DOCSLIB.ORG

Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius Newberryi)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius Newberryi) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) Cover illustration of tidewater goby reproduced by permission of Camm Swift, from Swift et. al. (1989). Recovery Plan For the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) Pacific Region U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon 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, and others. 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. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than our own. They represent our official position only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, Director, or California/Nevada Operations Manager as approved. Approved Recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. vi + 199 pp. An electronic version of this recovery plan will also be made available at http://www.r1.fws.gov/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/plans.html and http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Primary Authors Chris Dellith of the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California served as the Recovery Team Manager and prepared this draft recovery plan, with assistance from Bill McIver of the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. Recovery plan preparation was supervised and edited by Diane Noda, Carl Benz, and Mike McCrary of the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. Each member of the tidewater goby recovery team contributed valuable information and assistance. In particular, we gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Camm Swift, Dr. Kevin Lafferty, and Dr. David Jacobs, for being generous with their technical assistance and time throughout the development of this recovery plan. We thank them also for their thorough editorial review. Drawings of Eucyclogobius newberryi are reproduced by permission of Camm Swift, from Swift et al. (1989). The following individuals contributed significant information/assistance during recovery plan development (tidewater goby recovery team members are italicized): Ed Ballard Kevin Lafferty Rick Farris Roger Bloom Bill McIver Lilian Carswell Ray Bosch Jack Malone Kurt Roblek Diane Elam Carl Page Grant Canterbury Bridget Fahey Ramona Swenson David Anderson Darren Fong Camm Swift Jerry Smith Nancy Francine Anna Toline Natascha Miljkovic Greg Goldsmith Bill Berry Harald Ahnelt Gjon Hazard Larry Williamson Mike McCrary Bob Hoffman Jill Terp Glenn Yoshioka David Jacobs Mark Helvey ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Current Species Status: The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) is listed as endangered. It is a small fish that inhabits coastal brackish water habitats entirely within California, ranging from Tillas Slough (mouth of the Smith River, Del Norte County) near the Oregon border south to Agua Hedionda Lagoon (northern San Diego County). The tidewater goby is known to have formerly inhabited at least 134 localities. Presently 23 (17 percent) of the 134 documented localities are considered extirpated and 55 to 70 (41 to 52 percent) of the localities are naturally so small or have been degraded over time that long-term persistence is uncertain. Habitat Requirements: Tidewater gobies are uniquely adapted to coastal lagoons and the uppermost brackish zone of larger estuaries, rarely invading marine or freshwater habitats. The species is typically found in water less than 1 meter (3.3 feet) deep and salinities of less than 12 parts per thousand. Principal threats to the tidewater goby include loss and modification of habitat, water diversions, predatory and competitive introduced fish species, habitat channelization, and degraded water quality. Recovery Objective: Downlist to threatened status, then delist. The primary objective of this recovery plan is to manage the threats to and improve the population status of the tidewater goby sufficiently to warrant reclassification (from endangered to threatened status) or delisting. Recovery Priority Number: The tidewater goby has a recovery priority number of 7C (on a scale of 1 to 18), per criteria published in the Federal Register (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983). This number indicates a species with moderate threats and a high potential for recovery. The letter C indicates that there is some degree of conflict between the species’ recovery efforts and economic development. Recovery Criteria: We subdivide the geographic distribution of the tidewater goby into 6 recovery units, encompassing a total of 26 Sub-Units defined according to genetic differentiation and geomorphology. 