DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Rule: Revised Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Vol. 78 Thursday, No. 2 January 3, 2013 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:06 Jan 02, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\03JAR2.SGM 03JAR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 2 / Thursday, January 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR telephone 602–242–0210; facsimile environmental consequences resulting 602–242–2513. from the proposed action of designating Fish and Wildlife Service The coordinates or plot points or both revised critical habitat for the flycatcher. from which the critical habitat maps are We announced the availability of the 50 CFR Part 17 generated are included in the draft economic analysis and draft [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0053; administrative record for this critical environmental assessment in the 4500030114] habitat designation and are available at Federal Register on July 12, 2012 (77 FR http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ 41147), allowing the public to provide RIN 1018–AX43 arizona, www.regulations.gov at Docket comments on our analyses. We have No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0053, and at the considered the comments and have Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Arizona Ecological Services Office (see completed the final economic analysis and Plants; Designation of Critical FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). and final environmental assessment Habitat for Southwestern Willow Any additional tools or supporting concurrently with this final Flycatcher information that we may develop for determination. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, this critical habitat designation will also Peer review and public comment. We Interior. be available at the Fish and Wildlife sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our ACTION: Final rule. Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and may also be included in the designation is based on scientifically SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and preamble or at http:// sound data and analyses. We obtained Wildlife Service (Service), designate www.regulations.gov. opinions from four knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to revised critical habitat for the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: review our technical assumptions, southwestern willow flycatcher Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. (Empidonax traillii extimus) (flycatcher) analysis, and whether or not we had Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona used the best available information. under the Endangered Species Act. In Ecological Services Office, 2321 West total, approximately 1,975 stream These peer reviewers generally Royal Palm Rd., Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ concurred with our methods and kilometers (1,227 stream miles) are 85021; telephone 602–242–0210; being designated as critical habitat. conclusions and provided additional facsimile 602–242–2513. If you use a information, clarifications, and These areas are designated as stream telecommunications device for the deaf segments, with the lateral extent suggestions to improve this final rule. (TDD), call the Federal Information Information we received from peer including the riparian areas and streams Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. that occur within the 100-year review is incorporated in this final SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: floodplain or flood-prone areas revised designation. We also considered encompassing a total area of Executive Summary all comments and information received approximately 84,569 hectares (208,973 from the public during the comment Why we need to publish a rule. This period. acres). The critical habitat is located on is a final rule to revise the designation a combination of Federal, State, tribal, of critical habitat for the southwestern Previous Federal Actions and private lands in Inyo, Kern, Los willow flycatcher (flycatcher). Under The flycatcher was listed as Angeles, Riverside, Santa Barbara, San the Endangered Species Act (Act), any endangered under the Act (16 U.S.C. Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura species that is determined to be an 1531 et seq.) on February 27, 1995 (60 Counties in California; Clark, Lincoln, endangered or threatened species FR 10694). On July 22, 1997, we and Nye Counties in southern Nevada; requires critical habitat to be designated, published a final critical habitat Kane, San Juan, and Washington to the maximum extent prudent and designation for the flycatcher along 964 Counties in southern Utah; Alamosa, determinable. Designations and river km (599 river mi) in Arizona, Conejos, Costilla, and La Plata Counties revisions of critical habitat can only be California, and New Mexico (62 FR in southern Colorado; Apache, Cochise, completed by issuing a rule. 39129). We published a correction Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, The revised critical habitat areas we notice on August 20, 1997, on the lateral Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, Santa are designating in this rule constitute extent of critical habitat (62 FR 44228). Cruz, and Yavapai Counties in Arizona; our current best assessment of the areas As a result of a 1998 lawsuit from the and Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, Mora, Rio that meet the definition of flycatcher New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Arriba, Socorro, Taos, and Valencia critical habitat. In total, we are Association, on October 19, 2005 (70 FR Counties in New Mexico. The effect of designating as flycatcher critical habitat 60886), we published a revised final this regulation is to conserve the approximately 1,975 stream kilometers flycatcher critical habitat rule for flycatcher’s habitat under the (km) (1,227 stream miles (mi)) portions of Arizona, California, New Endangered Species Act. encompassing a total area of Mexico, Nevada, and Utah, totaling DATES: This rule becomes effective on approximately (84,569 hectares (ha), approximately 48,896 ha (120,824 ac) or February 4, 2013. (208,973 acres (ac)) in 24 Management 1,186 km (737 mi). River segments were ADDRESSES: This final rule is available Units. designated as critical habitat in 15 of the on the Internet at http:// We have prepared an economic 32 Management Units described in the www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS– analysis and environmental assessment Recovery Plan (Service 2002, p. 63). R2–ES–2011–0053. Comments and for the designation of critical habitat. In We were sued by the Center for materials received, as well as supporting order to consider economic impacts, we Biological Diversity over our 2005 documentation used in preparing this have prepared an analysis of the critical habitat rule, and on July 13, final rule, are available for public economic impacts of the critical habitat 2010, we agreed to redesignate critical inspection, by appointment, during designations and related factors. The habitat. The resulting settlement left the normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish purpose of the environmental existing critical habitat designation from and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological assessment, prepared pursuant to the 2005 in effect. We proposed a flycatcher Services Office, 2321 West Royal Palm National Environmental Policy Act critical habitat revision on August 15, Rd., Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; (NEPA), is to identify and disclose the 2011 (76 FR 50542), and additional VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:06 Jan 02, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03JAR2.SGM 03JAR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 2 / Thursday, January 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 345 proposal information was included in Distribution by foraging, migrating, and dispersing our July 12, 2012 (77 FR 41147), rule flycatchers for food, cover, and shelter. reopening the comment period. We The known geographical area At the time of listing, breeding sites requested and received an extension to historically occupied by migrating and in California, Nevada, Utah, and allow a final rule to be delivered to the breeding flycatchers includes southern Colorado described by Unitt (1987, pp. California, southern Nevada, southern Federal Register by December 14, 2012. 149–152) were adopted as the Utah, southern Colorado, Arizona, New subspecies’ northern boundary. Background Mexico, western Texas, and extreme However, the collection and analysis of northwestern Mexico (Hubbard 1987, genetic material across this part of the Additional background information pp. 6–10; Unitt 1987, pp. 144–152; flycatcher’s range has since refined this on the flycatcher, beyond what is Browning 1993, pp. 248, 250). The boundary (Paxton 2000, pp. 3, 18–20), provided below, can be found in the flycatcher’s current range is similar to and reduced the extent of the northern proposed revision of flycatcher critical the historical range, but the quantity of boundary of the southwestern habitat published on August 15, 2011 suitable habitat within that range is subspecies in Utah and Colorado (76 FR 50542), as well as the final reduced from historical levels (Service (Service 2002, Figure 3). Territories flycatcher critical habitat rule published 2002, pp. 7–10). Flycatchers nest within once believed to be held by in the Federal Register on October 19, the southwestern United States from southwestern willow flycatchers in Utah 2005 (70 FR 60886); our October 12, about May to September (Sogge et al. and Colorado are now more accurately 2004, proposed critical habitat rule (69 2010, p. 11). known to be occupied by a different, FR 60706); the Southwestern Willow At the time of listing
Recommended publications
  • Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams

    Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams

    Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams: A Unique Biome With Important Contributions to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Ross Vander Vorste, University of Wisconsin La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, United States Romain Sarremejane, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom Thibault Datry, IRSTEA, UR-Riverly, Centre de Lyon-Villeurbanne, Villeurbanne, France © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. What Are Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams? 1 Hydrologically Diverse and Globally Abundant 1 Three-in-One: IRES Contribute to Lotic, Lentic, and Terrestrial Dynamics 2 Biogeochemical Dynamics in Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams 3 Biodiversity in Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams 4 From Microbes to Elephants, IRES Support High Biodiversity 4 Strategies for Persistence in IRES 6 Organization of Metacommunities Within IRES 6 Management of Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams 7 Ecosystem Services Provided by IRES 7 Protection and Management of IRES 7 Future of IRES and Global Change 7 Summary 8 References 9 Abstract The majority of flowing waterbodies throughout the world can be considered intermittent rivers or ephemeral streams (IRES) because at some point in time and space they stop flowing or dry. Despite their global abundance, less is known about this biome compared to perennial—permanently flowing—rivers. However, a recent surge in research has dramatically improved our understanding of how IRES function and what types of biodiversity and ecosystem services they support. A cycle of terrestrial-aquatic habitat conditions caused by the periodic drying and rewetting creates a high temporal dynamic in the biogeochemistry, biodiversity, and ecosystem services of IRES. Vast amounts of accumulated sediment, organic matter and organisms can be transported from IRES downstream to larger rivers or lakes, contributing to the global C cycle.
  • Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus)

    Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus)

    Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) August 2002 Prepared By Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup For Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Approved: Date: Disclaimer Recovery Plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved Recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Some of the techniques outlined for recovery efforts in this plan are completely new regarding this subspecies. Therefore, the cost and time estimates are approximations. Citations This document should be cited as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Service 5430 Governor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 i This Recovery Plan was prepared by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team, Technical Subgroup: Deborah M.
  • Georgia Water Quality

    Georgia Water Quality

    GEORGIA SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT STRATEGY Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia PHOTO: Kathy Methier Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive Suite 1152, East Tower Atlanta, GA 30334 GEORGIA SURFACE WATER AND GROUND WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT STRATEGY 2015 Update PREFACE The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) developed this document entitled “Georgia Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Monitoring and Assessment Strategy”. As a part of the State’s Water Quality Management Program, this report focuses on the GAEPD’s water quality monitoring efforts to address key elements identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) monitoring strategy guidance entitled “Elements of a State Monitoring and Assessment Program, March 2003”. This report updates the State’s water quality monitoring strategy as required by the USEPA’s regulations addressing water management plans of the Clean Water Act, Section 106(e)(1). Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Watershed Protection Branch 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive Suite 1152, East Tower Atlanta, GA 30334 GEORGIA SURFACE WATER AND GROUND WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT STRATEGY 2015 Update TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................
  • San Mateo County

    San Mateo County

    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of San Mateo County San Pedro San Pedro Creek flows northwesterly, entering the Pacific Ocean at Pacifica State Beach. It drains a watershed about eight square miles in area. The upper portions of the drainage contain springs (feeding the south and middle forks) that produce perennial flow in the creek. Documents with information regarding steelhead in the San Pedro Creek watershed may refer to the North Fork San Pedro Creek and the Sanchez Fork. For purposes of this report, these tributaries are considered as part of the mainstem. A 1912 letter regarding San Mateo County streams indicates that San Pedro Creek was stocked. A fishway also is noted on the creek (Smith 1912). Titus et al. (in prep.) note DFG records of steelhead spawning in the creek in 1941. In 1968, DFG staff estimated that the San Pedro Creek steelhead run consisted of 100 individuals (Wood 1968). A 1973 stream survey report notes, “Spawning habitat is a limiting factor for steelhead” (DFG 1973a, p. 2). The report called the steelhead resources of San Pedro Creek “viable and important” but cited passage at culverts, summer water diversion, and urbanization effects on the stream channel and watershed hydrology as placing “the long-term survival of the steelhead resource in question”(DFG 1973a, p. 5). The lower portions of San Pedro Creek were surveyed during the spring and summer of 1989. Three O. mykiss year classes were observed during the study throughout the lower creek. Researchers noticed “a marked exodus from the lower creek during the late summer” of yearling and age 2+ individuals, many of which showed “typical smolt characteristics” (Sullivan 1990).
  • San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS

