DOCSLIB.ORG

South Coast Missing Linkages Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Coast Missing Linkages Project South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the PalomarPalomar----SanSan Jacinto/Santa Rosa Connection Prepared by: Kristeen Penrod Clint Cabañero Dr. Paul Beier Dr. Claudia Luke Dr. Wayne Spencer Dr. Esther Rubin South Coast Missing Linkages ProjectProject:::: A Linkage Design for the PalomarPalomar----SanSan JacintoJacinto/Santa/Santa Rosa Connection Prepared by: Kristeen Penrod Clint R. Cabañero Dr. Paul Beier Dr. Claudia Luke Dr. Wayne Spencer Dr. Esther Rubin May 2006 This report was made possible with financial support from the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, The Wildlands Conservancy, The Resources Agency, California State Parks, U.S. Forest Service, California State Parks Foundation, Anza Borrego Foundation, Environment Now, Zoological Society of San Diego, and the Summerlee Foundation. Produced by South Coast Wildlands: Our mission is to protect, connect and restore the rich natural heritage of the South Coast Ecoregion through the establishmeestablishmentnt of a system of connected wildlands. Preferred Citation: Penrod, K., C. Cabañero, P. Beier, C. Luke, W. Spencer, and E. Rubin. 2006. South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the Palomar-San Jacinto/Santa Rosa Connection. South Coast Wildlands, Idyllwild, CA. www.scwildlands.org. II Project Partners: We would like to recognize our partners on the South Coast Missing Linkages Project, including The Wildlands Conservancy, The Resources Agency, U.S. Forest Service, California State Parks, California State Parks Foundation, National Park Service, San Diego State University Field Stations Program, Environment Now, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation Biology Institute, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Wetlands Recovery Project, Mountain Lion Foundation, Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, California Wilderness Coalition, Anza Borrego Foundation, Zoological Society of San Diego Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, Pronatura, Conabio, and Universidad Autonoma de Baja California. We are committed to collaboration to secure a wildlands network for the South Coast Ecoregion and beyond and look forward to adding additional agencies and organizations to our list of partners. III Table of Contents List of Tables & Figures VI Acknowledgements VIII Executive Summary IX Introduction Nature Needs Room to Roam 1 Patterns of Habitat Conversion 1 A Statewide Vision 2 South Coast Missing Linkages: A Vision for the Ecoregion 2 Ecological Significance of the Palomar-San Jacinto/Santa Rosa Connection 4 Existing Conservation Investments 5 Conservation PlanPlanningning Approach Preface 7 Focal Species Selection 8 Landscape Permeability Analysis 8 Patch Size & Configuration Analysis 12 Minimum Linkage Width 14 Field Investigations 14 Identify Conservation Opportunities 14 Landscape Permeability Analyses Landscape Permeability Analyses Summary 16 Mountain lion 17 American badger 18 Mule deer 19 Patch Size & Configuration Analyses Patch Size & Configuration Analyses Summary 20 Mountain ion 22 American badger 24 Mule deer 26 Large-eared woodrat 28 Aguanga kangaroo rat 30 California spotted owl 32 California quail 34 Loggerhead shrike 36 Wrentit 38 Rock wren 40 Chaparral whipsnake 42 Coast horned lizard 44 Western pond turtle 46 Western toad 49 Pale swallowtail 51 IV Quino checkerspot butterfly 52 Our Lord’s candle 56 Linkage Design Goals of the Linkage Design 57 Description of the Linkage 58 Removing and Mitigating Barriers to Movement 64 Roads as Barriers to Upland Movement 64 Roads in the Linkage Design 65 Types of Mitigation for Roads 65 Recommended Crossing Structures on Highway 79 67 Recommended Crossing Structures on Highway 371 71 Recommended Crossing Structures on Highway 74 73 Other Recommendations Regarding Paved Roads within the Linkage Design 76 Roads as Ephemeral Barriers 77 Impediments to Streams 77 Impediments to Streams in the Linkage Design 78 Examples of Mitigation for Stream Barriers 79 Recommendations to Mitigate the Effects of Stream Barriers in the Linkage Design 79 Other Land Uses that Impede Utility of the Linkage 81 Urban Barriers to Movement 81 Urban Barriers in the Linkage Design Area 81 Examples of Mitigation for Urban Barriers 81 Recommendations for Mitigating the Effects of Urbanization in the Linkage Design Area 81 Recreation 82 Recreation in the Linkage Design Area 82 Recommendations for Mitigating the Effects of Recreation in the Linkage Design Area 83 Land Protection & Stewardship Opportunities 83 Summary 93 Literature Cited 95 Appendices (Enclosed CD) A. Workshop Participants B. Workshop Summary C. 3D Visualization of the Palomar-San Jacinto/Santa Rosa Connection V List of Tables Table 1. Focal Species Selected Table 2. Focal Species Movement Criteria Table 3. Vegetation and Land Cover in the Linkage Table 4. Major Transportation Routes in the Linkage Design List of Figures Figure 1. South Coast Ecoregion Figure 2. South Coast Missing Linkages