1) The tidewater goby may be considered for downlisting when: a) Specific threats to each metapopulation, such as habitat destruction and alteration (e.g., coastal development, upstream diversion, channelization of rivers and streams, discharge of agriculture and sewage effluents), introduced predators (e.g., centrarchid fishes), and competition with iii introduced species (e.g., yellowfin and chameleon gobies), have been addressed through the development and implementation of individual management plans that cumulatively cover the full range of the species. b) A metapopulation viability analysis (see Recovery Action 2.11) based on scientifically credible monitoring over a 10-year period indicates that each Recovery Unit is viable. The target for downlisting is for individual Sub-Units within each Recovery Unit to have a 75 percent or better chance of persistence for a minimum of 100 years. Specifically, the target is for at least 5 Sub-Units in the North Coast Unit, 8 Sub-Units in the Greater Bay Unit, 3 Sub-Units in the Central Coast Unit, 3 Sub-Units in the Conception Unit, 1 Sub-Unit in the Los Angeles/Ventura Unit, and 2 Sub- Units in the South Coast Unit to individually have a 75 percent chance of persisting for 100 years 2) The tidewater goby may be considered for delisting when downlisting criteria have been met and: a) A metapopulation viability analysis projects that all recovery units are viable, as in downlisting criterion 1(b) except that the target for Sub-Units is a 95 percent probability of persistence for 100 years. Actions Needed: 1. Monitor, protect and enhance currently occupied tidewater goby habitat. 2. Conduct biological research to enhance the ability to integrate land use practices with tidewater goby recovery and revise recovery tasks as pertinent new information becomes available. 3. Evaluate and implement translocation where appropriate. 4. Increase public awareness about tidewater gobies. Estimated Total Cost of Recovery: $1,980,000 over the next 10 years, with costs yet to be determined for securing and protecting coastal wetlands and for assurance of successful establishment of additional populations of tidewater goby. Funding opportunities and management will need to be developed between landowners, regulatory agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties. Date of Recovery: If recovery criteria are met, reclassification to threatened status could be initiated in 2015. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................ 1 A. Brief Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1 B. Description and Taxonomy....................................................................................................2 C. Distribution and Habitat......................................................................................................... 6 D. Critical Habitat .................................................................................................................... 12 E. Life History .......................................................................................................................... 12 F. Abundance and Trends......................................................................................................... 15 G. Reason for Decline and Current Threats ............................................................................. 16 1. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range...................................................................................................................... 16 2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. ................................................................................................................................ 18 3. Disease or predation. ........................................................................................................ 18 4. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms ......................................................... 19 5. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence ..............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Subsequent Initial Study of Environmental Impact
    Cayucos Sanitary District 200 Ash Avenue Cayucos CA 93430 www.cayucossd.org • 805-773-4658 Cayucos Sustainable Water Project (CSWP) Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Estero Marine Terminal Ocean Outfall Project Component Subsequent Initial Study of Environmental Impact I. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FORM 1. Project Title: Cayucos Sustainable Water Project Ocean Outfall 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Cayucos Sanitary District 200 Ash Avenue / PO Box 333 Cayucos CA 93430 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: David Foote, c/o firma, (805) 781-9800 4. Project Location: Chevron Estero Marine Terminal 4000 Highway 1, Morro Bay, California 93442 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Cayucos Sanitary District 200 Ash Avenue / PO Box 333 Cayucos CA 93430 6. General Plan Designation: The proposed pipeline tie-in site is designated Agriculture. The effluent pipeline conveyances are within public right-of-way (State Route 1) and Waters of the U.S. and State. 7. Zoning: Agriculture (County) and Open Area I/PD (City of Morro Bay west of State Route 1 and the mean high tide line) Cayucos Sustainable Water Project Ocean Outfall Initial Environmental Study Final January 2019 1 Cayucos Sanitary District 200 Ash Avenue Cayucos CA 93430 www.cayucossd.org • 805-773-4658 Cayucos Sustainable Water Project (CSWP) Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Estero Marine Terminal Ocean Outfall Project Component 8. Project Description & Regulatory and Environmental setting LOCATION AND BACKGROUND The Project consists of the reuse of an existing ocean conveyance pipe for treated effluent disposal from the proposed and permitted Cayucos Sustainable Water Project’s (CSWP) Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) by the Cayucos Sanitary District (CSD).
