on protecting our public health through the preservation of our waterways. CCWI would like to thank outgoing program director Terrance Fleming for his hard work and valuable contributions to protect water resources. We wish him the very best in his future endeavors. CCWI would like to thank our donors for their support in building our online database interactive database. It contains nine years of data that CCWI volunteer water monitors have collected on local creeks and streams in and around Sonoma County.
    [Show full text]
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000
    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Gymnaconitum, a New Genus of Ranunculaceae Endemic to the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau
    TAXON 62 (4) • August 2013: 713–722 Wang & al. • Gymnaconitum, a new genus of Ranunculaceae Gymnaconitum, a new genus of Ranunculaceae endemic to the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau Wei Wang,1 Yang Liu,2 Sheng-Xiang Yu,1 Tian-Gang Gao1 & Zhi-Duan Chen1 1 State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, P.R. China 2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-3043, U.S.A. Author for correspondence: Wei Wang, [email protected] Abstract The monophyly of traditional Aconitum remains unresolved, owing to the controversial systematic position and taxonomic treatment of the monotypic, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau endemic A. subg. Gymnaconitum. In this study, we analyzed two datasets using maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference methods: (1) two markers (ITS, trnL-F) of 285 Delphinieae species, and (2) six markers (ITS, trnL-F, trnH-psbA, trnK-matK, trnS-trnG, rbcL) of 32 Delphinieae species. All our analyses show that traditional Aconitum is not monophyletic and that subgenus Gymnaconitum and a broadly defined Delphinium form a clade. The SOWH tests also reject the inclusion of subgenus Gymnaconitum in traditional Aconitum. Subgenus Gymnaconitum markedly differs from other species of Aconitum and other genera of tribe Delphinieae in many non-molecular characters. By integrating lines of evidence from molecular phylogeny, divergence times, morphology, and karyology, we raise the mono- typic A. subg. Gymnaconitum to generic status. Keywords Aconitum; Delphinieae; Gymnaconitum; monophyly; phylogeny; Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau; Ranunculaceae; SOWH test Supplementary Material The Electronic Supplement (Figs. S1–S8; Appendices S1, S2) and the alignment files are available in the Supplementary Data section of the online version of this article (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax).
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Estuary Management Project Draft
    4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4.1 Introduction This section describes biological resources, with focus on terrestrial and wetland resources, and assesses potential impacts that could occur with implementation of the Russian River Estuary Management Project (Estuary Management Project or proposed project). Fisheries resources are addressed in Section 4.5, Fisheries. Terrestrial and wetland resources include terrestrial, wetland, and non-fisheries-related species, sensitive habitats or natural communities, special-status plant and animal species, and protected trees. Impacts on terrestrial and wetland resources are analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance criteria (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). For impacts determined to be either significant or potentially significant, mitigation measures to minimize or avoid these impacts are identified. Information Sources and Survey Methodology The primary sources of information for this analysis are the existing biological resource studies and reports prepared for the Russian River Estuary (Estuary) (Heckel, 1994; Merritt Smith Consulting, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; Sonoma County Water Agency [Water Agency; SCWA in references] and Merritt Smith Consulting 2001; SCWA, 2006; SCWA and Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods, 2009). These reports, incorporated by reference, present the methods and results of vegetation classification and mapping, fish and invertebrate sampling, amphibian surveys, and observations of bird and pinniped1 numbers and behavior, as well as other sampling efforts (e.g., water quality sampling) conducted in the Russian River Estuary. In addition to the reports listed above, information was obtained from conservation and management plans and planning documents prepared for lands within the project vicinity (Prunuske Chatham, Inc., 2005; California Department of Parks and Recreation [State Parks], 2007), as well as the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 17/Wednesday, January 26, 2000
    4156 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations Dated: January 18, 2000. extirpated numerous populations of reduced D. luteum to a variety of D. Stephen C. Saunders, these two plants in coastal Marin and nudicaule, it is currently recognized as Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Sonoma Counties in northern California. a full species (Warnock 1993). Wildlife and Parks. The historical range of Delphinium Delphinium luteum occurs on rocky [FR Doc. 00± 1746 Filed 1±25±00; 8:45 am] bakeri and D. luteum did not extend areas within coastal scrub plant BILLING CODE 4310±55±P beyond coastal Marin and Sonoma community, including areas with active Counties. rock slides, from sea level to 100 m (300 Ewan (1942) described Delphinium ft) in elevation (Guerrant 1976). DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR bakeri based on type material collected Delphinium luteum is a perennial by Milo Baker in 1939 from Coleman herb in the buttercup family Fish and Wildlife Service Valley, Sonoma County, California. In (Ranunculaceae) that grows from fibrous the most recent treatment, Warnock roots to 56 cm (22 in) tall. The leaves 50 CFR Part 17 (1993) retained the taxon as a full are mostly basal, fleshy, and green at the species. Historically, D. bakeri was time of flowering. The flowers are RIN 1018±AE23 known from Coleman Valley in Sonoma cornucopia-shaped. The five Endangered and Threatened Wildlife County and from a site near Tomales in conspicuous sepals are bright yellow, and Plants; Determination of Marin County. Delphinium bakeri with the posterior sepal elongated into Endangered Status for Two Larkspurs occurs on decomposed shale within the a spur.
