DOCSLIB.ORG

Status and Distribution of Contra Costa Goldfields in Solano County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status and Distribution of Contra Costa Goldfields in Solano County, California THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELDS IN SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESULTS OF CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELD POPULATION MONITORING FOR 2006, 2007, 2008, AND 2009 SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA June 30, 2010 THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELDS IN SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESULTS OF CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELD MONITORING, 2006-2009 SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Solano County Water Agency Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 LSA Project No. SCD430, SCD0601, SWG0701, SWG0801, and SWG0901 June 30, 2010 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELD POPULATION ASSESSMENT JUNE 2010 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................4 CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELDS....................................................................................................5 GENERAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS...........................................................................................6 Barnfield...................................................................................................................................6 Director’s Guild .......................................................................................................................7 Goldfield Conservation Bank...................................................................................................7 Jehovah’s Witness Complex ....................................................................................................8 McCoy Basin............................................................................................................................8 Strassberger Industrial Park .....................................................................................................8 Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank ..........................................................................................9 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................10 POPULATION STUDIES................................................................................................................10 Field Surveys..........................................................................................................................10 Data Analysis .........................................................................................................................11 GENETIC STUDIES........................................................................................................................12 SEED BANK STUDY .....................................................................................................................13 Soil Cores...............................................................................................................................13 Removal Plots ........................................................................................................................14 DISTRIBUTION STUDY................................................................................................................14 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................18 POPULATION STUDIES................................................................................................................18 Density, Cover, Average Number of Flowers per Individual, Population Estimates, and Between Year Comparisons...................................................................................................18 Between Study Site Comparisons ..........................................................................................35 Analysis of Vegetation Data ..................................................................................................40 GENETIC STUDIES........................................................................................................................48 SEED BANK STUDY .....................................................................................................................48 Soil Cores...............................................................................................................................48 Removal Plots ........................................................................................................................50 DISTRIBUTION ..............................................................................................................................50 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................................................53 POPULATION ESTIMATES ..........................................................................................................53 Population Estimate Methodology.........................................................................................53 Between Year Comparisons...................................................................................................54 Between Area Comparisons...................................................................................................56 Vegetation Data......................................................................................................................58 GENETIC STUDY...........................................................................................................................61 SEED BANK STUDY .....................................................................................................................62 DISTRIBUTION STUDY................................................................................................................63 IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT..............................................65 Avoidance and Minimization and Conservation Measures....................................................65 Restoration .............................................................................................................................67 Adaptive Management and Monitoring .................................................................................68 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................70 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................73 P:\SWG0801\Section 6\ContraCostaGoldfields\CCGF_Report_Final.doc i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELD POPULATION ASSESSMENT JUNE 2010 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY Population Counts and Tissue Samples .................................................................................73 Collecting Tissue Samples