    [Show full text]
  • A New Species of the Bay Goby Genus Eucyclogobius, Endemic to Southern California: Evolution, Conservation, and Decline
    RESEARCH ARTICLE A New Species of the Bay Goby Genus Eucyclogobius, Endemic to Southern California: Evolution, Conservation, and Decline Camm C. Swift1¤, Brenton Spies2, Ryan A. Ellingson2,3, David K. Jacobs2* 1 Emeritus, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007, United States of America, 2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States of America, 3 Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Los Angeles, California 90032, United States of America ¤ Current address: 6465 Elmo Road, Cumming, Georgia 30028–4720, United States of America * [email protected] a11111 Abstract A geographically isolated set of southern localities of the formerly monotypic goby genus Eucyclogobius is known to be reciprocally monophyletic and substantially divergent in mito- chondrial sequence and nuclear microsatellite-based phylogenies relative to populations to OPEN ACCESS the north along the California coast. To clarify taxonomic and conservation status, we con- ducted a suite of analyses on a comprehensive set of morphological counts and measures Citation: Swift CC, Spies B, Ellingson RA, Jacobs DK (2016) A New Species of the Bay Goby Genus from across the range of Eucyclogobius and describe the southern populations as a new Eucyclogobius, Endemic to Southern California: species, the Southern Tidewater Goby, Eucyclogobius kristinae, now separate from the Evolution, Conservation, and Decline. PLoS ONE Northern Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius newberryi (Girard 1856). In addition to molecular 11(7): e0158543. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158543 distinction, adults of E. kristinae are diagnosed by: 1) loss of the anterior supratemporal lat- Editor: Tzen-Yuh Chiang, National Cheng-Kung eral-line canals resulting in higher neuromast counts, 2) lower pectoral and branched caudal University, TAIWAN ray counts, and 3) sets of measurements identified via discriminant analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Report
    Biological Report 3093 Beachcomber Drive APN: 065-120-001 Morro Bay, CA Owner: Paul LaPlante Permit #29586 Prepared by V. L. Holland, Ph.D. Plant and Restoration Ecology 1697 El Cerrito Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Prepared for: John K Construction, Inc. 110 Day Street Nipomo, CA 93444 [email protected] and Paul LaPlante 1935 Beachcomber Drive Morro Bay, CA 93442 March 5, 2013 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF 3093 BEACHCOMBER DRIVE, MORRO BAY, CA 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ...................................................................... 4 LOCATION AND PHYSICAL FEATURES ........................................................ 10 FLORISTIC, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE INVENTORY ............................. 11 METHODS ......................................................................................................... 11 RESULTS: FLORA AND VEGETATION ON SITE .......................................... 12 FLORA .............................................................................................................. 12 VEGETATION ..................................................................................................... 13 1. ANTHROPOGENIC (RUDERAL) COMMUNITIES ................................................... 13 2. COASTAL DUNE SCRUB ................................................................................. 15 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Doggin' America's Beaches
    Doggin’ America’s Beaches A Traveler’s Guide To Dog-Friendly Beaches - (and those that aren’t) Doug Gelbert illustrations by Andrew Chesworth Cruden Bay Books There is always something for an active dog to look forward to at the beach... DOGGIN’ AMERICA’S BEACHES Copyright 2007 by Cruden Bay Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the Publisher. Cruden Bay Books PO Box 467 Montchanin, DE 19710 www.hikewithyourdog.com International Standard Book Number 978-0-9797074-4-5 “Dogs are our link to paradise...to sit with a dog on a hillside on a glorious afternoon is to be back in Eden, where doing nothing was not boring - it was peace.” - Milan Kundera Ahead On The Trail Your Dog On The Atlantic Ocean Beaches 7 Your Dog On The Gulf Of Mexico Beaches 6 Your Dog On The Pacific Ocean Beaches 7 Your Dog On The Great Lakes Beaches 0 Also... Tips For Taking Your Dog To The Beach 6 Doggin’ The Chesapeake Bay 4 Introduction It is hard to imagine any place a dog is happier than at a beach. Whether running around on the sand, jumping in the water or just lying in the sun, every dog deserves a day at the beach. But all too often dog owners stopping at a sandy stretch of beach are met with signs designed to make hearts - human and canine alike - droop: NO DOGS ON BEACH.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorial Sam Mcdonald Pescadero
    Topher Simon Topher permitted in trail camps. trail in permitted water is available at trail camps. Backpack stoves are are stoves Backpack camps. trail at available is water who register with the ranger at Memorial Park. No No Park. Memorial at ranger the with register who snakes, and banana slugs. banana and snakes, available for a fee on a drop-in basis for backpackers backpackers for basis drop-in a on fee a for available woodpeckers, Steller’s jays, garter snakes, gopher gopher snakes, garter jays, Steller’s woodpeckers, hikes passing through multiple parks. multiple through passing hikes Trail camps camps Trail at Shaw Flat and Tarwater Flat are are Flat Tarwater and Flat Shaw at tailed deer, raccoons, opossums, foxes, bobcats, bobcats, foxes, opossums, raccoons, deer, tailed State Park, offering the opportunity for several long long several for opportunity the offering Park, State Common wildlife in Sam McDonald includes black- includes McDonald Sam in wildlife Common Trailheads. The trail network also connects to Big Basin Redwoods Redwoods Basin Big to connects also network trail The State Park, and at the Old Haul Road and Tarwater Tarwater and Road Haul Old the at and Park, State leaf maple, and oak trees. oak and maple, leaf a number of trails with Portola Redwoods State Park Park State Redwoods Portola with trails of number a Ranger Station, Portola Trailhead, Portola Redwoods Redwoods Portola Trailhead, Portola Station, Ranger Douglas fir, madrone, California laurel, buckeye, big big buckeye, laurel, California madrone, fir, Douglas Pescadero Creek Park shares its eastern boundary and and boundary eastern its shares Park Creek Pescadero inter-park trail network trail inter-park from the Sam McDonald McDonald Sam the from The forests, dominated by coast redwood, also include include also redwood, coast by dominated forests, The rugged beauty offers a true escape.
