DOCSLIB.ORG

A Review of Delta Fish Population Losses from Pumping Operations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Review of Delta Fish Population Losses from Pumping Operations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta A Review of Delta Fish Population Losses from Pumping Operations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Prepared by Larry Walker Associates January 2010 0 REPORT OVERVIEW determined that despite the creation of fish “protection” facilities, the vast majority of juvenile Chinook Salmon (63% to 99%) and An Examination of delta smelt (up to 99%) that are “entrained” Causes and Mitigation of near major water project facilities in the South Delta do not survive. Delta Fish Loss From The Clifton Court Forebay (CCF) is a Pumping Operations regulating reservoir located between the The issues facing the Sacramento-San Delta and the SWP intake. CCF helps water Joaquin Delta are serious and complex. project operators control water level and Although the challenge of how to restore the water velocity at the screens. CCF also has Delta ecosystem and its fish populations become a convenient feeding ground for a while improving water supply reliability has large number of predators that include fish taken center stage recently, it is not a new and birds. A recent 2009 study of delta issue. For more than 30 years researchers smelt found that as many as 94% to 99% of have documented the significant direct the smelt introduced into the CCF were impacts the south Delta water project eaten by predators. These are referred to as operations have on Delta fish and their “pre-screen” losses. habitat. At the same time, the amount of water pumped from the Delta through the The SWP and the CVP have fish protection Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State facilities that try to collect the fish before Water Project (SWP) doubled from 1991 to they reach the Delta pumps. Fish louvers 2005 as illustrated in the December 2009 are placed in front of the pumps to prevent report by the Public Policy Institute of fish from entering the pumps, but are not California called “California Water Myths.” completely effective. A 1996 report by the California Department of Water Resources The recent collapse of Delta fish populations (DWR) and the California Department of creates the need for immediate and renewed Fish and Game (DFG) cited studies action to reduce fish losses in and around the performed by the departments in 1970-71 water project facilities. Many questions that determined the screens may allow as remain and more research is necessary to many as 30% of fish which enter the fish fully examine the numerous issues facing protection facilities to reach the pumps. the Delta. However, there is a significant amount of data – which this paper Fish are collected in the fish protection summarizes – that should not be overlooked. facilities so they can be “salvaged.” From the collection area they are placed in holding tanks, then loaded into tank trucks, driven to Significant Fish Losses specific locations in the Delta, and Documented at Delta discharged from the trucks through pipes that extend out into Delta waters. Water Pump Operations For More Than 30 years In a 2009 Biological Opinion, National From 1976 to 2009, numerous research Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reports studies by credible Delta experts have there is typically debris in the holding tanks 1 along with the fish, which can disorient, facility at the SWP. These salvage statistics injure and kill fish due to turbulent forces in greatly understate the total number of fish the pipeline when the fish are released. entrained, since they do not include the number of fish lost to predators or lost NMFS anticipates that 10% to 30% of through the fish screens. In fact, recent salvaged fish are lost to predators at the estimates indicate that 5-10 times more fish Delta release sites and that an additional are lost than are salvaged, largely due to the number die after release due to stress or high predation losses in and around water injury associated with the handling process. project facilities. A 1996 report by DWR and DFG concluded In 2008, Wim Kimmerer, a prominent that for every salmon salvaged at the fish ecologist and Delta researcher, estimated protection facilities, more than three are lost that approximately 30 times more delta to predators or are lost through the fish smelt are entrained than are salvaged. screens. The report stated that these loss rates “demonstrate a serious problem.” In 2008, United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also reported that high The same 1996 report stated that over a 15- entrainment rates during winter months are year period (1979 to 1993), 110 million fish suspected as a contributing cause of the were reported to have been salvaged at early 1980s delta smelt decline and the Skinner Fish Facility, the fish protection pelagic organism decline or “POD.” The POD refers to the record low numbers of four species of fish that occupy the open waters of the upper San Francisco Bay estuary. Fish entering Clifton Court Despite Substantial Forebay Losses and History of Recommendations to Mitigate, Little Has Been Done to Affect Change 25% The 1996 DWR/DFG study made a number 75% are lost reach of recommendations to mitigate documented to predation salvage in Forebay facility Of those 25%... Graphical • An additional 1-12% are lost during Depiction handling and trucking operations • Estimated 10-30% due to post-release of Loss/Survival Rate 20-30% predation of loss at • Overall loss of 12-32% of salvaged fish salvage Only approximately 11-18% Entrained Fish facility 70-80% louvers salvaged of all entrained fish survive 2 fish losses such as replacing existing fish Prior to that work, most efforts have sought screens, reducing the number of salmon to assess the effects of project operations or entering the CCF and encountering the export volumes through correlation screens, and moving