DOCSLIB.ORG

San Francisco Bay Area Endangered Species at Risk from Pesticides

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Francisco Bay Area Endangered Species at Risk from Pesticides Poisoning Our Imperiled Wildlife San Francisco Bay Area Endangered Species at Risk from Pesticides A Center for Biological Diversity Report February 2006 Writing: Jeff Miller Editing: Julie Miller Photo Editing & Design: T. DeLene Beeland Maps: Curtis Bradley CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY BECAUSE LIFE IS GOOD 1095 Market Street Suite 511 San Francisco CA 94103 415.436.9682 www.biologicaldiversity.org Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 3 Background on Pesticide Impacts.................................................................................. 5 Contaminated Waterways................................................................................... 5 Contaminated Sediments................................................................................... 5 Pesticide Drift...................................................................................................... 6 Effects of Pesticides on Wildlife.......................................................................... 6 Birds........................................................................................................ 6 Amphibians............................................................................................. 7 Fishes..................................................................................................... 7 Insects..................................................................................................... 7 Plants...................................................................................................... 7 Endocrine Disruption, Sexual Deformities and other Reproductive Anomalies............................................................................................... 7 Bay Area Pesticide Use.................................................................................................. 9 Pesticide Use by County..................................................................................... 9 Pesticides of Concern in the Bay Area............................................................... 10 Case Study: Atrazine.............................................................................. 10 Case Study: Carbaryl..............................................................................10 Case Study: Chlorpyrifos........................................................................ 10 Case Study: Diazinon............................................................................. 11 Other Pesticide Use................................................................................ 11 Pesticide Use Threatens the Survival of Bay Area Endangered Species...................... 16 San Francisco Bay and Delta Fish Species........................................................16 North American Green Sturgeon.............................................................16 Tidewater Goby....................................................................................... 16 Delta Smelt............................................................................................. 17 Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout............................ 17 Tidal Marshland and Estuarine Species............................................................. 18 Western Snowy Plover............................................................................18 California Black Rail................................................................................19 California Brown Pelican.........................................................................19 California Clapper Rail............................................................................ 20 California Least Tern............................................................................... 20 Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse......................................................................20 Freshwater and Wetlands Species..................................................................... 21 California Tiger Salamander....................................................................21 Santa Cruz Long-Toed Salamander........................................................21 California Red-Legged Frog....................................................................22 Giant Garter Snake................................................................................. 22 San Francisco Garter Snake...................................................................23 California Freshwater Shrimp................................................................. 23 Delta Green Ground Beetle.................................................................... 23 Terrestrial Species.............................................................................................. 24 Swainson’s Hawk....................................................................................24 American Peregrine Falcon.................................................................... 24 San Joaquin Kit Fox................................................................................25 Alameda Whipsnake............................................................................... 26 Lange’s Metalmark Butterfly....................................................................26 1 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle......................................................... 27 Bay Checkerspot Butterfl y.......................................................................27 Mission Blue Butterfl y..............................................................................27 San Bruno Elfi n Butterfl y......................................................................... 28 Callippe, Behren’s and Myrtle’s Silverspot Butterfl ies............................. 28 Plants.................................................................................................................. 