Figure 3. Vegetation Types in the Linkage Planning Area Figure 4. Existing Conservation Investments in the Linkage Planning Area Figure 5. Interdisciplinary Approach Figure 6. Permeability Model Inputs Figure 7. Patch Size & Configuration Model Inputs Figure 8. Least Cost Union Displaying Species Overlap Figure 9. Least Cost Union Figure 10. Least Cost Corridor for Mountain lion Figure 11. Least Cost Corridor for American badger Figure 12. Least Cost Corridor for Mule deer Figure 13. Least Cost Union Additions Figure 14. Habitat Suitability for Mountain lion Figure 15. Potential Cores & Patches for Mountain lion Figure 16. Habitat Suitability for American badger Figure 17. Potential Cores & Patches for American badger Figure 18. Habitat Suitability for Mule deer Figure 19. Potential Cores & Patches for Mule deer Figure 20. Habitat Suitability for Large-eared woodrat Figure 21. Potential Cores & Patches for Large-eared woodrat Figure 22. Patch Configuration for Large-eared woodrat Figure 23. Habitat Suitability for Aguanga kangaroo rat Figure 24. Potential Cores & Patches for Aguanga kangaroo rat Figure 25. Habitat Suitability for California spotted owl Figure 26. Potential Cores & Patches for California spotted owl Figure 27. Habitat Suitability for California quail Figure 28. Potential Cores & Patches for California quail Figure 29. Habitat Suitability for Loggerhead shrike Figure 30. Potential Cores & Patches for Loggerhead shrike Figure 31. Habitat Suitability for Wrentit Figure 32. Potential Cores & Patches for Wrentit Figure 33. Habitat Suitability for Rock wren Figure 34. Potential Cores & Patches for Rock wren Figure 35. Habitat Suitability for Chaparral whipsnake Figure 36. Potential Cores & Patches for Chaparral whipsnake Figure 37. Habitat Suitability for Coast horned lizard Figure 38. Potential Cores & Patches for Coast horned lizard Figure 39. Patch Configuration for Coast horned lizard Figure 40. Potential habitat for Western pond turtle Figure 41. Potential habitat for Western toad Figure 42. Potential habitat for Pale swallowtail Figure 43. Potential habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly VI Figure 44. Potential habitat for Our Lord’s candle Figure 45. Linkage Design Figure 46. Northern branch of the linkage Figure 47. Central branch of the linkage Figure 48. Southern branch of the linkage Figure 49. Existing Infrastructure in the Planning Area Figure 50. An example of a vegetated land bridge built to enhance movement of wildlife populations. Figure 51. A viaduct in Slovenia built to accommodate wildlife, hydrology, and human connectivity. Figure 52. Arched culvert on German highway, with rail for amphibians and fence for larger animals Figure 53. Pipe culvert designed to accommodate small mammals Figure 54. Amphibian tunnels allow light and moisture into the structure Figure 55. Arroyo Seco Bridge on Highway 79 Figure 56. Temecula Creek Bridge on Highway 79 Figure 57. Looking up Temecula Creek Figure 58. Looking down Temecula Creek towards Vail Lake Figure 59. Pipe culvert near the juncture of Highways 371/79 Figure 60. Looking up Tule Creek Figure 61. Looking down Chihuahua Creek towards the Palomar Ranges Figure 62. Disturbed area under Highway 371 bridge on Cahuilla Creek Figure 63. View of Cahuilla Creek north of the highway Figure 64. View of Cahuilla Creek south of the highway Figure 65. Culvert for an unnamed drainage on Highway 371 Figure 66. Looking down Hamilton Creek Figure 67. Example of concrete box culvert on Highway 74 in Garner Valley Figure 68. Example of double concrete box culvert on Highway 74 in Garner Valley Figure 69. Looking east toward Palm View Peak Figure 70. Bridge over Antsell Rock Creek on Highway 74 Figure 71. Bridge over Servo Creek on Highway 74 Figure 72. Bridge over Hurkey Creek on Highway 74 Figure 73. Fence obstructing wildlife passage on Hurkey Creek VII Project Steering Committee: We are extremely grateful to the following individuals, who serve on the steering committee for the South Coast Missing Linkages Project: Paul Beier (Northern Arizona University), Madelyn Glickfeld (formerly with The Resources Agency California Legacy Project), Gail Presley (California Department of Fish and Game), Therese O’Rourke (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, formerly with The Nature Conservancy), Kristeen Penrod (South Coast Wildlands), Rick Rayburn (California State Parks), Ray Sauvajot (National Park Service), and Tom White (U.S. Forest Service). VIII Executive Summary Habitat loss and fragmentation are the leading threats to biodiversity, both globally and in southern California. Efforts to combat these threats must focus on conserving
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Petition to List Mountain Lion As Threatened Or Endangered Species
    BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION A Petition to List the Southern California/Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of Mountain Lions as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) A Mountain Lion in the Verdugo Mountains with Glendale and Los Angeles in the background. Photo: NPS Center for Biological Diversity and the Mountain Lion Foundation June 25, 2019 Notice of Petition For action pursuant to Section 670.1, Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR) and Division 3, Chapter 1.5, Article 2 of the California Fish and Game Code (Sections 2070 et seq.) relating to listing and delisting endangered and threatened species of plants and animals. I. SPECIES BEING PETITIONED: Species Name: Mountain Lion (Puma concolor). Southern California/Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Listing as Threatened or Endangered The Center for Biological Diversity and the Mountain Lion Foundation submit this petition to list mountain lions (Puma concolor) in Southern and Central California as Threatened or Endangered pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code §§ 2050 et seq., “CESA”). This petition demonstrates that Southern and Central California mountain lions are eligible for and warrant listing under CESA based on the factors specified in the statute and implementing regulations. Specifically, petitioners request listing as Threatened an Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) comprised of the following recognized mountain lion subpopulations:
    [Show full text]
  • California Fire Siege 2007 an Overview Cover Photos from Top Clockwise: the Santiago Fire Threatens a Development on October 23, 2007
    CALIFORNIA FIRE SIEGE 2007 AN OVERVIEW Cover photos from top clockwise: The Santiago Fire threatens a development on October 23, 2007. (Photo credit: Scott Vickers, istockphoto) Image of Harris Fire taken from Ikhana unmanned aircraft on October 24, 2007. (Photo credit: NASA/U.S. Forest Service) A firefighter tries in vain to cool the flames of a wind-whipped blaze. (Photo credit: Dan Elliot) The American Red Cross acted quickly to establish evacuation centers during the siege. (Photo credit: American Red Cross) Opposite Page: Painting of Harris Fire by Kate Dore, based on photo by Wes Schultz. 2 Introductory Statement In October of 2007, a series of large wildfires ignited and burned hundreds of thousands of acres in Southern California. The fires displaced nearly one million residents, destroyed thousands of homes, and sadly took the lives of 10 people. Shortly after the fire siege began, a team was commissioned by CAL FIRE, the U.S. Forest Service and OES to gather data and measure the response from the numerous fire agencies involved. This report is the result of the team’s efforts and is based upon the best available information and all known facts that have been accumulated. In addition to outlining the fire conditions leading up to the 2007 siege, this report presents statistics —including availability of firefighting resources, acreage engaged, and weather conditions—alongside the strategies that were employed by fire commanders to create a complete day-by-day account of the firefighting effort. The ability to protect the lives, property, and natural resources of the residents of California is contingent upon the strength of cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local firefighting agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment E Part 2
    Response to Correspondence from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy Regarding the ArtCenter Master Plan Note that the emails (Attachment A) dated after April 25, 2018, were provided to the City after the end of the CEQA comment period, and, therefore, the emails and the responses below are not included in the EIR, and no response is required under CEQA. However, for sake of complete analysis and consideration of all comments submitted, the City responds herein and this document is made part of the project staff report. Response to Correspondence This correspondence with the Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy occurred in the context of the preparation of the EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The formal comment letter from Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy included in this correspondence was responded to as Letter No. 6 in Section III, Response to Comments, of the April 2018 Final EIR for the ArtCenter Master Plan. The primary correspondence herein is comprised of emails between John Howell and Mickey Long discussing whether there is a wildlife corridor within the Hillside Campus, as well as emails between John Howell and CDFW regarding whether there is a wildlife corridor and whether CDFW will provide a comment letter regarding the ArtCenter Project for the Planning Commission hearing on May 9, 2018. Note that CDFW submitted a comment letter on May 9, 2018, after completion of the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The City has also provided a separate response to this late comment letter. This correspondence centers around the potential for the Hillside Campus to contribute to a wildlife corridor. The CDFW was contacted during preparation of the Final EIR to obtain specific mapping information to provide a more comprehensive description of the potential for wildlife movement within the Hillside Campus within the Final EIR.