the intake for the analyses. Such analyses have limitations California aqueduct. Little or no action was and are greatly affected by the study period taken to implement these suggestions. selected and other assumptions. In 2000 the CALFED Record of Decision There is a lack of data to fully quantify the highlighted the need to improve the fish impact that the ongoing fish mortality in and screens at the South Delta pumps. Although around the south Delta pumps is having on these improvements were to be in operation total fish populations. by2006, they remain on hold. Also absent is a strong analysis of “indirect” Now underway is the Bay Delta fish losses associated with hydrodynamic Conservation Plan (BDCP), an effort and habitat changes brought by south Delta intended to allow the water exporters to pumping operations. obtain another incidental take permit for fish losses associated with their operations. A Call to Action While the BDCP is proposed to serve co- For 30 years scientists and regulatory equal goals of water supply and ecosystem agencies have documented the significant restoration, operational improvement impacts the water export operations have on recommendations to date include a less than Delta fish – and yet little action has been comprehensive predator control program taken to correct the situation. When the and plans to study non-structural barriers to POD signaled the Delta ecosystem is in real prevent fish from entering the CCF and trouble a few years ago, the response was to other areas of the Delta. No measures to shift the blame from the known impacts of improve the south Delta fish screens or the water exports to potential other salvage facilities have emerged. “stressors.” The fish protection facilities at the South Certainly, more research must be done to Delta pumps, including the fish screens and fully understand all of the issues that may be salvage facilities, remain largely unchanged affecting the health of the Delta and what since they were first engineered over 40 action should be taken to address them, but years ago. the comprehensive and integrative research needed to yield sound data on these issues Full Impact of Pumping will take years. In the meantime, immediate Operations Still Must Be action should be taken to mitigate the known and well documented impacts of the water Determined exports on the Delta ecosystem and In 2008, Wim Kimmerer published a paper endangered fish species. Too much is at that demonstrated that fish mortality stake to allow further delay in addressing the associated with project operations can be ongoing fish mortality associated with the causing adverse impacts on the populations water project operations, especially when of these species. the evidence paints such a clear picture. 3 INTRODUCTION Overview of the Delta The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is an inland river delta and estuary in northern California at the western edge of the Central Valley near the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. It lies east of where the rivers enter Suisun Bay (an upper arm of San Francisco Bay). Water flows from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys to the Delta where it enters a maze of sloughs and waterways leading to the San Francisco Bay. The flow of water in the Delta is directed by an extensive system of levees. The flow Map Source: PPIC Report - Envisioning the Sacramento-San Joaquin patterns through the Delta Delta. are largely determined by: municipal water diverters surrounding and Tidal influences that move salt water in within the Delta itself. The two largest water and out of the Delta daily; export systems are the Central Valley Flows from major rivers that vary Project (CVP) and the State Water Project considerably throughout the year; (SWP). Both systems take water from the Operation of flow control structures on southern part of the Delta and send it to certain waterways in the Delta; and other parts of the state, primarily the south.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LONGFIN SMELT Spirinchus Thaleichthys USFWS: None CDFG: Threatened
    LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC DRAFT SOLANO HCP JULY 2012 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY NATURAL COMMUNITY AND SPECIES ACCOUNTS LONGFIN SMELT Spirinchus thaleichthys USFWS: None CDFG: Threatened Species Account Status and Description. The longfin smelt is listed as a threatened species by the California Fish and Game Commission. Abundance of the longfin smelt has reached record lows in the San Francisco-Delta population, and the species may already be extinct in some northern California estuarine populations, resulting in an overall threat of extinction to the species within California (Federal Register 2008). The longfin smelt was also proposed for federal listing, but on April 8, 2009 the USFWS determined that the San Francisco Bay Estuary population does not qualify for listing as a distinct population segment under federal regulations. Further assessment of the entire population is being conducted, however, and future listing may be considered. Photo courtesy of California Department of Fish and Game Longfin smelt, once mature, are slim, silver fish in the family Osmeridae (true smelts). Moyle (2002) describes the species as being 90-110 mm (standard length) at maturity, with a translucent silver appearance along the sides of the body, and an olive to iridescent pinkish hue on the back. Mature males are often darker than females, with enlarged and stiffened dorsal and anal fins, a dilated lateral line region, and breeding tubercles on paired fins and scares. Longfin smelt can be distinguished from other California smelt by their long pectoral fins (which reach or nearly reach the bases of the pelvic fins), incomplete lateral line, weak or absent striations on the opercular bones, low number of scales in the lateral line (54-65) and long maxillary bones (which in adults extent just short of the posterior margin of the eye).