    San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS

    San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS Introduction The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (Program) performs Watershed Assessment and Monitoring (WAM) component activities in compliance with its municipal stormwater NPDES permit requirements. In the past, a consistent countywide watershed boundary data layer has not been available to meet Program needs for mapping and analyzing watershed-related data. As a result, the Program has previously utilized the best existing available data sets and/or developed new data to meet the objectives of specific individual projects. For example, creek location and watershed boundary data were developed to characterize imperviousness and channel modifications in seventeen watersheds in San Mateo County (STOPPP 2002). In another example, Program staff compiled existing countywide watershed data and developed new data needed to identify watershed areas considered exempt from Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) requirements (STOPPP 2005). The Program previously identified two major information gaps in digital watershed boundary data: 1) limited storm drain catchment data were available for urban areas and 2) consistent countywide watershed data layers were not available (STOPPP 2005). Recent development of watershed data in urbanized portions of San Mateo County has provided an opportunity to address these information gaps. This memo describes the methods used by Program staff to create a consistent countywide watershed data layer that includes delineation of storm drain catchments in urban areas. Consistent watershed and creek data set will assist Program staff in watershed characterization and the identification and prioritization of potential future monitoring and watershed assessment activities. Background In 1999, the State of California developed a statewide watershed data layer entitled the California Interagency Watershed Map (Calwater).
  • THE WATER QUALITY of the LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED Fiscal Year 2007

    THE WATER QUALITY of the LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED Fiscal Year 2007

    THE WATER QUALITY OF THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED Fiscal Year 2007 Prepared by the Surface Water Section March 2009 Publication Number OFR 09-11 LCR REPORT FY 2007 THE WATER QUALITY OF THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED Fiscal Year 2007 By The Monitoring and Assessments Units Edited by Jason Jones and Meghan Smart Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADEQ Water Quality Division Surface Water Section Monitoring Unit, Standards & Assessment Unit 1110 West Washington St. Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2935 ii LCR REPORT FY 2007 THANKS: Field Assistance: Anel Avila, Justin Bern, Aiko Condon, Kurt Ehrenburg, Karyn Hanson, Lee Johnson, Jason Jones, Lin Lawson, Sam Rector, Patti Spindler, Meghan Smart, and John Woods. Report Review: Kurt Ehrenburg, Lin Lawson, and Patti Spindler. Report Cover: From left to right: EMAP team including ADEQ, AZGF, and USGS; Rainbow over the Round Valley in the White Mountains; Measuring Tape, and Clear Creek located east of Payson. iii LCR REPORT FY 2007 ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Name Abbreviation Name ALKCACO3 Total Alkalinity SO4-T Sulfate Total ALKPHEN Phenolphthalein Alkalinity SPCOND Specific Conductivity Arizona Department of Suspended Sediment AQEQ Environmental Quality SSC Concentration AS-D Arsenic Dissolved su Standard pH Units AS-T Arsenic Total TDS Total Dissolved Solids Arizona Game and Fish AZGF Department TEMP-AIR Air Temperature Arizona Pollutant Discharge TEMP- AZPDES Elimination System WATER Water Temperature BA-D Barium Dissolved TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen B-T Boron Total TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load CA-T Calcium Total USGS U.S. Geological Survey CFS Cubic Feet per Second ZN-D Zinc Dissolved CO3 Carbonate ZN-T Zinc Total CU-TRACE Copper Trace Metal CWA Clean Water Act DO-MGL Dissolved Oxygen in mg/l DO- PERCENT Dissolved Oxygen in Percent E.
  • San Mateo Creek Watershed Profile

