DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Assessment CHARLES M. SCHULZ SONOMA COUNTY AIRPORT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region 15000 Aviation Blvd. Hawthorne, California 90250 Submitted by: Sonoma County Department of Transportation and Public Works 2300 County Center Drive, Suite B-100 Santa Rosa, California 95403 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 LSA Project No. MHN530 March 24, 2006 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CHARLES M. SCHULZ SONOMA COUNTY AIRPORT MARCH 2006 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT...........................................................1 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND PROJECT AREA..........................................................................1 1.3 NOMENCLATURE..............................................................................................................6 2.0 SPECIES ADDRESSED .................................................................................................................7 2.1 LISTED SPECIES ................................................................................................................7 2.2 OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES .............................................................................10 2.3 CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS........................................................................................10 2.4 CONSULTATION TO DATE............................................................................................10 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................................11 3.1 PHYSICAL FACTORS ......................................................................................................11 3.2 HABITATS AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES........................................................11 4.0 SPECIES ACCOUNTS .................................................................................................................16 4.1 BURKE’S GOLDFIELDS (LASTHENIA BURKEI)...........................................................16 4.2 SONOMA SUNSHINE (BLENNOSPERMA BAKERI)......................................................17 4.3 SEBASTOPOL MEADOWFOAM (LIMNANTHES VINCULANS)...................................19 4.4 MANY-FLOWERED NAVARRETIA (NAVARRETIA LEUCOCEPHALA SSP. PLIEANTHA) ..................................................................................................................20 4.5 WHITE SEDGE (CAREX ALBIDA) ...................................................................................20 4.6 SHOWY INDIAN CLOVER (TRIFOLIUM AMOENUM).................................................21 4.7 CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP (SYNCARIS PACIFICA) .................................21 4.8 STEELHEAD (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS)....................................................................23 4.9 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER (AMBYSTOMA CALIFORNIENSE)..................25 5.0 SANTA ROSA PLAIN CONSERVATION STRATEGY............................................................28 6.0 REPORT CONTRIBUTORS ........................................................................................................30 7.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................31 APPENDICES A: OTHER SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (Figures and Tables) B: BOTANICAL SURVEY REPORT P:\MHN530\BA\Sonoma Co. Airport BA.doc (03/24/06) i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CHARLES M. SCHULZ SONOMA COUNTY AIRPORT MARCH 2006 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location ...................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Project Location ......................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Site Features, Habitats and Vegetation Communities..............................................................4 Figure 4: CNDDB Occurrences of Federally-Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Project Region ....................................................................................................................................5 Figure 5: Burke's Goldfields (Lasthenia burkei) Occurrences in the Project Area ...............................18 Figure 6: Generalized Habitats and Water Bodies within 2 Kilometers of the Project Area.................27 TABLES Table A: Federally-Listed Plant Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Project Area..........................................................................................................................................8 Table B: Federally-Listed Animal Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Project Area..........................................................................................................................................9 P:\MHN530\BA\Sonoma Co. Airport BA.doc (03/24/06) ii LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CHARLES M. SCHULZ SONOMA COUNTY AIRPORT MARCH 2006 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to describe the existing biological resources, including special-status species and habitats, at the Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport (hereafter referred to as the Airport). This BA provides technical information on biological resources in support of possible future Airport projects and for the on-going preparation of a draft Wildlife Hazard Assessment Report (WHMP) for the Sonoma County Airport (LSA 2006). The main text of this BA addresses only federally-listed species. Appendix A of