for Genetic analysis ....................................................................73 Access to conduct Additional Surveys...................................................................................73 For Sharing information on CCG Surveys.............................................................................74 Assistance with Field Work ...................................................................................................74 REPORT PREPARATION.........................................................................................................................75 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: MAPS Map 1. Regional Location and distribution of Contra Costa Goldfields within Solano County. Map 2. Location of Study Sites. Map 3. Distribution of Contra Costa goldfields on the Barnfield study site. Map 4. Distribution of Contra Costa goldfields on the Director’s Guild study site. Map 5. Distribution of Contra Costa goldfields on the Goldfield Conservation Bank study site. Map 6. Distribution of Contra Costa goldfields on the McCoy Basin study site. Map 7. Distribution of Contra Costa goldfields on the Strassberger Industrial Park study site. Map 8. Distribution of Contra Costa goldfields on the Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank study site. Map 9. Area surveyed for Contra Costa goldfields, their distribution and current reserve areas. APPENDIX B. POPULATION STUDY SITE PHOTOS APPENDIX C. VEGETATION ANALYSIS PHOTOS APPENDIX D. POPULATION GENETIC ANALYSIS of LASTHENIA CONJUGENS (ASTERACEAE) (CONTRA COSTA GOLDFIELDS) POPULATIONS WITHIN SOLANO COUNTY, APPENDIX E. SEED BANK STUDY PHOTOS APPENDIX F. CCG HABITAT PHOTOS FIGURES Figure 1. CCG density per meter squared (A), percent cover per ¼ meter squared (B), and average number flowers per plant (C) on the Barnfield Property....................................................................20 Figure 2. CCG density per meter squared (A – PPAA and B - GAA), percent cover per ¼ meter squared (C - PPAA and D - GAA), and average flowers per plant (E) on the Director’s Guild Property. .....23 Figure 3. CCG density per meter squared on the GCB Study Site. ............................................................26 Figure 4. CCG percent cover per ¼ meter squared (A) and average number of flowers per plant (B) on the GCB Study Site. .................................................................................................................................27 Figure 5. CCG density per meter squared (A) percent cover per ¼ meter squared (B), and average number of flowers per plant (C) on the McCoy
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]
  • Butte Co. Meadowfoam
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Air Force, respectively. All of the Fort Ord occurrences are on land within the Habitat Management Plan Habitat Reserve lands and will be conserved and managed in perpetuity (W. Collins in litt. 2005; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1997). The population at Travis Air Force Base, including over 20 acres of adjacent restored vernal pools, is protected as a special ecological preserve, with protective measures and appropriate management for the species provided in the Travis Air Force Base Land Management Plan. Seasonal managed cattle grazing has been returned to two conservation sites supporting Lasthenia conjugens: 1) the Warm Springs Seasonal Wetland Unit of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Alameda County, and 2) the State Route 4 Preserve managed by the Muir Heritage Land Trust in Contra Costa County. The L. conjugens population at the Warm Springs Unit has declined during the last 10 years due to many factors including competition by nonnative plant species. During this time period, grazing, which occurred intermittently at the Warm Springs Unit since the 1800s, has been excluded by the Refuge until a management plan could be developed. The decline in the L. conjugens population at the Warm Springs Unit cannot be attributed to a single factor, but most likely results from the complex interaction of several variables including current and historical land uses, the abiotic environment, and annual climatic variation. The increasing dominance of nonnative grasses, however, coincides with the suspension of livestock grazing, suggesting that the lack of a disturbance regime may be a primary factor in the degradation of habitat for L.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • Loch Lomond Button-Celery)
    Natural Diversity Data Base 2003). The Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge populations have been monitored annually since 1992 (J. Silveira in litt. 2000). One additional occurrence of C. hooveri in Merced County is on private land (the Bert Crane Ranch) that is protected from development by a conservation easement (J. Silveira in litt. 2000). We funded a status survey for Chamaesyce hooveri and other vernal pool plants in 1986 and 1987 (Stone et al. 1988), resulting in 10 new occurrences. We and the California Department of Fish and Game jointly funded an ecological study of the Vina Plains Preserve pools, which was conducted by faculty from California State University, Chico (Alexander and Schlising 1997). Independent surveys conducted by Joseph Silveira led to discovery of the Merced and Glenn county occurrences (J. Silveira in litt. 2000). Private landowners also have contributed to conservation of this species. One pool in Tehama County was fenced by the property owner in the late 1980s, to exclude livestock (Stone et al. 1988). 3. ERYNGIUM CONSTANCEI (LOCH LOMOND BUTTON-CELERY) a. Description and Taxonomy Taxonomy.—Loch Lomond button-celery, specifically known as Eryngium constancei (Sheikh 1983), is a member of the carrot family (Apiaceae). This species was only recently described and therefore has no history of name changes. The common name was derived from the type locality, Loch Lomond, which is in Lake County (Sheikh 1983). Other common names for this species are Loch Lomond coyote-thistle (Skinner and Pavlik 1994) and Constance’s coyote-thistle (Smith et al. 1980). Description and Identification.—Certain features are common to species of the genus Eryngium.
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura County Planning Division 2018 Locally Important Plant List