    [Show full text]
  • Beach Report Card Program Is Funded by Grants From
    2013-2014 Annual 2013–2014 Heal the Bay is a nonprofit environmental organization making Southern California coastal waters and watersheds, including Santa Monica Bay, safe, healthy and clean. We use science, education, community action and advocacy to pursue our mission. The Beach Report Card program is funded by grants from Swain Barber Foundation ©2014 Heal the Bay. All Rights Reserved. The fishbones logo is a trademark of Heal the Bay. The Beach Report Card is a service mark of Heal the Bay. We at Heal the Bay believe the public has the right to know the water quality at their favorite beaches. We are proud to provide West Coast residents and visitors with this information in an easy-to-understand format. We hope beachgoers will use this information to make the decisions necessary to protect their health. This page: Avalon Bay, Catalina Island Cover photo: The Wedge, Newport Beach TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ONE Introduction Executive Summary 6 SECTION TWO The Beach Report Card County by County Summary Reports 16 SECTION THREE BRC Impacts and News California Beach Types and Water Quality 48 The Clean Beach Initiative (CBI) 50 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 53 Major Beach News 55 Recommendations for the Coming Year 65 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 70 SECTION FOUR Appendices Methodology for California 76 Methodology for Oregon and Washington 78 2013-2014 Honor Roll 80 Grades by County – California 81 Grades by County – Washington 94 Grades by County – Oregon 97 Index and Glossary 98 Acknowledgements 100 5 Executive Summary Beaches in the U.S. accommodate nearly two billion beach visits each year1 and provide enormous economic benefits to their communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E: Fish Species List
    Appendix F. Fish Species List Common Name Scientific Name American shad Alosa sapidissima arrow goby Clevelandia ios barred surfperch Amphistichus argenteus bat ray Myliobatis californica bay goby Lepidogobius lepidus bay pipefish Syngnathus leptorhynchus bearded goby Tridentiger barbatus big skate Raja binoculata black perch Embiotoca jacksoni black rockfish Sebastes melanops bonehead sculpin Artedius notospilotus brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus brown smoothhound Mustelus henlei cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus California halibut Paralichthys californicus California lizardfish Synodus lucioceps California tonguefish Symphurus atricauda chameleon goby Tridentiger trigonocephalus cheekspot goby Ilypnus gilberti chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha curlfin sole Pleuronichthys decurrens diamond turbot Hypsopsetta guttulata dwarf perch Micrometrus minimus English sole Pleuronectes vetulus green sturgeon* Acipenser medirostris inland silverside Menidia beryllina jacksmelt Atherinopsis californiensis leopard shark Triakis semifasciata lingcod Ophiodon elongatus longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys night smelt Spirinchus starksi northern anchovy Engraulis mordax Pacific herring Clupea pallasi Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata Pacific pompano Peprilus simillimus Pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax Pacific staghorn sculpin Leptocottus armatus Pacific tomcod Microgadus proximus pile perch Rhacochilus vacca F-1 plainfin midshipman Porichthys notatus rainwater killifish Lucania parva river lamprey Lampetra
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Status of California Monarchs
    The Legal Status of Monarch Butterflies in California International Environmental Law Project 2012 IELP Report on Monarch Legal Status The International Environmental Law Project (IELP) is a legal clinic at Lewis & Clark Law School that works to develop, implement, and enforce international environmental law. It works on a range of issues, including wildlife conservation, climate change, and issues relating to trade and the environment. This report was written by the following people from the Lewis & Clark Law School: Jennifer Amiott, Mikio Hisamatsu, Erica Lyman, Steve Moe, Toby McCartt, Jen Smith, Emily Stein, and Chris Wold. Biological information was reviewed by the following individuals from The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation: Carly Voight, Sarina Jepsen, and Scott Hoffman Black. This report was funded by the Monarch Joint Venture and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. For more information, contact: Chris Wold Associate Professor of Law & Director International Environmental Law Project Lewis & Clark Law School 10015 SW Terwilliger Blvd Portland, OR 97219 USA TEL +1-503-768-6734 FX +1-503-768-6671 E-mail: [email protected] Web: law.lclark.edu/org/ielp Copyright © 2012 International Environmental Law Project and the Xerces Society Photo of overwintering monarchs (Danaus plexippus) clustering on a coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) on front cover by Carly Voight, The Xerces Society. IELP Report on Monarch Legal Status Table of Contents Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................v I. Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 II. Regulatory Authority of the California Department of Fish and Game ..............................5 III. Protection for Monarchs in California State Parks and on Other State Lands .....................6 A. Management of California State Parks ....................................................................6 1.