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES Water Bodies
    Attachment A: Detailed list of receiving water bodies within the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Control District boundaries under the jurisdiction of Regional Water Quality Control Boards One and Two This list of watercourses in the San Francisco Bay Area groups rivers, creeks, sloughs, etc. according to the bodies of water they flow into. Tributaries are listed under the watercourses they feed, sorted by the elevation of the confluence so that tributaries entering nearest the sea appear they first. Numbers in parentheses are Geographic Nantes Information System feature ids. Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County north of Bodega Head, listed from north to south:W The Gualala River and its tributaries • Gualala River (253221): o North Fork (229679) - flows from Mendocino County. o South Fork (235010): Big Pepperwood Creek (219227) - flows from Mendocino County. • Rockpile Creek (231751) - flows from Mendocino County. Buckeye Creek (220029): Little Creek (227239) North Fork Buckeye Crcck (229647): Osser Creek (230143) • Roy Creek (231987) • Soda Springs Creek (234853) Wheatfield Fork (237594): Fuller Creek (223983): • Sullivan Crcck (235693) Boyd Creek (219738) • North Fork Fuller Creek (229676) South Fork Fuller Creek (235005) Haupt Creek (225023) • Tobacco Creek (236406) Elk Creek (223108) • )`louse Creek (225688): Soda Spring Creek (234845) Allen Creek (218142) Peppeawood Creek (230514): • Danfield Creek (222007): • Cow Creek (221691) • Jim Creek (226237) • Grasshopper Creek (224470) Britain Creek (219851) • Cedar Creek (220760) • Wolf Creek (238086) • Tombs Crock (236448) • Marshall Creek (228139): • McKenzie Creek (228391) Northern Sonoma Coast Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County between the Gualala and Russian Rivers, numbered from north to south: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment
    CHARLES M. SCHULZ SONOMA COUNTY AIRPORT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region 15000 Aviation Blvd. Hawthorne, California 90250 Submitted by: Sonoma County Department of Transportation and Public Works 2300 County Center Drive, Suite B-100 Santa Rosa, California 95403 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 LSA Project No. MHN530 March 24, 2006 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CHARLES M. SCHULZ SONOMA COUNTY AIRPORT MARCH 2006 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT...........................................................1 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND PROJECT AREA..........................................................................1 1.3 NOMENCLATURE..............................................................................................................6 2.0 SPECIES ADDRESSED .................................................................................................................7 2.1 LISTED SPECIES ................................................................................................................7 2.2 OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES .............................................................................10 2.3 CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS........................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci
    Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA Sorted by: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci. Name; Legend: Page 94 REGION 10 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 8 REGION 9 ALTERNATE NATURESERVE PRIMARY MAJOR SUB- U.S. N U.S. 2005 NATURESERVE SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) COMMON NAME GROUP GROUP G RANK RANK ESA C 9 Anahita punctulata Southeastern Wandering Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G4 NNR 9 Apochthonius indianensis A Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1G2 N1N2 9 Apochthonius paucispinosus Dry Fork Valley Cave Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 Pseudoscorpion 9 Erebomaster flavescens A Cave Obligate Harvestman Invertebrate Arachnid G3G4 N3N4 9 Hesperochernes mirabilis Cave Psuedoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G5 N5 8 Hypochilus coylei A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G3? NNR 8 Hypochilus sheari A Lampshade Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 NNR 9 Kleptochthonius griseomanus An Indiana Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Kleptochthonius orpheus Orpheus Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 9 Kleptochthonius packardi A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 N2N3 9 Nesticus carteri A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid GNR NNR 8 Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Nesticus crosbyi A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1? NNR 8 Nesticus mimus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2 NNR 8 Nesticus sheari A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR 8 Nesticus silvanus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 3-2020 A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California" (2020). Botanical Studies. 42. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/42 This Flora of California is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A LIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS ENDEMIC TO CALIFORNIA Compiled By James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University Arcata, California 13 February 2020 CONTENTS Willis Jepson (1923-1925) recognized that the assemblage of plants that characterized our flora excludes the desert province of southwest California Introduction. 1 and extends beyond its political boundaries to include An Overview. 2 southwestern Oregon, a small portion of western Endemic Genera . 2 Nevada, and the northern portion of Baja California, Almost Endemic Genera . 3 Mexico. This expanded region became known as the California Floristic Province (CFP). Keep in mind that List of Endemic Plants . 4 not all plants endemic to California lie within the CFP Plants Endemic to a Single County or Island 24 and others that are endemic to the CFP are not County and Channel Island Abbreviations .
    [Show full text]