DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Resources Technical Report Point Eden U-Haul Development Project Hayward, Alameda County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Resources Technical Report Point Eden U-Haul Development Project Hayward, Alameda County, California REVISED BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT POINT EDEN U-HAUL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AYWARD LAMEDA OUNTY ALIFORNIA H , A C , C Prepared for: Prepared by: U-HAUL, 815 Marketing Company WRA, Inc. 8000 San Leandro Street 2169-G East Francisco Boulevard Oakland, California 94621 San Rafael, CA 94901 Attn: Jerry Owen, President Attn: Hope Kingma [email protected] [email protected] WRA #30134 SEPTEMBER 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview and Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................5 2.1 Federal and State Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Vegetation and Aquatic Communities ......................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Special-status Species .................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Local Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 City General Plan .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................9 3.1 Previous Site Investigations ................................................................................................................ 9 3.2 Current Site Assessment ................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover Types .................................................................... 11 3.4 Special-status Species ....................................................................................................................... 11 3.4.1 General Assessment ................................................................................................................... 11 3.4.2 Special-status Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 12 3.5 Wildlife Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites ........................................................................ 12 4.0 ECOLOGICAL SETTING ................................................................................................................. 12 4.1 Topography and Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Climate and Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 13 4.3 Land-use ............................................................................................................................................ 14 5.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 14 5.1 Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover .............................................................................. 14 5.1.1 Terrestrial Land Cover ................................................................................................................ 15 5.1.2 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 15 5.2 Special-status Species ....................................................................................................................... 16 5.2.1 Special-status Plants .................................................................................................................. 16 5.2.2 Special-status Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 17 5.3 Wildlife Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites ........................................................................ 24 6.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA ...................................... 26 7.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION EVALUATION ................................................................................... 27 7.1 Special-status Species ....................................................................................................................... 27 7.2 Sensitive Land Cover Types ............................................................................................................... 33 7.3 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................................................. 33 7.4 Wildlife Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites ........................................................................ 33 7.5 Local Policies and Ordinances ........................................................................................................... 34 7.6 Habitat Conservation Plans ............................................................................................................... 35 8.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................36 Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc. June 2020 Page ii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Biological Resources Evaluation ................................................................................ 3 Table 2. Land Cover Types on the Project Site ........................................................................................... 14 LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1. Photograph of typical developed area on-site. ........................................................................... 15 Photo 2. Photograph of diked salt ponds on the project site. ................................................................... 