this BA addresses other special-status species that are not federally-listed, but are typically addressed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This BA is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C. 1536) and follows the standards established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND STUDY AREA The Airport is located northwest of Santa Rosa, California, approximately two miles west of Highway 101 and just south of the City of Windsor (Figure 1). The Airport property, referred to in this BA as the study area, is approximately 845.2 acres in size with two approximately 5,000-foot long runways (Runway 14-32 and Runway 1-19) that converge at the northern end of the property (Figures 2 and 3). It is bordered on the north by Redwood and Airport Creeks, to the east by North Laughlin Road, to the south by Laughlin Road, and to the west by Slusser and Windsor Roads (Figure 3). Mark West Creek is located just southeast of the southeast corner of the study area. The Airport is located in the Healdsburg California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle. Access to the Airport is via Airport Boulevard off of U.S. Highway 101. The study area consists of the infield between the runways and taxiways, parcels directly adjacent to the existing runways and taxiways, small parcels to the east of the eastern taxiway, and several biological preserves (Figure 3). The topography is generally flat with variously sized depressions, swales, and ditches, some of which pond water during the rainy season. A large portion of the property is irrigated with treated wastewater and mowed throughout the year (Figure 3). The Airport is located within the northern portion of the USFWS Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy Area (SRPCSA) (Figure 4). The northern portion of the SRPCSA is referred to in this BA as the “Airport region.” The boundary of the SRPCSA generally coincides with edge of the Santa Rosa Plain (Plain), a distinctive geographic feature in central Sonoma County. The Plain is a generally flat landscape that historically supported open valley oak (Quercus lobata) woodland and grassland (savannah). This landscape is crossed by several prominent creeks that flow to the west into the Laguna de Santa Rosa (Laguna) along the western edge of the Plain. Historically, much of the Plain also supported extensive vernal pool-swale complexes that also drained to the Laguna. Extensive stands of riparian woodland historically occurred along the Laguna which flows to the north, along the western edge of the Plain, and eventually drains to the Russian River via Mark West Creek. P:\MHN530\BA\Sonoma Co. Airport BA.doc (03/24/06) 1 r Project Site r FIGURE 1 Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport N 0 10 Regional Location MILES SOURCE: ©2002 DeLORME. STREET ATLAS USA®2003. P:\MHN530\g\RegionalLocation.cdr (3/23/06) FIGURE 2 Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport Project Location Biological Assessment 0 1,000 2,000 Project Location FEET SOURCE: USGS 7.5’ Quads: HEALDSBURG and SEBASTOPOL I:\MHN530\GIS\Maps\Bio Assessment\Figure 2_Project Location.mxd (03/23/2006) k e re l C o o P Sanders Road Wastewater Ponds k ree d C woo Red A i rp o r t C re ek Taxiway A Windsor Road Coyote Den Area Airport Blvd. Taxiway B Runway 14-32 Preserve Bunker (Roosting Area) Taxiway Y Runway 1-19 Runway 14-32 North Laughlin Road Laughlin North Taxiway W Slusser Road Taxiway D Laughlin Road Wetland Mitigation Area Southeastern Pond Laughlin Road ek re C t s e W rk a M FIGURE 3 Project Area Seasonal Wetlands Agriculture
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 118/Monday, June 20, 2016/Notices
    39944 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 118 / Monday, June 20, 2016 / Notices information collection described in Type of Request: Extension. programs and projects that increase the Section A. Form Number: N/A. supply of affordable housing units, Description of the need for the prevent and reduce homelessness, A. Overview of Information Collection information and proposed use: improve data collection and reporting, Title of Information Collection: Application information is needed to and use coordinated neighborhood and OneCPD Technical Assistance Needs determine competition winners, i.e., the community development strategies to Assessment. technical assistance providers best able revitalize and strengthen their OMB Approval Number: 2506–0198. to develop efficient and effective communities. Number of Frequency of Responses Burden hour Annual burden Hourly cost Information collection respondents response per annum per response hours per response Annual cost Application .................... 52 1 52 100 5,200 $0 $0 Work Plans ................... 23 10 230 18 4,140 40 165,600 Reports ......................... 23 4 72 6 432 40 17,280 Recordkeeping ............. 23 12 276 6 1,656 40 66,240 Total ...................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 11,248 ........................ 249,120 B. Solicitation of Public Comment DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND or telephone (202) 708–2290. This is not URBAN DEVELOPMENT a toll-free number. Persons with hearing This notice is soliciting comments or speech impairments may access this [Docket No. FR–5910–N–10] from members of the public and affected number through TTY by calling the toll- parties concerning the collection of 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877– information described in Section A on Collection: Veterans Home 8339.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012