    [Show full text]
  • 800/834-7557
    Searles Valley Delano Kernville 178 Death Valley 155 National Monument Delano Munipal 155 China Lake Naval Airport Weapons Ctr 99 Woody Rd na 155 Wofford Heights Tro 65 Ridgecrest Inyokern 38 China Lake 155 Mcfarland 178 178 178 178 99 178 Ridgecrest d South Lake 14 an R Bowm E Mountain Mesa 127 Lake Isabella Famoso Woody Rd Bodfish Cerro Coso Junior College y w H e l l i v r China Lake Naval e t r o d P Weapons Ctr R n tio ta S s e rl 395 a e S 43 Shafter-Minter 65 Field 178 Shafter y w H 99 e l l i G v o r l e d t en r S o ta P te H wy Meadows d R a Field Kern River n o 44 r State Park T Oildale ll rre Fort Irwin Ha red Alf wy H Garlock Rio Bravo Country Club Red Rock Canyon Red 178 State Rec Area Rosedale Mountain Randsburg 58 184 Greenacres 14 Bakersfield 43 Cantil Baker 43 Bakersfield Municipal Airport ck ba 58 de ud C d R Lamont A W Noon Weedpatch Park Galileo 5 Park South Co lumbi a Rd d lv B d ir 223 rb 223 46 de un h Arvin T Borax Bill Merrick Blvd 395 C Park h ick Blvd ip Rudn a California n g Um rd Ave a tali Rd Stanfo li City ey Rd S Vall t Bear 14 r d B Gordon Blvd e R e a w y r o le V 184 L l a dberg Blvd d a ll Lin rge Blv V ey Geo Cumberland R d buru Rd Rd v u Rd Mendi d W l Mendibur d B e d R Golden s v n y l e B t ppy Blvd N Loop Blvd l w o Po l B a r a lv o l b a V Hills d d l r o r v e a Bear Valley Springs B l e d e rnia City Blvd h B Califo B 204 Y dsburg Cutoff c C Ran t i a t Teha reat Circle Dr S Loop Blvd li chap M G fo i d S Blvd r 202 Valley Blvd v n l y d ia r r v Blvd B r Redwood l C 99 u D i n t B y i l
    [Show full text]
  • Richard F. Ambrose
    CURRICULUM VITAE RICHARD F. AMBROSE Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health Institute of the Environment and Sustainability (310) 825-6144 University of California FAX (310) 794-2106 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772 [email protected] EDUCATION Ph.D. 1982 University of California, Los Angeles. B.S. 1975 University of California, Irvine. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2000-present Professor Department of Environmental Health Sciences Institute of the Environment and Sustainability (joint appointment 2008-present) University of California, Los Angeles 1998-2011 Director Environmental Science and Engineering Program, UCLA 1992-2000 Associate Professor Department of Environmental Health Sciences, UCLA 1985-1997 Assistant (1985-1991) and Associate (1991-97) Research Biologist Marine Science Institute University of California, Santa Barbara 1983-1984 Postdoctoral Fellow Department of Biological Sciences Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 1982 Visiting Lecturer Department of Biology, UCLA RESEARCH Major Research Interests Restoration ecology, especially for coastal marine and estuarine environments Relationship between ecosystem health and human health Urban ecology, including ecological aspects of sustainable water management Coastal ecology, including ecology of coastal wetlands and estuaries Interface between environmental biology and resource management policy Richard F. Ambrose - page 2 Research Grants and Contracts, R.F. Ambrose - Principal Investigator Marine Review Committee, Inc. A study of mitigation
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 General Plan
    CITY OF CALIMESA 2014 GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED AUGUST 4, 2014 CITY OF CALIMESA 2014 GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED AUGUST 4, 2014 Prepared by the City of Calimesa General Plan Advisory Committee and ® City of Calimesa 908 Park Avenue Calimesa, CA 92320 909.795.9801 This document is available for electronic download at http://cityofcalimesa.net The preparation of this General Plan was funded in whole or in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic Growth Council The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the City of Calimesa and not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the Department of Conservation, or its employees. The Strategic Growth Council and the Department make no warranties, expressed or implied, and assume no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text. Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Land Use Chapter 3: Transportation and Mobility Chapter 4: Infrastructure and Public Services Chapter 5: Housing Element Chapter 6: Resource Management Chapter 7: Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Chapter 8: Safety Chapter 9: Noise Chapter 10: Air Quality Chapter 11: Sustainability Appendix A: Housing Element Background Report - under separate cover Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Land Use Chapter 3: Transportation and Mobility Chapter 7: Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Chapter 8: Safety Chapter 2: Land Use Chapter 3: Transportation and Mobility Chapter 5: Housing Element Chapter 9: Noise Chapter 10: Air Quality CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The Calimesa General Plan expresses our community’s vision of its long-term physical form and development. This General Plan is comprehensive in scope and represents the product of years of effort on the part of residents and businesses in the community working to maintain and improve Calimesa’s quality of life and implement the community’s shared vision for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Threats to Cross-Border Wildlife Linkages in the Sky Islands Wildlands Network