16 Photo 3. Photograph of salt ponds in the Preserve. .................................................................................. 16 Photo 4. Salt marsh harvest mouse ........................................................................................................... 17 Photo 5. Western snowy plover ................................................................................................................. 18 Photo 6. Salt Pond within Preserve ............................................................................................................ 24 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Figures Figure 1. Project Site Location Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of the Project Site Figure 3. Aerial Photograph of the Preserve Figure 4. Natural Communities in the Project Site Figure 5. Impacts to Waters of U.S. and State Appendix B – Species Observed within and around the Project Site Appendix C – Special-Status Species Potential Table Appendix D - Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Map of the Point Eden Project Site Appendix E – Delineation Map of the 32-acre “Preserve” LIST OF PREPARERS Justin Semion – Principal-in-Charge Hope Kingma – Regulatory Permitting Specialist Nick Wagner – Regulatory Permitting Specialist Peter Kobylarz – GIS Analyst DEFINITIONS Project Site: The 7.86 acres of the parcel of APN 461-85-20-02. Preserve: The 32 acres of the “Preserve” that includes APN 461-90-1 and 461-61-1. Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc. June 2020 Page iii LIST OF ACRONYMS BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BIOS Biogeographic Information and Observation System CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFGC California Fish and Game Code CFP California Fully Protected Species CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPPA California Native Plant Protection Act CNPS California Native Plant Society County County of Alameda Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CSRL California Soils Resources Lab CWA Clean Water Act EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Federal Endangered Species Act Magnusen-Stevens Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NWI National Wetland Inventory OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark Rank California Rare Plant Ranks RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SSC Species of Special Concern SSI Special-status Invertebrates SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board TOB Top of Bank USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WBWG Western Bat Working Group WRA WRA, Inc. Biological Resources Technical Report WRA, Inc. June 2020 Page iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Biological Resources Technical Report evaluates existing biological resources, potential impacts, and proposed mitigation measures for the Point Eden U-Haul Development Project located in Hayward, California (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
    Chapter 2 ENDANGERED SPECIES AND DEVELOPMENT: THE SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE Erin Mahaney r Introduction Who cares about a mouse? The seemingly unimportant plight of one small mouse in the San Francisco Bay Area is but a reflection of a growing global crisis. The rapid increase in extinction rates and the ensuing decline of biological diversity is a serious threat worldwide. The case of the salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) is an example of these problems on a much smaller fand more familiar scale. This study focuses specifically upon the mouse and its status in non-tidal wetlands in southern San Francisco Bay. _^ The salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) is a Bay Area endemic species uniquely adapted to the saline environments found in brackish and salt marshes. These rapidly disappearing tidal wetlands, which are one of the richest and most productive environments in the world, have been reduced in the San Francisco Bay estuary by an estimated 95 percent since the California Gold Rush (Atwater et al., 1979). This reduction of the SMHM's historic habitat, primarily through landfill, hydraulic mining (which had the most effect in San Pablo Bay), diking, and a shift in salt balance (resulting from input of freshwater from sewage treatment plants), is the principal reason for the species' endangered status (USFWS, 1984). Further development of the wetland areas is the primary threat to the mouse's survival. There are indications that non-tidal habitats, such as those behind diked levees, may be —• increasingly important to the SMHM as the tidal wetlands are developed (Botti et al_., 1986; Zetter- quist, 1977).
    [Show full text]
  • Mammal Species Native to the USA and Canada for Which the MIL Has an Image (296) 31 July 2021
