DOCSLIB.ORG

Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Document for Expansion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Document for Expansion Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision to Expand Waterfowl Hunting on Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is expanding waterfowl hunting on Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) to include Pond A6 and the tidal portion of Greco Island. This opening will be in accordance with the Refuge’s Hunt Plan and Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The areas proposed for expansion include 460-acre Pond A6, and 500 acres of tidal habitat on Greco Island. Waterfowl hunting on Pond A6 and Greco Island will be open seven days a week, and access to Pond A6 is only available from adjacent sloughs (Guadalupe and Alviso) during appropriate tide windows that allow navigation through the levee openings. Hunting on Greco Island (including the expanded 500 acres) will remain as is currently operated. Selected Action Alternative B—Proposed Action Alternative: Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the Service would expand waterfowl hunting on two units of the Refuge: (1) the tidal portion of Greco Island 500 acres) and (2) Pond A6 (460 acres). The rules and regulations associated with waterfowl hunting, which is already permitted on other areas of the Refuge, would remain consistent with those already in place. Hunting on Pond A6 and Greco Island will be open seven days a week, and access to Pond A6 is only available from adjacent sloughs (Guadalupe and Alviso) during appropriate tide windows that allow navigation through the levee openings. Hunting on Greco Island (including the expanded 500 acres) will remain as is currently operated. Alviso Pond A6 • Located near the Mowry Slough Unit in South San Francisco Bay between Mowry Slough and Coyote Creek • Hunting is allowed seven days a week • Access is by boat only—boats must access from the bay and hunt from the boat inside the pond • Shooting from levees is prohibited • No land or tidal marsh access is allowed, except to retrieve downed birds (due to endangered species present) Greco Island • Located on the west side of the San Francisco Bay, north of Dumbarton Bridge • Hunting is allowed seven days a week 1 • Hunting is allowed by boat in tidal areas (including Redwood Creek, Smith, Steinberger, and Corkscrew sloughs) • No land or tidal marsh access is allowed, except to retrieve downed birds (due to endangered species present) Specific regulations for the other hunt units of the Refuge are in the 2021 Hunt Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2021a). The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the proposed action to avoid potential conflicts to natural and cultural resources: • Population monitoring will be reviewed annually by the Refuge to ensure that harvests are not unacceptably impacting the targeted populations. The program will be modified accordingly. • The Refuge will maintain an effective law enforcement program to protect Refuge resources and the visiting public. Environmental education and outreach will remain a key component and priority for the Refuge. Hunting outreach brochures will be made available to the public at the Refuge offices, through Refuge law enforcement officers and other staff and via the Refuge website. • The use of retrieving dogs will be permitted and encouraged in all areas open to hunting. Dogs must be under control at all times. Dogs will be required to be kept on leash, except when engaged in authorized hunting activities and under the direct voice control of a licensed hunter. • In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the disturbance of archaeological or historical sites, and the removal of artifacts are prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection, or purchase of historical, ethnological, or archaeological specimens or artifacts, or mementos from the Refuge is prohibited. • Boats used for hunting will be limited to navigable sloughs, open waters, and specified managed ponds. Boats must adhere to the California Boating Law. This information will be available to the public at appropriate access points on the Refuge, the headquarters visitor center, Alviso Environmental Educational Center, and via the Refuge’s website. This alternative was selected over the No Action alternative because it meets the Purpose and Need by expanding compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities while maintaining sustainable waterfowl populations. This alternative offers increased opportunities for public hunting and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the NWRS Improvement Act of 1997. The Service has determined that the Proposed Action (the Hunt Plan) is compatible with the purposes of the Refuge; the mission of the NWRS; and meets the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA (16 U.S.C. 668dd (a) (4)), and is consistent with and supports the Refuge’s CCP. Other Alternatives Considered and Analyzed 2 Alternative A—No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not expand the hunt boundary of the Greco Island or open waterfowl hunting on Pond A6. The Service would continue to allow existing waterfowl hunting on approximately 10,000 acres of the Refuge in accordance with state and Refuge-specific regulations. Seasons, hours, bag limits, and other rules for hunting on the Refuge would be unchanged under this alternative, and such details are described by CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2020) and the Refuge website (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020b). Opportunities for other visitor activities on the refuge would still include all six priority