    Russian River Watershed Directory September 2012 A guide to resources and services For management and stewardship of the Russian River Watershed © www.robertjanover.com. Russian River & Big Sulphur Creek at Cloverdale, CA. Photo By Robert Janover Production of this directory was made possible through funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Conservation. In addition to this version of the directory, you can find updated versions online at www.sotoyomercd.org Russian River Watershed Directory version September 2012 - 1 - Preface The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (RCD) has updated our Russian River Watershed directory to assist landowners, residents, professionals, educators, organizations and agencies interested in the many resources available for natural resource management and stewardship throughout the Russian River watershed. In 1997, The Sotoyome RCD compiled the first known resource directory of agencies and organization working in the Russian River Watershed. The directory was an example of an emerging Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) effort to encourage community-based solutions for natural resource management. Since that Photo courtesy of Sonoma County Water Agency time the directory has gone through several updates with our most recent edition being released electronically and re-formatting for ease of use. For more information or to include your organization in the Directory, please contact the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sotoyome Resource Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORICAL CHANGES in CHANNEL ALIGNMENT Along Lower Laguna De Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek
    HISTORICAL CHANGES IN CHANNEL ALIGNMENT along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek PREPARED FOR SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY JUNE 2014 Prepared by: Sean Baumgarten1 Erin Beller1 Robin Grossinger1 Chuck Striplen1 Contributors: Hattie Brown2 Scott Dusterhoff1 Micha Salomon1 Design: Ruth Askevold1 1 San Francisco Estuary Institute 2 Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation San Francisco Estuary Institute Publication #715 Suggested Citation: Baumgarten S, EE Beller, RM Grossinger, CS Striplen, H Brown, S Dusterhoff, M Salomon, RA Askevold. 2014. Historical Changes in Channel Alignment along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek. SFEI Publication #715, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. Report and GIS layers are available on SFEI’s website, at http://www.sfei.org/ MarkWestHE Permissions rights for images used in this publication have been specifically acquired for one-time use in this publication only. Further use or reproduction is prohibited without express written permission from the responsible source institution. For permissions and reproductions inquiries, please contact the responsible source institution directly. CONTENTS 1. Introduction .....................................................................................1 a. Environmental Setting..........................................................................2 b. Study Area ................................................................................................2 2. Methods ............................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Chinese Mitten Crab (Eriocheir Sinensis) in San Francisco Bay
    Distribution, Ecology and Potential Impacts of the Chinese Mitten Crab (Eriocheir sinensis) in San Francisco Bay Deborah A Rudnick Kathleen M. Halat Vincent H. Resh Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management University of California, Berkeley TECHNICAL COMPLETION REPORT Project Number: UCAL-WRC-W-881 University of California Water Resources Center Contribution #206 ISBN 1-887192-12-3 June 2000 The University of California prohibits discrimination against or harassment of any person employed by or seeking employment with the University on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer- related), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship or status as a Vietnam-era veteran or special disabled veteran. The University of California is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. The University undertakes affirmative action to assure equal employment opportunity for underutilized minorities and women, for persons with disabilities, and for Vietnam-era veterans and special disabled veterans. University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal law. Inquiries regarding this policy may be addressed to the Affirmative Action Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 300 Lakeside Drive, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612-3560, (510) 987-0097. This publication is a continuation in the Water Resources Center Contribution series. It is published and distributed by the UNIVERSITY
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of the Reproductive Ecology and Seed Bank