29 What is the EPA Doing to Control the Use of Pesticides?.............................................. 32 The Pesticide Registration Process.................................................................... 32 EPA’s Responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act................................ 33 EPA’s Failure to Adequately Evaluate Risks to Wildlife...................................... 34 EPA’s So-Called “Endangered Species Protection Program”............................. 35 EPA’s New Regulations Weakening Endangered Species Protections.............. 37 The EPA and the Courts..................................................................................... 38 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 41 Policy Recommendations for the U.S. EPA and the Federal Government......... 41 Policy Recommendations for the State Environmental Protection Agency......... 41 Recommendations for Homeowners, Renters and Parents............................... 42 Maps of Bay Area Pesticide Use in Endangered Species Habitat................................. 44 Major Tributaries of the Nine Bay Area Counties................................................ 45 Pesticide Applications Detrimental to the San Joaquin Kit Fox.......................... 46 Pesticide Applications Detrimental to the California Red-Legged Frog.............. 47 Pesticide Applications Detrimental to the California Tiger Salamander.............. 48 References..................................................................................................................... 49 Center for Biological Diversity Pesticides Reform Campaign......................................... 54 Cover photo, top center: Courtesy of Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo. 2 Executive Summary he San Francisco Bay Area is valued for its extensive report, Silent Spring Revisited,1 the EPA’s regulatory oversight open space and the spectacular San Francisco of the pesticide industry is abysmal. While the EPA is entrusted Bay, which provide scenic views and recreational to protect public health and the environment, the agency opportunitiesT for nearly 10 million people. The unique Bay tends to dismiss credible studies and scientific findings on the Area wildlands, which give us inspiration and connection to adverse impacts of pesticides; it also ignores mounting evidence nature, harbor rich biological diversity. The varied ecosystems demonstrating that even low doses of pesticides in wildlife and around the Bay provide habitat for numerous endangered humans can have drastic consequences. species of animals and plants. However, the health of the Bay and these habitats are at risk due to extensive agricultural and A 1999 Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) urban pesticide use. Toxic pesticides that are sprayed on our report, Disrupting the Balance: Ecological Impacts of Pesticides food, our soil and our lawns find their way into local creeks and in California, documented the impact of pesticides on wildlife ultimately the Bay, posing a significant threat to water quality statewide.2 The report found that multiple pesticides are often and jeopardizing endangered species. Toxic pesticide use not found in California waters and sediments at concentrations only poisons some of our most imperiled wildlife, it threatens exceeding levels lethal to zooplankton, a primary food source human health – particularly the health of children. for fish. The PANNA report also discussed the effects of routine toxic pulses of diazinon and chlorpyrifos in California This report
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysis of Butterfly Survey Data and Methodology from San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (1982–2000)
    Analysis of Butterfly Survey Data and Methodology from San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (1982–2000) 1. Status and Trends Travis Longcore Christine S. Lam John P. Wilson University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory Technical Report No. 1 Prepared for: Thomas Reid Associates 560 Waverly Street, Suite 201 Palo Alto, California 94301 Cover Photo: Lupines at San Bruno Mountain, March 2003 (T. Longcore) Preferred Citation: Longcore, T., C. S. Lam, and J. P. Wilson. 2004. Analysis of Butterfly Survey Data and Meth- odology from San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (1982–2000). 1. Status and Trends. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sus- tainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. Summary Managers surveyed for sensitive butterfly species with the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan area between 1982 and 2000 using a haphazard “wandering tran- sect.” To extract as much valuable information as possible from the data collected by this suboptimal methodology we analyzed patterns of surveys and butterfly presence and absence within 250 m square cells gridded across the area within a Geographic In- formation System. While estimates of butterfly abundance were not possible, the data could be tested for trends in butterfly occupancy. For those cells surveyed during at least 10 years, no trends in the total number of occupied cells was evident for either Callippe silverspot butterfly or mission blue butterfly. There were cells, however, that showed positive or negative trends (p<0.2) in occupancy for each species (Callippe sil- verspot butterfly: 14 positive, 15 negative, 6 cells occupied all years; mission blue but- terfly: 40 positive; 40 negative, 2 cells occupied all years).