public uses: hunting, fishing, interpretation, environmental education, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. This alternative was not selected because it would not expand compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for hunting. Effects of the Selected Action by Resource Category An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide decision-making framework that 1) explored a reasonable range of alternatives to meet project objectives, 2) evaluated potential issues and impacts to the refuge, resources and values, and 3) identified mitigation measures to lessen the degree or extent of these impacts. The EA evaluated the effects associated with both the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. It is incorporated as part of this finding. Implementation of the agency’s decision would be expected to result in the following environmental, social, and economic effects: Target species: waterfowl By its very nature, hunting has very few positive effects on waterfowl while the activity is occurring, including the disturbance, injuring, and killing of waterfowl. However, while the action will have adverse effects on individual waterfowl species, regulations are designed to ensure that viable populations of waterfowl are sustained over the long term. Waterfowl sanctuaries will remain available in the areas of the Refuge not open to hunting, thus minimizing the impacts on hunted species. Non-target species The action will have minor, short-term effects to non-target wildlife species. While there would be some short-term disturbances to wildlife related to increased human presence and noise associated with hunting, these impacts are reduced by the availability of adjacent sanctuary areas where both hunted and non-hunted wildlife can feed and rest relatively undisturbed. In addition, hunting on the Refuge is seasonal, restricted (in some hunt units) to only three days a week, and harvest regulations (set by the state and within Federal framework guidelines) are adopted by the Refuge to ensure healthy wildlife populations in the future. 3 Threatened and endangered species Impacts on listed species due to hunting can be caused by human presence, noise, or disturbance via boats. Such disturbances are expected to have minor adverse impacts on the California Ridgway’s rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, Western snowy plover, steelhead trout, and the North American green sturgeon (more details in the Biological Evaluation). Implementation of refuge hunting regulations and minimization/mitigation measures will further reduce these impacts. Because California least terns are not present on the Refuge during the hunting season, which typically opens in mid-October and ends in late January, there are no effects on this species due to the proposed action. Vegetation and habitat Hunting on the Refuge will have minor adverse impacts on vegetation and habitat via trampling of vegetation when retrieving downed birds, unauthorized human access, or the introduction of invasive plant species via hunters’ boots or vehicle tires. Hunting is permitted on foot and by boat, but because the hunter population is relatively small, impacts to vegetation from this type of use are expected to be minimal. Access to hunt areas primarily takes place via existing levees, further minimizing disturbance to wetland areas. Also, the use of hunt blinds deters hunters from disturbing vegetated areas. Because dogs may cause disturbance to wildlife, hunting in tidal areas is restricted to boats only, and hunters are required to have command of their dogs at all times. Visitor Use and Experience The selected alternative will not adversely affect the quality of other wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities and visitor use at the Refuge. Potential user conflicts between hunting and other refuge uses will be minimized by refuge regulations, wildlife sanctuaries, and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge 2020
    Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020 -2021 Waterfowl Hunting Regulations These Regulations along with maps and directions are available at: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Don_Edwards_San_Francisco_Bay/hunting.html General Information The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) contains approximately 10,580 acres of tidal areas and salt ponds that are open to waterfowl hunting (Map 1). Season opening and closing dates are determined by the State of California. Check the California Waterfowl Regulations (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting) each season for these dates. Hunters must comply with all State and Federal regulations including regulations listed under 50 CFR 32.24, and the refuge-specific regulations described below. Permit Requirements Hunters 18 years of age or older will need to have: 1) a valid California hunting license; 2) a valid, signed Federal Duck Stamp; 3) a California Duck Validation; 4) a Harvest Information Program (HIP) Validation; and 5) identification that includes a photograph (e.g., driver’s license). Junior and Youth hunters need the following: Junior/Youth Hunter Summary 15 yrs old or 16-17 yrs old w/ Jr 18 yrs old w/ Jr under (Youth) license (Junior) license (Junior) Participate in post-season youth hunt? Yes Yes No Needs a California hunting license? Yes Yes Yes Needs a HIP Validation? Yes Yes Yes Needs a Federal Duck Stamp? No Yes Yes Needs a State Duck Stamp (validation)? No No No Needs an adult accompanying them on regular hunt days? Yes No No Needs an adult accompanying them for youth hunt days? Yes Yes Yes It is required that all hunters possess a Refuge Waterfowl Hunting Permit when hunting in the Alviso Ponds.
