DOCSLIB.ORG

Columbia River Basin Tributary Habitat Restoration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Columbia River Basin Tributary Habitat Restoration Columbia River Basin Tributary Habitat Restoration Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment September 2020 DOE/EA-2126 Table of Contents 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Need................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Purposes ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1 The Columbia River Basin ............................................................................................................ 3 1.4.2 Federal Columbia River Power System ...................................................................................... 4 1.4.3 Biological Opinion for the Continued Operation and Maintenance of the Columbia River System ........................................................................................................ 5 1.5 Lead and Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................. 6 1.5.1 Bonneville Power Administration............................................................................................... 6 1.5.2 Bureau of Reclamation.................................................................................................................. 7 1.6 Public Involvement....................................................................................................................................... 8 1.6.1 Scoping ............................................................................................................................................ 8 1.6.2 Public Comments ........................................................................................................................... 8 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................................10 2.1 Proposed Action..........................................................................................................................................10 2.1.1 Category 1 - Reestablishing and Improving Fish Passage .....................................................11 2.1.2 Category 2 – Improving River, Stream, Floodplain, and Wetland Habitat..........................13 2.1.3 Category 3 - Invasive Plant Control and Vegetation Management.......................................17 2.1.4 Category 4 - Piling Removal .......................................................................................................22 2.1.5 Category 5 - Road and Trail Erosion Control, Maintenance, Decommissioning, and Construction.................................................................................................................22 2.1.6 Category 6 - In-Channel Nutrient Enhancement.....................................................................23 2.1.7 Category 7 – Irrigation, Water Delivery, and Water Use Actions .........................................23 2.1.8 Category 8 - Fish, Hydrologic, Wildlife, and Geomorphologic Surveys ...............................26 2.1.9 Category 9 – Riparian and Upland Habitat Improvements and Structures ........................26 2.1.10 Category 10 - Artificial Pond Development and Operation...................................................28 2.2 Implementation of the Proposed Action .................................................................................................29 2.2.1 Project Selection ..........................................................................................................................29 2.2.2 Project Design and Environmental Reviews ...........................................................................30 2.2.3 Tiering Future Analyses to this NEPA Document ...................................................................30 2.3 No Action Alternative.................................................................................................................................31 2.4 Mitigation Measures and Design Criteria................................................................................................31 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................34 3.1 Effects Common to Construction Activities ............................................................................................35 3.1.1 Pre-construction ..........................................................................................................................35 3.1.2 Site Preparation ...........................................................................................................................36 3.1.3 Construction .................................................................................................................................37 3.1.4 Site Restoration............................................................................................................................38 Columbia River Basin Tributary Habitat Restoration Environmental Assessment i 3.1.5 Construction Activity Effects Summary ...................................................................................39 3.2 Effects Specific to Categories of Action ...................................................................................................39 3.2.1 Effects of Fish Passage Restoration (Category 1) ...................................................................39 3.2.2 Effects of Improving River, Stream, Floodplain, and Wetland Habitat (Category 2) ...........................................................................................................................................40 3.2.3 Effects of Invasive Plant Control and Vegetation Management (Category 3) ....................42 3.2.4 Effects of Piling Removal (Category 4).....................................................................................47 3.2.5 Effects of Road and Trail Erosion Control, Maintenance, and Decommissioning (Category 5) .........................................................................................................................48 3.2.6 Effects of Nutrient Enhancement (Category 6) .......................................................................49 3.2.7 Effects of Irrigation and Water Delivery/Management Actions (Category 7) ...................50 3.2.8 Effects of Fish, Hydrologic, Wildlife, and Geomorphologic Surveys (Category 8) .............54 3.2.9 Effects of Actions for Riparian and Upland Habitat Improvements and Structures (Category 9) .....................................................................................................55 3.2.10 Effects of Artificial Pond Development and Management (Category 10) ...........................56 3.2.11 Summary of Effects by Categories of Action............................................................................56 3.3 Affected Environment and Effects to Resources by Resource Type ...................................................59 3.3.1 Fish and Aquatic Species ............................................................................................................59 3.3.2 Water Resources..........................................................................................................................74 3.3.3 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................84 3.3.4 Wetlands and Floodplains..........................................................................................................97 3.3.5 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 104 3.3.6 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 120 3.3.7 Transportation .......................................................................................................................... 