    [Show full text]
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Questions and Answers About Water Diversions and Delta Smelt Protections
    Questions and Answers about Water Diversions and Delta Smelt Protections California Natural Resources Agency February 12, 2013 What’s the problem? Over the course of the last decade, populations of several fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta have declined to extremely low levels. In some cases, particularly Delta smelt, these declines have triggered requirements under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act to curtail pumping rates at the federal and state water project pumping facilities in the south Delta. Starting in mid-December, the appearance of smelt at the fish-salvage operations near the pumping plants has triggered a significant reduction in the volume of water the water projects can convey to farms and cities in Southern California, the Central Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Significant winter storms in the next couple of months could change the situation, but the pumping curtailment of recent weeks makes it more likely that in the coming year, many urban and farm water districts will have to either rely more heavily on other water sources or make do with a reduced supply by, for example, planting fewer acres of crops. How are decisions regarding pumping cuts made? Operations of the water project pumps are regulated to comply with endangered species law through “biological opinions” issued by federal regulatory agencies. In 2007, a federal court found that existing biological opinions written to protect Delta smelt and several runs of anadromous fish were inadequate. As a result, two new biological opinions were written. The biological opinion that is controlling pumping rates now is a 2008 biological opinion by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorado River Aqueduct
    Fact Sheet: Our Water Lifeline__ The Colorado River Aqueduct. Photo: Aerial photo of CRA Investment in Reliability The Colorado River Aqueduct is considered one of the nation’s Many innovations came from this period in time, including the top civil engineering marvels. It was originally conceived by creation of a medical system for contract workers that would William Mulholland and designed by Metropolitan’s first Chief become the forerunner for the prepaid healthcare plan offered Engineer Frank Weymouth after consideration of more than by Kaiser Permanente. 50 routes. The 242-mile CRA carries water from Lake Havasu to the system’s terminal reservoir at Lake Mathews in Riverside. This reservoir’s location was selected because it is situated at the upper end of Metropolitan’s service area and its elevation of nearly 1,400 feet allows water to flow by gravity to the majority of our service area The CRA was the largest public works project built in Southern California during the Great Depression. Overwhelming voter approval in 1929 for a $220 million bond – equivalent to a $3.75 billion investment today – brought jobs to 35,000 people. Miners, engineers, surveyors, cooks and more came to build Colorado River the aqueduct, living in the harshest of desert conditions and Aqueduct ultimately constructing 150 miles of canals, siphons, conduits and pipelines. They added five pumping plants to lift water over mountains so deliveries could then flow west by gravity. And they blasted 90-plus miles of tunnels, including a waterway under Mount San Jacinto. THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA // // JULY 2021 FACT SHEET: THE COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT // // OUR WATER LIFELINE The Vision Despite the city of Los Angeles’ investment in its aqueduct, by the early 1920s, Southern Californians understood the region did not have enough local supplies to meet growing demands.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Sacramento River Summary Report August 4Th-5Th, 2008