    San Mateo Creek Watershed Profile

    SAN MATEO CREEK WATERSHED PROFILE http://wrpinfo.scc.ca.gov/watersheds/sm/sm_profile.html Introduction The San Mateo Creek (SMC) watershed covers approximately 139 square miles of relatively undeveloped terrain. The majority of the SMC watershed's drainage area lies within western Riverside and northwestern San Diego Counties, with approximately 20% within the boundary of southeastern Orange County (Jorgensen, et al., 1971; Feldmeth, 1987). San Mateo Creek is one of the last undammed streams in southern California. The mainstem of the San Mateo Creek is over 22 miles long and has four main contributing tributaries: Cristianitos Creek, Talega Creek, Tenaja Creek, and Devil's Canyon (USFS, 1999b). Other contributing drainages within the watershed include Gabino Creek, La Paz Creek, and Cold Spring Creek (PCR et al., 2001). The SMC mainstem flows in a southwestern direction before reaching the Pacific Ocean just south of the City of San Clemente. The SMC watershed drains portions of the Santa Margarita Mountains, Sitton Peak, and the western slopes of the Elsinore Mountains. Cristianitos Creek, the main tributary, joins the mainstem approximately three miles inland from the coast and accounts for 29 square miles of the total watershed (Jorgensen, et al., 1971). The watershed contains two distinct topographical regions: the upper and the coastal. The upper region lies mostly within San Mateo Canyon Wilderness in the Cleveland National Forest. Its lower reaches run through Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base and San Onofre State Beach. The upper mountainous drainage area consists mostly of the rugged, steep sloped, Santa Ana Mountains, which are bisected by intermittent streams.
  • Revised Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad; Final Rule

    Revised Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad; Final Rule

    Vol. 76 Wednesday, No. 27 February 9, 2011 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:03 Feb 08, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09FER2.SGM 09FER2 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2 7246 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (TDD), call the Federal Information Life History Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. The following additional information Fish and Wildlife Service SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and clarifications on the life history of the arroyo toad are based on comments 50 CFR Part 17 Background from peer reviewers (see Peer Review We intend to discuss only those [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0069; MO section below) received on the proposed topics directly relevant to the 92210–0–0009–B4] revised rule (74 FR 52612; October 13, designation of revised critical habitat for 2009). RIN 1018–AV89 the arroyo toad under the Endangered We stated in the revised proposed Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. rule that most arroyo toads become Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 1531 et seq.), in this final rule. For more sexually mature in the spring following and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for information on the taxonomy, biology, metamorphosis. However, we should the Arroyo Toad and ecology of the arroyo toad, refer to clarify that unlike males, female arroyo the final listing rule published in the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, toads generally do not become sexually Federal Register on December 16, 1994 Interior.
  • Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board

    Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board

    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 12-1986 Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation California Regional Water Quality Control Board, "Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)" (1986). California Agencies. Paper 393. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/393 This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WATER QUA~ITY · CONTROL PLAN Cover photo by: MICHAEL DRENNAN. Senior Water Resources Engineer San Francisco Bay Region DONALD E. ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN PETER W. SNYDER, VICE CHAIRMAN* FRED KLATTE* JANICE E. MONDAVI MARION OTSEA • KENNETH R. MERCER JEPTHA WADE PHILIP WENTE *Basin Plan Committee 1986 3 F N R R This report was prepared under the direction of Roger B. James ......................................................................... Executive Officer Lawrence P. Kolb ...................................................................... Assistant Executive Officer Richard H. Whitsel ..................................................................
  • The Great Park Campaign

    The Great Park Campaign

    THE GREAT PARK CAMPAIGN Protecting and Connecting the Redwood Forests FINAL REPORT – SPRING 2016 LETTER FROM THE CAMPAIGN CO-CHAIRS With your help... Carrie Drake/SVF we did it! Together, we did it! Jacqueline Wender and Diane Talbert Four years ago Sempervirens Fund defined a new, unprecedented vision for the Santa Cruz Mountains — the Great Park. To embark on that vision, we set an ambitious goal to raise $22 million in a Great Park Campaign. The purpose of this campaign was to provide Sempervirens Fund with the financial resources to (1) protect and steward key redwood forest lands; (2) develop a new entrance to Castle Rock State Park; and (3) continue the education, outreach and fundraising activities that connect people, young and old, with the redwoods. These initiatives are, in essence, the core of Sempervirens Fund’s mission to preserve and protect redwood forest habitat in the Santa Cruz Mountains. We asked you to stretch high (and to dig deep!) to help reach our goal, and you did. We are very grateful. As of December 31, 2015, we met our $22 million campaign goal. Thanks to you, we protected 9,284 acres of redwood forests. We completed plans for the new entrance at Castle Rock State Park and will start Phase I construction by late summer. And we made new friends, strengthened important partnerships, and cultivated a new generation of redwood enthusiasts along the way. Our deepest thanks to each and every one of you for what you have made possible! Thanks to our fellow Board and Campaign Committee members.
  • Hydrological, Environmental and Taxonomical Heterogeneity During the Transition from Drying to Flowing Conditions in a Mediterranean Intermittent River

