DOCSLIB.ORG

Recovery Report to Congress: 2009 to 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recovery Report to Congress: 2009 to 2010 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report to Congress on the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species Fiscal Years 2009-2010 Artwork by Amy Cheu, San Diego, CA From the Director This 2010 report is an update on the recovery of threatened and endangered species for Fiscal Years 2009-2010. During this period, the brown pelican was delisted in its entirety, and recovery efforts spearheaded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) led to the reclassification of the Oregon chub from endangered to threatened. In addition, the Okaloosa darter and Tulotoma snail were proposed for reclassification from endangered to threatened, and the Lake Erie watersnake and Tennessee purple coneflower were proposed for delisting due to recovery (as of publication of this report, both of those delistings were finalized). However, recovery cannot be fully measured by delistings and reclassifications from endangered to threatened (downlistings) alone. Most species’ declines occur over decades and centuries Photo Credit: Heilemann/DOI Tami prior to their listing, thus it may take many years and generations of a species before that species may be delisted or downlisted. Upon their listing, most species are so critically imperiled that the Service must first focus on population stabilization efforts in order to impede the species’ rapid progression towards disastrously low population levels. Therefore, the success of the Service and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) cannot be measured in delisting alone. Instead, the Service’s effectiveness in its implementation of the ESA should be measured in the number of species that have been saved from extinction since their listing, the number of populations that have been stabilized since a species’ listing, and the number of populations that have increased since a species’ listing even if the species has not been delisted. Therefore, for the first time, we are providing you with a compilation of our completed Five Year Status Reviews (5-year reviews) which, for a majority of listed species, reflects their progress towards recovery as result of stabilized and increasing populations, diminished threats, and prevented extinctions. For example, the Oregon chub was reclassified from endangered to threatened in 2010. Though the species was not delisted, its status has steadily improved since its listing in 1993 due to the efforts of the Service and our partners. The number of Oregon chub populations has increased from 9 at the time of its 1993 listing to 38 at the time of its 2010 downlisting. Additionally, 16 of the 38 populations (42%) have stable or increasing trends, and are expected to remain viable with continued monitoring and adaptive management. The Oregon chub’s growth and progress towards recovery led to its downlisting on April 23, 2010, marking further headway made in the fight towards recovery by the Service and its partners. The Service significantly values and continues to cultivate relationships with Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribes; universities; non-governmental organizations; private landowners; and other stakeholders, in order to best recover listed species. In collaboration with our partners, the Service is increasing the effectiveness of ESA implementation in our recovery program. Daniel M. Ashe, Director Report to Congress on the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species Fiscal Years 2009-2010 Data • the species’ 5-year review status the alternate name is indicated Data are presented for each U.S. recommendation at the end of in parentheses with an “equals” listed species under the jurisdiction FY2010. symbol followed by the alternate of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife name. Most species are listed at Service (Service), organized by Common Name the taxonomic level (species or major taxonomic groupings. Data Species are listed in the table by subspecies). If a species is listed include: inverted common name within only within a specific geographic their respective taxonomic groups. boundary, its population information • the species’ inverted common Where a species has more than one is provided in parentheses after name, or scientific name where commonly accepted common name, the common name(s). The scientific no common name is available; • the lead Service Region; • the date the species was listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); • the date of the species’ current recovery plan; • the stage of development of the recovery plan; • the number of actions outlined in the current recovery plan that have been implemented; • the estimated costs for recovery, if available; • the estimated time to recovery (from plan completion), if available; • the species’ current listing classification; • the species’ recovery priority number; • the species’ population status at the end of FY 2010; • the date the species’ 5-year review was completed; and Seth WilleyFWS Maguire Daisy. Report to Congress on the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species Fiscal Years 2009-2010 1 name is also given in parentheses wide ranging and may be found in development. If a species has more behind the common name. Many more than one region. than one active recovery plan, all plants and some invertebrates active plan dates will be shown in don’t have a common name, so only Date Listed this column. the scientific name is given. This indicates the date the species was added to the list of federally Three species in the 2010 Report Lead Region Endangered and Threatened face very unique circumstances due This indicates which Service Species. to recent revisions of their listed Region has the lead responsibility entities. Prior to a September 15, for the species (see Map on inside Date of Current or Active Plan 2009 listing revision, the Uinta back cover). For example, a This indicates the date of the Basin hookless cactus, Colorado number “8” indicates a species species’ most current recovery hookless cactus, and Pariette cactus for which the California-Nevada plan. An “N/A” in this column were part of a single listed entity Operations Office has lead indicates that a recovery plan and covered under the Uinta Basin responsibility. Some species are for the species is still under hookless cactus recovery plan (in which 14 recovery actions were implemented). The revision resulted in three listed entities, and each now has