    Upper Sacramento River Summary Report August 4th-5th, 2008 California Department of Fish and Game Heritage and Wild Trout Program Prepared by Jeff Weaver and Stephanie Mehalick Introduction: The 400-mile long Sacramento River system is the largest watershed in the state of California, encompassing the McCloud, Pit, American, and Feather Rivers, and numerous smaller tributaries, in total draining nearly one-fifth of the state. From the headwaters downstream to Shasta Lake, referred to hereafter as the Upper Sacramento, this portion of the Sacramento River is a designated Wild Trout Water (with the exception of a small section near the town of Dunsmuir, which is a stocked put-and-take fishery) (Figure 1). The California Department of Fish and Game’s (DFG) Heritage and Wild Trout Program (HWTP) monitors this fishery through voluntary angler survey boxes, creel census, direct observation snorkel surveys, electrofishing surveys, and habitat analyses. The HWTP has repeated sampling over time in a number of sections to obtain trend data related to species composition, trout densities, and habitat condition to aid in the management of this popular sport fishery. In August 2008, the HWTP resurveyed four historic direct observation survey sections on the Upper Sacramento. Methods: Surveys occurred between August 4th and 5th, 2008 with the aid of HWTP personnel and DFG volunteers. Sections were identified prior to the start of the surveys using GPS coordinates, written directions, and past experience. Fish were counted via direct observation snorkel surveys, an effective survey technique in many streams and creeks in California and the Pacific Northwest (Hankin & Reeves, 1988).
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley of California: Life History and Management
    Winter Chinook salmon in the Central Valley of California: Life history and management Wim Kimmerer Randall Brown DRAFT August 2006 Page ABSTRACT Winter Chinook is an endangered run of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Central Valley of California. Despite considerablc efforts to monitor, understand, and manage winter Chinook, there has been relatively little effort at synthesizing the available information specific to this race. In this paper we examine the life history and status of winter Chinook, based on existing information and available data, and examine the influence of various management actions in helping to reverse decades of decline. Winter Chinook migrate upstream in late winter, mostly at age 3, to spawn in the upper Sacramento River in May - June. Embryos develop through summer, which can expose them to high temperatures. After emerging from the spawning gravel in -September, the young fish rear throughout the Sacramento River before leaving the San Francisco Estuary as smolts in January­ March. Blocked from access to their historical spawning grounds in high elevations of the Sacramento River and tributaries, wintcr Chinook now spawn below Kcswick Dam in cool tail waters of Shasta Dam. Their principal environmental challcnge is temperature: survival of embryos was poor in years when outflow from Shasta was warm or when the fish spawned below Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD), where river temperature is higher than just below Keswick. Installation of a temperature control device on Shasta Dam has reduccd summer temperature in the discharge, and changes in operations of RBDD now allow most winter Chinook access to the upper river for spawning.
    [Show full text]
  • San Luis Unit Project History
    San Luis Unit West San Joaquin Division Central Valley Project Robert Autobee Bureau of Reclamation Table of Contents The San Luis Unit .............................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................4 Project Authorization.....................................................7 Construction History .....................................................9 Post Construction History ................................................19 Settlement of the Project .................................................24 Uses of Project Water ...................................................25 1992 Crop Production Report/Westlands ....................................27 Conclusion............................................................28 Suggested Readings ...........................................................28 Index ......................................................................29 1 The West San Joaquin Division The San Luis Unit Approximately 300 miles, and 30 years, separate Shasta Dam in northern California from the San Luis Dam on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Valley Project, launched in the 1930s, ascended toward its zenith in the 1960s a few miles outside of the town of Los Banos. There, one of the world's largest dams rose across one of California's smallest creeks. The American mantra of "bigger is better" captured the spirit of the times when the San Luis Unit
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento River Flood Control System