    California Department of Fish & Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act (Section-6) Grant-in-Aid Program FINAL PROJECT REPORT E-2-P-35 An Investigation of the Reproductive Ecology and Seed Bank Dynamics of Burke’s Goldfields (Lasthenia burkei), Sonoma Sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri), and Sebastopol Meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans) in Natural and Constructed Vernal Pools Christina M. Sloop1, 2, Kandis Gilmore1, Hattie Brown3, Nathan E. Rank1 1Department of Biology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA 2San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, Fairfax, CA 3Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation, Santa Rosa, CA Prepared for Cherilyn Burton ([email protected]) California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Division 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1280, Sacramento, CA 95814 March 1, 2012 1 1. Location of work: Santa Rosa Plain, Sonoma County, California 2. Background: Burke’s goldfield (Lasthenia burkei), a small, slender annual herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), is known only from southern portions of Lake and Mendocino counties and from northeastern Sonoma County. Historically, 39 populations were known from the Santa Rosa Plain, two sites in Lake County, and one site in Mendocino County. The occurrence in Mendocino County is most likely extirpated. From north to south on the Santa Rosa Plain, the species ranges from north of the community of Windsor to east of the city of Sebastopol. The long-term viability of many populations of Burke’s goldfields is particularly problematic due to population decline. There are currently 20 known extant populations, a subset of which were inoculated into pools at constructed sites to mitigate the loss of natural populations in the context of development.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Stream Maintenance Program
    2018 Stream Maintenance Program Improving water quality in our streams while providing flood protection for our community This summer the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) will be working in streams and channels throughout Sonoma County to improve water quality and provide flood protection. As part of our comprehensive Stream Maintenance Program (SMP), we will be removing sediment and garbage and planting trees to create shady riparian canopies. These canopies help cool the water and shade out less desirable species of plants, which can catch debris and reduce the streams’ water-carrying capacity. If necessary, we will remove some non-canopy forming trees such as arroyo willows as well as certain dense shrubs such as non-native and invasive blackberries. Sediment removal activities include planting native trees, shrubs, and some aquatic plants according to a certain pattern to establish canopy while maintaining channel capacity. The Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps (SCYEC), a workforce training and ecosystem education program aimed at educating youth and young adults in environmental stewardship and restoration, will be working with the SMP this summer. The SCYEC provides youth and young adults paychecks, valuable work experience, environmental education, and the opportunity to contribute to their community through ongoing outdoor experiences. Below is the list of streams the Water Agency will be maintaining this summer. For a more detailed list, map of locations, and information on stream maintenance, visit www.sonomacountywater.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma sunshine) Lasthenia burkei (Burke’s goldfields) Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol meadowfoam) California tiger salamander Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (Ambystoma californiense) Lasthenia burkei Blennosperma bakeri Limnanthes vinculans Jo-Ann Ordano J. E. (Jed) and Bonnie McClellan Jo-Ann Ordano © 2004 California Academy of Sciences © 1999 California Academy of Sciences © 2005 California Academy of Sciences Sonoma County California Tiger Salamander Gerald Corsi and Buff Corsi © 1999 California Academy of Sciences Disclaimer Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, publish recovery plans, sometimes preparing them with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, Tribal agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Costs indicated for action implementation and time of recovery are estimates and subject to change. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific actions, and may not represent the views or the official positions of any individuals or agencies involved in recovery plan formulation, other than the Service. Recovery plans represent our official position only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Friends, Sonoma County Is Celebrating the Winter and Spring Rains Which Have Left Our Rivers and Creeks with Plenty of Clea
    This picture of Mark West creek was taken in April by our intern, Nick Bel. Dear Friends, Sonoma County is celebrating the winter and spring rains which have left our rivers and creeks with plenty of clear clean water going into summer. Many of CCWI’s water monitors have noted that local rivers and creeks have more water and are more beautiful than they have been in the past several years. This is a very promising start to the summer season, but we should not let our guard down just yet. Several years of drought have left us with a shortage of water in many reservoirs so we must still be conscious of how we use and protect this precious resource. CCWI has a new program Director! Art Hasson joined the Community Clean Water Institute in 2008 as an intern and volunteer water monitor. Art has a business degree from the State University of New York, which he has put to good use as our new program director. He has updated our water quality database engaged in field work, performed flow studies and bacterial analysis for the past two years. Art is focused on protecting our public health through the preservation of our waterways. CCWI would like to thank outgoing program director Terrance Fleming for his hard work and valuable contributions to protect water resources. We wish him the very best in his future endeavors. CCWI would like to thank our donors for their support in building our online database interactive database. It contains nine years of data that CCWI volunteer water monitors have collected on local creeks and streams in and around Sonoma County.