a recovery outline. The previous recovery plan is no longer the current plan for these species; therefore, this information is not included in the 2010 Report. Plan Status Updates on the development and implementation of recovery plans are provided in this report. Recovery plans are an important tool in the Service’s mission to recover listed species, as they provide guidance on the direction, strategy, and benchmarks for recovery. They also provide indicators for when it may be appropriate to evaluate the status of the species. As was demonstrated in the last Recovery Report for the Fiscal Years 2007-2008, the Service is making improvements in finalizing recovery plans for threatened and endangered species. The Service remains committed to its goal of having at least one recovery plan for every species, and continues to finalize and implement recovery plans as a tool for delisting and downlisting species. By the end of this reporting period 1,141 listed species (86%) had recovery plans. Of these species, only 47 had draft recovery plans that were waiting to be finalized. The status of recovery plan USFWS development is reported as A California condor flies over the Bitter Creek. indicated below: 2 Report to Congress on the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species Fiscal Years 2009-2010 • F = Final plan has been • RF(#) = Final revision has because we have determined that approved by the Regional been approved by the Regional some other document fulfills the Director and a Notice of Director and a Notice of recovery planning needs (e.g. Availability has been published in Availability has been published Modoc sucker). the Federal Register. in the Federal Register. The first revision is recorded as • N/A = The species does not yet • D = Draft plan has been RF(1), the second revision is have an approved recovery plan. approved by the Regional RF(2), etc. Director and published in the Number of Actions Implemented Federal Register as available for • E = Species that are exempted The “number of actions implement- public comment. from recovery plan development. ed” represents the total number Species are “exempt” if the (across all fiscal years) of recovery • RD(#) = Draft of the revised Service has determined that actions identified in the implemen- plan has been approved by the developing a recovery plan will tation schedules of the recovery Regional Director and published not promote the conservation documents in the Recovery Online in the Federal Register as of the species. Usually, such Activity Reporting (ROAR) data- available for public comment. a finding is made for species base that qualify as implemented The draft of the first revision that are presumed extinct, or as of September 30, 2010. Recov- to the final plan is recorded for species that occur primarily ery Actions are defined as actions as RD(1), draft of the second outside of the United States. relevant to eliminating or reduc- revision to the final plan is For a few species, we have ing the threats identified in listing recorded as RD(2), etc. decided not to prepare a plan rules, recovery plans, and through James Weliver/USFWS A team of wildlife biologists, students, and volunteers from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries, University of Maine, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service discover a litter of three Canada lynx kittens during a routine den visit. Report to Congress on the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species Fiscal Years 2009-2010 3 subsequent 5-year reviews that forecasts it will take the species (E). At the close of this reporting are identified as such in ROAR. A to recover in order to begin period, the Service had lead recovery action in ROAR is counted delisting.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Endangered Species Expenditure Report (1998)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures Fiscal Year 1998 January 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... ii What is the purpose of this report? ....................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are reported?.......................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are not included?.................................................................................................... ii What are the expenditures reported for FY 1998?................................................................................ ii How does the 1998 expenditure report compare to other years? ......................................................... ii ENDANGERED SPECIES EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 1998...................................................1 PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................1 What does "Reasonably Identifiable Expenditures" mean? .........................................................1 What is not included in the report? ...............................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Conifer Quarterly
    Conifer Quarterly Vol. 24 No. 4 Fall 2007 Picea pungens ‘The Blues’ 2008 Collectors Conifer of the Year Full-size Selection Photo Credit: Courtesy of Stanley & Sons Nursery, Inc. CQ_FALL07_FINAL.qxp:CQ 10/16/07 1:45 PM Page 1 The Conifer Quarterly is the publication of the American Conifer Society Contents 6 Competitors for the Dwarf Alberta Spruce by Clark D. West 10 The Florida Torreya and the Atlanta Botanical Garden by David Ruland 16 A Journey to See Cathaya argyrophylla by William A. McNamara 19 A California Conifer Conundrum by Tim Thibault 24 Collectors Conifer of the Year 29 Paul Halladin Receives the ACS Annual Award of Merits 30 Maud Henne Receives the Marvin and Emelie Snyder Award of Merit 31 In Search of Abies nebrodensis by Daniel Luscombe 38 Watch Out for that Tree! by Bruce Appeldoorn 43 Andrew Pulte awarded 2007 ACS $1,000 Scholarship by Gerald P. Kral Conifer Society Voices 2 President’s Message 4 Editor’s Memo 8 ACS 2008 National Meeting 26 History of the American Conifer Society – Part One 34 2007 National Meeting 42 Letters to the Editor 44 Book Reviews 46 ACS Regional News Vol. 24 No. 4 CONIFER QUARTERLY 1 CQ_FALL07_FINAL.qxp:CQ 10/16/07 1:45 PM Page 2 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Conifer s I start this letter, we are headed into Afall. In my years of gardening, this has been the most memorable year ever. It started Quarterly with an unusually warm February and March, followed by the record freeze in Fall 2007 Volume 24, No 4 April, and we just broke a record for the number of consecutive days in triple digits.