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Pinolecreeksedimentfinal
    Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment January 2005 Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Contra Costa Resource Conservation District San Francisco Estuary Institute The Regional Watershed Program was founded in 1998 to assist local and regional environmental management and the public to understand, characterize and manage environmental resources in the watersheds of the Bay Area. Our intent is to help develop a regional picture of watershed condition and downstream effects through a solid foundation of literature review and peer- review, and the application of a range of science methodologies, empirical data collection and interpretation in watersheds around the Bay Area. Over this time period, the Regional Watershed Program has worked with Bay Area local government bodies, universities, government research organizations, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and local community and environmental groups in the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. We have also fulfilled technical advisory roles for groups doing similar work outside the Bay Area. This report should be referenced as: Pearce, S., McKee, L., and Shonkoff, S., 2005. Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment. A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI Contribution no. 316, 102 pp. ii San Francisco Estuary Institute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully
    [Show full text]
  • Central Coast
    Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Action Area ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 34 2.1 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................... 34 2.2 Life History and Range-wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................... 35 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 48 2.4 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 62 2.5 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 76 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021
    Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021 Reasonable care is given in gathering, compiling and furnishing the information contained herein which is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but the Planroom is not responsible or liable for errors, omissions or inaccuracies. Plan# Name Bid Date & Time OPR# Location Estimate Project Type Monday, August 16, 2021 OUTREACH MEETING (VIRTUAL) EVERGREEN VALLEY COLLEGE (EVC) STUDENT SERVICES Addenda: 0 COMPLEX (REQUEST FOR SUB BIDS) SC 8/16/21 10:00 AM 21-02526 San Jose School ONLINE Plan Issuer: XL Construction 408-240-6000 408-240-6001 THIS IS A VIRTUAL OUTREACH MEETING. REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. SEE FLYER FOR DETAILS. The 74,000 sf Student Services Complex at Evergreen Valley College is part of the San Jose Evergreen Community College District's Measure X Bond Program. This is a new ground-up two -story complex including collaboration spaces, offices, storage, restrooms and supporting facilities. All subcontractors must be prequalified with XL Construction to bid the project. Please email [email protected] for a prequalification application link, and [email protected] if you are an Under Utilized Business Enterprise (SBE, WBE, MBE, VBE...). REFINISHING GYM AND STAGE FLOORS AT CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND Addenda: 0 8/16/21 12:00 PM 21-02463 Fremont State-Federal Plan Issuer: California Department of Education - Personnel Service Division 916-319-0800 000-000-0000 Contract #: BF210152 The Contractor shall provide all labor, equipment and materials necessary for preparing and refinishing the stage and gym floors, twice a year, at the California School for the Blind (CSB), located at 500 Walnut Avenue, Fremont.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025
    2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025 7. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Table of Contents page page BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE.................................................. 7-1 Tables SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................ 7-1 Table 7-1 Potential Wildlife Species of Concern in the RESOURCE CONSERVATION ..................................................... 7-2 Planning Area ........................................................... 7-3 Animal Life.......................................................................... 7-2 Table 7-2 Potential Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Plants Plant Life............................................................................. 7-4 in the Planning Area .................................................. 7-6 Soil Resources ..................................................................... 7-9 Table 7-3 Historic Neighborhoods and Structures ..................... 7-15 Sand and Gravel............................................................... 7-10 Cultural Resources............................................................. 7-11 Figures OPEN SPACE LANDS............................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-1 Generalized Land Cover, 2005 .................................. 7-5 Recreational Open Space................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-2 Aggregate Resources and Reclamation ...................... 7-12 Water Management, Habitat, and Recreation...................... 7-24 Figure 7-3 Historic Neighborhoods
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa County
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Marsh Creek Watershed Marsh Creek flows approximately 30 miles from the eastern slopes of Mt. Diablo to Suisun Bay in the northern San Francisco Estuary. Its watershed consists of about 100 square miles. The headwaters of Marsh Creek consist of numerous small, intermittent and perennial tributaries within the Black Hills. The creek drains to the northwest before abruptly turning east near Marsh Creek Springs. From Marsh Creek Springs, Marsh Creek flows in an easterly direction entering Marsh Creek Reservoir, constructed in the 1960s. The creek is largely channelized in the lower watershed, and includes a drop structure near the city of Brentwood that appears to be a complete passage barrier. Marsh Creek enters the Big Break area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta northeast of the city of Oakley. Marsh Creek No salmonids were observed by DFG during an April 1942 visual survey of Marsh Creek at two locations: 0.25 miles upstream from the mouth in a tidal reach, and in close proximity to a bridge four miles east of Byron (Curtis 1942).