    [Show full text]
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000
    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
    [Show full text]
  • California Freshwater Shrimparesmall.Females Areusually (Corpus)
    Endangered SpecU.S. Environmental iesFacts Protection Agency California Freshwater Shrimp Syncaris pacifica Description and Ecology Status Endangered, listed October 31, 1988. of Marin, Sonoma and Napa counties. They are still found in all three counties but in much fewer numbers and fewer Critical Habitat Not designated. streams. The distribution of the shrimp has been separated Appearance The California freshwater shrimp is a 10- into four drainage units: 1) tributary streams of the lower legged crustacean belonging to the atyid family. Of the three Russian River drainage, that flow westward to the Pacific other atyid members in North America, two are also listed Ocean, 2) coastal streams flowing westward directly into as endangered (Kentucky cave shrimp (Palaemonias ganteri) the Pacific Ocean, 3) streams draining into Tomales Bay, Female California freshwater shrimp with egg s, courtes y of Larr y Serpa and Alabama cave shrimp (Palaemonias alabamae)) and one and 4) streams flowing southward into San Pablo Bay. While which once inhabited coastal streams in California is believed California freshwater shrimp in laboratories can tolerate The California freshwater shrimp to be extinct (Pasadena shrimp (Syncaris pasadenae)). brackish waters, they are unable to tolerate ocean salinities. is an endangered species. These species were believed to have been isolated from a It is thought that the isolated streams that harbor these Endangered species are marine environment during the Jurassic period. They are shrimp were once connected, but later separated by geologic plants and animals that are anatomically distinguished from other shrimp by the length of uplift and rising sea level. in immediate danger of their pincer-like claws (chelae) and the bristles (setae) at the Habitat Within the low elevation-low gradient streams tips of the first two chelae.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollinators in Peril: a Systematic Status Review of North American
    POLLINATORS in Peril A systematic status review of North American and Hawaiian native bees Kelsey Kopec & Lori Ann Burd • Center for Biological Diversity • February 2017 Executive Summary hile the decline of European honeybees in the United States and beyond has been well publicized in recent years, the more than 4,000 species of native bees in North W America and Hawaii have been much less documented. Although these native bees are not as well known as honeybees, they play a vital role in functioning ecosystems and also provide more than $3 billion dollars in fruit-pollination services each year just in the United States. For this first-of-its-kind analysis, the Center for Biological Diversity conducted a systematic review of the status of all 4,337 North American and Hawaiian native bees. Our key findings: • Among native bee species with sufficient data to assess (1,437), more than half (749) are declining. • Nearly 1 in 4 (347 native bee species) is imperiled and at increasing risk of extinction. • For many of the bee species lacking sufficient population data, it’s likely they are also declining or at risk of extinction. Additional research is urgently needed to protect them. • A primary driver of these declines is agricultural intensification, which includes habitat destruction and pesticide use. Other major threats are climate change and urbanization. These troubling findings come as a growing body of research has revealed that more than 40 percent of insect pollinators globally are highly threatened, including many of the native bees critical to unprompted crop and wildflower pollination across the United States.
    [Show full text]