    [Show full text]
  • Larval-Ant Interactions in the Mojave Desert: Communication Brings Us Together
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones May 2018 Larval-Ant Interactions in the Mojave Desert: Communication Brings Us Together Alicia Mellor Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Repository Citation Mellor, Alicia, "Larval-Ant Interactions in the Mojave Desert: Communication Brings Us Together" (2018). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 3291. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/13568598 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LARVAL‐ANT INTERACTIONS IN THE MOJAVE DESERT: COMMUNICATION BRINGS US TOGETHER By Alicia M. Mellor Bachelor of Science – Biological Sciences Colorado Mesa University 2013 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science – Biological Sciences College of Sciences School of Life Sciences The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 2018 Thesis Approval The Graduate College The University of Nevada, Las Vegas April 12, 2018 This thesis prepared by Alicia M.
    [Show full text]
  • Eriogonum Visheri A
    Eriogonum visheri A. Nelson (Visher’s buckwheat): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project December 18, 2006 Juanita A. R. Ladyman, Ph.D. JnJ Associates LLC 6760 S. Kit Carson Cir E. Centennial, CO 80122 Peer Review Administered by Center for Plant Conservation Ladyman, J.A.R. (2006, December 18). Eriogonum visheri A. Nelson (Visher’s buckwheat): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ projects/scp/assessments/eriogonumvisheri.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The time spent and help given by all the people and institutions listed in the reference section are gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, in particular Christine Dirk, and the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program, in particular David Ode, for their generosity in making their records, reports, and photographs available. I thank the Montana Natural Heritage Program, particularly Martin Miller, Mark Gabel of the Black Hills University Herbarium, Robert Tatina of the Dakota Wesleyan University, Christine Niezgoda of the Field Museum of Natural History, Carrie Kiel Academy of Natural Sciences, Dave Dyer of the University of Montana Herbarium, Caleb Morse of the R.L. McGregor Herbarium, Robert Kaul of the C. E. Bessey Herbarium, John La Duke of the University of North Dakota Herbarium, Joe Washington of the Dakota National Grasslands, and Doug Sargent of the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands - Region 2, for the information they provided. I also appreciate the access to files and assistance given to me by Andrew Kratz, Region 2 USDA Forest Service, and Chuck Davis, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Conifer Communities of the Santa Cruz Mountains and Interpretive
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ CALIFORNIA CONIFERS: CONIFER COMMUNITIES OF THE SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINS AND INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE FOR THE UCSC ARBORETUM AND BOTANIC GARDEN A senior internship project in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF ARTS in ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES by Erika Lougee December 2019 ADVISOR(S): Karen Holl, Environmental Studies; Brett Hall, UCSC Arboretum ABSTRACT: There are 52 species of conifers native to the state of California, 14 of which are endemic to the state, far more than any other state or region of its size. There are eight species of coniferous trees native to the Santa Cruz Mountains, but most people can only name a few. For my senior internship I made a set of ten interpretive signs to be installed in front of California native conifers at the UCSC Arboretum and wrote an associated paper describing the coniferous forests of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Signs were made using the Arboretum’s laser engraver and contain identification and collection information, habitat, associated species, where to see local stands, and a fun fact or two. While the physical signs remain a more accessible, kid-friendly format, the paper, which will be available on the Arboretum website, will be more scientific with more detailed information. The paper will summarize information on each of the eight conifers native to the Santa Cruz Mountains including localized range, ecology, associated species, and topics pertaining to the species in current literature. KEYWORDS: Santa Cruz, California native plants, plant communities, vegetation types, conifers, gymnosperms, environmental interpretation, UCSC Arboretum and Botanic Garden I claim the copyright to this document but give permission for the Environmental Studies department at UCSC to share it with the UCSC community.