124 3.3.8 Land Use and Recreation......................................................................................................... 126 3.3.9 Visual Resources ....................................................................................................................... 130 3.3.10 Air Quality, Noise, and Public Health and Safety ................................................................. 132 3.3.11 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 137 3.3.12 Indian Trust Assets................................................................................................................... 140 3.3.13 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice......................................................................... 140 3.3.14 Climate Change ......................................................................................................................... 145 3.4 Cumulative Effects..................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Inventory of Fish in Streams in Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science An Inventory of Fish in Streams at Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003 Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2013/717.N ON THE COVER National Park staff conducting a snorkel fish survey in Kotsuck Creek, Mount Rainier National Park, 2002. Photograph courtesy of Mount Rainier National Park. An Inventory of Fish in Streams at Mount Rainier National Park 2001-2003 Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2013/717.N Barbara A. Samora, Heather Moran, Rebecca Lofgren National Park Service North Coast and Cascades Network Inventory and Monitoring Program Mount Rainier National Park Tahoma Woods Star Rt. Ashford, WA. 98304 April 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [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]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard
    Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Data Standard Version 4.0 March, 2020 Revision History Version 1.0 Endorsed by the Oregon Geographic Information Council March 27, 2008 Version 2.0 Revised September 2010 – February, 2011 based on input from ODFW, BLM, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, NOAA Fisheries, Oregon Dept. of Transportation and the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. Revisions include changes to the scope of the standard, modifications to some attribute domains, the addition of two optional attribute elements and the addition of two business rules. Version 3.0 Revised December, 2014 – March, 2015 based on input from ODFW, BLM, USFS, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. Revisions include changes to the minimum graphic elements, optional attribute elements, Domain of Attributes (Appendix C) and Business Rules (Appendix D). Endorsed by the Oregon Geographic Information Council June 17, 2015 Version 4.0 Revised April – September, 2019 based on input from ODFW, BLM, USFS, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Weyerhaeuser Co., Urban Greenspaces Institute. Revisions include a new optional attribute element to identify specific habitat end extent determinations, a new optional attribute element to describe habitat access methods, a new optional attribute element to identify end extent barriers, changes related to the incorporation of modeled data, an expansion of the species domain, new business rules for designating Essential Salmonid Habitat and rules to clarify acceptable methods for standardized fish and habitat surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • Speckled Dace, Rhinichthys Osculus, in Canada, Prepared Under Contract with Environment and Climate Change Canada
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada ENDANGERED 2016 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2016. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 51 pp. (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=24F7211B-1). Previous report(s): COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 27 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). COSEWIC 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 36 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Peden, A. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-36 pp. Peden, A.E. 1980. COSEWIC status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 1-13 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Andrea Smith (Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd.) for writing the status report on the Speckled Dace, Rhinichthys osculus, in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Key to the Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia
    FIELD KEY TO THE FRESHWATER FISHES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J.D. McPhail and R. Carveth Fish Museum, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, 6270 University Blvd., Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4 (604) 822-4803 Fax (604) 822-2416 © The Province of British Columbia Published by the Resources Inventory Committee Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data McPhail, J. D. (John Donald) Field key to the freshwater, fishes of British Columbia Also available through the Internet. Previously issued: Field key to the freshwater fishes of British Columbia. Draft for 1994 field testing, 1994. Includes bibliographical references: p. ISBN 0-7726-3830-6 (Field guide) ISBN 0-7726-3844-6 (Computer file) 1. Freshwater fishes - British Columbia - Identification. I. Carveth, R. II. Resources Inventory Committee (Canada) III. Title. QL626.5.B7M36 1999 597.176'09711 C99-960109-1 Additional Copies of this publication can be purchased from: Government Publications Centre Phone: (250) 387-3309 or Toll free: 1 -800-663-6105 Fax: (250) 387-0388 www.publications.gov.bc.ca Digital Copies are available on the Internet at: http://www.for.gov. bc.ca/ric Text copyright © 1993 J.D. McPhail Illustrations copyright © 1993 D.L. McPhail All rights reserved. Design and layout by D.L. McPhail "Admitted that some degree of obscurity is inseparable from both theology and ichthyology, it is not inconsistent with profound respect for the professors of both sciences to observe that a great deal of it has been created by themselves." Sir Herbert Maxwell TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction · i Region 1 - Vancouver Island 1 Region 2 - Fraser 27 Region 3 - Columbia 63 Region 4 - MacKenzie 89 Region 5 - Yukon 115 Region 6 - North Coast 127 Region 7 - Queen Charlotte Islands 151 Region 8 - Central Coast 167 Appendix 193 Acknowledgements .