    A p pp pr ro x im a te ly 5 0 M il Sacramento River le es Shasta Dam and Lake ek s rre N Operating Agency: USBR C o rt rr reek th Dam Elevation: 1,077.5 ft llde Cre 70 I E eer GrossMoulton Pool Area: 29,500 Weir ac AB D Gross Pool Capacity: 4,552,000 ac-ft Flood Control System Medford !( OREGON IDAHOIDAHO l l a a n n a a C C !( Redding kk ee PLUMAS CO a e a s rr s u C u s l l Reno s o !( ome o 99 h C AB Th C NEVADA - - ^_ a a Sacramento m TEHAMA CO aa hh ee !( TT San Francisco !( Fresno Las Vegas !( kk ee e e !( rr Bakersfield 5 CC %&'( PACIFIC oo 5 ! Los Angeles cc !( S ii OCEAN a hh c CC r a S to m San Diego on gg !( ny ii en C BB re kk ee ee k t ee Black Butte o rr C Reservoir R i dd 70 v uu Paradise AB Oroville Dam - Lake Oroville Hamilton e M Operating Agency: CA Dept of Water Resources r Dam Elevation: 922 ft City Chico Gross Pool Area: 15,800 ac Gross Pool Capacity: 3,538,000 ac-ft M & T Overflow Area Black Butte Dam and Lake Operating Agency: USACE Dam Elevation: 515 ft Tisdale Weir Gross Pool Area: 4,378 ac 3 B's GrossMoulton Pool Capacity: 136,193Weir ac-ft Overflow Area BUTTE CO New Bullards Bar Dam and Lake Operating Agency: Yuba County Water Agency Dam Elevation: 1965 ft Gross Pool Area: 4,790 ac Goose Lake Gross Pool Capacity: 966,000 ac-ft Overflow Area Lake AB149 kk ee rree Oroville Tisdale Weir C GLENN CO ee tttt uu BB 5 ! Oroville New Bullards Bar Reservoir AB49 ll Moulton Weir aa nn Constructed: 1932 Butte aa CC Length: 500 feet Thermalito Design capacity of weir: 40,000 cfs Design capacity of river d/s of weir: 110,000 cfs Afterbay Moulton Weir e ke rro he 5 C ! Basin e kk Cre 5 ! tt 5 ! u Butte Basin and Butte Sink oncu H Flow from the 3 overflow areas upstream Colusa Weir of the project levees, from Moulton Weir, Constructed: 1933 and from Colusa Weir flows into the Length: 1,650 feet Butte Basin and Sink.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2021 | City of Alameda, California
    March 2021 | City of Alameda, California DRAFT ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 CONTENTS 04 MARCH 2021 City of Alameda, California MOBILITY ELEMENT 78 01 05 GENERAL PLAN ORGANIZATION + THEMES 6 HOUSING ELEMENT FROM 2014 02 06 LAND USE + CITY DESIGN ELEMENT 22 PARKS + OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 100 03 07 CONSERVATION + CLIMATE ACTION 54 HEALTH + SAFETY ELEMENT 116 ELEMENT MARCH 2021 DRAFT 1 ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD: PRESIDENT Alan H. Teague VICE PRESIDENT Asheshh Saheba BOARD MEMBERS Xiomara Cisneros Ronald Curtis Hanson Hom Rona Rothenberg Teresa Ruiz POLICY, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS: Amie MacPhee, AICP, Cultivate, Consulting Planner Sheffield Hale, Cultivate, Consulting Planner Candice Miller, Cultivate, Lead Graphic Designer PHOTOGRAPHY: Amie MacPhee Maurice Ramirez Alain McLaughlin MARCH 2021 DRAFT 3 ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN 2040 FORWARD Preparation of the Alameda General Plan 2040 began in 2018 and took shape over a three-year period during which time residents, businesses, community groups, and decision-makers reviewed, revised and refined plan goals, policy statements and priorities, and associated recommended actions. In 2020, the Alameda Planning Board held four public forums to review and discuss the draft General Plan. Over 1,500 individuals provided written comments and suggestions for improvements to the draft Plan through the General Plan update website. General Plan 2040 also benefited from recommendations and suggestions from: ≠ Commission on People with Disabilities ≠ Golden
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY San Luis Field Division San Joaquin Field Division
    State of California California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Division of Engineering CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY San Luis Field Division San Joaquin Field Division June 2017 State of California California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Division of Engineering CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY Jeanne M. Kuttel ......................................................................................... Division Chief Joseph W. Royer .......................... Chief, Geotechnical and Engineering Services Branch Tru Van Nguyen ............................... Supervising Engineer, General Engineering Section G. Robert Barry .................. Supervising Engineering Geologist, Project Geology Section by James Lopes ................................................................................ Senior Engineer, W.R. John M. Curless .................................................................. Senior Engineering Geologist Anna Gutierrez .......................................................................................... Engineer, W.R. Ganesh Pandey .................................................................... Supervising Engineer, W.R. assisted by Bradley von Dessonneck ................................................................ Engineering Geologist Steven Friesen ...................................................................... Engineer, Water Resources Dan Mardock .............................................................................. Chief, Geodetic