    [Show full text]
  • ASSESSMENT of COASTAL WATER RESOURCES and WATERSHED CONDITIONS at CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/354 Water Resources Division Natural Resource Program Centerent of the Interior ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL WATER RESOURCES AND WATERSHED CONDITIONS AT CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, marine resource management, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top Left: Santa Cruz, Kristen Keteles Top Right: Brown Pelican, NPS photo Bottom Left: Red Abalone, NPS photo Bottom Left: Santa Rosa, Kristen Keteles Bottom Middle: Anacapa, Kristen Keteles Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Channel Islands National Park, California Dr. Diana L.
    [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]
  • Attachment Iii: Baseline Status and Cumulative Effects for the San Francisco Bay Listed Species
    ATTACHMENT III: BASELINE STATUS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY LISTED SPECIES 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: ALAMEDAWHIPSNAKE ............................................................................................ 6 1.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................................................................... 6 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE........................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Factors affecting species within the action area ............................................... 6 1.2.1.1 Urban development .................................................................................... 7 1.2.1.2 Fire suppression ......................................................................................... 9 1.2.1.3 Predation .................................................................................................... 9 1.2.1.4 Grazing practices ..................................................................................... 10 1.2.1.5 Non-native species ................................................................................... 10 1.2.2 Baseline Status ................................................................................................ 11 1.3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 13 2: BAY CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY ....................................................................... 14 2.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Monitoring of Radionuclides in Fishery Products (March 2011 - January 2015)
    Report on the Monitoring of Radionuclides in Fishery Products (March 2011 - January 2015) April 2015 Fisheries Agency of Japan 0 1 Table of Contents Overview…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 The Purpose of this Report………………………………………………………………………………9 Part One. Efforts to Guarantee the Safety of Fishery Products………………………………………..11 Chapter 1. Monitoring of Radioactive Materials in Food; Restrictions on Distribution and Other Countermeasures………...…………………………………………………………………11 1-1-1 Standard Limits for Radioactive Materials in Food………………………………………...……11 1-1-2 Methods of Testing for Radioactive Materials………………………………………...…………12 1-1-3 Inspections of Fishery Products for Radioactive Materials…………………………...…………14 1-1-4 Restrictions and Suspensions on Distribution and Shipping ……………………………………..18 1-1-5 Cancellation of Restrictions on Shipping and Distribution………………………………………20 Box 1 Calculation of the Limits for Human Consumption……..………………………………………23 Box 2 Survey of Radiation Dose from Radionuclides in Foods Calculation of the Limits…………….24 Box 3 Examples of Local Government Monitoring Plan………………………………...…………….25 Chapter 2. Results of Radioactive Cesium Inspections for Fishery Products…………………………26 1-2-1 Inspection Results for Nationwide Fishery Products in Japan (in total)…………………………26 1-2-2 Inspection Results for Fukushima Prefecture Fishery Products (all)…………………………….27 1-2-3 Inspection Results for Fishery Products (all) from Outside Fukushima Prefecture……………...30 1-2-4 Trends within Fish Species……………………………………………………………………….32 1-2-5 Inspection Results for Main Target Fish Species of Fishing and Farming by Fiscal Year……….42 1-2-6 Radioactive Material Concentrations within Fish within 20 km of the Fukushima Daiichi NPS.46 Box 4 Fukushima Fishing Trials………………………………...……………………………………...47 1-2-7 Screening Test by Prefectural and Municipal Governments……………………………………..48 Chapter 3. Inspection for Radionuclides Other Than Radioactive Cesium……………………………49 1-3-1 Inspections for Radioactive Strontium etc.
    [Show full text]