    Threats to Cross-Border Wildlife Linkages in the Sky Islands Wildlands Network Kim Vacariu Wildlands Project, Tucson, AZ Abstract—One of the greatest challenges facing conservationists in the Sky Islands region is finding a realistic means to maintain historic travel routes for wide-ranging species crossing the United States-Mexico border. This challenge is made difficult due to the ongoing efforts by the Federal government to install additional security infrastructure to stem the flood of undocumented immigrants now entering southern Arizona. Existing and proposed fencing, solid steel walls, all- night stadium lighting, vehicle barriers, an immense network of roads, a 24-hour flow of patrol vehicles, and low-level aircraft overflights are creating an impenetrable barrier to trans-border wildlife movement. Creative solutions are needed now. northern Mexico, and the Sky Islands of southeastern Arizona Introduction were maintained. In 2000, the Wildlands Project and regional partner groups, The SIWN CP identified numerous threats to a healthy including the Sky Island Alliance, published a conservation landscape in the Sky Islands, including fragmentation of plan covering more than 10 million acres of valuable wildlife habitat by roads, fences, and subdivisions; loss or extirpation habitat in the Sky Islands ecoregion of southeast Arizona and of numerous species; loss of natural disturbance regimes such southwest New Mexico. The document, known as the Sky as fire; loss of riparian areas, streams, and watersheds; inva- Islands Wildlands Network Conservation Plan (SIWN CP), is sion by exotic species; and loss of native forests to logging based on the basic tenets of conservation biology, and a sci- and other development.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS G. LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The 887-acre Canyon Hills project site is located in the northeastern portion of the City. The project site lies within the Verdugo Mountains, a mountain range that covers an area of approximately 25 square miles.1 The Verdugo Mountains are geographically defined by the San Fernando Valley and the La Tuna Canyon and Tujunga Canyon drainages to the west, the Los Angeles Basin to the south, the San Gabriel Valley and the Arroyo Verdugo drainage to the east, and the communities of Sunland and Tujunga, which lie at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, to the north. The project site is an irregular-shaped property that extends along a southeast to northwest axis, and is roughly bounded by Verdugo Crestline Drive2 on the north and La Tuna Canyon Road on the south. Interstate 210 bisects the project site in an east-west direction dividing it into a northern subarea (“Development Area A”) of approximately 492 acres and a southern subarea (“Development Area B”) of approximately 395 acres. Existing Land Uses The project site contains steep mountainous terrain with local relief changes in excess of 500 vertical feet. Land elevations range from approximately 1,160 to 2,064 feet above sea level. Natural slope gradients roughly range from 3:1 to as steep as 0.75:1 (horizontal:vertical). Steep “V” shaped canyons are abundant throughout the project site. The proposed project site is bisected by Interstate 210. The portion of the freeway that passes through the project site was constructed in the early 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoran Desert GEORGE GENTRY/FWSGEORGE the Sonoran Desert Has 2,000 Endemic Plant Species—More Than Anywhere Else in North America
    in the shadow of the wall: borderlands conservation hotspots on the line Borderlands Conservation Hotspot 2. Sonoran Desert GEORGE GENTRY/FWSGEORGE The Sonoran Desert has 2,000 endemic plant species—more than anywhere else in North America. hink deserts are wastelands? A visit to one of the national monuments or national wildlife refuges in the Sonoran Desert could change your mind. These borderlands are teeming with plants and animals impressively adapted to extreme conditions. T During your visit you might encounter a biologist, a volunteer or a local activist in awe of the place and dedicated to protecting it. The Sonoran Desert is so important to the natural heritage of the United States and Mexico that both countries are vested in conservation lands and programs and on a joint mission to preserve it. “A border wall,” says one conservation coalition leader, “harms our mission” (Campbell 2017). The Sonoran Desert is one of the largest intact wild areas mountains, where they find nesting cavities and swoop in the country, 100,387 square miles stretching across the between cactuses and trees to hunt lizards and other prey. southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. This Rare desert bighorn sheep stick to the steep, rocky slopes of desert is renowned for columnar cactuses like saguaro, organ isolated desert mountain ranges where they keep a watchful pipe and cardón. Lesser known is the fact that the Sonoran eye for predators. One of the most endangered mammals in Desert has more endemic plant species—2,000—than North America, Sonoran pronghorn still occasionally cross anywhere else in North America (Nabhan 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • 3.4 Biological Resources for the Purpose of This EIR, Biological Resources Comprise Vegetation, Wildlife, Natural Communities, and Wetlands and Other Waters