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River
    A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored by Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting August 1996 Steiner Environmental Consulting Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Quality P. O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored By Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 August 1996 (707) 743-1815 (707) 743-1816 f«x [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Introduction This report gathers together the best available information to provide the historical and current status of chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, and steelhead in the Russian River basin. Although the historical records are limited, all sources depict a river system where the once dominant salmonids have declined dramatically. The last 150 years of human activities have transformed the Russian River basin into a watershed heavily altered by agriculture and urban development. Flows in the main river channel river are heavily regulated. The result is a river system with significantly compromised biological functions. The anthropogenic factors contributing to the decline of salmonids are discussed. Study Area The 1,485 square mile Russian River watershed, roughly 80 miles long and 10 to 30 miles wide, lies in Mendocino, Sonoma, and Lake counties. The basin topography is characterized by a sequence of northwest/southeast trending fault-block ridges and alluvial valleys. Lying within a region of Mediterranean climate, the watershed is divided into a fog-influenced coastal region and an interior region of hot, dry summers.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Status of Coho Salmon in Streams of the Urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 91(4):219-254 2005 HISTORICAL STATUS OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE URBANIZED SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA ROBERT A. LEIDY1 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] and GORDON BECKER Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 325 Oakland, CA 94611 [email protected] and BRETT N. HARVEY Graduate Group in Ecology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1Corresponding author ABSTRACT The historical status of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, was assessed in 65 watersheds surrounding the San Francisco Estuary, California. We reviewed published literature, unpublished reports, field notes, and specimens housed at museum and university collections and public agency files. In watersheds for which we found historical information for the occurrence of coho salmon, we developed a matrix of five environmental indicators to assess the probability that a stream supported habitat suitable for coho salmon. We found evidence that at least 4 of 65 Estuary watersheds (6%) historically supported coho salmon. A minimum of an additional 11 watersheds (17%) may also have supported coho salmon, but evidence is inconclusive. Coho salmon were last documented from an Estuary stream in the early-to-mid 1980s. Although broadly distributed, the environmental characteristics of streams known historically to contain coho salmon shared several characteristics. In the Estuary, coho salmon typically were members of three-to-six species assemblages of native fishes, including Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, California roach, Lavinia symmetricus, juvenile Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis, threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and/or tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi.
    [Show full text]
  • San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan
    SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Year 2006 Activities Report For Endangered Species Permit PRT-2-9818 Submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service by the County of San Mateo February 2007 San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan -- 2006 Activities Report TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................... iii SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 4 II. STATUS OF SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................................................. 4 A. Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) ................................................ 5 B. Callippe Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe) ................................................ 5 C. San Bruno Elfin (Callophrys mossii bayensis) ................................................................ 10 D. Butterfly Monitoring Recommendations for 2006 .......................................................... 13 E. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis ............................................... 13 F. San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) ....................................... 14 G. California Red-legged
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Butterfly Habitat Restorations
    Planning Butterfly Habitat Restorations Kim R. Mason Introduction Ecologists and entomologists in Britain and the United States have participated in numerous projects aimed at restoring, expanding, and mitigating losses of habitat for native butterflies. Some of these butterflies have been listed as threatened or endangered; others have been lost or are in decline in certain portions of their former ranges. The experiences and observations of these scientists illustrate potential needs and concerns when planning to restore or improve existing butterfly habitat. This paper will relate several cases in which complex biotic and abiotic interactions played important roles in the success or failure of butterfly habitat restoration and the reestablishment of butterfly populations. Although each butterfly species has its own unique combination of habitat requirements and life history, some fundamental principles concerning butterfly biology (New 1991) are significant in planning habitat restorations. Most caterpillars are herbivores, and many are specialists which feed on only one kind or a few related kinds of plants. Therefore, the presence of appropriate larval host plants is the primary requirement of habitat restoration. In addition, many butterfly species require that the larval food plant be in a particular growth stage, of a certain height, exposed to the proper amount of sunlight, or in close proximity to another resource. Adults typically utilize a wider range of plants or other resources as food, and flight gives them expanded mobility. However, adult dispersal ability varies from species to species. For some, physical features such as a few meters of open space, a stream, a hedge, or a change in gradient create intrinsic barriers to dispersal; other species routinely migrate long distances.
    [Show full text]