    Mammal species native to the USA and Canada for which the MIL has an image (296) 31 July 2021 ARTIODACTYLA (includes CETACEA) (38) ANTILOCAPRIDAE - pronghorns Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn BALAENIDAE - bowheads and right whales 1. Balaena mysticetus – Bowhead Whale BALAENOPTERIDAE -rorqual whales 1. Balaenoptera acutorostrata – Common Minke Whale 2. Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale 3. Balaenoptera brydei - Bryde’s Whale 4. Balaenoptera musculus - Blue Whale 5. Balaenoptera physalus - Fin Whale 6. Eschrichtius robustus - Gray Whale 7. Megaptera novaeangliae - Humpback Whale BOVIDAE - cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes 1. Bos bison - American Bison 2. Oreamnos americanus - Mountain Goat 3. Ovibos moschatus - Muskox 4. Ovis canadensis - Bighorn Sheep 5. Ovis dalli - Thinhorn Sheep CERVIDAE - deer 1. Alces alces - Moose 2. Cervus canadensis - Wapiti (Elk) 3. Odocoileus hemionus - Mule Deer 4. Odocoileus virginianus - White-tailed Deer 5. Rangifer tarandus -Caribou DELPHINIDAE - ocean dolphins 1. Delphinus delphis - Common Dolphin 2. Globicephala macrorhynchus - Short-finned Pilot Whale 3. Grampus griseus - Risso's Dolphin 4. Lagenorhynchus albirostris - White-beaked Dolphin 5. Lissodelphis borealis - Northern Right-whale Dolphin 6. Orcinus orca - Killer Whale 7. Peponocephala electra - Melon-headed Whale 8. Pseudorca crassidens - False Killer Whale 9. Sagmatias obliquidens - Pacific White-sided Dolphin 10. Stenella coeruleoalba - Striped Dolphin 11. Stenella frontalis – Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 12. Steno bredanensis - Rough-toothed Dolphin 13. Tursiops truncatus - Common Bottlenose Dolphin MONODONTIDAE - narwhals, belugas 1. Delphinapterus leucas - Beluga 2. Monodon monoceros - Narwhal PHOCOENIDAE - porpoises 1. Phocoena phocoena - Harbor Porpoise 2. Phocoenoides dalli - Dall’s Porpoise PHYSETERIDAE - sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus – Sperm Whale TAYASSUIDAE - peccaries Dicotyles tajacu - Collared Peccary CARNIVORA (48) CANIDAE - dogs 1. Canis latrans - Coyote 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Problem Formulation
    Chapter 4 Problem Formulation What’s Covered in Chapter 4: ó Exposure Setting Characterization ó Food Web Development ó Selecting Assessment Endpoints ó Identifying Measures of Effect Problem formulation establishes the exposure setting used as the basis for exposure analysis and risk characterization. Problem formulation includes (1) characterization of the exposure setting for identification of potentially exposed habitats in the assessment area (Section 4.1); (2) development of food webs representative of the habitats to be evaluated (Section 4.2); (3) selection of assessment endpoints relevant to food web structure and function (Section 4.3); and (4) identification of measurement receptors (Section 4.4). 4.1 EXPOSURE SETTING CHARACTERIZATION Exposure setting characterization is important in the identification of habitats consisting of ecological receptors in the assessment area that may be impacted as a result of exposure to compounds emitted from a facility. Ecological receptors within a potentially impacted habitat can be evaluated through consideration of the combination of exposure pathways to which ecological receptors representing a habitat-specific food web may be exposed to a compound. The habitats identified to be evaluated are selected based on existing habitats surrounding the facility (see Section 4.1.1); and also support which habitat-specific food webs are evaluated in risk characterization. Consideration of ecological receptors representative of the habitats also provides the basis for selecting measurement receptors,
    [Show full text]
  • Surveying for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse [Reithrodontomys Raviventris}, California Vole (Microtus Californicus) and Other Small Mammals
    Wetlands Regional Monitoring Program Plan 2002 1 Part 2: Data Collection Protocols Special-Status Species: Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Data Collection Protocols Surveying for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse [Reithrodontomys raviventris}, California Vole (Microtus californicus) and Other Small Mammals Random Sampling Protocol Gretchen E. Padgett-Flohr Rana Resources Fremont CA Non-random (grid-based) Survey Protocol Howard Shellhammer, Professor Emeritus Department of Biological Sciences San Jose State University Photo by W. Geissel Introduction The salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) (SMHM) is a small rodent endemic to the marshes of the greater San Francisco Bay and the Napa, Petaluma, San Pablo and Suisun Bay salt marshes. The salt marsh harvest mouse is considered to be a keystone species in tidal and brackish marsh habitats as SMHM populations succeed best in complete, healthy marsh ecosystems and decrease in numbers or are extirpated in human-altered marshes. Salt marsh harvest mouse populations are negatively affected by WRMP Version 1 June 2002 2 Wetlands Regional Monitoring Program Plan 2002 Part 2: Data Collection Protocols Special-Status Species: Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse factors such as the elimination of upland marsh habitat- areas that provide refugia during high tides (Shellhammer, 1989). Habitat destruction and modification since the early 1900’s resulted in the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listing the SMHM as Endangered on October 13, 1970. The State of California followed suit on June 27, 1971 when the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) granted the SMHM Fully Protected status. The listing of Reithrodontomys raviventris currently consists of two subspecies: Reithrodontomys raviventris raviventris (the Southern subspecies) and Reithrodontomys raviventris halicoetes (the Northern subspecies).