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin River Riparian Habitat Below Friant Dam: Preservation and Restoration1
    SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RIPARIAN HABITAT BELOW FRIANT DAM: PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION1 Donn Furman2 Abstract: Riparian habitat along California's San Joa- quin River in the 25 miles between Friant Darn and Free- Table 1 – Riparian wildlife/vegetation way 99 occurs on approximately 6 percent of its his- corridor toric range. It is threatened directly and indirectly by Corridor Corridor increased urban encroachment such as residential hous- Category Acres Percent ing, certain recreational uses, sand and gravel extraction, Water 1,088 14.0 aquiculture, and road construction. The San Joaquin Trees 588 7.0 River Committee was formed in 1985 to advocate preser- Shrubs 400 5.0 Other riparianl 1,844 23.0 vation and restoration of riparian habitat. The Com- Sensitive Biotic2 101 1.5 mittee works with local school districts to facilitate use Agriculture 148 2.0 of riverbottom riparian forest areas for outdoor envi- Recreation 309 4.0 ronmental education. We recently formed a land trust Sand and gravel 606 7.5 called the San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Riparian buffer 2,846 36.0 Trust to preserve land through acquisition in fee and ne- Total 7,900 100.0 gotiation of conservation easements. Opportunities for 1 Land supporting riparian-type vegetation. In increasing riverbottom riparian habitat are presented by most cases this land has been mined for sand and gravel, and is comprised of lands from which sand and gravel have been extracted. gravel ponds. 2 Range of a Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species. Study Area The majority of the undisturbed riparian habitat lies between Friant Dam and Highway 41 beyond the city limits of Fresno.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B: CNDDB, CNPS, and USFWS Database Searches
    City of Hercules—Willow Avenue Commercial Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix B: CNDDB, CNPS, and USFWS Database Searches FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\4673\46730012\ISMND\46730012 Hercules Willow Ave ISMND.docx THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Mare Island (3812213))<br /><span style='color:Red'> AND </span>County<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Contra Costa) Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Antrozous pallidus AMACC10010 None None G5 S3 SSC pallid bat Bombus occidentalis IIHYM24250 None None G2G3 S1 western bumble bee Chloropyron molle ssp. molle PDSCR0J0D2 Endangered Rare G2T1 S1 1B.2 soft salty bird's-beak Danaus plexippus pop. 1 IILEPP2012 None None G4T2T3 S2S3 monarch - California overwintering population Hypomesus transpacificus AFCHB01040 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 Delta smelt Isocoma arguta PDAST57050 None None G1 S1 1B.1 Carquinez goldenbush Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus ABNME03041 None Threatened G3G4T1 S1 FP California black rail Melospiza melodia samuelis ABPBXA301W None None G5T2 S2 SSC San Pablo song sparrow Northern Coastal Salt Marsh CTT52110CA None None G3 S3.2 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Pandion haliaetus ABNKC01010 None None G5 S4 WL osprey Rallus obsoletus obsoletus ABNME05016 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 FP California Ridgway's rail Rana draytonii AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC California red-legged frog Spirinchus thaleichthys AFCHB03010 Candidate Threatened G5 S1 SSC longfin smelt Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus ABPBXB3010 None None G5 S3 SSC yellow-headed blackbird Record Count: 14 Commercial Version -- Dated December, 1 2017 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 1 Report Printed on Thursday, December 21, 2017 Information Expires 6/1/2018 Plant List Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants 8 matches found.
    [Show full text]