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts Part 1
    375 Poster Session I, Event Center – The Snowbird Center, Friday 26 July 2019 Maria Sabando1, Yannis Papastamatiou1, Guillaume Rieucau2, Darcy Bradley3, Jennifer Caselle3 1Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 2Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin, LA, USA, 3University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Reef Shark Behavioral Interactions are Habitat Specific Dominance hierarchies and competitive behaviors have been studied in several species of animals that includes mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish. Competition and distribution model predictions vary based on dominance hierarchies, but most assume differences in dominance are constant across habitats. More recent evidence suggests dominance and competitive advantages may vary based on habitat. We quantified dominance interactions between two species of sharks Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos and Carcharhinus melanopterus, across two different habitats, fore reef and back reef, at a remote Pacific atoll. We used Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) to observe dominance behaviors and quantified the number of aggressive interactions or bites to the BRUVs from either species, both separately and in the presence of one another. Blacktip reef sharks were the most abundant species in either habitat, and there was significant negative correlation between their relative abundance, bites on BRUVs, and the number of grey reef sharks. Although this trend was found in both habitats, the decline in blacktip abundance with grey reef shark presence was far more pronounced in fore reef habitats. We show that the presence of one shark species may limit the feeding opportunities of another, but the extent of this relationship is habitat specific. Future competition models should consider habitat-specific dominance or competitive interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Xerces Society's
    Conserving the Gems of Our Waters Best Management Practices for Protecting Native Western Freshwater Mussels During Aquatic and Riparian Restoration, Construction, and Land Management Projects and Activities Emilie Blevins, Laura McMullen, Sarina Jepsen, Michele Blackburn, Aimée Code, and Scott Homan Black CONSERVING THE GEMS OF OUR WATERS Best Management Practices for Protecting Native Western Freshwater Mussels During Aquatic and Riparian Restoration, Construction, and Land Management Projects and Activities Emilie Blevins Laura McMullen Sarina Jepsen Michele Blackburn Aimée Code Scott Hoffman Black The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation www.xerces.org The Xerces® Society for Invertebrate Conservation is a nonprot organization that protects wildlife through the conservation of invertebrates and their habitat. Established in 1971, the Society is at the forefront of invertebrate protection, harnessing the knowledge of scientists and the enthusiasm of citizens to implement conservation programs worldwide. The Society uses advocacy, education, and applied research to promote invertebrate conservation. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 628 NE Broadway, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97232 Tel (855) 232-6639 Fax (503) 233-6794 www.xerces.org Regional oces from coast to coast. The Xerces Society is an equal opportunity employer and provider. Xerces® is a trademark registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce © 2018 by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Primary Authors and Contributors The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation: Emilie Blevins, Laura McMullen, Sarina Jepsen, Michele Blackburn, Aimée Code, and Scott Homan Black. Acknowledgements Funding for this report was provided by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, The Nature Conservancy and Portland General Electric Salmon Habitat Fund, the Charlotte Martin Foundation, Meyer Memorial Trust, and Xerces Society members and supporters.
    [Show full text]
  • Speckled Dace Rhinichthys Osculus
    COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada ENDANGERED 2002 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION DES ENDANGERED WILDLIFE IN ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: Please note: Persons wishing to cite data in the report should refer to the report (and cite the author(s)); persons wishing to cite the COSEWIC status will refer to the assessment (and cite COSEWIC). A production note will be provided if additional information on the status report history is required. COSEWIC 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 36 pp. Peden, A. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-36 pp. Previous report: Peden, A. 1980. COSEWIC status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 13 pp. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le naseux moucheté (Rhinichthys osculus) au Canada – Mise à jour Cover illustration: Speckled dace — Photograph courtesy Royal B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • ES Teacher Packet.Indd
    PROCESS OF EXTINCTION When we envision the natural environment of the Currently, the world is facing another mass extinction. past, one thing that may come to mind are vast herds However, as opposed to the previous five events, and flocks of a great diversity of animals. In our this extinction is not caused by natural, catastrophic modern world, many of these herds and flocks have changes in environmental conditions. This current been greatly diminished. Hundreds of species of both loss of biodiversity across the globe is due to one plants and animals have become extinct. Why? species — humans. Wildlife, including plants, must now compete with the expanding human population Extinction is a natural process. A species that cannot for basic needs (air, water, food, shelter and space). adapt to changing environmental conditions and/or Human activity has had far-reaching effects on the competition will not survive to reproduce. Eventually world’s ecosystems and the species that depend on the entire species dies out. These extinctions may them, including our own species. happen to only a few species or on a very large scale. Large scale extinctions, in which at least 65 percent of existing species become extinct over a geologically • The population of the planet is now growing by short period of time, are called “mass extinctions” 2.3 people per second (U.S. Census Bureau). (Leakey, 1995). Mass extinctions have occurred five • In mid-2006, world population was estimated to times over the history of life on earth; the first one be 6,555,000,000, with a rate of natural increase occurred approximately 440 million years ago and the of 1.2%.
    [Show full text]