    [Show full text]
  • SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys Raviventris
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species Account SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys raviventris CLASSIFICATION: Endangered Federal Register 35:16047 ; October 13, 1970 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr27. pdf STATE LISTING STATUS: Listed as an endangered species in 1971. CRITICAL HABITAT: None designated RECOVERY PLAN: FINAL Draft Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-2279.htm Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010- Valary Bloom, USFWS 2279.pdf (52 KB) 5-YEAR REVIEW: Completed February 2010. No change recommended. http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/five_year_review/doc3221.pdf (853 KB) DESCRIPTION The salt marsh harvest mouse ( Reithrodontomys raviventris ), also known as the "red-bellied harvest mouse," is a small native rodent in the Cricetidae family, which includes field mice, lemmings, muskrats, hamsters and gerbils. There are two subspecies: the northern ( R. r. halicoetes ) and southern ( R. r. raviventris ). The northern subspecies lives in the marshes of the San Pablo and Suisun bays, the southern in the marshes of Corte Madera, Richmond and South San Francisco Bay. (See field identification below) The scientific name Reithrodontomys raviventris means "grooved-toothed mouse with a red belly." Both subspecies do have grooved upper front teeth but generally only the southern subspecies has a cinnamon- or rufous-colored belly. Salt marsh harvest mice are critically dependent on dense cover and their preferred habitat is pickleweed (Salicornia virginica). Harvest mice are seldom found in cordgrass or alkali bulrush. In marshes with an upper zone of peripheral halophytes (salt-tolerant plants), mice use this vegetation to escape the higher tides, and may even spend a considerable portion of their lives there.
    [Show full text]
  • SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys Raviventris USFWS: Endangered CDFG: Endangered
    LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC DRAFT SOLANO HCP JULY 2012 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY NATURAL COMMUNITY AND SPECIES ACCOUNTS SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys raviventris USFWS: Endangered CDFG: Endangered Species Account Status and Description. The salt marsh harvest mouse was listed as a Federally Endangered Species in 1970 (Federal Register 35:16047) and a California state listed Endangered Species in 1971. Salt marsh harvest mice are divided into two subspecies: R..r. raviventris in Corte Madera, Richmond and the southern portion of San Francisco Bay and R.r. halicoetes in the San Pablo and Suisun bays. The salt marsh harvest mouse is similar to the western harvest mouse, R. megalotis, in that it has a long tail, large ears, grooves in the outer surface of its upper incisors, and buff or brownish in color. The underside of the western harvest mouse, including its tail, ranges from white to dark gray. The underside of the salt marsh harvest mouse is quite variable ranging from white to a cinnamon- or rufous-colored belly. The coloration of the other parts of each of these species is buff or brown. The backs and ears of the salt marsh harvest mouse tend to be darker and the tails of the salt marsh species tend to be slightly thicker, less pointed, and more unicolored (USFWS 1999). The western harvest mouse is considered to be the progenitor of the salt marsh harvest mouse (Fisler 1965). Adult salt marsh harvest mice are 118-175 millimeters in length and weigh between 8 and 12 grams. Range, Populations and Activity. The historic range of the salt marsh harvest mice most likely included much of the marshland in the San Francisco Bay Area.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science
    UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Title Toward Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Recovery: A Review Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2w06369x Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 16(2) ISSN 1546-2366 Authors Smith, Katherine R. Riley, Melissa K. Barthman–Thompson, Laureen et al. Publication Date 2018 DOI 10.15447/sfews.2018v16iss2art2 Supplemental Material https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2w06369x#supplemental License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California AUGUST 2018 RESEARCH Toward Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Recovery: A Review Katherine R. Smith1,2, Melissa K. Riley2, Laureen Barthman–Thompson2, Isa Woo3, Mark J. Statham4, Sarah Estrella2, and Douglas A. Kelt1 and demographics, population dynamics, and Volume 16, Issue 2 | Article 2 https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2018v16iss2art2 behavior and community interactions; and present an overview of threats to the species. Our review * Corresponding author: [email protected] indicates that substantial data gaps exist; although 1 University of California, Davis some aspects of SMHM ecology, such as habitat use, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology Davis, CA 95616 USA have been addressed extensively, others, such as the 2 Suisun Marsh Unit effects of environmental contamination, are largely California Department of Fish and Wildlife unaddressed. We suggest that conservation and Stockton, CA 95206 USA restoration-planning processes consider experimental 3 San Francisco Bay Estuary Field Station approaches within restoration designs to address Western Ecological Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey these deficiencies. Continued investment in basic and Vallejo, CA 94592 USA applied SMHM ecology to collect baseline and long- 4 Veterinary Genetics Laboratory Mammalian Ecology and Conservation Unit term data will also be beneficial.