    [Show full text]
  • Goga Wrfr.Pdf
    The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top: Golden Gate Bridge, Don Weeks Middle: Rodeo Lagoon, Joel Wagner Bottom: Crissy Field, Joel Wagner ii CONTENTS Contents, iii List of Figures, iv Executive Summary, 1 Introduction, 7 Water Resources Planning, 9 Location and Demography, 11 Description of Natural Resources, 12 Climate, 12 Physiography, 12 Geology, 13 Soils, 13
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment Iii: Baseline Status and Cumulative Effects for the San Francisco Bay Listed Species
    ATTACHMENT III: BASELINE STATUS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY LISTED SPECIES 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: ALAMEDAWHIPSNAKE ............................................................................................ 6 1.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................................................................... 6 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE........................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Factors affecting species within the action area ............................................... 6 1.2.1.1 Urban development .................................................................................... 7 1.2.1.2 Fire suppression ......................................................................................... 9 1.2.1.3 Predation .................................................................................................... 9 1.2.1.4 Grazing practices ..................................................................................... 10 1.2.1.5 Non-native species ................................................................................... 10 1.2.2 Baseline Status ................................................................................................ 11 1.3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 13 2: BAY CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY ....................................................................... 14 2.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment Ii
    ATTACHMENT II: STATUS AND LIFE HISTORY OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY LISTED SPECIES 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: ALAMEDA WHIPSNAKE ........................................................................................... 5 1.1 Species Listing Status .............................................................................................. 5 1.2 Description ............................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Distribution .............................................................................................................. 5 1.4 USFWS Critical Habitat .......................................................................................... 6 1.5 Habitat .................................................................................................................... 11 1.6 Diet ......................................................................................................................... 11 1.7 Life History and Reproduction .............................................................................. 11 1.8 References .............................................................................................................. 12 2: BAY CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY ....................................................................... 14 2.1 Species Listing Status ............................................................................................ 14 2.2 Description ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC LAW 92-330-JUNE 30, 1972 399 Public Law 92
    86 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 92-330-JUNE 30, 1972 399 Public Law 92-330 AN ACT June 30, 1972 To provide for the establishment of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife [H. R. 12143] Refuge. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the San Francisco United States of America in Congress assembled^ That, for the preser­ Bay National vation and enhancement of highly significant wildlife habitat in the Wildlife Refuge. area known as south San Francisco Bay in the State of California, for Establishment. the protection of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife, including species known to be threatened with extinction, and to provide an opportunity for wildlife-oriented recreation and nature study within the open space so preserved, the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary") is authorized and directed to establish, as herein provided, a national wildlife refuge to be known as the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Kefuge (hereinafter referred to as the "refuge"). SEC. 2. There shall be included within the boundaries of the refuge Description. those lands, marshes, tidal flats, salt ponds, submerged lands, and open waters in the south San Francisco Bay area generally depicted on the map entitled "Boundary Map, Proposed San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge", dated July 1971, and which comprise approximately twenty-one thousand six hundred and sixty-two acres within four dis­ tinct units to be known as Fremont (five thousand five hundred and twenty acres), Mowry Slough (seven thousand one hundred and seventy-five acres), Alviso (three thousand and eighty acres), and Greco Island (five thousand eight hundred and eig'hty-seven acres).
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Native Oyster Restoration in San Francisco Bay. Final Report to California Coastal Conservancy Agreement
    Planning for Native Oyster Restoration in San Francisco Bay Final Report to California Coastal Conservancy Agreement # 05-134 Edwin Grosholza, Jim Mooreb, Chela Zabina, Sarikka Attoea and Rena Obernoltea aDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy University of California, Davis bCalifornia Department of Fish and Game Funding provided by the California Ocean Protection Council Introduction Historically, native Olympia oysters Ostreola conchaphila (=Ostrea lurida) (Turgeon et al. 1998) were an abundant and ecologically important part of the fauna in West Coast estuaries and an important fishery (Barnett 1963, Baker 1995). Unfortunately, the popularity of the fishery that began in the 1850s resulted in the complete collapse of native oyster populations along the west coast of the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Barnett 1963, Baker 1995). Not only was the fishery lost, but so were the key ecosystem services provided by native oysters. Studies of oysters in estuaries in the eastern U.S. have shown that native oyster reefs (Crassostrea virginica) act as a “foundation species” by creating a refuge from predators and physical stress as well as a food source resulting in increased local diversity of fishes and invertebrates (Zimmerman 1989, Lenihan 1999, Micheli and Peterson 1999, Lenihan et al. 2001). In the largely unstructured, soft-sediment habitats of West Coast estuaries, aggregations of native oysters were likely to have provided similar functions and have been shown to increase invertebrate species richness (Kimbro and Grosholz 2006). The introduction of exotic Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) from Asia in the early 20th century provided a successful replacement for the native oyster fishery.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • Species and Community Profiles to Six Clutches of Eggs, Totaling About 861 Eggs During California Vernal Pool Tadpole Her Lifetime (Ahl 1991)