    Hydrological, Environmental and Taxonomical Heterogeneity During the Transition from Drying to Flowing Conditions in a Mediterranean Intermittent River

    biology Article Hydrological, Environmental and Taxonomical Heterogeneity during the Transition from Drying to Flowing Conditions in a Mediterranean Intermittent River Andy Banegas-Medina 1,2,*, Isis-Yelena Montes 1,2 , Ourania Tzoraki 3 , Luc Brendonck 4,5 , Tom Pinceel 4,6, Gustavo Diaz 1 , Pedro Arriagada 7, Jose-Luis Arumi 8 , Pablo Pedreros 1 and Ricardo Figueroa 1 1 Centre of Environmental Sciences EULA-Chile and CHRIAM Water Research Centre, Department of Aquatic Systems, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Universidad de Concepción, P.O. Box 160-C Concepción, Chile; [email protected] (I.-Y.M.); [email protected] (G.D.); [email protected] (P.P.); rfi[email protected] (R.F.) 2 Laboratory of Biology, Department of Sciences, Danlí Technological Campus, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, Panamerican Highway km 95, 13201 Danlí, Honduras 3 Marine Sciences Department, School of Environment, University of the Aegean, University Hill, 81100 Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece; [email protected] 4 Laboratory of Animal Ecology, Global Change and Sustainable Development, KU Leuven, Ch. Deberiotstraat 32, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; [email protected] (L.B.); [email protected] (T.P.) 5 Water Research Group, Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, 2520 Potchefstroom, South Africa 6 Centre for Environmental Management, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339, 9300 Bloemfontein, South Africa Citation: Banegas-Medina, A.; 7 Centre of Environmental Sciences EULA-Chile and CHRIAM Water Research Centre, Department of Montes, I.-Y.; Tzoraki, O.; Brendonck, Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Universidad de Concepción, L.; Pinceel, T.; Diaz, G.; Arriagada, P.; P.O.
  • 69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers

    69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers

    69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers American Rivers releases annual list including dams in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin for a total of 23 states. Nationwide, 1,797 dams have been removed from 1912 through 2020. Dam removal brings a variety of benefits to local communities, including restoring river health and clean water, revitalizing fish and wildlife, improving public safety and recreation, and enhancing local economies. Working in a variety of functions with partner organizations throughout the country, American Rivers contributed financial and technical support in many of the removals. Contact information is provided for dam removals, if available. For further information about the list, please contact Jessie Thomas-Blate, American Rivers, Director of River Restoration at 202.347.7550 or [email protected]. This list includes all dam removals reported to American Rivers (as of February 10, 2021) that occurred in 2020, regardless of the level of American Rivers’ involvement. Inclusion on this list does not indicate endorsement by American Rivers. Dams are categorized alphabetically by state. Beale Dam, Dry Creek, California A 2016 anadromous salmonid habitat assessment stated that migratory salmonids were not likely accessing habitat upstream of Beale Lake due to the presence of the dam and an undersized pool and weir fishway. In 2020, Beale Dam, owned by the U.S. Air Force, was removed and a nature-like fishway was constructed at the upstream end of Beale Lake to address the natural falls that remain a partial barrier following dam removal.