    [Show full text]
  • Salt Marsh Harvest Mice (Reithrodontomys Raviventris)
    Average Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse 3 Mouseketeers Patch Captures by Park Salt Marsh Harvest Mice (Reithrodontomys100% size (3.5” round) raviventris) 2.5 es 2 Distribution, Abundance, and Population Trends in r 1.5 1 verage Captu the East Bay Regional Park District A 0.5 David L. Riensche ([email protected]) ARVEST M 0 H OU Coyote Hills Hayward Point Pinole SH S R E Regional Park Regional Shoreline Regional Shoreline Nicole A. Beadle ([email protected]) A K Methods E M T Julian D. Geoghegan ([email protected]) T E Sites L R During a five year study, from 2012 to 2016, Salt Marsh Harvest Mice were A S East Bay Regional Park District S captured, identified, and released at six East Bay Regional Park District sites. Figure 4. Average nightly captures of Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct., Oakland, CA 94605 Using standard survey protocols, during the months of May through August, the (Reithrodontomys raviventris) at three sites surveyed continuously from 2012 to following locations were investigated: Coyote Hills Regional Park (Fremont, 2016. A one-way ANOVA in JMP® showed significant differences among the parks E Alameda Co.), Hayward Regional Shoreline (Hayward, Alameda Co.), Point (F-ratio = 7.7986, df = 119, P = 0.0007) (Fig. 2). Tukeys pairwise comparisons Sarah K. Riensche ([email protected]) A T S C showed that Point Pinole Regional Shoreline has significantly higher capture rates T I Pinole Regional Shoreline (Richmond, Contra Costa Co.), Martinez Regional R than Coyote Hills Regional Park (P = 0.0004) but not for Hayward Regional Las Positas College B T Shoreline (Martinez, Contra Costa Co.), Waterbird Regional Preserve (Martinez, A S Shoreline (P = 0.0989).
    [Show full text]
  • Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Abundance and Site Use in a Managed Marsh Galli Basson San Jose State University
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research 2009 Salt marsh harvest mouse abundance and site use in a managed marsh Galli Basson San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Basson, Galli, "Salt marsh harvest mouse abundance and site use in a managed marsh" (2009). Master's Theses. 3732. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.fnwn-t84b https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/3732 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE ABUNDANCE AND SITE USE IN A MANAGED MARSH A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Environmental Studies San Jose State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Galli Basson August 2009 UMI Number: 1478573 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT Dissertation Publishing UMI 1478573 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Ectoparasites Found on Salt Marsh Harvest Mice in the Northern Salt Marshes of Grizzly Bay, California
    52 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 92(1):52-54 2006 ECTOPARASITES FOUND ON SALT MARSH HARVEST MICE IN THE NORTHERN SALT MARSHES OF GRIZZLY BAY, CALIFORNIA HOWARD O. CLARK, JR. H. T. Harvey & Associates 423 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 202 Fresno, CA 93711-6138 [email protected] HOWARD S. SHELLHAMMER H. T. Harvey & Associates 3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite 145 San Jose, CA 95118-1217 STEPHEN D. GAIMARI California State Collection of Arthropods Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch California Department of Food and Agriculture 3294 Meadowview Road Sacramento, CA 95832-1448 The salt marsh harvest mouse, Reithrodontomys raviventris Dixon (Rodentia: Muridae), is listed as an endangered species by both the federal government and the State of California. There are two subspecies - R. r. halicoetes in the northern marshes of San Pablo, Grizzly, and Suisun bays, and R. r. raviventris in the southern arm of San Francisco Bay (Shellhammer 1982). The salt marsh harvest mouse is a keystone species in tidal and brackish marsh habitats; their populations thrive best in complete, healthy marsh ecosystems and decrease in numbers or experience extirpation in human-altered marshes. Salt marsh harvest mouse populations are negatively affected by the elimination of high marsh and upland habitats that provide refugia during high tides (Shellhammer 1989). Little is known about ectoparasites on the salt marsh harvest mouse and no flea records are known, although numerous fleas have been recorded from other species of Reithrodontomys, particularly R. megalotis (e.g., Ford et al. 20041). To address this question, fleas were opportunistically collected from individuals during several trapping sessions in the northern tidal region of Grizzly Bay, Solano County, California (38.16°N, 122.08°W), conducted in July 2004 by the California Department of Fish and Game to monitor mouse populations in salt marsh harvest mouse reserves in the Suisun Marsh.