    Ventura County Planning Division 2018 Locally Important Plant List Number of Scientific Name Common Name Habit Family Federal/State Status Occurrences in Source Ventura County Abronia turbinata Torr. ex S. Consortium of California Turbinate Sand-verbena A/PH Nyctaginaceae 2 Watson Herbaria Acanthoscyphus parishii var. abramsii (E.A. McGregor) Consortium of California Abrams' Oxytheca AH Polygonaceae CRPR 1B.2 4-5 Reveal [synonym: Oxytheca Herbaria parishii var. abramsii] Acanthoscyphus parishii Consortium of California Parish Oxytheca AH Polygonaceae CRPR 4.2 1 (Parry) Small var. parishii Herbaria Acmispon glaber var. Consortium of California brevialatus (Ottley) Brouillet Short Deerweed PH Fabaceae 1 Herbaria Acmispon heermannii Heermann Lotus or Consortium of California (Durand & Hilg.) Brouillet var. PH Fabaceae 4 Hosackia Herbaria heermannii Acmispon heermannii var. Roundleaf Heermann Consortium of California PH Fabaceae 1 orbicularis (A. Gray) Brouillet Lotus or Hosackia Herbaria Acmispon junceus (Bentham) Consortium of California Rush Hosackia AH Fabaceae 2 Brouillet var. junceus Herbaria 1 Locally Important Plant List- Dec. 2018 Number of Scientific Name Common Name Habit Family Federal/State Status Occurrences in Source Ventura County Acmispon micranthus (Torrey Consortium of California Grab Hosackia or Lotus AH Fabaceae 3 & A. Gray) Brouillet Herbaria Acmispon parviflorus Consortium of California Tiny Lotus AH Fabaceae 2 (Bentham) D.D. Sokoloff Herbaria Consortium of California Agrostis hallii Vasey Hall's Bentgrass PG Poaceae 1 Herbaria Common or Broadleaf Consortium of California Alisma plantago-aquaticum L. PH Alismataceae 4 Water-plantain Herbaria Consortium of California Allium amplectens Torrey Narrowleaf Onion PG Alliaceae 1 Herbaria Allium denticulatum (Traub) Consortium of California Dentate Fringed Onion PG Alliaceae 1 D.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Lntrogression and Its Consequences in Plants Loren H
    Botany Publication and Papers Botany 1993 lntrogression and Its Consequences in Plants Loren H. Rieseberg Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Jonathan F. Wendel Iowa State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/bot_pubs Part of the Botany Commons, Evolution Commons, and the Plant Breeding and Genetics Commons Recommended Citation Rieseberg, Loren H. and Wendel, Jonathan F., "lntrogression and Its Consequences in Plants" (1993). Botany Publication and Papers. 8. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/bot_pubs/8 This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Botany at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botany Publication and Papers by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. lntrogression and Its Consequences in Plants Abstract The or le of introgression in plant evolution has been the subject of considerable discussion since the publication of Anderson's influential monograph, Introgressive Hybridization (Anderson, 1949). Anderson promoted the view, since widely held by botanists, that interspecific transfer of genes is a potent evolutionary force. He suggested that "the raw material for evolution brought about by introgression must greatly exceed the new genes produced directly by mutation" ( 1949, p. 102) and reasoned, as have many subsequent authors, that the resulting increases in genetic diversity and number of genetic combinations promote the development or acquisition of novel adaptations (Anderson, 1949, 1953; Stebbins, 1959; Rattenbury, 1962; Lewontin and Birch, 1966; Raven, 1976; Grant, 1981 ). In contrast to this "adaptationist" perspective, others have accorded little ve olutionary significance to introgression, suggesting instead that it should be considered a primarily local phenomenon with only transient effects, a kind of"evolutionary noise" (Barber and Jackson, 1957; Randolph et al., 1967; Wagner, 1969, 1970; Hardin, 1975).
    [Show full text]
  • Vernal Pool Landscape As Illustrated in the Butte Area Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey ANDREW E
    CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Plants .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Science and Vernal Pool Conservation: Research Questions, Methodologies and Applications Based on a Case Study of Pogogyne abramsii in San Diego County, California ELLEN T. BAUDER ..................................................................................................................... 5 The Population and Genetic Status of the Endangered Vernal Pool Annual Limnanthes floccosa Howell ssp. californica Arroyo: Implications for Species Recovery CHRISTINA M. SLOOP .............................................................................................................. 25 The Ecology, Evolution, and Diversification of the Vernal Pool Niche in Lasthenia (Madieae, Asteraceae) NANCY C. EMERY, LORENA TORRES-MARTINEZ, ELISABETH FORRESTEL, BRUCE G. BALDWIN AND DAVID D. ACKERLY......................................................................................... 39 A Comparison of Pollination Interactions in Natural and Created Vernal Pools in the Santa Rosa Plain, Sonoma County, California JOAN M. LEONG....................................................................................................................... 59 Animals ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 Regulatory Setting
    Ascent Environmental Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Biological Resources 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section describes the potential effects of the project on biological resources. This section also addresses biological resources known or with potential to occur in the project vicinity, including common vegetation and habitat types, sensitive plant communities, and special-status plant and animal species. The analysis includes a description of the existing environmental conditions, the methods used for assessment, the potential direct and indirect impacts of project implementation not included in the 2005 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Hay Road Landfill Project (Solano County 2005), and mitigation measures recommended to address impacts determined to be significant or potentially significant. The data and documents reviewed in preparation of this analysis included: 2005 SEIR for the Hay Road Landfill Project (Solano County 2005); Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment (ESA 2016a); California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment (ESA 2016b); Branchiopod Survey Report (ESA 2016c); Special-status Plant Survey Report (ESA 2016d); Organics Transload Facility Habitat Assessment (ESA 2017a); Hydro Flow Analysis (ESA 2017b); Contra Costa Goldfields Survey Report (ESA 2017c); Delta Green Ground Beetle Survey Report and Supplemental Habitat Assessment Report (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2016, 2018); reconnaissance-level survey of the project site conducted on August 7, 2017; records search and GIS query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) within 5 miles of the project site (2018); California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program database search of the Allendale, Dixon, Saxon, Elmira, Dozier, Liberty Island, Denverton, Birds Landing, and Rio Vista U.S. Geological Service 7.5-minute quadrangles (CNPS 2018); eBird online database of bird observations (eBird 2018); and aerial photographs of the project site and surrounding area.
    [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]