    Impact Analysis Alameda County Community Development Agency Biological Resources 3.4 Biological Resources For the purpose of this EIR, biological resources comprise vegetation, wildlife, natural communities, and wetlands and other waters. Potential biological resource impacts associated with the program and the two individual projects are analyzed. Potential impacts are described quantitatively and qualitatively in Section 3.4.2, Environmental Impacts. This section also identifies specific and detailed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potentially significant impacts on biological resources, where necessary. 3.4.1 Existing Conditions Regulatory Setting Federal Endangered Species Act Pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have authority over projects that may result in take of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the act. Take is defined under the ESA, in part, as killing, harming, or harassing. Under federal regulations, take is further defined to include habitat modification or degradation that results, or is reasonably expected to result, in death or injury to wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. If a likelihood exists that a project would result in take of a federally listed species, either an incidental take permit, under Section 10(a) of the ESA, or a federal interagency consultation, under Section 7 of the ESA, is required. Several federally listed species—vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red‐legged frog (Rana draytonii), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)—have the potential to be affected by activities associated with the Golden Hills and Patterson Pass projects as well as subsequent repowering projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibiaweb's Illustrated Amphibians of the Earth
    AmphibiaWeb's Illustrated Amphibians of the Earth Created and Illustrated by the 2020-2021 AmphibiaWeb URAP Team: Alice Drozd, Arjun Mehta, Ash Reining, Kira Wiesinger, and Ann T. Chang This introduction to amphibians was written by University of California, Berkeley AmphibiaWeb Undergraduate Research Apprentices for people who love amphibians. Thank you to the many AmphibiaWeb apprentices over the last 21 years for their efforts. Edited by members of the AmphibiaWeb Steering Committee CC BY-NC-SA 2 Dedicated in loving memory of David B. Wake Founding Director of AmphibiaWeb (8 June 1936 - 29 April 2021) Dave Wake was a dedicated amphibian biologist who mentored and educated countless people. With the launch of AmphibiaWeb in 2000, Dave sought to bring the conservation science and basic fact-based biology of all amphibians to a single place where everyone could access the information freely. Until his last day, David remained a tirelessly dedicated scientist and ally of the amphibians of the world. 3 Table of Contents What are Amphibians? Their Characteristics ...................................................................................... 7 Orders of Amphibians.................................................................................... 7 Where are Amphibians? Where are Amphibians? ............................................................................... 9 What are Bioregions? ..................................................................................10 Conservation of Amphibians Why Save Amphibians? .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment of Marine Geophysical Surveys by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth for the Southern California Collaborative Offshore Geophysical Survey
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF MARINE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS BY THE R/V MARCUS G. LANGSETH FOR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE OFFSHORE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY Submitted to: National Science Foundation Division of Ocean Sciences 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725 Arlington, VA 22230 Submitted by: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD 8675 Discovery Way La Jolla, CA 92023 Contact: Professor Neal Driscoll 858.822.5026; [email protected] Prepared by: Padre Associates, Inc. 5290 Overpass Road, Suite 217 Goleta, CA 93113 June 2012 Southern California Collaborative Offshore Geophysical Survey (SCCOGS) Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................... 6 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 6 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................ 6 2.3 PROJECT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 6 2.3.1 Mobilization and Demobilization .............................................................. 9 2.3.2 Offshore Survey Operations .................................................................... 9 2.3.2.1 Survey Vessel Specifications ..................................................... 10 2.3.2.2 Air Gun Description ...................................................................
    [Show full text]