    3 Invertebrates their effects on this species are currently being investi- Franciscan Brine Shrimp gated (Maiss and Harding-Smith 1992). Artemia franciscana Kellogg Reproduction, Growth, and Development Invertebrates Brita C. Larsson Artemia franciscana has two types of reproduction, ovovi- General Information viparous and oviparous. In ovoviviparous reproduction, the fertilized eggs in a female can develop into free-swim- The Franciscan brine shrimp, Artemia franciscana (for- ming nauplii, which are set free by the mother. In ovipa- merly salina) (Bowen et al. 1985, Bowen and Sterling rous reproduction, however, the eggs, when reaching the 1978, Barigozzi 1974), is a small crustacean found in gastrula stage, become surrounded by a thick shell and highly saline ponds, lakes or sloughs that belong to the are deposited as cysts, which are in diapause (Sorgeloos order Anostraca (Eng et al. 1990, Pennak 1989). They 1980). In the Bay area, cysts production is generally are characterized by stalked compound eyes, an elongate highest during the fall and winter, when conditions for body, and no carapace. They have 11 pairs of swimming Artemia development are less favorable. The cysts may legs and the second antennae are uniramous, greatly en- persist for decades in a suspended state. Under natural larged and used as a clasping organ in males. The aver- conditions, the lifespan of Artemia is from 50 to 70 days. age length is 10 mm (Pennak 1989). Brine shrimp com- In the lab, females produced an average of 10 broods, monly swim with their ventral side upward. A. franciscana but the average under natural conditions may be closer lives in hypersaline water (70 to 200 ppt) (Maiss and to 3-4 broods, although this has not been confirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Berryessa Recycling Facility
    Oracle Design Tech Charter School Civil Improvements Biological Resources Report Project #3732-01 Prepared for: Shannon George David J. Powers & Associates 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates 9 October 2015 983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210 Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Property Description ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Existing Land Use and Topography ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Proposed Site Development .................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Background Review ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Spartina Project (Cordgrass)
    SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT 2612-A 8th Street ● Berkeley ● California 94710 ● (510) 548-2461 Preserving native wetlands PEGGY OLOFSON PROJECT DIRECTOR [email protected] Date: July 1, 2011 INGRID HOGLE MONITORING PROGRAM To: Jennifer Krebs, SFEP MANAGER [email protected] From: Peggy Olofson ERIK GRIJALVA FIELD OPERATIONS MANAGER Subject: Report of Work Completed Under Estuary 2100 Grant #X7-00T04701 [email protected] DREW KERR The State Coastal Conservancy received an Estuary 2100 Grant for $172,325 to use FIELD OPERATIONS ASSISTANT MANAGER for control of non-native invasive Spartina. Conservancy distributed the funds [email protected] through sub-grants to four Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) partners, including Cali- JEN MCBROOM fornia Wildlife Foundation, San Mateo Mosquito Abatement District, Friends of CLAPPER RAIL MONITOR‐ ING MANAGER Corte Madera Creek Watershed, and State Parks and Recreation. These four ISP part- [email protected] ners collectively treated approximately 90 net acres of invasive Spartina for two con- MARILYN LATTA secutive years, furthering the baywide eradication of invasive Spartina restoring and PROJECT MANAGER 510.286.4157 protecting many hundreds of acres of tidal marsh (Figure 1, Table 1). In addition to [email protected] treatment work, the grant funds also provided laboratory analysis of water samples Major Project Funders: collected from treatment sites where herbicide was applied, to confirm that water State Coastal Conser‐ quality was not degraded by the treatments. vancy American Recovery & ISP Partners and contractors conducted treatment work in accordance with Site Spe- Reinvestment Act cific Plans prepared by ISP (Grijalva et al. 2008; National Oceanic & www.spartina.org/project_documents/2008-2010_site_plans_doc_list.htm), and re- Atmospheric Admini‐ stration ported in the 2008-2009 Treatment Report (Grijalva & Kerr, 2011; U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • California Wetlands
    VOL. 46, NO.2 FREMONTIA JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY California Wetlands 1 California Native Plant Society CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1; Sacramento, CA 95816-5130 Phone: (916) 447-2677 • Fax: (916) 447-2727 FREMONTIA www.cnps.org • [email protected] VOL. 46, NO. 2, November 2018 Memberships Copyright © 2018 Members receive many benefits, including a subscription toFremontia California Native Plant Society and the CNPS Bulletin. Look for more on inside back cover. ISSN 0092-1793 (print) Mariposa Lily.............................$1,500 Family..............................................$75 ISSN 2572-6870 (online) Benefactor....................................$600 International or library...................$75 Patron............................................$300 Individual................................$45 Gordon Leppig, Editor Plant lover.....................................$100 Student/retired..........................$25 Michael Kauffmann, Editor & Designer Corporate/Organizational 10+ Employees.........................$2,500 4-6 Employees..............................$500 7-10 Employees.........................$1,000 1-3 Employees............................$150 Staff & Contractors Dan Gluesenkamp: Executive Director Elizabeth Kubey: Outreach Coordinator Our mission is to conserve California’s Alfredo Arredondo: Legislative Analyst Sydney Magner: Asst. Vegetation Ecologist native plants and their natural habitats, Christopher Brown: Membership & Sales David Magney: Rare Plant Program Manager and increase understanding,
    [Show full text]