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat of the Endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys Raviventris) in San Francisco Bay
    Received: 27 July 2019 | Revised: 30 October 2019 | Accepted: 4 November 2019 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5860 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Habitat of the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) in San Francisco Bay Bruce G. Marcot1 | Isa Woo2 | Karen M. Thorne3 | Chase M. Freeman3 | Glenn R. Guntenspergen4 1U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, USA Abstract 2U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Understanding habitat associations is vital for conservation of at-risk marsh-endemic Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA wildlife species, particularly those under threat from sea level rise. We modeled en- 3U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Davis, CA, USA vironmental and habitat associations of the marsh-endemic, Federally endangered 4U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris, RERA) and co-occurrence Research Center, Laurel, MD, USA with eight associated small mammal species from annual trap data, 1998–2014, in Correspondence six estuarine marshes in North San Francisco Bay, California. Covariates included Bruce G. Marcot, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific microhabitat metrics of elevation and vegetation species and cover; and landscape Northwest Research Station, 620 S.W. Main Street, Suite 502, Portland, OR 97208, USA. metrics of latitude–longitude, distance to anthropogenic features, and habitat patch Email: [email protected] size. The dominant cover was pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica) with 86% mean cover Funding information and 37 cm mean height, and bare ground with about 10% mean cover. We tested 38 USDA Forest Service; Pacific Northwest variants of Bayesian network (BN) models to determine covariates that best account Research Station, Portland Oregon; USGS Land Change Science and Ecosystems for presence of RERA and of all nine small mammal species.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern California Marine Ecoregional Assessment February 27, 2006
    NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MARINE ECOREGIONAL ASSESSMENT FEBRUARY 27, 2006 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY OF CALIFORNIA 201 MISSION STREET, 4TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 Northern California Marine Ecoregional Assessment February 27, 2006, Version 1.1 The Mission of The Nature Citation: The Nature Planning Team: Conservancy is to preserve the plants, Conservancy of California. Mary Gleason animals and natural communities 2006. Northern California Matt Merrifield that represent the diversity of life on Marine Ecoregional Assessment. Chuck Cook Earth by protecting the lands and Version 1.1, Feb. 27, 2006. Miguel Hall waters they need to survive. Photo credit. Cover: Whale tail off the Contact: Carmel Coast. ©Rebecca Wells, TNC. Mary Gleason The Nature Conservancy of CA Design & Layout: Audrey Davenport, Sylvia Stone th 201 Mission Street, 4 Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 Introduction ………….…………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Description of Ecoregion ……………………………………………………………………………… 12 Ecological Setting …………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………12 Socioeconomic Setting…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………16 Coastal and Marine Planning in the Region ………………………………..…………………..………………………24 Existing Marine Protected Areas and Coastal Public Lands ………………………………..……………..26 Selecting Conservation Targets ………..……………………………………………………….. 27 Ecological Systems and Communities …………………………………..……………………………………………………30 Benthic Habitats ……..…………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………..39
    [Show full text]