    [Show full text]
  • United States of America
    anran Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GLOBAL FOREST RESOURCES ASSESSMENT COUNTRY REPORTS NITED TATES OF MERICA U S A FRA2005/040 Rome, 2005 FRA 2005 – Country Report 040 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The Forest Resources Assessment Programme Sustainably managed forests have multiple environmental and socio-economic functions important at the global, national and local scales, and play a vital part in sustainable development. Reliable and up- to-date information on the state of forest resources - not only on area and area change, but also on such variables as growing stock, wood and non-wood products, carbon, protected areas, use of forests for recreation and other services, biological diversity and forests’ contribution to national economies - is crucial to support decision-making for policies and programmes in forestry and sustainable development at all levels. FAO, at the request of its member countries, regularly monitors the world’s forests and their management and uses through the Forest Resources Assessment Programme. This country report forms part of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 (FRA 2005), which is the most comprehensive assessment to date. More than 800 people have been involved, including 172 national correspondents and their colleagues, an Advisory Group, international experts, FAO staff, consultants and volunteers. Information has been collated from 229 countries and territories for three points in time: 1990, 2000 and 2005. The reporting framework for FRA 2005 is based on the thematic elements of sustainable forest management acknowledged in intergovernmental forest-related fora and includes more than 40 variables related to the extent, condition, uses and values of forest resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography Abella, S. R. 2010. Disturbance and plant succession in the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts of the American Southwest. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7:1248—1284. Abella, S. R., D. J. Craig, L. P. Chiquoine, K. A. Prengaman, S. M. Schmid, and T. M. Embrey. 2011. Relationships of native desert plants with red brome (Bromus rubens): Toward identifying invasion-reducing species. Invasive Plant Science and Management 4:115—124. Abella, S. R., N. A. Fisichelli, S. M. Schmid, T. M. Embrey, D. L. Hughson, and J. Cipra. 2015. Status and management of non-native plant invasion in three of the largest national parks in the United States. Nature Conservation 10:71—94. Available: https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.10.4407 Abella, S. R., A. A. Suazo, C. M. Norman, and A. C. Newton. 2013. Treatment alternatives and timing affect seeds of African mustard (Brassica tournefortii), an invasive forb in American Southwest arid lands. Invasive Plant Science and Management 6:559—567. Available: https://doi.org/10.1614/IPSM-D-13-00022.1 Abrahamson, I. 2014. Arctostaphylos manzanita. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Fire Effects Information System (Online). plants/shrub/arcman/all.html Ackerman, T. L. 1979. Germination and survival of perennial plant species in the Mojave Desert. The Southwestern Naturalist 24:399—408. Adams, A. W. 1975. A brief history of juniper and shrub populations in southern Oregon. Report No. 6. Oregon State Wildlife Commission, Corvallis, OR. Adams, L. 1962. Planting depths for seeds of three species of Ceanothus.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in Conjunction with Its Application for Renewal of the BFN Ols, As Provided for by the Following NRC Regulations
    Biological Assessment Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Review Limestone County, Alabama October 2004 Docket Numbers 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Endangered or Threatened Species from the Proposed License Renewal for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses the operation of domestic nuclear power plants in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC implementing regulations. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (BFN) pursuant to NRC operating license (OL) numbers DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68, which expire on December 20, 2013, June 28, 2014, and July 2, 2016, respectively. TVA has prepared an Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in conjunction with its application for renewal of the BFN OLs, as provided for by the following NRC regulations: C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” Section 54.23, Contents of application - environmental information (10 CFR 54.23). C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” Section 51.53, Postconstruction environmental reports, Subsection 51.53(c), Operating license renewal stage (10 CFR 51.53(c)). The renewed OLs would allow up to 20 additional years of plant operation beyond the current licensed operating term. No major refurbishment or replacement of important systems, structures, or components are expected during the 20-year BFN license renewal term.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Specimen Records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895
    Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 2019 Vol 3(2) Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895 Jon H. Shepard Paul C. Hammond Christopher J. Marshall Oregon State Arthropod Collection, Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR 97331 Cite this work, including the attached dataset, as: Shepard, J. S, P. C. Hammond, C. J. Marshall. 2019. Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895. Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 3(2). (beta version). http://dx.doi.org/10.5399/osu/cat_osac.3.2.4594 Introduction These records were generated using funds from the LepNet project (Seltmann) - a national effort to create digital records for North American Lepidoptera. The dataset published herein contains the label data for all North American specimens of Lycaenidae and Riodinidae residing at the Oregon State Arthropod Collection as of March 2019. A beta version of these data records will be made available on the OSAC server (http://osac.oregonstate.edu/IPT) at the time of this publication. The beta version will be replaced in the near future with an official release (version 1.0), which will be archived as a supplemental file to this paper. Methods Basic digitization protocols and metadata standards can be found in (Shepard et al. 2018). Identifications were confirmed by Jon Shepard and Paul Hammond prior to digitization. Nomenclature follows that of (Pelham 2008). Results The holdings in these two families are extensive. Combined, they make up 25,743 specimens (24,598 Lycanidae and 1145 Riodinidae).
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of Workshop on Gene Conservation of Tree Species–Banking on the Future May 16–19, 2016, Holiday Inn Mart Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, USA
    United States Department of Agriculture Proceedings of Workshop on Gene Conservation of Tree Species–Banking on the Future May 16–19, 2016, Holiday Inn Mart Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, USA Forest Pacific Northwest General Technical Report September Service Research Station PNW-GTR-963 2017 Pacific Northwest Research Station Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw Telephone (503) 808-2592 Publication requests (503) 808-2138 FAX (503) 808-2130 E-mail [email protected] Mailing address Publications Distribution Pacific Northwest Research Station P.O. Box 3890 Portland, OR 97208-3890 Disclaimer Papers were provided by the authors in camera-ready form for printing. Authors are responsible for the content and accuracy. Opinions expressed may not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.Department of Agriculture of any product or service. Technical Coordinators Richard A. Sniezko is center geneticist, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Dorena Genetic Resource Center, 34963 Shoreview Road, Cottage Grove, OR 97424 (e-mail address: [email protected]) Gary Man is a Forest health special- ist, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, 201 14th St SW 3rd FL CE, Washington DC 20024 (e-mail address: [email protected]) Valerie Hipkins is lab director, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, National Forest Genetics Laboratory, 2480 Carson Road, Placerville, CA 95667 (e-mail address: [email protected]) Keith Woeste is research geneti- cist, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: Biotic Resources
    San Lorenzo Valley Water District Watershed Management Plan, Final Version Part I: Existing Conditions Report CHAPTER 4: BIOTIC RESOURCES 4.0 Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the biotic resources of the region, the San Lorenzo River watershed, and to the degree possible, on District-owned lands. Because most District-owned lands have not yet been biologically surveyed, the description at this level relies on personal observations of District staff and consultants--as well as the findings of other local studies--to identify communities of plants and animals, to estimate habitat conditions, and to assess future needs for biological surveys. The District has not yet established measurable baselines of biotic resource quantities, conditions, and locations. This chapter begins with a brief discussion of biodiversity, and then identifies major plant communities, wildlife habitats, and fisheries. Next, it describes some of the ecosystem functions and natural services provided by these local biotic resources. Finally, the chapter discusses the role of human activities and their impacts to plant communities, wildlife and fisheries habitats, and ecosystem functions. It should be noted that climate change has the potential to significantly alter fundamental natural processes that biotic resources depend on, such as the carbon cycle and the hydrologic cycle. Thus, the impacts of climate change on biotic resources are likely to be significant at all landscape scales, though the scope and severity of the impacts are as yet not fully known. 4.1 Biodiversity at regional and watershed scales As discussed in Chapter 2, the Santa Cruz Mountains is defined as a bioregion (Santa Cruz Mountains Biodiversity Council, 2007), which is home to plant communities, such as those of the sandhills, which are found nowhere else in the world.
    [Show full text]